[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 240 (Thursday, December 15, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-30502]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: December 15, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 9, 60 and 63
[AD-FRL-5115-6]
RIN 2060-AD99
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Final
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions From Magnetic Tape
Manufacturing Operations
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action promulgates final standards that limit the
emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from existing and new
magnetic tape manufacturing operations that are located at major
sources. These final standards implement section 112(d) and 112(h) of
the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (the Act). The purpose of this
final rule is to protect the public by requiring all new and existing
major sources to control emissions to the level corresponding to the
maximum achievable control technology (MACT).
The EPA is also finalizing performance specifications for
continuous emission monitors (CEM's) for volatile organic compounds
(VOC) and gas chromatographic CEM's.
DATES: Effective Date. December 15, 1994.
Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial
review of national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
(NESHAP) is available only by filing 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 final rule. Under section 307(b)(2) of the
Act, 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.
ADDRESSES:
Docket
Docket No. A-91-31, containing information considered by the EPA in
developing the promulgated NESHAP for magnetic tape manufacturing
operations is available for public inspection and copying between 8
a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except for Federal holidays,
at the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Room
M1500, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be
charged for copying.
Background Information Document
A background information document (BID) for the promulgated NESHAP
may be obtained from the docket; the U. S. EPA Library (MD-35),
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)
541-2777; or from National Technical Information Services, 5285 Port
Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161, telephone (703) 487-4650.
Please refer to ``Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions from Magnetic Tape
Manufacturing Operations--Background Information for Promulgated
Standards'' (EPA-453/R-94-074b). The BID contains a summary of the
public comments made on the proposed magnetic tape manufacturing
standard and EPA responses to the comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Gail Lacy of the Coatings and
Consumer Products Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone (919) 541-5261. For more information on Performance
Specifications 8 and 9 contact Mr. Bill Grimley of the Source
Characterization B Group, telephone (919) 541-1065, and Ms. Rima
Dishakjian of the Source Characterization A Group, telephone (919) 541-
0443, respectively, in the Emissions, Monitoring and Analysis Division
(MD-14), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information presented in this preamble
is organized as follows:
I. Background
II. Summary
A. Summary of Promulgated Standards
B. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal
III. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts
A. Environmental and Energy Impacts
B. Cost Impacts
C. Economic Impacts
IV. Public Participation
V. Significant Comments and Responses
A. Applicability of Standard
B. Selection of Compliance Dates
C. Selection of Emission Limits and Equipment/Work Practice
Specifications
D. Regulation of Wastewater
E. Selection of Test Methods and Monitoring Requirements
F. Alternative Compliance Plans and Selection of the Affected
Source
G. Performance Specifications
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
B. Executive Order 12286
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
E. Miscellaneous
I. Background
Section 112(b) of the Act lists 189 HAP and requires the EPA to
establish national emission standards for all major sources and some
area sources emitting those HAP. On July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576), EPA
published a list of major and area sources for which NESHAP are to be
promulgated, and on December 3, 1993 (58 FR 83941), EPA published a
schedule for promulgating those standards. The magnetic tape
manufacturing source category is included in the list of major sources
to be regulated for which the EPA is to establish national emission
standards by November 1994.
This NESHAP was proposed in the Federal Register on March 11, 1994
(59 FR 11662). A public hearing on the proposed rule was held on April
13, 1994. In addition, 17 letters commenting on the proposed rule were
received.
II. Summary
A. Summary of Promulgated Standards
The final rule applies to major sources performing magnetic tape
manufacturing operations, which is the affected source subject to these
standards. The standards do not apply to research and laboratory
facilities or to owners or operators whose magnetic tape production on
a coating line is 1 percent or less of total production from that
coating line (in terms of square footage coated) in any 12-month
period.
Table 1 summarizes the standards for magnetic tape manufacturing
operations. In general, an overall HAP control efficiency of at least
95 percent is required for emissions from each storage tank, piece of
mix preparation equipment, coating operation, waste handling device,
and condenser vent in solvent recovery. If an owner or operator uses an
incinerator to control these emission points, an outlet HAP
concentration of no greater than 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv)
by compound may be met instead of achieving 95 percent control, as long
as the efficiency of the capture system is 100 percent. If a coating
with a HAP content no greater than 0.18 kilograms per liter (kg/L) of
coating solids is used for a coating operation, that coating operation
does not require further control. Owners or operators may choose to
control HAP emissions from all coating operations at a source by an
overall HAP control efficiency of at least 97, 98, or 99 percent in
lieu of controlling 10, 15, or 20 HAP solvent storage tanks,
respectively, that do not exceed 20,000 gallons each in capacity.
Table 1.--Summary of the Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission point Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each solvent storage tank Sec. 63.703(c)(1): Overall (i.e., capture x
control devide efficiency) HAP control
efficiency of 95 percent; or
Sec. 63.703(c)(2): For incinerators an
alternate outlet HAP concentration of 20 ppmv; or
Sec. 63.704(c)(4): Do not control but control
coating operations at higher efficiencies
specified in rule; or
Sec. 63.703(i): Establish an alternate
maximum HAP outlet concentration monitored
with CEM to demonstrate compliance during
periods when coaters are not operating.
Each piece of mix Sec. 63.703(c)(1): Overall HAP control
preparation equipment. efficiency of 95 percent; or
Sec. 63.703(c)(2): For incinerators an
alternate outlet HAP concentration of 20ppmv; or
Sec. 63.703(i): Establish an alternate
maximum HAP outlet concentration monitored
with CEM to demonstrate compliance during
periods when coaters are not operating.
Each coating operation... Sec. 63.703(c)(1): Overall HAP control
efficiency of 95 percent; or
Sec. 63.703(c)(2): For incinerators an
alternate outlet HAP concentration of 20 ppmv; or
Sec. 63.703(c)(4): Control all coating
operations at specified higher efficiencies
instead of storage tanks; or
Sec. 63.703(c)(5): Use coating with HAP
content no greater than 0.18 kg/L coating
solids.
Each waste handling Sec. 63.703(c)(1): Overall HAP control
device. efficiency of 95 percent; or
Sec. 63.703(c)(2): For incinerators an
alternate outlet HAP concentration of 20 ppmv; or
Sec. 63.703(i): Establish an alternate
maximum HAP outlet concentration to
demonstrate compliance during periods when
coaters are not operating.
Each condenser vent Sec. 63.703(c)(1): Overall HAP control
insolvent recoverya. efficiency of 95 percent; or
Sec. 63.703(c)(2): For incinerators an
alternate outlet HAP concentration of 20 ppmv; or
Sec. 63.703(i): Establish an alternate
maximum HAP outlet concentration to
demonstrate compliance during periods when
coaters are not operating.
Each particulate transfer Sec. 63.703(d)(1): Use enclosed transfer; or
operation.
Sec. 63.703(d)(2): Vent to baghouse/fabric
filter that exhibits no visible emissions
while controlling particulate HAP transfer.
Each wash sink for Sec. 63.703(e)(1)(i): Overall HAP control
cleaning removable parts. efficiency of percent; or
Sec. 63.703(e)(1)(ii): Minimum freeboard
ratio of 75 percent; or
Sec. 63.703(i): Establish an alternate
maximum HAP outlet concentration to
demonstrate compliance during periods when
coaters are not operating.
Each piece of equipment Sec. 63.703(f)(1)(i): Overall HAP control
for flushing fixed lines. efficiency of 95 percent; or
Sec. 63.703(f)(i)(ii): Use closed system; or
Sec. 63.703(i): Establish an alternate
maximum HAP outlet concentration to
demonstrate compliance during periods when
coaters are not operating.
Each wastewater treatment Sec. 63.703(g): Treat to remove HAP by the
operation. fraction removed specified in Table 9 of 40
CFR part 63, subpart G or so that total
VOHAP concentration at exit is <50 ppmw.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
aExcept the vent on the condenser serving as an add-on air pollution
control device.
Owners or operators of existing affected sources are required to
comply with these standards within 2 years after the effective date,
unless a new control device is needed to comply with the requirements
of Sec. 63.703 (c) or (g). If a new control device is needed, an owner
or operator of an existing affected source must comply within 3 years
of the effective date. All new and reconstructed sources must comply
immediately upon startup.
Owners or operators of affected sources must demonstrate initial
compliance following the test methods and procedures of Sec. 63.705
unless the criteria of Sec. 63.705(a) (1), (2) or (3) are met.
Continuous compliance is demonstrated by conducting monitoring in
accordance with Sec. 63.704(c). Continuous compliance monitoring
requirements are summarized in Table 2. Compliant monitoring parameter
values are established in accordance with Sec. 63.704(b), which also
contains procedures to determine the compliant outlet HAP concentration
during periods when coating operations are not occurring.
Table 2.--Summary of Continuous Monitoring Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control/capture technique Monitoring requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any add-on air pollution Sec. 63.704(c)(3): Continuously inlet and
control device (APCD). outlet HAP or VOC concentration or
continuously monitor outlet HAP or VOC
concentration; or
See below: If using condenser or incinerator
as APCD, can perform alternate monitoring.
Sec. 63.704(c)(10): Monitor bypass lines that
could divert flow from APCD, or install car-
seal or lock-and-key.
Solvent recovery device Sec. 63.704(c)(9): Perform material balance
controlling only coating over each 7-day period.
operations.
Condenser................ Sec. 63.704(c)(4): Continuously monitor
temperature of condenser vapor exhaust
stream.
Thermal incinerator...... Sec. 63.704(c)(5) Continuously monitor
combustion temperature.
Catalytic incinerator.... Sec. 63.704(c)(6): Continuously monitor gas
temperature upstream and temperature across
the catalyst bed.
Capture system........... Sec. 63.704(c)(7): Continuously monitor site-
specific operating parameter established
according to Sec. 63.704(b)(6)
Steam stripper........... Sec. 63.704(d)(1): Continuously monitor steam-
to-feed radio.
Steam stripper/other Sec. 63.704(d)(2): Monthly monitoring of
control technique. VOHAP concentration.
Baghouse/fabric filter... Sec. 63.704(e): Continuously monitor
ventilation airflow rate and daily visible
emission testing.
Low-HAP coating.......... Sec. 63.704(c)(8): Determine HAP content of
coating used.
Other control techniques. Sec. 63.704(f): Submit monitoring plan to
Administrator for approval.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Owners or operators of affected sources shall maintain records and
submit reports in accordance with Secs. 63.706 and 63.707. Records are
consistent with those required by subpart A, and also include records
associated with freeboard ratio measurement, bypass valve monitoring,
material balance calculations, and demonstrating compliance with the
low-HAP coating limit. Reports include an initial notification, a
notification of compliance status, compliance summary reports, a report
to establish an alternate HAP outlet concentration limit for periods
when the coating operations are not occurring, performance test
results, and alternate compliance and monitoring reports.
The final rule also includes provisions, in Sec. 63.703 (b) and (h)
that an owner or operator of a magnetic tape manufacturing operation
may choose to be subject to in order to obtain a Federally enforceable
limit on their potential to emit HAP. These provisions do not preclude
an owner or operator from using avenues other than this subpart to
limit their potential to emit HAP. Moreover, this subpart does not
apply to any plant that is already an area source without these
provisions. The provisions would require limits on the usage of HAP in
the magnetic tape manufacturing operation over 12-month periods as
surrogates for potential emissions. Recordkeeping and reporting would
be required to demonstrate compliance with the usage limits.
B. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal
In response to public comments received and additional analysis
performed by EPA, the following major changes have been made to the
final rule since proposal:
1. The rule does not apply to research and laboratory facilities or
to owners or operators whose magnetic tape production on a coating line
is 1 percent or less of total production from that line in terms of
square footage coated in any 12-month period.
2. Leader tape production is not included as part of magnetic tape
manufacturing operations.
3. The rule does not apply when nonmagnetic tape products are
manufactured in affected sources.
4. The applicability and intent of the HAP usage limits have been
clarified in Sec. 63.703 (b) and (h).
5. The final rule (Sec. 63.703(c)(4)) allows owners or operators of
affected sources the option of controlling coating operations more
stringently in lieu of controlling HAP emissions from solvent storage
tanks.
6. The final rule includes an alternative standard to control HAP
from particulate transfer; it requires venting particulate HAP to a
baghouse or fabric filter that has no visible emissions.
7. The test methods and procedures for determining compliance with
wastewater provisions have been clarified. The percent removal required
for HAP has been changed from 99 percent to values found in 40 CFR part
63 subpart G, the Hazardous Organic NESHAP for the synthetic organic
chemical manufacturing industry (hereafter called the HON). Any control
technique may be used to meet the treatment requirements. Also, monthly
monitoring of the wastewater concentration is allowed to demonstrate
continuous compliance.
8. The compliance time for existing affected sources has been
changed to 2 years after the effective date, unless a new control
device is needed to comply with Sec. 63.703 (c) or (g). If a new
control device is needed, an owner or operator of an existing affected
source must comply within 3 years of the effective date.
9. The final rule (Secs. 63.703(i) and 63.704(b)(11)) contains
procedures for establishing an alternate HAP concentration limit to
demonstrate compliance with the standards when coating operations are
not occurring.
10. The material balance averaging time was changed in the final
rule. The averaging time is now 7 days to determine compliance with the
standard.
11. The definition of affected source was changed from each coating
line, piece of mix equipment, storage tank, etc., to the entire
magnetic tape manufacturing operation.
12. A low-HAP content coating standard has been added to the final
rule. A facility that uses a coating with a HAP content of no greater
than 0.18 kg/L of coating solids for a coating operation is not
required to further control that coating operation.
The rationale for the above changes is discussed in detail in
section V of this preamble, which summarizes the major comments
received on the proposed rule and EPA's responses to these comments.
III. Summary of Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts
A. Environmental and Energy Impacts
The environmental and energy impacts for this rule were not
affected by changes made to the rule between proposal and promulgation.
B. Cost Impacts
Several commenters provided comments on the estimate of nationwide
compliance costs for the standard. The commenters stated that actual
compliance costs could be as much as 15 times the costs estimated by
the Agency. The EPA's evaluation of industry compliance costs was based
on a careful analysis of information provided by industry during
development of the proposed regulation. The costs are estimates and may
be higher for some facilities and lower for others. Additionally, costs
are based on the least expensive method for controlling emissions;
sources that choose to utilize more expensive methods for control will
find that their compliance costs are higher than those estimated for
the standard.
The Agency did revise facility specific cost impacts between
proposal and promulgation based on information received from one
facility. The revised industrywide annual costs to comply with the
standards are $822,000/yr. This cost includes the annual cost of
control ($596,120/yr), annual compliance costs including initial
performance tests and ongoing monitoring ($115,638/yr), and annual
reporting and recordkeeping costs ($110,240/yr). The total industrywide
capital investment is estimated to be $5,206,920. The associated cost
effectiveness is $390 per megagram (Mg) of HAP controlled ($354/ton
HAP).
The costs for new sources are unchanged from proposal. New source
costs vary depending on whether a carbon adsorber or an incinerator is
used as the control device but either system requires a total capital
investment of approximately $500,000. Total annual costs for new
sources are $349,360/yr if carbon adsorption is used and $270,367/yr if
incineration is used, with associated cost effectivenesses of $2,470/Mg
($2,250/ton) and $1,910/Mg ($1,740/ton), respectively. New source costs
were calculated assuming six new coating lines constructed within the
first 5 years of the standard.
C. Economic Impacts
The economic impacts of this rule were recalculated to reflect a
revision in the estimated industrywide annual costs associated with
this rule. Despite the cost revisions, the conclusion of the economic
impact analysis remains the same. The economic impacts of this rule are
not considered to be significant. Under this rule, the average price of
magnetic tape products would only need to increase by 0.03 percent in
order for the magnetic tape industry to fully recover the new
annualized costs.
IV. Public Participation
Prior to proposal of the magnetic tape manufacturing rule, a
meeting of the National Air Pollution Control Techniques Advisory
Committee (NAPCTAC) was held to discuss the development of the draft
rule for magnetic tape manufacturing operations. That meeting was held
on November 17-18, 1992. The meeting was open to the public, and each
attendee was given an opportunity to comment on the draft rule.
The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on March
11, 1994 (59 FR 11662). The preamble to the proposal discussed the
availability of the proposal BID (Hazardous Air Pollutants from
Magnetic Tape Manufacturing-- Background Information for Proposed
Standards (EPA-453/R-93-059)), which describes in detail the regulatory
alternatives considered and the impacts associated with those
alternatives. Public comments were solicited at the time of proposal,
and copies of the proposal BID were made available to interested
parties.
The public comment period ended on April 25, 1994. A public hearing
was held on April 13, 1994 and the docket remained open until May 13,
1994 for submission of rebuttal and supplementary information.
Altogether, 17 comment letters were received. The comments were
carefully considered, and, where determined by the Administrator to be
appropriate, changes were made in the final rule.
V. Significant Comments and Responses
Comments on the proposed rule were received from magnetic tape
manufacturers, State and local air pollution control agencies, and
environmental organizations. A detailed discussion of these comments
and responses can be found in the promulgation BID (see ADDRESSES
section). The summary of comments and responses in the promulgation BID
serves as the basis for the revisions that have been made to the rule
between proposal and promulgation. The major comments and responses are
summarized in this preamble.
A. Applicability of Standards
1. HAP Usage Cutoff
Although all comments on the HAP usage exemption in Sec. 63.701(a)
of the proposed rule generally supported it, the commenters questioned
the applicability and intent of the exemption. The commenters stated
that an exemption in terms of utilization ignores actual emissions that
may emanate from a magnetic tape operation. One of these commenters
pointed out that the exemption is not available to facilities that have
installed control devices (and now have the potential to emit less than
10 tons/yr of HAP) yet can be used by uncontrolled facilities that emit
less than 10 tons/yr of HAP; therefore, the exemption penalizes those
that have installed controls. Commenters maintained that if potential
to emit is used as the basis for the exemption, magnetic tape coating
operations can choose to become exempt from the regulation by
installing control devices or accepting Federally enforceable permit
conditions to limit their emissions to below the stated threshold.
Three commenters stated that with the HAP usage exemption, it was
not clear whether the proposed standard applied to area source magnetic
tape manufacturing operations that are located at major sources.
Two commenters suggested allowing sources subject to the control
requirements to use the HAP usage exemption at a later date if, for
example, sources do not exceed the low HAP usage threshold for several
consecutive years. The reason given was to encourage pollution
prevention.
The EPA agrees with the commenters that the proposed HAP usage
cutoff requires clarification in the final rule. The first
clarification is that only magnetic tape manufacturing operations at
major sources of HAP emissions are required to comply with subpart EE.
However, the owner or operator of any stationary source with magnetic
tape manufacturing may choose to be subject to the HAP usage limits in
subpart EE to obtain a Federally enforceable limit on the potential to
emit HAP from magnetic tape manufacturing operations. Essentially, the
HAP usage limits are a surrogate for the potential to emit HAP. A
reason the owner or operator may want to use this mechanism in subpart
EE is if the stationary source would be a major source, unless it had
the potential to emit limit established by this subpart. The owner or
operator could use the potential to emit established for magnetic tape
manufacturing operations (determined by the HAP usage limit), in
conjunction with the potential to emit from the other HAP emission
points at the stationary source, to be an area source. Note that the
determination of whether a stationary source is major or area is
dependent on the potential emissions from all points within the
stationary source, or group of stationary sources located within a
contiguous area and under common control.
Subpart EE does not preclude the determination of potential to
emit, considering controls, by other mechanisms. For example, without
controls, the potential to emit HAP could be low because the solvents
used in coating are not HAP. An operation that has emission controls
may have its potential to emit established by a Federally enforceable
State operating permit. The definition of ``Federally enforceable'' in
the General Provisions, subpart A of part 63, includes other examples
of limits that are federally enforceable. The EPA did not include
specific provisions in subpart EE to create enforceable limits for
controls because, for this source category, very detailed and complex
provisions would be required. The HAP usage limits, by comparison, are
straightforward to determine, record, and can be easily confirmed by
regulatory authorities. Because of the availability of the other
mechanisms and the few plants in this source category, the EPA decided
to include in this subpart only the HAP usage limits.
If a stationary source becomes an area source by subjecting its
magnetic tape manufacturing operations to the HAP usage limits in
subpart EE, then the control requirements of subpart EE would not
apply. Furthermore, for purposes of section 112 of the Act, it would
not be a regulated area source that would be required to have an
operating permit under 40 CFR part 70. In other words, being subject to
the HAP usage limits in the rule does not in and of itself make the
facility subject to part 70. However, there may be other reasons that
the stationary source is required to comply with part 70. For example,
it may be a major source of emissions of volatile organic compounds.
The HAP usage limits at magnetic tape manufacturing operations have
been changed from their proposed values of 10 tons/yr of an individual
HAP and 25 tons/yr of combined HAP to take into account the potential
emissions from other emission points at the stationary source. In the
final rule, the HAP usage limits for the magnetic tape manufacturing
operation are to be the values that, when summed with the values of the
potential to emit each HAP from emission points other than magnetic
tape manufacturing operations at the stationary source, are less than
10 tons/yr of an individual HAP and 25 tons/yr of combined HAP.
To illustrate how the HAP usage limits would be determined, three
example situations have been developed. The first example is a
stationary source at which the only HAP emission points are in the
magnetic tape manufacturing operations. Since no other points go into
the calculation in this case, the limits would be less than 10 tons/yr
of an individual HAP and less than 25 tons/yr of a combination of HAP.
The second example is a stationary source at which the only HAP
emission points are the magnetic tape operation and a boiler. Assume
that the boiler, without controls, has the potential to emit 1 ton/yr
of HAP, and that the HAP from the boiler are different from those
emitted from magnetic tape manufacturing. The limits on HAP usage in
the magnetic tape manufacturing operation would be to not exceed 10
tons/yr for each individual HAP and 24 tons/yr for the combination of
HAP (i.e., the 25 tons/yr major source threshold minus the 1 ton/yr
potential to emit of the boiler).
