May 30, 1995



Air and Radiation Docket (Mail Code 6102)
Attention: Docket No. A-92-42
United States Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460

Dear Sir/Madam:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments from the California Air Resources Board (ARB) on the proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP); Proposed Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions From the Printing and Publishing Industry. The proposed standards would reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from existing and new printing operations that are major sources of HAP emissions. The standards will be codified in part 63 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 63), subpart KK. This proposal was published in the Federal Register on March 14, 1995 (60 FR 13664).

The ARB appreciates the opportunity to work with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) in developing the federal toxics program. We are respectfully submitting the following comments.



AREA SOURCES

The ARB supports including the provisions found in section 63.821(a)(2) and 63.821(a)(3). These provisions allow a facility to be considered an area source if the owner or operator commits to using less than major source amounts of HAPs. The facility is then subject only to recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

The U.S. EPA requests comment on including provisions for sources to be considered area sources if they use capture and control equipment and emit less than major amounts of HAPs. We suggest that the U.S. EPA ensure that any such provision is consistent with policy guidance that the U.S. EPA has recently issued concerning potential to emit. (Reference:

Mr. John Seitz Memorandums dated May 16, 1995 and January 25, 1995)







Sir/Madam
May 30, 1995
Page Two

The proposed NESHAP is not clear whether or not major sources that comply by reducing their emissions to below the major source threshold are required to maintain a Title V permit. The ARB supports allowing facilities that meet the proposed NESHAP to take advantage of reduced requirements and no longer be subject to a Title V permit.

TITLE V PERMITS

The ARB supports the exclusion of Part 70 permits for area sources. It appears that the U.S. EPA intends to exempt area sources from obtaining area source permits. However, the NESHAP is somewhat unclear on this issue. For example, section 63.821(d) requires each affected source to obtain a Part 70 operating permit. However, section 63.821(a)(3) requires area sources to be subject only to recordkeeping and reporting requirements and Table 2. Applicability of 40 CFR Part 63 General Provisions to subpart KK excludes subpart KK from section 63.1(c)(2) of the general provisions. Section 63.1(c)(2) contains the requirements for an area source to obtain a Title V permit. Consequently, we recommend that the language and intent be clarified.

We recommend clarifying the language in section 63.821(c)(1) and 63.821(c)(2) to specify that presses at major sources are affected sources.



OPERATING PARAMETER

In sections 63.824 and 63.825, the proposed NESHAP requires monitoring of an operating parameter to demonstrate compliance. The procedure for establishing the operating parameter is vague. Therefore, the ARB recommends specific language to clarify that the final determination of the operating parameter(s) to be monitored and the corresponding compliance range for the particular parameter(s) monitored (i.e. 500 oF + 10oF) be subject to approval by the permitting authority.



FORM OF THE STANDARD

Section 63.825 states that each packaging or product press that applies inks, coatings, varnishes, adhesives, primers, solvents and other materials containing more than an average of 0.20 kilograms (kg) organic HAP per kg solids applied and more than an average of 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg of coating applied must meet either a control efficiency requirement of

95 percent or "an organic HAP emissions emission rate of 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg of solids



Sir/Madam
May 30, 1995
Page Three

applied." The ARB recommends that the standard also be expressed in other equivalent forms such as pounds per gallon or grams per liter, and percent by volume. By providing flexibility for the form of the standard, we believe implementation and compliance determinations will be easier and more successful.



COMPLIANCE DATES/STATE EQUIVALENCY

Several districts in California have existing rules that address printing and publishing facilities and they may wish to demonstrate equivalency. Our initial experience with implementing section 112(l) indicates that the process is time-consuming. If the final compliance date for a section 112(l) equivalent standard is not the effective date of the equivalent standard, sources will have to comply with dual regulations.

We believe the final compliance date should be 30 days after final action by the U.S. EPA on the section 112(l) equivalency request, provided the state or local agency submits a request for section 112(l) equivalency within one year of promulgation of the proposed NESHAP.

