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