The third example is a stationary source in which the HAP emission
points, except those associated with magnetic tape, have controls with
Federally enforceable emission limits, such as a new source performance
standard (NSPS) under section 111 of the Act. Assume that these
Federally enforceable limits have the effect of limiting the potential
HAP emissions from these emission points to 4 tons/yr of a solvent that
is also used in magnetic tape manufacturing (e.g., toluene). The limit
on the magnetic tape manufacturing HAP usage for toluene would be to
not exceed 6 tons/yr, for other individual HAP to not exceed 10 tons/
yr, and for the combination of HAP to not exceed 21 tons/yr.
Two commenters remarked that a 12-month period is too long for
determining if the threshold had been exceeded; the commenters
suggested a 12-month rolling total. The EPA agrees; the final rule
requires that the HAP usage be calculated monthly.
In the final rule, the EPA has removed the proposed requirement
that after a source has been subject to the control requirements of the
maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standard, the owner or
operator can not take advantage of the HAP usage limit anymore. The
points made by the commenters who suggested this change are being
considered as part of a general policy on the timing aspects of
limitations on potential to emit, which is beyond the scope of this
rulemaking. Therefore, this rulemaking does not include any specific
requirements of this nature.
One commenter suggested that the HAP usage cutoff be defined in
terms of net usage to encourage onsite solvent recovery and reuse. The
EPA agrees that net usage encourages pollution prevention by
subtracting out the amount that is recycled at the facility. Therefore,
the definition of ``utilize'' has been changed to incorporate this
concept into the final rule by allowing the owner or operator to
determine utilization as the HAP inventory for the magnetic tape
manufacturing operation at the beginning of a 12-month period plus the
amount purchased during the 12-month period minus the amount in
inventory at the end of the 12-month period. However, the proposed
definition is also included as a choice, because owners or operators of
a plant that uses HAP for other purposes may not keep their inventory
of HAP bought for the magnetic tape manufacturing operations separate.
Therefore, they may prefer a record based on the amount of HAP actually
put into the process.
The proposed rule stated that when a source exceeded the HAP usage
limit, the owner or operator would be required to comply with the
control requirements of the rule by 1 year after the exceedance; this
time had been selected to be consistent with the period given for
existing sources to comply after the effective date. In the final rule,
the EPA has clarified that the source shall be required to comply with
the control requirements for major sources only if the owner or
operator chooses to no longer be subject to the HAP usage limits and,
in doing so, becomes a major source. In such a case, the owner or
operator would be required to notify the Administrator or delegated
State of this intent. The owner or operator would then have the same
amount of time to comply with the control requirements as would an
existing source, according to Sec. 63.6(c)(5) of the General
Provisions. The HAP usage limits would continue to apply until the
control requirements were met.
An exceedance of a HAP usage limit would be a violation of the HAP
usage provisions of subpart EE. If the source also has exceeded the
major source definition thresholds by exceeding the HAP usage limit,
and the source does not have an operating permit for major sources
under 40 CFR part 70, the source potentially could be found in
violation of the requirements of part 70 as well.
Another clarifying change in the rule is that the owner or operator
is not required to include 12 months of HAP usage data in the initial
notification report required by the General Provisions; this
requirement would have required sources to keep records before the
effective date of the rule. Instead, the owner or operator is required
to submit the values of the limits on the amount of HAP utilized, as
determined in Sec. 63.703(b)(2), along with supporting calculations,
with the initial notification.
As in the proposed rule, the owner or operator would be required to
submit an annual report on HAP usage, with the first one covering the
12-month period before the compliance date of the rule (which, in the
final rule, would be 2 years after the effective date, instead of the
proposed 1 year). Because the final HAP usage limits are calculated
monthly on a rolling 12-month basis, the final rule would require a
report within 30 days of any exceedance of a HAP usage limit. It would
be unreasonable to allow the owner or operator to wait until the annual
report to report an exceedance.
2. Regulation of Leader Tape and Other Nonmagnetic Tape Products
Two commenters suggested deleting Sec. 63.701(c) of the proposed
rule that specifies that nonmagnetic tape manufacturing operations that
take place using an affected source also are subject to the rule. The
commenters argued (1) that by including nonmagnetic tape operations
additional controls and solvent recovery equipment may be needed; (2)
there may be conflicts with future MACT standards for the ``paper and
other webs'' source category; (3) the nonmagnetic tape process was not
considered in developing the MACT floor or impacts associated with the
standard; and (4) the standard likely exceeds the MACT floor for
nonmagnetic tape manufacturing. One of the commenters also suggested
deleting ``leader tape'' from the definition of magnetic tape
manufacturing operation for the same reasons. Upon review of the
comments, the EPA has decided not to regulate HAP emissions from leader
tape production and from nonmagnetic tape products manufactured using
affected sources. Although there may be configurations for which
controlling leader tape and nonmagnetic tape products is feasible, the
EPA has chosen not to regulate either under subpart EE. There may be
instances in which the solvents used to manufacture magnetic products
and the solvents used to manufacture nonmagnetic and leader tape
products are incompatible with respect to a solvent recovery device.
The regulation of leader tape and nonmagnetic tape products
manufacturing would be considered when the MACT standard for paper and
other webs is promulgated; leader tape and nonmagnetic tape products
should be covered by that standard. The EPA agrees that it did not
adequately consider leader tape in the analysis of the floor for this
source category. The comments brought to EPA's attention that leader
tape manufacture is not necessarily as similar to magnetic tape
manufacture as was originally anticipated.
3. Regulation of Research and Laboratory Facilities
Four commenters stated that research and laboratory activities
should be exempt from the standard, regardless of whether they are
collocated at a production facility. One commenter cited section
112(c)(7) of the Act as rationale, which states that EPA is directed to
``* * * establish a separate category covering research or laboratory
facilities to assure equitable treatment of such facilities.''
Commenters noted that traditional controls cannot reasonably be applied
to research facilities because of the wide variety and small amounts of
materials that are used, the batch nature of research operations, and
the different methods of research operations. Commenters also noted
that requiring control devices for research and laboratory facilities
dramatically reduces the amount of research that can be conducted and
impacts competition.
The proposed rule used the definition of research and laboratory
facilities from section 112 (c)(7) of the Act. This section provides
that ``research or laboratory facility'' means any stationary source
whose primary purpose is to conduct research and development into new
processes and products, where such source 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.
Three commenters responded to EPA's request for information on the
definition of de minimis manufacture of products for commercial sale
from a research and laboratory coating line. One commenter recommended
that the standard adopt the definition of research or laboratory
facility as proposed and not try to further define de minimis, because
de minimis may vary by the nature of product being produced or the
concurrent level of research activities. Two commenters suggested
defining the de minimis sale of products produced at research and
laboratory facilities according to the percent of time the facility is
used for commercial activities, and suggested less than 50 percent of
total operating time as de minimis. One commenter suggested that de
minimis be defined in terms of the HAP emission level; e.g., no more
than 5 tons/yr of any one HAP or 10 tons/yr of any combination of HAP
could be emitted from research and laboratory facilities.
The EPA had proposed regulation of research and laboratory
facilities collocated with production lines because the EPA believed
that the primary control device used to control HAP emissions from
coating operations could also be used to control HAP emissions from the
research lines. The EPA agrees that under section 112(c)(7) of the Act,
a separate category would need to be established to cover research and
laboratory facilities to assure the equitable treatment of such
facilities. Based on the information received at proposal, the EPA has
concluded that in many instances control of HAP emissions from research
and laboratory facilities is not technically feasible using the same
pieces of control equipment used to control manufacturing lines. This
is primarily due to the batch nature of operating the research and
laboratory lines, the types of emission points (such as laboratory
bench-scale equipment), and the fact that the solvents used in research
could differ from those used in production. This latter problem is of
specific concern when a solvent recovery device is used, because the
solvent recovery device (and associated distillation operations) are
designed for recovery of specific solvents. Therefore, in the final
rule, research and laboratory facilities are not regulated.
In the final rule, the definition of research or laboratory
facility remains unchanged from the proposed definition, which is
identical to the definition in section 112(c)(7) of the Act. The EPA
disagrees with the two commenters who suggested that the phrase in the
definition of research or laboratory facility ``not engaged in the
manufacture of products for commercial sale in commerce, except in a de
minimis manner'' be interpreted as not engaged in commercial
manufacture for more than 50 percent of its operating time. The EPA
does not believe that this is a reasonable interpretation of ``de
minimis manner.'' However, the Agency did not receive sufficient
information that ``de minimis manner'' could be defined for this source
category.
The EPA has evaluated the types of activities it considers to fit
the Act's definition of a research facility for this source category.
Research activities include those activities that are employed to
develop a new coating, substrate, or end product, and may also include
activities devoted to optimizing the manufacture of a new material. For
example, a magnetic tape facility may have laboratory research
operations directed to developing new coatings. Once a promising
coating is developed, the research activity may move to a laboratory-
scale or pilot plant coating line to determine if it can be properly
applied, dried, etc. Some marketing may take place at this stage to
determine the viability of the product in the market place. For
example, is there a demand for this type of product? Can it meet the
customer's specifications? If the facility wishes to further pursue the
coating, it may be moved to a line that operates the same as a
production line to determine how the coating could be manufactured on a
full-scale basis. The EPA believes that all of these activities are
research because their intention is to develop new products or
processes.
Once a facility determines that the manufacture of this product is
viable, however, the EPA believes that additional activities are likely
to be beyond the research phase. For example, the adjustment and
optimization of a process or product that is already operating on a
production line should not be considered research. Likewise, if a
product is being manufactured on a full-size production line and
introduced in a retail environment, even on a limited basis, the
product is likely to be fully developed. It could be argued that
research is continuing even beyond this point in that the facility is
testing to determine the correct market segment, price, advertising,
etc. The EPA believes, however, that this type of ``research'' is
beyond what was intended by the Act. The company is obviously planning
eventual full-scale production; the development of the new product and
process is over.
4. Overlap of Subpart EE With Future Standards
One commenter stated that the broad definition of magnetic tape
encompasses operations that should be considered as part of other
source categories. For example, although the commenter's facility
manufactures a product that contains magnetic particles, the actual
content of magnetic particles in the product is small. The overwhelming
majority of products manufactured at this facility, in terms of square
footage, are products that would be considered paper and other webs.
The commenter noted that only 1 percent of its annual production in
square feet would meet the definition of magnetic tape. Thus, the
commenter believes that it would be more appropriate to regulate this
facility under a standard for paper and other webs than under the
magnetic tape rule. The commenter suggested that EPA use primary
product rationale to distinguish between magnetic tape facilities and
facilities more appropriately classified as manufacturing paper and
other webs. The commenter alternatively suggested that EPA change the
definition of magnetic tape to be based on the percent of solids in the
coating mix to distinguish between source categories.
The Agency has considered the request made by the commenter and
agrees that a primary product distinction should be made in some cases
to avoid including coating lines under the magnetic tape NESHAP that
have such a small amount of magnetic tape production that it is more
appropriate to regulate them exclusively under paper and other web
coatings, rather than subpart EE. Therefore, the final rule specifies
that if, based on the annual square footage, 1 percent or less of all
products manufactured on a coating line are magnetic tape products,
then that coating line is not subject to subpart EE. A cutoff of 1
percent, rather than a higher percentage number was selected to
minimize potentially uncontrolled emissions from magnetic tape
production on a coating line that would otherwise be regulated under
the paper and other webs source category. The definition of magnetic
tape was not changed due to the uncertain nature of product
development. The percent composition of magnetic particles may change
with the development of new magnetic tape products, and a change in the
definition of magnetic tape might limit the effectiveness of subpart EE
to control emissions from magnetic tape manufacturing in the future.
B. Selection of Compliance Dates
Seven commenters stated that the compliance time of 1 year from the
date of promulgation is too short. Three commenters stated that a
minimum of approximately 2 years would be required to adequately plan,
design, fund, purchase, and install the required new equipment. The
commenters pointed out that some States require up to 10 months to
issue construction permits alone. Two commenters also remarked that the
1-year compliance period did not allow adequate time for sources to
apply for extensions, which must be submitted 12 months in advance of
the compliance date. One of the commenters suggested the regulation
distinguish between sources currently subject to the new source
performance standards (NSPS) for magnetic tape manufacturing (40 CFR
part 60, subpart SSS) and sources not subject to the NSPS, and allow
sources not subject to the NSPS 3 years to comply.
After reviewing the comments received, the Agency recognizes that a
1-year compliance period for affected sources may be inadequate for
some facilities to install a new control device or expand existing
controls. In addition, because this rule covers a wider range of
emission points than the NSPS, some facilities that are subject to the
NSPS also may need additional time to retrofit the emission controls
necessary to comply with the MACT standard. Therefore, the Agency has
increased the compliance period to 3 years for existing affected
sources that will need to install a new control device to meet the
requirements of Sec. 63.703(c) or (g). All other existing affected
sources will have to comply with the standards within 2 years of the
effective date. The Agency believes that these compliance timeframes
will allow facilities sufficient time to bring affected sources into
compliance with the rule while ensuring implementation of emission
control in a timely fashion. In addition, the increase in the
compliance time period allows additional time for State agencies to
implement title V permitting programs, and allows owners and operators
of affected sources at least 1 year to evaluate the need and apply for
an extension in accordance with Sec. 63.6(i) of subpart A.
C. Selection of Emission Limits and Equipment/Work Practice
Specifications
1. Emission Limits When Coating Operations Are Down
At proposal, the EPA noted that a 95 percent control efficiency may
not be feasible when the inlet HAP concentration to the control device
is low, such as when the coating operations are down. This is
especially a problem for owners or operators using solvent recovery
devices that continuously monitor percent efficiency or HAP outlet
concentration to demonstrate compliance with the standards. The rule
already contains an alternative HAP outlet concentration for owners or
operators of incinerators. The EPA, therefore, requested comment on
alternate continuous compliance requirements for solvent recovery
devices operating under low-inlet loading situations. Commenters agreed
this was a problem, but were not in agreement on the best way to
address the problem. Several commenters suggested extending the
averaging period to 30 days to account for low inlet conditions.
Commenters did not support the option of an owner or operator
establishing an alternate outlet concentration requirement for periods
of low inlet conditions. Primarily, the reasons cited were that it
would be costly to simulate all possible modes of operation during an
initial performance test, and outlet conditions are source-specific and
depend greatly on highly variable inlet conditions. The EPA recognizes
that it could be costly to simulate all possible modes of operation
during one performance test. Given the site-specific nature of outlet
conditions, it would be unfounded for EPA to set such an outlet
concentration to apply to the entire industry during periods of low
inlet condition, as EPA currently has no data to support such a limit.
The EPA does not believe that a 30-day averaging period is an
acceptable alternative, and no data were submitted to support that this
is the minimum averaging time that is technically feasible.
The EPA believes that compliance with an alternate outlet
concentration is the best way to establish compliance during those
periods when the inlet HAP concentration to the control device is low.
However, the Agency currently has no data to identify a limit. The EPA
has chosen to address this problem in the final rule by allowing
facilities to determine a site-specific outlet concentration during
periods of low inlet conditions. Owners or operators may conduct a
performance test during which the coating operations are not occurring,
and the control device is operated according to good control practices
and in the same manner as it was operated to achieve the emission
limits for coating operations. Alternatively, to minimize the burden on
affected facilities, the final rule also allows sources to establish
this number using CEM data collected under such conditions as noted
above. The final rule (Sec. 63.704(b)(11)(ii)) allows owners or
operators 6 months after the compliance date to collect these data and
submit a proposed limit to the Administrator or permitting authority,
as appropriate. To support the alternate concentration limit, the owner
or operator must also fulfill the reporting requirements in
Sec. 63.707(k).
2. Standard for Particulate HAP
One commenter recommended that EPA allow the use of manual charging
of particulate HAP into kettles with the use of a 99 percent efficient
dust collector as an equivalent method to enclosed transfer. The
commenter estimates a 99.975 percent control efficiency for its own
facilities. The commenter also claims that additional costs to convert
to enclosed transfer would be excessive compared to the resulting
emission reductions. The commenter noted that enclosed transfer systems
all have some purge capability usually associated with a fabric filter
that would vent to the atmosphere. Therefore, the ultimate difference
between enclosed transfer and open transfer with control would be
minimal.
Another commenter agreed, recommending that the proposed rule be
amended to require capture and control of at least 95 percent of
particulate emissions or the use of an enclosed transfer method. The
commenter stated that performance standards are almost always superior
to design standards, which are used only as a last resort when
performance standards are not possible. Their facility vents the
particulate HAP unloading area to a baghouse with greater than 99
percent control of particulate emission greater than 1 micron in
diameter, which they believe is at least as efficient as the enclosed
transfer method.
The final rule allows owners or operators to control emissions of
particulate HAP by venting the transfer operation to a baghouse or
fabric filter that operates with no visible emissions. The owner or
operator will also have to demonstrate that the ventilation rate is
sufficient to capture the particulate HAP through engineering
calculations (Sec. 63.707(h)). Guidance for determining a suitable
ventilation rate may be found in the Industrial Ventilation Manual of
Recommended Practice, published by the American Conference of
Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). The final rule contains
test methods and procedures for demonstrating that there are no visible
emissions from the baghouse or dust collector (Sec. 63.705(g)), as well
as monitoring provisions for demonstrating continuous compliance
(Sec. 63.704(e)). In addition, the definition of an enclosed transfer
device was left as a broad definition so as not to exclude equipment
that could achieve enclosed transfer. Supersack containers described by
one commenter appear to meet this definition as would mechanical
systems such as augers and conveyors. The final rule references such
equipment.
3. Low-HAP Coating Limit
Three commenters recommended that EPA allow an equivalent
compliance limit for reductions in HAP for facilities that use water-
based coatings or reduce the amount of HAP applied per unit of tape
manufactured. The commenters stated that this would be consistent with
the NSPS, and would encourage pollution prevention. One commenter also
suggested that emissions be averaged on a monthly basis, not a 3-day
rolling average, which it claims is not practical.
The EPA recognizes the advantages of a low-HAP coating limit and
has therefore included such a limit in the final rule as a means of
encouraging pollution prevention. The final rule includes a HAP coating
limit, whereby owners or operators are exempt from requirements for
coating operations if a coating containing less than 0.18 kg of HAP per
L of coating solids is used. This limit was calculated using the same
methodology used to establish the alternate limit for the NSPS. The
low-HAP coating limit in subpart EE was calculated by applying a 95
percent efficiency to a typical coating containing 0.8 gallons of
solvent per 0.2 gallons of solids, and that has a coating density of
7.5 pounds of solvent per gallon of coating. Data collected from
industry to support the NSPS found the typical magnetic tape coating to
be 80 percent solvent and 20 percent solids, and these coating
parameters were used in developing the low-VOC coating for the NSPS
(0.25 kg solvent/L coating solids). In the case of subpart EE, all
solvent is considered HAP; whereas in the NSPS, all solvent was
considered VOC because VOC's are regulated by the NSPS.
Owners or operators that opt to comply with the low-HAP limit must
determine the HAP content of each batch of coating used, following the
procedures of Sec. 63.705(c)(5) of the final rule. Thus, an averaging
period is not necessary. If a coating with an identical formulation is
subsequently used, the original calculations can be used to demonstrate
compliance. Section 63.706(f) requires the owner or operator using a
low-HAP coating to maintain records of the HAP content of each batch of
coating applied, and records of the formulation data that support the
HAP content calculations. In accordance with Sec. 63.707(i)(2), these
calculated HAP contents for each batch of coating are reported as the
monitored operating parameter value in the excess emissions and
continuous monitoring system performance report and summary report
required by Sec. 63.10(e) of subpart A.
D. Regulation of Wastewater
One commenter stated that condensate from the carbon adsorption
system should not be considered a wastewater stream because steam
strippers are part of a solvent purification process, not a wastewater
treatment system. The commenter further stated that only the water
stream exiting the solvent purification stripping column should be
considered wastewater, and because volatilization of HAP from this
stream is negligible, this stream should not be considered an emission
point.
The commenter is correct in that the steam stripper may be
considered a purification process to remove additional solvent from the
water phase after a carbon adsorption system is steam desorbed.
However, this interpretation of the process does not change the fact
that the water phase from steam desorption of the carbon adsorption
system is a potential HAP emission source. If a steam stripper or some
other treatment is not used to remove solvent from this water phase,
volatile HAP solvents could be emitted to the air. Based on EPA's data,
of the three existing major sources that use steam to desorb their
carbon beds, all three treat the resultant water with a steam stripper.
The MACT floor for this emission source was, therefore, selected as
treatment that achieves the same control level as a steam stripper.
One commenter maintained that EPA does not have sufficient data to
set the concentration limit for wastewater streams from the steam
stripper at 50 parts per million by weight (ppmw) of volatile organic
HAP. The commenter noted that the data to support the limit was not
obtained by Method 305 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 63. However, the
commenter did not supply any other data to support his comment. Another
commenter noted that the removal efficiency and outlet concentration is
highly dependent on the type of HAP compound present in the wastewater.
Therefore, EPA should either (1) limit the rule only to methyl ethyl
ketone (MEK), methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK), and toluene and make an
adjustment for the removal efficiency for MEK described in the HON (95
percent); or (2) conduct another MACT floor evaluation to include all
HAP and repropose this portion of the rule.
One commenter stated that facilities that do not use steam
stripping should not have to seek EPA approval to use reliable
technologies with demonstrated efficiencies in treating wastewater. The
commenter noted that heated distillation columns reliably remove
organics to less than 50 ppmw, and carbon adsorption is a reliable and
common method to remove trace amounts of VOC from wastewater.
The wastewater provisions in the final rule differ slightly from
those at proposal. The EPA agrees the rule should not limit the
treatment methods to steam stripping for removing HAP from wastewater.
