United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Air Pollution Training Institute
MO 20
Environmental Research Center
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
f'PA 450/2-84-001
April 1984
Air
APTI
Course 482
Sources and Control of
Volatile Organic Air
Pollutants
Regulatory Documents
Updates and NSPS
Regulations
-------
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Air Pollution Training Institute EPA
MD20 April
Environmental Research Center
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
450/2-84-001
1984
Air
APTI
Course 482
Sources and Control of
Volatile Organic Air
Pollutants
Regulatory Documents
Updates and NSPS
Regulations
Northrop Services, Inc.
P. O. Box 12313
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Under Contract No.
68-02-3573
EPA Project Officer
R. E. Townsend
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Manpower and Technical Information Branch
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
-------
Notice
This is not an official policy and standards document. The opinions and selections
are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Environmental Protection
Agency. Every attempt has been made to represent the present state of the art as
well as subject areas still under evaluation. Any mention of products or organizations
does not constitute endorsement by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency.
ii
-------
Table of Contents
Page
I. SIP Requirements, Policy Statements, and Control
Techniques Guidelines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
1. Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of
Implementation Plans; Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans (45 FR 52676 8/7 /80). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
2. Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of
Implementation Plans; Emission Offset Interpretative Ruling
(45 FR 59874 9/11/80). . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77
3. Emissions Trading Policy Statement; General Principles
for Creation, Banking, and Use of Emission-Reduction
Credits (47 FR 150764/7 /82). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83
4. Control Technique Guidelines; Density Adjustment for
Dibastic Ester Coating Solvent (48 FR 2427 1/19/83). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95
5. Control Techniques Guideline Document; VOC Emissions
From Volatile Organic Liquid Storage in Floating and Fixed
Roof Tanks (48 FR 380868/22/83). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97
6. Control Techniques Guideline Document; Control of
V olatile Organic Compound Emissions From Manufacture
of High-Density Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and Polystryene
Resins (48 FR 51848 11/14/83). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
7. Control Techniques Guideline Document; VOC Equipment Leaks
from Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing (49 FR 44322/6/84). . . . . . . . . . . .99
II. New Source Performance Standards for Sources of Volatile
Organic Compounds-Final Rules, Proposed Rules, Notices,
and Announceme~ts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
1. Standards of Performance for Storage Vessels for Petroleum
Liquids Constructed Mter June 11, 1973 and prior to May 19,
1978 (40 CFR 60 Subpan K as amended through 4/4/80). . . . . . . . . . . . . .103
2. Standards of Performance for Storage Vessels for Petroleum
Liquids Constructed Mter May 18, 1978 (40 CFR 60
Subpan Ka as amended through 4/4/80). . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105
3. Status of Standards of Performance (Updated 11/1/80) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109
4. Standards of Performance for Automobile and Light-Duty
Truck Surface Coating Operations (45 FR 85415 12/24/80. . . . . . . . . . . .122
5. Innovative Technology Waivers for Five Automobile and
Light-Duty Truck Surface Coating Operations (47 FR 34342
8/6/82). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ',' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127
ill
-------
Page
6. Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources
(47 FR 47778 10/27/82)...... .. ... ........................... .132
7. Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources; Surface
Coating of Metal Furniture (47 FR 4927810/29/82). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .149
8. Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources; Metal
Coil Surface Operations (47 FR 49606 11/1/82). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .163
9. Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources-Graphic
Arts Industry: Publication Rotogravure Printing (47 FR 50644
11/8/82). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .177
10. Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources;
Petroleum Liquid Storage Vessels; Amendment (47 FR 54258
12/1/82). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .191
11. Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources; VOC
Fugitive Emission Sources; Petroleum Refineries (48 FR 279 1/4/83). . . .197
12. Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources-Graphic
Arts Industry: Publication Rotogravure Printing (Correction
48 FR 1056 1/10/83). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .218
13. Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources; Metal
Coil Surface Coating Operations (Correction 48 FR 1056 1/10/83). . . . . .218
14. Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources; Rubber
Tire Manufacturing Industry; Proposed Rule and Public Hearing
(48 FR 2676 1/20/83). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. . .219
15. Waivers From New Source Performance Standards; Innovative
Technology Waivers for Five Automobile and Light-Duty
Truck Surface Coating Operations; Final Rule (48 FR 5452
2/4/83). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . 239
16. Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources; Bulk
Gasoline Terminals (48 FR 37578 8/18/83)........................ .245
17. Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources; Beverage
CanSurfaceCoatinglndustry(48FR387288/25/83)................ .271
18. Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources; Rotogravure
Printing and Coating of Flexible Vinyl and Urethane
(48 FR 46224 10/11/83). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .285
19. Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources; Synthetic
Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry; Equipment Leaks
of VOC. Reference Methods 18 and 22; Final Rule (48 FR 48328
10/18/83). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .289
20. Standards of Performance for New Sourtes; Pressure Sensitive
Tape and Label Surface Coating Industry (48 FR 4836810/18/83). . . . . .325
21. Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources; VOC
Emissions From the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry (SOCMI) Air Oxidation Unit Processes (48 FR 48932
10/21/83). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .337
IV
-------
I. SIP Requirements, Policy Statements,
and Control Techniques Guidelines
1
-------
2
-------
~
3
Thursday
August 7, 1980
Part III
Environmental
Protection Agency
Requirements for Preparation, Adoption,
and Submittal of Implementation Plans;
Approval and Promulgation .of
Implementation Plans
-------
52676
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 154 / Thursday, August 7, 1980 / Rules and Regulations
I
'-
-:----
EN~RONMENTALPROTEcnON
AGENCY
40 CFR P8rta 51, 52, and 124
[FAL 1538-2]
Requirements for Preparation,
Adoption, 8nd Submltt8l of
Implement8t1on Plens; Approv81 end
Promulg8t1on of Implemenbltlon PI8ne
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rules.
SUMMARY: In response to the decision of
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit in Alabama Power Company v.
Costle, EPA is today amending its
regulations for the prevention of
significEmt deterioration of air quality,
40 CFR 51.24, 52.21. Today's
amendments also include regulatory
changes affecting new source review in
nonattainment areas. including
restrictions on major source growth (40
CFR 52.24) and requirements under
EPA's Emission Offset Interpretative
Ruling (40 CFR Part 51, Appendix S) and
Section 173 of the Clean Air Act (40 CFR
51.18 un.
DATES: The regulatory amendments
announced here come into effect on
August 7. 1980. State Implementation
Plan revisions meeting today's
regulatory changes are to be submitted
to EPA within nine months after this
publication.
FOR FURTHER INFORllAnON CONTACT:
James B. Weigold, Standards
Implementation Branch (MD-15), Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, N.C. Z7711, rn9/
541-5292-
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
contents of today's preamble are listed
in the following outline. A section
entitled Summary of PSD Program has
been added to provide 8 concise
narrative overview of this program.
Outlbut
L Summary 01 PSD Program
A. PSD Allows Industrial Growth Within
Specific Air Qualtiy goals
B. Who Is Subject to the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration RegWatiolll?
C. What Must a Source or Modification Do
to Obtain a PSD Permit?
n. Background
m. Highlights
IV. Transition
A. Part 52 PSD Regulations
B. Part 51 PSD Regulations
C. Offset Ruling
D. Part 51 Nonattainment Regulations
E. Comtruction Moratorium
F. Pending SIP RevisioM
G. Effective Date 01 Nonattainment
Provisions
H. Miscellaneous
V. Potential To Emit
A. Oontrol Equipment
B. Continuous Operation
C. Additional Guidance
Vl Fifty-Ton Exemption
YD. Fugitive Emissions
VIn.Fugitive~tExemption
IX. Source .
A. Proposed Definitions of "Source"
B. PSD: Comments on Proposal and
Responses .
C. Nonattalnment: Comments on Proposal
and Respomel
X. Modification .
A. Final Definition 01 "Major Modification"
B. No Net Increase
C. Pollutant Applicability
D. Netting 01 Actual Emissions
E. Contemporaneous Increases and
Decreases
F. Otherwise Creditable IncreaHs and
Decreases
G. The Extent to Which Increasel and and
Decreases are Creditable
H. Accumulation
I. Restrictions on Comtruction
J. Reconstruction -
J(. Exclusions
L Example 01 How The Definitions Work
XL De MiniIhis Exemptions
xu. Geographic and Pollutant Applicability
A. Baasround
B. PSD Applicability
C. Nonattalnment Applicability
p. Case Examples
t.lntentate Pollution
F. Geographic Applicability lor VOC
Sources
G. Response to Comments
xm. Baseline Concentration. Baseline Area,
and Baseline Date
A. Baseline Concentration
B. Baseline Area .
C. Baseline Date
D. Pollutant-Specific Baseline
XIV. Increment' Consumption
A. Rationale lor Use 01 Actual Emissions
B. Excluaions from Increment Consumption
C. Increment Expansion due to Bmiasiona
Reductiona
D. Gulf Coast Problem
E. Potential Increment Violationa
XV. Best Available Control Technology
XVI. Ambient Monitoring
xvn. Notification
xvm. PSD SIP Revisions
A. Equivalent State Programa
B. Baseline Area
. C. State Monitoring Exemption
XIX. Additional Iasues
A. Innovative Control Technology
B. Modified Permits
C. Nonprofit Institutions
D. Portable Facilities
E. Secondary Emissions
F. Baseline lor Calculating Offse" under
Section 113(1)(A) .
G. Economic Impact Aaleument
H. Consolidated Permit Regulationa
L Summary of PSD Prozram
The purpose of this summary' i8 to
help those people who are unfamiliar
with the PSD program gain an
understanding of it. Because this
4
summary seeks to condense the basic
PSD rules, it may not precise!y re~ect
the amendments announced m this
notice. Should there be any apparent
inconsistency between the summary and
the remainder of the preamble and the
regulations, the remaining preamble and
the regulations shall govern.
A. PSD Allows Industrial Growth
Within Specific Air Quality Goals
The basic goals of the pn:ven~on of
significant air quality detenoration
(PSD) regulations are (1) to ensure that
economic growth will occur in harmony
with the preservation of existing clean
air resources to prevent the
development of any new nonattainment
problems: (2) to protect the public health
and welfare from any adverse effect
which might occur even at air pollution
levels better than the national ambient
air quality standards; and (3) to
preserve, protect, and enhance the air
quality in areas of special natural
"recreational, scenie, or historic value,
such as national parks and wilderness
areas.
States are required to develop SIP
revisions for PSD pursuant to
regulations published today. See 40 CFR
51.24, "Requirements for Preparation.
Adoption and Submittal of
Implementa tion Plans." If EP A approves
the proposed PSD plan. the state can
then implement its own program. In the
absence of an approved state PSD plan,
another portion of today's regulations
will govern PSD review. See 40 CFR
52.21. NApprovaJ and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans." EPA will
implement this regulation itself if the
.tate does not submit an approvable
PSD program of its own.
States can identify in their SIPs the
local land use goaJs for each clean area
thtougb 8 system of area classifications.
A "clean" area i8 one whose air quality
is better than that required by the
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. Each classification differs in
the amount of growth it will permit
before significant air quality
deterioration would be deemed to occur.
Significant deterioration is said to occur
when the amount of new pollution
would exceed the applicable maximum
alJowable increase ("increment"), the
amount of which varies with the
classification of the area. The reference
point. for ~ete~ air quality
de ten oration m an area is the baseline
concentration. which is essentially the
~bient concentration existing at the
time of the first PSD permit application
submittal.affecting that area. To date,
only PS~ mcrements for sulfur dioxide
and particulate matter have been
established. Increments or alternatives
-------
Federal Register I VoL 45. No. 154 i Thursday, August 7, 1980 ! Rules IIDd Regulations
52677
to increments are currently under
investigation for the other criteria
pollutants.
There are three types of area
classifications. Clau I are.. have the
smallest incrementa and thus allow only
a small depaoC air quality
deterioration. while CIas. II areas can
accommodate normal well-managed
industrial growth. Class ill designations
have the largest increments and are
appropriate for areas desiring a larser
amount of development In no case
would the air quality of an area be
allowed to deteriorate beyond the
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards, Except for certain wilderness
areas and national parks. which are
mandatory Class I areas. all clean areas
of the country were initially designated
as Class II. Flexibility exists under the
Act to adjust most of these designations.
except for those mandated by COngr'l!sa.
The principal mechanism within the
SIP to implement the objectives of the
PSDprogram is the preconstruction
review process. These provisions
require that new major stationary
sources and major modifications are
carefully reviewed prior to construction
to ensure compliance with the National
Ambient Air Quality Sbmdards. the
applicable PSD air quality iDcrements.
and the requirements to apply the best
available control teclmolasy em the
project's pollutant emi88ions. In
addi.tioD. proposed SIP relaxations
which would limit further use of
increment must be rniewed for their
anticipated impact and not be approved
if the applicable in...~ would be
violated. The SIP must also contain PSD
provisions for periodically rewiewiD& all
emissions iDŁreases. iDdndn,g th088
wbida occur outside the SIP revision and -
the new source review (NSR) proceu.
and for restoriDs- clean air wbeD ACh
inc:rea&ell cause violationa of the
applicable PSD increment This
corrective action may require additional
controIa on existing emissions soun:es
which contribute to the problem.
a. Who is Subject to the Prevention of
Significant DetBrioration Regulations?
The requirements of today's PSD
regulatioDa apply to major atationary
sources and major modifications which
meet C8It8iD criteria concerning the
geographic location. type of pollutants to
be emitted. and tiIIIiD& of proposed
construction. No 8OUI'I:8 or modification
subject to today'. nIlea 1118)' be
cOD8tlacted without a permit which
states that the llatioDary..... or
modification would meet all applicable
~ requirementa. Tbia 88d:ion
summarizes how PSI) r.view 81
modified in response to Alabama Power
will apply.
The primary criterion in determining
PSD applicability is whether the
Jlroposed project is 8UfficieIttly large (in
terms of its ~---...) to be . major
stationary IIOUI'Ce or major "\OdificatioJL
Soarce size. for applicability Jl'Upv8C1Oo
i. defined in terms of "potential to
emit" ..Potential to emit" mellUS the
capability at maximum design capacity
to emit a pollutant after the application
of all required air pollution control
equipment and after taking into account
all federally enforceable requirements
restricting the type or amount of source
operation. A '"major stationary 801IrCe"
is any source type bel0nsin8 to a list of
28 source categories which emits or hu
the potential to emit 100 ton. per year or
more of any pollutant subject to
regulation under the Act. or any other
source type which emits or has the
potential to emit such pollutants in
amounts equal to or greater dum 250
tons per year. A stationary source
generally includes all pollutant-emitting
activities which belong to the same
industrial grouping. are located on
contigaous or adjacent properties. and
are under common contIaL Pollutant
activities which be\ozqJ to the same
major group as defined in a ataDdan1
industrial classification scheme
developed by the Office of Management
and Budget are considered part of the
same industrial groupiua. (See
SOURCE).
A "majw .......Iifir-'ltim1'. ia geDm'8Ily .
phy8ical change in or a c:!IImae ill the
method of operation of 8 major
.1..U..._'7 8OarC8 wIrida wauId re8Ult in
a -9'ilirAwtt .. ~ i_~ 'V i8
the --........ of any regulated p A.I....t.
In detm~ if. ..~ increase
would C&I18e 8 8i8"ifi....... net increaae to
occur. II8W!r8l detailed ,..Irwt~ must
be performed. First. the Bource 0WD8I"
must quantify the amount of the
proposed em.isaicma increaae. This
amount will generally be tile potential to
emit of the new or modified unit
Second. the owner must document and
quantify all emi&aions increases and
decreases that have occurred or will
occar contemponmeoualy (generally
within the past five years) and have not
been evaluated .. put of 8 PSD review.
The value of e8da cont......, ......
decrease 8Dd inere... is generally
deta;...u..d by SI1bt1~ the old level
of actual emissions from tile new or
reYiaed one. Third. the ...."'" 1 T r-f
emissions changes and the -_.;... ..d
'~""""'l-~*""". rI... J J8IIIIt then be
totalled. Finally, if there is a !W"''-
net emissions increase tbat is laIaer
than certain value. ..~ in the
regulations. the modifica tlon IS major
and subject to PSD review.
Certain changes are exempted from
the definition of major modification.
These include: (1) routine maintenance.
repair. and replacement (Z) use of an
altematiYe fuel or raw material by
reYi8ic:m of an order under sections (2](8)
and (b) of the Energy Supply and
Environmental Coordination Act of 1974
(or any superseding legislation); (3) use
of an altemative fuel by reuon of an
order or rule under section 125 of the
Clean Air Act; (4) use of an alternativ.
fuel at 8 Bteam generatiD& UDit to the
extent it is smerated from municipal
solid waste; (5) use of an alternative fuel
which the 8O'UI'Ce i8 capable of
".,.......modating; and (6) an increase in
the hours of operation. or the production
rate. The last two exemptions can be
used ony if the ...,..~pondins c:hanp is
not prohibited by certain permit
conditic:m8 !.~ hIO.a-I after JIID1I8I7 e.
1975.
If a 8DUI'I:e or modificatioD thu
qualifies 118 major. its prospec:tiwe
location or existing location ID1I8t also
qualify a8 a PSD area. in order far PSD
review to appIJ. A PSD area is -
formally if ',ated by the ....-
".ttllm-t'" or "unclassifiable" for any
pollutant for which a natioa8l ambieat
air quality ataDdard exists. Thi8
geographic applicability test does not
take into IICCOUDt what new rD--
emi88i0D8 caaed the CCIIbOh-tiuA to be
major. It 1.oob simpty at ~ the
BCImQt is ma jar for 8IIY p-&1.-..t and
will be IocaIe8 in a PSD area.
Once a IIOIII'C8 W""" baa
dt!t....~:._. that .. -....' I. conatruction
f8Da under PSD .... C8 tile...... size
md 1.......-... .... it IDII8t tbm-
wbetbM the t-.D...I_n'. the proj8ct..wi
emit... ar are 88bject to PSn If. new
major ......1.. ~) 8I8'C8 emia8 P ... I...
for wbich die -- it Ioata iD is
designated .....-........-., thm tile
source is eumpt from PSD nI'Iriew fm
those pollutants. These 808C88 must,
howew*1. meet the applicable
requirementa of NSR for each
nonattaimnent pollutarrt Similarly, if a
major modification to be constructed in
a PSD -- involves ch.~ only for
ncmattRinmeut ~- then the
source is not subject to PSI). These
rn~I:F:h.ti0n8 must meet the .........nate
n""."~"'''"Dt NSR under the SIP for
the pollutant 0Dca the qae8Iiaa of NSR
juri8diction is .....wed. then the PSD
review applies to all ~
_.:""":ftft8 iDc:re8-. of f8IIIlatetI air
pollutants. Specific ..~.....~ cutoffl
wbidt cIe6D8 what emissions iDI:reaaD
are "....,. ~R. ...t" have been epeW out
in the nlptatiaaa These pollutant-
5
-------
528718 Federal Register I Vol. 45. No. 154 I Th~day. Au~st 7. 1980 I Rules and Regulations
. ~
specific cutoffs can exempt a source enf~eable emissions ltandard, it may how much of the PSD increment reJDains
from PSD review for a Particular reqlUre the source to use source design, available to them. In aeneral the aJDount
pollutant,. except where the proposed alternative equipment, work practices or of increment that is available depends
construction would adversely impact a operational.tandards to reduce on certain chanaes in actual emission.
Class I area. " f th II F:-t, actual emissions ~,"ft--es
H . eUUB8lons 0 e po utant to the au .......ua
a propo.ed .ource or modification maximum extent.. For example. if an occurrina after January 8, 1975 which are
would be .ubject to PSD review ba.ed immense pUe of uncovered coal emits associated with physical changes or . -
on .~. location, and pollutanta emitted. coal dust into the atmosphere. it woud chanaes in the method of operation at a
then Ita construction lCbedule must meet malee little lense to impose an emission, major stationary .o~ can ~ect the
certain tests before the PSD rules standard. since measurin& the amount of available increment. AccordinaIy,
pro~ulgated today would apply. All coal dust risins bff the pile is nearly cleanup adds to the available growth
major construction otherwise qualifyins impossible. A much more direct margin while new emissiona diminish it.
for PSD review would not need a PSD approach to controllina emissions is. for Second, all chanaes in emissions.
permit under these regulations if the example. requirina the owner to wet the including those from minor sources and
proposed construction: (1) was subject coal pile daily. This type of standard or other types of chanaes at major sources,
to the old PSD rules. has submitted a practice will be equivalent to an affect the available increment provided
complete application under these rules emissions limitation for purposes of the they occur after the baseline date. The
before today. and was or is BACf requirement. baseline date is essentially the time that
subsequently approved to construct 2. It must conduct an embient air the mst PSD application aHectina the
based on this application; or (2) was not quality analysis. area is flIed.
subject to the old PSD rules. has .Each PSD source or modification must Once the question of how much
received all federal state, and local air perform an air quality analysis to increment remains is resolved, then the
permits needed before today and demonstrate that ita new pollutant applicant must demonatrate that his
commences construction in a continuous emissiona would not violate either the proposed new emissiona would not
fashion at the proposed site within a applicable NAAQS or the applicable exceed the remaining PSD increment.
reasonable time. PSD increment. This analysis enaures Where a proposed project would cause
Finally, the PSD regulations contain that the existing air quality is better a new violation of the increment or -
.ome .pecific exceptiona for some forms than that required by national standards contribute to an existing violation, it
of .ource construction. The and that baseline air quality will not be cannot be approved. Existing violations
requirements of today'. regulationa do degraded beyond the applicable PSD must be entirely corrected before PSD
not apply to any major .tationary source increment. sources which affect the area can be
or major modification that is: (1) a Each proposed major conatruction approved.
nonprofit health or educational project .ubject to PSD must first assess 3. It must analyze impacts to soils,
iDStitution (only if such exemption is . the existing air quality for each vegetation. and visibility.
requested by the governor); or (2) a regulated air pollutant that it emits in An applicant is required to analyze
portable source which has already the affected area. This analysis whether its proposed emissions
received a PSD permit and proposes requirement does not apply to pollutants increases would impair visibility, or
relocation. for which the new emissiona proposed impact on soils or vegetation. Not only
C. What Must A Source or Modification by the applicant would cause must the applicant look at the direct
Do To Obtain A PSD Permit? insignificant ambient impacts. Today's effect of source emissions on these
PSD regulations define pollutant-specific l'esources, but it also moat conaider the
1. It must apply the best available impacts that are typically considered impacts from general commercial
control technology.' inconsequential and that can be residentiaL industrial and other growth
Any major stationary source or major exempted from analysis. unless existing associated with the proposed source or
modification subject to PSD must air quality is poor or adverse impacts to modification. The results of this analysis
conduct an analysis to ensure a Class I area are in question. For may be used to determine if the project
application of best available control pollutants for which a NAAQS exists. would have an adverse impact on a
technology (BACf). During eaCh the applicant must provide ambient Class I area.
analysis, which will be done on a case- monitorina data that represent air 4. It must not adversely impact a
by-case basis, the reviewing authority quality levels in the year's period Class I area.
will evaluate the energy, environmental preceding the PSD application. Where H the reviewing authority receives a
economic and other costs associated no existing data are judged PSD permit application for a source that
with each alternative technology, and representative or adequate, then the could impact a Class I area. it will
the benefit of reduced emiasions that the source applicant must conduct its own immediately notify the Federal Land
technolOgy would bring. The reviewing monitorins program. This is often the Manager and the federal official charged
authority will then specify an emissions case where the applicant will be with direct responsibility for managina
limitation for the 10uree that reflecta the establishing the baseline concentration these lands. These officials are
maximum degree of reduction for the affected area. Typically air responsible for protecting the air
achievable for each pollutant regulated quality dispersion mode1ina is used by quality-related values in Class I areas
wider the Act. In no event can a applicants to support or extend the and for conaulting with the reviewing
technology be recommended which allessment made withaathered authority to determine whether any
would not meet any applicable .tandard monitorins data. For pollutants for proposed construction will adversely
of performance under 40 CFR Parts eo which there is no NAAQS, the required affect such values. H the Federal Land
and 61. . analysis will normally be based on Manaaer demonstrates that emissions
In addition, if the reviewing authority dispersion inode1ina alone. from a proposed source or modification
determines that-there is no economically Souree appli~ts who are subject to would impair air quality-related values
reasonable or technologically feasible the ambient analysis requirement for even thouah the emislions levels would
way to accurately measure the sulfur dioxide or particulate matter must n~t cau~e ~ violation of the allowable
. emillions, and hence to. impale an also perform an analysis to compute alf qualIty mcrement, the Federal Land
6
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 45, No. 154 I Thursday, August 1, 1980 I Rules and Regulations
52679
Manager may recommend that the
reviewing authority deny the permit.
5. Its application must undergo
adequate public participation.
The regulations solicit and encourage
participation by the general public,
industry, and other affected persons
impacted by the proposed major source
or major modification. Specific public
notice requirements and a public
comment period are required before the
PSD review agency takes final action on .
.a PSD application. The public notice
must indicate whether the reviewing
authority proposed permit approval.
denial. or conditional approval of a
proposed major source or major-
modification: Consideration is given to
all comments received provided they are
relevant to the scope of the review.
Where requested. or at ~ts own
discretion. the reviewing authority may
conduct a public hearing to help clarify
the issues and obtain additional
information to assist in makins a final
permit decision.
6. It must start construction on time.
The source owner, once receiving a
PSD permit. must start construction
within a reasonable period of time"
(typically within 18 months of approval)
and must stay on a continuous
construction schedule. Normally, long
delays will invalidate the permit.
D. Background
On August 7. 1977. the President
signed the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1977 (1977 Amendments) into law.
Those amendments established. in the
form of Part C of Title I of the Clean Air
Act (CAA), a set of requirements for the
prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD) of air quality in "clean air" areas.
Sectionl160-69, 42 U.S.C. 7470-79. The
requirements for preconstruction review
of new stationary sources and
modifications in Part C follow the
outline of the PSD regulations that EPA
promulgated in 1974. but are more
elaborate and in many ways more
stringent. Part C also requires that each
state implementation plan (SIP) contain
the new PSD requirements.
In response to Part C. EPA
promulgated two sets of PSD regulations
on June 19. 1978. One set specified the
minimum requirements that a PSD SIP
revision would have to contain in order
to warrant EPA approval. See 43 FR
26380 (codified at 4Q CFR 51.24 (1979))
(hereinafter. the "1978 Part 51
regulations") The other set
comprehensively amended the 1974 PSD
regulations, incorporating into them the
Dew Part C requirements. 43 FR 26388
(codified at 40 CFR 52.21 (1979))
(hereinafter. the "1978 Part 52
regulations"). EPA intended that, until it
had approved a PSD SIP revision for a
itate. the permitting of new sources and
modifications for PSD purposes would
continue under the 1978 Part 52
regulations.
On June 18, 1979, the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit issued a decision that
upheld some of the substantive
provisions of both the 1978 Part 51 and
Part 52 regulations and overturned
others. Alabama Power Company v.
Costle. 13 ERC 1225. In its opinion. the
court merely lummarized its holdings.
but promised to issue lupplemental
opinions after it had considered any
petitions for reconsideration. In an order
that accompanied the summary opinion.
the court ltayed the effect of its decision
until it had issued the supplemental
opinion. The purpOse of that procedure.
the court explained. was "to enable EPA
to proceed al soon as possible to
commence rulemakins or other
proceedings necessary to promulgate
those revisions in the PSD regulations
required by [the court's] rulinp * * *."
Id. at 1227.
By a notice that appeared in the
Federal Register for September 5. 1979.
EPA began the process the court had in
mind. 44 FR 51924. There EPA proposed
various amendments to the PSI)
regulations that were to replace the
provisions the court had held invalid. for
instance, the definitions of "source." .
''modification.'' and "potential to emit."
EPA also proposed amendments that
were to add entirely new provisions to
supplement the replacement provisions,
for instance, the de minimis exemptiona.
Prior to September. EPA had issued,
also in response to the 1977
Amendments, varioua regulations and
guidelines relating to the construction of
new sources and modifications in and
near "nonattainment" areal. In January
1979, the Agency revised its Emission
Offset Interpretative Ruling ("Offset
Ruling"). which now appears at 40 CFR
Part 51. Appendix S (1979). Then. in
April 1979, EPA issued a guideline
entitled "General Preamble for Proposed
Rulemakins on Approval of Plan
Revisions for Nonattainment Areas." 44
FR 20372. t Finally. in July 1979. EPA
issued an interpretative rule concerning
certain statutory restrictions on new
construction in nonattainment areas. 44
FR 38471 ("construction moratorium").-
EPA also asked for comment on certain
I For IUJIplementa to the GeDeraI Preamble. See 44
FR 38583 (July 2. 19'19); 44 FR.503'11 (AIJIUIt ..
19'19); 44 FR 51112t. 518Z1W11 (September II, 19'19); 44
FR 53781 (September 11.11118); 8Dd 44 FR 81182
(November 23. 19'19).
.For a fuller de8c:riptioa 01 thOle noaattainment
N8ulationa and suldeliDe8. See 44 FR 51925 and 45
FR 313CM-05.
7
issues concerning new construction in
such areas. 44 FR 38583.
In the September Federal Register
notice. EPA allo proposed various
changel to those nonattainment
regulations and guidelines. The purpose
of those change I generally was to
conform those regulations and .
guidelines to the decisions in Alabama
Power concerning the statutory terms
"source," "modification." and "potential
to emil"
On September 18, 1979, EPA
announced that it would hold public
hearings on the September proposal on
October 15 and 16 in Washington. D.C..
and on October 18 and 19 in San
Francisco. See 44 FR 54069. At the same
time. the Agency set November 18 as the
deadline for submitting information
rebutting or supplementing any
presentation at the hearings.
Subsequently. EPA held the public
hearings al scheduled.
On October 4. 1979. EPA announced
VariOUI corrections to technical errors in
the September proposal. 44 FR 57107. At
the lame time, it extended the period for
submitting written comments until
November 5, 1979. It added that it would
hold the rulemakins docket open until
November 18, 1979, not only for
information rebutting or supplementing
any pre.entation at the hearings. but
also for information rebutting or
supplementing any written comment.
On November 9. 1979, EPA announced
that it had recently released for public
comment a draft of a revision of the
Ambient Monitoring Guideline for
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) (OAQPS U~). which the
Agency had originally published in May
1978. 44 FR 65084. EPA also announced
that it wonld accept any written
comments on the draft until December
10. 1979.
On December 14, 1979. the Court of
Appeals handed down its final opinion
in Alabama Power. 13 ERC 1993.
Subsequently, in order to avoid the
uncertainty and confusion that would
occur in PSD permitting if the final
opinion came into effect before EPA
completed the rulemaldng, EPA and
many of the other parties to the
litigation petitioned the court to keep the
final opinion from coming into effect
until June 2, 1980. On March 14, 1980, the
court granted the request.
On May 30. 1980. EPA and other
parties to the litigation again petitioned
the court, requesting a further extension
of time until July 18, 1980. The court
granted an extension. to July 28. on June
23. 1980.
On January 30.1980, EPA announced
that it would reopen the rulemakins
docket for the receipt of wriUen
-------
52680
Federal Register I Vol. 45. No. 154 I Thursday. August 7. 1980 I Rules and Regulations
comments on various aspects of the
rulemaking. including the final opinion
of the court, certain issues that the
Agency described in the notice. the
re~aft of the monitoring guidelines. and
vanOQ8 meetings between EPA and
others. 45 FR 6802-
On February 5. 1980. EllA issued a
stay of the 1978 Part 52 PSD regulations
as to certain sources and modifications.
45 FR 7800. The stay was effective as of
January 30. 1980. Its purpose was "to
relieve from the permitting requirements
of the 1978 PSD regulations roughly
those sources and modifications that
would not be subject to the permitting
requirements of valid replacement
regulations that would comport with the
Alabama Power opinion." Id.
On May 13. 1980. EPA promulgated a
stay of the Offset Ruling and the
construction moratorium that is similar
to the PSD stay. See 45 FR 31304. On the
same day, EPA promulgated certain
amendments to the Offset Ruling. the
regulations relating to new source
review at 40 CFR 51.18. and the
construction moratorium. Those
amendments established the geographic
applicability of the various
nonattainment requirements relating to
the construction of new sources and
modifications. 44 FR 31307. Those
amendments embody EPA'8 responses
to many of the comments on the
- September proposal.
Finally. on May 19. 1980. EPA
promulgated regulaticms aimed at
consolidating and unifying various
permit requirements and procednres. 45
FR 33Z90. Those new regulations contain
provisions which will govern the
processing of applications for permits
under the new Part 52 PSD regulations..
During the course of the rulemaking
that EPA began in September, it
received approximately 375-wntten
comments. The discussion that follows
summarize. the proposals. the
comments on them. EPA's respoIUM!S,
and the final provisions.
m. Highlights
Several significant changes from the
September 5, 1919 proposal have
occurred. These changa include the
addition of certain provisicma not
addressed by the September 5. 1979
proposal but which are necessary under
the Act. Several regulatory provisions
which are unchanged in substance by
today's notice have also been reprinted
to clarify the effects of any revised
paragraph numbering.
A. Transition: The propuMd transition
scl1eme for phasing in the additional
monitoring requirements bas been
expanded to require no new monitoring
requirements for PSD ~pplicationa
submitted and complete within 10
months of the promulgation date. In
addition. today'. rules allow less than a
full year of monitoring data to be
included with PSD applications filed
after the above times but before 18
months after the promulgation date. PSD
applications filed later than 18 months
from the date of promulgation will be
subject to the full new monitoring
requirements.
B. Potenticl To Emit: Potential to emit
is the maximum design capacity of the
source. except as constrained by
federally enforceable permit conditions.
This would include permit conditions
restricting hours or type of source-
operation.
C. 5O-Ton Exemption: Today',
regulations essentially delete the "5()..
Ton Exemption" for both nonattainment
and PSD. The eligibility date for the
section 165(b) exemption has been
changed from August 7. 1977 to March 1.
1978.
D. Fugitive Emissions: For the purpose
of PSD and ncmattaimnent. "fugitive
emissions" now means those emissions
released directly into the atmosphere.
which could not reasonably pass
through a stack. chimney, vent or other
functionally equivalent opening. Fugitive
emissions are not to be considered in
determining whether a source would be
a major source. except when such
emissions come from specified source
categories.
E. Fugitive Dust: Today's regulations
promulgate the proposed deletion of the
"fugitive duat exemption" from the
applicable proviaions of both PSD and
the Offset RuliD:f.
F. Stationary Sourt:e: The definition of
sowce for PSD purpoees baa been made
more liberal than the previou
regulations. Under today's rules. a PSD
source is . grouping of all pollutant
emitting activities at one location and
owned or under the control of the same
person or persons.. This generally rela tes
to the cnmmnn notion of a plant. Smaller
portions of such a plant no loager will
\>e examined for applicability purposes.
For added clarification. pollutant-
emitting activities will now be
considered part of the same "plant" if
they belong to the same "major group"
as described in the Standard Industrial
Classification Manual. At this time.
however. the Ailency haa decided not to
change its previous approach to defining
source for nonattainment purposes.
Therefore, today's rules continue to
incorporate the "dual de.finition"
concept of source which requires
consideration of overall emi.saions from
a "plant" and from each "installation"
within that plant In a change from the
proposal. this dual definition will apply
8
~
to major sources in all nonattainment
areas designated under section 107 of
the Act, regardless of SIP approvability
or degree of completion.
G. Modification: The definition and
treatment of modifications have been
changed since the September 5. 1979
proposal. The concept of accumulating
minor changes made at an existing
minor source until the sum was
equivalent to a major stationary source
has been deleted. Rather. a source must
now qualify as a major stationary
source prior to making a modification to
become subject to review, unless the
change itself ill greater than 100 or 250
tons per year. Contemporaneous
changes now generally reier to
emissions increases and decreases
occurring within the same 5-year time
period unless the state opts for a
different time period in its Part D SIP or
PSD program. Reductions. to be
creditable. must be enforceable under
the SIP before the contemporaneous
emission increase would begin
construction. Such reductions. as well as
significant increases. will be
quantitatively assessed on the basis of
an "actual emissions" baseline. rather
than a "potential to emit" baseline. 8S
was prcposed. "Reconstruction" (Le..
50% or more capital replacement) has
been deleted from PSD but has been
retained for nonattainment NSR.
including the prohibition on
construction.
H. "De Minimis" Exemptions: Three
types of changes from the September 5
proposal appear in today's regulations;
(1) different numberB have been
developed for defining significant
emissions from new sources and
significant net emia8ions inerea.. from
modifications: (Z) new air quality de
minimis numbers have been generated
and can only be used to exempt PSD
sources from the ambient monitoring
requirementa; and (3) a ten kilometer
proximity cntoff has been specified to
indicate when a source. regardless of
pollutant emissions, must be prepared to
demonstrate that no z4-hour impact
greater than 1 J.L8/mlwould occur in the
Class I area.
1. Geographic Applicability: PSD will
generally apply only if the otherwise
subject major construction locates in a
section 107 area which is designated
attainment or unclassified under section
107 for any criteria pollutant (regardless
of what ~llutants the proposed
construction would emit or what
pollu~t q~ed it 8S major). An
exceJ:lti~ to ~s rule is that no PSD
pe~t IS ~uired for major construction
which emits only tb~ pollutant for which
the area of location II nOnatt.d~-
~...uent.
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 45, No. 154 I Thursday, August 7, 1980 I Rules and Regulations
52681
J. Pollutant Applicability: Any net
significant emissions increase of any
pollutant subject to regulation under the
Act (not just those pollutants for which
the source is major) now qualifies as a
PSD modification. Nonattainment
review will coIitinue to focus on only the
major nonattainment pollutant. No PSD
review will be. required for a given
criteria pollutant. if a source would
construct in an area designated
nonattainment for that pollutant.
K. Baseline Area/Date: Baseline area
now refers to all section 107 areas which
are designated attainment or
unclassified for PM or SO. (as may be
redesignated) in which the PSD source
triggering the baseline date would locate
or would have an annual air quality
impact equal to or greater than 1 p.g/ml.
Interstate impacts, however, do not
trigger baseline date. This differs from
the proposal, which focused on the
AQCR rather than the designated area.
Baseline dates are pollutant specific and
can be established by the first PSD
application of a source with significant
emissions of the applicable pollutant.
States will have the flexibility to
redesignate clean or unclassified areas
under section 107 and thereby remove
baseline dates for certain areas.
However. no redesignation may
subdivide the impact area (>1 p.g/m~ of
the source triggering a baseline date.
L. Best Available Control Technology:
Today's regulations reflect the proposal
with one exception. A provision has
been added that requires BACT for
modifications only when both a net
emissions increase occurs at the
changed unites) and a significant net
emissions increase occurs at the plant;
BACT applies only to the units actually
modified.
M. Monitoring: The proposed
transition scheme for phasing in the
additional monitoring requirements will
provide relief for sources covered under
the existing regulations that are in the
process of monitoring and offer
allowances for setup time of moniton in
gathering the required data.
N. Notification: the notification
provisions appearing in the September 5,
1979 proposal have been deleted from
today's regulations.
O. PSD SIP Revisions: The
requirements proposed on September 5
for governing the development of PSD
SIP submittals are essentially
unchanged These regulations allow
limited flexibility in the development of
different but equally effective state
plans. .
P./ncrement Consumption: A
discussion has been included in the
preamble to summarize the effects that
the Alabama Power decision has had on
increment tracking. This section also
discusses how certain SIP related issues
are to be addressed. such as the Gulf
Coast problem (SIP shows a theoretical
increment violation in a clean area,
unrelated to actual air quality impact)
and temporary SIP relaxations. (SIP
would be relaxed and only temporary
emissions would occur.)
Q. Public Participation: The
requirements of paragraph (r) of I 52.21
have been replaced with the public
participation procedures associated
with the consolidated permit regulations
(40 CFR 124).
IV. Transition
This section focuses on those
provisions of the final PSD and
nonattainment regulations which govern
the transition from the preexisting
requirements to the new ones. It begins
with a discussion of \he new transition
provisions of the Rart 52 PSD regulations
and then deals in turn with the
transition provisions of the Part 51 PSD
regulations. the Offset Ruling. the Part
51 nonattainment regulations. imd
finally the constniction moratorium.
A. Part 52 PSD Regulations
The new transition provisions of the
Part 52 PSD regulations fall intp three
categories: those that relate to the new
coverage of the regulations. those that
relate to the new requirements for best
available control technology (BACT)
and air quality assessments. and those
that relate to the new procedural
requirements. The discussion which
follows deals with each in that order.
1. Coverage.
a. Proposed transition provisions: The
pre construction permit requirements of
the 1978 Part 52 regulations applied to a
certain class of projects that emit or
would emit pollutants. The keystone of
those regulations, section 52.21(i)(1),
provided that "[n]o major stationary
source of major modification shall be
constructed unless the (permit]
requirements of [the Part 52 regulations]
have been met." It established the
general rule that the permit
requirements applied to any "major
stationary source" or "major
modification." The balance of section
52.21(i) then listed certain exceptions to
that general rule. The main-exceptions
established various "grandfather"
exemptions. The permit requirements of
the regulations applied. therefore, to any
pDllutant-emitting project that was
..- - "major" and had no "grandfather"
status. .
In September 1979. EPA proposed to
establish new Part 52 PSD regulat4Jns
whose coverage would be substantially
different from that of the 1978
9
regulations. First. it proposed to define
"major stationary source" differently
than it had defined that term in the 1978
regulations. Under the 1978 regulations.
whether a "source" was "major"
depended upon whether its "potential to
emit" any pollutant regulated under the
Act would equal or exceed certain
thresholds. "Potential to emit" referred
largely to the maximum rate at which a
"source" would emit a pollutant without
control equipment. Under the
amendments that EPA proposed in
September, "potential to emit" would be
the maximum rate at which a "source"
wouhi emit a pollutant with control
equipment. Second. EPA proposed to
define "major modification" differently
than it had defined that term in the 1978
regulations. There. a "major
modification" was any change af a
"source" that would increase the
"potential to emit" of the "source" by
100 tons per year of any pollutant
regulated under the Act, or 250 tons per
year. depending on source type and
ignoring any emission reductions. Under
the amendments that EPA proposed in
September, "major modification" would
have become any change at a "source"
that would result in a significant net
increase in the "potential to emit" of the
"source." "Significant" is defined as
emissions greater than certain de
minimis values. Finally, EPA proposed
to limit the geographic applicability of
the PSD permit requirements by adding
an exception to section 52.21(i) that
would exclude a "source" or
"modification" from PSD review on the
basis of its location. I
Amendments of the sort that EPA
proposed in September would have left
many projects that previously fell or
would have fallen within the coverage
of the 1978 Part 52 regulations outside
the coverage of the resulting Part 52
regulation. For instance. many new
"sources" that were "major" under the
197~ regulations would not have been
"major" under the proposed
amendments. because while their
maximum uncontrolled emissions would
exceed the applicable thresholds. their
~aximum controlled emissions would
not.
Of those projects that were or would
have been subject to the PSD permit
requirements under the 1978 PSD
regulations. but not under the proposed
I Specifically. EPA propMed that the permit
requirements would apply ouly to auy "major
.tation&ry 8Ouroe" or "major modification" that
would be located In au area de.iJDated UDder
.ection 101 of the Act u attalDmeut or
unclu.i1iable for a pollutant for which the "80urce"
or "modification" would be major or would
.ignificantly Impact au am In auother .tate which
.. designated u attaiDmeDt or aucluaiflable for any
auch pollutanL
-------
52682
Federal Register I Vol. 45, No. 154 I Thursday, August 7, 1980 I Rules and Regulations
-
--
amendments. some have already
received a PSD permit. while others
have not. In September. EPA proposed
to put both sets of projects outside the
reach of the permit requirements as
soon a8 possible by putting the new
defInitions of "potential to emit" and
"modification" and the new limitation
on geographic applicability into effect
immediately upon their promulgation.
See.44 FR 51927. But EPA also proposed
that any permit that had already been
issued would remain in effect. binding
and particular project to its terms. until
the permit had been rescinded under a
proposed paragraph (w) or had expired
under an existing paragraph (s). See id.
at 51927, 51956. Under paragraph (w), .
permittee would have been able to
obtain rescission only if the permittee
filed a complete application with the
issuing authority within 90 days after
paragraph (w) had come into effect.
Amendments of the sort that EPA
proposed in September would also have
brought some projects that previously
fell or would have fallen outside the
coverage of the 1978 regulations inside
the coverage of the Part 52 regulations.
For instance. many changes at a
"source" that would result in a gross
increase in ''potential to emit" well
below 100 or 250 tons per year might
nevertheless result in a significant net
increase.
In September. EPA proposed to
exempt from PSD review certain of
these projects that fell or would have
fallen beyond the reach of the PSD
permit requirements under the 1978
regulations. but not under the proposed
amendments. In particular, EPA
proposed to "grandfather" any su~
project which before the promulgation of
the new amendments had received each
preconstruction permit that the 8tate
implementation plan (SIP) required and
which will have "commenced"
construction within 18 months after
promulgation. See id. at 51928 (~t
column). 51953 (proposed I 52.21(1)(7);) .
44 FR 57108 (items B(1) and (C)(2)).
Finally. EPA proposed to add another
new grandfather provision to I 52.21(i).
That provision would have stated that .
the permit requirements of those
regulations do not apply to any "source"
or "modification" on which construction
"commenced" before August 7. 1977. the
date of enactment of the 1977
Amendments. See id at 51928 (first
column), 51953 (proposed I 52.21(i)(3)).
The purpose of the proposal was merely
to state in regulatory form what section
168(b) of the Act. 42 U.s.c. 7478(b),
already provides.
b. Comments and final oction on the
proposed transition provisions relating
to coverage: EPA received no comments
on its proposal to put the new
definitions of "potential to emit" and
"modification" and the new limitation
on geographic applicability into effect
immediately upon promulgation. EPA
therefore has put those provisions into
effect as of the date this notice appears
in the Federal Register. Some projects
that were within the coverage of the
1978 Part 52 regulations. but have y,et to
receive a PSD permit, are now outelde
the coverage of the new Part 52
regulations. since the prohib!ti?n on
construction without a penmt m
I 52.21(i)(1)(i) no longer applies to them.
As a result, construction on them may
begin immediately.4 Because further
delay is pointless, and might be harmful
in some cases. EPA finds that it has
"good cause" to put the new
applicability provisions into effect
immediately upon prom11;lgation, within
the meaning of section 4(d)(3) of the
Administrative ProcedUre Act (APA), 5
U.S.C. 553(d)(3). See alsp APA 4(d)(1). 5
U.S.C. 553(d)(1).
EPA did receive numerous comments
on its proposal to rescind certain
permits. and to treat them as binding
unless and until rescinded. While one
commenter agreed with the proposal.
most did not. They objected primarily to
two aspects of the proposal: first, tnat it
would place on the permittee the dual
burden of coming forward with an
application for rescission and of
providing proof that the project in
question does fall outside the coverage
of the new Part 52 regulations and,
second, that it would bar rescission if
the permittee failed to file a complete
application within a certain period of
time. The commenters argued that EPA
had no authority originally to require a
permit for any project that faU. outside
the coverage of the new regulations and
that it therefore has no authority now
either to place the burden of coming
forward and of proof on a permittee or
to keep a rescindable permit in effect
merely because of a failure to file a
complete application for rescission by a
certain time.
In response. EPA has promulgated a
new provision, I 52.21(w). which does
place the burden of coming forward and
of proof on the permittee. but imposes
no deadline for filing an application.
Whether EPA had authority originally to
require a permit for a project that falla
outside the coverage of the new
regulations is immateriaL EPA has
authority under section 301(a)(1) of the
Act, 42 U.s.c. 7601(a)(1), to fashion
''lbe partial.tay of the 11171 ~1ioD8 that SPA
Inued iDlulW')' 1lIIIO baa probably already
relieved moat of th088 projecta &om the permit
nqulremenl8 of thoae f'8IU!aUona.
10
within reason the regulatory tools it
needs to carry out its tasks. Here EPA
has undertaken not only to release
certain PSD permittees from the
constraints of their PSD permits. but
also to settle as finaUy, as publicly. an~
as quickly as possible which old penn!ts
are binding and which are noL
Prospective applicants, in orde~ t~
prepare applications, and pemu.ttin8
authorities, in order to 111eet their .
obligations under the PSD regula!i0ns,
must assess increment consumption.
Confusion and uncertainty over whether
particular ~ro!ect.s are. subj~ct to the
emissions limitations m their PSD
permits can only frustrate e~forts to
assess increment consumption. New
I 52.21(w) maximiz~s EPA's abi~ity to
perform satisfactorily the tasks It has
undertaken.
rlrst, by stating explicitly that a
permit generally remai?s in effect until
rescinded. I 52.21[w) glvea each
permittee with a re1Icindable permit a
strong reason to bring it before the .
reviewing authority 88 soon as possIble.
Second. by putting the burdens of
coming forward and of proof on the
permitteB, I 52.21(w) e.nsures th.at ~e
reviewing authority will spend Its time
efficiently and will have adequate
information with which to make a sound
decision: Third, by establishing that only
the reviewing authority may rescind a
permit, the provision promotes the
soundness and therefore the finality of
the resciaaion, aince the reviewing
authority will have the expertise and
objectivity neceuary to check
adequately whether the permittee has
applied the intricate applicability rules
correctly. Finally. by requiring that the
reviewing au~ority publish each
rescission, I 52.21(w) en81ll88 that the
status of each permit will t:. in the
public record.
Certain commenters suggested two"
alternatives to EPA's proposed
rescission provision. One alternative
was to declare upon promulgation that
any PSD permit for a project that falls
outside the coverage of the new
regulations is null and void as of that
time, but that any permittee which
concludes it holds such a permit m~t
send the reviewing authority a bare
notice of that conclusion. The other
alternative was to require 8J1Y such
permittee to send the reviewing
authority an application for rescission
and to establish that the failure of the
reviewing authority to act on the
application within a certain period
would" operate to grant the application.
EPA has decided to adopt neither
alternative. Under both. a project that
should not be able to escape PSD
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 45, No. 154 I Thursday, August 7, 1980 I Rules and Regulations
52683
constraints would be able to escape
them merely because of an ovenight or
a manpower deficiency. EPA. however,
has no authority to allow eacape from
review on that basiL
Certain commenters abo objected to
other allpects of the proposed resciaaion
proviaion. In particular, one commenter
asserted that proposed 1 52.21(w)(3),
which would say that M[t]he permitting
authority may approve" an application
that does show that the permit is
rescindable, should state instead that
"[t]he permitting authority shall
approve" such an application.
(Emphasis added.) EPA agrees, and has
placed the necessary mandatory
language in the final provision. Other
commenters urged that the final
provision recognize the poaaibility that a
permittee may wish to obtain resciasion
of only certain el~ments of a permit In
response, EPA has introduced language
under which the reviewing authority
may rescind only certain elementa. if
that is appropriate in the particular cue.
With respect to the reaciasion
proviaion. it should be noted that
rescission of a permit would in no way
affect any other limitatiOD8 on the
project that may apply by virtue of the
SIP or a Itate permit It ahould also be
noted that. if a source or modification
whose permit il rescinded were later
found to be causing or contributing to an
increment violation. additional controla
might be neceuary. See 40 CFR 51.24
(a)(3)(1979). .
EPA received many commenta on its
proposal to "grandfather" certain
projects that fall outside the coverage of
the 1978 regulations. but not the new
Part 52 regulationa. Two commentera.
while not focusing specifically on that.
proposal expressed general opposition
to "grandfathering" any project that
would otherwise fall within the
coverage of the new regulationa. In its
view. EPA should adhere to the
transitional rulel that it ntablilhed in
the 1978 regulations. 10 that in general a
project would escape PSD review under .
the Dew Part 52 regulatioD8 only if
certain permits were obtained lor it by
March 1, 1978. and COD8truction
"commenced" on it by March 19, 1979.
EP A disagreea that it mould or must
adhere to the transitional rules in the
1978 regulatioD8 in deciding which of tha
projects in question here should have to
set a PSD permit Part C 01 TItle I of the
Act contains two provisioD8, aectiona
165(a) and 188, which deacribe how the
PSD permit requirements of Part C are to
be implemented. Those MCtiona.
however, contradict each other
irreconcilably. See Citizens 10 Save
Spencer County v. EPA. 600 F.2d 8M.
851-54, 1m-73 (D~ Cir.. 1979). EPA-
authority under section 301(a)(1) of the
Act. therefore, to set transitional rules
which accommodate realOnably the
purpoBU and concerna behind the two
contradictory proviaiooa. See id. at 873-
74.
The court in Citizen. 10 Save Spencer
County identified those
"_CODIiderations" al follows:
(1) enhanced protection of the
environmental quality of the nation'. air; (2)
m;nimf~tion of ~omic dialocation and
loa. .. . result of aueb enhanced protection:
(3) . heightened enforcement role for .tat..
* * *; and (4) facilitation of an efficient
admini.trative tnmaition from enforcement of
the "old" to "new" preconatruction review
requirementa. [Jd .t 889 [footnotee omitted).}
Here, the proposed grandfather
provision would reasonably
accommodate those considerations.
Most of the projects in question are
modificatioD8 that would result in a
significant net increase in the maximum
controlled smiaaions of the "source," but
not in a groSI increase in uncontrolled
emiasions equal to or above 100 or 250
tons per year. This discrete group of
small modifications. even in the
aggregate, have a relatively minor effect
on air quality. But, becalLl8 they are
numerous. delaying them by. imposing
new PSD requirements could frustrate
economic development The proposed
proviswnwoulds~earo~b~
between the benefi.. and the COlt of
applying PSD to thole projects by
allowing any company that baa already
obtained each of the preconatruction
permits otherwise necesaary under the
SIP to proceed to construction without
delay. To require IUch a company to
obtain a PSD permit could mean
lubatantial deiaYI. To impose such
delays here would be exceaaive.'
One comments urpd EPA to
promulgate a grandfather provision that
would use the date of complete
application instead of the date of permit
issuance. The comrnenter was
concerned that the proposed provision
would treat unfairly. company that
obtained the lalt permit necenary
under the SIP just a day or two after the
date this notice appeared in the Federal
aep.t8r. Use of such a date. however,
might exempt many more projects from
review. Hence, in EPA'I view, it would
fail to give adequate expreuion to the
interests behind lection 165. especially
the goal of protecting air quality.
"EVeD lithe caafljd between I8C:t1a8t1l(8) uad
188 bad ..... -'--I... BPA !be dl8creti0a to
aempl CBtaiII prajecta that wuaId otI8wiM be
II\Ibt8d liD PSI) I8„I8w far !be lint tm.. BPA wuaId
have autDttJ aDiJer 88Ctioa 1III{8Xt) 1iD.-pi
th088 projectllllC8der to ......... -
nqW-tI 0118 _1M""""
11
Certain commentera pointed out that a
company.might be unable to "commence
construction" within the proposed 18-
month period. because it might be
unable to set sufficiently in advance any
preconstruction permita that federal or
state law outaide the SIP might require.
They recommended that EPA set the
deadline 18 montha from isluance of the
lalt necessary federalauthorizatioD.
That recommendation parallels a
proposal EPA made in July-1979 to
amend the grandfather provisions of the
1978 regulations so al to extend the
"commence" construction deadlines in
those provisions senerally to a date nine
months from the issuance of the last
necelsary federal authorization. See 44
FR 4.Z12Z. EPA has not yet completed
that rul..mAlrin8 When it does.. it will
decide whether to accept the
recomm",ndation 01 the commenters
here.
. EPA has decided to promulgate the
grandfather proviaioD balically as
proposed. See 1 52.21(i)(4)(v). The final
provision CODtains the following clause:
"the owner or operator. * * obtained
all final federal ltate and local
preconstruction approvals or permits
neceaary" under the SIP by a certain
date. EPA intenda that clause to refer
only to the date on which the reviewing
authority issues the permit. For
8mi.aaiona increasea.. a result of SIP
relaxationa, the appropriate date is the
effective date of final EPA approval.
Because of the COD8truction moratorium.
40 CFR 5Z.2f. 44 FR 3M71, some SIP
permits may be issued before the time
that the owner or operator is allowed to
begin construction. Nevertheless. in
EPA's view, the owner or operator
"obtains" the permit when the reviewing
authority issues it, even if permiuion to
_begin COD8truction taka effect
lubsequently.
EPA received no comments on its
propoNl to put into regulatory language
the provision in section 168(b) of the Act
that only the PSD regulatiOD8 in effect
before Augult 7, 1971, apply to any
project on which construction
"commenced" by then. Hence, EPA is
promulgating that proviaion basically as
proposed. See section 52.21(i)(4)(i).
2. Substantive ProvaiOM &Jating 10
BACT.
.. Proposed lran8ition provisions: In
September, EPA proposed certain new
lubstantive requirements. One of the
new requirements was that a project
apply BACT for each pollutant regulated
under the Act that the project would
emit in a significant, but ''minor''
amount. Under the 1978 Part 52
regulatioBl. a project has to apply BACT
only for each pollutant regula ted under
the Act that the project would emit in a
-------
S2684
Federal Register I Vol. 45. No. 154 I Thursday, August 7, 1980 I Rules and Regulations
--
--- -
"major" amount. EPA added that it
intended to put the new HACI'
requirement into effect immediately
Jlpon its promulaation.
In proposing the new HACI'
requirement, EPA also proposed to
exempt certain projecta from it. In
particular, the Agency proposed not to
apply the requirement to any project
whose application for a PSD permit was
complete before the requirement came
into effect. See 44 FR 51928, 51954
(proposed t 52.21(j)(2)).
b. Comments and final action on
proposed transition provisions relating
to BACT requirements: In general. those
commenting on the proposal to
grandfather any project whose
application was complete before the
date of publication of this notice from
the new HACI' requirement favored
such an exemption for at least those
projects. Only two commenters, the
same two who opposedo the grandfather
provision discussed above. opposed
such an exemption for any project. They
argued. that EPA should adhere to the
transitional rules that it established in
the 1978 regulations. so that the new
HACI' requirementa would apply to any
project that fell or would fall within the
coverage of those regulations. even to
those which have already received a
PSD permit.
EPA disagrees that it should or must
adhere to the 1978 transitional rules in
applying the new HACI' requirementa.
As discussed above, the court in
Citizens to Save Spencer County held
that EPA has a "responsibility to
harmonize the statutory provisions
[sections 185(a) and 168] so as to
implement the congressional mandate
that new federal preconstruction review
requirementa be instituted promptly but
with minimum economic dislocation."
600 F.2d at 851. Requiring a company
which has already received a permit. or
completed application for one. to amend
project designs and permit applications
to include HACI' for pollutanta to be
emitted in ''minor'' amounta would
hardly minimi~e economic dislocation.
To the contrary. it would delay
construction substantially in many
cases. The benefits of that delay in
those cases would probably fail to
counterbalance ita cost, since the new
HACI' requirementa would apply only to
pollutanta this discrete group of projecta
would emit in "minor" amounta. Thus.
applying the new HACI' requirementa
retroactively to projects that already
have a permit or a complete application
would fail to give adequate expression
to the economic considerations behind
8ection 168.
Another commenter argued that the
proposal did not go far e!1ough. in that it
would require companies which on the
date of promulgation were just about to
me a complete application to amend
project designs and applications. The
commenter urged EPA to apply the. new
HACI' requirement only to projects
whose applications were not complete
within one year after the date of . °
publication of this notice in the Federal
Register. That alternative, however,
would fail to give adequate expression
to the environmental considerations
behind section 165{a). EPA therefore has
rejected it, too.
Instead, EPA has decided to adopt a
provision like the proposal which
exempts from the new HACI'
requirements any project whose
application was complete before this
notice appears in the Federal Register.
See t 52.21(i)(9). EPA believes that the
final provision reasonably
accommodates the purposes and
concerns behind sections 165(a) and
168,'
The final provision differs from the
proposed provision aomewhat. First. it
appears in paragraph (i). inatead of
paragraph (j). the provision that aeta
forth the general HACI' requirement.
EPA has aought to gather each of the
exemption provisions into paragraph (i).
Second, the new exemption proVision
exempta an eligible project from the new
BACI'requirement entirely, but adda
that the project is subject to the BACT
requirementa of the 1978 regulations. if
they would otherwiae have applied. The
purpose of that structure is in part to
assure that HACI' would apply to a
pollutant for which the project would be
'':major'' under the 1978 regulations. but
"minor" under the new Part 52
regulations due to the new concepta of
"potential to emit" and "modification."
The final Part 52 retulations contain a
definition of the term "complete" in
reference to an application. Under that
definition an application becomes
o"complete" when it contains all of the
information necessary for application
processing.
It Ihould be noted, finally, that the
date an application W88 complete will
generally differ from the date on which
the reviewing authority makes its
completeness determination. since the
filing of the last necessary piece of
information will typically occur before
the determination is made. When EPA
makes a completeness determination. it
will specify the date 88 of which the
. application was "complete." That date
. Even If the conflict between II8ctIOD8 1l1li(.) 8IId
1118 had Dot conferred on EP A the diac:retion to
8X8IDpt project. with a COIDpleta application. EPA
would have authority under II8ctIOD 301(a)(1) to .
axempl them. iiDc::e apply\D& tha - BACf
requintmeDti to web pnljKtI would be anfaJr.
12
will be ilie date on which the last
necessary piece of information was
received. One of the provisions of the
Consolidated Permit Regulations, 40
CFR 124.3(f) (discuaeed below). refers to
the "ef(ective date" of an application.
Generally. the "effective date" of an .-
application will follow the date it is
"complete."
3...5ubstantive Provisions Relating to
Air Quality Analyses.
a. Proposed transition provisions:
Another new substantive requirement
that EPA proposed in September was
that an applicant provide an analysis- of
air quality in the area the project would
affect for each pollutant regulated under
the Act that the project would emit in
"minor." but still significant, amounts.
Under the 1978 regulations. an applicant
had to provide IUch an analysis only for
those pollutanta for which the project
would be '':major'' and for which EPA
had let a national ambient air quality
8tandard (NAAQS). The remaining new
requirement was that, if the project
would emit particulate matter or lulfur
dioxide in a significant amount, the
analysis focus on the extent to which
ambient concentrations of the particular
pollutant had consumed the applicable
PSD incrementa.
In proposing the .new requirements for
air quality analyses. EPA also proposed
to exempt certain projects from them. In
particular, EPA proposed not to apply
the new requirementa to any project
whose application was complete before
the requirements came into effect. See
44 FR 51928, 51954 (proposed
t 52.21(n)(1)(i)).
The 1978 Part 52 regulatiQns contained
a requirement that any air quality
analysis for a pollutant for which a
NAAQS exista l"criteria pollutant")
must generally include monitoring data
gathered over and relating to the year
preceding the submission of a complete
application. In September. EPA
proposed a reformulation of that
requirement. That requirement,
however, when coupled with the new
requirement for an analysil for each
criteria pollutant emitted in "minor"
amounta. could cause a prospective
applicant substantial delay. As a result,
EP A also proposed to require any
applicant who doel not file a complete
application before the date.of
promulgation to gather monitoring data
for any. such "minor" pollutant only over
the penod (up to one year) from the date
of promulgation and the date the
applicant would me an otherwise
complete application. See id at 51928.
51954 (Proposed t 52.21(n)(I)(ili))
b. c,o.mments.ond final action ~n
tranJJJtIon ProvIsions relating to '
quality analysis requirements. Tair
. wo
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 45, No. 154 I Thursday, August 7, 1980 I Rules and Regulations
52685
commenters argued that EPA should
adhere to the transitional rules of the
1978 regulations with respect to the new
requirements for air quality analyses. In
their view, the monitoring requirements
should apply in general to any "major"
project for which certain permits were
not obtained by March 1, 1978. and on
which construction had not commenced
by March 19. 1979. Certain other
commentera objected to any application
of the new monitoring requirements to a
company which, although it had not
filed a complete application by the date
of promulgation. had nevertheless
previously undertaken a program of
monitoring the EPA or a state had
approved.
Some additional comments were
directed to the proposed phase-in
provision. Those comments contended
that a prospective applicant would find
it impossible to satisfy that provision.
since the purchase, installation. and
"debugging" of new monitoring
equipment, together with the analysis of
any new data, would require at least
several months. Many commentera did
note that the draft of the revision of the .
monitoring guideline would allow three
months for those tasks, but asserted that
even three months would generally be
insufficient. See U.S. EPA. (Draft)
Ambient Monitoring Guidelines for
Prevention 01 Significant Deterioration
(PSD), (October 1979). Some
recommended an allowance of 2--5
months, others 6-9 months, and still
others more than 10 months.
A number of commenters observed
that the proposed regulatory language
failed to embody the intent that the
preamble had described. Firat, the
proposed exemption for each "major"
project whose application was complete
before the date of promulgation focused
only on the new requirement for an
analyses for each pollutant that the
project would emit in a ''minor'' amount.
Hence, it would have failed to shield
each such project from the new
requirement for an analysis for each
non-criteria pollutant that the project
would emit in a "major" amount.
Second. the provision that would have
phased-in any new monitoring
requirements focused only OD projects
whose applications were complete by
the date of promulgation. Conaequently,
it specified no phase-in rules for projects
whose applications were not complete
by then, the very projects that EPA
intended the rules to benefit.
.Finally, one commenter pointed out an
anomaly in the proposed phase-in
provision: it focused only OD the new
requirement, in proposed
I 52.z1(n)(1)(iii), ~t an applicant
provide monitoring data for any criteria
pollutant that the project would emit in
'"minor" amounts. As a result, the
proposed provision would have required
a company with a project that is "major"
under the Dew regulations, but was not
under the 1978 regulations. to gather the
full amount of monitoring data for each
of its "major" pollutants, but nODe of its
"minor" pollutants. But, since the
monitoring requirements would have
been new for the "major" pollutants, as
well as the "minor" pollutants. such a
company should have protection with
respect to the ''major'' pollutants. too.
The final transition provisions relating
to the new requirements fOT air quality
analyses adhere to the spirit of the
proposed provisions. but differ
substantially in structure and
articulation. One of the four final
provisions. I 52.21(i)(9), exempts certain
sources and modifications from the new
requirements with respect to monitoring
entirely. It provides that those
requirements shall not apply to a source
of modification that was subject to the
1978 Part 52 regulations. if its
application becomes complete on or
before the date this notice appelll'8 in
the Federal Register. Instead. the air
quality imalysis requiremen~ in the 1978
regulations apply to the source or
modifica tion.
Two of the three remaining provisions
exempt certain other sources and
modifications from the new monitortns
requirements for criteria and non-
criteria pollutants. One of those
provisiona. I 52.21(i)(10)(i), exempts a
source or modification that would have
been subject to the 1978 Part 52
resulations from those Dew monitoring
requirements, if its application becomea
complete with respect to the
requirements of the new Part 52
regulations, other than the new
monitorin8 requirements, on or before a
date ten months from the date of
promulgation. The provision adds the
clarification that the monitoring
requirements of the 1978 regulations
apply instead to the source or
modification. The other exemption
provision. I 5Z.21(i)(10(ii), is similar. It
.exempts a source or modification that
would not have been subject to the 1978
Part 52 regulations. if its applicatioD
becomes complete with respect to the
requirements of the New Part 52
regulations, other than those for
monitoring. on or before a date ten
months from the date this no~
appelll'8 in the Federal Register~
The remaining provision.
I 5Z.21(m)(1)(v), phases-in the
monitoring requirements of new
I 52.21(m)(1)(iv) to the extent that they
l~
place monitoring burdens OD an
applicant that the 1978 Part 52
regulations would Dot have imposed.
SectioD (m)(1)(iv) provides in general
that any required air quality analysis for
a criteria pollutant must include
monitoring data gathered over a period
of at least one year. However. the new
phase-in provision establishes the
general rule that for certain applications
the required monitorin8 data shall have
been gathered over a period at least
equal to the period from the date six
months from the date of promulgation to
the date the application becomes
complete. except as to the monitoring
requirements of the new Part 52
regulations. The applications to which
this provision applies are those which
become complete. except as to those
monitoring requirements, between the
date ten months from promulgation and
the date eighteen months from
promulgation. The new phase-in
provision then states three exceptions to
that general rule. Firat, an applicant with
a project that would have been subject
to the 1978 Part 52 regulations must
provide at least whatever monitoring
data the 1978 Part 52 regulations would
have required the applicant to provide.
Second. if the Administrator determines
that a complete and adequate analysis
can be accomplished with monitoring
data gathered over a shorter period (not
to be less than four months), the .
required data may be gathered over at
least that shorter period. Finally. if the
monitoring data would relate
exclusively to ozone and would not
have been required under the 1978
regulations, the Administrator may
waive the otherwise applicable
requirements of the phase-in provision
to the extent that the applicant shows
that the monitoring data would be
unrepresentative of air quality over a
full year.
The following example illustrates how
the proposed phase-in provision works.
A company proposes to construct a new
plant that would emit sulfur dioxide and
particulate matter. Under both the new
Part 52 regulations and the 1978
regulations, the plant would be "major"
for sulfur dioxide and ''minor'' for
particulate matter. The emissions of
particulate matter would riot be de
minimis. But for the phase-in provision.
the new Part 52 regulations would
require an application for a permit for
the plarit to contain a year's worth of
monitoring data for both sulfur dioxide
and particulate matter. (This auumes
that the Administrator does not
determine that a complete and adequate
analysis could be accompliahed with
data gathered over a ahorter period.)
-------
S2888 Federal Register I Vol. 45. No: 154 I Thursday, August 7, 1980 I Rules and Regulations -
The 1978 regulations would have of the amount of time that would 124.%1 and 124.f1-124.U, 45 FR ~3.
required the application to contain a senerally be needed to complete those Paragraph (r) of the 1918 Part 52 .
year'l worth of data for jUit lulfur taw and, lecond, becaUle there i8 little resulations hal governed the processing
dioxide. The company lubmita an ueefulnesl to leis than four montha of o( PSD permit applications under those
application which becom.. complete data for moet pollutanta. 1978 resu!ation8.
except with respect to monitorins, at 'the The promuIsated provisions cure the The Consolidated Permit Replati0D:'.
end of the fifteenth month after ambiguities in the proposal observed by contain a provision. IeCtion 124.21.
promuIsation. Under the phase-in lome commentera. Section 52.21(i)(10) which describes the transition from the
provision, the application mUit contain exempta an elisible project from the procedures of paragraph (r) to the new
(1) a year's worth ofmonitorins data for nquirementa relating, not only to IJDY consolidated permit procedures. It
sulfur dioxide and (2) nine months' non-criteria pollutant that it would emit provides that those new procedures.
worth of data for particulate matter. in "minor" amounta, but also to any non- shall "apply to PSD proceedinss in
The four final provisions embody criteria pollutant that it would emit in progress on July 18. 1980." 45 FR 33492. It
. EPA's response to the commenta on the "major" amounta.In addition. the phase- adds that the requirementa of sections
proposals. First, EPA has adopted the in provisions now deal explicitly with 124.9 and 124.18. which would require
fundamental approach of the proposal, projecta whose applications were not the preparation of a formal
which was to apply the new monitorins complete by the applicable deadline. administrative record. shall apply only
requirementa prospectively only. EPA Finally, I 52.%1(i)(10) pro tecta not only to "PSD permita for which draft permits
has concluded that that approach projecta that were subject to the 1978 [i.e., preliminary determinations] were
reasonably accommodates the purposes resulations, but also projects that were prepared after the effective date of these
and concerns of sections 16S(a) and not subject to them. resulations." Id.
(e)(2). on the one hand, and section 168, 4. Comments on the effective date of In promuIsatins the new Part 52
on the other. In brief, the approach tAe substantive provisions. . resulationa, EPA hu adopted a new
. institutes the new requirementa In proposins the new substantive paragraph (q). It stat.. that the new
promptly. but with minimum economic provisions relatins to BACI' and air consolidated permit procedures govern
dislocation. See Citizens To Save quality analyses the Agency stated that the processins of PSD permit
Spencer County v. EPA, 600 F.2d at 851. it intended to put those new provisions applications to the extent that they
Full and immediate ~pplication of the into effect immediately upon their apply. It adds that the procedures of the
new monitorins requirements would promuIsation. One commenter 1978 Part 52 resulations continue to
have caUied substantial delays in the contended that EPA should put the new apply to the extent that the new
subDiission of complete applications and provisions into effect 30 days after procedures have not yet displaced them.
hence the issuance of permita. but promulgation. rather than immediately In time. the new procedures will
provided little direct environmental on the date ofpromuIsation. so that. displace the.old ones entirely.
benefit in return. As for applicanta who "potential applicanta [would have]
undertook an approved program of sufficient lead time in planning B. Part 51 PSD Regulations
monitorins before the date of this notice, modifications and new sources." With In September. EPA did nat propose an
the phase-in prqvision affords them zespect to the new provisions relatins to amendments to the 1978 Part 51
adequate protection from delay, while at air quality monitorins. the 1~month resulations that paralleled the proposed
the same time sene rally demandins as srace period and phue-in provision Part 52 transition provisions. The Part 51
much compliance with the new described above should satisfy the amendmenta that EPA did propose
monitorins requirementa as possible.' In concerns of the commenter. With paralleled only the Part 52 provisions
short, EPA disagreed with the respect to the new BACI' provisions, that would affect coverase and
commentera who complained that the ho~ever, EPA disagrees. Prospective lubstance. The few commenta that were
proposals would have instituted the new applicanta have had ample warnins of aubmitted fOCUled on this gap.
requirementa too late, and with those the new BACI' provilions. The court in One commenter asked that EPA state
who complained that the propoaa1a Alabama Power held in June of 1979 that in the Part 51 resulations that a state
would have instituted them too soon. Congress intended them to be imposed which has already adopted and
Second, with respect to the new and in September 1979 EPA specified obtained EPA approval of ita own PSD
monitorins requirementa for criteria and when it intended to impose them. program may, in conformins that
non-criteria poUutanta. EPA has Therefore. there II saod cause to make prosram to the new Part 51 regulations.
established a grace period of ten montha these requirementa immediately adopt a resciasion provision like new
in the final grandfather provisions. It baa effective. The Administrative Procedure I 52.%1(w) into ita plan. EPA believes
done so becsUle it agrees with the Act (APA), moreover, would not require that it i. unnecessary to make such a
commenten who asserted that a 3
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 45, No. 154 I Thursday, August 7, 1980 I Rules and Regulations
52687
thereby establishing that a state may
adopt grandfather provisions of that
sorlIt adds. bowever, that the revision
must take effect no later than the date of
its approval. EPA has also added a new
. section 51.24(i)(9) to the Part 51
regulations. It provides that an approval
revision to a state PSD program. wbich
program EPA has already approved.
may contain transition provisions that
parallel the new Part 52 transition
provisions. The new section also
elJtabliabes that the proposed transition
provisions must operate at least as
stringently sa their Part 52 counterpart
would in the context of the state PSD
program.
Finally, a third commenter urged EPA
to require a state with its own PSD
program to delete these aspects of the
plan that go beyond the requirements of
the new Part 51 regulations within Dine
months after the date of promulgation of
those new regulations, unless the state
within that period of time submits "to
EPA written acknowledgment that it is
not required by federal law to include
such provisions in its state plan, but bas
nevertheless elected to-do so under state
. law pursuant to aection 116 of the Act."
The commenter feared that, absent such
a requirement, inertia and lack of
resources might prevent some states
. from deleting the provisions in question.
Such a requirement, however, would
interfere unnecesseri1y in the affairs of a
state. EPA. moreover. doubts that it
would bave the authority in any event to
repeal the more stringent aspects of a
state plan simply because the state
failed to say by a certain time that it
wanted to retain those aspect8. EPA
therefore bas not promulgated the
requirement sought by the commenter.
After examining the Part 51
regulations in response to those
comments, EPA bas decided to add two
new provisions. The first, section
51.24(a)(6), merely states in regulatory
form wbat section 406(d)(2)(B) of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977
already states: any PSD SIP revision
required by the new Part 51 regulations
must be adopted and submitted within
Dine months of the date this notice
appears in the Federal Reziater. The
second provision. I 51.24(a)(6)(ii),
establishes explicitly that any PSD SIP
revision must contain provisions which
describe wben and as to wbat sources
and modifications the revision is to take
effecL The purpose of that requirement
is merely to minimiQ confusion and
uncertainty during the transition from
any old to new PSD SIP requirements.
C. Offset Ruling
The amendments toille Offset Ruliq
which EPA is annouacins in this notice
expand its coverage. just 81 the
amendments to the Part 52 PSD
regulations expand its coverage. In
EPA's view, the expansion of the
coverage of the Offset Ruling sbould
operate prospectively only. Hence, it bai
inserted into the Ruling a grandfather
provision that parallela the relevant PSD
grandfather provision. It prorides that
the Ruling does not apply to any source
or modification that was not subject to
the version of the Ruling in effect prior
to the date this notice appears in the
Federal Reziater, if all necessary SIP
permits were obtained for the source or
modification by that date and if
construction commences within 18
months of that date.
D. Part 51 Nonattainrnent Rsgulations
Pursuant to section 406( d)(2)(B) of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977.
states will bave nine months after the
date of this notice appears in the
Federal RetPster in which to adopt and
submit any new definitions and other
regula tory provisions required by new
40 CFR 51.18ij). States need not adopt
verbatim the definitions in section
51.18ij)(1), but they must demonstrate
that any different definitions they retain
or adopt bave the effect of beiDa at leat
as stringent as thoae set out in
t 51.18(j)(1). If a state plan currently
includes definitions or regulatory
provisions which are more striDaent
than the nonattainment definitions and
other provisions contained in these final
rules, the state bas the choice of
retaining its current regulatioDl or of
revisiD8 them so as to' conform to EPA'.
rules. If a .tate does not submit any
necessary revisions to its plan witliin
Dine months after the date this notice
appears in the Federal Reziater. the
construction moratorium will 80 into
effect 15 months after this date in all
nonattainment areu in that state. The
additional 6 months is consisteDt with
the review period allotted for Part D
submitted under .ection 11O(a)(2)(I) and
129(c) of Pub. L 9W5.
EPA received only one comment on
transitional requirements for t 51.180).
This commenter requested thatEPA
allow state. which have already
. adopted NSR regulatioDl pursuant to
section 173 of the Act be permitted to
adopt a rescission provision like that of
t 52.21(w). EPA believes that to make
such a .tatement in regulatory form is
unnece..ary. A state i. free to adopt
such a provision. and EPA will approve
it, proviiied that the .tate'. NSR program
meets the requirements of section 173
and that permit reeciasion will not
interfere with reasonable further
progreu or attainment of ambient air
quality .tandard8.
15
E. ConstnJction Moratorium
The amendments to the construction
~oratorium expand ite coverage in some
ways, too. Hence. EPA bas promulgated
a grandfather provision pattemed after
the relevant PSD and Offset Ruling
provisioDl. It appears a. I 52.24(g).
F. Pendina SIP Revisions
By the date this notice appears in the
Federal Register, EPA will not have
taken final action on many PSD and
nonattainment SIP revisions that states
bave already submitted. EPA intends to
review those pending revisions under
the requirement8 that applied to them
before the date of promulgation. To wait
until a 8tate bad revised its revisions to
briDa them into line with the new PSD
and nonattainment requiremente would
cause the state and its industry to suffer
a beavy and undue burden. particularly
in those CBses wbere approval of a Part
D plan is needed to lift the construction
moratorium.
C. Effective Date 01 the NonatUunment
Provisions
EPA bat made all of the new
nonatta;nm....t provisions announced
here effective immediately upon their
promulgation. EPA finds that it bas
"good cause" within the me8.DiDg of the
relevant provisions of the
Administrative Procedure Act to do 80.
YI1'8t, the new provisions in the main
provide reli~f from pre-existing
regula tory burdens. Second. the decision
in Alabama Power and the September
1979 proposal provided. ample warning
of the new change.. Finally, it is
important for planning and man8sement
by EPA. the states and industry that
these new provisioDl come into effect as
soon 81 possible.
H. Miscellaneous
Under the amendmente announced in
this notice, each .et of PSD and
nonattainment regulations uses the
phrase "thi. section" at some pointe and
pbra.e. .uch as "40 CFR 52.21" at other
points. EPA intends "thi. section." wben
used in a particular ..t of regulations to
refer only to the version of the
regulations which bu resulted from the
amendmente 8DDOUDCed here. For
example, the phrase "this eection" in
new I 52.21(i)(1)(i) refers only to the Part
52 PSD resulations u newly constituted.
EPA intends pbraeea such u ' '40 CFR
52.21" to refer to any version of the
particular replations which baa
appeared or is to appear at the
particular location in the Code of
Federal Regulations. For example. "40
CFR 52.21" refen to each version of the
Part 52 PSD replations that baa ever
-------
52688
Federal Register I Vol. 45, No. 154 I Thursday, August 7, 1980 I Rules and Regulations
-
-
existed. including the version that has
resulted from the amendments
announced here.
V. Potential to Emit
The pre construction review
requirements of section 165 of the Act
apply to any "major emitting facility." 42
U.S.c. 7475. Pursuant to section 169(1),
that term includes any stationary source
which emits or has the "potential to
emit" 100 tons per year or more of any
pollutant. for sources included in one of
28 specified source categories, or 250
tons per year or more of any pollutant
for any other type of source. 42 U.S.c.
7479(1).
A. Control Equipment
Obviously, many more sources would
be affected if the term "potential to
emit" referred to the amount of pollution
that a source would emit without
controls than if it took the operation of
control equipment into account. In the
PSD regulations promulgated on June 19,
1978, EPA took the former approach and
defined "potential to emit" as "the
capability at maximum capacity to emit
a pollutant in the absence of air
pollution control equipment." 40 CFR
51.24(b)(3), 5Z.21(b)(3) (1979). This
approach was rej~cted by the Alabama
Power decision which held that
Congress intended that. in determining a
facility's potential to emit. EPA ''must
look to the facility'l 'design capacity' a
concept which not only includes a
facility'l maximum productive capacity
(a criterion employed by EPA) but also
takel into account the anticipated
functioning of the air pollution control
equipment designed into the faci1ity."13
ERC 1993, 2003.
In response to the COurt'l decilion.
EP A proposed. on September 5, 1979, a
revised definition under which the
application of control equipment would
be taken into account in computing
potential emissions. That approach.
which was very strongly supported by
public comments. ia now being
promulgated. 40 CFR 51.24(b)(5) and
52.21(b)(5).
The proposal noted that EPA will
assume that a facility'l air pollution
control equipment will function in the
manner reasonably anticipated. In thil
promulgation the Administrator ia
implementing the proposed approach by
requiring that operation of control
equipment be an enforceable
requirement. In other words, a company
may receive credit for the application of
control equipment only to the extent'
that the resulting reduction in emissions
is federally enforceable (see below).
This provision ia necessary, as a
pr,actical matter, to enspl'8 that lourcea
will perform the proper operation and
maintenance for the control equipment.
Thul. a 10uree installing control
equipment that would reduce emissions
q10re than that required by generally
applicable emissions limitations cannot
receive credit for the additional
increment of pollution reduction. unless
it ia federally enforceable. The definition
of "potential to emit" ia being modified
appropriately.
Under the definition being
promulgated. the potential to emit of
existing sources with respect to the
treatment of enforceable in-place
.control equipment shall be defined in
the same fashion as discussed above for
new sources. This responds to
commenters who complained of thil
discrepancy in the September 5
proposal Accordingly, potential to emit
for all sources means the ability at
maximum design capacity to emit air
pollution, taking into account any in-
place control equipment. Design
capacity, and thus potential to emit. may
be further limited if control equipment
better than that normally required by
the applicable SIP ia installed and a
correspondingly more stringent level of
emissions control is included as an
enforceable permit conditon. Finally, it
should be noted that the potential to
emit of a stationary souree in todaY'1
rule Is of primary importance in defining
when a lOuree would be major; it il not
generally uled in determining increment
consumption or the baseline for
assessing emiasion increases and
decreasel at a lource (see Modification).
B. Continuous Operation
Under the existing defiiution of
"potential to emit." a souree can avoid
PSD review if it binds itself, in a
federally enforceable permit. to
sufficiently limited houra of operation.
40 CFR 51.24(v)(5), 52.21(b)(5) (1979). In
the September 5, 1979 proposal. EPA
proposed to delete the clause which
allows such adjustments and to presume
continuous (24 houra per day, 365 daYI
per year) operation. Consistent with that
change, EPA also propoled to delete,
from the lame regulation. the words "or
amount"; thole words at prelent allow
permit limitations on amount of
ma terlals combusted, procelsed. or
Itored to be considered in computing
potential to emit. In making this
proposal. the Administrator also
requelted comment on the need to
adjust the a88umption of continuous
operation. in the case of lourees which
are physically incapable of such
operation.
Many commenters (169 of 173) have
strongly criticized this proposal, the
most frequent response being that few
16
lourees operate constantly. and most
cannot do so. These commenters also
advised the AgenCy of certain benefits
which would accrue from allowance of
permit conditions in computing potential
to emit. For example, a benefit noted ~~
that such an approach would better
relate the PSD permit applicability of
new lOurees to the offset potential of
existing 10Ulces, and to how the
increment would be consumed. This
approach was also claimed to be
consistent with EPA'I stated goal of
developing PSD requirements which will
fit into state programs in such a way as
to minimize disroption of those
programs and promote PSD SIP
development by the states. Additionally,
insignificant reviews would be
minimi7:ed and PSD applicability would
be more reflective of emisslonl actually
produced by the louree.
There was some comment in support
of the proposal. A state environmental
agency noted that emissions limits
calculated from less than continuous
operation are less easily enforceable
than those which are based on
continuous opertion, An environmental
group supported the propolal on the
grounds that it is consistent with the
interpretation of "full design capacity."
that It would be appropriately
technology-forcing, and that it is
necessary to protect the Ihort term
increment These concerns are
addressed below.
The court based ita definition of
''potential to emit" on the louree'l full
design capacity./d. at 2003. The June
opinion in Alabama Power did not
directly addresl the acceptability of
legal limitations on operation but did
stress design capacity in the lense of
physical and technological. al opposed
to operationaI.limitationl. However, in
the final opinion. released on December
14,1979, the court stated:
The design capacity of a facility rarely
contemplates uninterrupted operation 2t
hours per day, 365 days per year. Projected
downtime for repairs and maintenance or
other factol'l may reduce the hours of
operation that are appropriately cOJ1Iidered
In the calculation of. facility's "potential to
emiL" (Jd at 2005, n. 73.) (Emphasis added)
EPA interprets thil iaDguage as not
precluding permit conditionl, that are .
federally enforceable under the
applicable SIP, from circumscribing a
souree's potential to emit. In view of the
above, the Agency believes It haa
discretion to adopt the m08t reasonable
approach to this i88ue and hal
theref~re. recon.sidered its pro~osal.
Today I regulation8 recognize the ability
of all federally enforceable limitations
to constrain the potential to enUt of
stationary source. . a
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 45, No. 154 I Thursday, August 7, 1980 I Rules and Regulations
52689
The Administrator believes that the
policy concerning "enforceable permit
conditions" is responsive to most of the
concerns raised by commenters who
were critical ofEPA's proposal New
sources are now allowed to avoid NSR
for PSD and nonattainment areas by
limiting their type or amount of
o.peration. Moreover, potential to emit is
now defined in the same way for new
and existing stationary sources. The use
of certain permit conditions also
addresses the concerns raised regarding
physical incapability and peak load or
standby units. This is, source owners or
operators can now agree to source-
specific permit conditions to limit their
operation as appropriate. Such
conditions can make infrequent
operation and other physically limiting
factors outside the design capacity of an
emissions unit legally enforceable and
can thereby limit the applicability of
NSR.
The finaf policy concerning
enforceable permit conditions has also
taken in account the concerns of those
favoring the proposal. One commenter
noted that limited operation conditions
would require greater enforcement
attention. The Administrator agrees, but
. he believes that such conditions can be
reasonably enforced. Another
commenter also noted the need to
minimize any air quality threats to short
t~rm increments by sources with
intermittent operation but high short
term rates of emission. No commenter
presented a solution to this problem.
EPA believes, however, that short term
emissions limitations can be computed
to address threats to short term
increments. should any problems
actually arise. It would be the
responsibility of the reviewing authority
to identify, in periodic evaluations. any
sources causing such problems and
apply appropriate limitations on their
emissions. The Administrator will
consider rulemaking to develop short
term applicability thresholds, if
necessary, after a reasonable amount of
review experience has been developed.
Finally, as a result of tQday's policy, a
potential problem exists concerning the
future relaxation of a preconstmction
permit that previously caused a
proposed stationary source to enjoy
minor rather than major status. For
example, a source might evade NSR
through agreement to unrealistically
stringent operating limitations in its
permit, and later obtain a relaxation of
the condition. The Agency believes that
the problem can be dealt with by 40 CFR
52.21(r)(4), entitled "Source Obligation."
That paragraph provides that any owner
or operator of a source. who would
receive a relaxation of a permit
condition that had enabled avoidance of
NSR. would then become subject to
review for all units subject to the
original permit, as if they were new
sources. In other words, if operational
limitations are to be considered as an
aspect of a source's design, it is
reasonable that the permit accurately
incorporate that design. If such
operation is changed, the Pflrmit, and
concomitant obligations, should be
correspondingly changed.
C. Additional Guidance
Fugitive emissions under today's
regulations are applicable in defining
potential to emit. (See Fugitive
Emissions.) However, like the proposal
such emissions do not count in assessing
permit applicability unless a specified
type of source categ'bry is involved To
accomplish this a specific exemption
has been added to the final regulations
by which fugitive emissions will be
included in determining potential to emit
only for specified source categories.
The definition of "potential to emit" is
important not only to PSD
preconstruction review, but also to NSR
under the Offset Ruling (44 FR 3274), the
statutory requirements for
nonattainment areas, and the
restrictions on construction in sections
110(a)(2)(I) and 173(4) of the Act. EPA is
promulgating for each of those
nonattainment programs the same
definition of ''potential to emit" that it is
promulgating for the PSD program. as
well as a provision like I 52.21(r)(4).
EPA also intends this definition to be
implemented for those programs in the
same way as for PSD.
EPA has traditionally distinguished,
for the purpose of NSR. between the
direct emissions of a source and its
"secondary emissions." (See Additional
Issues.) In revising the Offset Ruling in
January 1979 the Agency added a
definition of "secondary emissions" and
a provision describing for what purposes
and under what circumstances those
emissions are to be taken into account.
See 44 FR 3281, 3283-84 Oanuary 16,
1979). EPA is now adding that concept to
the PSD regulations and to the
nonattainment provisions relating to
NSR "BDd the restrictions on
construction. For each of those sets of
provisions "secondary emissions" are to
be excluded in determining whether the
regulations apply to a source (i.e.,
whether a source or modification is
"major'1. Similarly, the control
technology requirements of BACT and
lowest achievable emission rate (LAER)
do not apply to secondary emissions.
How the Agency would treat those
emissions for other purposes, includins
17
PSD air quality impact analysis, is
described in Additional Issues.
VI. so. TOD ExempIioD
Under the 1978 PSD regulations,
stationary sources or modifications with
allowable emisaions of less than 50 tons
per year. 1000 pounds per day, or 100
pounds per hour were in general
exempted from the BACT and ambient
air quality analysis PSD requirements.
40 CFR 51.24(j)(2). (k). and 52.21(j)(2). (k)
(1979). 4t its preliminary per curiam
decision the court thought that its roling
on "potential to emit" made a ruling on
the 5O-ton exemption "academic," since
no 5O-ton source would ever be major if
"potential to emit" referred to controlled
emissions. 13 ERC at 122&-29.
Nevertheless. it remanded the
exemption to the Agency for
reconsideration and noted that the
Agency had exceeded its authority in
establishing the exemption. In response.
EPA proposed to delete the provisions
which embodied the exemption, and to
delete parallel provisions in the Offset
Ruling. EPA, however, proposed adding
to the PSD regulations a 5O-ton -
exemption for certain modifications. The
proposed exemption tracked 8ection
165(b) of the Act closely. but not
exactly. Essentially it provided that a
source qualifying for the exemption
would face a limited air quality review
for SO. and PM. Use of the exemption
would be restricted to modifications, at
a plant existiq a8 of August 7, 1977.
entailing emissions increases of 50 tons
or less of any pollutant after application
of BACT and which would impact no
Cla.ss I area or interfere with the
attainment of PM or SO. standards. All
net emission changes 8ince August 7,
1977 would be aggregated in applyins
the exemption.
All of the seventeen commenters who
focused on the proposed provision
expressed general agreement with this
approach, but some commenters stated
that the exemption should be broader.
For example. four commehters wanted
an additional 5O-ton exemption after
each full review. Five commenters
requested a special more lenient,
review for pollutants whale emissions
rates fall between 50 tons per year and
the de minimis level in those cases
where the exemption would not apply.
The Administrator finds no grounds for
providing additional exemptions after
each review. Similarly, there ia no
justification or authority UDder lection
165(b) for a 8peciallimited review for
emissions increases fallina between de
minimis amounts and the 5G-ton level. A
few commenters lugested thai other
eligibility values than 50 tona be used.
EPA responda that lection 165 of the Act
-------
52690
Federal Register I Vol. 45, No. 154 I Thursday, August 7, 1980 I Rules and Regulations
~
mandates the ~ton figure, but that
much of these commentera' concerns are
dealt with by the de rnirUrnis provisions
being promulgated today. Two other
commentera requested that the
exemption be governed by net emissions
increases. Today's regulations provide
that review is applicable to net
emissions increases. thus addressing the
concerns of the two commentera cited
above. With this exception. and the two
noted below, the ~ton exemption is
being promulgated as proposed.-
Some commenters pointed out that
EPA's proposed ~ton exemption clause
was more limted in its application than
the Clean Air Act language of section
165(b). in that the September 5 proposal
contained additional consideration of
. Class I area impacts (e.g., 44 FR 51949,
40 CFR 51.24(k)(2)(i)). EPA agrees with
these commenters and has eliminated
that portion of the ~ton !!xemption
language dealing with Class I areas. See
40 CFR 51.24(i)(7) and 52.21(i}(7).
The ~ton exemption contained in the
Act made those sources existing as of
August 7, 1977,.eligible for the
exemption: the same applicability date
was proposed in September 1979 for this
revised exemption. The Alabama Power
final opinion 8U88ested that EPA had
authority to conform the eligibility date
for the section 165(b} exemption to the
"effective date" of the preconstruction
permit requirements of the 1978
regulations. i.e~ March 1, 1978. In the
January 30, 1980 Fed8ra1 Register notice
EPA sought comment on changing the
eligibility date and on whether March 1.
1978 would be the appropriate choice.
Twenty-four commentera addressed
the issue of the eligibility date. Nineteen
of these favored 8 date of March 1 or 19,
1978. Four wanted the date to be that of
the final promulgation of these
regulations. One commenter disagreed
with the date change because it
considers the exemption itself to be
unauthorized: however. the Act clearly
provides for the exemption. as explained
elsewhere in this section. One industrial
group alleged that the date of
promulgation would be the proper
eligibility date for the specific case of
fugitive emissjons, in that fugitives were
not regulated 8S of March 1. 1978. This 1.8
apparently a reference to the fact that
rulemaldng relative to potential to emit
(see Potential To Emit) had not yet been
performed. In fact. though, fugitive
emissions were covered by the 1978
regulations and the calculation of
potential to emit does not change that
circumstance. The commentera
preferring March 19 to March 1 referred
to a statement in Alabama Power that
March 19. 1978 is the "effective date" of
the regulations. 13 ERC at 2006, n.79. The
"effective date" of those regulations ia.
however. March 1, 1978. See Citizens to
Preserve Spencer County v. EPA. 12
ERC 1961, 1978; and Preamble to 1978
Regulations, 43 FR 26380, 28390.
Concerning the comments favoring the
date of this promulgation as the
eligibility date, the Administrator note.
that section 165(b} of the Act limi\8
eligibility for the ~ton exemption to
those sources in exist~ on the date of
enactment of the 1977 Admendments to
the Act. For the reasons noted in the
Alabama Power decision. EPA has
authority to extend eligibility to March
1, 1978. However, the Agency cannot
extend this deadline to today's
promulgation. For these reasons March
1,1978 is now promulgated as the
eligibility date for the ~ton exemption.
vn. Fugitive Eminiona
For PSD determinations prior to the
Alabama Power decision. EPA
considered all reasonably quantifiable
emissions of a pollutant-including both
point emissions (e.g., from a atack or
chimney) and fugitive emissions-on the
ground that the emissions deteriorate air
quality regardlea. of how they emanate.
This practice applied to calculations of a
source's emissions and potential
emissions of a given pollutant both: (1)
for the threshold determination under
section 169(1} of whether the source was
a "major emitting facility" subject to
section 165, and (2) for the permitting
requirements of section 165 itself.
The Alabama Power court upheld
EPA'. practice for the latter purpoae.
and confirmed that:
The terms of aection 1115. which detail the
precoDitruction review IIDd permit
requirements for each new or modified
"major emittiJII facility" apply with equal
force to fugitive emiuioDi and emiaaioDi
from Industrial point IOUl'C88.
.
.
.
..
.
EPA 18 correc:t that a major emitting facility
18 IUbject to the requirements of aection 165
for each pollutant it emits irrespective of the
IIUUII1er in which it 18 emitted. (13 ERC at .
2016-2017.)
However, as to the first praCtice, the
court held that section 169{1} is
controlled by the rulemaldng provision
of section 302m, and that fugitive
emissions of a given pollutant may be
included in the threshold -calculation
under section 169(1} only if the
Administrator first determines, by rule.
that they are to be included.
Accordingly, a. part of the September
5. 1979 rulemaking propolal, the
Administrator identified 27 categories of
stationary sources for which he
proposed to include fugitive emissions in
threshold calculations of "major
18
emitting facility" status for purposes. of
both section 165 and new source reVIeW
regulations. Numerous commenters
responded that the Administrator's
proposal did not constitute "adequate'.
rulemaking. and that fugitive emissions
could not be included in threshold - -
calculations unless the rulemaldn8 als~
established. on an industry-by-industry .
basis. methods for quantification of
fugitive emissions and for analysia of
their impacts on air quality, and
included the identification of effective
techniques for their control. EPA has
considered these comments, but
believes that Congress intended the
rulemaking provision of section 302(j) to
serve a much simpler and narrower
purpose.
As the coUrt itself noted, "[t]he
legislative history of this rulemaking
provision is sparse." and it is therefore
particularly difficult to discern
Congress' motivation for including il13
ERC at 2017. In general, section 302{j}
sets out the criteria for determining
whether a source is "major" and hence
subject to the stringent requirements of
certain key provisions of the Act
Congress clearly intended such
determinationa to always include point
emissions, the type most commonly
associated with major polluters. It also
expressed its affirmative intent not to
exclude "non-point" or "fugitive"
emissions from those determinations:
(T)he "major stationary 1OU1'Ce" defiDition
18 clarified to lDelicate the inchuioa of major
IOUI'C8I of fugitive emiaaiona (lut year'. bill
was unclear in thia respect) . . '.(H.R. Rep.
95-294, '95th Caag. tat Se-. t (1977).)
Rather than include fugitive emissions
across-the-board, however. Congress
left it to the Administrator to determine
for which particular categories of
sources fugitive emissions will be
included. in threshold calculations.
EPA therefore believes that the
purpose of the rulemaking under section
302{j) is to afford members of affected
categories of sources an opportunity to
comment on the Adminiatrator'.
determination to include fugitive
emissions in the threshold calculation.
and to allow them to present factual Of
policy arxuments in support of claims
that it would not be appropriate to do
so. Although many such presentations
will be technically oriented, EP A does
not agree that section 302(j) requires the
formal promulgation of measurement.
modeling or control techniqua or
guidelines. because the fundamental
decision which the Administrator is
makini under section 302(1} is whether
fugitive emiasions should be included in
threshold ca1culationa. .
-------
Federal a8(lis8er' Vol. 45. No. 154 1 'l'hUJ'llday, August ,. 1810 , Rules and Regulations
5Z691
EPAftnda aupport for tbia
interpretation of aectioD 3DZ(j) in the fact
that aectimi Ie:; don not contai.D any
rulemakias proYiaion pfII'IIiDs the
sub8tantive replation of fusitift
emissiODL ,.. explained earlier. the
Alabama Pow.. court caa6rmed that
once a IOUI'C8 ia determined to be a
maioi' emitting fadlity UDder leCtion
189(1), the aub8tantive precoD8tnu:tion
review and permittins requirements of
8eCtion 165 "apply with equal force to
fugitive emiuiona and emi8aiOu from
induJtria1 point sources." In other
words. even if fugitive emiuiona remain
excluded from threshold calculatiODa, -
section 165 requires that fugitive
emiuioaa be taken into account in
detenninationa of whether NAAQS or
allowable increments will be violated
_(lection 165(a)(3)) and that fugitive
emissiona be subjected to BACT
requirements (section 165(a)(4)). But
these substantive provisiona do not
require EPA's prior promulgation of
technical roles governing meuuremenL
analysis or control such as those which
the commentera suggest are necessary
under section 302(j). Since the
determination to include fugitive
emiuioDi in threshold applicability
calcu1ationa is diacretiOIW'J UDder
sectiona 302(j) and 189(1), while the
aubetantive regulatioa of fugitive
emiasiona from all major emittin8
facilitiel is mandatory under section
165, EPA does not believe that the
rulemaking provision of sectioa 302(j)
W88 intended to require the -
pl'OlJ1ulgation of such technical
guidelines or regulationa.
EPA therefore concludes that the
rulemaking which it conducted W88
"adequate'" under section 302(j) since
affected sources were afforded the
opportunity to comment upon the
proposed incluaion of fugitive emiBsiona
in their threshold calculationa. EPA's
respoaaes to more specific commeats
are set out below. Several commentera
objected that the first 28 specific
categories of 8OUJ'Ce1 identified in the
proposal (u lOurces whose fugitive
emiuiona would be taken into account
in threshold caIculationa) were virtually
identical to the Z8 categoriea of 1OUl'Ce8
identified in HCtian 1811(1) .. 8OUJ'C88
with threshold tonnqes of 100 tona per
year (rather than 250 tOD8 per year) for
detenniDati0n8 of "major emittin8
facility" statul..The COIDII'("ntera
complained that by merely copying the
Z8 1Ource8 without any other aupportiDa
In. app8I'ftt cli8cnpeacr .. ... -- of
ca.... (Le.. 218 -- II) i8 upIaiDed by !be I'ac:t
lllat tb8 Septemb8r So UI'1II propoulli8ted
b)droIIaartc. 88IfurIc 8l1li allric 8dd pIaat8 taptMr
Ia .liD3IfI f1,LL . ...... ,-
ratiooale. EPA fai1ed to 0DDd1ld proper
rulem.~.
Althousb it ia tnae that the two liats
aN virtually identical. It is DOt true that
EP A failed to caoc:luct proper
rulemakins. To the COIltrary, the
Administrator recognized that in
specifically identifyiDs Z8 categories of
8OUI'C8II in section 1.1}. "Pm8ren'
intention wu to identify facilities
which. due to their size, are fiDanciaUy
able to bear the substantial regulatory
coate imposed by the PSD proviaiona
and which, as a group. are primarily
responsible for emi88ion of the
deleterious pollutants that befoul our
nation's air." 13 ERC at 2003. In light of
that intent, the Adminiatrator initially
determined that as a matter of policy, it
would be appropriate to count all
emissiolllt-including fugitive
emiui~ threshold ca1cu1ationa of
applicability for those 28 catesorie8. The
propoaaheflected that determination as
well as the Administrator's ob8ervatiOD
that. because thOle IOW'Ce8 have
traditionally been conaidered the major
polluters in the country, EPA'.
experience in quantifyina fugitive
emiuiona from them is, in general.
81'8atm' than its experieoat in d.oiua 80
for other sources. . .
SDfm:e Category and ~
Primary zinc: lmel...
Tedmical Guidance far CoatIuI of
IDdWltrial Procell Fusitive Puticula.
Bmi8I~ 1i77 (J!PA-45lJ/S-7'I-
010)
Portland cement p)antll
(EPA-4S0/3-71-G10)
Iron and .teel miD plantll
- Particulate Emillion Fseton -AppUcable to
Iron and Steellnda8try (EPA-450/t-~
1IIZ8) (EPA-ISO/3-7'7-610)
Primary aJaminum an ndadiOD phmta
(EPA-450/3-7'7~O)
Primary copper amelten
(EPA-650/3-71-610)
Petroleum refineriea
Compilation of Air Ponutut Emialion
Fad0r8 (AP-I.Z)
Ume planta
(NSPS) (AP-IZ) (EPA-450/s-TT-01O)
Phosphate rock proceulD8 plauta
(EPA-650/3-7'7-610)
Qb onD b8tterie8
(EPA-4S0/t-'1IJ-OZ8)
Carbon black plama
(.\142)
PrimarJ lead smeltere
(AI42) (EPA-650/3-71-610)
Sinterq planta
(See Irou and steel mill plam)
Foam fuel-fired boiIen
(See Foail fueJ-fired Iteam electric pienta)
Petroleum ...,. uullr8D8fer aniil
(.\142)
Follil fuei-JirecI steam elecIr1c pluta
-For 8X8IIIpie. EPA hu ~-t, pubUabed
fqitIn ~ datllfllr-r oftbe ideatified
c::UII8ari8 "'-
19
(EPA-t50/W7-010)
. Several commentera pointed out.
however, that the two liata were not
identical insofar as certain reatrictiol1ll
or limitationa for six categories of
10urcei in the section 1.1) list were
not reftected in the proposed section
302(j) list. Specifically, the section 189(1)
Uat includes oaly the fol1owiDg {the
italicized portiona were omitted from the
proposal): fo88il-fuel fired .team electric
plants of more than two-hundred-and-
fifty mi1Jjon British thermal uni16 per
hour heat input; coal cleaniD8 plants
(therrnDl dryen); municipal incinerators
capable 01 chargina more than two-
hundred-and-fifty 10M of re/u8e per day:
carbon black plants (furnace process);
fossil-fuel boilers of mOnJ than two-
bundred-and-fifty million Briti.h
thermal unit. per hour heat input. and
petroleum ltorage and traDlfer facilities
with Q copocity exceeding tIrnHt-
hundred-thOUMmd barrel.. Then
discrepancies are the result of an
inadvertent administrative enol, since
EP A iDtended to identify in the proposed
section 302(j) Uat the same categories of
lOurcea identified by Coosress in the
aectioa 1119(1) Iiat. AA:cordinslJ, the final
list promulgated-today reflects the
qualifying deacriptiona apec:if1ed above
for the six categories of IOIIl'Ce8. Several
commenten objected to the last
cateamJ on tha liat of aoan:ea for which
the Adminiatrator propo88d to include
fugitive elDissiona in threshold
calal1atiOD8-lWDely, "any other
stationary 801II"C8 catesory which. at the
time of the applicability determination.
is being regulated under 88ction 111 or
11% of the AcL. Section 111 concerD8 the
establiahment of 8taDdarda of
performance for new ltationary IOUI'Cea
(new lOurce perf01'maDC8 standards or
NSPS) and aection 112 CODCerD8 the
eltablishment of national emiasiona
stimdarda for hazardous air pollutants
(NESHAP). 'I11e commeaten argued that
the focua of these proviaiona is on
emissions controls rether than on
. ambient air quality, and that there is
therefore DO-Iosica11ink to support the
automatic inclusion of fusitive emissiona
from a 801II"C8 for PSD threahoId
calculation purpoI88 limply bec:auH the
lource is bein8 regulated UDder section
111 or 8ectioD 112. EPA diaqreea with
some of the commentera' 8881UDptiona
and cbaracterizationa of NSPS and
NESHAP regulation. but condudes for
other reasODS that the last catesory
should be reviaed to apply oaIy to
sources which are beins regulated under
section Ul or section 112 .s of the
effectift date of the lUDended PSD and
NSR resalationa.
-------
52692
Federal Register I Vol. 45, No. 1&4 I Thursday, Augvst 7, 1980 I Rules and Regulations
=
The commenters contend that lince an
NSPS under lection 111 merely reflecta,
for a category of lourcel. an emissions
limitation which is achievable through
the belt Iystem of continuoul emissions
reduction which "the Adminiltrator
determinel hal been adequately
demonstrated. .. the eltablilhment of an
NSPS for a source is unrelated to the
ambient air quality considerationl
which are at the heart of PSD review.
What the commenters overlook.
however, is that under lectioD
111(b)(1)(B). NSPS are only promulgated
for categoriel of stationary lourcel
which have been included in a list under
lection 111(b)(1)(A); and lection
111(b)(1)(A) directa the Adminiltrator to
"include a category of sources in such
list if in his judgment it causes. or
contributes significantly to, air pollution
which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare." In
other words, although the NSPS itself
may be based on technological .
considerations, the decision to develop
the NSPS i8 clearly based on ambient air
quality concerns. Moreover, under
section 112, ambient air quality is
clearly a compelling concern because a
hazardous air pollutant to which a
NESHAP will apply is one "which in the
judgment of the Administrator causes, or
contributes to, air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to result in an
increase in mortalit,y or an increase in
serious irreversible. or incapacitating
reversible. illness."
10 short. categories of sources are
regulated under section 111 or lection
112 on the basis of determinations by
the Administrator that their emissions
seriously and adversely impact ambient
air quality. and the Administrator
therefore determined that it would be
appropriate to include their fugitive
emissions in their threshold calculations
for purposes of PSD and NSR review
and regulation. That basic policy
determination is being finalized today.
At the same time. however, EPA
believe I that the comments about
"automatic" inclusion of categories of
sources which are not now regulated
under section 111 or section 112, but
which may be regulated thereunder at
some point in the future. raise valid
concerns. Although EPA believes that
the same basic policy considerations
would support the inclusion of fugitive
emissions for such'categories of sources,
EPA recognizes that unless a source had
affirmative notice during this rulemaldns
that it will be regulated in the future
under section 111 or section 112, it will
Dot really have been afforded a
meaningful opportunity to comment on
the proposed in~usioD. of its fugitive
emissions in ita threshold calculations.
Accordingly. EPA has determined to
limit the scope of the last category on
the proposed lilt to sourcel which are
being regulated under section 111 or
section 112 8S of the effective date of
these amended PSD and NSR
regulations. At the time of any future
rulemaking under lection 111 or section
112 proposing to regulate additioaal
categories of sources, EPA will conduct
parallel section 302m rulemaldng
concerning the proposed inclusion of
fugitive emissions in threshold
calcula tions. On the issue of the
appropriateness of including ~tive
emissions in threshold calculations for
particular categories of lources, the
basic objection expressed by most
commenters was that fugitive emissions
data were either unavailable or
inadequate. and that it would therefore
be inappropriate to include fugitive
emissions in threshold calculations for a
particular category.
In response. EPA notes that such
concerns should and will be addrelsed
in the context of particular applicability
determinations, but that they have not
changed the basic policy decision made
by the Administrator under section
302m. As explained earlier, fugitive
emissions must be taken into account
under section 165 in determining the
impact on ambient air quality of a
proposed new source and the BACT
requirements which will apply to it.
even if there are no exi~ting.fugitive
emissions data, or if the available data
are crude. Obviously. the nature and
extent of the available data and
technologies are important facton in
determining how fugitive emissions
should be taken into account and how
they should be regulated under the
review and permitting process of section
165; but those factors will not avoid or
eliminate the consideration of fugitive
emissions under that process. Similarly,
although the i8sue of quantification may
be relevant to particular applicability
determinations, EPA does not believe
that that i8sue alone i8 critical in
determining whether, as a general policy
matter, it i8 appropriate to include
fugitive emissions in threshold
calculations for a particular category of
sources.
EPA emphasizes. however. that
fugitive emissions from a source in one
of the listed categories will only be
included in threshold calculations-"ta
the extent quantifiable." EPA's intent
was and is to provide sources the
flexibility ta explore with the reviewing
authority in the context of a particular
applicability determination. issues of
quantification which misht be peculiar
20
to ~ individual source. (Of course,
fugitive emiasions will not have to, be
quantified for threshold p~es if the
source would qualify as a ~Jor ,
'ttin8 facility" on the baSlS of pomt
::ssions alone. a situation which EP~
believes will occur more often than not.)
As indicated above, EPA has in the past
published data and other ~ormap~~
relating to the quantification of fugitive
emissions for various categories of
sources and. as some commenters noted,
additional data and information are
currently under development. EPA
considers these publications concerning
quantification of fugitive emissions as
guidance to be used as the starting point
for analysis, not as methodology or data
which must be rigidly adhered to in all
circumstances.
EPA encourages the development of
more sophisticated or precise methods
or models for quantification of fugitive
emissions, and will accept any estimate
of a source's fugitive emissions if the
source can support the accuracy and
reliability of the methodology which it
has developed or employed. In
situations where there are no published
emissions factors or other fugitive
emissions data for a particular category
ofsources, EP A will consider
quantification estimates developed by a
source which have any reasonable and
rational basis. including estimates based
on the transfer of technology or based
on principles of material balance.
Moreover, if a 80urce satisfactorily
demonstrates that ansueb
methodologiel are inappropriate in its
circumstances and that there is
absolutely no ba.ais for reasonably
estimating its fugitive emissions, EPA
would be willing to discount fugitive
emissions in the threshold calculation
for that individual source.
In short. sources will have an
opportunity to discuss the
appropriateness and reasonableness of
fugitive emissions estimates for
purposes of both the threshold
calculation. as well as the requirements
of section 165. EPA is therefore '
finalizing today the proposed list of
categories of sources whose fugitive
emissions will be included in threshold
calculations. EPA has considered
comments with respeCt to the proposed
definition of "fugitive emiasions " and
has determined that one cbBD8e'is
appropriate. Instead of definiD8 fugitive
emissions as "those enUssion which do
not pass through a stack, cbimne ven
or other functionally equivalent y, 1.
opening." EPA beHeves that the term
should apply to "those enUasiona which
could not l'fKl6onably pass throup
stack. chimney. vent or other a
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 45, No, 1541 Thursday, August 7, 1980 I Rules and Regulations
52693
functionally equivalent opeajng." This
change will euure that IOUroe& will not
discharge u fugitive emiaaio~ those
emissions which would ordinarily be
collected and disch.araed throush stacb
or other functionally equivalent
openiop, and will eliminate
disincentives for the conatructioD of
ductwork and stacks for the colJection
of emissions. Emiasioos whU:h could
reasonably pass through a stack,
chimney, vent. or other functionally
equivalent opening will be treated the
same as all other point emissions for
threshold calculation purposes.
In addi~on. in light ofEPA's action
today deleting the fugitive dust
exemption (see Fugitive Dust
Exemption). EP A i.8 finalizing the
proposed deletion of the existing
definition of "fugitive dust" at 40 CFR
51.24{b)(6) and 52.21{b){6) (19'79).
vm. Fugitive Dust Exemptiaa
The 1978 PSD regulations provided
that "fugitive dust" from a major
stationary source or major modification
be excluded fr?m air quality impact
assessment. 40 CFR S1.Z4(k){5),
52.21(k)(5)(1979). Because of its decision
regarding inclusion of fugitive emissions
in threshold calculations, and because it
questioned EPA's authority to establish
the exemption in the manner in which it
did, the court in Alabama Pawer
vacated EPA's generalized excemption
for fugitive dust and remanded it to the
Agency for further consideration. 13
ERC at 1231 and 13 ERC at 2017.
In response to the court'. opinion.
EPA proposed deletion of the fugitive
dust exemption. It al80 proposed to
delete a parallel provision in the Offset
Ruling (44 FR 3214). The majority of the
public oommenteJ'8 directly oppo8ed thia
proposal The primary reuona were that
fugitive dust allegedly has little impact
on health and that techniques of
evaluating its air quality impacts are
unreliable.
As indicated above, the Alabama
Power court vacated EPA's partial
exemption of fugitive dust from the
requirements of section 165 because the
exemption wu premised on the
erroneous assumption that "the statute
of its own mom....,hlm sabject8 major
sources of fugitive emissiona to PSD
preconstruction review and permit
requirementa" 13 ERC at 2017. However.
the court also expreued serious doubt
that EPA had the statutuory authority to
establish .uch an exemption by
regulation. because (1) section 165 does
not distinguish between fugitive
emissions and point emi88iOlJ8, but
applies "with equal force" to both types
of emiasiona. 13 ERC at 2018, aDd (%J in
the absence of expDc:it statutory
exemptioa authority, EPA's "seneraJ"
exemption authority is nan'OW in reach.
13 ERC at 2OOS-2D1O.
the court did outline. dwugh. a
mechaDism which it indicated ia
avaiJab1e under the statutory scheme fOl'
accccmplishing the objective of partially
exempting fugitive dust emitted by
major emittiD8 facilities from the
requirements of I8Ction 165. That
approach would involve defining the
pollutant "'particulate matter" '"to
exclude particulate8 of a size or ,
composition determined not to present
IUMtantial health or welfare concerns,"
13 ERC at 2018. n. 134, and then
regulating such "excluded partiadates"
under section 111. Pumant to eection
109, EPA is cun'ently reviewing the
criteria document for the particulate
matter NAAQS, and particle size is 8
factor being considered jn this review. if
the standard is revised. the rulemaking
1'equiremt!ntB of section 3CJ7(d) will
apply.
EPA today iB adopting its proposed
deletion of the existing "fugitive dust
exemption" and is defel'rin8 further
actian on any such "exemptioo" pendins
completian of the standard review
process.
IX, Soarce
A. PrOposed DefiniUDn/I of "Source ,.
In the 1978 PSD regulations. EPA
defined "source" 8S "any structure.
building. facility, equipment.
installation. or operation (or
combination thereof) which is located
on one or more contiguous or adjacent
properties and which is owned or
operated by the same person (or by
penons under common control)," The
Offset Ruling cOntained the same
definition of "source."
In its June 1979 opinion in Alabama
Power. the Court of Appeals rejected the
definition of "source" in the PSD
regulations. It concluded that Congres8
intended section 111(a)(3) of the Act to
govern the definition of "source" for
PSD purposes. That section defines
"source" a8 "any buildinS structure.
facility, 01' installation which emits or
may emit any air pollutant." In defining
"source," EPA used the tel'JD8
''buildilJs.'' "structure," "facility," and
"installatioo," but then added-
"equipment," "operatioo," and
"combination thereof," The court held
that EPA. in addins those tenna.
eueeded ita authority. It stated.
however, that the Agency has
substantial discretion to define ODe or
more of the four terms in section
111(a)(3) to indude a wide ruse of
pollutant-emittiDs activities.
21
--In its June opinion. the court also
focused on the clause "which i810cated
011. one or more contiguous or adjacent
properties and which ia owned or
operated by the same pentOn (or persons
under COIDIDOD oontrolJ." The court held
that the approach. which that clause
embodied. of srouping poUutant-emitting
activities solely on the basis of
proximity and control is generally
acceptable, since the Agency had
"evidenced an intention to refrain from
unreasonable literal applications of the
definition and instead to consider 88 a
single source only common sense
industrial groupings," 13 ERC at 1230.
In September 1979. EPA proposed to
define "building. structure, facility and
installation" for PSD purposes as "any
grouping of pollutant-emitting activities
which are located on DDe or more
contiguous or adjacent properties and
which are Dwned or operated by the
same person (or by pe1'8011S under
common control)," As the preamble to
the September proposal explains in
detail. EPA concluded that the proposed
definition would serve the purposes of
PSD adquately by requiring review of
those major projects that would cause
air quality deterioration. At the same
time, the definition would operate to
avoid review of project8 that would not
increase deterioration 8ignificantly. In
EPA's view. the dominant p11rpo8e of
PSD review is to maintain air quality
within the applicable increments.
In September, EPA proposed to define
the four component terms differently for
nonattainment purposes. Specifically,
the Agency proposed to define
"building, 81ructure and facility" as it
had proposed to define them for PSD
purp08es, and "installation" as "an
identifiable piece of proce8s
equipment." One effect of that proposal
would be the application of
nonattainment requirements to a new
piece of equipment that would emit
significant amounts of a pollutant for
which the area had been de..isnated
nonattainment. regardle88 of any
accompanying eminions offsets at the
plant. The preamble to the proposal
explained: "Unlike the PSD provision.
the nonattainmeDt provisions are
primarily intended not merely to prevent
excessive increase8 in emissions. but to
reduce emiuiona. This fundamental
difference in purpose requires a
different approach to c1efimns the
source8 that will ~ eubject to NSR." 44
FR 51932. EpA proposed to apply this
definition to "incomplete" SIPs. i.e.,
those which did DOt demonstrate
attainment baaed excluaively on
curreotI, approved requirements. Fully
-------
52694
Federal Register I Vol. 45, No. 154 I Thursday, August 7, 1980 I Rules and Regulations
"complete" SIPs could. under EPA's
proposal, us.e the PSD definition.
In December'1979, the court issued ita
final opinion on the 1978 PSD
regulations, which opinion superseded
the June 1979 opinion. In the. December
opinion, the court reaffirmed ita earlier
conclusions that EPA must adhere to
section 111(8)(3) in defining "source" for
PSD purpOS8& and that EPA has
discretion to' define the component
terms "reasonably to carry out" the
purposes of PSD. 13 ERC at 2039. The
court added" that "a plant is to be
viewed as a source" and that the
Agency "should" provide for the
aggregation of polluting-emitting
activities "according to considerations
such as proximity and ownership." [d. at
2039 and 2040. But it warned that "EPA
cannot treat 1:ontiguous and commonly
owned units as a single source unless
they fit withi.."I. the four permissible
statutory terms." Finally, the court said
that any new definitions "should also
provide explicit notice as to whether
(and on what statutory authority) EPA
construes ther term source, as divided
into ita constituent units, to include the
unloading of vessels at marine terminals
and 'long-line' operations such as
pipelines, railroads, and transmission
lines. We a8l'eed with Industry Groups
that EPA baa not yet given adequate
notice as to whether it considers those
industrial activities to be subject to
PSD." [d. at2040.
In January1980, EPA solicited
comment OD the September proposals in
light of the gecember opinion of the
court. 45 FR 6803. EPA specifically
asked for comment on whether factors
other than ~ximity and control, such
as the hutctibnal relationship of one
activity to 81'!iother, should be used. The
Agency alsGasked for specific examples
of cases where a literal application of
the proposed. definition would be
unreasonabh.
B. PSD: CODtments on Proposal and
Responses
Most cOlIl51enters agreed that for PSD
purposes EM should adopt definitions
of "buildin&" "structure," "facility," and
"installation" that would aggregate
pollutant-emitting activities, instead of
definitiODl that would restrict one or
more of thGM terms to an individual
activity. ODe commenter, however,
argued thatBPA should adopt for PSD
purposes thv same definitions of those
terms that itbad proposed to adopt for
nonattAinm.....t purposes. The
commenteNIIIserted that the decision of
the court ~. :ARCa v. EPA, 578 F.2d
319 (D.c. . 1978), required the Agency
to impose CT on a qew unit at a
plant. even if the-unit would result in no
net increase in emissions. The
commenter also asserted that the "all-
encompassing definition. . . destroys
the intent of the PSD program by letting
opportunities for reducing increment
consumption disappear before control
technology standards (i.e., NSPS) can be
in place." (Emphasis added.)
EPA has decided to adopt for PSD
purposes the sort of "all-encompassing"
definitions that the commenter opposed.
First, in its-December 1979 opinion in
Alabama Power, the court eJq)licitly
held that ASARCa "does not prevent
aggregation of individual units of a plant
into a single source." 13 ERC at 2040.
Second. the dominant purpose of PSD
review is not to reduce increment
consumption, but rather to maintain air
quality deterioration below an
applicable increment. A definitional
structure that aggregates pollutant-
emitting activities into one "source"
would serve that purpose, since it would
allow only those changes at the
"source" that would not sigllmcantly
worsen air quality to escape review.
Some of the commenters who agreed
that each of the component terms of
"source" should aggregate pollutant-
emitting activities also supported the
use of proximity and control as the sole
criteria for aggregating them. Most of
those commenters, however, objected to
the use of proximity and control as the
sole criteria, some on the ground that
the proposed definitions would be too
inclusive and others on the ground that
the definitions would not be inclusive
enough.
The commenters who thought the
definitions would be too inclusive
asserted tha~ they would group sets of
activities at one site and under common
control that are functionally or
operationally distincL Typical of the
examples they gave are the following
activities at one site and under common
control: (1) a surface coal mine and coal-
burning electrical generators that the
mine supplies with coal: (2) a rock
quarry and the portland cement plant
that the quarry supplies with raw
material: (3) a primary aluminum ore
reduction plant. an aluminum
fabrication plant and an aluminum
reclamation plant; (4) a refinery, a
service station, a rese~ laboratory, a
fertilizer factory, and a pesticide factory;
and (5) a uranium mill and an oil field.
With the language of the June 1979
opinion in mind. the commenters
contended generally that to group the
nominally different activitiell in each of
those examples would violate any
common sense notion of "plant."
The commenters who thought the
proposed definitions would be too
inclusive luggested a wide range of
22
altemativedefinitions. For eXall1ple, o~e
group proposed that activities at one SI e
and under i:Ommon contrOl should be
combined only if: (1) they share the first
three digits under the Standard
Industrial Classification Code of the U.S.
Department of Commerce, (2) they are
dependent upon or affect the process of
each other, (3) they use B common raw
product or produce B common product,
and (4) the proponent of the project in
question does not show that the
activities have entirely separate air
quality impacts.
The commenters who thought the
proposed definitions would not be
inclusive enough urged the Agency to
abandon control as a factor and adopt
function in its place. Some of them
described a plan by a group of
independent companies to construct
jointly a single coal-burning power plant
to replace oil-burning power plants at
various manufacturing sites belonging to
those companies near to the !lite of the
coal-burning planL The commenters
contended that EPA should treat the old
plants and the new plant as being within
one "source," so that the new' plant
might escape PSD review. They argued
that the new plant would not deteriorate
air quality, since presumably the
decrease in emissions from the
shutdown of the old plants would offset
the increase from the new plant. and
that to allow it to escape review would
facilitate the national switch from oil to
coal.
After considering the comments of
those who objected to the use of
proximity and control only, EPA has
decided to adopt for PSD purposes a
definition of "building, structure, facility,
and installation" that is different from
the one it proposed in September. The
final definition provides that those
component terms each denote "all of the
pollutant-emitting activities which
belong to the same industrial grouping,
are located on one or more contiguous
or adjacent properties, and are under
the control of the same person (or
persons under common control).
Pollutant-emitting activities shall be
considered as part of the same industrial
grouping" if they belong to the same
'Major Gro~p' (i.e., which have the same
two-digit code) as described in the
Standard Industrial Classification
Manual, 1972, as amended by the 1977
Supplement (U.S. Government Printing
Office stock numbers 4101-Q066 and
003-005-00176-0, respectively)!'
In EPA's view, the December opinion
of the court in Alabama Power sets the
following boundaries on the definition
for PSD purposes of the component
te1'lll8 of "source": (1) if must carry out
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 45, No. 154 I Thursday, August 7, 1980 I Rutes and Regulations
52695
reasonably the purposes of PSD; (2) it
must approximate,a common sense
notion of "plant"; and (3) it must avoid
aggregating pollutant-emitting activities
that as a group would not fit within the
ordinary meaning of "building,"
"structure," "facility," or "installation."
the comments on the proposed
definition of "source" have persuaded
EPA that the definition would fail to
approximate a common sense notion of
"plant." since in a significant number of
cases it would group activities that
ordinarily would be considered as
separate. For instance, a uranium mill
and an oil field would ordinarily be
regarded as separate entities, yet the
proposed definition would treat them as
one.
In formulating a new defmition of
"source," EPA accepted the suggestion
of one commenter that the Agency use a
standard industrial classification code
for distinguishing between sets of
activities on the basis of their functional
interrelationships. While EPA sought to
distinguish between activities on that
basis, it also sought to maximize the
predictability of aggregating activities
. and to minimize the difficulty of
administering the definition. To have
merely added function to the proposed
definition as another abstract factor
would have reduced the predictability of
aggregating activities under that
definition dramatically. since any
assessment of functional
interrelationships would be highly
subjective. To have merely added
function would also have made
administration of the definition
substantially more difficult. since any
attempt to assess those
interrelationships would have embroiled
the Agency in numerous. fine-grained
analyses. A classification code, by
contrast. offers objectivity and relative
simplicity.
EPA has chosen the classification
code in the Standard Industrial
Classification Manual,. 197Z, as
amended in 1971 ("SIC"), because it is
both Widely-known and widely-used.
EP A has also chosen to use just one set
of categories in the manual. those that
describe each "Major Group" in the
classification system and that bear a
two-digit classification number,
although the commenter who suggested
that EPA use such a code also suggested
that the Agency use the categories at the
"three-digit level. On the one hand, the
two-digit categories are narrow enough
to separete sets of activities into
common sense groupings. In fact. most
of the nominally different sets of
activities in the examples given above
would fall int~ a different two-d.igit
category; only the fertilizer factory and
the pesticides factory would fall into the
same category. On the other hand, the
categories are broad enough to minimize
the likelihood of artificially dividing a
set of activities that does constitute a
"plant" into more than one group and
the likelihood of disputes over whether
a set of activities falls entirel, into one
category or another.
Each source is to be classified
according to its primary activity. which
is determined by its principal product or
group of products produced or
distributed. or services rendered. Thus,
one source classification encompasses
both primary and support facilities. even
when the latter includes units with a
different two-digit SIC code. Support
facilities are typically those which
convey. store. or otherwise assist in the
production of the principal product.
Where a single unit is used to support
two otherwise distinct sets of activities,
the unit is to be included within the
source which relies most heavily on its
support. For example, a boiler might be
used to generate process steam for both
a commonly controlled and located kraft
pulp mill and plywood manufacturing
plant. If the yearly boiler output is used
primarily by the pulp mill. then the total
emissions of the boiler should be
attributed to the mill.
In adopting the new definition of
"source," EPA rejected the requests of
those commenters who thought that the
proposed definition would not be
inclusive enough. As noted above. they
urged that EPA formulate a definition
that looked only to proximity and
function. But such a definition by
looking to function would unnecessarily
increase uncertainty and drain the
Agency's resources. In addition, such a
definition would present groupings, such
as the example the commenters gave,
that would severely strain the
boundaries of even the moat elastic of
the four terms. "building," "structure,"
"facility," and "installation."
Many commentera urged EPA to
clarify the extent to which the final
definition of those terms encompasses
the activities along a "long-line"
operation, such as a pipeline or
electrical power line. For example. some
urged EPA to add to the definition the
provision that the properties for such
operations are neither Contiguous nor
adjacent. To add such a provision is
unnecessary. EPA has stated in the past
and now confirml that it does not intend
"source" to encompass activities that
would be many miles apart along a long-
line operation. For instance, EPA would
not treat all of the pumping stations
23
along a multistate pipeline as one
"source. "
EPA is unable to say precisely at this
point how far apart activities must be in
order to be treated separately. The
Agency can answer that question only
through case-by-case determinations.
One commenter ask~d. however.
whether EPA would trea! a surface coal
mine and an electrical generator
separated by 20 miles and linked by a
railroad as one "source." if the mine. the
generator. and the railroad were all
under common control. EPA confirms
that it would not. First. the mine and the
generator would be too far apart.
Second, each would fall into a different
two-digit SIC category.
Three commenters focused on
whether and to what extent the
emissions from each ship that would
dock at a proposed marine terminal
should be taken into account in
determining whether the terminal would
be "major" for PSD purposes. One
commenter !lJ'8Ued in effect that the
emissions of each such lhip that are
quantifiable and occur while the ship is
coming to, staying at or going from the
terminal should be taken into account.
In the view of that commenter, all of
those activities would be "integral" to
the operation of the terminal Another
commenter asserted that none of the
emissions of any such lhip should be
taken into account, because ship. are
mobile sources. The remaining
commenter contended that only the
emissions that: (1) come from a ship
which is under the proprietary control of
the owner or operator of the terminal
and (2) occur while the ship is at the
dock should be included in an
applicability determination. That
commenterviewed the ability of the
terminal owner or operator to regulate
the behavior of a ship 88 the critical
consideration.
The permit requirements of the final
Part 52 PSD regulations apply to a
collection of pollutant-emitting activities
according to the "potential to emit" of
just those activities in that collection
which constitute a ".tationary source."
Whether and to what extent the
emissions of ships that would dock at a
terminal are to be taken into account in
determining PSD applicability depends.
therefore. on whether and to what
extent the term "stationary source" in
the final regulations encompasses not
only the activities of the terminal itself.
but also the activities of the .hips while
they are coming to, 8taying at. or going
from the terminal.
The final definition of "building,
structure, facility, and installation"
resolve. that question. EPA intends the
term ".tationary source" under that
-------
52696
Federal Register I Vol. 45, No. 154 I Thursday, August 7, 1980 I Rule. and Regulations
--:-::
definition to encompass the activities of
a marine terminal and only those
dockside activities that would serve the
purposes of the terminal directly and
would be under the control of its owner
or operator. The term "dockside
activities" means those activities in
which the ships would engage while
docked at the terminal While
"stationary source" encompasses
combinations of activities, it is limited to
combinations that would be
"stationary," that is, fixed to the
particular site. The activities of a
terminal itself would be stationary, but
all ship activities would not be. Only
those that would directly serve the
purposes of the terminal, such as
loading and unloading, would be .
stationary since they alone would be m
a sense fixed to the particular site.
Hence, "stationary source"
encompasses the activities of a marine
terminal and only those dockside
activities that would directly serve its
purposes.
In addition, while "stationary source"
encompasseg combinations of stationary
activities, it is further limited to those
that would locate. on "contiguous or
adjacent properties." In EPA's view,
only dockside activities would be
located on "property" that is contiguous
or adjacent to the terminal. Next.
"stationary source" is also limited to
those combinations of activities that
would be "under the control" of one
person or one group of persons who are
themselves under common control.
Hence, "stationary source"
encompasses only the activities at a
terminal and those dockside activities
over which the owner or operator of the
terminal would have control. Finally, the
activities at a terminal and any such
dockside activities fall under a single
two-digit SIC category, namely "Water
Transportation" (number 44).
Whether a particular dockside
activitiy would directly serve the
purposes of a terminal and would be
under the control of its owner or
operator depends upon the
circumstances of a specific situation.
Presumably, however, the activity of
loading or unloading a lhip would in
every case directly serve the purposes of
the terminal and would be under the
control of its owner or operator to a
substantial extent. In particular, the
Agency would expect that no loading or
unloading could occur without the
consent of the owner or operator ana
consequently that the owner or operator
would let, or at least have a significant
say in the setting of, the schedule for
loading or unloadiq.
In adopting this interpretation of
"Itationary source," EPA in large
measure has rejected the arguments of
the commenten on the ship emiuiona
issue. First, to treat all of the activities
of a ship while it is coming to, staying at,
and -aoing from a terminal would violate
any common sense notion of "building,"
"structure," "facility," or "installation."
To group just those activities occurring
at the terminal that are essential to its
functioning entirely comports with
common sense. Second. an activity such
as loading and unloading is certainly
stationary, even if the ships that engage
in it have mobility. Ships, moreover, are
not "mobile sources" within the meaning
of section 110(a}(5) of the Act, the
provision restricting indirect source
review. Finally, the fact that a terminal
owner or operator does not own a
particular ship does not mean that the
owner or operator has no control over
behavior of the ship at the terminal.
In deference to the position taken in
Alabama Power. EPA has decided to
treat the definition of "source" in the
1978 PSD regulations as not
encompassing any ship or ship activity.
As a result, ship emissions are not to be
taken into account at all in determining
whether a marine terminal is subject to
review under the 1978 PSD regula tions.
A terminal which would not be subject
to review under the 1978 regulations if
ship emissions are not included in the
determination of potential to emit can
also be excluded from review under the
new regulations provided certain .
conditions are met. These conditions are
that the owner or operator of such a
source has obtained each of the permits
required under the SIP for the terminal
before the date tlps notice appears in
the Federal Register and commences
construction on it within 18 months after
that date.
The final dermition of the component
terms of "stationary source" diffen from
the proposed definition in one
significant respect. The proposed.
definition used the phrase "any grouping
of pollutant-emitting activities:' The
final definition uses the phrase "all of
the pollutant-emitting activities:' Taken
literally, the proposed definition would
have referred not only to all of the
activities at a plant. but also to any
subgroup of those activities. EPA,
however, intended it to refer only to all
of the activities. The final definition
merely makes that explicit.
C Nonattamment: Comments on
Proposal and Response
Many commenten objected to EPA's
proposed definition of "source" for
nonattaUunentareas.Sevend
commenten argued that there was DO
24
. drawn
statutory basis for the distlnCtiin" d
in the proposal between "comp ete an
"incomplete" SIPs. Most of the th
commenten further claimed that e
"dual definition" (i.e.. treating a so~e
as both a plant and an individual piece
of process equipment at the plant) both
was illegal under the statute and
Alabama Power and was wrong as a
matter of policy.
~ legal arguments presented by the
commenters fell into two broad
categories. First, they argued that the
dual definition really defined "source"
as a combination of surces, which had
been forbidden by both Alabama Power
and ASARCO. EPA therefore could, in
these commenters' view, derme "source"
as either the entire plant or an
individual piece of process equipment.
but not both. These commenters opted
for the former approach.
Thesecondlegala~entchallenged
EPA's contention that use of the plant-
wide definition would be improper in
nonattaUunent areas, because the
purpose of the nonattaUunent new
source review program is to reduce
emissions, not to hold emissions
constant. The commenters claimed that
the Act gives primary responsibility far
assuring reasonable further progress ta
the states, and the states therefore can
choose whatever mix of strategies they
want to achieve reasonable further
progress. This suggested to the
commenters that EPA had no authority
to ban a plant-wide definition for new
source review if the state could
otherwise demonstrate reasonable
further progress.
Several commenters also pointed to a
variety of policy concerns which they
felt militated against EPA's proposed
dual definition. First, they argued that
the definition would discourage
technological innovation that could
actually reduce emissions, because
sources would be reluctant to modernize
for fear that such requirements as LAER
would be applied to them. In particular,
they felt sources would be unwilling to
retire old inefficient facilities and
replace them with efficient cleaner ones.
Second. some commenten claimed that
there was no point to reviewing a
facility where offsetting emissions could
be obtained. since on the whole ambient
air quality would not get any wane.
F'mally, many commenters complained
that the definitional structure aa a whole
was far too complex, and they urged
that EPA simplify the system both by
eliminating the distinction between
"complete" and '1ncomplete" SIPs and
by adopting one definition for both PSD
and nonattaUunent areas. Most
commenten preferred the PSD
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 45. No. 154 I Thursday, August 1, 1980 I Rules and Regulations
52697
definition. although some urged that the
dual defInition be used.
In revising the Offset Ruling in
January 1979, EPA adopted definitions
of "source" and "modification" which
had the effect of requiring any increase
greater than 100 tons in the potential to
emit of a plant to undergo
nonattainment new source ~view, even
if offsetting reductions at the plant were
to accompany the change. The effect of
the proposed definitions of "source" and
"modification" which are being
promulgated today would be basically
the same as those in the Offset Ruling.
Adoption of the proposed definitions
would constitute, therefore, a
continuation of an established approach
to nonattainment new source review.
The comments on the dual definition
have failed to persuade EPA that it
should abandon the established
approach at this time. As a result. the
agency has decided to adopt the dual
defInition in each set of nonattainment
regulations. For the reasons given
below. EPA does not agree that the dual
definition is either illegal or unsound
from a policy standpoint. In addition.
the agency has decided that the dual
definition should be used regardless of
whether the SIP is complete or
incomplete. EPA agrees with the
commenters that there is little support in
the statute for defining "source"
according to the complete or incomplete
status of the SIP, and that the proposed
definition was complicated.
The dual defInition. by defining
individual units as a "source," will bring
more units in for review in areas with
unhealthy air and thereby result in
reducing emissions from the status quo.
The legislative history of the Act
indicates that new source review was
intended to be an important tool in the
drive towards attainment of ambient air
quality standards. As the House Report
stated:
(M)axlmum poUution control from new
sources is necessary in order to permit room
for maximum potential economic growth.
This is particularly true in light of the
requirement for reasonable further progress
and the indications that emissiona from many
existing sources in nonattainment areas will
be increasing (dl,le to fuel switching. natural
gas curtailments) or remaining static (due to
delayed compliance orders, et cetera).
Finally. the technology forcing purpose of the
act is best served by requiring maximum
feasible pollution control from these new
sources In dirty air areas. For all these
reasona. the committee adopted the
requirement for proposed new or modified
major stationary sources In nonattalnment
areas to meet the lowest achievable emission
rate requiremenL
H, Rep. No. 9~Z94, 95th Congress, 1st
Sess, 215 (1m). In addition, after
hearing testimony that no steel sources
owned by five major steel companies
were in compliance, the House inserted
into section 173 a requirement that the
owner of a proposed source or
modification demonstrate that all other
sources owned, operated. or controlled
by him in the state are in compliance
with the applicable SIP. Jd .t 21~213.
In this way, Congress meant to use new
source review as a means of cleaning up
existing sources as well.
To realize this goal fully, Congress
intended that new source review be
applied to the greatest extent possible.
For example, Senator Muskie. in
presenting the Clean JiWr Act
Amendments of 1977 to the Senate,
spoke of reViewing "any physical
change which increases [emissions]
* * *," and he went on to note:
Thus. [under the offset ruling and Part D
NSR requirements) a new source is still
subject to such requirements 88 "lowest
achievsble emission rate" even if it is
constructed as a replacement for an older
facility resulting in a new reduction from
previous emission levels. 123 Congo Rec. at S
13702 (daily edition. August 4. 1977).
Since the dual definition would bring in
more sources or modifications for
review than would the plant-wide
definition used for PSD purposes
(including many replacement facilities
which would not be reviewed under a
plant-wide definition), use of the dual
definition clearly is more consistent
with Congressional intent.
The dual definition also is consistent
with Alabama Power and ASARCO.
Alabama Power held that EPA bad
broad discretion to define the
constituent terms of "source" so as best
to effectuate the purposes of the statute.
Different definitions of "source" can
therefore be used for different sections
of the statute. See 13 ERC at 2039. As
EPA discussed in detail in its proposal,
the pUl'J!ose of the nonattainment
provisions is to "positively reduce
emissions," not merely to hold emissions
constant. In addition, unrestricted use of
meeting emissions at an entire plant in
non attainment areas would make
attainment more difficult. since many of
the limited number of cost-effective
opportunities to reduce emissions will in
fact be used to avoid review. See 44 FR
51932. The dual definition therefore
comports with the purposes of Part D of
the Act.
Moreover, Alabama Power and
ASARCO taken together suggest that
there is a distinction between Clean Air
Act programs designed to enhance air
quality and those designed only to
maintain air quality. In ASARCO, the
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit struck down the
25
definition of "source" for new source
performance standards (NSPS), which
had employed a "bubble" concept. An
important element in the court's decision
was its belief that the "bubble," by
allowing sources to escape NSPS, was
inconsistent with the purpose of NSPS,
which was to improve air quality. See
578 F.2d at 327-28. But in Alabama
Power. the same court held that for PSD
purposes. EPA must use a "bubble"
approach. precisely because PSD is
designed to maintain air quality and
therefore deals with "a significantly
different regulation and statutory
purpose," 13 ERC at 2044.
Under this analysis, use of a plant-
wide definition to avoid new source
review would appear to be
inappropriate in nonattainment areas,
since the purpose of nonattainment SIPs
is to improve existing air quality so as to
attain the ambient air quality standards.
EPA therefore believes that it would be
more consistent with the purposes of the
Act not to permit states to choose a
plant-wide definition of source.
Promulgation of the dual definition
follows the mandate of Alabama Power.
which held that. while EPA could not
define "s.ouree" as a combination of
sources. EPA had broad discretion to
define "building," "structure," "facility,"
and "installation" 80 as to best
accomplish the purposes of the Act. 13
ERC at 2039. This holding contemplates
that one term (such as "building") may
be more inclusive than another term
(such as "installation"), and so a
"building" may include many
"installations." In this way, a "source"
can. under Alabama Power. be
composed of smaller "sources," yet not
be a combination of sources. The dual
definition fits into Alabama Power,
since under EPA's definitional scheme. a
"source" is either an individual piece of
process eqUipment or the entire plant; it
is not a combination of sources. That is,
when deciding whether a source must
undergo new source review, the
reviewing authority must determinine
whether there was a significant increase
in emissions at either a "major"
individual piece of equipment or at the
plant as a whole. Wherever such an
increase occurs is a "source." Thus the
plant itself is a source, not a
combination of sources, although it may
contain smaller sources.
EPA recognizes that use of different
definitions for PSD and nonattainment
areas adds to the complexity of the
permitting process. But this additional
complexity is outweighed by the need
for a more inclusive definition of source
in nonattainment areas in order to
assure attainment of standards.
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 45, No. 154 I Thursday, August 7,1980 I Rules and Regulations ~
. ntitled
the thresholds, see the section e
De Minimis Exemptions. gu1 ti ns
Finally, the new PSD re a. o.
contain definitions of "net eD1lSslons
increase," which appear as U d --
II 51.24(b)(3) and 52.21(b)(3): n er
those definitions, "'net emissions f
increase" denotes the posi~v~ s~ ~
any increase in "actual em1ssl~ns m
a particular physical or operational
change at a source and any other
increases and decreases in "actual
emissions" that are contemporaneous
with the particular change and
otherwise creditable.
The first step in determining whether
a "net emissions increase" would occur
is to determine whether the physical or
operational change in question would
itself result in an increase in "actual
emissions," If it would not, then it could
not result in a "net emissions increase."
If it would. the second step is to identify
and quantify any other prior increases
and decreases in "actual emissions" that
would be contemporaneous with the
particUlar change and otherwise.
creditable. The third step, finally, is to
total the increase from the particular
change with the other contemjJeraneous
increases and decreases. If the total
would exceed zero, \hen a "net
emissions increase" would result from
the change.
The definitions of "net emissions
increase" specify which increases and
decreases in "actual emissions" are
contemporaneous. Under the definition
in the Part 52 PSD regulations, increases
or decreases are contemporaneous with
a proposed change only if they occur
between two dates: first, the date five
years before construction "commences"
on the proposed physical or operational
change in question and. second, the date
the increase from that change "occurs."
An increase from a physical change
"occurs" when the affected emissions
unit becomes operational and begins to
emit a particular pollutant Any unit that
requires shakedown becomes.
operational only after a reasonable
shakedown period (not to exceed 180
days). Under the definition in the Part 51
regulations, a state in revising its SIP
may set a period other than the five-year
period of the Part 52 regulations to
define what is contemporaneous and
what is not, so long u the period is not
unreasonably long.
The definitions of "net emissions
increase" in the PSD regulations also
specify which contemporaneous
increases and decreases in "actual
emissions" are creditable. A
contemporaneous increase or decrease
is creditable only if the relevant
reviewing authority has not relied onoit
in issuing a PSD permit for the source,
52698
Although it is claimed that some.
sources may not be willing to ~ode':J1lZe
their facilities due to the perceived
added expense of LAER and the need to
demonstrate statewide compliance. EPA
believes that ita approach is justified by
the fact that the dual definition will
bring in more so~e~ ~d modifications
for review and will reqwre better
pollution control technology in
non a ttainment areas. 1.
