NMFRC
 

NCMSCompliance Assistance Centers

Funded by EPA
through a Cooperative Agreement

EPA

Disclaimer
The information contained in this site is provided for your review and convenience. It is not intended to provide legal advice with respect to any federal, state, or local regulation. You should consult with legal counsel and appropriate authorities before interpreting any regulations or undertaking any specific course of action.


Mr. Stevens M. Terry, P.E.
Plant Engineer
R.R. Donnelley Printing Company
Lynchburg Division
4201 Murray Place
Lynchburg, Virginia 24501-5099

RE: Proposed Relocation of Equipment Subject to 40 C.F.R. Subpart N, National Emission Standards for Chromium Emissions From Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Anodizing Tanks.

Dear Mr. Terry:

On April 10, 1997, the United States Environmental Protection Agency Region III (EPA) received the R.R. Donnelley Printing Company, Lynchburg Divisions (Lynchburg) April 2, 1997 request for clarification of the National Emissions Standards for Chromium Emissions from Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating Tanks and Chromium Anodizing Tanks (40 C.F.R. Part 63, subpart N or Chrome Plating NESHAP).

According to Lynchburgs letter dated April 2, 1997, Lynchburg plans to relocate an existing hard chromium electroplating tank from Newton, North Carolina to Lynchburg, Virginia in July of 1997 (phase one). In January of 1998, Lynchburg plans to relocate the emissions control system for this tank from Newton, North Carolina to Lynchburg, Virginia (phase two). Lynchburgs letter proposes EPA concur with the following:

 

The relocated tank and the existing Lynchburg tank will be connected to the existing control device, with only one tank operating at a time. This control device was recently tested and found to meet the requirements of Subpart N. Since no change in airflow to the control device system or increase in plating activity will result from this proposed installation, the previous documentation of compliance is an adequate demonstration of future compliance, and no additional compliance test or change in monitoring should be required.

After phase two is completed, the facility will remain a small, hard chromium electroplating facility, with the 0.03 mg/dscm standard applying to each of the tanks . . . The control system to be relocated from Newton is identical to that at Lynchburg and has also been found to meet the limitation. Since this will simply be a relocation of an existing control device that has already been shown to meet the NESHAP requirements, we believe that requiring a re-test of this unit after its relocation would be unnecessary.

 

EPA has determined that the installation of an affected source, as defined in the Chrome Plating NESHAP (40 C.F.R § 63.340(a)), constitutes construction of a new source. A new source is defined as "any affected source the construction or reconstruction of which is commenced after the Administrator first proposes a relevant emission standard under this subpart." Construction is defined at 40 C.F.R. § 63.341 as "the on-site fabrication, erection or installation of an affected source." (Emphasis added). Relocation of the tank from Newton necessitates the initial on-site fabrication, erection and/or installation of the relocated tank at Lynchburg, and therefore constitutes construction as defined at 40 C.F.R. § 63.341. Because EPA proposed the Chrome Plating NESHAP in the Federal Register on December 16, 1993 (58 FR 65768), any affected source constructed after December 16, 1993 is a new source under the Chrome Plating NESHAP. To construct a new affected source, Lynchburg must comply with 40 C.F.R. § 63.5(b)(3), which requires:

After the effective date of any relevant standard promulgated by the Administrator under this part, whether or not an approved permit program is effective in the State in which an affected source is (or would be) located, no person may construct a new major affected source or reconstruct a major source subject to such standard, or reconstruct a major source such that the source becomes a major affected source subject to the standard, without obtaining written approval, in advance, from the Administrator in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section.

A related issue is Lynchburgs plan to control the existing tank and the relocated tank with a common emission control device (phase 1). As codified in 40 C.F.R. § 63.347(e)(1) "[a] notification of compliance status is required each time that an affected source becomes subject to the requirements of this subpart." In order to certify compliance of the relocated tank, Lynchburg is required to perform a test to demonstrate compliance as codified in 40 C.F.R. § 63.344(e)(4). The performance test conducted for the existing tank and control system at Lynchburg in December of 1996 will no longer be representative of the operating conditions once the relocated tank is installed. According to 40 C.F.R. § 63.7(e) "[p]erformance tests shall be conducted under such conditions as the Administrator specifies to the owner or operator based on representative performance (i.e., performance based on normal operating conditions) of the affected source." EPA does not consider the testing conditions from December 1996 to be representative of the proposed process controls of the relocated and existing tanks.

Furthermore, the April 2, 1997 letter stated, "[a]fter phase two is completed, the facility will remain a small, hard chromium electroplating facility, with the 0.03 mg/dscm standard applying to each of the tanks." EPA does not concur with Lynchburg on the applicable emission standard for the relocated tank since the tank is a new affected source. In order for a hard chromium electroplating tank to have the emission standard of 0.03 mg/dscm, the tank must be "an existing affected source" and "located at a small, hard chromium electroplating facility" (40 C.F.R § 63.342(c)(1)(ii)). (Emphasis added). The relocated tank is not an existing affected source and therefore must comply with the emission standard of 0.015 mg/dscm (40 C.F.R. § 63.342(c)(1)(I)).

Finally, the April 2, 1997 letter stated, "[s]ince this will simply be a relocation of an existing control device that has already been shown to meet the NESHAP requirements, we believe that requiring a re-test of this unit after its relocation would be unnecessary." However, by installing a second emission control device and dedicating each to one hard chromium electroplating tank, Lynchburg will need to demonstrate compliance in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 63.344. Any previous performance test will no longer be representative of normal operating conditions since the electroplating tanks will have dedicated emission control devices.

In summary, Lynchburg is required to obtain written approval, in advance, from the Administrator in accordance with the procedures specified in 40 C.F.R. §§ 63.5 and 63.345. Such a request should be submitted to:


U.S. EPA - Region III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Attn: Kathleen Henry, Chief
Permit Programs Section
(3AT23)

If approved, Lynchburg will need to conduct a new performance test within 180 days after the initial start-up of the new tank. Since the emission limit for the new tank will be 0.015 mg/dscm, Lynchburg must conduct the performance test according to 40 C.F.R. § 63.344(e)(4), which addresses multiple affected sources under common emission control, but subject to different emission limitations. As stated in the Chrome Plating NESHAP, a notification of performance test is required 60 calendar days before the test is scheduled to begin (40 C.F.R. §63.347(d)). Within 90 calendar days of completing the performance test, Lynchburg must submit a notification of compliance status (40 C.F.R. § 63.347(e)). When the second emission control device is installed (phase two) and each tank has a dedicated emission controls, Lynchburg must conduct another performance test, as codified in 40 C.F.R. § 63.444, on each system (the existing chrome electroplating tank with respective emission controls and the new chrome electroplating tank with respective emission controls). Again, the reporting requirements outlined above must be followed.

This letter does not relieve Lynchburg of responsibility for complying fully with any and all applicable Federal and State or local laws, regulations and permits. Compliance with the clarifications and approvals stated above cannot be used as a defense to any and all applicable Federal and State or local laws, regulations and permits. In addition, EPA expressly reserves the right to take any authorized action for violations of any Federal or State laws, regulations and permits.

If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact James C. Kenney of my staff at (215) 566-2152.

Sincerely,


John J. Ruggero, Chief
CAA / Toxics Enforcement Section
cc: Mr. J. E. Schubert Jr., VA DEQ
Mr. Scott Throwe, U.S. EPA, OECA
Ms. Kathleen Henry, U.S. EPA, Region III



| Compliance Assistance | Regulations | Directories | Resources | Hot Topics | News | Ask the Experts | Library | Online Training | About NMFRC | Search | Home |

NMFRC