Therefore, the final standards are expressed in terms of performance
limits, not technology; an owner or operator must achieve the reference
control efficiency for a given HAP or must achieve a total volatile
organic HAP outlet concentration of 50 ppmw. The standard is clear that
an owner or operator is required to meet only one of these
requirements; the outlet concentration or the removal efficiency. Any
technology can be used to meet these limits as long as it is
demonstrated to meet the standards in accordance with the test methods
and procedures in the rule, and as long as continuous compliance
monitoring is proposed, approved, and conducted.
At proposal, the EPA explained that the removal efficiency and
outlet HAP concentration limits were based on data gathered from this
industry, and further supported by data gathered during development of
the HON (40 CFR part 63, subpart G). In the proposed HON rule, the
removal efficiency for all HAP solvents typically used in magnetic tape
manufacturing was 99 percent. In the final HON, the value for MEK was
changed to 95 percent. The EPA agrees that the percent removals in
subpart EE should be the same as in the HON. Furthermore, the EPA does
not mean to limit subpart EE to only MEK, MIBK and toluene. Therefore,
Sec. 63.703(g) of subpart EE requires the removal efficiency specified
in Table 9 of the 40 CFR part 63, subpart G of the HON for HAP
compounds that may be present in wastewater. The final rule also
specifies that the HAP that must be removed are only those that are
from magnetic tape manufacturing operations. Thus, if methanol is in
the wastewater stream due to magnetic tape manufacturing, it must be
removed by 31 percent as specified in Table 9 in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart G. If the methanol is not from magnetic tape manufacturing
operations, subpart EE does not require a specific removal efficiency.
The test method to be used to demonstrate compliance with the
removal efficiency is unchanged from proposal. In the final rule,
owners or operators may demonstrate compliance with the outlet
concentration or removal efficiency by analyzing the wastewater for
volatile organic HAP using Method 305. However, the proposed rule
lacked specification regarding calculations related to Method 305. This
specification, which is consistent with the HON, has been added to the
final subpart EE. Also, alternate test methods may be used if they are
validated through Method 301 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A.
E. Selection of Test Methods and Monitoring Requirements
Section 114(a)(3) of the amended Act requires enhanced monitoring
and compliance certifications of all major stationary sources. The
annual compliance certifications certify whether compliance has been
continuous or intermittent. Enhanced monitoring shall be capable of
detecting deviations from each applicable emission limitation or
standard with sufficient representativeness, accuracy, precision,
reliability, frequency, and timeliness to determine if compliance is
continuous during a reporting period. The monitoring in this regulation
satisfies the requirements of enhanced monitoring.
Four commenters submitted comments concerning the establishment of
operating parameters for monitoring purposes. Commenters noted that the
monitoring parameter values that correspond to compliance with the
standard will vary based on varying inlet conditions, age of the
device, or other factors. For example, two commenters stated that, in
the case of catalytic incinerators, the temperature rise across the
catalyst bed varies according to the VOC concentration of the inlet gas
stream. Another commenter pointed out that the steam-to-feed ratio of a
stripping column would differ greatly over the range of feed rates,
depending on the age and performance of the activated carbon used in
the carbon system.
One commenter suggested that Sec. 63.704(c)(7) of the proposed
rule, which requires installation and operation of equipment to measure
the site-specific operating parameters of an enclosure for the capture
of HAP emissions, include a provision for a 5 percent variation of the
operating parameter used to determine compliance. The commenter claimed
that a 5 percent variation would satisfy the requirements for
maintaining a total enclosure, and, because the rule would then be
consistent with the NSPS, redundant recordkeeping would be avoided and
confusion between the two standards would be minimized.
The final rule (Sec. 63.704(b)(11)(i)) allows owners or operators
to conduct multiple tests to establish site-specific operating
parameters. Thus, for example, when catalytic incinerator inlet
conditions vary, the owner or operator will have a range of appropriate
temperatures for compliance determinations. Similarly, the final rule
allows owners or operators using a steam stripper the option of
conducting multiple tests to determine the appropriate range of steam-
to-feed ratios that are appropriate for a variety of operating
conditions. Because the final rule allows affected sources to conduct
multiple tests to establish site-specific values for various operating
parameters, the Agency does not believe that specifying a variance in
operating parameter values is warranted.
One commenter requested that EPA establish alternative monitoring
other than the monitoring of steam-to-feed ratio because a stripper can
operate at a wide range of steam-to-feed ratios and still be operating
properly. As noted above, the owner or operator could develop different
steam-to-feed ratios for different conditions. Furthermore, EPA has
included alternative monitoring requirements in the final rule to
demonstrate compliance with the wastewater standard. As an alternative
to monitoring steam-to-feed ratio, the final rule allows monthly
monitoring of the volatile organic HAP (VOHAP) concentration in the
wastewater from the outlet of the control device to demonstrate
continuous compliance with the 50 ppmw standard. Because the wastewater
stream is not expected to be greatly variable, monthly monitoring of
the concentration was determined to be an adequate frequency for
determining continuous compliance.
Two commenters suggested changing the material balance averaging
period from 3 days to 30 days. The first commenter stated that a 30-day
averaging period is consistent with the NSPS, and a 3-day averaging
period would not be feasible for solvent recovery systems with long
adsorption cycles. The solvent used in 1 day would not necessarily be
recovered in the same day and may result in incomplete balances over a
3-day averaging period. The second commenter stated that a 3-day
rolling average is impractical and unreasonable, with overly burdensome
recordkeeping requirements. The commenter further stated that any
facility that approaches 95 percent control would probably not use a
material balance mechanism to demonstrate compliance because of this
burden.
The EPA has increased the material balance averaging time period
from 3 days to 7 days in the final rule. The EPA agrees that a 3-day
average may not be able to adequately account for variability in
recovered solvent due to changes in production and the adsorption cycle
of the solvent recovery device as noted by the commenters. However, the
EPA does not believe that 30 days is necessary to achieve this, and
that 7 days is a reasonable averaging period for most facilities. Model
VOC rules developed for reasonably available control technology (RACT)
in State Implementation Plans require a 7-day rolling period for
material balance calculation of the overall emission reduction
efficiency of a solvent recovery control system (e.g., carbon
adsorber). The EPA does not agree with the commenters that a 7-day
averaging period will be more burdensome than a 30-day averaging period
because the records necessary to compute a material balance are of an
ongoing nature. The only significant difference is that the overall
efficiency will be calculated on a 7-day cycle rather than a 30-day
cycle. An owner or operator who does not believe that 7 days is an
adequate averaging period given their specific solvent recovery
circumstances, and who wishes to use alternate compliance techniques
may provide their reasoning in a petition to the Administrator in
accordance with Sec. 63.705(j) of subpart EE and Sec. 63.7(f) of
subpart A. Also, the final rule offers other compliance provisions for
users of solvent recovery devices.
Three commenters requested that the rule include specific
monitoring provisions for the use of innovative control technologies,
such as biofiltration, which may perform better than traditional
control technologies. One commenter stated that the proposed
requirements requesting approval of monitoring techniques for
innovative technologies discourage their use.
At proposal, the Agency was not aware of any biofiltration units in
place to control HAP or VOC emissions from magnetic tape manufacturing
operations. Further research on this technology at this time could
potentially delay promulgation of the final rule. However,
Sec. 63.704(f) of the final rule allows owners or operators of affected
sources to submit compliance monitoring provisions for alternate
control technologies to the Administrator for approval. The EPA
believes that an owner or operator of an affected source that is
exploring the use of biofiltration or other innovative control
techniques will be more informed and better able to propose appropriate
testing and monitoring. Furthermore, the EPA believes that the extended
compliance timeframe of 3 years in the final rule will allow owners or
operators of existing affected sources adequate time to propose
alternative testing and monitoring requirements.
F. Alternative Compliance Plans and Selection of the Affected Source
At proposal, in discussing the selection of the affected source
definition, the EPA noted that a broad definition of affected source
would be needed if emissions averaging provisions were contained in the
rule. The proposed rule did not contain emissions averaging provisions
because the EPA believes that there is very little opportunity for
emissions averaging in this source category. However, the EPA solicited
comments and information on emissions averaging for this source
category.
Three commenters recommended that EPA allow emissions averaging.
One commenter stated that controlling emissions from solvent storage
tanks with the same primary control device used to control other
emissions at a facility would not be cost effective. The commenter
noted that storage tanks may be located a considerable distance from
the main facility for safety and insurance reasons and controlling the
low level of emissions from storage tanks would not be cost effective
given the amount of ductwork that would be required to connect them to
the primary control device. The commenter also stated that compliance
with the regulation through control of storage tanks with a dedicated
small carbon canister would be very difficult and extremely expensive
particularly if installation of a CEM on the carbon canister is
necessary. The commenter believes that allowing emissions averaging in
the standard would alleviate these difficulties by not requiring
emission control and CEM's on all emission units. This commenter
suggested creating a simplified version of the emissions trading scheme
included in the HON final rule (59 FR 19402). The commenter stated that
EPA could disallow trading between HAP of varying risk factors and
require a slight excess HAP reduction of 10 percent to overcompensate
for any measurement inaccuracies. The commenter stated that the
drawbacks of emissions averaging regarding weighting factors would not
be an issue in this industry, because the solvent HAP used by this
industry all have the same weighting factor. The EPA also could
eliminate requirements for air emission monitoring, modeling, and risk
assessment since no trades between HAP of different risk factors would
be allowed.
The commenter further suggested that EPA eliminate the restriction
that excludes HAP emission reductions beyond the control device
reference technology control level in emission trading. The commenter
stated that a facility will normally operate its control device at a
level above the compliance limit to ensure compliance, even though this
practice results in higher operating costs; because this additional
control is usually achieved solely for compliance reasons, the Agency
should allow it to be included in emissions averaging calculations.
The second commenter also pointed out that some emission points
contribute more than others and suggested a prioritization scheme that
evaluates the relative contribution of each individual source relative
to the total emissions from the entire magnetic tape operation.
According to the commenter, prioritization would allow cost effective
control and could exempt from control emission points that in the
aggregate contribute no more than 5 percent of the total emissions. For
the remaining emissions, the commenter suggested 95 percent reduction.
As an alternative to this prioritization scheme, the commenter
suggested an emissions averaging scheme to achieve 95 percent control
of emissions from the entire operation.
The third commenter suggested averaging emissions from an entire
mix/coat operation so that more efficient emissions control achieved
from the coating line can offset less efficient control of the VOC-
dilute mix room exhaust. The commenter suggested that a group of
emission points collocated and ducted to a common abatement device
within a facility (e.g., all mix room equipment, or coating operations)
be treated as a single affected source. The commenter argued that under
this approach, environmental protection will be equal to, if not
greater than that with the narrower definition of affected source, and
domestic producers would not be further disadvantaged by the burden of
regulatory costs.
One commenter recommended that EPA not consider emissions averaging
any further. The commenter stated that emissions averaging most often
results in increased emissions of toxic chemicals that are more
difficult to control and may include HAP. Also, emissions averaging
programs have been difficult to administer, with burdensome compliance
and recordkeeping requirements, and have been difficult to enforce.
The prioritization scheme suggested by one of the commenters would
achieve less control than the main standard because it would exempt 5
percent of the uncontrolled emissions, and only require 95 percent
control of the nonexempted emissions. Furthermore, this plan would not
account for the fact that the underlying standard is not 95 percent
control for all emission points. Therefore, it was not considered
further by the EPA.
Several of the comments on emissions averaging for magnetic tape
manufacturing appear to involve concerns about compliance
demonstrations, rather than a need for emissions averaging. For
example, a commenter suggested that all emission sources vented to the
same control device be allowed to be ``averaged'' so that only the
common control device has to be monitored (such as the tanks in the mix
room and the coating operations). It is the EPA's intent that when
several sources are vented to a common control, the control device
itself is monitored; each emission point does not have to be monitored
separately. This point has been clarified in the final regulation.
This commenter also alluded to the problem for the primary control
device of achieving 95-percent control when the coating operations are
down because the other streams vented to the device have low flow rates
and low concentrations. The EPA has included in the final rule an
alternative standard in which the owner or operator would determine,
during a period when the control device is properly operated and
maintained, a concentration level for the control device when the
coating operations are not operating properly.
Another commenter expressed concern that the proposed regulation
would have required continuous emission monitors (CEM's) on carbon
canisters, which might be used to control storage tanks far from the
main control device. The EPA recognizes that the proposed rule had not
adequately considered monitoring for such situations and is including
alternative monitoring for nonregenerative carbon adsorbers in the
final rule.
One particular problem area that was mentioned in other comments as
well as in those on emissions averaging was the control of storage
tanks. Commenters noted that emissions from storage tanks are small and
may be cost ineffective to control in comparison with other control
costs imposed by this rule. This could be true particularly for those
that are sited away from the main coating operation (and the primary
control device) for safety or insurance reasons. As discussed in
section 2.6.2 of the background information document, based on
available information, there is no basis for subcategorizing among
storage tanks based on size or distance from the control device.
However, the EPA agrees that storage tanks could be cost ineffective to
control if far from the main control device and that the emissions are
small. The estimated uncontrolled HAP emissions from all the storage
tanks at a small facility total 0.01 ton/yr and at a large facility
total 1.2 tons/yr.
To meet this concern, the EPA developed an alternative compliance
option that would allow the owner or operator not to control certain
storage tanks in return for achieving more control of the largest
emissions source at magnetic tape manufacturing facilities. Under this
option, in exchange for accepting a requirement of 97 percent reduction
(instead of 95 percent as required by the basic standard) for all the
coating operations, the owner or operator may leave uncontrolled up to
10 storage tanks with a maximum individual capacity of 20,000 gallons.
There are also two additional tiers: To control all coating operations
by 98 percent in lieu of controlling 15 such storage tanks; or 99
percent in lieu of controlling 20 such storage tanks. Available
information indicates that this range of options is adequate to cover
the range of plants.
This alternative compliance option might appear at first to be
inconsistent with provisions of the HON (which is the first MACT
standard that provides for emissions averaging) in that the HON does
not permit a plant operator to gain averaging credit for using
reference control technology (the technology assumed in the development
of the standard) at a higher-than-required percentage reduction.
However, there are clear factual differences which distinguish the two
situations.
Emission limitations under the HON are applicable to emission
points whose characteristics equal or exceed specified cut-offs and are
based on the use of reference control technology. Emissions averaging
under the HON responds to concern that it may be unusually expensive to
apply reference controls to some of the covered emission points (such
as emission points located far from a control device). The HON
emissions averaging provisions allow a plant operator to avoid control
of some covered emission points (a) by applying the reference control
technology to exempt emission points (points whose characteristics are
below the cut-offs) or (b) by applying controls that are inherently
more effective than the reference control technology to other covered
emission points. Except for reductions achieved by pollution prevention
measures, the substituted controls must produce at least 110 percent of
the emission reductions that would have been achieved at the emission
points that will no longer be controlled. In addition, the permitting
authority must conclude that risk or hazard is not increased by the
averaging.
As stated above, the HON does not permit the plant operator to gain
averaging credit for using the reference technology at a higher-than-
required percentage reduction. Credits for operating a control
technology better than its rated control efficiency are not allowed for
two main reasons. One is the fact that in the development of the
standard, the rated efficiency of the reference technology was set on a
lowest-common-denominator basis. Due to the variable nature of the
pollutant streams encountered among plants subject to the HON
(variations from plant to plant in the mix of pollutants, operating
rates, and other factors), the selection of a single percentage
reduction applicable to each control technology in all circumstances
required a lowest-common-denominator approach, and in many cases such
equipment will achieve substantially higher percentage reductions under
normal design and operating conditions. If credit were allowed for this
differential, a plant operator would gain an undeserved windfall due to
the manner in which the rated control efficiencies were derived.
In the case of magnetic tape manufacturing, the EPA is considering
a much simpler situation than in the HON. Magnetic tape facilities have
generally smaller variability in the plant-to-plant mix of pollutants,
operating rates, and other factors. Rather than including any emission
point as in the HON, only two types of emissions points are eligible
for the alternative compliance plan for magnetic tape operations: the
coating operations and the storage tanks. Because of the simpler nature
of magnetic tape processes and the magnitude of the additional
emissions control, EPA concludes that the emissions from the
uncontrolled storage tanks are adequately offset by additional control
at the coating operations. The required two percent additional increase
in control efficiency at the largest emission point at magnetic tape
manufacturing plants creates additional emissions reductions of as much
as 0.35 ton/yr at a small facility and 190 tons/yr at a large facility.
Under the alternative compliance option, some storage tanks may remain
uncontrolled. However, the emissions from these points are very small
in comparison to the additional potential emission benefit accruing
from the coating operations. At small plants, 0.01 ton/yr remain
uncontrolled; at larger plants, 1.2 tons/yr. As in the HON, there is
variability in operating conditions and pollutant streams. Thus, EPA is
unable to quantify precisely how much additional emissions benefit can
be attributed to the required increase in control efficiency. The EPA
is confident that the emissions from the uncontrolled points are
adequately offset by additional reductions.
The other reason the HON does not allow credit for operating a
device greater than its reference control efficiency is a concern over
enforcement problems. The variable mix of pollutants and operating
conditions seen at HON sources means that the amount by which emission
reductions exceed rated levels is difficult to determine reliably. The
data tracking for each point and device would be extremely complex. Use
of a reference control efficiency for each reference control technology
allows the implementing agency inspectors to check that the equipment
is in place and operating as planned. Then the implementing agency can
check records to examine the calculation of debits and credits on each
of the emission points in order to make a compliance determination.
The alternative compliance approach discussed above for magnetic
tape manufacturing would not pose these same enforcement problems. The
required control efficiency for the coating operations would be the
same for all plants taking advantage of this approach. Continuous
monitoring is required to determine ongoing compliance with the
emission standard. For carbon adsorbers, the most common control device
in the industry, CEM's are required. (Note that CEM's are not required
for nonregenerative carbon adsorbers, as discussed above. Such
adsorbers would not be used on coating operations.) For incinerators
and condensers, the owner or operator would be required to determine
during the initial performance test a temperature that corresponds to
at least 97 percent control (instead of the 95 percent control of
coating operations required by the basic standard). Therefore, the
additional emission reduction would be ensured.
In summary, the EPA believes that it can address the commenters'
main concerns without a general emissions averaging scheme, such as in
the HON. The clarifications and changes in compliance determinations
discussed above and the alternative compliance option for storage tanks
and coating operations are sufficient. Under these circumstances, the
EPA believes that permitting credit for operating a control device
better than its rated control efficiency for the alternative compliance
option for the magnetic tape industry is distinguishable from the HON
and justifiable.
Four parties commented on the proposed definition of the affected
source, which was each emission point. One agreed with the proposed
narrow definition, stating that it makes the rule easily enforceable.
Three commented that a broad definition is more appropriate. Several
reasons related to arguments discussed above on emissions averaging. An
additional reason was the interaction with the General Provisions, 40
CFR part 63 subpart A. For example, for the startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan required by subpart A, it would be burdensome to have
a separate plan for each emission point, rather than the entire
facility.
The EPA has changed the definition of the affected source to the
entire magnetic tape manufacturing operation. It agrees that one
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan for the operation would be
reasonable. Furthermore, more flexibility would be offered to the
States in requesting alternative requirements under 40 CFR part 63
subpart E, since that subpart requires the alternative requirements be
equivalent in stringency for each affected source. The comments related
to emissions averaging have been addressed above.
G. Performance Specifications
The enhanced monitoring rule, proposed as 40 CFR part 64 (58 FR
54648, October 22, 1993), included two proposed performance
specifications (PS's) for CEM's in appendix A. They were PS 101 for VOC
CEM's and PS 102 for gas chromatographic CEM's. The proposed NESHAP for
magnetic tape manufacturing operations included a proposed requirement
for CEM's to follow PS 101 and 102. The EPA has decided to promulgate
these two performance specifications in 40 CFR part 60 with revised
title numbers, rather than in part 64, at the same time as promulgating
the magnetic tape NESHAP. The proposed PS 101 and 102 from part 64 are
being promulgated as PS 8 and PS 9 in appendix B of part 60,
respectively. Comment letters that included comments on these
performance specifications are in Docket No. A-91-52, the docket for
the enhanced monitoring rule. This docket is located in the Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center described in the Addresses
section of this notice. Pages of the comment letters that specifically
address these performance specifications have been placed in Docket No.
A-91-31, which is the docket for the magnetic tape NESHAP. Summaries of
these comments and EPA's responses are located in the BID (EPA-453/R-
94-074b) described in the Addresses section. Comments originally
addressed to the docket for PS 101 and PS 102 are hereafter discussed
in terms of PS 8 and PS 9, for the sake of clarity.
Comments received on PS 8 indicated a general need to revise it to
eliminate confusion between its content and that of the existing
performance specifications in appendix B to 40 CFR part 60. Also,
certain specifications in PS 8 were inconsistent with the previously
accepted approach of judging the merit of a CEM based on a comparison
with a reference test method. Therefore, PS 8 has been revised to
insure consistency with the existing performance specifications in
appendix B. The PS definitions, installation and measurement location
specifications, test procedures, data reduction procedures, and
reporting requirements are all now the same as those in PS 2, and will
be familiar to those persons who have applied the existing performance
specifications.
Most of the comments on PS 9 dealt with issues of clarity in terms
of the wording. These comments have been addressed, and many of the
sections have been rewritten for clarity. More equations have been
added to make the specification easier to use. Some commenters were
confused when certain sections of PS 9 referred to other appendices of
the proposed enhanced monitoring rule. Any references to the other
appendices of the enhanced monitoring rule have been deleted and PS 9
is now all-inclusive; portions of other appendices have been
incorporated into PS 9. These changes should make PS 9 easier to use.
One commenter objected to the high temperature requirement of 150
deg.C for the sampling system. The purpose of the heated sampling
system is to prevent moisture condensation. The temperature requirement
has been changed to a more workable 120 deg.C, which should still
prevent condensation. Several commenters noted that the calibration
requirements for the analyzer should be clarified. The calibration
requirements have been rewritten for clarity, and an allowance for gas
dilution systems has also been added.