EPA disagrees that use of a plant-
wide definition would allow a plant
with a new installation to achieve the
same emissions reductions as LAER, but
in a less expensive manner by finding
offsets elsewhere in the plant. This
argument assumes that LAER is
markedly more costly than the
requirements that would otherwise
apply. EPA believes that its o~ pa.st
actions. and those of the states, mdicate
that LAER need not and is not generally
being interpreted in this manner.
EPA believes, and most commenters
agreed. that new facilities should install
state-of-the-art control technology. Such
a requirement is imposed by th~ Clean
Air Act for major new sourceSlD PSD.
areas (BACf), for major new sources m
nonattainment areas (LAER), and
whenever EPA has set new source
performance standards (NSPS). EPA
therefore intends to interpret the LAER
requirement in a reasonable manner, as
it believes it has in the past. and to take
a close look whenever LAER would be
substantially stricter than these other
requirements.
EPA intends that ita interpretation of
"building. structure. and facility" be
identical to that for "building. structure.
facility, or installation" used for PSD
purposes.ll
X. Modification
This section discu88es the final PSD
and nonattainment definitions of "major
modifications" and "net emissions
increase" which EPA is promulgating in
this notice. The section first describes
those fmal provisions. It then.f~s on
each of their major aspects, glVlng m
particular the relevant proposal. the
comments on it and EPA'. responses.
An example of how the definitions work
appears at the end of the section. The
'"Contrary to ODe COIIIDIeDtar'. ~t. EPA
bellev" th.t the dual definition will DOt C8UA
lQurc" to locate In clean area.. My 8UCh 8OIU'C8
would be aubject to PSI) rniew In any event.
- nOne commenter ~1Id EPA define ..~
.. one emlttina \be criteria pa\halant8, ud DOt aay
pollutant reauJateclllllder the Act. . EP A ~ d8cid8cI
to retain ill dafinitIaD. 8Inc8 It comport8 With
eectIoD 302(j) of the Act. Howner. parwant to
leCtIon t7Z(b)(S). EPA wiD f8f1Wre - ~ wIW:b
revjew parmllI ODly for tIIc.e poIIatanta .-
8.11 area baa beaa daiFatild -~ 8Dd for
which tb8 aoarce 18 lMjar.
section also discusses a provision which
appears in the PSD and nonattainment
definitions of "major stationary source,"
but which stems from the final.
formulation of "major modification."
That provision establishes that a
physical change at a "minor" stationary
source which change by itself would
constitute a "major stationary soU}.'ce"
shall be treated as a "major stationary
source."
A. Final Definitions of "Major
Modification" and "Net Emissions
Increase"
With the final amendments
annOlmced here. the Part 51 and Part 52
PSD regulations now define "major
modification" as any "physical change"
or "change in method of operation" at a
major stationary ~ource whi~ w~uld
result in a "significant net emISSIons
increase" in any pollutant subject to
regulation under the Act See
II 51.24(b )(2) and 52.21(b )(2).
While the new PSD regulations do not
define "physical change" or "change in
method of operatioO," they provide th~t
those phrases do not encompas" certain
specific types of events. Those ~es
are: (1) routine maintenance. rep~ and
replacement; (2) a fuel switch due to an
order under the Energy Supply and
Environmental Coordination Act of 1974
(or any superseding legislation) or due
to a natural gas curtailment plan un?er
the Federal Power Act; (3) a fuel sWitch
due to an order or rule under section 125
of the Clean Air Act; (4) a switch at a
steam generating unit to a fu~l.derive~
in whole or in part from mumClpal solid
waste; (5) a switch to a fuel or raw
material which (a) the source was
capable of accommodating before
January 6. 1975. 10 long as the switch
would require no change in any
preconstruction permit condition
established after that date under .the SIP
(including any PSD permit condition) or
(b) the source is approved to make
u;nder a PSD permit; (6) any increase in
the hours or rate of operation of a
source, so long as the increase would
require no change in any
preconstruction permit condition
established after January 6. 1975 under
the SIP; and (7) a change in the
ownership of a stationary source.
The new PSD regulations define
"significant" in terms of de minimis
thresholds for each pollutant subject to
regulation under the Act Those
thresholds appear in II 51.24(b)(21) and
52.21(b)(21). For example, the threshold
for sulfur dioxide is 40 tons per year. A
''net emi8lions incre.se" in sulfur
dioxide below that level is not
"significant" For a fuller discussion of
26
-------
Federal Rezister I Vol. 45. No. 154 I Thursday, August 7, 1980 I Rules and RegulatiODl
528
and that pennit is still in effect when the
increase in "actual emissions" from the
particular chanp OOCW'I. A reYiewins
authority "relies" on an increase or
decrease when, after takins the increase
or decrease into account, it concludes
that the proposed project would not
cause or contribute to a violation of an
increment or ambient standard. A
contemporaneous increase or decrease
in "actual emissions" of sulfur dioxide
or particulate matter that occurs before
the appliuble baseline date is
creditable only if. in addition. it is
required to be Considered in calculating
bow much of a particular increment
remains available.
Finally, the definitions of "net
emissions increase" in the new PSD
regulations specify the extent to which
any contemporaneous and otherwise
creditable increase 01' decreue is
creditable. Any such increase is
creditable to the extent that the new
level o""actual emissions" exceeds the
old level of "actual emiaaions." Any
such decrease is creditable only to the
extent that (1) the old level of "actual
emissions" (or the old level of
"allowable emissiona," if it is lower)
exceeds the new level of "actual
emissiona." (2) the decrease is federally
enforceable at the time construction
begins on the propoeed physical or
operational change which it is intended
to offset, and (3) the decrease has
roushly the aame health and welfare
sjgnificance 88 the increaae from the
proposed change.
Under the final PSD regulationa. the
pbrue "actual emiuiOl18" meana the
rate at which an emissioD8 unit actually
emita a particnlar pollutant. SetI
II 51.24{b)(21) and 52.21(b)(21). In
general, that rate as of a particular date
equals the average rate in toOl per year
at which the unit actually emitted the
pollutant during a tw~year period
which precedes the particular date and
is representative of normal soarce .
operation. The reviewing authority ID8J
presume' that any "source-apecific
allowable emiuiona" for the unit is
equivalent to the actual emissiOD8 of the
. unit. For any unit which bas yet 10 begin
normal operations 00 the date in
question. ita actual emissiona equal ita
""potential to emit" on that date. Far a
fuller discussion of the concept of
"actual emissiODl" and in particular of
what COD8titutes "a0mce-8p8cific
allowable emiuiona." see the aectioa OIl
Increment Ccm8umption.
The final PSD regulations also
describe in detail the concept of
"allowable emis8icm8. " See
II 51.24(b)(t8) aqd 5Z.21(b)(18). That
pbraN me... in eaence the maximum
. .
rate at which an emiasi0D8 1IIIit ander
the most stringent of certain 1"
constraints may emit a particular .
pollutant. 1'11e lepl constrainta are (t)
any applicable .tandaro8 in 40 CFR
- Parts eo and 81, (2) any applicable SIP
limitatioDl. including any with a future
compliance date, and (3) any applicable
condition in a permit issued under the
SIP that II federally enforceable, also
including any condition with a future
compliance date.
The final amendments to the Offset
Ruling. .40 CFR 51.18 and 40 CFR 52.24
which are announced here also include
new definitioD8 of "major modification. ..
"~ifir.8nt," "Det emissions increase,"
-actual emiaaions. - and "allowable
emissions." In general those definitions
follow the pattern of the PSD definitions.
Only the definitions of "net emissions
increase" in those nonattainment
provisions vary significantly. They add
that a decrease in "actual emissions"
which 18 contemporaneous with the
increase in questioo may be credited
oaly if and only to the extent that the
relevant permitting authority has not
already accepted it as a utiafactory
"offset" in i88uing a preconstructiOD
permit under the SIP.
B. No Net Increase
The Alabama Power declaion rejected
EPA'a regulatory appl"08ch of requiring
PSD review of potential emiaai0n8
inerealel at existing I!tatiOlUll'YSOW'Ce8
only when 8Uch inereases would equal
or exceed the 100/250 ton tbreahold
used in the review of new sources. It
held iD8tead that a chaqe in a major
atationary source is subject to review
only if it would result in any significant
net increase. In responM. EPA propoaed
011 September 50 1979, an approach that
would subject to new source review
(NSR) under the relevant PSD or
nonattAinment proviaioDl only each
significant net inereale that would occar
in ~potential to emit of a major
statioriary source. Under the proposal. .
significant net increase W88 to be an
overall increase in the potential to emit
of the source equal to or greater than a
pollutant-specific emiasiona cutoff (see
De Minimis Exemptions), taking into
account contemporaneous emissiona
increele8 and decreasu at the same
source. An exception to this general rule
of nettinrJ contemporaneous inc:reuea
and ciecreues was to be the cue of
construction I'88trictiona ande~ eectiona
110(a)(2)(I) and 173(4). There.
accumulated ineres.. would count
toward trigeriDg the srowtJa
probibiti0D8. without resard to any
contemponneou reduc:tiaae occ:urrins
at the AJDe a08r'Ce.
27
Public comment 8IIppOI'ted this
proposal (except with reaped to the
constructioo I'88trictiODS) .. die clear
and proper interpretation of tile
Alabama Power decision. Sixty-two of
sixty-three commenten endorsed the
general nettiDg approach to I8Odificatior
taken in the propoaal. althoush .veral
took iuue with certaiD of the apecific
rules relatins to the concept (see
di8CU88ion below). Several COIDIDenten
felt that requiring any sisnificant Det
increase to undel'8o review waa too
strict on exiatiD8 8Ource8 .. compared
with new 8OU1'Ce8, siDee aew 8OUI'Ce8
can emit up to 100/1SJ tOD8 per year an,
still not be aubject to review. The terms
of the Act and the court deci8ion
preclude allowins such a senera1
exemption for exiaq 8Ourcea. Punuan
to Alabama Power. the Administrator is
today promulgaq the nettina concept
for determining the review applicability
of c:hanges at existing major 8tationary
sources (coIJ,i,tent with each program't
definition of aource). This promulgation
affect8 regulationa for PSD (40 CFR 52.2
and 40 CFR 51.24), Donattainment NSR
(EmissioD8 Offset Interpretative Rulina
and 40 CFR 51.18(j), Review of New
Stationary Sources and ModificatioDl).
and the construction restrictions under
sections 11O(a)(2)(I) and 113{t), (4O CFR
52.24. Statutory Reabiction on new
Stationary Sources). Allowance of
netting for determinU18 the app1icabWiJ
of 40 CFR 52.24 is a change from the
propoaal and is diaC1l88ed below.
c..PoJJUlDnt AppJicobil.itr
EPA proposed to require
preCODBtruction rniew only if the
increase in potential to emit would be
for a pollutant which the soan:e emita ill
major amounta. Once an inere... in the
major pollutant trigered PSD rniew
then review would be reqtdn::d for all
regulated pullutanta emitted in greater
than de minimis amounts aa 8 result of
the modificetion. Review would a1ao be
required if the eminions chaDp it8elf
were equivalent to a major ltatiOlUU'Y
801II'Ce.
Only limited (iUdbucQt was recei"ed
on EPA's proposal to require review
where major changes in emissions of
minor pollutanta or greater than de
minimis changes in emiasiona of a major
pollutant would occur. While a few
groups endorsed the September 5
proposal. one group arped that
Alabama I'rnRr did not restrict PSD
applicability to just madificati0n8
involving the pollatant(8) which the
aource emita in major 1UIIOUDt8. That
group pointed out that 88CtioD 111(a){4}
of the Act define8 '"modification" u
"any phyeical c:baee in. or" iD
the method of operation of. . ItatioaarJ
-------
S2700
Federal Register I Vol. 45, No. 154 I nursday, August 'I, 1980 , Rules and RegulatIons
1
~
source which increases the amount of
any air pollutant emitted by such source
or which results in the emissions of any
air pollutant not previously emitted."
(Emphasill added.)
The Administrator agrees that
requiring review for a net emissions
increase in any pollutant subject to
regulation under the Act is consistent
with the Alabama Power decision.
Consequently, EPA is promulgating a
final rule that requires PSD
preconstruction review for net emissions
increases in greater than de minimis
amounts at a major stationary source for
any pollutant sQbject to regulation under
the Act emitted by the source,
regardless of whether the source is
major for that pollutant.
The Administrator is not changing the
September 5 proposal with respect to
pollutant applicability in nonattainment
areas. See Geographic and Pollutant
Applicability. The source must be major
for the nonattainment pollutant(s) and
must make a greater than de minimis
emissions change in such a pollutant in
order to trigger nonattainment review
for that pollutant(s). A PSD review,
however, would be triggered if a greater
than de minimis change occun at that
major source for any regulated pollutant
.emitted by the 30urce other than the
nonattainment pollutant(s).
D, NeUing of Actual Emissions
EPA proposed on September 5 that an
activity be deemed a major modification
when the "potential to emit" of the
major stationary source experiences a
net increase greater than a de minimis
amount, taking into account all
contemporaneous changes, EPA also
proposed that a reduction would be
creditable only if the physical capability
of the source to emit a pollutant were
actually reduced. In addition. where
"allowable emissions" for a source. as
defined in the 1978 PSD regulations and
the Offset Ruling would be less than ita
"potential to emit," no credit would be
given for reducing potential emissions to
"allowable emissions." "Allowable
emissions," as defined in those.
regulations, meant the emissions rate
calculated usins the maximum rated
capacity of the source and is
represented by the most strinsent than
any of the fonowing: (1) any applicable
standards in 40 CFR Parta 60 and 61; (2)
any applicable SIP emissions
limitations; and (3) any emissions rate
specified as a permit condition under
the SIP. The applicable SIP limitation in
the case of designated nonattainment
areas included the emissions rate that
was al8umed for the source in the
attainment demo~tratiOD and in the
schedule for making reasonable further
progress.
. Forty of forty-two commenters
favored an allowable emissions
baseline. for determining whether a net
emissions increase would occur, instead
of one usins "potential to emit." The
other two commenters endorsed EPA's
proposal. Many also complained of the
different criteria for determining .
"potential to emit" from new and .
existing sources. (Under the proposal.
"allowable emissions" and physical
incapability could have constrained the
"potential to emit" of existing but not
new, stationary sources.)
There are problems with using a
baseline for netting that is based on the
existing source's "potential to emit." A
computation of an existing source's
potential emissions could give a figure
considerably higher than what it is
actually emitting. This would be
especially true if the source operated
only a small part of the time or used
considerably cleaner fuels than it is
allowed to bum. Such an approach
would therefore create a "paper offset"
that could permit actual air quality to
deteriorate seriously, while the change
which increased actual emissions
avoided NSR. Similar problems would
arise if offsets were based on allowable
emissions, as recommended by most
commenters.
In the June 1979 opinion in Alabama
Power. the court held that the definition
of "modification" in section 111(a)(4)
governs the definition of that term for
PSD purposes. Section 111(a) provides
that a "modification" is "any physical
change in. or change in t1!e method of
operlttion of, a stationary sow.~e which
increases the amount of any trlr
pollutant emitted by such sOllrce or
which resulta in the emissions of any air
pollutant not previously emitted. ..
(Emphasis added.) Although the
underlined words in the definition
appear to refer to what the source is
actually emitting at a particular time, the
court in the June opinion described the
concept of "modification" in terms of
changes in the "potential to emit" of a
source, As a result, EP A proposed
definitions which also referred to
changes in ''potential to emit."
In its December 1979 opinion.
however, the court used e,n entirely
different set of terms to describe
''modification.'' Instead of using
"potential to emit," it used language
which, like the section 111{a)(4)
definition. suggest changes in actual
emissions. For example, at one point the
court states: "If these plants increase
pollution. they will generally need a
permit. Exceptions to this rule will occur
when the increases are de minimis, and
28
when the increases are offset by
contemporaneous decreases of . . ."
pollutants, as we cliscuss below
(Emphasis added.)
Followiq the lead of the court. EPA
has also shifted the focus of its al . .
regulatory definitions from "potenti to
emit" to "actual emissions," For both
PSD and nonattainment purposes, a
"major modification".is now any
significant "net emissions increase" at a
major stationary source that results from
certain changes. "Net emissio~
increase" is, in turn. roughly any net
increase in "actual emissions." Not only
are those definitions consistent with the
court's view of section 111(a)(4), but
they also avoid the "paper offset"
problem described above, thereby better
serving PSD and nonattainment
purposes.
E. Contemporaneous Increases and
Decreases
Under Alabama Power. a modification
is any net increase in emissions that
would result form "contemporaneous"
changes at a major stationary source,
The court decision left to EPA the task
of defining what changes should be
considered "contemporaneous,"
A narrow interpreta tion of the term
"contemporaneous" would restrict
creditable decreases in emissions to
those occurring at the same time as the
emissions increases to be offset. The
administrator decided against proposing
such an interpretation. since it might
promote the continued operation of old
or obsolete equipment in order to
prese~e offset credit.lnatead, EPA
proposed a system that would grant
credit for any post-promulgation
emissions reduction and for certain pre-
promulgation emissions reductions
involving recent shutdowns or
production curtailments. In order to be
creditable, the reductions were to be
enforceable before operation of the
emissions unit(s) that would result in the
emissions increases (except that a 180-
day shakedown period could be granted
for replacements). A preconstruction
notice was also proposed as a
mandatory means to record any
reduction credit. (For a discussion of
that proposed notice requirement, see
the section entitled Notification.)
On January 30, 1980 (45 FR 6802), EPA
solicited additional comment on its
proposal for "contemporaneous," In
particular, the Administrator asked
whether a three-year time limit should
be imposed for qualifying reductions as
"contemporaneous." The proposed
three-year time cap would have run
from the time of the emissions reduction
to the time that the source would have
ffied any neces8ary permit application
-------
Federid Register I Vol. '5, No. 154 I Thmsday, August 7, 1980 I Rules and Regulations
S2i'01
for the proapective emisliona
iDcreue(a). Where. permit would have
not been required, the reference time
would instead be the date on which
construction commenced on the chaage
resultmg in the emiaiona iDr.:naae..
Several CODIDU!Dta were received on
theSeptemberSpropoaLM81I)'
coofu8ed the dates far accumulation at
minor stationary sources (see discusaicm
below) with the time limita for
"contemporaneous" cbanses at major
stationary sources. The majority of
commenten on the January 30 Federal
Register notice were &om the industrial
lector and they urged EPA to treat any
emissions decrease which occurs before
a proposed increase as being
"Contemporaneous" with that inaeue.
EPA however, hu rejected those
urgings. To aedit any deaeaae that
OCClll'l before. propoaed increase
would violate any common sel18e notion
of what is "contemporaneous," aince a
period of contemporllDeity mu~ have
some definite boundaries.
EPA agrees with thOle iDdustry
commenters. however. to the extent that
they contended that the period of
contemporaneity should be fairly large.
In particular. EPA believes that the
period should be wide enough 80 as to
minimize !IllY incentive for keeping old
or obsolete equipment in operatioD
beyond ita usefulness. AI. a result. EP A
has set five years. pm. time for
construction, a. the period of
contemponmeity for the purpoeea of the
Part 52 PSD regulations. the Offset ..
Ruling and the construction moratorium.
Specifically, the definition of "net
emissiOlUl inaease" in each of those
regulations provides that a decrease in
"actual emiaaiou"'may be credited onl,
if it 0CCUl"I between the date five years
before construction "commences" on a
proposed physical or operatiorlal change
and the date the in.creaae in "actual
emiasiona" from that c:hanse occura. A
five-year limit was selected for those
regulations rather than . three-year
value. since five years is frequently uaed
as the time duration_over which
corporate explUaioD planning i8
conducted.
For the purpose8 of the Part 51 PSD
and nonattaimnent regulations. EPA hu
I'established that each state may set the
period of contemporaneity for ita own
NSR regulatiou. The state may not.
howewet', set a period of UlU'e88onable
or undefined leDgth.
F. Otherwhe Creditable InC1'eQ1la and
Decreases
Whether an increase or decrease in
"actual emissions" is creditable for PSD
or nonattainment ~08e8 depends. not
only on whe!her it is contemp0nme0u8
with the bu:rease in questioa, but also
on Certa.iD other fac:tora. F"1I'8t, UDder
each of the PSD and ooaattam~at
definitions. a prior increase or deaeue
i8 creditable om, if the relevant
reviewiDs aatboritJ hu DOt relied upon
it in iaaias a permit UDder the relennt
NSR program. As atated earlier. a
reviewing authoritJ "relies" on an
increase or decrease when, after takinR
the incre.. or decrea8e into 8000unt. it
concludes that the proposed project
would not C8uae or contribute to a
violatioa of an iDcremeDt or ambient
standard.. The purpoae of that rule ia to
"wipe the alate clean." Once the
reviewiag authority bas evaluated a
significant Det increue in iaauing an
NSR permit the Det iDcreue ahould not
be a f.ctOll' in decidiq whether
subsequent events ahould underso
scrotiny. too.
Secoud. UDder the PSD definition of
"net emiuiona increaae," an increase or
decreue in actual emiuions of sulfur
dioxide or particulate matter which
occun before the baseline date ia
creditable only if it would be considered
in calculating how much of an increment
remains available. In fo~ating that
definition,-EPA sought to establish u
close a correspondence u p088ible
between what consumed Increment and
what must underso NSR for PSD.
Without that rule. Bome chaD8es that
would consume increment could eacape
review because of a prior decrease that
was subsumed in the baseline
concentration. In addition, without that
rule, some changes that would not
consume increment could have to
underso review because of a prior
increase that was also subsWJ18d in the
baseline concentration.
G. The Exltmt to Which Increases fJIJd
Decret1M1s are Creditable
Each of the definitions of -net
emissions inaeue" in the PSD and
DODattainment regulatiOlUl cODtains
provisiOlUl which govern the extent to
which. creditable iDcreeae or decrease
in "actual emissiom" may be credited.
The ruIn in each of those definitions
relating to increases are .imple. An
iDcreaBe is creditable to the extent that
the new level of "actna1 eminions.' at
the emiaaiou unit in queation exceeds
the old level The old level of "actual
em;mons" is that which prevailed juat
prior to the physical or operational
c:hanae which caued the increaae.. The
DeW level i8 that which prevaila just
after the change.
The rules relating to clecreaaes th.t
are common to each of the definitiOD.l
are more complex. First, a decrease 18
aeditable only to the extent that "the
old Inel of actual emiuioD.l or the old
29
level of alJowab/lI em.iWDn8, whichever
;. lower, exceeds the new leftl of actual
emissions.- ~.8ia added.) Since
"..nowable emiuioaa" eacompaS8e8 any
federally enforceable requirement.
inclwtir,g any with 8 future compliance
date. the underlined Ianguase prevents a
company from takina credit for
decreuea that it ha. bad to make or will
have to make in the future. BFA
concluded that to give credit for a
decrease a compan, has h.d to make in
order to bring an emissions unit into
compliance was unwise. since together
with the five-year "contemporaneous"
period it would create an incentive to
stay out of compliance. Furthennore. it
would be contrary to the purposes of thŁ
Act and good sense to provide what is
in essence a benefit for recalcitrance.
Similarly, EPA concluded that to give
credit for a decrease a company will
ultimately have to make anyway in
order to meet. requiremenl by a certarn
date would alBo be unwise. aiDce it
would encourage procrastination.
Further, allowing decreases which fulfil:
preexisting requirements to be used to
avoid review would undermine the
purposes of the PSI) and nonattamment
programs by interfering with efforts to
preserve or achieve attainmenL
Second, a decreue i. creditable only
to the exkent that it 18 "federally
enforceable" from the moment that
acWal construction begins on the
physical or operational change which
causes the "actual emissions" increase
in question. The purpose of that rule is
to ensure that the decree8e 18 real and
that it remaina in effecL The term
"federally enforceable" is defined in the
regulations u any limitation or
conditions which ŁFA can enforce, such
as any permit requirements established
punuant to 40 CPR 52.21 or under
tegulations approved UDder 40 CFR 5U,
and 40 CFR 51~
Finally, . decrease is creditable only
to the extent that it hat the same health
and welfare significance as the
increases in question. By this provision,
EPA seeks mainly to prevent an
increase in emiuiona with considerable
health and welfare aigDificance from
escaping review merely because of a
contemporaDeous decrease in less
harmful emia.iona. The balic health an(
welfare protection ~ of the Act
mandate this proviaIcm.
The deftnitlou of .'net emissions
increase" in the DOD8ttainment
regulations contain . restriction on
crediting decrease. that the PSD
regulations do not contain. Specifically,
they provide that a pennitting authority
may not credit a deaeese to the extent
that any pennittiDg authority has
-------
52702
Federal Register I Vol. 45, No. 154 I Thursday, AugUst 7, 1980 I Rules and Regulations
-
already accepted the decrease in
aatisfaction of the offset requirements of
the applicable nonattainment
regulations and t:ODsequently has issued
a preconstruction permit to any source
or modification. including the source at
which the decrease occurred. The
purpose of that rule is to prevent IDlY
"double crediting" of decreases in
"actual emissions." Double crediting
would allow air quality to deteriorate
without prior review.
EPA is considering whether to
introduce a provision to prevent double
crediting in the PSD context. A
discussion of the problem appears in the
section on Increment Consumption.
H. Accumulation
On September 5. 1979, EPA proposed
to continue the current policy of .
requiring PSD and nonattainment NSR
when aggregate new emissions from
individually minor units at the same
stationary source, which itself was
minor as of a certain date, are sufficient
to require the series of changes to be
treated as a major stationary source. In
addition, the Administrator proposed to
make the current policy consistent with
the Alabama Power decision by
applying NSR when the aggregate net
increase in potential to eDllt after the
applicable date qualifies it as a major
stationary source (the existing rules
accumulate only emissions increases
and do not take decreases in account).
For PSD review, the date from which
emissions increases were to be
aggregated was August 7, 1911, the date
found in the 1918 PSD regulations. The
proposed December 21,1916 date for
each of the nonattainment regulations,
including the construction moratorium,
marks the time when sources
constructing jn nonattainment areas
were placed on notice that accumulation
could later subject them to review.
EPA also proposed that, once a series
of individually minor changes or one
major change at a minor stationary
source had qualified for review, the
control technology assessment would
focus on the last changed unit triggering
review while the air quality assessment
would consider all aggregated
emissions.
Finally, the Administrator proposed
on September 5 that accumulation
would alao govern the review of
individual de minimis changes at major
stationary sources. Once a source had
aggregated enoUgh emissions to make it
major, a subsequent emissions increase
of any size at the source would have to
undergo review, unless the increase
together with any contemporaneous
increases or decreases of any size
would qualify aa ~ de minimis increase.
Twenty of the twenty-three comments
received did not favor retaining the
accumulation concept, even with the
addition of netting. Two other
commenters endorsed accumulation. but
with different starting dates. Two
industrial commenters claimed that
accumulation cannot be legally required.
since section 111(a)(4) defines
modification in terms of any change and
not a series of changes at a stationary
source. Most other commenters agreed
that neither the court nor..the Act takes a
position on accumulation. but they
requested that the Agency not adopt or
maintain such a concept. These
commenters claimed that both major
and minor source accumulation
complicates the regulations and could
eventually subject the most minor of
emissions changes to review. The
increase in paperwork. and the
administrative strain of trying to
document and report de minimis
emissions changes. were claimed to be
overwhelming,costly, and
counterproductive.
These concerns might have had merit
if the proposed de minimis emission
levels had not been raised in the final
regulations and the accumulation of de
minimis changes was ~o continue even
after a preconstruction permit had been
issued. It was suggested that the general
NSR procedures found Ii'! all SIPs be
relied upon to effect good control for the
de minimis or minor emissions changes,
instead of accumulation. Commentera
stressed that, In any event,
accumulation of de minimis increases
should run over the same time period for
crediting contemporaneous reductions.
The Administrator has reconsidered
the need for an accumulation rule and
haa decided to retain accumulation to
determine if a greater thau de minim;'
increase would occur at f.i major
stationary source and to delete
accumulation for aggregating changes at
minor stationary sources. The primary
reason for proposing accumulation at
minor sources wae to preveDt
circumvention of the regulations by the
systematic construction of carefully
sized emissions units which only in the
aggregate would trigger review. Even
though all signficant changes at a source
would face reveiw once the source
became major, a significant loophole
was thought to exist. For example.
absent an accumulation rule, a company
could construct a 498-ton source without
having to get a PSD permit by
constructing first one-half of it and then
subsequently the other half. The
Administrator, however, does not find
adequate support in the Act for applying
PSD review to the change at a minor
30
source which would make the source.
major. Section 165 applies only to major
emitting facilities on which .
"construction" commences after a
specified date, where the term ."
"construction" includes "modification,. -
Similarly, section 172(b)(6) requires
permits for the construction of new or
modified major stationary sources. EPA
believes that, in general, PSD and
nonattainment review cannot be applied
to a modification unless it would occur
at a source that is already major. The
one exception to this rule is where a
proposed addition to an existing minor
stationary source would be major in its
own right. Such construction is
equivalent to a new msjor stationary
80urce and should therefore be subject
to PSD and nonattainment review. A
new 8ubsection in each of the PSD and
nonattainment regulations embodies
that view.
In general. under the promulgation
announced here a series of minor
changes at the 8ame minor stationary
source will not be accumulated. On the
other hand, a series of individually de
- minimis changes at a major 8tationary
source would be accumulated within a
contemporaneous time frame to see if a
review would be required. This is
reflected in the definition8 of "net
emissions increase" in the PSD and
nonattainment regulations. Plainly, a
series of individually de minimis
increases in emissions in the aggregate
deteriorate air quality significantly.
L Restrictions on Construction
EPA prop08ed that the netting of
emissions changes would not be
permitted in areas subject to
construction re8trictions under 8ection
11O(a)(2)(1) or 173(4). EPA based this
proposal on an interpretation that
Congress intended all forms of offsets to
cease after June 30, 1919, in the absence
of an approved Part D plan. This policy
would also have promoted the timely
submittal of attainment plana and
prevented the nonattainment problem
from growing worse while the plan was
being developed. Tlie Administrator
believed that sources might convert
reductions later needed for attainment
into offsets before the plan requiring
those reductions could be adopted and
approved.
Thirty-two of thirty-five comment81'S
said that the proposed "increase only"
approach was unacceptable. No
substantial support was given by the
three that favored it. Several questioned
the legality of the proposed
interpretation and claimed that
Alabama Power authorized only a
netting approach, despite any
programmatic lense that another
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 45, No. 154 I Thursday, August 7, 1980 I Rules and Regulations
5271
approach might have. Several asserted
that EPA's proposal would-discourage
early cleanup and actually perpetuate
the existing air quality problem.
The Administrator has reconsidered
the interpretation that led to the
proposal of the "increase only"
approacli for carrying out the growth
restrictions and concluded that the
Alabama Power decision does not
support it. Thus, in the final rules
promulgated today, a major stationary
source can construct in a growth
restricted area, if sufficient
contemporaneous, creditable net
reductions are found (subject to the
limitations on reconstruction described
below).
J. ReconstrUction
In the September 5, 1979 proposal, a
reconstruction (roughly, improvements
at an existing source which equal 50% or
more of the capital cost for replacing the
source) was to be treated as if it were a
new source for purposes of NSR under
both PSD and nonattainment rules.
Under the proposal, a reconstructed
major stationary source would be
subject to review regardless of any
contemporaneous emissions reductions
that would occur at the same source.
The Administrator proposed this
approach in accordance with
Congressional intent to subject new
construction in nonattainment areas to
requirements such as meeting the lowest
achievable emission rate (LAER), even
though a replacement of an older unit
would result in a net reduction from
previous emission levels (see 123
CONGo REC. 13702, col. 2 (daily ed.
August 4, 1977) (statement of Senator
Muskie»). In the agency's view
nonattainment areas require very
stringent NSR Procedures to overcome
the inertia of the nonattainment
problem. Having a reconstruction
provision would promote maximum air
quality improvements from an area's
limited reduction capability by requiring
more construction projects to meet
LAER and bring other sources in the
State under common cDntrol into
compliance with the SIP.
The reconstruction rule was also
proposed for PSD in an effort to be
consistent with nonattainment NSR.
Although the Administrator recognized
that the air quality rationale for having
reconstruction in nonattainment areas
was considerably stronger than that for
PSD inclusion. it W88 believed that less
confusion would result with a parallel
application of the reconstruction rule.
All ten commenters on.the .
reconstruction topic voiced general
disapproval for the.proposal. Eight of
.I the ten favored dropping the concept
entirely from both sets of regulations,
with tJ1e remaining two requesting that
its applicability be restricted. They
advised that EPAskould rely instead on
the reconstruction provisions of NSPS
and NESHAP to ensure such
construction would apply adequate
control technology. Commenters
complained that revi~w cnteria based
solely on the replacement cost of
equipment regardless of air quality
improvements make little sense for NSR
rules charged with safeguarding air
quality. They further argued that the
added regulatory complexity inherent to
the inclusion of a reconstruction
provision W88 not warranted and its
addition to NSR would not be consistent
with the "no net increase" exemption
under Alabama Power.
The Administrator agrees that the
reconstruction requirement makes only
limited air quality sense for PSD and has
reconsidered the need to retain this
concept for the program. It is true that a
reconstructed source not otherwise
subjected to PSD review as a major
JIlodification (i.e., such IIGUl'ce would not
cause a significant net emissions
increase) would not interfere with the
PSD air quality objective of allowing
only limited deterioration of existing air
quality. On the other hand. the PSD
objective of maximizing future use of the
allowable increments through
application of best available control
technology (BACT) would not be strictly
met. Nevertheless, the Administrator
believes that the general PSD objective
of safeguarding existing air quality from
significant degradation will not be
undermined by deleting the requirement
for review of reconstructions.
The proposal would have
implemented reconstruction for PSD '
only on a plant wide basis. Thus. an
entire plant would have to be
reconstructed in order for it to be
subjected to PSD review as a
reconstructiori. Few instances of
plantwide reconstruction are expected.
The limited applicability under PSD
brings further doubt as to the real need
for the added complexity that a
reconstruction provision would bring to
determining the permit applicability of
construction projects. Furthermore. the
deletion of reconstruction from PSD
would avoid some increment tracking
problems; treating reconstruction as
new PSD sources could lead to
increment consumption unrelated to
actual air quality changeL
The Adminiatrator does not agree
with the commenters who argued that
applying "reconstruction" in
nonattainment areas would bring
unwarranted complexity and no air .
31
<-
quality benefits. As explained in the
proposal. EPA believes that the
reconstruction provision within
nonattainment NSR rules is consistent
with stated Congressional intent and
programmatic goals to get re.asonable E
quality improvements from each major
construction activity. Since Alabama
Power did not strictly bind EPA in
nonattainment concerns and since the
reconstruction concept was not
expressly precluded. the Administrator
has determined that reconstruction is
warranted in nonattainment areas and
is today promulgating this concept as
proposed for non attainment NSR rules.
Commenters also asked that several
exemptions be considered if .a
reconstruction rule were promulgated.
Among the exemptions suggested were
(1) current NSPS exemptions for
modifications, (2) Fuel-Use Act
exemptions, (3) involuntary replacemer
of damaged equipment. and (4)
voluntary fuel switches. The
Administrator is not promulgating any
of these exemptions into the
reconstruction provision. First. the
current NSPS exemptions and
involuntary replacement of damaged
equipment do not avoid applicability 0
NSPS under 40 CFR 60.15 when a unit
would have been reconstructed.
Therefore, it would be inconsistent to
establish such a concept under
nonattainment NSR. In addition, 40 CF1
60.15, which governs how the
reconstruction rule will apply in the
affected NSR programs (see e.g.. 40 CFl
Part 51 Appendix S. section n. A(12)),
allows the Administrator, in paragraph
(f), some case-by-case discretion in
determining when a reconstruction
would occur. Thus, no specific
exemptions such as those suggested
appear warranted at this time.
K. Exclusions
In September. EPA proposed to
exclude "routine maintenance, repair
and replacement" from the category
"physical change" which appeared in
the proposed PSD and nonattainment
definitions of "major modification." At
the same time EPA proposed to exclud~
the following events from the category
"change in method of operatioo," unles!
previously limited by enforceable permj
conditions: (1) a fuel switch due to an
order under the Energy Supply and
Environmental Coordination Act of 197~
(ESECA) (or any supersedinglegislatioll
or due to a natural g88 curtailment plan
under the Federal Power Act; (2) a
voluntary switch to an alternative fuel
or raw material that the source prior to
January 6, 1975, was capable of
accommodating; (3) a fuel switch due to
an order or rule under section 125 of the
-------
52704
Federal Register I Vol. 45, No. 154 I Thursday, August 7, 1980 I Rules and Regulations
-==
Clean Air Act; (4) a switch to "refuse
derived fuel generated from municipal
solid waste"(RDF), and (5) a change in
the ownership of a source.
EPA received few comments on the
proposed exclusions. Certain
commenters expressed reservations
about the legal and policy basis of the
RDF exclusion. Anotber commenter
urged EP A to expand the exclusi~n for
voluntary switches to an alternative fuel
or raw material. Specifically, the
commenter urged the Agency to drop the
provisions which limited the ex~usion
to switches that would not reqwre a
change in permit conditions and to
sources that were capable of
accommodating the fuel or material
before January 6, 1975. The commenter
agreed with the position EPA took in the
preamble to the 1978 Part ?2 PSD .
regulations that Congress m enacting
section 169(2)(C) intended that
voluntary switches to an alternati,:,e fuel
or raw material should be treated m the
same way that they were being treated
under section 111. See 43 FR 26396 (June
19. 1978), At the time Congress enacted
section 169(2)(e), the regulations
promulgated under section 111 excluded
any such switch if the source could
accommodate the fuel or material before
the relevant NSPS applied to the source
type. Whether a permit .conditio~ would
restrict the switch was 1IIlI11atenaL See
40 CFR 6O.14(e)(4) (1979). In view of this,
the commenter argued that Congress
intended the exclusion in the PSD and
nonattainment regulations to look only
at whether the source was capable of
accommodating the fuel or material
before those regulations first applied to
it.
After considering the comments on
the RDF exclusion. ~A has decided to
promulgate it. The Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1974,
42 U.S.C. 3251 et seq., firmly supports
the exclusion. In that statute. Congress
expressed a strong interest in the
development and use of RDF. In .
addition, the exclusion has a sound
policy basis, in view of the importance
of reducing the nation's dependence on
foreign oil.
In promulgating the exclusion.
however, EPA has drawn it, b~ way of
clarification, somewhat more tightly. It
now excludes only a switch to RDF by a
"steam generating unit." EPA int~ds
that term to have the same meanmg for
the purposes of PSD and nonattainment
NSR as it does for the purp~ses ?~ the .
new NSPS for certain electric utility
"steam generating units." For the NSPS
definition of that term. see 40 CFR 6O.41a
(1979).
In response to the comment on the
yohmtary fuel and raw material switch
provisian. EP A haa retained the
language which limited it to sources
which were capable of accommodating
the fuel or material before January 6,
1975 (or December 21,1976, for the
Offset Ruling and 40 CFR 51.18; or July 1.
1979, for the construction moratorium)
and the language which limited the
exclusion to those not requiring a germit
alteration. First, EPA disagrees that the
cutoff date in the counterpart NSPS
exclusion is analogous to the date the
particular preconstruction permit
regulations applied to a particular
source. To the contrary, the NSP$
counterpart is more broadly drawn; it
focuses on the date the NSPS first
applied to the source type. Second, EPA
disagrees that the counterpart governs
whether the NSR exclusions must ignore
permit conditions. The NSPS program
does not involve assessments of the
impact of a source on air quality. In
EPA's view, any switch to another fuel
or raw material that would distort a
prior assessment of a source's air
quality impact should have to undergo
scrutiny.
It should be noted that EPA has added
a new clause to the exclusion for
voluntary fuel switches. It provides that
a switch which the relevant reviewfug
authority has already approved is not a
"physical change" or "change in the
method of operation" for NSR purposes.
Obviously, a second evaluation of the
air quality impact of the switch would
be unnecessary.
The comment relating to voluntary
switches has prompted EPA to add one
more exclusion. It would exclude any
increase in hours or rate of operation. as
long as the increase would not require a
change in any pre construction permit
condition established under the SIP
(including PSD permits) after the
relevant date of concern.
This exclusion stems la.~1Iely from
EPA's decision that the d.efinitions of
"major modiflcation" shoufd focus on
changes in "actual emissions." While .
EPA has concluded iliat as a general
rule Congress intended any significant
net increase in such emissions to
undergo PSD or nonattainment review, it
is also convinced that Congress could
not have intended a company to -have to
get a NSR permit before it-could
lawfully change hours or rate of
operation. Plainly, such a requirement
would severely and unduly hamper the
ability of any company to take
advantage of favorable market
conditions. The emphasis of the relevant
statutory provisions on "construction"
strongly supports EPA's interpretation of
Congress' intent See. e.g.. section 165(a).
42 U.S.c. 7475. At the same time, any
32
tion that
change in hours or rate of opera f a
would disturb a prior assesslI1en~ 0 uld
source's environmental impact s 0
have to undergo scrutiny.
Because of the absence of any -
significant comments on the other fout
exclusions, EPA has promulgated them
as proposed. .
L. Example of How the Definitions
Work
The way in which the definition of
modification works is best illustrated by
an example, The example also
demonstrates the relationship among a
source's potential to emit, its actual
emissions. and its allowable emissions.
In December 1980. a new source.
(Source A) that will emit 502 and PM
files a PSD application to locate in an
area that is attainment for 502 and PM.
At maximum operating capacity
including application oibest available
control technology. and assuming year-
round continuous operation. the source
can emit 700 tons of 50, per y!'!ar. Seven
hundred tons per year (tpy) is the
source's physical potential to emit SO,.
Its physical potential to emit PM is 15
tpy. Provided that the 15 tpy of PM
emissions is made federally enforceable,
PM emissions will not be significant
(i.e., less than 25 tpy) and are, therefore,
not subject to PSD review.
In the course of review, modeling
reveals the SO, increment will be
violated in the source's area of impact if
it emits 700 tons SO, per year. The
source, therefore, decides to limit its
operation so as to decrease its. .
emissions to 600 tons 50, per year. This
reduction proves sufficient to eliminate
the predicted violation. The source is
issued a PSD permit that sets an 50,
emissions limitation of 600 tpy, which
reflects the revised source operation
(approximately ZO hours a day, seven
days a week). This emissions rate is the
source's legal potential to emit. It is also
the source's allowable emissions, since
it is the emissions rate specified as a
federally enforceab1e permit condition.
See e.g., I 52.21(b)(15)(iii).
During the first three years of
operation. from March 1982 to March
1985, the demand for the source'.
product is less than anticipated. As a
result, the source's actual emissions are
250 tpy during the first year and 300 tpy
during the next two years.
In April 1985, another new source of
SO, (Source B) proposes to locate in the
area of impact of Source A.
Consequently, in calculating its impact
on ambient standards and its increment
consumption, Source B is required to
model the emissions of Source A. Under
EPA's increment consumption policy
(see Increment Consumption), Source
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 45, No. 154 I Thursday, August 7, 1980 I Rules and Regulations
52705
A's actual emissions should be modeled.
Because Source A has an indi~dually.
tailored PSD permit. the definition of
actual emissions allows the reviewing
authority to presume that the allowable
emissions in Source A's PSD permit
reflects its actual emissions, unless the
reviewing authority or source applicant
has reason to believe that allowable
emissions are not representative of
actual source emissions.
In the case of Source A. allowable
emissions, iIifact, differ from actual
emissions. Assuming that the reviewing
authority is aware of this difference as a
result of its periodic assessment or
because Source B has presented this
information in its application, Source A
is modeled at its actual emissions rate
representative of normal source
operation dUring a two-year period
preceding the date of concern. In this
case, the date of concern would be
approximately the date Source B
submits its application. The reviewing
authority should, therefore, look to the
two-year period preceding that date
unless that period of tUne was atypical
of normal source operation. For Source.
A. the two-year period preceding Source
O's application can be considered
representative of normal source
operation. Source A's actual emissions
during that period, on an average annual
basis, are approximately 300 tpy. The
modeling of increment consumption for
Source B should assume that emissions
rate for Source A.
Unless Source A's permit is revised at
this point to reflect its actual emissions
rate of 300 tpy, Source A could attempt
to use the decrease in its actual
emissions in the future to offset a future
emissions increase of its own. This
would result in a large net increase in
actual emissions for the area which
could violate the applicable PSD
increment. The potential problem of
double counting of emissions decreases
is discussed in more detail in Increment
Consumption.
Assume that in June 1987, Source A
decides to modify its facility. Demand
for its product has increased and Source
A wants to add a new emissions unit
that will emit 60 tpy SO.. In addition,
Source A plans to increase .the hours of
operation at the units which began
production in March 1982, to result in an
actual emissions increase of 75 tpy at
those units. If no contemporaneoUs
decreases have occurred, both changes
will result in significant net increases in
actual emissions. Both changes then
qualify as modifications. The addition of
a new uniJ is a physical change. The
increase iD hours of operation is a
change in th~ metJaod of operation,
assuming that the reviewing authority
revised Source A's permit to reflect its
. actual emissions of 300 tpy at the tUne
Source A's actual emissions were used
by Source 0 in modeling increment
consumption.
If Source A was able to decrease
sufficiently its actual emissions at
another unit at the source, it would be
able to avoid PSD review for one or both
modifications. Assume, for example,
that in April 1986. Source A applied
additional control equipment and
decreased actual SO. emissions across
the facility by 100 tpy. In June 1987,
Source A can use those decreases to
offset its proposed ~ontemporaneous
increases provided the decreases are
made federally enforceable. If Source
A's proposed increase in hours of
operation for the units which began
operation in March 1982 would result in
an emissions increase of 75 tpy and the
emissions from the proposed new unit
are 60 tpy, Source A can Use its 100 tpy
decrease to avoid PSD review for both
changes. Seventy-five tons of the
decrease can be used to offset the
increase in hours of operation and 25
tons of the decrease can offset 25 tons of
the increase due to the new unit. Since
the net emissions increase of 35 tons is
not significant, it would not be a major
modification requiring PSD review. I.
Suppose Source A then plans to
increase its emissions by 150 tpy in
November 1990 and to decrease
emissions by 60 tpy in February 1989.
The increases and decreases since April
1986 are all contemporaneous because
they occurred within the same five-year
period. Now, assume Source A revises
its permit to reflect only 50 tons of the
8O-ton decrease in February 1989. Source
A can receive credit for only 50 tons of
the 8O-ton decrease, since only this
amount was made federally (" '-1f"rceable,
However, Source A does receive credit
for the April 1986 decrease of 100 tpy,
assuming that decrease was made
federally enforceable at the tUne of the
June 1987 increase, or is made federally
enforceable prior to commencement of
construction on the November 1990
increase. Source A's total creditable
decreases are then 150 tpy. Its increases
are 135 tpy in June 1987 and 150 tpy in
November 1990, for a total increase of
285 tpy. The net emissions increase is
135 tpy, which is significant for SO..
Source A must get a PSD permit for the
change leading to the 150 tpy increase in
November 1990. However, it is not
11 Under the pI'OVialonl of 40 CFR Part 51
Appendix S. 40 CFR 51.18(j). and 40 CFR 52.24. the
emi.llona Incnt- at Source A would probably be
1Ub1ec:t to review as modifications. DOtwlthatandin&
the contempontl18Ol1l decreases at the source.
33
required to get a PSD permit for the June
1987 increases.
If, from March 1982 to March 1985,
Source A had exceeded its allowable
rate of 700 tpy, Source A could not
~eceive full credit for its April 1986
decrease. For example, assume Source
A's actual emissions from March 1982 to
March 1986 were 800 tpy, 100 tpy over
its allowed rate. None of the 100 tpy
reduction in April 1986 would then be
creditable. The amount of Source A's
creditable decrease could also be
reduced if the designation of the area
where Source A is located were changed
from attainment to nonattainment in
March 1985 and Source A became
sUQject to a new, more stringent SIP
requirement in March 1986. If, for
example, the SIP required Source A to
reduce. emissions from 700 to 600 tpy by
December 1988, none of the 100 tpy
decrease in April 1986 would again be
creditable;
XI. De Minimis Exemptions
In the Alabama Power decision, the
court indicated that emissions from
certain small modifications, and
emissions of certain pollutants at new
sources, could be exempted from some
. or aU PSD review requirements on the
grounds that such emissions would be
de minimis. In other words, the
Administrator may determine levels,
below which there is no practical value
in conducting an extensive PSD review.
The court also indicated that the Agency
could establish exemptions bltsed on
administrative necessity (e.g., the
inability of reviewing authorities to
provide the necessary work force to
properly review a very large number of
permit applications). The September 5
proposal incorporated the de minimis
concept and requested comments on the
approach taken. At that tUne, the
Administrator noted that because of the
urgency associated with the proposal,
the de minimis numbers published were
not supported by extensive analysis,
and that a more thorough analysis
would be undertaken prior to
promulgation.
The proposal included two tables, one
for defining significant emissions
changes (in tons per year) and one for
defining significant air quality changes
(in micrograms per cubic meter). Values
lower than those in the proposed tables
were recommended as being de minimis.
These tables, with respect to criteria
pollutants, were generally based on the
usignificance"levels published in the
preamble to the June 19, 1978 PSD
regulations (43 FR 26398) and in the
Offset Ruling (44 FR 3283). These
significance levels in turn were derived
from the Class I increment values listed
-------
52706
Federal Register I Vol. 45, No. 154 I Thursday, August 7, 1980 I Rules and Regulations
-==
in Part C of Title I of the Clean Air Act.
For noncriteria pollutants. a similar
approach was taken: the Agency
extrapolated emissions rates from
-documented air quality guideline
numbers, where available.
In the proposal the tables were
presented as preamble guidelines to be
used in the following manner. For PSD,
any new source subject to review was to
be analyzed for the application of BACl'
for each pollutant whose emissions
would exceed the value in Table 1. In
addition. an air quality analysis to
determine the impact of these pollutants
was required. For modifications, any
pollutant for which the source was
major and for which there was a .
contemporaneous net increase equal to
or greater than the applicable value(s) in
Table 1 would trigger PSD review of the
modification; as in the case of new
sources. BACl' and air quality impact
analyses were required for each
pollutant whose net emissions increased
by greater than a de minhnis amount.
Table 2 was proposed to provide an
exemption from air quality impact
analysis (including monitoring) for those
sources and modifications which could
demonstrate that their maximum
expected air quality impact would be
less than the values listed. Sources.
including modifications, claiming to be
exempt from reviews on the basis of de
mirUmis emissions would be required to
so notify the Administrator. The de
minimis requirements also would apply
to nonattainment sources, but would be
restricted to the pollutant(sJ for which
the area is nonattainment. -
The Agency received extensive
comments on the proposed de mirUmis
approach. In all there were 121
comments addreuing this iuue. While
there was almost universal endorsement
of the concept. a large number of
comnienters (65J criticized the proposed
values as being too low. Some of these
commentera stated that there was a lack
of support for the numbers presented
and felt that the emissions table was
more restrictive than the table of air
quality concentrations; others claimed
tha t the low de rninimi8 levels made the
applicability of the review process
inequitable for modifications in
comparison to new sources. A
consistent theme was that the proposed
values would necessitate unproductive
review in terms of environmental benefit
while consuming applicant and
reviewing authority resources. Although
there were suggestions concerning how
big the emissibna numbers should be
(100 tons per year was a popular
choiceJ,littIe specific ~dance was -
given on how to develop'alternative
numbers. Suggestions generally were
limited to using various percentages of
the national ambient air quality
standards or the amount of existing
emissions. One commenter did suggest
the use of an equation that accounted
for variability in stack height.
Only one commenter criticized the de
minimis levels for being too high. This
commenter also believed that
exemptions from review because of
emissions less than the de minimis rate
should not be automatic. but should be
allowed only after a case-by-case
review of source impact. In addition. the
commenter stated that in areas where
the increment is almost entirely
consumed. sources should be subject to
PSD review for any increase in
emissions.
A frequently addressed aspect was
the perceived need to incorporate any
de minimis values in the regulations. as
opposed to leaving them as guidelines in
the preamble. Forty-eight of fifty-six
commenters favored such a change. The
general concern was that since the
preamble is omitted from the Code of
Federal Regulations. the regulations as
written would appear to be ambiguous
as to the term "significant." Those that
favored leaving the tables as guidelines
did so generally to provide more
flexibility either for sources to
demonstrate that they shoUld be exempt
or for 8tates to develop alternative de
minimis values.
There were several other meaningful
comments. Sixteen commenters
'recommended that de minimis coverage
be limited to criteria pollutants. Eighteen
commenten contended that the need to
accumulate de minhnis changes was
burdensome, environmentally
unnecessary. and should be dropped:
some questioned the lesislative basis for
this requirement. Several commenten
cited the difficulty, if not impossibility,
of monitoring for all regulated
pollutants. These commenten were
especially concerned regarding
monitoring for noncriteria pollutants.
indicating that the requisite technology
was not available in some cases. Other
commenten questioned how the term
"no impact," which iB used in the
regulations to protect Clau I areas,
relates to the Table 2 de aUnimis values.
Mindful of the comments received. the
Administrator has undertaken a
reassessment of the de minirni11 issue.
This reassessment is decribed in two
documents. One is a report entitled
"Impact of Proposed and Alternative De
Minimis Levels for Criteria Pollutants,"
EPA-450/z-«)-()72, and the-other is a
staff paper entitled "Approach to
Developing De Minimis Values for
Noncriteria Air Pollutants:' These are
34
available for examinatioil in the
rulemaking docket. In addition. copi~s
may be obtained by writing to the Air
Information Center. U.S. EPA Library
services. MD-35, Research Triangle --
Park. NC 2771L
Obviously, a significant part of the
. reassessment involved the use of
reasonable judgment. The task requires
consideration of an area in which not
only is data limited. but criteria for
decision making is almost non-existent.
The first task of the reevaluation was to
identify the basic objectives to be met in
selecting de minimis values. The
primary objectives identified were: (1J
provide effective Class I area protection;
(2) guard against excessive. -
''unreviewed'' consumption of the Class
n or ill increments; and (3) assure
meaningful permit reviews.
"Meaningful" in this context implies that
there would be a possibility of obtaining
useful air quality information or
obtaining greater emission reductions as
a result of BACl' analysis than would be
expected from normal state permit or
NSPS/NESHAP processing.
The proposed de minimis ,air quality
values, which stemmed from the
legislated Class I increments. caused
concern for two reasons. Fint. if a
modification occurs Dear enough to a
Class I area. almost any de minhnis
emissions level could impact the area.
Thus, proximity rather than emissions
level appears to be more important in
Class I arelt protection. Second. the
general imposition of Class I criteria on
the review process for Class n and ill
areas may be overly stringent. These
concerns were examined as part of the
de minimis reassessment. .
As a result of this examination. the
Administrator has decided that higher
de minimis emissions rates than those
used in the proposal could apply to
review of sources which would not
construct within a specified distance of
a Class I area. However, a proposed
source or modification that would
construct close to a Class 1 area must be
prepared to demonstrate for each
regulated pollutant that it would emit
that it would not have a significant
impact on such area (defined as one
microgram per cubic meter (p.g/m3J or
more, 24-hour average), even if the
proposed emissions increases are below
the applicable de minimis threshold.
The effect of this change is to require
l~ss review for many sources through
higher de minimis values (compared to
the proposalJ, while adding a limited air
quality analysiB requirement for only a
few sources. Such a change is consistent
with the objectives of protecting Class 1
-------
Federal Rezister I VoL 45, No. 154 I Thursday, August 7, 1980 I Rules and Regulations
52707
areas while limiting PSD review to
projecta with significant impacL
There were three basic alternatives
available lor specifying de rnirUmis
cutolfa-one based solely OD air quality
impact. ODe baaed IOlely on emiaaions
rate, 8Dd ODe baaed on a combinatioD 01
. these. such .. wu proposed OD
September S. The Administrator hu
chosen to apecily de lIJirUmjs cutoffs in
terms 01 emisUons rate lor applicability,
BACT and air quality analysia purpoaea.
with DO provisions lor caae-by-caae
demonstratioD 01 a 8Ourat'S air quality
impacL This is a departure from the
proposal in that. as proposed. a source
could avoid air quality analysis
requirements lor a given pollutant by
demonstrating that it would produce a
maximum impact less than the air
quality COnceDtrations listed lor that
pollutant. An air quality CODCeDtratioD
de minimis level lor each pollutant lor
which measurement methods are
avaUable is il1cluded in the regulations
only for the purpose Of providing a
possible exemption from monitoring
requiJ:emeDts.
This approach has beeD adopted lor
several reasoD8. Firat. the Coagress
specified emissions raW. not projected
air quality impacts. in the Clean AJ.r Act
as the criteria lor determiniDg which
8OUlCe8 are major and therefore subject
to PSD review. Moreover, the court. in
.the Alabama Power decWcm.
continually refers to mni_,jOl18 rate
rather than air quality CODCeDtratiOD iD
its discusaioD 01 the de minimis iasue.
Therelore. it would be iDcoDsiatent with
the exiatiDg guidance to abandoD the
emissions rate concept.
Second. if applicability deci8ioD.a
depended on ccmlirmiDa a
demonstration by the source that its
impact would be less than a given air
quality level. it is the Administrator's
opinion that the review proc:eaa would
become ucesaively complex and
In!atly increase the resources needed by
reviewiDg authorities to carr)' out the
PJ'08l'8ID. In addition. such an approval
would create and atmo"'P"'"" of
uncertainty .. to whether individual
aourcea needed to apply lor a permit or
not. and could lead to uneven
application of the regulations from state
to atate. Third. the task of establi_hi."
de minimis air quality levels lor
Doncriteria pollutants. with propd
consideratioD of tbrnhold levels and
lactors of aalety (if 8I1J). is wry
complex and could DOt be done in the
time available.
- Finally, Jiven the induaioD of a de
rnirtimis excluaiao lor mODitorbJa. it
aervn little purpose to have a leparate
table to permit an exc:luaion from the
remaini'1 atr.: quality impact analysis
-, .
req1memeDt. (A separate table would be
required because monitoring capability
and concern for potential effects are
unlikely to be asaoc:iated with the same
air quality conceDtrationa.) Besides
makins the regulations more
complicated. this resultant
demonstratioD neceuary to earn an
exemption from air quality impact
analysia would in itself be an air quality
impact analysis.
In analyzing the basis for de minimis
emissions rates. it was apparent that
two distinct claasea of pollutants were
involved. The first consists of the
criteria pollutants for which e;Jtensive
health and welfare information haa been
developed and documented in the
respective criteria documeDts. The other
class CODBiats of the Doncriteria
pollutants lor which. as the name
implies. DO criteria OD ambient effects.
exist. Rather. these pollutants are
covered by either New Source
PerfOl'llUUlC8 Standards (NSPS) or
National EminioD Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP).
both of which are based on a national
emissions .taDdard. rather than an air
quality I118118gement approach. That is.
the regulations developed pul'8U8Dt to
both theee legialaUve requirements
generally specify emia8ions limitatioDa
and/or equipment perfomuuu:e
8bmdard8 as opposed to threshold air '
quality levels that must be achieved u
lor the criteria pollatants. Thus. it
appeared reasonable to develop de
rnirtimis ciltolfa from separate
penp..diva-to base criteria pollutant
de minimi. emiaaiona cutoffs OD air
quality "design values" and to hue the
DOJU:riteria pollutant de rninirnB va1uea
OD the emiaaiOll8 rates embodied in the
NSPS and NESHAP.
- The lint step in developing de
IIIinirIW ....i_,ion. rates for the criteria
pollutanta. therefore. 1M' ,tie
eatabli-h'1lent of air quality "design
valuee. .. Such design values were then
converted to -i-lion rates in
acx:ordance with EPA mod"ln,g
procedurea. ulI8iDg data on aourc:ea
permitted under the PSD program. 11re
latter provided modeling parametera
associated with 8Ource8 of the type
expected to be moat affected by the .
mirUmis requirements. Ambient
CODceDtatioDa repl68eDtiDg perceDtaps
of the primary ~ air quality
standard. as weD .. percentage8 of the
Clau D iDcremeDt. were evaluated lor
particulate matter (PM) and sulfur
dioxide (so.). Similarly, vuioua
"Caid-"-,. AItQIIaIttJ U.lfot-
PIumiDa ami Aa8lJ8Ia, Volume 10 (RnI8ed):
,,-.1- -BvaIaatmt Air QaaliIJ IIIIp8Ct of
New 8tatioD8rJ S-- OAQPS No. ~
0c:IaiIw 11177.
35
percentages of the primary standard for
the other criteria pollutants were
~1[Amin,.d.
The primary standard was choaea as
the buia for design values because,
except lor PM and so. none of the
criteria pollutants have a secoDdary
ataDdald that is differeDt than the
primary etaDdard. The ~our standard
instead of the aDDual standard was used
lor PM and so. &iDee abort term rather
than the Ions term impact tends to be
the controlliDs factor in determining
whether air quality increments are
exceeded. In addition. levels higher than
five percent of the primary standard
were DOt seriously conaidered because
that percentage equates to
approximately 35 percent of the TSP
C1au D iDaemenL The Administrator
does Dot believe that a 8OW'Ce which.
due to its own emiuions. could
potentially COD8ume more than the t
amount of increment should be exempt
from review.
Two facton had an important
influence OD the choice of de minimis
emiuiona levels within the reaulting
range ofaDDual emiaaions rates. The
primary ODe wu the cumulative effect
OD increment conaumption of multiple
SOUl'Ce8 in an area each maJdna the
maximum de minimis emiuiona
iDaea8e (thereby going unreviewed
under PSD at the time 01 the c:hanse).
11ut other, and aeccmdary one. wu the
projected conaequence of a giveD de
minimis level OIl etfmini_trative burden.
To determine the ClllDulative effect m.
increment COIUWDptioD expected from
several aourcea. all maJdna maximum de
mirUrrIi8 increa888 (a rather uulikely
event) in the same area. actual 1OUl'C8 -
distributions in the Dayton. Ohio, area
were used. DaytoD wu choaen because
it is a fairly representative industrialized
community, and 8OUI'Ce data suitable for
modeling wu readily available. To
check the impact of the various de
minimis leve1a OD adminl-trative
burden. data from put permitting
experience were apiD used. in th.ia case
to prepare curves ab.owina the Dumber
of 80urcea expected to require review at
various de minimi. emiaIiou levels. A
description of these analy... is found in
the de rninirnB report on criteria
pollutaDta cited earlier.
As a result of the reevaluation. the
Administrator hu decided to use four
percent of the 2t-bour primary standard
u a design value lor both PM and so..
These ambient levels correapcmd to
eminion8 ratu of 25 tons per year for
PM and 40 tons per year lor so. (except
for lead. all emiaaiona rat.. predicted
from the modeliDa lor criteria pollutants
were rounded to the nearest five toDa).
-------
52708
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 154 /. Thursday, August 7, 1980 / Rules and Regulations
~
Four percent of the lead atandard was
also used. yielding an emissions rate of
0.6 lons per year. The emissions rate for
carbon monoxide (CO) in all cases was
greater than 100 tons per year, the limit
set in the Clean Air Act to define major
for alany lource categories. Therefore;
as proposed. th!! de minimis emissions
rate for CO ls established at 100 tons per
year. .
Because the nitrogen dioxide standard
is expressed only as an annual average,
a factor of two percent was used to
determine the design value. There were
two reasons for this decision. First. for a
given level of emissions. a predicted
annual concentration will be smaller
than a short-term value. Conversely,
therefore. a lower percentage for the
annual standard than for a shorter term
standard is indicated if one is to
maintain a reasonably consistent
rationale for emissions rates. Second.
the emissions rate corresponding to two
percent of the standard is 40 tons per
year, which is comparable to the rate
established for SO.. Both these
pollutants are frequently emitted from
the same source. in roughly equivalent
amounts; for example. a typical power
plant meeting the NSPS with low sulfur
coal would emit about 1300 tons per
year of nitrogen oxides and about 1500
tons per year of SO..
Finally, models for ~e in establishing
a relationship between individual source
hydrocarbon (VOC) emissions and
ozone concentrations are not presently
available. Thus. it was not possible to
model an emissions rate from an air
quality design value. However, in view
of the link between VOC and NO.
emissions in the formation of ozone, the
emissions rate for VOC was also set at
40 tons per year.
It should be recognized that several
sources or modifications can be allowed
in the same area even though each might
consume up to four percent of the
standard (about 16 percent of the Class
D increment for SO. and about 28
percent for PM). This is because the
source specific concentration occurs in
only a limited area (often one point) and
the temporal and spatial conditions
which lead to maximum consumption ~y
one source are seldom the same for
other sources. that may be making
similar de minimis changes. To reinforce
this understanding. a modeling analysis
of 37 sources in the Dayton area was
conducted. The maximum aggregate
increment consumption projected to
occur as a result of all major sources
each making a de minimis emissions
increase equal to 40 tons per year (e.g..
that for SO.) was less than 1.5 p.g/m3 on
a Z4-hour basi'. While representative of
only one set of conditions, this result
could probably be expected in most
industrialized areas.
Excessive increment consumption is
unlikely, given the safeguards existing in
the regulations. Although such sources'
would not get PSD permits. they do not
go unreviewed. Most, if not all, will be
permitted under ongoing state NSR
programs pursuant to 40 CFR 51.18.
Moreover, their contribution to .
increment consumption will be
evaluated either by the next major
source undergoing PSD review, or during
the periodic assessment of source
growth. Nevertheless, in atypical
situations there might still be concern
with the de minimis levels causing
accelerated increment consumption.
This can be controlled by a state, upon
taking the program, through the
establishment of smaller de minimis
levels.
To determine a proximity cutoff that
gives assurance of protection of Class I
areas, a modeling analysis was
performed to identify the effect of the de
minimis emissions levels on such areas
using Volume 10 screening procedures.
For the purpose of this analysis, the
effect of varying stack height and
meteorology, as well as the influence of
terrain features, was considered.
Significant impact was taken to be one
p.g/m', Z4-hour average. The results
indicate that sources locating more than
10 kilometers from a Class I area would
not have such an impact as a result of
making de minimis changes. Therefore,
the regulations promulgated here require
that any new or modified major
stationary source within that distance
from a Class I area will be subject to
review if the source would have an
impact on the area equal to or greater
than one p.g/m', Z4-hour average. It must
be pointed out that while the preceding
responds to those commenters
concerned about how to judge whether a
source has "no impact" on a Class I
area, the analysis of impact on such an
area from major sources subject to PSD
review must be done on a case-by-case
basis. Further, such sources may be
subject to an evaluation by the
appropriate Federal Land ~er as
described in the regulations.
Noncriteria pollutant emissions rates
were developed from the existing
emission standards (NSPS and
NESHAP). In general, a fraction of the
applicable standard was used. In the
Administrator's judgment, since the
NSPS represents the best adequately
demonstrated control technology on a
nationwide basis. and the NESHAPs are
established with an ample margin of
safety to prevent unreasonable risk to
36
the public health from hazardous these
pollutants. a small percentage of
standards would, for PSD p~ses,
prevent a significant change D1
escaping review.
Levels generally representing 20 ani
percent of a NSPS emissions ~tand - -
and, because of their greater unpact on
health, ten percent of a NESHAP .
emissions standard were evaluated.
The air quality imp~cts of the resulting
NSPS emissions rates were then
calculated in a manner similar to that
used for the criteria pollutants. These
consentrations were compared to
available health and welfare data to
assure that significant adverse effects
were avoided. In the case of fluorides,
this check resulted in a reduction of the
emissions rate originally indicated. No
adjustment based on resultant effect
was made for the hazardous pollutants
since the NESHAP emissions rate, as
noted above, is itself intended to protect
the public health with an ample margin
of safety: therefore, ten percent of such
a value is in the Administrator's
judgment sufficiently stringent for use as
a de minimis level.
A brief discussion of the rationale for
each noncriteria pollutant emissions
rate is given below. For more
information. see the staff paper cited
earlier.
Hazardous Pollutants (NESHAP):
Asbestos-Reevaluation of existing
data indicates that trying to establish a
quantitative link between emissions and
potential effects is not possible. No level
of exposure can be presumed de
minimis. Therefore, a theoretical de
minimis emissions rate of zero was
considered. Such a value is not
practical, however, since changes of any
kind at sources using materials
containing even traces of asbestos could
trigger review regardless of the amount
of asbestos emitted. Therefore, an
estimate was made of the emissions
from well controlled sources from which
asbestos can be emitted. Although data
is very limited, rough estimates of
emissions from four source categories
were developed. Three categories are
covered by the NESHAP regulations:
asbestos milling. manufacturing using
asbestos in the process (e.g., textiles,
asbestos tile), and asbestos asphalt
manufacture. Rock crushing, a fourth
category not covered by the NESHAP.
was also examined. Emissions rates
from these four categories, using
available data. were respectively 0.2
tons per year (TPY), 0.07 TPY, 0.041PY,
and 0.06 TPY. Because asbestos is
carcinogenic. a conservative approach
to establishing the de minimis emissions
rate has been taken. The de minimis
level i~ based on . source category
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 45, No. 154 I Thursday, August 7, 1980 I Rules and Regulations
6%109
which has relatively amallasbestoa
emissions, and which includes the
majority of asbestos emitting source&-
manufacturing operatioDB using
a$bestos. Therefore. the promulgated
asbestos de miniJrUs rate is OJJO'}' TPY,
. based on ten percent of the emiuiona
estimated &om asbestos manufacturing
sources.
Beryllium-The NESHAP emiasiOO8
rate is ten grams per day or 0JI04 tons
per year. Ten percent of this yielda a de
minimis emiuion rate of CJ.OO(M tons per
year.
Mercury-Th~ emiuiona
rate is Z300 grams per day which
equates to.approximately one ton per
year. At ten percent, the promulgated de
minimis emissioDB rate is 0.1 tona per
year.
Vinyl chloride-The NESHAP
standard is expressed in parts per
million of the effluent stream. It wu
therefore necessary to assume model
plant characteristics in order to develop
expected emiasiOO8 &om a well
controlled plant. A. in the cue of
asbesto.. the Administrator believes
that it is pnuient to base theae
calculations on a amaH model plant
considering the suspected.
carcinogenicity of this pollutant. Such
plants, well controlled, emit about 10
tons per year. Based on this value, the
promulgated de minimis emiuiou rate
is one ton per .year.
NSPS PolJutDnls:
Fluo~The proposed de mklimis
emissiona rate for nuorides was
extremely conservative. and was
strongly criticized as being too low by
several commenten. Upon reevaluation.
the Administrator 8gree8 with the
comments. A de rnirUrni8 emiasiou rate
baaed on the NSPS for aluminum planta
is 30 tons per ye~ wel1controlled,
moderate sized. plant emits about 150
tons per year of fluorides. At a rate of 30
tons per year, the predicted maximum
24-hour ambient concentration is
approximately ten micrograma per cubic
meter. That concentration is about ten
times the level that has been obeerved .
to produce effects on vegetation (about
one microgram). In order to limit the
potential for such damage, a de rnirUrni8
emissions rate of three tons per year,
correspondina to a one mic:rosram
impact, is promulgated.
An alterDftive would have been to
base the emiasiona rate on the NSPS for
phosphate fertilizer plants. Fertilizer
plants typically emit much leas than
aluminum plants (i.e.. about two toD8
per year controlled). A 20 percent de
minimis value would then be leu than
0.5 tona, which ia unrealiatic in view of
other sources such as aluminum plants.
Moreover. ,*anses at a fertilizer plant .
that resulted in a fluoride emiasiOO8
increase of o.s tons per year would
probably get reviewed under state new
source review and/or NSPS
requirements.
Sulfuric Acid-A model plant of 1300
tons per day of production was used.
The NSPS emisaiona limit is 0.15 pounc:la
of sulfuric acid per ton of product
processed. Thus. the model plant would
emit about 35 tons per year. This yielded
a de minimis emissions rate of seven
tons per year using the 20 percent factor.
Total Reduced Sulfur. Reduced
S~These pollutant classes include
hydrogen sulfide (HaS) and are regulated
primarily to avoid nuisance (odor)
problems. Total reduced sulfur (TRS)
emissions are based on a 1'8Ji1t:sentative
kraft pulp ~ (900 tons of pulp per day)
which at 20 percent.yielda a de minimis
emissiOO8 rate of 10 tou per year.
Similarly, U8in8 . model refiDery of
about 100 long tOO8 per day, the nduc:ed
sulfur (RS) compound eJOiaaiou rate is
10 tons per year.
(The emi88iona rates calculated on the
above model plants were 8.3 tons per
year for TRS and 9... tons per year for
RS. Both values were rounded to 10 tou
per year for administrative PUJ1lO88s.)
Hydrogen Sulfide-Regulated under
the refinery NSPS only. Specified .. one
thirtieth of reduced sulfur emiasiona, in
major part as a check on control
efficiency. Since concern, at the NSPS
emiaBiona levels, for TRS. RS, and HaS ia
the same (nuisance rather than health .
impact) the de minimis emissions rate
for H.S alone is set at ten tons per year.
Methyl Mercaptan, Dimethyl Sulfide,
Dimethyl Disulfide, Carbon Disulfide. .
Carbonyl Sulfide-De minimis
emissions rates were Iuut'oaed for these
compounda. However. none of them are
individually regulated under the Act.
Rather. they are described a8
constituents of either TRS "';- RJ.
Therefore, since de minimis emissiOO8
rates are promulgated for TRS and RS,
individual de minimis for the five
compounds have been dropped.
The complete list of the emiasiOO8
levels promulgated today. and where
applicable, the de minHnis air quality
design values &om which they are
derived, is given beJow in Table A:
T8b18 k.-DtIA11hi'n8 V..
01......
........ ...
DI8ign .. ....
-- c-.g.
.....
(pgI""
........
(R'Yt
C8ItIDII.......-
NiRg8n ......
SuIU dIoIId8-
TOIIII ..........
~
0zaII8 c.-..
CIIg8niC ea.. ~ -..
- 1.
40
40
.
40
21......
14"~
10A~
37
T8b18 A-De Mnmir v~
De ........
--
D800gn - qu8IIIy
-1-.
..,
(pgIm,
.......
(TPY)
L88I
A--.
..,..,.
U8Ruy
VIr„ c:I*Idd8.--
AIarid88
...... aad --
TOIIII ...... ....
....... H,S~
A8duc8d ....
(IncUIng H,S~
~....-
D.I 0JI8 C3 ~
D.D01
OJIIIIN
ell
UI
:I
7
1D
10
10
The air quality design values are not
included in the resuIationa. De minimis
emissions levela are included for use in
defining the term "significant." As in the
proposal, these values determine the
need to review modifications and
determine which pollutants require
BACI' and air quality impact analyses
for any new source or modification
requiring review.
The Administrator does not believe
that the promupted de minimis levela
will produce an extraordinary
administrative burden on reviewing
authorities. Baaed on the data available.
it is estimated that approximately 700
more sources will be subject to PSD
review annually, aU for amall
modificationa not heretofore reviewed.
The replationa also include a list of
air quality concentrations for each
pollutant .s criteria for exemptiDs
sources &om the monitorins .
requirementsatthedis~tionof~
reviewing authority. Table B
summarizes the applicable air quality
values by pollutant type.
Table 8. .libllb"., Ł-..,4..
......
N6 .... -- ........
tim8I
CIoO/III'I
CIIban ...... m ......,.
....... cIaIid8 14 ~
..... dIoIId8 13 ~
T_"""'" fIII1IcU88- 10 ~
am. "
L88I o.l~
.~ ~ ~
....... G.ODII8 ~
w.a., CI.2I ~
yqI ~ 15 (24oIDiI).
FIoIIIIid88 0.8 ......,.
SoMIn: ... - "
TCIIII ...... .... (IIIcIIdIIg 10 (1-M8).
H,S).
A8dIII8d ... IftiIIdIII tYI- 10 11-'
~-- D.az:t 11-'
tM_""---,,~ -...... 1.-
... ,...
"No ........, ............ ........ . !Ilia -
Several Table B values are somewhat
different from the deaip air quality
numbers 8bown in Table A. Thia is
because the Table B values are based on
the currst capability to provide a
-------
52710
Federal Register I Vol. 45, No. 154 I Thursday, August 7, 1980 I Rules and Regulations
-
meaningful measurement of the
pollutants. The values promulgated
represent five times the lowest
detectable concentration in-ambient air
that can be measured by the instruments
available for monitoring each pollutanL
The factor of five was chosen after
reviewing test data for the various
methoda considered reasonably
available. The decision was based in
part on considerations of instrument
sensitivity, potential for sampling error,
problems with instrument variability
(e.g.. zero drift) and the capability to
read recorded data. For a more thorough
discussion of this determination; see the
memorandum from K. Rehme to W.
Peters dated May 20, 1980. which is
available in the rulemaking docket and
from the address given for the other
reports.
There also are several changes in the
use of Table B from the Table 2
proposed on September 5. First, a source
deemed subject to review may claim the
de minimis air quality impact exemption
from only the plonitoring requirement
for the reasons noted earlier. Next,
under the propoaaJ. a source had to
demonstrate that its ambient impact
would be de minimis to obtain an
exemption from monitoring. M
promulgated. the regulation allows a
source to be exempted from the
preapp1ication monitoring requirement if
it shows either that existing air pollution
in the source impact area or its
projected impact in the affected area ia
de minimis. In most cases, little ia to be
gained from preconstruction monitoring
in situations where either condition
applies.
FInally, because there will be
situations where monitoring will be
necessary even if modeling predicts de
minimis conditions, the exemption is not
automatic but rather must be with the
approval of the reviewing authority. For
example. Table B values should not be
used when (1) there is an apparent
threat to an applicable PSD increment or
NAAQS based on modeling alone or (2)
when there ia a question of adverse
impact on . Claaa I area. Questions of
adverse impact on a Class I area are to
be decided on a case-by-caae basis with
the objectives of the affected Federal
Land Manager in mind.
Some of the suggestions made in the
comments have not been adopted. For
the reuons stated earlier, many of the
de minimis values have been increased.
The automatic exemption on the buis of
emissions rate ia retamed. although the
exemption from monitoring ~s ~
made diKretionary. The Administrator
believes that a clear indication of
applicabiIitj is oec:euary. It ia not
reasonable to expect a potential
applicant to have continuous knowledge
of the status of increment consumption
and thus know when an application is
required and when it is noL Nor have
the de minimis values been promulgated
as a guide only, with a screening review
of all sources made mandatory sa
suggested by one commenter. The
Administrator does not believe that .
there is a substantial programmatic
benefit to be derived &om such a
stringent requiremenL
Accumulation of de minimis values
has not been dropped. because for most
pollutants the promulgated de minfmis
emissions levels are now substantially
higher than those proposed. The
suggeition to allow lOurces with greater
than de minimis emissions to make a
showing that their air quality impact
was de minimis and escape review was
considered and then rejected. The higher
emissions levels promulgated will offer
much of the requested relief. Moreover.
such an approach would not streamline
the review proces. (i.e.. a detailed air
quality analysis would still be
necessary), and aeveralsources with
taller stacks might avoid review and the
BACT requiremenL Variations in actual
impact because of stack height can be a
factor in the BACT review. Similarly, an
equation considering stack height to
determine the de minimis emissions rate
cutoff has not been promulgated. It is
questionable whether such an equation
could be developed for application
nationwide that would be any less
judgmental than the fixed de minimis
emissions rates promulgated. Moreover.
that approach would be little more than
a case-by-caae applicability asseument
which the Administrator believe. is
inadvisable for reasons already
described.
Other sugestions not accepted were
to raile the de minimi. emiuions levela
to 100/250 tons per year for the criteria
pollutants. and to limit the de minimis
concept to only the criteria pollutants. In
developing an approach to defining de
minimis for PSD purposes and
consequently calculating the specific de
minimis value. under the guidance
given within the Act and Alabama
Power. emissions levels a. Jrlgh as 100
tons per year couId not be justified for
moat criteria pollutants. Use of the de
minimis concept with respect to only the
. criteria pollutants suggests that any
increase (i.e.. a zero de minimis valne)
would be significant for noncriteria
pollutants and must be reviewed. M
mentioned earHer. a zero de rnirUmis is
not practical for this program.
xu. G8OIf8phic aDd PoUutaDt
Applicability
A. Background
Alabama Power held that in
determining the applicability of pSD
review, EPA must look to whether a
source locates in an area to wbich Part
C of the Act applies. rather than to the
impact the source would have upon such
an area. Accordingly, EPA proposed on
September 5 to apply PSD review to a
source if the source locates in an area
designated attainment or unclassifiable
for a pollutant which th, source emits in
major amounts. Each pollutant emitted
by the source would be subject to PSD
review, unless the pollutant was one for
which an area is designated
nonattainment and the source emitted
that pollutant in major amounts. A
modification to a source would be
.subject to PSD review under the
September 5 proposal if it would result
in a significant net increase in the
emissions of any regulated pollutant for
which the source ia major and for which
the area Is designated attainment or
unclassifiable. In addition. EPA
proposed on September 5 to apply PSD
review to a source or modification that
would significantly affect an area in
another ltate designated as attainmlmt
or unclassifi""ble for 8 poUutant for
which the source or modification would
be major. See 44 FR 5190-41. 51949
(I 51.24(1)(2)), 5193-54 (I S2.21(i)(S)).
On January 30, 1980, EPA stated that it
intended not to. apply PSD review based
solely on interstate impact, because the
court's final interpretation of the Act in
Alabama Power saaested that PSD
review was not appropriate in such
circumstances. EPA also noted that
under its September 5 proposal. a source
or modificatioft would be exempt from
PSD review if it emitted in major
amounts only pollutants for which an
area had been designated
nonattAinmlmL EPA aolicited comments
on whether this exclusion should be
retained. 88 weD 88 on its proposal to
delete PSD review based solely on
interstate impacts. See 45 FR 61103
Oanuary 30, 1980).
B. PSD Applicability
After further evaluation of its
proposed approach. and consideration
of the comments aubmitted in response
to the September 5. 1979, and January
30, 1980, notices (see discussion below).
EPA has decided to modify the
September 5 proposa!lOmewhaL Under
today's action. except with lespect to
nonattainment pollutants. PSD review
will apply to any aoarce that emita any
pollutant in major amounts, if the source
would locate in an area deaisnated
38
-------
Federal Register I VoL 45, No. 154 I Thursday, August 7, 1980 I Rules and Regulations
52711
attainment or unclassifiable for any
criteria pollutant If the source is subject
to PSO review, then PSO review will be
applied to each pollutant the eource
emits in greater- than de minimis
amounts. unless the area is designated
as nonattainment under section 107(d)(1)
for the particular pollutant It should be
noted that in order for PSO review to
apply to a source, the source need not
be major for a pollutant for which an
area is designated attainment or
unclassmable; the source need only emit
any pollutant in major amounts (i.e.. the
amounts specified in section 169(1) of
the Act) and be located in an area
designated attainment or unclassifiable
for that or any other pollutant
Therefore, sources that are major only
for pollutants for which an area is
designated nonattainment will not be
exempt from PSO review unless the
source islacated in an area which is
designated nonattainment for all criteria
polMants or unless all of the regulated
pollutants emitted by the source in
greater than de minimis amounts ant
nonattainment pollutants.
The applicability of the PSD
regulations to modifications mirrors that
for new 8ource8 (see Modification). PSD
review will apply to any modification to
a source which emits any pollutant
subject to regulation under the Act in
major amounts. if the modification
would result in a significant net increase
in the emis8ipns of any pollutant. and if
the 80urce is located in an area
designated attainment or unclassifiable
for any criteria pollutant PSD review
would not apply to any nonattainment
pollutant Unlike the approach proposed
on September S. in order for PSD review
to apply, the modification need not
increase emissions of a pollutant for
which the source ia major, nor need the
80urce be major for a pollutant for
which the area is designated attainment
or uncla88ifiable.
EPA beli~es that this approach is
required by Alabama Power and
8ections 165{a) and 189(1) of the Act.
Section 165(a) 8tates that'1n]o major
emitting facility on which construction is
commenced after the date of the
enactment of [Part C of the Act], may be
constructed in &by are. to which this
pert applies unless" the conditions set
out in 8ection 165{a) are met Alabama
Power held that this provision must be
in~ted literally and that. in
particular, EPA abou1d focua DB the
location of the source. Dot ita impact
See 13 ERC at 2DU-2O'18. Today'. action
provides the neceuary literal
inbu-p.-.tatioiL A ~jor emittiDa
facility" is defined in eect10D 189(1) IU.
80urce which would emit .t least 100 or
250 tons per year (tpy) (depending on
the type of source) of "any" pollutant
This would cover both critiera
pollutants, for which national ambient
air quality standards have been
promulgated. and non-criteria pollutants
subject to regulation under the Act
Section 165 refers to an "area to which
this part [part C] applies." which the
Court In Alabama Power interpreted to
mean "clean air areaa." i.e. areas
designated pursuant to section 107 a8
attainment or unclas.mable for a
particular air pollutant 13 ERC at 2013.
See also sections 181, 182. and 167 of the
Clean Air Act But neither 8ection 165
nor section 169(1) links the pollutant for
which the source i8 major and the
pollutant for which an area is
designated attainment or unclassifiable.
Read literally, section 165(a) applies
PSO preconstruction review to all
80urces that are major for any pollutant
subject to replation under the Act and
locate in an area designated attainm.....t
or unc1aaaified for any pollutant
Section 165(a) alao doe8 not link
review of a particular pollutant to the
attainment 8tatus for that pollutant or
limit review to pollutants for which a
80urce is major. Rather, read literally,
8ection 165(a) applies RSD nwiew to aD
pollutants subject to regulation under
the Act emitted by the source provided
that the source is major for some
pollutant and is located In a clean air
area for aome pollutant. However.
implicit In Alabama Power and the
structure of the Act is a recognition that
where nonattainment pollutants are
emitted in major amounts (i.e.. where a
source emits in major amounts a
pollutant for which the are. in which the
source would locate is designated
. nonattainment). Part D NSR rather than
Part C PSD review should apply to these
pollutants (see below). p,:;o review does
not apply to the nona~..nt
pollutants emitted by the source
otherwise subject to review.
C NonatMin_f AppliCDbiJity
. On May U. 19IID. 45 Fa 31307, EPA
promulgated a final rule setting out the
applicability of nonattainm~tlt review of
new and modified aources. In brief. EPA
clarified that the construction
moratorium under section 110{a)(2)(I)
and NSR under the Offset Ruling and
8ection 173 apply to all major
construction proposed in such are...
This applicability is unaffected by the
particular air_quality levels withm"the
designated nonattammetlt 81'ea which
would be caused or impacted by the
proposed major source or majOi'
modification. States 8till are required
under section ttO(a){Z)(D) to review new
or modified aoun::ea locatiq outside of
39
nonattainment areas, but causing or
contributing to a violation of an ambient
air quality standard; however. review
need not meet all of the nonattainment
requirements under section 173 and the
offset policy.
The current regulatioDl concerning
pollutant applicability in nonattainment
. areas have not been changed. These
rules are different from the PSO
pollutant applicability rule8. Major
sources are subject to review under the
Offset Ruling. section 173. and the
construction moratorium oqly if they
emit in major amounts the poUutant(s)
for which the area is designated
nonattainmenL In addition. only those
nonattamment pollutants which the
. source emits in major amounts are
subject to review or the construction
moratorium. Similarly, only if a
modification increase8 emissions of a
pollutant for which the source is major
and for which the area is designated
nonattainm~nt do nonattainment
requirements apply. The basic retionale
for these restrictions ia that section
I1O(a)(2)(I), which contains the
construction moratorium. re8tricts the
construction moratorium to pollutants
for which the source is major and for
which the area is designated
nonattainment Since there is no
requirement similar to the one in section
165{a) that subjects a JIOurce to review
for all regulated poUutants it emits ooce
it is subject to review for .0De pollutant.
preconatruction review under the Offset
Ruling and section 173 i8 restricted in
the 8ame manner as the construction
moratorium.
For example. construction of a neW
plant with potential emis8iona of 500 tpy
PM and SO tpy so. in an area designated
nonattainm.....t for both PM and so.
would be subject to nonattainment
requirements for PM only, aince the
source is minor for so. Similarly,
. modiftcatian of this plant re8ulting in a
net Increase In emissions of 50 tpy in
so. would not be subject to
nonattainment requirementa. See also
eYAlI1ples (3). (4). and (7).
D. Case ExDmpl-
The following additional examples
illustrate bow applicability of PSD
requirements will ~ork under today's
final regulations:
(1) Conatruct1on of a new plant with
potential eminions of 500 tpy PM and 5C
tpy so. in an area desisDated
attainm.mt for both PM and SO. would
be subject to PSI) review for both PM
and so..
(2) Construction of the same plant 88
in example (1), but in an area designate<
attainlnmtt for so. and nonattainment
for PM. would be subject to PSD review
-------
52712
Federal Register I Vol. 45, No. 154 I Thursday, August 7, 1980 I Rules and Regulations
for SO. and nonattainment requirements
for PM.
(3) Construction of the same plant as
in example (1), but in an area designated
attainment for PM and nonattainment
for SOs. would be subject to PSD review
for PM only. PSD review would not
apply for SO., since SO. ia a
nonattainmentpollublnt
(4) Construction of the same plant as
in example (1), but in an area designated
nonattainment for both PM and SO.
would be subject to no PSD review and
to nonattainment requirements for PM.
This would be the case even if the SO.
emissions would have an impact on a
nearby Class I area for So. or on an
area located in another state which is
designated attainment or unclassifiable
for PM.
(5) Modification to the plant in
example (1), where the plant is located
in an area designated attainment for
both PM and SO. resulting in a 30 tpy
net increase in PM emissions, would be
subject to PSD review for PM.
(6) Modification to the plant in
example (1), where the plant ia located
in an area designated attainment for SO.
and nonattainment for PM. resulting in
increased emissions of 50 tpy in SOs.
would be subject to PSD review for so..
(It is a significant increase at a major
source located in an attainment area.)
But if the modification only were to
increase the emissions of PM by 30 tpy,
only nonattainment requirements would
apply, since this is a modification of a
major source for a nonattainment
pollublnt
(1) Modification to the plant in
example (1), where the plant is located
in an area designated attainment for PM
and nonattainment for so.. resulting in
increased emissions of 50 tpy so..
would be subject to neither PSD review,
nor the nonattainment NSR
requirements. Nonattainment NSR
would not apply since the 50 tpy
increase in the nonattainment pollublnt
does not occur at an exiating major
stationary source for that pollublnt PSD
does not apply since the only change is
to a nonattainment pollublntlnstead.
the general NSR under the SIP would
typically, apply to thia pollublnt. and the
new emiasions of SO. would be
accommodated in the SIP's allowance
for area and minor source growth.
(8) Construction of a new plant with
potential emissions of 500 tpy hydrogen
sulfide (H.S) in an area designated
attainment for PM would be subject to
PSD review for H.S. If, in addition. the
plant had potential emissions of 50 tpy
PM. PSD review would be applied to
both H.S and PM.
(9) Construction of a new plant with
potential emissinns of 500 ~ CO and 50
tpy HaS in an area designated
nonattainment for CO and attainment
for So. would be subject to PSD review
for HaS and to nonattainment
requirements for CO. If this plant were
later modified. resulting in a net
increase in emissions of 30 tpy in HaS.
PSD review would apply for HaS.
(10) Construction of a new plant with
potential emissions of 500 tpy H.S in an
area designated nonattainment for alt
criteria pollutants would not be subject
to either PSD review or nonattainment
requirements. Part 1) applies only to
criteria pollublnts. and the area here is
not subject to Part C. since it is not
designated attainment or unclassifiable
for any criteria pollutant
E. Interstate Pollution
The September 5 proposal in
response to the per curiam Alabama
Power decision issued on June 18, 1919.
would have required PSD review for a
major source locating or modifying in a
designated nonattainment area only if
such construction would substantially
impact a clean air area in another state.
In its final opinion iasued on December
14. 1979. the court reversed its earlier
position regarding the need for a PSD
review of all interstate impacts to a
neighboring state's Clean air area. Under
both rulings. PSD review would apply in
all cases where the construction would
take place in a clean area. Pursuant to
the court's revised ruling in Alabama
Power. EPA will not apply PSD review
to a pollublnt emitted by a source
locating in an area designated
nonattainment for that pollutant. even
where the source would impact a PSD
area in another state. Sixteen of the
nineteen comments received by EPA
supported thia decision. Three
commenters requested EPA to propose
regulations to control intentate
pollution punuant to sections
110(a)(2)(E) and 161. EPA is now
evaluating how best to control interstate
pollution. and may propose regulations
some time in the future.
F. Geographic Appliazbility for VOC
Source.
On September 50 EPA proposed to
delete the ''38 hour rule," which
subjected a source of volatile organic
compounds (VOC) to review. if the
source proposed constructio~ within 36
houn pollublnt travel time of an ozone
nonattAinmAnt area. Pollublnt travel
time W88 to be calculated using wind
conditions associated With
concentrations exceeding the ambient
standard for ozone. Most commenters
agreed with the proposal to delete thia
requirement One commenter who
disagreed focused on the need for the
40
rule as a means of d.eterminin8 which
sources locating outside a de8igna~ed
nonattainment area should be subject to
nonattainment review. Another argued
that without the rule EPA will end up
unnecessarily reviewing sources in
remote rural.areas whoae impact on the. -
ozone nonattainmnent problem ia
insignificant, since ozone ia a regional
problem. .
For the reasons expressed on
September 5 (44 FR 51940), EPA has
decided to delete the 36 hour rule. The
commenten' concerns are taken care of
by the rules on geographic applicability
for nonattainment areas. as set out at 45
FR 31301 (May 13, 1980). Thus, all major
VOC sources locating in a designated
ozone nonattainment area will be
subject to review under section 113.
Major VOC sources locating outside a
designated nonattainment area will be
subject to PSD review and will be
required to monitor for ozone. If the
monitoring indicate. that the area of
source location ia nonattainment. then
the provisions of the Offset Ruling or
State plans adopted punuant to section
110(a)(2)(D) of the Act shall apply until
the area is redeaiginated 88
nonattainment and a SIP revision has
been approved. Of course. a source of
VOC may choose to accept
nonattainment review requirements
immediately (i.e., LAER. offsets,.
statewide compliance of other sources
. under the same owuenhip) and conduct
post-approval monitoring as presently
permitted under the PSD regulations.
C. Response to Comments
Additional responses to comments
regarding applicability of nonattainment
requirements can be found at 45 FR
31301. Comments concerning intentate
pollution and the geographic
applicability of VOC sources, are
responded to above.
With regard to PSD review, &e1feral
commenters argued that EPA's approach
would be overly complex and would
impose great administrative burdens
with few correspondins benefits to air
quality. EPA does not agree.
Applicability of PSD review as outlined
above ia required by the Act. Congress
believed that such broad applicability
was needed to adequately guard against
significant deterieration in existing
clean area.. EPA cannot restrict
applicability and override CongressiOnal
intent simply because of an added
administrative burden such applicabih1y
might impose. For similar reasons, EPA
disagrees with the suggestion that it
should restrict PSD review to only those
pollutants that a source emits in major
amounts.
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 45. No. 154 I Thursday, August 7, 1980 I Rules and Regulations
52713
Fourteen commenters argued that EPA
should not apply PSD review to "
noncriteria pollutants. because the lack
of NAAQS and increments for
noncriteria pollutants indicates that
Congress did not consider these
pollutants to be able to cause significant
deterioration and felt that the extent of
harm by these pollutants bas yet to be
demonstrated. They claimed noncriteria
pollutaJit BCNrCeS are already subject 10
NSPS and NESHAP regulation.
However. as other commenters have
correctly noted, section 189(1) refers to
sources with the potential to emit "any"
pollutant above certain amounts. "
Moreover, section 165(a)(4) states that
BACT must apply to "each polluant
subject to regulation under this Acf'
emitted by . source. Neither of these
provisions is limited to criteria
pollutants. See aho Alabama Power. 13
ERe at 2045.
Two commenters ursed that If EP A
decides to regulate lOUJ'Ces with minar
but significant emissions of criteria
pollutants and sources of noncnteria
pollutants, it should do so only If there
already exists a SIP emission limit for
the "minar" pollutants ar only If section
111 or 112 (NSPS and NESHAP,
respectively) has been made applicable
after appropriate rulemaking to such
sources of noncriteria pollutants. The
difficulty with this approach is that the
Act requires PSD review. regardless of
whether another rule already applies to
the source except In the case of
nonattamment pollutants (see above).
Moreover. the suggested approach could
allow an unacceptably large number of
sources to escape review. alnce many
sources may not have an applicable SIP
emissions limit or NSPS or NESHAP
limi t.
While most commenters endorsed the
September 5 proposal that PSD
permitting should be limited to instances
where greater than de minimis changes
in a major pollutant would occur, one
commenter argued that Alabama Power
did not restrict PSD applicability to -
modifications Involving the pollutant(s]
which the soui'ce emits In major
amounts. This commenter claimed that
section 111(a)(4) of the Act defines
"modfication" as "any physical change
In . or change In the method of operation
of a stationary source which Increases
the amount of any air pollutant emitted
by such soUrce or which results In the
emission of any air pollutant not
previously'emitted:' (Emphasis added.)
As mentioned above in the Modification
section. the Administrator agrees with
this Interpretation. Thus, today's final
rule. with the exception of
non attainment pollutants. requires a
PSD preconstruction review for-greater
than de minimis net Increues In the
potential"to emit of a major stationary
source for any pollutant subject to
regulation under the Act.
Twenty-three commenters supported
exemptins nonattainment pollutants
from PSD review. However. three
commenten arped that PSD review
should apply to nonattalnment
pollutants emitted In minor amounts.
claiming that review In nonattainment
areas should be as bread as that In PSD
areas. EPA agrees with the former
comments. As noted earlier. sections
165(a) and 169(1) apply to "any"
pollutant regulated under the-Act. The
only restraint on PSD review, then. is
section 113 In Part D, which gOVerD8 the
specific review of sources emittins
nonattainment pollutant(s) In major
amounts. In addition. source8 emittins
the Donattainment pollutants In minor
amounts are 8ubject to the general NSR
contained in SIP8. and the impacts of
8uch SOUl'C88 are accounted for in
demonstratiOD8 of reasonabte further
progre8S and within the growth
allowance provi8ions of the SIP. ThUl,
there is DO need to apply PSD review to
either type of nonattainment pollutant
which already facea adequate review.
Twenty-three commenters also
supported exempting from PSD review
sources which emit only Donattainment
pollutants in major amounts. but PSD
pollutants In minor amounts. citins
Alabama Power for support. Neither
Alalx;una Power nor the Act support
such an exemption. Alabama Power
held that, at a minimum, PSD review
does DOt apply to major sources which
locate In „ area de8ignated
nonattaintnent for all criteria pollutants.
But the court did not take into account
the fact that the same source may emit
both PSD and nonattainment pollutants.
Since. as noted above. section 165(a)
does not link the pollutant for which the
source is major and the pollutant for
which m area is designated attainment
or uncla88ifiable, EPA Interprets section
165(a) as requiring PSD review for each
80urce that is major for some pollutant
and locates in an area designated
attainment or unclassifiable for that or
any other pollutant and that this review
encompasses PSD pollutants whether or
not emitted in major amounts.
Finally. same commentera perceived
an inconsistency in requiring broad,r
pollutant applicability far PSD review
than for nonattainment review. yet using
a breadel' definition of "source" for
nonattalnment areas than for PSD areas.
However, EPA's actions are consi8tent
with the Act. The scope of PSD review
applicability and the nooattainment
41
definition of source are separate issues
and there is no basis for requiring that
they be resolved In such a way as to in
some manner equalize their effects.
" xm. BaeeJioe Ccmceatratioo, lIa8e1ine
Area. aDd BuaIiae Date
ŁPA's June 1918 PSD regulations
generally define baseline concentration
as the ambient concentration level
reflectins actual air quality as of August
1.1917, including projected emissions of
major sources commencing construction
or modification before January 6. 1915.
but not in operation by August 7.1917,
and excluding emissions from major
sources commencing construction
(including modification) after January 6.
1915. (40 CFR 51.24(b)(11). 52.21(b)(11)
(1919).) Emissions from major Bource
construction commencing after January
6. 1915, as well as most emissions
Increases occurring from existing
sources after the baseline date are
counted against the applicable PSD
Increments. (A more detailed diacua8ion
of the relatioD8hip between baseline
concentration and Increment
consumption is provided In Increment
Conaumption.) Actual air quality
includes emissions increases after the
baseline date at existins source8 whose
emisBious are counted in the baseline
concentration. if the Increases are due to
Increased hours of operation ar capacity
utilization authorized under the SIP and
reasonably anticipated to occur on the
baseline date. The baseline
concentration also includes emissions
Increases allowed under a SIP
relaxation pending final EPA approval
on the baseline date, if the allowable
emissicns under the revision were
higher ~3an the source's actual
emissioD8 on the baaeline date. The June
1916 regulations established a uniform
baseline date of August 1. 1911 for all
clean air areas. A definition of baseline
area was unnecessary since all PSD
areas were covered by the August 1.
1911 baseline date. -
The Alabama Power decision held
that a Uniform baseline date was not
authorized by section 169(4). It required
the baseline date to be established at
the time of the first application for a
permit In an area subject to PSD
requirements. EPA's regulations were
consequently remanded for c:hange.
The lUabama Power decision.
however, supports EPA', definition 01
baseline concentration. In holding that
monitoring data is required under
section 165(e)(2), the court confirmed
that actual air quality data 8hould ba
used to determine baseline
concentrations. See 13 ERe 2022. Since
monitoring data provide information on
actual air quality concentrations from
-------
52714
FecIera1 Register r Vol. 45, No. 154 I Thursday, August 7, '1980 I Rules and Regulations
exiating sources and .ince section 169(4)
explicitly states that required monitoring
data should be used in establishing
baseline concentrations, the court's
decision supports EPA's requirement
that baseline concentrations reflect
actual air quality. In addition. the court
implicitly affirmed EPA's approach in
tWins that EPA correctly excluded from
baseline concentrations emissions
increases due to voluntary fuel switches
after the baseline date. Since actual air
quality on the ba.eline date would not
reflect these increases, their exclusion
from baseline concentrations is
consistent with EPA'. actual air quality
approach to ba.eline concentrations.
Finally, the court noted Congress'
rejection of a House bill that would have
allowed certain source emissions to be
included in baseline concentratioDB,
even though the emissions have not
occurred by the baseline date. See 13
ERC 2026. The court concluded that
Cougrua considered and rejected an
approach that would depart from actual
air quality in calculating baseline
concentrations. except in the limited
circumatances set forth in section 169(4).
In its September 5, 1979 response to
the court's decision. EPA proposed to
delete the uniform August 7, 1971
baseline date and to define1baseline
date as the date of the first complete
application. after August 7, 1977, for a
PSD permit to construct or modify a
major stationary source in an area
subject to PSD requirements. As part of
that definition. EPA proposed to define
bueline area as all parts of an Air
Quality Control Region (AQCR)
designated as attainment or
unclaasifiable under section 107(d) of
the Act. Under that definition, an
applicatiOli of a major stationary source
to construct in any part of an AQCR
designated as attainment or
unc1assifiable would trigger the baseline
date for both so. and PM in all porUona
of the AQCR.
. EPA'. proposed definition of baseline
area was based in part on its
consistency with the term "area" as
used in section 107, which requires air
quality designations for AQCRa or
portions thereof. The definition was al80
intended to avoid implementation
problema that might result from havinl
different.baseline areas and dates
within the same AQCR. EPA proposed,
. however, to allow states some flexibility
in defining baseline area. See discussion
at 44 FR 5194Z.
EPA further propoaed to retain its
~ntdefildtionofbaseline
concentration but asked for comment on
a particular problem .pecific to the Gulf
Coast areas{.ee 44 FR 51107, October to
1979.and discussion in Increment
Consumption). EPA's September 5
proposal specifically asked for comment
on two aspects of its proposal: (1)
whether baseline area should be defiDed
as clean portions of the AQCR in which
a source applies for a permit, and (2)
whether a permit application should
trigger the baseline date only in the
clean portions of the AQCR in which.the
source would locate or also in clean
areu of any AQCR which would be
impacted by the source.
After issuance of the court's full
opinion in December, EPA proposed and
aaked for comment on thn!e changes to
its September 5 proposal (45 FR 6802,
January 30, 1980). First, EPA stated it
wu considering defining baseline area
u any area designated attainment or
unc1a88ifiable under .section 107{d) in
which a source subject to PSD
requirements would locate or impact,
rather than all clean portions of an
AQCR in which a .ouree would locate
or impact. Second. EPA's solicited
comment on whether states should be
allowed to redefine the boundaries of
areu designated as attainment or
uncla88ifiable. EPA l1I88ested. however,
that state. should be limited to
redesignations no smaller than the
souree's area of impact. Third. EPA
indica ted it was considering adoption of
a pollutant-specific baseline date and
area. Under that approach, a souree
would trigger the baseline only for the
pollutants it emitted. Thus, if the source
would emit neither so. nor PM, it would
not trigger any baseline. EPA alao
requested comment on whether a source
which would be major for so. and
minor for PM would trigger a baseline
date only for so. or for both pollutants.
EPA's final action and response to
comments on each of the issues is
diacussed below. For .implification, the
diacuaBion focuses on the four basic
issues of baseline concentration,
baseline area, baseline date, and
poUutant-specific baseline. Issues
related to increment conaumption are
diacuased in the next section.
A. Baseline Concentration
As propond. EPA is continuing its
current definition of bpeline
concentration.. the ambient
concentration levela at the time of the
first permit application in an area
aubject to PSD requirements. Baseline
concentration generally includes actual
source emissions from existing sourels
but excludes emissions from major
sources commencing construction after
January 6, 1975. Actual source emissions
are generally estimated from source
recorda and any other information
reflecting actual source operation over
42
the two-year time period preceding the
baseline date. The baseline
concentration also includes projected
emissions from major sources.
. commencing construction (including
modification) before January 6, 1915, bu~ .
not in operation by August 7,1977.
Unlike the June 1978 policy, ba~line .
concentration will no longer routinely
include those emissions increasea after
the baseline date from sources
contributing to the baseline
concentration. which are due to
increased hours of operatioD or capacity
utilization. Existing policy permitted this
gnindfathering, provided such increases
were.allowed under the SIP and
reasonably anticipated to occur ~s of the
baseline date. Today's policy which
normally excludes such increases is
consistent with using actual source
emissions to calculate baseline .
concentrations. An actual emissions
policy, howefer, does allow air quality
impacts due to production rate increases
to sometimes be considered as P.art of
the baseline concentration. If. source
can demonstrate that its operation after
the baseline date i8 more representative
of normal source operation titan its
operation preceding the baseline date,
the definition of actual emissions allows
the reviewing authority to use the more
representative period to calculate the
source's actual emissions contribution to
the baseline concentration. EPA thus
. believe. that sufficient flexibility exists
within the definition of actual emissioDS
to allow any reuonably anticipated
increases or decreases genuinely
reflecting normal source operation to be
included in the baseline concentration.
EPA is also promulgating a chaDge in
its current policy on SIP relaxations.
Under that policy, emissions allowed
under SIP relaxations pending on
August 7, 1971 are included in the
baseline concentration if the allowed
source emissions were higher tJw:i
actual source emis.ions. EPA adopted.
that policy in June 1918 in recognition of
the fact that some states with SIP
revisions pending on August 7, 1971 had
allowed sourees to increase emissions
prior to final EPA approval of the
relaxations, while other states with
pending relaxations had required
sources to comply with the lower
emissions limitations in th. existing SIP
until final approval ~d. See 43 FR
26401 coL 3. To avoid penalizing sources
in states that did not allow increases
prior to approvaL EPA provided that
baseline concentrations include the
allowable emiasions under revised SIPs,
if the relaxation was pendioa on August
7, 1971 and the allowed emissions
exceeded the .ource'. actual emissions.
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 45, NO.-154 I Thursday, August 1, 1980 I Rules and Regulations
52715
The effect was to allow sources to avoid
increment consumption analyees for the
emissions increase allowed in the
revision. EPA considered the exemption
justified becauee states and sources
were unaware that EPA would establish
a uniform baseline date of August 7,
1977, and those e6Dissions increases
after that date would consume
increment.
EPA believes this exemption from
increment consumption analyses is no
longer necessary. States and sources
have been on notice since June 1978 that
emissions increases at existing sources
due to SIP relaxations must be
evaluated for possible increment
consumption. No state or source has
been uncertain as to the applicable
baseline date, or been placed in an
inequitable position as to other states or
sources.The~atiQns
donotex~
~~on analyses those SIP
s nor I1na~ a~~rovedŁ
~e baselme at n the
are.
--one commenter suggested that EPA
extend the transition provision within
the June 1978 regulations for assessing
increment consumption. 43 FR 26401 col.
2. This provided that increased
emissions from plan relaxations
received after the August 1, 1977
baseline date but before the June 19,
1978 promulgation would col18ume the
applicable increment but could be
reviewed a8 part of the periodic
assessment rather than assessed
individually for increment consumption
prior to plan approval -
EP A does not believe that a similar
exception is required under toilay',
regulations. EPA considered the
exception necessary in June 1978 due to
uncertainty as to how the 1977
Amendments would affect pending SIP
relaxations. Such uncertainty DO longer
exists, since sources have been on
notice since June 1978 that SIP
relaxations after that date must be
individually reviewed for increment
consumption. Therefore, emissions
increases due to plan relaxations
received after June 19, 1978 must be
individually evaluated for increment
consumption prior to EPA approval.
EPA is concerned. however, that the
new definition of baseline concentration
may work a hardship on states with SIP -
relaxations pending when a PSD
application is ffied in an area. A state
tnay submit a SIP ~IAYAtiftn ~A"hn8 a
sour u of so .
an area where e
een se and would not ~ ~;~~ tn
~Vlde an mcrement consnmntinn
analYSIS. II pnor to final EPA approval,
a source med a PSD application in the
area, the application would establish a
baseline date and the state would have
to withdraw the revision until it has
conducted the necessary increment
analysis. ~revent !luch ~dp.nRome
dela s EPA s exem tin from
VI ua me
1 xrffilo~the time a
Dase e ts Ished 10 the area
a ecte y the revision. wever.--
~~UUilll ~ due to emissions
om these re axations must be-
emuated as part ot a state'8perlodic
assessment. Exemptions tram individual
analyses is analogous to the previous
relief provided for sources subject to SIP
relaxations submitted after August 7,
1971, but before EPA's June 1978
promulgation. The exemption is
therefore consistent with prior EPA
policy.
B. Baseline Area.
In response to the September 5, 1979
proposal fifty-three commenters felt
that an AQCR definition of baseline
area would not produce a great deal of
administrative relief and would,
simultaneously, limit an area's growth
options. These commenters favored
defining baseline area as the area of
significant source inipact, b~ed on
required modeling and monitoring
analysis. Such an approach was claimed
to provide just as much administrative
relief. more growth options, and
elimination of the problem of a small
PSD source triggering the baseline date
for a large area. Seventeen commenters
favored a baseline area definition
geared to areas designated as clean or
unclassified under section 107. Those
favoring this alternative strongly
preferred a "redesignation" procedure to
accompany this option. Other
commenters objecting to the AQCR
approach suggested: county boundary
lines (three), and the entire state (one).
In response to EPA's January 30
notice, fourteen of sixteen commenters
favored a source impact area definition
of baseline area. One of the remaining
two commenters favored retention of the
AQCR approach while the other
commenter desired a county or 80me
other legal boundary approach. All
eighteen comments received favored
triggering a baseline only in the area in
which a source would locate, imd not in
those other areas which it would impact.
Nineteen of twenty-nine commenters
favored permitting state redesignation
but to areas no smaller than a source
impact area. Seven other commenters
.favored no limitations on the
redesignation procedure. The I'P-maining
three commenters opposed alloWing
states to redefine baseline areas through
redesignation.
4!
EPA has determined that baeeline
area should be defined .. the area
designated as attainment or
uncla..jfjable under section 107(d) in
which a source or modification subject
to PSD review would construct or on
which it would have an impact equal to
or greater than 1 p.g/m' on an annual
basis. EPA has concluded that "an area
subject to this part," as ueed in section
169(4), refers to areas designated
attainment or unclassifiable under
section 107(d).
This view is strongly suggested by
Judge Robinson's opinion on baseline
concentration in the December 1979
Alabama Power ruling. Referring to
Congress' intent to use actual air quality
data to establish baseline
concentrations, Judge Robinson states
that "the task of monitoring existing
ambient pollution levels in attainment
areas is assigned to the first pennit
applicant. who will provide the
information essential to calculatiQn of
the base1ine." (Emphasis added) 13 ERC
1993. 2022. The footnote which follows
that sentence discus8es a state's
obligation under section 107(d)(1) to
submit area designations to EPA and the
fact that section 107 Usts submitted to
date by the states indicate that many
areas lack acceptable air quality
information. Jd. The references to
attainment areas an,* section 107(d)
designated areas indicate that the court
interprets the statute as requiring that
baseline concentrations be calculated
for each clean area designated under
section 107(d)(1).
EPA thns beUeves that neither the
statute nor the court opinion support the
proposed AQCR approach. The majority
of comments also opposed defining
baseline area as AQCR. Opposition was
based on the view that it would do little
to alleviate administrative problems,
offered no flexibility in states. and
would often limit an area's growth
options by encompassing too large an
area.
EPA has also determined that a PSD
source should tri88er the baseline in all
intrastate clean areas that it impacts as
well as the area it locates in. One
objective of PSD is to track air quaUty
changes in clean air areas. If a major
source significantly affects any clean air
area in the same state the purposes of
PSD will be served if air 9uality
deterioration from minor/area source
growth and actual changes in baseline
source emissions are tracked from the
time significant so. or PM emissions
from a new or modified major source
impact a clean area. Such. policy is
also consistent with the l8Dauage of
section 165{e)(1) of the Act which
-------
52ne
Federal KePter I Vol. 45, No. 154 I Thursday, August 1, 1980 I Rules and RegulatioD8
requires an air quality analysis of the
affected area. not just the area of
immediate location. The Administrator
does not believe that such a policy
should traD8cend state boundarie..
Since trigaerIDs baseline dates is an"
importut factor in man8gjng growth,
EPA has concluded that states should
have jurisdiction over their own
baseline dates. On the other hand,
establishment of baseline dates does not
affect increment consumption aeroN
state borders by mejor source
construction commencing after January
6, 1975.
EPA has concluded that baseline
areas may btlredefined by the states
through area redesignations. Section
107(d) specifically authorizes states to
submit redesignationa to the
Administrator. Consequently, states
may submit redefinitiona of the
boundaries ofattanunent or
unclassmabIe areas at any tiMe. If EPA
agrees that the avlUlable data support
the change. it will redefine the areas as
requested. As long a. no PSD source has
located in, or significantly impacted on a
clean area being considered for
redesignation. the area can be
redesignated as a new attainment or
unclassmable area. even if the area
were previously part of a larger clean
area in which the baseline date had
been .et.
Area redesignationa are subject to
certain restrictiona. The boundaries of
any area redesignated by a state cannot
intersect the area of impact of any mejor
stationary source or mejor modification
that established or would have
established a baseline date for the area
proposed for redesignation or that is
otherwise required to obtain a PSD
permit. In addition. area redesignationa
can be no smaller than the area of
impact of such source.. These
restrictioDS comport with the PSD
objective of tracking air quality effects
in an area once a mejor source or
modification has affected an area. By
setting the baseline date at the time a
major source or modification impacts an
area and preventing the date from being
changed by subsequent area
redesignationa. the system ensures that
future growth in the area will be
assessed for its air quality effects from
that date forward. Moreover. if wtes
could define baseline area. In small as
the immediate area in which a source is
located and not include the source
impact area. air quality could
deteriorate or increments could be
violated in a nearby area impacted by
the source, but neither the state nor EPA
would review the air quality impact. The
souree could therefore affect air quality
but the reviewing authority would be
unaware of the deterioration. In addition
to jeopardizing air quality, "postage
stamp" baseline areas would be difficult
to administer.
A source will be considered to Impact
an area if it has an Impact or 1 ~g/ml or
more of so. or PM on an annual basi..
This figure has been selected because it
corresponds to levels of significaJ1ce
used in previous A,ency determinations
for so. and PM. The annual average
was selected over the short term value
due to its eMe of implementation. Thet
is, the shape of source impact areas is
Ie.. complex and the 1 Jl.S/ml annual
average provides ample area coverage
of the source impact area.
The Administrator believes that
defining baseline area as section 107
areas and allowing state redesignation
will satisfy most of the commenters who
objected to the proposed AQCR
definition and favored state flexibility in
designations. The redesignation process
partially meets the concerns of
commenters who preferred defining
baseline area as source impasct area.
Where a baseline date is established for
an area that is large relative to the
impact area of the triggering source, the
state has the option of redefining the
area to reflect more accurately the area
affected by the source.
C Baseline Datil
Consistent with the Agency'.
proposal. today's promulgation defines
baseline "at- n till
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 45. No. 154 I Thursday. August 7. 1980 I Rules and Regulations
52717
postpone the establishment of baseline
dates.
One commenter questioned whether
baseline dates would be triggered by
permit applicatioDs previously filed by
sources that were major under the June
1978 PSD regulations. but no longer
major under the regulations promulgated
today, even if the permi~ applicant failed
to dpply for a permit rescission. EPA
concun in the commenter's suggestion
that a subsequent permit applicant in
any area may inform the permitting
authority that the baseline date was not
triggered on the date that a source
which no longer qualifies as major
applied for a PSD permit. As the
commenter points out. this eliminates
the need for an immediate rescission of
all past permits affecting sources no
longer subject to PSD review. It also
avoids penalizing permit applicants if a
source that is no longer major fails to
apply for a permit rescission.
The Administration wishes to clarify
another point related to a change in
review status for the source which has
triggered the baseline date. If the
applicant that established the baseline
date is later denied a PSD permit or
voluntarily withdraws its PSD
application. a question arises as to
whether the baseline date has been
triggered. In the Administrator's
judgment the applicable baseline date
remains in place. since no change in
date is authorized under the Act. Section
189(4) establishes source application as
the baseline triggering mechanism and
does not qualify this by the later
issuance of a permit. This policy is
consistent with the establishment of a
baseline concentration which is based
on the available monitoring data,
typically that gathered by the source
applicant. The data to establish tha
baseline concentration would be
available regardless of the eventual-'
permit status of the baseline triggering
application. Using sourCe applicjJtion
also stabilizes the NSR permitting
process. Later applicants can determine
whether a baseline date has been set in'
an area by looking to whether a
previous application has been filed.
rather than needing to determine if the
permit has been or will be issued.
Finally, the Administrator wishes to
point out that it is the first PSD
application submitted under either 40
CFR 52.21 or state PSD regulations
develpped pursuant to 40 CFR 51.24
whicli triggers a baseline date. When
states a88ume responsibility. for
implementing the PSD program. several
PSD baseline dates may well have been
triggered. However. as mentioned
above, states can minimize the impact of
early baseline dates by redesignating
the size of the baseline area which is
affected by . previously established
baseline date.
D. Pollutant-Specific Baseline
The Agency has concluded that a
pollutant-specific baseline is consistent
with section 169(4) and the statutory
structure. Section 189(4) requires that a
baseline concentration be established
"with respect to a pollutant. . . in an
area subject to (part C)." Therefore, by
the terms of the statute, a baseline
concentration is established for
individual pollutants. Moreover, such
concentrations are established for areas
subject ta PSD. Section 107( d), which
provides that areas designated
attainment or unclassifiable are subject
to PSD, requires designations to be .
made on a pollutant-specific basis.
Section 107(d)(1)(D) and (E). To be
consistent. both baseline date and
baseline area (and any subsequent
redesignations under section 107 of the
Act) must also be pollutant-specific.
The comments that favored a
pollutant-specific baseline generally did
so on two grounds: the reference to
"pollutant" in section 169(4) and the
statutory requirement to use monitoring
data to establish baseline concentration.
Since monitoring and increment
consumption are pollutant-specific,
baseline concentrations must be as well.
The Administrator agrees that the
monitoring requirement supports
pollutant-specific baselines. Four of the
thirty-eight commenters that opposed
pollutant-specific baselines did so
primarily for implementation reasons.
Although pollutant-specific baselines
may add some complexity to the PSD
program, EPA has concluded that the
statutory structure contemplates
pollutant-specific area designations.
The following example illustrates the
concept of pollutant-specific baseline
dates. If a major source of NO. that
would also emit SO. in significant
amounts and PM in less than significant
amounts submits a complete application
for a permit to construct in an area
designated under section 107(d)(1) as
attainment for all pollutants. and no
pre..;ous source has triggered any
baseline dates, the source would
establish the baseline date for SO.. but
not PM. If a later modification to the
source results in a significant net
increase in PM emissions and no other
application previously triggered the PM
baseline da.te. the proposed PSD
application for the modification would
then establish the PM baseline date.
45
XIV. Increment Consumption
There are two basic issues in the area
of increment consumption: (1) which
source emissions consume increment
and (2) how to calculate the amount of
increment consumed by those emissions.
The Alabama Power decision addressed
neither question. EPA. therefore,
proposed in September to continue its
current approach. Under the approach,
four categories of source emissions
affect increment: (1) as provided by
section 169(4). emissions from major
source construction (including
modification) commencing after January
6. 1975. This group includes emissions
from sources issued PSD permits and
state new source review (NSR) permits
(including those issued in accordance
with section 51.180) and the Offset
Ruling) as well as emissions from non-
permitted sources; (2) emissions changes
occurring after the baseline date at
sources whose previous emissions on
the baseline date are included in the
baseline concentration: (3) emissions
changes due to SIP revisions that are
approved after the baseline date; and (4)
minor and area source growth occurring
after the baseline date. EPA's current
regulations provide that the first and
third category of sources affect
increment on the basis of emissions
allowed under the permit and emissions
allowed under the SIP as revised,
respectively. The second and fourth
categories affect increment on the basis
of actual emissions changes from the
emissions included in the baseline
concentra tion.
Since its proposal, EPA has
reevaluated its current policy in light of
both the December opinion of the court
and the Gulf Coast problem (discussed
below). A ha concluded that
incremen consum ion
s 0 ease pnman y on actua
t:lllunnuns Increases HnD ueer ,
W can e presume a e allowable
~D iUlllour~e. ~u-6'''';' '~~olJ!ce-
specmcelIl1slUons IIDI a ons. s
cnange pnnClpal.ly anects mcrement
calculations for major source
construction not subject to source-
specific permits or SIP requirements and
for sources whose allowable limits are
demonstrated not to reflect actual
emissions. PSD applications pending
today before EPA or a state agency
authorized to review or issue PSD
pemlits will be reviewed for increment
consumption on the basis of the revised
policy. .
A. Use of Actual Emissians
1. Rationale for Use of Actual
Emissions.
-------
52718
Federal Register' Vol. 45. No. 154 , Thursday- August 1, 1980 I Rule. and Regulations
At discussed in the Baseline
Concentration section. the Alabama
Power decision supported EPA's
requirements that baseline
concentrationa reflect actual air quality
in an area. Increment consumption or
expansion is directly related to baseline
concentration. Any emissions not
included in the baseline are counted
against the increment. The
complementary relationship between
the concepts supports using the same
approach for calculating emissions
contributions to each. Since the
Alabama Power decision and the statute
both provide that actual air quality be
used to determine baseline
concentrations. but provide no guidance
on increment consumption calculations,
EPA has concluded that the most
reasonable approach. consistent with
the statute. is to use actual source
emissions, to the extent possible, to
calculate increment consumption or
expansion.
EPA's decision is also based on
concerns raised by the Gulf Coast
problem. discusaed below. In that area,
and po88ibly others. source emissions
allowed under permits and SIP
provisi0D8 in many cases are higher
than actuat source emiuiODL Sources
could therefore increase their emissions
without being subject to PSD review or
the SIP revision proceSI. However, if
increment calculations were based on
allowable emissions, EPA believes'
increment violations would be
inappropriately predicted and proposed
source construction would be delayed or
halteciIn prectice, EPA expects that
few, if any. sources will increase their
emissions to allowable levels.
EPA believes it is unwise to restrict
source growth baaed only on emissions
a source is permitted to emit but which.
in many instances. have not been and
are not likely to ever be emitted.
Increment calculations based on the
best prediction of actual emissions Unb
PSD permitting more closely to actual
air quality deterioretion than
calculations based on allowable "paper"
emissions. In addition. use of actual
emissions for increment consumption i8
consistent with using an actual
emissions baseline for defining a major
modification and for calculating
emissions offset baselInes.
2. Calculation of Increment.
~
re . ro 'or
source rm' . -r
or operator must ana e several
ese anges
generally include: .. emissions chaugea
that have occurred at baselina 8OUI'C88
and emissions &om new mInor ami area
sources since the baseline date: fit
emissions that have occurred or will
occur at sources which have submitted
complete PSD epplications as of thirty
days prior to the date that the proposed
source files its epplication: qd ")
emissions changes reflected in SIP
relaxations submitted after August 1,
1971, and pending as of thirty days prior
to the date the source files its
application. or emissions changes
reflected in SIP relaxations which have
been approved since August 1. 1971, but
which have not yet oC!=W'r8ci (See.
discussion below on calculation of
increment consumption for SIP
relaxations.) The thirty~y cutoffs are
specified to stabilize the review process
by preventing new applications and SIP
relaxation proposals &om invalidating
otherwise adequate Increment
consumption analyses without warning.
Increment calculations will generally
be based on actual emissions as
reflected by normal aoun:e operation for
a period of two years. EPA has selected
two years based on its recent
experience In reviewing state NSR
prograDUl for nonattainment areas. The
state aubmittalt use periods of between'
one and three years to evaluate source
emissions. In EPA's judgment, two years
repreeenta . reasonable period for
assessing actual source operation. Since
the framework for nonattainment NSR
programa will generally form the basit
for a state's PSD plan, EPA believes it i8
appropriate to use the same time period
for evaluating actual source emiaaions In
the PSD program. Two years it alto
being used to calculate the eDiiaaions
offset baseline. for modifications in
nonattainment areas.
The two-year period of concern
should generally be the two years
preceding the date as of which
Increment consumption it being
calculated. provided that th~ two-year
period is representative of normal
source operation. The reviewing
authority has discretion to use another
two-year period. if the authority
determines that some other period of
time is more typical of normal source
operation than the two years
immediately preceding the date of
concern. In seneraI. actual emissiODl
estimatel will be derived &om 8O\U'C8
recorda. Actual emi8siOl18 may also be
determIned by source teats or other
methods approved by the reviewing
authority. Best ensIneering judgments
may be t188d in the abaeoce of
acceptable test data.
EPA believes that. iD calculatlns
actual emiHions. emissions allowed
under federally enforceable soarce-
46
specific requirements should be
presumed to represedt'actual emissioD
level.. Source-specific requirements
include permits that specify operating
conditions for an individual source. such
as PSD permit., state NSR permits
i8sued in accordance with I 5U~j) and
other I 51.18 prognuns. including
. Appendix S (the Offset Ruling), and SIP
emissions limitations established for
Individual 10urcea.. The presumption
that federally enforceable source-
specific requirements correctly reflect
actual operating conditions should be
rejected by EPA or a state. if reliable
evidence it available which shows that
actual emissions differ &om the level
established in the SIP or the permit.
EPA believes two factors support the
presumption that source-specific
requirementa represent actual source
emissions. Firat, since the requirements
are tailored to the design and operation
of the source which are agreed on by the
source and the reviewing authority. EPA
believes it is generally appropriate to
presume the source will operate and
emit at the allowed leve!a. Second. tha
presumption maintains the intesrity of
the PSD and NSR systems and the SIP
process. When EPA or a state devotes
the resources nece88ary to develop
source-specific emissions limitations,
EPA believes it is reasonable to presume
those limitations closely reflect actual
source operation. EPA. state.. and
sources should then be able to rely on
those emissions limitations when
modeling increment consumption. In
addition. the reviewing authority must at'
least initially rely on the allowed leveIa
'contained in source-specific permits for
new or modified units. since these units
are not yet operational at a normal level
of operation. EPA. a state. or source
remains free to rebut the presumption by
demonstrating that the source-specific
requirement is not representative of
actual emissions. H this OCCUl'8,
however, EPA would encourage states
to revise the permits or the SIP to reflect
actual source emillions. Such revisions
will reduce uncertainty and complexity
in the increment tracking system, sinca
it will allow reviewing authorities and
sources to rely CD permits and SIP
emissions limitations to model
increment consumption.
Review of Increment usage due to SIP
relaxations will also be based initially
on emissions allowed under the SIP as
revised (provided this allowed level i8
higher than the source emiasions
contributinl to the baseline
coDCentration). Calculations will
fleDl!rally be made on tha difference
betweea the source emisaions included
in the ba.ae1iDe concentration and the
-------
Federal Register I VoL 45, No. 154 I Thursday, August 7. 1980 I Rules and ,Regulations
52719
emissions allowed under the revised
SIP. Initial use of allowable emiSsions it
necessary because the inCrement '
calculation generally OCCW'I before the
source has actually increased its
emissions. Therefore. at the time the
revision is reviewed, inCrement
consumption must be based an the
predicted source operation under the
revision. In addition. since SIP revisions
are commonly based on souree requests,
it is reasonable to assume such sources
will actually emit at levels permitted by
the relaxation.
Subsequent to the initial review
process, Increment calculations for SIP
relaxations may depart from allowable
emissions under the SIP. if the source
has not actually increased its emissions.
For example, t&ree years after approval
of a SIP relaxation. if it it found that the
10uree has not increased its emissions
to levels allowed in the SIP, estimates of
increment usage should be revised to
reflect actual source emissions. If this
occurs, EPA would alao encourage
states to revise the emissions levels
allowed in the'SIP to represent the
lource's actual emissions.
Finally, the required increment
consumption analysis can be amended
by the applicant after the PSD review
process has begun. For example. an
applicant would normally revise its
analysis to reflect increment made
available by the withdrawal ofPSD
applications previously considered in
the applicant's calculation of increment
consumption. In no event, however, will
the source be required to take account
of emissions changes or changes due to
pendlug PSD applications or SIP
relaxations that could increase the
amount of increment consumed by other
sources.
B. Exclusions From Increment
Consumption
1. Exclusions Requested by
Govemors.
Section 163(c) authorizes four
exclusions from increment consumption.
upon the request of a governor.
Exemptidns are available for federally-
ordered fuel switches under the Energy
Supply and Environmental Coordination
Act of 1974 or supersedlug legislation.
fuelswiti:hes due to natural gas
curtailment plans under the Federal
Power Act, temporary emissions of
particulate matter due to construction
and related activities, and new sources
constructing outside the United States.
In the cases of the federally-ordered
switches and natura1gas curtailment
plans, the exclusion is limited to a
maximum of five years after the
effective date of th-: order or plan.
The ltatute provides that these
exclusions are available only if the state.
has an EPA-approved PSD plan. Section
163(c).1n its June 1978 regulations,
however, EPA permitted governors to .
use the exclusions during the Dine-
month period between promulgation of
the regulations and the date plan
revisions were required to be submitted.
See 152.21(Ł)(3) (1919). As diacussedin
the preamble to the June 1978
regulations, EPA concluded that
prohibiting use of the exclusions after
the nine-month period would be an
adequate incentive to ltates to submit
PSD plans. See 43 FR 28402 (CoL 1).
EPA has decided to extend this policy
to today'l regulations. In view of the
many changes in the regulations
resulting from the court's decision.
states which have already aubmitted
plans will have to IUbmit revised
provisions and states which have not
yet submitted plans will have to develop
plans based on the new regulations. As
with the June 1978 requirements, EPA
believes that disallowing the exclusions
nine months from today will provide
sufficient encouragement to ltates to
submit plans, and will offer ltates more
flexibility for growth in this interim
period. Therefore, governors may
request the exclusions until Dine months
from todaY'1 promulgation. even if no
PSD plan has been submitted to or
approved by EPA. Thereafter, the
exclusions will be UDavailable unless
the state has submitted an approvable
PSD plan to EPA.
2. Temporaiy.Emissions
EPA's June 1978 regulations and the
September 1979 proposal provided that
temporary emissions from new sources
or modifications would be exempt from
impact analysis requirements
II 5t.24(k)(ill), 52.21(k)(ill) (1919);
51.24(k)(1), 52.21(k)(1) (proposed).
Temporary emissions typically include,
but are not limited to. emissions from a
pilot plant, a portable facility,
construction or exploration activities.
Similarly. EPA proposed to exempt from
inCrement analyses the impacts on the
PSD increments from the temporary
emissions associated with the
development of an approved innovative
control technology system, provided the
applicable ambient standards were not
jeopardized. The regulations. however,
. did not provide a comparable exemption
for temporary eunssions resulting from
short-term SIP relaxations.
Only three commenters addressed the
concern of temporary emissions and
increment consumption. These
commenters offered suggestions'in light
of the proposed position on innovative
control systems. These commenters
47
IUpported the existing policy of
exempting temporary emissions from
increment air quality analyses when no
Class I areas or IlreU with known
increment violations would be impacted.
Temporary SIP relaxations are
comparable to temporary emissions
from new and modified major ltationary
sources since both affect air quality for
a limited period of time. Therefore, the
Administrator has decided that the
existing policy of exempting temporary
emissions should be extended to those
associated with certain SIP relaxations.
A SIP relaxation will be eligible for such
relief if it meets the following five
tondltions. These conditions are
intended to ensure that the emissions
increase .ssociated with the SIP
relaxation will be lliI'ited in duration
and that no residual harm will occur to
the environment as a result of the .
relaxation. (1) The SIP revision allowl
an emissions increase for a temporary
period only. As ltated in the preamble
to the June 1978 reguIatioDl, temporary
emissions generally would last no more
than two years at one location. although
emi8sions for a looser period of time
may be considered temporary if an
appropriate demonstration is made. See
43 FR Z6394 coL 2. (2) The revision is
nonrenewable. This condition is
intended to prevent 10urces from
indefinitely postponing compliance with
emissions limitations necenary to
prevent PSD increment violations. (3)
The temporary emissions ~ not cause
or contribute to the violation of any
applicable NAAQS. (4) At the expiration
of the temporary SIP relaxation. the
10urce must be required to comply with
an emissions limitation that ensures the
post-exemption emissions will be equal
to or less than the emissions existing
before the exemptiob was granted. (5)
The temporary emissions from the
revision do not impact any Clus I area
and any area where an increment is
known to be violated. Restricting the
exemption to sources impacting Class D
or m areas conforms to Congress' intent
to provide maximum protection of air
quality values in Class I areas and
meets the commenter'i concerns.
In addition to SIP relaxations for
individual sources, the exemption will
be available for temporary emissions
due to SIP relaxations that apply to
several sources, if the state provides
adequate assurances that no standards
will be violated.
C. Increment Expon1Jion Due to
Emissions Reductions Prior to the
Baseline Date
EPA's policy under the June 1978
regulations is unclear as to whether
emissions reductions prior to the
-------
52120
Federal Register I Vol. 45. No. 154 I Thursday. August 7. 1980 I Rules and RegulatioD8
baseline date increase the amount of
available increments. The policy allows
decreases after January 6, 1975. and
prior to the baseline date. to be used by
sources to offset subsequent increasea
and exempt the increasea from the
requirement for an ambient air quality
aSlessmenL In effect. EPA treata such
decrease aa expanding available
incrementa, since the decreases permit
later emissioJ18 increasea at the same
source to avoid the otherwise required
air quality 8I8eu~nL The policy did
not state, however, whether isolated
decreases not made in conjunction with
intra source increases were considered
to expand available increments. In
contrast, the policy II clear that
emissions reductions after the baseline
date increase available increments.
As a result of the revised definition of
modification which permita offset credit
for emissiou reductions occurrin8
within a moving Bve-year period. EPA
haa decided to clarify ita existing policy.
All emissions reductiou prior to the
baseline date at major stationary
sources will now be considered to
expand available increments. Since
contemporaneoUl emissions reductiOI18
accomplished before the baseline date
can be used by a lOurce to offset.
contemporaneoUl poat-baseline
emissiona increase. and thereby avoid
PSD review. it II also reasonable to
allow these contemporaneoUl pre-
baseline date reductions to expand the
increment. Without this change. source
owners that reduce emissions by, retiring
or controllins old equipment before the
baseline date will be penalized by
having increases after the baseline date
count against increments even though
the pre-baseline decrease might offset
the later increase and eliminate the Deed
for PSD review. In cOntrast, source
owners that postpone the reductiOD8
and increases until after the baseline
date is set would both secure
contemporaneoua offseta and avoid
increment consumption.
EPA believes that this inequity should
be eliminated to encourage early
retirement of old equipment. Section
169(4) providea that emissions from
major emitting faeilitiea that commenced
construction after January 8. 1975. shall
be counted againat available
increments. The provision implies that
both emissiOl18 increases and decreases
should be considered for their impact on
available incrementa. In view of the
statutory laquase and policy
conaideretiona, EPA has determined that
decreases made prior to a baseline date
can expand available incrementa in the
same manner.. decreasea made after a
baseline date. However. to eDIIunt that
the emissions reductions remain
effective. reductions will add to
available incrementa only if the lower
emissiou limitations are federally
enforceable.
The changed policy II reflected in a
new definition of "construction" which
is any physical change or change in the
method of operation of a stationary
source resulting in a change in the
actual emisaions of the source (includina
~ fabrication. erection. installation.
demolition. or modification). Any
construction commencing at a major
source since January 6,1975. may result
in an increase or decreaae in actual
source emissions. IT an actual decrease
involving construction at a major
stationary source occurs before the
baseline date, the reduction will expand
the available increment if it II included
in a federally enforceable permit or SIP
provision. An actual increase associated
with construction activities at a major
stationary source will COJ18ume
incremenL
The Adminiatrator would also like to
clarify that changes in fugitive emissions
levels (to the extent quantifiable) at
major stationary sources, resulting from
construction commenced since January-
6. 1975, wiH consume or expand the
available increment. This is-true even if
such changes occurred prior to the
baseline date.
D. Gulf Coast Problem.
In the September 5 proposal and in an
October 4,1979 correction notice. EPA
solicited commenta on how to calculate
increment consumption by gas-fired
boilers in the Cuff Coast area that had
received state approval to burn oil in the
event of a future natural gas shortage.
See 44 FR 51942 (September S. 1979). and
44 FR 57107 (October t. 1979). The
affected unita include both boilers that
could accommodate such a fuel-switch
before January 6.1975 and boilers that
were altered to accommodate the fuel-
switch after that date. All affected unita
were permitted to switch fuel before
August 7. 1977, the earliest possible
baseline date. Assuming the baseline
date is set in the area where these
sources are located. which EPA believes
is the case for most of the so'urces. each
group of sourcea may cause increment
viola tions.
For sources that could burn
alternative fuels prior to January 6. 1975,.
the problem is posed by the fact that if
all sources made the switch to oil
allowed under their permita. So.
increment violations would occur. Since
neither a SIP revision nor a PSD Permit
would be-required for the sourcea to
malte the fuel switches, EPA and the
state could be unaWare of the violetiona
48
until another source applied for a PSD
permit or until a periodic a88eslment
was made. If actual increment violationa
were discovered during the PSD review
process for the proposed source. the
source would not be permitted to build
or modify until the violations were
corrected. IT violations were found
during a periodic assellment, the state
would have to suspend further growth
until ita plan was revised to correct the
violations. Consquently, the inadequacy
of the exiting permits to prevent
increment violations could result in
increment violationa which would delay,
and possibly prevent, additional growth
in the area.
A similar problem is posed by sources
that could not accommodate oil before
January 6. 1975. Since these sources
increased their potential to emit after
January 6. 1975. under EPA's June 1978
policy, this change would have
cOJ18tituted "construction" at a major
stationary source after January 6. 1975.
Therefore. under section 169(4), any
emissiona increases caused by the
"construction" would have consumed
increment. As noted above, EPA's June
1978 policy required increment
calculatiol18 to be based on emilsions
allowed under a permit or SIP and not
on actual eouree emi88ions. IT a PSD
source applied to locate in an area aDd.
these Cuff Coast sources were modeled
based on emislioJ18 increases due to fuel
switches allowed by their permita. EPA
believes several so. increment
violations would be predicted. Under
existing policy. the proposed PSD source
would then be required to correct the
violatiol18 prior to receiving construction
approval. Future growth in the area
could. therefore, be delayed or
prevented.
The problem pos.ed by the second
group of sources is reduced to some
extent by the increment consumption
policy promulgated today. Sinee
increment usage will now be based on
changes in actual source emiuiol18,
increment violations will not occur in
the area unless the sources actually
~witch to oil from. natural gas. Because
natural gas is expected to remain less
expensive and more available than oil.
EPA believes few. if any, switches are
likely. Therefore. while the incrementa
may still be jeopardized due to
inadequate permit conditioJ18, PSD
review can proceed as long as actual
emissioJ18 increases at exilting sources
and actual emiuions from sources with
PSD or NSR permits are not predicted to
cause increment violationa.
If an actual increment violation baa
occurred. EPA'a June 1978 policy
imposee a PSD permit moratorium until
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 45. No. 154 I Thursday, August 7, 1980 I Rules and Regulations
52721
the violation is corrected 43 FR 26401
(col. 1). June 19, 1978. This policy is
continued in today's regulations.
Therefore, if an increment violation is
predicted to occur within the significant
impact area of a proposed source
(1ILg/m'on an annual average). a PSD
permit cannot be issued to the source,
unless the state or source obtains
sufficient emissions reductions to
restore the increment. The issue of how
to deal with potential increment
violations due to inadequate permit
conditions is addressed in the next
discussion. .
Several comments were received in
response to EPA's request for comments
on the Gulf Coast problem. Although
EPA believes its revised policy of using
actual emissions to calculate increment
consumption resolves the immediate
Gulf Coast dilemma. and similar
potential problems in other states, EPA
is responding below to suggestions
made by commenters.
EPA's notices questioned whether the
Agency should or may include in the
baseline concentration emissions
increases due to fuel switches. Twelve
of thirteen commenters on the issue
supported including increases due- to
fuel switches in the baseline .
concentration and the majority of the
commenters favored including in the
baseline concentration other emissions
Increases approved prior to the baseline
date but not occurring by that date.
Commenters also proposed using
allowable emissions in all cases to
calculate baseline concentrations.
As discussed above and in Baseline
Concentration. EPA has determined that
both baseline concentrations and
increment consumption should be based
on actual air quality impacts. This
decision is consistent with the
suggestion of some commenten that
EPA consider increment consumption to
occur only when actual emissions
increase and not when the permit or SIP
allowing the increase is approved As a
result of EPA's revised policy. emissions
increases due to fuel switches cannot be
included in the baseline concentration.
unless the increase occurred prior to the
baseline date and at a source which
could accommodate this switch prior to
January 6. 1975 without physical change
or received approval under a PSD permit
to make the switch.
One commenter was particularly
concerned that unless allowable
emissions were included in the baseline
concentration. utilities with SIP
relaxations approved shortly before the
baseline date would be penalized if the
utilities were unable to make the
allowed increase by the baseline date.
The commenter argued that some
utilities would be unable to make the
technical changes necessary to
accommodate the fuel switch prior to
the baseline date. Such utilities would,
therefore. be required to do an
increment consumption analysis, in
contrast to other sources that made the
switch before the baseline date. The
commenter suggested that accounting
for the allowed emissions increase in
the baseline concentration would
resolve this inequity and would be
consistent with EPA's June 1978 policy
of including in the baseline
concentration emissions allowed under
SIP relaxations pending before EPA on
the baseline date.
While appreciating the commenter's
concerns, EPA has concluded that no
exemption from increment consumption
8.i1alyses is appropriate in these cases.
First, as discussed in Baseline
Concentration. EPA has changed its
June 1978 policy to. provide that
increment is consumed by emissions
increases due to SIP relaxations pending
EPA approval on the baseline date.
Therefore, the exemption cited by the
commenter no longer applies. Second.
the June 1978 exemption was provided
for sources whose emissions increases
were delayed by the administrative
process and not by physical limitations
at the source. Therefore, the June 1978
exemption would not have applied to
these utilities. Third. under the
regulations promulgated today, if
significant construction is ne-cessary to
make the allowed emissions increase.
the change is a modification and would
be subject to PSD review, including
increment consumption analysis. in any
case.
Other commenten suaested that
prospective application of the
definitions of major emitting facility and
modification promulgated today would
resolve the Gulf Coast p" ':.! .m. Under
this approach. emissions increases that
occurred after January 6. 1975. and
would otherwise be considered
modifications that consume increment
under today's regulations; would not be
evaluated under the new definitions.
These commenters argued that"the Gulf
Coast problem is due to increment
consumption from emissions increases
not subject to the PSD permitting
process at the time the increases were
approved The commenters stated that
EPA has flexibility in deciding the
effective date of the definitions.
. EPA believes that section 169(4)
requires emissions from all major
emitting facilities (as defined in the Act
and not as defined in the old PSD
regulations) commencing construction
after January 6. 1975 to count against
49
increment. The statute provides no
discretion to exempt these emissions
from increment consumption. EPA also
notes that under the PSD regulations
effective from January 6. 1975 to August
7,1977, emissions increases at such
sources would have consumed
increment to the extent the fuel switches
occurred. (See 39 FR 425101.
E. Potential Increment Violotions
1. Inadequate SIP and Permit
Provisions. While the use of actual
emissions to calculate increment
consumption partially resolves the Gulf
Coast problem. the potential for
increment violations remains. due to
inadequate SIP and permit provisions.
As stated in the preceding discussion.
many sources in the Gulf Coast area.
and in other states as well, have permits
or SIP requirements that allow actual
emissions increases without subjecting
the source to PSD review or the SIP
revision process. For example, sources
may be allowed to burn fuels with
higher sulfur contents. as in the Gulf
Coast area. or may have high allowable
limits that would permit sources to relax
existing pollution controls. If all sources
in an area increased actual emissions to
levels allowed under the SIP or permits.
EPA believes increment violations
would occur. Because no PSD review or
SIP revision would be required. neither
the state nor EPA would know of the
violations until a PSD application was
filed or a periodic assessment occurred.
Growth- would be halted until the
violation was corrected.
At preseI,lt. increment violations due
to allowed but unreviewed emissions
increases. and consequent construction
delays. are only potential problems. EPA
has therefore eoncluded that it is
premature to promulgate remedial
regulations to prevent such theoretical
violations. EPA. however, encourages
stares to be alert to emissions increases
that affect the increment. EPA urges
states to closely monitor emissions
increases from baseline sources and
from new or modified sources not
subject to PSD review which affect the
available increment. States should
consider requiring sources to report any
emissions increases after the baseline
date. including increases reflecting
changed operating conditions that will
continue for an extended period of time.
perhaps six months. States would then
learn of increases that consume
increments and could take those
increases into account in PSD permit
reviews and periodic increment
assessments. In addition. states are
encouraged to revise SIPs and/or issue
operating permits so that SIP
requirements and permits reflect actual
-------
52122
Federal Register I Vol 45, No. 154 I Thursday, August 7, 1980 I Rules and Regulations
source operating conditions. Thi. will
protect against large unreviewed
emissions increase&. While EPA is not
promulgating a reporting requirement
today, it will reconsider the need for a
notification system if it finds that
unreviewed emissions increases are
causing or contributing to increment
violations.