PERFORMANCE TEST METHODS

Section 63.827(b)(1) and section 63.827(b)(2) cites EPA Method 311 for determining the organic HAP weight fraction of each ink, coating, varnish, adhesive, primer, solvent and other material used in a publication rotogravure facility or in a product or packaging rotogravure or wide-web flexographic press. The ARB has commented in the past that Method 311 is very general and could provide test results that vary considerably depending on how the test is conducted. We recommend that the method recognize guidelines for gas chromatography such as ASTM E260-91. We also recommend that the U.S. EPA allow considerable flexibility to state and local agencies in determining the most appropriate test methods.



RECORDS RETENTION

The ARB believes the record retention time should vary depending on inspection frequency.

The proposed NESHAP requires owners and operators to retain records for five years. The fact that many local agencies in California inspect facilities more frequently than every

five years supports shorter records retention periods. The ARB believes that the U.S. EPA



Sir/Madam
May 30, 1995
Page Four

should provide flexibility to states and local agencies to allow alternative periods of record retention based upon inspection frequency and other considerations.

The ARB recommends that the U.S. EPA modify the proposed NESHAP to allow records to be retained for two years or until the next inspection, whichever is longer.

NOTIFICATION

The proposed NESHAP requires owners/operators of an affected source to notify the Administrator in writing if the source is subject to the relevant standard. The notification must be submitted within 120 days after the effective date of the standard or after the source becomes subject to the standard. One hundred and twenty (120) days are not enough time for initial notification to occur. The ARB recommends allowing 180 days to submit the initial notification. In addition, the ARB recommends that the U.S. EPA develop sample initial notification forms for states to use.

REPORTING

The U.S. EPA requests comment on whether the level of reporting should vary depending on the level of emissions. The ARB supports reduced reporting based on inspection frequency and compliance status.

The ARB recommends that the proposed NESHAP offer flexibility for facilities that are physically inspected. Less frequent reporting should be sufficient for compliance purposes since records are available for each inspection. We believe that facilities should be rewarded by reduced reporting requirements for good compliance status.

When facilities do submit reports, electronic submittal must be made available.

DELEGATION

Section 63.831(b) states that authority will not be delegated to states for approval of alternate test methods for organic HAP content and volatile matter determination. In general, the ARB believes that the U.S. EPA should delegate authority for approval of alternate test methods. As this proposed NESHAP applies only to major sources which are subject to Title V permits,

the U.S. EPA can use the Title V permitting process to maintain oversight. The flexibility is

Sir/Madam
May 30, 1995
Page Five



necessary to ensure that the best and most appropriate test methods are used. It also helps ensure that states can respond to situations that invariably occur which necessitate the use of different test methods. By delegating authority to approve alternate test methods, the U.S. EPA is providing needed flexibility to states to effectively integrate federal air toxics programs with existing effective state air toxics programs.

WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS

The ARB notes that work practice standards such as keeping container lids closed when not in use are not included in this proposed NESHAP. We believe that the proposed NESHAP should include provisions requiring the storage of printing and clean-up materials in covered containers.

We appreciate the opportunity to present comments on the proposed NESHAP. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Mr. Dan Donohoue, Manager, Technical Analysis Section, at (916) 322-8277.

Sincerely,







Robert D. Fletcher, Chief
Emissions Assessment Branch



cc:

Mr. Dan Donohoue, Manager
Technical Analysis Section
Stationary Source Division

Mr. David P. Howekamp
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-3901



Sir/Madam
May 30, 1995
Page Six



bcc:

Mr. Ray Menebroker, ARB
Ms. Lisa Jennings, ARB
Ms. Cindy Castronovo, ARB
Ms. Margaret Round, NESCAUM
Mr. Stewart Wilson, CAPCOA
Mr. Brian Bateman, BAAQMD
Mr. Richard Wales, MDAQMD
Ms. Barbara Lee, NSCAPCD
Mr. Amir Dejbakhsh, SCAQMD
Ms. Natalie Zothin, SDCAPCD
Ms. Terri Thomas, VCAPCD