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
The docket for this rulemaking is A-91-31. The docket is an
organized and complete file of all the information submitted to or
otherwise considered by the EPA in the development of this rulemaking.
The principal purposes of the docket are: (1) To allow interested
parties a means to identify and locate documents so that they can
effectively participate in the rulemaking process; and (2) to serve as
the record in case of judicial review (except for interagency review
materials) (section 307(d)(7)(A) of the Act). The docket is available
for public inspection at the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, the location of which is given in the ADDRESSES
section of this notice.
B. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 [58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)], the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review
and the requirements of the Executive Order. 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 obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.''
It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is
therefore not subject to OMB review.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
Information collection requirements associated with this rule have
been approved by OMB under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and have been assigned OMB control
number 2060-0326. An Information Collection Request (ICR) document has
been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1678.02), and a copy may be obtained from
Sandy Farmer, Information Policy Branch, EPA 2136, Washington, DC
20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740.
The public reporting burden for this collection of information is
estimated to average 5 hours per respondent in the first year, 1,620
hours per respondent in the second year and 729 hours per respondent in
the third year. This includes the time required for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of
this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this
burden, to Chief, Information Policy Branch, 2136, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460; and to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for
EPA.''
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
requires that a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis be performed for all
rules that have ``significant impact on a substantial number of small
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 regulatory flexibility analysis must be
prepared.
Present Regulatory Flexibility Act guidelines define an economic
impact as significant if it meets one of the following criteria:
(1) Compliance increases annual production costs by more than 5
percent, assuming costs are passed on to consumers;
(2) Compliance costs as a percentage of sales for small entities
are at least 10 percent more than compliance costs as a percentage of
sales for large entities;
(3) Capital costs of compliance represent a ``significant'' portion
of capital available to small entities, considering internal cash flow
plus external financial capabilities; or
(4) Regulatory requirements are likely to result in closures of
small entities.
The results of the economic impact analysis (EIA) indicate that the
first and fourth criteria are satisfied for one of the three small
businesses in the regulated portion of the magnetic tape industry.
The EIA calculated facility and product-specific price increases
based on the assumption that each facility would need to recoup fully
its control costs through a price increase. The results indicated that
one facility (a small business) would require a price increase of
approximately 5 percent. In addition, an evaluation of postregulation
facility earnings indicated that the same facility would experience a
decline of approximately 36 percent in earnings if it is required to
comply with the regulation.
The combination of satisfying the significant price increase
criterion as well as satisfying the significant impact on
postregulation earnings criterion indicate that one small entity is
expected to experience a significant economic impact due to
implementation of the regulation.
The small business administration's size standards were used to
identify 3 facilities out of the 14 regulated facilities as being small
businesses. Due to the significant impacts expected to be experienced
by one of the small facilities, a regulatory flexibility analysis was
conducted to assess the feasibility of providing additional flexibility
to small businesses complying with the regulation.
For small businesses in general, one mechanism that was identified
as potentially helpful was the HAP usage cutoff described earlier in
this document. However, any small business whose HAP usage exceeds the
cutoff level will have operations similar to those located at large
businesses, and therefore will have the same potential to emit HAP as
the large businesses. All three small businesses identified as being
subject to the regulation have HAP usage levels above the cutoff level.
Due to the above reasoning, there are no technical reasons for
examining different requirements for small businesses as opposed to
large businesses.
For the small business with significant economic impacts,
monitoring is the least costly activity that would achieve the
requirements of the Clean Air Act. The recommended recordkeeping and
reporting requirements of the rule are also the minimum contained in
the General Provisions for the NESHAP program. The facility could
minimize its recordkeeping and reporting burden by continuing to stay
in compliance with the regulation. More detailed reporting is necessary
for deviations from compliance.
E. Miscellaneous
In accordance with section 117 of the Act, publication of this
promulgated rule was preceded by consultation with appropriate advisory
committees, independent experts, and Federal departments and agencies.
This regulation will be reviewed 8 years from the date of
promulgation. This review will include an assessment of such factors as
evaluation of the residual health risks, any overlap with other
programs, the existence of alternative methods, enforceability,
improvements in emission control technology and health data, and the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 9
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 60
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Volatile organic
compounds.
40 CFR Part 63
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: November 22, 1994.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth below.
PART 9--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 135-136y; 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, 1313d, 1314, 1321, 1326, 1330, 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.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB control
40 CFR citation No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*****
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Source Categories:
*****
63.703-63.707............................................ 2060-0326
*****
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 60--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 101, 111, 114, 116, and 301 of the Clean Air
Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401, 7411, 7414, 7416, 7601).
Appendix B--[Amended]
2. Part 60 is amended by adding performance specifications 8 and 9
to appendix B to read as follows:
Appendix B--Performance Specifications
* * * * *
Performance Specification 8
Performance Specifications for Volatile Organic Compound Continuous
Emission Monitoring Systems in Stationary Sources
1. Applicability and Principle
1.1 Applicability.
1.1.1 This specification is to be used for evaluating a
continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) that measures a mixture
of volatile organic compounds (VOC's) and generates a single
combined response value. The VOC detection principle may be flame
ionization (FI), photoionization (PI), nondispersive infrared
absorption (NDIR), or any other detection principle that is
appropriate for the VOC species present in the emission gases and
that meets this performance specification. The performance
specification includes procedures to evaluate the acceptability of
the CEMS at the time of or soon after its installation and whenever
specified in emission regulations or permits. This specification is
not designed to evaluate the installed CEMS performance over an
extended period of time, nor does it identify specific calibration
techniques and other auxiliary procedures to assess the CEMS
performance. However, it is the responsibility of the source owner
or operator, to calibrate, maintain, and operate the CEMS properly.
Under section 114 of the Act, the Administrator may require the
operator to evaluate the CEMS performance by conducting CEMS
performance evaluations in addition to the initial test. See section
60.13(c).
The definitions, installation and measurement location
specifications, test procedures, data reduction procedures,
reporting requirements, and bibliography are the same as in PS 2,
sections 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10, and also apply to VOC CEMS's
under this specification. The performance and equipment
specifications and the relative accuracy (RA) test procedures for
VOC CEMS do not differ from those for SO2 and NOx CEMS,
except as noted below.
1.1.2 In most emission circumstances, most VOC monitors can
provide only a relative measure of the total mass or volume
concentration of a mixture of organic gases, rather than an accurate
quantification. This problem is removed when an emission standard is
based on a total VOC measurement as obtained with a particular
detection principle. In those situations where a true mass or volume
VOC concentration is needed, the problem can be mitigated by using
the VOC CEMS as a relative indicator of total VOC concentration if
statistical analysis indicates that a sufficient margin of
compliance exists for this approach to be acceptable. Otherwise,
consideration can be given to calibrating the CEMS with a mixture of
the same VOC's in the same proportions as they actually occur in the
measured source. In those circumstances where only one organic
species is present in the source, or where equal incremental amounts
of each of the organic species present generate equal CEMS
responses, the latter choice can be more easily achieved.
1.2 Principle. Calibration drift and relative accuracy tests
are conducted to determine the adherence of the CEMS to
specifications given for those items. The performance specifications
include criteria for installation and measurement location,
equipment and performance, and procedures for testing and data
reduction.
2. Performance and Equipment Specifications
2.1 VOC CEMS Selection. When possible, select a VOC CEMS with
the detection principle of the reference method specified in the
regulation or permit (usually either FI, NDIR, or PI). Otherwise,
use knowledge of the source process chemistry, previous emission
studies, or gas chromatographic analysis of the source gas to select
an appropriate VOC CEMS. Exercise extreme caution in choosing and
installing any CEMS in an area with the potential for explosive
hazards.
2.2 Data Recorder Scale. Same as section 4.1 of PS 2.
2.3 Calibration Drift. The CEMS calibration must not drift by
more than 2.5 percent of the span value.
2.4 CEMS Relative Accuracy. Unless stated otherwise in the
regulation or permit, the RA of the CEMS must be no greater than 20
percent of the mean value of the reference method (RM) test data in
terms of the units of the emission standard, or 10 percent of the
applicable standard, whichever is greater.
3. Relative Accuracy Test Procedure
3.1 Sampling Strategy for RM Tests, Correlation of RM and CEMS
Data, Number of RM Tests, and Calculations. Follow PS 2, sections
7.1, 7.2, 7.3, and 7.5, respectively.
3.2 Reference Method. Use the method specified in the
applicable regulation or permit, or any approved alternative, as the
RM.
Performance Specification 9
Specifications and Test Procedures for Gas Chromatographic Continuous
Emission Monitoring Systems in Stationary Sources
1. Applicability and Principle
1.1 Applicability. These requirements apply to continuous
emission monitoring systems (CEMS) that use gas chromatography (GC)
to measure gaseous organic compound emissions. The requirements
include procedures intended to evaluate the acceptability of the
CEMS at the time of its installation and whenever specified in
regulations or permits. Quality assurance procedures for
calibrating, maintaining, and operating the CEMS properly at all
times are also given in this procedure.
1.2 Principle. Calibration precision, calibration error, and
performance audit tests are conducted to determine conformance of
the CEMS with these specifications. Daily calibration and
maintenance requirements are also specified.
2. Definitions
2.1 Gas Chromatograph (GC). That portion of the system that
separates and detects organic analytes and generates an output
proportional to the gas concentration. The GC must be temperature
controlled.
Note: The term ``temperature controlled'' refers to the ability
to maintain a certain temperature around the column. Temperature-
programmable GC is not required for this performance specification,
as long as all other requirements for precision, linearity, and
accuracy listed in this performance specification are met. It should
be noted that temperature programming a GC will speed up peak
elution, thus allowing increased sampling frequency.
2.1.1 Column. An analytical column capable of separating the
analytes of interest.
2.1.2 Detector. A detection system capable of detecting and
quantifying all analytes of interest.
2.1.3 Integrator. That portion of the system that quantifies
the area under a particular sample peak generated by the GC.
2.1.4 Data Recorder. A strip chart recorder, computer, or
digital recorder capable of recording all readings within the
instrument's calibration range.
2.2 Calibration Precision. The error between triplicate
injections of each calibration standard.
3. Installation and Measurement Location Specifications
Install the CEMS in a location where the measurements are
representative of the source emissions. Consider other factors, such
as ease of access for calibration and maintenance purposes. The
location should not be close to air in-leakages. The sampling
location should be at least two equivalent duct diameters downstream
from the nearest control device, point of pollutant generation, or
other point at which a change in the pollutant concentration or
emission rate occurs. The location should be at least 0.5 diameter
upstream from the exhaust or control device. To calculate equivalent
duct diameter, see section 2.1 of Method 1 (40 CFR part 60, appendix
A). Sampling locations not conforming to the requirements in this
section may be used if necessary upon approval of the Administrator.
4. CEMS Performance and Equipment Specifications
4.1 Presurvey Sample Analysis and GC Selection. Determine the
pollutants to be monitored from the applicable regulation or permit
and determine the approximate concentration of each pollutant (this
information can be based on past compliance test results). Select an
appropriate GC configuration to measure the organic compounds. The
GC components should include a heated sample injection loop (or
other sample introduction systems), separatory column, temperature-
controlled oven, and detector. If the source chooses dual column
and/or dual detector configurations, each column/detector is
considered a separate instrument for the purpose of this performance
specification and thus the procedures in this performance
specification shall be carried out on each system. If this method is
applied in highly explosive areas, caution should be exercised in
selecting the equipment and method of installation.
4.2 Sampling System. The sampling system shall be heat traced
and maintained at a minimum of 120 deg.C with no cold spots. All
system components shall be heated, including the probe, calibration
valve, sample lines, sampling loop (or sample introduction system),
GC oven, and the detector block (when appropriate for the type of
detector being utilized, e.g., flame ionization detector).
4.3 Calibration Gases. Obtain three concentrations of
calibration gases certified by the manufacturer to be accurate to
within 2 percent of the value on the label. A gas dilution system
may be used to prepare the calibration gases from a high
concentration certified standard if the gas dilution system meets
the requirements specified in Test Method 205, 40 CFR part 51,
appendix M. The performance test specified in Test Method 205 shall
be repeated quarterly, and the results of the Method 205 test shall
be included in the report. The calibration gas concentration of each
target analyte shall be as follows (measured concentration is based
on the presurvey concentration determined in section 4.1).
Note: If the low level calibration gas concentration falls at
or below the limit of detection for the instrument for any target
pollutant, a calibration gas with a concentration at 4 to 5 times
the limit of detection for the instrument may be substituted for the
low-level calibration gas listed in section 4.3.1
4.3.1 Low-level. 40-60 percent of measured concentration.
4.3.2 Mid-level. 90-110 percent of measured concentration.
4.3.3 High-level. 140-160 percent of measured concentration, or
select highest expected concentration.
4.4 Performance Audit Gas. A certified EPA audit gas shall be
used, when possible. A Protocol 1 gas mixture containing all the
target compounds within the calibration range may be used when EPA
performance audit materials are not available. The instrument
relative error shall be 10 percent of the certified value
of the audit gas.
4.5 Calibration Error (CE). The CEMS must allow the
determination of CE at all three calibration levels. The average
CEMS calibration response must not differ by more than 10 percent of
calibration gas value at each level after each 24-hour period of the
initial test.
4.6 Calibration Precision and Linearity. For each triplicate
injection at each concentration level for each target analyte, any
one injection shall not deviate more than 5 percent from the average
concentration measured at that level. The linear regression curve
for each organic compound at all three levels shall have an r\2\
0.995 (using Equation 1).
4.7 Measurement Frequency. The sample to be analyzed shall flow
continuously through the sampling system. The sampling system time
constant (T) shall be 5 minutes or the sampling frequency
specified in the applicable regulation, whichever is less. Use
Equation 3 to determine T. The analytical system shall be capable of
measuring the effluent stream at the frequency specified in the
appropriate regulation or permit.
5. Performance Specification Test (PST) Periods
5.1 Pretest Preparation Period. Using the procedures described
in Method 18 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A), perform initial tests to
determine GC conditions that provide good resolution and minimum
analysis time for compounds of interest. Resolution interferences
that may occur can be eliminated by appropriate GC column and
detector choice or by shifting the retention times through changes
in the column flow rate and the use of temperature programming.
5.2 7-Day CE Test Period. At the beginning of each 24-hour
period, set the initial instrument setpoints by conducting a
multipoint calibration for each compound. The multipoint calibration
shall meet the requirements in section 4.7. Throughout the 24-hour
period, sample and analyze the stack gas at the sampling intervals
prescribed in the regulation or permit. At the end of the 24-hour
period, inject the three calibration gases for each compound in
triplicate and determine the average instrument response. Determine
the CE for each pollutant at each level using the equation in
section 6.2. Each CE shall be 10 percent. Repeat this
procedure six more times for a total of 7 consecutive days.
5.3 Performance Audit Test Periods. Conduct the performance
audit once during the initial 7-day CE test and quarterly
thereafter. Sample and analyze the EPA audit gas(es) (or the
Protocol 1 gas mixture if an EPA audit gas is not available) three
times. Calculate the average instrument response. Report the audit
results as part of the reporting requirements in the appropriate
regulation or permit (if using a Protocol 1 gas mixture, report the
certified cylinder concentration of each pollutant).
6. Equations
6.1 Coefficient of Determination. Calculate r2 using
linear regression analysis and the average concentrations obtained
at three calibration points as shown in Equation 1.
TR15DE94.000
Where:
r2=Coefficient of determination.
n=Number of measurement points.
x=CEMS response.
y=Actual value of calibration standard.
6.2 Calibration Error Determination. Determine the percent
calibration error (CE) at each concentration for each pollutant
using the following equation.
TR15DE94.001
where:
Cm=average instrument response, ppm.
Ca=cylinder gas value, ppm.
6.3 Sampling System Time Constant (T).
TR15DE94.002
where:
F=Flow rate of stack gas through sampling system, in liters/min.
V=Sample system volume, in Liters, which is the volume inside the
sample probe and tubing leading from the stack to the sampling loop.
7. Daily Calibration
7.1 Initial Multipoint Calibration. After initial startup of
the GC, after routine maintenance or repair, or at least once per
month, conduct a multipoint calibration of the GC for each target
analyte. The multipoint calibration for each analyte shall meet the
requirements in section 4.7.
7.2 Daily Calibration. Once every 24 hours, analyze the mid-
level calibration standard for each analyte in triplicate. Calculate
the average instrument response for each analyte. The average
instrument response shall not vary more than 10 percent from the
certified concentration value of the cylinder for each analyte. If
the difference between the analyzer response and the cylinder
concentration for any target compound is greater than 10 percent,
immediately take corrective action on the instrument if necessary,
and conduct an initial multipoint calibration as described in
section 7.1.
8. Reporting
Follow the reporting requirements of the applicable regulation
or permit. If the reporting requirements include the results of this
performance specification, summarize in tabular form the results of
the CE tests. Include all data sheets, calculations, CEMS data
records, performance audit results, and calibration gas
concentrations and certifications.
PART 63--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart EE to read as follows:
Subpart EE--National Emission Standards for Magnetic Tape Manufacturing
Operations
63.701 Applicability.
63.702 Definitions.
63.703 Standards.
63.704 Compliance and monitoring requirements.
63.705 Performance test methods and procedures to determine initial
compliance.
63.706 Recordkeeping requirements.
63.707 Reporting requirements.
63.708 Delegation of authority.
Subpart EE--National Emission Standards For Magnetic Tape
Manufacturing Operations
Sec. 63.701 Applicability.
(a) Except as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the
provisions of this subpart apply to:
(1) Each new and existing magnetic tape manufacturing operation
located at a major source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions;
and
(2) A magnetic tape manufacturing operation for which the owner or
operator chooses to use the provisions of Sec. 63.703(b) and (h) to
obtain a Federally enforceable limit on its potential to emit HAP.
Explanatory Note: A reason the owner or operator would make the
choice described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section is if the plant
site, without this limit, would be a major source. The owner or
operator could use this limit, which would establish the potential
to emit from magnetic tape manufacturing operations, in conjunction
with the potential to emit from the other HAP emission points at the
stationary source, to be an area source. Note, however, that an
owner or operator is not required to use the provisions in
Sec. 63.703(b) and (h) to determine the potential to emit HAP from
magnetic tape manufacturing operations.
(b) This subpart does not apply to the following:
(1) Research or laboratory facilities; and
(2) Any coating operation that produces a quantity of magnetic tape
that is 1 percent or less of total production (in terms of total square
footage coated) from that coating operation in any 12-month period.
(c) The affected source subject to this standard is the magnetic
tape manufacturing operation, as defined in Sec. 63.702.
(d) An owner or operator of an existing affected source subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall comply according to the following
schedule:
(1) Within 3 years after the effective date of the standard, if the
owner or operator is required to install a new add-on air pollution
control device to meet the requirements of Sec. 63.703(c) or (g); or
(2) Within 2 years after the effective date of the standard, if a
new add-on air pollution control device is not needed to comply with
Sec. 63.703(c) or (g) of these standards.
(e) The compliance date for an owner or operator of a new affected
source subject to the provisions of this subpart is immediately upon
startup of the affected source.
(f) The provisions of this subpart apply during periods of startup
and shutdown, and whenever magnetic tape manufacturing operations are
taking place.
(g) Owners or operators of affected sources subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall also comply with the requirements of
subpart A as identified in Table 1, according to the applicability of
subpart A to such sources.
(h) In any title V permit for an affected source, all research or
laboratory facilities that are exempt from the requirements of this
subpart shall be clearly identified.
Sec. 63.702 Definitions.
(a) All terms used in this subpart that are not defined below have
the meaning given to them in the Clean Air Act and in subpart A of this
part.
Add-on air pollution control device means equipment installed at
the end of a process vent exhaust stack or stacks that reduces the
quantity of a pollutant that is emitted to the air. The device may
destroy or secure the pollutant for subsequent recovery. Examples are
incinerators, condensers, carbon adsorbers, and biofiltration units.
Transfer equipment and ductwork are not considered in and of themselves
add-on air pollution control devices.
Bag slitter means a device for enclosed transfer of particulates. A
bag of raw materials is placed in a hopper, the hopper is closed, and
an internal mechanism slits the bag, releasing the particulates into
either a closed conveyor that feeds the mix preparation equipment or
into the mix preparation equipment itself.
Base substrate means the surface, such as plastic or paper, to
which a coating is applied.
Capture efficiency means the fraction of all organic vapors or
other pollutants generated by a process that are directed to an add-on
air pollution control device.
Capture device means a hood, enclosed room, or other means of
collecting HAP vapors or other pollutants into a duct that exhausts to
an add-on air pollution control device.
Carbon adsorber vessel means one vessel in a series of vessels in a
carbon adsorption system that contains carbon and is used to remove
gaseous pollutants from a gaseous emission source.
Car seal means a seal that is placed on a device that is used
either to open a closed valve or close an opened valve so that the
position of the valve cannot be changed without breaking the seal.
Closed system for flushing fixed lines means a system in which the
line to be flushed is disconnected from its original position and
connected to two closed containers, one that contains cleaning solvent
and one that is empty. Solvent is flushed from the container with
cleaning solvent, through the line, and into the empty containers.
Coater or coating applicator means the apparatus used to apply a
coating to a continuous base substrate.
Coating application means the process by which the coating mix is
applied to the base substrate.
Coating operation means any coater, flashoff area, and drying oven
located between a base substrate unwind station and a base substrate
rewind station that coats a continuous base substrate.
Control device efficiency means the ratio of the emissions
collected or destroyed by an add-on air pollution control device to the
total emissions that are introduced to the control device, expressed as
a percentage.
Day means a 24-consecutive-hour period.
Drying oven means a chamber that uses heat to bake, cure,
polymerize, or dry a surface coating; if the coating contains volatile
solvents, the volatile portion is evaporated in the oven.