2. Double Counting of Emissions
Decreases.
EPA is concerned about another
potential problem: double counting of
emissiona decreases. The problem could
arise if an existing source (Source A)
reduces its actual emissions and a new
source (Source B) seeking to locate in
the area proposes to use the decrease
when modeling increment consumption.
Source B would do this by including the
emissiona decrease in its modeling of
actual emissions from Source A. If the
reviewing authority does not require
Source B to enaure that the decrease at
Source A is federally enforceable and
does not record Source B'. use of the
decrease at the time Source B conducts
its modeling. Source A may well use the
same decrease to offset a future
contemporaneous increase at Source A
and thereby avoid PSD review for the
increase. The use of one emisliona
decrease to offset two emissiona
increases could lead to air quality
deterioration. and pollible increment
violationa that would require correction
before more PSD permits could be
wued.
While EPA believes double counting
of decreasel should not be permitted. it
is not promulgating regulationa today to
addrell the problem. EPA is uncertain
how often. if ever. the problem will
arise. Certainly it will be difficult for a
new source to prove to the satisfaction
of the reviewing authority the value of
an emissiona decrease accomplished at
another source. Moreover, while EPA
believel double counting of decrease.
should not occur, it is uncertain what
solution is equitable for affected
sources. In the absence of a formal
increment banking sYltem. or oth~
provisiona regulating increment
allocation. the reviewing authority
would have no basis for denying Source
B ule of any available IncremenL This
could result in hardahip to Source A if it
deprives Source A of use of its decrease
as an offset for future increase&.
The issue of double counting is part of
the broader question of increment
management and allocation- of air
quality rights. EPA Intends to develop
banking regulatiOll8, which will include
guidance to state. on methods of
increment allocation and regulating 11M
of emissions decreales. To this end.
EPA solicits sugeetions on how to
prevent double counting of decrease.
and on methods of increment allocation
andmanagemenL
XV. Betrt Available CoatroI Tedmolou
Section 165 of the Act provides in part
that any "major emitting facility"
conatructed in a PSD area must apply
best available control technology
(BACT) "for each pollutant subject to
regulation under this Act emitted from.
or which results from. IUch facility."
Section 169(3) of the Act definel BACT .
and specifically requires that it not be
applied in a manner so as to result in
emissiona in excess of those that are
allowed by standards established
pursuant to sectiona 111 or 112 of the
Act. 42 U.s.c. 7479(3). The Agency".
existing regulationa required BACT only
for each pollutant for which a source or
modification would be "major." 40 CFR
51.24(i)(I), 52.Z1(i)(1)(1978).
The Alabama Power decision held
that the Act requires that BAer be
applied to all pollutants subject to
regulation under the Act. not only those
for which the lource is major, and that
EPA is without authority to circumacribe
the requirement in this manner. 13 ERC
1993, 2046. The court did conclude.
however, that EPA has authority to set
de minimis thresholds for BACT
applicability, in order to alleviate
economic and administrative burdens.
Id
In response to the court's decision.
EPA propo~ and is now promulgatins
regulationa regarding application of
BACT. 40 CFR 51.24(k)(1), 52.Z1(k)(I).
With respect to new major stationary
sources, BACT will be required for each
regulated pollutant emitted in excels of
specified de minimiB amounts.
Application of BACT i. also required. in
the case of major modifications. for each
regulated pollutant emitted for which
there is a 8Iigrtiflcant net emisaioa
increase (greater than de minima
amounts) at the source. The BACT
requirement applies to only the modified
units and added units at the IOU1'C8
whose construction retlults.1n a source-
wide significant net increase in the
emissions of the regulated pollutanL The
new BACT requirements apply' only to
the owner or operator of . PSD source
or modification whose application for .
PSD permit was not complete befbre
today's promulgation. (See Tranaition).
The de rninimi6 emislions rates
promulgated by the Administrator (BN
De Minimis Exemption) will apply ~
both BACT and LAER requirements. The
Agency specifically solicited comments
on the need to specify de minima levels
for BACT. since the cue-by-aaae BACT
determinations would presumably take
de rninimi8 levela and such related
50
issues a. coat into acco1inL TwentY-six
commenters addrease8 this i.sue.
Seventeen agreed in principle but
generally conaidered the proposed
levell too low and requested special
consideration for pollutanta emitted in
Ie.. than major amounts. Eight of nine
disaenters preferred case-by-case BACT
. determinations. with DO de min.irni.
values.
The Administrator i. implementing
the proposed de minimis approach for
determining BACT applicability,
although several values have been
Increased. (See De Minimis
Exemptiona.) This action should
alleviate the concerns of those
commenting about the need for BACT
review of those pollutants emitted in
small amounts. The Agency also
solicited comment. on the potential
problem of a source obtaining lenient
BACT determinations and later applying
better controls to offset a.dditional
expansion plana. Twelve of thirteen
commentera addressing this issue
concluded that no such problem would
arise. They claimed that it would be
implausible to suppose that state
programs and EPA regional office.
would evade such re8ponsibility,
especially since loole BACT
determination! would result in
accelerated conswnption of incremenL
The Administrator agrees that there
appears to be adequate protection
against loose BACT determinations.
Each of the three comments that
addressed a need to phase in the BACT
requirement favored a six month to one
year grace period because of the
complexity of the program. However.
the Administrator believes that the cas.
by-case flexibility of BACT
determinationa i8 sufficient to phase in
these regulations. Moreover, sources
have effectively had a one year notice.
in that the original Alabama Power
decision. published June 18. 1979.
informed them of the new BACT
requirements. (See Transition.)
An additional issue, regarding the
pollutant applicability of the BACT
requirement, arose during the comment
period. The proposal required BACT for.
the new or modified emissions units
which were associated with the
modification and not for those
unchanged emissions units at the same
source. Thus, if an exiatins boiler at a
source were modified or a new boiler
added in such a way as to .ipificantly
increase particulate emissions. only that
boiler would be lubject to BACT, not
the other emiaaions units at the source.
However, the proposal could be
interpreted as requirins BACT for
certain pollutants where the
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 45, No. 154 I Thursday, August 7, 1980 I Rules and Regulations
52723
Administrator did not intend t~ require
BACT. For"example, the proposal could
be interpreted as requiring BACT review
for any pollutant emitted from a source
that was modified, regardless of
whether the emissions of the pollutant
increased. However, that was not the
Agency's intent.
If a new unit were added or if a
modification were made to a unit at a
source, but there are contemporaneous
decreases in emissions elsewhere at the
source, BACT is required only for the -
pollutants for which there is a net
significant plant-wide increase. For
example. consider the addition of a
boiler whose emissions of PM. SO" and
NO" each exceed de minimis levels. If,
at the same time. an emission unit of
SO" elsewhere at the source were shut
down, such that plant-wide emissions of
SO" either do not increase or increase
by less than a de minimis amount,
BACT is required for the new boiler only
for PM and NO". Of course, BACT will
not be required if there is no significant
plant-wide increase in emissions of any
pollutant. Similarly, if an existing
emissions unit of a source were
modified such that there is an emissions
increase for one or more pollutants. but
not all, BACT is required only for the
pollutants for which there is both a net
increase at the unit and a net significant
plant-wide increase.
The above final policy governing the
applicability of BACT to modifications
is also consistent with existing policy
under section 111, which the court said
should govern modification concems.
The applicable regulation, 40 CFR
6O.14(a). states that "any physical or
operational change to an existing facility
which results in an increase in the
emillsions rate to the atmosphere of any
pollutant to which a standard applies
shall be considered a modification
within the meaning of section 111 of the
Act. Upon modification, an existing
facility shall become an affected facility
for each pollutant to which a standard
applies and for which there is an
increase in the emissions rate to the
atmosphere." (Emphasis added.)
The regulation cited above makes two
important statements about the
applicability requirements. First. the
BACT requirements apply only with
regard to those pollutants for which
there has been a net significant increase.
This was emphasized by the Alabama
Power decision: "Congress wished to
apply the permit process, then only
where industrial changes might increase
pollution in an area, not where an
existing plant changed its operations in
ways that produced no pollution
increase * *. .. The interpretation of
'modification' as requiring a net increase
is thus consistent with the purpose of
the Act * . *. The EPA has properly
exempted from best available control
technology (BACT) and ambient air
quality review those 'modifications' of a
source that do not produce a net
increase in any pollutant." 13 ERC at
2043.
Second, BACT is requirt!d for net
significant increases of any pollutant
regulated under the Act, regardless of
the category of source involved or the
emissions standards generally
applicable to "it. Section 165(a)(4) of the
Act requires application of BACT "for
each pollutant subject to regulation
under this Act" emitted from a subject
facility. 42 U.S.c. 7475(a)(4). This
includes not only criteria pollutants but
also all pollutants regulated under NSPS
or NESHAP. In this manner, BACT can
complement the NSPS process by
extending coverage to additional source
types and units and perhaps identifying
candidates for future NSPS and
NESHAP regulations.
XVI. Monitoring
In Alabama Power, the court held that
section 165(e)(1) of the Act requires an
ambient air quality analysis for each
pollutant subject to regulation under the
Act that a proposed source or
modification would emit, prior to
applying for a PSD permit. Since existing
PSD regulations requile monitoring only
for criteria pollutants emitted in major
amounts, EPA responded to the June 18,
1979 per curiam opinion by proposing to
require. for criteria and noncriteria .
pollutants, an air quality analysis that
would generally include monitoring
data. In order to gather and analyze the
appropriate data necessary to apply for
a PSD permit, a proposed source would
have to establish an approDriate
" monitoring network or W:.:1 .lave to
gather and analyze representative air
monitoring data resulting from ongoing
monitoring activities.
As proposed, pre construction
monitoring data was required 8S part of
the air quality analysis when: (1) the
estimated ambient impact of any new
pollutant emissions from the stationary
source or modifica tion would be larger
than the pollutant specific de minimis
air quality concentration (Table B); or
(2) the new emissions or net emissions
increases for the pollutant would be
major (100/250 tons per year). In
addition to this rule, EPA proposed that
a case-by-case analysis of the proposed
stationary source or modification which
would impact on a Class I area be
conducted even though the anticipated
impact would fall below the de rniilimis
level. Later, in October 1979, EPA
51
provided further guidance for applying
these requirements in the draft revision
of the Ambient Monitoring Guidelines
for Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD), OAQPS 1.2~.
U.S. EPA. Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards and Office of Research
and Development, RTP, NC 27711.
The proposal stated that certain
noncriteria pollutants (sulfuric acid mist,
carbon disulfide, carbonyl sulfide,
methyl mercaptan. dimethyl disulfide,
and dimethyl sulfide) were lacking
measurement methods approved by
EPA. Until such time as approved
techniques would become available. the
Agency proposed to use mathematical
modeling to estimate the air quality
resulting from the emissions of these
pollutants. Considering these limitations
and the general lack of experience in
monitoring on a routine basis. the
Administrator proposed to implement
noncriteria pollutant monitoring
requirements on a case-by-case basis.
In addition to the pre-application
monitoring requirements already
described, EPA's proposal included
discretionary authority for requiring
post-construction mortitoring to
determine the effects of the new
emissions on existing air quality. For
cases in which larger pollutant emission
impacts are anticipated. post-
construction monitoring can be a
particularly useful aid in adjusting
modeling results used to predict
concentrations resulting from the
source's operation. The approach was
thought to be responsive to the Alabama
Power decision which required EPA to
use monitors to help refine modeling
techniques. Accordingly, EPA proposed
to generally require post-construction
monitoring from large sources of
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide.
Other sources whose emissions are
estimated-to result in air quality levels
approaching an allowable increment or
a NAAQS could also be required to
submit post-construction monitoring
data. The rule promulgated today is
consistent with the proposal.
The Administrator believed that the
required monitoring data would be most
productive in checking the accuracy of
models and, in some cases. could be
used to calculate increment
consumption. If an applicant or other
party believes that a model required by
EPA had either overpredicted or
underpredicted the air quality impact of
a source, EPA stated that monitoring
data would be evaluated to the extent
possible to determine whether
adjustments would be necessary. EPA
anticipated that the future development
of more sophisticated monitoring
-------
52724
Federai Register I Vol. 45, No. 154 I Thursday, August 7, 1980 I Rules and Regulations
techniques may permit increased use of
monitoring data to track increment
consumption and establish ambient
baselines, as well as improve the level
of confidence in modeling.
Lastly, EPA considered the approach
needed to smoothly usher in the new
monitoring requirements. The September
5 Federal Register indicated that EPA
intended to require any additional
monitoring requirements, as now
necessary under Alabama Power, to be
phased in. Later, in October 1979, the
draft ambient monitoring guidelines
specified that a three-month allowance
would be subtracted from the time
interval over which the owner must
monitor to allow for procuring and
setting up the necessary monitoring
equipment. (See Transition).
There was a large response to EPA's
proposal and draft monitoring
guidelines-nearly 100 public comments
and over 800 requests for the guidance
document were received. The comments
indicated general agreement with EPA's
interpretation of the court's preliminary
opinion. But some concern was
expressed over certain specific portions
of the proposal: (1) the limited
technology available to monitor the
noncriteria pollutants in the ambient air:
,2) the large cost associated with
gathering all the required air quality
data for all regulated pollutants: (3) the
identification process for
"representative" data; and (4) the need
fur post-construction monitoring.
Subsequent to the publication of the
September 5, 1979 proposal and the
receipt of the public comment, the court
issued its final decision on December 14,
1979. One important change the court
made upon reconsideration of the June
18 opinion was "that section 165(e)(1)
requires that an analysis be conducted,
and that it be conducted for each
pollutant regulated under the Act. But
. . . that section 165(e)(1), standing
alone doel not require monitoring al the
method of analysis to be employed in
the fulfillment of its requirements." 13
ERC 1993,2019. This ruling gave EPA
more flexibility in defining the minimum
requirements for a proper analysis of the
noncriteria pollutants. "EPA might. . .
choose either monitoring or modeling as
the method of analysis. . ." Id. In
other monitoring issues the court
essentially affirmed its preliminary
opinions.
Today, the Administrator ie
promulgating the proposed monitoring
requirements with the noted exceptiolU.
(See 40 CFR 51.Z4{m), 52.21(m)). EPA
wiD generally require one year's worth
of monitoring data as part of the air
quality analysis for only the criteria
pollutants. For the noncriteria and
hazardous pollutants, modeling, not
monitoring, will be the mechanism used
to perform most detailed air quality
analyses. However. there may be
certain circumstances where monitoring
may be the only option available to
perform an adequate analysis for the
noncriteria pollutants (e.g., when little or
no data on emission inventories for thl!
area of concern exist). In that case, EPA
will require ambient monitoring for the
noncriteria pollutants if there is an
acceptable method for the monitoring of
that pollutant. Presently, the
Administrator has acceptable methods
for measuring ambient concentrations
of: (1) all the criteria pollutants; (2)
mercury; (3) beryllium; (4) vinyl chloride:
(5) fluorides; and (6) hydrogen sulfide. A
list of acceptable methods and copies of
the method description are available by
writing to: U.S. EPA. Environmental
Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Quality
Assurance Division (MD-77), Research
Triangle Park, N.C. 27711. Also,
techniques to measure ambient total
reduced sulfur and reduced sulfur
compounds have been chosen and will
be added to the list within the next
several months. At this time there are no
acceptable methods for measuring
ambient levels of asbestos and sulfuric
acid mist.
As EP A gains more experience from
thE1 PSD program with respect to
noncriteria pollutant analysis and as the
technology develops, the Administrator
will consider an increased role for
ambient monitoring within the required
air quality analysis.
In addition to the exemptions given in
the de minimis section of this Federal
Register publication. EPA may not
always require a source owner to
establish a monitoring network when
the data would not validate or improve
the estimates made by the mathematical
models. When the existing air pollution
levels are conservatively estimated to
be quite small and a monitoring network
could not reliably measure the predicted
background concentrations, EPA will
generally not require the source owner
to generate preconstruction monitoring
data. Also. if the source owner haa
submitted preconstruction data for the
source. site, and the post-construction
monitoring network could not measure a
predicted degradation in the air quality,
then EPA will generally not require the
source owner to collect further
monitoring data. More guidance for
meeting all the monitoring requirements
is given in the Ambient Monitoring
Guidelines for Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD), EPA-4SO/4-8>-012,
July 1980, available from the Monitoring
and Data Analysis Division. OAQPS.
52
(MD-14), U.S. EPA. Res\!arch Triangle
Park, N.C. 27711.
In the September 5, 1979 proposed
regulations and the October 1979 draft
of Ambient Monitorins Guidelines for
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD), EPA solicited comments on the
use of representative air quality data to
satisfy PSD monitoring requirements.
Thirty-nine comments were received on
the various aspects of the use of
representative air quality data. The
major responses were as follows:
twenty-four commenters supported the
use of existing representative air quality
data, especially for remote areas, Five
commenters wanted EPA to allow the
use of bubbler data in lieu of continuous
monitoring data, seven respondents
believed that data older than two years
should be allowed," and three objected to
the quality assurance requirements for
the representative data.
EP A has considered all of the
comments and has taken the following
actions:
(1) The use of existing representative
air quality data will be permitted in lieu
of monitoring. provided that the data
meet the criteria in the above reference
guideline.
(2).No bubbler data will be permitted
because the data should be of the same
quality 8S that obtained if the applicant
monitored according to the requirements
in the above referenced guideline. This
guideline specifies monitoring must be
done with continuous instruments to
eliminate measurement biases
associated with bubbler data,
Continuous measurements are also more
suitable for routine monitoring purposes
in checking for compliance with short-
term standards.
(3) EPA will allow the use of data. for
preconstruction purposes only, collected
in the three-year period preceding the
permit application provided reference I
equivalent quality assurance procedures
were followed during the measurement
period. The draft guideline has
previously specified a two-year
requirement.
(4) EPA reaffirms the intent that all
monitoring data collected must have
been collected in accordance with
acceptable quality assurance
procedures. The specifics of the
minimum quality assurance program
needed for collecting air quality data are
contained in the referenced guideline.
Finally, the court held that EPA had
failed to provide concrete guidance to
the states for designating when le8s than
one year of monitoring data would meet
the required air quality analysis, a.s
specifically allowed under section.
165(e)(2). Such guidance is given under
-------
Federal Register 1 VoL 45, No. '-54 I Thursday, August 7, 1980 I Rules and Regulations
52725
PSD SIP Revisions located elsewhere hi
today's Federal Register publication.
xvu. Notification
The proposal contained a requirement
that certain. construction projects
exempt from PSD permit rules file a
report at least 90 days in advance of the
time that the exempted construction
would commence. Notification.
requirements similar to those in the PSD
proposal were also included in the
proposed nonattainment rules. under 40
CFR 51.180) and 52.24. and Appendix S
of Part 51 (the Emission Offset
Interpretative Ruling). These notice
requirements would apply to source .
construction which would not be subject
to NSR solely because (1) the increase in
emissions was offset by a
contemporaneous decrease so as not to
cause a significant net increase at the
source (see Modification). or (2) the
application of air pollution controls not
generally required by the applicable SIP
or 40 CFR 60 or 61. would lower the
"potential to emit" of the source below
the applicable threshold for permitting.
The proposal would have required the
submittal of comprehensive data for
both new and existing emissions units at
the stationary so~ce and all other
information needed by the reviewing
authority to determine if the exemption
reported by the source was proper. No
formal applicability determination.
however, was to be made and no major
. delays in the construction program of
any such source were intended.
The Administrator believed such
reporting was necessary because of the
additional complexity of such
determinations and the decreased
number of sources subject to PSD due to
changes in applicability rules. A need
was apparent to record unreviewed
emission increases and reductions
occurring years apart at the same plant,
in order to assess their impacts on air
quality as well as to simply register in
advance claims for reduction credits.
For these reasons the Administrator
proposed to use his authority under
section 114 to monitor these
determinations of offsetting emissions
reductions and increased control
efficiency. Section 114 authorizes the
.Administra tor to require a source owner
to provide such information as he may
reasonably require in order to carry out
Part C of the Act or to determine if a
source owner is iD violation of a SIP
requir,menL .
Fifty-nine comments were received on
the notification requirements. Only tw,o
comments completely supported the
Agency proposal. Thirty-eight of the
commenters felt that the requirements
were unnece~sary and not authorized by
the Clean Air Act. M~y stated that the
requirements were burdensome and
equivalent to a preconstruction permit
process. Twenty-four commenters
specifically stated that section 114 does
not allow such a comprehensive data
gathering requirement, although
reasonable data gathering is allowed.
Those who thought the requirements
unnecessary cited the adequacy of
existing state permitting programs to
deal with these problems and the
possibility of post-construction
recordkeeping to accomplish the same
objectives. EPA was advised to take
enforcement action against the few
source owners who would iricorrectly
exempt a source from review and then
construct the source without obtaining a
permit, rather than risk pervasive
construction delays of properly
exempted sources. Many commenters
felt that the administrative burden to
both the reviewing agency and the
source outweighed its benefits.
Seventeen commenters specifically
stated that the extra cost to source
owners would remove the real
iDcentives for early cleanup and would
act to perpetuate the operation of older
units with high air pollutant emissions.
The Administrator maintains that
reporting similar to the preconstruction
notice is needed and can be required
under section 114. However, the
comments. particularly those concerning
the potential of existing state programs
to accomplish this function. have caused
EPA to recorisider the need at this time
for a preconstruction notification
requirement. State comJJl,l!nts and
meetings with several state
representatives in Atlanta (see Docket
account of m-D-I) indicate that all
states currently learn of all proposed
emission units and changes before such
would commence construction. Most
states acquire sucn knowledge through ~
their existing general NSR procedures.
approved under 40 CFR 51.18. even if a
net decrease would occur at the source.
Other states learn of proposed emission
increases through notification letters
filed by the source pursuant to a formal
applicability ,determination.
Many states do not routinely require
sources to record emission decreases.
especially when such would occur well
in advance of related emission
increases. While a preconstruction
notice would be desirable to document
these decreases. the requirements for
contemporaneous emission reduction.
credit (see Modification) are sufficient
to fulfill this need. That is, emission
reductions; in order to be creditable in
offsetting any contemporaneous .
increase at the same sta~onary source,
5S
must be enforceable before the
associated unites) with the emissions
increase(s) commence construction.
- Such reductions. to be enforceable. must
generally be made part of an
enforceable operating or construction
permit or be processed as a formal SIP
revision. Although the Administrator is
still concerned that sufficient
information may not be available when
a source owner wishes to document
previous emissions reductions. he is
opting for a "wait-and-see" approach in
order to alleviate the concerns of the
majority of the commenters who felt the
notification requirements were
unjustified and burdensome. .
Also. since states will soon be
administering the PSD program. it is best
to allow them the flexibility to integrate
notification requirements into their
existing permit programs. The
notification requirements in each state
will be different, depending upon
whether the state has an emission
banking system and how it operates. the
type of emission inventory system. and
the information available from operating
and construction permits. PSD
Increment tracking systems will also be
set up by states, which can tailor
informational requirements to their own
. tracking systems.
While today's regulations do not
contain a formal preconstruction notica
requirement, owners and operators are
hereby put on notice for the following:
(1) Sufficient records regarding the
details of contemporaneous emilsion
mcreases and decreases or applicable.
source determinations of ''potential to
emit" should be maintained so as to
verify that no permit was required
should the Administrator so require
under section 114; (2) H experience in
implementing the "no net increase"
provisions of PSD applicability indicates
that a more comprehensive notification
system is required. the Administrator
will promulgate an amendment to PSD
and nonattainment regulations similar to
the deleted provisions of the September
5 proposal; and (3) Any source which
improperly avoida review and
commences construction will be
considered in violation of the applicable
SIP and will be retroactively reviewed
under the applicable NSR regulation.
. xvm. PSD SIP Revi81on8
Comments have been IOlicited on
three aspects of the development of
acceptable PSD plans by etatel. The
issuel are: (1) the authority of ltates to
submit different but equally effective
PSD programs, (2) ltate flexibility in
defining baseliDe areas, and (3) state
flexibility in allowing monitoring
exemptions.
-------
52726 Federal Register I Vol. 45, No. 154 I Thursday. August 7, 1980 I Rule. and Regulations
A. Equivalent State Programs. Under State PSD programs must follow the B. Baseline Area
existing regulatioDl, the Administrator federal regulations in.other matters. This
cannot approve proposed state PSD Includes. but is not limited to the This aspect of the equivalent state
regulations unleS8 the state following:. program issue deals with the definition
requirements are identical to or a. Maximum allowable increments. of the area for which the. baseline date is
individually more stringent than the b. Modeling techniques. triggered by a PSD permit application.
corresponding 40 CFR 51.24 regulations. c. Class I area protection. and. specifically, with whether this
While the Act does contain specific d. Notice to the Administrator or the definition must be the same unde'r a PSD
requirements for eeveral major aspects applicable Federal Land Manager for SIP as it is in 40 CFR 52.21, The proposal
of PSD programs. it does not prohibit prospective permit actions. defined bueline area for both 40 CFR 51
states from using. in other areas, - e. New (grass roots) major stationary and 52 !Is every part of an affected
approaches equivalent to those of the . source applicability.. AQCR designated attainment or
federal regulations in order to meet the f. NSPS. NESHAP minimum unclassified on the baseline date.
statutory objectives. AccordiDgly, the requirements for BACT determinations. Comments were solicited concerning the
Administrator proposed on September 5, g. DefinitiOD8 generally as contained desirability of allowing states .to define
1919 that states be given some flexibility in 40 CFR 51.24{b).(State definitions "area" as any portion of an AQCR that
in preparing PSD plans. The need not be verbatim translatioDl, but had been designated al attainment or
Administrator requested comment OD muat have the same effect). ...nm:lasaifiable, or, conversely; to allow
such an approach and suggested The Agency is not expanding the area states to define "area" as the entire
portions of the PSD requirements for of state program flexibility to those four state.
which equivalent approaches might be areas, noted earlier, that were suggested All commenters specifically
acceptable. and others for which by the commentera. First. the addressing the issue of allowing states
alternative regulations would not be Administrator does not believe that" . . to have flexibility In defining baseline
approvable. Where SIPs were allowed complete program flexibility is area were in favor of that approach.
to differ, a test of overall equivalenca allowable under the Act. nor does he Many were more specific, suggesting
was to be used based on the ability of find a basis for the comment that EPA is that 107 designated areas or source
the state system to capture as many without authority to require that SIPs impact areas be used.
emissions as would the 40 CFR 51.24 include more than skeletal program The Administrator has decided to
regulations. components. The second suggestion. allow flexibility to states. not by
All forty-nine comments on this topic regarding fugitive duat, is not feasible at accepting alternative definitions in SIPs,
strongly endorsed the general approach this time for reasons detailed elsewhere but by defining baseline area in such
of giving states flexibility in developing (see Fugitive Duat Exemption). With manner as to allow flexibility. This
PSD programs. although several regard to the third comment, the Act change In definition arises from a
commenters expressed the desire for a specifically directs the Administrator to revised legal interpretation of what.
more extended area for SIP flexibility. specify air quality models. Section meaning "area" may be given under the
Among those areas are: (1] the entire 165{e)(3). 4Z u.s.c. 7415(e](3).10 Act (see Baseline Concentration).
PSD program. (2) fusitive dust addition. national consistenC'J is Baseline area is now defined as all
applicability, (3) modeling techniques. important for such air quality impact areas (and every part therein) within the
and (4) treatment of minor modifications analysis in order to standardize how state that are designated attainment or
and exempted sources. Another increment would be consumed or unclassified under section 107(d)(1) (D)
commenter asserted that EPA could hold enhanced aC1'088 the country. or (E) of the Act in which. the source
the states responsible only for plans that With regard to the degree of state establishing the baseline date would
addressed minimal requirements, such flexibility in exempting additional type8- locate or would have an air quality
as maximum increment consumption. of new and modified sources. EPA. impact equal to or greater than 1 p.g/ml
After consideration of the comments, believes that adequate exemptions have (annual average) for the pollutant (S02
the Administrator has decided to treat been provided in today's regulations and/or TSP) for which the baseline date
PSD SIP revisions generally in the and no further oiles are authorized is established. Flexibility is inherent in
manner proposed. This means that under the Act The Administrator state authority to redesignate areas
states will be permitted to meet the wishes to note that todays rules allow a under section-107. Thus. large tracts of
following requirements of 40 CFR 51.24 state the opportUnity to change the time . land belonging to one clean or
with different but equiv81ent period defining contemporaneous unclassified PSD area can later be
regulations. or implement the federal emissions increases. This chabge affects divided Into several smaller PSD
regulations with considerable discretion: the definition of major modification and baseline areas with potentially different
a. Baseline area. thereby affects the number of PSD baselii1e dates. Other than the
b. Type and amount of data needed reviews. limi
~ Th 'tations associated with Processin..
.or monitoring purposes. e opportunity for states to change 107 d -0
c. Temporary exclusions from the time period within which emissions -area re esignations as SIP revisions, .
. ch EPA requires that area redesignations
mcrement consumption. anges would be considered. under section 107 cannot intersect or be
d. DerIDing "contemporaneous" as a contemporaneous is not constrained by 11 th
reasonable period that may be greater a test of equivaleacy. Rather, it should sm~ er ~ the area of impact of any.
or shorter than 5 years. be considered by states in developin.. major stationary source or major
e. Banking of emissions reductions for PSD SIPs In conjunction with their -0 modification which establishes a
future offsets. deliberations on alternatives to first- baseline date or is subject to PSD and
f. Source information and analysis come-first-served permitting and would be constructed in the same atate
required of the applicant. emission offset banking. The 8S the state proposing the redesignation.
g. Public participation after providiDa Administrator believes-theee issues are A. baseline date will. therefore, be
the opportunity for public hearing. related to the state'. Inherent flexibility ~red for the entire designated.
h. Alternatives to first-come-first- - under the Act to manage increment section 107 area unlesa nonimpacted
served permit processmg.' consumption. ' portions are redesignated to smaller
areas. .
54
-------
FedenJ Register I Vol. 45, No. 154 I Thursday, August 7, 1980 I Rules and Regulations
52127
Thia approach allows the DexibiJity
requelted by the commentere, but
precludee "poetage-etamp" delipatioDl
deligned to -triger baeeliDe only in the
Immediate vicinity of the 8OUn:8. It a1ao
avoide the difficult area boundary
probleme which would ari8e &om
definins area 81 the PSD loun:e impact
area. States are cautioned to carefully
weigh any inclination to poetpone
baleliDe datel through area
redelipatioDl -Sainet increaled
chfficuJtiel a880ciated with tracking
mcrementcoDl~pti~ .
C. State Monitaring Exemption
~oOOmo~wureman~dto~A
that portion of the monitoring
requirementa which allowed ltatee to
accept lell than one year of
precoD8truction monitoring data for
ca8e8 in which a Ihorter period would
be lumcient to perform a complete and
adequate analyeia. The court ruled that
~A had not provided adequate
guidance to the ltatel for making thia
determinati~ 13 ERC 1993. 2020.
The propoeal contained concrete
guidance for Ule by ltatel in
determ.inina if leu than one year of
monitoring data i8 euf6cienl That
guidance provided that al little 88 four
monthe of monitoring data for the
criteria pollutanta wal acceptable if the
applicant demoDltrated that the
maximum pollutant coDcentratioDl
would occur within that time.
Fourteen commenta were n:ceived on
variOUl 88peete of thia proPOla1.
Thirteen commentere IUpported the
flexibility of requiring lell than -one year
of monitoring data under epec1fied
circum8tancel. Two commentere
addre88ed ozone monitoring
requirementa where there were more
than four monthe with average daily
maximum temperature8 greater than
200C (680F). .
The Adminietrator hu decided to
promulsete the propoled msulatioDl
except for the following:
(1) Lell than one year of monitoring
data will be permitted for all reg11Iated
, pollutanta. rather than for jUlt the
criteria pollutant&. However, it mUlt be
~monltrated through historical data or
dilpereion modele that the data for euch
ahorter periode of time, but not 1811 than
four monthe, will be obtained during a
time Period when maximum air quality
levele can be expected.
(2) Guidance (or monitoring ozone
during the warmeet four monthe of the
year h88 been deleted. Monitoring for
ozone, 81 well al other pollutante, will
ltill be required during the time period
when maximum air quality levela can be
expected. Ozone concentratiODl wiD
aenerally be higher during the warmeet
four monthe of the ..ear. However, ozone
monitoring mUlt a1ao be conducted
when the yearly maximum ozone
CODcentratioDl are likely to occur during
monthe other than the warmelt four
monthe of the year. Thia will eDlure that
ozone monitoriDs will cover the
expected maximum concentratiODl.
XIX. AdditioDalluUee
A./nnorotiVII Technology
In the September 5. 19'19, Federal
Register the Agency propoeed a new
paragreph (u) w~ch eeta out lpecific
requirementa for reviewing eourcel that
wieh to utilize innovative control
technologiel. The new paragraph uta
. out criteria to be Uled by the
Adminiltretor in determinins whether a
propoeed control technoloay il
innovative, in addition to eltabliehing
Ipecific proviliona for implementing the
BACT and modeling requirementa.
All of the commentere recognized the
need to encourase the development of
technoloay ana senerally approved of
~A'I approech. One larBe
environmental sroup commented that
while it approved of the added
Oexibility in epecifyins BACT for
innovative technologie.. it wal
concerned that Clall I areal! might be
compromised if increment violatioDl
were allowed to occur during the period
of telting. We ahara thia concern of the
environmental sroup and are today
promulseting a resuJation which eD8ure1l
full protection of Clul I areal.
TodaY'1 amendmenta provide that, for
a 8OurC8 whOle technoloay hu been
deeipated 88 "innovative" by the
Adminietrator, the BACT requirement
Ihould ineure the inetallation of the
innovative &yltem and the adoption of a
compliance echedule for meeting a final
emi88ion limitation. Thil final emislion
limitation mUlt at leut reprelent the
BACT level that would have been
initially defined under I s2.n(j),
al.uming the un of proven ltate-of-the-
art techooloay. The compliance Ichedule
may extend no more than 7 yeare after
permit iseuance or 4 ,eare after ltartup
of the eource. The resuJatiODl aleo
provide that the Adminiltrator may
withdraw his approval if a lource: (1)
faile to meet the final emialioDl
limitation by the epecified date, (2) faile
to protect the public health. welfare, or
wely, Or (3) ahOWl an indication that
the innovative control eyetem WIl1 not
be eucc:ellful. The eource will then be
given a period of no more than 3 yeare
to cOme into compliance with the BACT
level determined with the un of the .
demoDltrated &yltem of control
The September 5 Federal Repter
propoeed that with the coneent of the
sovemor an "iDDovative techooiosy"
55
8OurC8 could conduct the increment
impact anal)'8ia Ultns the final emillion
limitation specified in the permit,
provided that DO Interference with
appliceble NAAQS would relult during
the interim period. ~A reaeoned that
any increa8ed level of emillioDl which
JDisht occur during the int8rim period
would be temporary and would not
lignificantly impact the incrementa.
However, one of the commentere
pointed out that Cla881 areal require
protection even &om temporary
violatioDl. We agree with the concerna
of thil commenter and cite I 52.21(i)(7)
in their IUPPOrt Thet eection exempta
temporary 8Ource& &om the modeling
requiremelita except when they impact
Clul I areal or areal where the
increment is known to be violated.
TodaY'1 replatioDl allow an
"inDovetive" 80urce to un ita final
emallon limitation for incNment
modelins purpolel. but only if there Ie
no impact on any CI881 I area or any
area with a known increment violation.
A. in the propolal, the final rulel
requirfDs modeling for the purpole of
evaluating the impact on NAAQS mUlt
take into account interim emi88ion
projectione. Under no condition may a
80urce be approved if it would caUle e
violation of the NAAQS. even a
temporary violati~
B. Modified Permi,.
In the September 5, 19'19 Federal
Rqietar, ~A propoled to add a new
paragreph(t)entitled'~~ed
Permita." The new paragraph provided a
Ipnplified approval procedure for.
eourcel that make minor chaDaee in
delign capacity or In the nature of
procell equipment between the time
they obtain a PSD permit and the time
they complete CODltructi~ It 8180 .
required prior approval, through permit
m~catiOD8, of increa8n in Loure of
operation.
The commenta on thia eection were
mixed. Some commentere felt that the
new paragraph W88 redundant and
IUperOuOue. while othere aeneral1,
approved of it but aeked for
clarification. Upon further
coDllderation. the Aseney believee that
there ia a need to diatinguilh between
lituatiODl in whi~ permita would be
chansed for primarily adminiatrative
re880Dl. euch 88 a chaose to reDect a
reviled CODltruction echedule. and
lituatioDl In which the permit chanae
involvel a lignificant increue In
emialione. In the latter can a new
permit mUlt be is8Ued: in the former,
however, aD abbreviated procedure
involvins modification of the peimit
JDisht be preferable. There are nUmeroUl
isluee to be COD8ldered In implementinS
-------
52728
Fed8n1 Regiater I VoL 45. No. 154 f Thunday, AugUsr 7, 1980 I R\i1ea and ResWatiODl
such an approach. These include the
me8DI to differentiate between
significant and nOD8ipificant cbanaea.
and the specific procedural
requirementa for modifyias a permit.
Thoae i88UH w.. not adequately
addreued ill the propoaal and for that
reUOD the AIencY hu decided that it
does not have a aufficieat buia for
completiD& rW-q)alril18 at this time.
However. further l'"t.",.Iri"l ia being
considered fOl' future propoaal8Dd
comment will be requested on the iuues
at that time. .
Co NODpl'OfillMlilllliOlW
EPA propoeed on September 5 to
exempt modificatioDi of nonprofit
institutiOOl from PSD review .
requirements u Is already done for new
construction of this type. This would
mean that, JlpoD written request by the
governor of the state, a PSD permit
would not be required of a major
stationary source or major modification
that qualifies u a nonprofit health or
educational institution. Today the
/'0.' ~miDiltrator promuJsates this
exemption as proposed since DO
signficant public comment was received.
It should be noted that althouah such
major new or modified sources would
not require a PSD permit, the emiuioDi
from these sources would cODiume the
applicable PSD increment(l) ~
January 8, 1975.
D. Portable Sourr:tIJI
With ~o portable soun:ea, EPA
propOMd the 30 da, notice to
a 10 da, for previously ;Jermitted
PSD sourcee '. to relocate. Based
on experience in implementiq the PSD
regulati0n8. and haYin& received DO
adverw public comments on this
proposaL the AdmiDiltrator Is adoptiq
this propoeal with oae exception.
Sources with PSD permits must provide
a notice to the reviewiq authority not
less than ten da,. before relocation.
activities would commence, unl... the
Administrator has previously approved
a different minimum time for relocatiaa
notice.
The Administrator would also Uke to
clarify that a source Is portable only If It
would have temporary location and
temporary, emisslOOl. Existing EPA
policy deftDea temporary emissions as
emissioas from a stationary source that
would be less than two yean in
duration. unless the AdministratOl'
determines that aloaser time period
would be appropriate. Thus. for a
portable source to qualify for the above
exemption. it must typicaDy be located
at the new l~tion less than two yean.
E. secondary EmiWou
Destrint to make the PSI) review
reqairementl similar to nonattainment
requireJnentl wherever potIsible, the
Adminiatrator proposed to add the
definition of s8COnd81'J emiasi0n8 fcnmd
in the oflaet -niling (44 FR 3214) to the
PSD regulatioDi. See 43 FR 2M03.
Secondary emissioDi would mean
emissioDi from new or exi8tinp sourcea
whieb 0CC1II' as a result of the
constructioo and/ol' operatioo of a
major source or major modiAr..tion, but
do not necessarily come from the source
itself. Secondary emiuiou wouki
include:
(a) emissiona from ships or traiDa
comiDa to or &om . source or
modification; 01'
(b) emi8siOM from oflaite support
sources which would otherwise Increa..
emissions u a result of construction or
operation of a major source. Althousb
reasonabl, quantifiable secoadary
eminioDi would be reviewed in the air
quality anaylsia, such emfsstone would
not be included in deten!dnins
"potential.. emissi0n8.
PubUc reaction to the September 50
1979 proposal ud the ftDal Alabama
Power opinion resardins EPA's
treatment of secondary emi.slOlll wu
smalL Generally the commeaters
favored the exclusion of secondary
. emissions &om the PSD permit process
altogether. Their objections centered 00
the availability and reliability of the
emission factor data to "reuOdably'"
quantify secondary emiuioDl. Also the
possibWtr of redundant reviews was
highlighted by several commentan. The
AdmiDiltrator, in weishing these
comments. hu decided to promulgate
the regula~ODl addressing secondary
emi88ioas as proposed on September 5,
1979. See 40 CFR 51.24(b)(3). 5Z.21(b)(3).
51.24(b)(20). and 5221(b)(20).
The Cean Air Act clearly calls for a
detailed and extensive air quaUtJ
impact auessmeat. For iDltance, each
permit application muat include impacts
from the growth projected in the are.
that would occur u a ren1t of the
proposed source's CGDItruction. See .
section 185{a}(6). Also. once the baseliae
date .. set. sw:h emiasioaa would
consume the DIa,nmmn allowable
increInents. so each permit deciaiOD
DWlt give CODlideratioa t~.~ the
possible ramifications of &Uowing a
source 01' modification to CODItruct. See
section 185(a)(3) ("cause or COIItributs1.
Secondary emia8l.0DI DW8t be
cODiidered whea. those emiss,ioaa are
specific:. weD defined. realODablJ
quantifteble. and Impact the same
sellllral area.
56
F. BueliJte for CGkulOdns Offset.
. Under &lcliOIJ 173(1)(A) -
1be 0ff8et lbaltas 8818 oat rules and
pidauce b datermi1UD8 the bueline
b calca1atina emiaaiona offset credit, as
weD as pidaaca CID the locaticm of
offsettiDs emialoaa. See 40 O'R Part 51.
. AppeIICIQt S. Sec1IoD8IV,C. and D. To
aid the states in daveloplns their NSR
regulati0a8 for DODattain",..nt are... Or
in revising tho8e regulati0D8. EPA baa
decided to promWsate tho88 rulea and
guidaoce ill 151.180)(3).'. The langauaa
promufgated today Is identical to that
used in the Offaet Ruling. except ..
e~ained beloW.
- Qn Jan1llll'J 18, 18'/9, EPA modlfted the
Offset Ruliq to coafonn to section
129(a)(l) of the Act by -ttiq the
baseliDe for determiDin8 emiJisioDi
offset CI'8dit at the emiuioD8 lnel
specified for lb. source in the applicable
SJP. EPA i8 retaining this baseline level
for the Offset RvJins. However, the
approach far NSR prosrama adopted
pursuant to 8ectioa 173 Is sliabd,
different. Section 173(1)(A) seta the
baseline as the "allowable" emissiODl of
the source. but It further specifies that
the offaeta obt.aiDed by the IIOUI'C8 must
be sufficient to represent reuonable
further PJ'OIII'888 (RPP). Some Put 0 SIP
reviai0D8 apprvved b, EPA ha..
demonstrated attainment aDd RFP bued
on the allowable emi88ion8 of IOUIC88 in
a nonattainment 8l88. However, man,
Part 0 SIP revisions have based their
demonstrations on the actuol emissioDi
of the IO\II'C88 in a nonattainmeat area.
rather than the eourcea' allowable
emissions. This me8DI that to be
CODiisteut with RFP, sources must
reduce their actual. rather than their
allowable. emi8sions. Otherwise.
sources coald claim credit for offsetl in
situations where the offset would
actually interfere with RFP..
To accommodate the different
approaches to RFP, EPA has provided .
that the baseline for determiDins
emlslli"ODI ofIaet credit shaD be the
.4em J8DU8lJ \11, \1'11. EPA IOUdted COIIUD8III8 OD
wrta.Ia apKI8 of die 0ffMt Ruliq. - of wbidl
dIndI, c-..d dw _tt8r8 pub\UMd tDdq.
BPA wiD N8pmId 18 tIIa8 IX888IIII aft8r 1odaT.
pramulptIaIL
u Por 8Xa111p1e, IUppOI8 . -'..now.bIa
elllilllcm8 are t.OOO tpJ. 8Dd 11811:tu8181Diu1oaa are
- tpJ. Haw.....-II _18 to add.-
emial- unit, t"-br addIa8 UID 1pJ, - die SIP
requires. 1111 '" nducIka far RFP. 1118 -
mJaId Ichien botb abjecllv- br decnaelq Ita
total aDowabt. emlal- to l1li IJI7. ..... It add8 die
1111 tpy for dw - faclU", b8t mak- adIer
reduati... Ia allawab18 ........ 01- !pr. '!1de 18
Itiaquala II 1M RIP .. . ..tIo........ 1Ip8II
aIlow.bIe mDiaeim8, a-Iba - .18lted at
1.C11111 Iyp 8Dd -18 at I0Il IpJ. But If RPP 18 buecI
OD 8CbI8\ ..-...-. dies tIMet. . - 011011 tpJ,
-- RIP.--IIlllIpJ'" -!be-
..... 8l1li....
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 45. NOr 154 I Thursday, August 7, 1980 I Rules and Regulations
52729
allowable emissions of the lource,
where the SIP reliel upon allowable
emissions to demonstrate RFP; but the
baseline must be actual emissions
where the demonstration is based on
reductions in actual emissions. EPA
believes for the reasons discussed
above that this approach is necessary to
assure RFP towards. attainment of
ambient air quality standards.
G. Economic Impact A8sessment
In the September 5 proposal. it was
stated that the Agency would prepare
an economic impact assessment of the
proposed changes after the final court
opinion was issued..which took place on
December 14. 1979. The Agency further
indicated that it would make the report
available for public comment prior to
promulgation. and that any resultini
comments would be taken into account
in the promulgated regulations.
Although the results of the impact
allelsment releltsed today have been
considered in aeveloping the
regulations. primarily for understandina
de minimis effects. it has not been
possible to complete the assessment in
time to get comments prior to
promulgation. In fact, because of the
inherent complexity of the program, it
has not been pOlsible to do a true
economic impact ulelsment (i.e.. one
which conliders impacts on market
pOlitions, prices, closures. etc.).
The document made available today
presents as usessment of the overall
impact of the proposed regulations with
respect to several of the major issues or
changes in the proposed regulations.
The assessment does not attempt to
quantify the impact of every issue nor
does it attempt to assess the overall
impact associated with the
implementation of the PSD regulations
in general. It is designed to provide a
relative a88essment of the impact of the
September 5 proposal versus the June
1978 regulations in terms of the: SOurcel
to be affected, their associated
emisiions, major requirements which
must be met (or which are no longer
required to be met). and estimated cost
savings for sources no longer subject to
PSD review as a relult of the proposed
regulations. In short, the analysis
provides an estim8te of differential cost
impact of the 1978 versus the proposed
PSD regulations and an aHeSlment 01
the major islues associated with the -
propoled PSD regulations.
As noted, the assessment focused on
the 4ifference between the June 1978
regulations and those proposed on
September 5. However, there are .
significant changes in the promulgated
regulations compared to those proposed,
especially with reprd to the .de minimis
"
valuel. Since these values have a major
impact on expected cost, a projection of
the impact of the final regulations wu
also made.
It is estimated that there will be a
savingl al a result of the promulgation
for SOurcel which would have been
subject to the old regulations but which
would not be subject to the new. This
would represent an annuallJavings of
$2.2 to 6.1 million a88uming the SOurcel
which have received permits from April
1978 to November 1979 are
representative 01 those which will
receive pe~ts in the future. -
Although there il an overall lavings
for sources which would not longer be
subject toPSD review, the new
regulations require more extensive
review for lome sources, al well as
review of sources which were not
previously covered; that is. modified'
10urces with uncontrolled emissions of
less than 100 or 250 tons per year but
which have controlled emislionl greater
than de minimis. Since these lources are
not now lubject to PSD ieview. they
would be required to prepare a PSD
permit, conduct the necellary air quality
impact assessments. inCur some delaYI
in construction al a result of undergoing
PSD review in addition to Itate NSR
review, and install BACT instead of jUlt
meeting the emissions limits required by
the State Implementation Plan or New
Source Performance Standards al
applicable. AI a result of the additional
cost incurred because of more extenlive
review and by the sources not currently
, lubject to PSD, the overall effect of the
promulgated regulations (includina the
savings described above) is an increale
of approximately $12.4 to 24.5 million
per year.
The complete analysis il contained in
the document entitled Regulatory
Impact A8sessment for the SJ!ptember 5.
1979 Proposed Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Regulations. EPA-450/2-
80-073. Thil document il available for
inspection in the ru1em~ docket
Copies may be 'obtained by writing to
the Air Information Center, U.S. EPA
Library Services. (MD-35),Research
Triangle Park. NC 27711.
R ConSQ/idated Permit Regulations
As mentioned in the section on
TRANSmON. EPA recently
promulgated regulations. known as the
Consolidated Permit Regulations. which
now generally govern the procelaing of
applications for permits under Part 52
PSD regulations. Among the regulatory
amendments announced here are three
minor changes to the Consolidated
Permit Regulation. First, EPA hal
deleted the substantive language of 40
CFR 124.3(b) and put "Reserved" in its
57
place. Section 124.3(b) related primarily
to the ~on exemptions of the 1978
Part 52 regulations. With the deletion of
thole exemptions. I 124.3(b) would have
become superfluous. Second, EPA has
conformed 40 CFR 124.5(g)(2) to the
. numbering in the new Part 52
regulations. Finally, the agency has
corrected 40 CFR 124.42(b) by
substituting "Iubmitted" for
"requested."
Final Action
The following regulatory amendments
are nationally applicable. and this
action is based upon determinations 01
nationwide scope and effect. Therefore,
under section 307(b)(1) of the Act,
judicial review may be sought only in
the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit.
Petitions for judicial review must be
filed on or before October 6, 1980.
(SectiOD8 101(b)(1),110. 1.169. 171-178, and
301(a) of the Clean Air Act a. amended (42
U.S.c. 7401(b)(1), 7410, 7470-7479, 7501-7508.
and 7801(a»); Section 129(a) of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 18'11 (Pub. L No. 95-85,
91 Stat. 885 (AIJ8II8t, '1, 18'11)))
Dated: July 31, 1980.
DouaIu M. CoItIe,
AdmirUstrotor.
State Plans For New Soun:a Review For
PSDPurposea
1. Section 51.24 of Title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations il amended by
deleting paragraph (k) and redesignating
paragraphs (1) through (s) as (It) through
, (r) and then by revising paragraphs
(a)(2). (b), (f). (iHlt), (m) and (r) and
adding new paragraphs (a)(6) and (I) to
read as follows:
151.24 PNftntIon of 8IgnIfIc8nt
cI8t8rtor8tIon of 8Ir quality.
(a)(1) Plan Requirements
.
.
.
.
(2) Plan Revisions. If a State
Implementation Plan revision would
result in increased air quality
deterioration over any baseline
concentration. the plan revision Ihall
include a demonstration that it will not
cause or contribute to a violation of the
applicable increment(s). If a plan
revision proposing leis reltrictive
requirements was lubmitted after
August 7, 1971 but on or before any
applicable baseline date and was
pendina action by the Administrator on
that date, no such demonstration is
necessary with respect to the area for
which a baseline date would be
established before final action i8 taken
on the plan revision. Inltead, the
aSlessment described in paragraph
-------
52730
Federal R&giater I VoL 45. No. 154 I Thursday. August 7, 1980 , Rules and Regulations
(a)(4) shall review the expected impact
to the applicable lnaement(l).
. ...
(6) Arnendrnenu. (i) An, ttate
required to ~ il8 implementation
plan by reason of aD amendment to thit
section. including any amendment
adopted simultaneously with thia
paragraph. ahall adopt and submit such
plan revision to the Administrator for
approval before May 7, 1981-
(ii) Any revision to an implementation
plan that would amend the provisions
for the prevention of significant air
quality deterioration In the plan shall
specify when and al to what sources
and modificatioal the reviaion. i.a to take
effect.
(iii) Any reviaioa. to an .
implementation plan that an amendment
to this section required shall take effect
no later than the date of its approval
and may operate prospectively.
(b) Definition&. All.tate plana shall
uae the following definitiona for the
purposes of thit section. DeviatiODl from
the followlns wordins will be approved
oaly if the state specifically
demonstrates that the .ubmitted
definition is more stringent. or at leut
as stringent. In all respects as the
corresponding definitions below:
(l)(i) "Major Itationary 8OU1'C8-
means:
~)Anyofthefullowlns.tati~
sources of air pollutants which emits. or
bas the potential to emit, 100 tons per
year or more of an, pollutant subject to
regulation under the Act: Fossil fuel.
fired steam electric plants of more than
250 million British thermal units pel' hour
heat input, coal clee.nin8 plantt (with
thermal dryers). kraft pulp milIa,
portland cement plants. primary zinc
smelters. iron and .teel mill planta,
primary aluminum ore reduction planta,
primary copper smelters. munidpal
Incinerators capable of charsin8 more
than 250 tODl of refuse per day.
hydrofluoric. sulfuric. and nitric acUI
plants. petroleum refinerie.. lime planta,
phosphate rock proceuiDg plants. coke
oven batteriet. sulfur recovery planta,
carbon black p1antl (fumace proceSI).
primary lead smelteft, fuel conversion
plants. .lntering plants, aec:oadary metal
production pluta, chemical proce88
plants, fossil fuel boilera (or
comblnatiODl thenof) totaling more
than 2SO millioo British thermal unitt per
hour heat Input, petroleum Itorase ud
transfer unitt with a total storqe
capacity exc:eedins 300.000 b8mt18.
taconite ore proceuinl planta, sIa..
fiber proceslinl planta, and c:Juuocoal
production plants:
(b) NotwithttaDdias the .tatioD81'7
source aize specified In parqrapla
(b)(I)(i)(a) of this section, any Itationary
source which emi18. or hal the potential
to emit, ZSO t0118 per ,ear or more of any
air pollutant subject to regulation under
the Act or
(e) Any physical chanse that would
occur at a stationary IOU1'C8 not
otherwise qualifying UDder paragraph
(b)(1) a. a major stationary SOW'a! if the .
chanse would constitute a major
.tationary source by itself.
(ii) A major source that i.e major for
volatile organic compounds ab.all be
considered major for ozone.
(2)(i) "Major modificatioo" meana any
physical change In or change In the
method of operation of a major
stationary source that would result In a
significant net emissioDllncrease of any
pollutant .ubject to replation under the
Act.
(ii) Any net emiuioDl increue that i.e
sil!7'ifir.ant for volatile organic
compounds ahall be co.naidered
lisnificant for OZOO8.
(ill) A phYlical chanae or cbange In
the method of operati~ shall not
include:
(a) RoutiDe maintenance, repair. and
replacement;
(b) Ute of an alternative fuel or raw
material by realon of any order under
SectiODl 2 (a) ud (b). of the Energy
Supply and EDvironmental Coordination
Act of 1974 (ar any .upenedins
legislation) or by realOn of a naturalg..
curtailment plan purluant to the F~eral
Power Act.
(e) Use of an alternative fuel by
reasol1 of an order or rule under sectioa
125 of the Act;
(d) Uae of aD alternative fuel at a
steam generatins unit to the extent that
the fuel is generated from munidpal
solid waate;
(e) Use of aD alternative fuel or raw
material b, a ltatiOnary IOUl'C8 which:
(1) The IOW'C8 wal capable of
accommodatins before January 8, 1975.
unleu .uch c:hanse would be prohibited
under anJ federally enŁorceeble permit
condition which wa. established after
January 8, 1975 purauant to 40 CFR 52.21
or under regulations approved purauant
to 40 CFR 51.18 or 40 CFR 51.24: or
(2) The source is approved to use
under any permit issued under 40 CFR
52.21 or under regulatiODl approved
pursuant to 40 CFR 51~
(f) An Increaae In the houra of
operation or In the production rate.
unless luch change would be prohibited
under any federally enforceable permit
coadition which was establiahed after
January 8, 1975. purauant to 40 CFR 5Z.%1
or under regulatiODl approved pursuant
to 40 CFR 51.18 or 40 CFR 51.2i.
(g) Any change In ownership at a
stationary source.
(3)(i} "Net emissions incri!a.." me8DI
the 1QD0unt by which the .um of the
followiDg exceeds zero: . .
(a) Any Increue in actual eIDlUl0118
from a particular physiCal change or
change In the method of operation at a
stationary source; and
(b) Any other Increasea and decreases
In actual emissiODl at the source that
are contemporaneoua with the particular
change and are otherwise creditable.
(ii) An Increase or decrease In actual
emiuions i.e contemporaneoua with the
inaease from the particular change only
if it 0CCU1'I within a realonable period
(to be specified by the .tate) before the
date that the Increase from the
particular change occurs.
(ill) An Inaease or decrease In.actual
emis.iODl i.e creditable only if the
reViewinl authority has not relied on it
in i88u.in8 a permit for the IIOUI'C8 under
regulations approved pursuant to thia
sectioo, which permit il In effect when
the -mcrea. in actual emi88ions from
the particular change 0CCUl'8.
(iv) An inCI'eue or deaeaae In actual
emissiODl of sulfur dioxide or
particulate matter which 0CCU1'I before
the applicable baseline date i.
creditable only if it it required to be
considered in calculating the amount of
maximum allowable lnaeuea
remaining available.
(v) An Inaeaae in actual emiaions it
creditable 001)' to the extent that the
new lewl of actual emisliODl exceeds
the old level
(vi) A decrease In actual emiasiODl it
creditable only to the extent that
(a) The old level of actual emisaiODl
or the old level of allowable emissions,
whichever it lower. exceeda the new
level of actual emissiona;
(b) It is federally enforceable at and
after the time that actual construction
on the particular. change beIin8; and
(e) It has approximately the same
qualitative lignfficance for public health
and welfare u that attributed to the
increase from the particular change.
(vii) An Increase that resul18 from a
physical ~ at a source occurs when
the emissioM unit on which
CODltruction occurred becomes
operatiooal and begina to emit a
particular pollutant. Any replacement
unit that requires shakedown becomes
operatioaal only after a reasonable
shalcedown period, not to exceed 180
days.
(4) "Potential to emit" me8DI the
maximum"capadty of a statioDarJ'
source to emit a pollutant under i18 "
physk:al and operational design. Any
physical or operationallimitatioa on the
capacity of the lOurce to emit .
pollutant, including air pollutiou control
equipment and reatrictioaa on bourt of
58
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 45, No. 154 I Thursday, August 7, 1980 I Rules and Regulations
52731
operation or on the type or amount of
material combusted. stored, or
pro~essed, shall be treated as part of its
design if the limitation or the effect it
would have on emissions is federally
enforceable. Secondary emissions do
not count in determining the potential to
emit of a stationary source.
(5) "Stationary source" means any
building. structure,lacility. or
installation which emits or may emit
any air pollutant subject to regulation
imder the Act.
(6) "Building. structure. facility, or
installation" means all of the pollutant-
emitting activities which belong to the
same indust!'ial grouping. are located on
one or more contiguous or adjacent
properties. and are under the control of
the same person (or persons under
common control). Pollutant-emitting
activities shall be considered as part of
the same industrial grouping if they
belong to the same "Major Group" (Le.,
which have the same two-digit code) as
described in the Standard Industrial
Classification Manual. 1972. as
amended by the 1977 Supplement (U.S.
Government Printing Office stock
numbers 4101-0066 and 003-OO5-OO17&-
O. respectively).
(7) "Emissions unit" means any part of
a stationary source which emits or
would have the potential to emit any
pollutant subject to regulation under the
Act.
(8) "Construction" means any physical
change or change in the method of
operation (including fabrication.
erection. installation, demolition. or
modification of an emissions unit) which
would result in a change in actual
emissions.
(9) "Commence" as applied to
construction of a major stationary
source or major modification means that
the owner or operator has all necessary
preconstruction approvals or permits
and either has:
(i) Begun. or caused to begin. a
continuous program of actual on-site
construction of the source, to be
completed within a reasonable time; or
(ii) Entered into binding agreements or
contractual obligations. which cannot be
cancelled or modified without
substantial loss to the owner or
operator, to undertake a program of
actual construction of the source to be
completed within a reasonable time.
(10) "Necessary preconstruction
approvals or permits" means those
permits or approvals required under
federal air quality control laws and
regulations and those air quality control
laws and regulations which are part of
the applicable St'!te Implementation
Plan.
(11) '.'Begin actual construction"
means. in general. initiation of physical
on-site construction activities on an
emissions unit which are of a permanent
nature. Such activities include. but are
not limited to. installation of building
supports and foundations, laying of .
underground pipework. and construction
of permanent storage structures, With
respect to a change in method of
operation this term refers to those on-
site activities. other than preparatory
activities. which mark the initiation of
the change.
(12) "Best available control
technology" means an emissions
limitation (including a visible emissions
standlrnl) based on the maximum degree
of reduction for each pollutant subject to
regulation under the Act which would
be emitted from any proposed maj6r
stationary source oimajor modification
which the reviewing authority. on a
case-by-case basis. taking into account
energy. environmental. and economic
impacts and other costs, determines is
achievable for such source or
modification through applicatioIj of
production processes or available
methods. systems. and techniques,
including fuel cleaning or treatment or
innovative fuel combination techniques
for control of ,such pollutant. In no event
shall application of best available
control technology result in emissions of
any pollutant which would exceed the
emissions allowed by any applicable
standard under 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61.
If the reviewing authority determines
that technological or economic
limitations on the application of
measurement methodology to a
particular emissions unit would make
the imposition of an emissions standard
infeasible. a design. equipment. work
practice, operational standard nr
combination thereof, may be prescribed
instead to satisfy the requirement for the
application of best available control
technology. Such standard shall, to the
degree possible. set forth the emissions
Teduction achievable by implementation
of such design. equipment. work practice
or operation. and shall provide for
compliance by means which achieve
equivalerit results.
(13)(i) "Baseline concentration" means
that ambient concentration level which
exists in the baseline area at the time of
the applicable baseline date. A baseline
concentration is determined for each
pollutant for which a baseline date is
established and shall include:
(a) The actual emissions
representative of sources in existence on
the applicable baseline date, except as
provided in paragraph (b)(13)(ii);
(b) The allowable emissions of major
stationary sources which commenced
59
construction before Jan!1ary 8. 1975. but
were not in operation by the applicable
baseline date.
(ii) The following will not be included
in the baseline concentration and will
affect the applicable maximum
allowable increase(s):.
(a) Actual emission from any major
stationary source on which construction
commenced after January 6. 1975; and
(b) Actual emissions increases and
decreases at any stationary source
occurring after the baseline date.
(14)(i) "Baseline date" means the
earliest date after August 7, 1977. that:
(a) A major stationary source or major
modification subject to 40 CFR 52.21
submits a complete application under
that section; or
(b) A major stationary source or major
modificatioin subject to regulations
approved pursuant to 40 CFR 51.24
submits a complete application under
such regulations.
(ii) The baseline date is established
for each pollutant for which increments." .
or other equivalent measures.have been.
established if: .
(0) The area in which the proposed
source or modification would construct
is designated as attainment or
unclassifiab!e under section 107(d)(i) (D)
or (E) of the Act for the pollutant on the
date of its complete application under 40
CFR 52.21 or under regulations approved
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.24; and
(b) In the case of a major stationary
source, the pollutant would be emitted
in significant amounts, or, in the case of
a major modification. there would be a
significant net emissions increage of the
pollutant.
'(15)(i) "Baseline area" means any
intrastate area (and every part thereof)
designated 8S attainment or
unclassifiable under section 107(d)(1)
(D) or (E) of the Act in which the major
source or major modification
establishing the baseline date would
construct or would have an air quality
impact equal to or greater than 1 p.g/m'
(annual average) of the pollutant for
which the baseline date is established.
(ii) Area redesignations under section
107(d)(1) (D) or (E) of the Act cannot
intersect or be smaller than the area of
impact of any major stationary source or
major modification which:
(a) Establishes a baseline date; or
(b) Is subject to 40CFR 52.21 or under
regulations approved pursuant to 40 CFR
51.24, and would be constructed in the
same state as the state proposing the
redesignation.
(16) "Allowable emissions" means the
emissions rate of a stationary source
calculated using the maximum rated
capacity of the source (unless the source
is subject to federally enforceable limits
-------
52132
Federal Register I Vol. 45, No. 154 I Thursday, August 7, 1980 I Rules and Regulations
which restrict the operating rate. or
hours of operation, or both) and the
most stringent of the following:
(i) The applicable standards as set
forth in 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61;
(il) The applicable State
Implementation Plan emissions
limitation, including those with a future
compliance date; or
(iii) The emissions rate specified as a
federally enforceable permit condition.
(17) "Federally enforceable" means all
limitations and conditions which are
enforceable by the Administrator,
including those requirements developed
pursuant to 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61,
requirements within any applicable
State Implementation Plan, and any
permit requirements established
pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21-ar under
regulations approved pursuant to 40 CFR
51.18 or 40 CFR 51.24.
(18) "Secondary emissions" means
emissions which occur as it result of the
construction or operation of a major
stationary source or major modificatioJt'...
but do not come from the major
stationary source or mejor modification
itself. For the purposes of this section, i
secondary emissions must be specific,
well defined, quantifiable, and impact
the same general areas the stationary
source modification which causes the
secondary emissions. Secondary
emissions may include, but are not
limited to:
(i) Emissions from ships or trains
coming to or from the new or modified
stationary source; and
(il) Emissions from any offsite support
facility whi.ch would not otherwise be
constructed or increase its emissions as
a result of the construction or operation
of the major stationary source or major
modification.
(19) "Innovative control technology"
means any system of air pollution
control that has not been adequately
"demonstrated in practice, but would
have a substantial likelihood of
achieving greater continuous emissions
reduction than any control system in
current practice or of achieving at least
comparable reductions at lower cost in
terms of energy. economics. or nonair
quality environmental impacts.
(20) "Fugitive emissions" means those
emissions which could not reasonably
pass through a stack. chimney, vent, or
other functionally equivalent opening.
(21)(i) NActual emissions" means the
actual rate of emissions of a pollutant
from an emissions unit, as determined in
accordance with subparagraphs (ilHiv)
below.
(ii) In general, actual emissions as of a
particular date shall equal the average
rate, in tons per year, at which the unit
actually emitted the pollutant during a
two-year period which precedes the
particular date and which is .
. representative of normal source .
operation. The reviewing authority may
allow the use of a different time period
upon a determination that it is more
representative of normal source
operation. Actual emissions shall be
calculated using the unit's actual
operating hours, production rates, and
types of materials processed, stored. or
combusted during the selected time
period.
(ill) The reviewing authority may.
presume that source-specific allowable
emissions for the unit are equivalent to
the actual emissions of the uniL
(iv) For any emissions unit which has
not begun normal operations on the
particular date, actual emissions shall
equal the potential to emit of the unit on
that date. .
(22) "Complete" means. in reference
to an application for a permit, that the
application contains all the informatioQ
necessary for processing the application.
Designating an application complete for
purposes of permit processing does not
preclude the reviewing authority from
requesting or accepting any additional
information.
(23)(i) "Significant" means. in
reference to a net emissions increase or
the potential of a source to emit any of
the following pollutants, a rate of
emissions that would equal or exceed
any of the following rates:
Pollutant and Emissions Rote
Carbon monoxide: 100 tons pet year (tpy)
Nitrogen oxides: 40 tpy
Sulfur dioxide: 40 tpy
Particula te ma Iter: 25 tpy
Ozone: 40 tpy of volatile orsanic compounds
Lead: 0.6 tpy
Asbestos: 0.007 tpy
Beryllium: 0.0004 tpy
Mercury:"tr:1 tpy
Vinyl chloride: 1 tpy
Fluorides: 3 tpy
Sulfuric acid mist: 7 tpy
Hydrogen sulfide (H.S): 10 tpy
Total reduced sulfur (Including H.5): 10 tpy
Reduced sulfur compounds (including H.5):
10 tpy
(il) '.'Significant" means, in reference
to a net emissions increase or the
potential of a source to emit a pollutant
subject to regulation under the Act that
paragraph (b)(23)(i) does not list, any
emissions rate.
(ill) Notwithstanding paragraph
(b)(23)(i), "significant" means any
emissions rate or any net emissions
increase associated with a major
stationary source or major modification,
which would construct within 10
kilometers of a Class I area, and have an
impact on such area equal to or greater
than 1 p-g/m3 (24-hour average).
60
(24) "Federal Land Mmager" means,
with respect to any lands in the United
States, the Secretary of the department
with authority over such lands.
(25) "High terrain" means any area
having an elevation 900 feet or more
above the base of the stack of a source.
(26) "Low terrain" means any area
other than high terrain.
(27) "Indian Reservation" means any
federally recognized reservation
established by Treaty, Agreement,
Executive Order, or Act of Congress.
(28) "Indian Governing Body" means
the governing body of any tribe. band, or
group of Indians subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States and A
'recognized by the United States as
possessing power of self-governmenL
. . . .
(f) Exclusions from increment
consumption. (1) The plan may provide
that the following concentrations shall
be excluded in determining compliance
with a maximum allowable increase:
(i) Concentrations attributable to the
increase in emissions from stationary
sources which have converted from the
use of petroleum products, natural gas,
or both by reason of an order in effect
under sections 2 (a) and (b) of the
Energy Supply and Environmental
Coordination Act of 1974 (~r any
superseding legislation) over the
emissions from such sources before the
effective date of such an order:
(ii) Concentrations attributable to the
increase in emissions from sources
which have converted from using
natural gas by reason of natural gas
curtailment plan in effect pursuant to
the Federal Power Act over the
emissions from such sources before the
effective date of such plan;
(iii) Concentrations of particulate
matter attributable to the increase in
emissions from constrUction or other
temporary emission-related activities of
new or modified sources:
(iv) The increase in concentrations
attributable to new sources outside the
United States over the concentrations
attributable to existing sources which
are'included in the baseline
concentration; and
(v) Concentrations attributable to the
temporary increase in emissions of
sulfur dioxide or particulate matter from
stationary sources which are affected by
plan revisions approved by the
Administrator as meeting the criteria
specified in paragraph (f)(4).
(2) If the plan provides that the
concentrations to which paragraph (f)(1)
(i) or (il) refers shall be excluded, it shall
also provide that no exclusion of such
concentrations shall apply more than
five years after the effective date of the
-------
"Federal Register' Vol. 45, No. 154 'Thursday, August 1, 1980 , Rules and Regulations
52733
order to which paragraph (f)(I)(i) refers
or the plan to which paragraph (f)(I)(ii)
refers, whichever i8 applicable. If both
lOch order and plan are applicable, no
lOch exc1uaion Ihall apply more than
five yean after the later of such
effective dates. .'
(3) No exc1uaion under paragraph (f)
of this section shall occur later than 9
months after Aquat 'I, 1980. unless a
State Implementation Plan reuon
. meeting the requirements of 40 CPR
51.2t has been IUbmitted to the
Administrator. .
(4) For purposea of excluding
concentrations pursuant to paragraph
(f)(I)(v), the Administrator may approve.
a plan revision that:
(i) Specifies the time over which the
temporary emissiODllncrease of lulfur
dioxide or particulate matter would
occur. 'Such time is not to exceed two
years in duration unless a lODger time i8
approved by the Administrator:
(ii) Specifies that the time period fQ1'
excludiug certain contributions in "
accordance with paragraph (f)(4)(i) i8
not renewable:
(Iii) Allows no emissions increase
from a stationary source which would:
(a) Impact a Class I area or an area
where an applicable increment is known
to be violated: or
(b) Cauae or contribute to the
violation of a national ambient air
quality standard;
(iv) Requires limitations to be in effect
the end of the time period specified in
accordance with paragraph (f)(4)(i)
which would ensure that the emissiODl
levels from stationary sources affected
by the plan revision would not exceed
those levels occurriug from such sources
before the plan revision was approved.
. . . . .
(i) Review of Major Stationary
Sourr:es and Major Modifications-
So~ Applicability and Exemptions.
(1) The plan shall provide that no
major stationary source or major
modification shall begin actual
construction unles.. sa a mim1mum.
requirements equivalent to those
contained in paragraphs (j) through (r) of
this section have been met.
(2) The plan shall provide that the
requirements equivalent to those
contained in paragraphs (j) through (r) of
this section shall apply to any major
stationary source and any major'
modification with respect to each
pollutant subject to regulation under the
Act that it would emit, except as this
.ection would otherwise allow.
(3) The plan shall provide that
requirements equivalent to 'those
contained iri pansraphs (j) through (r) of
this sectiol! apply only to any major
stationary source or major modification
that would be constructed in an area
which i8 dealgn8ted sa attainment or
unc1aasifiable under .ection 1000(a)(I)
(D) or (E) of the Act: aJ:1d
(4) The plan may provide that
requirements equivalent to those
contained in paragraphs (j) through (r) of
this section do not apply to a particular
major ltationary source or major
modification if:
(i) The major ltationary source would
be a nonprofit health o~ nonprofit
educational institution or a major
modification that would occur at such
an institution; or
(ii) The soun;e or modification would
be a major Itationary source or major
modification only if fugitive emissions,
to the extent quantifiable. are
considered in calculating the potential to
emit of the stationary source or
modification and IUch 10urCe does not
beloJ18 to any followiug categories:
(a) Coal cleaniug plants (with thermal
dryers): .
(b) Kraft pulp mills;
(c) Portland cement plants;
(d) Primary zinc smelters:
(e) Iron and Iteel mills;
(f) Primary aluminum ore reduction
plants:
(g) Primary copper smelters:
(h) Municipal incinerators capable of
charging more than 250 tons of l'tIfuse
per day;
(I) Hydrofluoric. sulfuric. or nitric acid
plants;
Ł11 Petroleum refineries;
(k) Lime plants:
(l) Phosphate rock processiD8 plants:
(m) Coke oven batteries:
(n) Sulfur recovery plants:
(0) Carbon black plants (furnace
process):
(P) Primary lead smelters:
(q) Fuel conversion plants;
(r) SinteriDS plants:
(8) Secondary metal production
plants:
(t) Chemical process plants:
(u) Fossil-fuel boil"ll (or combination
thereof) totaling more than 250 million
British thennal units per hour heat input
(v) Petroleum storage and transfer
units with a total Itorage capacity
exceeding 300,000 barrels;
(w) Taconite ore processiD8 plants:
(x) Gl... fiber processiD8 plants;
(y) Charcoal production plants:
(z) Foslil fuel-fired Iteam electric
plants of more than 250 million Briti.h
thennal units per hour heat input
(ao) Any other ltationary source
category which. al of August 7, 1980, i8
beiD8 regulated under section 111 or 112
of the Act; or
(Iii) The 10uree or modification i8 a
portable ltaUonary 801U"C8 which hat
61
previously received. permit under
requirements equivalent to those
contained in paragraphs (j) throush (r) of
this section. if:
(a) The 10urce proposes to relocate
and emissions of the source, at the new
location would be temporaiy." and
(b) The emissions from the source
would not exceed its allowable
emissions: and
(c) The emissions from the source
would impact no Class I area end no
area where an applicable increment is
known to be violated: and
(d) ReasOnable notice is given to the
reviewiug authority prior to the
relocation identifying the proposed new
location and the probable duration of
operation.t the new location. Such
notice shall be given to the reviewf,i
authority not less than 10 day. in . I
advance of the proposed relocation
unless a different time duration is
previously approved by the reviewiug
authority.
(5) The plan may provide that
requirements equivalent to those
contained in paragraphs (j) through (r) of
this section do not apply to a major
stationary 80urce or major modification
with respect to a particular pollutant if
the owner or operator demonstrates
that, 88 to that pollutant, the source or
modification is located in an area
designated as nonattainment under
section 107 of the Act.
(6) The plan may provide that
requirements equivalent to those
contained in paragraphs (k). (m). and (0)
of this lection do not apply to a
proposed major stationary source or
major modification with respect to a
particular pollutant, if the allowable
emissions of that pollutant from a new
source, or the net emissions increase of
that pollutant from a modification.
would be temporery and impact no
Cla.. I area and no area where an
applicable increment is known to be
violated.
(7) The plan may provide that
requirements equivalent to those
contained in paragraphs (k). (m). and (0)
of this section as they relate to any
maximum allowable increase for a Class
n area do not apply to a modification of
a major Itationary source that was in
existence on March 1. 1978, if the net
increase in allowable emissions of each
pollutant IUbject to ~ation under the
Act from the modifidation after the
application of best available control
technology would be leu than 50 tons
per year.
(8) The plan may provide that the
reviewiug authority may exempt a
proposed major stationary source or
major modification from the
requirements of paragraph (m) with
-------
52734
Federal Register I Vol. 45, No. 154 I Thursday, August 7, 1980 I Rules and Regulations
respect to monitoring for a particular
pollutant. if:
(i) The emissions increase of the
pollutant from a new stationary source
or the net emissions increase of the .
pollutant from a modification would'
cause. in any area, air quality impacts
less than the following amounts:
-(a) Carbon monoxide-57S US/ml, 8-
hour average;
(b) Nitrogen dioxlde-14 US/ml,
annual average;
(c) Total suspended particulates-10
ug/ml, 24-hour average;
(d) Sulfur dioxide-13 US/ml, 24-hour
average;
(e) Ozone.
(f) Lea~.1 US/ml, 24-hour average;
(g) Mercury~.zs US/m', 24-hour
average;
"-UJ) Beryllium-O.OOO5 US/ml, 24-hour
average;
(11 Fluoride~,2S US/ml, 24-hour
average;
fJ1 Vinyl chloride-1S US/ml, 24-hour
average;
(k) Total reduced s~10 US/m', 1-
hour ave~e; -
(1) Hydrogen su1fid~.04 US/ml,1-
hour average;
(m) Reduced sulfur compounds-10
ug/m', 1-hour average; or
(ii) The concentrations of the pollutant
in the area that the source or
modification would affect are less than
the concentrations listed in (i)(8)(i): or
(Hi) The pollutants is not listed In
paragraph (1)(8)(i).
(9) U EPA approves a plan revision
under 40 CFR 51.24 as In effect before
August 7, 1980, any subsequent revision
which meets the requirements of this
section may contain transition
provisions which parallel the transition
provisions of 40 CFR 52.21(i)(9), (i)(10)
and (m)(1)(v) as In effect on that date,
which provisions relate to requirements
for best available control technology
and air quality analyses. Any such
subsequent revision may not contain
any transition provision which In the
context of the revision would operate
any less stringently than would Its
counterpart In 40 CFR 52.21.
(j) Control Technology Review. The
plan shall provide that:
(1) A major stationary source or mejor
modification shall meet each applicable
emissions limitation under the State
Implementation Plan and each
applicable emission standards and
standard of performance under 40 CFR
Parts 60 and 61.
I No de minim~ air quell" Ine1I8 provided far
0%01ltl. Hawntlr, aD)' at incn1U8 of 100 IDaa ~
)'ear or more of volatila orpuic compoUllda lubject
10 PSD would be requ!nd 10 perform and amblllllt
impad anal)'1ia. includina !be aalherins of ambi8at
air quaUty datL
(2) A new mejor stationary source
shall apply best available control
technology for each pollutant subject to
regulation under the Act that it would
have the potential to emit In significant
amounts. ..
(3) A major modification shall apply
best available control technology for
each pollutant subject to regulation
under the Act for which it would be a
significant net emissions Increase at the
source. This requirement applies to each
proposed emissions unit at which a net
emissions Increase In the pollutant
would occur as a result of a physical
change or change In the method of
operation In the unit
(4) For phased construction projects,
the determination of best available
control technology shall be reviewed
and modified as appropriate at the leut
reasonable time which oCCU1'8 no later
than 18 months prior to commencement
of construction of each Independent.
phase of the project. At such time. the
owner or operator of the applicable
stationary source may be required to
demonstrate the adequacy of any
previous determination of best available
control technology for the source.
(k) Source Impact Analysis. The plan
shall provide that the owner or operator
of the proposed source of modification
shall demonstrate that allowable
emission increases from the proposed
source or modification. In conjunction
with an other applicable emissions
increases or reduction (Including .
secondary emissions) would not cause
or contribute to air pollution In violation
of:
(1) Any national ambient air quality
standard In any air quality control
region; or
(2) Any applicable maximum
allowable increase over the baseline
concentration In any area.
(1) Air Quality Models.
.
.
.
.
(m) Air Quality Analysis. (1)
Preapplication analysis.
. (i) The plan shall provide that any
application for a permit under
regulations approved pursuant to this
section shall contain an analysis of
ambient air quality In the area that the
major stationary source or major
modification would affect for each of the
following pollutants:
(a) For the source, each pollutant that
it would have the potential to emit In a
significant amount;
. (b) For the modification. each
pollutant for which It would result In .
significant net emissions Increase.
(Ii) The plan shall provide that, with
respect to any such pollutant for which
no National Ambient Air Quality
62
Standard exists. the analysis shall
contain such air quality monitoring data
88 the reviewing authority determines is
necessary to assess ambient air quality
for that pollutant In any area that the
emissions of that pollutant would affect.
(ill) The plan shall provide that with
'respect to any such pollutant (other than
nonmethane hydrocarbons) for which
such a standard does exist. the analysis
shall contain continuous air quality
monitoring data gathered for purposes of
determining whether emissions of that
pollutant would cause or contribute. to a
violation of the standard or any
maxiumum allowable Increase.
(iv) The plan shall provide that, In.
general, the continuous air monitoring
data that is required shall have been
gathered over a period of one year and
shall represent the year preceding
receipt of the applicatioa. except that, if
the reviewing authority determines that
a complete and adequate analysis can .
be Accomplished with monitoring data
gathered over 8 period shorter than one
year (but not to be less than four
months), the data that is required shall
have been gathered over at least that
shorter period.
(v) The plan may provide that the
owner or operator of a proposed major
stationary source or major modification
of volatile organic compounds who
satisfies all conditions of 40 CFR Part 51
Appendix S, section IV may provide
postapproval monitoring data for ozone
in lieu of providing preconstruction data
as required under paragraph (m)(1).
(2) Post-construction monitoring. The
plan shall provide that the owner or
operator of a major stationary source or
major modification shalL after
construction of the stationary source or
modificatioa. conduct such ambient
monitoring as the reviewing authority
determines is necessary to determine
the effect emissions from the stationary
source or modification may have, or are
having, on air quality In any area.
(3) Operation.of monitoring stations.
The plan shall provide that the owner or
operator of a major stationary source or
major modification shall meet the
requirements of Appendix B to Part 58 of
this chapter during the operation of
monitoring stations for purposes of
satisfying paragraph (m) of this section.
(n) Source Information.
.. *.
(0) Additional Impact Analyses.
. . * . .
(P) Sources ImpacUng Federal Class 1
Areas-Additional Requirements.
. . . * .
(qJ Public Participation.
. . . . .
-------
° Federal Register / VoL 45. No. 154 / Thursday. August 7, 1980 / Rules and Regulations
52735
(r) Source Obligation. (1) The plan
shall include emorceable procedures to
provide that approval to construct shall
not relieve any owner or operator of the
responsibility to comply fully with
applicable provisions of the plan and
any other requirements under local.
state or fe.d.erallaw.
(2) The plan shall provide that at such
time that aparticular source or °
modification becomes a major
stationary source or major modification
solely by virtue of a relaxation in any
enforceable limitation which was
established after August 7, 1980. on the
capacity of the source or modification
otherwise to emit a pollutant. such as a
resbiction on hours of operation. then
the requirements of paragraphs (j)
through (s) of this section shall apply to
the source or modification a. though
construction had not yet commenced on
the source or modification.
(s) Innovotive Control Technology. (1)
The plan may provide that an owner or
operator of a proposed major stationary
source or major modification may
request the reviewing authority to
approveoa system of iDnovative control
technology.
(2) The plan may provide that the
reviewing authority may, with the
consent of the governor(s) of other
affected state(s). determine that the
source or modification may employ a
system of iDnovative control technology.
if:
(i) The proposed control system would
not cause or conbibute to an
unreasonable risk to public health,
welfare, or safety in its operation or
function; -
(il) The owner or operator agrees to
achieve a level of continuous emissions
reduction equivalent to that which
would have been required under
paragraph (j)(2) by a date specified by
the reviewing authority. Such date shall
not be later than 4 years from the time
of startup or 7 years from permit
issuance;
(ill) The source or modification would
meet the requirements equivalent to
those in paragraphs (j) and (k) based on
the emissions rate that the stationary
source employing the system of
iDnovative control technolOflY would be
required to meet on the date specified
by the reviewing authority;
(iv) The source or modification would
not before the date spec$ed by the
revie~ authority:
(0) Cause or conbibute to any
violation of an applicable national
ambient air quality standard; or
(b) Impact any Class I area; or
(c) Impact any area where an
applicable incre~ent is known to be
violated; .
(v) All other applicable requirements
including those for public participation
have been meL -
(3) The plan shall provide that the
reviewing authority shall withdraw any
approval to employ a system of
iDnovative control technology made
under this section. if:
(i) The proposed system fails by the
specified date to achieve the required
continuoul emissions reduction rate; or
(Ii) The proposed system fails before
the specified date so as to conbibute to
an 11Dreasonable risk to public health,
welfare. or safety; or .
(Hi) The reviewing authority decides
at any timQ that the proposed system is
unlikely to achieve the required level of
control or to protect the public health,
welfare. or safety.
(4) The plan may provide that if a
source or modification fails to meet the
required level of continuous emissions
reduction within the specified time
period. or if the approval ia withdrawn
in accordance with paragraph (1)(3). the
reviewing authority may allow the
10urce or modification up to an
additional 3 years to meet the
requirement for the application of best
available control technology through use
of a demonstrated system of control
New Soun:e Review For PSD Purpoeee
2. (a) Section 52.21 of Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
by deleting paragraph (k) and
redesignating paragraphs (1) through (v)
"8S (k) through (u) and then by revisins
paragraphs (b). (f). (i), (j). (k) and (g) and
addins new paragraphs (r)(4). (v) and
(w) as follows:
t 52.21. Prn8ntIon of .....Iftcant
cI8t8rIor8tIon of .... qu8IIty.
.
.
.
(b) Definitions. For the purposes of
this section: -
(1)(i) "Major stationary source"
means:
(0) Any of the following stationary
sources of air pollutants which emits. or
has the potential to emit, 100 tons per
year or more of any pollutant subject to
regulation under the Act Fossil fuel.
fired steam elecbic plants of more than
250 million British thermal units per hour
heat input. coal cleaning plants (with
thermal dryers). kraft pulp mills.
portland cement plants. primary zinc
smelters. iron and steel mill plants.
primary aluminum ore reduction plants,
primary copper smelters. municipal
incineretors capable of charging more
than 250 tons of refuse per day.
hydrofluoric, sulfuric. and nitric acid
plants, petroleum refineries. lime plants,
phosphate rock processins plants. coke
oven batteries. sulfur recovery plants,
63
carbon black plants (furnace process).
primary lead smelters. fuel conversion
plants. sintering plants. secondary metal
production plants. chemical procelS
plants. fouil fuel boilers (or
combinations thereof) totaling more
than 250 million British thermal units per
hour heat input. petroleum stora8e and
transfer units with a total storage
capacity exceedins 300.000 barrels.
taconite ore procelsins plants. glass
fiber processing plants. and charcoal
production plants;
(b] Notwithltandins the Itationary
source size specified in paragraph
(b )(1)(i) of this section. any stationary
lource which emits, or hal the potential
to emit. 250 tons per year or more of any
air pollutant subject to regulation under
the Act; or .
(c] Any physical charige that would
occur at a stationary source not
otherwise qualifyins under paregraph
(b)(1) 8S a major stationary source. if the
changes would constitute 8 major
stationary source by itself.
(il) A major ItatiOnary lource th8t is
major for volatile organic compounds
shall be considered major for ozone.
(2)(i) "Major modification" means any
physical change in or change in the
method of operation of 8 major
ItatiOnary source that would result in a
significant net emissions increase. of any
pollutant lubject to regulation under the
Act
(il) Any net emilsioDl increase that is
significant for volatile organic
compounds shall- be considered
significant for ozone.
(W) A physical change or change in
the method of operation shall not
include:
(a] Routine maintenance. repair and
replacement;
(b] Use of an alternative fuel or raw
material by reason of an order under
sectionl 2 (a) and (b) of the Energy
Supply and Environmental Coordination
Act of 1974 (or any supersedins
legislation) or by reason of a natural8as
curtailment plant pursuant to the
Federal Power Act;
(c] Use of an alternative fuel by
reason of an order or rule under section
125 of the Act;
(d] Use of an alternative fuel at a
steam generating unit to the extent that
the fuel is generated from municipal
solid waste;
(e] Ule of an alternative fuel or rsw
material by a stationary lource wJrlch:
(1) The source was capable of
accommodating before January 6, 1975,
unless such change would be prohibited
under any federally enforceable permit
condition which wal established after
January 6, 1975 pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21
-------
52738
Fedenl Rept.. I Vol. 45, No. 154 I Thuraday, August 7', 1980 I Ruin and Replatioul
or under replationa approved pursuant
to 40 CPR 51.18 or 40 CPR 51.2t; or
(2) The IOUI'C8 .. approved to 1188
under any permit iuued under 40 CPR
52.21 or under regu1ationa applOftCI
pumwat to 40 CPR 51.2t;
(f) An iDcreue in the baan of
operatioa .. in the production rata, -
unlelilUCh cbaDp would be prohibited
under any federally eafon:eable permit
condition which wu eatabli8hed after
JanWII'J I, 1975, pursuant to 40 CPR 52.21.
or under regulations approved punwmt
to 40 CPR 51.18 or 40 CPR 5t..Z4.
(g) Any c:banp ID ownersbip at a
stationuJ I01IJ'C8.
(3Ki) "Net lllDi8iOllS iDcnue" meana
the amount by which the IUID of the
followins exceeds zero:
(a) Any increase in actual emiuiaD8
from a particular physical chaup or
chimge in method of operatioa at a
statioaary lource: and .
(b) Iuly other iDaeuea and decreuel
in actual emia8iona at the,101II'C8 that
are contemporaneou with the partk:uJar
chllll88 and are otberwiae creditable.
(U) An iDcrea.. .. deaeue in actual
emil8ioa8 .. contemporaneous with the
inae.. &om the particuJar c:haDae only
if it OCCUI'II between:
(a) The date five yean before
conltruction 011 the plllticuJar change
com~ and
(b) The date dult the increue from the
particular ch8D8e 0CCI1I'L
(iii) An 1Dae.. or deereue iD actual
emi..ionl Ia aeditable only if the
Administrator baa not re1fed 011 it iD.
isauing a permit for the IOaI'C8 aader this
section. whida permit .. iD effect when
the increue in actual mIIi..l...,. &oat
the particular ch8D8e 0CCI1I'L
(iv) An increase or decreue iD acIua1
emi..ioDl of sulfur dioxide or
particulate matter which occun before
the appUcab18 baseline date .. ,
creditable only if it Ia required to be
conaidered iD ca1culatiq the amoaat of
maximum allowable iDcre...
rell18iDiDl available.
(v) An iIu:r888 iD actual emi88ioaa Ia
creditable only to the extent that the
new lenl of actual emia8io.. aceeda
the old leveL
(vi) A decre... in actual emiulaaa fa
creditable onIJ to the exteat ~t:
(a) The old leftl ol8Cblal emi88i0D8
or the old leYei of allowable -.lwdnne,
wlUcbever .. lower. exceeds die ...
level of actual emi88i01Ul;
(b) It i8 federally enfon:eabIe at ad
after the time that actual CODItructioa.
on the particular cbanp bepI8; md
(e) It baa approximately the --
qualitative ...ifIr..- far p1IbIic health
and welfant .. tlaat attributed to the
increa.. fro. die partic1I1ar c:baoa&
(viii) An mC2'8U8 that results from a
phy8ical chanae at a 8OU1'C8 oc:cun when
the emiuiona unit on which
constnJdioa ..........-l....d becom..
operatioaal and begiDa to emit a
particular pollutant. An, replacement
unit that requires shakedown becomes
operational only after a reuonable
ababdowa. period, not to exceed 180
daJL
(4) "PoteDtial to emit" ..ana the
muimam capacity ola atatioaary,
source to emit a pollutant under ita
phJ*al and operatioaal design. An,
physical or operaticaal Umitaticm on the
capacity of the soun:e to emit a
pollatut, iDdudiq air paIlUtiOli control
eqWpmmt and restric:t:ioM OIl hours 01
operation or oa the type or amollDt of
material combuated, stored. or
processed, ahall be treated .. part of Its
des.. if the limitatioa or die effect it
would hue 011 emi8aiCIII8 fa federallT
enforceable. SeconduJ emi8aioaa do
DOt count ja det-.mlli""1 the potential to
emit of a statiODarJ 8O\IlCI8.
(5) ''StatiOD8l'J ioun:8" Dl8ana 8IIJ
buildfna, Itnactunl, facility, or
installatioa wbida emits or may emit
any air pollutant I8bject to resulatioa
UDder the Act.
(8) "Bui1dia&, structure, facility, or
installatioa" meana all of the pollutant-.
emittin8 activiti.. which betODB to the
same industrial sroapinJ, are located OD
one or more contipoa or adjacent
propertie.. and are under the coatrol of
the 88me penoa (or penoaa under
........- coatrol). PoU1Itant~ttiDt
actiYities aha1l be coDlidend .. part 01
the 88me iudastrial sroupfna if they
beloq to the same "Major Group" (I,..
which have the llUpe fint two digit
code) as deec:ribed in the Standard
Industrial Clanification Manual. II1n.
as amended by the 1971 Supplement (U.
S. Govemment Printlnt OtBca stock
numbers 4101~ and 003-005-00178-
0. respectively).
(7) ''Emi..ioDl unif' means 8DJ put 01
a atatiCJDarf 8OUI'C8 which emita or
would have the potential to emit any
pollutant nbject to repiation under the
Act.
(8) "Construction" meana any physical
c:hanse .. cia.... in the method 01
~tion (inchadins fabricatioa,
erection, iDataDatioa, demolition, or
modificatiCIB of 8D emil8ioa81111it) which
would resalt iD a ~ in actual
emiuioaa.
(8) "c.-~ . -(e" u applied tll
. conalnlctian of a major atati0Dar7
source III' major modification ID8ana that
the owner III' operator baa aD DeCe888IJ
precoaatnlctioo approva18 or permits
and either baa: '
(i) ...... or ca-.d to besia. a
cantinaou prosram 01. actuJ. OIHita
64
COII8tructioa 01 the ~, to be
completed within a reasonable time; or
(ii) Entered into bindina qreemeots or
contnc::bl8l obIiptioaa. which cannot be
canceDed or modified without
subetantiallau to the owner or
operator, to undertake a prOsraa at'
. actual construction of the 8OUI'C8 to be
COIIIpleted within a reuonable time.
l10) "Neceuary pI"8COD8tiuctioa
approvala or p8'D1its" IDeIUI8 those
permita III' approvaia required under
federal air quality coatrollawa and
regulationa and. those air quality control
laws and regu1ationa which are part 01
the appIicaIM State I~-.momtation
Plan.
(11) ''Deain actual contructioa" meana.
in general, initiation of physical oa-aite
conatructioD activities on an emiaaioDl
unit which 81'8 of a permeent nature.
Such activities include, but are not
limited to, installation of buildias
8Uppart8 and foundatiana, laytas
underpo1lDd pipewodt and CODItruction
ofpowmanomt atarqe Itructure&. With
resped tD a chaaae iD method 01
, operatiOll8, thi8 tena refen to those on-
Ii. activite8 other than preparatory
activities which mark the initiatioa 01
thechanp.
(12) "Beat available control
technol", IDe8D8 an emi88iona
limitation (bu:ludins a visible emi88ian
standard) baed on the maximllJl1 degree
of redactioa for each pollutant subject to
regulation under Act wbich would be
emitted from. lID)' proposed major
stationary 8OUI'CII or major modification
wbich the Administrator, on a cue-by-
case bula, taIdn8 into account energy,
enviroamental, and economic impacts
and other coats, determines is
achieYabie far such source 01'
modification throush application of
productioa proceasn or available
methods, lflteID8, and techniquel,
incIudina fuel c1eanins 01' treatment or
innovatiYe fuel combustion techniques
for control of auch pollutant. In no event
shall application of beat available
coatrol tecbnolosJ result in emis8ioDl of
anJ pollutant which would exceed the
emiuiona allowed by any applicable
standard under 40 CFR Parts and 80 and
61. If the Administrator determine. that
tecImolosical or economic Umitationa on
the application of meal1l1'elDeDt
methodoloS7 to a particular emia8iona
unit would maka the impo8tioa of an
emi8lion8 atandard infeuible, a deaip.
equipment, work practica, operational
standard, or combination thereat may
be prescribed instead to 18ti8fy the
requirement for the applicatiOli of best
available control technology. Such
standard shall. to the dearee poI8ible,
set forth the emiuioaa redactioa
achievable by implementation 01 aucIt
-------
,Federal Rllli8ter I VoL 45, No. 154 I Thursday, August 7, 1980 I Rules and Regulations
52737
design. equipment. work J'!8ctice or
operation. and shall prcmde for
compliance by meana which achieve
equivalent results.
(13)(i) ''Baseline concentration" meana
that ambient concentration level which
exists In the baseline area at the time of
the applicable baseline date. A baseline
concentration is determined for each
pollutant for which e baseline date is
established and shall include:
(0) The actual emissions
representative of sources In existence on
the applicable baseline date, except as
provided In paragraph (b)(13)(ii):
(b) The allowable emissions of major
stationary sources which commenced
construction before January 8, 1975, but
were not In operation by the applicable
baseline date.
(ii) The followins will not be Included
in the baseline concentration and will
affect the applicable maximum
allowable increa8e(s):.
(0) Actual emissions from any major
staUonary source on which construction
commea<:ed after January 8, 1975: and
(b) Actual emiuionalncrea.aea and
decreales at any ltationary source
0CCII1'I'in8 after the baseline date.
(14)(i) ''Baleline date" meana the
earliest date after Auguet " 1971, on
which the first complete application
under 40 CFR 52.%1 is lubmitted by a
major ltationary source or major
modification subject to the requirements
of 40 CFR 5z.21.
(ii) The baseline date is established
for each pollutant for which increments
or other equivalent measures have been
established if:
(0) The area in which the proposed
source or modification would construct
is desisnated 8S attainment or
unclas8mable under lection l07(d)(i) (D)
or (E) of the Act for the pollutant on the
date of its complete application under 40
CFR 5z.21: and .
(b) In the case of a major ltationary
SQurce, the pollutant would be emitted -
In lignificant amounts, or, In the caae Qf
a major modification. there would be a
lignificant net emiaaionslncreue of the
pollutant.
(15)(i) "Baseline area" meana any
intraltate area (and every part thereof)
designated ea attainment or .
unclealifiable under lection l07(d)(l)
(D) or (E) of the Act In which the major
source or major modification
establiahins the baseline date would
codstruct or would have an air quality
impact equal to or areater than 11Ł1/m'
(annual averase) of the pollutant for
which the baseline date ia eltabliahed.
1 (ii) Area redesignationa under section
l07(d)(l) (D) or (E) of the Act cannot
Intenect or.be ~er ~ the area of
impact of any mjaor stationary source or
major modification which:
(0) E8tablishes a baseline date; or
(b) Ie subject to 40 CFR 52.%1 and
would be constructed in the same state
8S the state propolln8 the redesianatioD.
(16) "Allowable emia8ions" meana the
emissions rete of a stationary source
calculated usln8the maxjmum reted
capacity of the source (unless the source
is lubject to federally enforceable limits
which restrict the operetina rete, or
hours of operetion, or both) and the
most strin8ent of the followina:
(i) The appliCable standards as set
forth In 40 CFR Parta 60 and 61:
(ii) The applicable State
Implemenation Plan emissiona
limitation. Includina those with a future
compliance date: or
. {Iii) The emissions rate apecified as a
federally enforceable permit condition.
Includina those with a future compliance
date.
(11) "Federal1y enforceable" meana all
limitations and conditions which are
enforceable by the Administrator,
Includina those requirements developed
pursuant to 40 CFR parta 60 and 61,
requiremant8 within any applicable
State Implementation Plan. and any
permit requirements established
pursuant to 40 CFR 52.%1 or under
reauIations approved pursuant to 40 CFR
51.18 and 40 CFR 51.24.
(16) "Secondary emissions" meana
emissions which would occur as a result
of the construction or operation of a
major stationary source or major
modification. but do not come from the
major stationary source or major
modification itself. For the purpose of
this section. secondary emissions must
be specific. well defined. quantifiable,
and impact the same general area as the
stationary source or modification which
causes the secondary emissions.
Secondary emissiona may include, but
are not limited to:
(i) Emissions from ships or traiD8
comiD8 to or from the new or modified
ltationary source: and .
(ii) Euiissions from any offsite support
facility which would not otherwise be
constructed or increase its emissions as
a result of the conatruction or operetion
of the IUjor ltationary source or major
modification.
- (19) "Innovative control tecbnolOl)'''
means any ayltem of air pollution
control that has not been adequately
demonstrated in practice, but would
have a subatantiallikelihood of
achiev1n8 areater continuous emissiona
reduction than any control system in
current practice or of achieving at leaat
comparable reductiona at lower cost in
terma of enefIY. 8COnomica, or DOD8ir
quality environmental impaeta.
65
(20) ''Fuaitive emissions" me8nl those
emissions which could not reasonably
pass through. stack, chimney, vent, or
other functionally equivalent opening.
(21)(1) "Actual emissions" means the
actual rete of emiasiona of a pollutant
from an emiuiona unit. al determined in
accordance with subparagraphs (iiHiv)
below.
(ii) In pneraI. actual emissioni as of .
particular date ahall equal the averap
rete, in tons per year, at which the unit
actually emitted the pollutant during a
two-year period which precedies the
particular date and which is
representative of normal soUrce
operation. The Administrator Ihall
allow the use of a different time period
upon a determination that it ia more
representatiu..ofnormalsource
operetion. Actual emissions shall be
calculated usln8 the unit's actual .
operetiq hours, production rates, and
types of materials processed. stored. or
combuated during the selected time
period.
(Iii) The Administrator may presume
that aource-specific allowable emissions
for the unit are equivalent to the actual
emissions of the unit.
(iv) For any emissions unit which has
not begun normal operationa on the
particular date. actual emissions shall
equal the potential to emit of the unit on
that date.
(22) "Complete" meana, In reference
to an application for a permit. that the
application contains all of the
information necessary for processin8 the
application.
(~)(i) "Significant" means, In
reference to a net emissions increase or
the potential of a source to emit any of
the following pollutants, a rate of
emissions thet would equal or exceed
any of the followinB retes:
PollutDnt and Emiulons lID.
Carbon monoxide: 100 toII8 per year (tpy)
Nitrogen oxide.: 40 tpy
Sulfur dioxide: 40 tpy
Particulate matter: Z5 tpy
Ozone: 40 tpy of volatile orpnic c:ompounda
Lead: 0.8 tpy
AsbeatOl: 0.007 tpy
Beryllium: II.OOIM tp)'
Mercury: 0.1 tp)'
Vinyl chloride: 1 tp)'
Fluoride8: 3 tp)'
!!ulfurIc acid miat '1 tpy
HydropD nlflde (8.8): 10 tp)'
Total reduced IUIfur (iDcIudiDa 80S): 10 tpy
Reduced n1far CCIIDpOIIDda (1Dc1w:1iD8 H.S):
10 tpy
(bl "Significant" meana, In reference
to . net emissions increase or the
potential of a source to emit a pollutant
subject to reaulation under the Act that
paragraph (b)(23)(i) doea not list. any
emi8sions rate.
-------
52738
Federal Regi8ter I Vol. 45. No. 154 I ThUrsday. August 7. 1980 I Rules and Regulations
(iti) Notwithatandiug parappb
(b)(23)(i). "slpifir..ant" JD8ana aDJ
emiuioDl rate or aD)' net em.iaaiODl
increaI8 auodated with a major
station8I'J IOUlC8 or major modification,
which would COII8truct within 10
kilometen of a Clusl8f88. and have an
impact em auc:h area equal to or sraater
than 1 p.g/m8, (M-hour average).
(24) "Federal Land Manqer" II1e8M,
with retlpect to any lands in the United
States. the Secretary of the departmellt
with authority over nch IaDda.
(25) "HJsb terrain" JD88D1 any me.
having an elevation 9IJ) feet or more
above the base of the stack of a IOUlC8.
(28) "Low terrain" !Deana 8DJ area
other than high terrain.
(21) "Indian Reservation" meana IID7
federally recognized reservation
. establiahed by Treaty. Agreement.
ExecutiY1l Order. or Ad. of CoDlJl'8l"
(28) "lndianCovernina Body" meana
the governing body of any tribe, band. or
group of Indiana subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States and
recognized by the United States al
ponenlng power of ae1faoV8I'IUDeDt.
. * . . .
(I) E1ccJu.ioM from incremtml
coll8llmpljo4. (1) Upon written request
of the sovemor, made alter DOtice and
opportunity for at !eat ODe public
hearing to be held in accordance with
procedurn establiahed in 40 CFR SU.
the AdmiDi8lrator lhall exclude tha
followiq CODC8Dtrati0D8 in de~
compliance with . maximum allowable
inereSl&:
(i) Concentrationa attributable to the
inere... in emiuiODl from ltatiolW'J
lOurceS whiclt have converted from the
use of petroleum producta. natural su.
or both b)' reuoa of an order in effect
under sectioDl 2(a) ud (b) of the En8l'l)'
Supply and Environmental Coordination
Act of 1974 (or any superseding
legislation) oyer the emlsliona from such
sources before the effective date of .uch
an order: -
(il) Concentrat:i0D8 attributable to the
inerease in emissiona from 101IlC81
which have converted from uainl
natural sal by reSlon of a natural SO
curtailment plan in effect puml8Dt to
the Federal Power Ad. over the
emissiona from such lOurcel before the
effective date of neb plan;
(ill) CoDcentratioDl of particaJate
matter attribatable to tha iDcreue in
emissiona from conatruction or other
temporaiy emiaion-Nlated activities of
new or modified IOIIft:8I; .
(iv) The iDcreue ia """c->hoatiou
attributable to DeW IOUI'CeI outside the
United Statu over the -."O"ntrati0D8
attributable to existing souicea wbicl&
are iDc1udeci In the baMline
concenlratioa; ud
(v) Conc:entrationa attributable to the
tempol'lD')' increaae in emilliODl of
8ulfur dioxide 01' particu1ate matter &om
ltatianary aoun:eI which are affec:t.ed. by
plan rniIioaa apprond bJ the
AdminiItrator u meeting the criIII'ta
specified in parqrapb (1)(4).
(2) No exdUlioa of aucIa
CODC8I1tratiODl ahaU apply more Ibm
five Jean after the eft'ectmt date of the
order to which paragraph (f)(1XiJ refem
or the plan to which paragraph (f)(1)(ii)
refera. whichever it applicable. If both
nch order and plan are applicable. no
such excluaioa shall apply more tlwt
five yean after the later ollUCla
effective dates.
(3) No excluaion under parqraph (f)
of this section lhall 0CC1II' later than 9
monthl after Augult 7. 1980, unlesl .
State Implementation Plan revision
meeting the requirements of 40 CFR
51.24 has been submitted to the
Administrator.
(4) For pw~ of exclu.dins
concentratioaa pursuant to paragraph
(1)(1)(v). the propoaed plan revision
shall: '
(i) Specify the time ImIf which the
telDpOl'U7 eminiona Increue of aulfur
dioxide or partic:ulate matter would
occur. Such time it not to exceed two
yean in duration unlen a longer time il
apprond by the Adminiatrator:
(il) Specify that the time period for
excluding c:ertafn contn'butiona In
accordance with parqraph (f}(4)(i) it
not renewable:
(ill) Allow no emiui0D8 Inereue from
a ItatiolW'J I01U'C8 which would:
(a) Impact a Cau I area or an area
where an applicable Increment it ~oWD
to be violated; or
(b) Cauaa or contribute to the
violatiDn of a national ambient air
quality ltandard;
(iv) Require limitatiODl to be in effect
at the end of the time period gJeci6ed in
accordance with paragraph (tj(4)(i)
which would ensure that the emiasiona
leveIl from stationary IOUl'ceI affected
by the plan revision would not exceed
those levels occurrina from Iw:h sources
before the plan revision wu approved.
. . . . .
(i) Rsview of Major SlDtionlll'T
Sourcu and Major Modification#-
SouroII Applictzbility and Eumptiolt&
(1) No ltatioaaq IOUI'Ca or modification
to which the requirements of parqrapha
(j) throush (r) of this l8Ctien apply aha1l
bestn actual coDltructioa witbcRat .
permit which ltat.. that the atatioaarJ
101II"C8 or modi6catiGD would ID88t tboee
reqlliremeDta. The Adm.Iaiatram.- baa
authority 80 iuue any aucb permit.
66
(2) The requhmen.- of paragraphs OJ
through (r) of this aection shaU apply to
any major stationary lOurce and any
CUljor modification with respect to each
pollutant lubject to replatioa under the
Act that it would emit. except u tpIa
18diOD otherwiH provide.. .
. (3) The requiremeDta of parasnr.pha OJ
through (r) of this aection apply only to
any major ltatioDaI'J source or major
modification that would be conatructed
In an area designated u attainment or
nnr.la...iAable under I8ctioa 107(d)(1)(D)
or (E) of the Act.
(4) The requirements of parqrapha (J)
throuih (r) of this section thaU DOt apply
to a particular major stationary source
or major modification. if:
(i) Conatruction commenced on the
source or modification before August 7,
1977. The regulationa at 40 CFR 5Z.21 as
In effect before August 7. 197'1. thaD
govem the review and permittiIJI of an,
such source or modification: or
(Ii) The 10uree or modification W88
811bject to the review requirements of 40
CPR S2.Z1(d)(O al in effect before March
1. 1978. and the owner or operator:
(a) Obtained under 40 CFR 52.Z1 .
final approYal effective before March 1.
1978:
(b) Commenced coaatructIon before
March 19. 1979; and
(c) Did not dilCODtinue construction
for a period of 18 months or more and
completed ConitructioD within .
realOD8ble time: 01'
(ill) The source or modificaUoa "I
lubject to 40 CPR sz.zt a. in effed.
before March 1. 1978. and the review of
an application fOl' approval for the
stationary source or modificatiQn under
40 CPR 5Z.21 would have beeD
completed b7 March 1, 1978. bat for an
extenaioD of the public coaunent period
punuant to a request for nch an
extenaioD. In IUch a caae. the
applicatioa shall continue to be
processed. and granted or denied. under
40 CFR 5Z.21 u in effect prior to March
1. 1978: 01'
(iT) The source or modification wal
not subject to 40 CFR 52.Z1 u in effect
beton March 1. 1978, and the owner 01'
operator:
(a) Obtained aU final federal, .tate
and local preconatraction approvala or
permits necessary under the applicable
State Implementation Plan before March
1. 1978:
(b) Comm...-.d coaatnll:tiola before
March 19. 1979; and .
(c) Did not diacontin1le caaatructioIl
for a period ol18 IDODtha 01' more and
completed CODItnIctioa widda .
reucmable time: 01'
(v) The aoun:e a.- .....d1R-tiaa wu
not 8Ubject to 40 CFK 5Z.Z1 u in effect
011 JUDe 11, 1i78 or under the partialltay
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 45. No. 154 I Thursday. August 7, 1980 I Rules and Regulations
52739
of regulations published on February 5.
1980 (45 FR 7800), and the owner or
operator:
(a) Obtained all final federal. state
end local pre construction approvals or
permits necessary under the applicable
State Implementation Plan before
August 7, 1980;
(b) Commenced construction within 18
months from August 7, 1980, or any
earlier time required under the
applicable State Implementation Plan;
and
(c) Did not discontinuue construction
for a peri.od of 18 months or more and
.completed construction within a
reasonable time; or
(vi) The source or modification would
be a nonprofit health or nonprofit
educational institution. or a major
modification would occur at such an
institution. and the governor of the state
in which the source or modification
would be located requests that it be
exempt from those requirements; or
(vii) The source or modification would
be a major stationary source or major
modification only if fugitive emissions,
to the extent quantifiable, are
considered in calculating the potential to
emit of the stationary source or
modification and the source does not
belong to any of the following
categories:
(a) Coal cleaning plants (with thermal
dryers );
(b) Kraft pulp mills;
(c) Portland cement plants;
(d) Primary zinc smelters;
(e) Iron and steel mills;
rn Primary aluminum ore reduction
plants;
(g) Primary copper smelters;
(h) Municipal incinerators capable of
charging more than 250 tons of refuse
per day;
(i) Hydrofluoric. sulfuric. or nitric aqd
plants;
(j) Petroleum refineries;
(k) Lime plants;
(1) Phosphate rock processing plants:
(m) Coke oven batteries;
(n) Sulfur recovery plants;
(0) Carbon black plants (furnace
process );
(p) Primary lead smelters;
(q) Fuerconversion plants;
(r) Sintering plants;
(s) Secondary metal production
plants;
(t) Chemical process plants;
(u) Fossil-fuel boilers (or combination
thereoO totaling more than 250 million
British thermal units per hour heat input;
(v) Petroleum storage and transfer
units with a total storage capacity
exceeding 300,000 barrels;
(w) Taconite ore processing plants:
(x) Glass fiber processing plants;
(y) Charcoal production plants;
(z) FDssij fuel-fired steam electric
plants of more than 250 million British
thermal units per hour heat input; .
(aa) Any other stationary source
category which, as of August 7,1980, is
being regulated under section 111 or 112
of the Act; or
(viii) The source is a portable
8tationary source which has previously
received a permit under this section. and
(a) The owner or operator proposes to
relocate the source and emissions of the
source at the new location would be
temporary; and
(b) The emissions from the source
would not exceed its allowable
emissions; and
. (c) The emissions from the source
would impact no Class I area and no
area where an applicable increment is
known to be violated; and
(d) Reasonable notice is given to the
Administrator prior to the relocation
identifying the proposed new location
and the probable duration of operation
at the new location. Such notice shall be
given to the Administrator not less than
10 days in advance of the proposed
relocation unless a different time
duration is previously approved by the
Administra tor.
(5) The requirements of paragraphs (j)
through (r) of this section shall not apply
to a major stationary source or major
modification with respect to a particular
pollutant if the owner or operator
demonstrates that, as to that pollutant,
the source or modification is located in
an area designated as nonattainment
under section 107 of the Act.
(6) The requirements of paragraphs
(k), (m) and (0) of this section shall not
apply to a major stationary source or
major modification with respect to a
particular pollutant, if the allowable
emissions of that pollutant from the
source. or the net emissions increase of
that pollutant from the modification:
(i) Would impact no Class I area and
no area where an applicable increment
is known to be violated, and
(ii) Would be temporary.
(7) The requirements of paragraphs
(k). (m) and (0) of this section as they
relate to any maximum allowable
increase for a Class n area shall not
apply to a major'modification at a
stationary source that was in existence
on March 1,1978. if the net increase in
allowable emissions of each pollutant
subject to regulation under the Act from
the modification after the application of
best available control technology would
be less than 50 tons per year.
(8) The Administrator may exempt a
stationary source or modification from
the requirements of paragraph (m) with
67
respect to monitoring for a particular
pollutant if:
(i) The emissions increase of the
pollutant from the new source or the net
emissions increase of the pollutant from
the modification would cause, in any
area, air quality impacts less than the
following amounts:
Carbon monoxide-575p.g/ml, 8-hour
average;
Nitrogen dioxide-14p.s/ml, annual
average:
Total suspended particulate-10 ,...g/
ml, 24-hour average;
Sulfur dioxide-13 ,...g/ml, 24-hour
average;
Ozone; I
Lead~.1 ,.,.g/ml, 24-hour average;
Mercury~.25p.g/ml, 24-hour
average;
Berylli~.OOO5 ,.,.g/ml, 24-hour
average;
Fluoride~.25 ,.,.s/ml, 24-hour
average;
Vinyl ch1oride-15p.g/ml, 24-hour
average; .
Total reduced sulfur-10 ,.,.s/ml,1-
hour average;
Hydrogen su1fide-O.G4 ,.,.s/ml, 1-hour
average;
Reduped sulfur compounde-10 ,.,.sl
m3, 1-hour average; or
(ii) The concentrations of the pollutant
in the area that the source or
modification would affect are les8 than
the concentrations listed in paragraph
(i)(8)(i), or the pollutant is not listed in
paragraph (i)(8)(i).
(9) The requirements for best
available control technology in
paragraph m of this section and the
requirements for air quality analyses in
paragraph (m)(l) shall not apply to a
particular stationary 80urce or
modification that was subject to 40 CFR
52.21 a8 in effect on June 19. 1978, if the
owner or operator of the source or
modification 8ubmitted an application
for a permit under those regulation8
before August 7. 1980, and the
Administrator 8ubsequently determines
that the application a8 submitted before
that date was complete. Instead, the
requirements at 40 CFR 52.21UJ and (n)
as in effect on June 19, 1978 apply to any
such source or modification.
(10)(1) The requirements for air quality
monitoring in paragraphs (m)(1)(ii)-(lv)
of this section shall not apply to a
particular source or modification that
was subject to 40 CFR 52.21 88 in effect
on June 19, 1978. if the owner or operator
of the 80urce or modification 8ubmits an
I No de minimJ. air quality level t. provided for
ozone. However. 811)' netmcreale of 100 loiii per
year or !DON of volallle orpII!c compounda IUblect
to PSD would be Nqu!red to perform an ambient
impact analy818 iDcludJna the pthering of ambient
air quality data.
-------
52740
Feden1 Register I Vol. 45, No: 154 I Thursday, August 7, 1980 I Rules and Regulations
application for a permit under this
section on or before June 8, 1981, and the
Administrator subsequently determines
that the application as submitted before
that date was complete with respect to
the requirements of this section other
than those in paregraphs (m)(l)(U)-(iv)
and with respect to the requirements for
such analyses at 40 CFR 52.21(m)(2) as
in effect on June 19, 1978. Instead, the
latter requirements shall apply to any
such source or modification.
(ii).The requirements for ail quality
monitoring in paragraphs (m)(l)(ii)-{iv)
of this section shall not apply to a
particular source or modification that
was not subject to 40 CFR 52.21 as in
effect on June 19, 1978, if the owner or
operator of the source or modification
submits an application for a permit
under this section on ,or before June 8,
1981. and the Administrator
subsequently determines that the
application as submitted before that
date was complete. except with respect
to the requirements in paragraphs
(m)(l)(ii)-(iv). .
(j) Control Technology Review. (1) A
major stationary source or major
modification shall meet each applicable
emissions limitation under the State
Implementation Plan and each
applicable emissions standard and
standard of performance under 40 CFR
Parts 60 and 81.
(2) A new major stationary source
shall apply best available control
technology for each pollutant subject to
regulation under the Act that it would
have the potential to emit in significant
amounts.
(3) A major modification shall apply
best available control technology for
each pollutant subject to regulation
under the Act for which it would result
in a significant net emissions increase at
the source. This requirement applies to
each proposed emissions unit at which a
net emissions increase in the pollutant
would OCClU' as a result of a physical
chanse or chanse in the method of
operation in the unit
(4) For phased construction projects.
the determination of best available
control technology shall be reviewed
and modified as appropriate at the latest
reasonable time which occurs no later
than 18 months prior to commencement
of construction of each independent
phase of the project At such time. the
owner or operetor of the applicable
stationary source may be required to
demonstrate the adequacy of any
previoul determination of best available
control technology for the source:
(It) Source Impact Analysis. Th..
owner or operator of the proposed
source or modification shall
t'em"nstrate that allowable emission
increases from the proposed source or
modification, in conjunction with all
other applicable emissions increases or
reductions (including secondary
emissions). would not cause or
contribute to air pollution in violation of:
(1) Any national ambient air quality
standard in any air quality control
region; or
(2) Any applicable maximum
allowable increase over the baseline
concentration in any area.
(1) Air Quality Models.
.
.
.
.
(m) Air Quality Analysis. (1)
Preapplication analysis.
(i) Any application for a permit under
this section shall contain an analysis of
ambient air quality in the area that the
major stationary source or maior
modification would affect for each of the
following pollutants:
[a) For the source. each pollutant that
it would have the potential to omit in a
significant amount:
(b) For the modification, I!ach
pollutant for which it would result in a
significant net emissions increase.
[Ii) With respect to any such pollutant
for which no National Ambient Air
Quality Standard exists, the analysis
shall contain such air quality monitoring
data as the Administrator determines is
necessary to assess ambient air quality
for that pollutant in any area that the
emissions of that pollutant would affect
[iii) With respect to any such pollutant
(other than nonmethane hydrocarbons)
for which such a standard does exist.
the analysis shall contain continuous air
quality monitoring data gathered for
purposes of determining whether
emissions of that pollutant would cause
or contribute to a violation of the
standard or any maximum allowable
increase.
(iv) In general. the continuous air
quality monitoring data that is required
shall have been gathered over a period
of at least one year and shall represent
at least the year preceding receipt of the
application, except that. if the
Administrator determines that a
complete and adequate analysis can be
accomplished with monitoring data
gathered over a period shorter than one
year (but not to be less than four
months). the data that iJ required shall
have been gathered over at least that
shorter period.
(v) For any application which
becomes complete. except as to the
requirements of paregraph [m)(l) [ill}
and (iv), between June 8, 1981. and
February 9, 1982. the data that
paragrapll (m)(l)(ill) requires shall have
been gathered over at least the period
from February 9. 1981. to the date the
68
application becomes othe~
complete, except that: .
(a) If the source or modification would
have been major for that pollutant under
40 CFR 52.21 as in effect on June 19,
1978, any monitoring data shall have
been gathered over at least the period
required by those regulation..
(b) If the Administrator determines
that a complete and adequate analysis
can be accomplished with monitoring
data over a shorter period (not to be le88
than four month.), the data that
paragraph (m)(l)(iii) requires shall have
been gathered over at least that shorter
period.
(c) If the monitoring data would relate
exclusively to 'ozone and would not
have been required under 40 CFR 52.21
as in effect on June 19. 1978, the
Administrator may waive the otherwise
applicable requirements of this
paragraph (v) to the extent that the
applicant shows that the monitoring
data would be 1IJ1Mpresentative of air
quality over a full year..
(vi) The owner or operator of a
proposed stationary source or
modification of viola tile 'organic
compounds who satisfies all conditions
of 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix S, section IV
may provide post-approval monitoring
data for ozone in lieu of providing
preconstruction data as requried under
paragraph (m)(t).
(2) Post-construction monitoring. The
owner or operator of a major stationary
source or major modification shall. after
construction of the stationary source or
modification, conduct such ambient
monitoring as the Administrator
determines is necessary to determine
the effect emissions from the stationary
source or modification may have. or are
having. on air quality in any area.
(3) Operations of monitoring stations.
The owner or operator of a major
stationary source or major modification
shall meet the requirements of Appendix
B to Part 58 of this chapter during the
operation of monitoring stations for
purposes of satisfying paragraph (m) of
this section.
(n) Source Information.
* . . . .
(0) Additional Impact Analyse..
* . . . .
(P) Sources Impacting Federal Class I
Areas-Additional Requirement&
. . . . .
(q) Public Participation. The
Administrator shall follow the
applicable procedures- of 40 CFR Part
124 in processing applications under this
section. The Administrator shall follow
the procedures at 40 CFR 52.21(r) u in
effect on June 19. 1979. to the extent that
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 45. No. 154 I Thursday. August 7. 1980 I Rules and Regulations
52741
the procedures of 40 CFR Part 124 do not
apply.
(r) Source Obligation.
* . . .
.
(4) At such time that a particular
source or modification becomes a major
stationary source or major modification
solely by virtue of a relaxation in any
enforceable limitation which was
established after August 'I. 1980. on the
capacity of the source or modification
otherwise to emit a pollutant, such 88 a
restriction on hours of operation. then
the requirements or paragraphs (j)
through (s) of this section shall apply to
the source or modification as though
construction had not yet co=encedon
the source or modification.
.
(s) Environmental Impact Statements.
.. .
(t) Disputed Perrriits or
Redesignations.
.
(u) Delegation of Authority.
* . .. '*
(v) Innovative Control Technology. (1)
An owner or operator of a proposed
major stationary source or major
modification may request the
Administrator in writing no later than
the close of the co=ent period under
40 CFR 124.10 to approve a system of
innovative control technology.
(2) The Administrator shall. with the
consent of the govemorts} of the
affected state(s). determine th~t the
source or modification may employ a
system of innovative control technology.
if:
(i) The proposed control system would
not cause or contribute to an
unreasonable risk to public health.
welfare. or safety in its operation or
function;
(ii) The owner or operator agrees to
achieve a level of continuous emissions
reduction equivalent to that which
would have been required under
paragraph (j)(2) by a date specified by
the Administrator. Such date shall not
be latet: than 4 years from the time of
startup or 'I years from permit issuance;
(iii) The source or modification would
meet the requirements of paragraphs (j)
and (k) based on the emissions rate that
the stationary source employing the
system of innovative control technology
would be required to meet on the date
specified by the Admihistrator;
(iv) The source or modification would
not before the date specified by the
Administrator:
(a) Cause or contribute to a violation
of an applicable national ambient air
quality standard; or -
(b) Impact any Cl.a88 I area; or
(c) Impact any area where an
applicable increment is known to be
violated; and
(v) All other applicable requirements
including those for public participation
have been mel
(3) The Administrator shall withdraw
any approval to employ a 8ystem of
innovative ~ontrol technology made
under this section. if: .
(i) The proposed system fails by the
specified date to achieve the required
continuous emissions reduction rate; or
(ii) The proposed system fails before
the specified date so as to contribute to
an unreasonable risk to public health.
welfare. or safety; or
(iii) The Administrator decides at any
time that the proposed system is .
unlik~ly to achieve the required level of
control or to protect the public health.
welfare. or safety.
(4) If a lJource or modification fails to
meet the required level of continuous
emission reduction within the specified
time period or the approval is
withdrawn in accordance with
paragraph (v)(3). the Administrator may
allow the source or modification up to
an addioonal3 years to meet the
requirement for the application of best
aveiIable control technology through use
of 1'1 demoDt:!trated system of controL
(w) Permit rescission. (1) Any permit
issued under this section or a prior
ver3io:a of thill section shall remain in
effect. unless and until it expires under
paragraph (s) of this section or is
rescinded.
(2) Any owner or operator of a
stationary source or modification who
holds a permit for the source or
modification which was issued under 40
CFR 52.21 88 in effect on June 19. 1978.
may request that the Administrator
rescind the permit or a particular portion
of the permit.
(3) The Administrator shall grant an
application for rescission if the
application .hows that this section
would not apply to the source or
modification.
(4) If the Administrator rescinds a
permit under this paragraph. the public
shall be given adequate notice of the
rescission. Publication of an
announcement of rescission in a
newspaper of general circulation in the
affected region within 60 days of the
rescission shall be considered adequate
notice.
2. (b) In 152.60 (AL). 1 52.96 (AI<).
1 52.144 (AZ). I 52.131 (AR). 1 52.270
(CA). 1 52.343 (CO). 1 52.383 (CT).
1 52.432 (DE). I 52.499 (DC). 1 52.530
(FL). I 52.63,2 (HI). 1 52.683 (ID). 1 52.738
(IL). 1 52.793 (IN). 1 52.833 (IA). 1 52.884
(KS). 1 52.931 (KY). 1 52.986 (LA).
69
~, .
1 52.1116 (MD). 1 52.1180 (MI). 1 52.1234
(MN). 1 52.1280 (MS). 152.1339 (MO).
152.1382 (MT).152.1436 (NB). 152.1485
(NV). 1 52.1529 (NH). 1 52.1603 (NJ).
152.1634 (NM). 1 52.1689 (NY). 152.1776
(NC). 1 52.1884 (OH). 1 52.1929 (OK).
1 52.1987 (OR), 1 52.2058 (PA). 1 52.2083
(RI). 1 52.2131 (SC). 1 52.2178 (SD),
1 52.2303 (TX). 1 52.2346 (lTI'). 1 52.2451
(VA). 152.2497 (WA).152.2528 (WV).
1 52.2581 (WI). 1 52.2676 (GU). 1 52.2729
(PR). 1 52.2779 (VI). and 1 52.2827
(AmS). paragraphs (a) and (b) are
revised to read 8S follows:
.
*
.
.
(a) The requirements of 8ections 160
through 165 of the Clean Air Act are not
met, since the plan does not include
approvable procedures for preventing
the significant 1ieteriora tion of air
quality.
(b) Regulations for preventing
significant deteriorotion of air quality.
The provisions of 52.21(b) through (w)
are hereby incorporated and made a
part of the applicable state plan for the
State of
Emission Offset interpretative Ruling
3. Sections L n. ill and IV of the
Emission Offset Interpretative Ruling. 40
CFR Part 51 Appendix S. as revised 44
FR 3274 Uanuary 16. 1979) and 45 FR
31307 (May 13. 1980). are amended a8
follows:
A. By adding a new third paragraph to
Section L to read as follows:
L Introduction
*
.
.
The requirement of this Ruling lhall not
apply to any major ItatiOnary 10urce or major'
modification that wal not lubject to the
Ruling alln effect on January 18. 1979. If the
owner or operator:
A. Obtained all final federal. ltate. and
local preconstruction approvals or permi ts
necessary under the applicable State
Implementation Plan before August 7. 1980;
B. Commenced construction within 18
months from August 7. 1980. or any earlier
time required under the applicable State
Implementation Plan; and
C. Did not discontinue construction for a
period of 18 months or more and completed
construction within a reasonable time.
B. By revising Section n. subsection A.
to read 88 follows:
n. Initial Screening Analyses and
Determination of Applicable Requiremen18.
A. DefiniuoIUJ-For the purposes of this
R~
1. "Stationary source" meanl any building.
structure. facility. or installation which emits
or may emit any air pollutant subject to
regulation under the Act.
%. "Building. ItruCture. or facility" means
all of the pollutant-emltting activities which
belong to the same Industrial grouping. are
located on one or more contiguoul or
adjacent propertiel. and are under the control ,.
-------
52742
Federal Register I VoL 45, No. 154 I Thursday, August 7, 1980 I Rules and Regulations
of the same penon (or peraoDi under
common control). Pollutant-emitting acti9itie8
shall be coDildered as part of the lIaIIle
Industrial grouplna If they belona to the 8aD18
"Major Group" (Le~ which have the same two
digit code) as described In the Standard
Industrial Classification Manual. 1972. u
amended by the 1911 Supplement (U.s.
Government PrInting Office stock number8
4101~ and 003-405-00118-O respectively).
3. "Installation" meBDI an identifiable
piece of process equipment.
4. "Potential to emit" meBDI the meximum
capacity of I statiOD8lJ source to emit I
pollutant under its physical and operational
design. Any physical or operational limitation
on the capacity of the source to emit a
pollutant. Includ1u& air pollution control
equipment and restrictioDi on hOUrI of
operation or on the type or amount of
material combuated. stored. or processed.
shall be treated BI part of Its design only If
the limitation or the effect It would have on
emiaslOM is federally enforceable. Secondary
emisslOM do not count In determlnin& the
potential to emit of a ststiOD8lJ source.
5.(1) ''Major stationary aource" meBDI:
(a) Any stationary source of air pollutants
which emits, or baa the potential to emit. 100
tODI per year or more of any pollutant subject
to regulation under the Act: or
(b) Any physical change that would occur
at a stationary source not qualifyins under
paragraph 5.(1)(0) as I major stationary
source, if tha change would CODititute I
major stationary source by ltaelf.
(Ii) A major ststionary source that is major
for volatile organic compounds shall be
considered major for ozone.
8.(1) ''Major modification" means IUJ)'
physical chanp In or chanp In the method of
operation of a major stationary .ource that
would result In a significant net emiesioDi
Increa.. of any pollutant subject to regulation
under the Act.
(Ii) Any net emieeiODi Increase that is
considered significant for volatile organic
compounds shall be coDildered sJsnificant for
ozone.
(iii) A physical chanp or chanp In the
method of operation shall not iDc1udc
(a) RouliDl maiDtell8DC8, repair, and
replacement
(b) U.. of an alternative fuel or raw
material by reason of an order III1der secUODI
2 (a) and (h) of the Eneru Supply and
Environmental Coordination Act of 1974 (or
any supenedlna legislation) or by reason of I
natural gBl curtailment plan purlU8Dt to the
Federal Power Act .
(e) Use of an alternetive fuel by reeson of
an order or rule under aecUon 125 of the Ad;
(d) U.. of an alternative fuel It I steana
generatins anit to the extent that the fuel is
generated from municipal solid waste;
(e) U.. of an altainative fuel or raw
material by I stationary source which:
(1) The source was capable of '
accommodating before December 21. 1978.
anie.. such chanp would be prohibited
under any federa1ly enforceable permit
condition which was ntabliahed after
December 21. 1978. purusant to 40 CFR 52.21
or under replatiODI approved pursuant to .
CFR 51.18 or 40 CFR 51.24: or .
(2) The source is approved to 11M un-
any permit issued under thia ~
(f) An IncreIH In tha holl1'8 of operation or
In the production rate, unIe.. such change is
prohibited under any federally enforceable
permit condition which was established after
December 21, 1978 pursuant to 40 CFR 5Z.21
or under regulations approved pU1'8WlDt to 40
CFR 51.18 or 40 CFR 51.%4:
w) Any c:hanp In ownership at a
stationary sourca.
7.(1) "Net emieslons Increa.." meBDI the
amount by which the sum of the followlna
exceeds zero:
(a) Any Increase In actual emiaalons from a
particular physical chBll8il or change In the
method of operation at a stationary source;
and
(b) Any other Increa... and decreaaea In
actual emi..loDi at the source that are
contemporaneoua with the particular change
and are otherwise creditable.
(iI) An Increase or decre... In actual
emiasloDi is contemporaneoua with the
Increase from the particular change only If it
occurs between:
(a) The date flve years before constru(:tlon
on the particular change commances and
(b) The date that the Increa.. from the
particular c:hanp occ:ura.
(W) An Increase or decreIH In ac:tuaJ.
emisaiOM is creditable only If the .
Admini8trator baa not relied on It In IaauIns a
permit for the source under thia RuliDs which
permit is In efflld when the increase In actual
emieslons from the particular change occurII.
(Iv) An Increase In actual emiesioDi is
creditable only to the extent that the new
level,of actual emiesloDi exceed8 the old
leveL
(v) A decreIH In actual emi..lons Is
creditable only to the extent that:
(a) The old level of actual emiesioDi or the
old level of allowable emissions, whichever
Is lower, exoeeda the new level of actual
emiesiona;
(b) It Is federeny enforceable'at and after
the time that actual c:on.atruction on the
particular change begina;
(e) The revtewina authority ha. not relied
on It In issuina any permit under regulations
approved pll1'8U8Dt to 40 CFR 5UI!; and
(d) It baa approximately the lIaIIle
qualitative significance for public health and
welfare as that attributed to the Incre...
from the particular change.
(vi) An Increase that results from a
physical c:hanp at a sonrce 0CCIU'8 when the
emissloDi anit on which coDltru(:tlon
occurred becomn operational and beginI to
emit a particular pollutant. Any replacement
unit that require8 shakedown becomes
operational only after a reuonabl.
shakedown period, not to exceed 180 daJL
a. "EmiaaiOM anit" meBDI any part of I
stationary sonrce which emits or would have
the potential to emit any pollutant eubjec:t to
regulation under the Act.
9. "Reconstruction" will be presumed to
have taken place where the fixed capital COlt
of the new componants exceeds 50 per cent
of the fixed capital coat of a comparable
entirely new stationary source. Any final
decision u to whether recoDitruction baa
occurred shall be made In accordance with
the proviaIoDi of 40 CFR 1IO.15(f) (1H3). A
recoDitructed stationary I01IlC8 will be
treated as a new statiODar7 source for
70
purposes of thia RuJ.I.na. In determlnin& lowest
achievable emission rate fbr a reconstructed
stationary source, the provisloDi of 40 CFR
8O.15(f)(4) shall be taken Into account In
assellin& whether a new source performance
standard is applicable to such stationary
soun:e.
10. "FIxed capital cost" meBDI the capital
needed to provide all tha depreciable
. components.
11. "Secondary emiuioDl" meBDI
emissions which would occur BI a result of
the construction or operation of a major
stationary aoun:e or major madification. but
do not come from the major stationary source
or major modification Itself. For the purpose
of thia Ruling. secondary emillioDi muat be
specific. well defined, quantifiable, and
.lmpact the same general area as the
stationary source or modification which
causes the secondary emission.. Secondary
emiesioDi may Include, but are not limited to:
(I) EmissloDi from ship. or trains comina to
or from the new or modified stationary
source and .
(II) EmiSSIOM from any offaite support
facility which would not otherwise be
constructed or Increase Its emillloDi as a
resuit of the CODItruction or operation of the
major stationary source or major
modification.
1Z, "Fugitive emilliona" meBDI th088
emiesions which could not reasonably pall
through a stack. chimney, vent. or other
functionally equivalent openiq.
13.(1) ''Sipificant'' mellD8, In reference to a
net emillioDi Increase or the potential of a
source to emit any of the followlna pollutants,
a rate of emillions that would equal or
exceed an, of the followlna rates:
Po//utanl and Emi..ions RaUl
Carbon monoxide: 100 tons per year (tpy)
Nitrogen oxides: 40 tpy
Sulfur dioxide: 40 tpy
Particulate matter: 25 tpy
Ozone: 40 tpy of volatila orpnic compounda
Lead: 0.8 tpy
14. "Allowable emiesloDl" meBDI the
emillions rate calculated using the maximum
rated capacity of the source (aniell the
source is subject to federally enforceable
limits which restrict the operating rate, or
hoUrI of operation. or both) and the moat
strlJl8ent of the followinl:
(I) Applicable standards as set forth In 40
CFR Parta 80 and 81;
(Ii) Any applicable State Implementation
Plan emillions limitation. Includins th088
with a future compliance date; or
(iii) The emissions rate specified as a
federally enforceable permit condition.
IncludiDa those with I future compliance
date. '
15. "Federally enforceable" m8BD1 all
limitatiODI and conditiOM which are
enforceable by the Administrator, lnc1udina
th088 requirements developed pll1'8U8Dt to 40
CFR Parts 80 and 81, requirements within any
applicable State Implementation Plan. and
an)' permit requirements established
pUrluant to thia Ruling. 40 CFR 5Z.21. or
under regulatiODi approved pursuant to 40
CFR 5U8 or 51.24.
18.(1) "Actual emillionan meBDI the actual
rate of emiesloDi of a pollutant from an
-------
Federal Register' Vol. 45, No. 154 , Thursday, August 7, 1980 'Rules and Regulations
52743
emiuiODIllDit u determiDed In accordance
with IUbparqrapha (iiHlv) below.
(iI) In aeneraJ. ac:tuaI emiulODI al 01 a
particular date IhaIl equal the average rate,
In toOl per year, at which the IlDit actually
emiued the pollutant durIns a two-year
period which precedea the particular date
and which 18 I'8pl'el8Dtetive 01 normallOUrat
operation. The reviewtns authority Ihall
allow the Ule 01 a dift'erent time period upon
a determination that It i8 more repreaentative
01 normallOun:e operation. Actual emilliona
Ihall be calculated Ullng the IlDit'l actual
operatin& hollJ'l, production rate.. and typal
01 materiail procened. ItOred or combUited
durin8 the lelected time period.
(Iii) The reviewing authority may prelUlDe
that 10urce-lpacifiC allowable emiaaioDl for
the unit are equivalent to the actual
emilaioDl of the uniL
(Iv) For any emiaalona unit which hal not
begun nonnal operatioDl on the particular
date. actual eminloDllhall equal the .
potential to emit of the unit on that date.
17. "CoDltruCtion" meana any phYllcal
chllJllB or change In the method of operation
(including fabrication. erection. iDltallaijon.
demolition. or modification of an eminioDl
unit) which would reiult In a change in actual
emillloDl.
18. "Commence" al applied to CODltruction
of a major ltationary 10urce or major.
modification meanl that the owner or
operator hal an necelnry precoDltruction
approval8 or parmite and either hal:
(I) Begun. or caUied to begin. a continuOUI
program 01 actual on...U, coDltruction of the
lOurce. to be completed within a fe880nable
time: or '
(iI) Entered Into bindins agreemente or
contractual obligationa, which cannot be
cancelled or modified without IUbltantial
lOll to the owner or operator. to undertake a
program of actual conatruction of the lource
to be completed within a nlalOnable time.
19. "Necelnry precoDltruction aJlPl'OYal8
or permlte" meana thOle parmite or approvall
required under federal air qualil1l control
lawl and regulatioDl aod thOle air quality
controilawl and regulatioDl which are part
of the applicable State Implementation Plan.
20. ''JIesin actual conatruction" mellDl, in
seneraL initiation of phYllcal on-lite
construction activitiel on an emiulODI unit
which are 01 a permanent nature. Such
activitiel include. but are not limited to.
inltallation of buildin8 aupporta and
foundatioDl. layiDs of undersround plpework.
and conatruction of permanent Itorqa
Itructurel. With relpect to a change In
method of operatin& thil tpm refere to thon
on...ite activitiel other then prepare tory
activitiel which mark the initiation of the
chanse.
21. "Lowest achievable emillion rate"
means. for any lOurce. the more ItrJnsent rate
of emisaioDl baaed on the 10llowJns:
(I) The mOlt ItriDsent eminionalimitation
which 18 contained In the implementation
plan of any ltate lor IUch clall or catesory of
stationary aource. uni881 the owner or
operator of the propoaed Itationary lOurce
demonltratel that IUch IimitatiODI are not
achievable: or
(iI) The mOlt Itrinsent emilliODI limitation
which II achieved in practice by IUch clan or
catesor1' of etaticmary aoun:e. Tb1a limitation.
when applied to a modification. meana the
lowest achievable emilliODl rate for the new
or modified emilliODI unite within the
Itati~ aoun:e.ln no event ahall the
application 01 thI8 term permit a propoaed
new or modified ltationary lOurce to emit
any pollutant In exC881 01 the amount
allowable under applicable new IOID'C8
ltandarda 01 performance.
Z2. "RelOurce recovery facility" meana any
lacility at which IOlid waite 18 proceaaed for
the purpo88 01 extracting, CODVertins to
energy, or otherwi8e leparatins and
preparins IOlid wute lor reun. EneJv
converelon faciliti88 mUit utilize IOlid waite
to provide more then 50 peteent 01 the heat
Input to be CODIidered a reaource r8COYlII'f
facility under thI8 RuJins.
C. By amending Section n. lubeection
C by deletins footnote Z and the I8COnd
paragraph. Tbe fint paragraph Q revised
to read 81 followa: .
C. Review of ~ied .t1fll'r)ft for air
quality impact
In addition. the reviewtns authority mUit
determine whether the malor ltationary
source or major modification would be
coDBtructed In an area d88i&nated In to CFR
81.300 fit .eq. U DOnattainment for a
pQUutant for which the ltationary BOUrC8 or
modification 18 major.
D. By reviling Section n. 8ublection F
to read as follows:
F. Fugitive emiuio1l8 .OuraJ&. Section IV.
A of thil RuIiDs IhaIl not apply to a Iource or
modification that would be a major
ltationary lOurce or major modification only
If fugitive emil8iOll8, to the extent
quantifiable. are conildered In calculatins the
potential to emit of the ltationary 1OUlC8 or
modification and the 10UlC8 dou not belons
to any of the following catesorin:
(1) Coal cleaniD8 plante (with thermal
dryers):
(2) Kraft pulp mi1l8:
(3) Portland cement planta:
(4) Primary zi1M: ameltere;
(5) Iron and lteal mi1l8:
(8) Primary aluminum ore reduction planta:
(7) Primary copper ameltere:
(S) Municipal incinerators capable 01
chars1n8 more than 250 tOOl of refU8e per
. day:
(9) HydroOuorlc:. euJfurIc. or nitric acid
planta:
(10) Petroleum refiDeries;
(11) Lime planta: .
(12) Pholphate rock proC8IIin8 plants:
(13) Coke oven batteriee: '
(14) Sulfur recovery plante:
(15) Carbon black plante (furnace procell):
(18) Primary lead emelten:
(17) Fuel conver8ion planta:
(18) Slnterin8 planta:
(19) Secondary metal production planta:
(20) Chemical procell planta:
(21) Foull-fuel boilers (or combination
thereof) totaJins more than 250 million Britiah
thermal units per hour heat Input;
(22) Petroleum storase and traDlfer unite
with a total Itorage capacity exceedina
300.000 barrels:
(23) Taconite ore proceIlin8 plante:
71
(24) Clan fiber proC8IIin8 planta:
(25) Charcoal production plante:
(28) FOlln fuel-fired Iteam electric plants
of more then 250 million Britiah thermal unite
per hour heat Input
(27) Any other ltatiOnary BOUrC8 catesory
which. al 01 AlJ8Ult 'f. Isso. II belDs resuJated
ander Hction 111 or 112 of the Act
E. By deletins Footnote 3 of
.ubsection C of Section m and revising
the third paragraph a8 follows:
.c. Review of .pecified MJuicB. of air
quality impact
.
.
.
.
For ozone. 1O\1J'C88 of volatile orpnic
compounda, locatin& outelda a dellpated
ozone nonattainment area. will be prBlumed
to have no IlgnifIcant Impact on the
dellpated nonattainment area. If ambient
monitoriDa lndlcatel that the 8r8801 aource
location i8 in fact nonattainment. then the
BOUrC8 may be permitted under the proviBionl
of any Itate plan adopted pllJ'luant to aection
110( a )(2)(D) of the Act until tbe area Is
dellpated nonattainment and a State
Implementation Plan revllion II approved. If
no ltate plan pureuant to Hction 11O(a)(2)(D)
hal been adopted aDd approved. then thia
Rullna lhaIlapply.
. . . .
.
F. By adding a new aublection F. to
IV.. to read al follows:
IV. Sonrcaa That Would Locate In a
DeBipated NODIttainment Area
F. Source ObJiaation.
At IUch time that a particular lOurce or
modification becom88 a malor ltationary
1OUlC8 or major modification IOlely by Yirtue
01 a relaxation In any enforceable limitation
which wal ntablilhed after AlJ8Ullt 7. 11180.
on the capacity 01 the 10urce or modification
otherwln to emit a pollutant. lUeb as a .
reetriction on hollJ'l of operation. then the
requlremente of thil Rullna lhall apply to the
10urce or modification u thoush conatruction
had not yet commenced on the lOurce or
modification.
State Plana For New Soun:e Review For
Nonatt_ln_t Purpoaee.
4. Section 40 CFR 51.18(j) Q amended
to read 81 followl:
I 51.18 A8„I8w of new 8I8tIoI_, 8CM8'C88
mocItIc:8tIcIIIL
.
.
.
. .
.
OJ State Implementation Plan
provisions latisfyiDg 8ectiona172(b)(6)
and 173 of the Act shall meet the
following conditiona:
(1) All IUch plans shall use the
8pecific definitioDl. Deviations from the
following wording will be approved only
if the ltate specifically demonstrates
that the lubmitted definition is more
Itringent. or at lealt 81 ltrin8ent. in all
respeeta 81 the corresponding definition
below:
(i) "Stationary aource" means any
building. Itructure, facility, or
installation which emits or may emit
-------
52744
Federal Register I Vol. 45. No. 154 I Thursday, August 7: 1980 I Rules and Regulations
any air pollutant .ubject to regulation
under the Act.
