(a) Methods to determine the mass percent of each HAP in coatings.

(1) To determine the HAP content in the coating used at your tire cord production affected source, use EPA Method 311 of appendix A of this part, an approved alternative method, or any other reasonable means for determining the HAP content of your coatings. Other reasonable means include, but are not limited to: an MSDS, provided it contains appropriate information; a CPDS; or a manufacturer's HAP data sheet. You are not required to test the materials that you use, but the Administrator may require a test using EPA Method 311 (or an approved alternative method) to confirm the reported HAP content. If the results of an analysis by EPA Method 311 are different from the HAP content determined by another means, the EPA Method 311 results will govern compliance determinations.

(2) Unless you demonstrate otherwise, the HAP content analysis must be based on coatings prior to any cross-linking reactions, i.e., curing. However, you may account for differences in HAP emissions resulting from chemical reactions based on the conversion rates of the individual coating formulations, chemistry demonstrations, or other demonstrations that are verifiable to the approving agency. Use the revised value in your compliance demonstration in the relevant equations in paragraph (b) of this section.

(b) Methods to determine compliance with the emission limits in Table 2 to this subpart, option 1. Use the equations in this paragraph (b) to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the emission limits for tire cord production sources using the compliance alternatives described in §63.5987(a) and (b).

(1) Determine mass percent of HAP. Determine the mass percent of all HAP in each coating according to the procedures in paragraph (a) of this section.

(2) Compliance without use of an add-on control device. If you do not use an add-on control device to meet the emission limits, use Equation 1 of this section to calculate the monthly HAP emission rate in grams of HAP emitted per megagram of fabric processed at the tire cord production source to show that the monthly average HAP emissions do not exceed the emission limits in Table 2 to this subpart, option 1. Equation 1 follows:

(3) Compliance with use of an add-on control device. If you use a control device to meet the emission limits, use Equation 2 of this section to calculate the monthly HAP emission rate in grams of HAP emitted per megagram of fabric processed to show that the monthly average HAP emissions do not exceed the HAP emission limit in Table 2 of this subpart, option 1. Equation 2 follows:

(4) Each monthly calculation is a compliance demonstration for the purpose of this subpart.

(c) Methods to determine compliance with the emission limits in table 2 of this subpart, option 2. Use the equations in this paragraph (c) to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the emission limits for tire cord production sources using the compliance alternatives described in §63.5987(a) and (b).

(1) Determine the mass percent of each HAP in each coating according to the procedures in paragraph (a) of this section.

(2) Use Equation 3 of this section to calculate the monthly average HAP emission rate when complying by using coatings without using an add-on control device to show that the monthly average HAP emissions do not exceed the emission limits in Table 2 to this subpart, option 2. Equation 3 follows:

(3) Use Equation 4 of this section to calculate the monthly average HAP emission rate when complying by using an add-on control device to show that the monthly average HAP emissions do not exceed the emission limits in table 2 to this subpart, option 2. Equation 4 follows:

(4) Each monthly calculation is a compliance demonstration for the purpose of this subpart.

(d) Specific compliance demonstration requirements for tire cord production affected sources.

(1) Conduct any required compliance demonstrations according to the requirements in §63.5993.

(2) Conduct the compliance demonstration using coatings with average mass percent HAP content that are representative of the coatings typically used at your tire cord production affected source.

(3) Establish an operating range that corresponds to the control efficiency as described in Table 5 to this subpart.

(e) How to take credit for HAP emissions reductions from add-on control devices. If you want to take credit in Equations 2 and 4 of this section for HAP emissions reduced using a control system, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section.

(1) Monitor the established operating parameters as appropriate.

(i) If you use a thermal oxidizer, continuously monitor the firebox secondary chamber temperature.

(ii) If you use a carbon adsorber, monitor the total regeneration stream mass or volumetric flow for each regeneration cycle and the carbon bed temperature after each regeneration and within 15 minutes of completing any cooling cycle.

(iii) If you use a control device other than a thermal oxidizer or a regenerative carbon adsorber, install and operate a continuous parameter monitoring system according to your site-specific performance test plan submitted according to §63.7(c)(2)(i).

(iv) If you use a permanent total enclosure, monitor the face velocity across the NDO in the enclosure. Also, if you use an enclosure, monitor to ensure that the sizes of the NDO have not changed, that there are no new NDO, and that a HAP emission source has not been moved closer to an NDO since the last performance test was conducted.

(v) If you use other capture systems, monitor the parameters identified in your monitoring plan.

(2) Maintain the operating parameter within the operating range established during the compliance demonstration.

(f) How to take credit for HAP emissions reductions when streams are combined. When performing material balances to demonstrate compliance, if the storage of materials, exhaust, or the wastewater from more than one affected source are combined at the point where control systems are applied, any credit for emissions reductions needs to be prorated among the affected sources based on the ratio of their contribution to the uncontrolled emissions.