Enclosed transfer method means a particulate HAP transfer method
that uses an enclosed system to prevent particulate HAP from entering
the atmosphere as dust. Equipment used for this purpose may include
vacuum injection systems or other mechanical transfer systems, bag
slitters, or supersacks.
Equivalent diameter means four times the area of an opening divided
by its perimeter.
Facility means all contiguous or adjoining property that is under
common ownership or control in which magnetic tape manufacturing is
performed. The definition includes properties that are separated only
by a road or other public right-of-way.
Flashoff area means the portion of a coating operation between the
coater and the drying oven where solvent begins to evaporate from the
coated base substrate.
Flushing of fixed lines means the flushing of solvent through lines
that are typically fixed and are not associated with the cleaning of a
tank, such as the line from the mix room to the coater.
Freeboard ratio means the vertical distance from the surface of the
liquid to the top of the sink or tank (freeboard height) divided by the
smaller of the length or width of the sink or tank evaporative area.
Magnetic coatings means coatings applied to base substrates to make
magnetic tape. Components of magnetic coatings may include: Magnetic
particles, binders, dispersants, conductive pigments, lubricants,
solvents, and other additives.
Magnetic particles means particles in the coating mix that have
magnetic properties. Examples of magnetic particles used in magnetic
tape manufacturing are: y-oxide, doped iron oxides, chromium dioxide,
barium ferrite, and metallic particles that usually consist of
elemental iron, cobalt, and/or nickel.
Magnetic tape means any flexible base substrate that is covered on
one or both sides with a coating containing magnetic particles and that
is used for audio recording, video recording, or any type of
information storage.
Magnetic tape manufacturing operation means all of the emission
points within a magnetic tape manufacturing facility that are
specifically associated with the manufacture of magnetic tape. These
include, but are not limited to:
(1) Solvent storage tanks;
(2) Mix preparation equipment;
(3) Coating operations;
(4) Waste handling devices;
(5) Particulate transfer operations;
(6) Wash sinks for cleaning removable parts;
(7) Cleaning involving the flushing of fixed lines;
(8) Wastewater treatment systems; and
(9) Condenser vents associated with distillation and stripping
columns in the solvent recovery area, but not including the vent on a
condenser that is used as the add-on air pollution control device.
Mill means the pressurized equipment that uses the dispersing
action of beads, combined with the high shearing forces of the
centrifugal mixing action, to disperse the aggregates of magnetic
particles thoroughly without reducing particle size.
Mix preparation equipment means the vessels, except for mills, used
to prepare the magnetic coating.
Natural draft opening means any opening in a room, building, or
total enclosure that remains open during operation of the facility and
that is not connected to a duct in which a fan is installed. The rate
and direction of the natural draft through such an opening is a
consequence of the difference in pressures on either side of the wall
containing the opening.
Nonregenerative carbon adsorber means a carbon adsorber vessel in
which the spent carbon bed does not undergo carbon regeneration in the
adsorption vessel.
Operating parameter value means a minimum or maximum value
established for a control device or process parameter that, if achieved
by itself or in combination with one or more other operating parameter
values, determines that an owner or operator has complied with an
applicable emission limitation or standard.
Overall HAP control efficiency means the total efficiency of the
control system, determined by the product of the capture efficiency and
the control device efficiency.
Particulate means any material, except uncombined water, that
exists as liquid or solid particles such as dust, smoke, mist, or fumes
at standard conditions (760 millimeters of mercury, 0 degrees celsius).
Particulate HAP transfer means the introduction of a particulate
HAP into other dry ingredients or a liquid solution.
Removable parts cleaning means cleaning of parts that have been
moved from their normal position to a wash tank or sink containing
solvent for the purpose of cleaning.
Research or laboratory facility means any stationary source whose
primary purpose is to conduct research and development to develop new
processes and products, where such source 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.
Separator means a device in the wastewater treatment system in
which immiscible solvent is physically separated from the water with
which it is mixed.
Solvent storage tanks means the stationary tanks that are
associated with magnetic tape operations and that store virgin solvent,
spent solvent, cleaning solvent, solvent at any stage of the solvent
recovery process, or any volatile compound. They do not serve a process
function.
Solvent recovery area means the collection of devices used to
remove HAP emissions from process air, to recover the HAP, and to
purify the HAP. Typically, this area contains a control device such as
a carbon adsorber or condenser, the wastewater treatment system, and
the distillation columns.
Solvent recovery device means, for the purposes of this subpart, an
add-on air pollution control device in which HAP is captured rather
than destroyed. Examples include carbon adsorption systems and
condensers.
Supersack means a container of particulate from the manufacturer or
supplier with attached feed tubes and that is used to transfer
particulate under the following conditions: the feed tubes are attached
directly to the mix preparation equipment, the attachment interface is
sealed, and all openings on the mix transfer equipment are closed to
the atmosphere.
Temporary total enclosure means a total enclosure that is
constructed for the sole purpose of measuring the fugitive emissions
from an affected source. A temporary total enclosure must be
constructed and ventilated (through stacks suitable for testing) so
that it has minimal impact on the performance of the permanent capture
system. A temporary total enclosure will be assumed to achieve total
capture of fugitive emissions if it conforms to the requirements found
in Sec. 63.705(c)(4)(i) and if all natural draft openings are at least
four duct or hood equivalent diameters away from each exhaust duct or
hood. Alternatively, the owner or operator may apply to the
Administrator for approval of a temporary enclosure on a case-by-case
basis.
Total enclosure means a structure that is constructed around a
gaseous emission source so that all gaseous pollutants emitted from the
source are collected and ducted through a control device, such that 100
percent capture efficiency is achieved. There are no fugitive emissions
from a total enclosure. The only openings in a total enclosure are
forced makeup air and exhaust ducts and any natural draft openings such
as those that allow raw materials to enter and exit the enclosure for
processing. All access doors or windows are closed during routine
operation of the enclosed source. Brief, occasional openings of such
doors or windows to accommodate process equipment adjustments are
acceptable, but if such openings are routine or if an access door
remains open during the entire operation, the access door must be
considered a natural draft opening. The average inward face velocity
across the natural draft openings of the enclosure must be calculated
including the area of such access doors. The drying oven itself may be
part of the total enclosure. A permanent enclosure that meets the
requirements found in Sec. 63.705(c)(4)(i) is a total enclosure.
Utilize means the use of HAP that is delivered to mix preparation
equipment for the purpose of formulating coatings, the use of any other
HAP (e.g., dilution solvent) that is added at any point in the
manufacturing process, and the use of any HAP for cleaning activities.
Alternatively, annual HAP utilization can be determined as net usage;
that is, the HAP inventory at the beginning of a 12-month period, plus
the amount of HAP purchased during the 12-month period, minus the
amount of HAP in inventory at the end of a 12-month period.
Vacuum injection system means a system in which a vacuum draws
particulate from a storage container into a closed system that
transfers particulates into the mix preparation equipment.
Volatile organic compound (VOC) means any organic compound that
participates in atmospheric photochemical reactions or that is measured
by EPA Test Methods 18, 24, or 25A in appendix A of part 60 or an
alternative test method as defined in Sec. 63.2.
Volatile organic hazardous air pollutant (VOHAP) concentration
means the concentration of an individually-speciated organic HAP in a
wastewater discharge that is measured by Method 305 of appendix A to 40
CFR part 63.
Waste handling means processing or treatment of waste (liquid or
solid) that is generated as a by-product of either the magnetic tape
production process or cleaning operations.
Waste handling device means equipment that is used to separate
solvent from solid waste (e.g., filter dryers) or liquid waste (e.g.,
pot stills and thin film evaporators). The solvents are recovered by
heating, condensing, and collection.
Wastewater discharge means the water phase that is discharged from
the separator in a wastewater treatment system.
Wastewater treatment system means the assortment of devices in
which the solvent/water mixture, generated when the carbon bed in the
carbon adsorber is desorbed by steam, is treated to remove residual
organics in the water.
(b) The nomenclature used in this subpart is defined when presented
or has the meaning given below:
(1) Ak = the area of each natural draft opening (k) in a total
enclosure, in square meters.
(2) Caj = the concentration of HAP or VOC in each gas stream
(j) exiting the emission control device, in parts per million by
volume.
(3) Cbi = the concentration of HAP or VOC in each gas stream
(i) entering the emission control device, in parts per million by
volume.
(4) Cdi = the concentration of HAP or VOC in each gas stream
(i) entering the emission control device from the affected source, in
parts per million by volume.
(5) Cfk = the concentration of HAP or VOC in each uncontrolled
gas stream (k) emitted directly to the atmosphere from the affected
source, in parts per million by volume.
(6) Cgv = the concentration of HAP or VOC in each uncontrolled
gas stream entering each individual carbon adsorber vessel (v), in
parts per million by volume. For the purposes of calculating the
efficiency of the individual carbon adsorber vessel, Cgv may be
measured in the carbon adsorption system's common inlet duct prior to
the branching of individual inlet ducts to the individual carbon
adsorber vessels.
(7) Chv = the concentration of HAP or VOC in the gas stream
exiting each individual carbon adsorber vessel (v), in parts per
million by volume.
(8) E = the control device efficiency achieved for the duration of
the emission test (expressed as a fraction).
(9) F = the HAP or VOC emission capture efficiency of the HAP or
VOC capture system achieved for the duration of the emission test
(expressed as a fraction).
(10) FV = the average inward face velocity across all natural draft
openings in a total enclosure, in meters per hour.
(11) G = the calculated mass of HAP per volume of coating solids
(in kilograms per liter) contained in a batch of coating.
(12) Hv = the individual carbon adsorber vessel (v) efficiency
achieved for the duration of the emission test (expressed as a
fraction).
(13) Hsys = the efficiency of the carbon adsorption system
calculated when each carbon adsorber vessel has an individual exhaust
stack (expressed as a fraction).
(14) Lsi = the volume fraction of solids in each batch of
coating (i) applied as determined from the formulation records at the
affected source.
(15) Mci = the total mass in kilograms of each batch of
coating (i) applied, or of each coating applied at an affected coating
operation during a 7-day period, as appropriate, as determined from
records at the affected source. This quantity shall be determined at a
time and location in the process after all ingredients (including any
dilution solvent) have been added to the coating, or if ingredients are
added after the mass of the coating has been determined, appropriate
adjustments shall be made to account for them.
(16) Mr = the total mass in kilograms of HAP or VOC recovered
for a 7-day period.
(17) Qaj = the volumetric flow rate of each gas stream (j)
exiting the emission control device in either dry standard cubic meters
per hour when EPA Method 18 in appendix A of part 60 is used to measure
HAP or VOC concentration or in standard cubic meters per hour (wet
basis) when EPA Method 25A is used to measure HAP or VOC concentration.
(18) Qbi = the volumetric flow rate of each gas stream (i)
entering the emission control device, in dry standard cubic meters per
hour when EPA Method 18 is used to measure HAP or VOC concentration or
in standard cubic meters per hour (wet basis) when EPA Method 25A is
used to measure HAP or VOC concentration.
(19) Qdi = the volumetric flow rate of each gas stream (i)
entering the emission control device from the affected source in either
dry standard cubic meters per hour when EPA Method 18 is used to
measure HAP or VOC concentration or in standard cubic meters per hour
(wet basis) when EPA Method 25A is used to measure HAP or VOC
concentration.
(20) Qfk = the volumetric flow rate of each uncontrolled gas
stream (k) emitted directly to the atmosphere from the affected source
in either dry standard cubic meters per hour when EPA Method 18 is used
to measure HAP or VOC concentration or in standard cubic meters per
hour (wet basis) when EPA Method 25A is used to measure HAP or VOC
concentration.
(21) Qgv = the volumetric flow rate of each gas stream
entering each individual carbon adsorber vessel (v) in either dry
standard cubic meters per hour when EPA Method 18 is used to measure
HAP or VOC concentration or in standard cubic meters per hour (wet
basis) when EPA Method 25A is used to measure HAP or VOC concentration.
For purposes of calculating the efficiency of the individual carbon
adsorber vessel, the value of Qgv can be assumed to equal the
value of Qhv measured for that carbon adsorber vessel.
(22) Qhv = the volumetric flow rate of each gas stream exiting
each individual carbon adsorber vessel (v) in either dry standard cubic
meters per hour when EPA Method 18 is used to measure HAP or VOC
concentration or in standard cubic meters per hour (wet basis) when EPA
Method 25A is used to measure HAP or VOC concentration.
(23) Qin i = the volumetric flow rate of each gas stream (i)
entering the total enclosure through a forced makeup air duct in
standard cubic meters per hour (wet basis).
(24) Qout j = the volumetric flow rate of each gas stream (j)
exiting the total enclosure through an exhaust duct or hood in standard
cubic meters per hour (wet basis).
(25) R = the overall HAP or VOC emission reduction achieved for the
duration of the emission test (expressed as a percentage).
(26) RSi = the total mass in kilograms of HAP or VOC retained
in the coated substrate after oven drying for a given magnetic tape
product.
(27) Vci = the total volume in liters of each batch of coating
(i) applied as determined from records at the affected source.
(28) Woi = the weight fraction of HAP or VOC in each batch of
coating (i) applied, or of each coating applied at an affected coating
operation during a 7-day period, as appropriate, as determined by EPA
Method 24 or formulation data. This value shall be determined at a time
and location in the process after all ingredients (including any
dilution solvent) have been added to the coating, or if ingredients are
added after the weight fraction of HAP or VOC in the coating has been
determined, appropriate adjustments shall be made to account for them.
Sec. 63.703 Standards.
(a) Each owner or operator of any affected source that is subject
to the requirements of this subpart shall comply with the requirements
of this subpart on and after the compliance dates specified in
Sec. 63.701.
(b)(1) The owner or operator subject to Sec. 63.701(a)(2) shall
determine limits on the amount of HAP utilized (see definition) in the
magnetic tape manufacturing operation as the values for the potential
to emit HAP from the magnetic tape manufacturing operation.
(2) The limits on the amount of HAP utilized in the magnetic tape
manufacturing operations shall be determined in the following manner.
(i) The potential to emit each HAP from each emission point at the
stationary source, other than those from magnetic tape manufacturing
operations, shall be calculated and converted to the units of Mg/yr (or
tons/yr).
(ii) The limits on the HAP utilized in the magnetic tape
manufacturing operation shall be determined as the values that, when
summed with the values in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, are less
than 9.1 Mg/yr (10 tons/yr) for each individual HAP and 22.7 Mg/yr (25
tons/yr) for the combination of HAP.
(3) The limits on the HAP utilized determined in paragraph (b)(2)
of this section shall be in terms of Mg/yr (or tons/yr), calculated
monthly on a rolling 12-month average. The owner or operator shall not
exceed these limits.
(4) An owner or operator subject to paragraph (b) of this section
shall meet the requirements in paragraph (h) of this section.
(5) A magnetic tape manufacturing operation that is subject to
paragraph (b) of this section and is located at an area source is not
subject to paragraphs (c) through (g) of this section.
(c) Except as provided by Sec. 63.703(b), each owner or operator of
an affected source subject to this subpart shall limit gaseous HAP
emitted from each solvent storage tank, piece of mix preparation
equipment, coating operation, waste handling device, and condenser vent
in solvent recovery as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) of
this section:
(1) Except as otherwise allowed in paragraphs (c)(2), (3), (4), and
(5) of this section, each owner or operator shall limit gaseous HAP
emitted from each solvent storage tank, piece of mix preparation
equipment, coating operation, waste handling device, and condenser vent
in solvent recovery by an overall HAP control efficiency of at least 95
percent.
(2) An owner or operator that uses an incinerator to control
emission points listed in paragraph (c)(1) of this section may choose
to meet the overall HAP control efficiency requirement of paragraph
(c)(1) of this section, or may operate the incinerator such that an
outlet HAP concentration of no greater than 20 parts per million by
volume (ppmv) by compound on a dry basis is achieved, as long as the
efficiency of the capture system is 100 percent.
(3) An owner or operator may choose to meet the requirements of
paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section by venting the room, building,
or enclosure in which the HAP emission point is located to an add-on
air pollution control device, as long as the required overall HAP
control efficiency of this method is sufficient to meet the
requirements of paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section.
(4) In lieu of controlling HAP emissions from each solvent storage
tank to the level required by paragraph (c)(1) of this section, an
owner or operator of an affected source may:
(i) Control HAP emissions from all coating operations by an overall
HAP control efficiency of at least 97 percent in lieu of controlling 10
HAP solvent storage tanks that do not exceed 20,000 gallons each in
capacity; or
(ii) Control HAP emissions from all coating operations by an over
HAP control efficiency of at least 98 percent in lieu of controlling 15
HAP solvent storage tanks that do not exceed 20,000 gallons each in
capacity; or
(iii) Control HAP emissions from all coating operations by an
overall HAP control efficiency of at least 99 percent in lieu of
controlling 20 HAP solvent storage tanks that do not exceed 20,000
gallons each in capacity.
(iv) Owners or operators choosing to meet the requirements of
paragraphs (c)(4)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section are also subject
to the reporting requirement of Sec. 63.707(k).
(5) In lieu of controlling HAP emissions from a coating operation
to the level required by paragraph (c)(1) of this section, owners or
operators may use magnetic coatings that contain no greater than 0.18
kilograms of HAP per liter of coating solids for that coating
operation. For the requirements of this paragraph, Secs. 63.6(e)(3),
63.6(f) (1) and (2), 63.8(b) (2) and (3), 63.8(c), 63.8(d), 63.8(e),
63.8(g), 63.9 (e) and (g), 63.10(c), 63.10(d) (2), (3), and (5),
63.10(e) (1) and (2), and 63.11 of subpart A do not apply.
(d) Particulate transfer operations. Except as stipulated by
Sec. 63.703(b), each owner or operator of an affected source subject to
this subpart shall:
(1) Use an enclosed transfer method to perform particulate HAP
transfer; or
(2) Direct emissions from particulate HAP transfer through a hood
or enclosure to a baghouse or fabric filter that exhibits no visible
emissions while controlling HAP emissions from particulate HAP
transfer.
(e) Wash sinks for cleaning removable parts. (1) Except as
stipulated by Sec. 63.703(b), each owner or operator of an affected
source subject to this subpart shall limit gaseous HAP emissions from
each wash sink containing HAP:
(i) So that the overall HAP control efficiency is no less than 88
percent; or
(ii) By maintaining a minimum freeboard ratio of 75 percent in the
wash sink at all times when the sink contains HAP.
(2) Owners or operators may meet the requirements of paragraph
(e)(1)(i) of this section by venting the room, building, or enclosure
in which the sink is located, as long as the overall HAP control
efficiency of this method is demonstrated to be at least 88 percent
using the test methods in Sec. 63.705(e).
(3) Wash sinks subject to the control provisions of subpart T of
this part are not subject to paragraph (e)(1) or (e)(2) of this
section.
(f) Equipment for flushing fixed lines. (1) Except as stipulated by
Sec. 63.703(b), each owner or operator of an affected source subject to
this subpart shall limit gaseous HAP emissions from each affected set
of equipment for flushing fixed lines:
(i) So that the overall HAP control efficiency is at least 95
percent; or
(ii) By using a closed system for flushing fixed lines.
(2) Owners or operators may meet the requirements of paragraph
(f)(1)(i) of this section by venting the room, building, or enclosure
in which the fixed lines are located, as long as the overall HAP
control efficiency of this method is demonstrated to be at least 95
percent using the test methods in Sec. 63.705(f).
(g) Wastewater treatment systems. (1) Except as stipulated by
Sec. 63.703(b), each owner or operator of an affected source subject to
this subpart shall:
(i) Treat the wastewater discharge to remove each HAP from magnetic
tape manufacturing operations that is present in the wastewater
discharge by at least the fraction removed (FR) specified in Table
9 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart G; or
(ii) Treat (other than by dilution) the HAP from magnetic tape
manufacturing operations that are present in the wastewater discharge
such that the exit concentration is less than 50 ppmw of total VOHAP.
(2) The treatment method used to meet the requirements of paragraph
(g)(1) of this section shall not transfer emissions from the water to
the atmosphere in an uncontrolled manner.
(h)(1) Magnetic tape manufacturing operations that are subject to
Sec. 63.703(b) and are not at major sources are not subject to
Secs. 63.6(e), 63.6(f), 63.6(g), 63.6(i)(4), 63.7, 63.8, 63.9 (c)
through (h), 63.10(b)(2), 63.10(c), 63.10(d) (2) through (5), 63.10(e),
and 63.11 of subpart A.
(2) Magnetic tape manufacturing operations subject to
Sec. 63.703(b) shall fulfill the recordkeeping requirements of
Sec. 63.706(e) and the reporting requirements of Sec. 63.707 (b), (c),
and (j).
(3) An owner or operator of a magnetic tape manufacturing operation
subject to Sec. 63.703(b) who chooses to no longer be subject to
Sec. 63.703(b) shall notify the Administrator or delegated State of
such change. If by no longer being subject to Sec. 63.703(b), the
source at which the magnetic tape manufacturing operation is located
would become a major source, the owner or operator shall meet the
following requirements, starting from the date of such notification:
(i) Comply with paragraphs (c) through (g) of this section, and
other provisions of this subpart within the timeframe specified in
Sec. 63.6(c)(5); and
(ii) Comply with the HAP utilization limits in Sec. 63.703(b) until
the requirements of paragraph (h)(3)(i) of this section are met.
(i) For any solvent storage tank, piece of mix preparation
equipment, waste handling device, condenser vent in solvent recovery,
wash sink for cleaning removable parts, and set of equipment for
flushing of fixed lines, the owner or operator may, instead of meeting
the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1), (e)(1)(i), or (f)(1)(i) of this
section, vent the gaseous HAP emissions to an add-on air pollution
control device other than an incinerator that, in conjunction with
capture equipment or ductwork, is designed to achieve an overall HAP
control efficiency of at least 95 percent for the emissions from the
coating operation, and achieve an alternate outlet concentration limit
when coating operations are not occurring, as determined in
Sec. 63.704(b)(11)(ii).