(n) "Building. structure. or facility"
meana aD of the pollutant-emittins
activities which belong to the same
industrial grouping. are located on one
or more contigu0118 or adjacent
properties, and are under the control of
the same person (or persons under
common control). Pollutant-emitting
activities shaD be considered as part of
the same industrial grouping if they
belong to the same "Major Group" (i.e..
which have the same twCHligit code) as
described in the SlDndard Industrial
Classificotion Manual. 1972, u
amended by the 1971 Supplement (U.s.
Government Printing Office stock
numbers 4101~ and 003-005-0017&-
O. respectively).
(ill) "Installation" means an
identifiable piece of procell equipment.
(iv) "Potential to emit" me.ana the
maximum capacity of a stationary
source to emit. pollutant under ita
physical and operational design. Ally
physical or operational limitation on the
capacity of the source to emit a
pollutant, including air pollution control
equipment and restrictions on hours of
operation or on the type or amoUnt of
material combusted. stored, or
proce88ed, shaD be treated u part of ita
design only if the limitation or the effect
it would have on emissions is federally
enforceable. Secondary emissions do
not count in determining the potential to
emit of a stationary source.
(v)(a) "Major statioaary source"
melU18:
(1) Ally statioaary source of air
pollutants which emits, or baa the
potenUal to emit, 100 tons per year or
more of any pollutant subject to
regulation under the Act: or
(2) Ally physical change that would
occur at a stationary source not
qualifying under paragraph (v)(a)(l) as a
major stationary source. if the change
would constitute a major stationary
source by itself.
(b) A major statioaary source that 18
major for volatile organic compounds
shall be considered major for ozone.
(vi)(a) "Major modification" means
any physical change in or change in the
method of operation of a major
stationary source that would result in a
significant net emissions increase of any
pollutant subject to regulation under the
Act.
(b) Ally net emi88ions increase that 18
cons~ereds~cantfurv~atile
organic compounds shall be considered
significant for ozone.
(c) A physical change or change in the
method of operation shall not include:
(1) Routine maintenance. repair and
replacement:
(2) Use of an alternative fuel or raw
material by reason of an order under
section. Z(a) and (b) of the 'Energy
Supply and Environmental Coordination
Act of 1974 (or any superseding .
legislation) or by reason of a natural gal
curtailment plan pursuant to the Federal
Power Act;
(3) Use of an alternative fuel by
reason of an order or rule under section
125 of the Act:
(4) Use of analtemative fuel at a
steam generating unit to the extent that -
the fuel is generated from municipal
solid waste;
(5) Use of an alternative fuel or raw
material by a stationary source which:
(11 The source was capable of
accommodating before December Z1.
1976. unless such change would be
prohibited under any federally
enforceable permit condition which wa.
established after December 21, 19711
pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21 or under
regulations approved pursuant to 40 CFR
51.18 or 40 CFR 51.24; or
(ill The source II approved to 118.
under any permit issued under
regulations approved pursuant to this
section: .
(6) All increase in the hours of
operation or in the production rate.
unless such change 18 prohibited under
any federally enforceable permit
condition which was eltablished after
December 21. 1976 pursuant to 40 CFR
52.21 or regulations approved pursuant
to 40 CFR 51.18 or 40 CFR 51.24-
(1) Ally change in ownership at a
stationary source.
(vii)(a) "Net emi.88ions increase"
meana the amount by which the sum of
the following exceeds zero:
(1) Ally increase in actual emiuions
from a particular physical change or
change in the method of operation at a
stationary source; and
(2) Ally other increases and decreases
in actual emissions at the source that
are contemporaneous with the particular
change and are otherwise creditable.
(b) An increue or decrease-in actual
emissions is contemporaneous with the
increase from the particular change only
if it occIll'$ before the date that the
increase from the particular change
0CCW'8.
(c) An increue or decrease in actual
emissions is creditable only if:
(1) It occurs within. reaaonabllJ
period to be specified by the reviewing
authority; and
(2) The reviewing authority has not
relied on it in ISsuing a permit for the
source under regulations approved
pursuant to this section which permit 18 -
in effect when the increase in actual
emissions from the particular chans-
occurs.
72
(d) All inere..e in ,ctual ~iDiilion.18
creditable only to the extent that the
new level of actual emi8lions exceeds
the old level
(e) A decrease in actual emissions 18
creditable only to the extent that
(1) The old level of actual emis.ions
or the old level of allowable emissions,
. whichever. 18 lower. exceeds the new'
level of actual emiasiona;
(2) It 18 federally enforceable at and
after the time that actual construction
on the particular change begins: and
(3) The reviewing authority has not
relied on it in iSluing any permit under
regulations approved pursuant to 40 CFR
51.18 or the state has not relied on it in
demonstrating attainment or reasonable
further progres..
(4) It bu approximately the same
qualitative significance for public health
and welfare u that attributed to the
increase from the particular change.
(/) All increase that results from a
physical change at ~ source occurs when
the emissions unit on which .
construction occurred becomes
operational and begins to emit a
particular pollutant. Ally replacement
unit that requires shakedown becomes
operational only after a reasonable
shakedown period. not to exceed 180
days. .
(viii) "EDnalions unit" means any part
of a stationary lource which emits or
would have the potential to emit any
pollutant subject to regulation under the
Act. -
(ix) ''Reconstruction'' will be
presumed to have taken place where the
fixed capital cost of the new
compo~ta exceeds 50 percent of the
fixed capital co.t of a comparable
entirely new stationary source. Ally
final decision as to whether
reconstruction has occurred shall be
made in accordance with the provisions
of 40 CFR 6O.15(f) (1H3). A
reconstructed stationary source will be
treated u a new stationary source for
purpOsel of thia subsection. In
detel'1l1iDiDg lowest achievable emislloD
rate for a reconstructed stationary
source. the provisions of 40 CFR
6O.15(f)(4) shall be taken into account in
assessing whether a new source
performance standard I-. applicable to
such stationary source.
(x) "Fixed capital cosf' means the
capital needed to provide aU the
depreciable components.
(xi) "Secondary emissions" means
emiuions which would occur as a relwt
of the construction or operation of a
major stationary source or major
modification. but do not come from the
major stationary source or major
modification itself. For the purpo.e of
thia section. secondary emialions moat
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 45, No. 154 I Thursday, August 7, 1980 I Rules and Regulations
52745
be specific, well defined. quantifiable,
and impact the lame general area as the
stationary source or modification which
causes the secondary emissions.
Secondary emissions may include, but
are not limited to:
(a) Emissions from ships or trains
coming to or from the new or modified
stationary source; and
.(b) EmissiOl18 from any offsite support
facility which would not otherwise be
constructed or increase its emissions as
a result of the construction or operation
of the major stationary source or major
modification.
(xii) "Fugitive emissions" means those
emissions which could not reasonably
pass through a stack. chimney, vent, or
other functionally equivalent opening.
(xiii) "Significant" meBl18, in reference
to a net emissions increase or the
potential of a source to emit any of the
following pollutants, a rate of emissions
that would equal or exceed any of the
following rates:
Pollutont and Emissio1l8 Rate
Carbon monoxide: 100 tona per year (tpy)
Nitrogen oxides: 40 tpy
Sulfur dioxide: 40 tpy
Particulate metter: 25 tpy
Ozone: 40 tpy of volatile OI1Ianic compcnmda
Lead: 0.8 tpy
(xiv) "Allowable emissions" means
the emissions rate of a stationary source
calculated using the maximum rated
capacity of the source (unless the source
is subject to federally enforceable limits
which restrict the operating rate, or
hours of operation. or both) and the
most stringent qf the following:
(a) The applicable standards set forth
in 40 CFR Parts 80 or 61;
(b) Any applicable State
Implementation Plan emissions
limitation including those with a future
compliance date; or
(c) The emissions rate specified as a
federally enforceable permit condition.
including those with a future compliance
date.
(xv)(o) "Actual emissions" meBl18 the
actual rate of emissions of a pollutant
from an emissions unit as determined in
accordance with subparagraphs (bHd)
below.
(b) In generaL actual emislions as of a
particular date shall equal the average
rate, in tons per year. at which the unit
actually emitted ~e pollutant during a
two-year period which precedes the
particular date and which is
representative of normal 10urce
operation. The reviewing authority shall
allow the use of a different time period
upon a determination that it is more
representative of normal source
operation. Actual enU88ions shall be
calculated using the unit'l actual
operating hours, production rates, and
types of materials processed. stored, or
combusted during the selected time
period.
(c) The reviewing authority may
presi1me that the source-specific
allowable emissions for the unit are
equivalent to the actual emissions of the
unit
(d) For any emissions unit which has
not begun normal operations on the
particular date, actual emissions shall
equal the potential to emit of the unit on
tha t date.
(xvi) "Lowest achievable emission
rate" means. for any source, the more
stringent rate of emissions based on the
following:
(a) The most stringent emissions
limitation which is contained in the...
implementation plan of any state for
such cla88 or category of stationary
source. unless the owner or operator of
the proposed stationary source
demonstrates that such limitatioDl are
not achievable; or
(b) The most stringent emislions
limitation which is achieved in practice
by such clan or category of stationary
source. This limitation. when applied to
a modification. meBl18 the lowest
achievable enu.siOl18 rate for the new 0;
modified emissloDl units within the
stationary source. In no event shall the
application of this term permit a
proposed new or modified stationary
source to emit any pollutant in excess of
the amount allowable under an
applicable new source standard of
performance.
(xvii) "Federally enforceable" meBl18
alllimitatiODl ana conditions which are
enforceable by the Administrator,
including those-requirements developed
pursuant to 40 CFR Parts 80 and 61,
requirements within any applicable
State Implementation Plan. and any
permit requirements established
pursuant to 40 CPR 52.21 or UTI "~"
regulatiOl18 approved pursuant to this
section. 40 CFR 51.18, or 51.24.
(xviii) "Begin actual construction"
meBl18 in generaL initiation of physical
on-site COl18truction activities on an
emissiOl18 unit which are of a permanent
nature. Such activities include, but are
not limited to, installation of building
supports and foundatiOl18, laying of
underground pipework. and construction
of permanent storage structures. With
respect to a change in method of
operating this term refers to thoee 00-
site activities other than preparatory
activities which mark the initiation of
the change. .
(xix) "Commence"as applied to
construction of a major stationary .
source or major modification means that
the owner or operator has all nece8sary
73
preconstruction approvali or permits
and either has:
(0) Begun. or caused to be8in, a
continuous program of actual on-site
construction of the source, to be
completed within a reasonable time; or
(b) Entered into binding agreements or
contractual obligatiOl18, which cannot be
cancelled or modified without
substantial loss to the owner or
operator, to undertake a program of
actual construction of the source to be
completed within a reasonable time.
(xx) "Necessary preconstruction
approvals or permits" means those
permits or approvals required under
federal air quality control laws and
regulations and those air quality control
laws and regulations which are part of
the applicable State Implementation
Plan.
(xxi) "Construction" means any
physical change or change in the method
of operation (including fabrication,
erection. installation, demolition. or
modification of an emi8siOl18 unit) which
would result in a change in actual
emissions.
(2) Each plan shall adopt a
preconstruction review program to
satisfy the requirements of-sections
172(b)(6) and 173 of the Act for any area
designated nonattainment for any
national ambient air quality standard
under 40 CFR 61.300 et seq. Such a
program shall apply to any new major
stationary source or major modification
that Is major for the pollutant for which
the area is designated nonattainment, if
the stationary source or modification
would locate anywhere in the
designated nonattainment area.
(3)(i) Each plan shall provide that fur
sources and modifications subject to-
any preconstruction review program
adopted pursuant to thil subsection tIut
baseline for determining credit for
emissions reductions Is the emissions
limit under the applicable State
Implementation Plan in effect at the time
the application to construct is filed.
except that the offset baseline shall be
the actual emissiOl18 of the source from
which offset credit is obtained where:
(a) The demonstration of reasonable
further progreal and attAinmllmt of
ambient air quality standards Is baaed
upon the actual emissions of sources
located within a designated
nonattainment area for which tIut
precoDltruction review program was
adopted; or
(b) The applicable State
Implementation Plan does not contain
an eminlons limitation for that lOurce
or source category.
(Ii) The plan shall further provide that
(a) Where the emisliona1imit under
the applicable State Implementation
-------
52748
Federal Register I Vol. 45, No. 154 I Thursday, August 7, 1980 I Rules and Regulations
Plan allows greater emiaaiou than the
potential to emit of the source.
emissiou offset credit will be allowed
only for control below this potenti~l;
(b) For an exiatin& fuel combustion
source. credit shall be based on the
allowable emissions under the
applicable State Implementation Plan
for the type of fuel being burned at the
time the application to construct is filed.
U the existing source commita to switch
to a cleaner fuel at some future date.
emissions offset credit based on the
allowable (or actual) emissions for the
fuels involved is not acceptable, unless
the permit 18 Conditioned to require the
use of a specified alternative control
measure which would achieve the same
degree of emillions reduction ihould the
source switch back to . dirtier fuel at
some later date. The reviewing authority
should ensure that adequate long-term
supplies of the new fuel are available
before grantiDa emiaaiona offset credit
for fuelawitches;
(c) Emissiona reductiona achieved by
shutting down an exiatiDa source or
permanently curtailing production or
operating hours below baseline leve"
may be credited, provided that the work
force to be affected baa been notified of
the proposed ahutdown or curtailment.
Source ahutdowna and curtailmenta in
production or operatinJ hours occurrtna
prior to the date the new source
application 18 filed generally may not be
used for emisaioDl offset credit.
However, where an applicant can
establilh that it shut down or curtailed
production after August 7,1917, or lea.
than olie year prior to the date of permit
application, whichever 18 earlier, and
the proposed new source 18 .
replacement for the ahutdown or
curtailment credit for such ahutdown or
curtailment may be applied to offlet
emissiona &om the new IOUI'C8;
(d) No emilliona credit may be
allowed for replacing ona hydrocarbon
compound with another of lesser
reactivity, except for tho.. compounds
lilted in Table 1 of EPA'.
"Recommended Policy on Control of
Volatile Organic Compounda." (42 FR
35314. July a. 1917);
(e) All emiaaion reductiona claimed..
offset credit ahall be federally
enforceable;
(f) Procedures reJatiDa to the
permissible location of offsettfoa
emi88iona shall be followed which are at
least 88 stringent as those let out in 40
CFR Part 51 Appendix S. aection IV D.
(g) Credit for an emiuiona reduction
can be claimed to the extent that the
reviewing authority baa not relied on it
in issuing any permit UDder rqulatiou
8tJproVed pumumt to 40 CFR 51.18 cw
~ has not relied on it in
demoutrating attainment or reasonable
further progress.
(4rEach plan may provide that the
provisioD8 of this subsection do not
apply to a source or modification that
would be a major stationary source or
major modification only if fugitive
emiasiona, to the extent quantifiable. .,.
conaidered in calculatiDa the potential to
emit of the stationary source or
modification and the source does not
belong to any of the following
categories;
(a) Coal cleaning planta (with thermal
dryers):
(b) Kraft pulp mills;
(c) Portland cement plants;
(d) Primary zinc smelters;
~)honandateel~
(f) Primary aluminum are reduction
plants;
(g) Primary copper lIDaltera;
(h) Municipal incinerators capable of
charging more than 250 toOl of refuae
per day;
(11 Hydrofluoric. sulfuric. or nitric acid
plants; -
Cl1 Petroleum refineries;
(k) IJme plants;
(1) Phosphate rock processing plants;
(m) Coke oven batteries;
(n) Sulfur recovery plant81
(0) Carbon black plantl (furnace
procell);
I'P) Primary lead lIDeltera;
(q) Fuel conversion plants;
(r) Sintering plante;
(s).Secondary metal production
plants; .
(t) Chemical process plants;
(u) FOI8il-fuel boilers (or combination
thereoO totaling more than 250 million
British thermal unitl per hour heat input;
(v) Petroleum atof8B8 and transfer
units with a total atorqe capacity
exceeding 300,000 barre'"
(w) Taconite ore processing plants;.
(x) Glau fiber procesaing plants;
(y) Charcoal production plants;
(z) Fo.ail fuel-fired steam electric
plantl of more than 250 million British
thermal unita per hour heat input;
(aa) ~y other atationary 1OW'C8
category which. .. of August 7,1980, 18
being regulated under aection 111 or 112
of the Ad
(5) Each plan shall include
enforceable procedures to provide that:
(i) Approval to conatruct ahall not
relieve any owner or operator of the
responaibility to comply fully with
applicab~ plOvlaiOD of the plan and 8DJ
other requirementa under loc:a1. .tate oe
federal law.
(ii) At such time that a particular
source or modification becomea a major
stationary SOW'C8 or major modification
solely by virtue of a relaxation in 8DJ
enforcement limitation which waa
74
- .
estabUshed after Ausuat 7, '1980, on the
capacity of the lOurce or modification
otherwise to emit a pollutant. such as a
restriction on houri of operation, then
the requirments of regulationa approved
pursuant to thIs section shall apply to
the source or modification as though
construction had not yet commenced on
the SOW'C8 or modification.
Reetrictiona OIl Conatrw:tion Foe
Noaattaln_t Area
5. 40 CFR 52.24 Is amended by adding-
new paragraphs (f), (g), (h) and (i) to
read as followa:
152.24 St8IutDry ,..trtctton on new
.tatIcM.., IOUrC88.
.
.
.
.
.
(0 The following definitioOl shall
apply under this section.
(1) "Stationary source" means any
building, structure, facility, or
installation which emita or may emit
any air pollutant subject to regulation
under the Act.
(2) "Building. atructure. or facility"
means all of the pollutant-emitting
activities which belong to the same
industrial grouping, are located on one
or more contiguous or adjacent
properties, and are under the control of
the same person (or persons under
common control). Pollutant-emittin8
activities shall be considered as part of
the same industrial grouping if they
belong to the same "Major Group" (I.e..
which have the same two-digit code) u
described in the following document.
Standard Industrial Classification
Manual. 1912. 88 amended by the 1977
Supplement (U.8. Government Printing
Office stock numbers 4101~ and
003-005-001.7~ respectively).
(3) "Installation" meana an
identifiable piece of procell equipment.
(4) "Potential to emit" meana the
maximum capacity of a stationary
sourCe to emit a pollutant under ita
physical and operational design. Any
physical or operational limitation on the
capacity of the 1OW'C8 to emit a
pollutant. including air pollution control
equipment and restrictiona on hours of
operation or on amount of material
combusted, stored, or procelled, shall
be treated 88 part of ita design only if
the limitation or the effect it would have
on emiaaiona 18 federally enforceable.
Secondary emiuioOl do not count in
determinins the potential to emit of a
stationary source.-
(5)(1) "Major atationary source"
meana:
(a) Any stationary I01IlC8 of air
pollutanta which emits. or baa the
potential to emil, 100 tau per year or
more of any pollutant subject to
regulation under the Act; or
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 45, No. 154 I Thursday, August 7, 1980 I Rules and Regulations
52747
(b) Any physical change that would
occur at a stationary source not
qualifying under paragraph (5)(i)(a) as a
major stationary source, if the change
would constitute a major stationary
source by itself.
(ii) A major stationary source that is
major for volatile for organic compounds
shall be considered major for ozone.
(6)(i) "Major modification" meana any
physical change in or change in the
method of operation of a major
stationary source that would result in a
significant net emissions increase of any
pollutant subject to regulation under the
Act.
(ii) Any net emissions increase that is
considered sigBificant for volatile
organic compounds shall be considered
significant for ozone. .
(iti) A physical change or change in
the method of operation shall not
include:
(a) Routine maintenance. repair, and
replacement; .
(b) Use of an alternative fuel or raw
material by reason of an order under
sections 2 (a) and (b) of the Energy
Supply and Environmental Coordination
Act of 1974 (or any superseding
legislation) or by reason of a natural gas
curtailment plan pursuant to the Federal
Power Act;
(e) Use of an alternative fuel 9Y
reason of an order or rule under section
125 of the Act
(d) Use of an alternative fuel at a
steam generating unit to the extent that
the fuel is generated from municipal
solid waste;
(e) Use of an alternative fuel or raw
material by a stationary source which:
(I) The source was capable of
accommodating before July 1. 1979.
unless such change would be prohibited
under any federally enforceable permit
condition which was established after
July 1. 1979 pursuant to 40 CPR 52.21 or
under regulations approved pursuant to
40 CFR 51.18 or 40 CPR 51.24; or
(2) The source is approved to use
under any permit issued under
regulations approved pursuant.to 40 CPR
51.18;
(f) An increase in the hours of
operation or in the production rate.
unless such change is prohibited under
any federally enforceable permit
condition which was established after
July 1. 1979 pursuant to 40 CPR 52.21 or
under regulations approved pursuant to
40 CPR 51.18 or 40 CPR SU4.
(g) Any change in ownership at a
stationary source.
(7)(i) "Net emissioD8 increase" means
the amOunt by which the sum of the
following exceeds zero:
(a) Any increase in actual emissions
from a particular physical change or
change in the method of operation at a
stationary source; and
(b) Any other increases and decreases
. in actual emissions at the source that
are cOJ;ltemporaneous with the particular
change and are otherwise creditable.
(ii) An increase or decrease in actual
emissions is contemporaneous with the
increase from the particular change only
if it occurs between: .
(a) The date five years before
construction on the particular change
commences and
(b) The date that the increase from the
particular change occurs.
(iii) An increase or decrease in actual
emissions is creditable only if the
Administrator has not relied on it in
issuing a permit for the source under
regulations approved pursuant to 40 CFR
51.18 which permit is in effect when the
increase in actual emissions from the.
particular change occurs.
(iv) An increase in actual emissions is
creditable only to the extent that the
new level of actual emissioD8 exceeds
the old leveL .
(v) A decrease in actual emissions is
creditable only to the extent that:
(a) The old level of actual emissions
or the old level of allowable emissions,
whichever is lower. exceeds the new
level of actual emissions;
(b) It is federally enforceable at and
after the time that construction on the
particular change begins; and
(e) The Administrator or reviewing
authority has not relied on it in issuing
any permit under regulations approved
pursuant to 40 CPR 51.18 or the State
has not relied on it in demonstrating
attainment or reasonable further
progress.
(d) It has approximately the same
qualitative significance for public health
and welfare as that attributed to the
increase from the particular change.
(vi) An increase that resl'! r Jm a
physical change at a source occurs when
the emissions unit on which
COD8truction occurred becomes
operational and begina to emit a
particular pollutant. Any replacement
unit that requires shakedown becomes
operational only after a reasonable
shakedoWIfperiod. not to exceed 111J
days.
(8) "Emissions unit" meana any part of
a stationary source which emits or
would have the potential to emit any
pollutant subject to regulation under the
Act.
(9) ''Reconstruction" will be presumed
to have taken place where the fixed
capital cost of the new components
exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital
cost of a comparable entirely new
stationary source. Any final decision aa
to whether reconstruction has occurred
75
shall be made in accordance with the
provisions of 40 CFR 00.15(f) (1H3). A
reconstruoted stationary source will be
treated as a new stationary source for
purposes of this subsection.
(10) "Fixed capital cost" means the
capital needed to provide all the
depreciable components.
(11) "Secondary emissions" means
emissioD8 which would occur as a result
of the construction or operation of a
. major stationary source or major
modification. but do not come from the
major stationary source or major
modification itself. For the purpose of
this section. secondary emissions must
be specific. well defined, quantifiable.
and impact the same 'general area as the
stationary source or modification which
causes the secondary emissions.
Secondary emissions may include. but
are not limited to:
(i) Emissions from ships or trains
coming to or from the new or modified
stationary source and
(il) EmissiOD8 from any offsite support
facility which would not otherwise be
constructed or increase its emissions as
a result of the construction or operation
of the major stationary source or major
modification.
(12) "Fugitive emissions" means those
emissions which could not reasonably
pasa through a stack. chimney, vent. or
other functionally equivalent opening.
(13) "Significant" means, in reference
to a net emissions increase or the
potential of a source to emit any of the
following pollutants. a rate of emissions
that would equal or exceed any of the
following rates:
Pollutant and Emillllionll Rate
Carbon monoxide: 100 tona per year (tpy)
Nitrogen oxidee: 40 tpy
Sulfur dioxide: 40 tpy
. Particulate matter: 25 tpy
Ozone: 40 tpy of volatile Ol'8anic compounda
Lead: 0.8 tpy
(14) "Allowable emissions" means the
emissions rate of 8 stationary source
calculated nsing the maximum rated
capacity of the source (unless the source
is subject to federally enforceable limits
which restrict the operating rate. or
hours of operation. or both) and the
most stringent of the following:
(i) The applicable standards set forth
in 40 CPR Parts 60 and 81;
(il) Any applicable State
Implementation Plan emUlsiOD8
limitation. including those with a future
compliance date; or
(ill) The emissioD8 rate specified as a
federally enforceable permit condition.
including those with a future compliance
date.
(15) "Federally enforceable" means aU
limitations and conditions which are
-------
52748
Federal Register I Vol. 45, No. 154 I 'Thursday, August 1, 1980 I Rules and Regulations
enforceable by the Administrator,
including those requirements developed
p~suant to 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61.
requirements within any applicable
State Implementation Plan. and any
permit requirements established
pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21 or under
regulations approved punuant to 40 CFR
51.18 and 51.24-
(16)(i) "Actual emissions" means the
actual rate of emissions of a pollutant
from an emissions unit. as determined in
accordance with subparagraphs (ilHiv)
below.
(il) In genera1t actual emissions as of a
particular date shall equal the average
rate, in tons per year. at which the unit
actually emitted the pollutant during a
two-year period which precedes tJ1e
particular date and which is
representative of normal source
operation. The Administrator shall
allow the use of a different time period
upon a determination that it is more
representative of normal source
operation. Actual emissions shall be
calculated using the unit's actual
operating houn. production rates, and
types of materials processed. stored, or
. combusted during the selected time
period.
(iii) The Administrator may presume
that source-specific allowable emissions
for the unit are equivalent to the actual
emissions of the unit.
(iv) For any emissions unit which has
not begun normal operations on the
particular date, actual emissions shall
equal the potential to emit of the unit on,
that date.
(17) "Construction" means any
physical change or change in the method
of operation (including fabrication.
erection. installation. demolition. or
modification) of an emissions unit which
would result in a change in actual
emissions.
(18) "Commence" as applied. to
construction of a major stationary
source or major modification means that
the owner or operator has all necessary
preconstruction approvals or permits
and either has:
(i) Begun. or caused to begin. a
continuous program of actual on-site
construction of the lource, to be
completed within . realonable time; or
(il) Entered into binding agreements or
contractual obligations. which cannot be
cancelled or modified without
substantial 1011 to the owner or
operator. to undertake a program of
actual construction of the lource to be
completed within a reasonable time.
(19) "Necessary preconstructioD
approvals or permita" means those
permits or approvals required under
federal air quality control laws and
regulations and those air quality control
laws and regulations which are part of
the applicable State Implementation
Plan.
(20) "Begin actual construction"
means, in general. initiation. of physical
on-site construction activitiel on an
emissions unit which are of a permanent
nature. Such activities include, but are
not limited to, installation of building
supports and foundations. laying of
underground pipework. and construction
of permanent storage structures. With
respect to a change in method of
operations. this term refers to those'on-
site activities other than preparatory
activities which mark the initiation of
the change..
(g) Thil section shall not apply to a
major stationary source or major
modification if the source or
modification was not subject to 40 CFR
Part 51 Appendix S. as in effect on
January 16. 1979. and the owner or
operator:
(1) Obtained all final federal, state.
and local pre construction approvals or
permits necessary under the applicable
State Implementation Plan before
August 7. 1980;
(2) Commenced construction within 18
months from August 7, 1980, or any
earlier time required under the
applicable State Implementation Plan;
and
(3) Did not discontinue construction
for a period of 18 months or more and
completed construction within a
reasonable time.
(h) Thil section shall not apply to a
source or modification that would be a
major stationary source or major
modification only if fugitive emissions.
to the extent quantifiable. are
considered in calculating the potential to
emit of the ltationary source or
modification and the source does not
belong to any of the following
ca tegories:
(1) Coal cleaning plants (with thermal
-dryers);
(2) Kraft pulp mills:
(3) Portland cement plants:
(4) Primary zinc smelters;
(5) Iron and steel mills;
(6) Primary aluminum ore reduction
plants:
(7) Primary copper Imelters;
(8) Municipal incinerators capable of
charging more than 250 tons of refuse
per day;
(9) Hydrofluoric. lulfuric. or nitric acid
plants; .
(10) Petroleum refineries;
(11) Lime plants;
(12) Phosphate rock processing plants:
(13) Coke oven batteries:
(14) Sulfur recovery plants:
(15) Carbon black plants (furnace
. process);
(16) Primary lead smelters;
(17) Fuel conversion PlaI1..ta;
(18) Sintering plants;
(19) Secondary metal production
plants;
76
(20) Chemical proceSI plants;
(21) Fossil-fuel boilers (or com~~ation
thereof) totaling more than 250 million
, British thermal units per hour heat input;
(22) Petroleum Itorage and transfer
units with a totalltorage capacity
exceeding 300,000 barrels;
(23) Taconite ore processing plants;
(24) Glass fiber processing plants;
(25) Charcoal production plants;
(26) Fossil fuel-fired Iteam electric
plants of more than 250 million British
thermal unita per hour heat input;
(27) Any other Itationary 10urce
category which, as of August 7, 1980, il
being regulated under section 11,1 or 112
of the Act.
(i) At such time that a particular
source or modification becomes a major
stationary source or major modification
solely by virtue of a relaxation in any
enforceable limitation which was
established after August 7, 1980, on the
capacity of the lource or modification
otherwise to emit a pollutant, such as a
restriction on houn of operation. then:
(1) If the construction moratorium
Imposed punuant to this section is ltill
in effect for the nonattainment area in
which the source or modification il
located. then the permit may not be so
revised: or
(2) If the construction moratorium is
no longer in effect in that area, then the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.18(j) shall
apply to the source or modification as
though construction had not yet
commenced on the source or
modifica tion.
Consolidated Permit Regulations
6. 40 CFR Part 124 is amended as
follows:
a. 4O'CFR 124.3(b) is deleted and
reserved as follows:
1124.3 AppIIc8t1on for. permit.
.
.
.
(b) [Reserved]
.
.
.
.
1124.5 [Amended]
b. 40 CFR 124.5(g)(2) is revised 81
follows:
.
.
.
.
.
(g) . . .
(2) PSD permits may be terminated
only by rescission under I 52.21(W) or
by automatic expiration under I 52.21(r).
Applications for rescission lhall be
processed under I 52.21(w) and are Dot
subject to this Part.
1124.42 [Am8nd8d]
c. The first lentence of 40 CFR
124.42(b) is amended by substituting
"submitted" for "requested."
(FR Dac. ~PII8d-- --I
8&UG CODE -..w.
-------
59874
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 178 / Thursday. September 11. 1980 / Rules and Regulations
PART 32o-SUSPENSION OF THE
PRIVATE EXPRESS STATUTES
4. New I 320.7 is added read'mg 8S
foUows:
f 320.7 Suapenalon for adverttaementa
80C0mp.nyl.,. ....... or petIOdlC8l..
(a) The operation of 39 U.s.c. 601(a)
(1) through (6) cmd I 310.2(b) (1) through
(6) of this chapter is suspended on all
post routes for advertisements enclosed
with merchandise in parcels or
accompanying periodicals under the
fbllowmg cirt..,Ur.Q1ances:
(1) The advertis3!T'fnts mus1 no~ be .
marked with the names or addresses of
the intended recipients.
(2) The advertisements must Be
incidental to the shipment of the
merchandise or the periodical.
(i) An advertisement is incidental to
the shipment of the accompanying
merchandise or the periodical when the
merchandise or the periodical has been
ordered by or would otherwise be sent
to the recipient even without the
accompanying advertisement.
(ii) Notwithstanding ~ 320.7(a)(2)(i). an
advertisement is not incidental to the
merchandise when the pertinent
circumstances. such as the nominal
value of the merchandise. its shipment
on an unsolicited basis. or its status as a
sample. reasonably indicate that the
shipper's primary purpose is the
conveyance of the advertisement itself
and that the merchandise is merely an
adjunct to the advertisement.
(bl An item is an advertisement if its
primary purpose is to cause or induce
the purchase of goods or services from
the shipper or others.
(39 U.S.c. 401. 404. 601-608: 18 U.S.c. 1~
1699. 17Z4)
W. ADm Samters,
Assoc:iate General Coun!l~l.
IFR Dac. - Filed ~ 11:1178811
IIUJ8IG CODf: 77'~I-
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEcnoN
AGENCY
40 CFR P81 51
[FAL 1515-1)
A8qu1rements for Prepar8tion,
Adoption. and Submittal of
I........,.tation Pt8n8; Emtaion Offset
Int8rpr8tative Ruling
AGEIICY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACnGII: Final rule.
SU8MAII'r. This action maJres certain
revisions to EPA's Emission Offset
~....~. RulizqJ 01 JIIII1I8lY 18, 1119.
44 FR 3274. 'IS revised on May 13.1980.
45 FR!1 ,,- -ind August 7, 198D. 45 FR
52676. Th,! Ruling describes the
requiremen ts for preconstruction review
which apply to large new or modified air
pollution sources affectiDIJ -- with
air quality WOr8e than the laftlalettg
protect the public health.. ~
The revisions made today lH'e'ia
response to EPA's request for COIIIB ..
on certain issues related to the Ruling
(see 44 FR 3298). Although the Ruling
generally expired a8 of July 1, 1979 (see
44 FR ;J8471. July Z. 1979). it continues to
apply to pennits applied for before July
1. 1979, and in certain other situations.
The changes made today are primarily
non-substantive changes. ~. .' -.
changes affecting sourc:! applicahatIJ
were proposed September 5. 1979 ... FR
51924) and final regulatiaaa were
promulgated on August 7.1980 in
response to the comments.""" '...A on
that proposal. 45 FR 52678.
DATES: These changes are applicable to
permits applied for on or after
September 11. 1980..
ADDRESs: EPA has established a docket
for this rulemaking. designated Docket
No. A~3. The docket is an orgamzed
and complete fIle of all information
submitted to or otherwise considered by
EPA during this ruJemaking. The docket
is availabie for public inspection
between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.. Monday
through Friday. at EPA's Central Docket
Section. West Tower Lobby, Gallery I.
A-130. 401 M Street. S.W., WashiDgton.
D.C. 20460. A reasonable fee may be
charged for copyinS.
FOR FURTHER INFORItAT1OI8 COIfTACT:
Mr. Kirt Cox, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards. Environmental
Ptatection Agency. MD-15. JIll .oh
Triangle Park. North Carolina Z1711.
Phone: (919)541-5497.
~NTARYI~TMNC
L Backpouad
On December 21. 1976, EPA inued ..
Emission Offset ln1erpretative IbIIi8s
(Offset Ruling) addressiD& tbe issue of
the extent to which National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQSJ
established under the Clean Air Act
may restrict construction of major new
or modified stationary air pollution
sources. 41 FR 55524. The Ruling
provided. in generaL that a..... .
major new source. which would emit
pollutants in excess of specified
amounts and would otherwise
contribute to an existing violation of a
national standard. CDIIItI be --A~
only if stringent c:onditiou were met..
These conditions -- designed to
ensure that the new soarce's..miai0a8
....... _~oIeci to the greatest
77
degree possible. thb t more than
equivalent offsetting emission
reductiou ("emission offsets 1 woIIh:t ~
obtained from existin!l808ft:H, 8IICi tit.
there wuu1d be proareH tOW8ld
ac:m..- ....4 ai the NAAQS.
Si8m the ~ - of the o.:c..dM.r
n. twaOff88t~ the A8eacYs
v- - .. pncaatn1ctiuD rrriew of
...,.... ~ and major so~
., l .... .' r have been the subject of
considerable legislative and ~
cbanae. Pertinent F8d8nA Reptwr
actions Incorporating these rh - ..
lIrIfeIi below.
The Clean Air A,h.....I...~b of 1977
('8T '-_..1 -.t,) ratified the
""""S ar.t ItIding. Section t21tuf
Pub. 1.. No. ~ 91 Stat. 685, --
under 4Z U.S.c. 7502. The amendments
also .. .,. '.....1 definitions for ''maj8i
saan:a. TIIe~ of what si8 ~i'
... dR ~ . c.. UDder......
source should be !Ub;ect to review Wf ..
first addressed in the Af/8c1I.,.. t'J
1978 regulatory alP--'--ts 10 die...
Source Review Program _the
Preventiun of ~i~ IA~' .' -
(PSD) of air quality. 44 FR 2t)3M.
After promulpting the PSD
regula nOM. the Aseac:P turned ita
attention to the Offset a.Iiaw- Ita.
result of comments received in
amending the PSD res',I..... (43 FR
26380). comments on the origmal Offset
Ruling (41 Fa 55524), and the
llI'.m~s language of the 1977
Amllmdmenta. the Agency published
reMOM to the Offset Ruling on J---
111. 1979. 44 Fa 3274. MD8t of the
reMoas were made fia8 lit that time.
rather than proposed asain for c:&:8IIa
Certain i:i~ues were proposed as inten.).
policy and comment wu IlCllicited on
these issue-. 44 FR 3298.
On July Z. 1979. the At/fIrIq ~.. ~.
regulationa restricting the c:a...A-ti-
of major sources. - required by ... tr
~ . I L",..... Stale piaas 10
attaiD and maintain NAAQS have not
been approved by July 1. 1979. 44 HI
38I7L For those area. the Offset
Ra..,. ...hid1 allows sources to
"offset" their pollution and still
--A.~ ia---dl..dby tbeAd's
r..sb'i.c;OOu apiDSt construction.
Additioaal action. ~~~ dealins
willa PSD but also affecting the scope of
...- I.-ti.-review of new sources
uncia the 0ff8t RuLintJ. was proposed
on ~ . ~ 5. 197'8 (40& FIt 31924) and
.. 'r-h.h.""'7. ~.fa
52675. TfIat ....... ~.. -.....
sipificaDt. - tv tile Aweacis...
and~ - . .' .Ii ~tt1dic8
rewiew. in . ; 1 ... to . cawt
i..dc.ta~"EPA'. pn!COO."tnlction
review res--1al' - far PSD. A1ab(]JIIQ
~r._.., -,.. Cofile.. 13 ERe IE
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 45. No. 178 I Thursday. September 11. 1980 / Ru!es and Regulations
59875
(D.C. Cir:. 1979). This achon does not
address the issues dealt with In the
August 7. 1980 promulgation.
Also. on May 13.1980. (45 FR 31307)
EPA took final action on certain of the
changes to the Offset Ruling proposed
on September 5. 1979. At that time. EPA
elimmated the "clean spo." exemption
from the Offset Ruling and gave
guidance for State new source review
permit programs adopted pursuant to
Section 110(a}(2)(D) of the Clean Air
Act..ll alsl" provided that the Offset
Ruling wG continue'tl.. "p:-,ly to sourcef
locating outside of nonatI&inment areas.
but causing or contributing to a violation
of ambient standards, until the State's
permit or equivalent program under'
Section 110(a)(2}(D). providing for
review of such sources to assure
attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS, is approved by EPA.
As a result of the above actions, the
Offset Ruling continues to apply to the
rollowing situations: (a) To proposed
major sources in one State that would
contribute to a violation of a NAAQS
only in another State. (b) during the time
allowed for the development and
approval of a revised State
Implementation Plan (SIP] in an are~
that is designated as nonattainment
after March 3,1978. (c) during any
extended time allowed under Section
110(b) for development of a SIP revision
for an area that violates the secondary
NAAQS (and for which a plan for the
primary NAAQS is either approved or
not required) for a pollutant and (d]
proposed majQr sOillceslocatins outside
of nonattainment areas but causing or
contributing to a nonattainment problem
until the State's permit or equivalent
program is approved by EPA.
As noted, when the Agency published
the January 16. 1919 Offset Ruling, it
requested comments on certain issues
contained therein. 44 FR 3274. 44 FR
3298. In this Federal Regiater action. .the
Agency is responding to comments
made in response to that notice.
Clarificationa are made to the Offset
Ruling with regard to technology
transfer in determining LAER and the
permissible area of offsets for NO.
sources. LAER requirements far
secondary emissions are changed. Also,
supplemental gui~ is given on
issues concerning the offset credit for
meeting NSPS, the baseline for offsets.
source compliance certification. fugitive
dust ownership, and banking. Certain
issues on which the Agency solicited
comments on January 16. 1979 were
addressed by the August 7. 1980
p........d8ation and therefore are not
discuued here. '1'hoR issues include
those involved in the definitions of
"potential to pmlt:' "source." and
"modification. . the 50-ton exemption.
rules relating 10 fugitive dust. and the
geographic applicability of the Offset
Ruling to major sources of volatile
organic compounds.
In addition to the discussion of iH&e8
found in the August 7. 1980 Federal
Register and in the suppleml!ntary
information given below. the Agency
has also responded to a number of
issues in a separate document entitled,
"Supplemental Discussion of Comments
Received on Revised Emission Offset
:1uling" (44 FR 3274, January 16,1979,
Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation. June
1980). The supplementary discussion
document. as well as all the comments
received in response to the January 16,
1979 Offset Ruling. are available for
public inspection and copying during
normal business hours at: Central
Docket Section. West Tower Lobby.
Gallery 1. 401 M Street. S.W..
Washington. D.C. 20460. The discussions
in that document relate to issues raised
by comments which did not result in
changes to the Offset Ruling and did not
require further clarification as to EPA's
policy or intent. Furthermore. none of
the issues discussed in that document
are issues on which the Agency solicited
comment 44 FR 3298.
U. Tedmology Transfer in LAER
A number of industrial commenters
argued that there is 110 statutory
authority to consider transfer of
technology from one source type to
another in determining the lowest
achipable emission rate (LAER). The
Agency affinns that the requirements for
technoloay transfer appropriately
incorporate Congressional intent as
discussed in the supplemental
information to the January 16. 1979
ruling. There is considerable precedent
for this approach. Technology transfer is
authorized with regard to detennining
best available control technology for
purposes of the New Source
Performance Standards under Section
111 of the Clean Air Act This approach
is also supported by the fact that
consideratum of technology transfer has
been found appropriate in determining
effluent emission limits for water
pollution control cues. See. e.g.,
California and Hawaiian Sugar Co. v.
EPA. 553 F. lnd 280. 2I5-Z89 (lnd Gir.
1977}. ~
Many of these Guuuuo:uten went on to
indicate that EPA's policy on technology
transfer would be acceptable if
implemented "reasonably," i.e.. that
tecb:noiop:al and economic Ł ., ;!i?
be considered. that there be a.
reasonable degree of certaiaty L,tIIe
transferred technology wouW --.k fat
78
the ~f~ appbcation under
consideration. and that pilot studies or
other appropriate techniques be used to
verify transferability. In short. the
commenters requested that goad
engineeriI1@ judgment be u.sed in
determlniq whether t...clmoiof) tnmsfer
i. applicable ami feasible in a partiazl8r
situation and what the effectlveness of
such technology would be. EpA agrees
and believes that considerations of
feasibility are appropriate in using
technology transfer in determining
LAER. But EPA maintains that
consideration of the transfer of
technology from one source type to
another is appropriate In determinmg
LAER. Technology transfer which would,
cause an unduly severe economic
penalty or would be technologically
infeasible for the specific application
under consideration need not be
included in establishins the lowest
achievable emission rate.
The Agency does not intend. in this
statement of policy. to establish
separate economic: criteria for LAER for
technology transfer. Consideration of
economic feasibility is the same under
LAER regardless of whether technology
transfer is involved.
Ill. NitropD 0xid8s ....
The January 16 revision to the Offset
Ruling indicates that. due to the
generally area-wide nature of NOT
problems. offsets for NO. sources may
be obtained from "within the broad area
of nonattainment." One c:ommenter
interpreted thia language to mean that
NO. offsets must be obtained from
within the designated nonattaiDJDeDt
area for NO.. EPA did not intend such a
restrictive interpretation regarding the
location of NO. offsets. Section lV.D. is
hereby amended to clarify that volatile
orgamc compounds and NOz shoWd be
treated consistently and. therefore, that
NO. offsets may come from nearby
attainment or unclassifiable areu 88
well as from a designated
nonattauunent area.
Several c:ommenters indicated that
there is no basis for the assumption in
Section III.C. (as amended. May 13, 1980.
45 FR 313Q7. 31311) that all NOz emitted
from a source ia converted to NO. by the
time the plume reaches the grOund. Thi,
assnmption is only intended as a
screening technique; if the source would
not significantly contribute to an NOs
non attainment problem under this
"worst case'. assumption. no further
requirements under the Ruling would
apply. However. if a potential problem
is indicated by this screening technique,
a more refined analysis will be
necessary.
-------
59818
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 178 / Thursday. September 11. 1980 I Rules and Regulations
IV. Of&et Credits
The Agency does not. at this time.
make any changes to Section IV.C. of
the Offset Ruling in response to
comments received regarding the
baseline far offsets. The Agency has
t-Ai" pramuJpted lomewhat
dtffenmt ~ for determinil13 when
intra-source offsets may be used to
avoid a preconstruction permit review
(e.g. under the Offset Ruling for a
modification that would otherwise be
subject to full permit review and
requirpments.'t5 rq 52675 (August 7
1980)). The baselin\J br offset credits
that is diacus8ed below refers to sources
that are mbject to the Offset Ruling and
must fU1d sufficient emission offsets to
meet tllerequirements of Conditions 3
and 4 of the rule. i.e.. sufficient emission
offsets to represent reasonable further
progress toward attainment. and to
provide for a net air quality benefit in
the area affected by the new source or
modifica tion.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of
1971 required that the baseline for
determining emission offset credit.
under the Offset Ruling. was to be the
SIP emission limitations in effect at the
time of the permit application. In the
January 16.1979 Offset Ruling changes.
the Apncy amended the Ruling to
im:orporate this legislative requirement.
Thus. Section IV.C. of the Offset Ruling
provides that if. for example. a SIP
allows SO. emissions of 3.0 Ib/l0. Btu
for all fuels. an existing source burning
fuel oil with SO. emisaion of 1.0 Ib/10.
Btu could use the difference between 3.0
and 1.0 Ib/l0. Btu as offset credit.
Thus. in such a case. if the source
agreed to the imposition of a legal
obligation to maintain SO. emissions
below SIP levels. the source could
obtain offset credit..
However. the Agency has retained ita
Section IV.C.l. requirement that where
the SIP emission limit is higher than the
source could emit without any controls..
ther; the uncontrolled emission rate
itself establishes its offset baseline for
the source. The wording in Section
IV.C.l. is changed to assure that the
uncontrolled emission rate remains the
offset baseline. In that HCtion. the word
"TIIi. aPJlra8ch i. IOmewftal different from that
uaed 11140 CFR 51.18 (j). There. tIta emi.l1on off At
b8Hline. whila it ordinarily wIll be calculated on
tile ba.. of allowable emtaaiona. may look to actual
emiaiana if tIta State's ci8mcmatrallon of reasonable
furthar proar- (RF'PJ ia based 011 actual emiu-
TtIia difference ill approach ia due to tbe fact that
CorqJreu nquinIIt the baaetiDe 10 be .Howable
---- for the Offaet Ruliq. 68 SeetioIl1ZV(a)(1)
of lhe 1!F17 Allllllldmmt8. ....... under Section
173. off.... muat t. 0.4.. willi &P and - ..
bneIine may be either acSIII8 - aIA888bI8
........ ~QD."'" of tb UP
.. ..
"potentIal" IS changed to
"uncontro;lpd." This is being done now
because the definition of "potential to
emit" now looks to the soun:e'!f
controlled emIssions.
Specific clarification on Sectian
lV.C.t. W88 8OUIht. - ~ 8Dan:88
biznriD& natunU p8. whet. the
maximum uncontrolled emissi0118 for
natural gas combustion are in the
neighborhood of .0006Ib/l06Btu. To
allow offset credits for emissions up to a
general SO. emission limit in the SIP of
3.0 Ib/l0' Btu. would allow credit far
beyond what Congress intended in the
1977 Amendments. In such a case. the
uncontrolled emission rate establisba
the offset baseline for the source.
Similar clarification is now offered
regarding offset credit for meeting NSPS
and NESHAPS requirements. The
baseline discussion in the preamble to
the January 16.1979 ruling (44 FR 3214-
3275) indicated that EPA does not
interpret the Ruling to permit offset
credit for tightening SIP requhe~
down to the levels required by aa
applicable new source performaac:e
standard (NSPS) or national emi8IiaD
standard for hazardous air pollut8lta
(NESHAPS). i.e.. requirements under
Sections 111 and 112. respectively. afthe
Act. Comments reflected considerable
misunderstanding and uncertainty aalD
EPA's policy on this issue. especiaHJ'
where an NSPS was c:oacemed. EPA".
intent was that. where a source is
subject to an NSPS 01' NESHAP5
emission limitation that is mant
stringent than the otherwise "'IT" ....w..
SIP. the difference in emissi0D8 ~
the SIP and the NSPS or NESHAPS for
such source may not be U8ed as o&.t
credit. As discussed in the J~Ut.
1979 preaMble. any other approach
would allow offset credit for "paper'"
reductions. where the SIP is adjuted
but no actual tightening of ~". 8t8
under the act occurs. HoweYft. if a
source were not subject to an NSPS. f-
example if it were constructed""" 8D
NSPS was proposed for that tJOurce
category. offset credit could be
permitted for tightening the SIP to the
NSPS level for such source. The ......
philosophy here is to permit offset credit
only for controla that go beyond
applicable State or federal ~
limitations in effect for existing......
at the time an application for a new
source permit ia applied. A new Sectia8
IV.C.B. is added to the om.t RatiIqr tD
remove amy UIIC8bIiDtr on dIia.....
Although one COli' ',.... """'
that this policy not be made.....v"- "-.
before 1-718. Ur79. EPA ~ r --
that die paIic:y is f8IJ '" with
die ..A:I "., "'''''''''''''''w.-......t
79
Ruling and thus sh
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 178 / Thursday. September 11. 1980 / Rules and Regulations
59877
issues involved in this matter and the
Agency believes that this offset
requirement would be best addresseq in
the banking rulemaking.
Finally. one commenter recommended
that a major new source be allowed to
secure offsets from smail sources.
mobile sources. and nonpoint sources.
There III nOlhin8 In Ih. Rulin8 thaI
precludes such offsels. as long as all the
other requirements of the Ruling are
me\. Offset credit is not permitted for
reductions in mobile source emissions
achieyed h the Federal Motor Vehicle
Control ~6ram. Offae1 cre-lit may ae
obtained by reducing mobll~ source
emissions by other means. e.g..
inspection and maintenance program~ or
transportation controls that are not
required by the SIP at the time the new
source permit is applied for. It is clear
that special problems of enforceability
eXist with regard to such offsets. For this
reason it is emphasized that close
scrutiny of the enforceability of such
offsets must be given.
V. Certificatioo of Compliaoce Uader
Conditioo 2
Several commenters raised issues
relating to Condition 2 of Section IV.A.
which requires a new source applicant
to certify that all existing major sources
in the same State owned or operated by
the applicant are in compliance with all
applicable standards under the Ac\. or
are on federally enforceable compliance
schedules.
One commenter argued thaI under the
Clean Air Act. a source owner does not
bear the responsibility of reporting
violations discovered through
continuous self-monitoring and that the
burden of identifying violations is on
EPA. Others claimed that a source
owner may have a good faith belief. yet
lack information to be able to certify
that Condition 2 is being me\. It was
suggested that sources should be
deemed in compliance unless a source.
has received a Notice of Violation and
judicial proceedings have actually been
commenced. Another commeater urged
that the Rulina specify that only
established noncompliance need be
considered during certification. One
industry association sugeated that
Condition 2 would be satisfied by
certifying that existing major sources in
the same State owned or operated by
the applicant are npt currently subject to
any final civil or criminal judgment of
noncompliance by any State court or
Federal court.
It is not correct that under the Clean
Air Act the sole responsib.uty for
determining ~i......~ with regulations
adopted pars-- to the Act rests with
EPA ar State aod local agencies. In most
cases. sources are not required by
regulation to report their
noncompliance: however. the lack of a
requirement to report violations in no
way excuses the source from the
requirement to comply at all times and
to employ specified methods and
procedures for assessing compliance
status. The burden is clearly on the
source to do whatever is necessary to
assure compliance. The duty to comply
clearly includes the duty to ascertain
compliance status. Furthermore. Section
173(3) of the Clean Air Act provides that
pErmits to construct and operate may be
issued only if:
. . . the owner or operator of the
proposed new or modified source has
demonstrated that all major stationary
sources owned or operated by such person
(or by any entity controlling. controlled by. or
under common control with such person) In
such Slate are subject to emission limital10ns
and are in compliance. or on a schedule for
compliance. with all applicable emissIon
limitations and standards under this Act.
(emphasis added)
In order to demonstrate that
Condition 2 is being met. an owner or
operator should certify that its sources
are in compliance and provide
supporting evidence. Types of evidence
could include performance test results.
continuous monitoring results. if such a
system is used. a demonstration that
required control devices are in place
and operating at design efficiency. and a
demonstration that required operating
and maintenance procedures are being
followed. Where compliance is based on
the use of a certain type or sulfur
content of a fuel. the use of the type or
sulfur content fuel must be documented.
Industry suggested that the absence of
criminal or civil legal action against the
source should be accepted as a
sufficient indication of compliance. This
is not only without legal support. but
also unworkable. While EPA and the
States have undertaken an accelerated
enforcement effort. many sources
remain in violation which have not yet
been the subject of judicial action under
the Clean Air Act. If this suggestion
were implemented. EPA and the States
would have to postpone action on a
permit application until all cases of
suspected noncompliance by sources
owned or operated by the applicant
were adjudicated. The result would be
long delays in the permitting process. a
loss by the States and EP-A of control
over judicial enforcement priorities. and
an inappropriate shift of the burden of
demonstrating compliance from the
source to EPA and the States.
80
VI. Fugitive Dust
By its August 7. 1980 rulemakin~. the
Agency deleted the provision~ ,which
embody the exemption of fugitive dust
from air quality analyses performed
pursuant to the Offset Ruling and the
definition of fugitive dust (emissions
from haul roads. storage piles. etc.). 45
FR 52675.52693 and 52741.
The requirements for offsets and
LAER for fugitive dust emissions
associated with a major source remain
unchanged. Many industrial comments
received on the January 16. 1979 changes
to the Offset Ruling opposed subjecting
fugitive dust associated with a major
source to the requirements of the Ruling,
citing the following reasons:
1, Fugitive dust emissions are difficult
to quantify.
2. Fugitive dust is different (i.e..
coarser) than other particles.
3. Only a portion of the fugitive dust
emissions remains airborne.
4. Offsets for particulate matter are
hard to find.
EPA believes that none of these
reasons provides a basis for totally
exempting fugitive dust from the Ruling.
EPA recognizes that some probtema
exist in quantifying fugitive dust
emissions. and in fact has and will
continue to devote significant resources
to improving emission factors for
fugitive dust sources. However. EPA
believes that reasonable quantiflation
of fugitive dust emissions can be made
for most sources on the basis of
available data, and thus those sources
should be covered by the Ruling.
Determinations made on a case-by-case
basis will indicate those instances in
which fugitive dust cannot be quantified
and would. therefore. not be considered.
Under the regulations promulgated
August 7. 1980. fugitive dust emissions
(haul roads. storage piles. etc.) and
fugitive process emissions of certain
designated source categories are tu be
included in determining whether or not
specified source categories are subject
to review. 45 FR 52675. 52690-3.
One commenter sought clarification
on the use of high volume sampling
methods used to determine the need far
fugitive dust offsets. Although fugitive
dust is generally coarser than other
particulate emissions. much of the
fugitive dust is still in the particle size
range measured by the high volume
sampler. It is not EPA's intent that
offsets be required for those very large
fugitive dust particles. which are not
generally captured by the high volume
sampler. In fact. moat fugitive dust
emission factors do not include these
large particles and no special
adjustments to the emission rates would
-------
59878
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 178 / Thursday, September 11. 1980 / Rules and Regulations
normally be necessary to implement this
policy.
Several commenters contended tha\.
LAER could not be defined for fugitive
dust sources. Paradoxically. one of these
commenters went on to recommend that
only BACT b. required for fugitive dUlt
.oureea. f:PA lee I no r...on why l.AER
could not be defined for fugitive dust
sources although in most cases it will
take the form of operating or equipment
standards rather than a numerical
emission rate.
vn:Oefiniti"n of Contn.'
A permit issuing authority must
determine when one business is in
"control" of another, for three purpose~
under the Ruling. First. a stationary
source is defined as embracing a
grouping of industrial activities on
contiguous or adjacent properties owned
or operated by the same person or by
.ersons "under common control."
~econd. the State-wide compliance
requirement of Condition 2 applies to
major sources owned by the applicant or
by any entity "controlling. controlled by.
or under common control with" the
applicant. Third. secondary emissions
that are not under the control of the
permit applicant are not subject to the
State-wide compliance requirement of
Condition 2.
Control can be a difficult factual
determination. involving the power of
one business entity to affect the
construction decisions or pollution
control decisions of another business
entity. EPA thought that a simplifying
test of control. such as some specified
voting share. would serve the interest of
the business community, by providing
clarity and predictability. Comments on
this issue were solicited and suggestions
were received. 'Jpon receiving the
comments. the, .gency did not find a
convincing argument in favor of any
particular. simplified test of control.
Some commenters seemed to favor
unfettered inquiry into control in each
case. Therefore. the Agency has decided
that determinations of control will be
made case-by-case. without benefit of a
voting-share test or other limplifying
test. However. the Agency will be
guided by the general defmition of
control used by the Securities and
Exchange Commission. In SEC
considerations of control. controL
"means the possession. direct or
indirect. of the power to direct or cause
the direction of the management and
policies of a person (or organization or
aSlociation) whether through the
ownership of voting shares. contract. or
otherwise." 17 CFR 210.1-OO(g). This
definition is similar to a suggestion
made by a commenter.
VIII. Banking
EPA has recel\p.d many comments on
banking. Mast commenters view
banking favorably. citing a number of
advantages for it. Some commenters
questioned the limitation in Section
(V.C.S. which reltricts bankins to
permits issued after January 16. 1979.
Allowing retroactive application of
banking would result in previously
issued permi ts being reopened and
excess offsets being banked for future
use. The Ager.cy is not changing this
aspect of the Offset Ruling.
Under the Clean Air Act
Amendments. States may, as part of
their SIPs. allow emissions reduction
banking and trading as long as care is
taken to assure that use of banked
emissions is enforceable. does not
violate reasonable further progress
requirements of Part D of the Act and
does not block ultimate attainment.
Only emissions reductions not needed
for and not included in the SIP
attainment demonstration could be used
in permit applications.
EPA is now studying alternative
approaches to banking emissions and
will provide information and assistance
where this is requested. The specific
issues to be addressed will include the
creation and use of banked emission
reductions as well as the development
of safeguard measures to assure the
integrity of the SIP.
Since EPA considers economic
efficiency and the accommodation of
growth in nonattainment areas to be
important national goals. it is ;tlso
devoting resources to Itw rlc\'p.lopment
of "prototype" emission reductions
banking and trading systems which
States and local areas have the option of
adopting in whole or in part. Technical
information. management system~
workshops. and published manuals are
being developed as part of this work.
EPA work in these areas is being
coordinated through the Division of
Policy Planning in the Office of Planning
and Evaluation which is part of the
Office of Planning and Management.
Parties seeking further information or
assistance are invited to contact John S.
Hoffman. Project Manager. PM-Z21. 401
M Street. S.W.. Washington. D.C. Z046O.
IX. Secondary Emissions
The Agency, on August 7, 1980.
promulgated into the PSD regulations
the same defmition of secondary .
emissions as is now found in the Offset
Ruling. 45 FR 52675. 5Z7Z8. The Agency
also promulgated its proposal that best
available control technology (BACT) not
be required for any secondary emissions
subject to review under the PSD
81
regulations. Consequently. secondary
emissions will only be considered in.
and subject to, the air quality impact
analysis requirements in the PSD
preconstruction review. Thus. if a
source's secondary emissions would
cause an increment violation. they
would have to be cont, oiled or offset
before a permit could be Issued. but
BACT will not be required for the
secondary emissions.
Commenters have stated. both before
and in response to the January 16, 1979
rulemaking. that sources of secondary
emissions should not be subject to
LAER. The Agency has reconsidered its
policy and has decided to take an
approach parallel to the one a~opted in
the PSD regulations. This policy was
noted in the preamble to the August 7.
1980 rulemaking. See 45 FR 52676. 52689.
but the Agency neglected to make the
corresponding change in the regulation.
Therefore. this requirement for
application of LAER to sources of
second~ry emissions is bei'ng deleted at
this time.
X. Miscellaneous
Due to a typographical error in the
January 16. 1979 Federal Register. the
reference to footnote 3 (which was
designated as footnote 5 prior to the
August 7. 1980 promulgation) in Section
(V.A. was incorrectly placed in
Condition 2 rather than Condition 3.
This is corrected in the amendment of
the Offset Ruling set forth below.
XI. Authority
The Administrator has determined
that this rule making is nationally
applicable and is based on
determinations of nationwide scope and
effect. This rulemakins is issued under
Section 129(a) of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1977. Pub. L. 9595. '91
Stat. 745. August 7. 1977 (note under 42
U.S.C. 7502 and Section 301 of the Clean
Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7601j).
Under Executive Order 12044 EPA is
required to judge whether a regulation is
"significant" and therefore subject to the
procedural requirements of the Order or
whether it may follow other specialized
development procedures. EPA labels
these other regulations "specialized." I
have reviewed this regulation and
determined that it is a specialized
regulation not subject to the procedural
requirements of Executive Order 12044.
By this notice. EPA advises
prospective petitioners. as well as those
who may seek review of EPA's
promulgation on August 7. 1980 (45 FR
52675). that a court order governs
petitions for review of today's action
and the nonattainment petitions of the
August 7 rulemaking. This order was
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 178 / Thur~day. September 11. 1980 / Rules and Regulations
59879
entered in Manllfu::turing Chemists
Association v. EPA. 1\:0.79-1112. and
consolidated cases Nos. 79-1251, 79-.
1257,79-1283, 79-1291. 79-1295. 80-1770,
and 80-1777 (D,C, Cir.). The court order
states that "regardless of when they file
petitions for review. prospective
petitioner. are to file their opening
briefs in accordance with [the following
briefing] schedule. and to join with other
petitioners raising identical or similar
issues in common briefs' . . ," The
schedule is as follows:
~ ,- to !he 30 days ah. tha dala 01 lhos
record. Federal ReGlll'" nob<:8
-. bnel...........-.....--..... 45 days att. the filing of the
suppiemental IndeJi
Rnpond8nt', _..................... 40 days att. I"" fitong of
pe~tJOn8fS' briefs
Pa-" reply _Is.............. 25 days att. hltnv 01 ,..
_nd8nrs !>nel
JoonI ~ ........................... 7 days an. the fifinv of reply
bnefl
1"... pnnI8d bneIa..............--..... 14 days atter I"" Iittng 01 the
""", appendix
The order was entered on September
10,1979.
The Administrator has also
determined that there is good cause to
make this promulgation immediately
effective because the changes are either
non-substantive in nature or constitute-
clarification.
Dated: September 5. 1980.
Doug1a. M. Coatle.
Administrator.
The Emission Offset Interpretative
Ruling, 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix S. as
revised 44 FR 3274 (January 16. 1979). 45
FR 31307 (May 13. 1980) and 45 FR 52676
(August 7. 1980) is amended as follows:
1. In Section II.G. the third sentence is
changed to read as follows:
G. Secondary emissions.
However. secondary emissions may be
exempt fram Condition. 1 and Z of Section
IV.
2. In Section IV.A.. the reference to
footnote 3 (which wal designated al
footnote 5 prior to the August 7. 1980
promulgation) is removed from
Condition 2 and is inserted in Condition
3 following the word "sourcel."
3. In Section IV.C.1 the word
"potential" which appears twice in the
second paragraph is changed in both
places to read "uncontrolled,"
4. In Section IV.C.. a new subsection 6
is added as follows:
IV. Sourcn That Would Contribute to
Cooceatrati- That Would Exceed .
NAAQS
C. Baseline f,'r .J:'I~rmining credit for
emission and air (Iunlity affiets. .
6. Offset cred.: for meeting NSPS or
NESHAPS. Where a source is subject to an
emission limitation established in a New
Source Performance Standard (NSPS) or a
National Emission Standard for Hazardous
Air Pollutants (NESHAPS). (i.e.. 1'1IQuirement.
under Section. 111 and 112. respectively, of
the Act), and a different SIP limitation. the
more stringent limitation shall be used as the
baseline for determining credit for emission
and air quality offsets. The difference in
emissions bet~een the SIP and the NSPS or
NESHAPS. for such source may not be used
as
-------
.--. ~--_.-
Wednesday
April 7, 1982
Part III
Environmental
Protection Agency
Emissions Trading Polley Statement;
General Principles for Creation, Banking,
and Use of Emission Reduction Credits
83
-------
15076
Federal Register I Vol. 47. No. 67 I Wednesday, April 7. 1982 I Notices
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[PRM-FRL-199A-5]
Emissions TradIng Policy Statement;
General Principles for Creation,
Banking., and Use of Eml_on
Reduetlon Credits
May 12. tP82.
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTIO": PropCised policy statement and
accomDanyin~ technical issues
document.
SUMIIARY: It is the poli~ of E?A to
encourage use of emissions trades to
achieve more flexible. rapid and
efficient att~inment of national ambient
air quality standards.
This Policy Statement describes
emission II ~ading. sets out general
principl!!s EPA will use to evaluate
emiSllions trades under the Clean Air
Act. and expands o~pl)rtunities for
states and industry to use these les8-
cr:,;:ly control approaches. Emissions
trading include. .everal alternatives to
tradHional regulation: bubbles. netting.
and offsets. a. well as banki~~ (etorage)
of emiEsion reduction credits (ERCs) for
future use. The.e alternatives do not
al:er exi.ting air quality requirement.:
the,. simply give states and industry
more flexibility to meet these
requirements. EPA endorses emJl8iona
trading and .upports its accelerated use
by ,tates and industry to me!!t the goals
of the Clean Air Act more quickly and
inexpensively.
This Policy Statement replaces the
original bubble policy (44 FP. 71779. Dee.
11. 1919) and 8et8 forth miniI:1um legal
requirement. for creation. storage or use
of emi..ion l";!duction credits in any
emissions trade. It also provides criteria
for "generic" Sll' rules under which
stateit' can approve bubble or other
trades without case-by-case federal SIP
re"iew.
ŁFA encourages states ~o continue
adopting generic trading rules and
approving individual trade.. Until ŁFA
takes final action on this proposal it
~lill F.va]uat!! state ac'Jons under the
prir:.':'iples let fo;oth bere and illustrated
in th~ ac:::ornpanying Technical Illuel
Dor.umenl
Er;<':T!VE ~~T!: This Policy Statement
il eITp~ive 8!1 intedm KUidance upon
publ:cation. The deadline for submitting
wntten CO::L"I'Ieots is JuJy a. 1982.
..n~-:USFS; Co:nme:1ts shouJd be sent
in :-:plica:e if p08l1ib!e to: Central
Do::h:t ~:?c"j('n !A-lac). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington. D.C. 20460. Attn: Doe. No.
G-81-2.
DOCKET: EPA has established docket
number G-81-2 for this action. This
docket is an organized and comp]ete file
of all significant information submitted
to or otherwise considered by EPA. The
docket is available for public inspection
and copying between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00
p.m., Monday through Friday, at EPA's
Central Docket Section. A reasonable
fee may be charged for copying.
FURTHER INQUIRIES:
Ivan Tether. Regulatory Reform Staff
(PM-223). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street. SW.,
Washington. D.C. 20460. (202) 382-
2765.
or
Leo Stander. Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (MD-15),
Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711. (919) 541-5516.
8UPPlEliENTARY INFORMATION: Under
Executive Order 12291. EPA must ju.
whethar this action is "major" and
therefore subject to the requirement of a
Regulatory Impact Analysis. This action
ill not major because it establilhe.
policies that are voluntary and can
substantially reduce costs of complying
with the Clean Air Act. Furthermore, it
can reduce administrative complexity
by reducing the number of trades which
must be approved by EPA, can stimuJate
innovation in pollution control. and can
allow .tate and local pollution control
agencies to conserve scarce resources.
This Policy Statement was submitted
to the Offite of Management and Budget
for review. Any comments from OMB to
--EPA are available for public inapection
in Docket G-81-2. Pursuant to 5 U.S.c.
605(b), I bereby certify that thi8 action
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. As a policy designed to allow
firms flexibility and to reduce
administrative complexity, it will
impose no burdena on either small or
large entitie&.
I.lntroducticnr. CompoDeata of
Emiasiona Tradiq
This statement details EPA policy on
emisllions trading. It presents the
minimum conditiona EPA conaiden
necessary for emissions trades to satisfy
the Clean Air Act. It simplifies put
requirements and expandl opportunities
to use these more efficient alternatives.
A. What Is Emissiom Trading?
Emiuiona trading conalsts of bubbles.
netting. emission offsets. and emission
reduction banking. These alternatives
involve the creation of surplus
reductiona at certain emiasion IOUI'C88
84
and use of the.e reductions to meet
requirements applicable to other
emission sources. Emission trades can
provide more flexibility. and may
therefore be used to reduce control
costs, encourage faster compliance. and
free scarce capital for industrial
revitalization. Moreover. by developing
"generic" trading rules (see section m
below) states 1 and industry can be
excused from SIP revisions. and
attendant delay and uncertainty, for
many individual bubbles or other trades.
B. The Bubble Policy and Today's
Improvements
EPA's bubble policy lets existing
plants (or groups of plants) decrease or
be excused from pollution controls at
one or more emissions sources in
exchange for compensating increase. in
control at other emission sources.
Bubbles give plant managers flexibility
to develop less costly ways of meeting
air quality requirements. Each bubble
must be equivalent to the original
emission limits in terms of ambient
impact and enforceability. Bubbles
caDDOt be used to meet technology-
baaed requirements applicable to new
sources.
This Policy Statement replaces the
original bubble policy (Dee. 11, 1979; 44
FR 71779) and broadens opportunities
for the bubble's use. Major changes
include:
. Authorizing generic trading rules for
all criteria pollutants:
. Extending Ule of the bubble to
areas which lack approved
demonstrations of attainment of the
national ambient air quality standards;
. Expanding opportunities for use of
bubbles as an alternative means of
meeting reasonably availab]e control
technology (RACT) requirements;
. ReducitJg unnecessary requirements
for detailed air quality modeling of the
ambient impact of each trade;
. Reducing unnecellary conatraints
on trades involving open dust lOurce. of
particuJate emilliona:
. Allowing VOC and CO souren
more time to implement bubbles under
administrative compliance scheduJea.
conaistent with reasonable further
progress and statutory deadline. for
attaining ambient standards:
. Allowing 80urces to use the bubble
to come into compliance, inatead of
having to be on a compliance schedule
with original SIP limits to be eligible to
bubble; and
. "StaIN" iDcIudea auy 1IB1it) properly delepl8d
authortt) to adminiller relevant part8 of a Stale
IIIIplemeatatioa Plan (SIP) IIIIder the ClHa Air Act.
-------
Federal Resist.. I Vol. 47, No. 67 I Wednesday, April 7, 198Z I Notices
15077
. Allowing broader u.e of emis.ion
reductions from ahutdowna.
The.e and other change. are
explained below and in the
accompanyins Technicall88uee
DocumenL
C. Netting
Netting removes the burden of new
.ource review requirements from plants
expanding or modemiziag in PSD and
nonattamment area.. 80 long aa any
Increase in plant-wide emiuioae I.
inaignificanL By ''netting out" of review
the new facility may be exempted from
preconatruction permits and a880Ciated
requirements, including monitoriD& and
modeliDl. in.tallation of BACT or LAER
control tec:lumlogy. th-. offset
requirement. and applicable bans on
new construction. The new facility must
.till ~t emi..ion limits establilbed by
new .ource perfonnance .tandard8
(NSPS) under Section 111 of the Clean
Air Act. Rule. governing netting for
.ource. in attainment (PSD) area. were
published on August 7, 1980 (46 FR -
52fJ78) and rule. for DOrtattaiament areas
were expanded 01' October 14. 1981 (48
FR 50788).
D. Emission Offsets
In nonattainment area.. DfI'III'maJor
.tationary enurees and modifications
may be required to secure .ufficient
.urplus emill.lon reductions to more
than "offRet" their increased emis.ions.
This requirement is de.~ed to permit
indUlltrAI growth in nonattainment
areA' while improving air quality. It is
currently Implemented by rnlM
publi.hed at 40 CPR 51.18(j) and 51.18
(Appendix Sl. a. amended by 45 FR
52878 rAulN8t 7. 1980) and 48 FR 50768
(October 14. lA61).
E. Emission Reduction Bimking ,
B-nlri.,.lets firms .tore qualified
emi..lan reductions for later uae in
bubhle, nettin" or offset transactinas.
Banked emi..ion reduction credits
(ERCs) can al.o be 80ld to firms seekins
alternate way. to meet regulatory
requirements more quickly Oexibly.
EPA'. revised off.et ruling (40 CPR
51.18, Appendix S) allthorized .tates to
e.tabli.h banking ruin a. part of their
SIPs. This Policy $tatemel1t and the
Technical Iaaues Document are EPA'.
rU'llt detailed articulation of the
n8Ce888l')' components of a complete
.tate banking rule under the Clean Air
Act.
F. Effect of This Policy Statement
Emi..lona trading is voluntary. Statn
are free to adopt generic rules or let
trade. continue to be implemented as
bJdividual SIP revi.ioaa. They may
adopt rules which Incorporate all or any
combination of these tradinJt
approache..
EPA i. is.uing this Policy Statement
a. a proposal ber.auae elemenu of
eml88iona trading. particuJarly banldng,
raise issue. wbich have not yet been
subject to public commenL EPA W'Re.
iDt"l'e8t partie. toaddreu all relevant
issues in their comments.
HnwP.Ver, until final action the
Agency intends to uae the principles in
this Statement to evaluate tradin8
activities which become rI1Je for
deci.ion, inclu~ state adoption of
generic bubble and banking rules. Many
.tatt~. are now implementinA such rules
and should contbue to do 80.
This Policy Statement i. accompanied
by a Teclmical Issue. Document for use
by .tate. and indu.try in further
und-.t'IIItanding emiHiona tradinJl. The
Document offers more detail on
minimum requirements and available
options under the Clean Air Act. EPA
aiM invites comment on any upact of
the Technical "'ue. DocurnenL
Thi. notice renects the current Clean
Air Act and exilting regulations. A
Policy Statement cannot 18RaIly alter
such requirements. However, it
estAblillhe. EPA policy in areas not
governP.d by applicable regulations and
."t. out general principle. which .tates
and industry may use to apply those
regulations in individual ca.es. Pending
litigation or future rulemakinJl may alter
the general principle. outlined here and
reOlll!Cted in the Technicalluues
Dor.umenL Future federal or .tate
rulemaking. 8UCh u additional RACT
requirement. or chanf1t!8 in ambient
standard.. may also affect firm8 that
have eaaaJl8(i in emi8.ion. trading
activitieL
n. Mhdmam LepI RequJnmeuta r..
Creatiaa. U8fDK, and Ranlc'" Emi88ioa
Reductioa Cred1t8 I
A. Creating Emi8llion Reduction Credits
Eml..ion reduction credits (ERCa) are
the common currency of all trading
activity. To a..ure that emiaaions trades
do not contravene relevant requirements
of the Clean Air Act. only reductions
wb,ch are surplus. enforceable,
permanenL and quantifiable can qualify
"Bec:a- thi8 Paltcy Stat8ID8Dt 8Dd
8CCOIftp8ll)'inll Tedmicall8aue8 Doc:umeIIt refI8ct
pneral Clean AIr Act priJIcIpIn. atat.. and
indlvldaal - ant free to .bow that a seneraI
prindpI. don DOt apply to puticulu dn:um8'.."'"
or c:oaJd be HtRfied U8iJII 8pp'oecbaa odI8r dwa
thaM dncribed. Statea and - have thi8 ~
under c:unent law, 8IId nothins In thta Policy
Stat8llilmt or the accomp8DyIq TadmIcaI '-
Docummt ratrlc:ta tb8ir CJIIIIOI'bIftIty to -- -=h
abowinp.
85
a. emi..ion reduction credits and be
banked or used in an emi.sion. trade.
1. Surplus: Only emI.sion reductions
not currently required by law can be
considered .urplus. To define what is
.urplus. the .tate mu.t first establi.h an
appropriate eminions baseline against
which 8UJ'1)lua reductions can be
calculated.
In nonattainment areas with opproved
demonstrations of aUairurumL the
baaeline must be consi.tent with
u.umption. used to develop the area's
SIP. Only reduction. not a.sumed in the
area'. demonstration of refillOnable
further prolU'8n and attainment can be
considered IW'P1ua. This R8nerally
means that actual emls.ioJa Must be the
baseline where actual enUnions were
u.ed for .uch demonstration., and that
allowable emi..ions may be the
ba.eline where allowable emi.8ioDl
were used for such demon.trations.
In nonottainment area. lackilllJ 0
demonstration of otIDinmflnL .tates may
u.e a variety of baselines which do not
jeopardize attainment by .tatutory
deadlineL In jleD8r8l .tatn may use a.
baselines either actual emisalons (with
source commitment to future reductiona
if needed for attainmllnt) or emiuion
lev'!'l. which renect rea.onably
avallahle control technolOQ. However,
wh-.,. 8Qr.h area. must attain primary
ambient air quality standards by
December 19R2. baselines renectin8
reaannably available control technolosy
for emission .ource. involved in the
trade must be ulled.
In attalnml!nt area.. to be CODIistent
with air quality reouirement.
e.tabli.hed in prevention of .iRDiftcant
detp.rinretion rPSD) PfOlUSlD8 under
Section 110 and Part C of the Cleen Air
AcL actUld eminions would normally be
the baReline. State. may u.e allowllble
emiHiona as the baseline. if prorer
conlideration of increment conllUlDption
i. .unred. .
2. Enforceable: To allure that Clp.8D
Air Act requirements are met. each
transaction mu.t be approvP.d by the
.tate and be enforcellhle. Enforceable
emis.ion limits may be created through
SIP revi.ions (see Section IV). under
generic tradinsI rule'l.ee SP.ction lll),
throuP new .ource eoJatrur:titni
permits: or tbroqb .tate pt!nnits is.ued
under 40 CFR 51.18. am01Ul other way..
3. P-nnanent: Only permllN"nt
redudinna in etniuion. can auJilify for
credit. Pennanence can Rl!'ftPI'BUy be
a"!lured by requirirut cha".. In lII'Iurce
pennlta to reflect a ren1W'f11--J",
penal..thle emi8aionll.
4. Quantifioble: F.rrrisaion reductinn.
muat bP. quantff'h,hI. m tenna of hnth
rn."."rri"S the 8JI'ftImt of the rPdnr.tion
-------
1?\C7U
Federal Register I Vol. 47. No. 67 I Wednesday. April 7. 1982 ; Notices
--
~'-,1 c--':c!cteriziIlŁ that reductio" for
~ct'.!fe u~p.. Quantificaticr: may be based
CH'I pr.U!I!lil''Iti fRc!ors. stpck t"stll.
mon;lored values. opHatinlJ ratell and
!H'eragi!llt times. proceSIl or production
iDouts. modeliM. or other rea"onable
meallurement practices. The same
methnd of calculatina emissions should
generallv be used to Quantify emission
It!\'els before and after the reduction.
B. Using Emission Reduction Credits
EPCs may be used by sources in
bub}.!e. np.tting. or offset trpnssction..
The genp.ral principles below will a8sure
thP.t all U!leS of ER..!I1U'e CODAi8tent with
flmbient attflimnent and maintenance
co""idel'ations under thf! C!l'!an AJr Act.
1. Emf.violl. trades must involve the
same ~iterin pollutant. An emission
retillction may only bE traded &Jain"t an
tnerealle 1!1 the same criteria pollutant.
For pyarnolp.. only reductiOItl of
p&rtic1:~I!IF.S can be sub8tituted for
i!lC7"":'!,;()1I of particula~el. reductiOni of
vOCa for hcre8B~S in vor...
Z, All USR. 01 ŁRCs must Mlti6fy
api'!icoblp ambient tP.<;t.s. the Clean Air
Act reqWJ'M that allanlU throughout
the country at!Ain and maintain national
ambient.ir quality 8tandarda, The
8JJ'IhipY1t effect of a trade deptmdl on the
dispP.l'llion chlU'8cteriatic8 of the
pollutant involved. Ambient
conllirJl'rationll will generally not affect
tT8riel! i'lvclvfn8 vOC or NO.. whole
iropeclll ocr.ur acrolll broad ~Dhic
e!'Pu, F-lr theM pouutIJr.ta "pound for
pound". trade!' may be treated as equal
in ambient effecL Howeve:-. dlapel'lion
chracteristiCi are imprtaDt for bubble
and offset t:!'sdea of so. TSP. or CO
wholle ambient impact may vary with
whent the emiui9l1 iDcreuea and
decre8JIea occur. Tradel of theae
poU1!tanta !:I1i"t demoD8trat", equivaJent
ambient Impact unde: ~hA ~-~
modeling .1C:eP.,. discuued in the
Ter.h~ical I8l1ue. Document or under a
'similar approer.b.
3. Tradps should not increcue
l,ozardolls poilutants. Except al may be
specifically ~rmjttp.d b~ future national
eminion standarrls for hazardOUI air
pollutaDta (NESHAP.l.. source may not
un a bubhle to meet NESHAP8
J'Pf1:rlrPm..,.ta or inr:reaae emilslODl
be~ond tbe leve\s they prescribe. Where
a rn~csnt kct!on of a criteria.
pollutar.t 1It!?8m hal been Ullted under
SectiOf! 112 but nnt )'Pt resu'ated. the
h:::7.JiMOUII emisllionllnvolved In the
tTade IIhr..:id p.ith~ remain equal or
ahould dp.CI'f'IUle (t.e.. be traded down).
I., Er:tias;r.'ff trndlfs connot I» UMK1 to
C'P.et 11.!J;Jli':c!,le tech."I"Tngy-bo.'I8d
ro::Ui:'fl1'7''''Ms. 'New I}!' expudins
1I01'l'(2a c!Uln?t UIII! ERC8 to meet new
.".~.r. !,-fMM?nC8 lhattdarda, beet
available control technology
reauirements in PSD areas, or lowest
achievable emission rate contrnl
technology requiremf'nts in
nonattainment areas.
5. State. may allow bubbles in a1'f1Cl8
withollt approved demonstrotiOlts of
attainment. States are authorized to
approve bubbles in such arees. so Ions
as timely attainment of air quality
8tandards will not be jeopardized. (See
. Section ll.A above and the Technical
Issues DncuD1I'!Dt).
6. Sources may use the bubble to .
ochieve compliance. Statel may allow
sour-..es to uae a bubble to achieve rapid
compliance once applicable enUssion
limits and deadlines are established al
part of a bubble application. States need
DOt require sources to develop and 80
forward with'dp.tailed plana (including
ordering equipment) to meet original
emis8ton limits when nAW limits which
will supercede them are peoding under a
bubble application.
7. Stotss may extend certain
comDliance schedules. States may give
8011J'Ce8 more time to imDlement bubble8
by JZraDting comDliance extensions 81
part of approvals UDder aeneric ru'~III,
wnere OJ the .rea has received an
attllinment extenslnn under SectiOD
1"(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act
(applicahle to VOC or CO); and (If) the
totlll amount of reduction8 required to
8atilfy the state's reasODable further
progreu demonstration will not be
reduced for each year In quetltion. States
may grant similar compliance
extensioDl for VOC or CO bubbles
approved U individual SIP l"'viaiODl
subject to (I) above. provided the
extenlton I, consl.tent with reasonable
further progren requtrementa (See
lection IV below).
8. Stow may approve bubbles
involvins ofJRn dUAl sources of
particu1atll emi..ions, based on
modeling demonstrations. Thia action
reduces past restrictions on trades
involviDB open dUit 10urees of .
particulate emiuioD8. Such traclu may
be approved baled on acceptable
mode1ina and/or monitoring
demoD8trationa. provided sources agree
to poat-approvaJ monitoring to
determine !f predicted air quality retulta
have been realized.
C. IJanlcing Emission Reduction CrfIdim
Only emiuion reductioa. that are
surpl118. permanent, euforceable. and
quantifiable can be banbd.To provide
maximum protection for 8OUI'Ce8 and
avoid future legal problema. atate
banJdna rules ahouJd Ip8Cify the
ownership ri8bta establi8hed. the types
of IOW'Ce8 eligible to bank ERCI. and
an, additional CODditioaa placed OD
86
certifying. holding. or using banked
ERCs.
As a legal minimum. state banking
rules must establish ownership right.
which are con8istent with Clean Air Act
requirements. including the requirement
that SIPs provide for attainment and
maintenance of ambient air quality
standard. "a. expeditiously as
practiCL\ble." States have considerable
latitt.de in meeting this requirement. and
may JlUarantee banked ERGs against
any IUJIbient-based reduction in
quantity. so long as that guarantee does
not interfere with rea80nable further
progress and attainment should ambient
8tandards change or additional emi..ion
reductions be required.
In moat states banking will be an
extension of ongoing permit activities.
The 8tate or its desipee will accept and
evaluate requests to certify an ERC,
main~ a publicly available ERC
registry or similar wtrument describing
the quantity and types of banked
credits. and track transfers and
withdrawals of ERCa.
m. State GenMic Tra-un. Ku'"
Uae of emi8sion reduction credita
under state generic rules approved by
EPA will not require individual SIP
reviaiona. The Teclmical Islues
Document explal.n8 acceptable generic
rules aDd procedurel which states may
adopt to reduce the need for individual
SIP revisionl.
, Emis.ioDl trades can be approved
without SIP reviaioDlII evaluated under
EPA-approved state procedures that
assure no trade will Interfere with
timely attainment and maintenance of
ambient ltandarda. State generic rulea
are approvable only if their procedures
are sufficiently replicable in operation to
meet this tesL By approving the generic
rule. EPA approves In advance an array
of acceptable emiuion limita. and no
further case-by-case federal approval I.
required for individual trades developed
under the rule.
Any trade under a generic 1"IIle will
involve emiuion mereasea at some
sources and emis8ion decreasea at
others. For trade8 to be approveble
under a pneric rule. the sum of these
Increaaea and decreases (1.e" applicabl.
net baMline emilsiona) mUit be zero Of
less. States may adopt pneric rulet
which exempt from Individual SIP
revilliona: (1) de minirm. tradet whoee
sum of the emil8ion tncreuel. looJdDa
only at the lncrea81ng 801II'C88, total8
le81 than 100 tOOl per year after
applicahle control requireDm1ta: (2)
trades 11'Ivolvtns VOC or NO. emialiOllt
(3) tradn between so, eources.
between CO 1OUlC8I. or betwe-.iJ. TSP
-------
.,
rederal Register I Vol. 47, No. 67 I Wednesday, April 7, 1982 I Notices
15079
sources, provided thOle sources are
located in thP. same immediate vicinity
and emissions do not inc:re8.. at the
aource with the lower effectiYe plume
height and (4) other so.. CO or TSP
trades 'which do not increase emissions
and fer which carefully defined ul)e of a
aCJ'88ning model predicta DO stsnfficant
increllAeIr. 81Dbient concentrations. EPA
enC011:'''~ea statea to adopt such rules or
develop altemaUve approaches that
eqUl'lIy 8~Sure attainment and
maint81'lance of ambient standards.
To th" extent state procedures for
rulemaldng or permit changee do not
aas1l1'8 reasonable public notice and
opportunity for comment on propoNd
trades, states should incorporate IUch
proviIions as part of their generic rules.
IV. Trades Not CcrV8I8d by Gea8ric
RPIe8
'States and sourcel may continue to
Ule the SIP revision proc8H to
ImplelMnt trade8 which ere not covered
by a generic rule. Becauae the SIP
revi8ion proceu can take aCCOUDt of
many more individual variations, trades
which could Dot be accomplished under
a pneric rule may ltill be Implemented
as site-epec:iflc SIP reviaiona.
EPA wiD take action on generic rulee
and individual trades submitted .. SIP
revi8iem. .. quickly al pouible after a
state hu adopted a SIP revi8ion and
submitted the action to EPA. EPA
enc01l8pa "parallel proc:euiDs" of auc:h
reviafOll8, with EPA and the atate
ccmductina concurreDt review 10 that
both qend.. can propoae and take
ftnal action at rouahly the same time.
EPA will alao publiah aoncontrovenial
SIP rriiaiona .. Immediate 6na1 actiona,
convertins them to propoaala only if
requesta to aubmit c:ommenta are
received within 30 daya (see 46 FR
4-M71: Sept. "11111).
V.~
Thia Policy Statement seta out basic
prindplea for individual tradel and
approvable pneric tradins rules. EPA
8IIC01II'8p8 statel to 1188 these principle8
as a framework and refer to the
accompanylq Teclmicallaauea
Document for farther di8CW18ion and
~1r."'P(fos. Statea are encounsed to
de. other rul.. which satisfy these
principles but meet their apecific need8.
A. a policy ,tatement, t&ia notice doe8
not utabUah c:onc:luaively how EPA will
reaolve ila1U!8 in individual ca188. EPA
will accept public comment on thil
propoaal .. well .. on 8ped~C SIP
changea submitted under It. and will
review individual1y each generic rule
and those emiasiona tradn aubmitted ..
SIP revlalona to determine their
acceptability under the Clean AIr Act.
Interested parties will have full
opportunity to scrutinize applicaUonof
these general principlea to apecific
cases, and to seek 8uMequent judicial
review of such casn, when particular
generic rule8 or individual tradea are
proposed and approved.
This Statement expands opportunitiee
to Ule emissions tradins. If Implemented
by states it can allow industry to use the
bubble and other tradins approaches in
additional circumatance8 and
geographic areas. The policy will a1ao
reduce advenary tensions, allow states
to benefit from induatrial knowledge,
and encourage quicker compliance,
while reducing unnecenary federal
review. It repreaents important
regulatory ",form. for atatn.. well as
industry, hr encouraging greater
flexibility ~ meetins air quality goala.
Dated: ~ 2, 1882.
AD88 M. ~
A~trator.
~'1'I8dIaIF T"""--
nw.ftl8ft1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
L CtnnpcuJene. of 1("';";08 nadiDB
A. CreatiD& RIIII-'oa ~ CNdita
1. All Reduc:ticm8 MU8t Be SarpIaa
Z. Altematift Emia8loa Limtt8 Mat .
EDforceable
8. All Reductloaa Mat Be ~ ~
.. All RadvcttOlll Mut Be QaaUftabf8
B. UIiDg Emiuioa Rednctfoa Credita
1. J;ub8tantift PriDcipJea for U8iDI ERCa
L EmiuioD Trada Mat 1DwJY8 the s.-
PoUutant
b. All UI88 of ERCa Muat SetialJ AmbiIDt
Testa
Co Trades Should l'{ot lDcreue Net BaeIiDe
FADiaIiona
d. Tradea Should Not IDcreue HI''W'':Ioa8
Emiaiiou
e. Trades Cannot Be UI8d to M88t
Tedmology-i3Ued RequiremeDt8
f. Trades lDvolviD& 0p8D Cut Emi8li4'D
Soan:u
. z. Procedural Step8 far UIiDg ERCa
L Babb1e8 Can Be Ulled to Addne
CompliaDc:e
b. Exten8iona of Carripliam:e n-.n-.
Co Pending EDfOlC8lD8llt ActiOlll
C. BaDIdn& EmIaion R~ Credita
1. Rulu Muat Desipate AdmiDi8t8riq
Ap=y .
z. Only ERCa May ... Babel
8. JhoocedIU'88 for BeDIdDa
4. BanIdDs RuIe8M_t EIt8~." Owa.Uip
JUsbta .
II. Rtll.. Mult Eatabliah AD ERC Jtestatr7
8. Fouible Fnfon:ement Ad""""'" to .
ERC,
.,. PonibJe Ambient Adj1I8tm8Dt to DCa
87
/J. Tradu Covered by Generic RuiN
A. General Principles for Evalua:iDg Generic
Rules
B. Scope of GeDeric Rules
C. Applicability To ProceI. Fusitive and
Open Duat Tradn
D. EDfcm:iD8 EmiHioa Limita Under Generic
Rules
E. EPA Oversight ofTradn Under Generic
Rules
F. Public ..........-1
m. 1'rad8tI not CoVflred by Generic RuiN
Appendix: Resional EPA Rmi_iOlll1'radins
Coordinators
LtI-.lOD.Tradia8: T.dntIr.aI r-
I)nr.unumt
ThiI Document offen more detail on
technical ianel for finna and pollution
control apnciea seeking to implement
individual emiaaion trades or generic
tradins ~ that meet the prindpl.. in
EPA'a Emiaaiona Tradins Pollq
Statement. I It deacribe8 both the
minimum legal requirements for
emilsions trade. under the Clean AIr
Act. and a range of legal options wbich
atatel -may CODIider. Statel and
induatry are encouraSed to ;nnue other
approachu conaiatent with tho..
diac:u.ued here.
Emiuions tradins iI volUDtarJ. Stat..
may implement emiaalona trades on a
caae-by-c:aae buia or develop pUric
tradiq ru1ea covertns one or more
cIaalea of tranaactiona. Trades und8r
approved generic rules will be exempt
&om individual SIP l'8Yi8ions. Such rain
can "'0 provide greater certainty b)'
specifying which trades are quic:IdJ
approvable.
SectiOD I of this Document explaiu
genera1lepl principles sovemina all
emisaions tra~ Section n explaina
principln goveminB atate generic rul..
Section m di8cua8ea apecia1
CODIiderationa for emiulon trades
Implemented al individual SIP reYi8iona.
Becauaa th88e aectiona reflect aeoenl"'
Clean Air Act principles. atetel and
individualaources remain free to abow
that a general principle doe. not apply
to particular circum8taDcee or C8D be
aatiafied uains another approach. State8
and BOarC:e8'have this option under
cummt law, and nothini in the Policy
Statement or thia Document reatric:ta
their opportunity to make aacb
8howiJlas. (See Section m below).
. -, 'J ~ ..... - r.-tr---.
wamtlOlW .........
l"8t8tMW 1Ddad88.., 8ItiIy JII'III8IJ"""
811thartty to '""'. I u..,. -.... P818" . .....
~..tiaD PIa (SIP) -- die a.. AJt Act.
-------
15080
Federal Register I Vol. 47, No, 67 I Wednesday, April 7. 1982 I Notices
L Compoaeab of EmiPlou Tr8dins
The components of any emi8liona
trade are the creation of an emission
reduction credit (ERC), its use in a trade.
and it. possible storage in a bank.
A. Creating Emission Reduction Credits
States may grant credit only to those
emi85ion reductions that are surplus.
enforceable. permanent. and
quantifiable, Otherwise use of ERCa
might degrade air quality. threaten the
viability of the area'. SIP. and result in
more .tringent controls.
1. All Reductions Must Be Surplus.
Only surplus reductioruJ not currently
required by law cen be .ubstituted for
required reduction as part of an
emissions trade without jeopardizins air
quality goals.
The first step in qual1lying a reduction
a. "surphu" 18 to establillh a level of
bueliDe emi..itma. The baaeUne
ident1flu the level or required emia8km8
beJODd wbk:b redactions lOut occur fur
a source to rac:ehe credH.. It will
generally ba determined by whether the
area 18 attaiDment or nonattaUunent,
and by the way the state developed ita
.SIP.
a. Use of Actual or Al/owrzbJ.
Emiuions 08 tire 1Jtaeline. In attuinmtntt
artNU the baael.ine will pnerally be
actual emiuiona-only reductiona
below a source's actua1lne1 of
hi.torical eminiODS caD be CQD8idered
aurplU8: Becauae cummt rega.latiou
lpecify actual air qualitJ u the baaia for
determiniDa mc-ement OOD8\""ptioD,
these Mlle. normally require ~t actual
emiasb:u be uaed fGr the a.....'s
~.auce strategy: (&ee 46 FR 52717;
Au3- 'f, UJBO). However. anow.ble
emi...ion. may be U8ed a. the bue1hut If
pro~, consideration is giVeD to
increDient usage.
In lJOnattainment Ql'fJQ6 the bueliDe
may be either DUUdmum aDowable
emiuiona or actual hiatoricaJ
eminiooa.' To determine which be_line
is appropriate, the state 8bould examine
tire uaumptions ued in developing Ita
demonatration olattainmeDt.
In nonattainment arwz. which UIItJd
allawable atiuioM as . bo6i8 for
their atlailUllfltrl ~ 80ercee can
. use their SIP alJowable limits u the
ba_1ine for creatiDg ERCa. Many stat..
DIed allowable limit. In developiq their
so. and TSP attaiDment pwu.
Othet....ttain8M!nt area wa8d
inventori- that were ettber
substantially d8fideDt 01' baed (8
. s..... .. .,. (AIiIr- ~. -....... ...,..
01. EPA '. A8pat 7tII18pIatIa88. iDI:I8IIIa8 tile
d8fI8itia8 01......... - cwn8IIr .... ,......
1'ftt8w. MIl.' Wow""" .......... ....
1M. ........., be ~ :'" J .....
actual emiuions, or they relied on
measured (and therefore "actual")
ambient value. a. the primary basis for
determinin& SIP emis.ion limits needed
to demonstrate attainment Under
CUJTent EPA regulationa.1n these areas
some level of actuallustorical emissions
would generally be the baseline.
However. these area. may approve use
of allowable emiasions as the baseline
on. caae-by-caH bit. where that use
comports with reuonable further
progre88 and the source shows it will
neither create a nftw ambient violation
nor prevent the planned removal of an
exiatiDg violation. (See Section Ill)
b. SwpJus Reductions in Areas
Lacking Approved Demsonstration., In
several jurisdlctiona demonstrations of
attainment are not yet complete. Some
of these jurisdictiona are 'JDcertain
where to secure IUfficient emission
reductions; others have not yet ado~ed
enforceable emission limits baaed on
reasonably available control technology
(RACT) for specific Industrial proceuea.
Additional emt..JOfI controls on these or
other sources generally are needed to
reach attainment The question is how
"surplua" .hould be defined for sources
1ackin~ SIP-defined RAeT emIssion
limi18 in these are... Where RAeT is
already defined in the SIP, it ,...:1 of
course be the be_Une. Where RAeT for
relevant source categories baa not been
defined. credit for aurplua reducti0D8
may be sranted in at last two general
wa)'8 which are consistent with Clean
Air Act requiremen18 for reasonable
further pI'Op'M' and attainment
(I) U. of a llACT Boseline. If RAeT
ha. DOt been defmed In the SIP. the
l0UJ"C8 may 8~ with the State and
EPA to an SCC8ptable RACT limit for the
emi..lon 801II'C88 invoIyed in the trade.
A .urplus would then conai8t or any
emintoD reductiona in ncen of those
required to meet RACT, Where SOU1'Ce8
voluntarily qree to I1ICh a RAeT leveL
EPA encoantgeI states not to I'ef!1[lImi'1e
the agreed-apon indlYidual emiukm
Inel8 for a period of time COD8iatent
with the statDtorJ deacWnea for
attainment. unl818 there fa no other
practical way to satisfy requirements of
thl! Clean Air Act.
A RACT baseline is the only option In
area. that will DOt attain the relennt
primary ambient 8tandard by December
1982 and have DOt received attainment
extensions for I1ICh atlmdard. Becauae of
tbe extremely short time period
remaintns for attafnment' and the
practical difficultJ or aecurins further
reductiona prIbr to the December 1982
deildline. thta limitation is n8C8l1arJ to
assure that trades in theae areu
comport with the statutory deadline and
88
the mandate for RAer "as expeditiously
as practicable."
(ii) Use of Actual Emissions B08eJine.
Areas that will not attain the primary
ozone or CO ambient standard by
December 1982. but have received
attainment extensions until 1987, as well
as area. with plans that will attain the
primary (but not the secondary) TSP or
SO, ambient standard by December
1982. may uae CUJTent actual emissions
(or "old" Section 110 SIP limits if
applicable) as the baseline. Under this
option. source/; in these areas could
trade using individual emission sources
not yet subject to RAcr limits. so long
as states clearly advise sourcp.s of their
responsibility to find or produce
reductions equivalent to future RAeT
requirements if and when the state
imPOleS them and sources commit to
meet these future requirements. Thia
would give induitry flexibility to create
and use ERCs at the earliest date. It
would also avoid having to negotiate
Individual RAeT baselines through
caae-by-case SIP revisions.
State. that choose Dot to rquire
negotiated RAcr baselinel should be
aware that their SIPs muat still comply
with Section 172(b)(2), which requires
imposition of RAeT ".. expeditioualy as
practicable."
C. No Doubl.counting of ReductiOll6.
To be considered lurplus, an emission
reducticm cannot already have been
included u part of the area'. bascline
emisaiona. Double-oountin$( of
reductioll8--trBDtins cred:t for the ..me
emission reduction. once to the atate
and a second time to . source for use In
an 8101.1..iODS trade-muat be addreUed .
in the foUowin8 .ituationa.
(i) Crediting Pr.Existing BmiBlrion
Reduction.. In nonattainment aretl6
credit wenerally cannot be snmted for
emls.ion reductiCIIUI made before
nonit0rin8 data was collected for use in
SIP pl.DDi~ Because monitored
ambient leve" may have akeady
reilected theM emiAsion decreases. they
would have been aasumed In calculatins
the reductiona needed to attain ambil!nt
.tandan:\a. Statu abou1d clearly identify
in their rules the date before wbich
reductiooa will not quaIifJ for credit.
The earliest ac:ceutable baseline date
would normally be the YHr of the moet
recent emtsalon inventory or monitol'iD3
data used in planning Part D ~
rcvillioM under !be Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1977.
In attainmtmt C1I'fKI8 emiufon
reductions that ocrnmed before th PSI)
emiuJona b!tf'r.IRie wes eetabUpht!d
g~Mr8Uy calU'Ot qualify for credit.
Statu bave aJrudy all4tUlnfld thf!ftl
redur.tiona in tt. P;:t!'/ ba...line-. 'r
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 47, No. 67 I Wednesday, April 7, 1982 I Notices
15081
credited and later used. they could
undermine the area's strategy to
maintain air quality.
(ii) Crediting Reductions From
Shutdowr.s. In general. a state may
credit reductions from shutdowns for
bubble trades if the SIP has Dot already
a..umed credit for these reductions in
. its attainment strategy. So 101Ul .-
reductions from shutdowns have not
already been counted in developing an
area's attainment stra~, they aM an
appropriate source of surplus reductions
for bubble trades.
Many SIPs assumed a set quantity of
reductions from new plant openings aDd
existing plants shutdowns. Theae SIPs
inr.l'rporated into their attainment
stntegy a Det "turnover" reductioD in
emisaiona because new aoUlCeS are
generally cleaner than tbo8e that shut
down. Double-countintc would occur jf .
specific source received credit for
reductions from such a shutdown, since
that reduction was already uaumed in
the SlYs demOl18tration of attainment.
States have at least three options to
graM sources credit without this ldnd of
doubJe.counting. First. they may re-
examine any "turnover" credits in their
SIP and decide not to take credit for
these reductions. AllMnatively, they
may allow credit only after the total
qual1tity of ahutdown reductions
allsumed in the SIP baa occurred.
Finally, they may allow credit for a
percentage of the total emiuion
reductions realized &om a ahutdoWD, if
they can show that aur.h credit ia
cODlliatent with the SIP's demonstratioo
of attainment and reuoaable further
progress.
d. Multiplll UN 01 ERe.. Once surplus
red'Ictions are credited. sta.s should
guard against their multiple use. In
general. the same ERCa must not be
banked by two different entities or ued
to satisfy two different regulatory
requirements at the same time. To
~vnt theM reaults, atatea abould
adopt an ERC restatry or equivalent
means of ac:countiDg for the creation.
bankin& transfer, or use of aU ERea.
(See Section LC.5)
e. Reducti~ UninventDrietl
Sourr:e& Sources DOt included in an
area's SIP emiuion inventorJ may apply
for credilln general. 80 10Dl upanting
credit for reductions fmm tbeae IIOUI'C88
will not jeopardize an"area'.
demonstraUon 01 attaimnent or
reasonable further progren. there ...-
legal ratrictioDa on IUCb credita.
In attDinment Ql'8ln alllOU1C88.
regardlea of wheths.tbey have baeD
included In an inventorJ, may c:nate
ERCa uaina .c:tiaa1 emfuiOll8 u the
baaeIiDe. 1'bo8e .o..'-iCJll!l died ~
have been included in the area', PSD
baseline.
In nonattainment areas, wbether
sources not on the inventory can create
ERCs will turD on how the SIYs
demonstration of attainment was
designed.
Some areas first monitored ambient
values to determine required SIP
reductions. then required a
proportionate reduction in eDnsaion8
from certain source categories in order
to attain. Theae areas may grant credit
for reductions from uninventoried
sources in at least three ways. First,
they could required the source to use a
RACT baseline and grant credit only for
reductions below that baseline.
Alternatively, they could require the
same percentqe reductions as imposed
on inventoried aourcea. and grant credit
on1y for reductions in exee.. of that
amount. Finally, where no
demonstration of attainment exists. the)'
may use either a n8j(Otiated RACT
baseline or (in appropriate
circumstances) an actual eminlons
baseline. (See Section LA,1.B above)
Othp.r areas developed SIP
dpmoatrationa bated on ambient air
quality models rather than area-wide
proportionate reducti0D.8. To the extent
the_e DIPt demonstrated ambient
attainment throush redUct10D8 required
from inventoried aourcea, reductions
from SOun:8S not on the inventory caD
be credited usins actual emi8a1ona as
the bueline.
2. Alt6mativB Erninion Limits Mu8t
Be Bnforceabk. EDch bubble, netting.
offset or bonking tranMlction IIIflIIt ".
enfoFClIObl1l and mint approved by tbs
stote. Under CUl'f'fIttt EPA rwgulotio1l6
l'P.ductions UItt!d in bubble, offset and
nettiDS trocJe. must be fede1Ully
enforcsoble. . This requirement for
enforceability can pnerally be ."..":ed
either through exiatiag procedulh
(including iDdiYidual SIP reviaions or
state permits issued under 40 CFR 51.18)
or throuah J8Df1ric rules, since any
enforceable compliance iDstrument
imposing emiMiGD limits within the
scope of . senertc rule ia deemed part of
the SIP.
Emission limits ataliahed by. trade
maust also be 1nc;orporated in .
compliance instrument which ia ~lJy
binding and practicably enforce-hie.
Trodes involrm. individual SIP
revisions autolD8tk:aHy ..defy thi8
requirement.
"111"'18 SPA ~...,~---
naIa relatlblllD f8d8nlMll«-..hdltt .-4-1\t8
far aet1iD(r ad .... . PR - UuIJ 1L 1Pe1).
11Iia my hu ...... 8Dd baa mIt .... ...........
a......ta..-a81 . ....... ~.... ---- ..4;
..-in ....,..11ht.
89
For trades under generic rules. a
compliance instrument could take the
form of an agreement between the
source and 8tate. and operating or
precon8truction permit. or a consent
decree. Many State permits and permit
procedures may need revisions to assure
that they provide adequate compliance
information. However. such revisions
need only occur on a case-bY-C8ge basis
as individual trades are approvP.d.
Compliance instruments 8bould
assure that enforcement officUils do not
have to test simultaneously every
emission source involved in a trade.
This generally mean!! source-specific
emission limits. However. states may
use an overall emisaion limit thdt
applies to a group of emission sources
wbich can be monitored
sumultaneoualy. Thi, will generally
require a reliable method of determining
compliance tJuoough prodi1cUon record..
input facton, or similar indirect mean..
r~ 45 FR 808241 Dee. 8.1980)
The compliance inlltrument ahouJd,
also specify applicable restrictions on
boun of operation. production rates or
inpot rates; enforceable test methoda for
de\qrmlni~ compliance: and D8C8U8fJ
recordkeeping or reporting
requiNments. To be enforceable. these
limits must .tate the minimum time
period over which they will be averqed
(e.g., Ibs/hour, lba/MMBtu averaged
overU houn, production rate/day).
3. All Emission /l8duction. MU8t Be
PermanenL An emiaaiof redac:Uon
credit IInI8t be . permanent reduction in
the level of pollutiOD emitted b)' .
source. Use of an ERC which Is not
pennanent could adversel, .Łfeet air
quality by allowing increased emi8!i1OR
from both the source ereatinS the ERC
and the source where it I, U8ed.'
To recp.lve credit for reductions in
operations (e.g., a reduction from 3 to %
workshifts),..ource must have its
permit or other compliance instruction
altered to reflect the curtailment in
production. Future increaaea in
production beYond the permit amount
would Renerally require compensating
emill.ion reductions.
. . A. ".. aJtemalive. Ra" -, .n-Inda
w'"- eon;..jona ~ ud amf8IioII8 decrn-
II'8I1QU81 In ct.81taD ~ "... 8trictIJ ~
,11118 i8 the .....,.,. la81 ..,...not.-." --\he
O",a.. Ail A.et. but .., raq.u. eta.... ID Inck
. lradee cmrI' If"'. to -- ambient equivalence.
Pf.nq._.., pn88IIt -W but ~vabl",
prnbln. lIP.' I'INI8dIoe8 front _8 - DOt
IUbject to -'t8.'" ~18. or
prodIIo:tiG8 CD"""" 818188 wIIicb ... aMil
hID the. - cal8lOrl88 8iIoMId ...... die
pcaIbiIIty dial ...A~- '- - -.., be
1011-.1 '"'...... ........ -- '-a 8iIIntbtr
-............ -
-------
~J~:!
Federal Register I Vol. 41, No. 61 I Wednesday, April 1, 1982 I Notices
,~"I
4. .'11! Reductio.1S Must Be
Qut1nt!fja!;Je. Before an eIciniOl'l
reduction can be credited it must be
quantiflp.d. Thi, generally meanl the
state must establish a reliable balil for
Measuring the amount and rate of the
reduction and describing j~
characte:ls:ics.
a. Measuring the Reduction. To
quantify ERCa. emissinns must be
calculated both before sr.d after tLe
reduction. Although many cbffere:1t
methods of calculation are available
(e.g.. emission factors. stedt testa,
rnonitort'd values. production or proce.
irIputs). the same method and averq'..ns
time shCluld generally be u...d to
qt! '; n tHy "missions befmoe ."d after the
reo1lction.
b. Describing tMJ Reduction. If an ERC
18 to be used at the time of creatioa, CII1ly
characteristics neceaarv to evaluate
that prnpc8ed use nlled be desaibed.
Where the EFC 1- to be baUed 8'XI ita .
eventual allf!! fa not yet Jcuo.u. . IDOJ'8
d..i ailed deacription is edvt88bie.
B. Using Emission Ret!uaion Crediu
This .ection explaiDs the 8Ub8tutiv.
and procedura1 principle. applicable to
use of BCa in bubble. nettiJl& or atfaet .
transaction..
1. Substantive PrincipIa for u.ing
ERCs. .
a. J:.iniuiDlta Trade. Must Involve th.
Same Pollutant '!'he Clean Air Act
reouires .!atP.1 to develop aepaT8-
plans to attain and maintain the
n& tional ambient air quality .tandard
for eor..~ aiteria poUutant. Thul. all
individual bubble. .tttns or offset cue.
cust iDvalve the same pollutant. 0Dly
r2ductioDa ofpm1ic:u1atu can l1Ib8titute
for incressea of particulates. nd8ctiona
of So.. for mcreale. in so. etc.
b. All UF~ 01 ERCs 1ft.: Soti6/y
Ambient Tests. The cre.nAir Act
requirel L"!at aD area. throuIhout the
cot'ntry attam and maintain ambient
standards.lD.nonattainment tUfNlI. ue
fJ! ERC. cannot create a new violation
of e.n ambient .tandard or prevent the
plc.nned removal of an exiatiDg
violation. In attainment CU'806. WI8 of
EPCe cannot Yioate an increment or
ambient atandald. The IUDbient effect of
a trade generaUy depends on the
dispersion characteri.tiCl of the
pollutant involved.
VOC or NO. Trade.. Ambient
considerationa will not affect trade.
involving VOC or NO", WhOM impacta
ocr.J.l across broad geographic are...
Within 'Iuch areal one ton of decreued
~'!aioT18 is generally equivalent in
amb;ent effect to one ton of Increuad
embaJans. 8fnce the precise location of
those inaeasea and deereasea ordmufIJ
does DOt ma!ter. Far theM pollutant-.
''pound Cor pound" tradea may be
treated 88 equal in ambient effect
TSP. So. or CO Trade.. Ambient
conaideration. are critical for trades
involving SOt. particalatea. or carbon
monoxide. whole air quality impact may
vary with where the emis.ion increases
and decreues occur. One bundred tona
of ERCa Cor these pollutanta created at
ore site may balance the ambient.
bnpact of a 100-ton increue at a lite
:aearby. but may only balance the effeCt
of an ~ton Increase at a .ite further
away. In Addition to distance between
sources, plume parameters. pollutant
characteristics. meterology. and
topography will also affect the ambient
Impact of IUCb a trade.
A. a general prindple. bubble
applications must demonatrate ambient
"equivalence" and offset tranaactiona
must demonstrate ambient progress.
Such demonstrations bave typicaUy
been made through mathematical
dispersion modeling ",htch predicta the
ambient impact of varloua emi8li0D8.
Thi. Document authorize. WI8 of a
three-tiered acreeD with the degree of
required modeUq liDked to the likely
ambifmt impact of the proposed trade.
The followinl aect10Da describe 1188 of
thia modeling ICI'II8D to .pprove ID8DJ
trade. without ful1-aca1. ambient
modeling. Use of tbia modeling IICI'88D to
define the acope 01 pneric ruin I.
diacuued in SectIon n below.
(I) Level 1: In general DO modelins fa
needed if the propo.ed TSP. SOt or CO
trade doe8 DOt re.wt in a net increase in
applicable ba88line emia8iona, the
relevant emiuion aourcea are located in
the same immediate vicinity. and no
Increa.. in 8111i881ona occars at the
1OUlC8 with the lower effee;ti\'1r plume
heigblln such CU88 it can reucmably
be usumed that "pouDd-for-pound"
trades will produce ambient effec:ta
equivalent to what cammt mode1ina
would predict, and ..-d.J~ fa DOt
r&q1Iired.
(8) LneJ II: 0aIy limited "'OdeIiat
invohdq the spec:ifk: emiaaion aoun:e8
in the trade ia needed for trade8 not
included in Level I. if tMre fa no net
increa8e in applicable baaeline
emiuions and if emiuiona after the
trade will not cauae a ~FiA~lIt air
qualitJ impact at the ~ of
maximum predicted Impact.ID.
determiniDs "~t" impact, .tatee
may use the 8i&niftcance leveia
established by EPA for det..rminins
when air QUuity monitoriIUI fa neceaM17
for PSD C8"~ 10 I&l/m""" the ~
at.uud fon TSP: 13 ~8!m' (Zl-1Ir) for
so.: and S75lA1/ma (a.hr~ [01' CO. rs..
4S FR 5'-7'J9. Aq. 7. 1980). 'I'he-IeY8l8
approprtlltely idlJlJt!.#y ~f!8 ~
90
potential ambient impact need Dot be
further evaluated before approvaL
(ill) Level Ill' Full dispersion
modeling. conlldering all sources in the
area of impact, i. required if net
applicable baseUne emissions will
increase a. a result of the trade or if the
trade will have a significant Impact on
air quality at the receptor showing
maximum ambient impact.
This modeling screen will eDaure that
the air qualjty impact of trades fa
equivalent to the impact of the original
SIP limits.
c. Trade. Should Not lrtcrea6e Net
Ba.eline ErrUssiDn6 in Nonattainrnent
Area.. Congren req~ noncrttainment
area. to demonstrate reasonable further
progre.. r.RFPJ by reducing emis.ions
each vear in amounts sufficient to attain
ambient atandards by .tatutory
. deadlines. In general. RFP fa meaaurecl
by an areawide quantity of reduced
emfsaions.
Trade. in nc:h area. which increue
total emi8liODl can gel'erally occur "only
u individual SIP ",visions in which the
.tste either demonstratn that the trade
i. consistent with RFP or revisu RFP..
part of the propn.ed SIP reviaiOD. EPA
will approve IUch reYi.iona a.
amendmenta to the SIP, provided they
comport with ambient air quality
.tandards and reaaonable farther
progres..
However, such trades may occur
under senertc ruin where existiDg
.ouren were required to reduce
emislions beyond the amount required
.to brins ~ area into attainmentlD. euch
cues a ~ ID8fIin was created
which may be Wled at the disCretion of
the state to COIDp8D88 te for IIDJ
Increa... in enIi..iana without vtolatiDg
reasonable further progre..
requirementa. .
In attainment tU'«Z8 trades lncrHaing
total eminiona could generally be
permitted. but may COD1WD8 some or all
of the increment, trfa8er PSD review. or
both.
d. Erni86j~ nude. Should Not
Inc~ HazardoUJI Pollutants. Under
the Clean Air Act all I01IJ'Ces must meet
a~cable Section 112 (NESHAPI)
l'elulationa for hazardous air pollutantll.
Except .. may be apecilically permitted
In future Section 112 regulatiOD8, .
.nurce may neitt. U88 a bubble to meet
t~ requireDnmw. DOt increa..
8..,11...'3118 beyODd tIae 1nela thq
Pl'88Cribe.
Where polhrtanta have been liated
under Sectiaa 1tZ. but are not yet
.u~ to IIpIIdfic rquleti0a8. atate8
II'\"-y a1Iow trades conei8tiDa of
-..~ im::...."," and dec:re... of
~8 .... u-.r paL~ at nucmably
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 47, No. 67 I Wednesday, April 7, 1982 I Notices
15M3
close emission points. States may also
approve trades in which reductiona in
hazardous emissiona compenute for
increases in non-hazardoua emiaaiona.
For example, a source may trade
benzene fOf any non-hazardous Voc. if
the benzene emissiona are decreased
(i.e., "traded down").
e. Emissions Trades Connot Be UstK/
to Meet TechnolOf/Y-Based
Requirements. The Clean Air Act
specifically requires new Of expandina
sources to meet technoiosy-basp.d new
source performance standards (NSPS),
regardless of the attainme!1t status of
the area in which they are located. Thi8
requirement prohibits use of bubbles to
meet or avoid NSPS. and he. been
interpreted to bar use of such a bubble
to meet new 8OU1'C8 review requirements
for best available control technology
(BACT) in PSD areas. or lowest
achievable emission flite control
technology (LAER) in nonattainmeat
area. Thus, new emissions source.
subfect to new soarce review C8DD~ 1I8e
ERCa from exi8tiDg IOUI"CeI to Htisfy
these requirements.
Expanding or modemlzing sources
can. ho-ver, use internal emtuion
reductiona from within the same plant to
"nef out" of new source review. Such
snurcH still must meet NSPS. but are
not subJect to BACT in attainment are88
(45 FR 5Z818: Aug. 7, 1980) or LAER in
nonattainment areas (46 FR 50786; Oct.
14, 1981), Irince they are not considered
new sources under Parta C and D of the
Clean Air Act.
f. Trades Involving Open Dust
Emissions. Trades involving open dust
sources of particulate emissions may be
approved based on modelled
demonatrationa of ambient equivalence.
Sources proposing such trade. should be
required to undertake a post-approval
monitoring program to evaluate the
impact of their control efforts. H the
re~sults of monitoring indicate that initial
open dust controls do not produce the
predicted air quality impact. further
enforceable reductiona may be required.
StateslDUlt either require soarcea to
aclmowledse their I'8IIpOnaibllity far
further reductiOD8, or deem t:n.ding
applicationa to be such an
acknowledgment. 88 a condition of
approval.
2. Prrx:edural S. for Using ERes.
Emission trades may be implemented
through individual SIP revisions or atate
aeneric rules. This aec:tion describes
principIa applicable to either
procedure. General priDciple8 for
pneric rules are diacuaed in SectIon D
below. Special conskIeratioDa far trad88
wlrich 8til1 ncndre iDdiYidual SIP
r-f8fcma 81'8 ~ III S8ctfan m.
a. Bubbles Can Be Used to .4.chieve
Compliance. The bubble policy required
that sourcee he subjeC't to bindina
comnliance schedules based on original
SIP emission limits before beina eligible
to apply for lr.Jbbles. Thia requirement
threatened sources with tight milestODe8
for the purchase of conventional ccmtrol
equipment and tended to dilCOUl'llp
both rapid compliance and flexibility.
Under todays Policy Statement states
may pro!'l\ats ra:Jid compliance by
allowing sources to agree to emiasion
limits established ae part of their bubble
application. instead of requiring sources
to agree to compliance plana based on
their original SIP limit8 before an
application can he filed.
b. Exten6ions of Ccmpliance
Deadlines. States may extend
compliance deadline. for VOC or CO
sOuro!S on a case-by-case bam88 part
of bubble approvals. The Clean Air Act
limits such extensiona to sources which
are located in areas that have received
VOC or CO attainment extenalona until
1987, and whose bubble will be
consistent with rea80D.8ble further
progress requirements. Because thi8 will
usually ~uire a revi8ion of the ttate'a
reuonable further progreu
demonatration. such extenslona mut
generally be submitted u SIP rnisiona.
Howevf11', states may also snnt
compliance extensioDS without c:ue-bJ-
case SIP revisions aa part of bubble
approvalt under a geaene rule. The rule
should provide that (1) Extenaiona may
only be granted in areas which haft
I'E!ceived attainment extenaioDl to 1987:
and (2) the total amount of reductions
claimed in the state's approved RFP
demonstration will not be reduced for
each year in question. For example. if a
. 8011I'ce wishes to defer 100 tOOl per year
of reductions from 1982 to 1985. then 88
part of the bubble approval. t~ - ~ 'lite
must thow that an additionaJ 100 tons
pel year of reductions baa already
~n,d in 1982, or that proviaiona for
such additional reductiona already exi8l
c. Pending Enforcement ActiOlJ8. A
bubble cmnot be approved for an
individual emi88iaD aoarC8 wIdch fa
presently the subject of a federal
enforcement .ctioa or ()~tst4udina
eaforcement order un1eu EPA (and
where necessarJ the 8ppropriate court}
approves the propoaal and the
compHance schedule it containa. Thi8
appliea to civil actions filed under Cleo
Air Act Section 113(b), criminal actions
filed under Section 113(c). a notice
imposinI noncompliance penaltie8
i88Ued under Section 120. .dwmri.h.lI....
orden i88ued under SectIaD 113(8}. or 8
cIttzeft suit filed under SectioD 301
where EPA bu intes umed.
91
'I'ha rp.quirement need not preclude
bubble approvalt under generic rules.
provided an appropriate mechanism for
securing and recording EPA approval ia
used. Sources should. however. be
aware that such approvals cannot be
finally effective until approved by the
appropriata court.
C. BlJlIlcing Emission Reduction ClwcIilll
State SIP rules may include a banking
provision which address!"s ownenhip
and holding of ERCa ovef fune. Without
auch a provision. finna risk loains
surplus reduo:tiona should a major SIP
revision or new set of control
requirements be inatituted. Generic
banking ruI.. caD afford such ERC.
.ubttantial protection consistent with
the Act's mandate to attain Imd
maintain ambient standania.
The bank can accept and evaluate
requeat8 to certify an ERe. 8P.rve as a
clearinghouse for credits on deposit. and
account for traDafen and withdrawala
of ERC&. These rol.. will seneraDy be
performed b, the ttate as part of its
normal permitting activitie8.
The foIlowins aectiona addreu both
minimum legal requirement8 for atata
banIdns rul.u aDd iaauu etatea ahould
COI:J'~. Stitt.. may adopt otber
approachea which produce eqmvalent
reault8.
1. BanlUng Bula Mu.t De6igna~ an
Admini6~ring AaenCY. BanJdns naIe.
mat identify the entity reapcnaible for
apeciflc functiona. While the at8ta will
ordiDarily be retpontbUe far Y8rifyfD8
and proceaina ERC requeata. .u 01' part
of thi8 l'8IIpOD8ibility may be delegabld
to other OIpDizati0D8. Such
orsanizationrs) must po-. the
resourcea and legalaulhari" to
implem8Dt deJe,ated activities.
Z. Only ERe. May be BtmluJd. 8IIDbcI
emilaion reductiODl lD8ut be mrpJu..
permanent. quantifiable and
enforr:eabJe. Tbia generally means that
tuch reduc:tiona must be made at the
time they are deposited in the bank ..
ERCa.lIowrm1r. if 8 firm commits to
prodace a specific reducti08 II! th.
future, a state may allow 8 C'IJIIditioui
deposit to be made. In all CIU88 the
reduction IIIII.It actually be achiew«l
before it can be uaed in an emiaiaaa
trade.
3. ProcetJuJw far Ban1cirtJI ERe.
Should be Defined. To speed IlTlnr0Y8l al
tradea and provide greater cerain., fOl'
potential ERC ere8ton and 1188!1'11. atate
. b-nlrm, nale8 ahooJd clll8riy identify
which pt'Dp01Ied emftsfnn l'MuctiOM can
qaaJify to ~ted IIftI! banlcfld. tile
iDfonn8tInn ~ of..... to
sab8audtate their clains for ~~ ad
8DJ ~ 8OD1k:atiaa ~
-------
15084
Federal Register I Vol. 47, No. 67 I Wednesday, April 7, 1982 I Notices
4. Bonking Rule6 MU6t &tablish
OwTlpn;hiD RiJlhts. To prevl!nt two
entities from clai.mina the lame ERCa.
Itatp. bAnkinQ rulel mUlt .pecify who
can own ERr... For eumpll!. wbile the
101U'ce creatine thl! ERC willilenerally
bf'! its owner. the Itllte could. al part of
its rule. reserve ownf!rshiu of certain
classes of ERCI to itA"lf or local
JIOvemmenta.
5. RlUIkinll Rules Must Establish an
ERC Re11isUy or Its Eauivalent. An ERC
retDltry or eauivalent instrument let.
Itatpi track ownership, use, and transfer
of all banked ERCa. BRnldnsI rulel must
provide that no tranlfer of title to a
banked ERC will take eff@Ct until the
tranlaction il refll!Cted In the registry. .
Thil tracldna IVltem II imoortant to
minimize diluutes over ownership and
provide a centralliat of certified ERCe
which may be aveilable. It can al80
provide ulefullnformation for quickly
eva1uatina any proooaed UM of a
banked ERe.
IrIformation which may help trYalaate
propoIIed use of a banked ERC ahould
be recorded at the time of Ita creation
and entl!rP.d al Dart of ita ~
record. Thil information Ihould include
the location of the IOUrce creatina tbe
ERCa. ita Itack parameters, the
temperature and velocity of ita plume.
particle size, the exjAtmce of any
hazardous pollutaDts. dailv and "e80W
emiallion ratsl. and any othlll' data
wbich might realll1lUlbly be nec8llary to
evaluate future 1I8e.
To perform thl!" trackbul and
c'~a~ouae functicma the ERC registry
mUllt he ar.ce..ihle to the1)Ublic. Subf~
to coufldPntiality cnnllfderationa. atlltl!8
Jbrnlld make cootes of the ERC iegi8try
availAnle at conveaient locatiOl18 and
timel. anti may want to puhli"h a
periorlic nmD18I'J of bIInltRd ERCa.
e. Prmrible AdiU8bnen~ to ERe. (
1kued on Enforr:ament CnlUlidemuontt.
To .avoirllegal problems, banIdnsr mles
Ihould cleArly ltate what. if "ny,
chaJ1Rll!I lII.8y occur to ERCa aft'!lr they
Mve h-n banked: Oace an ERC bal
~ UIIPd by another lource to meet a
IJP"'"lt r-fJWl'P.ment. any vinlation of the
contfiti"". unner whlr.b that ERC -as
CI"'.tM .hould I'P.IIUlt in enforcement
a.,aiDAt thl! IIDuree prrxlucinsl that
eJlti"einn rPduction and not the IOUI'C8
urng the ERCa. If a Itats attempted to'
enfnrce AlUlinlt the aomce U8ing
parr.hAurl ERCa. a comnJex let of third.
party' lawlillits -ould ensue. nul would
lib" dilcourage 8OUJ'f';f!8 frmn
purr:h8l1ing ERCa in the Future.
1. PoBJIibJe Adiustments to ERe.
lJa6M on Amhumt AttaiJZDJRn~
C,,,,.i'/P!TltiDlUI. To auure the validity of
it. dernnnatrRtinnr.) of attRinment. a
,tat- trith II boldng rule Iboald auume
that aU banked emillions will ultimately
be used. Thus, in evaluating their ability
to attain national standardl, statel
should add to their inventory or
measured ambient vltlue. all unused
bankf'!d reductions at tbe litP at which
they were created.
Additional emission reductions may
be reauired from sources because of '
thell' area's failure to attain ambient
standards. because of an Increment
violation. or because new RACT
requirements are beina imposed under a
SIP schedule. The existence of banked
ERCI must not interfere with statel'
ability to obtatn theAe additional
redur:tions. For this reason Itate banking
rulel should specifically addreu how
ERCa will be treated if additional
reductions are required. Available
optionl il'clude:
a. ŁRCs Are Absolutely Guaranteed
Against Ad;usbnenL The Itate would
determine the reauirt!d quantity of
reductiODl and aillP-II necelllU')'
controls on the inventory. Source8 with
banked ERCa would not be exempt from
any remdr8ment for additional
reductions. but could latisfy that
ft!QUirement by uaiJUI thr.ir banked
ERCa. by reducing emislions elsewhere..
or by purchuiDs equivalent ERCa.
To fOfFRCtively implement thi. option.
it would be particularly iml)Ol'taDt to
ltate new control reouiremeDtll in terms
of ''RACT-equivalent'' reductinn8.
b. Cummt ERCs Are Fully Ptwerved,
but either their use or future ERC
depolita are IU8p8Dded until the SIP baa
couunitted to lecure rednctiona
IlUfficient to reelltabUab rea.nnable
further prosmtll or cure an increment
violation. Uae of either type moratorium
wn1Jld be conliltsnt with air QUality
objectivp. wbile allnwina sourr.,.. to
retain or UN their entire quantity of
bAnked ERCa. However, thi. option may
bit undeairable becanae of uncertAinty
regardina the moratorium'l start.
duration. or potential interference with
user plannins.
c. AC1'08s-the-Boord Discounting.
Under thia option. all ERCa in the bank
would be diacoUJItP.d by the l8JDe factor.
Pot example, if a 1M! additional
reduction is required from a catBRory of
lOurces for the SIP's new demODltration
of attllinment. the Iblte would dflco1mt
all banked ERCe from thole type. of
lOurces by 1M!. Although the quantity of
ERCa held by a firm will be reduced, the
overalllUpply of ERCa will decrease,
while demand will Increase. Therefore.
the overall value of remaining ERCa is
likely, at minimum. to remain the lame.
IndPed. other 8Ource1 may porch-.
banked ERCe to !Net the 10'!' l'P.duetiona
requil'P.Ci of them.
92
This option II relatively
Itraightforward for VOC or NO.. For
SO. or TSP more detailed. louree-
Ipecific modeling would generally be
reQuired to alloc..te the dilcount
nece"lary to demonstrate attainmenL
Statel may adopt any of thele
methods of accommodating pOlsible
additional reductions. They may allo
adopt any equivalent method which
achieves the lame objectivel.
n. Trades Coverad by State Geaeric
Rules
This lection explainl expanded
opuortunitiel for Ita tel to develop
generic rulel under which certain
clallel of emillionl trades will be
exempt from Individual SIP revilion.
A. General Principles for Evaluating
Generic Rules
.
A generic rule Is approvable if it
alaures that (1) applicable net baseline
emislions will noUncreale; (2)
emislions trade. otherwile requirins SIP
revilions under II 11O(i) and 11O(a)(3) of
the Clean Air Act will be evaluated.
unrter procedures that are 8Uf:6cientJy
replicable in operation; and (3) emiuion
lbnltl produced under the rule will not
int-mere with ambient att_inmilmt and
maintenance. Repllcability p:enera1ly
meanl that apecilic modeling procedU1'81
are prelcribed and that Ita tel bave
aporopriately defined their choice of
models. model InDuta, and modeling
techniauel in applying these procedU1'81
to Ipecific trades. Tbu8. these trades
should not create new ambient
violations or Interfere with the planned
removal of existing violations. B)
apurovina such R8I1eric rulel EPA
approvel in advance an array of
acceptable SiP emillion-limits. and "0
further cale-by-caae EPA ap~"n.1 '.,
required. '
B. Scope of Generic Rules
StateIJ may uae al1ll18e of mechaniama
to exemut trades from EPA review a8
individual SIP revisions. While aeversd
mechanillll8 are explained below, .tatea
mav lubmit other generic rules that
latisfy thele balic principle..
1. De Minimis Tmdtn. Tradel in
which net baleline emislions do nnt
increale and in which the sum of the
emission inerealea, looking only at the
lnerealiDs 8Ourr.ea, totals leis than 100
tons per year after applicable control
requirement.. may proCf'P.d witbnut a
0Replic:abillty - aeaeraJly -na 811Wa
UkellMod that two ~...- 8pa)1/fIw "-
rule to 8 11- Inde _lei ....... tit. ..- .
canr.luodcna. Por - 8Ulftt'J. lit 8 ".....nc raIe
IDcDoporatbur 8 "'71Uno1e ,.....we tIt.- -- 1M
t8t "' roopIicabWtJ. - ... PIt 21:811 (ADr. .. ,~~
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 47, No. 67 I Wednesday. April 7. 1982 I Notices
15085
SIP revision. Such trades will have at
most a de minimis impact on local air
quality because only minor quantities of
emissions are involved. Moreover.
because only trades which produce no
net increase in.emissions can be
exempt, overall air quality will not
suffer. The Federal resources required to
. evaluate these trades could best be used
to evaluate actions that have a potential
impact on air Quality. 7
2. vOC or NOs Trades. All VOC or
NOs trades Wlder a generic rule that
assures no net increase in applicable
baseline emissions may occur without
individual SIP revisions.
The ambient impacts of VOC and NOs
emiasiona are area-wide rather than
source-specific. All such emissiona
within a broad area are considered
comparable. regardless of plume height,
topography or related factors. Thus. the
ambient impact of trades involving VOC
or NOs will by definition be equivalent
to that of the sum of the SIP emiaaion
limits for the emission sourees involved
in the trade. As long as the sum of these
emission limits is not exceeded. the
limits for each specific emission IOW'ce
can be reallocated without adversely
affecting air quality. This essentially
arithmetical task is so mechanical that
VQC or NOs trades developed in this
manner caimot reasonably interfere
with ambient attainment and
maintenance.
3. SO, CO. or TSP Trades. For trades
involving SO, CO. or TSP it is more
difficult, but by no means impractical. to
develop a generic rule which assures
that valid ERC uses cannot reasonably
interfere with attainment and
maintenance.
The ambient impact of these
pollutant. depends on site-specific
factors such as topography and plume
height which are ordinarily evaluated by
mnbient modeling. However. if the
emission sources are located in the
same immediate vicinity and emiasiona
decrease at the source with the lower
effective plume height. therefore
minlmi,"", localized ambient impact,
equal increases and decreases in
emiuions from these sources will
ordinarily produce equivalent ambient
effects (See Level I of the Modeling
Screen). As a result, trades involving
emiaaion sources within Level I may be
treated in the same manner as trades
involving VOC or NOs and may be
exempted from individual SIP revisions.
. AlthouP ltal. may exempt d. minima trade8
from Ieden1 SIP rni8ion8. these trade, II!'e ,till
IIIbJeet 10 uabient 18118. They Ihould -c:cordiD&\J
be 8ftIaated by the atate UDder the mocIeIiJI& IC1"eeD
(S8e S8ct181J1J.b. abne) or aD equlyal8ld
.......
EP A will nonnally approve generic
rules that define "same immediate
vicinity" as up to Z50 meters between
the individual emission sources involved
in a trade. However. where such trades
involve areas with complex terrain.
some modeling milZht still be required to
assure that ambient impact Is properly
considered. Generic rules should specify
criteria for identifying suclr
circumstances and fer defining what
modeling will be required.
4. Other Mechanisms for Exempting
TSP. so. or co Trades from Individual
SIP Revisions. Other TSP. SO. or CO
trades can be exempted from individual
SIP revisions if they occur under state
generic rules which satisfy the
replicability and air quality
requirements stated above.
Possible generic approaches include:
(a) Developing SIP rules which allow
identified sources to meet an array of
specific emission limits conaistent with
ambient attainment and maintenance.
For example. states could approve a
modeled formula for two or more
specific emisson sources which would
both satisfy ambient concerns and let
firms determine particular permit limits
at each emission source. This formula
would have to be adopted a, part of the
SIP.'
(h) Developing criteria for use of
simplified Level n modeling (see section
LB.1.b. above) for specified trades. This-
approach would exempt trades which
(1) produce no net increue in applicable
baseline emiasiona. (2) can routinely be
modeled in a predescribed manaer. and
(3) will not h8ve significant ambient
impact. The seneric rule must specify
either the particular model thafwill be
employed in a sNen stituation. or
criteria for selecting models in specified.
circumstances. To limit ve.- ..;~:ty in
modeling results the rule must also
specify procedures for selecting input
data (e.s.. wind speed. stability class,
source emission rate) which are
sufficiently definite to meet the test of
replicability. To determine whether a
trade will have significant ambient
impact these procedures should assess
whether the change in emissiona after
the trade from the increasing source baa
the potential to cause an increase of
more than 10 ".g/m1over at 24-hour
period for TSP. 13 p.g/ml (24 hours) for
SO.. or 575 p.g/m' (8 hours) for CO at the
receptor of maximum predicted impact.
"For example. !be I!IIiuioD lJmtta for. !be roar
,tac:b 81 the ,tuart Power Plant ID Adame Coaaty.
Ohio II!'e 3.111 pouad8 of so. par milliOll B1U _t 8Kh
ltac:k. or _I the plaut', cboice (after uoliflcaliaa 10
EPA). any 1Imi11D poaada per B1U wbich aatlallee
the followlDa 8qII8tiaa: o.om !ELo+IL+IL+B
1..<1. See to CPR 5.1881(11).
9~
C .4pplicability of Generic Rules To
Process Fugitive and Open Dust
Emissions Trodes
Trade involving process fusitive
emissions of \-'oc or NOs may routinely
be approved under generic rules.
However. because of their dispersion
characteristics. it is more difficult to
define generic rules that can be applied
in a sufficiently replicable fashion to
trades involving process fugitive or open
dur.t TSP emisslcns.
In general TSP trodes involving
process fugitive emissions can be
approved under generic rules if: (1)
process fugitive emissions are traded
against similar sources of process
fugitive emissions, or (2) emissions from
point sources are traded against process
fugitive emissiona which can reasonably
be represented by a point-source
dispersion pattern. This means that
relevant parameters such as emission
release height must be readily
determinable. Unless such trades ran
wi thin Level I of the modeling screen or
are de minimis. only processes whose
fugitive emissions can be adequately
represented by the dispersion modeles)
specified in an approved generic rule
can be included in a trade under that
rule.
For TSP trades involvm, open dust
emissions states should be aware that
approvable generic rule. which
appropriately limit the choice of
screening models and relevant inputs
(including acceptable emission Cactol'lJ).--
will currently be difficult to formulate.
Accordingly. open dust trades generally
will have to be submitted u individual
SIP revistona. .
D. Enforcing Erniuion J.irnjg UndM
Generic Ru/BB
Alternative emiuion limits approved-
Wlder generic rules are considered by
EPA to be federally enforceable.
Generic rules should specify that such
alternative limits become applicable
requirements of the SIP for puQ08e. of
11113 and 304 of the Clean Air Act and
are enforceable in the same manner as
other SIP requirements. To assure that
EPA and citizens know what emission
limits apply. generic rules ahould also
specifx that EPA be informed of
applicable emission limits before Uld
after the trade. followin3 aHlfOVal of the
trade by the .ate.
E. EPA Ovenighl of nudes of u."KIer
Generic Ru/e8
The CUll Air Act ~ EPA to
monitor ariminiatration of S1Pa.
including penuic rules. 5!!e
1 11O(a)(%)(II). EPA will audit t!t.
informatioD 8UJ'.1tlVod for neb triuie ad
-------
15086
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 67 / Wednesday, April 7. 1982 / Notices
may request additional relevant increase in baseline emissions could
information. Should EPA determine that nevertheless be approved threugh a SIP
approved trades are substantially revision showing that requirements for
inconsistent with generic rules in the attainment and maintenance were
SIP. it will notify the state and specify satisfied. In lubmitting IUch a bubble
any necessary remedial measures. I application. the ltate would have to
revise its reasonable further progress
F. Public Comment demonstration to account for the
For trades occuring under generic increase in emiuioDl and EPA would'
rules. existing state statutes or review the proposal to determine if the
regulations will generally provide demonstration of attainment and RFP
reasonably adequate ngtice and were satisfactor. Without suc:b a SIP
comment opportunities. If these revision. trades increasing net baseline
opportunities are not provided generic emissions would generally be
rules should explicitly address this acceptable only if compeuaatin&
Issue. additional controla were already
To ensure public awareness required in the SIP.
consistent with I 3M of the Clean Air Through the SIP revision process.
Act. states should alao, at a minimum. states and sources may also
publish any changes to emission limits demonstrate that a general principle
which result from trades appl'OYed discused in Section I above does not
under a generic rule (see 48 FR 205M; apply to their particular circumstances.
April 6. 1981). or that such a principle may be satisfied
m Tradee Not eov..Ibr Stata GeMdc in other ways. For example. they may
Rules show that a RAer balleliD" is
unoeces881')' for a particular source
In the absence of. geaeric: rule. state8 because l"Hulting reductions are not
and sources may continue to use SIP needed for attainment: that despite
revisions to effect bubble or external pneral requirements for use of an
offset trades. Individual tndes may also actual emisafons baseline. an allowable
fall outside the scope of aD aJlp.
-------
Federal Register / VoL 48, No. 13 / Wednesday, January 19. 1983 / Notices
2427
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON
AGENCY
Control Techniques Guidelines;
Density Adjustment for Dibasic Ester
Coating Solvent
[AD-FRL-2287-3]
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: E. I. du Pont de Nemours and
Company (Du Pont) has petitioned that
the EPA allow States to permit a density
adjustment for dibasic ester (DBE)
coating solvent when determining
compliance with State regulations for
volatile organic compmmd (VOC)
emissions from surface coating
operations. On June 18. 1982. the EPA
published a notice in the Federal
Register (47 FR 26452) whic.b stated that
the Agency would approve Du Pont's
petition unless comments giving.
sufficient reasons to deny it were
received. Based upon the comments
submitted. the EPA is denying Du Pont's
petition.
ADDRESS: Docket No. A~-25,
containing material relevant to Du
Pont's petition is available for public
inspection and copying between 8:00
a.m. and 4:00 p.m.. Monday through
Friday. at the EPA's Central Docket
Section, West Tower Lobby. Gallery 1.
Waterside Mall, 401 M Street, SW..
Washington. D.C. 20460. A reasonable
fee may be c.barged for copying.
FOR FURTHER IHf'ORMATtON CONTACT:
Mr. James C. Berry. Chemicals and
Petroleum Branch, Emission Standards
and Engineering Division (MD-13). U.S
Environmenta] Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711.
telephone number (919) 541-5605.
SUPPLEMENTARY IHf'ORMATtON: DBE
coating solvent is a mixture of dimethyl
adipate, dimethyl glutarate, and
dimethyl succinate. Its density is about
9.0 pounds per ga1]on.
DBE is a relatively low-cost solvent
because the raw material from whic.b it
is made. diabasic acid (DBA). is a by-
product of a Du Pont manufacturing
process. DBA is a mixture of adipic acid,
glutaric acid. and succinic acid.
DBE is now a constituent in the
solvent mixture used for some lacquer
and enamel automotive topcoats. epoxy
primets. polyester coil coatings, and can
coa lings. About 25 million pounds were
so used in 1980. mostly in automotive
coatings. The total amount of orgaIDC
solvents used in coatings annually is
about 4 billion pounds. .
Du Pont believes DBE has the
potential for use in any coating which
contains organic solvent This LTlcludes
the higher-solids coatings which many
coaters are. or soon will be. nsing to
comply \\ith State ~lation8 for vac
emissions. Du Pont estimates that DEE
couid constitute from 1Q-40 percent, by
weight. of such higher-solids coatings.
In spite of its low vapor pressure and
cost, whic.b Du Pont claims make DBE a
very desirable solvent for higher-solids
coatings, DBE has not been so used. Du
Pont claims this is because State
regulations. whic.b limit the mass of
vac emitted from coating operations.
have led coating formulators to seek less
dense solvents. .
Du Pont petitioned the EPA to provide
States with the option of allowing the
95
owners or operatora of lI1l1'face coating
operations to make an adjustment for
the relatively high density of DBE when
determining compliance with State YOC
emission regulations. Specifically. Do
Pont requested that an assumed 7.36
pounds per gallons be used for
calculations regarding the quantity of
DBE in a coating rather than its actual
density of 9.0 pounds per gallon.
On June 18.1982. the EPA published a
notice in the Federal Register (47 FR
25452) which stated that the Agency
would approve Du Pont's petition unless
comments giving sufficient reasons to
deny it were received. Eleven comments
were"submitted in response to this
notice. Four were from State air
pollution control agencies (lllinois.
Maryland. New Jersey and Rhode
Island). Six were from manufacturers of
coatings. solvents, and resins (Angus
Chemica]. Dow Chemica.l, Eastman
Kodak, Glidden. Union Carbide. and the
petitioner. Du Pont). ane was from a
consultant (Mr. John H. Daniel, Jr.).
The Comments from illinois. Rhode
Island. John Daniel. Jr., Eastman Kodak,
Glidden. Dow Chemical. and Union
Carbide. recommended against
approving the Du Pont petition. The
comments from Angus Chemical and Du
Pont recommend the petition be
approved. The comments from Maryland
and New Jersey do not specifically state
a position on the petition. A summary of
the comments follows:
One State agency and three
manufacturers expressed concern that
EP A Reference Method Z4 (particularly
ASTM D-Z369-81) could no longer be
used to determine the vac content of
coatings whic.b contain DBE if the
petition were approved. The State
agency suggested approval of the
petition would create a problem of
enforceability because it would render
the relatively inexpensive ASTM-D-
2369-81 ineffective, and force the need
for a more costly and time-consuming
analysis. The three manufacturers said
they knew of no acceptable analytical
method that could be used to determine
the solvent content of a coating if the
petition were approved. Two of these
manufacturers added that approva] of
the petition would create confusion over
the vac content of coatings.
Two manufacturers commented on the
discussion of the toxicity of DBE and
oLl-ter coating solvents in the petition.