(j) The requirements of this subpart do not preclude the use of
pressure relief valves and vacuum relief valves for safety purposes.
Sec. 63.704 Compliance and monitoring requirements.
(a) For owners or operators of an affected source that are using
add-on air pollution control equipment or a steam stripper to comply
with Sec. 63.703, paragraph (b) of this section identifies the
operating parameter to be monitored to demonstrate continuous
compliance. For all owners or operators subject to Sec. 63.703, except
Sec. 63.703(b) and (h), regardless of the type of control technique
used, paragraph (c) of this section identifies the procedures that must
be followed to demonstrate continuous compliance with Sec. 63.703.
(b) Establishing a limit under Sec. 63.703(i) and operating
parameter values. The owner or operator of an affected source subject
to Sec. 63.703 except Sec. 63.703(b) and (h), shall establish the
operating parameter value to be monitored for compliance as required by
paragraph (c) of this section, in accordance with paragraphs (b)(1)
through (b)(11) of this section. An owner or operator subject to
Sec. 63.703(i) shall establish a limit as required in paragraph
(b)(11)(ii) of this section.
(1) Except as allowed by paragraphs (b)(2), (3), (4), (5), or (9)
of this section, for each add-on air pollution control device used to
control solvent HAP emissions, the owner or operator shall fulfill the
requirements of paragraph (b)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section.
(i) The owner or operator shall establish as a site-specific
operating parameter the outlet total HAP or VOC concentration that
demonstrates compliance with Sec. 63.703(c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(4),
(e)(1)(i), (f)(1)(i), or (i) as appropriate; or
(ii) The owner or operator shall establish as the site-specific
operating parameter the control device efficiency that demonstrates
compliance with Sec. 63.703(c)(1), (c)(4), (e)(1)(i), and (f)(1)(i).
(iii) When a nonregenerative carbon adsorber is used to comply with
Sec. 63.703(c)(1), the site-specific operating parameter value may be
established as part of the design evaluation used to demonstrate
initial compliance (Sec. 63.705(c)(6)). Otherwise, the site-specific
operating parameter value shall be established during the initial
performance test conducted according to the procedures of
Sec. 63.705(c)(1), (2), (3), or (4).
(2) For each condenser used as the add-on air pollution control
device to comply with Sec. 63.703(c), (e)(1)(i), (f)(1)(i) or (i), in
lieu of meeting the requirements of Sec. 63.704(b)(1), during the
initial performance test conducted according to the procedures of
Sec. 63.705(c)(1), (2), or (4), the owner or operator may establish as
a site-specific operating parameter the maximum temperature of the
condenser vapor exhaust stream and shall set the operating parameter
value that demonstrates compliance with Sec. 63.703(c), (e)(1)(i),
(f)(1)(i) or (i) as appropriate;
(3) For each thermal incinerator, in lieu of meeting the
requirements of Sec. 63.704(b)(1), during the initial performance test
conducted according to the procedures of Sec. 63.705(c)(1), (2), or
(4), the owner or operator may establish as a site-specific operating
parameter the minimum combustion temperature and set the operating
parameter value that demonstrates compliance with Sec. 63.703(c),
(e)(1)(i), or (f)(1)(i), as appropriate.
(4) For each catalytic incinerator, in lieu of meeting the
requirements of Sec. 63.704(b)(1), during the initial performance test
conducted according to the procedures of Sec. 63.705(c)(1), (2), or
(4), the owner or operator may establish as site-specific operating
parameters the minimum gas temperature upstream of the catalyst bed and
the minimum gas temperature difference across the catalyst bed, and set
the operating parameter values that demonstrate compliance with
Sec. 63.703(c), (e)(1)(i), or (f)(1)(i), as appropriate.
(5) For each nonregenerative carbon adsorber, in lieu of meeting
the requirements of Sec. 63.704(b)(1), the owner or operator may
establish as the site-specific operating parameter the carbon
replacement time interval, as determined by the maximum design flow
rate and organic concentration in the gas stream vented to the carbon
adsorption system. The carbon replacement time interval shall be
established either as part of the design evaluation to demonstrate
initial compliance (Sec. 63.705(c)(6)), or during the initial
performance test conducted according to the procedures of
Sec. 63.705(c)(1), (2), (3), or (4).
(6) Each owner or operator venting solvent HAP emissions from a
source through a room, enclosure, or hood, to a control device to
comply with Sec. 63.703(c), (e)(1)(i), (f)(1)(i), or (i) 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 Sec. 63.703(c), (e)(1)(i), (f)(1)(i), or
(i), as appropriate; and
(iii) Conduct monitoring in accordance with the plan submitted to
the Administrator unless comments received from the Administrator
require an alternate monitoring scheme.
(7) For each baghouse or fabric filter used to control particulate
HAP emissions in accordance with Sec. 63.703(d)(2), the owner or
operator shall establish as the site-specific operating parameter the
minimum ventilation air flow rate through the inlet duct to the
baghouse or fabric filter that ensures that particulate HAP are being
captured and delivered to the control device. The minimum ventilation
air flow rate is to be supported by the engineering calculations that
are considered part of the initial performance test, as required by
Sec. 63.705(g)(2).
(8) Owners or operators subject to Sec. 63.704(b)(1), (2), (3),
(4), (5), (6), or (7) shall calculate the site-specific operating
parameter value, or range of values, as the arithmetic average of the
maximum and/or minimum operating parameter values, as appropriate, that
demonstrate compliance with Sec. 63.703(c), (d), (e), (f) or (i) during
the multiple test runs required by Sec. 63.705(b)(2) and (b)(1), or
during the multiple runs of other tests conducted as allowed by
paragraph Sec. 63.704(b)(11).
(9) For each solvent recovery device used to comply with
Sec. 63.703(c), in lieu of meeting the requirements of paragraph (b)(1)
of this section, the results of the material balance calculation
conducted in accordance with Sec. 63.705(c)(1) may serve as the site-
specific operating parameter that demonstrates compliance with
Sec. 63.703(c).
(10) Owners or operators complying with the provisions of
Sec. 63.703(g) shall establish the site-specific operating parameter
according to paragraph (b)(10)(i) or (ii) of this section.
(i) Owners or operators using a steam stripper shall establish the
steam-to-feed ratio as the site-specific operating parameter, except as
allowed in paragraph (b)(10)(ii) of this section, according to the
following criteria:
(A) The minimum operating parameter value shall correspond to at
least the fraction removed specified in Sec. 63.703(g)(1)(i) and be
submitted to the permitting authority for approval with the design
specifications required by Sec. 63.705(h)(1); or
(B) The minimum operating parameter value shall be that value that
corresponds to a total VOHAP outlet concentration in the wastewater of
less than 50 ppmw as determined through tests conducted in accordance
with Sec. 63.705(b)(9) and (h)(2); or
(C) The minimum operating parameter value shall be the value that
corresponds to at least the fraction removed specified in
Sec. 63.705(g)(1)(i), as demonstrated through tests conducted in
accordance with Sec. 63.705(b)(9) and (h)(3).
(ii) Owners or operators complying with Sec. 63.703(g) through the
use of a steam stripper or any other control technique may establish as
a site-specific operating parameter the outlet total VOHAP
concentration according to the following criteria:
(A) The minimum operating parameter value shall correspond to at
least the fraction removed specified in Sec. 63.703(g)(1)(i) and be
submitted to the permitting authority for approval with the design
specifications required by Sec. 63.705(h)(1); or
(B) The minimum operating parameter value shall be a total VOHAP
outlet concentration in the wastewater of less than 50 ppmw, as
required by Sec. 63.703(g)(1)(ii), and as determined through tests
conducted in accordance with Sec. 63.705 (b)(9) and (h)(2); or
(C) The minimum operating parameter value shall be the value that
corresponds to at least the fraction removed specified in
Sec. 63.705(g)(1)(i), as demonstrated through tests conducted in
accordance with Sec. 63.705 (b)(9) and (h)(3).
(11) Compliance provisions for nonrepresentative operating
conditions. (i) The owner or operator of an affected source may conduct
multiple performance tests to establish the operating parameter value,
or range of values, that demonstrates compliance with the standards in
Sec. 63.703 during various operating conditions.
(ii) To establish an alternate outlet concentration limit as
provided in Sec. 63.703(i), the owner or operator, when the coating
operation is not occurring, shall conduct a performance test using the
methods in Sec. 63.705 for determining initial compliance with
Sec. 63.703 (c)(1), (e)(1)(i) or (f)(1)(i), or shall collect data from
continuous emission monitors used to determine continuous compliance as
specified in Sec. 63.704 (b) and (c). During the period in which this
limit is being established, the control device shall be operated in
accordance with good air pollution control practices and in the same
manner as it was operated to achieve the emission limitation for
coating operations. Owners or operators choosing to establish such an
alternative shall also comply with paragraphs (b)(11)(ii) (A) and (B)
of this section.
(A) The owner or operator shall submit the alternate outlet HAP
concentration limit within 180 days after the compliance demonstration
required by Sec. 63.7 of subpart A, to the Administrator, as required
by Sec. 63.707(k)(1).
(B) The Administrator will approve or disapprove the limit proposed
in accordance with paragraph (b)(11)(ii)(A) of this section within 60
days of receipt of the report required by Sec. 63.707(k)(1), and any
other supplemental information requested by the Administrator to
support the alternate limit.
(c) Continuous compliance monitoring. Following the date on which
the initial compliance demonstration is completed, continuous
compliance with the standards shall be demonstrated as outlined in
paragraphs (c), (d), (e), or (f) of this section.
(1)(i) Each owner or operator of an affected source subject to
Sec. 63.703 (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), (e)(1)(i), (f)(1)(i), or
(i) of this subpart shall monitor the applicable parameters specified
in paragraphs (c)(3), (4), (5), (6), (7), or (9) of this section
depending on the type of control technique used, and shall monitor the
parameters specified in paragraph (c)(10) of this section.
(ii) Each owner or operator of an affected source subject to
Sec. 63.703(c)(5) of this subpart shall demonstrate continuous
compliance as required by paragraph (c)(8) of this section.
(iii) Each owner or operator of an affected source subject to
Sec. 63.703(d)(2) of this subpart shall demonstrate continuous
compliance as required by paragraph (e) of this section.
(iv) Each owner or operator of an affected source subject to
Sec. 63.703(g) of this subpart shall demonstrate continuous compliance
as required by paragraph (d) of this section.
(2) Compliance monitoring shall be subject to the following
provisions.
(i) Except as allowed by paragraph (c)(3)(i)(C) of this section,
all continuous emission monitors shall comply with performance
specification (PS) 8 or 9 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, as appropriate
depending on whether volatile organic compound (VOC) or HAP
concentration is being measured. The requirements in 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 the manufacturer's
specifications. The thermocouple calibration shall be verified or
replaced every 3 months. The replacement shall be done either if the
owner or operator chooses not to calibrate the thermocouple, or if the
thermocouple cannot be properly calibrated.
(iii) If the effluent from multiple emission points are combined
prior to being channeled to a common control device, the owner or
operator is required only to monitor the common control device, not
each emission point.
(3) Owners or operators complying with Sec. 63.703(c), (e)(1)(i),
(f)(1)(i), or (i) through the use of a control device and establishing
a site-specific operating parameter in accordance with
Sec. 63.704(b)(1) shall fulfill the requirements of paragraphs
(c)(3)(i) of this section and paragraph (c)(3)(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v)
of this section, as appropriate.
(i) The owner or operator shall install, calibrate, operate, and
maintain a continuous emission monitor.
(A) The continuous emission monitor shall be used to measure
continuously the total HAP or VOC concentration at both the inlet and
the outlet whenever HAP from magnetic tape manufacturing operations are
vented to the control device, if continuous compliance is demonstrated
through a percent efficiency calculation (Sec. 63.704(b)(1)(ii)); or
(B) The continuous emission monitor shall be used to measure
continuously the total outlet HAP or VOC concentration whenever HAP
from magnetic tape manufacturing operations are vented to the control
device, if the provisions of Sec. 63.704(b)(1)(i) are being used to
determine continuous compliance.
(C) For owners or operators using a nonregenerative carbon
adsorber, in lieu of using continuous emission monitors as specified in
paragraph (c)(3)(i) (A) or (B) of this section, the owner or operator
may use a portable monitoring device to monitor total HAP or VOC
concentration at the inlet and outlet, or outlet of the carbon
adsorber, as appropriate.
(1) The monitoring device shall be calibrated, operated, and
maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications.
(2) The monitoring device shall meet the requirements of part 60,
appendix A, method 21, sections 2, 3, 4.1, 4.2, and 4.4. For the
purposes of paragraph (c)(3)(i)(C) of this section, the words ``leak
definition'' in method 21 shall be the outlet concentration determined
in accordance with Sec. 63.704(b)(1). The calibration gas shall either
be representative of the compounds to be measured or shall be methane,
and shall be at a concentration associated with 125 percent of the
expected organic compound concentration level for the carbon adsorber
outlet vent.
(3) The probe inlet of the monitoring device shall be placed at
approximately the center of the carbon adsorber outlet vent. The probe
shall be held there for at least 5 minutes during which flow into the
carbon adsorber is expected to occur. The maximum reading during that
period shall be used as the measurement.
(ii) If complying with Sec. 63.703 (c)(1), (c)(3), (c)(4),
(e)(1)(i), (f)(1)(i), or (i) through the use of a carbon adsorption
system with a common exhaust stack for all of the carbon vessels, the
owner or operator shall not operate the control device at an average
control efficiency less than that required by Sec. 63.703 (c)(1),
(c)(3), (c)(4), (e)(1)(i), or (f)(1)(i) or at an average outlet
concentration exceeding the site-specific operating parameter value or
that required by Sec. 63.703(i), for three consecutive adsorption
cycles. Operation in this manner shall constitute a violation of
Sec. 63.703 (c)(1), (c)(3), (c)(4), (e)(1)(i), (f)(1)(i), or (i).
(iii) If complying with Sec. 63.703 (c)(1), (c)(3), (c)(4),
(e)(1)(i), (f)(1)(i), or (i) through the use of a carbon adsorption
system with individual exhaust stacks for each of the multiple carbon
adsorber vessels, the owner or operator shall not operate any carbon
adsorber vessel at an average control efficiency less than that
required by Sec. 63.703 (c)(1), (c)(3), (c)(4), (e)(1)(i), or
(f)(1)(i), or at an average outlet concentration exceeding the site-
specific operating parameter value or that required by Sec. 63.703(i),
as calculated daily using a 3-day rolling average. Operation in this
manner shall constitute a violation of Sec. 63.703 (c)(1), (c)(3),
(c)(4), (e)(1)(i), (f)(1)(i), or (i).
(iv) If complying with Sec. 63.703 (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4),
(e)(1)(i), (f)(1)(i), or (i) through the use of any control device
other than a carbon adsorber, the owner or operator shall not operate
the control device at an average control efficiency less than that
required by Sec. 63.703 (c)(1), (c)(3), (c)(4), (e)(1)(i), or
(f)(1)(i), or at an average outlet concentration exceeding the site-
specific operating parameter value or that required by
Sec. 63.703(c)(2) or (i), as calculated for any 3-hour period.
Operation in this manner shall constitute a violation of Sec. 63.703
(c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), (e)(1)(i), (f)(1)(i), or (i).
(v) If complying with Sec. 63.703(c)(1) through the use of a
nonregenerative carbon adsorber, in lieu of the requirements of
paragraphs (c)(3) (ii) or (iii) of this section, the owner or operator
may:
(A) monitor the VOC or HAP concentration of the adsorber exhaust
daily or at intervals no greater than 20 percent of the design carbon
replacement interval, whichever is greater; operation of the control
device at a HAP or VOC concentration greater than that determined in
accordance with Sec. 63.704(b)(1)(iii) shall constitute a violation of
Sec. 63.703 (c)(1), (e)(1)(i), or (f)(1)(i); or
(B) replace the carbon in the carbon adsorber system with fresh
carbon at a regular predetermined time interval as determined in
accordance with Sec. 63.704(b)(5); failure to replace the carbon at
this predetermined time interval shall constitute a violation of
Sec. 63.703 (c)(1), (e)(1)(i), or (f)(1)(i).
(4) Owners or operators complying with Sec. 63.703 (c)(1), (c)(3),
(c)(4), (e)(1)(i), (f)(1)(i), or (i) through the use of a condenser as
the add-on air pollution control device, and demonstrating compliance
in accordance with Sec. 63.704(b)(2), shall install, calibrate,
operate, and maintain a thermocouple to measure continuously the
temperature of the condenser vapor exhaust stream whenever HAP from
magnetic tape manufacturing operations are vented to the control
device. Operation of the control device at an average vapor exhaust
temperature greater than the site-specific operating parameter value or
values established in accordance with Sec. 63.704(b)(2) for any 3-hour
period shall constitute a violation of Sec. 63.703 (c)(1), (c)(3),
(c)(4), (e)(1)(i), (f)(1)(i) or (i).
(5) Owners or operators complying with Sec. 63.703 (c)(1), (c)(2),
(c)(3), (c)(4), (e)(1)(i), or (f)(1)(i) through the use of a thermal
incinerator and demonstrating compliance in accordance with
Sec. 63.704(b)(3) shall install, calibrate, operate, and maintain a
thermocouple to measure continuously the combustion temperature
whenever HAP from magnetic tape manufacturing operations are vented to
the control device. Operation of the control device at an average
combustion temperature less than the operating parameter value or
values established in accordance with Sec. 63.704(b)(3) for any 3-hour
period shall constitute a violation of Sec. 63.703 (c)(1), (c)(2),
(c)(3), (c)(4), (e)(1)(i), or (f)(1)(i).
(6) Owners or operators complying with Sec. 63.703 (c)(1), (c)(2),
(c)(3), (c)(4), (e)(1)(i), or (f)(1)(i) through the use of a catalytic
incinerator and demonstrating compliance in accordance with
Sec. 63.704(b)(4) shall install, calibrate, operate, and maintain a
thermocouple to measure continuously the gas temperature both upstream
and downstream of the catalyst bed whenever HAP from magnetic tape
manufacturing operations are vented to the control device. Operation of
the control device at an average upstream gas temperature, or at an
average gas temperature difference across the catalyst bed, less than
the operating parameter values established in accordance with
Sec. 63.704(b)(4) for any 3-hour period shall constitute a violation of
Sec. 63.703 (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), (e)(1)(i), or (f)(1)(i).
(7) Owners or operators complying with Sec. 63.703 (c)(1), (c)(2),
(c)(3), (c)(4), (e)(1)(i), (f)(1)(i), or (i) by capturing emissions
through a room, enclosure, or hood shall install, calibrate, operate,
and maintain the instrumentation necessary to measure continuously the
site-specific operating parameter established in accordance with
Sec. 63.704(b)(6) whenever HAP from magnetic tape manufacturing
operations are vented through the capture device. Operation of the
capture device at an average value greater than or less than (as
appropriate) the operating parameter value established in accordance
with Sec. 63.704(b)(6) for any 3-hour period shall constitute a
violation of Sec. 63.703 (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), (e)(1)(i),
(f)(1)(i), or (i).
(8) The owner or operator of an affected source complying with
Sec. 63.703(c)(5) shall demonstrate continuous compliance by using a
coating that has a HAP content of no greater than 0.18 kilograms of HAP
per liter of coating solids, as measured in accordance with
Sec. 63.705(c)(5), and by maintaining and reporting the records
required by Secs. 63.706(f) and 63.707(e) and (i)(2).
(9) For owners or operators complying with Sec. 63.703 (c)(1),
(c)(3), or (c)(4) through the use of a solvent recovery device and
demonstrating initial compliance in accordance with the provisions of
Sec. 63.705(c)(1), continuous compliance shall be demonstrated using
procedures in Sec. 63.705(c)(1) and through the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements of Secs. 63.706(d), 63.707(d), and 63.707(i)(5).
The provisions of Sec. 63.8(b) (2) and (3), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g)
(1), and (2) of subpart A do not apply.
(10) The owner or operator of an affected emission point using a
vent system that contains bypass lines (not including equipment such as
low leg drains, high point bleeds, analyzer vents, open-ended valves or
lines, and pressure relief valves needed for safety purposes) that
could potentially divert a vent stream away from the control device
used to comply with Sec. 63.703 (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4),
(e)(1)(i), (f)(1)(i), or (i) shall:
(i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a flow indicator that
provides a record of vent stream flow at least once every 15 minutes;
records shall be generated as specified in Sec. 63.706(c)(1); and the
flow indicator shall be installed at the entrance to any bypass line
that could divert the vent stream away from the control device to the
atmosphere; or
(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 is maintained in the closed position and
the vent stream is not diverted through the bypass line; or
(iii) Ensure that any bypass line valve 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; or
(iv) Use an automatic shutdown system in which any HAP-emitting
operations are ceased when flow from these operations 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.
(d) Owners or operators complying with Sec. 63.703(g) shall
demonstrate continuous compliance in accordance with paragraph (d)(1)
or (d)(2) of this section.
(1) An owner or operator that established the steam-to-feed ratio
as the site-specific operating parameter in accordance with
Sec. 63.704(b)(10)(i) shall continuously measure the steam-to-feed
ratio whenever HAP-containing wastewater from magnetic tape
manufacturing operations is being fed to the steam stripper. Operation
of the steam stripper at a steam-to-feed ratio less than the operating
parameter value or values established in accordance with
Sec. 63.704(b)(10)(i) for any 3-hour period shall constitute a
violation of Sec. 63.703(g).