One stated that toxicity is irrelevant
since the purpose of State regulations
which limit vac emissions from surface
coatings is to reduce ambient ozone
levels. The other took issue with the
petitioner's statement that ethylene
glycol monomethyl and monoethyl
-------
2428
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 13 f Wednesday. January 19. 1983 f Notices
ethers, two solvents for which Du Pont
indicated there were some unfavorable
toxicity data, are competitors ",ith DBE
in the formulation of coating solvent
mixtures. Thi~ manufacturer stated that
since these two solvents are more
volatile than DBE. DBE is not an
appropriate substitute. He suggested
that ethylene glycol ethers and ether
esters, which have evaporation rates
comparable to that of DBE. are more
likely to compete directly with DBE. The
corn~erlter knew of no data which
raised any concern about the toxicity of
6ese less volatile solvents.
Four manufacturers and the
consultant commented on the possibility
of similar petitions being submitted for
o~her high-density (greater than 7.36
po!:Ilds per gallon) solvents. One
manufacturer supported Du Pont's
petition and named several other
soh'ents for which he felt a similar
density adjustment would be
appropriate. The other three
manufacturers and the consultant all
suggested that approval of Du Pont's
petition would lead to numerous
additional requests for density
adjustments. O:1e of these
ma:'!Ufacturers stated that EPA's use of
7.36 pOILTlds per gallon as the average
lio!vent density already accounts for the
\'Ietition. Another manufacturer
suggested that the market place should
be allowed to evaluate competitive
products without interference from an
artificial exemption. One State agency
itated that approving DuPont's petition
would result in reverse discrimination
against other solvents.
Two manufacturers and three State
agencies questioned the effect that
approval of Du Pont's petition would
have no State efforts to reduce ambient
ozone levels. They liS ked if DBE is an
ozone generator and wbat the effect of
allo"'"in8 greater mass emissions of DBE
would be.
The comments on toxicity, lack of
agreement on competing solvents, and
possibilit"i of similar petitions for many
other solvents empbasize the
competitiveness and complexity of the
coating solvents market. Many different
IOlvents and solvent mixtures can be
used with the same resin system. This
freedom of substitution is not unlimited
in that the solvent system can affect the
final appearance 2nd performance of the
dry coating. Certainly. Du Pont believes
that approval of the petition would
enhance the marketability of DBE. If.
however. similar waivers were
authorized for other high-dens!ty
solvents, many of which appear to
compete directly with DBE. at least part
of this advantage would be lost and
other factors such as solvency
properties. cost and toxicity (or absence
thereof) would return to preeminence as
the determinants of the market demand
for specific solvents. Since as bBE is
formed from a by-proquct of another
process. it likely will remain a low-cost
solvent. thereby maintainins some
advantage over its competition. .
DBE is photochemica.lly reactive. and
when emitted to the atmospbere,
contributes to the formation of ozone.
Du Pont claimed in its petition that DBE
forms less ozone per unit mass emitted
than many other common coating
solvents. This claim was based upon a
theoretical reactivity seale developed by
Bufalini (see "Ozone Formation
Potential of Organic Compounds,"
Environmental Science and Technology,
September 1976). The validity of this
theoretical scale bas not been proven.
Tbe atmospheric photochemical
reactions which form ozone are very
complex. They depend not only on the
type and quantity of VOC present, but
also on meteorological conditions and
the presence of other precursors. The
EPA recognized these complexities and
the impracticality of trying to base an
ozone control program on either the rate
of ozone formation or the quantity of
ozone formed from eacb individual
VOC. In its July 8. -19i7, (42 FR 35314)
policy statement for the control of
VOC's, the EPA classified all but a few
organic compounds as photochemically
reactive.
Since 1977, the EPA has continued to
study atmospheric photochemical
reactions. These studies will continue.
and. in time, may provide a better
understanding of the contribution of
specific organic compounds to the
formation of ozone. The present state of
the science, however, does not permit
EPA to discriminate between the
relative ozone formation potential of
specific compounds other than to
identify those that are of negligible
photochemical reactivity.
Many different VOC's are' used as
coating solvents and each individual
coating contains a mixture of several
solvents. This wide variety of solvent
mixtures adda to the impracticality of
any attempt to quantify the reaction rate
or to~ ozone potential of the solvents
in an individual coating. For these
reasons. both the EPA and States have
chosen to restrict the total mass of
96
pbotochemically reactive VOCs that
can be emitted from coatings.
The June 18, 1982. Federal Register
notice stated that EPA would approve
Du Pont's petition unless comments
were received giving sufficient reasons
to deny it. Seven commenters
recommended denying the Du Pont
petition and gave several reasons for
their recommendation. Because of this,
the EPA i8 denying Du Pont's petition.
Dated: January 7, 1983.
Kathleen BeImett,
Assistant Administrator for Air. Noise, and
Radiation.
[FR Doc. 113-1435 Piled 1-1&-D: -...)
BlWNG CODE-
-------
38086
Fed8ral Register I Vol. 48. No.-183I~~ A~ ~'1-~
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
(AD-FRL 2417-2)
Control Tectmiques Guidetine
Document; VOC EmissIons From
Volatile Organic: Uquid Storage In
Aoating anid Fbced Roof Tanks
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Release of draft document for
public review,
SUMMARY: The draft Control Techniques
Guideline (CTG) document for control of
volatile organic cO,mpounds ~~) .
emissions from vOlatIle orgamc hqulds
(VOL) storage in floating and fi~ed roof
tanks is available for public reView and
comment This informational document
has been- prepared to assist States in
analyzing and determining reasonably
available control technology (RACT) for
VOCl!missions from VOL storage in
floating and fixed roof tanks.
DATES: Comments should be submitted,
in duplicate if possible. to the Emission
Standards and Engineering Division
(MD-13), E.:1viroIUDental Protection
Agency, ResearCh Triangle Park. North
Carolina 21711. Attention: Mr. James
Durham. on or before October 6.1983.
ADORESSŁ5: Comments will be a\'ailable
for public inspection and copring
between 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, at the Chemicals and
Petroleum Branch. Room 730, Emission
Standards and Engineering Division.
Environmental Protection Agency, 411
West Chapel Hill Street, Durham. North
Carolina.
Copies of the draft CfG document
may be obtained by contacting the
Environmental Research Ubrary (MD-
35), (919) 541-2777, Environmen~al .
Protection Agency. Research Triangle
Park, No."th Carolina 21'711. Please refer .
to "Guidelines Series-Control of .
Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
from Volatile Organic Uquid Storage in
Floating and Fixed Roof Tanks." .
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. James Durham. (919) 541-5671.
Chemicals and Petroleum Branch (MD-
13). Emission Standards and Engineering
Division. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park. North
Carolina 27711.
SUPPLEMENTAIfY INFORMATION: On
March 17 and 18. 1981, the National Air
Pollution Control Techniques Advisory
Committee (NAPCfAC) reviewed a
preliminary draft erG document for
control of VOC emissions from VOL
storage vessels. Nineteen comments
were received from industry
representatives and trade gro,-,:ps. This
draft CTG document was prepared
based on the evaluation of the public
comments received at NAPCTAC, and
consideration of supplemental emissions
data test provided by the American
Petroleum Institute (API}. The API
initiated a m~jor internal floating roof
tank emissions testing program in 1980.
Many commenters suggested that ~
EPA delay the development of the CfG
until new emissions test data from API
were available. This program. and data
analysis were completed in the latter
half of 198.Z. and the data were made
available to the EPA. The API testing
program resolves issues concerning
previous emissions test work done ?y
the EPA and industry. After analySlS
and careful consideration of the test
methodology employed by API and
results obtained by API. the EPA has
decided to utilize the new APl data for
'the purposes crf this CfG.
This erG document is part of the
third group of CTG documents published
to assist the States in determining RACf
for various stationary sources of VOC
emissions. CTG documents are
informational in nature and provide
State and local air pollution control
agencies with an initial information
base for proceeding with their own
analvsis of RACf for specific stationary
so~ categories of VOC emissions
located withL'1 areas where em extension
was granted to the attainment of the
national ambient air quality standard
for ozone. The CTG dOC'.nnent reviews
existing information and data
concerning the technology and cost of
various control techniques to reduce
VOC emissions from VOL storage
vessels.
Under Executive Order 12291, the EPA
must judge whether a rule is "major"
and therefore subject to the
requirements of a regulatory ~pact
analysis. This CTG document IS not a
"rulemaking," rather it is a notice of
availability. This notice and the draft
CfG documents were submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review. . -
Dated: July 5, 1983.
Charles L EIkina.
Actina AssisUlnt Administrator for Air. Noise
ond Radiation.
IFR Doc:- ~ .-1Ied "1_' 8:45 -I
IIIWNG CODE ----
[OPRM-Rn. 2.19-5)
Agency Infonnation Collection
Actlvtties Under OMB Review
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
97
-------
led8n1 ResW8 I Vol 4& No. 220 I MOftday, November 14. 1983 I Notices
5t88
[AD-fRL 2.......}
Control Techn1que8 Guideline
Document; Control of VoIaWe Organic
Compound Eml88ion8 From
Manufacture of HIgh-OensIty
Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and
Polystyrene Resins
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Release of fInal control
techniques guideline (CTG) document.
SUMMARY: A fuial CTG document for
control of volatile organic compund
(VQG) emissions from manufacture of
high-density polyethylene.
polypropylene, and polystyrene resins is
available. This final CTG document
provides guidance for the States in
determining reasonably available
control technology (RACT) for VOC
emissions from manufacture of high-
density polyethylene. polypropylene.
and polystyrene resins.
ADDAES~ES: Copies of the final CTG
document may be obtained by
contacting the Environmental Research
Library (MD-35). (919) 541-2777, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina
2i711. Please refer to "Guidelines
Series-Control of Volatile Organic
Compund Emissions from Manufacture
of High-Density Polyethylene.
Polypropylene. and Polystyrene Resins."
EPA-450/3-83-008. Comments received
on the draft CTG document are attached
as an appendix to each final CTG
document and are also available for
public inspection and copying between
8:30 a.m. and 4:00 pm.. Monday through
Friday. at the Chemicals and Petroleum
Branch. Room 736. U.s. Environmental
Protection Apncy, 411 West Chapel Hill
StreeL Durbam. North Carolina 27701.
FOR FURTHD INFOIIMATION CONTACT:
Mr. James &. Bh!'y. (911) 541-5605.
Chemical8 ..tP8troleum Branch (MD-
13). EmiuiGR StaDdard8 and Engineering
Division. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Research TJ'iansle Park. North
Carolina 27711.
.... -~IT.IItY ....,..,.noa ()n May
.. 1IIII2a (41 nl18&8lQ......,. . .
anno8DC8d tb. availab6lMr of * Iiraft
CTG OOo.mwnt for ''Ca11818 of V oJatile
Orpnic Gompund 1l>w I ~...
Manufacture of~tJ
Pol,ethylene. Pol)pn411.... ad
Polyltyrene Resina" for publh: review.
Commenta were received from six
indu8trJ repre88ntatiYee and trade
~,...... ere d8ament was
prepared based on the eval'uation of the
public COIDJD8nta. 1'h& major cbanse in
the final document Is incluciin3 flares in
the definition .f RACT. Data available
on the performance offlares when the
draft CTG wal published did not
IUpport a concluaion that flares would
reduce VOC emissions by 98 percent or
greater. consequently flares were not
included in the definition of RACT.
Three commenters. however. argued
that flares should be included in the
defInition of RACT.
In January 1983. "A Report on a Flare
Efficiency Study" was published by the
Chemical Manufacturers Association.
This report covers the results of a study
designed to measure the performance of
flares in reducing VOC emissions. The
results demonstrate that under certain
conditioDs. flares will reduce VQC
emissions by a.t least 98 percent.
Finally. the RACT level for
polystyrene plants using continuous
process was changed from 0.3 kg of
VOC/1000 kg of product to 0.12 kg of
VOC/1000 kg of product based on recent
information concerning current industry
practice. -
These CTG document. are part of the
third group of CTG documents published
to assiat the Statel in determining RACT
for varioUlstationary sources of VOC
emissioDi. CTG documenta provide
State and 1000 air pollutioD control
agencies with an initial information
base for proceedin8 with their own
analysis of RACT for specific stationary
source cateaorie. of vac emissions
located within areas where an extension
wu graDted to the attainment of the
national ambtl!Dt air ~ty standard
(NMOS) tor CJZOM. i'h8 CTG
documenta nrview ~ information
and data concemin8 the technology and
cost of varioua CODtJoI techniques to
reduce VQC --'-v...
Thia CTG ~ DOt . "rule" a. defined by
the AdmDIiatn-.ftcK, frlu Act (5
U.s.c. 551 .. 88q.).11 ia. --rm." for
purpose of ber:uthw Order 12291.
becaUM it Ia dltllMlMllIa ""~ent an
EPA~. UnII8t.......cw.
1229i. ~..... "~'"-.nle is
"major' ... ....... .18IIfect to the
requir8ai88I8 01. ,......, iIIIpIIct
98
analysis. These CTG documenta are not
''major roles" becaUH they do not
impose any new requirements. This
notice and the final CTC documents
were sUQmitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review. Any comments from the OMS 10
the EPA and any EPA responses to
those comments are available for public
inspection. See the ADOItESSU section
of this notice for the time. and
addresses.
Dated: June 9. 1983.
CbarIeI L EDdna.
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise,
and Radiation.
IFR Doc. - PlIed 11-1- --I
llU8III CODE .......
-------
Federal ~ / Vol. tit. No. 25 ! Monday. February 6. 1984 / Notices
4433
(AD-FRL 2520-7)
Control Technique. Guideline
Document; VOC Equipment Leaks
From Natural Gas/Guoline
Processing
AGENCV: Environmental Protection
Agency iEPA).
ACTIOM: RiKeaae Gf filial Łontro1
teclu1iques guideline (CTG) document
SUMMARY: P"mal CTG document fer
control of equipment leaks of volatile
organic compounds (VOC] from natural
gaslgasoline processing plants is
'Ivailabie. This final CTG document
provides guidance for the States in
Je~ermming reasonably avaIlable'
control techrwlogy (RACf1 for VOC
equipment leaks from natural gas I
gasoline processing plants.
ADOIIESSES: Copies of the final CTG
document may be obtained by
contacting the Environmental R/;::>earch
Library (MD-35}. (9191 541-2?i7.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711. Please refer to "Guideline
Senes-Control of Volatile Organic
Compound Equipment Leaks from
Natural Gas/Gawline Processing,"
F.PA-4SO/3--83-OO7. Comments received
un the draft CTG document are attached
dS an appendix to the fir.al CTG
document and are also a.clIlable for
puhlic inspection and copying between
/1'30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.. Monday through
Fr:day at !'he Chemicals and Petroleum
8ranch. Room 736. Environmenta!
Protection Agency. 411 West Chapel Hill
SI,eet. Durham. North Carolina.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATtON CONTACT:
~.Ir. J. F. Durham. (919) 541-567l.
Chemicals and Petroleum BrarJch (MD-
13). Emission Standards and Engineering
Division. Environmental Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Parlt. North
C.tfu;:na 2;'711.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFOaMATION: The EPA
announced the availability for public
review of the draft CTG for VOC
pr]uipment leaks from natural gasl
~il50line processing plants on january
25. 1982 [.F FR 3403). Twelve comments
were received on this draft doc..-umen
from industry representatives and trade
g!'Oups. The final CTG document was
prepared based on the evaluation of the
public comments and on consideration
of supplemental data analyses provided
~ubsequent to the issuance of the draft
erG docmnent in ~Fugime Emission
C;"urr.es of Organic Compounds-
-\dditiunallnformatiun on Emissions.
Emission Reductions. and Costs. ~ or
AID EPA-t50/3-82~O (April 196Z1.
Seyeral major cbangea were made in the
final RACT determination. The emission
reduction estimates were re,,;sed based
upon the metbodolosv presented in the
AID. aDd an exemption from the leak
detection and repair requirements wu
provided for plants that do not
fractionate aatural8IU liqujds and that
have feed capacities of lese tha. Z80
99
thousand cubic melers (10 million cubic
feet) per day. Additional exemptIOns
haTe been provided ID the final CTG. All
leaks that cannot be repaired on-line no
longer have to be repai..red W1thin 1 year
of detect'on and control oi valve
positioner emissions from \!a5-operated
control vaives is not reqwrerl.
Exempt;on from the roubne leak
detection and repair require~ent is
provided for eqmpment in dry gas
servic.e [containing less than 1.0 percent
VOC by weight}, in heavy liquid service.
arid in vacuum ~ervice. Reciprocating
CGil1p~sor seals in wet gas service (i e-
contaimng behveen 1.0 and 50 perc~nt
VOC by weight) aie exempted from
RACT req;Jirements.if there is no c'-':ltrel
device available in the gas plant.
This CTG document is part of the
third group of CTG documents published
to assist the States in detennining RACT
for various stationary sources of VOC
emissIOns. CTG documents provide
State and local air pollution control
agenci~ w1th an initial information
base fur proceeding with their own
analysis of RACT for specific ,t~ticrlary
source categories of VOC e:rdS5ir;ns
located within areas wbere an extenslOD
.....as g;anted to the attainmE'nt cf the
natioGal ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS) for ozone. The CTG
documents revIew existing information
and data concerning the techr.ology and
cost of various control techmques to
reduce vac emissions.
This CTG is not a "rule"
-------
100
-------
II. New Source Performance Standards
for Sources of Volatile Organic Compounds-Final
Rules, Proposed Rules, Notices,
and Announcements
101
-------
102
-------
Chapter I-Environmental Protection Agency
Subpart K-Standards of Perform-
ance for Storage Ve..els for Petro-
leum Liquids Construded After
June 11, 1973 ond Prior to May 19,
1978
160.110 Applicability and deaifll8tion of
affected facility.
(a) Except as provided in g 60.110(b),
the affected facility to which this sub-
part applies is each storage vessel for
petroleum liquids which has a storage
capacity greater than 151,412 liters
(40,000 gallons).
(b) This subpart does not apply to
storage vessels for petroleum or con-
densate stored. processed. and/or
treated at a drilling and production fa-
cility prior to custody transfer.
(c) Subject to the requirements of
this subpart is any facility under para-
graph (a) of this section which:
(1) Has a capacity greater than 151.
416 liters (40,000 gallons), but not ex-
ceeding 246,052 liters (65,000 gallons).
and commences construction or modi-
fication after March 8, 1974, and prior
to May 19, 1978.
(2) Has a capacity greater than
246,052 liters (65.000 gallons) and com-
mences construction or modification
after June 11. 1973, and prior to May
19, 1978.
(Sees. Ill, 301, Clean Air Act; sec. 4(8) of
Pub. L. 91-604. 84 Stat. 1883; sec. 2 of Pub.
L. 90-148, 81 Stat. 504 (42 U.s.C. 1867c-6,
18571«8)))
~ 60.111
[42 FR 37937. July 25. 1977. as amended at
45 FR 23379. Apr. 4. 1980]
1 60.111 Definition8.
As used in this subpart, all terms not
defined herein shall have the meaning
given them in the Act and in Subpart
A of this part.
(a) "Storage vessel" means any tank.
reservoir, or .container used for the
storage c: petroleum liquids. but does
not include:
(1) PreSEure vessels which are de-
signed to operate in excess of 15
pounds per square inch gauge without
emissions to the atmosphere except
under emergency conditions,
(2) Subsurface caverns or porous
rock reservoirs, or
(3) Underground tanks if the total
volume of petroleum liquids added to
and taken from a tank annually does
not exceed twice the volume of the
tank.
(b) "Petroleum liquids" means petro-
leum, condensate, and any finished or
intennediate products manufactured
in a petroleum refinery but does not
mean Nos. 2 through 6 fuel oils as
specified in ASTM-D-396-'i3, gas tur-
bine fuel oils Nos. 2-GT through 4-GT
as specified in ASTM-D-2880-78, or
diesel fuel oils Nos. 2-D and 4-D as
specified in ASTM-D-97578.
(c) "Petroleum refinery" means each
facility engaged in producing gasoline,
kerosene. distillate fuel oils, residual
fuel oils, lubricants, or other products
through distillation of petroleum or
through redistillation, cracking. ex-
tracting, or reforming of unfinished
petroleum derivatives.
(d) "Petroleum" means the crude oil
removed from the earth and the oils
derived from tar sands. shale. and coal.
(e) "Hydrocarbon" means any organ-
ic compound consisting predominantly
of carbon and hydrogen.
(f) "Condensate" means hydrocar-
bon liquid separat, j :rom natural gas.
which condenses due to changes in the
temperature and/or pressure and re-
mains liquid at standard conditions.
(g) "Custody transfer" means the
transfer of produced petroleum and/
or condensate. after processing and/or
treating in the producing operations.
from storage tanks or automatic trans-
103
-------
~ 60.112
fer facilities to pipelines or any other
forms of transportation.
(h) "Drilling and production facilI-
ty" means all drilling and servicing
equipment. well8. flow lines. separa-
tors. equipment, gathering lines, and
auxiliary nontransportation-related
equipment used in the production of
petroleum but does not include natu-
ral gasoline plants.
m "True vapor pressure" means the
equilibrium partial pressure exerted
by a petroleum liquid as determined in
accordance with methods described in
American Petroleum Institute Bulletin
2517, Evaporation Loss from Floating
Roof Tanks, 1962.
(j) "Floating roof" means a storage
vessel cover consisting of a double
deck. pontoon single deck. internal
floating cover or covered floating roof.
which rests upon and is supported by
the petroleum liquid being contained,
and is equipped with a closure seal or
seals to close the space between the
roof edge and tank wall.
(k) "Vapor recovery system" means
a vapor gathering system capable of
collecting all hydrocarbon vapors and
gases discharged from the storage
vessel and a vapor disposal system ca-
pable of processing such hydrocarbon
vapors and gases so as to prevent their
emission to the atmosphere.
"Reid vapor pressure" is the abso-
lute vapor pressure of volatile crude
oil and volatile non-viscous petroleum
liquids. except liquified petroleum
gases, as determined by ASTM-D-323-
58 (reapproved 1968).
[39 Fa 9317. Mar. 8.1974; 39 Fa 13778. Apr.
17, 1974. &8 amended at 39 Fa 20794, June
14. 1974; 45 Fa 23379, Apr. 4, 1980J
/I 60.112 Standard for yolatlle orpnle
eompound. (VOC).
(a) The owner or operator of any
storage vessel to which this subpart
applies shall store petroleum liquids as
follows;
(1) If the true vapor pre88ure of the
petroleum liquid, as stored. is equal to
or greater than 78 mm Hg (1.5 psta)
but not greater than 570 mm Hg (11.1
psia), the storage vessel shall be
equipped with a floating roof, a vapor
recovery system, or their equivalents.
(2) If the true vapor pressure of the
petroleum liquid as stored is greater
Title 4O-Protection of Environment
than 570 mm Hg <11.1 psia). the stor-
age vessel shal~ be equipped with a
vapor recovery system or its equiva-
lent.
[39 PH 9317. Mar. 8.1974; 39 FR 13778. Apr.
17. 1974. &8 amended at 45 FR 23379, Apr. 4.
1980J
/160.113 Monitoring of operation..
(a) Except as provided in paragraph
(d) of this section, the owner or opera-
tor subject to this subpart shall main-
tain a record of the petroleum liquid
stored, the period of storage, and the
maximum true vapor pressure of that
liquid during the respective storage
period.
(b) Available data on the typical
Reid vapor pressure and the maximum
expected storage temperature of the
stor:ed product may be used to deter-
mine the maximum true vapor pres-
sure from nomographs contained in
API Bulletin 2517, unless the Adminis-
trator specifically requests that the
liquid be sampled, the actual storage
temperature determined. and the Reid
vapor pressure determined from the
sample
-------
Chapt.r I L.:"l17 ...tal Protection Agency
Subpart Ka-Standards of Pen--
anc. far Sh .~ v..-. for Petro-
leum l'." - 0.-1."'" ....
May 18, 1978
SOURCE: 45 FR 23379. Apr. 4. 1980, WJIiI8
otherwise na&ecL
II6I.II0a Applicability and designation of
affec:ted facility.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph
(b) of thLs section. the affected facility
to which this subpart applies is each
storage vessel for petroleum liquids
which baa a storage capacity greater
than 151,416 liters (40,000 gallims) and
for which construction is commenced
after May I&. 1978.
(b) Each petroleum liquid storage
vessel with a capacity of less than
L.5I9.&'13 liters (420.000 pllons) used
for ._tuda- or condensate stored.
processed. or treated prior to custody
tnlDsfer is not an affected f8ciIit7 and.
therefore, Is ".~'.fI'*. from the require-
ments of this IDItIpart..
II &8..11Ja Definitions.
In addition to the tenDs and their
d~ listed in the Act and Sub-
part A of this put. the following defi.
DitiaIIS apply m this subpart:
(a) "Storage vessel" ~ ~
tank, reservoir, or container used for
the storage of petroleum ~ but
does not include:
(1) Ft--.... ~ which are de-
signed to operate in excess of 204.9
kPa (15 psig) without emissions to the
atmosphere except under ~--
~__HK....-
(2) Subsurface caverns or P8GI8
rock reservoirs. or
(3) U~....... t8:dra if the total
~ of petroleum 1II:i8Id8""'" to
and taken from a tank annually ciDet
not exceed twice the volume of the
tank.
(b) "~~llquids" ......petro-
leum. condensate, and any Aft......,. or
i11.tIA.,.vH." ~odtacb. Jft----F---t~~
In a ~ refinery but does not
mean Nos. 2 through II fI8i ~a as
.......rn.... in ASTM-D-396-78. ga;;:; tur-
bine fuel oils Nos. 2-GT di ---..,#..or
as ~ fILA in ~818-78. or
diesel fuel oils Nos. 2-D and ot-D u
~ IlI"..dm~78.
~ 60.111 a
(c) "Petroleum refinery" means each
facility engaged in producing gasoline,
kerosene, distillate fuel oils, residual
fuel oils, lubricants, or other products
through distillation of petroleum or
through redhJH1hatiou. cracking, ex-
tracting, or reforming of unfinished
petroleum derivatives.
(d) "Petroleum" means the crude oil
removed from the earth and the oils
derived from tar sands, shale, and coal.
(e) "Condensate" means hydrocar-
bon liquid separated from D8tI1r8l gas
which condenses due to changes in the
temperature or pressure, or both. aDIi
remains liquid at standard ........--.
(f) "True vapor pressure" means the
equilibrium partial PftSBUft exerted
by a petroleum liquid such as deter-
mined in accordance with methods ..
scribed in ~~ Petroleum Insb-
tute Bulletin 2517, E\I_..tlua Loss
from Floating Roof Tanks. 1962.
(g) "Reid vapor pre_me" is the.
solute vapor pressure of v~ crude
oHand valatiIJe non-vill:ou:s petroleum
liquids,. except liquified petroleum
P&iI5. as determined by AS'1'JI~
58 H.~..-d 1968),
(h) "I.e..p,' Lm ...~..r means a
foam or liquid-filled primary seal
----- in contact with the liquid be-
tween the tank wall and the floating
roof ...-mn1n1l8b around the .J....-or
C~- of the t8I*.
-------
~ 60.11:0
1160.112a Standard for volatile organic
compounds (VOC).
(a) The owner or operator of each
storage vessel to which this subpart
applies which contains a petroleum
liquid which, as stored. has a true
vapor pressure equal to or greater
than 10.3 kPa (1.5 psia) but not great-
er than 76.6 kPa (11.1 psia) shall equip
the storage vessel with one of the fol-
lowing:
(1) An external floating roof, con-
sisting of a pontoon-type or double-
deck-type cover that rests on the sur-
face of the liquid contents and is
equipped with a closure device be-
tween the tank wall and the roof edge.
Except as provided in paragraph
(a)(1)(ii)(D) of this section, the closure
device is to consist of two seals, one
above the other. The lower seal is re-
ferred to as the primary seal and the
upper seal is referred to as the second-
ary seal. The roof is to be floating on
the liquid at all times (i.e., off the roof
leg supports) except during initial fill
and when the tank is completely emp-
tied and subsequently refilled. The
process of emptying and refilling when
the roof is resting on the leg supports
shall be continuous and shall be ac.
complished as rapidly as possible.
m The primary seal is to be either a
metallic shoe seal, a liquid-mounted
seal. or a vapor-mounted seal. Each
seal is to meet the following require-
ments:
(A) The accumulated area of gaps
between the tank wall and the metal-
lic shoe seal or the liquid-mounted seal
shall not exceed 212 cm 2 per meter of
tank diameter (10.0 in " per ft of tank
diameter) and the width of any por-
tion of any gap shall not exceed 3.81
cm (U in).
(B) The accumu1ated area of gaps
between the tank wall and the vapor-
mounted seal shall not exceed 21.2 cm2
per meter of tank diameter (1.0 in" per
ft of tank diameter) and the width of
any portion of any gap shall not
exceed 1.27 cm (~ in).
(C) One end of the metallic shoe is
to extend into the stored liquid and
the other end is to extend a minimum
vertical distance of 61 cm (24 in) above
the stored liquid surface.
Title 4O-Prot8Ction of Environment
(D) There ar~ to be no holes, tears.
or other opemngs in the shoe seal
fabric, or seal envelope. '
(ii) The secondary seal is to meet the
following requirements:
(A) The secondary seal is to be In-
stalled above the primary seal so tha.t
it completel)' covers the space between
the roof edge and the tank wall except
as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(B)
of this section.
(B) The accumulated area of gaps
between the tank wall and the second-
ary seal used in combination with a
metallic shoe or liquid-mounted pri-
mary seal shall not exceed 21.2 cm"per
meter of tank diameter (1.0 in2 per ft.
of tank diameter) and the width of
any portion of any gap shall not
exceed 1.27 cm (~ in.). There shall be
no gaps between the tank wall and the
secondary seal used in combination
with a vapor-mounted primary seal.
(C) There are to be no holes, tears or
other openings in the seal or seal
fabric.
(D) The owner or operator Is
exempted from the requirements for
secondary seals and the secondary seal
gap criteria when performing gap
measurements or inspections of the
primary seal.
(tti) Each opening in the roof except
for automatic bleeder vents and rim
space vents is to provide a projection
below the liquid surface. Each opening
in the roof except for automatic bleed-
er vents, rim space vents and leg
sleeves is to be equipped with a cover,
seal or lid which is to be maintained in
a closed position at all times (i.e.. no
visible gap) except when the device Is
in actual use or as described in par-
graph (a)(1)(tv) of this section. Auto-
matic bleeder vents are to be closed at
all times when the roof is floating,
except when the roof is being floated
off or is being landed on the roof leg
supports. Rim vents are to be set to
open when the roof is being floated off
the roof legs supports or at the man 1-
facturer's recommended setting.
(tv) Each emergency roof drain is to
be provided with a slotted membrane
fabric cover that covers at least 90 per-
cent of the area of the opening.
(2) A fixed roof with an internal
floating type cover equipped with a
continuous closure device between the
106
-------
Chapt.r I-Environmental Protection Agency
tank wall and the cover edge. The
cover is to be floating at all times,
-------
~ 6O.11.A.t
measure the circumferential distance
of each such location.
(C) The total surface area of each
gap described in paragraph
(a) Ezeept as provided in P8I'88!'8Ph
(d) of this seetion. the owner or opera.
tor subjeet to this subpart shall main.
tain It record of the petroleum liquid
stoftd. the period of storage, and the
maximum true vapor pressure of that
liquid during the respective storage
periad. .
(b> AvaiI8Ide data on the Qptcal
Reid vapor pressure and the maximum
expected stanae temperature of the
stmed product may be used to deter.
mine the maximum true vapor Pft8-
sure from n._..~ canta1neci tD
API Bulletin 2517. UDIe8 the Amninl..
trator SJ-- ;R.,..1b requesU that the
liquid be sampled. the actual stoI'8Ie
t~ determined. and the Re1ci
vapor pressure determined from the
samp1e(s).
(C) The true vapor pressure of eIIŁh
type of crude oU with a Reid vapor
pressure lna than 13.8 kPa (2.0 E8ia)
or whose physical properties preclude
determination by the recO.hl..~
method is to be determined from aY8il-
able data and reconted If the -*:~-
108
-------
STATUS OF STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
New Source Performance Standards
Sourcf'
Affectf'd Facility
Po 11 utant
Proposal
Date
Review
Date
------
Subpart
Steam Generators
(>250 million
Rtu/hr)
D
Utility and Industrial hoilers
(coal, oil, and gas)
Prolllulgation
Date
U~ted: 11/1/83
BID No.
NOx & Particulates FY-83
Particulate 8/17171
Particulate 8/17171
NO 8/17/71
x
SOx' acid mi!:t 8/17171
12/23171
6/14/74 clarification
EPA-4S0/3-79-021
APTD-0711
EPA-450/2-76-030a~b
Particulate
SO
NOx
x
8/17171
10/21/83
(48 FR 48960)
Wood Residue Amendment Part" SO)(, NOx 1/17179 1112Z176
(41 FR 51397)
Lignite fired steam generators NO 12/22176 317178
x (41 FR 55792) (43 FR 9276)
Da Utility boilers (solid, Part., SOZ' NOx 9/19178 6/11179
liquid, and gaseous fuels) (43 FR 4Z154 (44 FR 33581)
Db Industrial boilers (coal,
oil, gas, solid waste. wood
and bagasse)
Municipal E I nci nerators
Incinerators
(,50 tons per day)
PMt1:'1nd Cement F Kiln. clinker cooler
PlimLs
Nitric Acid G Process Equipment
!'lants
Sulfuric Acid H Process equipment
Plants
..._----.-~- --.----
-- ----.-- --
", II'II/Office of Air 11IJil11 ty Plannlnq illid
I "oj'., ion SI.r1l1dil,'r!S " En'lln"et' Division
I" ,"IILh lriilnlilp Pilrk. Nt 77711
. I ,I wl,1I I
fPA-450/2-78-005a
EPA-4S0/Z-78-006a
EPA-450/Z-78-007a
EPA-450/Z-78-007a-l
EPA-450/3-79-0Z1
12123171 APTD-0711 ~
11/27179 ŁPA-450/3-79-009 .....
(44 FR 67939)
12/23171 APTD-0711
10/22/79 EPA-450/3-79-012
(44 FR 60761)
12/23171 APTD-0711
6/19179 EPA-450/3-79-013
12/23171 APTD-0711
3/15179 ŁPA-450/3-79-003
(44 FR 15742)
-------
STATUS OF STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
New Source Pet'formance Standards
Proposal PrOtllulgation Review
Source Subpart Affected Facility Po II utallt Date Date Date BID No.
Sul turic Acid Process equipment Acid mist 10/18/77 EPA-450/2-77-019
Plants J11(d)
Asphalt Concrete Process equipment Particulate 6/11/73 3/8/74 EPA-450/2-74-003
Plants APTD-1352a-c
8/31/79 EPA 450/3-79-014
(44 FR 51225)
Petl'oleuln J Fuel gas combustion devices SO 6/11/73 3/8/74 EPA-450/2-74-003
Refineries FCCU catalyst regenerators Pa?ticulate, CO APTD-1352a-c
Claus su1fur recovery plants SOr reduced su1fur 10/4/76 3/15178 EPA-450/2-76-016a&b
co pounds. H2S (41 FR 43866) (43 FR 10866)
3/12179 Amend
Definition of small claus 3/20/79 10/25/79
sulfur recovery plants (44 FR 1720) (44 FR 61543)
10/22/79 EPA-450/3-79-008
Clarification of which gaseous 3/3/80 12/1/80 (44 FR 60759)
fuels are covered (45 FR 13991) (45 FR 79452)
FCCU Catalyst Regenerators SOx FY-83
""" Petroleum Liquid K,Ka Gasoline, crude oil, and VOC 6/11/73 3/8/74 APTO-1352a-c
"""
0 Stol'age Vessels distillate storage tanks 5/18/78 Amend. 4/4/80 EPA-450/2-74-003
>40,000 gallons capacity 12/18/80 Correction
(45 FR 83228)
Equivalency determination/ 4/29/81 12/1/82
aMendment (46 FR 23984) (47 FR 54258)
Secondilry Lead Blast and reverberatory Particulate 6/11/73 3/8/74 APTD-1352a-c
SIIII1II.1.l's and furnaces, pot furnaces EPA-450/2-74-003
Re fineries 4/17/80 EPA-450/3-79-015
(45 FR 26304)
<--- -~ ---
-------
STATUS OF STANDARDS Of PERfORMANCE
New Source Performance Standards
<'ource Subpart Proposal Promulgation Review
Affected Facility Po 11utant Date Date Date 0 ID No.
Secondary Brass '" Reverberatory and electric Particulate 6/11173 3/B174 6/19179 APTD-1352a-c
and Bronze furnaces and blast furnace5 (38 FR 15406) (39 FR 9308) (44 fR 35953) EPA450/2-74-003
Ingot Production
P1ant~
Iron ilnd Steel N Basic oxygen process furnaces Particulate 6/11/73 318/74 APTD-1352a-c
"'ills (BOPF) (38 FR 15406) (39 FR 9318) EPA-450/2-74-003
Primary emission sources Opacity Standard 3/2/77 4/13/78 Amend.
(39 FR 9308) (43 FR 15602)
Na Revision to be proposed for Fugitive Particulate 3/21/79 EPA-450/3-78-116
BOPF's, hot metal & skimming 1/20/83 (44 FR 17460)
stations (48 FR 2058) EPA-450/3-82-005a
SewaQP Treatment 0 Sludge incinerators Particulate 6/11/73 3/8/74 APTD-1352a-c
Plants : U10177 Amend.
i~2 FR 58520) 11/27/79 EPA-450/3-79-010
(44 FR 67934)
Primary Copper P Roaster, smelting furnace, SO 10/16174 1115/76 (fY-83) EPA-450/2-74-002a
Smelters converter )( 11/1177 Amend.
Dryers Particulate to G.P.
Primary Zinc Q Roaster SO 10/16/74 1115/76 10/8/82 EPA-450/2-74-002a ....
Smelters Sintering machine Pahlculate (47 FR 44587) ....
....
Primary 'lead R Sinterfng machine, electric SO)( 10/16174 1115176 10/8/82 EPA-450/2-74-002a
Smp !tpr5 smelting furnace, convertl'r (47 FR 44587)
Blast or reverberatory furnace, Particulate
sinterlng machien discharge end
Primary Aluminum S Pot lines and anode bake Fluorides 10/23/74 1126/76 EPA-450/2-74-020a-c
Reduction Plants plants 9/19/78 Amend. 6/30/80 EPA-450/2-78-025a
(45 FR 44202) EPA-450/3-79-026
-------
STATUS OF STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
New Source Performance Standards
Proposal Promulgation Review
Source Subpart Affected Facility Po 11 utant Date Date Date BID No.
Primary AlulllinulII Pot lines and anode bake Fluorides 4/11/79 4/17/80 EPA-450/2-78-049a&b
Reduction Plants plants Draft CrG Final CTG
111(11)
Phosphate T Wet process phosphoric acid Fluorides 10/22/74 8/6/75 EPA-450/2-74-019a&b
fert.ilizer U Superphosphoric acid Fluorides
P I an ts V Dia..oniUl phosphate Fluorides 11/21/80 EPA-450/3-79-038R
W Triple superphosphate prod. Fluorides 6/21/82 2/17/83
II Granular trpl. superphos. strog Fluorides (47 fR 26750) (48 fR 7128)
Phosphat!.' Wet process phosphoric acid fluorides 5/12/76 3/1/77
fert i I i zer Superphosphoric acid Fluorides
Plants 111 (d) DiamlllOniUl phosphate Fluorides
Triple superphosphate prod. fluorides
Triple superphosphate storage Fluorides
Coal Cleaning y Air tables and ther.al Particulate 10/24/74 1/15/76 EPA-450/2-74-021a-c
Phnts dryers
4/14/81 EPA-450/3-BO-022
(46 fR 21769)
Ferroa I Joy Z Specific furnaces Particulate & CO 10/21/74 5/4/76 EPA-450/Z-74-018
Production 1/26/81 EPA-450/3-BO-041
..... (46 fR 8033)
.....
NI Iron and Steel AA Electric arc furnaces Particulate 10/21/74 9/23/75 EPA-450/2-74-017a&b
Hill~ 4/21/80 EPA-450/3-79-033
(45 fR 26910)
8/17/83 EPA-450/3-82-020a
(48 fR 3733B)
-~._---
--- -----
-------
~TATUS OF STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
N@w Sourc@ P@rformanc@ Standards
--.-
~ourc@ Proposal Promulgation R@view
Subpart Affect@d Facility Pollutant Date Date Date BID No.
Kraft Pulp Mills BB Digesters, lim@ kiln, recovpry Total reduced 9/24/76 2123/78 FY-83 EPA-4S0/2-76-014a&b
furnace, washer, evaporator, sulfur (TRS)
strippers, smelt & BLO tanks
Recovery furnace, lime kiln, Particulate 9/24/76 2I23/7B
smelt tank 8/7 /78 Amend.
Kraft Pulp Mills Digest@rs, If Me kfln, recovery To ta 1 r@duc"ed 2123/78 5/22/79 EPA-450/2-78-003a&b
lll( d) furnac@, wash@r, @vaporator sulfur (TRS)
stripp@rs, sm@lt & BLO tank
R@cov@ry furnace, lim@ kiln, Particulat@ 2123/78 5/22/79
SMe It tank
Gl ass Manufac- CC Glass melting furnace Particulates 6/15/79 10/7/80 EPA-450/3-79-005a&b
turing Plants (44 FR 34840) (45 FR 66742)
Grain rJevators 00 Truck loadfng and unloadfng Particulat@s 1/13/77 8/3/78 EPA-4S0/2-77-00Ia&b
stations, barg@ or ship loading
and unloading stations, railcar
loading & unloading stations,
and grain handling operations
Meta I F urni ture EE Each .etal furnitur@ surfac@ VOC 11/28/80 10/29/82 EPA-450/3-80-007a&b
coating operation (45 fR 79390) (47 FR 49278) 01")
.-4
.-4
Stationary lnter- FF Each IC engfne NO 7/23/79 EPA-450/2-78-125a
nal Combustion x (44 FR 43152)
Engin@s
Stationary Gas GG Each gas turbine NOx' SOx 10/3/17 9/10/79 10/6/83 EPA-450/2-77-017a&b
Turhines 4/15/81 Amend. 1/27/82 (48 FR 45701)
(46 FR 22005) (47 FR 3767)
--------
-------
STATUS OF STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
New Source Performance Standards
Proposal Promulgation Review
~ource Subpart Affected Facility Po 11 utanl Date Date Date BID No.
Lime Manufac- HH Rotary kiln, hydrator Particulates 5/3/77 3/7/78 EPA-450/2-77-007b
turing Plants Revision & Response to Court Remand 9/2/82
(47 FR 38832)
Sodium Carbonate II Calciners, dryers, bleachers Particulates 10/15/80 9122181 Withdrawn EPA-450/3-80-029a
(45 FR 68616) (46 FR 46813)
Degreasers JJ Cold cleaner, vapor degreaser. VOC, perchloro- 6/11/80 EPA-450/2-78-045a
(Organic Solvent conveyorfzed degreaser ethylene, tri- (45 FR 39766)
Cleaners) chloroethylene, 4/21/81 Applicability date deferred
I. I. I-trichloroethane, (46 FR 22768)
methylene chloride,
trlchlorotrltluoroethane
lead Aeid KK lead oxide production grid lead 1/14/80 4/16/82 EPA~450/3-79-028a&b
Batteries casting, paste mixing, three- (45 FR 2790) (47 FR 16564)
process operation and lead
reclamation
Meta J 1 i e II Metallic .ineral processing Particulates 8/24/82 EPA-450/3-81-009a
Minerals operations prior to 8etal (47 FR 36859)
reduction
- Automohi Ie and Jff Prime, guide coat, and top VOC emissions 10/5/79 12/24/80 EPA-450/3-79-030a&b
- light-Duty Truck coat operations at assembly (45 FR 85415)
,j:o.
Surface Coating plants
Operations Innovative Technology Waivers 8/6/82 2/4/83
(47 FR 34342) (48 FR 5452)
Prime Coat Revisions 7/29/82
(47 FR 32743)
Phosphate Rock NH Grinding, drying and Particulates 9/21/79 4/16/82 EPA-450/J-79-017a&b
Plants calcining facilities (44 FR 54970) (47 FR 16582)
-'--.
-------
STATUS OF STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
New Sour~e Performance Standards
Propos a , Promu'gation Review
Source Subpart Affected Facility Pollutant Date Date Date BID No.
Perchloroethylene 00 Dryer, washers, filters, IIOC 't/25/80 EPA-450/3-79-029a
Dry C'eaning stil's, muck cookers (45 FR 78174)
. Ammonium SuHate PP Ammonium sulfate dryer Particulates 2/4/80 11/'2/80 EPA-450/3-79-034a&b
(45 FR 7758) (45 FR 74846)
Sraph i cArts QQ Each pub1fcation rotogravure VOC 10/28/80 11/8/82 EPA-450/3-80-031a&b
(Rotoq,-,wure) printing press (45 FR 71538) (47 FR 50644)
Correction to Promu'gation 1/tO/83 (48 FR 1056) correction
Pres~IIY'e Sensi- RR Adhesive coating line, release VOC 12/30/80 10/18/83 EPA-450/3-80-003a&b
tivf> lapes & coating line, precoat coating (45 FR 86278) (48 FR 48368)
LabE'ls Coating 1 ine
LargE' ~ppliances 5S Each surface coating operation VOC 12/24/80 10/27/82 EPA-450/3-aO-037a&b
(45 FR 85085) (47 FR 47778)
Meta' Coi I 11 Each prime coating operation, VOC 1/5/81 11/t/82 EPA-450/3-80-035a&b
Coa t.i ng each finish coat operation (46 FR '102) (47 FR 49606)
Correction to Promu'gation 1/'0/83 (48 FR 1056)
Asphalt Roofing UU Blowing sti'1s, saturator, Part icu1ate 11/18/80 8/6/82 EPA-450/3-80-021a
asphalt storage tanks, (45 FR 76427) (47 FR 3407) &t)
minerals handling, and sto,'age &/26/8' Amend. .....
faci tities (46 FR 28'80) .....
SOCM! Fugitive \IV Fugitive sources grouped VOC 1/5/81 10/18/83 EPA-450/3-80-033a&b
within a process unit. (46 FR 1136) (48 FR 48328)
Not ice of "AID" Avaitabitity 5/7182 EPA-450/3-82-010
(47 FR 19724)
Beve";:!!)e Can IN Each exterior base coat VOC 11 /26/80 8/25/83 EPA-450/3-80-036a&b
Coat.ings operation, overvarnish coatinCj (45 FR 78980) (48 FR 38728)
operation and inside spray
coating operation at 2 and 1
piece can plants
-------
~ollrce Subpart Affected Facility Po 11 utant
Bulk Gasoline XX Gasoline terminals - total of voe
Te,'minals all loading racks
Electric Arc YY Electric arc furnaces Particulates
Fur.hlces in a
Fen'olls Foundry
VOL Storage
Vessels
Rubber Tires
Not u~!'d
Polymer's and
Resins
.....
.....
C'\
By-Prodllct Coke
Oven Battery
Stacks
Flexible Vinyl
Coating and
Pr i nti n9 Ope rat.
--~-_.-
'\
AAA'
BBB
cec
ODD
EEE
FFF
STATUS OF STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
New Source Performance Standards
Proposal
Date
~--._--
Review
Date
Promulgation --
Date
BID No,
12/17/80
, '(45 FR 83126)
8/18/83
(48 FR 37518)
EPA-450/3-80-038a&b
zz
Not Used
Each storage tanks
VOC
FY-83
Undertread cementing, tread
end cellent i ng , s i dewa 11
cementing, bead cementing,
green tire spraying, cOlimon
affected facility
voe
1/20/83
(48 FR 2676)
EPA-450/3-81-008a
Raw material preparation, poly- voe
merization, material recovery,
product finishing, product storage
process sections, fugitive emissions
FY-83
Coke oven battery
Part iculate
No schedule
Rotogravure printing and
coating of flexible vinyl
products
VOC
Supplement
1/18/83
(4B FR 2276)
10/11/83
(48 FR 46224)
EPA-450/3-81-016a
-------
STATIIS OF STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
N~w Source Performance Standards
"ource
Po ttutant
Subpart
Proposal
Date
Promulgation
Date
Affected Facility
Petr'oll'lIm Reffn-
erip5
Synthplic Fiber
Product ion
Facilities
SOCMI - Air
01< i 11,11. ion
Petroleum Dry
Clei!l1inQ
Crude Oi' &
N
-------
~ource
Subpart
Affected Facility
EPA-450/3-83-00Ia
Non Meta 11 ic
Hinerals
(inc Judes lightwei ght
aggregate, gypsum,
and fJerllte)
Priorit.y List
~
~
00
000
Each c~usher, gr!nding mill,
screenlng operatlon, bucket
conveyor,.bagging operation,
storage bln, enclosed truck or
railcar loading station.
Categories of Stationary Sources
Revised
STATUS OF STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
New Source PerforMance Standards
Proposal
Date
Pollutant
Particulate
8/31/83
(48 FR 39566)
8/31/78
(43 FR 38872)
5/13/81
(46 FR 25601)
ProMulgation
Date
8/21/79
(44 FR 49222)
1/8/82
(47 FR 950)
Review
Date
BID No.
EPA-450/3-78-0J9
fPA-450/3-79-023
-------
-------
'''IIYt e
Subpart
Affect~d Facility
t'
-~rATUS OF STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
IJazardous Pollutants
-.- - --. ----
..-------
8~rvll iltm
B~ryll illm, Rock~t 0
Motor Firfng
MerCIII'Y
Vinyl Chloride
F
Coke OVl!n
Emi~~lons:
Charging
T op~ i rl~ l~aks
000" I.p.ilks
G
Maleic
Anhyrirlde
H
Ethylbl!nz~nel
Styrl'np.
B
Unus~d (formerly us~d for
asbestoslsee Subpart M)
C
Extraction plants,
plants, foundries,
propellant plants,
operations
Rocket'ntotor firing
c~ramic
i nei nerat.ors .
machining
E
Ore processing, chlor-alkali
manufacturing
Ethylene dichloride manufacture
via 0 Ikcl, vinyl chloride
manuficture, polyvinyl chlorid~
manufacture
W~t-coal charged coke
ov~n batteries
Maleic anhydride production
units that process >550 tons
of maleic acid, maleic anhydrid~
or both, per year
Alkylation reactor section, EB
hydroperoxidation reactor,
hydrogen separation system
Pol1ltt.ant
Proposal
Date
BID No
Promulgation
Date
Review
Date
--. -- -- ------------
Beryl I lum 1217171 416/73 . APTD-1503
('3& F R 8816)
Beryl 1 ium 1217171 '416/73 APTD-1503
(38 FR 8836)
Mercury 1217/71 416173 APTD~1503
(38 FR 8836)
10/25174 10/14/75 EPA-450/2-74-009a
Vinyl Chloride 12/24175 10/21176 EPA-450/2-75-009a
6/2177 Am~nd. 0Review Doc. - EPA-450/2-75-009b
EPA-450/3-82-003
Coke oven emissions FY"'82
0')
-
-
Benzene
4/18/80
(45 FR 26660)
EPA-450/3-80-00Ia
Benzene
12/18/80
(45 FR 83448)
EPA-450/3-79-035a
-------
STATUS OF STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
Hazardous Pollutants
-_0' ...~- Pl'omulgatTOil Review ----
0....- --'-0-- Proposal
~lIurcp Subpart Affected Facility Po l1ulant Date Date Date BJO No.
- . ~--_.. --- -
Benzene f ugi t he J Individual fugitive eMission Benzene 1/5/81 EPA-450/3-80-032a
sources (46 FR 1165)
Benzl!n!? Storage K Each storage tanks Benzene 12/19/80 EPA-450/3-80-034a
Ves~(>ls (45 FR 83952)
Notice of Additional Ellinion Date 11/24/82
(47 FR 53058)
Coke Oven By- L Process equip.ent, storage Benzene
Product Recovery facilities, fugitive
Planls e.ission sources and SUipS
Asbestos H Asbestos .ills; roadway Asbestos 12/7/71 4/6/73 (FY-82) APTD-150]
surfacing (asbestos tailings); (38 FR 8826)
deMOlition; spraying, fabrica-
ting, waste disposal and 10/25/74 10/14/75 EPA-4S0/2-74-009a
insulating. 5/3/74 Revis ion
Amendllent to Standard 7/13/83
(48 FR 32126)
Hanufacture of shotgun shells 3/2/77 Amend.
asphalt concrete, products con- 6/19/78 Amend. EPA-4S0/2-77-030
tainiog asbestos (textiles, cement,
I-' fireproofing and insulating
t..o .aterials, friction products,
0 paper, .i11board, felt, floor'
tile, paints, chlorinalkeli
coatings, caulks, adheshes and
sealants)
Glass Mfg. N Melting furnaces, Inorganic arsenic 7/20/83 "EPA-450/5-82-00S
Planls (48 FR 33112) EPA-4S0/3-82-01Ia
_.- ---
h.. _. - -
-------
STnTUS OF STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
Hazardous Pollutants
'''-'lIrce
Subp"lrt
Affected Facility
Pollutant
Proposal
Date
Promulgation
Date
Review
Date
BID No.
Primilry Copper
Snlp'tprs
o
P
low arsenic smellers
(smelting furnace &
copper converter)
High arsenic smelters
(copper converters)
Undetermined
Inorganic arsenic
7/20/83
(48 FR 33112)
7/20/83
(48 FR 33112)
EPA-450/3-83-010a
Inorganic arsenic
EPA-450/3-83-009a
Acrylonitrile
FY-83 listing
Scheduled
Genpli11 Provisions
Amendment
FY-83 Proposal
.....
eN
.....
-------
Federal Re~ster / Vol. 45. No. 249 I Wednesday, December 24. 1980 / Rules and Regulations 85415
~ so.:! vefinitions
"Vo;atiJe Orgii~,jc Carr.po\:nd" r.:eans
an~' 0~~2!1ic compound which
c.;-.r;iC!:::~te~ m atmos)J~enc
pncochemicaJ reactIOns: or which is
:neC!sured b\' a reference method. ar,
t:q~ivalent ~ethod. an alternative
method. or wnich is determined bv
pro::eciures specified under any s~bpart.
2. By adding Subpart MM as folJows:
Subpart MM-Stanoards of Performance
for .c.utnmobile and Light-Duty Truck
Surface Coating Operation!:
502
'30.390 Appllcabi!it) ane de~lE!nation of
a:f~ciec faciiit\.
5{1.~~1 Dcfl~:tions..
61).392 '3\a1'dards for \'o;atiie or~cnic
c\)r;. !'ounds- -
6(J..j93 Performance test 3:1d compliance
~..t":!sions.
60.3~ Monitonng of emiSSions and
op!!~,lIions.
60.395 h'pc~tmg a:1c recordileepmg
requirements.
60 3°6 Reference methods and proceOur2S.
60.397 MocHicalJons.
:\uthority.-Spctlons 111 and 301 r a) of 1he
Clean J\ir Ac:. a~ p.::1enciec [42 L.S.C. 7411.
7601IaJ). and additional autholitv as noted
below. -
Subpart MM-Standards 01
Performance for Automobile and Ught
Duty Truck Surface Coating
Operations
S 60.390 Applicability and designatIon of
affected facility.
(a) The pro\isions of this subpart
apply to the following affected facihties
in an automobile or light-duty truck
assembly plant: each prime coat
operation. each guide coat operation.
and each topcoat operation.
[b) Exempted from the provisions of
this subpart are operations used to coat
plastic body components or all-plastic
automobile or light-duty truck bodies on
separate coating lines. The attachment
of plastic body parts to a metal body
before the body is coated'does not cause
the metal body coating operation to be
exempted.
(c) The provisions of this subpart
apply to any affected facility identified
in paragraph (a) of this section that
begins construction. reconstruction. or
modification after' October 5. 19i9.
9 60.391 Definitions.
(a) All terms used in this subpart that
are not defined below have the meaning
given to them in the Act and in Subpart
A of thi s part.
"Applied coating solids" means the
volume of dried or cured coaring solids
which is deposited and remains on the
surfRce of the automobile or light-ciuty
truck body.
"Automobile" means a mol or vehicle
capable of carrying no more than 12
passengers.
"Automobile and light-duty truck
body" means the exterior surface of an
autOmobile or light-duty truck including
hoods. fenders. cargo boxes. doors, and
grill opening panels.
"Bake oven" means a device that uses
heat to dry or cure coatings.
"Electrodeposition (EDP)" means a
method of applying a prime coat by
which the automobile or light-duty truck
body is submerged in a tank filled with
coating material and an electrical field
is used to effect the deposition of the
coating material on the body.
"Electrostatic spray application"
means a spray application method that
uses an electricaJ potential to increase
the transfer efficiency of the coating
solids. Electrostatic spray application
can be used for prime coat. guide coat.
or topcoat operations.
"Flash-off area" means the structure
on automobile and light-duty truck
assembly lines between the coating
application system (dip tank or spray
booth) and the bake oven.
122
"Guide coat operation" means the
guide coat spray booth. flash-off area
2na bake oven(s) which are used to
apply and dry or cure a surface coating
between the prime coat and topcoat
opention on the components of
automobile and light-duty truck bodies.
"Light-duty truck" means any motor
vehicle rated at 3,850 kilograms gross
vehicle weight or less, designed mainly
10 transport property.
"Plastic bodv" means an automobile
or light-duty truck body constructed of
synthetic organic material.
"Plastic bod\' component': means anI'
component of ar: automobile or ligh!- .
dutv truck exterior surface constructec.
of s'ynthetic organic material.
"Prime coat operation" means the
prime coa! spray booth or alp tank,
flash-off area. and bake oven(s) which
are used to apply and dry or cure the
initial coating on components of
automobile or light-duty truck bodies.
"Purge" or "line purge" means the
coating material expelled from the spray
system when ciearing it.
"Solvent-borne" means a coating
which contains five Dercent or less
water by weight in iis volatile fraction.
"Spray application" means a method
of applying coatings by atomizing the
coatmg material and cilrecting the
atomIzed material toward the part to be
coated. Spray applications can be used
for prime coat, guide coat. and topcoat
opera lions.
"Spray booth" means a structure
housmg automatic or mar.ual spray
applicatio'n equipment where prime
coat. guide coat. or topcoat is ispplied to
components of automobile or light-duty
truck bodies.
"Surface coating operation" means
any prime coat. gUIde coat. or topcoat
operation on an automobiJe or light-duty
truck surface coating line.
"Topcoat. operation" means the
topcoat spray booth. flash-off area. and
bake oven(s) which are used to apply
and dry or cure the final coating~s) on
components of automobile and light-
dtlty truck bodies.
"Transfer efiiciency" means the ratio
of :he amount of coating solids
transferred onto the surface of a part or
product to the total amount of coating
solids used.
"voe content" means all volatile
organic compounds that are in a coating
expressed as kilograms of VQC per liter
of coating solids.
"Waterborne" or "water reducible"
means a coating which contains more
than five weight percent water in its
vOlatile fraction.
[b) The nomencJature used in this
subpar! has the follcwing meanings:
-------
85416 Federal Re~sler / Vol. 45. ]\;0. 249 / Wednesday. December 24. 1980 / Rules and Regulations
C~=concentration ofvoe las carbon) in the
e~:Juen: geS now;ng Ih~ough Sleel<. (;~
ieH\'ing the control device (pans per mIllion
bv volume).
C.. ~ ce>nc:pntration of VOC (as carbon) in the
e:!iuent gas fiow:ng through stack [I)
enlennl! .iJe control device (parts per
m:l;ion "b\ volume).
C. =conce~lratl0:1 of voe (as carbon) in the
'~f!!uent gas flowing through exhaust slack
Ii<; no! enHmng the ccntrotdevice [parts
per mil!ion b~' voiume).
D,,=denslt~ of each coating (i) as received
I ~:Jiugra:T.s per tHer J.
Dct. = density '1f each type voe dilution
soh'ent (i) added to the coatings. as
receivec rki]o!Z,ams per liter).
D,=censit} of VDe recovered from an
affected facility (kilograms per liter).
E = voe destruction efficIency of the control
device.
F = fraction of total VOC which is emitted by
an affected facility that enters the control
device.
G = volume weighted average mass of VDe
per volume of applied solids (kilograms per
liter).
J...,=volume of each coating (i1 consumed. as
received fiiters).
J...,'J=volume of each coating fi) consumed by
each application method [I). as received
liters).
~=volume of each type voe dilution
soivent (j) added 10 the coatmgs. as
received [liters).
L, = volume of VDe recovered from an
affected facility (liters).
1., = volume of sohds in coatings consumed
[lilers). .
~\, = total mass of VDe in dilution solvent
I ~lIograms),
M,.= :olal mass of \iDe ir1 coatmgs as
received (kiJograT:1s),
~t = total mass of VDe recovered frorr. an
c;:ec!ec facilit~' rki;og~ams).
~ = volume wel2r.ted avera~e mass of VDe
pe:-\ ciurr1e or" cppilec coal:ng sabds afler
t~p cont:':!; c~\':ce
r.. kiloorams of vac "
\Jiter of applied solid~
Q.,=\'olumetric now rale of the effluem gas
flowing throu!Jh stad (j) :ea\ing the control
oevice (dry s:c!"ldarc cubic meters per
hOJr!.
Q.,=\'olumetric fiow rate of the emuen! Elas
fiowing through stack (Ij enterin[1. the
control ce\'ice fcrv standard cubic meters
;'er hour;, .
Qn.=\oiumetric lio"',' ra:e 0: rhe eff;Lent ga~
i"lOWIn!! through exha'oJst siack (k) not
::1ter;r.~ :he co:-,:: ; c'\ iCE: ,C;'\' s:a~ccrc
cubic metpr~ per h('lu~~. ~
T = over"li trcT'!sffr efiIClenC\.
T: = transfer efficiency fer app:icatlon method
'"
1.1,
V" = proportion of solids by volume In each
coating (i) as recpived
r: 1 iter sol idS)
"'I iter coating
and
w 0' = proportion of VDe by weight in each
coatmg (i), as received
r: k i 1 ograms vac ')
,-kilograms coating)
~ 60.392 Standards tor volatile organic
compounds
On and after the date on which the
initial performance test required by
9 60.6 is completed. no owner or
opera tor subject 10 the provisions of this
subpart shall discharge or cause the
discharge into the atmosphere from any
affected facility VOC emissions in
excess of:
(a) 0.16 kilograms of VOC per liter uf
applied coating solids from each prime
coa t opera tion.
(b) 1.40 kilograms of VOC per liter of
applied coating solids from each guide
coat operation.
(c) 1.47 kilograms of VOC per liter of
applied coating soids from each topcoat
operation.
~ 60.393 Performance test and compliance
provisions.
[a) Sections 60.8 (d) and (f) do not
apply to the performance test
procedures required by this section.
(b) The owner or operator of an
affected facility shall conduct an initial
performance t~st in accordance with
S 60.8(a) and thereafter for each
calendar month for each affected facilitv
according to the procedures in this'
section.
(c) The owner or operator shall use
the folJowing procedures for determinin~
the monthly \'olume weighted average
mass of VOC emItted per volume of
applied coating solids,
(1) The owner or operator shali use
the following procedures for each
afff'cted facility which does not use a
123
caplUre system and a control device to
compJy with the applicable emISSIon
limit specified under g 60.392,
(i) Calculate the volume weighted
average mass of VOC per volume of
applied coating solids for each calendar
month for each affected facility. The
owner or opera tor snail determine the
composition of the coatings by
formuiation data supplied by the
manufacturer of the coating or from data
determined by ananalysis of each
coating. as received. by Reference
Method 24. The Administrator mav
require the owner or operator wh~ uses
formulation data supplied by the
manufacturer of the coating to
determine data used in the calculation
of the VOC content of coatings by
Reference Method 24 or an equivalent or
alternative method. The owner or
operator shall determine from company
Tecords on a monthlv basis the volume
of coating consumed. as received. and
the mass of solvent used for thinning
purposes. The volume weighted average
of the total mass of VOC per volume of
coating solids used each calendar month
will be determined by the following
procedures.
(A) Calculate the mass of VOC used
in each calendar month for each
affected facility by the following
equation where "n" is the total number
of coatings used and "m" is the total
number of VOC solvents used:
"'
... . ~
c
- ,
- - - ~
~ = 1 ...
'" . ...
C1
: Lei
2 = 1 ...
.c;
-c:~
[I l..1, DdJ will be zero if no VOC solvent
IS added to the coatings. as received),
(b) Calculate the total volume G'
coating solids used in each calenda~
mO:1th for each affected facility bv the
following equation where "n" ;s the total
number of coatings used:
r,
L -: l .
5 i=l C1
v .
S1
-------
Federal Register i Va! 45, :\0. 248 :' Wedne5da~'. Decem'~er 24, 1980 I Rules and Regulations
!c) Select the aDpro~:!alE' tran5fe~
efficier.cy [T1 from the fo:Jowli1!: 12 :-::E'~
:O~ eac:-: sL:rfa~e CO?':!:; ::::'er~:'-~-
ADo~BlI0" Uef"'lC'!:
-;"a~ "Ie'
e",,:l'c'e,.,co
l..!' ,:,,':I""!Z~ s.ari!'\ rwaIE~:Jr.,, :c;:!',r-.;.
.:... L,'=,"".~e: S:"'j:!. I~:: ..,?"".:>c''''-:: :':'2:.r>;
"".C~-G ::ec:'cs:a:,: Ł="2. .
':"...Io"""a~i-: ='~~.CSlai,::' S~ra,
~ IE':'!' J:te':'=s~'C'''''
I~;e '\:ci',e~ ir: the tabie aoo\' reD!"ese~t
an 0', er~E SYSI~rr. effJC1e:1.cy V'..h;c~.
.:-.r.: ~ .:.c~ c 10:c.J CC;:' :~;t:' t': p'...lrgE. ...: a
S~~2'; $\'ste:";1 uses ~i:le vU!"2ing cite:-
ef,c:l v~hicle ane does ~ot coHee' any of
::-::: :""::-'2E :naterial. t~E' :Jljo\.\-in!2 :co~e
5hall b~' used: ~
A.::JDJlCstrfY" Me:l'Ioo
i rar.s:e'
e~lc,enc,
Air A1om'zec Sprav Iwa1erbOme coa!/ng;..
Air AtOITU:ec= Sora\' (SOI..,enl.born C02.h"~i'
Manua: EIec1r:statJ~ Spra-w ,
Aulom8bC =1eC1'OSlatlc. Spr.) .
If the owner 0;- operator can iustify to
:he Admi:1istr,,1o"s satisfactlo:i t::ai
c:her values for tramfer efiiciencie~ are
approp!":.:ne. the Admj:li~t:-a tor \\"lU
appron their use on a case-by-case
oasis,
(1) \'\::er. more than O:1e appiicatwn
met~od (!) is used ::);1 an individual
SU:f..CE coat~ng operctior.. the ow"er or
ope;-c~o~ sha~~ ;erfo~ a!": ana~ysis to
determine an average transfer e~f:::le!1cy
~\' ~~;e :::j~\\"i:1~ e:~3~~::-. \\':-:c!'e "::" :5
tr~e tOlai r.1Jrnb'; of coc.:~2~ use~ 2:1d
~.. lS the tC:a; ru:,,:;~er of appl:cc~!on
!T':tfjOGS:
n
,..
; = 1
, S ~ L...: ~ .:
~= ;
-
I
-s
':J; Calculate the \'olume \\:Jg~.ted
c\,(?ri"g mass 0: \lOC per \'olume 0:
appllec coating so!ir::s !G) dUrIng each
cC!Jendar month fer eac~, ~r:eclec :ac;:it~
~~ t!..,e jCj~;O\""~~ ec:.:~LC';:"
fJ, .;. t-'.,
G 0 a
I T
""s
- --
[Ii) E the volume weighted average
;:Jass c: \'O~ per, \'ol~me of ?pplieci
COa:;:-:t: S.O!~G~ tG.. Cc!cLiatec. 0:; c
caleDdar mer;th basis, is less than or
equa1 to the app]icabJe emission hmit
specified ir, ~ 60.39:;, the affected facility
is i~. cG~~1:a!1ce. Each r::onth]\.
caicu:c ~1~n i~ a pe~fo:mance test for the
purpose 0: this subpart.
(2) The owner or operator shall use
:~e :e::o\\':ng proceC'..i:es for ecc!;
c:fE=c:ed :aciHt\" \vhich uses c cG~ti.::"e
syste:;, and a ~or.t!"o! de\'ice t~at
destroys \-OC [e.g" inci:1era 1Or) 10
comp!y with the apphcable e;';iission
;imit ~;:-edied t.::1der S 60,29:,
(i) Calcuiate the volume weighted
average mass of VOC per volume of
applied coating solids (Gi during each
calendar momh for each affected facdity
as described under S 60.393( C)(1 Hi).
(ii) Calcuiate the volume welgnted
average mass of \lOC per volume of
applieci solids emitted after thf cO:1tro!
ciev!::e, by the fO!JOwi:1g equa tJOn:
\'=G:1-FE~
(:\1 DEtermine the fraction of total
\'OC \\ :-:icn is emItted bv an affected
facditv tnat enters the control device bv
usi:1g the following equa tion where "n':
IS the totai number of stacks enten:1g the
control de\'ice and "p" is the IOta!
number 0: stacks not connecter:: to the
cOn!~oi de\'!ce:
- --
- -
,. :.c
, "
C 3C
C' 4C
a e,
C.7:
n
"'C'bi \..1..,,'
" ....1
= i
""
,.., ;:;
-
,"- ~ , ~.=~, ~ i K
, ~ ' '''' .
= . -
If the owner can justify to the
Admimstrator's satisfaction that another
met~oc \";:1i gn"e :omp2;-ai::jl? re!:=t.:!:~" ;::-:e
.;cir;::::~~~~Ci;Oj \\"::: ap;,rC\F :~~ ~::f C':-' C:
Lcse.:~:~ ':':c.se :Jas:s
:]': 1;1 ~JbseqL:ent me!"!ths, tne OI\:1er
or ope,,,:or shall use the most :e::e:1t!\-
Geter:r.!r1ec capture fraction for the'
f;( !"ferma:1ce test.
iB) Detcrmines the dest!"uc:ie::
efficiency of :he control cie\'ice ;.;s:::g
124
85417
-=)
\'alues of the volumetric flow rate of the
gas streams and the VOC con1ent (as
carbon) of each cf the gas streams ~n
and out of the device by the followmg
eouation where "n" :s the total number
of stacks enteri:1g the control device and
"m" is the total number of stacKs Jes\'ing
the control device:
n
m
: Q." c.,
i = 1 Q J CJ
~
E=
Qbi Cbi
i = 1
n
.: Qbi Cbi
, = 1
(1) In subsequent months. the owner
or operator shall use the most recentl:-
determirled VOC destruction efficiency
for the performance test
[C) If an emission control device
controls the emissions from more tha::
one affected facilit\'. the owner or
opera tor shall mea~ure the \'OC
concentration (Cb,) in the ef:luent gas
enterin~ the control devIce (ir. p"rts pe:
million by volume) and the \-o)umetric
flow rate (QD.) of the effjuen' gas (in dry
standard cubic meters per hour) ente!"ing
the device throug:: eac!: s:ack, The
destruction or removal efficienc\'
deter:1~ined using these ceta sh~il be
applied to each affec'ec facility served
b\' the cor:tro! devlce-
'Iiii) If the volume weighted average
:7ia~~ 0: \TOC per \'oJume (of applied
so!ids e~itted after the CO!1t!"o: de\-ic(
(:\: ca:cL..;,,:ec or. a caiendar r;:onth
:: co!,, is- :.ess ~b::or ~q:;aj :.:. ;h: "
app:ICBD!e em}SS~G~ .~i:::'. SpECiIjea:::
~ 6[;,39:. troe cffectec fac::i:\' !~ in
compliance, Eacr. mO:1t~iy calcu!atio:: I~
a performance lest for t!1e purposes of
thIs subpart. -
: 3) The owner or opera tor shaE use
the following procedures for each
cffec:e~ ;a~il~~y \\"hici1, use~ a ,capture
~~'Sle;:-: ;:::0 c cO:1~ro~ ce\'Jce L'"!at
:eco\ers tr.e \'OC [e.g.. ::croon
adsoroe!") to ccmpi:- with the applicab:e
em:ssion limit specified under ~ 60.392.
[I) Calculate the mass of VOC
~~1,.-Mc) used durinlZ eoeh calendar
mor.th for each affected faci~;t\' as
described under ~ 60.393(c)(1){ij,
-------
65U8 Fede:al Register! Vol. 45. :-\0, 249 ' \\'eC:1EScay, Dece~Der 24, :98C
R uies and Regula tiar: s
(;j) Calculate the lotai voiume of
r:,)C!ilng ~0:id~ (1..) used Ir: ench cale:Jdar
I!!C'nth for each affectec facility as
described under ~ 6O.393(c)(1)(i),
::i;i Cciicwate the mass of \lOC
re:o\:t'~ed (~1r\ each calendar :TIo~th ~or
eac.,; affected fccilit~ D~' the foijowing
eauii:;Or:: Mr = L.DT
'11\'1 Calculate the voJu!'!Je weighted
a\'era~(' nass of \"OC per volume of
c;:i:,licd coating soUds e!'!Ji!ted afte~ t;-,e
,:r:>!1trol de\'ice dunng a ca!endar month
"! the lolic-wmg equation:
N =
M
o
+ Md
L T
s
- M
r
(\ 1lf the volume weighted average
mas~ of VOC per volume' of applied
solids emitted after the control device
(1\') calculated on a calendar month
basIs is less than or equal to the
appiicable emission limit specified in
g 60.392, the affected facility is in
ct'mpbance. Each monthly calcu]alion IS
a performance lest for the purposes of
this subpart.
~ 60.394 Monitoring of emissions ana
operaticms,
Tr.e owne: or ODerator of an affected
facility which use's an incinerator to
comp::; wi:h ,he emiSSion bmits
s~~:tfi,:c un.der ~ 6lJ.39Z shall instaE,
c211::.ra:e, mair:talr.. a:1d o~erate
:emperatare measurement de\'lCeS as
"!'csc:1~ ed below:
(a) Where trienna! incineration is
used. a temperarure measurement
device shall be installed In the fIrebox.
Where catalytic incineration is used. a
te:nperature measurement ae\'ice shal:
at: mstallec in the gas stream
i:r.mech..te!\' before ana after UIe
c~talyst bed.
'b) Each temperature measurement
device shall be instalJed. calibrated. and
:nai"tainea according to accepted
lli'd::::i.:e ar.d the manufacturer"s
specifications. The dE!"'lce shaH have an
acc~recy ef the greater of :::0.75 percent
of the temperature being measured
ex;rresserl in del!rfe! Celsius or :::2.5< C.
fc~ Each tt'mpcra!l!!'e measurement
crevice strall be equipped with a
~,,::or.i:::g device so thod a permaJ1ern
:eccrci : s produced.
ISeettor; 114 of the Clean Air Act as ar.rerrdP
-------
F ederal R~5ter I V, - . 8Sl1B
I 0.. 4..:.. So ::... 0 '\I\o~.. D-:rm~~.. t~ I RDles and ~UQns
Ie' - R f
I I t0~ e erence Melhoe ~~ .
sa:::plir:j? ::me for ""-~ ~,.- -. .n.-
"","",ct - - ---- --_.. 'oj. ..~.. -..,:-.
...~- '"'= c, ieiiS: oneno-=- .,..~, - --
saw~le .oiume m\:sl ~ a.eXt: c:~.. .
excE''J' ~hCiI sho~e. 5a--' .,- O.-r. ..
'.. r" .... "'" ~
~~.? ~:e~ \"oh.1rnes \o\':,e",: ~E"=-('4C . "'-, :".
F!'J~lSŁ \crJct.l;es ':'- :-:: .-:~ :..t..,..~;. ~ '.
O~...~..~.':.: ~? :-.:~c~: ,.~.e ~~ ~:~~ ~t;'~~: ,~~~:\~
.... '1;"'" - . .. '".! ~. -~: -. ':' c:-. ~- :- 0.1 ~ l" . ::-', -
:ase ~~~.: .: ~.:-.e 0",', ::==- c.:- C;:'~'''6::'~ ~E..~
. .
C~f:""~:-:~.:-.=.:e ~v :::e s;;.~ ~;ciC~JC:-: ::: :':-Je
.\~~::-. :---:.--:-- -'-: -5~'~~ ::
~e:,resp:-::"':'. t: ~~a(~~ WOWG \.jeid
!"e~J:~~ cc-.~a:ab~e ~J ~r.05e :-~at wo~ld
L2 ob:a.::-.E:: :.y te~~:::~ c.:: s~ac~5.
,5I:c. E4 ;)f ~e Cit'c:1 :\:: Act as amencil:d 142-
:":.S.C. ~4:4':
~ 60.397 Modifications.
The followmg physlca; or operatJonal
changes are not. by themseives.
considered modifications of eXlsung
facH:t1es:
:1) Ch2:1~e~ as i1 resu]' of mociei year
c:;angeovers C~ s\\.:~::hes to larger cars.
I:;) Char.ges i:J :he appLcatlon of the
coat1<:gs :c incease coa[~ng film
.nickr:e5s.
!~ !)O~ 8C....~(q4f ;,,>?G ::,-:..:;....oc: 8.;: arT
BI~ COOE 6~-II
126
-------
-
-
:::'
-
-
-
-
-
-
=
=-
= ==
--
.=
==
-
- -
:: ~_5
--
-===: ~ ..E
.=== -== -
-
==
==
-
-
:;
,
== ==
:~
.= -
=-
-
-
=
-
:;IF
-
-
Ii.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Friday
At.. ~ 1982
Part Y
- Environmental
Protection Agency
rr..~ T~ t_~ .~--~ far Fiwe
AlAnr..~tI- and L1Qbt.auIJ TIUCII s...~
QhtJng ~.6-.a
1%7
-------
34.'W2
Federal Re~ter / Vol. 4-7. No. 15Z I Friday. August 6. 198Z I Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PAOTECTICN
AGENCY
4a CFR Part 60
(AD-Fm.-2117-1]
Proposed Waivers From New Source
Performanca Standards; Innovative
TechnokJgy Waivers for Five
Automobile and Ught-outy Trude
Surface Coating Operations
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency .
AC'TtON: ~otice of proposed rolemaking.
SUMMAR'Y~ The Environmental Protection
Agency tEPA) proposes to grant. subject
to the conCt1lTence by the Governors of
the States of Mich.igan. ~lissouri. Ohio.
and Tennessee. innovative tedmalogy
waivers. pursuant to Section 111m of
the Clean Air Act. as amended (the Act).
42 U.s.c. 7'~l1UJ. for topcoat operations
at the follawing atltomobile and light-
duty nclt assembly plants:
(1) General Metors Corporation [GM)
We::t:zVille. Missouri plant
(2) GM Detroit ~ficlrigan plant
r3) G.\4 Orton Tuwnsh1~ Michigan
plant
( .;) Hcnda c:f A::Ierica ~fann!acturing.
me. (P..anda) ~f.arysville. Ohio plant
(3) Nissan ~1utor ~1a:::Ifa=turi::g
Corporation U.S.A. (:-;issan) Smyrna.
Tenneslei! plant
These statutory waivers would provide
an opportunity to demonstrate the
capability of base coati clear coat (BCI
CC] tcpcoat coating systems to achieve
greater e!I:ission reductions than
required by the existing standards of
perfonnance for tapco-at coating
. operations at automcbile and light~ty
truck assembly plants at lower costs.
The purpose of this notice is to invite
public comment and to offer an
opportunity to request a public hearing
on the pr'O!'osed iI:.novative teclmalagy
waivers.
DATES: Ccl1U1!en!S. Comments !Ir.1St 1:re
received on Clt before. September za.
198Z..
Pablic Herzring. A public hearing (or
hearinp} will be held if requested.
Persons wishing to reque'5t a puhlli:
hearing a:ust contact EP A by Augast zo.
198Z. If hearings are ~quested.
annoanaments of the dates and !!laces
will appear in separate Fedezal Regis-
notices.
A~5Sn:' Ca.7r...wrerrt3.. Under Section
307{d)(Z}. -tZ U.s.c:. i5D:'{dJ(Z). the
Admimstrator is required to establish
tWo separate t!J1Pm~Icj~ dockets for
eacl1 role that wauld apply only within
the batmdaria af one State.. One capy of
:he .:!acke! :.s ~aated in W:n~
D.C.. and a second copy is located at the
EP A Regional Office for the affected
State. Therefore. copies of all comments
an a particular waiver action should be
submitted to the Washington. D.c..
docket and to the respective Regional
Office docket.
One copy of each comment should be
sent to: Central Docket Section (A-130)r
U.S. Enmonmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street. SW.. Washington. D.C.
ZQ46O. (Use appropriate docket ntlmber
for plant waiver-5ee Table.)
A second copy of each comment
shauld be sent to:
For: GM's Wentzville. Missouri plant:
Eavtronmental Protection Agency.
Region \11. Attention: Mr. Charles
Whitmore. Docket Number (Sei! Table
1). 324 East 11th Street. Kansas City,
Missouri 64106;
For: Q.fs Detrait. ~!idIigan plant:
Q.fs Orion Township. ~fichigan plant;
and/or Handa's Marysville. Ohio plant;
Environmental Protection Agency.
Region V. Attention: ~f:. Gary Gu1e%ian.
Docket Ntlmber (Sei! Table 1). z:lQ S.
Dearborn Street. Chicago. illinois 60604..
For: Nisaan's Smyrna. Tennessee
!!lant Environmental Protection ASenq.
Region IV. Attention: Mr. Brian Beals.
Docket :ttrmber (Sei! Table 1). 345
Courdand Street. N.E. Atlanta. Georgia
30365.
TASLS I.-aCCXEr Nuwes:tS
~
: 00ca8t...
'.CM'-t..~,r"
z.~~.
3.~r_~
... I to..k. . b... r-4- OlIo
!. I' M- ~Jl7 .4. r --
I
.'..82".
'~
A-CT3..
~s.
I A-42T8
The dockats may be inspected at the
listed addresses between 8 a.m. and...
p.m. on weekdays. A reasonable fee
may be c:harpd fer copying.
Public H~ Persans wishing to
requnt a public hearin8 shculd natify
Ms. :-laomi Durkee. St:andard.s
Develapment Brancb. Emission
Standards and Engineering Divisicm
(~13). U.s. ~\iI:OMlental Protection
Agency. Research Triangie Park. North
Carolina Z7i11. telephone tmmber (919)
541-cr~
FOR RI8rTHER ~ CONTACT:
Mr. Fred Porter. Standards Development
Branch. Emission Standards and
~ Divisiott (MD-13). U.5.
Enviromnemal Ptatet:ticn ~.
Researcit Triangle Park. NCJt'rlr ~
:T;'!!.. tei~ittme mun:Qer ~9Nl 541-56Zf..
128
su...-...EMEHTARY IMFCAMATtOW.
Background
Current Regulacions
On Octobe, 5. 1979. purusant to
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act.
standards of performance were
proposed. to limit emissions of volatile
organic compounds (VOC) from new,
modified. and reconstructed automobile
and light-duty truck surface coating
operations (44 FR 5ii92). Final
standards were published in the Federal
Register on December 24. 1980 (45 FR
85410).
Standards of cerformance under
Section 111 are established at levels that
reflect best demonstrated technology
(BDTJ. For 81ltomobile and light-duty
truck topcoat operations. BUT was
determined to be the U.!e of 10w.VOC
content waterborne coatings applied
wtth the best decOIIstrated air atomized
spray techniques. The standard of 1.-'7
kg VOC per liter of applied coating
solids f01" topcoat operations was based
on the use of this coating system at :hree
U.s. plants. The standard daft not,
however. require use of waterborne
coatings. Any coating system capable of
~dng VOC emissions to 1.47 kg VOC
per liter of applied coating solids may !Ie
used. Other I:Iethods witiclx could be
used independently 01" in various
combinations to achieve the tapcca:
standard are low-VOC content solvent-
borne coating5. add-on contral dev!CI!S.
such as incinerators and carban
adsoroers. and high efficiency coating
applicationtechnique~
T1Wlds in Automubile Tapccau
Since the standard was proposed in
1979. the trend in tite domestic
automobile industrv has been to develop
and use low-VOC ~antent solvent-borne
topcoats wtth improved transfer
efficiency. rather t]:an :nore costly
waterborne coatings. to reduce VOC
emissions and improve finish quality.
Law-VOC c:a:1tent. solid color topcoats
are available for produ.c:tion line tlSe.
These coa~ have been demonstrated
to be af acceptable quality and
appear anc:e and. when used in
<:nmhilWtion Wtth better t:ransfer
efficiency and! at' bake- oven emiuton
c::mtroi systems (Le.. enersy efficient
incIneratOBJ. will meet the standard.
~ coat solvent-home metallic:
CO:lting18 which could meet the standard
are also available. These coatings
c:annct. however, match the
~erfo~ 01' appe~ aI metallic
base ClJatl clear coat (BCI CCJ topcoat
systems which are beq used on many
impc!ted vehicles. BC/ CC topcoat
~ canstst of a reiamety thin layer
Q-f ~y ?i~~leci :netallic Za.w ccat
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 47, No. 152 I Friday; August 6, 1982 I Proposed Rules
34343
foHowed '::y a thicker layer of c!ear coat.
BCiCC coatings have a more appealing
appearance than single coat metallic
topcoat systema and also offer improved
chemical resistance and gloss retention.
Vehicles coated with BC/ec systems
e!e being imported in significant
I"'.lwtities and sold in the U.S. by both
European and Japanese manufacturers.
Because of the general appeal and
acceptance by U.S. conswr.eI'! of
vehicles coated with the BC/ee system.
U.S. automobile and light-duty truck
manufactureI'! mu.st duplicate the
performance of trois type of topcoat
system to be competitive.
The BC/ee coatings that are being
used in foreign plants contain relatively
large quantities of voe. If U.S.
manufactureI'! used similar coatings. the
onJy possible method of meeting t.1e
existing standards of performance for
automobile and light-duty truck surface
coati.'!g operations would be to use an
er:urely r:ew 'Seneration of very
expensive add-en controls to minimize
emissions. Be/ee systems \\oith voe
content low enough to comply without
such ac.d-oa control are r..ot yet
corr.merciaily available. The coatings
manwactcring companies are working
with automobile ma;luiact'..l1'ers to
develop lower vae CO!l~e...t Be/ee
svs:ems. The au:omobile manufact'.lreI'!
and equipment vendors are developing
efficient spray coating Clethods for these
coatings. The results of this intensive
industry de\'elopment program will
ultimately permit the automobile
companies to meet the topcoat standard
and still apply BC/CC coatings to
auto!:lobiles in sufficient number to
meet market demand without having to
I:se expensive add-on controls.
Requirements of Section 111(j]
Section l11UJ of the Clean Air Act
sets forth provisions for the issuance of
waivers for the development of J
innovative technology. In the "1917
Amendments to the Clean Air Act.
Congress added this provision to
encourage the use of innovative
"technological systems of contI,nuous
emission reduction" for the control of air
pollutants. Their intent in doing so was
to provide a statutory incentive for the
improvement of emission control
technology and for reducing costs.
environmental impacts. and energy
usage of such technology.
Under Section I11G) of the Act. upon
I'1!quest by the owner or ooerator of a
new source and with the consent of the
Governor of the State in which the
source is located. the Administrator is
auUlorized to grant a waiver from the
requirements of Section-lll for a limited
time pe:iod and '.mder specific terms
and condHions ;J:"C'....~ded certain
statutory prerequisites are satisfied. The
Administrator must determine that:
a. The proposed innovative system
has not been adequately demonstrated:
b. The proposed innovative system
will operate effectively and there is
substantial likelihood that the system
will achieve greater continuous emission
reduction than otherwise required or
achieve an equivalent emission
reduction at lower cost in terms of
energy. economic. or nonair quality
environmental impact
c. The owner or operator of the
proposed system has demonstrated to
the Administrator's satisfaction that the
system will not cause or contribute an
unreasonable risk to public health.
welfare. or safety; and
d. The proposed waiver for the
specific innovative technological system
is not in excess of the number of
waivers necessary to ascertain whether
or :1ot such svstem will achieve the
conditions set forth in "b" and "c"
immediately above.
Additionally. Section l11UJ(1)(B) of
the Act requires an innovative
technology waiver to be granted on such
terms and conditions during the waiver
pertod as the Administrator determines
:lecessarv:
a. to ensura emissions from the source
will not prevent attainment and
mamtenance of any national ambient air
quality standards. and
b. to ensura proper functioning of the
innovative technological system.
Waiver Requests
General Motors
On October 30. 1981. GM submitted a
request for innovative technology
waiveI'! under Section 111UJ of the
Clean Air Act for the topcoat operations
at three automobile plants now unde"
construction. GM currently plans to
initiate production in the second quarter
of 1983 at the Orion Township.
Michigan. and the Wentzville. Missouri.
plants; with start-up of the Detroit. .
Michigan. plant to be in the second half
of 1984. GM claims they need to use BCI
ce metallic topcoats on almost all of the
cars produced at these plants so that
they can compete with imported cars.
The lowest VQC content BC/CC
coating that is demonstrated by GM and
will definitely be available for
production line use by the second
quarter of 1983 is a topcoat system
which is composed of a ZO volume
percent solids base coat and a 42
volwne percent solids clear coat (i.e. a
2.0/42 BC/eC coating). GM plans to
start-up these plants using this coating
system. The BC WllI be apolied with air
129
atomized spray. The ee will be applied
with a combination of manual au spray
and automatic electrostatic spray. The
average coating transfer effeciency will
be 50 pecent for Be and 67 percent for
ee. The oven exhaust gas streams from
all coating ovens will be incinerated.
The oven incir..erators will reduce
overall voe emissions by abo1.:t 15
percent t,Inder these conditions BC/CC
topcoat vac emissions would be 3.2 kg
VOC per liter of applied Ct>ating solids
at each of the three plants.
Currently, GM has two Be/cc
coatings under evaluation (a 38/55 BCI
CC coating and a 48/54 Be/cc coating)
that would meet the topcoat standard of
performance with oven incineration and
an average coating transfer eEiciency of
SO percent for BC and 67 percent for ec.
These coatings are expected to be in use
by December 31. 1988.
Honda
On ~ovember 19, 19B1. Honda
submitted a request for an innovative
technology waiver under Section 111UJ
of the Clean Air Act for the topcoat
operation at an automobile plant that 11
beir.g built in Marysville. Ohio. The
plant Is scheduled to begin production
- by the end of 1982. Honda would like to
coat all of their metallic topcoated can
with BC/CC coatings so that they can
match the quality of their cars produced
in Japan and axported to the U.S.
The lowest vac content BC/CC
coating that is demonstrated by Honda
and will definitely be available for
production line use by the end of 1982 is
a 21/42 BC/CC coating. Honda plans to
begin production using this coating
system. Tbe BC will be applied with air
atomized spray. The CC will be applied
with a combination of manual
electrostatic spray and automatic
electrostatic spray. The average coating
transfer effic;iency will be SO percent for
BC and 92 percent for CC. The resulting
VOC emissions under these conditions
would be 3.1 kg vac per liter of applied
coating solids. Honda does not plan to
incinerate the oven exhausts. Honda's
analysis indicates that oven incineration
without recycle is very expensive and
that with recycle. coating quality
problema are created.
Honda is testing two higher solids
content BC/ee coatings: a 32/42 BC/ee
coating and a 35/55 BC/ee coating. The
32/42 coating is expected to be available
by January 1.1985. and Honda plans to
begin using this coating at that time.
This coating will result in emissions of
2.1 kg of vac per liter of applied coating
solids when applied at an overall averge
transfer efficiency of 50 percent for BC
lnd 92 ~e:'1:e::t :or Cc. Honda ,la~s to
-------
34344
Federal Re~ster / Vol. 47, No. 152 / Friday. August 6. 1982 / Proposed Rules
demonstrate and u.se tt.e 35 55 BCICC
coattlg by December 31. 1986. ;x,s
C()ating when applied at an ave,age
transfer efficiency of 50 percer:t fer BC
and 92 percent for CC wIll resclt in
em:ssions of 1A6 kg of vac per liter of
applied coating solids and WIll :neet the
promulgated topcoat standard of
performance.
.Vissan
On ~arch 12. 1982. ~;issan submHted
a request for an innovaUve technology
waiver under Section E::j] of:='e C:ean
Air Act for the taocaat ;ce,ati::m at a
light-duty truck piant tha't :5 being bwlt
in Smyrna. Tennessee. The ~lar:t :5
sc.heduled to begin ;::roduction in At:gust
1983. :-,lissan would like to coat all)f
t.1eir metallic tapcoated ligfit-<:!'J.ty truc.\cs
With BC/CC coatings so that they can
match the quality of thelI' ligh.t-duty
trUsks p'sd'.lced In Japan and exported
to t.'-:.e L:.S.
The :cwest VOC content BC:Ce
coatmg that ;s demonstratea by ~issan
and Will be available ;:;:;1' production Une
use by August 1983 is a :1.'3i BC/CC
coa~. ~iss.m plans to beg::;
proauc:ion using ~s BC, ec caat:ng
system. T~.e EC will be applied W1Ul a
carn.btnatian of air atomiZed S'pray,
::.a:1ua; e~~ctrost'it1c spray, and
auto~atic electrostatic spray. The CC
W1ll be apj:lied Wlth a cOI:lbLIlation of
manual elect:Qstatlc spray and
automatic ~:ectr:static sprav. The
a\'e,~~e caa~U!g =ansfer .er:;.c:e::cy w111
be 69 pe!"Ce::t for BC ar.d 8i ;::ercent :or
C::. bc:ne:ators an all bake oven
exhaust Wlll reduce overall e:niasiolU by
ZO perceaL Unrler these caaditions BC/
CC topcoat emissions would be :'3 kg of
vac ~er liter of applied coating sauds.
~issan IS testing a higher SO:":C5 3Z/45
EC, CC coating system. ~issan expects
~ coating to be availal:Jle :01' :ia.rk
metallic ceIors by August 1984 and in
us~ :or all dark metal!.ic colers by
August 1985. This coat~ :3 exp~:ed to
be available for light :netailic COlOrs by
August 1986. \'lihea applied at an
average transfer efficiency of 69 percent
for BC and B7 percent for Cc. and with
inl::ineratian of the oven exhaust. this
coating Wl:.! result in emissions of 1.3 leg
of vac per ~iter of applied coating
solids and will :neet the promulgated
topcoat standard.
Condncinftc
ne e~t Honda. and ~,lissan ',vaiver
req'J.ests depend upon ~ development
of lower vac content ::letallic BC/ee
to'Jcoats tl:a!: are C"JlTenuv available
~d demonstrated. Thereiore. reVIew of
these .Haivers ~ 6sC"..lssed 'maer :'~e
sa!!':e ::e:ci:.."~ ':Jelcw.
T'ec!:J'lo!ogy .voc Demonstral8d
Both eM and Honda plan to u.se BC/
CC metallic topcoat coatings on close to
:00 percent of the automobiles produced
at the alants for which thev have
reaues.ted waivers. ~lissan- plans to ase
BC'/ CC metallic topcoat coatings on
about eo percent of the light-duty truck.
produced at the plant for which they.
have requested a waiver. 1::e lowest
vac content BC/CC metallic topcoat
co a ring expected ;0 be avaIlable and
demonstrated for eM. Honda. and
:"iissan at :.'-:.e ::::le these clants W1li
start-up WIll average be~een ;'0 and Z1
volume percent solids for the .,ase -:oat
and between 37 and 42 volume percent
solids for the clear coat (i.e.. 20/42. n/
37, or n/42 EC,Ce coatmgJ. When
these coating systems are applied with
the best avalia"le coa~ applicatlon
equipment demonstrated by each
company and bake aver ex::aust
indnerauon is used where :easlble.
emissions or 2.3 (::"iissan). 3.1 (Honda1.
and 3.: (GM) kilograms of vac per liter
oi applied coating solids Will result.
These eIIl1ssion levels are hIgher than
the Hi lolograms or vac ;Jer liter of
applied coating solids allowed by the
standards. of per:or.nanca for topcoat
operations. Since GM and Honda ww
use BC/CC r::::etallic topcoat coat;:gs on
close to 100 pe!"Cent of ~e vehicles they
;:ro~uce. averag'~"l!! emissIons from oolid
color verucles \'t,tl1 e::nlSSlans from ECI
ce metaEic vet-.icies, as :s allowed
vr.thm eac., topcoat cceration by the
standards of ;:erfol'!::a.n.ce. will :lot
enable them to meet tte standards at
start-up. U ~jssan. a! eX'Pec~ed. uses
solid colors on about 40 ;::ercent of ilie
vehicles th,ey produce. their ove,ail
average tC'Qcaat vac eIIl1SSIOnS at start-
up would be about 1.7 lolograms Jf vac
per liter of applied caating solids. This is
also ::nore :.han the toccoat standard of
performance allows. .
Higher solids BC; CC oetallic topcoat
caatmg.s. which are in various stages of
development and -testing by e:-"L Honda.
:-lissan and others, ~clude a 32/42 BC/
CC coating. a 32/44 BC/CC coatIng. a
32/45 BC/CC coating, a 35/55BC/eC
coating, a 3a/MBC/CC coating. and a
48/54 BC/Ce coating. Q.f cuuld ::neet
the topcoat standard of performance
with eIther the 38/54 or the -H!/54
coarinSj usmg the pa1.!1t application
eqwpment ar.d bake oven exhaust
inciI:eratars :bat :bey plan :0 install at
start-up of each of their tltree plants.
Honda could :neet the topcoat standard
of performance WIth the.1S/ 5~ coating
::.5mg :be paint application equipment
that they pian ta i.tlstall at start-up of
:helI' plant. ~islfan ccuid :::teet the
toecoat stanci.i:ci Jt ::e::'=ance 'oVY:'':..:...,
130
the 35/45 CC8Llno 'lsing the paint
application eqw\Jrr.ent and ':Jake oven
exhaust incinerators that they ;Jlan to
install at sta11:-up of their plant.
Deveiopment of these metallic topcoat
BC/CC coatings to the point where they
are compauble wnh high transfer -
efficiency coaung equipment and ready
for use en assembiy lines IS necessarily
a time-<:onsuming ;Jrocess. Achle'lement
of the emissIon ra tes necessary to
comply Wlth the topcoat standards of
performance IS dependent not only upon
continued develoement of these
coatings. but also. upon the continwzlg
development and use of coat:in.g
applicauon tecbmques wluc.'I result in
high transfer efficiency of the sprayed
solids to the automobile. Development
and demonstration of :bese techniques
are an integral part af the coatings
development program.
In addition to the need to assure that
the coatmgs can be applied under
assemblv-line conchtiolU while
achieving acceptabll! appearance and
quality. there IS a1so the need ta assure-
durabihty of the coating. This requires
long-term e:..:,?osure testing.
Until the 32/45. the 35/$. the 38/54.
or the 4B/54 EC:Ce coating:s
developed. compliaI!ce with :be topcoat
standard of performance using Be/cC
coatings can orJy be achieved by
linuting proeuction of vehicles with BC/
CC coatw.gs or hy using acd-un controls.
Limiting ;:roci'..lC"::on of vehicles with BC/
CC coat.r:gs to achieve compliance With
the toccoat standard of cer:ormance is
un...ea~onable due to the' economic
penalty this could Epose on doc:;esti:
automobile manufacturers as a result of
their inability to market vehicles with
BC,'CC ccat{;:Qs. Similarly. as eX:Jlai."led
below. the '15e- of add-an controls is also
unreasonable.
Up to sa percent of all vaG's emitted
from a topcoat operation are eIIIltted
from the spray booth area. This high
voiw:tle enusslon stream is c=aracteri:%ed
by low ..joe concentration. This is due
to the ventilation require:nents for
worken in the spray booth and process
consHleratiocs to prevent owrspray
from dnf'::ng from one vehicle to the
next. There are two add-on c.:Jntrol
technologles that could ':e applied to
this stream ta reduce vac emisslans:
carbon adsor'Jt:on and incineration.
Both effec~iv~!y remove or destroy
vaG's from the exhaust streams before
release to the atmoS'pnere.
Carbon adsorption unita have been
used in exper:z::eatal small scale studies
on law vac concentration spray booth
exhaust streams a:1d have been
technica.ily demonstrated. A1thou~
:..~e5e 3Y~:=~! :a"';'! ~crt ':~"!!~ .~seci. ',::
-------
Federal Register i "101. 47. ~o. 152 / FMday. August 6. 1982 / ?;'Jpcsed ?:.:!es
34345
:'~:~.sca:e -:~~d~ction. ll,e!"e IS sufficient
:v:dence :c sho",v d;.at :..::.ey ~.~:ould al.5'J
~vc!'~ :n st;.:h a;:?iicatic~s. 3ased oa
st:.:ciies :cnduc:ed at L::eir ?~e!:1cnt
Cajb:.r.:~ c~a:lt. G~.1 es~ateci:r.e -
caol :21 :cst fr;r &-e size C2.!'con
3':SCr:~C~ sj's~em ~ecessary to at:h:e":e
cC'!!1J';.:!hce '.v::h :..~e to?c:Jat 3!ar.dcuc::. of
;e!"fcrn::?:lce on a 20/ ~Z 3Ci CC too<:o"t
t . ~-6 GOO ~.IV\ - l' C)'arlt ""e
syste~ ,0 Je::>1 . . .I..VJ,.~ . l.. ....
al'.r.:;a:lzeci :::pe:aa::g :::05, :Jr ~s
S'iste::! i::lc!;;.cilI1g laber. depreclation.
~u:3..~ce. taxes. ut'Jities. alld carbon)
was ssn::::atec ~o oe ap?~oxi..=ately 519
<'Jillon -:er :1'8..'1t. T;1e carbon aciso.ber
~\'cU:d :e~~\"e a~p.oxima[e;y ::00 tons
Jf ~I'::C e!'!llssions per year resultii-.g in a
ccst-effectiveness of over S15.000 per
ton lJi .,'CC re:no'/ed. T.:.i3 is consldergd
x:;cs5ive.
L'1d,,~e:a:ion of the spray booth
eX::2t.lS[ 3t"ea!!! reqUil'es ~ :aige amomtt
c! 3:~t'?leI:lental fuel becau~e the low
.'::C ~o~c~nt:'a:loa c.a.~'1ot 5U-::JOrt
c::r.:ot:.~::on ::v itself. ~e econo!I1lc and
ene:;-J .:r:;;ac:s of :ncineranon 1ave
~'3~ astlmated to be sig:-...:Ecantly lugher
:.':a.:! ':..~e carbon aasorptJ.on control
~:: =:-::=.. :::ye cutli.'!ed <: bc">"e.
:"1 ~1l1':".=.=.ry. ac, CC :opccat systems
w:-_:i '...::: :rlE<;t t.l:te tc':Xca[ sta.!lcard of
~oP:'~~--e -"d a.ilo~ ---ductl.on of
~-"::.:;."~"" ~..., ' :-,lU, ,
:::C, '-... ::::"-:~~ ve!:lCles at :::e .evels
requ..:,ed :0 ~er:!!lt ::omestlc a'.ltamobile
:::a:-:;oi~:::u.rers to compete ....,tb. foretg:l
a~~~t::.;jb::e =a.:lufactT.::'S:3 are n.ot
a::e~~a~e,y ::e!:::enst:ra:e..:, .~.dd-()a.
:::o!::::l syste:::-..;i that 'Noui.d r-ed;;.ce VQC
:::::':3;,:::3 :0 :evels reat:.:":3d :0 co::!;;l]
",",,,,;,, :D.e [c;:c~at sta::da:d of
~E=~:~a...ce are demon3t!'ated
tgc~i~3i:y. :u.t t.1.e ec:nOr:J.1C and
en==gy i=.~actS assocla~e-.:i wit.'l these
:::0;: CIO: systel'l".s are ccr'..s;dered
un:~a3cna::i2.
Ee, ::::C S;'stetr.s vfii.'] GDel"Cte
E.~e-.::j'l'e\' and :"che',~ the Standc.rci at
L,J:~'e;- C:;sts
T:~ere ;s 3uf::cie:tt evidence to
irldicate ~'1a[ the compames ~t develop
and ::;a~et au;amebde C02.tmgs and
coatir.gs al=pLica.tion equipment will
deniop BC,' CC co~g syste:u that
will meet both the topCoat sta..da:d of
per:ot"!'"..arIce a~d ~ a:!tcJ::Obile
mar.wact'Jrers produ~on and coating
c;~aiicy ~q:!U'e[!!e!:ts ',v;~ :.':e ~::te
:'~me ?ro\'ided in the waivers. This
c:mc::.:lSloll i:; based 0::: ,-~e ~act :J:at a
numo~r ofBC/CC coati:;gs. which have
lcw~r VOC ClJr:~!!nts tha:l cu..""!'!mtly
de!!':c~st::!ed BC/CC coatings. ~
a1-eady in vano'.lS stages of test'.ng and
that ti1.e :omparnes that denlop and
market 2,,,tamoblle coatil:gs have a
!:istarj' of >uccee~ W!th.u:t t:leir
proj~_ed time !:-ames for developin3
:;.",... -I '- C :=!':~a~! ':'ca ':.:..-::~s.
':"1~:" -:~':,,:s:-?-i. '::e 32/';5. 35/55. 38/
54. a::a ~i s.;. 2":. C:: :opcoat coatlr.gs
','1,'::1 =eet :::a :c~c=at 3ta!lci~-d of
;erior=ance a( l:;wer cost and er.e=gy
,equi:e:::er.t3 ::::::;a:ed [0 t..'1e use af
w.a:erbc::e c::ati:gs. w~jc~ are. the basis
:r :ne ~c;::ccar sta....:\:aro CI ::Je!"!c~ance.
T.eese ~ow-VOC c:::r.ter.t BC/CC C:JatU'lgs
wi:': aiso be abie ::: a~eve :'1e to!,cOat
sta~dard ~.~t.1.C~! spray boc:h conr:-cls:
therefc:e. the e::e:zv ar:d eccnO!!llC
imoacts would be ;uch less than for the
-:.:se of a :0/':'2, 2:/37. orZl!4Z3C/CC
ccat..'lg ar.d s!Jr:iY DOOth con~ois.
Sumca,o,f "/(1iVE.'"$ Seeded Ta
Ce.rrQ.-:strcte Te:::i:nology
Based on a review of ;he technical
fac~ors ;::vol'/ec in demor;.straUI1.g that
lowe: 30i"e~t EC/CC 3ys:ems are an
ava1iabie :ec.'1...-:':::logy. the .\ger.q
ccnclucies u.1at ~a ~~be= or '.Valve:s
'Nn.:c;" :rave ':een ,eq~es,eci are
:1ec'essa~! ar..d 2?propr-:ate. Generally.
much of :'''1e BCiCC ~eC:!:ology :s
tnmsferabie among automobile
manufactur-:::g companies. since :oating
manufactrL'"'ers ;:0 tIot linnt :.'leU' saies to
only one firm or plent However.
lncii'ridual aucomobile manufacturir..g
. c::;mparues :ave iistoric2.~::: =e;:ed :::n
~eir OWTI testmg procedures and
acceptance c::tena fcr establ~shin.g a
CDaring d'.!...-abi2:t'f a::d quality. S'lC:!
'..'lde~e!1dent ~es:~:s an ::lherent ~art
of t~e ccc:!::,'!!t:ti"e strectUie of :'1.e
aut:Jr!lO~l~e '.::d:.:s~:r a::c pley~ an
i.!r.portar.t :ole II! acva::c:~ :.he 't'.l3..uty
af autamobiie coat;..-.gs.
MON!O\'er. the ciemollstranon 0: EC,'
CC technology involves advar:cement in
appiica.tio:: equipment as we:l as the
coatings. az:d the two must be
cOr!lpati:;~e. Tile advancement and
G.e!:loC'.stratio:J. of this tecb.nO!ogy must
take into uccow:t a I".m::ber of variables
induci:1g diffe~n[ ;!lant deSigTIs a.r.'
approaches to paint processing:
variability aI:1e~ coatUlg sl1pplied by
tbree or more sUt%pliers: plant.to-pl~t
dlfferences in the performance of !faUlt
H:le equipment (:!.g, ovens, tempera~
and hu=ticiity <;::;n~i systems); :he tlse
of evoivmg robot !yst~ms: and new high
voltage eLec=-;statc equi;n!!e::~ S'Up;=iied
by several vendors. In effect these
va.'"lables pn!s~::t a :Il2.t!".x of
coobinations whlch oust be eva:uated
before :l:e lower serve!'!! BCiCe 3ystems
are fully cieoonstrated. COllSlderir:g the
compleXlty ar.d :eduucal c::.aEe::ge
which th15 preseIlts. the Agency
concludes tb.at each "Naiver is
warranted.
131
BC,'CC lVio'! ,Vat CClJse '), C.'.- cr:!:Jute ~o
C.~.'"r3csor;caje Ri:5;~ :0 ?:.:bl;c '-:.3::. rho
t~'eifc:i3. o,Sc,:eC7
T:.e 3.~::e~t =::- :=~i:ca~:c:'".= ..d
aJ.owu'1.g a. d.::: ~::: ~ 2~ ~/c:C a::lis 5: ;:~3
C',1~.r:g :.::e ~va:~;s: :Je::cd ~,'o/2t:~d ::~t
CC::T~:.;.~e ~o a~ '~-..:es.3cr:=.j.e r::~ to
p;~~~~c ::e2it.~~ ',".'eE=':~t :;r ;d:e~y. ~he
'Hal"e:5 'NO'.~Hi ~jow :et'ween ::~ ana
1.2CO acd1:;o::~ .or;.s a: ~;OC per p:a,,:
;:er yea: t:J '~e e=.itt::a [;or= ~opc~at
operatior.s wi-de tl:ey are i:l effect. Ail
f;"e -iarts a-" :n -"'1 a"ai.:"mont a"e"'-
:...., 1-' ... ..."'-,'" .."''''''.L-.~L .......... .......:1
:cr ozcr:e. .t:..ac..: ~aa....~:. ::owever. wi.lst
obtai~ State pe~it9 ::11:::- to
CO:1S~.1c-:!au.. 1::ese 'Je~...its !':lust ~s:.:r':.
that :easo'1aoie furtb.er prcgress
toward attai:!::::.ent w.Jl be achieved.
-:-::e:e!ore. t..1:e "rc'.:)Qsed 'Naiv~rs wo~d
r.o [ preve::t ar~ab..~e::t a:ld c.:amte::ance
of :.::.e r.~t':or1.al 2!:!:JL:r.t air .qlla~:!y
s:anda:c. :cr o::r:e. .:.ac.:. or :...:e :-:~:e
p~2~ts ~iJst 3.~'5iJ n:~t the lowe~t
ac;uevaDle 2!::tSSlcn rate ;:"-\.::.:-=,)
:eqUil'e!:lent cf seer. In 1;"3 cf tr. e Ac l
L"se 'Jf:lIe :cw.'';CC conte::t ac CC
coating syste:::3 W111 not resuit Ln an
increase Ln water or saUd 'Nas~e
;:cUuucn c:::mparec to tie ::u..-rent
c?2u.r..g sY$te~s 110W ~ use at existir.g
;:::a::ts. ::or w:.~ =:ew ;Oll:.1tar.tS 'Je
,eieaseci ,0 ch~ e'1'r:1Jnment.
Ccr.c::.:;ion
Based on :he above cansi~~r-a~ons.
:he Admi.nistra~cr ;:ropcses ~:J ~ar.t.
subject t:J :~e :anC"l~nce or :::e
Gover!!o~s .;f :,ti:::-...:ga:l. Missol..:.r1.. :Jh:o.
and T!'!:,..-:.e9see. :'"l:I.c'/ative technoiogy
waive:o as s!Jec:..fi~ :r. t.~s ;:Jr:1posal to:
(1) GM :-:::1' t!:ei: We::tr:".Je. Yti..>sou.....;
automob::e asse:::':Jiv :::ant rZl GM :01'
theL: De~~nt. ~v~cl:ig~ a!.:.:c;abLie
assembly ;:1::::t (3: G:.~ ::: :.""i; Or-:on
TO'NTIs::;p. ~1ic.!:..:.gan autoI::oclle
assembly pia.'lt: (4) Eo::tia :01' the:!"
~!arys-viile. Orio a.utomocile assembly
plan:: a.=:d (3) ;iissa:l for ~eir Sm:,~a.
Te!".nes.see li~~t-cillry blck asse~bly
plant based \.:.;;on fu:.dings ti:at S;;Cl
"Va1vers c::m:ply with '.he prOV1.SL:::: :;i
Seeton 111UJ of the Act.
Propo!HKi Waivers
~e five waivers an! 'JroooseC '0 'Je
granted u.nder the foilo~ed genera!
cc::di~::or.s. T:.e star.:..g :::Ci CC 3:;'5''''~
would be the lowest et:'::t~!Z EC:C~
systeo adequately ~:I:.Chstr'at~ :or
each ;Jla."ll The plants must use coati.'5
a;J?lications 3ystems '..r.t:: t:le :::~'-:est
trallSfer eec:er.Cles ~at are cJ.a"re:ltly
a'iallable and practical at the resuect:ve
piant.
The waivers wi.il cover only t1-e 3C.'
CC :ne!ailic ~:::ipcoat ~oMon ai [';"1e
topcoat c!,erat.cns. If 9iIlgle coat solid
:~ic:' ~~ ":::!z:":':.: -:r:':,:d:.3 =.:-:: :.32': ..::.2.
-------
34346
Federal Register / '/01. 47. No. 152 I Friday. August 6. 1982 I P':'oposed Rules
portion of t.ie topcoat opere:!on must
:::,,~t :~e ~:t:~oat sta.:.ia;d af
:er!ormanc'e at all times. Reports of
progress on the development of the BC/
CC svstems must be made :0 EPA wit~:~
50 days of start-up and at least once
each 1Z-month period. The topcoat
standard of cer:onnance must be
achieved as'soon as possible. Each
waiver will net exceed a period oj ~
':ears tr'Jm the start"Jp date of the plant.
nor wHl it go beyond December 31.1986.
The companies are required, -
consistent with Section 173 of the Clean
Air Act. to obtain permits to operate
!rom the State. These pennits will
assure-tllat each plant granted a waiver
will not prevent attainment and
maintenance of any national ambient air
quality standard. The conditions of the
proposed waiver would also require
proper operation of the BC/CC systems.
'8y virt'..:e of Section 111(jJ(1){B) of the
Act. -\;; U.S.C. i411(j)(1)(8). the terms
and cor.ditions of the Section U1(j)
waivers would be federally promulgated
standa~ds of performance legally
applicable during the waiver periods.
Violatior.s of the terms and conditions
of the Section 1110) waivers wowd
subject the owners and operators of the
plants granted waivers to Federal
enforce::1snt under Section 113 (b) and
(c)...2 !J.S.C. ;-.U3 (b) and (c). a::d 1:D, 42
V.S.C. 7420 of the Act. as weil as
ocsslble c;tizen enforcement u,"!der
Saction 304 of the Act. 42 U.S.c. 7604.
State Concurrence
"'....suant to Section 111U)(1)(A) of the
AC-.. -12 V.S.C. 7411(j)(1)(A). if after
review and consideration of CO!IlJ:lents
submi tted :.n response to this
rule!:lakbg. the Administrator decides
to isst.:e a waiver of the Federal new
source performance standal'd to the C:V(
Detroit. ~1ichigan plant GM WenttvDe.
~!issod plant GM Oricn Township,
~(jchigan plant Honda ~(arysville. Ohio
plant: and ~./issan Smyrna. Tennessee
plant: the Administrator shall request
the concur.ence of the Governors of the
States of ~!ich1gan. Missouri. Ohio. and
Tennessee. Receipt of such
concurrences is a prerequisite for a
waiver under Section 111UJ of the Act.
Docket
The docket for each proposed waiver
is an orgarJzed and complete file of all
the tniormation considered in the
development of this rulemaking. The
docket is a dynamic fIle. since material
is added throughout the rulemaking
process. The docketing system is
intended to allow members of the public
and industries involved to readily
identify and locate documents so that
they can effec~vely partic::pa~ :~ ~e
"
rulemaking process. Along 'h':~~ tbe
statement of basIs and pu..-pc::-e 'Jr :he
proposed and promuig3.ted waivers and
EPA's responses to si~ificant
comments. :;:.e conte::.ts of t::e docket
w111 serve as :he record in case of
judicia! re..iew except for interagency
review materials [Section 307(d)(7;(AJ].
Miscellaneous
In accordance with Section 117 ef the
Act. publication of these proposed
waivers was preceded by consultation
with appropriate advisory committees.
independent experts. and Federal
depar.ments and agenc::es.
The Paperwork Reduction Ac~ of 1980
(PL 96-511) requires EPA to submit to
l;"e Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) certain public reporting/
recordkeeping requirements before
proposaL This rulemaking does not
involve a "collection of informdtion" as
defmed in the Paperwork ReoOJction Act.
Therefore. the crovisions of the
Pape"",,ork Recluchon Act applicable to
coliection of iniot"!:lation do not apply to
this ruiemaking.
The Administrator certifies that a
regulatory flexibility analysIs under 5
C.S.C. 601 et seq. is not required for this
rulemaking because ~e rwe::laking
would not have a signiiica::t Lmpact on a
substantial number of scall entities. The
rulemallig would not i=lpose -any new
requiremen:s: and. therefore, no
additional costs would be imposed. It is,
tberefore. classified as nonrnajor und.er
Executive Order lZ291.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60
Air pollution control. Al:lm.L"!1L"Il,
Alr.::1oniurn sulfate plants. Cement
industry, Coal. Copper. Electric power
plant3. Glass and g!ass products, Grains.
Intergovernmental relations. Iron. Lead,
Metals, ~Iotor vehicles. :\itric acid
plants. P'3.per and paper products
industry. Petroleum. Phosphate, Sewage
disposal. Steel. Sulfuric acid j:lants.
Waste treatment. Disposal and Zinc.
Dated: July 29. 198Z.
Job W. Remande%' Jr..
Administrator.
PART 6O-STANCARCS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
STATIONARY SOURCES
Title 40 Part 50. Subpart ~(M of the
Code of Federal Regulatio~s is proposed
to be amended by adding a new I 60.398
as set forth below:
~ 60.398 Innovativit technoioqy waivers.
(a) General ~(otors Corporation.
Wentzville. ~ssouri Automobile
.},..3s2!:1blj" ;:lant.
132
(1) Pursuar.! to Sec:;o~ ::1(j) of t.t:e
C'''~n ,\.- ;..... ~? U c.c. i-l11(;), eac~
to'p~oa't ;p~'r~~ti~; at~General ~!otor~
Corooration automobile assemo!y p:cmt
:ocated in Wentzvi.ile. ~!issou-'i. shaH
:::cmclv with t.he foilow:ng conditions:
(i)'The General ~-(otors Corporation
shall obtain the r:.acessary pennits as
required by Section 173 of the C:ean Air
. Act. as amended August 1977, to operate
th.e Wentzville assembiy plant.
(ii) C.Jmmencing on - [date of
promulgation in the Federal Register].
and continuing for 4 years or to
December 31. 1985. wh.icl1evar cernes
first, or until the base coati clear coat
topcoat system ~a! can achieve the
standal'd specified in 40 CFR 6O.39Z(c)
(December 2~. 1980). is demonstrated to
the AcL'ninistratcr's satisfaction. the
General ~(otors Corooration shall limit
the discharge of vat emissions to the
atmospere frem eac.~ topcoat operation
at the Wentzville. ~tissouri assembiy
plant. to eIther:
(A) 3.2 kiIograJ:IS of VOC per liter of
applied coat'.ng soiid3 from base coat/
clear coat metallic toucoats. and 1.47
kilograms of VCC ~er li:er of appli;!d
coating solids r.om all otb.er topcoat
coatings; or
(B) 1.47 ~ilog!'a;n5 ~f VOC per liter of
applied coating so;id from all tepcc':.:
coati.::!Zs.
(iii) Commencing on the day af!e: tl:e
expiration of the ;;enoa desc:;bed in (iiJ
above. and continuing thereaiter.
emissions of vac !roo ~ach !cocoa!
operation shail not exceed l.4i'
kilograws cf VOC pe:ltter of appI:ec
coating solids as spec:.ned in 40 CFR
6O.39:(c) (Dece!I:ber 24. 19~0].
(iv) Each topcoat operation shall
comply Wlth ~e P;-0'/i5io::s of ~ 60.393.
, 60.394. ~ 6().395. i 6().396. ar.d ~ 50.397.
Seoara:e calC".ililtions shall be made for
base coat/clearcqat metallic coatings
and all other !opcoat coatings. when
necessary to demonstrate co;::pLiince
with the emission limits in
, 6O.39a(a)(1)(Ui(A).
(v) A technolo~ development report
shall be sent to EPA Region VII. 32-1 E.ut
11th Street. Kansas Qty. ~tissouri 64106.
postmarked before 60 days after the
promulgation of tbis walver and
annually thereafter while this waiver is
in effect. The technology development
report shall summarize the base coatI
clear coat development work including
the results of exposure and endu:'ance
tests of the various coatings being
evaluated. The report shall include an
updated schedule of attainment of 40
G.'!:'R 60.392(c) (December 24. 1980) bas'!d
on the most current information.
(2) This waiver shall '::Je a federally
;rcr:lui~ated standard. 01 ~edr~~2~C~.
-------
Federal Register / VoL ';7, :-iu. 152 / Friday. August 6. "-932 / Proposed R~es
34347
"\3 such. it shall be unla-.vfu1 for Ge:1eral
?-:c:crs Corpc.at:c~ ~o operate a :opccat
');::eraUOi1 in v~olation of the
:eaairements !stablished in :.J:Us waiver.
Violaucn of the teIT"....3 and cor.ditioas of
this \Vaiver shail subject the General
~!0(Or3 Corporation to enforcement
under Section 113 (b) and (c). 42 U.S.C.
i412 (bl and (c). and Section 120. 42
u..s.C. 7UD. of the Act as wen as
possible citizen eniorceme:lt u!lder
Sec:ion 304 of the Act. 42 U.S.C. 7604.
(oj General Motors Corporation.
Det=cit. Michigan Autocobile Assembly
;Jiant
(~) ?urs;rant 10 Section 111m of ~he
Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.c. 7411(j). each
tcpcoat operation at General Motors
Corporation's automobile assembly
o::ia.'1t located in Detroit. Michigan. shall
como!v wi~h the fello'Ning conditions;
(l]"The General ~fotors Ccrporation
5:1..11 obtain the r.ecessary penn!ts as
:!-:::..:ired bv SEction 173 of the Clean A.!r
Act. ao amende::! AUg'lst 1971. to operate
:,-:e IJet:cit assembly plant.
(:.:.) Coa:;nencx.g on-fdate of
;:c:::4atian ill ilie Federal Resisterj.
.:;=::d C::n.f_1'.ili:g fer 4 years or to
:a:eooe: 31. lfa6. whichever comes
=~:~. cr until ~e base coat/clear coat
~:::c:Jat 3ys:eo :.~t ca.:! acxeve ilie
;;:~::a:d s;:ec'.:"ied in .w CPR 6O.39z(cJ
;J~':a:r.i:er :t ~3~O). ls demonstrated to
:~.~ Aci=inis<.:ator's ,atisfac'Joll. the
G=.-:erai ~!otors Corporation shall limit
::.~ i.s:::erg'! of VaG e:n.:ssions to tb.e
a;:os:J::ere :'rom eacb. topcoat op,eration
~.: :j,~ ::e~o(t. ~~1ch:~a..."l .:.ssembly piant.
~o ~~~....a!":
: .-\i 3.2 kHo,;!!'2.'!lS of 'lac De!' liter or
:;;:l;ed :ca..=g seEds :rom base coati
c::!1' :::::::i~ mEiailic topcoats. a..,d 1.47
:.5t:'ated to
the AdmUlistrator's satisfaction. Honda
shalllim.it the discharge of VOC
en:issions to the aunosphere :rom each
topcoat operation at ilie Marysville.
Ohio. asse::lbly pla=t. to either:
(~.J ;3.1 kilog:ram~. ~i 'lac pe.liter of
a;=pued c:::a~::.~ scuas tom ;;ase '::::cHI
-------
34348
Federal Register I Vol. 47, No. 152 I F:iday, AUg1Jst O. 1982 I Proposed Rules
c!ear coat metallic toccoats. and 1.47
kilograms of vac per liter of ap?lied
coating solids from all other topcoat
coatings; or .
(E) 1.47 kilograms of vac per liter of
applied coaling solid from ail topcoat
coa tings.
(iii) Commencing on ~e day after the
expiration of the period described in (ii)
ahove. and continuing thereafter.
emidsions of vac frem eac.~ topcoat
operation shall not exceed 1.47
kilograms of vac per liter of applied
coating selids as specified in 40 CPR
60.392(:) (December 24. 1980).
(iv) Each topceat operat:on shall
comply .."lih t:-'f? provlsions of ~ 60..393.
~ 60.39.t, ~ ,7') 395. 9 50.296. and ~ 60.397.
Separate c:lk:.:laticns shall be made for
base coatI clear coat metallic coatings
and all c~er topcoat -:oalings when
necessary ~o da::lonstrate compliance
with the e:ni~3ion :imits in ~ 6O.396(d)(1)
(ii](A).
(./) A tech'-lOlogy deveiopment report
shall be ser.' to EPA F.esrion V. 230 South
Dearborn Street. Chicaio. Illincis eC6G4.
postmarked before 60 cays after the
p:,o:r.u!gation of this waiver ar.d
annua!b thereafter w!-.i!e Clis waiver :s
in effect. The tedmolegy develo;Jtne~t
report shall s~.rnarize the base coatI
clear coat jeveiopment werk including
the re3ults of ex;:;.:::sc:e and endc:c:nce
tests of the various coatings being
evaluated. The report shall include an
updated scl:edule' of attainment of 40
G-""R 50.392[c] (De:erober 24. 19W) based
on ;]:e :nost C"Jr.'enl L::formatior..
(2) This ',vaivsr snail be a federal!y
promulgated standard of performanc.e.
As such. it shall be unlawful for Honda
to operate a topcoat operation i:1
v:olation of :...'1.e requirements
established i::l this waiver. Violation of
t.~e :erms and c;Jnditions of this waiver
shall subject Honda to enIorcement
uder Section 113 (b) and (c). 42 U.S.C.
7412 (b) and (cJ, and Section 120. 42
U.S.C. 7420. of the Act as weil as
possible citizen enforc2ment unde:
Section 304 of the Act. 42 U.S.C. 7604.
. (e) Nissan Motor Manufacturing
Corporation. U.S.A. (Nissan). Smyrna,
Tennessee light-duty truck assembly
plan t.
(1) Pursuant to Section 111m of the
Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.C. 7411(j). each
topcoat operation at Nissan's Hgbt-duty
lI'Jck assembly plant located ;n Smyrna,
Tennessee shall comply with tbe
follo\lIing conditions:
(ij Nissan shall obtai."'! the "e::essa:y
pe!'mits as required by Section 173 of the
Clean Air Act as amended August 1977.
to operate the Smyrna asae!'nbly plant.
(Ii) Commer..cing on - [date of
promulgation in the Federal Register]..
and continuing for 4 je.ars or to .
December 31. 1986. whichever comes
first. or until the base coatI clear coa t
topcoat system that can ac::.:e'le the
standard specfied in 40 CFR 6O.392(cJ
(Decem be:' 24. 1980). is demonstrated to
the Administrator's satisfacf.on. NissGn
shail tiffilt the ciscbarge of VOC
emissions to the atI!1osphere from each
topcoat operation at tb.e Smyr:1a.
TerInessee assemply piant. to ei.-her:
(A) 2.3 kilograms 01 vac per liter of
applied coat.c.g solida h-om base coatI
clear coat metallic topCAJats. and 1...7
kilcgrams of vac per liter 0: St=piied
coat::."1g soUds from aU other topcoat
coatings; or
[B] 1.47 kilograms of vac per liter of
app!ied ceating solid f:om all topcoat
coatings.
(iii) Commencing on the day after the
expiration of the "eriod descrjbed i:l (ii)
above. and CAJnlinuing thereafter.
eIIUSSlons of vae from each topcoat
1M
operation shal1 not exceed 1.47 .'
kilograms of vae per liter of appllea
coating solids as speci!:ed in 40 crn
6O.392(c} (December Z';. 1980).
(iv) Each topcoat ope.ation shall
comply with the provisions of t 60.393,
t 60.394. ~ 60.395. t 60.396, and ~ 60.397.
Separate calc"..1iations shall be made for
. base coatI clear coat metallic coatings
and all other topcoat coatings when
necessary to demonstrate cc~piiance
with the emissIon limits in
~ 6O.398(e)(lJ(ii)[A).
(y) A technology development repert
shall be sent to EPA Region IV. 345
Courtland Street. N.E.. Atlanta. Georgia
30365. postmarked before 60 days after
the promulgation of this waiver and
annually thereafter while this waiver is
in effec~. T~e te::hnoiogy dev::!iopment
report shall summarize the oase coat!
dea: ccat developr:1en~ wor~ ;;:dudir.g
Ite results of exposure and endurance
tests of the vanous ccatng3 being
evaluated. The repe~ shail include an
updated schedule of attamment oi 40
CFR 60.392(c) (De::em~er 24. 1930) ~c:sed
on the most C".lrI'er1< in:Jrmation.
'(2) This waiver shaH be a federally
promulgated stancard of perfarrnanr:e.
As such. it shail be unlawful for Nissan
to operate a topcoat operation in
viola tion ef the requirements
established i!1 this waiver. Violaiio:l of
the tetT.1s and c:mditc:1s of this waIver
shall subject Nissan te edorcer.;.ent
under Section 113(b] a::.d (::). 42 U.S.C.
7412(b) and (c). arid Section 120.42
U.S.C. ;"4:::0. of the Act as weil as
possible citizen e!1force41ent under
Section 304 of the Act. 42 L'.S.c. ;"604.
iFR Doc. 8.Z-Z1308 Fiiea ~ ~46 ami
BIu.:NG ceCE oiSiiO-i04I
-------
~
=
E.
-
-
-
-
-
.=.
===
~
---....-
-
-
--
--
--
--
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
- -
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
E E
-
e-
=
-
-
-- - --.
5.~
_"""'!I!!III!
'=5L JI
---
-==
-
--
--
-==.
-
=- = ---=
- -
=-- = ...::=
Wednesday
October 27, 1982
Part IV
Environmental
Protection Agency
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources
135
-------
~77'78
Federal Register / VoL 47. No. 208 / Wednesday. October' 27. 1982 I Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[AD-FRL 2070-5(8)]
Standards ot Performance tor New
Stationary Sources; Industrial Surface
Coating-Large Appliances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This rule establishes
standards of performance to limit
emissions of volatile organic compounds
(VOC's) from new. modified. and
reconstructed surface coating operations
within large appliance assembly plants.
The standard was proposed in the
Federal Register on December 24. 1980
(45 FR 85085). This standard implements
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act and is
based on the Administrator's
determina.tion that the surface coating of
large apphances causes. or contributes
significantly to. air pollution that may
reas~nably be anticipated to endanger
public health or welfare. The intended
effect of this standard is to require all
new.. modified. and reconstructed large
appliance surface coating operations to
control emissions to the level achievable
through use of the best demonstrated
system of continuous emission
reduction. considering costs. non-air-
quality health. and environmental and
energy impacts.
EmC'Ttn DATE: October 27. 1982.
Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act. judicial review of this new
sou~e performance standard (NSPS) 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
rule. Under Section 307(b)(2) of the
Clean Air Act. requirements that are the
subject of today's notice may not be
challenged later in civil or criminal
proceedings brought by EPA to enforce
these requirements.
&DORESSŁS:
Background Information Document.
The background information document
(BID) for the final standard may be
obtained from the U.S. EPA Library
(MD-35j. Research Triangle Park. North
Carolina 27711. telephone number (919)
541-2777. Please refer to "Industrial
S:lrface Coating: Large Appliances-
Background Information for
Promulgated Standards" (EPA-450/3-
8O-{)37b). The BID contains (1) a
summary of all public comments made
on the proposed standard and the
Administrator's responses to the
comments: (2) a summary of changes
made to the standard since proposal:
and (3) the final environmental impact
statement (EIS), which summarizes the
impacts of the standard.
Docket. A docket, number A~.
containing support information used in
developing the promulgated standard. is
available for public inspection between
8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.. Monday through
Friday. at EPA's Central Docket SectioD
(A-130), West Tower Lobby. Gallery 1.
401 M Street. S.W.. Washington. D.C.
20460. A reasonable fee may be charged
for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Gene W. Smith. Chief. Standards
Preparation Section. Emission Standards
and Engineering Division (MD-13). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina
27711. telephone (919) 541-5624.
SUPPUMEMTARY INFORMATtON: OMB
Control Number: 2Q00-0473
The Standard
Standards of perfom\ance for new
sources established under Section 111 of
the Clean Air Act reflect:
. . . application of the best technological
system of continuoua emission reduction
which (taking into consideration the cost of
achieving s';Ich emission reduction. and any
nonalr quality health and environmental
impact and energy requirements) the
Administrator determines has been
adequately demonstrated [Section 111(a)(1)).
For convenience. this will be referred to
as "best demonstrated technology" or
"BDT."
The promulgated standard applies to
new: modified, or reconstructed large
apphance surface coating operations for
which construction was commenced
aft~r. I?ecember 24. 1980. Existing
faclhties are not subject to the
regulation unless modified or
reconstructed as defined in 40 CFR 60.14
or 60.15. The standard. as revised since
proposal. applies to each prime coat and
each topcoat operation within a large
appl~ance assembly plant where large
appliance parts are being coated with
organic coatings. Powder coatings.
however. are excluded from the
de~~on of organic coatings. vat
~m~sslons from each affected facility are
hmlted to a monthly average of 0.90
kil~gram per liter of applied coating
solids. An affected facility is defined as
a surface coating operation that consists
of an application station(s]. flashoff
area(s). and a curing oven. Coating
operations for any of the following
organic surface-coated metal products
manufactured for household.
commercial. or recreational use are
subject to the standard:
136
Ranse
Oven
Microwave oven
RemserSlor
F....ezer
Washer'
Dryer
Dishwasher
Waler healer
Trash compactor
BDT for this industry has been
determined to be the application of a
coating containing 62 percent by volume
of solids at a transfer efficiency of 60
percent with an assumed solvent
density of 0.88 kg/1. The regulation.
however. permits tradeoffs between
these variables. In other words. an
owner or operator using application
equipment with a higher transfer
efficiency may use a coating with a
correspondingly lower solids content.
Compliance can also be achieved by the
use of coatings with an average organic-
solvent content that. in conjunction with
any capture system and control device
operated at the reduction efficiency
demonstrated during the most recent
performance test, limits emissions to
0.90 kg/ 1 of applied coating solids.
Following the initial1-month
performance test. the owner or operator
must calculate and record the VOC
emissions from each affected facility for
each calendar month. Each monthly
calculation is considered a perfonnance
test. Information necessary to perform
the monthly calculation can be obtained
from company records and data
supplied by the coating manufacturer or
by an analysis of the coating by
Reference Method 24. Equations and
transfer efficiencies for calculating the
emissions for each affected facility are
provided in the standard. Reference
Method 25 will be used to detennine the
VOC concentration in a gas stream. This
method in conjunction or combined with
Reference Methods 1. 2. 3. and 4 wiU be
used to determine the percentage
reduction of VOC emissions achieved
through use of a capture system and
control system.
Recordkeeping requirements include
those data necessary to substantiate the
monthly calculations of emissions.
These data must be retained at the
source for a period of 2 years. The
regu~ation contains no reporting
requirements in addition to those
required by the General Provisions of 40
CFR Part 60 relative to the initial
performance test.
Environmental. Energy. aod Economic
Impacts
In 1980 it is believed that there were a
tot~l. ~f 59 companies operating 104
faclhhes engaged in the production of
large household appliances. Although
plants are .widely dispersed throughout
25 States. tndustry production is
concentrated in the Midwestern and
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 41. No. 208 I Wednesday. October 27, 1982 I Rules and Regulations
47779
Midsouthern States. It is estimated that
the standard will apply to
approximately 180 new. modified. or
reconstructed surface coating operations
(40 plants) by 1988.
Environmental, energy. arid economic
impacts of standards of performance are
normally expressed as incremental
differences between a facility complying
with the proposed standard and a
facility complying with a typical State
implementation plan (SIP) emission
standard. Most existing large appliance
surface coating operations are in
localities that are considered
nonattainment areas for achieving the
national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS) for ozone. New facilities are
expected to locate in similar areas. At
the time the emissions estimates in the
BID for the proposed standard were
prepared. SIP's were being revised for
these areas. In revising their SIP's. most
States were relying upon the control
techniques guideline (CTG) document.
"Control of Volatile Organic Emissions
from Existing Stationary Sources-
Volume V: Surface Coating of Large
Appliances" (EPA~50/2-77~4[CTG)).
It appeared that most States were
adopting the CTG recommendations
statewide. in attainment as well as in
nonattainment areal. For this reason. no
distinction was made between the "no
additional regulation" alternative and
the alternative eventually selected al
BOT. Both were based upon 62 percent
(volume) solids coatings. and the
transfer efficiency incorporated into the
BOT alternative was an estimate of the
average transfer efficiency actually
achieved in the industry. Therefore. in
the documents supporting the propoled
standard. the emissions reduction
attributable to the NSPS was reported
as "minimal."
Now that the majority of SIP revisions
have been approved. the emissions
estimates have been refined. A recent
analysis that is documented in the BID
for the final standard indicates that 89
percent of the known large appliance
manufacturing plants are located in
nonattainment areas er in attainment
areas where the emissions limits are at
least as strict as those recommended by
the CTG. If the projected growth in the
industry is accommodated through
plants subject to the NSPS distributed
geographically in the same manner as
existing plants (rather than through
increased use of existing capacity). it is
estimated that the standard will reduce
nationwide VOC emissions by
approximately 700 metric tons per year
by 1986.
Standards of performance have other
benefits in addition to reducing
emissions beyond the requirements of a
typical SIP. They establish a degree of
national uniformity. which precludes
situations in which some States may
attract new industries as a result of
having relaxed air pollution standards
relative to other States. Further.
standards of performance provide
documentation that reduces uncertainty
in case-by-case determinations of best
available control technology (BACT) for
facilities located in attainment areas
and lowest achievable emission rates
(LAER) for facilities located in
nonattainment areas- This
documentation includes identification
and comprehensive analysil of
alternative emission control
technologies. development of associated
costs. evaluation and verification of
applicable emission test methods. and
identification of specific emission limits
achievable with alternate technologies.
Costs are provided in an economic
analysis that reveals the affordability of
controls in an unbiased study of the
economic impact of controls on an
industry.
The rule making process that
implements a performance standard
assures adequate technical review and
promotes participation of
representatives of the industry being
considered for regulation. government.
and the public affected by that
industry's emissions. The resultant
regulation represents a balance in which
government resources are applied in a
well-publicized national forum to reach
a decision on a pollution emission level
that allows a dynamic economy and a
healthful environment.
Surface coating operations in a typical
large appliance assembly plant consume
73.000 GJ of energy a year. Because no
new coatings, application methods. or
control devices will be required. this
standard will have no discernible
impact on energy consumption in the
large appliance industry.
Although growth through the next few
years will probably be dampened by
inflation. it is predicted that the large
appliance industry will continue to
experience steady. if minimal. overall
growth. As in previous years. industry
growth is expected to be confined to
major manufacturers. The acquisition
trend is also expected to continue as
small manufacturers. unable to compete
with mass producers. become prime
candidates for acquisition. Although
inflationary pressures are expected to
increase industrywide prices during the
next few years, price increases are
expected to remain minimal.
Surface coating operations in a typical
large appliance assembly plant
157
represent a capital investment of almost
$3 million. Annual direct operating costs
are approximately $1.8 million. Because
no new coatings. application methods.
or control devices will be required. it is
estimated that the standard will have no
discernible impact on capital or
operating costs of new surface coating
operations within large appliance
assembly plants. For the same reasons.
no impact on product price is
anticipated. The standard's impact on
water pollution and solid waste disposal
will also be minimal.
Detailed analyses of the regulatory
altematives and the environmental.
energy. and economic impacts of the
standard of performance were originally
presented in "Industrial Surface
Coating: Appliances-Background
Information for Proposed Standards"
(EPA~50/3-80-037a) and remain
unchanged since proposal.
Public Participation
Prior to proposal of the standard.
interested parties were advised by
public notice in the Federal Register (45
FR 30686. May 9. 1980) of a meeting of
the National Air Pollution Control
Techniques Advisory Committee
(NAPCT AC) to discuss the standard for
appliance surface coating operations
recommended for proposal. Held on
June 5. 1980. the meeting was open to the
public and each attendee was given an
opportunity to comment on the standard
recommended for proposal. The
standard was proposed and published in
the Federal Register on December 24.
1980 (45 FR 85085). The preamble to the
proposed standard discussed the
availability of the BID. "Industrial
Surface Coating: Appliances- .
Background Information for Proposed
Standards" (EPA-450/3-80-037a). which
describes in detail the regulatory
alternatives considered and the impacts
of those alternatives. Public comments
were solicited at that time and copies of
the BID were distributed to interested
parties. To provide interested persons
the opportunity for oral presentation of
data. views. or arguments concerning
the proposed standards. a public hearing
was held on January 28. 1981. at
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina.
The hearing was open to the public and
each attendee was given an opportunity
to comment on the proposed standards.
Written comments were accepted
throughout the comment period. which
extended from December 24. 1980. to
February 23. 1981.
Twenty-one comment letters were
received and three interested parties
testified at the public hearing concerning
issues relative to the proposed stand;;rd
-------
47780
Federal Register I Vol. 47. No. 208 I Wednesday. October 27. 1982 I Rules and Regulations
of j)erformance for the appliance surface
coating source category. The comments
ha\'e been carefully considered and.
where determined to be appl"Opriate.
changes have been made in the
proposed standard.
Significant Comments and Changes to
the Proposed Standard
Comments on the proposed standard
were received from the appliance
industry. the coatings industry. Federal
agencies. one State and one local air
pollution control agency. and two trade
associations. Although a number of
changes have been made in the standard
since proposal. the affected facilities.
control techniques on which the
slandard is based. and impacts remain
as presented in the BID for the proposed
standard. A detailed discussion of the
comments and responses can be found
in the BID for the promulgated standard.
!litost comment letters contained
multiple comments. Major comments
and responses are summarized in this
preamble and have been divided into
the following areas: General. Emission
Control Technology. and Reporting and
Recordkeeping.
General
This standard was proposed as an
.1ppliance surface coatir.g standard that
includ!d several appliances not
traditionally considered to be large
household appliances. the cate~ory that
appeared on the priority list of major
source cate~ories for which EPA is to
promulgate \;SPS. Th!se other procucts
had been added br reasons to be
enumerated beh.lw. and a proposal to
amend the priority list to incluce all
appliances regardless of size was
pu~lished in the F~eral Re~ister [45 FR
8509~) concurrently with ~;:e ;,~cposal of
the star.d::rd lD2:::!~ber :4.193(1),
Several c.:)!r.rner.te~ said t:lat the
~umf'rous small app!iar.cCs
r:-:.anufath:red t.y t~! h;':ffie \.er.ti:a:~:1g
Indus!ry s\:ou!:::! !'!ct be covered by the
appliance st,,~d:mi beca~se the t:".me
\"t'ntd5:1ng l:-:~:'.l::i"Y a~J ~Ctq;e ap;;~1C~nce
!r.dL;str~; ~~e d~~~r~rflnt typŁ;s ot" ;:c:~ing9
llnJ a;:p!i::alit;;1 ~;:~:j:mer.t a:;d ::.1\ a
d:rr'.-e!'!t ...a""I.~"""--" er.\'l'~c~:.m"nts
:........ .. .. ~..6,_',.""~I.'O :' .. .. ..-.. .
lme speecs In la:c::e ,,~pl!lil'ce
fr.3nufact.;ri;:g ~!~!':~s n~e f.1~.~r. ;:.r:d
cJat!r:g or-e!"3.~~O!1S of the !~'O in:h:stries
arp not Sir'lIlar. Lc.rge app::ance
man~factL:r.ilg ;::sr:ts make one or two
r:-:1duc:s ~~i~~ a t\-,'o-coat sy~:~:;t.. "..~ile
I-:r::me VJ"::1~I!~~~n~ -~!n.n!s ~.i~.~~ a 'side
\'.~~'~e!v of r.r"d~-r{~ ,jS!!1~ d 5:~q~e-c~at
~ysrpm. T~e c,1atl1;~ ter:hti::ic3~' ;5 not as
"d':~nced in the 5'7.all shop~ rr.akir:g the
smdil appliances. and the existmg small
;,ppEance coating a~p!icaticn equipment
does nol approach the 6O-percent
asswned average transfer efficiency for
large appliances. Failure to recognize
these differences will allow unfair
advantage to a few industries.
One company further commented that
its range hoods are coated with a single.
coat. modified alkyd baking enamel
formulated for a hot. grease-laden
environment. Specifications far this
coating differ from specifications for
acrylic coatings used in the large
appliance industry. Another commenter
stated that the available high-solids
coatings were inadequate for coating
irregularly shaped objects like range
hoods and fans. Compliance coatings
are reasonably available for the five
major appliance colors but are not
reasonably available far the other
thirteen colors and color combinations
used for range hoods. Aecording to this
commenter. while approaches to the
development of new low-solvent
coatings and new. efficient application
systems for home ventilating products
show promise [waterborne and high-
solids coatings: exempt wlvents.
powder coatings. and electrodepositioD
(EDPJ). they are still in the experimental
stage.
The commenters continued that
although much of the coating equipment
used in the home ventilating industry is
similar to that used in the large
appliance industry. distinct shape
differences for some parts make
spinning disc electrostatic equipment,
which is common in the large appliance
industry. impractical for coating range
hoods with high-solids coatings. Small
appliance application coating
equipment. like large appliance
application equipment. will have to
underso modification before high-solids
coatings are used.
As the comnienters reported. often in
the home ventilating indtistry. parts of
several appliance products are coated
on the same line. As different standards
might then exist for different products.
productivity would suffer while the line
was changed to comply with whatever
standards m:ght apply to the units being
coated. If the most stringent standard
were used for all products coated on this
hYPC!theticalline. those not covered (but
coated in compliance. nevertheless) may
not be able to remain competitive with
products made by manufacturers who
did not have to comply. Different
stafldards might also apply to different
lines within a plant. Dr.e of the
commenters stated that because of time
constraints and limited resourcp.s. he
was unable to pro'l.;de complete cost
information on the range hood/fan
segment of the industry. and. therefore.
only noted that the model plants used in
lS8
the economic analysis are not typical of
this segment of the industry.
Comments of 8 similar nature
conceming thi! availability of high-solids
coatings in many colors and ~he
differences in coating operations were
also received from one manufacturer of
refrigerated display cases.
Based upon the comments received.
EPA has determined that in the absence
. of additional analysis and study. it is
inappropriate to conclude that BOT for
the manufacture of traditionallarse
appliances also applies to the
manufacture of other appliances. The
majority of data upon which the
proposed standard was developed
pertained to the surface coating of
traditional household appliances such
as ranges. microwave ovens, ovens.
refrigerators-. iaundry equipment. and
freezers. This information is contained
in the BID for the proposed standard.
The decision to regulate 17 other
appliance products (range hoods.
refrigerated display cases. dry cleaning
equipment. water softeners. interior
lighting fixtures. vacuum cleaners. ice
makers. air purifiers. baseboard heaters.
room heaters. humidifiers.
dehumidifiers. fans. furnaces. window
air conditioners. unitary air
conditioners. and heat pumps) was'
made subsequent to development of the
majority of the background informetion.
This decision was made because the
roating application methods appeared to
be identical to those used in large
appliance coating operations and
because the coating materials and
performance specifications also
appeared to be similar to those used in
the large appliance industry. Therefore,
there appeared to be no technical reason
to exdude these other appliance
products. As a result of the reevaluation
prompted by these comments. the entire
group of 17 other appliance products
listed above has been deleted from the
standard. This is not to imply that none
of these industries can achieve the
levels of control required by this
standard. This or even more stril1~ent
requirements may be appropriate in the
application of BACT or LAER.
In addition. the Administrator has
concluded from these comments that
funher examination of such factors as
projected growth and applicable
emission limits for other segments of the
applianc,e coating industry are
necessary bt-fore conduding that these
other appliance coating operations
contribute significantly to air pollution
that may reasonabtybe anticipated to
endanger p'.lblic health or welfare.
Therefore. the Agency is withdrawing
the proposed amendment to aggregate
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 47. No. 208 I Wednesday. October 27, 1982 I Rules and Regulations
47781
all appliance surface coating operations
into one source category on the priority
list. An announcement to this effect
appears elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Rewister.
One commenter stated that one
company in its corpora tion uses an
aluminum-based coating on gas furnace
parts that are subject to very high
temperatures (1.000. F) and may use
similar coatings on certain parts of gas
dryers and water heaters. While the
coating solids are inorganic. the material
is spray applied with an organic carrier
that yields organic-solvent emissions. A
question existed as to whether this
coating would be considered an
"organic coating." If so. it would not
meet the standard nor would any other
temperature-resistant coating known to
the commenter.
Although an "organic coating" was
not defined explicitly in the proposed
standard. EPA considers any coating
that yields VOC emissions to be organic.
For clarification. a definition of an
"organic surface coating" has been
added in leo.451 of the final regulation.
In addition. the specific problem raised
by the commenter is corrected in the
final version of the standard by
incorporating a temperature cutoff in the
regulation. After several industry
representatives were consulted. 250° F
was selected as the cutoff because
coatings required to withstand heat in
e,cess of this temperature are difficult,
if not impossible. to formulate at the 62-
percent (volume) solids level. The
coating of appliance parts that are
subject to in-use temperatures above
250° F. therefore. is not subject to the
emission limitations in this standard.
One commenter noted that key
operating parameters of application
equipment should be checked regularly
to ensure that equipment is being
operated i~ accordance with
manufacturers' specification. These
checks could be performed at the same
time monthly determinations of VOC
emissions compliance are made. It was
recommended that the Agency
encourage operator training by offering
an incentive in the form of additional
transfer efficiency credits for fll'lDs that
have operator training programs.
Proper operation and malDtenance of
facilities is required in leo.ll(d) of the
General Provisions of 40 CFR Part eo.
Therefore. improper operation or
emissiqn excesses resulting from
improper operator training would be
considered a violation of leo.11(d).
Although EPA certainly encourages
industry to provide adequate training for
its spray equipment operaton, a
mechanism to "credit" operator training
is not within the scope of EPA's
regulatory development program. The
training program's adequacy would have
to be monitored. and the implementation
and enforcement requirements are
considered to be excessive. Decreases in
coating use. part rejection. and
maintenance are major economic
incentives for a company to implement
an operator training program. The
Agency believes these reasdns are
sufficient to ensure proper operation and
maintenance of application equipment.
Three commenters noted that
technical requirements for surface
coating of wood stoves. furnaces. and
room heaters are not similar to large
appliances in that high temperature
requirements preclude the use of water-
based coatings. High-solids coatings are
also not available to meet these
performance specifications.
Consequently. wood stoves. furnaces.
and room heaters should be classified as
miscellaneous metal parts and products
with extreme performance
characteristics and should not be
covered in this regulation.
Wood stoves and direct-fired room
heaters were never intended to be
included in this regulation. Although one
commenter indicated succes8ful testing
of a coeting that could achieve the
proposed emission limit. EPA does not
have sufficient data to conclude that
such coalings have been adequately
demonstrated. Because the coating of
large appliance parts exp08ed to
extreme temperatures was not intended
to be 8ubject to the proposed standard.
the definition of large appliance part8 to
be covered by this regulation has been
clarified. In addition. furnaces and room
heaten have been excluded from the list
of products to be covered by thi8
regulation.
One commenter expressed concern
that the proposed standard was unduly
restrictive in that it did not allow use of
the "bubble concept." whereby credit
for overcompliance on one line could be
used to offset use of noncompliance
coalings on another line. Other
commenters stated that many firm8
manufacturing smaller appliance8
finished 8everal products on a single
line.
The "bubble concept" refers to
application of a standard to an entire
plant rather than to separate portions of
an individual plant. The term "affected
facility" refers to the particular portion
of a plant to which 8 standard applies.
In this case the affected facility has
been defined as a surface coating
operation. which consists of a coating
application station(s). flashoff area(s).
and an oven. The choice of the affected
facility for any standard i8 based on the
Agency's interpretation of the Clean Air
1~9
Act. as amended. and judicial
construction of its meaning. Under
Section 111. the NSPS must apply to
"new sources;" a "source" is defined as
"any building. structure. facility. or
installation which emits or may emit
any air pollutant" [Section 111(a)(3)].
Most industrial plants. however. consist
of numerous pieces or groups of
equipment that emit air pollutants and
that might be viewed as "sources." EPA
uses the term "affected facility" to
designate the equipment. within a
particular kind of plant. that is chosen
as the "source" covered by a given
standard.
In choosing the affected facility. EPA
must decide which pieces or groups of
equipment are the appropriate units for
separate emission standards in that
particular industrial context. One major
consideration in this decision is that use
of a narrower definition brings
replacement equipment under the NSPS
sooner. If. for example. an entire plant
were designated the affected facility. no
part of the plant would be covered by
the standard unless the plant a8 a whole
were "modified:' If. on the other hand.
each piece of equipment were
designated the affected facility, a8 each
piece were replaced. the replacement
piece would be a new source subject 10
the standard. Since the purp08e of
Section 111 is to minimize emissions bv
the application of the best demonstrated
control technology (considering cost.
other health and environmental effects.
and energy requirements) at all new iind
modified sources. there is a presumption
that a narrower designation of the
affected facility is proper. This ensures
that new emission sources within plants
will be brought under the coverage of
the standards as they are installed. This
presumption can be overcome. however.
if the Agency concludes that the
rele.vant statutory factors (technical
feasibility, cost. energy. and other
environmental impacts) point to a
broader definition. As shown in the BID.
it is both technologically and
economically feasible to control each
coating operation. Since selecting this
narrowest definition of the affected
facility would achieve the greatest
emission reduction. this definition is
most consistent with the purposes of
Section 111.
Two other pos8ible definitions of the
affected facility in this standard are all
prime coat (or topcoat) operations in a
product line and all prime coat (or
topcoat) operations within an assem~!y
plant. The product line definition would
have reduced the number of affected
facilities and would have permitted
tradeoffs between different coating'! H:1d
-------
4i782
Federal Register I Vol. 47. No. 208 I Wednesday. October 27. 1982 I Rules and Regulations
application technologies. Likewise.
defining all prime coating (or topcoating)
operations within a plant as the affected
facility would have reduced the number
of affected facilities and. consequently,
the associated recordkeeping and
compliance calcula tions. However, such
definitions would not necessarily result
in either the use of best technology or
the minimization of emissions from new
sources. For these reasons. the Agency
has chosen each surface coating
operation as the affected facility.
The specific concern from small
appliance manufacturers who finish
several products or. a single line that
different standards would apply to
different propucts on the same coating
line is no longer applicable since
manufacturers of these products are not
subject to the promulgated standard.
The Agency is not Clware of any large
Clppliance manufacturers finishing
several products on a single line who
might encounter this situation.
One commenter opposed
implementation of the proposed
standard at this time because he
considered additional regulations
unnecessary and overly burdensome
and thought industry deserves to be
advised of the real need for VOC
standards more stringent than those
now imposed.
Standards of performance are
promulgated under Section 111 of the
Clean Air Act Section 111(b)(I)(A)
requires that the Administrator establish
standards of performance for categories
of new, modified. or reconstructed
stationary sources that in his judgment
cause or contribute significantly to air
pollution that may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare. Standards of performance
prevent new air pollution problems from
developing by requiring application of
the best technological system of
continuous emission reduction that the
Administrator determines to be
adequately demonstrated. The 1977
Amendments to the Clean Air Act
added the words. "in the
Administrator's judgment." and the
words. "may reasonably be
anticipated. H to the statutory tesL Tbe
legislative history for these changes
stresses two points:
. The Act is preventive. and
regulatory action should be taken to
prevent harm before it occurs: and
. The Administrator should consider
the contribution of each single class of
sources to the cumulative impact of all
VOC emitters.
The 1971 Amt'ndments to the Clean
Air Act also required that the
Administrator promulgate a priority"list
of source categories for which standarda
of performance are to be promulgated.
The priority list. 40 CFR 60.16. was
promulgated in the Federal Register on
August Z1. 1979 {44 FR 49222).
Development of the priority list was
initiated by compiling data on a large
number of source categories from
literature resources. Major stationary
source categories were then subjected to
a priority rankins procedure using the .
three criteria specified in Section UI(f)
of the Act. The procedure ranks source
categories on a pollutant-by-pollutant
basis. In this ranking. first priority was
given to the quantity of emissions.
second priority was given to the
, potential impact on health or welfare.
and third priority was given to the
rriobility and competitive nature of the .
source category.
In light of the considerations stated
above. the Administrator found that the
large appliance coating industry is a .
"significant contributor," (Applying the
criteria for prioritizing such contributors.
the Administrator ranked the surface
coating of large appliances 28th of 59
source categories on the priority list.)
This listing decision requires the Agency
to promulgate standards of performance
for new sources in this category.
Another study was conducted to
investigate the large appliance surface
coatins industry in more detail. This
study resulted in development of the
aID. which specificaJly addressed the
industry in terms of strocture. processes.
and emission control technique\!. The
aID also described modification and
reconstruction: altemative regulatory
options; and the environmental
economic. and energy impacts that .
would be asaociated with implementing
each of the various regulatory options.
During this study it was estimated that 8
minor reduction in emissions would
result from the propo8ed regulation.
primarily because of improvements
already achieved by State regulations. A
more receut ltudy. however. estimated
that the standard would reduce
nationwide VOC emiuions by 700
metric tons per year by 1986. This new
study is documeuted in the aID for the
final standard. The resu\ation has other
benefits in addition to reducing
emissions beyond those required in
State regulations. The transfer efficiency
concept iDCOl1JOrated in this regulation
was not included in the CTG document
issued to the States. Its inclusion here is
a major benefit becaUIe specifying aD
emissions limit based upon a specific
VOC content and a specific transfer
efficiency automatically incorporates an
equivalency provision into the .
regulatioo and allows tradeot!s between
VOC coatent and transfer efficiency.
That is. aR opentel' using application
140
equipment with a high ~sfer .
efficiency couJd use a coating WIth a
higher VOC contenL Such a provision
also enables the diverse coatings and
application techniques within the
industry to be accommodated by a
single standard.
Also. standards of performaf1ce
establish a degree of national
uniformity. which precludes situations
in which some States may attract
industries by relaxing air pollution
standards relative to other States. They
improve the efficiency of case-by-case
determinations of BACT for facilities
located in attainment areas and LAER
for facilities located in nonattainment
areas. by providing a starting point for
the basis of these determinations. This
starting point results from the process of
developing a standard of performance.
which involves comprehensive analysis
of alternative emission control
technologies and evaluation and
verification of emission test methods.
For these reasons. VOC emissions
from large appliance surface coatiDl
operations have been selected for
regulation under an NSPS.
Emission Control T~nology
One of the commenters stated that the
generic classifications of equipment in
Table 1 (Section 60.453) are poorly
defined and inappropriate. The Agency's
listing of transfer efficiencies for generic
equipment will encourage the use of
lower priced. inferior equipment that
does not perform as well as the Agency
has indicated. The listing will also
discourage use of equipment that
presently exceeds listed values. since
added credit ma)' be difficult to obtain.
For this reason. the Agency's estimates
of emission reductions are overstated
and the objectives will not be met. The
commenter suggested that a
standardized test method be adopted to
detennine transfer efficiency. Equipment
could then be "certified~ by the
manufacturer cind a list of equipment
ratings and operating conditions could
be supplied to EPA for publication. The
equipment operator should be required
to use these published transfer
efficiencies to determine compliance.
The promulgated standard will
significantly benefit users of equipment
that has a high transfer efficiency
because of the flexibility of coating
selection it will afford. Incorporation of
the transfer efficiency concept into this.
standard is one of the main
improvements over earli« RACT
guidelines aad existing State regulations
becauae existins regulations do not give
credit for tranafer efficiency. With this
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 208 / Wednesday, October 27. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
47733
regulation. due credit will be given to
users of more efficient equipment.
EPA recognizes that the actuAl
transfer efficiency achieved in
production line situations depends on a
large number of variables. It was this
difficulty in determining transfer
efficiency values that caused EPA to use
the table of assigned numbers. Any
improvement in the efficiency at which
coatings are applied will benefit both
the EPA's goal of reducing VOC
emissions and the industry's goal of
achieving mor~ economical operation. A
more detailed listing of transfer
efficiency values would require a
unifonn test method for all situations.
Such a method has not yet been
developed but is under investigation by
EPA's Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory (IERL). The
Agency does not believe the listed
transfer efficiencies will promote the use
of inferior equipment because operating
cost advantages. such as decreased
coating usage. will dictate the use of
efficient equipment and encourage its
proper operation.
Several commenters stated that the
proposed standard was inequitable
because the concept of assumed transfer
efficiency did not account for the
following parameters:
. Part configuration.
. Type of coating.
. Solids level.
. Resin type,
. Flow rate.
. Operator efficiency,
. Local environmental conditions.
. Charging voltages, and
. Interaction of all of the above
variables with each type of application
equipment.
Two of these commenters suggested that
spray equipment manufacturers had not
had adequate opportunity to suggest an
appropriate test method to detennine
actual transfer efficiency that could be
incorporated into the standard. It was
suggested that the National Spray
Equipment Manufacturers Association
(NSE.~) coordinate industry responses
on transfer efficiency. Exception was
taken to NSEMA not being contacted
during development of this st<1ndard.
No changes were made in thp.
regulation a3 a result of these comments.
EPA believes that to reflect BDT for the
Jargc appliance coat'jng industry,
emission limits for new sources must
incorporate the use of both high-solids
coatings and relatively efficient
application equipment but must not at
the same time deny industry flexibiiity
to use different types of appl!c
-------
47784
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 208 / Wednesday. October 27. 1982 I Rules and RegUlations
responsible owner or operator would
need monitoring information compIled in
a usable form to determine when
adjustments in the control system are
needed to ensure that it is performing at
its intended effectiveness level.
EPA is therefore requiring only the
additional step of filing the information
in an accessible location. Because EPA
judges that monthly compliance tests.
monitoring. and recordkeeping are
essential for determining compliance
and proper operation and maintenance.
these requirements hiive not been
changed since proposal. It was judged.
however. that reporting is not essential
to EPA. In addition. when States are
delegated the authority to enforce this
standa..rd. they may prefer either not to
have reporting or to have reporting on a
different schedule than EPA proposed.
Therefore. the requirement to report
violations of the standard and quarterly
incineration reports has been removed
since proposal. A State. however. at any
time is free to impose its own reporting
requirements in conjunction with this
regulation.
Another commenter expressed
concern over the time a facility would
need for recordkeeping and reporting to
determine monthly compliance as
proposed in the regulation and stated
that an added overhead burden would
be placed on the industries that
ultimately would be passed on to the
consumer. Another commenter
estimated that it would probably require
one person per year at each affected
plant. considerably more than estimated
in the preamble.
As stated in the p~evious response.
the requirement to report violations of
monthly compliance tests has been
removed since proposal. In the preamble
'0 the regulation it was estimated that in
~~ fifth year of applicability the
Jmulgated regulation would apply to
Ji) affected facilities and over these 5
drs would require about 40 industry
rson-years for recordkeeping and
~porting. This amounts to about 1
person-month per affected facility per-
year. (This infonnation is contained in a
Reports Intpact Analysis. Docket Entry
11-1-20. Because all reporting
requirements except for the initial
performance test results have been
eliminated from the standard. and
because of the requirement to estimate
the Agency resources needed for
observing performance tests and for
litigation. the Reports Impact Analysis
has been revised since proposal. It is
now estimated that the industry burden
for recordkeeping and reporting will be
28 person-years over the first 5 years of
applicability.) Information a
manufacturer needs to keep on a day-to-
day basis to determine compliance with
this standard includes volume of coating
used and volume of dilution solvent
used. These data are normally kept by
companies to provide adequate stock
room balances of needed supplies. The
other item of information needed to
determine compliance. the fraction of
solids in the coating. can be obtained
from the coating manufacturer. The'
recording of these data is needed by
both the owner!operator and EPA to
determine that the source is in
compliance. EPA considers the lower
time estimates in the Reports Impact
Analysis to be reasonably accurate.
Therefore. the Agency does not consider
the recordkeeping. which is necessary to
determine compliance. an unreasonable
burden.
Information Requirement Impacts
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements of this regulation are
assessed in a Reports Impact Analysis.
A copy of this analysis. which considers
various alternatives and impacts. is
included in the docket for public review.
Please reference Subcategory II-I of
Docket No. A-ao-e.
The regulation will require no reports
in addition to those required under the
General Provisio!1s of 40 CFR Part 60.
The General Provisions contain
notification requirements that enable the
Agency to keep abreast of facilities
subject to the standard and also contain
requirements for conducting and
reporting of initial performance tests.
The resources needed by industry to
maintain records and to prepare the
reports through the first 5 years would
be about 28 person-years. The resources
required by EPA and State and local
agencies to process the reports and
maintain records through the first 5
years would be about 1.5 person-years.
Analysis of these reporting requirements
indicates that they are reasonable
considering the savings in Agency time
and resources required for effective
enforcement.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980
(Pub. L. 9~511) requires clearance from
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) of certain public reporting!
recordkeeping requirements before this
rulemaking can be promulgated as'final.
The reporting! recordkeeping
requirements associated with this
standard have been approved by OMB.
and has been assigned OMB Control
Number 2000-0473.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
This rulemaking was proposed before
January 1. 1981. and therefore is not
subject to the requirements of the
142
Regulatory Flexibility Act. H.owever.
these requirements were revIewed. and
it was determined that this rule would
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities.
Docket
The docket is an organized and
complete file of all the information
submitted to or otherwise conside~ed by
EPA in the development of this
rulemaking. The docket system is
intended to allow members of the
industries involved and the public to
readily identify and locate documents so
-that they can effectively participate in
the rulemaking process. Along with the
statement of basis and purpose of the
proposed and promulgated standards
and EPA responses to significant
comments. the contents of the docket.
except for certain interagency review
materials. will serve as the record in
case of judicial review [Section
307( d}(7}(A)).
Miscellaneous
The effective date of this regulation is
October 27. 1982. Section 111 of the
Clean Air Act provides that standards of
performance or revisions thereof
become effective upon promulgation and
apply to affected facilities. construction
or modification of which was
commenced after the date of proposal
December 24. 1980.
As prescribed by Section 111.
promulgation of this standard was
preceded by the Administrator's
determination (40 CFR 80.18. 44 FR
49222. dated August 21.1979) that these
sources contribute signlficantly to air
pollution that may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare. In accordance with Section 117
of the Act. publication of this
promulgated standard was preceded by
consultation w.ith appropriate advisory
committees. independent experts. and
Federal departments and agencies.
This regulation w:1l be reviewed 4
years from the date of promulgation as
required by the Clean Air Act. This
review will include an assessment of
such factors as the need for integration
with other programs. the existence of
alternative methods. enforceability.
improvements in emission control
technology. and reporting requirements.
Section 317 of the Clean Air Act
requires the Administrator to prepare an
economic impact assessment for any
new source standard of performance
promulgated under section 111(b} of the
Act. An economic impact assessment
was prepared for this regulation and for
other regulatory alternatives. All
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 47, No. 208 I Wednesday, October 27, 1982 I Rules and Regulations
47785
aspects of the assessment were.
considered in the fonnulation of the
standard to ensure that cost was
carefully considered in detennining
BOT. The economic impact assessment
is included in the BID for the proposed
standard.
In addition to the economic impact
analysis, the emissions reduction and
annualized costs for typical facilities-
expressed in dollars per ton of pollutant
removed per year-were examined for
several regulatory alternatives and
results included in the BID for the
proposed standard. Although such data
are often used as a measure of the
economic efficiency of pollution control
systems, this concept of cost
effectiveness was not directly
applicable here because the alternatives
considered represented different coating
technologies rather than varying df,!grees
of control within the same technology. A
given coating technology may not be
technically the most appropriate for a
given segment of the industry, even
though that technology may be more
cost effective for the industry as a
whole. Therefore. a plant operator must
select a specific coating technology with
an established cost and associated
emissions and may not have the option
of selecting a control system whose
efficiency depends upon capital and
operating costs alone.
As previously dis'cussed. BOT for this
industry has been detennined to be the
application of a coating containing 62
percent by volume coating solids at a 60-
percent transfer efficiency (Alternative
II). This decision was made primarily for
technological rather than for economic
reasons.
The emissions and annualized costs in
the absence of an NSPS are nearly
identical to those for the NSPS level of
control in a nonattainment area.
Compared to an uncontrolled plant in an
attainment area. however. the NSPS
level represents an emission reduction
of 104 tons per year and an annual
savings of a~out $682 per ton of
emissions rf:duced for a prime coat
operation and an emission reduction of
173 tons per year and an annual savings
of approximately $758 per ton of
emissions reduced for a topcoat
operation. These savings result from
reduced material costs. EDP (Alternative
III) and powder coating (Alternative IV) .
are not required by the standard but
may be selected in some instances.
Compared to an uncontrolled plant.
these result in annual savings of
approximately $1.400 and $10,000 per
ton of emissions reduced. respectively.
These technologies. however. are not
universally applicable.
Under Executive Order 12291. EPA
must judge whether a regulation is
"major" and therefore subject to the
requirement of a Regulatory Impact
Analysis. This regulation is not major
because (1) the national annualized
compliance costs, including capital
charges resulting from the standard.
total less than $100 million: (2). the
standard does not cause a major
increase in prices or production costs;
and (3) the standard does not cause
significant adverse effects on domestic
competition. employment, investment.
productivity, innovation. or competition
in foreign markets. This regulation was
submitted to OMB for review as
required by Executive Order 12291. Any
comments from OMB to EPA and any
EPA response to those comments are
included in Docket Number A-80-6. The
docket is available for public inspection
at EPA's Central Docket Section. West
Tower Lobby, Gallery 1. Waterside
Mall. 401 M Street SW.. Washington.
D.C. 20460.
Dated: October 20, 1982.
Anne M. Gorsuch,
Administrator.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60
Air pollution control. Aluminum.
Ammonium sulfate plants, Cement
industry, Coal. Copper. Electric power
plants. Glass and glass products. Grains.
Intergovernmental relations, Iron. Lead.
Metals. Motor vehicles. Nitric acid
plants. Paper and paper products
industry, Petroleum, Phosphate. Sewage
disposal. Steel. Sulfuric acid plants,
Waste treatment and disposal, Zinc.
PART 6D-{AMENDED]
40 CFR Part 60 is amended by adding
a new Subpart SS as follows:
Subpert S5-St8nd8rda of "-formance tot
Indatn" Surface Coating: Large
Appllanc88
See.
80.450 Applicability and designation of
affected facility.
80.451 Definitions.
80.452 Standard for volatile organic
compounds.
80.453 Performance test and compliance
provisions
80.454 Monitoring of emissions and
operations.
80.455 Reportins and recordkeepins
requirements.
60.458 Test methods and procedures.
Authority: Sections 111 and 301(a) of the
Clean Air Act. as amended (42 V.S.C. 7411.
7801(a), and additional authority as noted
below. -
143
~ 60.450 Applicability and designation of
affected facility.
(a) The provisions of this subpart
apply to each surface coating operation
in a large appliance surface coating line.
(b) The provisions of this subpart
app!y to each affected facility identified
in paragraph (a) of this section that
commences construction. modification,
or reconstruction after December 24.
1980.
~ 60.451- DeflnltlonL
(a) All terms used in this subpart not
defined below are given the meaning in
the Act or in Subpart A of this part.
"Applied coating solids" means the
coating solids that adhere to the surface
of the large appliance part being coated.
"Large appliance part" means any
organic surface-coated metal lid, door.
casing, panel. or other interior or
exterior metal part or accessory tha tis
assembled to fonn a large appliance
product. Parts subject to itl-use
temperatures in excess of 250. F are not
included in this definition.
"Large appliance product" means any
organic surface-coated metal range.
oven. microwave oven. refrigerator.
freezer. washer. dryer. dishwasher.
water heater, or trash compactor
manufactured for household.
commercial. or recreational use.
"Large appliance surface coating line"
means that portion of a large appliance
assembly plant engaged in the
application and curing of organic,-=--
surface coatings on large appliance
parts or products.
"Coating application station" means
that portion of the large appliance
surface coating operation where a prime
coat or a top coat is applied to large
appliance parts or products (e.g., dip
tank. spray booth. or flow coating unit).
. "Curing oven" means a device that
uses heat to dry or cure the coating(s)
applied to large appliance parts or
products.
"Electrodeposition" (EDP) means a
method of coating application in which
the large appliance part or product is
submerged in a tank filled with coating
material suspended in water and an
electrical potential is used to enhance
deposition of the material on the part or
product.
"Flashoff area" means the portion of a
surface coating line between the coating
application station and the curing oven.
"Organic coating" means any coating
used in a surface coating operation,
including dilution solvents, from which
VOC emissions occur during the
application or the curing proc.ess. For
the purpose of this regulation. powder
-------
47786
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 208 / Wednesday, October 27, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
coatings are not included in this
defini tion.
"Powder coating" means any surface
coating that is applied as a dry powder
and is fused into a continuous coating
film through the use of heat.
"Spray booth" means the structure
housing automatic or manual spray
application equipment where a coating
is applied to large appliance parts or
products.
"Surface coating ope~ation" means
the system on a large appliance surface
coating line used to apply and dry or
cure an organic coating on the surface of
large appliance parts or products. The
surface coating operation may be a
prime coat or a topcoat operation and
includes the coating application
station(s), flashoff area. and curing
oven.
''Transfer efficiency" means the ratio
oJ the amount of coating solids
deposited onto the surface of a large
appliance part or product to the total
amount of coating solids used.
"vac content" means the proportion
of a coating that is volatile organic
componds (Vac's), expressed as
kilograms of vac's per liter of coating
solids.
"vac emissions" means the mass of
volatile organic compounds (Vac's),
expressed a8 kilograms of vac's per
liter of applied coating solids. emitted
from a surface coating operation.
(b) All symbols used in this subpart
not defined below are given the meaning
in the Act or Subpart A of this part.
C. = the concentration of VOC's in 8 gas
stream leaving a control device and
entenng the atmosphere (parts per
million by volume. as carbon).
C,,= the concentration of VOC's in a g88
stream entenog a control device (parts
per million by volume. as carbon).
C. = the concentration of YOC's in a gas
stream emitted directly to the
atmosphere (parts per million by volume.
as carbon).
D. = density of coating (or input stream). as
received (kilograms per liter).
D. = density of a VOC-solvent added to
coatings (kilograms per liter).
D. = density of a VOC-solvent recovered by
an emission control device (kilograms
per liter).
E = the VOC destruction efficiency of a
control device (fraction).
F = the proportion of total VOC's emi tted by
an affected facility that enters a control
device (fraction).
G = the volume-weighted average mass of
VOC's in coatings consumed in a
calendar month per unit volume of
applied coating solids [kilograms per
liter).
t. = the volume of coating consumed. as
received (liters).
~ = the volume of VOC-solvent added to
coatings (liters).
1.. = the volume of VOC-solvent recovered by
an emission control device (liters).
~ = the -volume of coating solids consumed
[liters).
M. = the masl of VOC-solvent added to
coatings (kilograms).
M.=the mass ofVOC's in coatings
consumed. as received (kilograms).
M, = the mass of VOC's recovered by an
emission control device (kilograms).
N = the volume-weighted average mass of .
VOC's emitted to the atmosphere per
unit volume of applied coating solids
(kilograms per liter).
Q. = the volumetric flow rate of a gas stream
leaving a control device and entering the
atmosphere (dry standard cubic meters
per hour).
Q" = the volumetric flow rate of a gas stream
entering a control device (dry standard
cubic meters per hour).
Qt= the volumetric flow rate of a gal stream
emitted directly to the atmosphere (dry
standard cubic meters per hour).
R = the overall VOC emission reduction
achieved for an affected facility
(fraction).
T = the transfer efficiency (frar.tion].
V, = the proportion ofsolids in a coating (or
input stream). as received (fraction by
\'olume).
W. = the proportion of VOC's in a coating (or
input stream). as received (fraction by
weight).
f 60.452 Standard for volatile organic
compounda.
an or after the date on which the (1:L.t J Dd J will be 0 if no VaC-solvent is"
performance test required by A 60.8 is added to the coatings. as received)
completed. no owner or operator of an where
affected facility subject to the provisions n is the number of different coatings used
of this supbart shall discharge or cause during the calendar month. and
the discharge of vac emissions that m is the number of different VOC-solvents
exceed a.90 kilogram of vac's per liter added to !=oatings dunng the calendar
of applied coating solids from any month.
surface coating operation on a large (H) C I I t th t t I I f
appliance surface coating line. t. a cUI.ade ed°(L.a) ~otuhme 01 d
coa mgs so 1 s use tn e ca en ar
f 80.453 Performance test and compliance. . month for each affected facility by the
provi8lon&. following equation:
(a) Sections 60.8 (d) and (f) do not
apply to the performance test
procedures required by this subpart.
(b) The owner or operator of an
affected facility shall conduct an initial
performance text as required under
160.8(a) and thereafter a performance
test each calendar month for each
affected facility according to the
procedures in this paragraph.
(1) An owner or operator shall use the
following procedures for any affected
facility that does not use a capture
system and control device to comply
with the emissions limit specified under
A 60.452. The owner or operator shall
determine the composition of the
coatings by formulation data supplied
by the coating manufacturer or by
analysis of each coating. as received.
using Reference Method 24. The
Administrator may require the owner or
operator who uses formulation data
144
supplied by the coating manufacturer to
determine the vac content of coatings
using Reference Method 24. The owner
or operator shall determine the volume
of coating and the mass of VaC-solvent
used for thinning purposes from
company records on a monthly basis. If
a common coating distribution system
serves more than one affected facility or
serves both affected and existing
facilities. the owner or operator shall
estimate the volume of coatings used at
each facility, by using the average dry
weight of coating and the surface area
coated by each affected and existing
facility or by other procedures
acceptable to the Administrator.
(i) Except as provided in .
subparagraph b(1J(iv) of this section, the
weighted average of the total mass of
vac's consumt:d per unit volume of
coating solids applied each calendar
month will be determined as follows.
(A) Calculate the mass ofVaC's
consumed (~ + Md) during the
calendar month for each affected facility
by the following equation:
M.+M.= t L.,Dct W..+ f L".D...
1=1 1-1
(1)
~= t L.,V...
'~1
(2)
where
n is the number of different coatings used
during the calendar month.
(C) Select the appropriate transfer
efficiency from Table 1. If the owner or
operator can demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Administrator that
transfer efficiencies other than those
shown are appropriate. the
Administrator will approve their use on
a case-by-case basis. Transfer
efficiencies for application methods not
listed shall be determined by the
Administrator on a case-by-case basis.
An owner or operator must submit
sufficient data for the Administrator to
judge the accuracy of the transfer
efficiency claims- .
-------
Federal Register I VoL 47, No. 208 I Wednesday, October 27, 1982 I Rules and Regulations
47787
TA8LE t.-TRANSFER Emc1ENcIEs
T"""
~-- 8IIci8ncy
(T..!
~ A.. A...d .., 0.40
AiIIII88 ..., .- o.~
..... ~ ;.., 0.80
FW_. OM
OipCll8l--..-- o.as
~ -..- 8I8cIIo8I8IiI:...,- 0.85
ACII8Iing - -- -........... ...,.-. 0.80
EI8cIr~ ( 1...._...- D.85
Where more than one application
method is used within a single surface
coating operation. the owner or operator
shall determine the composition and
volume of each coating applied by each
method through a means acceptable to
the Administrator and compute the
weighted average transfer efficiency by
the following equation:
i ft.q. V... T.
T ,..k-.
1.
(3)
where
n is the number of coatings (or input streams)
used-and
m is the number of application methods used.
(D) Calculate the volume-weighted
average mass of vac:s consumed per
unit volume of coating solids applied (G)
during the calendar month for each
affected facility by the following
equation:
G= M..+M.t.
L.T
(4)
(ii) Calculate the volume-weighted
average of VOC emissions to the
atmosphere (N) during the calendar
montb for each affected facility by the
following equa tion:
N=G. (5)
(iii) Where the volume-weighted
average mass of vac:s discharged to
tbe atmosphere per unit volume of
coating solids applied (N) is equal to or
less than 0.90 kilogram per liter. the
affected facility is in compliance.
(iv) If each individual coating used by
an affected racility bas a vac content,
as received, wbich wben divided by the
lowest transfer efficiency at wbich the
coating is applied. results in a value
equal to or less than 0.90 kilogram per
liter. the affected racility is in
compliance. provided no vac:s are
added to the coating during distribution
or application.
(2) An owner or operator sball use the
following procedures for any affected
racility that uses a capture system and a
control device tbat destroys vac:s (e.8-
incinerator) to comply with the emission
limit specified under t 60.452.
(i) Determine the overall reduction
efficiency (R) for the capture system and
control device. For the initial
performance test the overall reduction
efficiency (R) shall be determined as
prescribed in A. B. and C below. In
subsequent months. the owner or
operator may use the most recently
determined overall reduction efficiency
(R) for the performance test. providing
control device and capture system
operating conditions have not changed.
The procedure in A. B, and C. below,
shall be repeated when directed by the
Administrator or when the owner or
operator elects to operate the control
device or capture system at conditions
different from the initial performance
test.
(A) Determine the fraction (F) of total
vac's emitted by an affected facility
that enters the control device using the
following equation:
F-
t c.. Q..
1-.
i c...~+ f c".Q,. .
k-I
(6)
1-\
Where
n is the number of gas streams entering the
. control device
p is the number of gas streams emitted
directly to the atmosphere.
(8) Detennine the destruction
efficiency of the control device (E) using
values of the volumetric flow rate of
each of the gas streams and the vac
content (as carbon) of each of the gas
streams in and out of the device by the
following equation:
n ..
1: ~c..- 1: Q.,c..
E i-I 1-1
f ~c..
j....1
(7)
Where
n i8 the number of gal streams entering the
control device. and
m i8 the number of gas streams leaving the
control device and entering the
atmosphere.
(C] Detennine overall reduction
efficiency (R) using the rollowing
equation:
R=EF.
(8)
(ii) Calculate the volume-weighted
average of the total mass of vac's per
unit volume of applied coating solids (G)
during each calendar month for each
145
affected facility using equations (1), (2).
(3) if applicable. and (4).
(iii) Calculate the volume-weighted
average of VQC emissions to the
atmosphere (N) during each calendar
month by the following equation:
N=G (1-R). (9)
(iv) If the volume-weighted average
mass of vac:s emitted to the
atmosphere for each calendar month (N)
is equal to or less than 0.90 kilogram per
liter of appued coating solids. the
affected facility is in compliance.
(3) An owner or operator shall use the
following procedure for any affected
facility that uses a control device for
vac recovery (e.g.. carbon adsorber) to
comply with the applicable emission
limit specified under t 60.452-
(i) Calculate the total mass of vac's
assumed (M,,+M.J and the volume-
weighted average of the total mass of
vac's per unit volume of applied
coating solids (G) during each calendar
month for each affected facility using
equations (1), (2), (3) if applicable. and
(4).
(H) Calculate the total mass of vac's
recovered (Mr) during each calendar
month using the following equation:
M.=L.D..
(101
(Hi) Calculate overall reduction
efl'iciency of the control device (R) for
each calendar month for each affected
facility using the following equation:
R
M.
M.+M.t
/11)
(iv) Calculate the volume-weighted
average mass or vac's emit~ed to the
atmosphere (N) for each calendar month
for each affected facility using equation
(9).
(v) If the volume-weighted average
mass ofVOC's emitted 10 the
atmosphere ror each calendar month (N)
is equal to or less than Q.9O kilogram per
liter of applied coatins solids. the
affected facility is in compliance. Each
monthly calculation is considered a
performance tesL
f 60.454 IIon'lIOI'Ing ohm '11111018 Md
operallol-.
(a) The owner or operator of an
affected facility that uses a capture
system and an incinerator to comply
with the emission limits specified under
t 60.452 shall install. calibrate, maintain.
and operate temperature measurement
devices as prescribed below:
-------
-l7i88
Federal Register I Vol. -l7. No. 208 I Wednesday. October 27. 1982 I Rules and Regulations
(1) Where'thermal incineration is
used, a temperature measurement
device shall be installed in the firebox.
Where catalytic incineratIOn is used. a
temperature measurement device shall
be installed in the gas stream
immediately before and after the
catalyst bed.
(2) Each temperature measurement
device shall be installed, calibrated. and
maintained according to the
manufacturer's specifications. The
device shall have an accuracy of the
greater of 0.75 percent of the
temperature being measured expressed
in degrees Celsius or :t:2.So C.
(3) Each temperature measurement
device shall be equipped with a
recording device so that a permanent
continuous record is produced.
(Sec.114 or the Clean Air Act as amended (42
U.5.e. 7414))
~ 60.455 Reporting and recordkeeping
requirement..
(a) The reporting requirements of
~60.B(a) apply only to the initial'
performance test. Each owner or
operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart shall include the following data
in the report of the initial performance
test requi~ed under ~ 60.B(a):
(1) Except as provided in
subparagraph (aJ[2) of this section. the
\'olume-weighted average mass of
vac's emitted to the atmosphere per
volume of applied coating solids (N) for
a period of 1 calendar month from each
..ffected facility.
(2) For each affected facilitv where
compliance is determined under the
provisions of ~ 6O.45J(bJ(1)(iv), a list of
the coatings used during a period of 1
calendar month. the vac content of
each coating calculated from data
determined using Reference ~Iethod 24
or supplit!d by the coating manufacturer.
and the mir.imum transfer efficiency of
emv coe.ting application equipment used
durmg the month.
(1) For each affected facditv where
compliance is achieved thrO-Z&-
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 208 / Wednesday, October 27. 1982./ Proposed Rules
47i89
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[AD-FRL 2070-5(b))
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources; Priority Ust;
Amendment
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rule.
SUMMARY: This action withdraws the
proposed amendment to the priority list
that was published in the Federal
Register (45 FR 85099) on December 24.
1980. The priority list is a list of major
source categories for which EPA is
required to promulgate new source
performance standards (NSPS) and
includes the category "Industrial
Surface Coating: Large Applicances."
The proposed amendment. which is
being withdrawn, would have amended
the priority list by aggrega ting all
appliance surface coating operations
(including smaIl appliance coating
operations) in one category.
After considering the comments
received EPA has eoncluded that further
study of applicable control technology is
necessary before promulgating
standards for this segement of the
industry. The source category on the list
will remain as "Industrial Surface
Coating: Large Appliances."
DATE: This withdrawal is effective
October 27. 1982-
ADDRISSU:
Background Information Documents.
Background information on the -
emissions from the appliance surface
coating industry may be obtained from
the U.S. EPA Library (MD-35), Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27111,
telephone (919) 541-2777. Please refer to
"Industrial Surface Coating:
Appliances-Background Information
for Proposed Standard.." EPA-eo/~
80-007a. Public comments on the
proposed NSPS's for the appliance
coating individual which bear on this
.withdrawal: EPA's responses to the
Comments: and a summary of the
. changes made prior to promulgation are
contained in the document. "Industrial
Surface Coating: Large Appliances-
Background Information for
Promulgated Standards," EPA-450/~
80-037b, which is available from the
same address.
Docket. A docket, number A-80-06,
containing comments received during
the public comment period for the
proposed addition to the priority list and
the proposed NSPS for appliance coating
operations, is available for p'ublic
inspection between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00
p.m.. Monday through Friday, at EPA's
Central DQcket Section (A-130), West
Tower Lobby, GaIlery I. 401 M Street,
S.W.. Washington, D.C, 20460. A
reasonable fee may be charged for
copying.
FOA FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Gene W. Smith, Emission Standards
and Engineering Division (l\1D-13). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina
27711. telephone (919) 541-5624,
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, EPA is
required to develop a standard of
performance for new stationary sources
that the Administrator determines may
contribute significantly to air pollution
that may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare.
Section 111(f) of the Act. as amended in
1977, requires that the Administrator
promulgate a priority list of categories of
major stationary sources for which
standards of performance for new
sources are to be promulgated.
In developing priorities. Section 111
specifies that the Administrator
consider: (1) The quantity of emissions
from each source category, (2) the extent
to which each pollutant endangers
public health or welfare. and (3) the
mobility and competitive nature of each
stationary source category.
The priority list. which identifies
major source categories in order of
priority for developmen' .~ r ~gulations,
was proposed on August 31, 1978 and
promulgated. after revisions, on August
21. 1979 (40 CFR 60.16. 44 FR 49222). Of
the 59 source ca tegories on the list. large
appliance surface coating operations are
listed as number 28.
On December 24. 1980 (45 FR 85099).
EPA proposed to amend the priority list
to aggregate all appliance surface
coating operations into one source
category. EPA studies of the appliance
coating industry had indicated that the
operations. processes. and emissions
147
characteristic of the coating of certain
comparatively small appliances werp.
similar, and in many cases identical. to
those associated with traditional. large
appliance surface coating. Therefore'-it
appeared that there was no reason to
distinguish among the emissions from
appliance surface coating operations
based solely on the size of the applian<:t!
being coated. Accordingly. the
Administrator determined that
emissions from appliance surface
coating operations as a whole contribute
significantly to air pollution that may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public: health or welfare.
Because of the similarities in coatin~
materials and coating application
techniques, some of these smaller
appliances were included on the list of
products to be covered by the proposed
NSPS for "Industrial Surface Coating:
Appliances," also published on
December 24, 1980 (45 FR 85085).
Comments received on that proposal
have indicated certain important
differences. of which EPA was not
aware, between the manufacture and
coating of smaller appliances and of the
traditional, large household appliances.
After considering these comments, the
Agency has concluded that further study
of applicable control technology is
necessary before promulgating
standards for this segment of the
industry. (See fmal promulgation of ,
NSPS in this separate part of the Fedel'l'\ff"
Register. In addition. the Administrator
has concluded from these comments
that further examination of such factors
as the projected growth and applicable
emission limits for other segments of the
appiiance coating industry are
necessary before concluding that these
other appliance coating operations
contribute significantly to air pollution
that may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare.
Therefore. the Agency is withdrawing
the proposed amendment to aggregate
all appliance surface coating operations
into one source category on the priority
list.
Dated: October 20. 198Z.
Anne M. Gorsuch.
Administrator.
IFR Doc. 82-29346 Filed 1~ 8:016 ami
IIIUJMG CODE ~
-------
148
-------
-
-
-
-
--
..-
-
-
- --------- ------ ~ ----- - ----- --
-
=
-
Friday
October 29,
1982
.--
-
~
- -
--
--
-
-
--
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~- ~
-
- -
='~
-- - --
~~
- ....
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
~ -
---.....v..
-
-
=-=.
--
-
...
--
- -
- -
- -
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
---
-
-
----
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-. -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Part X
.
-
- -
- -
Environmental
-
- Protection. Agency
-
i: ~3 Standards of Performance for' New
: - Stationary Sources; Surface Coating of
-
Metal Furniture
--.-
~;--;: =--
~~~
5
:::IL.
-
-
-
-='"
-
-
-
-
-
=-
-
-
-
==
149
-------
49278
Federal Register / Vo\. 47. No. 210 / Friday. Octobpr 29.1982 / Rules and Regulations
--
"...
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
(AD-FRL-2053-7)
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources; Surface Coating of
Metal Furniture
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: Standards of performan~for
surface coating of metal furniture were
proposed in the Federal Register on
November 28, 1980 (45 FR 79390};-This
action promulgates standards of
performance for surface coating of metal
furniture. These standards implement
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act and are
based on the Administrator's
determination that metal furniture
surface coating facilities cause, or
contribute significantly to air pollution
which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare. The
ir.tended effect of these standards is to
require all new, modified, and
recOl~structed metal furniture surface
coating facilities to control emissions to
the level achievable through use of the
best demonstrated system of continuous
emission reduction, considering costs,
nonair quality health. and
environmental and energy impacts.
EFFECTIVE Do\U: October 29, 1982.
Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, judicial review of this new
source performance standard (NSPS) is
available only by the filing of Ii petition
fOl' review in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit
within 60 days of today's publication of
this rule. Under section 307(b)(2) of the
Clean Air Act. the requirements that are
the subject of today's notice may not be
challenged later in civil or criminal
p.oceedings brought by EPA to enforce
these requirements.
ADDRESS: Background Information
Document. The background information
document (BID) for the promulgated
standards may be obtained from the
U.S. EPA Library (MD-35), Research
Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711,
telephone number (919) 541-2777. Please
refer to "Surface Coating of Metal
Furniture-Background Information for
Promulgated Standards" (EPA-450/3-
80-007b}. The BID contains (1) a
summary of all the public comments
made on the proposed standards and the
Administrator's response to the
comments. (2) a summary of the changes
made to the standard3 since proposal.
and (3) the final environmental impact
statement which summarizes the
impacts of the standards.
Docket. A docket, number A-7B-47,
containing information considered by
EPA in development of the promulgated
standards, is available for public
inspection between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00
p.m., Monday through Friday. at EPA's
Central Docket Section (A-130), West
Tower Lobby, Gallery 1, 401 M Street:
S.W., Washington. D.C. 20460. A
reasonable fee may be charged for
copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Gene W. Smith, Standards
Development Branch. Emission
Standards and Engineering Division
(MD-13). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone (919) 541-
5624.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OMB
control number: (2000-0649).
The Standards
Standards of performance for new
sources- established under Section 111 of
the Clean Air Act reflect:
. . . application of the best technological
. system of continuous emission reduction
which (taking into consideration the cost of
achieving such emission reduction, and any
nonair quality health and environmental
impact and energy requirements) the
Administrator determines has been
adequately demonstrated [Section 111(a)(l)).
For convenience; this will be referred to
as "best demonstrated technology" or
"BOT."
The promulgated standards apply to
new, modified, or reconstructed metal
furniture surface coating operations for
which construction was commenced
after November 28.1980. Existing
facilities are not subject to the
regulation unless modified or
reconstructed as defined in 40 CFR 60.14
or 60.15. The promulgated standards will
limit emission!! of volatile organic
compounds (VOG) from each metal
furniture surface coating operation
consisting of application station(s).
flash-off area. and curing oven. A metal
furniture surface coating operation may
be either a prime coat or topcoat
operation within a metal furniture plant
where metal furniture parts or products
are being coated with organic coatings.
Powder coatings. however, are excluded
from the definition of organic coatings.
Emissions of VOC from each affected
facility will be limited to a monthly
average of 0.90 kilogram of VOC per
liter of coating solids applied. The
Agency has identified as the best
demonstrated technology the use of
either high solids coatings. waterborne
coatings. or powder coatings (with the
appropriate application equipment). The
150
emission limit is based on the use of 62
percent by volume solids coating
applied at 60 percent transfer efficiency
and an assumed solvent density of 0.88
kilooram per liter. Compliance could
also\e achieved with add-on control
devices, a combination of add-on
control devices and a low organic
solvent coating. or any combination of
coating and transfer efficiency that
limits emissions to 0.90 kilogram of vac
per liter of coating solids applied.
Following the initial 1 month
performance test. the owner or operator
must calculate and record the vac
emissions from each affected facility for
each calendar month. Each monthly
calculation is considered a performance
t~st. The information necessary to
perform the monthly calculation can be
obtained from company records and
data supplied by the manufacturer of the
coating or by an analysis of the-coating
by Reference Method 24. Equations and
transfer efficiencies for calculating the
emissions for each affected facility are
provided in the standards. Reference
Methods I, 2. 3. 4, and 25 will be used to
determine the percentage reduction of
VOC emissions achieved through the
use of a capture system and control
device.
Recordkeeping requirements include
those data necessary to substantiate the
monthly calculations of emissions.
These data must be retained at the
source for a period of 2 years. The
regulation contains no reporting
requirements in addition to those
required by the Ge'neral Provisions to 40
CFR Part 60 relative to the initial
performance test.
Summary of Environmental, Energy.
And Economic Impacts
The metal furniture industry is
composed of approximately 1,400 plants,
many of which have multiple surface
coating operations. The EPA estimates
that the promulgated standards will
affect 800 new and 1.200 modified or
reconstructed sources within the first 5
years after the standard is effective. The
typical "uncontrolled" metal furniture
manufacturer applies paint that" contains
about 35 percent by volume solids. In .
contrast. a control techniques guideline
(CTG) document, entitled "Control of
Volatile Organic Emissions from
Existing Stationary Sources. Volume Ill:
Surface Coating of Metal Furniture"
(EPA-450/2-77~32) which defines
reasonably available control technology
(RACT). recommends that a 60 percent
by volume solids coating be adopted by
States into their State implementation
plans (SIP's). The same metal furniture
manufacturer applying a CTG complyinB
-------
..
Federal Register I Vol. 47, No. 210 r Friday, October 29. 1982 I Rules and Regulations
..&-IL.
49273
coati!'1g would emit about 60 percent less
vac compared to the uncon~rolled
coating. It is estimated that this CTG
recommend.ltion could reduce emissions
of vac from about 49.8 megagrams per
year to about 19.4 megagrams per year.
The promulgated standards would
reduce vac emissions to about 18.0
megagrams per year for the typical plant
(assuming two affected facilities per
plant) which is an additional 7 permmt
emission reduction below the CTG
recommendation. This represents an
industrywide annual reduction in the
fifth year of 1.400 megagrams per year.
.. Standards or performance have other
benefits in addition to achieving
reductions in emissions beyond those
required by a typical SIP. They establish,
a degree of national uniformity. which
precludes situations in whicb some.
Statesmy'attract.new industries as a
result of having relaxed air pollution
standards relative to other States.
Further, standards of performance
provide documentation which reduces
uncertainty in case-by-case
. determinations of best available control
technology (BACT) for facilities located
in attainment areas, and lowest'
achievable emission rates (L.>\ER) for
facilities located in nonattainment
areas. This documentation includes
identification and comprehensive
analysis of alternative emission control
technologies. development of associated
co~ts. an evaluation and verifica tion of
applicable emission test methods. and
identification of specific emission limits
achievable with alternate technologies.
The costs are provjded in an economic
analysis that reveals.the affordability of
controls in an unbiased study of the
economic impact controls on an
industry.
The rule making process that
implements a performance standard
assures adequate technical review. and
promotes participation of
rJpresentatives of the industry being
considered for regulation. government
and the public affected by that
industry's emission.
The impact of the promulgated
standards on water pullution would
depend on the- control option selected.
For example. water use in spray booths
would be unnecessary when powder
coatings are used. Therefore, there
would be a decrease in wastewater
discharged when the promulgated
standards are met by employing powder
coatings. Wastewater discharges could
be expected not to increase for plants
which utilize higher solids and
waterborne coatings. The quality' of
wastewater discharged is expected to
remain the same for plants that apply
higher solids coatings when compared to
that from plants that employ solvent-
borne coatings. However. the quality of
wastewater discharged from plants
applying waterborne coatings could be
reduced because these coatings contain
water-miscible solvents. Finally, where
incineration is used, the water pollution
impact would depend on the type of
coating used.
The impact on solid waste generation
also depends on the control option
selected. Powder coatings are generally
recycled so that there is Uttle waste.
Higher solids and waterborne coatings
produce about the same amount of solid
waste as solvent-borne. coatings. The
use of an incinerator on a bake. oven
would have no effect on the amount of
solid waste generated from the types of
coatings applied. "
For a typical metal fumitille
manufacturer complying with the
recommended CTG, energy
requirements would vary depending
upon which control option is employed
to meet the promulgated standards.
Energy consumption would decrease by
about 20 percent (15 gigajoules) if
powder coatings were used. Energy
consumption would increase, however.
with the use of waterborne coatings or
with incineration plull a CTG coating by
about 3 percent (2.3 gigajoules)'and 7
percent (5.2 gigajoules), respectively.
The economic impact summary
presented in this section is based on the
total anticipated costs of constructing
and operating a new coating facility.
Many of the control options considered
involve a redesigning of the coating
facility rather than simply adding
equipmentto an existing design. Usually
powder coatings and waterborne
coatings, for example. could not be
applied in a facility equipped to use a
solvent-based coating. For this reason,
the capital and annualized costs
represent a comparison of the total cost
of each type of co'ntrolled facili~ rather
than an incremental difference in the
cost of each type of faellit-J.
For a new typical spray coating plant
with two coating lines, the initial capital
and annualized costs do not vary
sigrJficantly regardless of which control
option would be employed to comply
with the promulgated standards. Capital
costs for each of the different control
options are expected to range from
about $960,000 (higher solids coatings) to
about $1.200.000 (waterborne coatings}.
The capital cost for a typical erG '
coating facility or a typical uncontrolled
coating facility would be about S960.000.
The annualized costs for the different
control options would range from about
5600.000 to $700.000. These annualized
151
costs would be comparable to the
annualized costs for a typical CTG
coating facility ($620.000) and a typical
uncontrolled facility (S530.l)()O).
Total annualized costs (savings) vary
depending upon which control option
would be employed to comply with the
promulgated standards for all new,
modified. and reconstructed spray
coating plants (e.g.. large. medium. and
smaH sizes). For these facilities the fifth
year industrywide annualized costs. if
all affected facilities used a combination
of incineration and waterborne coatings.
would be about $17 million. An.
industrywide savings of $18 million
would result in the fifth year if high
solids coatings were used by all affected
facilities. The total industrywide
annualized costs for powder coatings
could vary from a savings of $2 million
to a cost of $126 million depending upon
achieved coating thickness and other
factors. In the proposal preamble an
industrywide annualized fifth-year cost
of $11 million was projected. This
projection was based on the assumption
that higher solids coatings, powder
coatings. and a combination of
incineration and waterborne coatings
would each be used by one-third of the
affected spray coating facilities. It is
estimated at this time, however, that 80
percent of the affected spray coating.
facilities will use higher solids coatings.
10 percent will use powder coatings, and
10 percent will use a combination of
incineration and waterborne coatings.
Based on this distribution, there is a
potential for industrywide annualized
savings of $13.9 million in the fifth year
after the standard is in effect. These
costs (savings) do not include lost
opportunity costs (te.. the profit or
return on investment which could be
derived by investing in other than ail"
pollution control equipment).
The economic- impacts of the
promulgated standards were evaluated
based upon reduced profitability. .
inflationary impact, and expected price
increases. The highest profit impairment
is expected for small metal furniture
manufacturers (4.000 liters of coatings
consumed. annually) regardless of
control option. The maximum impact
could result in about-a 1.3 percent
increase in the wholesale price of a
metal furniture product from the small
manufacturer.
The environmenta., energy. and'
economic impacts are di~cussed in
greater dlrtail in the background
information document for the proposed
standardS, '"Surface Coating of Metal
Furniture-Background Information for
Proposed Standards" (EPA450!~
oo7a).
-------
'i9?30
Federal Register I Vol. 47, No. 210 I FridaYr October 29, 1982 I Rules and Regulations
Public Participation
Prior to proposal of the standards.
interested parties were advised by
public notice in the Federal Register
March 17, 1978, and February 11, 1980)
of the meetings of the National Air
Pollution Control Techniques Advisory
Committee (NAPCTAC) to discuss the
slIi'face coating of metal furniture
standard recommended for proposal.
The first meeting was held on April 5-6,
1978, and an updated NAPCTAC
presentation was given on February 27,
1980. The meeting was open to. the
public and each attendee was given an
opportunity to comment on the .
standards recommended for proposal.
The standards were proposed and
published in the Federal Register on
November 28, 1980 (45 FR 79390). The
preamble to the proposed standards
discussed the availability of the '
background information aocument
(BID), "Surface Coating of Metal
Furniture-Background Information for
Proposed Standards" (EPA-450/3-80--
007a), which described in detail the
regulatory alternatives considered and
the impacts of tho~e alternatives. Public
comments were solicited at the time of
proposal and, when requested, copies of
the BID wer2 distributed to interested
parties. To provide interested persons -
the opportunity for oral presentation of
data, views, or arguments concerning
the proposed standards, a public hearing
was held on January 9, 1981, at Research
Trian'Jle Park, North Carolina. The
heari~g was open to the public and each
attend!!e was given an opportunity to
comment on the proposed standards.
The public comment period was from
January 9, 1981 to March 10, 1981.
Ten commeqt letters were received,
and four interested parti~s testified at
the public hearing concerning issues
relative to, the proposed standards of
performance for the surface coating of
metal fuiniture. The comments have
been carefully consi!fered and. where
determined to be appropriate by the
Administrator, changes have been made
.in the pr,?posed standards.
Significant Comments and Changes to
the Proposed Standards
Comments on the proposed standards
were received from industry, trade
associations. and one State air pollution
control agency. A detailed discussion of
these comments and responses can be
found in the BID for the promulgated
standards, which is referred to in the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble.
The summary of comments and
responses in the BID serve as the basis
for the revisions which have been made
to the standards between proposal and
promulgation. The major comments and
responses are summarized in this
preamble. Most of the comment letters
contained multiple comments. The
comments have been divided into the
following areas: General, Emission
Control Technology, Modification and
Reconstruction, Economic Impact,
Environmental Impact, Energy ImpaCt,
and Reporting and Recordkeeping.
General
Several commenters requested a
change in the definition of the affected
facility to include all finishing systems
within a manufacturing plant or the-
finishing system necessary to provide a
finished product. This would allow a
plan~ to average its topcoat emissions
with the much lower e.missions from an
electrocoat system. One commenter
requested that the NSPS allow the--
option of a plantwide emission
reduction plan, particularly as it relates
to application of the bubble concept for
new and/or modified sources at a given
plant. . ,
The choice of the affected facll1ty for
this standard (each surface coating
operation which includes the application
station(s), flash-off area, and bake oven)
is based on EPA's interpretation of
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act and
judicial construction of its meeting. In
choosing the affected facility, EPA must
decide which pieces or groups of
equipment are the appropriate units for
separate emission standards in the
particular industrial context involved.
EPA must do this by examining the
situation in light of the terms and
purpose of Section 111. One major
consideration in this examination is that
the use of a narrower definition results
in bringing replacement equipment -
under NSPS sooner; if, for example, an
entire plant were designated as the
affected facility, no part of the plant
would be covered by the standard
unless the plant as a whole is
"modified:' If. on the other hand. each
piece of equipment is designated as the
affected facility., then as each piece is
r.eplaced, the replacement piece will be
a new source subject to the standard.
Since the purpose of Section 111 is to
minimize emissions by the application of
the best demonstrated control
technology (considering cost. other
health and environmental effects. and
energy requirements) at all new and
modified sources, there is a presumption
that a narrower designation of the
affected facility is proper. This ensures
that new emission sources within plants
will be brought under the coverage of
the standards as they are installed. This
presumption can be overcome, however,
if the Agency concludes that the
152
relevant statutory factors (technical
feasibility, cost. energy, and'other
environmental impacts) point to a
broader definition. Since it is
technologically feasible to control each
surface coating operation and such
control would not be exorbitantly costly
(as shown in the economic analysis
section of the BID accompanying the
proposed standards), selecting this
narrowest definition of affected facility
is most consistent with the purposes of
Section 111.
Two other possible definitions of the
affected facility for this standard are: all
prime coat (or topcoat) operations in a
product line and all prime coat (or
topcoat) operations within an assembly
plant. The product line definition would
have reduced the number of affected
facilities and would have permitted
tradeoffs between different coating~.and
application technologies. LikewiSe,
defining all prime coating (or topcoating)
operations within a plant as the affected
facility would have reduced the number
of affected facilities and consequently
the associated recordkeepillg an~
compliance calculations. However. such
a definition would not necessarily result
in either the use of the best technology
or the minimizing of emissions from new
sources.
For these reasons, the Agency has
chosen each surface coating operation
as the affected facility.
One commenter stated that the metal
furniture industry should not be
considered as a "significant source of
VOC emissions." He pointed out that
EPA listed .the industry8S a minor
source of VOC's according to the impact
it would have on public health and also
that EPA estimates VOC emissions from
the industry at 5 percent of the Nation's
VOC emissions.
Standards of performance are
promulgated under Section 111 of the
Clean Air Act. Section 111(b)(1)(A)
requires that the Administrator establish
standards of performance for categories
of new, modified, or reconstructed
stationary sources which in her
judgment cause or contribute
significantly to air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health or welfare. One importa~t
purpose of standards of performance IS
to prevent new air pollution problems
from developing by requiring the
application of the best technological
system of continuous emission reduction
which the Administrator determines'to
be adequately demonstrated. The 1977
Amendments to the Clean Air Act
added the words, "in the
Administrator's judgment." and the
words, "may reasonably be
-------
-
Federal Register I Vol. 47, No. 210 I Friday, October 29, 1982 I Rules and Regulations
49281
anticipated:' to the statutory test. The
legislative history for these changes
stresses two points: (1) The Act is
preventive, and regulatory action should
he taken to prevent hann before it
occurs; and (2) the Administrator should
consider the role of each single class of
sources in contributing to the comulative
impact of VOC emissions from all
sources.
The 1977 Amendments to the Clean
Air Act also required that the
Administrator promulgate a priority list
of source categories for which standards
of performance are to be promulgated. A
list for new source perfonnance
standards was promulgated at 44 FR
49222 (August 21,1979). Priority ranking
was based on consideration of the
source's quantity of emission, the extent
to which each pollutant endangers
public health and welfare, and the
mobility and competitive nature of the
source category. 1:he statutory test for
listing a category of sources was that it
"causes or contributes significantly to
air pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to.endanger public health or
welfare."
As stated in the preamble for the
propos;-d standards, the surface coating
of metal furniture is listed as a minor
source category on this listing. This
classification as a minor source is due
primarily to the fact that individual
metal furniture surface coating plants
typically emit less than 100 tons of VOC
p?r year. However. the priority list
states that "the metal furniture coating'
industry is also a significant source of
vac emissions, and there are over 300
existing facilities with the potential-to
emit more than 100 tons per year:'
There are approximately 1,400 metal
furniture manufacturing establishments
in l~e United States which paint their
products. These metal furniture
manufactures are loc~ted throughout the
country and are generally situated in
highly populated urban areas. In fact, 70
percent of the industry is concentrated
,in nine highly populated States.
The metal furrJture industry emits
about 95.S gigagrams (1975 data) of VOC
per year. The emissions of VOC result
from usage of solvent-based coatings by
the industry. Tnese coatings contain
organic solvent mixtures of aromatics,
saturated and unsaturated aliphatics,
alcohols, ketones, esters, and ethers.
The emissions of these organic solvents
contribute to ozone formation in urban
atmospheres. EPA has established a
national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS) for ozone of 0.12 microgram
per cubic meter which is currently
exceeded in those States where metal
furniture manufacturing establishments
are concentrated. Information
concerning health and welfare effects
associated with ozone can be found in
"Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and
Other Photochemical Oxidants" (EPA-
600/8-78-004).
The Adniinistrator is called upon in
the Clean Air Act to evaluate an
industry's contribution to air pollution
and make a detennination as to the
sig.:1ificance of the subject indusU:y's
emission contribution. In the case of the
metal furniture surface coating industry,
the Administrator has determined that
even though the total amoUnt of
emissions from a single plant (like that
from many sources which contribute to
the inventory of VOC emissions) is by
itself a small portion of the Nation's
total VOC emissions. this industry
would contribute significantly to the
Nation's total vac emissions.
In addition. the metal furniture
industry is projected to have an annual
growth rate of 4 percent through 1985
and will include about 2,000 new,
modified, or reconstructed affected
facilities by 1985. Based on -this growth,
the industry will contribute increasing
amounts of VOC to urban atmospheres.
Therefore, industrial surface coating
of metal furniture was listed as a
"significant contributor". This selection
was based upon the number of affected
facilities, coating method, the yearly
voe emission rate, the growth rate of
the Industry, and the location of this
industry in or near highly populated
urban areas.
One commenter requested that the
effective date of the standard be the
promulgation date rather than the
proposal date.
-- Section 111(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act
states, "The term 'new source' means
any stationary source, the construction
or modification of which is comm,enced
after the publication of regulations (or. if
earlier. proposed regulations)
prescribing a standard of perfonnaJ"lce
under this section which will be
applicable to such source." Therefore,
the statute requires that the applicability
date for a new or revised standard be
the date of the proposal.
One commenter stated that coatings
manufacturers and users have the right
to demand the same treatment as other
citizens who continue to use pounds and
gallons instead of metric equivalents.
It is EPA's policy to use metric units,
not English units, in regulations and
technical documents. This policy is in
confonnance with Section 3 of Public
Law 94-168, the Metric Conversion Act
of 1975, which states that the policy of
the United States shall be to coordinate
and plan the increasing use of the metric
system. Therefore. EPA is now in the
process of incorporating the
153
International System of Units (51) into
all of its regulations. EPA is currently
using as the basic reference a
publication entitled "Standard for
Metric Practice" (E 380-76) published by
the American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM). This publication
explains the SI units and symbols. their
application, and rules for conversion
and rounding. It may be obtained from
the American Society for Testing and
Materials. 1916 Race Street,
Philadelphia. Pennsylvania 19103. This
document is useful in explaining the
abbreviations of units of measurement
cited in EPA regulations.
Emission Control Technology
Two commenters objected to
statements in the preamble that 68
percent by volume solids coatings are
demonstrated in this industry and are
readily available for use. They contend
that such coatings are not currently
being applied by hand-held electrostatic
spray equipment and are not-available
for use by the industry. According to one
commenter, stricter regulations tJn the
industry are not justified by the state of
the art of the control technology, the
situation with the economy. and the high
cost of borrowing money. Another
com..'11enter stated that EPA is forcing
technological ,changes too rapidly upon
an industry at a time when efforts
should be going into making canting!!
more cost effective and energy efficient.
Another commenter stated that the high
viscosity of coatings with greater than
60 percent by volume solids creates
problems in accomplishing rapid color
changes and that atomization problems
limit the types of spray equipment which
can be used. Accordi:1.g to one
commenter, there is not enough
technical basis given for setting the
standards at the 68 percent volwne
60lids leveL He stated that the proposed
control level was apparently derived by
merely reducing the eTG emi3sion limit
by 30 percent. Another commenter
- stated that he viewed the proposed
emission limit as "an arbitrary level of
suspect origin."
The proposed standard was based on
an analysis of four alternative levels of
controls as described in the preamble.
Infonnation obtained during the
analysis led to the determination that 68
percent by volume solids coatings were
being produced by some coating
manufacturers and had been
successfully applied in production tests.
Therefore. the use of a 68 percent by
volume solids coating was selected as
the basis for the proposed standards. As
a result of the comments concerning the
availability and applicability of coatings
-------
';:'232
Federal Register- I VoL 47. No. 210 ; Friday, October 29, 1982 I Rules and Regulations
~
w;th a 68 percent volume solids content.
EPA conducted a survey of several
coatings manufacture~ and use~. The
results of this survey (see Docket item
IV-B-8) indicate that although much
laboratory work and some production
tes t:ng have been done with 68 percent
volum~ solids coatings. there are some
p~oblems which must be overcome
before these coatings can be considered
as tl:e best demonstrated technology.
The single most difficult problem
appea..rs to be the increase in viscosity
of the coating as t.'te sclids content
approaches 68 percent by volume-
l~creased viscosity requires more
energy for manufacturing. and increases
agitation requirements during storir..g,
pumping, and atomization of the
coa tings.lmproper atomization of the
coatings by the spray equipment also
causes problems with the finish:
obtained on the metal surface.
Survey results showed that advances
are currently being made in the fi~ld of
higher solids coatings.: Several coatins
manufacturers claim to have coatings,
available in a wide range of colors.
which can be a!Jpied by existing spray
equipment and have percent solids
cont!!nts in the low 60'S;. Some
manufacturers t..xplamed that since the
States 3re generally adopting the CTG
document recommended emission level
based on 60 percent by volume solids,
aU their efforts have gone toward
achieving this leveL At this volume
s:Jlids level. the problems with viscosity
can be overcom~ by increased use of in-
line heatins and slightly larger
recirculation pumps.. .
Most spray equipment manufacturers
contacted during the survey indicated
tll?t atomization and application of
coatings with a perr...ent solids content
abnve 60 has been demonstrated in
Pl'oduction tests. Some of the -
m2 nufacturers recommended the use of
ill-line heaters in order to maintain a
constant material femperature and
indicated that these heaters would not
be difficult to instalL Several of the
equipment manufactun!rs have stated
th"t much of the problem encountered
when applying higher solids coatings is
directly r~lated to the operator rather
than t.~e equipment. Accmd:ingly to
these contacts, the difficulties in:
obtaining proper film thjckneu is a
result of solids being delivered to the
nozzle at a greater rate than operators
are accustomed to.. This creates a
situation in which the operator is using
his rlormal application pattern and is
applying mare solids to the target than is
necessary. resulting in excessive film
thickness. The equipment suppliers
indic<,te that this problem can be-
overcome by proper operator training
and more careful control of material
flow rates.
Several representatives of the metal
furniture industry were contacted during
the survey. Most of those contacted
have experimented with higher solids
coatings in order to achie1(e the
emission limits required by State
implementation plans (SIP's}. Results of
these trials have been mixed, with some
plants experiencing viscosity,
atomization, and excessive film
thickness problems when attempting to
apply higher solids coatings with
existing coating lines. However. through
the use of techniques such as in-line
heating, larger diameter piping, reduced
material flow rates. and improved
operator training, many companies have
successfully applied coatings which will
comply with the SIP's. Due to the rapid.
incrl'ase in the viscosity of coatings as
the solids content increases. these
techniques are much less efficient and
less cost effective at 68 percent by
volume solids level than at 62 percent by
volume solids. Three plants are
currently using coatings with a least 6Z-
percent by volume solids contents.
These three plants are considered
typical of the industry; two are
manufacturers of office furniture and the
other manufactures sheh;ng and store
fixtures. This represents a wide range of
coating uses and specifications since the
appef.lrance of officI:! furniture is very
critical and the durability of shelving is
important. In-line heatL'1g is used to aid
in viscosity control at one of the plants.
and a wide variety of hand-held and
automatic spray equipment is used at
these plants. A wide range of colors are
applied at these plants and the surface
on the product is considered acceptable.
One commenter pointed out that most
coatings suppliers are currently offering
higher volwne solids systems that are
basicaily versions of the old lower
volume solids systems. The main
limitation of this approach is visCQ~ty.
- i.e., a9- the volume solids increases. the
viscosity inc.--eases. The short-term
solution which coating manufacture~
are using to solve viscosity problems
can cause problems with the quality of
the flIlish on the product. Molecular
weight reduction of solvents and
caatings also decreases cover..ng.
One af the commente~ stated that
hand-held electrostatic spray guns are
widely used in ~ metal furniture
industry due to the complexity of the
metalfumitme configuration and the
mix af parts. There is Kome touch-u~
required for hard-ta-reach areas where
this type af equipnumt is necessary.
However, hand-heid electrostatic spray
154
guns are limited in their ability to
atomize 68 percent by volume solids
coa~ings because of their greater
viscosity. Therefore. there would be a
problem achieving the desired quality of
finish.
Another commenter claimed that dwt
to finish specifications for certain types
of metal furniture (for example,
matching the color and texture of
products that were produced during
different time periods), automatic
electrostatic spray equipment must be
used. However, he stated that he has not
been able to spray coatings with higher
than 60 percent volume solids with this
equipment due to the viscosity of these
coatings.
One commenter stated that equipment
is not available which will spray high
solids coatings with. their increased
viscosity and still maintain the proper
film thickness and texture without
excessive overspray. Another stated
that automatic electrostatic equipment
is required to produce a consistent ftIm
thickness and that a great deal of
manual touch-up is required when the
solids content of the coatings is
increased.
When the volume solids content of a
coating increases, the viscosity also
increases. It has been confirmed by
several coating manufact'.1I'ers and users
that the higher solids coatings which
comply with the proposed standard
cause significant problems due to their
higher viscosity.
However, the standard is being
revised to a level which can be met by
available coatings-which am acceptable
in terms of viscosity and coverage
capacity. The emission limit is now
based on the woe of a coating witl16Z
percent volume solids content. Hwd-
held electrostatic spray guns. capable af
atomizing and app\ying 6Z percent by
volume solids coatings are currently
being marketed by several well-known
manufacturers of spray equipment. Five
of the six spray equipment
manufacturers recently contacted stated
they have equipment available which
can satisfactorily apply 6Z percent
volume solids coatings. Most
manufacturers have indicated.that
automatic electrostatic spray equipment
is the most proven method of applying
high solids caatings. Three
manufacturers contacted recently
indicated that they are successfully
applying cnatings with greater than 60
percent by volume solids contents. The
film thickness aad touch-up reqWrem~t
problems are solved, aa:ardiag to the
equipment manufacturers. by proper
training of o~tors and more exact
process controls. Based on this
-------
"==-
Federal R~tft I VoL 47, No. ZlO I Friday, October 29, 198Z I Rules and Regulations
49283
information. it is EPA's ,iudgment th~t
hand-held and automati~ electr~statlc
spray equipment can satisfactordy apply
62 percent volume solids coatings.
Some coatings with 68 percent by
volume solids are available. but their
use is limited to certain producta and
application with specific: equiprmmt
which may not be feasible in certain
situations. Therefore, EPA is revising the
emission limit from 0.7 to 0.9 kilogram of
VOC per liter of applied solids. ~
level is based on the use of a coating
with 62 percent by volume solids. a
solvent density of Q.88 kilogram per liter.
and a transfer efficiency of 60 percent..
According to one commenter, the
basic problem with alternative coating
systems such as waterba.sed coatings.
powder, electrodepoaiticm. dip and flew
coatings (which EP A interprets to IIU!8It
those systems which would meet the
standard) is the difficmty in obtaiDias
color/texture matching with produaa
painted by conventional sprays.
Another commenter stated that the
alternative coaq systems are not
applicable for a wide range of uses
within the indu.stry, thus limiting the
choices of control options available to
some segments of the industry.
The Apnt:y baa identified as the best
demonstrated technology the use 01
either high solids coatings, waterborne
coatings, or powder co:;atin~ (with .
appropriate application eqWpnr-nt). The
standard is achievable tbrouab the use
of these m~"I: ami as a resIt, the
industry has a choice IIJnOD8 eeveral
methads capable of meetiua the
standard. Par example, a caater cIesiriDa
a thick film with high durability might
choose powder coaq for a pnxhu:t.
Two coats of a high solids coating.
however, might also accamplish the
desired results. Powder or mP might be
a coater's cbaice if only aile or two
colors are required. Furthermore, even
though EPA's economic analysis has
shown that waterhaaed coatings are
likely to be tire most expensive option
far controlImg VOC emissions, some
metal fumimre m:;ann~rs have
chosen to use them. Clearly, in an
indllStrJ which produces such a wide
variety of ~ as the metal
furniture industry, there rue always a
few situations where, due to product
s~catiaas, the number of alternative
control methods will be limited.
Electrodeposition Cannot be used on
non-conductive ~ for sample.
&ad waterbased coatings require extra
prw-.oamoa 8piDst ~ Pt:udu..b
~ a ......m~1iIIisb caaldJlDt be
coated with paw08 -I:;.Mi "r
Neverthe1eea, there is always at least
one coating method that can meet the
standardsaml the color/texture
requirements of the industrf. The
Agency has detennined. based aD the
analysis of the most costly methadof
control, that when only one method
applies. the cost of using that method is
reascnable..
Several commenters made statemeut&
concerning the use of the table of
assigned tnmsIer efficiencies in the
regulation. One commenter suggested.
that a production line testing program be
used to determine the proper efficiencies
and that EP A clarify whether the table
values were intended for equipment
manufacturers or users. Another
commenter sta:ted that the assigned
values seemed unrealistic to be WIed as
universal standards. He also stated that
if transfer efficiencies are to be
a&igrt...J. however, then all Jmow:n
a.ppIicatiaa methods abnald be included
in CJ!:da to avoid the time-conswning
pmc.eu of obtaining SJlpro„al to use
altematNe equipment. In hie comment.
be noted that the cantimwus caater
method and the liquid seal process were
not mentioned.
One c:ommenter presented a very
detailed alternative to the use of the
bi::t~ table of transfer efficiencies. He
&tated that the generic classifications of
equipment now in the regulaJ:ion is very
poorly defined and explained that actual
transfer efficiency is dependent on
many factors such as equipment
confignratica.. operating CCDdilicms. the
part beiDR caated. the coating being
applied, and the operator. He
I~""''''P1Ided that the variables in
design and operation of equipment be
c:cmsidered by rWini~ mch parameters
as vc~ eptnnri7i1,g pregure, flow
rates. etc.. of each type of spray
equ~pmamt He also suggested that a
standardized test method be adopted to
determine transfer efficiency of
eql1ipm~t. Equipment could then be
"certified" by the manufacturers, G-;..:. a
list of equipment ratings and operating
conditions cauId he supplied to EPA for
publicatiOlL
EPA believes that to reflect the best
demonstrated teclurolcgy far the metal
furniture coating industry, emission
limits for new saurces must incorporate
the use of both high solids coatings and
relatNeIy ~citmt application .
eqnip--t. but must not at the same
time deny mdasIry flexibility tcr use
different types of application et.pIipment
and different coatings. For this reucn,
the Agenc.y has included the key
transfer efficiency cancept in these
~d:t..
The c.w, .. ........... ,; claim that all the
listed parametem affect transfer
effic:ieuq- i~ couect. However. a
155
universally acceptable test method for
determining precise transfer effIciency
under~ach conceivable set of variables
has not yet been developed. This means
that the Agency must either delete this
cruci:al ccmp~tcfBDT or instead
include in the standarda assigned
transferdficieut..Y value5 that corTelate
a t least generally to the- efficiencies of '
the application equipment used in the
industry. EPA has chosen the latter
course. The Agency he included values
that are correlated to each piece of
equipment and are sufficiently high to
ensure that, regardless of coating
properties and ather-relevant variables,
each facility will be credited with at
least the efficiency its equipment attains
with the particular coatings it appIres.
These tr~ efficieDcies listed are
based em data provicb!d by spray
eq";"....etIt m.amdacturera and results of
tests conducted daring standard
development. EPA contacted and visited
several equipment and coatings
manufacturers during the standard
development process.
Moreover, the standards provide that
if the operator can demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Administrator that
other transfer efficiencies are
appropriate (e..g.. due to variables such
85 thoae ciIed in the comment). the
ftmninictr:ltarwiD. apprDYe their use on
a c:ase-by-case basis. 1hi.s provision
ensure that a facility using equipment
that ac:hieve an. ..ffiMft't"J grea ter than
that asigned by the sbmdard is fully
Q;~ for the ..m"'.--y achieved. The
certificaticm of spray equipment by
m:nnm.dnrer\I c:aa be amIerta.'Jnq,...-.t may be
approved. Transfer efficiency values for
coating methods which are not
specifically aJdL T-A in the table can
be determined ina mamrer similar to the
way the table -- developed. Data caa
be obtained from the lBamlfacturer of.
the~ testing~lres caB
be -hmitted: cmd. basmI aa an analysis
of the data. EPA will N-...;..e the
efficiem:y to he used ia the emission
calculatiozts. The Ageeq does not
beIine thi3 process of nht..mi~ the
j\tlminidP.at... ~ approval to use
alternative eqnipm-t would be
umeesmsably tiJne. c;nnc>t?"ir'lg. ALso. this
approval need cmly be obtained QUIZ-
anyone appIicatima tedmique.. The
values in the tr~ efficiemy table
will be revmved in the future. and
-------
~9234
Federal Register I Vol. 47, No. 210L Friday. Octcber 29. 1982 I Rules and Regulations
tcchniques in general use at that time
may be added to th1!table. . ," .
One commenter suggested that key
operating parameters of spray
equipment, be monitored on a regular
basis (monthly) to be sure they are
within designspecificatiQnIJ. He
recommended this be done at the same .
time that mon~ly determinati~nof V:O(;,
emission comjJliance occurs. ' . ',',
While EP A consid,erSlhat dle ,proper
operation and maintenance' of spray
equipment should be a:tQutine, ,. "
procedure. the variations in 'operating
parameters are underst~od to De great.
Subpart J\ of the General Provisions .01 :
40 CFRPart60, I 60.11 (d) states that: .'
"At all times! ~cludingperiod9 of"
startup; shutdown. and malfunction.
owners' and:Operalors shall. to the.
extent ptactieabl.r. mamtain dl1d cpprate
any affec;.tedtacility inclucUnS'
associated air pollution centro! .
equipment in a manner consistent wiIP '
good air pollution control practice for'
minimizing amissions'. Determination of
whether a\:Jceptable operating and'
maintenance procedures are'being used
will be 'ba!U!d on information:available
to the Adminis.trator which may include..
but is not limited to. monitoring results. ,-
op?!city observations. ,review of . ,.
operating and maintenance procedures, '
and insp!tCtion of the source." EPA
belie'lles tuattllisgeneralrequirement, - '.
coupled,,"'!Hh economic incentives such
as reduc;E!d !:oating use, is sufficient to , .
Ensure t~at coatir1gs users,routinely, "-
check ke,y op"rati.'18 parameters ~nd , ,
mai~~ainapplication equip!Dent in go04 '
condition..
One commentersubmitted. , .. :
informatloQ concer$tg the'potential for
cost effectiveness and performance of
rcgei1~rative, thermal oxidation systems.
A &ystetn designed by the commenter is
cI?imedto be capable oC-providing
primarjrheat exchange efficiencies ot 85
percent, go percent. and 95 percent in
the thermal oxidation process. The high
thermal' energy recovery 'of this system
allows operation in a self-sustainirig
mode ori'hydrocarbon"concentrations
from 3 to 5 percent of the lower -
explOsive limit (LEL). Uttle or no
additional fuel is required. This system
virtually eliminates the following
problem areas generally associated with
incincration s~tems: (1) Fouling of heat
transfer surfaces, (Z) corrosion. (3)
catalyst poisoninH. {4} secondary
emissions. and (5) high operating costs
with low LEI. gas streams. The
commenter requested clarification of the
potential of reger.erative thermal
oxidation systems in the documentation
for the promulgated standard. .
The analysis of incineration found in
Chapter3 of the proposal BID (EPA-450{
-:- u3-80-007a} reveals tnat this option has a
significantly"grea:ter capital investment
and an increase in energy consumption.
over other c6ntrol options. Although the
annual operating costs and energy use
of a regenerative thermal oxidation
system may be lower, the initial capital
in vestment is' large compared to tha t for
low solvenl,coatings technology. The
. reduction.in totaJorganic solvent
emissions reaH7;ed by controlling the
-topcoat oven ,s.smaU because only 20 to
30 pefcentof these emissions are
concentr~ted in.Ute oven. The-remaining
.70 to 80 percent of the emission are from
,fugitives from the application and.
- flashoff area.s. The- small percentage of
emissions.availClble for reduction by
incineratiQnmakes ~ny incinerator
difficult to jWltify 011 a cost basis when
compared,tQ low,solvent coatings.
Therefore. the Administrator does not
believe that furth~r clarification of the
, potenti~pfregeri.erative thermal
. oxidatio_n &ys~elI1s is necessary.
Modification and Reconstruction
Seve~~l co~enters expressed
concern that exp~nditures made to
comply with a: Slate'implementation
plan(SIPlcould bring the facility undel
the NSPS a~ Ii reconstruction. They
requested that this situation be avoided
< .by !,!xel11ptiri8StP~related expenditures
froni the' reconstruction provisions
included tindei the General Provisions
of 40 CFR Part 60;
. It is possible that when an existing
facility is modified to meet a State
,requirement the capital costs incurred
. could be large enough. to trigger the
. recanstruttion provisions of the Federal
, regulati6iis,'lhereby' forcing compliance
with the more restrictive Federal.
requirement This was a valid issue at
the time the standard was proposed
with an emission limit that wa:>
considerably more restrictive than most
State regulatiuns. Since proposal.
howeverAhe recommended standard
has been fevised so that it is now'based
on the use of a coating only two percent
higher in volume solids content than the
. coating recommended in the CTG
document Because the technologies
required to comply with the two
emission limits are,similar and no
additional equipment would be required
to apply an NSPS complying coating
versus a CTG complying coating, the
commenters' situation is no longer
considered to be an issue.
Ecocomic Impact
One commenter stated that continued
development of inflexible standards will
impact the growth of the industry and
result in loss of job opportunities. The
, commenter continued by saying that the
156
cost to comply with the proposed
standards will be much higher than
projected. These increased costs are due
to higher construction, operating, and
energy costs. A comparison of cost and
energy requirements for a plant built in
1977 versus a plant built in 1980 was
submitted by the commenter.
It is definitely true that costs of
construction, raw materials, labor. and
energy have increased significantly
since the economic analysis portion of
the proposal BID was completed. Many
of these costs. however, will not be any
greater for a complying high solids
coating system than for a conventional
solvent coating system. If line heating.
larger diameter recirculation lines, or
more powerful agitation equipment is
specified. there would be an increase in
costs. However, these costs are
considered to be reasonable. A recent
Society of Manufacturing Engineers
(SME) technical paper (FC81-237)
reported that both operating and energy
costs can actually be reduced by using
high solids coatings rather than
conventional solvent based coatings.
The BID also indicates that a potential
for savings in annualized costs exists
with the use of higher solids coatings.
This savings results from a decrease in
the energy required to dry the coatings
and lower labor and maintenance costs.
Materials costs are also reduced
because with higher solids coatings,
even though the price per gallon may be
higher, fewer gallons of coating are
needed.
One commenter stated that the types
of application equipment necessary to
apply high solids coatings in order to
meet the standards is exceedingly costly
to the industry. Another commenter
claimed that the electrostatic equipment
is.-much more expensive than
conventional spray equipment nlJw
being used.
The economic impacts discns~ed in
the BID are based on the use of
electrostatic equipment to apply higher
solids coatings. Although electrostatic
spray equipment is more expensive than
conventional equipment. EPA believes
its advantages outweigh the costs. The
projected payback time for an average
si~e plant purchasing electrostatic
equipment in lieu of conventional
equipment is less than one year. Most of
the newer plants contacted during
development of the standard ware using
electrostatic equipment (automatic and
hand-held) because of the improved
efficiency. Since the standard applies
only to new sources and sources
undergoing modification of
reconstruction. it is anticipated that
many affected facilities would use
-------
~
Federal Register I Vol. 47, No. 210 I Friday, October 29, 1982 I Rules and Regulations
49235
electrostatic equipment even in the
absence of the standard.
F.nergy Impact
A comment was received which
slaled that installation of incinerators
on all spray booth stacks and oven
vents to obtain compliance with the
standards would be an expensive waste
of energy due to the fuel which would be
required to sustain combustion of the
exhausted Bolvents. ,
Even though incineration is expected
to have limited use in this industry as a
means of controlling emissions. EPA did
perform an analysis of the impacts of
this alternative. The analysis of
incineration as a means of emissions
control indicated a substantial impact
on energy consumption relative to other
centrol technologies. This was the
primary reason that incineration was
r.ot. considered to be the best .
cemonstrated control technology even
though it is a control technology
available at reasonable cost. EPA
r.ecognizes. however. that incineration of
oven vents used in conjunction with
coatings having a volume solids content
l~ss than 52 percent could be an .
alternative to using a 62 percent by
volume solids coating system.
Manufacturers using systems with
partial incineration would have more
flexibility in their selection of coating!
and coating manufacturers and, by
returning the available heat from the
incinerator back to the process, would
not experience a drastic increase in
energy costs.
Reporting aDd Recordkeeping
Several commenters stated that they
viewed the reporting and recordkeeping
requirements as an unnecessary and
expensive burden.on both the coating
manufacturers and coating users. One
commenter stated that monthly
r~cordkp.eping to determine compliance
would be difficult due to the fact that
paint is usually purchased in large
volumes and delivered over a long
period of time. Another commenter. a
coatings supplier, presented a detailed
plan for recordkeeping and reporting
which is based on data contained in
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration's (OSHA's) Material
Safety Data Sheet (MSDS). The major
points of his proposal are as follows:
a. All coatings suppliers submit to-
users information on their coatings.
Every coating. catalyst. reducer, and
modifier shipped to the user is described
in detail with.anMSDS for each coating.
formulation.
b. COBtmP suppliers keep records of
aU shipments made to each customer.
IUIUally by quarterly and annual basis.
and many suppliers computeriz'e this
information.
c. The recordkeeping counterproposal
is to switch from a monthly compliance
determination to an annual event. or an
"inventory day," somewhere near the
end of the year.
d. By using the shipment records and.
subtracting inventory on hand. a total
picture of VOC emissions is determined.
e. High technology industrial coatings
are expensive and users will know to
the nearest drum or gallon how much
was purchased and how much is on
hand, perhaps not on B monthly basis
but on a quarterly or annual basis.
f. The reporting requirements can be
implemented by the following steps:
(1) The coatings and solvent suppliers
shall submit a form 20 OSHA approved
MSDS with each composition sold to the
user. .:
(2) The individual signing the MSDS '
for the coating or solvent supplier shall
be responsible to the user for the
accuracy of the information.
(3) The coatings and solvent suppliers
can be asked to supply shipment
information upon request of the user on
an annual basis for purposes of
determining compliance with the
regulations.
(4) The user is responsible for the
accuracy of the annual usage report of
VOC-containing materials.
(5) The EPA may audit the data. but
may request no records other than those
already required by the IRS. DOT,
OSJ-L'\. DOE. and the EPA itself under
the Major Generator Provisions of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA).
As a result of this comment and
others, EPA has been investigating
alternative ways of reducing monitoring.
recordkeeping, and reporting burdens on
owners and operators. The goal is to
reduce all recordkeeping and reporting
that is not essential 10 determir.irlg
compliance or to ensuring proper
operation and maintenance. After
reviewing the requirements in the
proposed standards, EPA determined
that monthly compliance tests,
monitoring, and the compilation of
monitoring data are essential for both
the owner or operator and EPA to
determine compliance and to ensure
proper operation and maintenance. A
responsible owner or operator would
need monitoring information compiled in
B usable form to determine when
adjustments in the control system are
needed to ensure that it is performing at
its intended effectiveness level.
The proposed standard was written
with the understanding that much of the
data required to complete a compliance
determination would be provided to the
157
facility by the coating manufacturers.
Some additional infom1ation, such a8
transfer efficiency and dilutio'1 solvent
adde:d at the plant. would be provided
by the facility itself. It would appear
that a facility manager would keep
records of this type, even in the absence
of any requirement to do so. to assure
efficient materials utilization. EPA is
therefore requiring only the additional
step of filing the information in an
accessible location. Because EPA juddes
that monthly compliance tests.
monitoring, and recordkeeping are
essential for determining compliance
and proper operation and maintenance.
these requirements have not been
, changed since prQPosal. It was judged.
however. that reporting is not essential
to EPA. In addition. when States are
delegated the authority to enforce these
standards.. they may prefer either not to
have reporting or to have reporting on a
different schedule than EPA proposed.
Therefore, the requirement to report
violations of the standard and quarterly
incineration reports have been removed
since proposal. A State;,,~owe;,er. at any
time is free to impose its own reporting
requirements in conjunction with this
regulation.
The data supplied by the coating
maIJEfacturers may be in any format
which is agreeable to the plant owner or
operator. Likewise, the owner or
operator may use any format in
maintaining recorda as long as all the
pertinent data is clearly identified,
complete. and in the appropriate terms
and units. As required in the regulation.
a facility must maintain the records for a
period of 2 years. Reports prepared for
other agencies may be used for EPA
requirements if the preceding conditions
are met. Since this standard applies to
the metal furniture industry, the coatings
users and not suppliers are responsible
to EPA for the completeness and
accuracy of all reports and records.
Infonnation Requirements Impacts
The reporting and recordkeeping
requirements of the regulation are
assessed in Standard Form 83 and
supporting statement. which is included
. in the docket for public review
(reference subcategory IV-H of docket
number A-7~7). This documentation
contains: (1) A description of Ll-te
reporting and recordkeeping required by
Li.e regulation and the General
Provisions, (2) the reasons for the
requirements, and (3) an evaluation of
the major alternatives considered
(including the use of existing sources of
infonnation). Approximately 2,000 new,
modified. or reconstructed affected
.-.:-
-------
:. nHo
Federal Register I Vol. 47, No. 210 I Friday. October 29. 1982 I Rules and Regulations
-===
f,:cilities are expected to be subject to
the regulation through the fIrst 5 years.
The regulation will require no rejJorts
i.1 addition to those required under the
Geflcral Provisions of 40 CFR Part 60.
The General Provisions contain
notification requirements that enable the
Agency to keep abreast of facilities
subject to the regulation and also
contain requirements for the conduct
and reporting of initial performance
tests. Analysis of these reporting
requirements indicates that they are
both necessary and reasonable
considering the savings in Agency time
and resources required for effective
enforcement.
The resources needed by the industry
to m3intain records and to collect, ,
prepare, and use the reports through the
first 5 years would be about 178 persoD-
years. The resources required by EPA
and State and local agencies to process
the reports and to maintain records
through the first 5 years would be about
8.5 person-years. -
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980
(Pub. L. 9&:-511) requires clearance from
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) of certain public reportingl
recordkeeping requirements before this
rulemaking can be promulgated as final.
The reporting/recordkeeping
requirements associated with this
standard have been approved by OMB.
and have been assigned OMB control
~2000-0649.
Regulatory Flexibility ADalysis
This standard was proposed before
January 1, 1981, and therefore is not
subject to the requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. However,
during the development of the
backg:'ound information ~ocument for
this standard, the economic impacts for
representative small model plants were
examined. and there were no significant
impacts on these plants.
Docket
The'docket is an organized and
complete file of all the information
ettnsidered by EPA in the development
of this rolemaking. The docket is a
dynamic file. since material is added
throughout the ruJenuaking development.
The docket system is intended to allow'
members of the public and industries
involved to readily identify and locate
documents 80 that they can intelligently
and effectively participate in the
rulemaking process. Along wi th the
statement of basis and purpose of the
proposed and promulgated standards
and EPA responses to significant
comments. the contents of the docket,
except for certain inter-Agency review
materials. will serve as the record in
case of judicial review (Section
307(d)(7)(A)).
Miscellaneous
The effective date of this regulation is
October 29, 1982. Section 111 of the
Clean Air Act provides that standards of
performance or revisions thereof
become effective upon promulgation and
apply to affected facilities, construction
or modification of which was .
commenced after the date of proposal
(November 28. 1980).
As prescribed by Section 111. the
promulgation'of these standards was
preceded by the Administrator's
determination (40 CFR 60.16.44 FR
49222, dated August 21. 1979) that th~se
sources contribute significantly to air
pollution which may ~easonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare. In accordance with Section 117
of the Act. publication of these
promulgated standards was preceded by
consultation with appropriate advisory
committees, independent experts, and
Federal departments and agencies.
This regulation will be reviewed 4
years from the date of promulgation as
required by the Clean Air Act. This
review will include an assessment af
such factors as the need for integration
with other programs. the existence of
alternative methods. enforceability.
improvements in emission control
technology, and reporting requirements.
Section 317 of the Clean Air Act
requires the Administrator to prepare an
economic impact assessment for any
new source standard of performance
promulgated under Section 111(b} of the
Act. An economic impact assessment
was prepared for this regulation and for
other regulatory alternatives. All
aspects of the assessment were
considered in the formulation of the
standards to insure that cost was
carefully considered in determining
BDT. The economic impact assessment
is included in the background
information document for the proposed
standards.
In addition to the economic impact
analysis. the emission reduction and
annualized cost for typical facilities
expressed for each alternative in terms
of dollars per ton of pollutant removed
were compared to both the preceding
alternative and to Alternative L For
example, Alternative 4 was compared to
Alternative 3 and Alternative 1.
Compared to the uncontrolled plant
(Alternative 1). Alternative 2 (82 percent
by volume solids coatings and 60
percent average transfer efficiency)
results in an emission reduction of 29
megagrams (32 tons) of VOC per year.
The annualized cost of Alternative Z is
$3,500 less than the annualized cost of
158
Alternative 1 becau3e of reduced
material costs. This level of control
result:! in a potential savings of $110 per
ton of emissions reduced. Costs
presented here are updated to July 1980
dollars.
Alternative 3 (70 percent by volume
solids coatings and 60 percent average
transfer efficiency) results in an
emission reduction of 37.3 mega grams
(41.1 tons) per year greater than
Alternative 1. This level of control has
an annualized cost of $28.000 less than
Alternative 1 for a potential savings of
$680 per ton of emissions reduced.
Compared to Alternative 2 the
application of Alternative 3 results in
emission reductions of 8.26 megagrams
(9.1 tons), has an annualized cost of
$24.000 less, and a potential savings of
$2.600 per ton of additional emission
reduction.
Alternative 4 (waterborne coatings)
results in an emission reduction of 4Q
megagrams (44.1 tons) per year greater
than Alternative 1., This level. of control
has an annualized cost of $66.000 higher
than Alternative 1 and results in a
control cost 01 $1,500 per ton of emission
reduction. Compared to Alternative 3,
the application of Alternative 4 results
in emission reductions of 2.7Z
megagrams (3.0 tons) per year. increases
the annualized costs by $94,000 and has
a control cost of $31,300 per. ton of
additional emission reductions.
In summary. both Alternatives 2 and 3
result in emission reductions and have a
lower annualized cost than the
uncontrolled plant. Alternative 2 was
selected as the promulgated control
level because of technological problems
encountered with Alternative 3 control
techniques. Alternative 4 was rejected
because the cost of precluding the use of
the much more cost-effective high solids
coatings would be unreasonable in light
of the amount of additional emission
reduction that would be achieved by
selecting the Alternative 4. Also,
waterborne coatings are not
demonstrated for application in all
representative situations. Various other
control techniques were quickly ruled
out of consideration as BDT due to
excessive control costs or technological
limitations.
Under Executive Order 12Z91. EPA
must judge whether a regulation is
"major" and therefore subject to the
requirement of a Regulatory Impact
Analysis. This regulation is not "major"
because: (1) The national annualized
compliance costs, including capital
charges resulting from the standards
total less than $100 million; (2) the
, standards do not cause a major increase
in prices or production costs: and (3) the
-------
-
Federal Register I Vol. 47. No. 210 I Friday. October 29. 1982 I Rules and Regulation3
I
.19287
standards do not cause significant
adverse effects on domestic competition.
employment. i..vestm~~t, p.roduct.ivity.
innovation or competition In foreIgn
markets. This regulation was submitted
10 the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review as required by
Executive Order 12291. Any comments
from o~m to F.PA and any EPA
response to those comments are
included in docket number A-79-47. The
docket is available for public inspection
at EPA's Central Docket Sectjon. West
Tower Lobby. Gallery 1, Waterside
Mall. 401 M Street. S.W., Washington.
D.C. 20460.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60
Air pollution control. Aluminum.
Ammonium, sulfate plants. Cement
industry, Coal. Copper. Electric power
plants. Glass and glass products. Grains.
Intergovernmental relations. Iron. Lead.
Mp.tals. Motor vehicles. Nitric acid
plants. Paper and paper products
industry, Petroleum. Phosphate. Sewage
disposal. Steel. Sulfuric acid plants.
Waste treatment and disposal. Zinc.
Dated: October 20, 1982-
Anne M. Gorsuch.
.4.dministrrrtor.
PART 6O-{AMENDED]
40 CFR Part 60 is amended by adding
a new Subpart EE as follows:
Subpart EE-Standards of Pi!rformance for
Surface Coating of Metal Furniture
S~c.
60.310 Applicability and designa'tion of
affected facility.
60.311 Definitions and symbols.
60.312 Standard for volatile organic
compounds.
60.313 Performance tests and ComplianCe
provisions.
60.314 Monitaringof emissions- and
operations. .
60,3'15 Reporting and recordkeeping
requiremen ts.
60.316 Test methods and procedures.
Aul"ority: Sections 111 and 301(a) of the
Clean Air Act. as amended, (42 U.S.c. 7411.
7601(a1). and additional authority as noted
bp.low.
Subpart EE-Standards af
PerformanC1! for Surface Coatittg of
Metal Furniture
~ 6tU10 AppllcabiJltyand c:!esisnation of
affected facility.
(a) The affected facility to which the
provisions of this subpart apply is each
metal furniture surface coating
operation in which organic coatinos are
applied. . "
(b) This subpart applies to each
affected facility identified in paragraph
(aJ of this section on which construction.
modification, or reconstruction is
commenced after November 28,1980.
~ 60.311 Definitions and symbol1
(a) All terms used in this subpart not
defined below are given the meaning in
the Act and in Subpart A of this part.
"Bake oven" means a device which
uses heat to dry or cure coatings.
"Dip coating" means a111ethod of
applying coatings in which the p'art is
submerged in a tank filled with the
coatings.
"Electrodeposition (EDP)" means a
method of applying coatings in which
the part is submerged in a tank filled
with the coatings and in which an
electrical potential is used to enhance
deposition of the coatings on the part.
"Electrostatic spray application"
means a spray application method that
uses an electrical potential to increase
the transfer efficiency of the coatings.
"Flash-off area" means the portion of
a surface coating operation between the
coating application area and bake oven.
"Flow coating" means a method of
applying coatings in which the part is
carried through a chamber containing
numerous nozzles which direct
unatomized streams of coatiDgs from
many diffe.rent angles onto the surface
of the part.
"Organic coating" means any coating
used in a surface coating operation.
including dilution solvents. from which
volatile organic compound emissions
occur during the application or the
curing process. For the purpose-of this
regulation. powder coatings are not
included in this definition.
"Powder coating" means any surface
coating which is applied as a dry
powder and is fused into a' continuous
coating film through the use of heat
"Spray application" means a method
of applying coatings by atomizi...,g and
directing the atomized spray toward the
part to be &oated.
"Surface coating operation" IT ~I'
the system on a metal furnitu...e surface
coating line used to apply and
-------
.~9288
Federal Register I Vo1. 47, No. 210 I Friday. October 29, 1982 I Rules and Regulations
~ 60.312 St:mdard for volatile organic
compounds ('iOC).
(a) an and after the date on which the
initial performance test required to be
conducted by i 6O.8(a) is completed. no
owner or operator subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall cause
the di5charge into the atmosphere of
vac emissions from any metal furniture
surface coating operation in excess of
0.90 kilogram of vac per liter of coati"g
solids applied.
~ 60.313 Performance tests and
compliance provisions.
(a) Sections 6O.B(d) and (f) do not
apply to the performance test
procedures required by this subpart.
(b) The owner or operator of an
affected facility shall conduct an initial
performance test as required under
~ 60.8(a) and thereafter a performance
test each calendar month for each
affected facility according to the
procedures in this section.
(c) The owner or operator shall use
the following procedures for determining
monthly volume-weighted average
emissions of vac's in kilograms per
titer of coating solids applied (G).
(1) An owner or operator shall use the
following procedures for any affected
facility which' does not use a capture
system and control device to comply
with the emissions limit specified under
~ 60.312. The owner or operator shall
determine the composition of the
coatings by formulation data supplied
by the manufacturer of the coating or by
an analysis of each coating. as received.
using Reference Method'24. The
Administrator may require the owner or
operator who uses formulation data
supplied by the manufacturer of the
coating to determine the vac content of
coatings using Reference Method 24. The
owner or operator shall determine the
volume of coating and the mass of vac-
solvent used for thinning purposes from
company records on a monthly basis. If
a common coating distribution system
serves more than one affected facility or
serves both affected and existing
facilities. the owner or operator shall
estimate the volume of coating used at
each facility by using the average dry
weight of coating and the surface area
coated by each affected and existing
facility or by other procedures
acceptable to the Administrator.
(i) Calculate the volume-weighted
average of the total mass of vac's
consumed per unit volume of coating
solids applied (G) during each calendar
month for each affected facility. except
as provided under I 6O.313(cJ(2) and
(cJ(3). Each monthly calculation is
considered a performance test. Except
as provided in paragraph (cJ(lJ(iv) of
this section. the volume-weighted
average of the total mass of vac's
consumed per unit volume of coating.
solids applied (G) each calendar month
will be determined by the following
procedures.
(A) Calculate the mass of vac's used
(Mo+Md) during each calendar month
for each affected facility by the
following equation:
Mo+M..= i Ld Del wo.+ I Leu D4I
i=1 j=1
(!L,,;D4I will be 0 if no vac solvent is added
to the coatings. as received.)
Where: n is the number of different coatings
used during the calendar month and m is the
number of different diluent VaC-solvents
used during the calendar month.
(8) Calculate the total volume of
coating solids used (L.) in each calendar
month for each affected facility by the
following equation:
L.= i La V.I
i=1
Where: n is the number of different coatings
used during the calendar month.
Select the appropriate transfer
efficiency from Table 1. If the owner or
operator can demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Administrator that
other transfer efficiencies other than
those shown are appropriate. the'
Administrator will approve their use on
a case-by-case basis. Transfer efficiency
values for application methods not listed
below shall be determined by the
Administrator on a case-by-case basis.
An owner or operator must submit
sufficient data for the Administrator to
judge the accuracy of the transfer
efficiency claims.
TABLE 1.-TRANSFER EFFICIENCIES
Application meltlods
Transfer
etf1clency
(T)
"'" otomized spray...........--...-........................
Airless spray.................................-................-......
Manual alectrostabC spray...........................-..-......
Nonrob.bonal automatoc ejectrostaDc spray...........
Roto~ng ~ftd aI8ctrostalic spray (manuat one!
Ot:u~~:a:~ 'ii;;';'~I::::::==:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
EI8C'.rodepo..~on ......-.........-.-........-...........-
Where more than one application
method is used within a single surface
coating operation. the owner or operator
shall determine the composition and
volume of each coating applied by each
method through a means acceptable to
the Administrator and compute the
weighted average transfer efficiency by
the following equation:
160
i t l.e1k V..k T.
T='"tk~t
L.
Where n is the number of coatings llsed and p
is the number of application metho~s used.
(C) Calculate the volume-weighted
average mass of vac's consumed per
unit volume of coating solids applied (G)
duting the calendar month for each
affected facility by the following
equation:
G= Mo+Md
L.T
0.25
.25
.60
.70
.80
.90
.95
(ii) Calculate the volume-weighted
average of vac emissions to the
atmosphere (N) during the calendar
month for each affected facility by the
following equation:
N=G
. (Hi) Where the volume-weighted
average mass of vac discharged to the
atmosphere per unit volume of coating
solids applied (N) is less than or equal
to 0.90 kilogram per liter, the affected
facility is in compliance. ..
(iv) If each individual coating used by
an affected facility has a vac content.
as received. which when divided bv the
lowest transfer efficiency at which'the
coating is applied. results in a value
equal to or less than 0.90 kilogram per
liter, the affected facility is in
compliance provided no vac's are
added to the coatings during distribution
or application.
(2) An owner or operator shall use the
following procedures for any affected
facility that uses a capture system and a
control device that des-troys vac's (e.g..
incinerator) to comply with the emission
limit specified under ~ 60.312.
(i) Determine the overall reduction
efficiency (R) for the capture system and
control device. For the initial
performance test the overall reduction
efficiency (R) shall be determined as
prescribed in (c)(2)(i) (A). (8), and (C) of
this section. In subsequent months. the
owner or operator may use the most
recently determined overall reduction
efficiency (R) for the performance test
providing control device and capture
system operating conditions have not
changed. The procedure in (c)(2)(i) (A).
(8), and (C). of this section, shall be.
repeated when directed by the
Administrator or when the owner or
operator elects to operate the control
device or capture system at conditioni
different from the initial performance
test.
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 47, No. 210 I Friday, October 29, 1982 I Rules and Regulations
49289
(A) Detennine th~ fraction (F) of total
vac's emitted by an affected facility
that enters the control device using the
following equation:
iC",Q",
1<,
F
i C'" QbI +I, Cq QQ
i.=1 .-1.
Where n Is the number of gas streams
entering the control device and m is the
number of gas streama emitted directly to the
atmosphere.
(B) Determine the destruc?on .
efficiency of the control device (E) usmg
values of the volumetric flow rate of
each of the ~as streams and the vac
content (as carbon) of each of the gas
streams in and out of the device by the
following equation:
i Q.. C"'- f Qoj c..
E I..' 1=1
i Qbi Con
I~,
Where: n Is the number of gas streams
entering the control device, and m is the
number of gas streams lea ving the contol
device and entering the atmosphere.
(C) Determine overall reduction
efficiency (R) using the following
equation:
R=F.F
(ii) Calculate the volume-weighted
average of the total mass of vac's per
unit volume of coating solids applied (G)
during each calendar month for each
affected facility using equations in
paragraphs [c)(1)(i) [A), [B), and (C) of
this section.
(Hi) Calculate the volume-weighted
average of vac emissions to the
atmosphere (N) during each calendar
month by tlte following equation:
N=G(t-R)
(iv) If the volume-weighted average
mass of vac's emitted to the
atmosphere for each calendar month (N)
is less than or equal to 0.90 kilogram per
liter of coating solids applied, the
affected facility is in compliance. Each
. monthly calculation i~ a perfonnance
test.
(3) An owner or operator shall use the
fonowing procedure for any affe::ted
facility which uses a control device that
recovers the vac's (e.g., carbon
adsorber) to comply with the applicable
emission limit specified under t 60.312.
[i) Calculate the total mass of vac's
consumed (M.,+Md) and the volume-
weighted average of the total mass of
vac's per unit volume of coating solids
applied (G) during each calendar month
for each affected facility using equations
in paragraph (c)[1)(i) (A), (8), and (C) of
this section.
(ii) Calculate the total mass of vac's
recovered (Mr) during each calender
month using the following equ,;ttion:
Mr=L.Dr
(iii) Calculate overall reduction
efficiency of the control device (R) for
each calendar month for each affected
facility using the following equation:
Mr
R=
M..+M.t
(iv) Calculate the volume-weighted
average mass of vac's emitted to the
atmosphere (N) for each calendar month
for each affected facility using equation
in paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section.
(v) If the weighted average mass of
vac's emitted to the atmosphere for
each calendar month (N) is less than or
equal to 0.90 kilogram per liter of coating
solids applied, the affected facility is in
compliance. Each monthly calculation is
a performance test.
f 60.314 Monitoring 0' emissions and
operations.
(a) The owner or operator of an
affected facility which uses a capture
system and an incinerator to comply
with the emission limits specified under
! 60.312 shall install, calibrate, maintain,
and operate temperature measurement
devices according to the following
procedures:
(1) Where thennal incineration is
used, a temperature measurement
device shall be installed in the firpbox.
Where catalytic incineration tu .lst:d, a
temperature measurement device shall
be installed in the gas stream
immediately before and after the
catalyst bed.
(2) Each temperature measurement
device shall be installed, calibrated, and
maintained according to the
manufacturer's specifications. The
device shall have an accuracy of the
greater of 0.75 percent of the
temperature being measured expressed
in degrees Celsius or :!:2.5'C.
(3) Each temperature measurement
device shall be equipped with a
recording device so that a pennanent
continuous record is produced.
(b) The owner or operator of an
affected facility which uses a capture
system and a solvent recovery system to
comply with the emission limits
161
specified under ~ 60.312 shall install the
equipment neces3ary to determine the
total volume of VaC-solver.t recovered
daily.
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (~2
U.S.C. 7~14))
f 60.315 Reporting and rec:ordkeeping
requirements.
(a) The reporting requirements of
Section 6O.8(a) apply omy to the initial
performance test. Each owner or
operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart shall include the following data
in the report of the initial performance
test required under ~ 6O.8(a):
(1) Except as provided in paragraph
(a)(2) of this section. the volume-
weighted average mass of vac's
emitted to the atmosphere per volume of
applied coating solids [N) for a period of
one calendar month from each affected
facility.
(2) For each affected facility where
compliance is detennined under the
provisions of t 60.313(c)(1)(iv). a list of
the coatings used during a period of one
cijlendar month. the vac content of
each coating calculated from data
determined using Reference Method 24
or supplied by the manufacturer of the
coating, and the minimum transfer
efficiency of any coating application
equipment used during the month.
(3) For each affected facility where
compliance is achieved through the use
of an incineration system, the following
additional infonnation will be reported:
(i) The proportion of total vac's
emitted that enters the control device
(F), .
[ii) The vac reduction efficiency of
the control device (E),
[Hi) The average combustion
temperature (or the average temperature
upstream and downstream of the
catalyst bed), and
(iv) A description of the method used
to establish the amount of vac's
captured and sent to the incinerator.
(4) For each affected facility where
compliance is achieved through the use
of a solvent recovery system, the
following additional information will be
reported: -
(i) The volume of VaC-sohrent
recovered (!.r), and
(ii) The overall VQC emission
reduction achieved (R).
(b) Following the initial performance
test, the owner or operator of an
affected facility shall identify and
record:
(1) Each instance in which the
volume-weighted average of the total
mass of vac's emitted to the
atmosphere per volu:ne of applied
-------
13~UO
~~
. Federal Register I Vol. 47, !'\io. :10 / Friday. October 29. 1982 I Rules and Regulations
coating solids (NJ is greater than the
limit specified under ~ 60.312.
(ZJ Where compliance with ~ 60.312 is
achieved through the use of thermal
incineration. each 3-hour period when
metal furniture is being coated during
which the average temperature of the
device was more than ZS"C below the
average temperature of the device
dLiring the most recent performance test
at which destruction efficiency was
determined as specified under i 60.313.
[3J Where CDmpliance with I 60.312 is
achieved through. the use of catalytic
incineration. each 3-hour period when
metal furniture is being coated during
whic~ the average temperature of the
device immediately before the catalyst
bed is more than ZS"C below the
a verage tempera ture of the device
immediately before the catalyst bed
during the most recent performance test
at which destruction efficiency was
determined as specified under ~ 60.313.
Additionally, when metal furniture is-
being coated. all3-hour periods during
which the average tempe::-ature
difference across the catalyst bed is lesS"
th.an 80 percent of the average
temperature difference across the
catalyst bed d:1ring the most recent
performance test at which destruction
efficiency was determined as specified
u~der A 60.313 will be recorded.
(cJ Each owner or operator subject to
l:'.l! provisions of this subpart shall
maintain at the source. for a period of at
least 2 years. records of all data and
calculations useJ to determine VOC
emissions from each affected facility.
Where compliance is achieved through
the use of thermal incineration. each
owner or operator shall maintain. at the
source, daily records of the incinerator
combustion chamber temperature. If
catalytic incineration is used. the owner
or operator shall maintain at the source
daily records of the gas temperature.
both upstream and downstream of the
incinerator catalyst bed. Where
compliance is achieved through the use
of a solvent recovery system. the owner
or operator shall maintain at the source
daily records of the amount of solvent
recovered by the system for eaclt
affected facility.
(Sec. U4 of the Clean Air Act as amended (4Z
U.S.c. 7414))
~ 60.316 Test methods and prac!edures,
fa) The reference methods in
Appendix A to this part except as
pfO'.;ded under! 6O.a(b) shall be used to
determine compliance with ~ 60.312 as
follows;
(1) Method 24. or coating
manufacturer's formulation data. for use
in the determination ofVOC content of
each batch of coating as applied to the
surface of the metal parts. In case of an
inconsistency between the Method 24
162
results and the formulation data. the
Method 24 results will govern.
(2J Method 25 for the measurement of
VOC concentration.
[3) Method 1 for sample and velocity
tr a v er.JeS.
(4J Method 2 for velocity and
volumetric flow rate.
(5) Method 3 for gas analysis.
[6J Method 4 for stack gas moisture.
(bJ For Method 24, the coating sample
must be at least a 1 liter sample in a 1
liter container taken at a point where
the sample will be representative of the
coating material as applied to the
surface of the metal part.
(c) For Method 25, the minimum
sampling time for each of 3 runs is 60 .
minutes and the minimum sample
volume is 0.003 dry standard cubic
meters except that shorter sampling
times or smaller volumes. wh-en
necessitated by process variable or
other factors, may be approved by the
Adminis tra tor.
(dJ The Administrator will approve
testing of representative "tacks on a
case-by-case basis if the owner or
operator can demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Administrator that
testing of representative stacks yields
results comparable to those that wauJd
be obtained by testing all stacks.
(Sec. 1 U of the Gleea Air Act as amemied (42-
U.s.c. 7414))
[FR Doc. B2-Z989! Fi1.d 1~ --i
BlLU,-.a C,OQE -
-......
-------
-~-~-_..-
~---~---
Monday
NoveMber 1, 1982
Part IV
Environmental
Protection Agency
..-~. at F~renal ,...-
~.. Scucea. ~ Call a..~
Ca---AII;' ~..Io".
liS
-------
49606
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 211 / Monday. November 1, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTtON
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
(AD-FAL-207G-7l
St3ndards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources; Metal CoIl Surface
Coating Operations
April 28. 1982.
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACT10N: Final role.
SUMMARY: Standards of performance for
metal coil surface coating operations
were proposed in the Federal Register
on January 5, 1981 (45 FR 1102). This
action promulgates standards of
performance for metal coil surface
coating operations. These standards
implement Section 111 of the Clean Air
Act and are based on the
Administrator's determination that
metal coil surface coating operations
cause or contribute significantly to all
pollution that may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare. The intended effect of these
standards is to require all new,
modified. and reconstrocted metal coil
surface coating operations to use the
best demonstrated system of continuous
emission reduction. considering costs.
nonair quality health, and
environmental and energy impacts.
UFŁCT1VE DATE: November t, 198Z,
Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act. judicial review of this new
source performance standard (NSPS) 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
rule. Under Section 307(b)(2) of the
Clean Air Act. the requirements that are
the subject of today's notice may not be
challenged later in civil or criminal
proceedings brought by EPA to enforce
these requirements.
ADORESSIS: Background Information
Document. The backaround information
document (BID) for the promulgated
standards may be obtained from the
U.s. EPA Library (MD-35), Research
Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711.
telephone number (919) 541-2717. Please
refer to "Metal Coil Surface Coating
Industry: Background Information for
Promulgated Standares." EPA-4SO/3-
1I()-{)35b. The BID contains (1) a
summary of all the public comments
made en the proposed standards and the
Administrator's response to the
comments. (2) a summary of the changes
made to the standards since proposaL
and (3) the final environmental impact
statement lEIS). which summarizes the
impacts of the standards.
Docket. A docket. number A-80-5.
containing infonnation considered by
EPA in development of the promulgated
standards is available for public
inspection between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00
p.m.. Monday through Friday, at EPA'.
Central Docket Section (A-130), West
Tower Lobby, Gallery 1, 401 M Street. .
SW.. Washington, D.C. 20460. A
reasonable fee may be charged for
copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Fred Porter. Section Chief.
Standards Development Branch.
Emission Standard. and Engineering
Division (MD-13). U.s. EPA. Research
Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711.
telephone (919) 541-5578.
SUPPUMEHTARY INFORMATION: QMB
Control Number: 2000-0660.
The StancWds
Standards of performance for new
sources established under Section 111 of
the Clean Air Act reflect:
. . . Application of the best technological
.ystem of continuoua eminion reductioa
which (taking into conaideration the cost of
achieving such emillion reduction. and any
nonair quality bealth and envirorunental
impact. and energy requirements) the
Adminiatrator determines bas been
adequately demonstrated (Section l11(a){l)).
The standards apply to all new.
modified. and recoDStrocted metal coil
surface coating (coil coating) operationa.
Existing facilities are not subject to the
standards unless they undergo a
modification or a recoDstroction as
defined in 40 CFR 80.14 and 80.15.
Compliance with the standards can be
achieved by any of four approaches for
each affected facility. The owner or
operator can use coatings whose'
average volatile organic compound
(VOC) content on a monthly basia ia Q.28
kilograms per liter (kg/I) of coatina
solids applied or less; the owner or
.operator can apply higher VQC-cootent
coatings if he reduces VQC emissions to
0.14 kg/ I of coating solids applied or
less; the owner or operator can comply
by demonstrating an overall VQC
emission reduction of 90 percent or
grea ter prior to discharge to the
abnosphere: or the owner or operator
can comply by the combined use of low
VQC-content coatings and higher VQC.
content coatings with a control device to
achieve a calculated monthly emission
limit. The owner or operator using an
Incinerator to control VQC emissions is
required to constroct an enclosure of the
coating application station during the
test of incinerator efficiency to evaluate
the capture efficiency of the control
system.
164
The standards require each owner or
operator to conduct monthly
performance tests to demonstrate
compliance with the proposed emission
limits. Where coatings are used without
a vac capture system and emission
control device to meet the numerical
limit of 0.28 kg/ 10Ł coating solids
applied. the owner or opera tor is
required to calculate and record a
weighted average of the vac content of
coatings applied (including dilution
solvents) for each affected facility for
each calendar month. Manufacturers'
formulation data will nonnally be used
for that purpose; Reference Method Z.
will be used to resolve any disputes that
mayoccur..
Where higher VaC-content coatings
are used with a vac capture system
and emission control device to meet the
numerical limit of 0.14 kg/ I of coating
solids applied. the owner or operator is
required to calculate and record the
weighted average of the vac content
(including dilution solvents) of coatings
applied for each affected facility for
each calendar month. During the initial
performance tests. the owner or .
operator must measure the overall VOC
emission reduction achieved by the
VOC capture system and emission
control device. Reference Method 25 and
the equations provided in the standards
are used for these determinations.
Compliance is demonstrated where the
overall VOC emission reduction is equal
to or less than 0.14 kg/I.
Where compliance is achieved
through the d~monstration of a go.
percent overall reduction in vac
emissions. the owner or operator will
conduct an initial performance test by
using Reference Method 25 and the
equations provided in the standards.
Compliance is demonstrated where the
overall percent reduction is equal to or
greater than 90 percent. After the fIrst
monthly test. the owner or operator is
required to monitor the operating
parameters of the control device.
Where compliance is achieved by the
combined use of low VaC-content
coatings and higher VaC-content
coatings with a control device. the
owner or operator is required to
calculate and record a weighted average
VQC content of coatings applied
(including dilution solvents) for each
affected facility for each calendar
. moath. Separate calculations must be
made for coating. used without the
control device in operation and for
coatings used with the control device in
operation. During the initial
performance tr:st. the owner or operator
must measure the overall vac emission
reduction achieved by the capture
-------
i'ederal Register I VoL 47, No. 211 I Monday, November I. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
49607
system and control device. The owner or
operator is then required to calculate a
monthly emi8sion limit and the VOC
emission8 to the atmosphere to
determine compliance.
If thermal incineration is used. the
owner or operator is required to install
and operate a device to monitor and
record continuously the combustion
temperature of the control device. The
standards require the owner or operator
to record all coating periods of more
than 3 hours duration where the average
combustion temperature falls 288 C (5('-
F) or more below the temperature at
which compliance wa. demonstrated
during the 1D08t recent measurement of
incinerator efficiency. If catalytic
incineration is used, the owner or
operator is required to install a device to
monitor and record continuously the p'
temperature both upstream and
downstream of the incinerator catalyst
bed. The owner or operator is required
to record aD coating periods in exCe8S of
3 hours where the average difference
between the temperature. upstream and
downstream of the catalyst bed falla
below 80 percent of the temperature
difference at which compliance was
demonstrated durins the most recent
measurement of incinerator efficiency or
where the averase inlet (or upstream)
temperature falls 288 C (W F) 01' more
below the inlet templliU'Bture at w1Uch
compliance was demonstrated during
the m08t recent measurement of
incinerator efficiency.
EDvinmmtmtal. Eaeru. ADd~
1mpac:18
. The environmentaL eueray. and
economic impacta of 8tandarda of
performance are normally expreued ..
incremental differeDCe8 between the
impaeta of complYin& with the propoaed
standard8 and those of complYin& with a
typical State implementation plan (SIP).
Many existina metal coil .urface coating
operations are located in areu that are
considered nonattainment areae for
purpo881 of achievina the national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS)
for ozone. New faciUtie8 are expected to
have the same geosraphic diatribution
as existing plants. Stata are in the
process of revising their SIP's for theee
areu. In revising SIP'a. State. generally
, . consider the recommendations
contained in control techniques
guidelines (CTG) documents. The CTG
document applicable to thia source
category i8 "Control of Volatile OrJanic
Emissions From Existing Stationary
Sources. Volume n. Surface Coating of
Cans. Coil. Paper. FabricS. Automobilea,
and Light-Duty Trucka." ~A-tMJ/Z-77-
088 (CTG). Although the CTG
documents are published for guidance
only and are not legally binding on the
States. impacts were e8timated by
assuming that most States will revise
their existing SIP's in accordance with
the CTG recommendation. or retain
their existing limits on VOC emission.
Approximately 70 percent of the
existing coil coatina plants are located
in States that currently require VOC
. emissions to be reduced by at least 85
percent prior to discharge. except for
plants that use waterborne or other low
VOC~ontent coatings. This emission
limit is more stringent than the CTG
recommendation.. and it appears that
these States plan to maintain this level
of control for VOC emisaions. The
I'Rmaining plants are located in States
that use a permit .ystem 101' controlling
VOC emiasiona. These States are
expected to revise their SIP's to require
VOC emission reductions to the cre.
recommended level. which i8 equivalent
to a 64-percent reduction in the
emissions from the average industry
80lvent-bome coating formulation of 60
percent VOCs and 40 percent solids by
volume.
The standards would reduce VOC
emissions from a typical plant by
approximately 33 percent in States that
currently control VOC emiuions by a
numerical limit (8S-percent reduction)
and reduce emis8ions from a typical
plant by approximAitely 72 percent In
States that adopt the CTG-
recommended level of control (64-
percent reduction). With DO NSPS.
nationwide VOC emissions from new
plant capacity are projected to be a.eoo
megagrams (Mg) per year after 5 years.
Implementation of the NSPS would
reduce !bese emissions by 8.000 Mg per
year. In addition. after 5 years. the NSPS
would also result In an emission
reduction of 2.000 Mg per yeer f"OJ"} the
control of existing plant capa\o._.i
brought under the 8tandards by
modifications and reconstruction. Thue.
the total fifth-year emission reduction
l"88ultins from implementation of the
NSPS would be 8.000 Mg. An estimated
85 percent of DeW plants wiD UN higher
VOC-content coatinp and incineration
syatems to comply with the ltanduds.
and the remaiDing 15 perceDt wiD Ule
low vOCcontent coating.
~A recognizes that the ..timated
8.000-Mg emission reduction i.
substantially greater than the 3.200 Mg
estimate contained in the proposal
preamble. The previ0u8 estimate wae
baaed an gross industry coatins Ulage
data that implied an average applied dry
coating thickness of 0.Q25 millimeter
(mm) or 0.001 in. (1 mil). A more
reasonable approach i8 to estimate the
emission reduction by using model plant
165
data. which were the basis of cost and
economic analyses and which used an
average applied dry coating thickness of
1.8 mils. The 1.8-mil value was offered
as typical by several industry sources
and was subsequently approved by
numerous industry reviewers of model
plant data. The change in film thickness.
plus rounding of model plant data to
achieve consistency between costs and
emission reduction estimates. results in
the estimated fifth-year emission
reduction of 8.000 Mg.
Little or no water pollution or solid
waste impact from new. modified. or
reconstructed coil coating plants is
expected to l"88ult from application of
the standards. None of the control
techniques used by the coil coating
industry generates either liquid or soUd
waste; therefore. the standards would
have DO impact in these areas.
Nationwide energy usage by the coil
coating industry totaled about 6.600
terajoules (TJ) in 1978. The Itandards
will result In an energy usage increase
of about 1 percent per year. which Ie
equivalent to 200.000 barrels of erode oil
in the fifth year. Plants located in States
requiring an 85-percent reduction and
that achieve compliance through the use
of higher VOC-content coatings in
combination wUb 8n incinerator are
expected to decrea8e their enersY
consumption by about 5 percent.
However. for plants regulated to the
CTG-recommended level of control.
compliance with the standards through
the use of incineration could l"88ult in a.
much a8 . ~percent increase in energy
consumption in some individual plants if
one of the more energy-efficient systems
identified as being capable of achieving
the CTG-recommended limits is used ae
the baseline. Little or no impact ill
energy consumption ie expected to
result.from the 8tandards for plants
meeting the emission limita with the use
of waterborne or other low VOCcontent
coatings without the U8e of incineration.
The standards increaee both the
capital and annualized co. of new coil
coating plants. Based on a predicted
industry growth rate of 12 percent per
year through 1985. the incre88ed capital
costs of new plants that locate in States
requiring an 85-percent reduction in
VOC emissions could range from
$110.000 for a small plant to $140.000 for
a large plant. This capital outlay
represents an increase in the total
capital costs of a new plant of
approximately 1.4 percent for a small
plant and 0.9 percent for a large plant.
The increaee in total annualized costs
could range from 111.000 for a small
plant to $23.000 for a larJe plant. For
plants that locate in States that adopt
-------
49008
Federal Register I Vol. 47, No. 211 I Monday, November 1, 1982 I Rules and Regulations
I I
the CTG-recommended limits, capital
costs for a new plant could increase by
$180.000 for a small plant and by
$920.000 for a large plant-2.3- and 6.6-
percent increases, respectively, in the
total capital costs of a new plant. Total
annualized costs could increase by
$55.000 for a small plant and by $395.000
for a large plant. Compliance with the
standards could result in increases in
the price of coil coated metal ranging-
from 0.2 percent for a large plant in 85-
percent reduction areas to 4.1 percent
for a large plant in States that adopt the
CTG-recommended limits. The effects
for other plant sizes fall between these
two values.
During the first 5 years, the
incremental capital costs of the NSPS
are estimated to be approximately $16.8
million. and the incremental annualized
costs in the fifth year are estimated at
$5.4 million. These values ere lower than
those in the proposal preamble-$20.0
million and $7 million for the capital and
annualized cost incrementa.
respectively. The previous values were
computed to show the maximum cost to
the industry by assuming that all new
plant capacity will use solvent-bome
coatings and incineration as a means of
complying with the standard. The lower
estimates given above are based on the
more realistic assumption that 15
percent of new plant capacity will
comply with the standards by using
waterborne coatings and thus incur no
costs. This latter al8umption is
consistent with the estimates of
emission reduction given above.
Cost estimates for plants in CTG
areas are probably overstated by a
substantial amount. These cost
estimates were based on the least
expensive devices that appear to be
potentially capable of meeting CTG
limits. In practice. however, these units
are not now used. Rather, the
predominant trend is toward use of
modern heat rec::overy incineration
systems. These systems, in addition to
effectively reducing emissions, help to
ensure a stable energy supply for
coaters by using the coating solvents u
fuel The use of coating solvents u fuel
is a benefit for which no credit is gi:ven
in the economic analysis but that is
important enough to cause many coil
coaters to install the systems without a
,'egulatory requirement.
The environmental, energy. and
economic impacts are discussed in
greater detail in the BID for the
promulgated standards, "Metal Coil
Surface Coating Industry-Background
Information for Promulgated Standards
of Performance," EPA-450/3-8()..{)35b.
In addition to achieving emission
reductions beyond those required by a
typical SIP, standards of performance
have other benefits. They establish a
degree of national uniformity, which
precludes situations in which some
States may attract new industries
because they have less stringent air
pollutiod standards than other States.
Further, standards of perfonnance
provide documentation. which reduces
uncertainty in case-by-case .
detenninations of best available control
technology (BACT) for facilities located
in attainment areas and lowest
achievable emission rates (LAER) for
facilities located in nonattainment
areas. This documentation includes
identification and comprehensive
analysis of alternative emission control
technologies, development of associated
costs, evaluation and verification of
applicable emission test metbods, and
identification of specific emission limits
achievable with alternate technologies.
The costs are provided1or an economic
analysis that reveals the affordability of
controls in an unbiased study of the
economic impact of controls on an
industry.
Public ParticipatioD
Prior to proposal of the standards.
interested parties were advised by
public notice in the Fedenl Resister (45
FR 30688. May 9. 1980) of 8 meetms of
the National Air Pollution Control
Techniques Advisory 'Committee
(NAPCTAC) to discus. the metal coil
surface coating operations standards
recommended for proposal Tbia meeting
was held on June 4 and 5. 1980. The
meeting was open to the public and each
attendee was given an opportunity to
comment on the standards
recommended for proposal. The
standards were proposed and published.
in the Federal Register on JanWUJ 5.
1981, (45 FR 1102). The preamble to the
proposed standards discussed tite
availability 01 the proposal BID. "Metal
Coil Surface Coating Industry-
Backsround Information for Proposed
Standards." EPA-450/:J-80-03Sa. which
describe. in detail the regulatory
alternatives considered and their
impacts. Public comments were solicited
at the time of proposaL and. when
requested. copies of the BID were
distributed to interested parties. To
provide interested persons the
opportunity for oral presentation of
data, views. or arguments concerning
the proposed standards, a public hearing.
was held on February 4, 1981, at
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina.
The bearing was open to the public, and
each attendee was given an opportunity
to comment on the proposed standards
The public comment period was from .
February 4, 1981. to April B, 1981.
166
Six comment letters were received
and two interested parties testified at
the public hearing concerning issues
relative to the proposed standards of
performance for metal coil surface
coating operations. The comments have
been carefully considered. and. where
determined appropriate by the
Administrator. changes have been made
in the proposed standards.
Sigoificant Comments and Chang.. to
the Proposed StaDdarda
Comments on the proposed standardt
were received from coil c08ten, coatins
manufacturen, and Federal and State
environmental agencies. A detailed
discussion of these comments and
responses can be found in the .
promulgation BID. "Metal Coil Surface
Coating Industry. Background
Information for Promulgated Standards
of Yerfonnanca," EPA-450!3-80-035b,
The summary of comment. and
responses in the BID serves a. the basis
for the revisions that have been made to
the standards between proposal and
promulgation. The major comments and
responses are summarized in this
preamble. Most of the comment letters
contained multiple comments. The
comments bave been divided into the
following areas: General. Emilsion
Control Technology, Environmental
Impact. Legal Considerations. and Test
Methods and Monitoring.
Significant change. in the .tandard.
since proposal involve compliance and
reportiq; procedures. A procedure was
added to the compliance provisioDl by
which coil costen can compute.
monthl,. emission limit for affected
facilities that control emissions by the
combiDed use of low-eolvent tedmolosy
and hisher solvent coatings with 8
control device. Reporting of monthly
performance test data has been dropped
from the standards. but owners and
operators are required to record and
maintain these data.
Ganeral
Two commenters questioned the need
for an NSPS for coil coatiq.stating that.
for economic reasons. new coil coating
lines already employ the best
technology for caPturina VOC emissions
to bum as fuel for their ovens and.
therefore. do not contribute significantly
to VOC emissions nationwide. They
also questioned EPA's determination
that coil coating contributes
significantly to air pollution.
Section 111 of tbe Clean Air Act
requires EPA to promulgate NSPS's for
all source categoriel that contribute
significantly to harmful air pollution
(Section 111(b)(1), (f)(1)). Metal coil
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 41. No. 211 I Monday. November 1. 1982 I Rules and Regulations
49609
coating is such a category (40 CFR 60.16
(Source Category No. 22); 44 FR 49222
(Auguat 21, 1979)). .
EPA recognizes that the recent trend
in the coil coating industry has been
toward the use of incineration with heat
recovery as an energy conserving and
economically attractive operating setup.
EPA appreciates the emission reduction
that has been achieved by this trend;
however. promulgation of an NSPS ~
necessary to ensure that emission
reductions reflecting best demonstrated
technology (BDT) are achieved.
One commenter stated that EPA
regulations covering VOC emissions
from metal surface coating operations
are inequitable in that the emisaioD
limits proposed for coil coating are more
stringent than the limits proposed for
other metal coating operations.
Section 111 requires that each NSPS
reflect BDT for that source category.
EPA uses the same approach in
evaluating BDT Cor different source
categories. The fact that the resulting
emission limits are different for different
lource categories is irrelevant
("Port/and Cement Association v.
Rocke/shauB, II 486 F.2d 37S, 389 (D.c.
Cir. 1973); "National Ume Association
v. ŁPA, H 827 F.2d 416, 447 n. 108 (D.C.
Cir. 1980).
One respondent commented that the
projected growth rate Cor coil coating
uled in the background study (12
percent per year) is too high and that a
rate oC 8 to 10 percent is more realistic.
The 12-percent per year growth rate
mentioned in the background study is a
misstatement ofthe"growth rate used in
the analyses. Total coating capacity .u
estimated to increase by a constant
amount each year over a S-year period..
The increase used was equal to 12
percent of the total Industry capacity in
the baseline year. This is not equal to .
12-percent annual growth rate. Stated on
a percentage basis. the annual growth
rates assumed were 12 percent the 6rIrt
year. 10.7 percent the second year. 9.8
percent the third year. 9.0 percent the
Courth year. and 8.5 percent the fifth
year. Over the S-year period. the
average annual growth rate Wal
approximately 10 percent per year. This
growth rate is within the 1'8Pge of the
growth rate values suaested by the
commenter, and. therefore. EPA
concludes that the projections in the
background study are reasonable.
One commenter stated that be was
unsure whether 01' not the standards
permit a coater to use low VOC-c:ontent
coatings tbat have a VOC content
greater than 0.28 kgl J of coatiaa solids in
conjunction with other lower VOC-
content coatings and to comply by
computing the weighted average of the
VOC contents.
The standards state that an affected
Cacility is in compliance if each coating
used has a VOC content less tban or
equal to 0.28 kgl/ of coating solids or if
the volume weighted average VOC
content of all coatings used in a
calendar month is les8 than or equal to
0.28 kgl J of coating solids. A procedure
for computing the volume weighted
average VOC content is provided in the
standards. EPA considers that the
concerns oC the commenter are clearly
covered in the standards as written and.
therefore. made no changes to the
wording of the standards in response to
this commenL
One public hearing participant stated
that the definition of "affected facility"
should be changed from each coating
operation to an entire coating line to
permit averaging of the two coating
operations on a tandem coil coating line.
The public hearing participant later
submitted ~ in a letter.
The choice of the affected facility Cor
these standards is based on the
Agency's interpretation of Section 111 of
the Act and judicial construction of its
meaning. Under Section 111. the NSPS
must apply to "new sources": "source"
~ defined as "any buiJdin&. atructure.
Cacility, or installation which emits 01'
may emit any air pollutant" (Section
111(a)(3)). Moat industrial plants.
however. consist of numerous pieces 01'
groups of equipment that emit air
pollutants and that might be viewed as
"sources." EPA therefore uses the term
"affected Cacility" to desipate the
equipment, within a particular kind of
plant, chosen as the ''Bource'' covered
by given standards.
In choosins the affected facility. EPA
must decide which pieces 0:' ~ps of
equipment are the appropn"LII~ units fot
separate emiUion standards. The
Agency must do this in lisht of the terms
and purpose of Section 111. One major
consideration is that the use of .
narrower definition results in brinsinl
replacement equipment UDder the NSPS
sooner. For example. if an entire plant
were designated as the affected Cac:ility.
no part of an existing plant would be
subject to the standards unless the plant
as a whole were Hmodified." It Od the
other hand. each piece of equipment
were designated as an affected facility.
then. as each piece was replaced. it
would be a new source subject to the
standards. Because the purpose of
Section 111 is to minimize emissions by
the application of BCT (considering coat,
other health and environmental effects.
and energy requirements) at all new and
modified sources. there is a presumption
that a narrower designation oC the
167
affected facility is proper. This ensures
that new emission sources would be
subject to the standards as they are
installed. This presumption can be
overcome. however, if the Agency
concludes that relevant statutory factors
(technical Ceasibility, cost. energy, and
other environmental impacts) point to a
broader definition.
Designation oC an entire coil coating
line or an entire plant as an aCfected
Cacility was considered in the
development of the standards. These
options were rejected in favor of
designating each coating operation as an
affected facility. In addition to the
advantages cited above. this designation
also simplifies recordkeeping and
enforcement activities and. in many
cases. gives added flexibility to owners
or operators by allowing them to use
different control technologies on each
coating operation without the need Cor
complicated averaging calculations.
One commenter stated that the
der1Dition of "coil coating" is too broad
and would result in the regulation of
many operations not considered in the
development of the standards. The
commenter sngested that the definition
of "coil coating.. be modir1ed to exclude
operations that process only metal with
thic1cnesse.lessthan 0.178 mm (0.007
in.). commoDly considered to be metal
Coil. and to exclude operations covered
by the proposed NSPS for can coating.
Metal foil i. defined by the Aluminum
Association as metal strip with a
thickness les. than 0.152 mm (0.006 in.).
While metal foil fits the def"mition of
metal coil contained in the proposed
standards (i.e.. a continuous metal strip
packaged in a roll or coil), coating
Cormulations. application rates.
emissions. and process operations for
Coil are quite different from those Cor
coil. In the background study Cor the coil
coating staiuJards. EPA did not evaluate
foil processing operations nor identify
BDT. Foil proces.ins ~ therefore
excluded from coverage under the coil
coating standards. EPA has. therefore.
modified the definition of "coil coating"
to exclude operations that process only
metal with a thickness less than 0.152
mm (0.006 in.). This cutoff point is based
on the formal definition of "Coil
products.. that ~ used by the aluminum
industry and that was communicated to
EPA by the Aluminum Association and
verified by a major producer of Coil
products. EPA could find no basis Cor
selectina 0.178 mm (0.007 in.) as a point
oC differentiation u augested by the
commenter. The comment regarding
operations covered by the coil coating
standards that are also covered by the
can coating standards reflects a
-------
49610
Federal Register I VoL 41, No. 211 I Monday. November 1. 1982 I Rules and Regulations
misinterpretation of the coverage of the
standards. Coil coating of can stock is
:overed by the coil coating standards
but Is excluded from coverage by the
can surface coating standards.
One public hearing participant
commented that affected facilities
where waterborne coatings are used for
Ii significant portion of the time. but
where solvent-borne coatings are also
used. should be allowed to meet the
waterborne emission limit when
waterborne coatings are used and the .
emission limit for solvent-borne coatings
and a control device for the remainder
of their coating operations. This method
of compliance was not allowed by the
proposed standards.
The few coil coating Unel that are the
basis for the comment use waterborne
coatings for 80 to 90 percent of their
coating operations and solvent-borne
coatings for the remainder of the time.
Incinerators for these lines are designed
for the operation only when solvent-
borne coatings are used and do not have
heat recovery facilities. Where such
incinerators are used to reduce
emissions from waterborne coating&.
previoua EPA analyses indicate that
enersy costs are very high because of
the required uae of . large quantity of
supplemental fuel and that emission
reductions are small because of the low
VOC concentration in the exhaust
stream. The costs per unit of emission
reduction achieved become exorbitant
under these circumstances.
Consequently. a procedure was added to
the promulgated standards by which coil
coaters can calculate an emission limit
each month based on the relative
amounts of coatings used with and
without the emission control device in
operation. Operators can then comply
with the calculated VOC emission limit.
which will have a value between 0.14 (or
a 9O-percent emission reduction) and
0.28 kgl I of coating solids applied. by
the combination of waterborne coatings
and solvent-bome coatings with a
capture system and control device.
Two approaches were considered for
this pro\;sion. Under the first approach
(the one incorporated). owners or
operators compute an affected facility's .
monthly emission limit. weighted
according to the coating solids applied
with each control technology, and then
compute actual monthly emissions to
determine compliance. Under tht! second
approach. each affected facility would
be required to achieve compliance with
the emission limit for low VOC-content
coatings (0.28 kgl I of coating solids
applied) during the portion of the month
when these coatings are used. and.
would be required to achieve'
compliance with the emission limit for
higher VOC-cantent coatings and a
control device (0.14 kg! I of coating
solids applied. or a 9O-percent emission
reduction) for the portion of the month
when this system is uaed.
The second approach has a
disadvantage relative to the first one In
that the averaging time over which
compliance must be demonstrated may
range from 1 day (or les8) to a calendu
month (-30 days). The established
emission limits are based on a calendar
month averaging time to allow owners
or operators the flexibility of using
coatings with . wide range of VOC.
content, which is very common In the
industry. and still achieve compliance
on a monthly basis. If the averaging time
is reduced to less than a calendar
month, the data may not support the
emission limitl now specified. In view of
this disadvantage. the first approach
was incorporated into the standards.
The number of installations to which
this provision applies is quite small. but
the provision was determined necessary
to allow particular installations to ~
continue their normal operating
patterns.
Łminion Control Technology
One public bearing participant and
one commenter stated that the emission
limit for low VOC-content coatings
contained In the proposed standards.
0.28 kg! I of coating solids applied. is too
stringent and would stifle research and
development activities in low-solvent
technology. It was further stated that the
emission limit in the proposed standards
was baaed mainly on coatings applied to
architectural and building products and
that the technolo@Y was not
demonstrated for all applications.
Particular reference was made to the
coating of can-end stock as requiring a
separate emission limit for low-solvent
technology.
EPA believes that the data obtained
during the background study adequately
demonstrate the availability of
waterborne coatings that will meet the
proposed emiuiOD limits for most
applications. EPA did not Identify any
low VOC-content coatings applicable
for coil coa tin8 can-end stock and does
not know of any now in use. The coil
coating lines identified during the
background study that coat can-end
stock all use solvent-bome coatings. In
recent disCU8lions, several coating
manufacturers stated that they are now
workinS on the development of
waterborne coatings for can-end stock
and that the operating requirements for
this application pose difficult problems
in reducing the VOC content of the
coatings. Reasons cited for these
168
problems include the limitations
established by the U.s. Food and Dn1s
Administration on the ingredientl that
can be used in such coatings and the
severe stress that the coatings must
withstand during the can-end forming
process.
Some coating manufacturers have
indicated that coatings for can-end stock
with a VOC content in the range of 0.4
to 0.5 kg! I of coating solida may become
available within the next few years, but
they do not expect the levels of VOC
content to be much below this range.
Emissions from such coatings would be
substantially greater than emissions
from oth,r coil coating operations that
use either low VOCcontent coatings or
higher VOC-content coatings and .
incineration. .
Because the use of higher VOC~
content coatings with a control device
has been determined to be technically
and economically feasible and not
exorbitantly'costly. EPA has not
established a separate emission limit for
coil coating of can-end stock.
One commenter suggested that,
instead of placing stringent emission
limits on coil coaten. EPA should
require other metal surface coating
operations to chan&e to the use 01
precoated coil as a more
environmentally favorable process.