(2) An owner or operator that established the total outlet VOHAP
concentration of the wastewater discharge as the site-specific
operating parameter in accordance with Sec. 63.704(b)(10)(ii) shall
measure the total VOHAP concentration of the wastewater discharge once
per month. Operation of the control device at an outlet VOHAP
concentration greater than the operating parameter value or values
established in accordance with Sec. 63.704(b)(10)(ii) for any month
shall constitute a violation of Sec. 63.703(g).
(e) Owners or operators complying with Sec. 63.703(d)(2) of this
subpart through the use of a baghouse or fabric filter shall perform
visible emission testing each day that particulate HAP transfer occurs,
using the procedures in Sec. 63.705(b)(10). Owners or operators shall
also install, calibrate, and operate the instrumentation necessary to
continuously monitor the ventilation air flow rate in the inlet duct to
the baghouse or fabric filter whenever particulate HAP transfer occurs.
The occurrence of visible emissions shall constitute a violation of
Sec. 63.703(d)(2), and the operation of the baghouse or fabric filter
at a flow rate less than the value or values established in accordance
with Sec. 63.704(b)(7) for any 3-hour period shall constitute a
violation of Sec. 63.703(d)(2).
(f) An owner or operator who uses an air pollution control device
not listed in Sec. 63.704 to comply with Sec. 63.703(c), (e)(1)(i),
(f)(1)(i), or (i), or a device other than a steam stripper to comply
with Sec. 63.703(g) shall submit to the Administrator a description of
the device, test data verifying the performance of the device, and
appropriate site-specific operating parameters that will be monitored
to demonstrate continuous compliance with the standard. The monitoring
plan submitted by an owner or operator in accordance with this
paragraph is subject to approval by the Administrator.
Sec. 63.705 Performance test methods and procedures to determine
initial compliance.
(a) Except as specified in Sec. 63.705(a) (1) through (3), to
determine initial compliance with the emission limits under Sec. 63.703
(c), (d)(2), (e)(1), (f)(1), and (g), the owner or operator shall
conduct an initial performance demonstration as required under
Sec. 63.7 using the procedures and test methods listed in Sec. 63.7 and
Sec. 63.705. If multiple emission points are vented to one common
control device to meet the requirements of Sec. 63.703 (c), (d)(2),
(e)(1), and (f)(1), only one performance test is required to
demonstrate initial compliance for that group of emission points. This
section also contains initial compliance demonstration procedures
(other than testing) for owners or operators subject to Sec. 63.703
(c), (d)(1), (e)(1)(ii), (f)(1)(ii), and (g).
(1) A control device (not enclosure) used to comply with
Sec. 63.703 (c), (e), or (f) does not need to be tested if each of the
following criteria are met:
(i) It is used to control gaseous HAP emissions from an existing
affected source;
(ii) It is operating prior to March 11, 1994;
(iii) It is equipped with continuous emission monitors for
determining inlet and outlet total HAP or VOC concentration, such that
a percent efficiency can be calculated; and
(iv) The continuous emission monitors are used to demonstrate
continuous compliance in accordance with Sec. 63.704(c)(3)(i).
(2) The owner or operator is not required to conduct an initial
performance test if the requirements of Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(iv) or
Sec. 63.7(h) are met.
(3) An owner or operator is not required to conduct an initial
performance test for a capture device when:
(i) The room, enclosure, or vent was previously tested to
demonstrate compliance with subpart SSS of part 60; and
(ii) Sufficient data were gathered during the test to establish
operating parameter values in accordance with Sec. 63.704(b)(6) (i),
(ii), and (iii).
(b) When an initial compliance demonstration is required by this
subpart, the procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(10) of this
section shall be used in determining initial compliance with the
provisions of this subpart.
(1) EPA Method 24 of appendix A of part 60 is used to determine the
VOC content in coatings. If it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of
the Administrator that plant coating formulation data are equivalent to
EPA Method 24 results, formulation data may be used. In the event of
any inconsistency between an EPA Method 24 test and an affected
source's formulation data, the EPA Method 24 test will govern. For EPA
Method 24, the coating sample must be a 1-liter sample taken into a 1-
liter container at a location and time such that the sample will be
representative of the coating applied to the base substrate (i.e., the
sample shall include any dilution solvent or other VOC added during the
manufacturing process). The container must be tightly sealed
immediately after the sample is taken. Any solvent or other VOC added
after the sample is taken must be measured and accounted for in the
calculations that use EPA Method 24 results.
(2) Formulation data is used to determine the HAP content of
coatings.
(3) Either EPA Method 18 or EPA Method 25A of appendix A of part
60, as appropriate to the conditions at the site, shall be used to
determine HAP or VOC concentration of air exhaust streams as required
by Sec. 63.705(c). The owner or operator shall submit notice of the
intended test method to the Administrator for approval along with the
notification of the performance test required under Sec. 63.7(b).
Method selection shall be based on consideration of the diversity of
organic species present and their total concentration and on
consideration of the potential presence of interfering gases. Except as
indicated in paragraphs (b)(3) (i) and (ii) of this section, the test
shall consist of three separate runs, each lasting a minimum of 30
minutes.
(i) When either EPA Method 18 or EPA Method 25A is to be used in
the determination of the efficiency of a fixed-bed carbon adsorption
system with a common exhaust stack for all the individual carbon
adsorber vessels pursuant to Sec. 63.705(c) (2) or (4), the test shall
consist of three separate runs, each coinciding with one or more
complete sequences through the adsorption cycles of all of the
individual carbon adsorber vessels.
(ii) When either EPA Method 18 or EPA Method 25A is to be used in
the determination of the efficiency of a fixed-bed carbon adsorption
system with individual exhaust stacks for each carbon adsorber vessel
pursuant to Sec. 63.705(c) (3) or (4), each carbon adsorber vessel
shall be tested individually. The test for each carbon adsorber vessel
shall consist of three separate runs. Each run shall coincide with one
or more complete adsorption cycles.
(4) EPA Method 1 or 1A of appendix A of part 60 is used for sample
and velocity traverses.
(5) EPA Method 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D of appendix A of part 60 is used
for velocity and volumetric flow rates.
(6) EPA Method 3 of appendix A of part 60 is used for gas analysis.
(7) EPA Method 4 of appendix A of part 60 is used for stack gas
moisture.
(8) EPA Methods 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 3, and 4 shall be performed, as
applicable, at least twice during each test period.
(9) Wastewater analysis shall be conducted in accordance with
paragraph (b)(9)(i) or (b)(9)(ii) of this section.
(i) Use Method 305 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A and the equations
in paragraphs (b)(9)(i) (A) and (B) of this section to determine the
total VOHAP concentration of a wastewater stream.
(A) The following equation shall be used to calculate the VOHAP
concentration of an individually speciated HAP.
TR15DE94.003
where:
Ci = VOHAP concentration of the individually-speciated organic HAP
in the wastewater, parts per million by weight.
Cc = Concentration of the organic HAP (i) in the gas stream, as
measured by Method 305 of appendix A of this part, parts per million by
volume on a dry basis.
Ms = Mass of sample, from Method 305 of appendix A of this part,
milligrams.
MW = Molecular weight of the organic HAP (i), grams per gram-mole.
24.055 = Ideal gas molar volume at 293 deg. Kelvin and 760 millimeters
of mercury, liters per gram-mole.
Pi = Barometric pressure at the time of sample analysis,
millimeters mercury absolute.
760 = Reference or standard pressure, millimeters mercury absolute.
293 = Reference or standard temperature, deg.Kelvin.
Ti = Sample gas temperature at the time of sample analysis,
deg.Kelvin.
t = Actual purge time, from Method 305 of appendix A of this part,
minutes.
L = Actual purge rate, from Method 305 of appendix A of this part,
liters per minute.
103 = Conversion factor, milligrams per gram.
(B) Total VOHAP concentration (stream) can be determined by summing
the VOHAP concentrations of all individually speciated organic HAP in
the wastewater.
TR15DE94.004
where:
Cstream=Total VOHAP concentration of wastewater stream.
n=Number of individual organic HAP (i) in the wastewater stream.
Ci=VOHAP concentration of individual organic HAP (i) calculated
according to the procedures in paragraph (b)(9)(i)(A) of this section.
(ii) Use a test method or results from a test method that measures
organic HAP concentrations in the wastewater, and that has been
validated according to section 5.1 or 5.3 of Method 301 of appendix A
of this part. The specific requirement of Method 305 of appendix A of
this part to collect the sample into polyethylene glycol would not be
applicable.
(A) If measuring the total VOHAP concentration of the exit stream
in accordance with Secs. 63.703(g)(1)(ii) and 63.705(h)(2), the
concentrations of the individual organic HAP measured in the water
shall be corrected to their concentrations had they been measured by
Method 305 of appendix A of this part. This is done by multiplying each
concentration by the compound-specific fraction measured factor
(FM) listed in table 34 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart G.
(B) If measuring the total HAP concentration of an inlet and outlet
wastewater stream to demonstrate compliance with Sec. 63.703(g)(1)(i)
and following the procedures of Sec. 63.705(h)(3), the concentrations
of the individual organic HAP measured in the water do not need to be
corrected.
(10) EPA Method 22 of appendix A of part 60 is used to determine
visible emissions. Visible emissions testing shall be conducted for a
minimum of 6 minutes during a time when particulate HAP transfer, as
defined in this subpart, is occurring.
(c) Initial compliance demonstrations. Except as stipulated in
Sec. 63.705(a), each owner or operator subject to the requirements of
Sec. 63.703(c) must demonstrate initial compliance with the
requirements of this subpart by following the procedures of paragraphs
(c)(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), or (6) and paragraph (d) of this section,
as applicable. Each owner or operator subject to Sec. 63.703(d), (e),
(f), and (g) must demonstrate initial compliance with the requirements
of this subpart by following the procedures of paragraphs (e), (f),
(g), and (h) of this section, as appropriate.
(1) To demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with
Sec. 63.703(c)(1), (c)(3), or (c)(4) when emissions from only the
affected coating operations are controlled by a dedicated solvent
recovery device, each owner or operator of the affected coating
operation may perform a liquid-liquid HAP or VOC material balance over
rolling 7-day periods in lieu of demonstrating compliance through the
methods in paragraphs (c)(2), (c)(3), or (c)(4) of this section.
Results of the material balances calculation performed to demonstrate
initial compliance shall be submitted to the Administrator with the
notification of compliance status required by Sec. 63.9(h) and
Sec. 63.707(d). When demonstrating compliance by this procedure,
Sec. 63.7(e)(3) of subpart A does not apply. The amount of liquid HAP
or VOC applied and recovered shall be determined as discussed in
paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section. The overall HAP or VOC emission
reduction (R) is calculated using equation 1:
TR15DE94.005
(i) The value of RSi is zero unless the owner or operator
submits the following information to the Administrator for approval of
a measured RSi value that is greater than zero:
(A) Measurement techniques; and
(B) Documentation that the measured value of RSi exceeds zero.
(ii) The measurement techniques of paragraph (c)(1)(i)(A) of this
section shall be submitted to the Administrator for approval with the
notification of performance test required under Sec. 63.7(b).
(iii) Each owner or operator demonstrating compliance by the test
method described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section shall:
(A) Measure the amount of coating applied at the coater;
(B) Determine the VOC or HAP content of all coating applied using
the test method specified in Sec. 63.705(b) (1) or (2);
(C) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate, according to the
manufacturer's specifications, a device that indicates the amount of
HAP or VOC recovered by the solvent recovery device over rolling 7-day
periods; the device shall be certified by the manufacturer to be
accurate to within 2.0 percent, and this certification
shall be kept on record;
(D) Measure the amount of HAP or VOC recovered; and
(E) Calculate the overall HAP or VOC emission reduction (R) for
rolling 7-day periods using Equation 1.
(iv) Compliance is demonstrated if the value of R is equal to or
greater than the overall HAP control efficiency required by Sec. 63.703
(c)(1), (c)(3), or (c)(4).
(2) To demonstrate initial compliance with Sec. 63.703 (c)(1),
(c)(2), (c)(3), or (c)(4) when affected HAP emission points are
controlled by an emission control device other than a fixed-bed carbon
adsorption system with individual exhaust stacks for each carbon
adsorber vessel, each owner or operator of an affected source shall
perform a gaseous emission test using the following procedures.
(i) Construct the overall HAP emission reduction system so that all
volumetric flow rates and total HAP or VOC emissions can be accurately
determined by the applicable test methods and procedures specified in
Sec. 63.705(b) (3) through (8).
(ii) Determine capture efficiency from the HAP emission points by
capturing, venting, and measuring all HAP emissions from the HAP
emission points. During a performance test, the owner or operator of
affected HAP emission points located in an area with other gaseous
emission sources not affected by this subpart shall isolate the
affected HAP emission points from all other gaseous emission points by
one of the following methods:
(A) Build a temporary total enclosure (see Sec. 63.702) around the
affected HAP emission point(s); or
(B) Shut down all gaseous emission points not affected by this
subpart and continue to exhaust fugitive emissions from the affected
HAP emission points through any building ventilation system and other
room exhausts such as drying ovens.
All ventilation air must be vented through stacks suitable for
testing.
(iii) Operate the emission control device with all affected HAP
emission points connected and operating.
(iv) Determine the efficiency (E) of the control device using
equation 2:
TR15DE94.006
(v) Determine the efficiency (F) of the capture system using
equation 3:
TR15DE94.007
(vi) For each HAP emission point subject to Sec. 63.703, compliance
is demonstrated if either of the following conditions are met:
(A) The product of (E) x (F) is equal to or greater than the
overall HAP control efficiency required by Sec. 63.703(c)(1), (c)(3),
or (c)(4); or
(B) When the owner or operator is subject to Sec. 63.703(c)(2), the
value of F is equal to 1 and the value of Caj at the outlet of the
incinerator is demonstrated to be no greater than 20 ppmv by compound,
on a dry basis.
(3) To demonstrate compliance with Sec. 63.703(c)(1), (c)(3), or
(c)(4) when affected HAP emission points are controlled by a fixed-bed
carbon adsorption system with individual exhaust stacks for each carbon
adsorber vessel, each owner or operator of an affected source shall
perform a gaseous emission test using the following procedures:
(i) Construct the overall HAP emission reduction system so that
each volumetric flow rate and the total HAP emissions can be accurately
determined by the applicable test methods and procedures specified in
Sec. 63.705(b) (3) through (8);
(ii) Assure that all HAP emissions from the affected HAP emission
point(s) are segregated from gaseous emission points not affected by
this subpart and that the emissions can be captured for measurement, as
described in Sec. 63.705(c)(2)(ii) (A) and (B);
(iii) Operate the emission control device with all affected HAP
emission points connected and operating;
(iv) Determine the efficiency (Hv) of each individual carbon
adsorber vessel (v) using equation 4:
TR15DE94.008
(v) Determine the efficiency of the carbon adsorption system
(Hsys) by computing the average efficiency of the individual
carbon adsorber vessels as weighted by the volumetric flow rate
(Qhv) of each individual carbon adsorber vessel (v) using equation
5:
TR15DE94.009
(vi) Determine the efficiency (F) of the capture system using
equation (3).
(vii) For each HAP emission point subject to Sec. 63.703(c),
compliance is demonstrated if the product of (Hsys) x (F) is equal
to or greater than the overall HAP control efficiency required by
Sec. 63.703(c)(1), (c)(3), or (c)(4).
(4) An alternative method of demonstrating compliance with
Sec. 63.703(c)(1) through (c)(4) is the installation of a total
enclosure around the affected HAP emission point(s) and the ventilation
of all HAP emissions from the total enclosure to a control device with
the efficiency or outlet concentration specified in paragraph
(c)(4)(iii) of this section. If this method is selected, the compliance
test methods described in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this
section are not required. Instead, each owner or operator of an
affected source shall:
(i) Demonstrate that a total enclosure is installed. An enclosure
that meets the requirements in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) (A) through (D) of
this section shall be considered a total enclosure. The owner or
operator of an enclosure that does not meet these requirements may
apply to the Administrator for approval of the enclosure as a total
enclosure on a case-by-case basis. The enclosure shall be considered a
total enclosure if it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the
Administrator that all HAP emissions from the affected HAP emission
point(s) are contained and vented to the control device. The
requirements for automatic approval are as follows:
(A) Total area of all natural draft openings shall not exceed 5
percent of the total surface area of the total enclosure's walls,
floor, and ceiling;
(B) All sources of emissions within the enclosure shall be a
minimum of four equivalent diameters away from each natural draft
opening;
(C) Average inward face velocity (FV) across all natural draft
openings shall be a minimum of 3,600 meters per hour as determined by
the following procedures:
(1) All forced makeup air ducts and all exhaust ducts are
constructed so that the volumetric flow rate in each can be accurately
determined by the test methods and procedures specified in
Sec. 63.705(b) (4) and (5); volumetric flow rates shall be calculated
without the adjustment normally made for moisture content; and
(2) determine FV by equation 6:
TR15DE94.010
(D) the air passing through all natural draft openings shall flow
into the enclosure continuously. If FV is less than or equal to 9,000
meters per hour, the continuous inward flow of air shall be verified by
continuous observation using smoke tubes, streamers, tracer gases, or
other means approved by the Administrator over the period that the
volumetric flow rate tests required to determine FV are carried out. If
FV is greater than 9,000 meters per hour, the direction of airflow
through the natural draft openings shall be presumed to be inward at
all times without verification.
(ii) Determine the control device efficiency using equation (2) or
equations (4) and (5), as applicable, and the test methods and
procedures specified in Sec. 63.705(b) (3) through (8).
(iii) Be in compliance if either of the following criteria are met:
(A) The installation of a total enclosure is demonstrated and the
value of E determined from equation (2) (or the value of Hsys
determined from equations (4) and (5), as applicable) is equal to or
greater than the overall HAP control efficiency required by Sec. 63.703
(c)(1), (c)(3), or (c)(4); or
(B) When the owner or operator is subject to Sec. 63.703(c)(2), the
installation of a total enclosure is demonstrated and the value of
Caj at the outlet of the incinerator is demonstrated to be no
greater than 20 ppmv by compound, on a dry basis.
(5) To demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with
Sec. 63.703(c)(5), each owner or operator of an affected source shall
determine the mass of HAP contained in the coating per volume of
coating solids applied for each batch of coating applied, according to
the procedures of paragraphs (c)(5) (i) through (iii) of this section.
If a batch of coating is identical to a previous batch of coating
applied, the original calculations can be used to demonstrate the
compliance of subsequent identical batches. The calculation of the HAP
content of the coating used to demonstrate initial compliance with
Sec. 63.703(c)(5) shall be submitted to the Administrator with the
notification of compliance status required by Sec. 63.9(h) and
Sec. 63.707(e). When demonstrating compliance by this procedure,
Sec. 63.7(e)(3) of subpart A does not apply.
(i) Determine the weight fraction of HAP in each coating applied
using formulation data as specified in Sec. 63.705(b)(2);
(ii) Determine the volume of coating solids in each coating applied
from the facility records; and
(iii) Compute the mass of HAP per volume of coating solids by
equation 7:
TR15DE94.011
(iv) The owner or operator of an affected source is in compliance
with Sec. 63.703(c)(5) if the value of G is less than or equal to 0.18
kilogram of HAP per liter of coating solids applied.
(6) When nonregenerative carbon adsorbers are used to comply with
Sec. 63.703(c)(1), the owner or operator may conduct a design
evaluation to demonstrate initial compliance in lieu of following the
compliance test procedures of paragraph (c) (1), (2), (3), or (4) of
this section. The design evaluation shall consider the vent stream
composition, constituent concentrations, flow rate, relative humidity,
and temperature, and shall establish the design exhaust vent stream
organic compound concentration level, capacity of the carbon bed, type
and working capacity of activated carbon used for the carbon bed, and
design carbon replacement interval based on the total carbon working
capacity of the control device and the emission point operating
schedule.
(d)(1) To demonstrate initial compliance with Sec. 63.703(c) when
hard piping or ductwork is used to direct HAP emissions from a HAP
source to the control device, each owner or operator shall demonstrate
upon inspection that the criteria of paragraph (d)(1)(i) and paragraph
(d)(1) (ii) or (iii) are met.
(i) The equipment must be vented to a control device.
(ii) The control device efficiency (E or Hsys, as applicable)
determined using equation (2) or equations (4) and (5), respectively,
and the test methods and procedures specified in Sec. 63.705(b) (3)
through (8), must be equal to or greater than the overall HAP control
efficiency required by Sec. 63.703 (c)(1), (c)(3), or (c)(4), or the
outlet concentration must be no greater than 20 ppmv by compound, on a
dry basis, as required by Sec. 63.703(c)(2).
(iii) When a nonregenerative carbon adsorber is used, the ductwork
from the affected emission point(s) must be vented to the control
device and the carbon adsorber must be demonstrated, through the
procedures of Sec. 63.705(c) (1), (2), (3), (4), or (6) to meet the
requirements of Sec. 63.703(c)(1).
(2) To demonstrate initial compliance with provisions for mix
preparation equipment, owners or operators shall, in addition to
paragraph (d)(1) of this section, ensure that covers are closed at all
times except when adding ingredients, withdrawing samples, transferring
the contents, or making visual inspection when such activities cannot
be carried out with the cover in place. Such activities shall be
carried out through ports of the minimum practical size.
(e) To demonstrate initial compliance with Sec. 63.703(e), the
owner or operator of a wash sink subject to the provisions of this
standard shall:
(1) If complying with Sec. 63.703(e)(1)(ii), maintain at least the
required minimum freeboard ratio at all times; or
(2) If complying with Sec. 63.703(e)(1)(i), the owner or operator
of an existing wash sink that vents emissions from the wash sink to a
control device prior to March 11, 1994 must demonstrate that the
control device is at least 95-percent efficient in accordance with
Sec. 63.705(c) (2), (3), (4), or (6); or
(3) If complying with Sec. 63.703(e)(1)(i), each owner or operator
that vents emissions from the wash sink, through a capture device, and
to a control device starting on or after March 11, 1994, must
demonstrate that the overall HAP control efficiency is at least 88
percent using the test methods and procedures in Sec. 63.705(c) (2),
(3), (4), or (6).