EPA has identified BDT (considerinl
cost. other health and environmental
effects. and energy requirements) for
each metal surface coating operatioa
and has based the standarda for each
operation on that technology. The
Agency belie,ves that this procedure Is
consistent with the provisions of Section
111 of the Clean Air Act. Thi8 comment
addresses other surface coating NSPS's
and does not question or cast any doubt
on the appropriateness of the coil
coating NSPS; therefore. no changes
have been made as a result of this
comment.
One commenter suggested that the
proposed standards incorrectly
emphasize the installation of
incinerators over the use of low-solvent
technology and stated that EPA did not
consider low-solvent technology in the
development of the standards. The
commenter further stated that the
energy analysis was flawed by Incorrect
altSUInptions related to coater room
exhausts.
These comments were originally
submitted at the NAPCTAC meeting in
June. 1980 and were resubmitted along -
with additional comments relating to the
proposed stand!!rds. Subsequent to the
NAPCTAC meeting and prior to
proposal EPA made changes to the
standards in response to these
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 41. No. 211 I Monday. November 1. 1982 I Rules and Regulations
49611
comments. Several additional regulatory
alternative. were evaluated. aDd
separate provisions were added to the-
standards relating to the ase of low-
solvent technology. As proposed. .the
standards allow compliance by either
low-solvent technolasy or Incineration.
The comment regarding consideration of
low-solvent technology is therefore- not
applicable. Changes were also made to
the provisions relating to coater rooms.
A. a result. the coater room exhaust is
no longer required to enter the oven or
control device. The energy-related
comment referring to the coater room
exhaust requirement also no longer
applies. EPA therefore believes that an
adequate response has been made to
these comments and that they do Qot
pertain to the proposed standards.
Environmental Impact
One commenter stated that the draft
EIS In the proposal BID may understate
final emission levela by a factor of 2
because Incinerators are only capable of
achieving a !JO.percent reduction In VOC
emiaaiona rather than the 95-percent
reduction assumed in the development
of the draft EIS.
EPA believes that the emission test
data presented in the proposal BID
adequately demonstrate the ability of
incinerators to reduce emissiona by 95
percent when operated at a temperature
of 7608 C (1.4CXr F) or more. This
'conclusion is based aD emission testa at
four planta where the incinerators were
operated at 7808 C (1.~ F) or greater
and that achieved an emission reduction
of 95 percent or greater and on tests at a
fifth plant where an emission reduction
of 95 percent or more wu achieved at
temperatures below 7808 C (1.~ F).
These data are itemized in Chapter 4 of
the proposal BID.
Legal ConsideratiollJl
Cue commenter stated that EPA'. raw
data base for the proposed standards is
inadequate and wu not hued on
Reference Method 25 testiq.
The standards are baaed on the
Reference Method 25 test conducted by
EPA durins the background .tudy. This
test showed a 95-percent reduction
aClOSs the incinerator at a temperature
of 7608 C (1.4008 F)-During that test. a
continuous Dame ionization detector
(FJD) was also uHd to mea8Ure VOC
concentration in the incinerator outlet.
The FJD measurements consistently
showed an emission reduction of
approximately 99 percent at 7&Cr C
(t,4CXr F). There are other test data
available that were obtained With an
FJD. In aD .these tests where the
incinerator was operated at 7&Cr C
1],400. F) or greater. the FID data
conaistentJy show an emission reduction
of approximately 99 percent. These
other-data reinforce the validity of
selecting 9S percent as the standard
based on Reference Method 25
measurements.
Test Methods and Monitoring .
One commenter believes that
Reference Method 25 is inappropriate as
the only method for compliance testing
because it is virtuaUy unavailable to any
source outside the Loa Angeles area.
where the air poDution control district
owns the equipment and performs the
tests. or outside the service area of a
single commercial laboratory in the
Midwest capable of carrying outthe
technique.
There are at least five commercial
laboratories in the Midwest and
Northeast that are capable of performing
compliance testa using Reference
Method Z5. Most of these laboratories
are capable of supplying testing services
to any region of the country.
One commenter stated that Reference
Method 25 is hishly laboratory oriented
and requires extensive capital
investment if individual sources must
prepare to carry out the testing
procedure. This commenter further
stated that Reference Method 25 is
subject to criticism for potential bias;
that no suppliers exist for an instrument
to handle analyses of Reference Method
25 test samples; and that. while one u.s. .
company has offered an instrument for
sale. it has not performed reliably.
At lealt one company has already
built a prototype instrument. which haa
functioned reliably as the nonmethane
organic analyzer described in Reference
Method 25. In addition. there are now a
number of coMmercial laboratories
capable of supplying this service.
One commenter wu partiC1: ~ . ::~
concerned with the inability of
Reference Method 25 to account for the
bias that can be introduced by
particulate matter. such u a Oake of
paint or . droplet of condensed
hydrocarbon.
Althoush orpnic particuiate matter
could be a potential problem if it were
collected in the Reference Method 25
samp1lns train. this can be easily
prevented by incIudiq a filter in the
sample train upstream of the cold traps.
Using a filter is an option that is
permitted in Method 25.
One commenter believes that
alternative test procedures are available
by which direct meuurement can be
made of total gaseous organic
compounda with an FID. Tbia method
has adequately demonstrated the ability
to monitor emissions on a real-time
basia-an ability particularly important
169
for cyclic processes or those that do liot
emit a uniform level of pollutants. Th"
commenter. therefore. urged that the
Agency consider substituting 8 more
suitable method or. at least. providing
for one or more.alternative methods.
The commenter offered to provide
documentation and detail of the method
considered superior. and practical.
EPA is presently developing a
procedure using a Dame ionization
analyzer that may be used as an
alternative method in certain cases. "
will be permitted as an alternative
procedure for determining the efficiency
of control devices on coating operations
if the analyzer is calibrated with the
solvent material used in the coating
process. This procedure will be
available for use as an alternative
procedure a8 soon as it is published in
the Federal Register In its fmal form and
the necessary changes have been made
In the appropriate regulatiOns.
In the meantime. one can apply under
160.8(b) for alternative method status.
AU that is required is that one submit 8
detailed written procedure for the
candidate method and data comparing
the candidate method and the reference
method.
A comment received durins the
development of another surface coating
standard questioned the relationship of
the proposed standards and the uae of
Reference Method 24 for determining
compliance. The commenter stated that
the proposed .tandam should include a
"cushion" that would allow for
differences in test results cauaed by
variationa in the three experimentally
determined parameters ueed to calculate
VOC content of coatings.
Upon evaluation. EPA determined that
this comment 18 equally applicable to
the coil coating-regulation.
EPA recognizes the potential
variabUity in the results when Reference
Method 24 is used to analyze water-
based coatings. The method itself
contains a procedure to account for this
variability. The promulgated standards
require that. when Reference Method 24
resulta are ueed to determine
compliance. they be adjusted as
described in Section 4.4 of Reference
Method 24. This adjustment applies only
to waterborne coatinp.
If the actual VOC level of a
waterborne coating is at or below the
standard. there is lesl than 1 chance in
10.000 that the Reference Method 24
adjusted results will show the VQC
levels to be above the standard.
One commenter challenged the use of
the terms "total enclosure" and "total
capture of VOC emissions" in the
proposed test procedure for incinerators.
-------
49612
Federal Register / VoL 47. No. 211 / Monday. November 1. 1982 I Rules and Regulations
_III
stating that there is no such thing as
total enclosure aDd total capture.
EPA agrees that. taken literally. the
terms "total enclosure" and "total
capture of VOC emissions" describe
conditions that are extremely difficult to
achieve. Although these terms were
used in a practical engineering sense. a
literal interpretation could lead to both
compliance and enforcement difficulties.
In view of this possibility, EPA has
changed the wording of the test
procedure to eliminate the two terms
and has replaced them with a
requirement that coating station
enclosures be maintained at a negative
pressure to achieve good capture of
VOC emissions.
Docket
The docket 1s aD organized and
complete file of all the information
considered by EPA in the development
of this rulemaking. The docket is a
dynamic file, since material is added
throughout the rulemaking development
The docketing system is intended to
allow members of the public and
industries involved to identify and
locate documents readily so that they
can effectively participate in the
rulemaking procell. Along with the
statement of basi. and purpose "Of the
proposed and promulgated standardl
and EPA's responses to significant
comments. the contents of the docket
will serve as the record in case of
judicial review (Section 301{d){7)(A)).
MisceUaneoul
The effective date of t:hia regulation iI
November 1. 1982. Section U1 of the
Clean Air Act provides that mndarda of
performance or revisions thereof
become effective upon promulgation and
apply to affected facilities, construction
or modification of which wal
commenced after the date of proposal
Uanuary 5, 1981).
As prescribed by Section 111.
establishment of standards was
preceded by the Administrator'.
determination (40 CFR 60.18, 44 FR
49222. dated August 21. 1979) that these
sources contribute significantly to air
pollution that may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare. In accordance with Section 117
of the Act. publication of these
promulgated standards was preceded by
consultation with appropriate advisory
committees. independent 8'Cperts, and
Federal departments and agencies.
The rulemaldng process that
implements performance standards
ensures adequate technical review and.
promotes participation of
representatives of the industry being
considered for regulation. government.
and the public affected by ~t
industry'. emissioI!!L The resultant
regulation represents a balance in wlUclJ
Government resources are applied in a
well-publicized national forum to reach
a decision on a pollution emission level
that allows for a dynamic economy and
a healthful environment.
This regulation will be reviewed 4
yean from the date of promulgation a.
required by the Clean Air Act. This .
review will include an as.essment of
such facton 8S the need fot in~atioa
with other programs, the existence of
alternative methods. enforceability,
improvements in emission control
technology, and reporting requirements.
The reporting requirements in thd
regulation will be reviewed as required
under EPA's sunset policy for reporting
requirements in regulations.
Section 317 of the Clean Air Ad
require. the Ac1mini.trator to prepare an
economic impact uaessment for any
new source standard of performance
promulgated under Section l11(b) of die
Act. An economic impact assessment
was prepared for this rqalation and for
other regulatory alternatives. All
aspectl of the assessment were
considered in the formulation ohhe
standards to ensure that cost wu
carefully considered in determining
BDT. The economic impact assessment
is included in the BID for the proposed
standard8.
In addition to conducting an economic
impact analysis. EPA examined the
emission reduction and annualized
cosa--expresaed in dollars per ton of
pollutant removed per year-for three
level. of control in typical plants. The
three lena of control are an overall
emiSlion reduction of 64 percent. as
recommended by the CTG; an overall
emission reduction of 85 percent, as
specified in many existing SlP"s; and an
overall emission reduction of 90 percent.
as contained in the NSPS. This
examination Ihowed that an 85-percent
level of control reduces emissions by
174 Mg (192 tou) per year relative to the
CTG recommendation and increases
annualized cottl by S982/Mg ($890/ton).
It also showed that the incremental
emission reduction achieved by
increasing the control level from 85 to 90
percent il41 Mg (45 tonal per year at an
annualized co.t of S868/Mg (S609 ton).
These annualized COlti per ton of
pollutant removed are comparable to
costs and aS80ciated emission.
reductions in other industries that
control VOC emissions.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980
(Pub. L. 95-511) requires EPA to submit
to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) certain public reportingl
recordkeeping requirement. before
170
proposal The reporUng/recordkeepm,
requirementa a880ciated with this
standard bave been submitted to OMB
for approval and have been assigned
Control No. 2OOO-06EIO.
Under Exec;utive Order 1%291. EPA
must judge whethe!' a regulation is
"major" and therefore subject to the
requirement of a regulatory impact
analysis. Thi8 regulation iI not major
because it would result in none of the
adverse economic effecta set forth in
Section 1 of the Order a. growids for
finding a regulation to be major. The
industry wide annualized costa in the
fifth year after the standardl would go
into effect would be $5.4 million. much
less than the $100 million established as
the fint criterion for a major regulation
in the Order. The estimated price
increase of less than 3 percent
associated with the proposed standards
would not be considered. "major
increase in costs or prices" specified II
the second criterion in the Order. The
economic analysil of the proposed
standards' effects on the industry did
not indicate any significant adverse
effects on competition. investment,
productivity. employment, Innovation. or
the ability of U.S. firms to compete with
foreign firmI (the third criterion in thl'!
Order).
ThiI regulation was IUbmitted to
OMB for review as required by
Executive Order 12Z91. Any comment.
from OMS to EPA and any EPA
response to those commenta are
available for public inspection in the
docket referenced in the addreSl section
of this preamble.
Lilt 01 Subjects ill 40 CFR Part lID
Air pollution controL Aluminum.
Ammonium sulfate plants. Cement
industry, CoaL Copper. Electric power
plants. Glass and glass products. Grains.
Intergovernmental relations. Iron. Lead.
Metals. Motor vehicles, Nitric acid
plants. Paper and paper products
industry, Petroleum. Phosphate. Sewage
disposal. Steel, Sulfuric acid plants.
Waste treatment and dispo8al. Zinc.
Dated: October 20, 198Z.
AIme M. Ganucb,
Administrator.
PART 6O-{AMENDED]
40 CFR Part 60 is amended by addins
a new Subpart 'IT a. follows:
SUbpart TT -st8nd8r.:t8 of PerfonMIIC8 for
Metal ColI ~ CoatIng
See:.
6O.i60 Applicability aad desipatioa of
aIfected facility.
60.461 Definitions.
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 47. No. 211 I Monday. November 1. 1982 I Rules and Regulations
49613
Sec.
60.462 Standard8 for volatile organic
compounda. .'.
60.463 Perfomance test and compliance
provision..
60.464 Monitorins of emissions and
operationa.
60.465 Reportin8 and recordkeepma
. requirements.
60.486 Test methods and procedures.
Authority: Sections 111 and 301(a) of the
Clean Air Act. as amended (42 U.S.C. 7411.
7601(a)). and additional authority as noted
below.
Subpart TT -Standards of
Performance for Metal Coli Surface
C~tlng
110.480 AppllcablUty and designation of
affected fadUty.
(a) The provisions of this subpart
apply to the following affected facilities
in a metal coil surface coating operation:
each prime coat operation. each finish
coat operation. and each prime and
finish coat operation combined when
the finish coat is applied wet on wet
over the prime coat and both coatings
are cured simultaneously.
(b) This subpart applies to any facility
identified in paragraph (a) of this section
that commences construction,
modification, or reconstruction after
January 5, 1981. -
160.461 DefInition&.
(a) All terms used in this subpart not
defined below are given the same
meaning as in the Act or in Subpart A of
this part.
"Coating" means any organic material
that is applied to the surface of metal
coil.
"Coating application station" means
that portioD' of the metal coilll\irface
. coating operation where the coating il
applied to the surface of the metal coil.
Included al part of the coating
application station is the flashoff area
between the coating application station
and the curing oven.
"Curing oven" means the device that
uses heat or radiation to dry Of cure the
coating applied to the metal coil.
"Finish coat operation" means the
coating application station. curing oven,
and quench station used to apply and
dry or cure the final coating(s) on the
surface of the metal coiL Where only a
single coating is applied to the metal
coil. that coating is considered a finish
coat.
"Metal coil surface coating operation"
means the application system used to
apply an organic coating to the surface
of any continuous metal strip with
thickness of 0.15 millimeter (mm) (0.006
in.) or more that is packaged in a roll or
coil.
"Prime coat operation" means the
coating application station. curing oven,
and quench station used to apply and
dry or cure the initial coating(s) on the
surface of the metal coil.
"Quench station" means that portion
of the metal coil surface coating
operation where the coated metal coil is
cooled. usually by a water spray. after
baking or curing.
"VOC content" means the quantity. in
kilograms per liter of coating solids. of
volatile organic compounds (VQCs) in a
coa ting.
(b) All symbols used In this subpart
not defined below are given the same
meaning as in the Act and in Subpart A
of this part.
C..= the VOC concentration In each 8as
stream leaving the control de\ice and
entering the atmosphere (parts per
million by volume. 81 carbon).
c.= the VOC concentration on each gas
stream entenna the control device (parts
per million by volume. al carbon).
c,= the VOC concentration in each 8al .
steam emitted directly to the atmosphere
(parts per milUon by volume. al carbon).
D.= denaity of each coating. a. received
(kilograml per liter).
D. = density of each VOC-eolvent added to
coatinp (1d1cJsrama per liter).
D.= density of VOC.lolvent recovered by an
emission control device (kilograms per
liter).
E= VOC deltruction efficiency of the control
device (fraction).
F= the proportion of total voes emitted by
an affected facility that enters the control
device (fraction).
G= volume-weighted average ma88 of voe.
in coatinp consumed In a caJendar
month per unit volume of coatins solida
appUed (ldlograms per liter).
1..= the volume of each coating C0118umtid. aI
received (Utan).
L..= the "olume of each VOC-solvent added
to coatinp (Uteri).
1..= the volume ofVOClOlvent recovered by
an emiuion control device (Uters).
1..= the volume of coatms solids CO;O-"1J~ed
(liters).
M.= the mall ofVOC-solvent added to
coatlnp (kilograms).
M.= the ma.s of VOC's In coatinp
CODaumed. al received (1ciIolJl'BDl8).
~= the ms88 of VOC'. recovered by an
emil8ion control device (ldlograma).
N = the volume-weiahted average mass of
VOC emissiona to the atmosphere per
unit volume of coating solids applied
(kilograms per liter).
Q..= the volumetric now rate of each 8al
stream leaving the control device and
entenna the atmosphere (dry standard
cubic metan per hour).
Qb = the volumetric flow rate of eac:h 8a&
stream entering the control device (dry
standard cubic meters per hourI.
Q,= the volumetric now rate of each gas
steam emitted dil'8Ctly to the atmosphere
(dry Itandard cubic meters per hour).
R = the overaU VOC eminion reduction
achieved for an affected facility
(fraction).
171
S= the calculated monthly allowable
emission limit (kilograms of VOC per
liter of coatin8 lolids app!ied).
V.= the proportion oholids in each coating.
al received (fraction by volume).
Wo= the proportion of voes in each
coatma. as received (fraction by weight).
f 60.482 Standard. for volatile organic
compounds.
(a] On and after the date on which
160.8 requires a performance test to be
completed. each owner or operator
subject to this subpart shall not cause to
be discharged into the atmosphere more
than:
(1) 0.28 kilogram VOC per liter (kg
VOC/I) of coating solids applied for
each calendar month for each affected
facility that does not use an emission
control device(s); or
(2) 0.14 kg VOC/I of coating solids
applied for each calendar month for
each affected facility that continuously
uses an emission control device(s)
operated at the mOlt recently
demonstreted overall efficiency; or
(3) 10 percent of the VOC's applied for
each calendar month (90 percent
emission reduction) for each affected
facility that continuously uses an
emission control device(s) operated at
the most recently demonstrated overall
efficiency; 01'
(4) a value between 0.14 (or a 90-
percent emission reduction) and 0.28 kg
VOC/I of coating solids applied for each
calendar month for each affected facilitv
that intermittently uses an emission'
control device operated at the most
recently demonstrated overall
efficiency.
I 60.483 Perform8nce test end compDance
provisions.
(a) Sections 80.8 (d) and (f) do not
apply to the performance test.
(b) The owner or operator of an
affected facility shall conduct an Initial
performance test as required UDder
160.8(a) and thereafter a performance
. test for each calendar month for each
affected facility according to the
procedures in this section.
(c) The owner or operator shall use
the following procedures for determining
monthly volume-weighted average
emissions of VOC's in kg/I of coating
solids applied.
(1) An owner or operator shall use the
following procedures for each affected
facility that does not use a capture
system and control device to comply
with the emission limit specified UDder
160.462(a)(1). The owner or operator
shall determine the composition of the
coatings by formulation data supplied
by the manufacturer of the coating or by
an analysis of each coating. as receivPd
-------
49614
Federal Register I VoL 47. No. 211 I Monday. November 1. 1982 I Rules and Regulations
==
using Reference Method 24. The
Administrator may require the owner or
tlperator who uses formulation data
supplied by the manufacturer of the
coatings to determine the VOC content-
of coalings using Reference Method 24
or an equivalent or alternative method.
The owner or operator shall determine
the volume of coating and the mass of
VOC-solvent added to coatings from
company records on a monthly basis. If
a common coating distribution system
serves more than one affected facility or
serves both affected and existing
facilities. the owner or operator shall
estimate the volume of coating used at
each affected facility by using the
average dry weight of coating and the
surface area coated by each affected
and existing facility or by other
procedures acceptable to the
Administrator.
"(i) Calculate the volume-weighted
average of the total mass of Voc.
consumed per unit volume of coating
solids applied during each calendar
month for each affected facility. except
as provided under 160.463(c)(l)(iv). The
weighted average of the total mass of
VOC'. used per unit volume of coating
solids applied each calendar month ia
determined by the followins proceduies.
(A) Calculate the mass of VOC's used
(Mo+Md) during each calendar month
for each affected facility by the
following equation:
M.+M.- t L..DaW.+ ~ ~.
1-\ I-I
(1:L.t,Ddi will be 0 if no VOC solvent iI
added to the coatings. as received)
where
n is the number of dilferent coatings used
during the calendar month. and
m is the number of ~_t VOC solvent8
added to coatinp UMd durin8 the
calendar Mcmth.
(B) Calculate the total volume of
coating solids used {LJ in each calendar
month for each affected facility by the
following equatiOD:
1.- f V.J-
I-I
wb.re
n is the number of different coatings
used during the calendar month.
(C) Calculate the votume-weighLed
a verage mass of VOC's used per unit
volume of coating solids applied (G)
during the calendar month for each
affected facility by the following
equation:
M.+M.
G=
L.
(ii) Calculate the volume-weighted
average of VOC emissions to the
atmosphere (N) during the calendar
month for each affected facility by the
following equa~on:
N=G
(Ui) Where the volume-weighted
average mass of VOC's discharged to
the atmosphere per unit volume of
coatins solids applied (N) is equal to or
less than Q.28 kg/ I. the affected facility
is in compliance.
(iv) If each individual coating used by
an affected facility ha a VOC coatent.
as received. that is equ~l to or lesl than
0.28 kg/l of coating solids. the affected
facility is iD compliance provided no
VOC's are added to the coatings durins
distribution Of application. .
(2) A1J. owner or operator shall nse the
following procedures for each affected
facility that continuously uses a capture
system and a control device that
destroys VO~s (e.g.. incinerator) to
comply with the emissiou limit specified
under I eo.462(a) (2) or (3).
(i) Determine the overall reduction
efficiency (RJ for the capture system and
control device.
For the initial performance test. the
overall reduction efficiency (R) shall be
determined as prescribed in paragrapha
(c)(2)(ij (A). (8). and (C) of this section.
In subsequent months, the owner or
operat~r may use the most recently
determmed overall reduction efficiency
(R) for the performance test, providina
control device and capture system
operating conditions have not changed.
The procedure iD paragraphs (c)(2)(i)
(A). (8). and (C) of thiI section. shall be
repeated when directed by the .
Administrator or when the owner or
operator elects to operate the control
device or capture system at conditioaa
different from the initial performance
tesL .
(A) DetermiDe the fraction (F) of total
VOC'. emitted by an affected facility
that enlen the control device using the
following equatiOD:
I
Ic..Q..
F= 1-1
/
! ~Q..+ f CeQ.
t-a 1.-1
where
I is the number of gal 1Ueam8 entering the
control derice. uxI
172
p Is the number or gas streaMS emitted
directly to the atmosphere.
(B) Determine the destructioa
efficiency of the control device (EJ using
values of the volumetric flow rate of
each of the gas streams and the VOC
content (as carbon) of each of the gas
streams in and out of the device by the
following equation: .
. .
I Q..c:. - I Q..c..
E= 1-1 I-I
.
I Q-.c..
I-I
where.
n ia the number 01 go 8trnma 8Dt8Iiaa II.
control device. uxI .
m.la the number of gal 1t1'88n18 leams tit.
control device aod enterm, the
. tmosphere.
The owner Or operatot' of the affected
facility shall construct the VOC
emission reduction system so that an
volumetric now rata and total VQC.
emissions can be accurately determined
by the applicable tat methods and
procedures specified iD I 60.468. The
owner or operator of the affected facility
shall construct a temporary elidosure
around the c:oatina applicator and
aashoff area durina the performance test
for the purpose of evaluatinJ the capture
efficiency of the system. The enclosure
must be maiJ;1tained at a negati1le
pressure to ensure that all VOC
emissions are measurable. If .
permanent enclosure existl in the
affected facility prior to the performance
test and the Administrator is satisfied
that the enclosure ia adequately
containing VOC em.iasiona. no
additional enclosure i8 required for the
perforuuLncetesL
(q Determine overaJl reduction
efficiency (R) usms the followinl
equation:
R=EF
If the overall reduction eflicieDcy (R) Is
equal to or greater than Q.9O, the
affected faciljty is in complianm and no
further com~tatioaa are necel8alJ.1f
the overall reduction efficiency (R) is
le51 than 0.90. the average total VOC
emissions to the atmosphere per anit
volume of coating solids applied (N)
shall be computed as follows.
Oi) Calculate the volume-weighted
av~rage of the total mass of V0C'8 per
umt volume of coating solids applied (G)
during each cafendar month for each
-------
Federal Repster I Vol. 47. No. 211 I Monday. November 1. 1982 I Rules and Rqu1ations
49615
affected facility II8iDS equations ill
parasrapbs (c)(l)(i) (A). (HI. and (C) of
this sectio&L
(iii) (>'-1... tbe voI8Je.weisbted
1I„er8P af"VOC tmi8F- to the
"4._..,~(B)""''''~. L
......" &be 1DIIDwi8a-v"'"
N-G (1-81
(iv) If the Y01ume-....~ avet.
mus of VOC-a emitted to the
atmosphere for each caJeadar month (Nt
i8 - tile or eqa8 fD&14 kwll of
CD8tiIII.&d8~ ... affecterl
CaciIftJ is iD . ._~... Jrada maathJy
"'-"'tiG8 is a ~ ~
PI All cnmer ar ")'"MAl 8ball ase the
"""4 procedun far neb affected
f'8:iIitJ tb8t WIe8 . CDIdrDl deW:e that
I8IUV8fS the vael (q.. c:arboII
adiaIber) to comply with die applicable
-.....limit specified umter
18I1412(a) (2) or (3).
(i) Calculate the totalmaa of V(Je'1
CO"S\lmed ŁM.+M..J darias each
caleadar IDCIIIth for ach .Ir..t.tc.d faci:Iity
usiDS equatiaa (1).
(ii) Calculate tie total..... aI VOC's
recowered (MJ cIuriDa..lt # ..a-.,
IIUIIdb UIiDa !be rou.-.~'Oft'
M,-I.D,
(Ui) CaJcaIate the....n....'" ,..; ""'
ef6cienq of the c:aatral c!rrice (HJ far
eech caladar maath - each affeded
facility usiDa the faIIawiaa ~1iGIL
R= M,.
M.+'"
If cbe 0.- ~ Mli,,"-OC)' (8) i8
equal to ar.-- tban o.so. die
~f8cifi9 .iR~~--
bther~are"'" ..~. If the
CMnll.-1 ~ti ~ effic:ieaq (Il) is""
dJa o.a tile .L .... IaI8i Vex: .
_.:..' ..... to'" .....~~. P81'.at
vaIa8 of CD8Iia8 8DIida 8pptied (NJ
.... be ~'I'„W .. faIIow8.
(w) r--....&.te die taI8I YObaae-
caatiq'" .~)o.-...-A (1.1... tile
v-'--.. 1 --v~ &---- of the tatal
maaof VOC"a per 1IIIit 90IwDe of
coatiq solida applied (GJ dariD8 nda
1!JII-f-1IIGDIh far eecb .~ecI faciIit.r
IIIiDs eqaatic8a is .......... (c)(1)(i)
(BJ and (Q of tIda ~
(v) r""te IDe ...-a-'-..i 1M
IVInp.... olVOC-s emitted to tile
atm...,~ "Car each -'-tLarlllDlltla
tar eadI.ffe..'..t~ ....~
(IJ,
(\oi) If the weighted average mass of
VOCa emitted to the atmosphere for
each ~I....I.... month (l\') i8 less tPan or
eqU81... cu. k8I J of coating IG1ic&
applied. die affected facility ia ill
.~ ~ - E8dI .-AId, CIIIcu1atia8 .
a ........11... .... test.
(4) All owner or operator shall use the
foUowiDg procedures for each affected
facility that iDtennittently uses'a capture
system and . control cfeorice to comply
with the emission limit apec:ified in
! 6O.482(a)(4).
(i) Calcuiate the total volume of
coatlnf solids apptied without the
control device in operation (I..) durias
each calendar month far each affected
facility WIiDg the foDowias eqatioa:
L.... t VJ.
.-.
where
n i. the......... 01 CII8tiap -- cI8ria8 the
caI8adar IIDdb wid8&& die c:aatrai
d8vice iD aperatiaD.
(u) Calculate the total vaIume of.
coatiDg saIids applied with the cantrol
device in operatioD (I.J dlll'iDa each
calendar maatb far eacb 8ffed8d facility
using the fairowiq eqaatiGa:
-
L.=- I V.J...
.-.
wb8e
III ia die DDJDbIr of CD8tin88 u88d d8I:ia8 tt.
c:aIead8r..... willa dleC888nl& --
ia-.,.--- A&... ..
(Ui) <;aJcuIate the D1888 of VOC'. --
withoat tbe caatraI dmce ill operatiaD
CM..+M.J cIIariaa each c-1.-I-1DI8tb
for each a&cted facility U8iD8 the
followiq .....~
. .-
M..+"'-I~ I.AW..+~ LA
wb8e
D is the ....... '" ..... CD8IiDp .....
witba8t die CDBbaI derice iD op-.~
dmiaa the c:a1end8r IIIDDdI. 8Dd
m is the -- of diffeNat VfJC..8Dlwata
""'.CII8tiDp 18d witba8t - ,
C8IrDI..... iD r ........ tile
. . -*-
175
(iv) Calculate the volume-weighted
average of the total man of VOC's
consumed per unit volume of coating
solids applied without the control device
in operation (GII) during each calendar
IDOIdb fOF" affected facility using
the following equation:
G M..+M.
ft L.
(v) Calca.Late the IILU8 of voea used
with the control device in operation
CM..+M..J durina each calendar month
for each affected facility using the
following equatioa:
M..+M.= t I.,AW..+ f r..c.
'-I .-1
wheN
n is the ~ al diff8r8t coatDlp u88d
with tI8 aIIItnd dem:e ill aperatiOll
durms'" caleDdar -tb. aDd
m i. the IUIIIIber of difI'8r8It VOC-IOIveat8
added to CID8tiap U8iId with the CQDtraI
dnice ia apB8tiaD durina the calemlar
IIIODdL
(vi) r.slrnLat~ tile YOIume-weighted
avet'8p of die totalllUl8 of voel used
per unit wIame of caatiq solids applied
with the CDDtroI mmce in operation (Ge)
cfuriDa each c:al8ad8r IIIODtb far each
affected faci1itr... tile faIlowiq
equatiaa:
G,,= M..+M.
1.
(vii) Detemaiae... anra1I reduction
~;-.'/ 7 (II) far tile capture 8J8tem aDd
contral derice .... tbe proc:edun:t in
I 6OA83(c:)(ZJ(i) (A). (BJ. ad (C) or
11II14&1(c)pJ (iJ. (ii). ad (ill). wlUcb is
~
(vilil r~... lllewalu- weiPted
averaae of VQC -i........ to the
atm.~ '- .. (N) .... each ca1eadar
1IIGIdh .-=It..~ aM facility aeiq
the ~ ~ 1 '~ .
-------
=-
Federal Register I Vol. 47, No. 211 I Monday, November 1, 1982 I Rules and Regulations
49616
N c"L..+GcLocll-R}.
. L..+L..
lix) Calculate the emission limitls) for
each calendar -month for each affected
facility using the following equation:
0.28 1.,,,...0.1 G.I- 0.Z8 L..+0.14 L.
5- L.+L. or L,,,+L.. J
which is greater.
(x) If the volume-weighted average
mass of VOC's emitted to the
atmosphere for each calendar month (I'!)
is less than or equal to the calculated
emission limit (5) for the calendar
"BOJ1th, the affected facility is in
olPpliance. Each monthly calculation is
- performance test.
g 60.414 Mor.itor:o.II of emis8ions and
openItiOnL
(a) Where compliance with the
numerical limit specified in 160.462{a)
(1) or (2) is achieved through the use or
low VOC-conteDt coatings without the
use of emission control devices or
through the use of higher VOC-ccmtent
coatings in conjuDdion with emission
comroldevices, the owner or operator
shall compute and record the average
VOC content of coatings applied during
each calendar month for each affected
facility, accmdiDa to the equations
p.....ided- in S &0.483.
- (b rWhere compliaace with the Jimjt
'~sPecif1ea in 18O.482{a}(4) is achieved
through the intermittent use of emisaion
control devices, the owner or operator
shall compute and record for each
affected facility the average VOC
conlent of coatings applied during each
calendar month according to the
equations provided in I 60.463.
(c) If thermal incineration is used,
each owner or operator subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall install.
calibrate. operate, and maintain a
dmc:e that contPJuously records the
combustion ~ature of any effluent
gases incinerated to achieve compliance
with 160.462(a) (2). (3), or (4). This
device shall have an accuracy of z2.S-
01" ::t:0.15 percent of the temperature
beins measured expressed in degrees
Celsius, which is greater. Each OWDer or
operator shall also record all periods
(during actual coating operations) in
excess of 3 hours during which the
average temperature in any thermal
incinerator used to coatrol emi&aions
from an affected facility remain. II more
than 28- C [50- F) below the temperature
at whIch compliance with 160.462(a} (2),
(3), or (4) was demonstrated during the
most recent measurement of incinerator
efficiency required by t 60.8. The
records required by t 60.7 shall identify
each such occurrence and its duration. If
catalytic incineration is used, the owner
or operator shall instalL calibrate. .
operate, and maintain a device to
monitor and record continuously the gas
temperature both upstream and
downstream of the incinerator catalyst
bed. This device shall have an accuracy
of %2.S- Cor ::to.75 percent of the
temperature being measured expres!ed
in degrees Celsius. whichever is ~ater.
During coating operaUons, the owner or
operator shall record all periods in
excess of 3 hours where the average
difference between the temp~tum
upstream and downstream of the
incinerator catalyst bed remains below
80 percent of the temperature difference
at which compliance was demonstrated
during the most recent measurement of
incinerator efficiency or when the inlet
temperature falls more than 28~ C (50- F)
below the temperature at which
compliance with t 6O.482(a} (2), (3), or
(4) was demonstrated during the most
recent measurement of incinerator
efficiency required by I 60.8. The
records required by i 60.7 shall identify
each such occurrence and its duration.
~ 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42
U.s.c. 7414))
160.415 A8portIng and recOI("'~
requIt.......e.
(a) Where compliance with the
numerical limit specified in 160.482{a}
(1, (2), or (4) is achieved through the use
of low VOC-content coatings without
emissiou control devices or through the
use of higher VOCcontent coatings in
conjunction with emission control
devices, each owner or operator subject
to the provisions of this subpart shall
include in the initial compliance report
required by I 60.8 the weighted a""erage
of the VOC content of coatings used
during a period of one calendar month
for each affected facility. Where
compliance with I eo.462{a)(4) is
achieved through the intermittent use of
a control device, reports shall include
separate values of the weighted averase
VOC content of coatings used with and
without the control device In operation.
(b) Where compliance with t 6O.482(a}
(2). (3), or (4) is achieved through the use
of an emission control device that
destroys VOC's. each owner or operator
subject to the provisions of tIria subpart
174
shall include thefollowiD8 data in the
initial compliance report required by
i 60.8:
(1) The overall VOC destruction rallt
used to attain compliance with.
1 6O.462(a) (2), (3), or (4) and th
calculated emission limit used to attain
compliance with t 6O.462{aJ[oIJ; and
(2) The combustion tempera! lire of Ihlt
thermal incinerator or the gas
temperature, both upstream ad
downstream of the incinerator ~talysl
bed. used to attain compliance with
i 6O.462(a) (2), (3), or (4).
(c) Each owner or operator subject 10
the provisions of this subpart shall
maintain at the source, for a peiod of.1
least 2 years, records or all datil and
calculations used to determinenonthly
VOC emissions from each aHa ted
facility and to determine the ml'nthly
emission limit. where appUcabl..t, Whe,.
compliance is achieved through the use
of thermal incineration, each o't'neror
operator shall maintain, at the source.
daily record It or the incinerator
combustion temperature. If cata'.ytic
incineration is used, the owner i If
operator shall maintain at the S(,urce
daily records of the gal tempel'll lure,
both upstream and down.tream of the
incinerator catalyst bed.
~ 60."" Test method8 and ".......
(a) The reference methods in
Appendix A to this part, except IS
provided under t eo.8{b}. sball bit used -
to determine compliance with II OMJ2
as follows:
(1) Reference Method 2t, or cia..
provided by the formulator of the
coating for determining the VOC coatenl
of each coating as applied to the mrlace
of the metal coil. In the event of 8
dispute, Reference Method 24 shl.'n ~
the reference method. When vac
content of waterborne coattnp,
determined by Reference Method Z4. it
used to determine compliance of
affected facilities, tbe results of tt:e
Reference Method 24 analysillbln be
adjusted as described in Sectiaa 4.. of
Reference Method 24;
(2) Reference Method 2S, both for
mea61lrina the VOC c:oocMtratlcm ill
each gas stream entering and leeviq the
control device on each stack equiJ peel
with an emission control device &lid for
measuring the VOC concentraticm iD
each gas stream emitted ctirectIr tu the
atmosphere;
(3) Method 1 for sample and veIudtJ
traverses:
(4) Method 2 for velocity and
volumetric flow rate;
(5) Method 3 for gas analysis; ani
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 47, No. 211 I Monday. November 1. 1982 I Rules and Regulations
4961'
(6) Method 4 for stack gas moisture.
(b) For Method 24. the .coating sample
must be at least a I-liter sample taken at
a point where the sample will be
representative of the coating as a!'Plied
to the surface of the metal coil
(c) For Method 25. the samplins time
is to be at least 60 minutes. and the
minimum sample volume is to be at least
0.003 dry standard cubic meter (DSCM);
however. shorter sampling times or
smaller volumes. when necessitated by
process variables or other factors. may
be approved by the Administrator.
(d) The Administrator will approve
testing of representative stacks on a
. case-by-ca.e basis if the owneP or
operator can demonstrate to the
175
satisfaction of the Administrator that
testing of representative stacks yields
results comparable to those that would
be obtained by testing all stacks.
(Set:. 114 of the Cean Air Act as amended (42
U.S.c. 7414))
[FR Doc. - Filed 1~::IJ-.82; - """
IIIUJNG COOl ........
-------
176
-------
.
-----
..
un
_eEl
...
= -
===a.
~==-
. =5!!5 '"
a === ==
~A
-
- -
.-==== =-. ~
~=;a
'=U
p
177
Monday
November 8, 1982
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
Standards 01 Performance for New
Stationary Sources-Graphic Arts
IndustJT Publication Rotogravure Printing
-------
178
-------
S0644
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 216 / Monday. November a. 1982/ Rules and Regulations
EN~AONMENTALPROTEcnOH
AGENCY
40 CFA Part eo
(AD-fRL-207H )
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources-Graphlc Arts
Industry: publication Rotogravure
Printing
AQINCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMIWIY': Standards of performance for
publication rotogravure printing pres...
were proposed in the Federal Retist8
on October 28,1980 (45 FR 71538). Thia
action promulgates a standard of
perfonnance to limit emissions of
volatile organic compounds (VOC) from
new, modified. and reconstructed
publication rotogravure printing presses.
Reference Method 24A i. included with
thi. promulgation. The standard
implements Section 111 of the Clean Air
Act and i. based on the Administrator's
determination that the graphic uta
industry causes or contributes
significantly to air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health or welfare. The intended
effect of the standard is to require all
new, modified. and reconstructed
publication rotogravure printing presses
to control VOC emissions to the level
achievable through use of the best
demonstrated system of continuous
emillion reduction. con.idering co.ta.
nonm quality health. and
environmental and energy impacts.
EJIFICTIV8 DATI: November 8, 1982.
The incorporation by reference of the
ASTM Standard listed in the regulations
is approved by the Director of the
Federal Register as of November 8, 1982-
Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act. judicial review of this new
source performance standard is
available only by the filing of a petition
for review in the U.s. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit
within 60 dsys of today's publication of
this rule. Under Section 31O(b)(2} of the
Clean Air Act. the requirements that are
the subject of today's notice may not be
challenged later in civil or criminal
proceedings brought by EP A to enforce
these requirements.
ADDRESSES: Background Information
Documenl. The background information
document (BID).for the promulgated
standard may be obtained from the U.s.
EPA Library (MD-3S), Research Triangle
Park. North Carolina :m'11. telephone
number (919) 541-2177. PIe.. refer to
"Publication Rotogravure Printing-
Background Information for .
Promulgated Standards" (EPA-450!3-
80-031b). The BID contains (1) a
summary of all the public comments
made on the proposed standards and the
Administrator's response to the
comments. (2) a summary of the chanses
made to the regulation since proposal.
The final Environmental Impact
Statement. which summarizes the
impacts of the standards. is included in
"Publication Rotogravure Printing-.
Background Information for Proposed
Standards" (EPA-4.50!~a). The
environmental impacts have not
changed since proposal.
Docket A docket. number A-79-5O,
containing information considered by
EPA in development of the promulgated
standard. is available for public
inspection between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00
p-.ID.. Monday through Friday, at EPA's
Central Docket Section (A-130). West
Tower Lobby, Gallery 1, 401 M Street.
S.W.. Washington. D.C. 20480. A
reasonable fee may be charpd far
copying.
fOIl FURTHD INFORIlATI08f COW1'ACT:
Mr. Fred Porter. Section Chief.
Standards Development Branch.
Emiaion Standards and Engineering
Division ~t3). U.s. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research TrfantIe
Park. North Carolina 27711. telephone
(919) 541-5578.
""""""'AIIY ItIIPORIIATIOII:
OMS Control n~ber: 2fJOO..Gt62.
1'h8Shtndawi.
Standards of performance far new
sources established under Section 111 of
the Clean Air Act reflect:
. . . appUc:.atioa of the best tedmolop:al
system of coatUmous emission redaction
which (takins into coDlideratioa the coat of
ac:hieviDs such emiuioa reductioa. IUId any
nOD8ir quality health and environmental
Impact and energy requirements) the
Adminiatrator determiDe8 hu been
adequately demoaatrated [Section 111(a)(I)).
For convenience. this will be referred to
88 "best demonstrated tedmaIogy'" or
'1IDT."
The promulgated standard applies to
publication rotogravure production
presses far which construction.
reconstruction. or modification
. commenced after October 28. 1980.
Definition of the terms "modification"
and "reconstruction" are included in 40
CFR 60.14 and 60.15. Proof preaees are
not affected by the standard. Proof
presses are used only to cbeck the
quality of the imaae formation of newlt
etched or engraved printing cylindera
and do not print saleable itemL
179
VOC emissions from publication
rotogravure presses are limited to 16
percent of the total maH of VCC solvent
and water used at the press..
Compliance with the emission limit
must be demonstrated during a Ion,.
term performance tesL The performance
averaging period of each test is 30
consecutive calendar days instead of an
average of three runs as prescribed
under 40 CFR 60.8. Actual press
emissions and the average control
system performance are determined by
a solvent mass balance. The total mass
of recovered solvent is compared to the
totalmau of the solvent and water used
at the preaa.1f only solvent-bome are
used. performance may be determined
by . temperature! deuity-corrected
solvent volume balance. at the option of
the owner or operator. VOC content
data for solvent-bome inks and related
coatinp are obtained from the ink
manufacturer or determined by analysis
with Reference Method Z4A. VOC and
water content data for waterborne inks
and related coatings are obtained from
the ink manufacturer. EPA i. ant
promulgating a test method for analysis
of waterborne printing inks. The
calculated emiaaioa percentage can be
reported as rounded-off to the nearest
whole number.
The regulation includes compli~
provisions based 011 the use of soJvent-
borne ink systems with. solvent vapor
capture system and a fixed-bed carbon
adsorption! solvent recovery system for
VOC emisaion control Provisions for
compliance using waterborne inks have
been included in expectation of future
development of this 10. VOC emitting
printing tecJmique. Emiaion control
equipment is not e:cpeeted to be used
with waterborne ink systems. When
affected facilities are installed in plants
with existing facilities. the owner or
t ,era tar is allowed. to chooae among
several compliance options for
conducting performance tests.
After camp1etion of the performance
test. the owner ar operator is required to
monitor far proper operation and
maintenance. The performance
averaging period far monitoring is either
a calendar month 01' a 4 consecutive
week period. at the option of the owner
ar operator. Records of the amount of
solvent and water uaed. solvent
recovered. and the estimated emission
percentage for each performance
averaging period muat be maintained for
Z years. No periodic reporting of the
monthly monitorina results is required.
The emission limit can a1ao be met
tbrousb the .. of other control
techniques. Fluidized-bed carbon
adsorption/solvent recovery systema
-------
F6deral Register I Vol. 47. No. 216 I Monday, November 8. 1982 I Rules and Regulations
might be applied. but this method has
not been succesafully demonstrated in
this incW.strJ. Regenerative cryogenic
condensation/solvent recOve!y systems
are becoming feasible on a commercial
scale. but have not been tried in this
industry. Solvent destruction (i.e..
oxidation) control systems are used on
other similar services. but are not -
desirable or necessary in this industry
since the solvents used can be
recovered in suitable enough condition
to permit direct recycle to the presses.
Specific procedures for detennination of
compliance with solvent destruction aJ'9
not being promulgated since this control
technique is not expected to be used on
any new, modified. or reconstructed
press.
Summary of EDvironmentai. Eueru, aDd
Economic Impacts
'The environmental energy, and
economic impacts of the standard are
expressed as incremental differences
relative to a baseline level. A 75 percent
overall VOC reduction emciency, or 25
percent emission leveL was chosen as
the baseline for the impact analyses.
This baseline level corresponds to the
recommendation in EPA's control
techniques guideline (CTG) document.
"Control of Volatile Organic Emissions
from Exls~ Stationary Sourcn-
Volume vm: Graphic Arts-
Rotogravure and F1exography" (EPA-
4SO/Z-78-«J3 [CTG)). The states are
expected to use this document in
developing their revised State
Implementation Plans (SIP) for new and
existing publication rotogravure printing
facilities. If no NSPS were promulgated.
new and existing facilities would be
controlled to this baseline level by
virtue of SIPs. The impact analyses
compared impacts of new facilities
under SIP control (i.e.. in the absence of
a NSPS) with impacts under the
promulgated standard level of controL
These Impact analyses are based on the
use of fixed-bed carbon adsorption/
solvent recovery systems for control of
VOC emissions from both existing and
affected facilities. All existing faciliti..
Installed before October 1980 are
assumed to be controlled at the 75
percent baseline level.
The projected impacts are calculated
baaed on the expecLation that 15 percent
(85 percent overall control) of the total
VOC solvent used at affected facilities
will be emitted. Emissions are expected
to Increase to the 16 percent level (84
percent overall control) during only 1 or
2 months per year.
Compared to the baseline control
level, the standard will further reduce
VOC air pollutant emissions from
typical affected facilities by 13 percent
The standard will reduce the
Industrywide VOC emissions by about
7,900 megagrams per year In the year
1985. the fifth year after the applicable
date of the standard. This represents
about five percent more reduction of
industrywide emisaioDS than with
control at the baseline level. This
projection is based on the expktation of
7 percent annual real growth rate in this
industry.
Potential water pollution from a
facility controlled under the standards Is
13 percent greater than that from one
controlled at the baseline~. -
Projected nationwide discharges for
1985- will increase by about 32 million
liters above that for control at the
baseline level. In the year 1985.
dissolved organic solvents In the
nationwide effluent will potentially
amount to about 6 megagrams per year
more than for control 8t the baseline
level. This represents aboula five
percent Incremental increase. Some
treatment of this wastewater is
necessary. One very effective
demonstrated treatment method
involVes on-site hot air-stripping. The
stripped solvent vapOI'8 are directed
back to the carbon adsorber system for
recovery. The resultant solvent-free
water (less than 5 ppm) can be directly
recycled for process use within the
plant. This technique is effective
because the solvents used exhibit very
low miscibility with water. This
inexpensive solvent removal system
was included In cost analyses of the
model plant carbon adsorption control
systems. Two other treatment options
are discharge to a conventional
biological waste treatment system (e.g.,
activated sludge, trielde filter) and
liquid-phase carbon adsorption. Air-
stripping.. biological treatment and
liquid-phase carbon adsorption could
successfully treat all wastewater
generated from vapor-phue carbon
adsorption control systema.
Implementation of the standard will
Increase the generation of lOUd wute
because of the installation of additional
recovery equipment. Spent carbon and
carbon fines willinaease u will the
wasle filten uaed to clean the solvent
laden air upstream of the carbon bed. By
1985. however. the maximum amount of
additional waste carbon generated
because of the standard would be only
about 85 Mg. Dispoaing of thia IID8ll
Incremental amount of solid waste will
pose no sisnificant problem. The carbon
may be sent back to the manufacturer
for regeneration. or it could be
incinerated. supplying an excellent
source of fuel energy. Landfillingls also
an appropriate method of di5posal. Even
180
50645
-==
if all of it were disposed of in landfills. it
would amount to less than 2 tons per
state during the entire S-year period, .
truly an insignificant amount. Similarly,
the incremental quantity of waste filters
would also be very small.
The only significant source of noise is
from the large SLA fans. However, these
are normally installed in an enclosed
housing. and should not affect the
surrounding environment.
In the Administrator's opinion. the
standard's environmental impacts II
just described are reasonable.
The standard requires a direct energy
consumption increase for the industry;
however. the impact of solvent recovery
control systems will decrease the
nationwide demand for crude oil for
solvent production. The direct energy
consumption by a facility controlled
under the standard is about 18 percent
higher than if controlled at the baseline
level. The direct annual energy
consumption for a typical four-prell
plant will be increased by about the
equivalent of 2.200 barrels of fuel oiL
The Industry's total direct energy
consumption for the year 1985 will be
about 40.200 barrels of fuel oil above
that required for baseline control. This
represents an energy consumption
Increase of about 9 percent more than
with control of affected facilities at the
baseline leveL
The solvent recovery Impact of the
standard results in net national energy i
savings when the fuel energy value of
the. recovered solvent is considered. In i
the year 1985, industry's direct enersY I
consumption will be favorably offset by
a nationwide decrease In energy
demand equivalent to about 21.800
barrels of fuel oil from that required for
baseline controL The Administrator
believes that.the direct energy impact on
the Industry is reasonable. particularly
In view of the net national energy
savings that would result from
decreased solvent demand.
The standard will Increase industry's
required capital Investment by about
two percent more than for control at tbe
baseline level. The capitallnvestmeut
for a typical four-press plant will
Increase by about $650.000. Industry'.
cumulative five-year capital .
Investments. through the year 1985. will
increase by about $17 million. H0'fe~er,
this incremental capital requirement IS
not large enough to reduce capital
availability and, therefore. will not
restrict industry growth.
Control system operating costs will
Increase under the standard: however.
the high cost value of recovered solvent
will enable solvent recovery systemslD
provide a net profit (negative annuaiized
-------
:.:-
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 216 / Monday. November 8. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
50646
costs} and positive return on
investments. Control of a typical plant
at baseline level would provide about
S345.000 annualized net profit and 17
percent annual return on controls
investment (ROI) because of the
recovered solvent credit. Control at the
standard level will decrease the
annualized savings to about 5271.000
and controls ROI to about ten percent
aR.'1ually. Thus. the standard will impose
an incremental annual operating cost of
about 574.000. In the year 1985.
industry's incremental total annualized
control costs with solvent recovery
credit will be- about $2.5 million. Despite
these added costs. this industry's
average pre-tax profit margin of eight
percent at the baseline control level
should not decrease below 7.8 percent
under the standard. This very small
profitability impact will not cause any
significant price increases for
publication gravure products. The
Administrator. therefore. believes that
the economic impacts of the standard
are reasonable.
The environmentaL energy and
economic impacts are discussed in
greater detail in "Publication
Rotogra vure Printing-Background
Information for Proposed Standards'"
(EPA-450/~31a). These impacts
have not changed since proposaL
Standards of performance have other
benefits in addition to achieving
reductions in emissions beyond those
required by a typical SIP. They establish
a degree of national uniformity, which
precludes situations in which some
States may attract new industries as a
result of having relaxed air pollution
standards relative to other States.
Further. standards of performance
provide documentation which reduces
uncertainty in case-by-case
determinations of best available control
technology (BACT] for facilities located
in attainment areas. and lowest
achievable emission rates (LAER) for
facilities locatee:. in nonattainment
areas. This documentation includes
identification and comprehensive
analysis of alternative emission control
technologies. development of associated
costs. an e\'aluation and verification of
applicable emission test methods, and
identification of specific emission limits
achievable with alternate technologies.
The costs are provided for an economic
analysis that reveals the affordability of
?ontrols in a study of the economic
unpact of controls on an industry.
Public Participation
. Prior to proposal of this standard.
Interested parties were advised by
public notice in the Federal Regis- (44-
FR 8S87O. November 14. 1919) of a
meeting of the National Air Pollution
Control Techniques Advisory
Committee to discuss the regulation
recommended for proposal. This meeting
was held on December 13. 1979. The
meeting was open to the public and each
attendant was given an opportunity to
comment on the standard recommended
for proposal. The standard was
proposed and published in the Federal.
Register on October 28. 1980 (45 FR
71538). The preamble to the proposed
standard discussed the availability of
the BID. "Publication Rotogravure
Printing-Background Information for
Proposed Standards" (EPA-450/~
031a). which described in detail the
regulatory alternatives considered and
the impacts of those alternatives. Public
comments were solicited at the time of
proposal and. when requested. copies of
the BID were distributed to interest -d
parties. To provide interested persons
the opportunity for oral presentation of
data. views. or arguments concerning
the proposed standard. a public hearing
was held on November 25. 1980. at
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina.
The hearing was open to the public and
each person was given an opportunity to
comment on the proposed standard. The
public comment period was from
October 28. 1980 to January 5. 1981.
Seven comment letters were received
and one interested party testified at the
public hearing concerning issues relative
to the proposed standard of
performance for publication rotogravure
printing. The comments have been
carefully considered and. where
determined to be appropriate by the
Administrator. changes have been made
in the proposed standard.
SigJIiflr.ant Commeat8 aad Cbaapa to
the Proposed Standard
The proposed regulation was
extensively revised for promulgation.
The fonnat of the standard and
compliance provisions were changed
from a volume to a mass basis.
Continual monthly performance test8
and all periodic reporting requirements
were deleted. Recordkeeping
requirements were reduced. Also.
options for ink and solvent monitoriDg
procedures were added. The title for the
proposed reference test method was
changed from 29 to 24A.
Comments on the proposed standard
were received from industry. one
Federal agency. one State air pollution
control agency. and one trade
association. No comments were
received from environmental groups. A
detailed discussion of these comments
and responses caD be found in the BID
for the promulgated standard. which is
referred to in the ADDRESSES section
181
of this preamble. The summary of
comments and responses in the BID.
serves as the basis for the revisions
made to the regulation between
proposal and promulgation. This
preamble contains summaries of the
Agenc:y's responses to the major
comments. More detailed discussion of
the Agency's responses to these and to
other comments is contained in the BiD.
The comments have been divided into
the following areas: General. Emission
Control Technology. Modification and
Reconstruction. Economic Impact.
Emission Monitoring. Test Methods. and
Recordkeeping and Reporting.
General
Two commenters felt that the
definition of VOC was not clear and
asked if EPA had planned to publish a
method of determining if an organic
compound participated in atmospheric
photochemical reactions. The definition
of vaG. to which this comment referred.
was promulgated at 45 FR 85-U5 on
December 24. 1980 as part of another
regulation after this regulation was
proposed. The 40 CFR 60.2 was amended
in July 1981 to include this definition. A
method of determining photochemical
reactivity is not part of the definition of
VOc. However. EPA does determine
photochemical reactivity of organic:
compounda and lists in the Federal
Regis- those considered to be of
negligible reactivity. EPA'slatest policy.
as of this date. was published on July 22.
1980 (45 FR 48941).
Emission Control Technology
One commenter referrred to an
industry study reported in a trade
newsletter. The study was conducted on
paperboard rotogravure presses and the
report implied the solvent vapor capture
efficiency may not be as high as
~ templated by EPA. especially for
retrofitted presses. EPA noted. however.
that the report of the study cited by the
commenter acknowledged that the test
methods used were not accurate.
Paperboard presses are not subject to
this standard. but the press and capture
system are similar to publication
rotogravure presses. During the
development of this standard. EPA used
accurate and rigorous test procedures in
determining capture efficiency.
Furthermore. EPA finds no reason. and
the commenter did not identify any
reason. for a retrofitted press to have a
, lower capture efficiency than a new
press since both capture systems could
consist of similarly designed add-on
devices having the same capture
efficiencies. No commenter offered
specific process reasons that would
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 216 I Monday, November 8. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
render control technology infeasible or
exorbitantly costly. No changes were
made in the standard al a result of this
comment. .
Modification and Reconstruction
During the development of this
standard. prior to proposal. the
information EPA obtained from the
industry led to the conclusion that
existing facilities would not likely
become affected facilities under the
provisions for modification and
reconstruction (40 CFR 60.14 and 60.15).
Rapidly impro\ing press operation
technology would make new printing
pressel and associated equipment
significantly more desirable to maintain
or improve a printer's competitive
position.
EPA wu subsequently told in a
meeting requested by industry (docket
number A-79-S(J/71/~V-E-19) that
reconstruction and modification may
occur due to the present high cost of
capital One commenter further stated
that neither modified nor reconstructed
presses should be subject to emission
limits as stringent as totally new
facilities.
EPA requested more information in
order to assess the poesibility that the
standard may not be reasonable for
modified or reconstructed facilities.
Specifically, EPA attempted to conduct
cost and economic analyses on .
expansion of existing carbon adsorption
controls for retrofit model plant cases.
Discussions with a carbon ad.aorber
manfacturer and a trade association
representative indicated that capital
costs for a control system on a
retrofitted facility are generally higher
than for the same size new facility. Thil
information does not suggest, however,
that these costa would be unreasonable.
No one could proYide specific cost
factors for retrofitted installations
because the costs would be dependent
upon site-speci&c situations. EPA mUit
conclude that the effect of the standard
on modified and reconstructed facilities
is not significantly different from new
facilities and that possible impacts
would be reuonable. Since the
provisions of 40 CFR 61).15 provide for
case-by-case determinationa of
technical and economic feasibility.
reconstructed sources are precluded
from unreasonable impact. In the case of
a modification. without any specific
examples of cin:umstances under which
unreasonable impact would result from
compliance with the standard. EPA
finds no basis at this time for
establishing a lepante standard or an
exemption.
Economic Impact
One commenter noted that proper
handling and disposal of spent carbon
from the adsorber might increase the
economic impact of the standard
especially if spent carbon was
considered a hazardous waste under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act. In response to this comme!)t, EPA
pointed out that in the analysis of ,
carbon adsorption systems undertaken
by EP A prior to the development ~~ ~e
standard. it was assumed that faClhtles
would use the existing. routine option of
returning the waste carbon to the .
activated carbon supplier who would be
equipped to handle the waste in an
acceptable way. The economic impact
analysis is correct as computed and no
changes were made in the regulation as
a result of this Comment.
Emission Monitoring
Several commenters stated that the
specific requirements for ink and lolvent
press flow meters. meter recalibrations.
associated temperature monitoring. and
waterborne ink systems made the
regulation too detailed. complex. and
inflexible. The Agency has made five
major changes that simplify and add
flexibility to the fina1 regulation. FIrat.
the final regulation allows several
options for measurfn8 the amount of ink
and solvent used at the press. Second.
facilities are not subject to continual
monthly performance tests. Third. in
addition to the compliance options
included in the proposed standards. the
fmal regulation permits the owner or
operator to show compliance on .
plantwide basis. involving existing as
well as affected facilities. Fourth. the
monthly and aU periodic reporting
requirements have been deleted. Finally.
the waterborne ink compliance
provisions have been revised and
combined with those for solvent-bome
inksystema.
The specific requirements for
individual press flow meters were
deleted. As sugeated by the
commentera, alternatives to press flow
meters as mell8U1'in8 devices have been
provided. Ink. solvent. and water used
at affected facilities may be measured
by any accurate method the owner or
operator chooses to use. Alternative
measurement techniques include storage
tank weighings or level measurements.
delivery tank truck loading and
unloading meters. tank truck weighings.
and ink supplier shipment records.
Continual monthly performance test
requirements were deleted. Compliance
with the standard must be demonstrated
during an initial performance test and
additional performance testa as
182
50&
=:::
requested by the Administrator.
Performance is measured over a 30
consecutive calendar day period for
each test. The regulation allows seven
compliance options for conducting thel
tests. If affected facilities are contralle
by solvent recovery systems separate'l
from existing facilities. but are instau.
to routinely share the same ink and
solvent/handling system with existing!
facilities. then the ink. solvent. and
water measurement procedures used
during the tests mUllt include a
temporary method of accounting for
segregated usage by that one affected
facility or group of affected facilities. J
overall emission percentage for the
combined facilities as well as for ani,
the affected facilities must be
determined during the test period to
provide a point of comparison for
monthly records of performance. In thDl
case, monthly emission percentages fOi
the combined facilities can be compan
to the overall average for the exisllns
and affected facilities' performance
determined during the performance ttli
If affected and existing facilities are .
controlled by the same solvent recover'
system. the owner or operator can
choose between two optional test
procedures to show compliance of the
affected facilities. The first test option
requires a separate 3Ckiay emilaioa 181
on the existing facilities. Then a »da,
performance test is conducted on the
combined existing and affected facililil
to determine the affected facilities' .
emission percentage. Like the previOUl.
case.' the ink. solvent. and water
measurement procedures used durias
the performance test must include I
temporary method of accounting for
segregated usage by the tested fscililie:
The second test option is to show
compliance of the combined affected
and existing faci1ities. No separate
emission tests for existing facilities are!
required for this option. Also. no
temporary aegregated liquid ,
measurement procedures are required
for this aecond option.
In response to the commenters'
request for alternative compli8J1C8 .
pnmsions, the Agency has added a 6aI
plantwide test option. This option
allows the owner or operator to
demonstrate compliance by ahowinlal1
that the total VOC discharged from
affected and existing facilities in the
plant ia equal to or less than 18 perctllt
of the toal mass of VOC solvent ~nd the
water used at those facilities durin8
performance test. This option giv~
industry the flexibility ~~~
comments by removing the mt.....~...-~
tha t the owner or operator mealUlf ra
ink usage at each affected ficility. No
-------
50648
Federal Register I Vol. 47. No. 216 I Monday, November 8. 1982 I Rules and Regulations
separate emission tests on existing
facilities and no temporary segregated
liquid measurement procedures for
affected facilities are required for tp.sts
under this option.
Because this last option permits a
showing of plantwide compliance. an
owner or operator choosing this option
would be required to show that the
average control among all plant
facilities-affecteu and existing-is
equal to or better than the NSPS level of
control. In the Agency's judgment. under
the circumstances presented here this
assures that the affected facilities within
the plants will achieve the degree of
control reflecting application of the best
demonstrated system of continuous
emission reduction. As a result. the
plantwide compliance option will
provide rotogravure plant owners the
benefit of measurement flexibility
without any resulting loss in emission
reduction.
For all performance tests. the final
regulation requires at least weekly
accounting of liquid usages and
recovered 5011.'ent. Temperature
monitoring was also reduced from dcily
to at least weekly for performance tests.
This is a reduction from the daily meter
and temperature readings required by
t:'e propo~ed re<,;ulatiuQ. Huwever. if
press flow meters are not used. records
for each liquid material shipment may
require more frequent accounting. In
CJses where ink. solvent. and water
usages are.measured by volume. liquid
densities are required to convert to a
mass basis material balance. Since
density of a liquid varies with
temperature. it is necessary to monitor
the temperature while the quantity of
liquid used or recovered is measured.
For the solvents used in this industry,
. the potential dpnsity error in
determination of compliance could be Z
to 3.5 percent or mare, depending an
ambient weather and equipment
opera~ing conditions.
An option was added to the final
regulation to aliow owners or operators
u8in~ on'v solvent-borne inks to choose
to shew c;J:npliance by a temperaturel
density-corrected solvent volume
balance instead of converting to a mass
balance. This option may be desirable
where all ink and solvents used are
measured by volume. [n the unique case
where aU soh'ent used and recoliered
are measured at the same tempe!'ature.
the direct volume calculated emission
per::catage would be identical to a mass
balance.
Af~t:r performam;e tests are
comp!eted. only monthly monitoring for
pJ'lJper operation and maintenance of
the control system is required. Monthly
tolals of soh'em and water u5age and
recovered solvent are used to document exhausts from waterborne units should
emission percentages of affected be vented to the atmosphere instead of
facilities that have liquid monitoring to the carbon adsorption system. If not.
systems segregated from existing water vapor would affect the carbon's
facilities. However. temperature activity and the water miscible organics
measurements are not required for would be lost through the recovery
monthly monitoring. The liquid densities decanter anyway.
determined in the latest performance The final standard includes
test are assumed to remain constant and compliance provisions that allow the
are used in the emission percentage combined use of low vac waterborne
estimates. For affected facilities which and solvent-borne inks. The provisions
share the same ink and solvent storage I also allow use of higher vac
handlinssystem with existing ~ti~----waterboine inks. provided that the
segregated liquid accounting ~- -capture and control of solvent-borne
for affected facilities are not required for vac would be correspondingly
monthly monitoring. Mo~y e~~ increased to comply with the 16 percent
percentages for the combmed facilities emission limit for the entire press. EPA
can be documented and ~pared to the agrees that dryer exhaust and fugitive
overall average for the exlSting and emissions from waterborne units should
affected facilities' emission percentage not be vented through carbon adsorbers
determined during the latest and may be vented to the atmosphere
performance test. provided the entire press complies with
The monthly monitoring requirement the 16 percent emission limit.
is a major change from the proposed
regulation requirement of continual Test Methods
mon~r performance tests. The One commenter urged EPA to give
~trator feels that the ~urden of printers the option of determining
contInual perfo~ t~ 1$ . solvent-borne ink vac content by using
~ec~sary. This mdustry s economic alternative analytical methods. Methods
lnce~ti.v.e to recover sol~e~t and the such as gas chromatography (GCJ and
posSIbility that the AdminIstrator co~d mass spectrometry (!.-1S) were suggested.
Impose a performance test are sufficIent .
to ensure that this industry will operate The regulation was not changed as
the best demonstrated control s)'stem this comment requested. At the present
effectively. time.. EPA has no reference method or
The fourth major change. ddetioa of specific procedures ~or GC or MS total
monthly reporting requirements is V
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 47. No. 216 I Monday. Nov~mber 8. 1982 I Rules and Regulations
were deleted. In addition. only monthly
records of the amount of solvent and
water used. solvent reco.vered. and the
estimated emission percentage are
required. The calculation of solvent base
~emperature was deleted because it is
not necessary when the emission limit
standard changed from a volume to a
mass basis. The required records will
enable the company to be aware of the
quality of the operation of the control
system and allow enforcement
personnel to check for proper operation
and maintenance.
The major comment on reporting
stated that the time limit of 10 days for
submitting non-compliance reports was
too short. Monthly non-compliance
reports and all periodic reporting
requirements have been deleted from
the regulation. There are only two types
of reports required: notifications as
facilities become subject to the standard
and a report of performance test results.
Docket
The docket is an organized and
complete me of all the information
considered by EPA in the development
of this rulemaking. The docket is a
dynamic rUe. since material is added
throupout the rule making development.
The docketing system is intended to
a110w members of the public and
industries involved to readily identify
and locate documents 110 that they can
intelligently and effectively participate
in the rulemaking process. On judicial
re..iew. the record will consist of all
materials in the docket (including the
statement of basi8 and p'urpose of the
proposed and promulgated standards).
except for certain intra-agency review
materials [Section 307(d)(7)(A)).
l\fi~naD80U8
The rulemaking process tha t
implements. performance standard
assures adequate technical review and
promotes participation of
representatives of the industry being
considered for regulation. government.
and the publiL: affected by that
industry.s emisaions. The resultant
regulation represents. balance in which
goveromen' resources are applied in a
well pubhcized national forum to reach
It decision on a pollutinn emission level
that allows for a dynamic enonomy and
a healthful environment.
The effective date of this regulation is
November 8. 1982. Section 111 of the
Clean Air Act provides that standards of
performance or revisions thereof
become effective upon promulgation and
itpply to affected facilities. construction
or modification of which was
commenced after the date of proposal:
in this case October 28. 1980.
As prescribed by Section 111. the
promulgation of this standard was
preceded by the Administrator's
determinatipn (40 CFR 60.16.44 FR
49222. dated August Zl. 19i9) that these
sources contribute significantly to air
polluti~ which may reason~bly be
anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare. In accordance with Section 117
of the Act. publication of this
promulgated standard was preceded by
consultation with appropriate advisory
committees. independent experts. and
Federal departments and agencies.
This regulation will be reviewed 4
years from the date of promulgation as
required by the Clean Air Act. This
review will include an assessment of
such factors as the need for integration
with other programs. the existence of
alternative methods. enforceability,
improvements in emission control
technology. and reporting requirements.
The reporting requirements in this
regulation will be reviewed as required.
under EPA's sunaet policy for reporting
requirements in regulations.
Section 317 of the Clean Air Act
requires the Administrator to prepare an
economic impact assessment for any
new source standard of performance
promulgated under Section 111(b) of the
Act. An economic impact assessment
was prepared for thia regulation and for
other regulatory alternatives. All
aspects of the assessment were
considered in the formulation of the
standards to insure that cost was
carefully considered in determining
BDT. The economic impact assessment
is included in the background
worma tion document for the proposed
standards.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980
(PI. # 96-511) requires clearance from
the Office of Manasement and Budget
(OMB) of certain public reportingl
recordkeeping req'uirements before
certain information requests can be
made of the public. The reportingl
recordkeeping requirements associated
with this standard have been approved
by OMB. and have been asaigned OMS
controlnumber~~
Under Executive Order 12291. EPA
must judge whether a regulation ia
"major" and therefore subject to the
requirement of a Regulatory Impact
Analysis. This regulation is not major
because it would result in nane of the
adverse economic effects set forth in
Section 1 of the Order aa grounds for
finding a regulation to be major. In the
fifth year after the standards would go
into effect. the industry-wide
incremental annualized control costs
with solvent recovery credit will be
184
I ..
::j
about $2.5 million. This is much les I
than t~e $~OO million ~stablished a~
first cntenon for a major regulation
the Order. No measureable price
increase for gravure products waul!!
occur as a result of this standard. 0
course. this would not be consideret
"major increase in costs or prices"
specified as the second criterion in I
Order. The economic analysis of the
proposed standard's effects on the
industry did not indicate any signifil
adverse effects an competition.
investment. productivity. employmer
innovation. or the ability of U.s. 8m
compete with foreign finns (the !hire
criterion in the Order).
This regulation was submitted to ,
Office of Management and Budget f(
review as required by Executive art
12291. Any comments from OMB 10 I
and any EPA response to those
comments are available for public
inspection in the docket referenced I
!he address section of this preamble
List of Subjecta Iu 40 CPR Put .
Air pollution control. Aluminum.
Ammonium sulfate plants. Cement
industry. Coal. Copper. Electricpow~
plants. Glasa and giasa products. en:
Incorporation by reference.
Intergovernmental relations. Iron.1i.
Metals. Motor vehicles. Nitric acid
plants. Paper and paper products
industry. Petroleum. Phosphate. Sew(
disposal. Steel. Sulfuric acid plant.. '
Waste treatment and disposaL Zinc.'
Dated: October 20.198Z.
Auae M. Gonuch.
Administrator.
PART 6Q-{AMENDED)
40 CFR Part 60 is amended as foliO'
1. A new Subpart QQ is added .a
follows:
Subpart QQ-Standard8 of ",,'o.1IIIIICI
the Gt8phic Arts Industry: PutIJIcatiOII
Aotograwnt PrfntIng
See.
60.430 Applicability and designation of
affected facility.
60.431 Defmitiona and notano...
6O.43Z Standard for volatile orpllic
compound&.
60.433 Performance test and comp\iaJIct
provisiona.
60.434 MonitoriDfl of operations and
recordkeeping.
60.435 Test methods and procedum.
Authority: See. 111 and 301(a) of Ihe CI
Air Act. aa amended. (4% U.S.c. 7411. i80
la)). and additional authority as no:~ribd
-------
50650
Federal Register I Vol. 47, No. 216 I Monday, November 8, 1982 I Rules and Regulations
-
Subpart QQ-'Otandards of
p,rtormanc.. for the Graphic Arts
Industry: Publication Rotogravure
Printing
f 60.430 Applicability and designation 0'
affected facility.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph
(b] of this section. the affected facility tl;)
which the provisions of this subpart
apply is each publication rotogravure
printing press.
(b).The provisions of this subpart do
not apply to proof presses.
(c) Any facility under paragraph (a) of
this section that commences
construction, modification. or
reconstruction after October 28.1980 is
subject to the requirements of this
subpart.
. ~ 60.431 Definitions and notations.
(a) All terms used in this subpart that
are not defined below have the meaning
given to them in the Act and in Subpart
A of this part.
"Automatic temperature
. compensator" mea:lS a-device that
continuously senses the temperature of
fluid flowing through a metering device
and automatically adjusts the
registration of the measured volume to
the corrected equivalent volume at a
base temperature.
"Base temperature" means an
iirbitrary reference temperature for
determining liquid densities or adjusting
the measured volume of a liquid
quantity.
"Density" means the mass of a unit
volume of liquid, expressed as grams per
cubic centimeter. kilograms per liter, or
pounds per gallon, at a specified
temperature.
"Gravure cylinder" means a printing
cylinder with an intaglio image
consisting of minute cells or
indentations specially engraved or
etched into the cvlinder's surface to hold
ink when contin~ously revolved through
a fountain of ink.
"Performance averaging period"
means 30 calendar days, one calendar
month. or four consecUtive weeks as
specified in sections of this subpart.
"Proof press" means any device used
only to check the quality of the image
formation of newly engraved or etched
gravure cylinders and prints only non-
saleable items.
"Publication rotogravure printing
press" means any number of rotogravure
p~nting units capable of printing
sImultaneously on the same continuous
web or substrate and includes any
associated device for continuously
cutting and folding the printed web.
where the following saleable paper
products are printed:
. Catalogues. including mail order
and premium.
. Direct mail advertisements.
including circulars. letters. pamphlets.
cards, and printed envelopes.
. Display advertisements. including
general posters. outdoor advertisements,
car cards, window posters; .counter and
floor displays; point-of-purchase. and
other printed display material.
. Magazines, -
. Miscellaneous advertisements.
including brochures. pamphlets.
catalogue sheets. circular folders,
announcements, package inserts. book
jackets. market circulars, magazine
inserts, and shopping news.
. Newspapers. magazine and comic
supplements for newspapers. and
preprinted newspaper inserts. including
hi-fi and spectacolor rolls and sections,
. Periodicals. and
. Telephone and other directories.
including business reference services.
"Raw ink" means all purchased ink.
"Related coatings" means all non-ink
purchased liquids and liquid-solid
mixtures containing VOC solvent.
usually referred to as extenders or
varnishes. that aTe used at publication
rotogravure printing presses.
"Rotogravure printing unit" mea."1S
any device designed to print one color
ink on 'One side of a continuous web or
substrate using a gravure cylinder.
"Solvent-borne ink systems" means
ink and related coating mixtures whose
volatile portion consists essentially o~
VOC solvent with not more than five
weight percent water. as applied to the
gravure cylinder.
"Solvent recovery system" means an
air pollution control system by which
VOC solvent vapors in air or other gases
are captured and directed through a
cond.enser(s) or a vessel(s) containing
beds of activated carbon or other
adsorbents. For the condensation
method, the solvent is recovered directly
from the condenser. For the adsorption
method. the vapors are adsorbed. then
desorbed by steam or other media. and
finally condensed and recovered.
"vbc" means volatile organic
compound.
"yoc solvent" means an organic
liquid or liquid mixture consisting of
VOC components.
"Waterborne ink systems" ~eans ink
and related coating mixtures whose
volatile portion consists of a mixture of
VOC solvent and more than five weight
percent water, as applied tQ the gravure
cylinder.
(b) Symbols used in this subpart are
defined as follows:
DB=the density at the base temperature of
vac solvent used or recovered during
one performance averaging period.
185
Dd = the density of each color of raW ink and
each related coating {i} used at the
subject facility (or facilities). at tlte
coating temperature when the volume of
coating used is measuretl.
Deo=the density of each vac solvent (i)
added to the ink for dilution at the
subject facility (or facilities). at the
solvent temperature when the volume of
solvent used is measured.
DI1= the density of each vac solvent {i) used
as a cleaning agent at the subject flrC11ity
(or facilities). at the solvent temperature
when the volume of cleaning solvent
used is measured.
D",=the density of each quantity of water (i)
added at the subject facility (orfacilities)
for dilution of waterborne ink systems at
the water temperature when the volume
of dilution water used is measured.
Dm.i = the density of each quantity of vac
solvent and miscellaneous solvent-borne
waste inks and waote vac solvents (i)
recovered from the subject facility (or
facilities). at the solvent temperature
when the volume of solvent recovered is
measured.
D., = the density of the vac solvent
contained in each raw ink and related
coating (i) used at the subject facility (or
facilities). at the coating temperature
when the volume of coating used is
measured.
D..= the density of the water contained in
each waterborne raw ink and related
coating (i) used at the subject facility (or
facilities). at the coa ting tempera lure
when the volume of coating used is
measured. .
r... = the measured liquid volume of each color
of raw ink and each related coating (i)
used at the facility of a corresponding
vac content. V., or W... with a vac
density. Dot. and a coating density, Dc!.
L.u=the measured liquid volume of each vac
solvent (i) with corresponding density.
Do;. added to dilute the ink used at
Ma= the mass, determined by direct
weighing. of each color of raw ink and
each reiated coating (i) used at the
subject facility (or facilities). .
...~. the mass. determined by direct
weighing. of vac solvent added to dilute
the ink used at the subject facility (or
facilities) during one performance
averaging period.
M. = the mass. determined by direct
weighing. of vac solvent used as a
cleaning agent at the subject facility (or
facilities) during one performance
averaging period.
Mil = the mass. determined by. direct
. weighing. of water added for dilution
with waterborne ink systems used at the
subject facility (or facilities) during one
performance averaging period.
M.. = the mass. determined by direct
weighing. of vac solvent and
miscellaneous solvent-borne waste inks
and waste vac solvents recovered from
the subject facility (or facilities) during
one performance averaging period.
M..=the total mass ofVOC solvent contained
in the raw inks and related coatings used
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 216 / Monday, November 8. 198Z I Rules and Regulations
~
.t the subject facility (or facilities) during
one performance averaging period.
Mr= the total mass of VOC solvent recovered
from the subject facility (or facilities)
during one performance averaging
period.
M.= the lota1 mass of VaG solvent used at
the subject facility (or facilities) during
one performance averaging period.
M.=the total mass of water used with
waterborne ink svstems at the subject
facility (or facilities) during one
performance averaging period.
Mw=the total mass of water contained in the
waterborne raw inks and related
coatings used at the subject facility (or
facilities) during one performance
ave,aging period.
P=the ave~sge VaG emission percentage for
the subject facility (or facilities) ior one
performance averaging period.
V..=the liquid VaG content. expressed as a
volume fraction of VaG volume per tOlal
volume of coating. of each color of raw
ink and reiated coating [il used at the
subject facility (or facilities). -
V... = the water content. expressed as 8
volume fraction of water volume per
total voiwne of coating. of each color of
waterborne raw ink and related coating
(i) used at the sOIbjecl facility (or
facilities).
Woj=the vaG content. expressed as a weight
fraction of mass of vaG per !Dtal mass
of coating. of each color of raw ink and
related coating (i) used at tbe subject
facility lor facilities).
Wwt=the water content. expres&ed itS a
weighl fraction of mass of water per Iota 1
mass of coating. of each color of
w&terborne raw in:" and related waling
Ii) used at the subjer.t fadiry (or
facilities).
[c) The following subscripts are used
in this subpart with the above symbols
to denote the applicable facility:
a = affected faciHty.
b = both affected and exisj:l~ fdcilitles
- controlled in common b;.; the same air
pollution control eqUlpment.
e = existing facility.
f= all affected and existing facilities located
within tbe same plant boundary.
~ 60.432 Standard tor vo!atiJe orga"ic
Compoul1ea.
During Lie period of the perfo:mance
test requL'"ed 10 be cond:;cted by ~ 60.8
and after the date rec;uired for
completion of the test. no owner or
operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart shli cause to be discharged
into the atmosphere from any affected
facility vaG equal tQ more than 16
percent of the total mass of vac solvent
and water used at that facility during
anyone performance averaging period.
The water used includes only that water
contained in the waterborne raw inks
and related coatings and the water
added for dilution with waterborne ink
systems.
~ 60.433 PerlOr,,~.IIC8 test and compfiaflCe
provision&.
[a) The owner or operator of any
affected facility (or facilities] shall
conductpenonnancetesum
accordance with t 60.8. under tbe
following conditions:
(1] The penormance averaging period
for each test is 30 consecutive calendar
days and not an average of three -
separate runs as prescribed under
~ 6O.8[f).
(2) Except as provided under
paragraphs [f) and (g) of this section. it
affected facilities routinely share the
same raw ink storage/handling system
with existing facilities, then temporary
measurement procedures for segregating
the raw inks. related coatings. VaG
solvent. and water used at the affected
facilities must be employed during the
test. For this case, an. overall emission
percentage for the combined facilities as
well as for only the affected facilities
must be calculated dur'.ng the test.
(3) For the purpose of measuring bulk
storage tank quantities of each color of
raw ink and each related coating used.
the owner or operator of any affected
facility shall install, calibrate. maintain,
and continuously operate during the test
one or more--
(i) Non-resettable totalizer metering
device(s) for indicating the cu:nulative
liquid volumes used at each affected
facility: or
(ii) Segregated storage tart-I(s for each
affected facility to allow determination
of the liquid quantities used by
measuring devices other than the press
meters required under item (ij of this
article; or
(ill) Storage tanks to serve more than
one facility with the liquid quantities
used determined by measuring devices
other than press meters. if facilities are
combined as decribed under paragraph
(d). [f). or [g) of this section.
(4) The owner or operator may choose
to install an automatic temperature
compensator Yoitb any liquid metering
de.ice used to measure the raw inks.
related coatings, water. or vac solvent
used. or vac solvent recovered.
(5) Records of the measured amounts
used at the affected facility and the
liquid temperature at which the amounts
were measured are maintained for each
shipment of all purchased material or on
at least a wee:kly basis for-
(i) The raw inks and related coatings
used:
[ii) The vac and water content of
each raw ink and related coating used
as determined according to ~ 60.435.
(iii) The vac solvent and water
added to the inks used;
[iv) The vac so)vent used as a
cleaning agent: and
186
[v) The vac solvent recovered.
[6) The density variations with
temperature of the raw inkl, related
coatings. vaG solvenu used, and VOC
solvent recovered are determined by the
methods stipulated in t 6O.435(d).
(7] The calculated emission
percentage may be reported as rounded-
off to the nearest whole number.
(8) Printing press startups and
shutdowns are not included in the
exemption provisions under IOO.8(c).
Frequent periods of press startups and
shutdowns are nonnal operations and
constitute representative conditions for
the purpose of a penormance test.
[b) If an affected facility uses
waterborne ink systems or a
combination of waterborne and solvent-
borne ink systems with 8 solvent
recovery system. compliance is
determined by the following procedures.
.except 81 provided in paragraphs (el),
[e). (f), and [g) of this section: .
[1] The mass of vac in the soh'ent-
borne and waterborne raw inks and
related cOatings used is determined by
the following equation:
k ...
IM..J.= r (M..J.(W").+L (L.J.(D
-------
50652
Federal Register I Vol. 4i. No. 216 I Monday. November....8. 1982 I Rules and Regulations
-
k m
IM.I.'" r (Mal. (w..J.+ L (Lal. (Da!. [w...1.
...1 1-1
... t (L..I. (V...I. (D...I.
..1
k I. the total number of raw inks and related
coatings measured as used in direct mass
quantities with different amounts of
water content.
m IS the total number of raw inks end related
coittings measured as used by \'oJume
",'ith different amounts of water content
or di!i&rent densities.
n 15 the total number of raw inks and relitted
coatings measured as used by volume
with different amounts of water content
or different water densities.
(';1 The total mass of water used is
determined by the following equation:
m
IM.J.=(M"I.+[M.I.+ L [Lt.,). (D",I.
.-1
",h",-e "m" is the total nu:nber of water
dil:.tion additions measured 85 UHd by
volume with different der.sities.
[5) The total mass ofVOe solvent
recovered is determined by the
r.-.:rrJwing equation:
,
1\1.1.=iM..I.+ L [L",.). [Dm.l.
,.,
whore "k" if the tatal number of VOC
solvents. miscellaneous solvent-borne
Was:e inks. and waste vae solvents
ml!8sured as rer;overed by volume with
different densities.
[ijl The average VOC emission
~e:'CentGge for the affected facility is
determi:ied by t.~e following equation:
1'. = r 1M.!. - (M,J.l x 100
l,Md.+(M.I.
(el [f an affected facility controlled bv
" solvent recoven' 5"ste~ uses only .
solvent-borne ink" s~;stems. the o"",';er or
ope.ator may choose to determine
compliance on a direct mass or a
density-corrected liquid volume basis.
Except as provided in paragraphs (d).
(e). (f). and (g) of this section.
compliance is determined as follows:
(1) On a direct mass basis. compliance
is determined according to paragraph (b)
of this section. except that the water
term. M.,. does not apply.
(2) On a density-corrected liquid
volume basis. compliance is determined
by the following procedures:
(i) A base temperature corresponding
to that for the largest individual amount
of voe salvent used or recovered from
the affected fiidlity. or other reference
temperature. is chosen by the owner or
operator.
Iii) The corrected liquid volume of
voe in the raw inks and related
coa lings used is determined by the
following equation: ~
(1-1.= ~ (M"I. (w..J. + f [L..). (0..1. (Woo).
,':; D. ,~, o.
+ i [L..I. [V Ot I. [DOl).
,., DJ
where.
k is the total number of raw inks and related
coatings measured as used in direct mass
quantities with different amounts of VOC
contenL
m is the tetal number of raw inks and related
coatings measured as used by volume
",;th different amounts of vac content
or different densities.
o is the total namber of raw inks aod related
coatings measured at used by volume
with different amounta of vae content
or different vac solvent densities.
(m) The total corrected liquid volume
of voe used is determined by the
following equation:
11.,1. = [L,.I.+ f(L..I.(D..I.+ (M.I. +
,-I D. D.
i [L.J. (D.J. + [Mol.
.=1 D. D.
where "m" and "n" are the respective total
numbers ofVae dilution and cleaning
~oh:ents measured as used by volume
with different densities.
187
(iv) The total corrected liquid volume
of VOC solvent recovered is detennined
by the following equation:
(L,.).= (M".I. + t ('-.1. [D...I.
0. .-1 D.
'-"here "k" i8 the total number of vae
solvents. miscellaneous solvent-borne
waste inks. and wasle VOC solvents
measured as recovered by \'l!Iiume with
different densities,
(v) The average VOC emission
percentage for the affected facility is
determined by the following equation:
p = [ (L.). - (1..1.] >< 100
. [L.)'
(d) If two or more affected facilities
are controlIed by the same solvent
recovery system. compliance ia
determined by the procedures specified
in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section,
whichever applies. except that (~). and
(Lr).. (!l.-t.J.. (Mr).. and (M.).. are the
colIective amounts of voe solvent and
waier corresponding to all the affected
facilities controlled by that solvent
. recovery system. The average voe
emission percentage for each of the
affected facilities controlled by that
same solvent recovery system is
assumed to be equal.
(e) Except a8 provided under
paragraph (f) of this section. if an
existing facility (or facilities) and an
affected facility (or facilities) are
controlled in common bv the same
solvent recavery system the owner or
operator-shall determine compliance by
conducting a separate emission test on
the existing facility (or facilities) and
th- ':dlducting a perfonnance test on
the combined facilities as follows:
(1) Before the initial startup of the
affected facility (or facilities) and at ar:v
other time as requested by the .
Administrator. the owner or operator
shall conduct emission testIs) on the
existing facility (or facilities) controlled
by the subject solvent recovery system.
The solvent recovery system must
handle VOC emiss;ons from only the
-------
Federa. Register / Vol. 47. No. 216 / Monday. November 8. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
1:M1!t'
"UUiII '
~
subject existing facility (or facilities),
not from affected facilities. during the
emission test.
(2) During the emission test. the
affected facilities are subject to the.
standard !.Otated in t 60.432.
(3) The emission test IS conducted
over a 30 consecutive calendar day
averaging period according to the
conditions stipulated in ~ 6O.433(a){l)
through (a){5). except that the conditions
pertain to only existing facilities instead
of affected facilities. .
(4) The owner or operator of the
existing facility (or facilities) shall
provide the Administrator at least 30
days prior notice of the emission test to
afford the Administrator the opportunity
to have an observer present.
(5) The emission percentage for the
existing facility [or facilities) during the
emission test is determined by one of
the following procedures:
(i) U the existing facility (or facilities)
uses a combL'1ation of waterborne and
solvent-borne ink systems. the average
VOC emission percentage must be
determined on a direct mass basis
according to paragraph (b) or (d) of this
section. whichever applies, with the
following equation:
p.=[(M,J.-NrJ.j x 100
(MJ.+(M.I.
where the water and VOC solvent amounts
pertain to on]y existi!1g facilities.
(ii) U t.~e existing facility (or facilities)
uses only solvent-borne ink systems. the
owner or operator may choose to
determine the emission percentage
either on a direct mass basis or a
density-corrected liquid volume basis
according to paragraph (c) or (d) of this
section. whichever applies. On a direct
mass basis. the average VOC emission
percentage is determined by the
equation presented in article Ii) of this
paragraph. On a density-<:orrected liquid
volume basis. the average VOC
emission percentage is determined by
the following equation:
p =[([.,1.-(1..1.1 x 100
. ([.,J.
where the VOC solvent amounts pertain 10
only existing facilities.
(6) The owner or operator of the
existing facility (or facilities) shaH
furnish the Administrator a written
report of the results of the emission test.
(7) After completion of the separate
emission test on the existing facility (or
facilities). the owner or operator shall '
conduct performance test(s) on Hie
combined'facilities with the solvent
recovery system hanclling VOC
emissions from both the existing and
affected facilities.
(8) During performance test(s}. the
emission percentage for the existing
facility (or facilities). PO' is assumed to
be equal to thafdetermined in the latest
emission test The administrator may
request additional emission tests if any
physical or operational cha~es occur to
any of the subject existing facilities.
(9) The emission percentage for the
affected facility (or facilities) during
performance test(s) with both existing
and affected facilities conne.cted to the
solvent recovery system is determined
by one of the following procedures:
(i) U any of the combined facilities
uses both waterborn;and solvent-borne
ink systems. the average VOC emission
percentage must be determined on a
direct mass basis according to
paragraph (b) or (d) of this section.
whichever applies. with the following
equation:
{(M,J.-(Mrl.-( l~)[[MJ.+(M.)J}
p.= x100
(M,J.1-(M.J.
where (~1,J. and (M,J. are the collecu\"e VOC
solvent amounts pertaining to all the
combined facilities.
(ii) U all of the combined facilities use
only solvent-borne ink systems, the
owner or operator may choose to
determine performance of the affected
facility (or facilities) either on a direct
mass basis or a density-corrected liquid
volume basis according to paragraph (c)
or (d) of this section. whichever applies.
188
On a direct.mass basis. the average
VOC emiSSion percentage is determined
by the equation presented in article (i)t
this paragraph. On a density-corrected
liquid volume basis: the average VOC
emission percentage is detennined by
the following equation:
p -[{1.,).-(1..).-(L.).(~)l
. - (1.,). X 100
where (1.,.]. and (1..J" are the coUective VOC '
solvent amounls pertaining 10 aU the
combined facilities.
(f) The owner or operator may chaos!
to show compliance of the combined
performance of existing and affected
facilities controlled in common by the
same solvent recovery system. A
separate emission test for existing
facilities is not required for this option,
The combined performance is
determined by one of the following
procedures:
(1) U any of the combined facilities
uses both waterborne and solvent.bom,
ink systems. thu:ombined average VOl
emission percentage must be delermine\
on a direct mass basis according to
paragraph (b) or (d) of this section.
whichever applies. with the following,
equation:
p.= [ [M,I.-(M.).,] x 100
(M,)" + (M.J"
(2) If all of the combined facilities uS!.
only solvent-borne ink systems. the
owner or operator may choose 10
determine performance either on a
direct mass basis or a density-correctei,.
liquid volume basis according to
paragraph (c) or ld) of this section.
whichever applies. On a direct mass
basis. the average VOC emission
percentage is determined by the
equa tion presented in article (i) of this
paragraph. On a density-corrected liqu
volume basis. the average vac
emission percentage is determined by
the following equation:
p. = [ (1.,)" - (1..),,] x 100
(L.J"
-------
50654
Federal Register I Vol. 47, No. 216 / Monday, November 8. 1982 -/ Rules and Regulations
:::
(g) If all existing and affected facilities
located within the same plant boundary
use waterborne ink systems or solvent-
borr.e ink systems with solvent recovery
!\'stems. the owner or operator may
choose to show compliance on a
plantwide basis for all the existing and
affected facilities together. No separate
emission tests on existing facili ties and
no temporary segregated liquid .
measurement procedures for affected
facilities are required for this option.
The plantwide performance is .
determined by one of the followmg
procedures:
(1) If any of the facilities use
waterborne ink systems, the total plant
average VOC emission percentage must
be determined on a direct mass basis
according to paragraph (b) of this
section with the following equation:
p,=[(M,Jr-fM,J.-(M,J.-fM,J.] x 100
. fM.},+(M,),
Where (M,lt and (M.J, are the col1Ł:ctive vac
solvent and water amounts used at all
the subject plant facilities during the
performance test.
(2) If ...11 of the plant facilities use only
solvent-borne ink systems, the owner or
operator may choose to determine
performance either on a direct mass
basis or a density-corrected liquid
volume basis according to paragraph (c)
of this section. On a direct mass basis.
the total plant average VOC emission
percentage is determined by the
equation presented in article (i) of this
paragraph. On a density-corrected liquid
\'olume basis. the total plant average
\'OC emission percentage is determined
by the following equation:
1',= [ (1..1,- (1..J. - (1.,.J,-(1..J. ] x 100
(L.),
WherŁ: fL.J, is the collective vac solvent
amount used at all the subject plant
facilities during the performance test.
(See. 114 of the Clea!! Air Act as amended (42
U.S,c. 7414))
f 60.434 Monttoring 0' operations and
rec:ordkeeplng.
[a} After completion of the
perfo:mance test required under i 60.8.
the owner or operator of any affected
facility using waterborne ink systems or
solvent-borne ink svstems with solvent
recovery systems shall record the
amount of solvent and water used,
solvent recovered. and estimated
emission percentage for each
perfortnance averaging period and shall
maintain these records for 2 years. The
emission percentage is estimated as
follows:
(1) The performance averaging period
for monitoring of proper operation and
maintenance is a calendar month or 4
consecutive weeks. at the option of the
owner or operator.
(Z) If affected facilities share the same
raw ink stor&ge/handling system with
existing facilities. solvent and water
used. solvent recovered. and emission
percentages for the combined facilities
may be documented. Separate emission
percentages for only the affected
facilities are not required in this case.
The combined emission percentage is
compared to the overall average for the
existing and affected facilities' emission
percentage determined during the most
recent performance test.
(3) Except as prl1vided in article (4) of
this paragraph. temperatures and liquid
densities determined during the most
recent performance test are used to .
calculate corrected volumes and mass
quantities.
(4) The owner or operator may choose
to measure temperatures for
determination of actual liquid densities
during each performance averaging
period. A different base temperature
may be used for each performance
av~raging period if desired by the owner'
or operator.
(5) The emission percentage is
calculated according to the procedures
under ~ 6O.433(b) through (g). whichever
applies. or by a comparable calculation
which compares the total solvent,
recovered to the total solvent used at
the affected facility.
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42
U.S.c. 7414))
~ 60.435 Test methods and procedures.
(a) The owner or operator of any
affected facility using solvent-borne ink
systems shall determine the VOC
c~ntent of the raw inks and related
coatings used at the affected facility
bv-
. (1) Anal~'sis using Reference Method
Z4A of routine weekly samples of raw
ink and related coatings in each
respective storage tank: or
(2) Analysis using Reference Method
24A of samples of each shipment of all
purchased raw inks and related
coa tings: or
189
(3) Determination of the VOC content
from the formulation data stlpplied by
the ink manufacturer with each
shipment of raw inks and related
coatings used.
(b) The owner or operator of any
affected facility using solvent-borne ink
systems shall use the results of
verification analyses by Reference
Method 24A to determine compliance
when discrepancies with ink
. manufacturers' formulation data occur.
(c) The owner or operator of any
affected facility using waterborne ink
svstems shall determine the VOC and
~ater content of raw inks and related
coatings used at the affected facility
by-
(1) Determination of the VOC and
water content from the formulation data
supplied by the ink manufacturer with
each shipment of purchased raw inks
and related coatings used: or
(Z) Analysis of samples of each
shipment of purchased raw inks and
related coatings using a test method
approved by the Administrator in
accordance with 160.8(b).
(d) The owner or operator of any
affected facility shall determine the
density of raw inks, related coatings.
and VOC solvents by-
(1) Making a total of three
determinations for each liquid sample at
specified temperatures using the
procedure outlined in ASTM 0'1475-60
(Reappro\'ed 1980). which is
incorporated by reference. It is available
from the American Society of Testing
and Materials. 1916 Race Street.
Philadelphia. Pennsylvania 19103. It is
also available for inspection at the
Office of the Federal Register. Room
8401.1100 L Street. N.W.. Washington.
D.C. This incorporation by reference
was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register on November 8. 1982.
This material is incorporated as it exists
0'1 the date of approval and a notice of
a.IY change in these materials will be
pubJished in the Federal Register. The
temperature and density is recorded as
the arithmetic average of the three
determinations: or
(2) Using literature values. at specified
temperatures. acceptable to the
Administrator.
(e) If compliance is determined
according to I 6O.433(e). (C). or (g), the
existing as well as affected facilities are
subject to the requirements of
paragraphs (a) through (d) of this
section.
(See.' 114 of the Clean Air Act a8 amended (42
U.S.C.7414))
2. Method,24A is added to Appendix
A as follows:
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 216 / Monday, November 8. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
50655
AppeDm A-Reference Methods
Method 24A-DetermL'1atioD of VolatiJ.
Maller Content and Densitj of PriDting IDb
and Related Coatings
1. Applicability and Principle.
1.1 Applicability. This method applies to
the determination of the volatile organic
compound lVOq conlent and density of
solvent-borne (solvent reducible) printing
inks or related coa tings.
1.2 Principle. Separate procedures are
used to determine the VOC weight fraction
and density of the coating and the density of
the solvent in the coating. The VOC weight
fraction is determined by measuring the
weight loss of a known sample quantity
which has been heated for a specified length
of time at a specified temperature. The
d:msity of both the coating and solvent are
measured by a standard procedure. From this
information. the VOC volume fraction is
calculated.
2. Procedure.
2.1 Weipht Fraction VOC.
2.1.1 Apparatus.
2.1.1.1 Weighing Dishes. Aluminum fou.
58 mm in diameter by 18 mm high. with a fiat
bottom. There must be at least three weismng
dishes per sample.
2.1.1.2 Disposable syringe. 5 mL
2.1.1.3 Analytical Balance. To measure to
within 0.1 mg.
2.1.1.4 Oven. Vacuum oven capable of
maintaining a temperature of 120::t:2'C and
an ablolute pressure of 510 :!:51 rom Hg for 4
hours. Altematively. a forced draft oven
capable of maintaining a temperature of 120
:!:2'C for 24 hours.
2.1.1.5 Analysis. Shake or mix the sample
thoroughly 10 assure that all the solids are
completely susp,ended. Label and weigh to
the nearest Q.1 rng a weighing dish and record
this weight (Ms.).
Using a 5-mlsyringe without a needle
remove a sample of the coating. Weigh the
syringe and sample to the nearest 0.1 mg and
record this weight (MenJ. Transfer 1 to 3 g of
the sample 10 the tared weighing dish.
Reweigh the syringe and slUIlple to the
nearest 0.1 mg and record this weight (McY'1J.
Heat the weighing dish and sample in a
vacuum oven at an absolute pressure of 510
:!:51 mm Hg and a temperature of1.20 :t2'C
for 4 hours. Alternatively. heat the weighing
dish and sample in a forced draft oven at a
temperature of 120 :t2'C for 24 hours. After
the weighing dish has cooled. reweigh it to
the nearest 0.1 mg and record the weight
(M..). Repeat this procedure for a total of
three determinations for each sample.
2.2 Coating Density. Determine the
density of the ink or relaled coating
according to the procedure outlined in ASTM
D 14i~ (Reapproved 1980). which is
incorporated by reference. It is available
from the American Society of Testing and
Materials. 1916 Race Sh'eet Philadelphia.
Pennsylvama 19103. It is also availllhie for
inspection at the Office of the Fedpral
Register. Room 8401.1100 L Street. NW..
Washington. D.C. This incorporation by
reference was approved by the Director of
the Federal Register on November 8. 1982.
This material is incorporated as it exists on
the date of approval and a notice of any
change in these mateMals will be published in
the Federal Regisw.
2.3 Solvent Density. Determine the
density of the solvent according to the
procedure outlined in AS"FM D 14~
(reapproved 1980). Make a total of three
determinations for each coating. Report the
density Do as the arithmetic average of the
. three determinations.
3. Calculations.
3.1 WeilJht Fraction VOC. Calculate the
weight fractiun volatile orgar.ic content Wo
using the following equation:
190
---..~
w.= M., +M,\., -M,\~ - M.~
M,., - M,1"1
Report the weight fraction VOC W. ~s lh~
arithmetic average of the three
determinations.
3.2 Volume Fraction VOC. Calculate th~
volume fraction volatile organic con lent V,
using the following equation:
WoD,
V"+rr-
"
4. Bibliography.
4.1 Standard Test Method for Densilv of
Paint. Varnish. Lacquer. and Related -
Products. ASTM Designation D 1475-60
(Reapproved 1980).
4.2 Telecunversation. Wright. Chuck.
Inmont Corporation with Reich. R. A.. Radian
Corporation. September 25.1979. Gravure InK
Analysis.
4.3 Teleconversation. Oppenheimer.
Robert. Gravure Research Institute Witb Burt
Rick. Radian Corporation. Novemhf!f 5.19:'9.
Gravure Ink Analysis.
(FR Doc. _10 Filed 11~ - .ml
8ILU8IG CODa ......
-------
54258
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 231 / Wednesday. December 1. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
'=:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 eFR Part 60
(AD-FRL-2183-3(a»
Standards of Perform3nce for New
Stationary Sources; Petroleum Liquid
Storage Vessels; Amendment
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: Standards of performance for
petroleum liquid storage vessels were
promulgated in the Federal Register on
April 4. 1980 (45 FR 23373). This action
amends the standards by adding
pro\;siol1s allowing the use of a storage
vessel primary seal that is considered
by EPA to be equivalei'lt to one of the
primary seals required by the standards.
This amendment implements Section
1l1(h) of the Clean Air Act and is based
on the Adl'Ilinistrator's determination
that the primary seal in the V olume-
MaximizLTIg Seal system manufactured
by R.F.I. Services CorporCition is
equivalent to the vapor-mounted foam-
511ed primary seal specified in the
standards of performance.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 1.1982.
Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act. judicial review of this
amendment is available oniJr by the
filing of a petition for review in the U.5.
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit 'J\o'ithin 60 davs of
today's publication of this rule. Under
Section 30i(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act.
the requirements that are the subject of
today's notice may not be challenged
later in civil or criminal proceedings
brought by EPA to enforce these
requiremen Is.
ADDRESSES: Docket. A docket. number
A~58. containing information
considered by EPA in development of
the amendment. is available for public
inspection and copying between 8:00
a~. and ~:oo p.m.. Monday through
Friday. at EPA's Central Docket Section.
West Tower Lobby. Gallery 1.
Waterside Mall 401 M Street. S.W..
bWashington. D.C. A reasonable fee may
e charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Gene W. Smith. Standards
Development Branch. Emission
Standards and Engineering' Division
(MD..13). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park, North
CaSt rolina 27711. telephone number (919)
1-5624.
StIPIuMENTARY INFORMATION: On April
29. ~ (46 FR 23984). EPA published a
notice of proposed determinations that
two Seal systems for petroleum liquid
storage vessels. for which equivalency
determinations were requested by the
manufacturers. were not equivalent to
volatile organic compound (VOG)
emission control syste!Ds required by
the standards of performance in Subpart
Ka of 40 CFR Part 60. The final
determinations are published elsewhere
in this issue of the Federal Register. .
During the public comment period from
April 29 to June 29. 1981. one of the
manufacturers, R.F.I. Services
Corporation. requested EPA to also
determine equivalency for another one
of its seal systems, the Volume-
Maximizing Seal (VMS).
The VMS is essentially a combination
of two Weather-Guard single seals. (The
Weather-Guard single seal is the subject
of the original equivalency
determination requested by R.F 1.) The
VMS uses an inverted Weather~uard
single seal as lower seal and an upper or
_secondary seal (ajso W ea ther-Guard
single seal. but not inverted) to protect
the lower seal from water and debris so
a no-gap condition can be maintained..
R.F.l. commented that the lower seal
should be more tha~ equivalent to a
metallic shoe and the VMS equivalent to
a shoe seal with a rim-mounted
secondary seal. The VMS has a
continuous \'apor curtain hung from the
lower seal to isolate the vapor space
from the seal tip. R.F.L. therefore,
believes the iower seal to be more than
equivalent to a metallic shoe seal. which
is noncompressive and which has
fabric-to-metal expansion joints subject
to potential leaks. R.F.I. calculations
show emissions from a l00-foot
diar!1eter gasoline storage tank equipped
\Nith the VMS system to be 0.016
megagrams per year compared to 0.64
megagrams per year for a metallic shoe
seal with a rim-mounted secondary seal
EPA is unable to determine whether
the VMS is equivalent to a metallic shOt
seal with a secondary seal on the basis
of the information provided by R.F.I. The
R.F.I. emission calculations were based
on the emissions calculated from leak
rate data for the Weather~uard single
seal. This method of estimating
emissions is felt to be invalid for this
determination. Furthermore. at the
public hearing held on May 28, 1981.
R.F.L referred to the VMS as ". . .
nothing more than our single-seal
system inverted close to the product
with a similar secondary seal put above
the product." No mention was made
then of the continuous vapor curtain and
the similarity to a metallic shoe seal.
EPA believes that more information is
needed to make an equiv81ency
-determination on the VMS lower seal as
a metallic shoe seaL However. the lower
191
seal with or without a vapor curtain is
considered equivalent to a vapor-
mounted foam log seal based on t..~e fact
that the seal is an inverted Weather-
Guard single seal. As discussed in the
proposed equivalency determination for
the Weather-Guard single seal (46 FR
23984), emission tests for the foam-log
seal used in EPS's determination on the
Weather-Guard single seal because the
two seals ~ere considered analogous.
AIl amendment to the NSPS for
petroleum liquid storage vessels is.
therefore. being promulgated to provide
that the ]ower seal of the VMS svstem is
equivalent to the vapor-mounted seal
specified in Subpart Ka of 40 CFR Part
60.
The VMS systems is designed to allow
the secondary seal to rise above the
tan.~ shell. thus allowing complete
utilization of the tank capacity and a net
saving of 3 to 4 perceLt of tank capacity.
equal to tankage investment ~avings of
$18.480 for a l00-foot diameter tank.
R.F.I. has requested EPA to allow the
'VMS to be operated in this mode. Thev
sta te tha t when the tank is full. the ri~
space is fully protected by the lower
seal. and at all other times. the space is
protected by two seals.
R.F.1. has overstated the saving in
tank capacity by assuming the tank will
be operated full 100 percent of the time.
It is more realistic to assume tbe tank
would be full only during peak periods.
and the resulting investment savings
would probably be a fraction of R.F.I.'s
estimate. More important. however. is
the potential for high VOC emissions
when the secondary seal is out of the
tank. leaving only a single. seal to reduce
emissions. Allowing the VMS to be
operated in this manner would neither
be consistent with the importance EPA
has placed on the need for a double-seal
system. nor with the Agency's
l.:mcJusion on equivalency status for the
Weather-Guard single seal. Therefore, it
is concJuded that the VMS system
would be in compliance ,,;th the NSPS
only if the secondary seal remains in
centact with the tank wall
Docket
The docket is an organized and
complete file of all the information
considered by EPA in the development
of Ws rulemaking. The docket is a
dynamic file. since material is added
throughout the rulemaking development.
:The docketing system is intended to
. allow members of the public and
industries involved to identify and
locate documents readily so that they
can intelligently and effectively
participate in the rulemaking process.
The contents of the docket will serve as
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 47. No. 231 I Wednesday. December 1, 1982 I-Rules and Regulations' S42S9
the record in case of judicial review
(See. 307(d)(7)(A)).-
Miscellaneous
The effective date of this regulation is
December 1.1982. Section 111 of the
Clean Air Act provides that standards of
performance or revisions thereof
become effective upon promulgation and
apply to affected facilities. construction.
or modification of which was
commenced after the date of proposal.
This amendment applies to petroleum
liquid storage vessels for which -
construction cOII"..menced after May 18.
1978. the date of proposal of the
standards of performance.
Section 317 of the Clean Air Act
requires the Administrator to prepare an
economic impact assessment for any
new source perfonnance standard under
Section l11(b) of the Act, or for any-
substantia1 revision of a standard. This
equivalency determination js not
considered to be a substantial revision
of a standard. Therefore. no economic
impact assessment was prepared for the
equivalency determinations published in
this Federal Register notice.
The Administrator certifies that a
regulatory flexibility analysis under 5
D.S.C. 601 et seq. is not required for this
determination. The determination 11\ril1
not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities
because it does not impose any new
requirements.
Under E>..ecutive Order 12291. EPA
mus, judge whether a regulation is
"major" and therefore subject to the
requirement of a Regulatory Impact
AIla!ysis. This equivalency
deter:nination is not major because it
would result in none of the adverse
economic effects set forth in Section 1 of
the Order as grounds for finding a
regu!ation to be a "major rule."
This action was submitted to the
Office of M~nagement and Budget for
re\'jew by Executive Order 12291.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60.
Air pollution control, Aluminum.
Ammoni~'11 sulfate plants, Cement
industry. Cual. Copper, Electric power
plants. Glass and glass products. Grains.
Intergovernmental relations. Iron, Lead,
Metals. Motor vchicles. Nitric acid
plants. Paper and paper products
industry, Petroleum, Phosphate. Sewage
disposal. Steel. Sulfuric acid plants.
Waste treatment and disposal, Zinc.
Dated: November 22. 198Z.
AnDe M. GOrsuch.
Admini$trator.
PART ~AMENDED) --
Part 60 of Chapter L Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
by adding ~ 6O.114a(c) to Subpart Ka as
follows:
~ 60.114a Equivalent equipment and
procedures.
.
.
(c) The primary vapor-mounted seal in
the "Volume-Maximizing Seal"
manufactured by R.F.L Services
Corporation is approved as equivalent
to the vapor-mounted seal required by
~ 6O.112a(a)(1)(i) and must meet the gap
criteria specified in ~ 6O.112a(a)(1)(i)(B).
There shall be no gaps between the tank
wall and any secondary seal used in
conjunction with the primary seal in the
"Volume-Maximizing Seal."
(See. 111, 114, and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act
as amended (4Z U.S.C. 7411, 7414. 7601(a))
IFR Doc. 82-3~ FIled 1]-30-32: 8:45 8ml
BIW~ CODE ~
40 CFR Part 60
"
....
[Ao-FRL-2183-3(b))
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources; P.etroleum Uquid
Storage Vesseis; Notice of Final
Equivalency Determinations
AGENCV: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTIOIot: Rule-related notice; notice of
final equivalency determinations.
SUMMARY: This is a notice of EPA's
determination that two seai systems for
petroleum liquid storage vessels, for
which equivalency determinations were
rec;,~ested by the manufacturers
[Pitts!Jurgh-Des Moines Corporation
(PD~f) and R.FJ. Ser:ices Corporation
(R.F.I.)}. are not equinlent to the
volatile orgaruc compound (VOG)
em;ssion control systems required by
the standards of performance in Subpart
Ka of 40 CFR Part 50.
ADDRESSES: Docket. Docket No. A-80-
---58. containing supporting information
use~ in making the determinations, is
ava;lable for public inspection and
copying between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.,
Monday t..'1rough Friday, at EPA's
Central Docket Section. West Tower
Lobby, Gallery 1. Waterside Mall. 401 M
Street. SW.. Washington. D.C. A
reas~nable fee may be charged for
copymg.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Gene W. Smith. Standards
192
-
Development Branch. Emission-
Standards and EngineerinB Division
(MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Parle. North
Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)
541-5624'.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Final Equivalency Determination.
On April 29. 1981 (46 FR 23984). EPA
published a notice of proposed
determinations that two seal systems fOI
petroleum liquid storage vessels, fQl'
wIDch equivalency determinations were
requested by the manufacturers, were
not equivalent to volatile organic.
compound (VOC) emission control
systems required by the stanilards of
performance in Subpart Ka of 40 CPR
Part 60. To provide interested persons
the opportunity for oral presentation of
data, views. or arguments concerning
the proposed determinations, a public
hearing was held on May 28, 1981. in
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
In addition. during the public comment
period from April 29 to June 29. 1981,
eight comment letters were received.
After careful consideration of the
comments presented at the public
hearing and in letters received during
the public comment period, EPA has
concluded that the proposed
determinations should not be changed.
Therefore. the final determinations are
that neither the PDM TUBESEALIi/
Weathershield svstem nor-the R.Fl.
Weather-Guard ~ingle seal is equivalent
to seal systems required by the
- standanis of perfonnance for petroleum
liquid storage vessels in 40 CFR 60.1128.
The mam reason for these denials oi
equivalency status is that gaps can be
expected to develop between the seals
and tank walls over- a period of time,
and when gaps occur, the performance
of these candidates seal systems is
clearly not. equivalent to the equipment
required by the standards. The fact that
gaps occur is supported by specific
inspection data submitted by
cornmentors as wen as a statement of
general knowledge common 10 storage
tank owners and regulatory agencies.
The complete rationale for these denials
of equivalency appeared in the proposec
determinations (46 FR 23984. April ~,
1981) and remains unchanged. EPA's
responses to major comments received
since Aprilzg are discussed below. A
more detailed discussion of comments
and EPA's responses is included in
Docket Number A:..ao-58.
Significant Comments and EPA '8
Responses
Comments were received trom the
two companies requesting equivalency.
-------
54%60
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 231 I Wednesday. December 1. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
petroleum storage tank owners and
operators. and State ~ local air
pollution control agenCies. Most of the
comment letters contained multiple
comments which have been categorized
for discussion. The equivalency
determinations are discussed separately
below.
PD,Vs TUBESEAL./Weathershield
In tDe original request for equivalency
and in comments subsequent to the
proposed denial of equivalency, PDM
submitted data and information in
support of its claim that the w. . .
TUBESEAL-fWeathershield system is
more than equivalent to the shoe seal
with secondary and hence should itself
receive equivalency status. W The
primary basis for the equivalency
reouest was a set of emission test data
taken by PDM wrJch compared the
efficiency of the TUBESEAL~ system to
the shoe seal system. The tests were
conducted witD no gaps in the
TUBESEAL- and large gaps (inherent In
the design) in the Weathershield. and no
gaps in either the shoe seal or its
secondary. Under these test conditions.
the data indicated that the TIJBESEAL"
~\'stem was m~ efficient that the shoe
5~iil system. PDM contends that t..l,e
rL'EESEAL" can be operated \'\'!thout
gzps and. therefore, a Weat.,ershield.
el'et'! wjtlt its large gap area. is sufficient
10 make the system equivalent to a shoe
32:d s}'sle,m. and a continuous
si:conda!"y seal is not necessary
EPA dOes not believe that the
TeEESEAL" can always be operated
w'thoul gaps. based on inspection data
discussed later in this notice. Further, .
Chiccgo Bridge and Iron Compa;:;.y (CBI)
test dala. on which the ~uivalency
determbation is based. indicate that
when gaps are introduced in a liquid-
mounted. liquid-fJled seal like the
TL'3ESEAL", emissions increase at a
significantly higher rate than L"I,ey do
from a metallic shoe seal 'f\.;th
comparable gaps. In.the GEl tests. when
gap areas in the metallic shoe seal were
inc~sed from 0 to 14 square inches per
fool of tank diameter. t.1ere was only
about a 50 percent increase in
emissions. whereas emissions from the
liquid-mounted. liquid-filled seal
increased by about 300 percent when
the g"dp area L'1creased from 0 to 2..4
sqWire inc.~es per foot of tank diameter.
Thesedata illustrate the importance of a
continuous secondary seal when the
prirr:ary ha.c; gaps. particular]\' when the
prirr:ary is a liquid-mounted. iiquid-fi]led
seal.
PD~fs comments on the proposed
denial of equivalency were primarily
concerned with the basis for the #
detennination. PDM commenled,that (1)
EPA should have based the
determination on emission data taken
by PDM under gap-free conditions
rather than on CBI data taken with gaps
in the seals: (2) EPA assumed too high
an emission reduction efficiency for
continuous secondary seals and too low
an efficiency for the PDM
Weathershield; (3) EPA did not consider
PDM data that showed the TUBESEAL"
svstem to be more efficient than the .
IT;etallic shoe seal system even when
temperatures ander the Tt.JBESEAL-
approached the product's boiling point.
bul the same conditions did not exist
under the shoe seal; (4) EPA should
consider factors other than emission
reduction. such as cost effectiveness,
fire hazard potentiaL and corrosiveness
of the seal system, in making the final
determination
Effect of Gaps on Seal System
Performance
PDM commented that EPA
assumptions concerning gap areas on
liquid-mounted primary seals do not
reflect actual conditions on at least two-
thirds of the ta:lk population and.
therefore. should not be used for
determining equival~ncy for the
TUBESEAL'" /Weathershield system.
PDM submitted inspection data it
collected in 1977 for 38 tanks equipped
with TUBESEALS- which showed that
two-thirds had no gaps between the seal
and tank wall. Tnis percentage was
similar to that for tanks inspected in
1976-1977 by local regulatory agencies
which were equipped with resilient
primary seals. an uncertain number of
which were liquid-filied liquid-mounted
seals.
EPA agrees that the inspection data
cited by PDM indicate that, at any given
time. a large percentage of liquid-
mounted seals can be expected to
operate without gaps. However, the data
also indicate that as many as one-t),; :
of the seals inspected had gaps. Without
evidence to the contrary, EPA assumes
that all t'te seals inspected were
properly inste.!led and well maintaL'1ed.
Therefore. e~ission data obtained while
gaps were between the liquid-mounted
seal and tank wall reflect actual field
conditions for at least a portion of the
lank population and are appropriate for
use in evaluating seal system
performance.
The San Diego Air Pollution Control
Districl commented that the PDM
TlJBESEAL"'fWeathershield ~'stem
would be E'quh"alent to a vapor-mounted
primary seal \\;th a continuous
secondary seal if the TUBESEAL" could
be mainl~ined with gaps no wider the X&
inch.. it wocid not be used where
freezing of liquid in the TUBESEAL~ is
193
possible. and there would be a weeldy
inspection by tank owners. The District
emphasized that it would be ve-v
difficult to ensure that these conditions
are met in the field. This comment
supports EPA's position that under
normal operating conditions. the PDM
system is not equivalent.
PDM commented that EPA's
assumptions about seal gaps were
unrealistic and should not have been
used in the equh'alency determination
for the 11JBESEAL- system. EPA
evaluated effects of primary seal gaps
ranging from 2.4 to 10.0 square inches
per foot of tank diameter. and the CBI
pilot tank tests included primary seals
with gaps of 1.3 to 14.7 square inches.
PDM has stated that primary sea.! gaps
of 10.0 square inches are extreme. and a
gap area of 2.4 square inches would
indicate a lolallv failed liquid-mounted
seal.
EPA agrees thaI a gap area of 10.0
square inches per foot of tan.k diameter
IS unrealistic for a liquid-mounted seal
and. therefore. did not use it in makmg
the fmal delemunatioD. PDM's
- statement that a gap area of 2..4 square
inches per foot of tank diameter
represents a faaed seal is ~consistent
wIth field inspection data mentioned
earlier that showed gap aIe.as greatel'
than 2.4 square inches- It is also
inconsistent with PD~rs own requesl
thaI a gap area of 4J square inches per
fool oj lank diameter be allowed for Ihe
TUBESEAL". EFA's use of emission dala
under varying gap areas was inlended 10
illustrate the fact that with any gap in
the primary seal. regardless of the size,
the effectiveness of a Weathershield is
less than that of a continnous secondary
seal.
Secondary Seal Performance
PDM commented that EPA's proposed
determination was based on an
emission reduction efficiency that was
too high for conti;!uous secor:dary seals
(78 perce:1t). The bas:s for the comment
was the emission data from one test
conducted by PD~1 that showed th~t tDe
rim-mounted continuous secorldarv seal
was only 50 percent E:fficient in reducing
emlssions from the primary metallic
shoe seaL Thus, according to PDM. it
can be assumed that futiy tight
secondary seals (over all types of
primary seals) are only 50 percent
effecti\'e in TE'ducing errJssicns.
EPA carefullv re\-;ewed the dala
submitted by PD~1 and could not
determine t}~ reasons for the low
efficiency for the secondarv sea! in the
PDM test. Therefore. EPA decided to use
data taken from several tests by CBI on
a 20-foot diameter pilot test tank to
-------
Federal Register I VoL 47. No. 231 / Wednesday. December 1. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
54261
evaluate the secondary seal's be 50 percent efficient while a tight
performance. These tests were .fitting secondary is 78 percent efficient.
conducted ander varying conditions and Based on these data. PDM believes the
with different types of primary seals. In efficiency of its Weather shield !Ihould
all the CBI tests. the efficiency of be somewhere in between.
secondary seals was shown to be EPA does not agree that the CBI test
greater than the 50 percent claimed by data support PDMs claim that the
PDM. When used with a metallic shoe efficiency of PDMs Weathershield is
primary seal the efficiency of the between 50 and 78 percent. In fact. the
seconda...y was 88 percent (no gaps in data indicate that the efficiency of the
either seal and param.eters normalized PDM Weathershield is comparable to .
to a windspeed of 5.4 mph and a 7.5 psia that of a loose-fitting Weathershield or
true \'apor pressure of stored gasoline). loose-fitting secondary seaL The GEl
In addition. API Publication 2517. data show that a fully tight secondary
"Eva.poration Loss from External seal is 78 percent efficient. They also
Floati.r:g-RoofTanks. Second Edition,' snow t..~a.t both a loose-fitting
Februa..'1' 1980. presents los5 equations Weathershield with a gap area ranging
for deter:m..'li.ng emissions from from 9 to Zi square inches per foot of
representative tank populations tank diame~er and a loose-fitting
("average" seal factors] and from field secondary seal with a gap area of 4.87
tanks with essentially no gaps in their square inches per foot of tank diameter
seal system rtight" seal factors). Using are about 50 percent efficient. This
these factors. the efficiency of a indicates that the existence .of a large
continuous secondary seai over a gap area (greater than 1 square inch per
metallic shoe primary seal at the PDM foot of tank diameter) is the main reason
normalized field test condition is - for the decrease in efficiency. The
calculated to be greater than. 92 percent. relative sizes of the gap areas
In specific CBI tests of fu.!.!y tight apparently had little effect on the test
secondary seals over fully tight liquid- results since the efficiency remained at
mour.ted and vapor-mounted primary about 50 percent eveo-though the gap
seals.. the secondary seal eSciencies areas ranged from 4.87 to Zl square
were 70 and 96 percent respectlnly. inches per foot of tank diameter. The
Weathershieid tested by PDM had a gap
The "average" Eeal ef5.dendes
calculated from API 2517 are 77 and 72 area of 5.6 square inches per foot of tank
diameter and. thus. could be expected to
percent respectively. exhibit L'1.e same efficiency as the CHI
Based on the specific CBl tests. EPA Weatner5hield and loose-fitting
se!l
-------
54262 'F.ederal Register / Vol. 47, No. 231 / Wednesday, December 1, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
request and subsequent comments were
primarily based on its interpretation of
the leak rate data and calculations of
VQC emission rates from the leak rate
data. All of R.F.L's data and calculations
were also based on the assumption that
. the Weather-Guard single seal would be
able to be operated with no gaps
between the seal and the tank wall. In
the proposed determination that the
R.F.I. seal is not equivalent to equipment
required in 40 CFR 50, Subpart Ka. EPA
concluded that leak rate data caMot be
used to compare emissions from the
R.F.I. seal to those from a double seal
required by Subpart Ka. and that the
R.F.I. seal can be expected to develop
aaps during its service life.
o During the public comment period,
R.F.I. submitted comments. to support itl
positions concerning the lack of gaps
with a Weather-Guard single seal, the
use ofleak rate data to calculate
emissions, and the low cost of the
Weather-Guard single seal in
comparison to a double-seal system.
R.F.I. also requested that its Volume-
Maximizing Seal system be approved as
equivalent to the standards of
performance for petroleum liquid
storage vessals. Several oil companies
submItted comments in support of
R.F.I.'s request for equivalency for the
single seal. and two air pollution control
agencies commented in support of EPA's
determination. The major issues raised
in the comments are discussed below. A
more detailed summary of commenls
2nd EPA's responses are included in
Docket ~o. A-8D-S8.
Gops in the Weather-Guard Single Seal
R.F.I. disagreed with EPA's main
reason for proposing the denial of
equivalency for the Weather-Guard
single seal-that the seal can be
expected to have gaps during normal
operation between inspections. R.Fl.
stated t,at the seal is specificaily
designed to maintain a no-gap condition
at all times. In support of this position.
R.F.l. states that worst-case testing
conducted on specially prepared surface
defects and out-of-roUDd shell suriaces,
and lifetime equiyalent testing
conducted for contact, wear resistance,
and continued integrity indicated that
the seal will not have gaps as long as
the plates are intact and easily seen in a
"isual inspection. Inspection results for
nine in-service tanks were submitted by
tank owners in support of R.F.I.'s
~osition. Not all of the seals inspected
were gap-free, but the commenters
explained that the gaps could be
eliminated through minor repair or tank
design change.
The information provided by the
commenters indicated that all of the
nine seals inspected had been in service
from 1 month to less than 2 years,
whereas R.F.I. predicts a Weather-
Guard seal life of 15 years. Thus. EPA
believes that the conclition of this small
sampling of seals cannot necessarily be
considered representative of what might
occur over a 15-year period.
The California Air Resources Board
commented in support of EPA's
proposed determination on the Weather-
Guard single seal. The San Diego Air -
Pollution Control District also provided
comments and inspection data
supporting the position that the
Weather-Guard cannot maintain a gap-
free condition except UDder unusually
favorable tank conditions. During the 6-
month period from June to December
1980. the San Diego District made 14
inclividual inspections on a Weather-
Guard seal installed in a tank that was
off.level and out-of-round. conditions
that commonly develop in many tanks
over a period of time. Gaps were found
in almost all of the inspections. The
District recommended, therefore, that
EPA not grant equivalency to the
Weather-Guard single seal. The
District's inspec)ion data conflict with
R.F.I.'s claim that the Weather-Guard
will not gap even under worst-case
conditions. After carefully considering
all the inspection data submitted by
commenters. EPA continues to believe
that the RF.I. Weather-Guard single seal
cannot routinely be maintained in a gap-
free condition.
Calculating vac Emissions from Leak
Rate Data
R.F.!. attempted to compare emissions
from the Weather-Guard-single seal to
those from a primary vapor-mounted
foam seal with a secondary flapper seal
by injecting nitrogen under the single
seal and under the foam seal and
measuring the quantity of nitrogen
required to maintain the same const' :
fixed pressure under each seal. EPA had
concluded that these leak-rate tests clid
not create annular circumferential flows
of air and hydrocarbon caused by wind-
induced pressure differentials on the
floating roof resulting from wind flow
over the tank and. therefore, cannot be
used to compare a single seal to a
double seal. R.F.I. commented that
EPA's conclusion is incorrect and, to
support its position, submItted data and
hvdrocarbon concentrations measured
~ith an explosimeter in the vapor space
under the Weather-Guard in several in-
service tanks. The data did not reflect
the effect of wind-induced air flow
UDder the seal on hydrocarbon
concentrations. R.F.L concluded.
therefore. that there was no air flow
under the tight-fitting Weather-Guard
195
single seal: and that 8 leak-rate test.
therefore. does represent a realistic
evaluation of emission potential for
seals with no gaps.
EPA has reviewed R.F.L's comments
and information. However. it remains
EPA's conclusion that the leak rate tests
performed by R.F.I. do not provide a
valid comparison of the perlormance of
the R.F~ Weather-Guard single seal and
the vapor-mounted foam log primary
seal with a secondary flapper seal
(double seal). As discussed in the
following paragraphs. there are several
reasons for this conclusion.
The principal factors which affect the
rate of vapor leakage from an external
floating roof tank with vapor-mounted
seals are (1) the size of any gaps which
exist in the seal or between the seal and
tank walL and (2) the pressure
differential across the gaps. Pressure
differentials across a gap are primarily
caused by the wind moving across the
surface of the storage tank's external
floating roof. The wind causes negative
pressures along a part of the seal
circumference and positive pressures
along other portions of the seal. Positive
pressures force air into gaps and
negative pressures force vapors out of
gaps into the atmosphere, causing the
air to flow circumferentially around the
seal in the vapor space. While smaller
gap areas produce smaller leak rates.
even tight or so-called "no gap". seals
have finite gaps and are thus affected by
wind-induced pressure on the seal. The
concentration measurements made by
R.F.L in the vapor space under the
Weather-Guard single seal caMot be
used as an indicator of wind-induced -
airflow under the seal (or lack thereof)
as R.F.L attempted to do. The data from
the measurements showed that
hydrocarbon concentrations clid not
increase in the direction of the flow path
as R.FJ. expected they would if,there
were wind-induced circumferential flow.
However. the w1ndsweep is very low
Imder a tight seal, and the hydrocarbon
concentration in the vapor space is
essentially at the 100 percent saturation
level. As a result, concentrations would
be fairly constant at all locations in the
vapor space. Therefore, the
concentration data taken by R.F.I. are
not useful as an indicator of wind-
induced airflow under a vapor-moUDted
seal caused by pressure differentials
along the seal circumference,
In the case of vapor-mounted single
seals, the pressure differentials induced
by the wind are similar from seal to
seal. As a result, it is possible to
compare the performance of different
vapor-moUDted single seals by using
leak rate tests. However, it has not been
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 4i, No. 231 / Wednesday. December 1, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
54263
shown that double seals can be
compared in this way; nor can single
seal performance be compared to double
seal performance using a ]eak rate test.
The reason is that the secondary seal in
a double seal system tends to insulate
the primary seal from the pressure
ef:ects and wind-sweep caused by \'lIind
moving across the top of the tank. As
such. for any given wind condition the
pressure differential and wind-sweep
effects across a primary seal in a double
seal system wouid probably be less than
for a single seal. Since the leak rate tests
performed by R.F.I. compared single
versus double seals at equal pressures
u;1der the primary vapor-mounted seals,
the results are unrepresentative of
actual conditions and yield invalid
comparisons.
Moreover, the R.F.I. leak rate tests
were performed on tanks with seals
ha\ing essentially no gaps. As described
in the previous section. this is not
representative of expected field
conditions and serves primarily to show
only the relative tightness of the two
seals.
Miscellaneous
R.F.I. and other commenters stated
that EPA should consider the Weather-
Guard's lower cost relative to the NSPS
seal system in determining equivalency.
Section 111(h)(3) of the Act specifies
that a determination of equivalency is
based on whether a system's reduction
in emissions is equivalent to that
required by an NSPS. Other factors are
irrelevant. Therefore. the Administrator
does not consider cost considerations to
be applicable to this equivalency
determination.
One commenter stated that EPA
should establish test criteria for
determining equivalency under the
!,;SPS for petroleum liquid storage
vesselS so that innovative and cost-
effective control technology may be
e','aluated expeditiously without
subsequent questioning of the test
parameters and scope. R.F.l. said that if
EPA contends that "emission test data
such as obtained on specific seal and
sea! systems in the Chicago Bridge and
Iron (CHI) test facility can serve a~ the
best technological basis * * *," then it
must also concede that onlv those seal
genders tested in the CHI f~cility will be
available for use because that test
facility is the only one in existence.
EPA agrees that a simple and quick
means of determining equivalency is
desirable. However, at this time specific
test criteria that would be applicable for
every type of seal technology for which
equivalency may be requested are not
feasible. Ideally. actual emission data
should be used to make equivalency
determinations. EPA recognizes.
however, that emission testing either in
a facility similar to CHI's or by actual
field testing is very expensive and time-
consuming. The generic seal systems
tested by CBI do represent the best
measurements of VOC emissions
available for equivalency
determinations. However. EPA will
consider other information such as leak
rate data, engineerL'18 specifications.
and inspection data to be used in
conjunction with CBI or similar tests in
making determinations. For example.
the leak rate data from the R.F.I. field
test on the Weather-Guard single seal
was essentially the same as the CBI leak
rate test on a primary vapor-mounted
foam log seal without a secondary seal.
EPA concluded that the leak rate data
could be used to compare the
effectiveness of these single seals and
used the CB! vapor-mounted foam seal
emissions data for evaluation. There
were no CBI or other data relating
emissions from a vapor-mounted foam
log seal with a rim-mounted continuous
secondarv seal to leak rate. On this
basis. EPA rejected leak rate data on the
double-seal system/as a basis for the
determination.
Several commenters noted that EPA's
proposed denial of NSPS equivalency
has caused concern by many companies
that State regulations which perm1t
installation of the Weather-Guard single
seal on existing tanks \\oill be negated.
They requested EPA to make it clear
that the :";SPS determination in no way
affects equwalency determinations
made by States relative to CTG
requirements for existing tanks. EPA
agrees that this determination only
pertains to new tanks and does not
involve consideration of tanks which
have an existing Weather-Guard seal
system in place.
A related comment made by R.F.I.
was that EPA should..allow the use of
the Weather-Guard single seal over a
"nonconforming" (not in compliance
with CTG requirements) primary seal on
existiI'.g tanks. Again. this would be a
determination to be made bv individual
States and is not related to this
equivalency determination. In making
such a determination. it is expected that
a State would consider the information
presented in this notice but would also
consider other information such as the
condition and gap status of the tank and
the existing primary seal.
The R.F.I. Volume-Maximizing Seal
In the Jetter containing comments on
the equivalency determina tion for the
Weather-Guard single seal. R.F.1.
requested equivalency for its Weather-
Guard Volume-Maximizing Seal (VMS).
196
.::::::::
The VMS uses an inverted Weather-
Guard single seal as a lower seal and an
upper or secondary seal (also a
Weather-Guard. single seal. but not
inverted) to protect the lower seal from
water and debris so a no-gap condition
can be maintained. R.F.I. commented
that the lower seal should be more than
equivalent to a metallic shoe seal and
the VMS equivalent to a shoe seal with
a rim-mounted secondary seal. The
equivalency determination for the VMS
is discussed earlier in this document
Docket
The docket is an organized and
complete file of all the information
considered by EPA in these
determinations of equivalency. The
docket is a dynamic file, since material
is added throughout the rulemaking
development The docketing system is
intended to allow members of the public
and industries involved to identify and
locate documents readily so that they
can intelligently and effectively
participate in the rulemaking process,
Along with the statement of basis and
purpose of the proposed and final
determinations and EPA responses to
significant comments. the contents of
the docket will serve as the record in
cases of judicial review (See.
307( d)(7)(A)).
Miscellaneous
The Administrator certifies that a
regulatory flexibility analysis under 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq. is not required for
these determinations, The
determinations will not have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because they
do not impose any new requirements. In
addition, since the determinations do no
more than deny requests for Agency
action, they are not "rules" for the
purposes of 5 U.S.C 601 et seq.
Under Executive Order 12291, EPA
must judge whether a regulation is
"major" and therefore subject to the
requirement of a Regulatory Impact
Analysis. These equivalency
determinations are not major because
th'ey would result in none of the adverse
economic effects set forth in Section 1 of
the Order as grounds for finding a
regulation to be a "major rule,"
This action was submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget for
review as required by Executive Order
12291.
Dated: November 22. 1962.
Anne M. Gorsuch.
Administrator.
IflI. Doc. lI2-32II07 Piled 11-30-8:: 8:45 lair
BILLING COOE .,......
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. Z / Tuesday, January 4. 1963 / Proposed Rules
2i9
40 CFR Part 60
[AD-FRl-2224-71
! Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources; VOC Fugitive
Emission Sources; Petroleum
Refineries
AGENCY: Ennronmental Protection
:\~",:-!cy (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule dnd notice of
;;llblic hearing.
SUMMARY: The proposed standards
would limit emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VDC) from fugitive
emission sources in the petroleum
refining industry. The proposed
s!andards would.: (1) Require a ieak
detection and repair program to reduce
VDC emissions from pumps and valves:
and (2) specify the use of certain
equipment to reduce VDC emissIons
from compressors. sampling connection
~ystems, and open-ended valves. The
proposed standards would also allow no
detectable emission from pressure relief
devices during normal operations.
The proposed standards implement
the Clean Air Act and are based on the
Administrator's decision that fugitive
emission sources of VDC in the
petroleum refIning industry ::c~t::bute
significantly to air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipatE:d to enda!!ger
public health or welfare. As reqwred by
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act. the
proposed standards are intended to
require new. modified, and
reconstructed sources in the petroleum
refining industry to use the best
demonstrated system of continuous
emission reduction. consIdering costs,
nonair quality health and environmental
impact and energy requirements.
A public hearing will be held to
provide interested persons an
opprotunity for oral presentation of
data, views. or arguments concerning
the proposed standards.
DATES: Comments: Comments must be
received on or before March 21, 1983.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts
EPA requesting to speak at a public
197
hearin~ by February 11. 1983. a public
hearing wul be held on Febru~ry ~.
1983 beginning at 10 a.m. Persons
mterested in attending the hear.nS!
should call Mrs. :-';aomi Durkee at 1919)
541-55:"8 to venfy that a hearing will
occur.
R~q:Jes~s ~o Speak at H2<1.-:."1g.
pp.!"sons wishinl;! to prese::! oral
test:mcny must contact EPA =>y
Feb~uary 21, 1983.
ADDRESSES: Comments. C0:TIments
shou!d ~., submitted; in duplicate. If
possIble; to: Central Docket SectIon (A-
130), :\t:ent:un: Docket ~o. A~,
L' S. Environmental Protection Agencv.
.wI M Street. S. '...... , Washington. D C.
20460.
Pubiic Hearf[~g, If anyone contacts
EP A requesting a public hearing, the
public hearing ",,'ill be held at the Office
of Administration Auditonum, Research
Triangl9 Park. N.C. Persons inter~~~ed in
atter:ding the hearing should c",:: ~b.
Saoml Dcrkee at (919) 541-55;"1) ~o v",,'fy
tha t a hearing wHl occur.
Persons wishing to present or..;!
testimony shuuld notify Mrs. '.lOrnl
Durkee, Standards Developme:n Sranch
(~13). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, :-';orth
Carolina 27711, telephone nurr:ber (919)
541-5578.
Background Information Document.
The background information document
(BIDJ for the proposed standards is
contained in the docket and may be
obtained from the U.S. EPA library
(MD-35), Research Triangle Park, r--;or~h
Carolina 27':"11. telephone number (919)
541-2777. Please refer to "VDC Fugitive
Emissions In Petroleum Refining
Industry-Background Information for
Proposed Standards" (EPA-450/3-81-
015aJ.
Docket. Docket No. A-80-44,
contdIn
-------
-
Federal Register I Vol. 48, No.2 I Tuesday, January 4, 1983 I Proposed Rules
-
--
sourceS of volatile organic compounds
(VOC) within petroleum refineries. The
proposed standards would apply to new.
modified. and reconstructed
compressors and new, modified. and
reconstructed fugitive emission sources
within process units. The proposed
standarda would reduce fugitive
emissions of vae from pumps. valves.
sampling connections. pressure relief
devices and open-ended valves in vae
service within process units and from
. compressors in vae service. "In vae
service" means that a fugitive emission
source contains or contacts a fluid
containing 10 or more percent by weight
Vac.
The proposed standards are different
from most standards of performance
because they are mainly work practices
and equipment standards rather than
emission standards and they cover
several emission sources. The proposed
standards would require: (1) A leak
detection and repair program for valves
in gal or light liquid service and for
pumps in light liquid service; (2) certain
equipment for compressors. sampling
connection systems. and open-ended
valves: and (3) no detectable emissions
from pressure relief devices in gas
service during normal operation. "In gas
service" means that a fugitive emission
source contains vae fluids in the
gaseous or vapor state. "In light liquid
service" means that a fugitive emission
source contains vac liquids which will
have more than 10 percent of the liquids
evaporated at a boiling point of 150° C.
as determined by ASTM Method D 86.
While still assuring that equivalent
emission reduction will be achieved. the
proposed standards allow the use of
alternative equipment for valves. pumps,
compressors and sampling connection
systems. In addition. the proposed
standards provide alternative standards
for valves and a procedure for
determining the equivalency of
alternative control measures.
SUIIIIDUY of Eavironm-*.al, Energy. and
~""'nomk Impac:ta
The proposed standards of
performance would reduce fugitive
emissions ofVQC from new. modified.
and reconstructed compressors and
process units (production facilities) by
about 70 percent from the emission
levels that would result with control
means currently practiced by the
industry. In 19116. the proposed
standards would reduce uncontrolled
fugitive emissions of VQC from new.
modified. and reconstructed production
facilities by approximately 46.000
megqrams (Mg). a ~duction of
emiseions from 64.000 megagrams of
VQC per year (Mg/yr) to about 18.000
Mg/yr. By 1986. some States will require
control of petroleum refinery fugitive
emission sources of vae through their
State implementation plans (SIP's).
Consequently. the vac emission
reduction attributable to the proposed
standards after these SIP's are
established by 1986 would be 31,000 Mg.
a reduction of emissions from 49,000
Mg/yr to about 18,000 Po,tg/yr.
The proposed standards or
performance would not increase the
energy usage within petroleum
refineries. In general, the controls
required by the proposed standards do
not require energy. Furth'?rmore. the
effect of the proposed standards would
be to increase efficiency of raw material
usage. so that a net positive energy
impact would resuh. Implementation of
the proposed standards could result in a
minor adverse solid waste impact. In
contrast. the proposed standards would
also cause a positive impact on water
quality by containment of potential
liquid leaks. .
The proposed standards would
require a cumulative capital investment
of $8.2 million for newly constructed
. production facilities and up to $19.0
million for modified and reconstructed
production facilities through 1986. This
capital investment would not defer
construction of petroleum refinery units.
The industry-wide net annualized cost
for new. modified. and reconstructed
production facilities could be as much
as $8.2 million in 1986. These aJsts
would be distributed among about 100
newly constructed production facilities
and up to 182 modified and
reconstructed production facilities that
could be affected by 1986. Significant
price increases are not expected to
result from implementation of these
standards because the annualized cost
of the proposed standards is a small
fraction (0.1 percent or less) of the
yearly revenue expected from new. and
modified. reconstructed production
facilities.
p..ti......I.
Selection of Sources and Pollutants
The Priority List (40 CFR 60.16.44 FR
49222. August 21. 19i9) includes. in order
of priority for standards development,
various major source categories that the
Administrator has determined
contribute significantly to air pollution
which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare. The
order of the listed categories is based on
consideration of the three factors
specified in Section 111(f) of the Clean
Air Act: (1) The quantity of air pollutant
emissions which each category will be
designed to emit, (2) the extent to which
198
each such pollutant may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare. and (3) the mobility and
competitive nature of each category. The
Priority List identifies the source
categories for which EPA must
promulgate standards of performance.
The category "Petroleum Refineries:
Fugitive Sources" ranks third on the list.
Fugitive emission sources at
petroleum refineries include
compressors. pumps. valves, flanges.
pressure relief devices. open-ended
valves, sampling connection systems.
process drains. wastewater separators.
and cooling towers. Process drains and
wastewater separators are part of the
wastewater system within a petroleum
refinery. Studies are currently being
conducted which should allow
development at a later date of standards
of performance for fugitive emission
sources which are part of a refinery
wastewater system. Presently available
refinery data on cooling towers indicate
that new cooling towers use indirect
heat transfer and that emissions from
these cooling towers are much less than
emissions from cooling towers that use
direct heat transfer. Additionally.
control techniques for indirect cooling
towers are not well defined. Adequate
information is available. however. to
develop standards of performance for
compressor-. pumps. flanges. valves.
pressure relief devices. sampling
connection systems, and open-ended
valves. Therefore. EPA selected
compressors. pumps. flanges. valves.
pressure relief devices. sampling
connection systems. and open-ended
valves as the fugitive emission sources
covered by the proposed standards.
Fugitive emission sources covered by
the proposed standards emit volatile
organic compounds (VOC) that
contribute to atmospheric
photochemical reactions. As discussed
in Appendix E of the BID. about 100
newly constructed production facliities
and as many as 182 modified or
reconstructed production facilities eouid
become covered by the proposed
standards during the period from 1982 to
1986. If the fugitive emission sources
covered by the proposed sta:1darcis m
these 282 production facilities are
controlled only by existing main~enanee
procedures. an estimated 601,000
megagrams ofVae per year (~(g/y.)
would result from these facilities in
1986. If however. these sources are
controlled by SIP's in States not
attaining the national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone
and by existing maintenance procedures
in States attaining the NAAQS for
ozone. an estimated 49,000 Po,tg/yr would
-------
-
-
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.2 / Tuesday. fanuary 4, 1983 ! Proposed Rules
281
result from these facilities in 1986. The
proposed standards. 3S presented in this
preamble. would reduce these emissions
to about 18.000 Mg/yr in 1986.
In summary. al required by Section
111(f) of the Clean Air Act. EPA selected
fugitive emission sourr::es at petroleum
refineries as a source cate!j!ory for which
EPA must p:-omulgate standards of
performance. After considering the
adequacy of available information. EPA
decided to propose standards for
compressors. pumps. flanges. valves.
pressure relief devices. sampling
connection systems. and open-ended
\'alve~. In 1986. emissions of VOC would
be reduced by at least 31.000 Mgfyr for
the fugitive emission sources covered by
:he proposed standards.