(f) To demonstrate initial compliance with Sec. 63.703(f), the
owner or operator shall:
(1) If complying with Sec. 63.703(f)(1)(ii), install and use a
closed system for flushing fixed lines; or
(2) If complying with Sec. 63.703(f)(1)(i), each owner or operator
that vents emissions from the flushing operation, through a capture
device, and to a control device must demonstrate that the overall HAP
control efficiency is at least 95 percent using the test methods and
procedures in Sec. 63.705(c) (2), (3), (4), or (6).
(g) To demonstrate initial compliance with Sec. 63.703(d), the
owner or operator shall:
(1) If complying with Sec. 63.703(d)(1), install an enclosed
transfer device for conveying particulate HAP, and use this device,
following manufacturer's specifications or other written procedures
developed for the device; or
(2) If complying with Sec. 63.703(d)(2):
(i) Test the baghouse or fabric filter to demonstrate that there
are no visible emissions using the test method in Sec. 63.705(b)(10);
and
(ii) provide engineering calculations in accordance with
Sec. 63.707(h) of this subpart with the performance test results
required by Sec. 63.7(g)(1) and Sec. 63.9(h) of subpart A, to
demonstrate that the ventilation rate from the particulate transfer
activity to the control device is sufficient for capturing the
particulate HAP.
(h) To demonstrate initial compliance with Sec. 63.703(g), the
owner or operator of an affected source shall follow the compliance
procedures of either paragraph (h)(1), paragraph (h)(2), or paragraph
(h)(3) of this section.
(1) The owner or operator shall submit to the permitting authority
with the notification of compliance status required by Sec. 63.9(h) and
Sec. 63.707(f) the design specifications demonstrating that the control
technique meets the required efficiency for each HAP compound. For
steam strippers, these specifications shall include at a minimum: feed
rate, steam rate, number of theoretical trays, number of actual trays,
feed composition, bottoms composition, overheads composition, and inlet
feed temperature.
(2) The owner or operator shall demonstrate the compliance of a
treatment process with the parts per million by weight (ppmw)
wastewater stream concentration limits specified in
Sec. 63.703(g)(1)(ii) by measuring the concentration of total VOHAP at
the outlet of the treatment process using the method specified in
Sec. 63.705(b)(9) (i) or (ii). A minimum of three representative
samples of the wastewater stream exiting the treatment process, which
are representative of normal flow and concentration conditions, shall
be collected and analyzed. Wastewater samples shall be collected using
the sampling procedures specified in Method 25D of appendix A of part
60. Where feasible, samples shall be taken from an enclosed pipe prior
to the wastewater being exposed to the atmosphere. When sampling from
an enclosed pipe is not feasible, a minimum of three representative
samples shall be collected in a manner that minimizes exposure of the
sample to the atmosphere and loss of organic HAP prior to analysis.
(3) The owner or operator shall demonstrate the compliance of a
treatment process with the HAP fraction removed requirement specified
in Sec. 63.703(g)(1)(i) by measuring the concentration of each HAP at
the inlet and outlet of the treatment process using the method
specified in Sec. 63.705(b)(9) (i) or (ii) and the procedures of
paragraphs (h)(3) (i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) The same test method shall be used to analyze the wastewater
samples from both the inlet and outlet of the treatment process.
(ii) The HAP mass flow rate of each individually speciated HAP
compound entering the treatment process (Eb) and exiting the
treatment process (Ea) shall be determined by computing the
product of the flow rate of the wastewater stream entering or exiting
the treatment process, and the HAP concentration of each individual HAP
compound of the entering or exiting wastewater streams, respectively.
(A) The flow rate of the entering and exiting wastewater streams
shall be determined using inlet and outlet flow meters, respectively.
(B) The average HAP concentration of each individual HAP of the
entering and exiting wastewater streams shall be determined according
to the procedures specified in either paragraph (b)(9)(i)(A) or
(b)(9)(ii)(B) of this section. If measuring the VOHAP concentration of
an individual HAP in accordance with Sec. 63.705(b)(9)(i)(A), the
concentrations of the individual organic VOHAP measured in the water
shall be corrected to a HAP concentration by dividing each VOHAP
concentration by the compound-specific fraction measured factor
(FM) listed in table 34 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart G.
(C) Three grab samples of the entering wastewater stream shall be
taken at equally spaced time intervals over a 1-hour period. Each 1-
hour period constitutes a run, and the performance test shall consist
of a minimum of three runs.
(D) Three grab samples of the exiting wastewater stream shall be
taken at equally spaced time intervals over a 1-hour period. Each 1-
hour period constitutes a run, and the performance test shall consist
of a minimum of three runs conducted over the same 3-hour period at
which the total HAP mass flow rate entering the treatment process is
determined.
(E) The HAP mass flow rates of each individual HAP compound
entering and exiting the treatment process are calculated as follows:
TR15DE94.012
where:
Eb = HAP mass flow rate of an individually speciated HAP compound
entering the treatment process, kilograms per hour.
Ea = HAP mass flow rate of an individually speciated HAP compound
exiting the treatment process, kilograms per hour.
K = Density of the wastewater stream, kilograms per cubic meter.
Vbp = Average volumetric flow rate of wastewater entering the
treatment process during each run p, cubic meters per hour.
Vap = Average volumetric flow rate of wastewater exiting the
treatment process during each run p, cubic meters per hour.
Cbp = Average HAP concentration of an individually speciated HAP
in the wastewater stream entering the treatment process during each run
p, parts per million by weight.
Cap = Average HAP concentration of an individually speciated HAP
in the wastewater stream exiting the treatment process during each run
p, parts per million by weight.
n = Number of runs.
(iii) The fraction removed across the treatment process for each
individually speciated HAP compound shall be calculated as follows:
TR15DE94.013
where:
FR = Fraction removed for an individually speciated HAP compound
of the treatment process.
Eb = HAP mass flow rate of an individually speciated HAP compound
entering the treatment process, kilogram per hour.
Ea = HAP mass flow rate of an individually speciated HAP compound
exiting the treatment process, kilograms per hour.
(i) Startups and shutdowns are normal operation for this source
category. Emissions from these activities are to be included when
determining if the standards specified in Sec. 63.703 are being
attained.
(j) An owner or operator who uses compliance techniques other than
those specified in this subpart shall submit a description of those
compliance procedures, subject to the Administrator's approval, in
accordance with Sec. 63.7(f) of subpart A.
Sec. 63.706 Recordkeeping requirements.
(a) Except as stipulated in Sec. 63.703 (b), (c)(5), and (h), the
owner or operator of a magnetic tape manufacturing operation subject to
this subpart shall fulfill all applicable recordkeeping requirements in
Sec. 63.10 of subpart A, as outlined in Table 1.
(b) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to this
subpart that is also subject to the requirements of
Sec. 63.703(e)(1)(ii) (a minimum freeboard ratio of 75 percent), shall
record whether or not the minimum freeboard ratio has been achieved
every time that HAP solvent is added to the wash sink. A measurement of
the actual ratio is not necessary for each record as long as the owner
or operator has a reliable method for making the required
determination. For example, the record may be made by comparing the HAP
solvent level to a permanent mark on the sink that corresponds to a 75
percent freeboard ratio. A HAP solvent level in the sink higher than
the mark would indicate the minimum ratio has not been achieved.
(c) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to this
subpart that is subject to the requirements of Sec. 63.704(c)(10)
shall:
(1) If complying with Sec. 63.704(c)(10)(i), maintain hourly
records of whether the flow indicator was operating and whether flow
was detected at any time during the hour, as well as records of the
times and durations of all periods when the vent stream is diverted
from the control device or the monitor is not operating;
(2) If complying with Sec. 63.704(c)(10) (ii), (iii), or (iv),
maintain a record of monthly inspections, and the records of the times
and durations of all periods when:
(i) Flow was diverted through any bypass line such that the seal
mechanism was broken;
(ii) The key for a lock-and-key type lock had been checked out;
(iii) The valve position on any bypass line changed to the open
position; or
(iv) The diversion of flow through any bypass line caused a
shutdown of HAP-emitting operations.
(d) The owner or operator of an affected source that is complying
with Sec. 63.703(c) by performing a material balance in accordance with
Sec. 63.705(c)(1) shall:
(1) Maintain a record of each 7-day rolling average calculation;
and
(2) Maintain a record of the certification of the accuracy of the
device that measures the amount of HAP or VOC recovered.
(e) The owner or operator of a magnetic tape manufacturing
operation subject to the provisions of Sec. 63.703 (b) and (h) shall
maintain records of the calculations used to determine the limits on
the amount of HAP utilized as specified in Sec. 63.703(b)(2), and of
the HAP utilized in each month and the sum over each 12-month period.
(f) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to the
provisions of Sec. 63.703(c)(5) shall keep records of the HAP content
of each batch of coating applied as calculated according to
Sec. 63.705(c)(5), and records of the formulation data that support the
calculations. When a batch of coating applied is identical to a
previous batch applied, only one set of records is required to be kept.
(g) The owner or operator of an affected source that is complying
with Sec. 63.703(c)(1) through the use of a nonregenerative carbon
adsorber and demonstrating initial compliance in accordance with
Sec. 63.705(c)(6) shall maintain records to support the outlet VOC or
HAP concentration value or the carbon replacement time established as
the site-specific operating parameter to demonstrate compliance.
(h) In accordance with Sec. 63.10(b)(1) of subpart A, the owner or
operator of an affected source subject to the provisions of this
subpart shall retain all records required by this subpart and subpart A
for at least 5 years following their collection.
Sec. 63.707 Reporting requirements.
(a) Except as stipulated in Sec. 63.703(b), (c)(5), and (h), the
owner or operator of a magnetic tape manufacturing operation subject to
this subpart shall fulfill all applicable reporting requirements in
Sec. 63.7 through Sec. 63.10, as outlined in Table 1 to this subpart.
These reports shall be submitted to the Administrator or delegated
State.
(b) The owner or operator of an existing magnetic tape
manufacturing operation subject to Sec. 63.703(b) and (h) shall include
the values of the limits on the amount of HAP utilized as determined in
Sec. 63.703(b)(2), along with supporting calculations, in the initial
notification report required by Sec. 63.9(b).
(c) The owner or operator of a new magnetic tape manufacturing
operation subject to Sec. 63.703(h) shall include the values of the
limits on the amount of HAP utilized as determined in
Sec. 63.703(b)(2), along with supporting calculations, and the amount
of HAP expected to be utilized during the first consecutive 12-month
period of operation in the initial notification report required by
Sec. 63.9(b).
(d) The owner or operator subject to Sec. 63.703(c) and following
the compliance provisions of Sec. 63.705(c)(1) (material balance
calculation) shall include with the notification of compliance status
required by Sec. 63.9(h) the results of the initial material balance
calculation.
(e) The owner or operator subject to Sec. 63.703(c)(5) and
following the compliance provisions of Sec. 63.705(c)(5) (low-HAP
coating) shall include with the notification of compliance status
required by Sec. 63.9(h) the results of the initial low-HAP coating
demonstration.
(f) The owner or operator subject to the provisions of
Sec. 63.703(g) and demonstrating compliance in accordance with
Sec. 63.705(h)(1) shall submit to the permitting authority with the
notification of compliance status required by Sec. 63.9(h) the design
specifications demonstrating that the control technique meets the
required efficiency. For steam strippers, these specifications shall
include at a minimum: feed rate, steam rate, number of theoretical
trays, number of actual trays, feed composition, bottoms composition,
overheads composition, and inlet feed temperature.
(g) The owner or operator of an affected source that is complying
with Sec. 63.703(c)(1) through the use of a nonregenerative carbon
adsorber and demonstrating initial compliance in accordance with
Sec. 63.705(c)(6) shall submit to the permitting authority with the
notification of compliance status required by Sec. 63.9(h) the design
evaluation.
(h) The owner or operator of an affected source that is complying
with Sec. 63.703(d) through the use of a baghouse or fabric filter and
demonstrating initial compliance in accordance with Sec. 63.705(g)(2)
shall submit to the permitting authority with the notification of
compliance status required by Sec. 63.9(h) the engineering calculations
that support the minimum ventilation rate needed to capture HAP
particulates for delivery to the control device.
(i) Excess emissions and continuous monitoring system performance
report and summary reports shall be submitted as required by
Sec. 63.10(e).
(1) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to
Sec. 63.704 shall include deviations of monitored values from the
operating parameter values required by Sec. 63.704(c) in the reports.
In the case of exceedances, the report must also contain a description
and timing of the steps taken to address the cause of the exceedance.
(2) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to
Sec. 63.703(c)(5) shall report the HAP content of each batch of coating
applied as the monitored operating parameter value in the reports.
(3) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to
Sec. 63.703(e)(1)(ii) and maintaining a minimum freeboard ratio of 75
percent shall report violations of the standard (freeboard ratio is
less than 75 percent) in the reports.
(4) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to
Sec. 63.704(c)(10) of this subpart shall include records of any time
period and duration of time that flow was diverted from the control
device, as well as the results of monthly inspections required by
Sec. 63.704(c)(10)(ii), (iii), and (iv) in the reports.
(5) The owner or operator of an affected source complying with
Sec. 63.703(c) by performing a material balance calculation in
accordance with Sec. 63.705(c)(1) shall report any exceedances of the
standard, as demonstrated through the calculation, in the reports.
(j) The owner or operator of a magnetic tape manufacturing
operation subject to the provisions of Sec. 63.703(h) shall report the
amount of HAP utilized in each 12-month period in an annual report to
the Administrator according to the following schedule:
(1) For existing sources, the first report shall cover the 12-month
period prior to the source's compliance date and shall be submitted to
the Administrator no later than 30 days after the compliance date; and
(2) For new sources, the first report shall include the quantity of
HAP that is expected to be utilized during the first 12 months of
operation and shall be submitted to the Administrator no later than 30
days after the compliance date;
(3) Annual reports shall be submitted to the Administrator no later
than 30 days after the last 12-month period included in the report; and
(4) A report shall also be submitted no later than 30 days after
monthly records required to be maintained by Sec. 63.706(e) indicate
that any limit on the amount of HAP utilized has been exceeded. The
report shall indicate the amount by which the limit has been exceeded.
(k) The owner or operator establishing an alternate HAP outlet
concentration limit in accordance with Secs. 63.703(i) and
63.704(b)(11)(ii) shall:
(1) To support the proposed limit, submit the following within 180
days following completion of the performance test required by
Sec. 63.7:
(i) The performance test or CEM data collected to establish the
limit;
(ii) Records of when coating operations were down;
(iii) The rationale for the alternate proposed limit; and
(iv) A statement signed by a responsible official of the company
that the control device was operated in accordance with good air
pollution control practices and in the same manner it was operated to
achieve compliance with the emission limitation for coating operations;
and
(2) In the excess emissions and continuous monitoring system
performance report and summary report required by Sec. 63.10(e)(3),
include parameter or CEM data to demonstrate compliance or
noncompliance with the alternate outlet HAP concentration established
in accordance with Secs. 63.703(i) and 63.704(b)(11)(ii) once the limit
is approved.
Sec. 63.708 Delegation of authority.
(a) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a
State under section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act, the authorities
contained in paragraph (b) of this section shall be retained by the
Administrator and not transferred to a State.
(b) Authorities which will not be delegated to States: no
restrictions.
Table 1 to Subpart EE.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart
EE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to
Reference subpart EE Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1(a)(1).......... Yes......... Additional terms defined in Sec.
63.702(a); when overlap between
subparts A and EE occurs, subpart
EE takes precedence.
63.1(a)(2)-(14)..... Yes.
63.1(b)(1)-(3)...... Yes.
63.1(c)(1).......... Yes......... Subpart EE specifies the
applicability of each paragraph in
subpart A to sources subject to
subpart EE.
63.1(c)(2).......... No.......... The applicability of Secs.
63.701(a)(2) and 63.703 (b) and (h)
to a source does not in and of
itself make a source subject to
part 70.
63.1(c)(4)-(5)...... Yes.
63.1(e)............. Yes.
63.2................ Yes......... Additional terms defined in Sec.
63.702(a); when overlap between
subparts A and EE occurs, subpart
EE takes precedence.
63.3................ Yes......... Units specific to subpart EE are
defined in subpart EE.
63.4(a)(1)-(3)...... Yes.
63.4(a)(5).......... Yes.
63.4(b)............. Yes.
63.4(c)............. Yes.
63.5(a)............. Yes.
63.5(b)(1).......... Yes.
63.5(b)(3)-(6)...... Yes.
63.5(d)............. Yes.
63.5(e)............. Yes.
63.5(f)............. Yes.
63.6(a)............. Yes.
63.6(b)(1)-(5)...... Yes.
63.6(b)(7).......... Yes.
63.6(c)(1)-(2)...... Yes.
63.6(c)(5).......... Yes.
63.6(e)(1)-(2)...... Yes.
63.6(e)(3).......... Yes......... Owners or operators of affected
sources subject to subpart EE do
not need to address startups and
shutdowns because the emission
limitations apply during these
times.
63.6(f)(1).......... No.......... Sec. 63.701(f) of subpart EE
specifies when the standards apply.
63.6(f)(2)(i)-(ii).. Yes.
63.6(f)(2)(iii)..... Yes......... Sec. 63.705(a)(3) of subpart EE
includes additional circumstances
under which previous capture device
demonstrations are acceptable to
show compliance.
63.6(f)(2)(iv)-(v).. Yes.
63.6(f)(3).......... Yes.
63.6(g)............. Yes.
63.6(h)(1).......... No.......... Sec. 63.701(f) of subpart EE
specifies when the standards apply.
63.6(h)(2)(i)....... Yes.
63.6(h)(2)(iii)..... Yes.
63.6(h)(4).......... Yes......... This requirement applies only for
the visible emission test required
under Sec. 63.705(g)(2).
63.6(h)(5)(i)-(iii). Yes.
63.6(h)(5)(v)....... No.
63.6(h)(6).......... Yes.
63.6(h)(7).......... No.
63.6(h)(8).......... Yes.
63.6(h)(9).......... No.
63.6(i)(1)-(14)..... Yes......... Sec. 63.703(c)(4) of subpart EE
shall not be considered emissions
averaging for the purposes of Sec.
63.6(i)(4)(i)(B).
63.6(i)(16)......... Yes.
63.6(j)............. Yes.
63.7(a)(1).......... Yes.
63.7(a)(2)(i)-(vi).. Yes.
63.7(a)(2)(ix)...... Yes.
63.7(a)(3).......... Yes.
63.7(b)............. Yes.
63.7(c)............. Yes.
63.7(d)............. Yes.
63.7(e)............. Yes......... Sec. 63.7(e) establishes the minimum
performance test requirements. This
section does not preclude owners or
operators from conducting multiple
test runs under alternate operating
conditions to establish an
appropriate range of compliance
operating parameter values in
accordance with Sec.
63.704(b)(11)(i) of subpart EE.
Also as required in Sec. 63.701(f)
of subpart EE, the emissions
standards apply during startup and
shutdown.
63.7(f)............. Yes.
63.7(g)(1).......... Yes.
63.7(g)(3).......... Yes.
63.7(h)............. Yes.
63.8(a)(1)-(2)...... Yes.
63.8(a)(4).......... Yes.
63.8(b)(1).......... Yes.
63.8(b)(2).......... No.......... Sec. 63.704 of subpart EE specifies
monitoring locations; when multiple
emission points are tied to one
central control device, the
monitors are located at the central
control device.
63.8(b)(3).......... Yes.
63.8(c)(1)-(3)...... Yes.
63.8(c)(4).......... Yes......... Provisions related to COMS, however,
do not apply.
63.8(c)(5).......... No.
63.8(c)(6)-(8)...... Yes.
63.8(d)............. Yes.
63.8(e)............. Yes.
63.8(f)(1)-(6)...... Yes.
63.8(g)(1)-(5)...... Yes.
63.9(a)............. Yes.
63.9(b)............. Yes.
63.9(c)............. Yes.
63.9(d)............. Yes.
63.9(e)............. Yes.
63.9(f)............. Yes.
63.9(g)(1).......... Yes.
63.9(g)(2).......... No.
63.9(g)(3).......... Yes.
63.9(h)(1)-(3)...... Yes.
63.9(h)(5)-(6)...... Yes.
63.9(i)............. Yes.
63.9(j)............. Yes.
63.10(a)............ Yes.
63.10(b)(1)......... Yes.
63.10(b)(2)......... Yes......... Except information on startup and
shutdown periods is not necessary
because the standards apply during
these time periods.
63.10(b)(3)......... Yes.
63.10(c)(1)......... Yes.
63.10(c)(5)-(8)..... Yes......... Except information on startup and
shutdown periods is not necessary
because the standards apply during
these times.
63.10(c)(10)-(15)... Yes......... Except information on startup and
shutdown periods is not necessary
because the standards apply during
these times.
63.10(d)(1)-(2)..... Yes.
63.10(d)(3)......... Yes......... This requirement applies only for
the visible emissions test required
under Sec. 63.705(g)(2). The
results of visible emissions tests
under Sec. 63.704(e) shall be
reported as required in Sec.
63.10(e)(3).
63.10(d)(4)......... Yes.
63.10(d)(5)......... Yes......... Except information on startup and
shutdown periods is not necessary
because the standards apply during
these times.
63.(10)(e)(1)....... Yes.
63.10(e)(2)(i)...... Yes.
63.10(e)(2)(ii)..... No.
63.10(e)(3)(i)-(v).. Yes.
63.10(e)(3)(vi)-(vii Yes......... Except emissions/CMS performance
i). during startup and shutdown do not
need to be specified because the
standards apply during startup and
shutdown.
63.10(e)(4)......... No.
63.10(f)............ Yes.
63.11-63.15......... Yes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 94-30502 Filed 12-14-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P