Standards of performance have other
benefits in addition to achieving
emissions reductions. Standards of
perfor.nance establish a degree of
national uniformity to air pollution
star.dards. and. therefore. preclude
sls-eq":.apment or g!':JllpS 'Jf
e...,ICJ;Jrr.ent-whic~ emit aIr pO~lC1tar.'S
dnd whIch, cO:'lsequently, may be
viewed as "sources." EPA uses the term
"~f~ected facility" to designate the
equ:pment or groups of equipment.
w;t!-.:n , ;:drticular kind or plant. +osen
JS the "source" affected by given
'itandards of performance.
In choosing the affected factlity, EPA
must decide which equipment or groups
of equi;Jment is the appropriate umt. or
tl:e 'SGllrce." for separate standards of
pcrform:mce in the particular industnal
CO!1text invGivreci. EPA must do ,hJS by
e'< ,mining the situation in light of :he
terms and purpose of Section 111 of the
Clean Air Act. One major cor..sideration
m determining the defirntion of a source
is that the use of a narrower designation
results in bringing replacement
equipment under standards of
performance sooner. If. for example. an
entire plant is designated as the affected
facility. 00 part of the plant would be
covered by the standards unless the
plant as a whole is "modified" (see 40
CFR 60.14) or "reconstructed" (see 40
CFR 60.15). The plant as a whole could
be cansidered modified only if the
replacement resulted in an increase in
the aggregate emissions from the entire
plant. The plant as a whole could be.
considered reconstructed only if the cost
of the replacement exceeded 50 percent
of the cost of an entire new plant. If. on
the other hand. each piece of equipment
is designated as an affected facility.
then as each piece is replaced. the
replacement pie{;e will be a new source
subject to the standards regardless of
the cost of the replacement or whether
the replacement caused emissions from
the plant as a whole to increase. Since
the purpose of Se{;tion 111 is to minimize
~T.:s5ior.s by applica~:on of the best
demonstrated system of emission
reduction at all new and modified
sources (considering cost. nonair quality
health and environmental impacts. and
energy requirements). there is a
presumption that a narrower
designation of the affected facility is
proper. This ensures that new emission
sources within plants will be brought
under the coverage of the standards as
they are installed. This presumption can
be overcome. however. if EPA concludes
199
eid~er that: (a) A broader designation of
the ,ffected facility would result :.n
greater emissIon reduction; or 'bJ
consIderation of the olher relevant
qtat'Jtory factor! (techmcal feasibIlity,
costs. nondlr quality health and
e:wironmentalimpacts. and energy
requIrements) leads to the conclusion
t"at a oroader designation IS
appropriate.
4.ffec~ed fdcilities for standards :hdt
>\'ould.cover fugitive emission sources
could be defined as individual emIssion
sources (equipment components). groups
of equipment components that are
operated in conjunction with each 'Jther
(process units). or groups of process
ur.tts at one location [plant sites), In
determlOing which alternative definition
of affected faclli ties to sele{;t for
petroleum refinery fugitive emission
sources. EPA first considered the roles
of modifications and reconstructions
and how they affect the overall emission
reduction potential for these 'iuurc"'s. .4.5
a result. EPA concluded that a de~inlt:(jn
of an affected facility which i's Jased on
the plant site would prov~de the lowest
emission reduction potential. It \/Vas
further concluded that a defi!"!ltion that
is based on equipment comp'Jnen:s
would provide an emission !'f~d'Jction
potential similar to a defimuon that IS
based on process units. Therefore. EPA
rejected the plant site basis and
considered the equipment component
basis and process unit basis defimtions.
in conjunction with other relevant
fac~ors. before defining the affectp-1
facility for petroleum refining fugitivl!
emission sources.
The alternative of defIning facilities
on the basis of equipment components
was reviewed first. Equipment
components (such as pumps and \'alvesl
are typically much smaller than ~he
average source covered by Section 111,
and there are many of these equipment
components per process unit If EPA
selected equipment components as the
basis for defIning affected facilities.
sltudtions would arise In whrch repla.;ed
equipment compo:1ents in existing
process units would be subject to the
standards. while adjacent components
wo~!d not be subject to the sta!tdards.
vV:th such a mIXture of new and ex;:;t:r.~
components. the effort to keep track of
equipment components covered by the
standards and components not covered
by the standards would be costly.
Implementing a leak detection and
repair program. the principal control
technique considered for the proposed
standards. for a very small proportion of
all the equipment componenta at a plant
site would be too costly. As discussed
below. compressors are an exception to
-------
28Z
Federal Register I Vol. 48. No.2 I Tuesday, January 4, 1983 I Proposed Rules
these considerations. Therefore, EPA
rejected the equipment component
designation for fugitive emission sources
other than compre8l0rs. Consequently,
EPA examined the next most narrow
alternative (the group of equipment
components within a process unit) for
fugitive emission sources other than
compressors.
The alternative of defining an affected
facility as the group of equipment
components. other than compressors.
within a process unit would achieve as
much emission reduction as the first
alternative. In addition. it would have
no associated cost of distinguishing
between those sources covered by the
standards and those not covered.
Consideration of the other relevant
statutory factors did not lead to the
conclusion that designating each group
of equipment components in a process
unit as an affected facility would lead to
adverse impacts. Therefore, EPA
selected the group of equipment
components within a process unit as the
affected facility for fugitive emission
sources other than compressors.
Relatively few compressors are
located in petroleum refinery process
units: in fact. may process units do not
contain compressors. When a
compressor is used in a process unit. it
is designed for use only within that
process unit. In general. there are no
spare compressors in petroleum
refineries. and compressors that are in
place are readily identifiable. Thus. it
would not be costly for an owner or
operator to keep track of compressors
covered by the standards and
compressors not covered by the
standards. EPA considered the relevant
statutory factors before selecting the
alternative as the basis for defining the
affected facility for compressors located
at petroleum refineries. Based on these
considerations. EPA selected the
equipment component as the affected
facility for compressors.
Even though all new compressors can
be designed to use the control
technology described in Chapter 4 of the
BID. a few existing compressors are not
designed to allow reasonable retrofitting
of this control technology. A few
existing reciprocating compressors
cannot be retrofitted with this control
technology without completely replacing
the distance piece or. in some cases.
completely replacing the compressor.
The cost of replacing a distance piece or
compressor in order to bring an existing
reciprocating compressor into
compliance with the proposed standards
would be exorbitant.
It is unlikely that any existing
compressors would be covered by the
standards through the modification
provisions of 40 CFR 60.14 because
increases in fugitive emissions from a
compressor are unlikely. However. some
existing compressors would be covered
by the standards through the
reconstruction provisions of 40 CFR
60.15. Since each compressor would be
an affected facility, EPA would make a
determination that it is technically or
economically feasible for an existing
reciprocating compressor to meet the
standards [see 40 CFR 6O.15(e}] before
the compressor would be covered
through the reconstruction provisions.
This determination could be used to
exempt the few existing reciprocating
compressors which are not designed to
allow reasonable retrofitting of the
control technology described in Chapter
4 of the BID. If compressors were
included among other fugitive emission
sources in defining affected facilities.
then an existing compressor could
become subject to the standards under
the modification provisions and an
independent determination would not be
used to consider whether an existing
reciprocating compressor can be
reasonably retrofitted with the control
technology. These considerations
support the selection of the equipment
component as the affected facility for
compressors.
In summary. the proposed standards
apply to two types of affected facilities.
Each refinery compressor in VOC
service is one type of affected facility.
The second type of affected facility
comprises all fugitive emission sources
in VOC service. other than compressors,
within a refinery process unit. A process
unit is defined as equipment
components assembled to perform any
of the physical and chemical operations
within a petroleum refinery. More
specifically. a process unit has discrete
boundaries that consist of the points
where process fluid is discharged from
the preceding refining activity and
where the physically or chemically
treated process fluid is discharged for
storage or further refining. For example.
a crude oil atmospheric distillation unit
is a process unit because crude oil
enters the unit's column through the
crude oil desalter and the preheater
furnace and then the fractions separated
by the column are discharged through
several pipelines for further refining by
other process units. There may be
several columns associated with one
process unit. For example. a
prefractionation column may be used to
separate light gasoline from the crude oil
before the crude oil is separated into
heavy naphtha. kerosene. and heavy
gasoline. If a vacuum distillation column
is employed to refine the heaviest
fractions (bottoms) from the
200
~
atmospheric distillation column. the
vacuum distillation column is a seParate
process unit consisting of all equipment
between the atmospheric distillation
column bottoms discharge and vacuum
distillation column discharge points.
Other examples of petroleum refinery
process units include. but are not limited
to. equipment comprising fluid catalytic
cracking units. storage vessels. a~d
coking units. Thus. the process unit is
used as the basis for defining an
affected facility, but coverage is limited
to fugitive emission sources. In addItion
the proposed standards would exempt
additions made for process
improvements if they are made wt:t:cut
incurring a "capital expenditure" as
defined in the General Provisions.
Exemptions are made for routine
replacement and for additions made :0
increase production rate if they can be
accomplished without capital
expenditures. There are many spec!::c
reasons for routine additions and
changes made in a process umt. For
example. a small number of fugItive
emission sources might be added In
making changes to increase
productivity, to increase ease of
maintenance. to improve pldnt safety.
and to correct minor design flaws.
Sources covered by the standards of
performance for VOC fugitive emission
sources within the synthetic organic
chemical manufacturing industry. the
standard for benzene fugitive emission
sources. and standards of performance
being developed for fugitive emission
sources within natural gas proce~sing
plants would be excluded from these
standards.
Control Techniques for Fugitive
Emission Sources
There are basically two types of
control techniques available for fugiti\'e
emission sources: (1) Leak detection and
repair programs and (2) equipment.
design. and operational requirements.
leak detection and repair programs
reduce fugitive ernissions of VOC by
establishing a procedure which includes
monitoring fugitive emission sources to
cetect those that leak VOC's and S:1':'5
to repair leaking fugitive emission
sources. Both types of control
techniques apply to pressure relief
devices. valves in gas/vapor and light
liquid service. and pumps. Equipment.
design. and operational requireme:!:s
apply to open-ended valves.
compressors, and sampling connection
systems. The control techniques
considered for each fugitive emission
source covered by the proposed
standards are summarized below and
-------
~
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.2 / Tuesday. fanuary 4. 1983 I Proposed Rules
283
are described more fully in Chapter 4 of
the Bm.
VOC emission reduction and control
colt of lome fugitive emission source
leak detection and repair programs were
determined using the leak detection and
repair [LDAR} model. The LDAR model
Is an empirical model developed for
estimating the fraction of fugitive
emission sources screened for leaks
during each selected monitoring
interval. the fraction of sources repaired
each period. and the emission reduction
efficiency of each leak detection and
repair program. Detailed information
required fol' WAR model input is
available for valves and pumps.
However. because detailed WAR model
data input are not available for pressure
;)
reliefdevicel.e~ee~ju~ent
along with the WAR model were used
to determine the impacts associated
with leak detection ud repair programs
for pressure relief devices. The LDAR
model and LDAR model impact .analyaea
are discussed in detail in Appendix F of
the BID. "
Based on emission reductions and .
control costs as estimated in the BID.
control costs per megagram of vac
emission reductions were calculated.
These estimates are presented in Table
1 for each control technique for fugitive
emission sources covered by the
proposed standards. .
Pressure Relief Devices. Fugitive
emissions of vaG. from pressure relief
devices result from leakage of process
Table 1.-Control Costs Per Megagram of VOC's Reduced"
materiala through the pressure relief
device valve aeaL VaCemis8iona can
be'controlled hf a-leak detection and
repair program or by installation of a
rupture disc between the process stream
and pressure relief device.
The annualized costs and vac
emissions reductions achieved for a
quarterly leak detection and repair
program and for use of control
equipment (rupture discs) were
determined for pressure relief devices. A
quarterly leak detection and repair
program is less expensive than using
rupture discs. However. rupture discs
achieve a higher degree of fugitive vac
emission control. The control costs per
megagram of VaG reduced and the
em,ission reductions achieved are
presented in Table 1.
I En8I8iafI A-.gtI' 1--
I ControII8cIIniQu8" -
Fugitive elTllSlion 1OII'C8 ImgJyrI' Slrng SIrng'
"'-18IiII d8vice8_.--.......................................1 0u8tt8rty leak d8I8cIIon and 18p8ir.---:--.--..- 4.4 '1'701 "'70)
R__...........-......-.--..--.--.--.--.....-....-- U ~ 930
~~~~~~~1~-E~~~~~~~~~ 1&.5 160 160
2.8 .eo .eo
2.6 810 810
31.7 '(90) '(90)
37.1 '(.01 300
I'urnps....-.-.------.........-.-..-.............................I := :~I=~-;;-_'~-::::::::~~=::::::::::::::::=::~~===-':::::::=:=:::::::=':- 110.0 ..500 8.790
3.0 3..80 3..eo
I Monthly IMII tItIl«f1On and ~ ....---.............-..----..---......-.----'--... 11.5 960 60
Qual _noeal Mal S}IS1- ""'-""-"'''-'''''''''''''''''''--'-'''''-'''---''--'' 13.9 2,200 8.200
. Costs and ....issian r8ducbons b8* on fugillY' emISsion source (c:ornpon8Il) coun1S in ~ Unit B from the BIO. EPA~5013-61~15a, page 6-3.
. FurII18I' d- of convoI t8C1V1tqu8s .- can be found '" Chapters. and 6 of ",. BlO.
'E- r8dUCllClnS..e tor Model unn B. Ret..10 BID Ta- 3-1,7-1. and F..1..
. A.erego dollars per rnegagram ICOII ."~) = net ann08I1:8CS COlI per """'IIO'W1I .. a.......1 VOC emiasoon recIuc1Jon per component.
. Inctemenlal aoIl8ts pet megagram - (net ennuallZ8Cl COlI of the control lechruaue ... net annualIZed COIl of the ne.. - resl/lC1lVe c:on1rOl 18C11nic!u8) + (8MU8I ...--. ,- 01
CIQfItroll~ - ...n08I _lIon r8duCbon 01 the ...'" .... rlS\nCllYe control t8CMlqU8).
: = ~=.a~-:'~"~ lor ",. propoMCl ltandards ... itaIiaz8d.
Compressors. Packed seals,
mechanical seals. or liquid film seals are
used to limit leakage of process gases
around comcressor drive shafts. These
seals can erIllt vaG as a result of seal
deterioration or imperfec~ons. VaG also
can be emitted from barrier fluid
degassing vents that are used on some
types of dual mechanical seals. Fugitive
emissions of VaG from compressor
seals can be controlled by venting the
leakage to an air pollution control
device (controlled degassing vents). The
annualized costs and emission
reductions associated with venting the
leakage to an air pollution control
device results in control ~osts per
megagram of VaG reduced and
emission reductions as presented in
Table 1.
I
Open-Ended Valves and Sampling
Connection Systems. Fugitive emissions
of VOC result from leakage of process
nuids around open-ended valves in the
shut position or around incompletely
closed open-ended valves. These
emissions can be controlled by the
installation of a cap or a second valve.
Fugitive emissions of VaG arise when
process fluids are purged from sampling
lines. These emissions can be reduced
through the use of closed sampling
systems. The control costs per
megagram of VaG reduced and the
emission reductions achieved are
presented in Table 1. .
Va~ves. Fugitive emissions of VaG
result when valve packings or a-~s
that are used to limit leakage of process
fluids around valve stems deteriorate.
VaG emissions from valves can be
reduced through leak detection and
repair programs or the use of sealed
bellows valves.
The annualized costs per megagram of
vac emissions reduced and emission
reductions achieved were determined
for leak detection and repair programs
and the use of sealed bellows valves.
These costs and emission reductions are
presented in Table 1. Quarterly
monitoring for leaks from valves in gas/
vapor and in light liquid service results
in savings. Monthly leak detection and
201
repair of valves in gas/vapor and light
liquid service increases the degree of
emission reduction while maintaining
the savings: however. the magnitude of
these savings are less than the savings
obtained for a quarterly leak detection
and repair program. Sealed bellows
valves provide the highest degree of
vaG control; however, the control cost
per megagram of VaG reduced is
substantially greater than the costs for
any of the leak detection and repair.
programs.
Pumps. Fugitive emissions of VOC
result from leakage of process fluids
around pump drive shafts and through
deteriorated seal packings or worn
mechanical seal faces. vac can also be
emitted from the barrier fluid degassing
vents used on some types of dual
mechanical seal systems. vac
emissions from pump seals can be
reduced through leak detection and
repair programs or through the use of
dual mechanical seals with controlled
degassing vents.
-------
284
Federal Register I Vol. 48. No.2 I Tuesday. January 4. 1983 I Proposed Rules
The control costa incurred for each
megagram of vac emissions reduced
and emission reductions achieved were
determined for leak detection and repair
programs and the use of dual
mechanical seals with controlled
degassing vents. These' costs and
emission reductions are presented in
Table 1. Dual mechanical seals with
controlled degassing vents provide the
greatest amount of vac emission
reduction; however. the control cost per
megagram of vac reduced is greater
than that for either leak detection and
repair program.
Selection of the Basis for the Proposed
Standards
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act. as
amended. requires that standards of
performance be based on the best
system of continuous emission reduction
that has been adequately demonstrated.
considering costs. nonair quality heal~
and environmental impact and energy
requirements (best demonstrated
technology). As a first step toward
determining which control techniques
should be selected as the basis of the
proposed standards. EPA analyzed the
annualized cost of controlling vac
emissions and the resultant vac
reduction for each alternative control
technique. EPA also considered the
nonair environmental. energy, and
economic impacts associated with
selectiflg alternative control techniques
as the basis for the proposed standards.-
The control costs per megagram of
vac reduced are presented in Table 1.
These costs do not represent the actual
amounts of money spent at any
particular plant site. The cost of vac
emission reduction systems will vary
accordir..g to the petroleum product
being produced. production equipment.
plant layout. geographic location. and
company preferences and policies.
However. these costs are considered
t}'Pical of control techniques for fugitive
emission sources within petrolecm
refineries and can be used in making
decisions about the level of control to be
required.
- After review of control costs per
megagram of vac reduced. EPA judged
that the cost of certain control
equipment on fugitive emission sources
is unreasonably high. The analysis
presented in Table 1 shows that leakless
equipment on valves in gas/vapor and
light liquid service have incremental
control costs per megagram of vac
reduced that are about $8.800. The
analvsis also shows that dual
mechanical seal systems on pumps have
an incremental control cost per
megagram of vac reduced of about
$8.200. After examining these costs and
resulting emission reductions. EPA . .
determined the control costs per
megagram of vac reduced for leakleas
equipment on valves and dual
mechanical seal systems on pumps to be
unreasonably high. ,
EPA decided that a leak detection and
repair program with monthly monitoring
. for pumps and valves and the use of
control equipment for pressure relief.
devices, open-ended valves. sampling
connection systems. and compressors
have reasonable control costs per
megagram of vac reduced. These
control techniques are italicized in
Table 1. The incremental control costs
per megagram of vac reduced for these
control techniques range from a cost of
$80 to a cost of about $900 and are
considered reasonable. Petroleum
refineries are large emitters of vac
with fugitive emission sources
comprising a significant vac emitting
segment in petroleum refineries. These
control techniques would result in a
nationwide reduction of at least 31.000
Mg of vac in the fifth year after
proposal. It is reasonable to expect that
a reduction of this size in vac
emissions from the petroleum refining
industry would be of significant benefit
to the environment. After considering
the results of the analysis of the control
costs per megagram reduced by these
control techniques. EPA tentatively
selected them as the basis for the
proposed standards. Economic. energy.
and nonair quality environmental
impacts were then examined to
determine if they would alter this
selection of control techniques.
L"l considering the potential economic
impacts of the control techniques. EPA
examined regulatory alternatives that
included six combinations of the control
techniques for fugitive emission sources.
That is, each regulatory alternative
included one of the control techniques
considered for each fugitive emission
source. For example. Regulatory
Alternative V included rupture discs on
pressure relief devices. controlled
degassing vents on compressor seals.
caps on open-ended valves, closed
purged sampling for sampling
connection systems. monthly leak
detection and repair pr()grams for valves
in gas/vapor and light liquid service. -
and dual mechanical seal systems on
pumps. Regulatory Alternative VI was
the most costly and had the greatest
emission reducton. The regulatory
alternatives are described in detail in
Chapter 6 of the BID; the economic
impacts of the regulatory alternatives
are discussed in Chapter 9 and
Appendix F of the BID.
202
The economic analysis .hows that the
only regulatory alternative which could
cause a significant adverse economic
impact on p~troleum refineries included
the use of leakless equipment on valves.
(Alternative VI). The analysis shows
that any combination of the control.
techniques presented in Table 1. I
excluding the use of leakless equipment
on valves. would not have a significant
adverse economic impact on petroleum
refineries. The analysis shows that the
control techniques for which it was
decided the costs per megagram of VOC
reduced are reasonable would result in
no adverse impact on profitability
(decrease less than 0.5 percent). would
have a potential to slightly increase the
consumer price of petroleum products
(0.1 percent or less). and would have no
adverse impact on capital availability
for construction' of petroleum refineries.
Since consideration of costs per
megagram of emission reduction
eliminated the only control technique
which could have contributed to an
adverse economic impact. consideration
of economic factors played no further
role in the selection of the basis of the
proposed standards.
EPA also examined the nonair quality
environmental and energy impacts of
the control techniques considered for
each source. Analysis of these impacts
for the various regulatory alternatives
are presented in Chapter ~ and
Appendix F of the BID. There were no
significant adverse impacts identified~
therefore. the non air quality
environmental 'and energy impacts did
not affect the decision on the basis (!f
the proposed standards.
In summary. the most effective control
techniques which were' considered to
have reasonable costs per megagram of
vac emissions reduced were selected
as the basis of the proposed standards.
These contral techniques include a
monthly leak detection and repair
program for pumps and valves. and
control equipment for pressure relief
devices. open-ended valves. sampling
connection systems. and compressors.
Less restrictive control techrjques were
not considered further because they
achieved less emission reduction. and
there were no cost. economic. energy. or
nonair quality enVironmental impacts
which necessitated further examination
of these control techniques.
Selection of Format for the Proposed
Standards
Several formats could be used to
implement the control requirements
selected as the basis for the proposed
standards. Section 111 of the Clean Ajr
Act requires that a standard of
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 48. ~o. :; I Tuesday, January 4. 1983 I Proposed Rules
285
~
r.erformance be prescribed unless. in the
fudgment of the AchrJnistrator, it is not
feasible to prescribe or enforce such a
standard. Section l11(h) defInes two
conditions under which it is not feasible
to prescribe or enforc~ .a perfoI'!'l1a?ce.
standard. These conditions are: [1 J If .he
application of ~easurement
methodology to a particular class of
iocrces is not practicable due to
technological or economic limltdcions. or
(Z) if the pollutants cannot be emitted
L,rough a conveyance device. If a
perfoi'mance standard is not feasible to
prescribe or enforce: then the
Adr.1inistrator may Instead promu!l;:ate.a
desi~n, equ:pment. work pr'ic:ice, or
operational standard or combi:1Jtlon
thereof,
A performance standard allows for
iome flex:bility because any control
techr.ique may be used if lt achieves t~e
:e\'el of emission red~ction represented
DI' the standard. However, for mest
~;':inery fugitive emiSSion sources, it IS
nct feasibie to prescr:be a pE'rformance
standard. One approach to presr.r:bing ii
performancp. standard is to !mllt
1:;11:5s;ons ':irectly. Except in those C.lses
:., which stanJa,dd can be set at "~o
detectable emissions," the orJy way to
medsure emiSShms irom refi.r.ery fugitive
elT::5s;on sources, s:.Jer: as p~mps and
\'8Ives. would be to use a b?Qging
technique for E'c!ch of the sources in a
prCCf)SSamt. T!-.e grE'at number uf
5'JJrCes ar.d their d:spersIGn ovp.r large
a:e,H I\'ctJJ T.ilk. This approar:h would be more
','Jn1t!ative than an approach based on
~uantitative emission measureme:J.ts
such as bagging. This format would be
based on a leak frequency limit rather
than an emission limit and would hd ve
some of the same benefits of flexibility.
The only fugitive emission source for
which a leak frequency limit would be
applicable is valves because other
iugiti\'e emi.swns a.re ~ao few in number
to allow a meaningful percent to be
detennined. But. the variability in the
percentage of valves leakiI!g among
p~ocess units and the r~sulting
correlation to emissions precludes
setting an allowable percentage of
valves leaking that could be achieved by
~II process units within the refining
Industry. This variability is observed
even among units in which leak
detection and repair programs are being
i;nplemented. Therefore, establishing an
ailowable percentage of leaking valves
is not practicable.
However, establishing an allowable
percentage of va!\'es leaking based on
cost considerations and levels of
performance is possible. If a process
achieves :his level of good performance.
:~en the owner or operator may eiect for
the valves ta comply with an alternative
s~anda.d for n.lves. Because this
dDproach would add flexIbility to the
propo;;ed sta~dards. the proposed
':d:J.dards incorporate this approach.
This IS discussed in more depth in
-t:'ternat: ~'''3 St(1J1dards for r,.'alves in the
~~xt s"c~jon uf this preamble.
Based en EPA's determination that it
.' ,nfe::i5\bie to prescribe a performance
>td!'.d~rd for most fugitive sources at
~t'finer:es, the alternative regulatory
'urmats identified in Section 11I(h) were
'.":'os'derE'd. O::e possib:e format IS an
"1'",:;m:ent standard, Equipment
,~ !~1<..iartls provide weU-documented
e:;;:55ion reductIOns. Determining
(,r"rnpliar.ce would require an initial
c~eck to er.s:..:.re thdt the equipment had
heen instal!ed properly and periodic
. ;:ecks to ensu:e that the equipment was
continuing to operate prope~l). An
'r.herent disad\'antage a;sncldted with
this type of ::E:~at is less ;:te-specific
tl e: '!:n:O;S:I'~S 'Jf
\'OC through the pressure re~;d ;"\11~'"
For control techniques thdl .;,.IT',,:1 j'e
fugitive emissions. an emission limit
measurement for "no detectable
emiSSions" is feasible. An instr'.lme:1t
rE'2di!'1g of less than 500 parts per milL.)..
by volume (ppmv) above a background
concentration based on Reference
~!ethod 21 can be used to indic..! 'e
'.\ :;~:!1;;r f'.lgitive emissions hdve oe,,:1
eliminated, that is. have "no detec:.1j;e
!'!"1'gsions." Measurement methods for
determining the quantitative emission.
rate from pressure relief devices dre ;-Jot
feasible because they would require
bagging each piece of equipment.
However. as discussed in Appendix D of
the BID, Reference Method 21 does not
allow quantitative measurement of
emissions. but it does allow the
detection of leaks of fugitive VOC
-------
286
Federal Re~ister / Vol. 48. ~o. 2 / Tuesday. January 4. 1983 / Proposed Rules
~
emissions frc":. ~<~~f :J~"'ICf>'>. Thf>r.o".:~P'.
th'e proposed S'J!l.~.!,r:j :nr fpUef d"~"ces
in ga'l senlce 15 ":10 ,1p:ectable
emis5ions."
Th~ ';10 dplt'':'.,~ie pmiSSIO:1' !;~:t
would nor appiy :0 dlschJrges throu~h
'he pre~s,jrp rp;ief d"v:':~ during
overprp.ssure ~"lief because !h~ :\;~C~i"~
of rel;ef de'll!:!'s is :0 .J:schar~e prcr;~ss
fluid. rhf'rebv .f>U:"'c'l::/I ddnge;ou:; ~:-',
prf.:lc;sur~s -.".ithlrl ~~: '::r:~_iipmer..~. (~~
slandard would sp."iy hrw,"v..r. :hJt
the relief dev:ct' ~~ returned to.-I ~:d,e ,;:
no detectabie em:ss:or!S 'hl:hm 5 d".s
after such a dIscharge. The S:dr!';'1. d
would f-..rrner r~ql!ire .-1:1 .,i',r:,,;.jj :!'sr :,)
venfy the "nf) ce,.~t.'.!l:ie e~lls,,!,ns
s~dlus of the ;'l'o:!SS..'-" rei;,,; Je~lc,'~.
A test to determme :f a fagJ!1ve
emission source 15 1")!'1plym~ wi'h ,f ":10
detectable emis,ilir..i" .eq\;H'pme:~; ,s .\
performance rest. As pd :n ~:: .!PP::C'!t:i~ :;.lD~1,Jr' .-\
te~t r!) ~e'~:~i;~e It i .....::tlve "~:7l.':).;J:()n
SIJurce !S :: ;:Tply'ng '.\.":tn d "r!lJ
Iletl:!ctabie t!m.s~Il)(~:; . requirement Joes
not need three 1':.11: 'i. 1 hus. perforrndnce
tests to determme "no detectable
emissions" would be exempted from 40
CFR 60.8(1) by :r.o:! proposed standd - ':5.
Performance test requirements under
40 CFR 6O.8(d) inchde a nrJtifkatlon to
the Administrator 30 dan befure each
performdnce test. tor iugitlve em:'is;on
sources. tests to d~termine "::!O
detectJJie f>r.l;ssions" may occur
throughout a vear and must occ::r ,!:'~2r
ed..:h overpressure relief. Reqwnng ,u
l)IS!1er or .';S.,,:- Jto:' ~o ::otifv the
:\J:nmistn'!Or as provided in 40 CFR
60.8(3) is not .~onsidered reasonabie :I)r
these proposed standards. Tl:us. to
reduce the repomng burden en indus'ry.
0" roe.s or ooera:;)~~ of affected facilities
are exemptid from 40 CFR 6{j.81.dj by the
propost'J 5:d::<1ar::!s.
As an a:;ernat've to the use of ~upture
disks and ot:ter tech:1iaues (hat achieve
the ":1.0 detectaQ~e emissIon" Eml:. EPA
i3 proposlO~ :0 a:~lJw owners or
cp('~.ators .\:) ... 2r:t ;r?SS'lre relic:' :~v1ces
to cOnlrel devicE''i .\chievin'! thE'
~ec;ujrements prf>sented in the C!c>,;-"3
L'ent syste!'!1s ar,rj control device portion
~~ ~'"::.; 5~ction .~~. -~ ~;~.~-:'.~~- \\ '--..,
r ~~:,~g a pres3'u'.~ ['_':.r:i ,j,:niice. ..-....
contml devIce 31S0 r~d:Jces emissio:, .;)t
VOC that Dcct:r during overpressure
relief. EPA jud~es that the em:ssion
reduction lost by an.)win~ 95 percent
contre! for fugitive emissIons (~.,d-:er
than 100 percent control achieved by the
"no detectable emission" limit) IS offset
by the emission reduction gained by
cnnt:o!liOlZ the emissIons due to
overpress~re relief. Thus. EPA is
prop')sing to ailow the use of closed
v~nt s'vs!ems ';onr.ected 10 a control
dev:c~ as an equivalent alternative to
'he "no detectable emissIon" limit.
l.e~ldess equipmer.:. The proposed
~tdndards wouid not requIre leakless
equipment. such as sealed-bellows and
j',!pr.ragm valve,>. canned and
d,dphra~m purr.ps. and sealless
,-ompressors. This equipment is either
ilot w,;jel\' applicable to refinerie~. or as
;~ ; Cd ~.:d :n Table 1. the control costs
;"': me~,j5!'3.m of emission reducrion
lI:ni~\','d iire unreasonable. However.
-.:s~ ot :eakless equipment is clearly
,'q'l:va;ent 10 the proposed standards for
~:',:np,>. compressors. and valves. The
~r';FGSeJ standards would allow the use
.,1' sL,:h equipment as an alternative to
.' he .eqUired practices.
Leak!ess equipment would be required
~() operate with "no detectable
.-'missions . at all times when this
"quipment is in service. As with
p.~s,>~re relief dt;\'ices. a performance
~est for ';10 detectable emissions"
''!It'd;1S ,.m [::s!rument reading of less
than 500 ppmv or above a background
concentration based on the
measurement method of Reference
~Iethod 21. The proposed standards
. require that the leakless status of this
equipment be verified annually and at
other times if requested by EPA. In
addition. the proposed standards would
exempt these performance tests from 40
CFR OO,8(d) and 6O.8(f) of t::e Gener.!!
Provisions.
Ccmpressors. The basis of the
proposed standardi ror compressors :s
mechamcal seals with bdi'rier fluid
.>} items ,me cont:ol:ed ,1"gassing ver.ts.
Emission limits for compressors ha\e
not been proposed because the
application of available measurement
methods would not be practicable
because of technolr]g:cal c: e.;onomic
limitations, T~at is. bagging of
compressors for emission m,' " ':':~':ne:'l t
would be unreasonablv ;:,x:;e;-:.;:\ f! and
imDractical. Tb.-l. EP.-\ s,,:~cted
mechanical1leals with bdrrier fluId
systems and controiled degassing vents
as the required equlpme:lt for
compr~ssors. The ccn:.ol!ed d:.'gassi::g
v'?nts would use a dosed vent s',stem
and a control deVice and. theref~~e.
"" -.....;~:! !:;~ :-~'~."'> ~ j ~:: ~omp1~,' -.\"::~ '~e
~p.qt:lr~:r.!'a~s .:::.;,-assed ::1 t::e C:' :ed
L'ent S~ 5te:,::.; end ccnt...o/ devices
v'n:on of t:1is section of the ;:reamble.
EP.-\ reviewed enclosure of thl!
::orr.?r'?'i~or seal area as 1n 'llter:Jdtivl!
':' ,-'q\:irm2 sea!3 with barr:a flUId
systems. I(an enclosure captures all
emissions from the comoressor ,eal
drea. then the fugitive emlS1l10nS can be
c.iptur~d and transpor!ed effectively to
a conrrol devIce bv a closed vent
system. The level of emIssion reduction
204
dchievl!d by this alternative IS at least
equivalent to !he !evel of ~eduction
attained by compressors that are fitt!!d
with the equipment that was st!iected os
the basIs for the proposed standards.
Therefore. EPA proposes to a!!ow
encl0sure of the compressor seal J~ea
and \'o:!nt:n'! of fug;tl';e emissions
through a closed vent system to a
control devIce. provided the enclosure
captures all the emissions from the seal
area. The closed \'ent svstem and
control device would be required ~o
comply with requirements discussed ::J
the Closed vent systems and control
devices portion of this section of the
preamble.
Section 111(h) of the Clean Air Act
requires that when equi;Jmem star:da~ds
are established. requirements must ais.)
be established to ensure the proper
operation and maintenance af the
equipment. A pressure or level inuicat0r
on the fluid system would rev!':.!l dr.V
catastrophic failure of the sedl ;;r .,:' .::~
barrier fluid system. This Indic,l::,;
could be monitored in the contr~! roam
or be equipped with an alarm to si~:!.!: .t
failure of the svstem. Thus. !i
requirement to' include an i;:.!!ca'or to
detect failure of the system :s prcpos~d
to ensure the proper opera:ion and
maintenance of the mechanical sf>al
system.
As mentioned in the Se!ectfo."1 oJ/'
Affected Facilities section of this
preamble. there may be some ca5~S :::
which seals with barrier fluId sySh!!r.S
can not be utilized because some
existing compressors can not
technologically or economicaLly oe
retrofit1ed with dual seals and barr:p.r
fluid systems. For example. ~se of a duai
sed! with barrier ~:.1id or its equi';jlt,!'!t
!:ould require re;::acement of the
distance piece on a reclprocatl::~
r.o:npressor or replacement of ":1 ,;~.::.~
~"cIFroc.i::ng com?essor. In thf>se
~ i ~'.:Q. tio~s. .determlne! tion vf \vhethr.!"
inslall.:.tion of a dual seal a;1d bamer
fluId system or its equivalent is
~cchnoJOIncallv or cccnomicai:y f'!:.!SI:.~
C.J!1 take place durinsz the det~rm::lation
'f w;;o:!ther an exisilI1g comp.esJor ',.iH
be .;onsidered reconstrolcted Jd
':-:~!'ehr!! affected b:: '~E' ,tl:-:j.,~:; :;
E.P.\ ,jet~r;r:::l~s :~.:1: d:": e:-..ls~.::5.
comjJressor can not be tech:!::,!o~!C",;'"
or econcmlcally ~!!!!'ofitted. then t::"
compre,>sor wouid not be required: :
comply with the standards.
O:'en.F,~,'led ~'aln~.<;. The !:-a~'; ,:.:..
proposed standards is equipment that
wodd effect enclosure of the open er.d
Open-ended valves are not designed to
release fugitive emissions 10 a
conveyance. and bagging of these
sources for emission measurement
-------
Federal R8Ii*r I VoL 48. No. 2 'Tuesday, ~ .. t98:f , Propoaed Rulea
JII'1
wuaId DOt be ecoP'''''"csny or
tedIDol.,p:al!y pradie-hM! A ''1IG
detedBble ~..' atand.ard c:aald
not be 88lected .8 the format far the
tl)poeed atandard becaaae VOC could
feak tbrou8h the valve ..t aad become
trapped in the line bel~.dm the CIpf:D-
ended valve and the eaclollUJ"e. The
trapped VaG could be emitted to
atmosphere. even though the VOC
emitted to atmospb8re would be much
less than the VaG emitted without the
enclosure. Thus, EP A selected the use of
an equipment standard for control of
fugitin emissionl from open-ended
valves.
Enclosure of the open end can be
achieved by installing a cap. plug. or a
second valve. The control efficiency
associated with these techniques is
apprmdmately 100 percem. except wheu
the line is used for drainiDg. venting. or
sampliDs operations. Thus. EPA is
proposiDi staDdards that require apeD-
ended valves to be equipped with a cap.
plq. or . aecand valve. II a secaad
valve is used. the proposed standards
require the upstream valve to be closed
first. AftI!r the upstream valve is -
completely cloeed. the downstream
valve must be closed. This operatianal
requirement is necessary in order to
prevent trapping process fluid between
the two halves. which andd result in a
situation equivalent to the uncontrolled
open-ended valve.
Sampling riWUle:Gb'on systems. Closed-
purge sam.plini was selected as the
basis far the st.aDdards for sampling
ccmnectton systems. CIosed-parp
sampliDg con4cGtion systems eIimmate
eminicma due to ~ by either
retumiDs the purge material directly to
the procn. or by coBectiD8 the purge in
a collection system which is not open to
the atmosphere. GeDerally. these .
sampq CuAuectimr systems are not
duisned to release fugitive emissicms to
a CODVeyance. and bagiDg of these
sources for emissicm mebw.=.u:ut
would not be econamical1y or
technologically practicable. Although
closed-purJe sRmplirqf ~ely
eliminates emissions due to purging. a
"no detectable emissions" limit could
not be prescribed because closed-purge
systems can have detectable emissions.
TIms. EPA selected closed-purp
sam.pq as the equipment requirement
for sampliq connection system&
In addition to closed-purge sampJ.ina.
EPA considered cloaed.-vent vacuum
systema ccmnec:ted to a centro! device
and in.situ sampImg sywtems. ClOlled-
vmt V8c:mzm systems that are ccmnected
10 a c:mrtral ~ extract the 88mple.
Purse and tbm reduce emi8eiOM Łram
the ample pmae by h_~ the
VOC to the caatrol de9ice.lrNitll
samplm& sywtema iJmJIft mea....~
or Nmpli"8 of procea stream
conditiaml without extrac:ticm of the
sample !ram the procea stmcD. Irr-tdta
umpling systems. therefore. result in no
emissions of Voc. II clo8ed-qnt
vacumn systems are not open to the
atmosphere and the cantrol device
complies with the requiremema .
discussed in the Closed vmt ByStems
and control devices portion of this
section of the preamble. then their
reduction of VaG emissions would be
equivalent to the reduction achieved by
closed-purge sampling coanection
systems. Based on the. considerations.
EPA is proposing to allow ~veDt
vacuum systems cmmected to control
devices and in-siw s""'Pn"fJ systems as
allowable alternatives to claseci-purp
sampliIJ&.
Valves. Valves are smerally DCIt
~8Jt~ to releaae fusi.tive ......--- to
a COIlVeyaDCe. becauae of the Wze
- number of valves. bagiDg of the8e
sources for emis8icm -~t
would Dot be economically or
teclmolagicall]5„llcticable. Aa
disc:usaed in the Selection of Format foi'
the Proposed Slandards sed:ion of this
preamble. an allowable perceDtap of
valves leaking can not be prescribed
because of process unit vuiability. A
"no detectable emUsioDs" limit caD not
be prescribed. ~n" with the c:cmtrol
teclmiques 8elected as the bam for the
proposed standards. valves will still
occasionally leak.
Work practices c:ausi8tiD8 of per~
leak detection and repair pmgram8 were
selected as the basi& for the ..rv~
standards for nlves. Sewral fac:tunt
infll1~ the level of emiHioD reduction
that can be achieved by a leak detectiau
and repair program. The three main
raeton are the manitmiD8 iDtftTal. lee.t
definition. and repair iDterYal. TI'IIiD:m3
and diligence of perscnmeI conductin&
the program. the adequacy of repair
methods a~b:d. and ather site-
spec:ffic factors may also iPtfl~ the
level of emission reduction achie'Rb1e;
however, these factors ~ len
quantifiable. The overall emission
reduction of a leak detection and repair
program depends on the three main
factors. Each of these three factimt
limits the effectiveness of the pf~dI.
For example, if each of the fac:ton
selected fer a leak detectimr ami repair
program iqm::o...uta . 90 percent
effectiveness. then the averall
effectiveness would ~ aboat 13 percerrt.
Tlma. the meet effectiw d.mmticm that
is reltSOltable far each factor 8bauId be
aelecteti.
205
The murtltoring jn~ Dr the
frequency at which iDdiftddel
Cuwyuucut monitoriDs is c:onducted. Tbe
length of time betwŁŁ'D ~p-timnt is
beet determined by the rate at which
new leaks 0CC1Ir and repaired I....
recur. Mare frequent ~~ti0a3 coaId
then be required for som'Ces wbicb tend
to leak IDO!"8' often.. Available daar
indicate that leeJc recmrem:e is an
important factor in predictins lab from
valves. That is. if a valve leab. then it i8
more likely to leak than 8 vaNe that bas
not leaked. However. these data also
show that some val,," leak !en
frequently than others. EPA CODSide!'lt
the ammali%ed cost of monthly
monitoring of Tal-9n that leak
~uemIy to be unreasonably high in
comparison to the aunualized cost of
quarterly monitoring. considerins the
emi.&Sicm reduction acbieged by mcmthly
and quarterly mouitoring.llo- ."". EP A
does not camridet the ..mnnol~ cost of
monthly monitoriDg of ~ that leek
frequerrtty to be mtreascmably high
cansideriDg the emission redactioa
aclzined by monthly monitortag of these
valves. Thus. EPA is proposing that leak
detecticm and repair programs include
mrmtbly muuib.11 ~ fur valves. except
that quarterly mOll..ilur~ wauld be
allowed for valves which have been
fcm:nd DOt to leak for two a~,,;..e
months {muutb:l:i/quarterly muuit,"~}.
Some valves are diffic:alt to monitor
because access to the valve is restricted.
Difficult-ta-monitor valves can be
eliminated in ImW facilities bot canuot
be eliminated in existing facilities.
Tbftefore. for facilities that become
affected by a modification or
l..GU~truc.tiot1. EPA is prnposiDs an
amraalleak detection ami repajr
p~a= for valves which are difficult to
mmDtar. Ilowe'~. for new affected
facilities, all valves would be 51Wject to
the pioposed monthly leak detectioD
and repair program. Valves which are
diffic:ult to monitor are defined as valves
which would require elevatiq the
manitariDg persomrel more than two
meters above any readily available
support surface. This means that ladders
must be UHd. if needed. to elevate
monitoring personnel
In addition to valves that are ctiffi=lt
to monitor. same valves are unsafe to
monitor because monitoriDg persozmel
would be subjected to immi..- ,
hazards.. Valves which are unsafe to
monitor cam1Qt be eliminated in new or
existiDg fadlities. The p. u.,-d
standards would allow an owner or
operator with valves that are UD88fe to
mODitor to develop . special leak
detectiaD 8Dd repair prOp..... Tbe8e
special programs would c:mdorm with
-------
288
Federal Register I Vol. 48, No.2 I Tuesday, January 4. 1983 /Propoeed RuIH
the routine monitoring requirement. of
the proposed standarda as much as
possible. but would allow deviation
from a routine monitoring so that
monitoring would not occur under
unsafe conditions. Valves which are
unsafe to monitor are defined as those
valves which could. based on the
judgment of the owner or operator.
expose monitoring personnel to
imminent hazards from temperature.
pressure. or explosive process
conditions.
The leak definition is the instrument
reading obserVed during monitoring that
defInes which sources require repair. As
discussed in Appendix D of the BID. the
proposed standards would require
-monitoring to follow Reference Method
21. The best leak definition would be the
one that achieves the most emission
reduction at reasonable costs. The
emission reduction achieved would
increase as the leak definition
decreased. due to the increasing number
of sources that...would be found leaking
and. therefore. repaired. As a me tter of
practical consideration. most commonly
8\'..ilable hydrocarbon detectors that
are considen!d intrinsically safe have a
maximum reading of 1a..ooo ppm. A leak
deftl1ition higher than 10.000 ppm. such
as 20.000 ppm. could be selected
(dilution probes could be used ~;th the
portable detectors): however. there
would be less emission reduction than
\'Irith the 10.000 ppm definition and no
substantial associated cost savings.
Consequently. there was no basis for
selecting a leak definition greater than
10.000 ppm. A leak definition lower than
10.000 ppm may be practicable in the
sense that leaks can be repaired to
levels less than 10.000 ppm. However'.
EPA is unable to conclude that a leak
definition lower than 10.000 ppm is
practicable. Because the 10.000 ppm leak
definition would achieve emission
reductions lit reascmable costs and safe
anilable hydrocarbon detectors can
accurately read 10.000 ppm. the 10.000
ppm number was selected as the leak
definition for valves. This definition was
also considered appropriate for pumps.
Tne same portable monitor used for
\'alves would be used for pumps. and
consideration of other reI event factors
did not indicate that the 10.000 ppm
defInition should be different for these
sources.
The repair interval is the length of
time allowed between the detection of a
leaking source and repair Gf the source.
To prmide the maximum effed:iveness
of the leak detection and repair
program. the repair inten'al should be
selected to require expeditious reduction
of emissions but allow the owner or
,
operator sufficient time to maintain
flexibility in the refinery's overall
maintenance schedule.
The length of the repair interval would
affect emission reductions achievable
by the leak detection and repair
program. because leaking sources would
be allowed to continue to leak for a
given length of time. Repair intervals of
1. 5. 10. 15. 3CI, and 45 days were .
evaluated. The effect on the emission
reduction potential is proportional to the
number of days the source is allowed to
leak between detection' and repair.
A repair interval of one day could
cause severe problems in coordinating
activi.ties of personnel involved in leAk
detection and leak repa-ir. and in some
instances would not be technically
feasible. A repair interval of one day
would essentially require repair of each
component as soon as the leak was
discovered. Even though some owners
or operators may have repair personnel
assigned to the leak dBtection team. only
simple field repair could normally be
attempted within 1 day.
An initial attempt at repair of a
leaking source should be accomplished
as soon as prac;:icable after detection of
the leak. Most repairs can be done
quickly, A 5-day period provides
sufficient time to schedule simple field
repair. Attempting to repair the leak
within 5 days will help maintenance
personnel to identify the leaks that can
not be repaired with simple field repair
or without shutdown of the affected
facility.
Valves that are not repairable by
simJile field repair may require removal
from the process for repair. Even repair
intervals of 5 and 10 days could cause
scheduling problems is repairing these
valves.. A 15-day interval provides time
for isolating pieces of leaking equipment
when equipment isolation is needed for
repair beyond simple field repairl. A 15-
day interval provides the owner or
operator with sufficient time for
determining precisely which spare parts
are needed and provides sufficient time
for flexibility in scheduling repair for
these valwes. In addition. a 15-day
interval provides time for better
determination of methods for isolating
pieces of leaking equipment when
equipment isolation is needed for repair
beyond simple field repairs.
In general. a 5-day repair interval
pro\ides sufficient time to schedule
simple fleld repair. A 15-day repair
interval allows more efficient handling
of more complex repair tasks while
nWntaining an effective reduction in
fugitive emissions. A repair interval of
30 or 4S days provides less effective
reduction in emissions and does not
206
substantially improve the efficiency In
handling repair tasks. Thua, the ,
proposed standards require an iDitial '
attempt to repair a leaking valve within
5 days and complete repair, except II
discussed below. within 15 days.
Delay of repair beyond 15 days would
be allowed for leaks that could not be-
repaired without shuttiq down an
affected facility. In general. these leaks
would have to be repaired at the next
scheduled facility shutdown. Spare parts
for valves can usuallv be stocked such
that all leaks that coUld not be repaired
without shutting down the affected
facility could be repaired during the
shutdown. Spare parts include packins
gland bolts and valve pac:kins material.
In a few instances. replacement of the
entire valve assembly would be
required. EPA is proposing to allow
delay of repair beyond an affected
facility shutdown for valves which
require replacement of the entire valve
assembly. provided the owner or
operator can demonstrate that sufficient
stock .of spare valve assemblies had
been maintained before the stock had
been depleted.
Altemative Standards for Valves The
emission reduction and annualized cost
. of the proposed leak detection and
repair program depend in part on the
number of leaking valves that are
detected during monitoring. If very few
valve leaks are detected in an affected
facility. then the amount of VQC that
could be reduced by the proposed
program for valves is much smaller than
the amount that could be reduced in a
facility having more leaks. Additionally,
the annualized cost of the leak detection
and repair program would be larpr far
an affected facility with fewer leaka
than in an affected facility with more
leaks. because the annualized cost
includes a recovery credit based on the
amount of VQC reduced by the prosram.
ThUs. the annualized cost per m~
of vac emission reduction for the
p!"Oposed leak detection and repair
program varies with the number of
valves which leak within an affected
facility.
For example, a monthly leak detection
and repair program for valVel in lipt
liquid service and valves in SU/vapc6
service results in an annualized credit of
about $2.100 and achieves an annual
emissibn reduction of 36.6 Mg for.
q-pical small refinery process unit. In
contrast. for a small process unit with
2.0 percent of the valves leaking on the
average. a monthly leak detection and
repair prosram results in an mmua1ized
cost of 53.500 and achieves an annual
emission reduction of 4.9 Mg. For .
small procen unit with o.s percent of
-------
Federal ..... I Vol... No. 2 I Tuesday. J8DD81'Y 4. 1983 I Propo8ed Rules
'289
the val".. leaJdq on the aftl1l88. .
monthly leak detection aDd repair
program results in an annualized ~ of
$4,200 and acbievaan ammal f!DU8810n
reduction of about 0.4 Mg.
There is no precise breakpoint in the
annualized cost and emission reduction
relationship. However. EPA judges that
the emission redaction and annualized
cost relationship is unreasonably high
for process units haviDs on the average
fewer than 1.0 percent of valves leaking.
Based on this judgment., an allowable
percent of valves leaking waS
determined that reflects the average of
1.0 percent of valves leaking. as
discussed below.
An allowable percent of valves
leaking was selected that included the
variability inherent in leak detection of
valves. The variability in leak detection
of valves can be characterized as a
binominal distribution around. the
average percent of valves leaking.
Inclusion of the variability in leak.
detection of valves is accomplished by
straightforward statistical techniques
based on the binominal distribution. An
allowable percent of valves lealring of
2.0 percent. to be achieved at any point
in time. would provide an owner or
operator a risk of about 5 percent that
greater than 2.0 percent of valves would
be determined leaking when the average
of 1.0 percent was actually being
achieved. Based on these
considerations, EPA considers an
allowable percent of valves leaking of
2.0 percent to represent an average of
1.0 percent of valves leaking. "
EPA is proposing two alternative
standards which would exempt valves
within process units from the required
[monthly / quarterly monitoring} leak
detection and repair program. Owners
or operators of affected facilities may
identify and elect to achieve either of
the alternative standards. The
alternative standards would allow
owners or operators to tailor fugitive
eIr.issions control programs to their own
operations. An owner or operator would
report which alternative standard he or
she had identified and elected to
achieve.
Tbe first alternative standard would
limit the maximum percent of valves
leaking within an affected facility to z.o
percent This type of standard wauld
provide the flexibility of a performance
standard. As previously pointed out in
the SeJectjan of Formm for tbe Proposed
~tandards sectioD of this preambU!. an
indUStry-wide performance standard
which could be achieved at all facilities
was not possible for valves. This was
due to' the variability in valve leak
frequency and variability in the ability
of a leak detection and repair program
to reduce thetIe leaks &mOns all affected
facilitie8 witbiD the industry. Howeftr,
this altematiYe staDdard would allow
any aHected fac:i:1ity the option of
complying with an allowable percent of
valves leakmg for a particular affected
facility. Choosing this alternative
standard would allow for the possibility
of different leak detection and repair
programs and lJubstitution of
engineering controls at the discretion of
the owner or operator. This alternative
standard would also eliminate a large
part of the recordkeepiDg associated
with the monthly/quarterly leak
detection and repair program for valves.
Performance tests as specified in 40
CFR GO.S(f) require three ruIl5. Three
. runs for performance tests to determine
the percent of valves leaking are
unnecessary. Thus. performance tests
are exempt from I 6O.a(f) in the
proposed standards. However. this
alternative standard would require a
minimum of one performance test per
year. Additianal performance tests
could be requested by EPA. If the results
of a performance test showed that
greater than 2.0 percent of the valves
leak, the owner ar operator could be
cited for violation of the standards.
In certain circumstances, an owner or
opera~or may want to request a waiver
of future tests as provided in the
General Provisions of 40 CFR Part 60.
This would provide flexibility far
owners and operators of petroleum
refineries where. for whatever reason.
routine leak detection and repair is not
needed to effectively control emissions..
This would include refineries which use
superior equipment either due to the
value or hazardous nature of the
product. refineries which have effective
occupational safety and health '
programs. or refineries which simply do
not leak for unexplained rea!CIlS. Based
on performance tests that demonstrat...
the achievability of the z.o percent
standard and informatiaa that indicates
that this standard would be a(;hieved on
a cantimring basis, EPA could waive the
annual performance tests.
The second alternative standard
would allow the use of skip-period leak
detection far valve. Under skip-period
leak detection, an owner or operator
could skip from routine leal&. detection
for valves to less frequent leak
detection. Th.is skip-period leak.
detection program would reqcire that a
performance level of z.o percent be
acl1ieved on a continuous bas-is with
more than 9& percent certainty. Art
owner or operator would chooH one of
two skip-period leak detection programs
for val"a and then implement that
program. The first skip-period leak
detection program could be used when
207
fewer than 2.0 percent of the valYeS had
been IeaIdng for two ~Iive
quarterly leak detection periods. The
first skip-period leak detedicm pro8&-
would allow an 0WDer- or OD8I"8tor to
skip every other quarterly leu detection
period; that is, leak detection am be
performed semi-annually. Under the
sec:ond skip-period leak detection
program. if fewer than 2.0 percent of the
valves bad been leaking for five .
consecutive quarterly leak detection
periods. the owner or operator may skip
three quarterly leak detection periods;
that is. leak detection can be performed
annually. When more than z.o p~nt of
valves are found to leak monthly I
quarterly leak detection would be
required to be resumed.
Pumps. As with some of the
previously discussed fugitive emission
sources, pum;Js are generaUy not
designed to release fugitive emissions to
a conveyance. Because of the difficulty
of routinely bagging pumps. bagging of
these sources for emission measurement
would not be economically or
technologically practicable. Even though
Reference Method 21 can be used to
detect leaks from pumps. the number- of
pumps and the variability in the number
of pumps leaking within process tmits
does not allow the establishment of a
performance standard. A "no detectable
emissions" limit can not be prescribed
because, with the control technique
specified as the basis for the proposed
standards. pumps can still leak.
In the analysis for the basis for the
proposed standards, EPA selected a
work practice consisting of periodic leak
detection and repair program for pumps.
As with valves. the effectiveness of the
ieak detection and repair program for
pumps is limited by the selection of the
monitoring interval. leak definition. and
repair interval The same leak definition
and repair interval selected for valves
was selected for pumps for the re&SODS
discussed pre'riously. Monthly
monitoring was selected as the
monitoring interval for pumps hued on
cost considerations. as diacus.ed in the
S~Jection.of Basis for the Proposed
Standards section of this preamble. One
month provides the most effective leak
detection and repair program for pumps
without impoaiDg difficulties or
unreasonable costs in implementing the
program.
Delay of repair beyond 15 days would
be allowed for leaks that could Dot be
repaired without shutting down the
affected facility. These leaks would
have to be repaired a& soon as-
practicable, but not later than by the
~ of the next facility shutdown. ~
parts ant generally stoeked by refineries
-------
-
Federal Register I Vol. 48. No.2 I Tuesday. January 4. 1983 I Proposed Rules
in order to provide expeditious repair of
pump seal failures. Sufficient stocks of
spare parts can be maintained to
complete pump seal repair durins
scheduled facility shutdown without
imposing an unreasonable burden on
industry. Therefore. delay beyond a
shutdown is not allowed.
Several types of pumps with ancillary
equipment can achieve emission
reductions of VOC at least equivalent to
that achieved by a monthly leak
detection and repair program for pumps.
These include dual mechanical seal
systems that utilize a barrier fluid
between the seals. enclosure of the
pump seal area. and sealess pumps. If
the barrier fluid in a dual seal !)'stem is
maintained at a pressure greater than
the pump stuffing box pressure. any
leakage between the seals would be
from the barrier fluid to the procesa
fluid. so no process fluid would be
emitted to the atmosphere. If the pump
stuffing box pressure is greater than the
barrier fluid pressure {for example.
tandem seals). the barrier fluid collects
the leakage from the inner seal; the
process fluid collected by the barrier
fluid is controlled by either (l)
connection the barrier fluid degassing
system to a control device with a closed
vent system. or (Z) by returning the
barrier fluid to the process stream.
Because these duel mechanical seal
systems are at least equivalent to a
monthly leak detection and repair for
pumps. they have been exempted from
the monthly monitoring provisions of the
proposed standards.
Section l11(h) of the Oean Air Act
requires that when equipment
standards. such as dual mechanical seal
systems. are established. requirements
must also be established to assure the
proper operation and maintenance of
the equipment. A pressure of level
indicator on the barrier fluid system
would reveal auy catastrophic: failure- of
the inner or oater seal. or of the barrier
fluid system. This indicator could be
monitored in the control room or
equipped with an alarm to signal a
failure of the system. ThUs. EP~ is
...upo6Jni thee requirements to assure
the proper operation and maintenance
of the dual mechanical seal system.
Seallesa pumps. such as diaphragm or
canned pumps. do not have a potential
leak area and. therefore. are at least
equivalent to monthly leak detection
ami repair and dual seal systems. Thus.
any equipment that complies with a "no
detectable emissi.cIM" limit is equivalent
to the monthly leak detection and repair
program required in the proposed
standards. As with other leakless
equipment. the proposed standard
requires an initial performance test.
using the procedures specified in
Reference Method 21. to verify that the
piece of leakless equipment meets the
"no detectable emissions" limit. and
annual rechecks to ensure continued
operation with "no detectable
emissions."
In many cases. the seal area of a
pump coUld be completely enclosed: and
this enclosed area could be connected to
a control device with a closed vent
system. The control efficiency of this
IilT'8ngement is dependent on the control
efficiency of the combustion or vapor
recovery ~stem. The closed vent
system could require a flow-inducing
de\ice to transport emissions from the
seal area to the control device.
However. some owners or operators .
may decide that this approach is
preferable to leak detection and repair.
Enclosmg the seal area and ventin8 the
captured emissions to a control device
by means of a closed vent sy8tem is a
reasonable alternative because this
system would be at least as effective as
a" monthly leak detection and repair
program. Therefore. the EPA is
propasiDg to aIfow pumps to be
equipped with enclosed seal areas that
are connected: to a control device by a
closed vent system.
Closed vent st"Sterra and control
devices. Controi devices would be used
to reduce VOC captraed and
trar.!'pOrted through closed vent
systems. These centrol devices would
be existing and would be designed to
dispose of organic vapor streams from
othEr sources in the plant. Because the
streams from the closed vent systems
will usually be low-flow or intermittent
in comparison to streams from other
sources. emissions in closed vent
streams will often c:ontribute a very
small and varyiDg portion of the total
organic ,'apor stream going to the
ccmtrol device. Measurement teclmiaues
that reflect the effectiveness of these
control devices to reduce fugitive
emisSlona of VOC are limited. Because
these measurements would require
elaborate and costly material balancing
of the VOC enteri1:r3 the control devices.
it is not economically practicable to
measure.the emissiona from these
c:ontrol devices. For this reason an
emission standard is not proposed for
control d.ences used to reduce VOC that
are captured and transported by closed
vent systems.
Control derices were selected as part
of the best teclmalogical system of
emtHicm reduction for some ftzSiti\'e
emission sources (such a8 compressors}
and are part of alternative approaches
~o achie\'in:g compliance with the
208
standards for other fasitive emi8aioD
sources (such as cloeed-vent vacuum
systems connected to a c:ontrol deYice).
These control dmc:n would already be
in place in exaq refiDerin and
therefore would not be designed solely
to reduce VOC streams from fugitive
emission sources. Flares are almost
always present in refiDeriea. Enclo8ed
combustion ~ces and vapor rec:overy
systems are preseat in m08t. if not all.
refineries. These existins control
devices provide varying degrees of
emission reduction. and. therefore.
selecting standards of performance for
these devices may Dot ref!ect the
emission reduction capability of new
control devic:es. nor the capability of
devices specifically desiBned for contral
of fugitive emission sources.
Flares are used in petroleum refineries
mainly as a meana of handlins
emergeucy releases of combustible
material from process units within the
refinery. Flares also can be used in
~lemn refineries to combust certain
waste gas streams that might otherwise
pose a safety problem if allowed to vent
uncontl'ulled into the ambient air. EPA
has examined recent flare studift in aD
effort to eelect a representative
destruction efficiency estimate for
calculating emission impad8 of flares.
The number of flare studies ialimited.
and no data specifically address
conditicms present within vent streams
of fugitive emissions from petroleum
refining process unit. Five flares studies
provide information on flare gas
composition. flowrate. and destruction
effic:iency. Each study can be fcnmd in
complete form in the docket. In recent
tests. smokeless ste&m-aasisted elewted
flares and smablesa elevated flares
with no asaist were fmmd to be u
efficient as other cambasticm d&'9ices
(Le., 98 percent efficient) in destroying
VOC over a broad range of operatini
conditicms if the beat ccmteDt of the
flued ps was maintained above 7.45
MI/ scm (2011 Btu/ scf). or 112 MIl sc:m
(300 Btu/sdJ. depeadinsupan flare
design. and the exit velocity of the flare
is ZZ m/ see (73 ft/see) or lea.
According to the current Imowl. of
flare design. the best available flare .
desip or state-of-the-art flare design i5
the smokeless flare. The smohll'~ flare
inducts combustion air into the Łlama by
steam injection. The injection of steam
increases the mixin8 of VOC within the
flame zone thereby increasiD8
destruction of the compounds. Smoking
flares are emironmmtally less
desireabie beamie they emit
particulates.
There are a number of tecimiqus
currently in I1H within iDdu&b)I which
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 48. No.2 / Tuesday. January 4, 1983 I Proposed Rules
291
help Dares achieve smokeles8 operation.
One technique involves the use of
staged elevated flare. BY.stems, w~ere a
small diameter flare IS operated m
tandem with 8 large diameter flare. The
system is designed such that the small
fiare takes the continuous low flow
releases and the larger flare accepts
emergency releases. A second technique
involves the use of a small, separate
conveyance line to the flare tip in order
to maintain a high exit velocity for the
continuous low flow, low pressure, gas
flow. A third technique, sometimes used
in conjuction with either of the above
techniques, involves the use of
continuous flare gas recovery. In the
third technique. a compressor is used to
recover the continuously generated flare
gas "base load," The compressor is
sized to handle the "base load." and any
excess gas is flared. These techrJques
can be used to help provide smokeless
operation of a flare which is used to
reduce fugitive emissions of vac that
are captured and transported by closed
vent systems.
EPA considered the available control
devices and their vac reduction
efficiency before selecting the proposed
requirements for these devices. The
flares in operation within petroleum
refineries are smokeless flares. Based on
the available studies and a comparison
of vent stream characteristics between
these studies and fugitive emission
sources. EPA believes that the average
destruction efficiency of an in-place
petroleum refinery smokeless flare
would be about 98 percent destruction
efficiency. Most enclosed combustion
devices are designed and can be
operated to achieve vac emission
reductions of at least 98 percent. Vapor
recovery systems are available which
are designed and can be operated to
achieve vac emission reductions of at
least 95 percent. EP A considers control
devices achieving 98 percent emission
reduction tCiO costly to add to a process
unit solely to control fugitive emissions
in light of the presence of control
de\
-------
292
Federal Register I VoL 48. No.2 I Tuesday, January 4. 1983 I Proposed Rules
amount of recorda neceuary to manage
implementation of the required
programs and to ensure the effective
implementation of the proposed -
standards.
The third alternative would require
recordkeeping of all the information
generated by the proposed sta.,dards.
This information would include. for
example. the leak rate (ppmv) detected
for all components monitored at a given
facility. The usefulness of this
information for managing
implements tion of the required
programs or for ensuring the effective
implementation and maintenance of the
proposed sta'1dards is unclear.
The second alternative was selected
as the basis for the recordkeeping
requirements of the proposed standards,
As a consequence. general information
pertaining to the leak detection and
repair would be recorded. Each valve
found to leak during the first month of s
quarter would be marked with a readily
visible. weatherproof identification.
Each pump found to be leaking during s
monthly monitori..ng would also be
identified. The identification could be a
tag attached to the valve or pump or a
number designation permanently
marked on the valve or pump. The
identification could be removed after a
valve is repaired and found not to leak
for the next two successive months and
after a pump is repaired.
A 108 would be maintaiDed to record
the efforts by an owner or operator
pertaining to the leak detection and
repair program. The log would contaiD
the instrument and operator
identification numbers. the leaking
source identification number. the date of
detection of the leaking source, the date
of the first attempt to repair the lealdng
source. repair methods applied to repair
the source. and the date of fmal repair,
The log would be kept for 2 years
following the survey. If the leaking
component could not be repaired within
lS days. the reasons for unsuccessful
repair and the date of anticipated
successful repair would be recorded on
the leak report form. Once the leaking
source was successfully repaired, the
date of repair would be recorded on the
leak report form. These records would
be needed to provide the information
necessary to allow the O\l\rner or
operator to evaluate the effectiveness of
repair efforts and to allow enforcement
personnel to assess compliance ~;th the
work practice standards.
For equipment specifications. records
would be maintained of the dates of
installation. start-up. equipment repair.
and equipment modifications. The dates
and descriptions of any control
equipment failures. including times
when the pilot light of a flare i8
extinquished. would also be recorded.
These recorda would be needed to
pro,,;de information neces881'Y to allow
endorcement personnel to assess the
effectiveness of implementation and
maintenance of equipment standards.
For design standards. recorda would be
maintained of the location and type of
equipment to which the standards apply.
As an example. if a combustion source
is used as a VOC emission control
device. then the design fuel and air
usage rates. the firebox volume. and the
average firebox temperature and other
design specifications would be recorded.
Reporting was considered for the
proposed standards. Three alternatives
were considered'in evaluating the
reporting information needed to assess
compliance with the proposed
standards. These alternatives represent
varying level. of enforcement
monitoring of the proposed standards.
Enforcement personnel would review
the reports submitted by industry
personnel on the status of implementing
the proposed standards. Review of
reports reduces the need for in-plant
inspections. J
The first alternative would require no
formal reporting of compliance ",,;th the
proposed standards other than
notifications of construction. anticipated
startup and actual startup, and an
intention to comply with one of the
alternative standards discussed in t}ojs
preamble. This alternative would not
provide a mechanism for checking the
thoroughness of the industry's efforts to
reduce fugitive emissions of VOC. Thus.
compliance with the proposed standards
would be assessed through in-plant
inspections.
The second reporting alternative
would require the submittal of
information in sufficient detail to ensure
the implementation and maintenance of
the proposed standards. These
requirements would stipulate the
submittal of quarterly reports. Included
in the reports would be a minimum
summary of information on the leaking
components which had been detected
during trhe quarter. This summar\' of
information would most likely co~tain
less information than that which a plant
manager would desire to be recorded to
ensure effective emission reduction.
This requirement would pro\;de
enforcement personnel with an
overview of the repair of leaking
components. A statement signed by the
plant owner or operator attestina to the
validity of the results of the monitOring
'surveys and instrument calibration
procedures would allow enforcement
personnel to assess the compliance of
facilities with the work practice
210
standard.. The report would a1ao attest
to the proper application and operation
of the equipment required by the
proposed standards.
The third reporting alternative would
require the submittal of all the
information obtained while conductins
leak detection and repair programa. This
information would include the
information reported in the second
alternative and. additionally,
comprehensive information on all tested
components. This reporting alternative
would necessitate the reporting of all
information included in the
recordkeeping requirements and would
require more resources than the second
alternative.
The first alternative was selected 8S
the reporting requirement for the
.proposed standards. This alternative
provides no routine reporting: therefore,
compliance would be assessed through
inspection of plant records and in-plant
testing. A State or local agency
delegated the responsibility for
enforcement of the proposed standards
might implement the second alternative
level of reporting to facilitate
enforcement of the standard; however,
this would not be required by the
preposed standard.
The reporting requirements of the
General Provisions of Subpart A of 40
CFR Part 60. the requirements for
notification of intention to comply with
an alternative standard. and the reports
necessary for determination of
equivalence of alternative means of
emissIon limitation would apply.
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
of 1980 (Pub. 1.. 9&-511) requires
clearance from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) of
reporting and recordkeeping
requirements that qualify as an
"information collection request" under
the PRA. OMB is currently clearing
information collection requests for a
period of 2 years. For the purposes of
OMB's review, an analysis of the burden
associated 1IIdth the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements of this
regulation has been made. During the
first 2 yean of this regulation. the
average annual burden of the reporting
and recordkeeping requirements would
be about 12 person-years. based on an
average of 56 respondents per year.
Equivalence of Alternative Means of
Emission Limiwtion
Under the prnvisions of Section 111(b)
of the Clean Air Act. if the
Administrator establishes work
practices. equipment. design Of
operational standards. then the
Administrator must allow the use of
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.2 / Tuesday. January 4. 1983 / Proposed Rules
293
alternative means of emission
limitations if they achieve a reduction in
air pollutants equivalent to that
achieved under requirements of a
standard of performance. Sufficient da!a
would be required to show equivalency.
and a public hearmg would be required.
Individual owners or operators could
request alternatives for s;:.eclfic
requirements. such as the proposed
equipment and the proposed leak
detection and repair program, Sufficient
information would have to be collected
bv a facility to demonstrate that the
alternative control techniques would be
equivalent to the control techniques
required by the proposed standard. This
infurmation would then be submItted to
EPA In a request for a dete!1!!mat1cn of
eauivalence. If the Adr:unistrator does
n~t deny an eqUIvalency request. a
p'!blic hearin~ notice \\ auld be
p,;bllshed in the Federal Register.
Aiter p\.lblic notice and opport1Jnlty
fer pub!ic hearing. the Administr~tor
\~o'J:d determine the equivalence of an
a~~er'1dtive means of emission limitatJon
;H;d would publ;~h his ar her
(:','1 :rrrar:ation in the Federal Register.
Public Hearing
.\ public hearin~ will be held tl)
d:3Cl:SS t\1ese proposed standards in
;]Gcoraance wIth SectIOn 30:-r d 1f5) of the
C:~an Air Act. Pcr%ns wishmg to r.Jake
of'11 presc;ntations should contact EPA
dt the aLidress given in the ADDR~SSES
;-C:ion oi thl~ ;Jre 1"7: ole. Or'ii
~.: ~t~1~d~::-:5 I."".:' ; ~:~J~:?d ~,) ! ~
n~.nut..s each. Any ;;.~mber of the pubi;l;
'!!'lY file a written statement befure.
durir.g. or within 30 days after the
heariniZ. \\irItte~ stateme!:!s shou...l De
add:es~ed to '~,} C~;;1tral D,1Ckf!~ S.!c:ion
,idres5 giver. :n tJ;e AD[;~,ESSES
;;,.:.::._:i:"lf r.is ~=-ed=:1L.:~ d.nJ S~h..;u:J
;f'fer' ...' (' ~.ei ~amber .-\-8().....H.
.\ \.~-:..~'.;.tj!l1 transcript ci t.h~ ~h -: j II
Dotket Sec\,811 In ~:" i'':!..~:2~:..in. ~.I.. . ,",-:e
.\::Oi\ES5ES seC::G~ ,;: ::"..:~ predir. .'>J.
P,)d et
The .locket .S :
l~r: ,j :;~b:)ta.i1~~al number of smalj
",.::::es.
f ;jt ,< "'~'Jj"rt<;:~ 10 CYR :'~rt ',IJ
\ : "":.::':::"~ .';ntrol. .;1.1.~: .
'.;I~iT~l.lnl~n: ~;;dd~e plant3. :\.:,~:-.-:.
I., .:.':ll ..,Uu~~.y. CeaL C~pper. r..'
:"1:'.\e!'::! 1:-:-':;. r.'=':..iS:; 3.::d ~~dSS t):''-
C '::-'S, In:e:-,;v\'ernmental r~!.i'.
~ :.~~ ~ '.,<":a!j. :--'letail1c m:~~'
\fut,)!" ':t:~: .~d::~. ''.j-i!iiC aCic p: .1::
.,' ~ -: : :,p!'" :'i" t~ .:::S :::dU5 ::""'i ~w
, ' ~
-. i :.::' .. _L~e :..: ~~GS.1_. ~
'''; ::I'I;,r::: .1:;;..1 9~,!::ttS. Waste !red':7:' . :
~;',d .::~:cSrti, Zinc,
:1 ;".:d. D~~'_r .~~'~r 27. 1'1A2.
!"on -\ lIf'tn.1Ild~z. Jr..
..11. ri!~g :"-um"lUS{;"a!or.
PART 6O-{AMENDED]
It is proposed that 40 CFR Part !Jj' 'J"
dmended by adding a new' subpart -is
foilows:
-------
..
Federal ilt.Ji8Nr / Vol 48, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 4. 1983 / Prop0888 Ral"
~QQQ .If.""~
for ~ IJ:-""J'an i8wc88.. VOC III
PetroIIM8 RdNr...
See.
60.590 Appikability ADd dBipatiaa aI
a_led facWty.
60.591 Definition..
60.592-1 Standarda: Genend.
6O.592-Z Standards: PomP' Ln Ught liquid
scmca.
60.592-3 Standards: CampreMOrS.
60.592-4 Standarda: Pre88ure relief dev1ces
in pal vitopCJt aerY1C8.
60.592-15 Sta.adarda: Sampling connection
Jystema.
60.592~ Standarda: Open-ended valves or
linea.
60.592-7 StanQanh: ValVt'8 in gas/vapor
I8n'1I:e and valY1!II m light liqwd..lemce.
eo..59Z-fI StaDdard8: Pwr.pe aDd valves in
heavy liquid aer'11C8. preuw-. reh.ef
devices in lisht liquid)! heavy liqwd
:.f'I"V'ce. and flanges and other
Gonnec-ton.
60 59:!-9 Standsrdr. ~fay ofr!!1J:c.:r
6O.59Z-10 Standa.rda: Cloaed vent IYstems
and cootrol deY1cea.
60.593-1 Alternative staJldara. for valves-
allowable percentagŁ of valV" leaking.
60.:;,,:;'.2 Alternative standard. for '-'olIves-
oki;J period leak detecticrn and repair.
50.:'}' Equivalence of a ~',ean. of e!IU~SlOn
limJtaOOn.
60595 Test methoda and procedllla.
80.596 Kecordkaipll1S requllementl.
60.597 Reportln& reqw:ementa.
Authority: Seca. 111 and 301(&) of the Clean
Au Act. as amended (-'2 U.S.c. 7411. 7601[a]),
aCid additional authority as noted below.
~bpart GGG-Stand8rd8 of
P'erlorm8llClt for Fugtttve Emt~
Sources of VOC in Petroleum
Refln8rt..
~590 ~ 8nd dniVNtion of
atfectM fadftty.
(a)(1) The provisions of this subpart
apply to affected facilities in petroleum
refineriea.
(2) A compressor is an affected
facIlity.
(3) The group of all fugitive emission
sources within a pl'OC~s unit is an
affected faciiity.
(b) Any affected facility I1llder
paragraph (a) of tbi8 eectioa that
commeDCe8 coDStn1ction or modification
after JdllUary 4. 1983. would be sus)ect
to the reqairementa of this subpart.
(c) Addition or replacement of fusitive
emission sources for the pm-pote of
process improvement which is
accomplished without a capital
expenditure shall not by itself be
considered a modification ID1der this
subpart.
(d)(l) Affected facilitfes covered by
Subpart VV ex Subpart kn of 40 CFR
Part 60 and affected fad1iiiea producing
natural gasoline from natural gas are
excluded from this subpart.
(2) If 8 fugitive emission IOW'Ce i.
subject to the proviaiona of 4D CFR Part
61 Subpart J and 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart
GGG. the IIOurce will only be required to
comply with the proviaiOWI of 40 CFR
Part 61 Subpart J.
~6O.511 DeflnIt!oM.
As used in this subpart. all terms not
defined herein shall have the meaning
given them in the Act or in Subpart A of
Part 60. and the following terms shall
have the specific meanings given them.
"Closed Vent System" means EI
system that is not open to the
dtmosphere and that is composed of
piping. connections. and. if necessary.
flow inducing devices that transport gas
or vapor from II compressor or a fugitive
emission source to a control device.
"Connector'" means flanged. screwed.
welded, or other joined fittings used to
connect two pipelines or II pipeline and
a piece of equipment.
"Control Device" means an enclosed
combustion device. vapor recovery
system. or flare.
"First Attempt at Repair" means to
take rapid action for the purpose of
stopping or reducing leak2z of organic
material to atmosphere using best
practices.
"Flare" means s single burner tip
elevated above ground level used to
bum vent gases in essentially a
diffusion flame.
"Fugitive Emission Source" me!lns
each valve. pump. pressure relief device.
sampling cormection system. open-
ended valve or line. and flange or other
connector in VOC service.
"In Gas/Vapor Service" means that a
compressor or a fugitive emIssion source
contains proc~s fluid that is in the
gaseous state at operating conditions.
"In Light Liquid Service" means that a
fugitive emISSIOn source contains a
liquid that meets the conditions
specified In 160.595(e).
"In-situ sampling systems" means
non extractive samplen or in-lme
samplel"l.
"OpeD-Ended Valve or Line" means
any valve. except pressure relief valVe8.
having one I1de of the valve seat in
contact wIth process fluid and one- side
that can be open to the atmo8phere.
either direcdy or through open piping.
"Petroleum Refinery" means any
facility engaged In producing glUloline,
kerosene. distillate fuel oila. residual
fuel oila. lubricants. or other producta
through the distillation of petroleum. or
throasb the redi8tillabon. crackins, or
reformins of lIDfIui.hed petroIe.m
derivatives.
"Petroleum" mean8 the crude oil
removed from the Nrth and the oila
derived from tar sanda. lhal~. and coeL
212
"Pressure Releue" meaD8 the
emiuiou of material8 from proc..lK.
resulting from the system presaure beiIIs
greater than the set presaure of the
pressure relief device.
"Process Improvement" means routine
changea made for safety and
occupatioDal health reqwrement8, for
energy savings. for better utility, for
ease of maintenance and operation. for
correction of deaigD deficiencies.. for
bottleneck removal for changing
product requirement-. or for
enviromne.atal control
"Proce.. Unit" means eqwpment
assembied to produce intermediate or
final products from petroleum.
unfiniabed petroleum derivatIves. or
other intermediates: II pl'Oce.. UDit can
operate iDdepeadeat1y if supplied with
sufficient feed or raw materiala and
sufficient storage facilities for the
product.
"Quarter" means II 3-month period:
the first quarter concludes on the last
day of the lut full moath dunng the 180
days followins initial startup.
"Repaired" mew that a fugitive
emisl!KlnB 8OUI'Ce is adjusted or
otherwise altered in order to reduce
fugitive emi..ions below 10.000 ppm. as
provided in II OO.59.2-Z{c)(l), -7(d)(1).
-8lc)(l); or below the leak level a9
dP.IDJ.ed i.c 'if 6O.592-Z{d)(8)(i) and -3(f).
"Se-I.1.i:RiT" mean. a device that
meaS1.tre3 a physical quantity or the
change in a physical quantity such as
temperature. pressure, flow rate. or pH.
"In Vacuum Service" means thdt d
fugitive e:misaion 80urce I' operating at
an internal pressure which is at least
5kPa below ambient pressure.
"Volatile Organic Compound (YQC)"
means any organic compound which
participate. tn atmospheric
photochemical reactions. An organic
compound participates in atm':'~,r.eric
reactions unles8 the Administrator
deterreines that it doe. nol
"In VOC Service" means that a
com~sor or 8 fugitive emission source
containS or contact! a process f!aid that
IS at least 10 percent VOC by weIght as
determined according to the pro\,!,;,jGS
of 9 00.595.
~ 60.592-1 SIaIId8lda. Genera&.
(a) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of thia subpart shall
comply with the requirements of
I 6O.59Z-1 to t 8D..59Z-10 as soon as
practicabie, bat DOt latw than 180 day.
after IDitial at8rtup.
(b) Compliance willi t 8O.59Z-1 to
I 60.583-10 wiD be determined by
review of record8, review of
performance test results, and inspection
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 48, No.2 I Tuesday, January 4; 1983 I Proposed Rules
29S
using the methods and procedures
specified in 1 60.595.
(c)(1) A determination of equivalence
of alternative means of eminion
limitation to the requirements of
t t 6O.592-Z, -3. -5. ~ -7. -8. and -10
may be requested as provided in
i 60.594. .
(2) If the Administrator determines
that a means of emission limitation is at
least equivalent to the requirements of
i I 6O.592-Z, -3, -5, -6. -7, -8. or -10 the
requirements of that determination will
apply.
(d) Fugitive emission sources that are
in vacuum service may be excluded
from the requirements of 160.592-1 to
i 60.592-10 if they are identified as
required in I 6O.596(e)[4).
i 60.592-2 Stanctard8: Pumps In light liquid
service.
(a)(1) Each pump in light liquid service
shall be monitored monthly to detect
leaks by the methods specified in
i 6O.595(b), expect as provded in
160.592-1(c) and It 60.592-2 (d). (e),
and (f).
(2) Each pump shall be checked by
visual inspection. each calendar week.
for indications of liquids dripping from
the pump seal.
(b)(1) If an instrument reading of
10.000 ppm or greater is measured, a
leak is detected. or
(2) If there are indications of liquids
dripping from the pump seaL a leak is
detected.
(C)(1) When a leak is detected. it shall
be repaired as soon as practicable. but
not later than 15 calendar days after it is
detected except as provided in 1 60.592-
9.
(2) A first attempt at repair shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days after
each leak is detected.
(3) If repair requires that the pump be
equipped with a dual mechanical seal
system tl-.at includes a barrier fluid
system, then repair shall be completed
no later than 6 months after the leak is
detected.
(d) Each pump equiPI!ed with a dual
mechanical seal system that includes a
barrier fluid system is exempt from the
requirements of S 6O.592-2(a) provfded
the following requirements are met:
(1) Each dual mechanical seal system
is:
(i) Operated with the barrier fluid at a
pressure that is at all times greater than
the pump stuffIng box pressure; or
(ii) Equipped with a barrier fluid
degassing reservoir that is connected by
a closed \'ent system to a control device
as described to'I60.592-10; or
(iii) Equipped with a system that
purges the barrier fluid into a process
stream with no VOC emission to
atmosphere. -
(2) The barrier thrld is not in light
liquid service or gas/vapor service or is
not in VOC service.
(3) Each barrier fluid system is
equipped with a sensor that will detect
failure of the seal system. the barrier
fluid system. or both. .
(4) Each pump is checked by visual
inspection. each calendar week. for
indications of liquids dripping from the
pump seal.
(5)(i) Each sensor as described in
1 6O.592-2(d)(3) is checked daily or is
equipped with an audible alarm, and
(ii) Based on design coIUiderations
and operating experience. the owner or
operator shall demonstrate a criterion
that indicates failure of the seal system,
the barrier fluid system, or both as
determined by the owner or operator for
each sensor.
(6)(i) If there are indications of liquids
dripping from the pump seal or the
sensor indicates failure of the seal
system. the barrier fluid system. or both.
a leak is detected.
(ii) When Meak is detected, it shall be
repaired as soon as practicable, but not
later than 15 calendar days after it is
detected except as provided in t 60.592-
9.
(iii) A first attempt at repair shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days after
each leak is detected.
(e) AD.y pump that is designated, as
described in i 6O.596(e)(1). for DO
detectable emissions, as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background. is exempt from the
requirements of Ii 6O.592-2(a). (c). and
(d) if the pump:
(1) Has no externally actuated shaft
penetrating the pump housing.
(2) Is operated with DO detectable
emissions. liS indicated by an in5tn....~;.!Il.
reading of less than 500 ppm above
background. as measured by the
methods specified in i 6O.595(c), and
(3) Is tested for compliance with
i 60.592-2(e)(2) initially. annually. and
at other times requested by the -
Administrator.
(f) If any pump is equipped with a
closed vent system capable of capturing
and transporting any leakage from the
seal or seals to a control device as
described in i 60.592-10. it is exempt
from the 1 i 6O.592-2(aHe).
~ 60.S92-3 ComprMSOrL
(a) Each compressor shall be equipped
with a seal system that includes a
barrier fluid system and that prevents
leakage of VOC to the atmosphere.
except as provided in I 60.592-1 (c) and
i I 6O.592-3(h) and (i).
213
(b) Each COmpl"es8Ol' seal 8)'8tem liS
required in t 6O.592-3(a) shan br.
(1) Operated with the barrier fluid at a
pressure that is greater than the
compressor stuffing box pres8W'e; or
(2) Equipped with a barrier fluid
system that is connected by a closed
vent system to a control device 118
described in 1 60.592-10: or
(3) Equipped with a system that
purges the barrier fluid into a process
stream with no VOC emission to the
atmosphere.
(c) The barrier fluid is not in light
liquid service or gas/vapor service or is
not in VOC service.
(d) Each barrier fluid system as
described in 160.592-3(a} shall be
equipped with a sensor that will detect
failure of the seal system, barrier fluid
system. or both.
(e)(1) Each sensor as required in
i 6O.592-3( d) shall be checked daily or
shall be equipped with an audible alarm. .
(2) Based on design considerationa
and operating experience. an owner or
operator shall demonstrate a criterion
that indicates failure of the seal system.
the barrier fluid system. or both shaD be
determined by the owner or operator for
eaCh sensor installed on a compressor
seal system.
(f) If the criterion determined under
i 6O.592-3(e}(2) is registered by the
sensor, a leak is detected.
(g)(l) When a leak is detected, it shall
be repaired as SOOD as practicable. but
not later than 15 calendar days after it is
detected except as provided in 160.592-
9.
(2) A first attempt at repair shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days after
each leak is detected.
(h) AD.y compressor that is not
equipped as described in H60.S92-3(a)
and (b) shall be- equipped with a closed
vent system capable of capturing and
transporting any leakage from the seal
to a control device as described in
160.592-10.
(i) AD.y compressor that is designated,
as described in 160.596{e}(1). for DO
detectable emissions. as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background. is eXempt from the
requirements of i i 6O.592-3(aHh) if the
compressor:
(1) Is operated with no detectable
emissions. as indicated by an instrument
reading of less than 500 ppm above
background. as measured by the
methods specified in 160.595(c); and
(2) Is tested for compliance with
S 6O.592-3(i)(1) initially. annually. and at
other times requested by the
Administrator.
-------
298
Federal Register I Vol. 48, No.2 I Tuesday, January 4, 1983 / Proposed Rules
-=::
'80.512-4 Stand8rde: Pre8sur8 reUet
dftic:n In gaa/npor aerYIc8.
(a) Except during pressure releases.
each pressure relief device in gas/vapor
service shall be operated with no
detectable emissions as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background. as measured by the
methods specified in f eo.595(c).
(b)(1) After each pressure release, the
pressure relief device shall be returned
to a condition of no detectable
emissions. as indiCated by an instrument
reading of less than 500 ppm above
background, as soon as practicable, but
no later than 5 calendar davs after the
pressure release, except as'pro~;ded in
i 60.592-9.
(2) No later than 5 calendar days after
the pressure release the pressure relief
device shall be monitored to confinn the
condition of no detectable emissions. as
indicated by an instrument reading of
500 ppm above background. as
measured by the methods specified in
IeO.595{c).
(c) Closed vent systems and control
de\;ces. as described in f 60.592-10. that
are used to comply with U 6O.592-4(a)
and (b) shall be designed and operated
on at all times when VOC emissions
may occur.
160.592-5 Standards: Sampling
cor..1tIdion ~
(a) Each sampling connection system
shall be equipped with a closed purge
system.
- (b) Each closed purge system as
required in 180.592-5(a) shall:
(I) Return the purged process fluid
directly to the procesa line without VQC
emissions to atmosphere. or
(2) Collect and recycle the pursed
process fluid without VOC emissions to
atmosphere.
(3) Be designed and operated to
captUre and transport all the purged
process fluid to a control device
complying with the requirements of
160.592-10.
(c) In-situ sampling systems ~
exempt from U60.592-5{a) and (b).
~60.512-6 SI8I~.. ~u--lded"""
.. lines.
(a)(I) Each open-ended valve or line
sh.all be equipped with a cap. blind
flanse. plug. or a second valve.
(2) The cap. blind flange. plug. or
second closed valve shall seal the open
end at all times except during operations
requiring process fluid flaw througb the
open-ended valve or line.
(b) Each open-ended valve or line
equipped with. second val\-e shall be
operated in a manner such that the-
valve on the process fluid end is closed
before the seamd valve is closecl
!80.592-7 Stand8t'd8: ValYMln g88/vRpOr
88Mc8 and valv.. In light Uqu\d 88rYtc8.
(a) Each valve shall be monitored
monthly to detect leaks by thP. methods
specified in 1 6O.595(b) and shall comply
with 1160.592-7(bHe). except as
provided in If 60.5&2-7 (f). (g). and (h)
and 160.593-1 and 2.
(b) If an instrument reading of 10.000
ppm or greater is measured. a leak is
detected.
(c)(I) Any valve for which a leak ia
not detected for 2 successive months
mav be monitored the first month of
ev~ry quarter. beginning with the next
quarter. until a leak is detected.
(2) If a leak is detected. the valve shall
be monitored monthly until a leak is not
detected for 2 successive months.
(d)(l) When a leak is detected. it shall
be repaired as soon as practicable. but
no later than 15 calendar days after the
leak is -detected. except as provided in
~ 60.592-9.
(2) A first attempt at repair shall be
made no later than S"calendar da)'S after
each leak is detected.
(e) First attempts at repair include. but
are not limited)o, the fallowing best
practices where practicable:
(1) Tightening of bonnet bolts:
(2) Replacement of bonnet bolts;
(3) Tightening of packing gland nuts:
(4) Injection of lubricant into
lubricated packing.
(f) Any valve that is designated. as
described in t 6O.596(e)[1). for no
detectable emissions, as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background. is exempt from the
requirements of 160,592-7{a) if the
valve:
(I) Has no external actuating
mer.ftani'""1 in contact with the process
fluid.
(2) Is operated with emissions less
than 500 ppm above background as
determined by the method specified ill
160.595(c). and
(3) la tested for compliance with
~ 6O.592-7(f)(2) initially, amm.ally. and at
other times requested by the
Administrator.
(g) Any valve that is designated. as
required in I 6O.596(f)(I). as an unsafe-
to-monitor valn is exempt from the
requirements of 160.592-7(a) if:
(I) The owner or operator of the valve
demonstrates that the valve is unsafe to
mom tar because monitoring personnel
would be exposed to an immediate
danger as a consequence of complying
\\-ith I 6O.59Z-7{a). al!d
(2) The owner or operator of the valve
has a written pian that requires
monitD1"in8 of the \'aJTe a. frequent as
practicable du.ring safe-to-momtor times.
(h) Any v~ that is desipated. as
required in I ea.596(f)(z). a& a diffi01lt-
214
to-monitor valve is exempt from the
requirements of f 6O.592-7(a) if:
(1) The owner or operator of the valve
demonstrates that the valve cannot be
monitored without elevat:in& the
monitoring personnel mare than 2
meters above a support surfece.
(2) The process unit within which the
valve is located becomes an affected
facility through i 60.14 or f 80.15, and
(3) The owner or operator of the valve
has a written plan that requires
monitoring of the valve at least once per
calendar year.
! 60.592-1 Standards: Pumps Met ""'-
In heavy liquid ...., pr'888Ur8 relief
devices In light liquid and ~ liquid
service, and flangea and ottIw ~.-h....
(a) Pumps and valves in heavy liquid
sen'ice. pressure relief devicee in light
liquid and heavy liquid service. IIDd
flanges and other connectors shall be
monitored within 5 days by the method
specified in 160.595(b) if evidence of a
potential leak ia found by vis~
audible. olfactory, or any ether
detection method.
(b) If an instrument reading of 10.000
ppm or greater ia measured, a leak is
detected.. .
(C)(l) When a leak is detected. it shall
be repaired as soon as practicable. but
not la ter than 15 calendar davs after it is
detected. except as provided"in 160.592-
9.
(2) The first attempt at repair shall be
made no 1ater than 5 calendar days after
each leak is detected.
(d) First attempts at repair include.
bat are Dot limited to. the best practices
described under I 6O.592-7(e).
f 6O..5!I2-e St8nd8rde: D-, of repIIIr.
[a) Delay of repair of compressors and
fugitino emiasiOl1 soun:es for which
leaks s-e beat detected will be
allowed if the repzir is tectmU:ally
iDfeasib1e "ithout a complete CI:' putU:al
process unit shutdown..
(b) Delay of repair beyond a procas
unit shutdD1\"I1 will be allowed far
valves. if valve assembly replaceJDlld it
necessary during the process until
shutdown. valve assembly supplies h.n
been depleted. and valve assembly
supplies had been sufficiently stocked
before ~ supplies were depleted.
f 6O.592-1Q StancI8rda: aa..twllt
systeme 8nd controt ........
(a) Owners or operators of closed'-
systems and control devicetl used to
comply with provisioaa of this subpGt
shall comply with the pnMsiona of tbi8
section..
(b) Vapor recmery systems (for
example. condensers and adsorbersJ
shall be designed and ::;terated to
-------
FedInI II J ... , Val. .. No. 2 I 1'ue8day. JaJ-7 4. 181 , " . .6-1 ...
18J
--- die GIpIIic Y8p1D""" tD
them with an efficiency of 95 pII'CIeIIt or
.,....
(c) ~.... combuatioa dnk:e shaJI
be""'" aad aperet8d -~.4- ...
VOC I . b.iI!......ato ~1IIi~u.
~".pII'C8It-""--
provide a uW~"'l~lidem:e tlmaaf
0.75 aecaad8 at a m~.;........ b-o.-AL-
of mrc.
(dK1)""~be -> '~"""".aDd
operated .... tUibIe pIfti 'Ill»
exaI(It for"'" DOt to ..... a total
of 5111imd88 darins my perioII of Z
COIUecutive hours .. detc.udb.d by
IIIIthada iD . 8D.S95(g).
(2) FIare8.baJl operate with 8 n.me at
an times.
(3) PIares sball be operated with ait
velocities leu than 2Z meters JIB' IKOIIIIt
u ~ed for tile IJU...
cambuat.ed at the flare tip. ,
(4) FIare8 ehall be elevated"'e
ground level and operate without a8lli8t
or with steam assist.
(5) Steam aaeisted flam ahail
combust 8ue8 with the net ....
value of the gases greater than 11.2
Mesajoule per standard C8bic meter (300
8tu/ sef).
(6) Flares operated witbaat .....
shall cambuat sue' with the ... beatiDa
value of the gaeeII greater tD87..
Mepjoule per staJJdard c:ubicmet.wf2IID
8tu/ sef').
(e) Owuers or operators of caatrol
devicel that are used to c.omply with the
proviaiOD of this subpart aDal1 aalitar
these control devic:ea to eII8III'8 tbat they
are operated and maintained in
conformance with their deaip.
(fI(t) Cased vent systems sha1l be
designed 8Dd operated with 110
detectable emiuiol18, as indicated b, an
instrument reading of less than 50IJ ppIII
above background. as measured b, U.
methods specified in i 6O.595(c).
(2) CORd vent systems shaD be
monitored aDIlually and at other times
requestlld by the Administrator.
(3) Leaks. as indicated by aD
inatrummt readiDg greater them 500
ppm. shall be repaired witbia 1.5
caIeadar clap..
rat a..t YeIIt "J'"h.- and c:aatraI
derices uaed to campII' wi'" prmisicms
of this subpart sluUl be o_.Aclat an
.... -- p..~:_..' ... ~ ......0111
them.
'--'t AJb . 1 &r & ....
-. * All ~l' .......
...... -
(a) AD ~ or -.,---...8i8a to
- the valvee~witIa-
.'180 fill. ~aI"""""
afeq88 or -""2.8~
.(b) -n:; ~II -. . '1 ..
~ -0W8I_' r '.""""
bavetblt--~""
aL.-bI& .- ' J at-- L.... ,. -
{l)Aa__op.. . ......,
rh&~1. ' '- . ... -- -
'11 . -"""to~- tile....
CIID!Ipip witD die )1 u ~ '... '"
....'_10.' j L.I ~. ~di8
.IL....~......~
(~A ~ --..--. ,,-a-.
I t1IJ.55..ttc) u.n be .--i-+ed .
iniIi8IIy, annually, and at atheru...
''''1'' . ~ ~"~""'J" '.
(3Jffa~""'i8..1' , "it--
be repainltiD ~ L-~"'I ~
7( dJ ... fet.
(e:) FBf.......... .. taw""
.......I-t..l. ill tta E..I.L ~ '"'-
(1) All vaIvl!8i11paJv.PIIU."
iBIIIililflt r.- .... wi.. tba
~ f8I:iii.9 ab8U be -.-" .....&.
within 1 -- bJ the .-to ..M.""", 'It..&,
in I 81J.591(b).
(2) If 811 iutmment reaq of 10;018
ppm CIr pater i8 meuure4 a leak i8
dRteI:ted.
(~ The leak pen:entap sha&i be
determined by dividing the number of
valves Co. whiŁh leaks are d8tact88 bJ
the mIIII8er of valves in gUJV8f18 and
ttgbt IirpIid 8erYice withm the ~
facili~
(cI) o...n aDd Of-- ~.,--el8d
tD ~ with tfb8 aim-......
~ shall not hlneilll af&c:tN
facility with II leak pen:eutqe peete
than z..o p8n2!d.
(e) If aD GWIII!It or ~... I!D faaaer
MsfJmI tIre--- to ~wi6
~ ~ dte---, -..Ai.- m..a
notify tbe ~tn '_:_1)0&. illWIiIiIIS did
the wadl.,.-.tiI.. ~~ Jilo....-I in
If ~7{.HeJ will beWJ. t....d.
I60.Sa.-a ~ . F f A-
V8tv- .............. f' - ..
,....
(a)(I) AD o-.r or operator may elect
to c:ampty with Q8 of tbe al~
work practices ..... .fi...... ill' 6IJ.593...
Z(b).
(2JAnawur_~...~
the ~dm;..:-t~... befme ~I__ti..
one of the altemative work pnu:ticee of
I 6O.5IIWCb). .. 8peCified in I 80.59'tb-.
(b)(tKi) An owner or operatai' shall
comply witb a ..da........leak detec:tiaft
program.
Cu) The..&_lak~
prasrIIIII abaII '"-W4onua to tb8
r~ for valve8 iDgaa/..".
service aad valves in HPt liquid ......
as L..... '.. " ill I An ~ 7.
(Z) After Z "" - -Ah. ,~U)'"
.h.. ~ J81ia8'" tba...... aI
Y8iw8"",,,,, -. ........u.
aD ...... J J ...- .............
1of.... . ..w.o.. ~ J ."
(31""'. ,. -, .~...
detecti88""""""" '"
215
valwal88ldae.... .. -.... tbaa 2.0.
sa QWIIII'r 01' i p..... 1 .., .... .. skip
:I of m...-~., "'.h' ~ perioda
(41 ""pIIftIBIt "'''''''188k:ins i8
p!8f8r--'" 01' ~...
.... . :.. .-ia.. -L. ..
. - ~~",~ U J ~iD
..-- ~ r..C88.-r e8ct to ..
H ----t(!Ift2J--2Cb)93).
,-- - - .
- --
T of er'lIlon
t.,... L1.. ~ - 88bject to
- ...- .. ..... L.", ID8Y appIp
tadleA.".' ~ . ... La ' ciao
of . I' ..~ of
. , .. - - cI..t .. --..
.-.. - i8 .' "VUC.I.....
.,..i t ...~... " - ia-.i . *-
ofVtX: II' n.- .AI.
1~"811 '. .
(bf"" L IL-"~ .....A- to
t!IB -,...{. , .......... ..~...t~
l-.:\f'~. tIo...af..... ~ wdl be-
...A...A4 ---I. II. ~..:"I I'
(IJ"'~- - ...dI._~
Car.. .' . Ł. II . _..~ 8IaII
be~! -.&...18 --- ....", ami
~.,. Dic46ra.fDA on""" ..--..
-,,,,,. ",..01........-.-..-06
--. ~ ....
(21".' . Io...t - ....a8.--,
.......1Ir1Ia . ' ~1II888a1
~........... ~.... bf88td8ta_dIe
-,rV_t4I! .L"- ..... ~ .. I.
~_.. I
(3:)"111 ~ " . - . .~ .......K.-....
tile -b'" ,..... III .'" -
.,. , . ~.....
-."~.'
I ' I 811e- .. II"
dIIt I ~ -. '- ami I
1 r:
.-
1-
................
" .
(c)Ef' . - ".' 1.._-l1li
the required wadr p-- r'-- in thi8
sabp8It wiII- - . . ... tile
f~_""
(t)E'adlClWlllrarapo.tmtw IIpplyil13
f- a ~-:,"""'ofequivalenee shall
be I~' :.a.r.. &'"""-, and.
~~~testdalatD~te
""p' at_....... t means of
~.......~...~~ IL ''''.11.---
(ZJ FaIr-- AAI: ~ I &cility for which
a d&.. '...A''bo-.. of ~-8.:..ce is
I'f'
-------
-
'4&41 .4k- f Vol. 41, No. 2 f Tuesday, January- 4. 1983 'PropGIed- Rain
-=
8IIIiuIaD redoctiouI acbiewed by the
nrquiNd walk pnctica
(5) 'l11e AdmiDiatrator will compare
the cIemoDatrated emi88iD8 reduction for
the equivalent meana of emi8aion
IimitatioD to the demonatrated emisaion
reduction for the required work practice
and will conaider the commitment in
1 8O.594(c)(4).
(6) The-Administrator may condition
the approval of equivalence on
requirementa that may be necesaary to
auure operation and maintenance to
achieve the l8JDe emislion reduction ..
the required work practice.
(d) An owner or operator may offer a
unique approach to demonstrate the
equivalence of any equivalent means of
emisaion limitation.
(e)(1) After a request for
determination of equivalence ia
received. the Administrator will publish
a notice in the Federal Register and
provide the opportunity for public
hearing if the Administrator judges that
the requeat may be approved.
(2) After notice and opportunity for
public hearing. the Administrator will
determine the equivalence of means of
emission limitation and will publiah the
determination in the Federal Register.
(3) Any equivalent means of emission
limitation approved under this section
shall constitute a required work
practice. equipment. design or
operationalatandard within the meaning
of Section 111(h)(1) of the Clean Air Act.
(f)(1) Manufacturers of equipment
used to control fusitive emisalons of
vac may apply to the Administrator for
determination of equivalence for any
equivalent means of emi8sion limitation
that achieves a reduction in emissions of
VOC achieved by the equipment. design.
and operational requirements of this
subpart.
(2) The Administrator will make an
equivalence determination according to
the proviaiona of It 8O.5iM(b), (c). (d).
and (e).
160.511 T88t method8 ... prac8duns.
(a) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this aubpart shall
comply with the test methods and
procedures requirements provided In
thia aection.
(b) Monitoring. .. required In
1180.59Z. 8D.593. and 80.594, 8hall
comply with the following requirementl:
(1) Monitoring ahaJl comply with
Reference Method 21.
(Z) 'I1te VOC detectfon In8trument
abaIl meet the perforaumc8 criteria of
RcL- M8thod Zt.
(3~n.-ill8tnlment shall be calibrated
before U88 - each day of ita use by the
1IIetb0d8 apedfted ill Metbad Zt.
(4) Calif8atieD 18188 8halI be:
(I) Zero air (lesa than 3 ppm of
hydrocarbon in air); and
(it) A mixture of methane or n-hexane
and air at a concentration of
approximately but leaa than 10,000 ppm
methane or n-hexane.
(5) The instrument probe shall be
traversed around all potential leak
Interfaces as close to the interface ..
possible as described in Reference .
Method 21.
(c) When compreasors or fugitive
emission sources are tested for
compliance with no detectable
emissions as required in 1160.592-2(e).
-3(i). -4. -7(f) and -10(e), the test shall
comply with the following requirements:
(1) The requirements of
~ ~ 8O.595(b)(lH4) shall apply.
(2) The background level shall be
detennined. as set forth in Referenca
Method ZI.
(3) The instrument probe shall be
traversed around all potential leak
interfaces as close to the interface as
possible as descibed in Reference
Method ZI.
(4) The arithmetic difference between
the maximum concentration indicated
by the Instrument and the background
level is compared with 500 ppm for
defennin.i.ng compliance.
(d)(1) For purposes of determining the
percent vac content of the procesl
fluid that is contained in or contacts a
compressor or a fugitive emission
source. procedures that conform to the
methods described in ASTM Method E-
260 (incorporated by reference as
specified in 160.18) shall be used.
(2) If an owner or operator decides to
exclude nonphotochemically reactive
subltances &om the percent vac
content of the proceSl fluid. the
exclWlion will be allowed provided:
(i) Thole subatances excluded are
conaidered nonphotochemically reactive
by the Administrator. and
(Ii) The owner or operator
demonstratea that the percent vac
content. excluding nonphotochemically
reactive substances. can be reasonably
expected never to exceed 10 percent
vac by weiSht.
(e) A fugitive emission source is in
light liquid service if the percent
evaporated is greater than 10 percent at
1SOoC .. determined by ASTM Method
Q...a8 (incorporated by reference..
specified in 160.18).
(f) Samples used in conjunction with
IllO.58S(d) and (e) abal1 be
repruentatin of the proceal fluid that
il contained in or contac:ta the fugitive
emi88ioD IOUI'C8.
(g) Reference Method 22 ahal1 be ued
to determine the compliance of fIan8
with the provtaiona of thinubpart.
216
(See. 114 of the Clean Air Act a. amended (42
U.s.~ 7414).}
1-- R8c0rdkeeplng requtr8lMftta.
(a) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall
comply with the recordkeeping
requirements of this section.
(b) When each leak is detected as
specified in ~ 180.592-2. -3, -7, and -a.
the following requirements apply:
(1) A weatherproof and readily visible
identification. marked with the source
identification number. shall be attached
to the leading source.
(2) The identification on a valve may
be removed after it h.. been monitored
for 2 succesaive months as specified in
180.592-7(c) and no leak has been
detected durins thOle 2 mentha.
(3) The identification on a compressor
or fugitive emission iource. except on a
valve. may be removed after It has been
repaired.
(c) When each leak ia detected as
specified In t I 80.592-2. -3. -7. and ~.
the following information shall be
recorded In a 108 and shall be kept for 2
years In a readily accessible location:
(1) The lnatrument and operator
Identification numbers and the fugitive
emission source Identification number.
(2) The date the leak waa detected
and the dat88 of each attempt to repair
the leak.
(3) Repair methods applied In each
attempt to repair the leak.
(4) "Above 10.000" if the maximum
instrument reading measured by the
methods specified in 180.595(a) after
each repair attempt ia greater than
10.000 ppm.
(5) "Repair delayed" and the reason
for the delay if a leak la not repaired
within 15 calendar days after discovery
of the leak.
(6) The signature of the owner or
operator (or designate) whose decision
it was that repair could not be effected
without a process shutdown.
(7) The expected date of successful
repair of the leak if a leak Is not
repaired within 15 days.
(8) The date of successful repair of the
leak.
(d) The following information
perta.inin8 to the design requirements for
closed vent &ystema and control devices
described in 180.592-10 shall be
recorded and kept in a readily
acceaeible location:
(1) Detailed. achematica. design
specification8, and pipm, and
IIatrumeutatiOD'diqram8.
(2) The date. and dnc:riptionl of any
charpa in the dea188 epeciflcatiODl.
(3) Penocll wha the closed vent
syatema ... control dnt.. required in
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 48. No.2 I Tuesday.. January 4. 1983 I Proposed Rules
299
II 60.592-2. -3. -4. and -5 are not
operated as designed. including periods
when a flare pilot light does not have a
flame.
(4) Dates of startups and shutdowns of
the closed vent systems and control
devices required in II 60.592-2. -3. -4.
and -5.
(e) The following information
pertaining to all compressors and
fugitive emission sources subject to the
requirements in It 60.592-2. -3. -4. and
-7 shall be recorded in a log that is kept
in a readily accessible location:
(1)(i) A list of identification numbers
for fugitive emission sources that the
owner or operator elects to designate for
no detectable emissions under the
provisions of It 6O.592-2(e). -3(i). and
-7(f).
(ii) The designation of these sources
8S subject to the requirements of
AI 6O.592-2(e). -3(i). or -7(0 shall be
signed by the owner or operator.
(2) A list of source identification
numbers for pressure relief devices
required to comply with I 60.592-4.
(3)(i) The dates of each compliance
test required in fA 6O.592-2(e). -3(i). -4.
and -7(f)'
(ii) The background level measured
during each compliance test.
(iii) The maximum instrument reading
measured at the source during each
compliance test.
(4) A list of identification numbers for
fugitive emission sources that are in
vacuum service.
(f) The following information
pertaining to all valves subject to the
requirements of It 60.592-7 (g) and (h)
shall be recorded in a log that is kept in
8 readily accessib1e location: -
(1) A list of identification numbers for
valves that are designated as unsafe to
monitor, an explanation far each valve'
stating why the valve is unsafe to
monitor. and the plan for monitoring
each valve.
(2) A list of identification numbers for
valves that are designated as difficult to
monitor. an explanation for each valve
stating why the valve is difficult to
monitor. and the expected date for
monitoring each valve.
(8) The following information shall be
recorded in a log that is kept in a readily
accessible location:
(1) Design criterion required in
160.592-2(d)(5) and I 6O.592-3(e)(2) and
an explanation of the design criterion;
and
(2) Any changes to this criterion and
the reasons for this change.
(h) The provisions of It 60.7 (b) and
(d) do not apply to affected facilities
subject to this subpart.
(See. 114 01 the Clean Air Act u amended (42
U.S.c. 7414).)
g 60.597 Reporting requlrementa.
(a) An owner or operator electing to
comply with the provisions of II 60.593-
1 and -2 shall notify the Administrator
of the alternative standard selected 90
days before implementing either of the
provisions.
(b) The provisions of 160.B(d) do not
apply to affected facilities subject to the
provisions of this subpart except that an
owner or operator shall notify the
Administrator of the schedule for the
initial performance tests 30 days before
the initial performance tests.
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42
V.S.C.7-114)]
[FR Doc. 9J....99 Filed 1-~: 8:46 ami
BILLING CODE ----
217
-------
-
/ d J 10 1983 / Rules and Regulations
........ Regi&tN / VoL 48. No.6 Man ay. anuary .
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[AD-FAL-2070-61
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources-Graphlc Arts
Industry: Publication Rotogravure
Printing
Correction
In FR Doc. 82-30410 beginning on pa~e
50644 in the issue of Mondav. :'Iiove'T1ber
8. 1 '182. make the fOllowing correctIOns:
[1) On page 50644. third column. in rb.e
17to hne from the top of the page.
"solvent-borne are" should have read
"solvent-borne inks are".
(2) On page 50655. middle column. in
paragraph 2.3 of Method 24A under
Appendix A. in the...1ixth line. "Do"
should have read "Do".
(3) On the same page. in the third
column. the equation at the top of the
page should have been labeled
"Equation 24A-1". and "Report the
weight fraction VOC Wo" should have
218
read "Report the weight fraction VOC
W"
(4j In the same column. the second
eauation should have been labeled
"Equation 24A-2", and the plus sign
should ha ve been an equal sign.
BllllPro CODE t 505-0 I-II
40 CFR Part 60
(AD-FRL-2070-71
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources; Metal Coil Surface
Coating Operations
Correction
[n FR Doc. 82-29693 beginning on N2P.
49606 in the issue of Monday, ;'\;o\'ember
1. 1982, make the following correctior.s:
(11 On page 49606. first column. in the
12th and 13th lines of the SUMMARY
paragraph, "to all pollution" should
huve read "to air pollution".
(2) On page 49615. in
~ 60.463(c)(4)(vii), in the seventh !:~e
from the bottom of the third COltimn,
"which is" should have read "whld~l:'\ er
is"
('J) On page 49616. in ~ 60 46"lc;14![.\:
"which is g.eater" should h.J\e redd
"whichever is greater".
(4) In the same column. under ~ 604[14,
in the ninth line of paragraph (cl,
.. '::2.50" should have read "=2,S'C,"
BilliNG CODE 1505-01-11
-------
ThQ~J
J8II88Y 20, 1983
Part IV
Environmental
Protection Agency
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources; Rubber Tire
Manufacturing Industry; Proposed Rule
and Public Hearing
219
-------
28'7G
Federal Register 1 Vol. 48. No. 14 1 Thursday. January 20. 1983 1 Proposed Rules
~ALPROTEcnON
AGENCY
40 CfA Part 60
[AD-fRL 11G7-8]
St8I~ of Perfonn8nce for New
StatIon8ry Sources;.Rubber Tire
I18nuf8cturtng Industry
A8BICY: Environmental Protection
Apncy (EPA).
AC'1'ION: Proposed rule and notice of
public hearing.
SUI8AIn': The proposed standards
would limit volatile organic compound
(VOC) emissions from new. modified.
and reconstructed facilities within
rubber tire manufacturing plants. The
proposed standards implement Section
111 of the Clean Air Act and are based
on the Administrator's determination
that emissions from rubber tire
manufacturing plants cause. or
contribute significantly to. air pollution
which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare. The
intent i. to require new. modified. and
reconstructed facilities at rubber tire
manufacturing plants to control
"miBsionl to the levels achievable
':hrough use of the best demonstrated
Iystems of continuous emission
-eduction. considering costs. nonair
~aa1ity health. and environmental and
energy impacts.
A public hearing will be held to
pro"ide interested persons an
opportunity for oral presentation of
data. viewa. or arguments concerning
the proposed standards.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be
received on or before April 1. 1983.
Public Hearing. A public hearing will
be held on March 3. 1983 beginning at 9
a.m.
Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons
wishing to present oral testimony must
contact EPA by February 9. 1983.
~ Comments. Comments
ihould be submitted (in duplicate if
pouible) to: Central Docket Section (A-
1301, Attention: Docket Number.A~.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
401 M Street. SW.. Wasltington. D.C.
2Ot8D.
Public Hearing. The public hearing
will be held at the Office of
Administration Auditorium. Research
Triangle Park. N.C. Persons wishing to
present oral testimony should notify
Mrs. Naomi Durkee. Standards
Development Branch. Emission
Standards and Engineering Division
~13). U.S. Environmental Protection
/\geney. Research Triansle Park. North
Carolina 27711. telephone number (919)
541-5578.
Background Information document.
The Background Information Document
(BID) for the proposed standards may be
obtained from the U.S. EPA Library
(MD-35), Research Triangle Park. North
Carolina 27711. telephone number (919)
541-2771. Please refer to "Rubber Tite
Manufacturing Industry-Background
Information for Proposed Standards."
EPA 450/3-81-4)8a.
Docket: Docket No. A-&>-9.
containing supporting information used
in developing the proposed standards. is
available for public inspection and
copying between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m..
Monday through Friday. at EPA's
Central Docket Section. West Tower
Lobby. Gallery 1. Waterside Mall. 401 M
Street. S.W.. Washington. D.C. 20460. A
reasonable fee may be charged for
copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Susan R. Wyatt. Standards
Development Branch. Emission
Standards and Engineering Division
(MD-13). U.S. EnvirOIu'11ental Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711. telephone number (919)
541-5578.
SUflPLEllElfTAAY INFOAJIATlON:
Propo88d Standards
Standarda 01 performance for new
sources establilhed under Section 111 of
the Clean Air Act reflect:
. . . Application of the best technological
system of ContinuOUI emissIOn reduction
which (taking into consideration the COlt 01
achievins such emi9lion reduction. any
nonair quality health and environmental
impact and eneru requirements) the
Administrator determines has been
adequatel,. demonstrated (Section 111(a)(1)).
The propoeed standards would limit
VOC emissioDl from new. modified. and
reconstructed facilities. The affected
facilities would be each undertread
cementing operation. each sidewall
cementing operation. each tread end
cementing operation. each bead
cementing operation. each inside green
tire spraying operation. each outside
green tire spraying operation. each
Michelin-A operation. each Michelin-B
operation. and each Michelin-C-
automatic operation.
Facilities affected by the proposed
standarda would be those where
components for agricultural. airplane.
industrial. mobile home, light-duty truck
or passenger vehicle tires which have a
bead diameter up to and including 0.5
meter (m) [111.7 inches (in)] and cras.
section dimena10n up to and including
0.325 m (12.8 in) are mass produced in
assembly-line fashion.
220
VOC emissions from the robber tire
industry are caused by solvent
application to different components of a
tire during the manufacturing process.
To meet the proposed standards for
each undertread cementing and sidewall
cementing operation, an owner or .
operator would have the option of using
less solvent and maintaining emissIOns
at or below 25 grams per tire (a level
currently achieved at some plants)
without the use of an emission reduction
system. or installing a 75 percent
efficient emission reduction svstem if
solvent use exceeds 25 gl tire: Using less
solvent has the advantages of no cOst
(other than possibly developmental
cost). no energy usage. and sOI~ent
conservation. The proposed stanriards
for four affected facilities are based on
the use of les8 solvent and would
require that emissions be limited to 10
grams per tire (g/tire) for each tread end
cementing and each bead cementmg
operation. 1.2 g/me for each inside
green me spraying operation. and 9.3 gl
tire for each outside green tire 9pra~',"g
operatiun. Thus, the proposed standards
are structured so they could be met
through solvent use reductions without
employment of a control device.
The proposed standards would
require 75 percent emission reduction
for each Michelin-B operation and 65
percent emission reduction for each
Michelin-A and Michelin-C-automatic
operation.
Separate testing. monitoring, and
recordkee.ping requirements are
proposed for each combination of
standard format (g/tire or percent
emission reduction), control technique
(low solvent use or emission reduction
system). and compliance method
(performance tests or equipment
specificatioqa). Initial performance tests
would be required for each affecterl
facility. unlesa the owner or operator
chooses to demonstrate coret:liance with
the recommended standards by :::eetlng
the equipment specifications. An
exemption haa been provided for
facilities that meet the equipment
specifications. The proposed stal'!rla~ds
would reqUIre the owner or op"rci~ur t'J
report the results of all initial
performance tests.
Monthly performance tests would be
required to determine compliance with
each of the g/tire limits. Whether or not
monthly performance tests would be
required to determine compliance with
the percent emission reduction
standards depends primarily on the type
of control device used. and then on the
method of demonstrating compliance.
The proposed It.ancIard. would not
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 14 / Thursday. January 20. 1983 / Proposed Rules
2677
require an owner or operator to report
results of monthly performance tests.
The proposed standards would
require continuous monitoring and
recording of thermal incinerator
combustion temperature and the
temperature before and after the
catalyst for catalytic incinerators. The
requirement for a continuous monitor on
a solvent recovery system is not
applicable until performance
specifications for the monitor have been.
proposed and promulgated The
proposed standards would require that
the owner or operator maintain at the
source for a period of at least two years
records of all data and calculations used
to determine VOC emissions for each
affected facility.
Reference Method 24 would be used
to determine the VOC content of
cements and green tire spray materials.
Reference Method 25 would be used to
determine the concentration of VOC in
exhaust gas streams.
Summary of Environmental, Energy. and
Economic Impacts
The incremental impacts of the
proposed standards in the Background
Information Document were determined
using the levels of emission reduction
recommended in the control technique
guidelines (erG) document. "Control of
Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
from Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber
Tires" (EPA-450/Z-78-{)30). as the
regulatory baseline. This assumes that
in the absence of standards of
performance. all new. modified. and
reconstructed facilities would be
required to limit volatile organic
compound emissions to the levels
recommended in the erG. The erG
recommends an average overall
emission reduction of about 70 percent
from undertread cementing. tread end
cementing. bead cementing. and inside
and outside green tire spraying
operations. This reduction would be
achieved b~r using emission reduction
systems at each of these affected
facilities. Water-based sprays could also
be used at inside and outside green tire
spraying operations.
State Implementation Plans (SIPs) are
currently being revised. and the level of
control which would actually be
required for a particular rubber tire
plant in the absence of these proposed
standards of performance is uncertain.
Some States may adopt regulations that
require different levels of emission.
reduction than the regulatory baseline or
that allow the use of emission reduction
strategies different from those assumed
for the regulatory baseline. Some States
may not include regulations limiting
VOC emissions from rubber tire
manufacturing plants in their SIPs.
Therefore. basing the impacts of the
proposed standards on the assumption
that all plants would be controlled to the
level recommended in the CTG tends to
underestimate the emission reductions
and costs of the proposed standards.
Therefore. in this summary. the impacts
of the proposed standards are presented
two ways: (1) As the difference between
uncontrolled levels and the proposed
standards. and (2) as the difference
between the regulatory baseline and the
proposed standards. The actual impacts
of the proposed'standards will depend
on the mix of control levels required by
States and the location of newly
constructed. modified and
reconstructed facilities. and will be
between the two sets of numbers
presented here. ,
Compared to the regulatory baseline.
the proposed standards would reduce
nationwide emissions from newly
constructed. modified. and
reconstructed facilities by 1.430 Mg
(1.570 tons) in the fifth year after
proposal. This represents a 46 percent
reduction in emissions beyond the CTG
baseline. For a single medium-sized
plant. the emission reduction compared
to the baseline. would be 375 Mg (415
tons ).
Compared to the uncontrolled levels.
the proposed standards would reduce
nationwide emissions by 8.285 Mg (9.130
tons). This represents an 83 percent
reduction from uncontrolled levels. For a
single medium-sized plant. the emission
reduction compared to uncontrolled
levels would be 1.775 Mg (1.960 tons) per
year.
Compared to the regulatory baseline.
the proposed standards would not result
in an increase from baseline levels of
water pollution and solid waste or
energy consumption. Since baseline
levels of water pollution. solid waste.
and energy consumption show no
significant increase over uncontrolled
levels. the proposed standards also
show no significant increase over
uncontrolled levels.
Control costs calculated for the
regulatory baseline assume that each
affected facility would use a VOC
emission reduction system to contral
emissions except for inside and outside
green tire spraying operations. where
water-based sprays were assumed to be
used. Since the proposed standards are
partially based on process
modifications. both the capital and
annualized costs to comply with the
proposed standards are smaller than the
costs projected to comply with the
baseline levels. The total nationwide
capital cost for VOC emission reduction
from uncontrolled levels to the level of
221
the proposed standards would be about
$10.8 million during the firsl five years.
The total nationwide annual,zed cost in
the fifth year would be about $1.5
million. with solvent recovery c:edits.
(Without solvent recovery credits. the
nationwide annualized cost would be
about $3.4 million; recovery credlls are
anticipated.) For a single medium-sized
plant controlling all affected facilities to
the level of the proposed standards, the
annualized cost would be approximately
$110.000 if credit is given for solvent
recovery or $403.000 without solvent
recovery credit.
Price increases and reductions in
return on investment (ROI) are projec~ed
to be zero compared to those projected
for the baseli."1e control level. Assuming
all costs are passed through to
consumers. the average increase in the
retail price of a tire from uncontrolled
levels would be about 0.26 percent in the
worst case. Upon full cost absorption.
using no control as a base of
comparison. the return on investment
(ROI) of new radial tire manufacturing
plants may decline from an assumed
rate of 5.17 percent to 5.04 percent in the
worst case. Worst case conditions in
both situations are represented by the
use of a separate capture system and
carbon adsorber control device at each
affected facility where control
equipment is used to achieve emission
reductions. These impacts are not
expected to inhibit industry growth.
Standards of performance have other
benefits in addition to achieving
reductions in emissions beyond lhose
required by a typical SIP. They establish
a degree of national uniformity. which
precludes situations in which some
States may ate-act new industries as a
result of having less stringent air
poilution standards relative to other
States. Further. standards of
performance provide documentatIon
which reduces uncertainty in case-by-
case deterr.:.inations of best available
technology (BACT) for facilities located
in attainment areas. and lowest
achievable emis5ion rates (IAER; for
faciliti~s located in nonattair.unen(
areas. This documentation includes
ider:~:ficatlOn am: .:::omprehensive
ani:1lysis of alternative emission control
technologies. The costs are provided for
an economic analvsis that reveals the
affcrdability of co'ntrols in an unbiased
studv of the economic imoact of controis
on an industry. .
The rulemaking process that
implements a performance standard
assures adequate technical review and
promotes participation of
representatives of the industry bemg
considered for regulation. government.
-------
2878
Federal Register I Vol. 48. No. 14 I Thursday, January 20. 1983 I Proposed Rules
-
and the public affected by that
industry's emissions. The resultant
regulation represents a balance in which
government resources are applied in a
well publicized national forum to reach
a decision on a pollution emission level
that allows for a dynamic economy and
a healthful environment.
Rationale
Selection Source
The EPA Priority List (40 CPR Part 50,
I 60.16. 44 FR 49222. August 21. 1979)
reflects the Administrator's
determination that emissions from the
listed source categories contribute
significantly to air pollution. which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health or welfare. The Priority
List identifies major sources of
emissions on a nationwide basis in
order of priority for regulation based on
three factors: (1) quantities of emissions
from source categories. (2) the mobility
and competitive nature of each source
category, and (3) the extent to which
each pollutant endangers health or
welfare. Tire manufacturing is included
on the Priority List as a subcategory
under Synthetic Rubber. which is ranked
number 20 out of a total of 59 source
categories. Rubber tire manufacturing
industry VOC emissions for 1979 were
estimated to be about 59.000 Mg (65,000
tons ).
About 140.000 tires per day will be
produced by new. modified and
reconstructed facilities in operation by
1985. In the absence of additional
regulation. new. modified. and
reconstructed facilities would emit
about 3,120 Mg of VOC per year (3.430
tons/yr).
Emission reduction systems composed
of a capture system and control device
are available to the industry for
reducing VOC emissions. Water-based
green tire sprays with low VOC content
are in use at many plants. Techniques
which minimize solvent use can reduce
emissions from tread end cementing and
bead cementing opera tings. The
predicted growth of this industry with
its attendant increase in emissions and
the availability of control technology
further support the development of
standards of performance for this
Industry.
Selection of Pollutants and Affected
Facilities
At a rubber tire manufacturing plant.
raw rubber and chemicals are first
mixed In proportions determined by
specifications for the tire component in
which the rubber will be used. The
rubber is then transported to different
partl of the plant for proceaaing Into
various components. such as treads.
sidewalls. beads. plies. and belts. In
some of these processes rubber is
combined with fabric. steel, or
fiberglass. Manufactured components
are brought together and assembled at a
tire building area. The assembled green
tire is sprayed with a green tire spray,
which acts as a mold release agent and
lubricant. and placed in a press where,
with a specific combination of time.
tempera ture. and pressure. the tire is
molded to its final fonn and the rubber
is cured. Tires are then inspected for
quality and appearance. or "finished."
VOC is used at several points in the
tire manufacturing process. Organic
solvents or organic solvent.based
cements are aplied to components
during production or during tire building
to facilitate adhesion. Organic solvents
are used in many green tire sprays to
facilitate application of mold release
and lubricatIng agents and at finishing.
where minor cosmetic repairs are made.
The processes used to manufacture
components and to assemble tires vary
among companies and among p!ants
owned by the same company. Whether
any VOC is used in a process and in
what amounts also vary among
companies and plants owned by the
same company. Each company
considers some or all of its production
precesses to be proprietary. In
developing the proposed standards. EPA
was requested to maintain the
confidentiality of much of the process
and solvent use data suhmit:ed by
industry. At the same time EPA sought
to develop regulations which reflect use
of best systems of continuous emission
reduction and which apply equitably to
each manufacturer. Futher. EPA sought
to avoid proposing any requirement
which would adversely affect tire safety
and performance.
Volatile organic compounds (VQC)
are the principal pollutants emitted to
the atmosphere from rubber tire
manufacturing plants. The VOC emitted
from all but one company's plants is
predominantly white gasoline and
petroleum naphtha. Heptane is the
major solvent used at one company's
plants. Toluene. xylene. ketones. and
esters are also used throughout the
industry. but in smaller amounts.
About 98 percent of the VOC emitted
from an average uncontrolled existing
plant results from solvent application in
seven solvent-using processes. These
processes and their average contribution
to overall plant VOC emissions. as
calculated from solvent use and tire
production data. provided by industry,
are shown below:
222
Process
:rT'IISSICrt
I "C/"Itr"'VCtt
, .. rper;O;'J
Undenr..d ~nng. .......
~1ewaU cemef\tll"Q......... ..
Tread eod cementing ...". . .... ....,-.. ......... ".-.
Bead cefT1enting .m.. ...
Tire O\.nlan'g ..,.m.,.... ""..""
ins.de green tire sora'1lng ,'c~J.r'tC SOl...'!,.,...
cased) .... . .
Out~de green flf. spt'aytf"g (orga ""tC solven.. .
DaSedl . .......... .............. .... ..... ..... .. ..
~mSl'!rng . ..
Non solvent+USlng facilities.
2')5
'1]
OJ
-
"
~ ;
ze ~
'j
. .
Total......-............... ..............
::a
Industry-supplied data show wide
variations in solvent usage rates a:nor.~
companies and among plants owned 'Jy
the same company. These differences
occur for a variety of reasons. includi!1~
differences in specifications for how
tires are to be produced. ar.d the types
of tires produced.
Emissions are significant at
undertread cementing. side'.vail
cementing, tread end cementl.'g. ': 'dd
cementing. inside green tIre Spi,i'..;:~.
and outside green tire sprayin!?
operations. Further, emiSSlOn r~I.-";L:;0;J
technology is available and ::;
technically and econom:Cl::Y f..d,ji;"'~
for use at each of these !:.;: .'S of
operations. Therefore. these opc::Jlions
were selected for control by the
proposed standards.
Tire building, while contributir:g 10C\:!
11 percent of total plant emissions. ;5
characterized by low VQC
concentrations emanating from 50 Jr
mare individual machines within i~1,~h
piant. The need for liberal worKer
access dictates that machines be I)pen.
and. as a result. high ventilation rates
would be needed to remove cr~1!1ic
vapors to a control device. Tec.mica::-"
control systems could be constructed ~8
reduce VOC emissions from tir~
building. The air in the tire buiidi~~
room could be ducted to a control ,"e\;:;.~
such as an incinerator or carbon
adsorber. However. exhaust stream
VOC concentrations in exis::::g tlre
building areas where general diluth;n
ventilation is employed are very IrJw.
nnging from 0.01 to.0.32 g/m3(O.6 x ~O.!
~o ::0.0 x 10-6 Ih/ft11. The cost I)f 51!ch 3
system would range from SOB.DOu pe~ :.:;
of VQC removed (S62.000/ton) to
$306,000 per Mg of VOC removed
(5280.ooo/ton). The Administrator
concluded that these costs are
exorbitant far the emission reduction
achieved and has not included tire
building in the proposed standards.
Finishing contributes about 2 percent
of total plant emissions. Organic solvent
is used in protective coa tings for
whitewalls and In coating used for
cosmetic purposes. Both uses. while
-------
-
Federal Register I Vol. 48. No. 14 I Thursday. January 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules
2679
performed in separate areas, are part of
the finishing process. Solvent
application is intermittent and is
performed at worker discretion. For
these reasons. finishing has not been
included in the proposed standards.
Compounding. milling. extrusion.
calendering, and curing, where no
organic solvent is used. together account
for less than 2 percent of total plant
vac emissions. and have not been
included in the proposed standards.
Michelin Tire Corporation uses three
operations. referred to in this preamble
and in the regulation as "Michelin-A."
"Michelin-B," and "Michelin..c." for
which they have claimed confidentiality.
EPA is currently treating the specific
information provided by Michelin on
these operations as confidential and has
initiated a confidentiality determination
in accordance with 40 CFR Part 2. Since
Michelin-A. Michelin-B. and Michelin-C
are operations believed unique to the
Michelin Tire Corporation. emissions
from these operations were not included
in the above list. VOC emissions from
each of these operations are significant.
and collectively account for a
substantial portion of total uncontrolled
emissions from each Michelin plant.
Emission reduction technology which
is technically and economically feasible
is available for use at Michelin-A and
Michelin-B operations. Therefore.
Michelin-A and Michelin-B operations
were selected for control by the
proposed standards.
The Michelin-C operation is
performed with either manual or
automatic cement application depending
on the type of tire being made. Emission
reduction technology. which is
technically and economically feasible. is
available for use at automatic Michelin-
C operations. Therefore. Michelin-C-
automatic operations were selected for
control by the proposed standards. VQC
concentrations in the exhaust streams
from manual Michelin-C operations are
reportedly very low. ranging from 0.10 to
0.30 g/m3. The cost of operating an
emission reduction svstem at a manual
Michelin-C operation would be similar
to that previously stated for tire
building. The Administrator has
concluded that these costs are
exorbitant for the emission reduction
achieved and has not included manual
Michelin-C operations in the proposed
standards. Not all tires manufactured by
Michelin Tire Corporation can be made
using the Michelin-C-automatic
operation. Therefore. the proposed
standards do not preclude the use of
manual Michelin-C operations.
Affected Facilities
The choice of the affected facility(ies)
for this standard is based on the
Agency's interpretation of Section 111 of
the Act and judicial construction of its
meaning. Under Section 111. the NSPS
must apply to "new sources;" "source"
is defined as "any building. structure,
facility. or installation which emits or
may emit any air pollutant" [Section
111(a)(3)]. Most industrial plants.
however. consist of numerous pieces or
groups of equipment which emit air
pollutants. and which might be viewed
as "sources." EPA therefore uses the
term "affected facility" to designate the
equipment. within a particular kind of
plant. which is chosen as the "source"
covered by a given standard.
In choosing the aHected facility. EPA
must decide which pieces or groups of
equipment are the appropriate units for
separate emission standards. The
Agency must do this in light of the terms
and purpose of Section 111. One major
consideration is that the use of a
narrower definition results in bringing
replacement equipment under the NSPS
sooner. For example. if an entire plant
were designated as the affected facility,
no part of an existing plant would be
subject to the standard unless the plant
as a whole were "modified:' 1Ł on the
other hand. each piece of equipment
were designated as an affected facility,
then as each piece was replaced. the
replacement piece would be a new
source subject to the standard. Since the
purpose of Section 111 is to minimize
emissions by the application of the best
demonstrated control technology
(considering cost. other health and
environmental effects. and energy
requirements) at all new and modified
sources. there is a presumption that a
narrower designation of the affected
facility is proper. This ensures that new
emission sources would be subject to
the standards as they are installed. This
presumption can be overcome. however.
if the Agency concludes that relevant
statutory factors (techrjcal feasibiltiy.
cost. energy. and ther environmental
impacts) point to a broader definition.
In a rubber tire phot. the narrowest
designation of affected facility for .....hlch
standards of performance might be
appropriate is each individual operation.
The rubber tire industry maintains that
much of the anticipated growth in the
industry by 1985 will result from non-
routine replacement of existing
operations with new operations. New
individual operations would qualify as
new sources subject to standards of
performance under this narrowest
definition of aHected facility. As a
result. control costs were calculated
223
assuming each operation would be
controlled separately, In practice.
however. a single control device could
be used to control emissions from
several operations. ~amination of these
costs showed that control is
economically feasible (i.e.. the costs
would not inhibit growth or
replacement) in all cases where a
separate emission reduction system
would be used at an individual
operation. Defining an affected facility
as each separate operation is supported
by technical. cost. and economic
considerations. The Agency requests
comments from interested parties about
this definition of an affected facility.
With each operation defined as an
affected facility. any change which
qualified as a modifica tion or
reconstruction would cause only that
changed operation to become subject to
standards of performance. Further. if d
new operation were constructed at an
existing plant where other operat:c~.,
were not subject to standards of
performance. only the new operation
would be subject to standards of
performance.
Undemead cementing and tr"a.J end
cementing are usually perforIr."j d:
different points on the same tread I:!':"!,
At an undertread cementing operat:J:1.
cement is applied to a continuous strip
of tread rubber or to a combined tredd/
sidewall component. The tread mbber is
usually transported from the extruder tJ
the undemead cementing operati::)!'! ~:.. 0
conveyor. After cement is applied. t~e
tread rubber strip passes along a
conveyor where it air dries and the:1
usually through a water bath for cocliDg.
At undertread cementing operatioT':s.
VOC is emitted from cement stcra2e a:-'':
application equipment and from
cemented rubber as VOC evaporate,
after application. Therefore. an
mdertread cementing operation cor:s.~':;
of a cement application station ar...: ,;j
other equipment. such as the ce~c!
supply system. and feed and tak,:, ~ '.\ 'i::
conveyors. which are necessary ''', ~;::;::.'.
cement to tread or combined trea::.
sidewall components and to allow
evaporation of solvent from tr"?'~ ')r
combined tread! sidewall co~p'-' ~ <
Each undemead cementing ope,':1':c:
an affected facility.
After the wa ter ba th and force:'. - i
drying, the continuous strip is CUt I:)
specified lengths and then is 1Js1~a!!::
conveyed to a tread end cementing
operation. At a tread end cementin5;!
operation. cement is applied to o!'!<; or
both tread ends. Cement is usuall v
applied to tread ends either by sp~a~ iq
with an electronically-triggered
automatic spray arm or manually by a
-------
..
Federal Register I Vol 48, No. 14 I Thursday. January 20. 1983 I Proposed Rules
worker eqtIipped with a pot of cement
and an applicator. VOC i8 alao emitted
from cement Itorap and application
equipment and from cemented treads as
VOC evaporates after application.
Therefore. a tread end cementing
operation consists of a cement
application station and all other
equipment. such as the cement supply
system. and feed and takeaway
conveyors. which is necessary to apply
cement to tread end components and to
allow evaporation of solvent from tread
ends. Each tread end cementing
operation ia an affected facility.
Although undertread cementing and
tread end cementing operations are
usually performed on the same tread
line. they are separate emission points
and each can be controlled separately.
This supports designating each tread
end cementing operation as an affected
facility separate from each undertread
cementing operation.
For some types of tires. sidewalls may
be extruded as part of the tread. Cement
application for thia tread/sidewall
component usually occurs at an
undertread cementing operation. and
VOC emisaions are C{Junted as part of
those from un.dertread cementing. When
sidewall cementing is performed as a
separate operation. the extruaion.
conveyins. cementing. and cooling
equipment i.a usually similar to but
sm.a1ler than that used for undertread
cementing. Instead of being cut to
spectficlengths. however. the
continuous sidewall strip is rolled in a
non-stick fabric..and stored until needed.
VOC bI emitted from cement storage and
application equipment and from
cemented rubber as VOC evaporates
after application. Therefore. a sidewall
cementing operation consists of a:
cement application station and all other
equipment. such 8S the cement supply
system. and feed and takeaway
conveyors. which is necessary to apply
cement to sidewall components and to
allow evaporation of solvent from
sidewall components. Each sidewall
cementing operation i.a an affected
facility.
Bead cementing may occur before or
after the rubber-coated wire is
fashioned into a bead. If cement is
applied before bead fashioning. the
cement application apparatus is usually
a swab or roller suspended in a trough
of cement attached to the bead
fashioning equipment. Cement i.. applied
as the rubber-coated wira pa88eS over
the trough. If cement ia applied after
bead. are fashioned. it i.a usually
accompliahed by spraying or by dipping
the beadainto a vat of cement. Spraying
or dipping equipmant i.a separate from
bead fashioning equipment. A bead
cementing operation consists oI a
cement application station. such as a dip
tank. spray booth and nozzles. cement
trough. and roller or swab applicator;
and all other equipment necessary to
apply cement to beads or bead
components and to allow the
evaporation of solvent from cemented
beads. Each bead cementing operation
is an affected facility.
Green tire sprays are usually applied
inside and outside with automatic spray
nozzles. Whether water-based or
organic solvent-based inside and
outside green tire sprays are used.
outside sprays usually contain more-
VOC than inside sprays. In8ide and
outside sprays are usually applied using
different nozzles in the same booth.
However. different booths may be
employed. at some plants. The spray
booth is designed to contain overapray
and vent it to a dust collector or
uncontrolled. to the atomosphere. Inside
green tire spraying and outside green
tire spraying are separate operations
and are separate affected facilities. An
inside green tire spraying operation
consists of the inside spray application
station and related. equipment, such as
the lubricant supply system. the booth
where spraying is performed, and
associated fans and ductwork. Each
inside green tire spraying operation is
an affected facility. An outside green
tire spraying operation consists of the
outside spray application station and
related equipment. such as the lubricant
supply system. the booth where spraying
is performed. and associated fans and
ductwork. Each outside green tire
spraying operation is an affected
facility.
Cement i.a applied to tire components
at Michelin-A, Michelin-B, and Michelin-
C-automatic operations. Each of these
operations is distinct and has VOC
emissions which can be accounted for
and controlled independently. Each
operation consists of cement storage
and application equipment, and other
equipment necessary for the application
of cement to and the evaporation of
VOC from tire components processed at
the operation. Each Michelin-A,
Michelin-B. and Michelin-C-automatic
operation is an affected facility.
Selection of Basis of Proposed Standard
Three general methods of emission
reduction technology are available to
the rubber tire manufacturing industry:
(1) emission reduction systems (capture
and control); (2) low solvent use
techniques; and (3} low VQC content
ma teriala.
224
Emission Reduction SYlJtems
Current use of emission reduction
systems is limited in the rubber tire
industry. Only two such systems are
present in this industry, both employing
carbon adsorbers as the control device.
One of these systems is part of the
original design of the undertread
cementing process at a new plant. This
plant has not yet operated at full
production capacity, and emission
control data on the new system are nol
yet available. The other system is the
only emission reduction system in full
use in the industry. It consists of a
capture system and carbon adsorber
installed on an undertread cementing
line in 1973 and has been shown by
materials balance calculations 10 have
an average solvent recovery efficiency
of about 63 percent. The carbon
adsorber has been tested separately and
shown to be about 90 percent efficient.
thus the capture system averages aboul
70 percent efficiency. The company
operating this system bas submitted
information concerning factors which
limit system performance. Factors which
according to the company limit system
efficiency include:
(1) About 8 percent of VOC applied to
Ii rubber component is absorbed by the
rubber and is not immediately available
"for capture (emissions from cemented
rubber account for about 30 percent of
total VOC emissions from this line, thus
about 2.4 percent of VOC used is
absorbed);
(2) Enclosure system access doors are
open for a finite period for periodic
threading of new tread sizes;
(3) Length of the drying area conveyor
is limited by the configuration of
existing extrusion equipment;
(4) The switching damper installed for
enclosure emergency situations is not
equipped with vapor loss seals:
(5) Operating practices do not provide
for containment of VOC emissions
during weekend shutdown. either by
draining cement tanks or by equipping
tanks with tight fitting covers;
(6) Operating practices do not provide
for air drying and cooling of the
desorbed carbon bed prior to the next
adsorption cycle; and
(7) The company does not account for
vapor losses from cement mixing chums,
recirculating cement distribution system
storage tanks. recovered solvent storage
tanks. pumping. and venting from
decanter.
In EPA's judgment. thia type of
emission reduction system could be
improved to achieve an overall
efficiency of 75 percent or better. vac
loss during perioda of worker access
-------
FederaJ ~ I Vol. 48. No. 14 I TbInda,. Janauy 20. 1983 I Propoaed Rules
2181
could be IJIiDimized by restricting access
opening size and by maintaining
sufficient ventilation to contain voc.
Where cemented rubber components are
allowed to dry on a conveyor after
cement is applied. enclosed conveyors
could be employed to contain VOC
emitted from cemented rubber. The
length of conveyor enclolJed would
depend upon conveyor speed and the
time required to conlam VOC emitted.
Analysis of evaporation rates has
shown that about 90 percent of VOC
applied to rubber components is emitted
within 30 seconds after application.
Other design features to minimize VOC
loss. such as vapor loss seals attached
to a switching damper. could also
improve overall system efficiency.
Cement tanks could be covered during
periods of non-use. Desorbed carbon
beds could be air dried and cooled
between cycles. These improvements in
operating practices would improve
overall system efficiency. VOC loss due
to absorption is the only area in which
improvements in design aDd opera~
practices would have little or no effect.
Several sources of information were
used to establish the level of control that
could be achieved by emission reduction
systems in the rubber tire industry.
Information was obtained from: (1)
Available technical literature
concerning emission reduction systems
applicable for the control of VOC
emissions in the rubber industry; (2)
hood and enclosure design parameters
from Industrial Venti!ctIOn: A Manual
ol Recommended Practice: (3) VOC use
and process information supplied by the
rubber tire industry; (4) visits to rubber
tire manufacturing plants; (5) results of
emission measurements and materials
balance tests conducted by EPA; and (6)
results of tests of VOC absorption by
rubber conducted by industry.
Thermal and catalytic incinerators are
effective VOC emission control devices
for the types of solventS used in rubber
tire manufacturing operations. A
thermal incinerator operating at 870°C
(1600°F) with 3/4 second residence time
will typically achieve 98 percent VOC
reduction efficiency or 20 parts per
million an a continuous basis. A
catalytic incinerator can be designed to
achieve a 98 percent emission reduction
efficiency on a continuous basis. In both
casea. primary heat recovery should be
employed to reduce operatins coats.
Carbon absorbers have heeD
?emoll8trated in the rubber pnceniDg
Industry, the pre881lle 88118""" tape 8IIIi
label iadutrJ, .. . other iDd1lll8in to
achieve "tier ... 9& pace- ........u
of VQC -.... D. . CGBtiDao88 _w
wh8a applied Nt aha- ... 88I8am8
similar to tha8e !Jm1erated in the rubber
tire industry. Steam is usually employed
for carbon bed regeneration. although
any hot. non-reactive gas may be used.
The overall degree of continuous
emission reduction achie?ed is not only
a fo.mction of control device- efficiency.
but also of captuM efficiency. A capture
system contains VOC vapors at the
emission source and directs them to the
control device. VOC emissions from
rubber tire plant operations result
primarily from twa activities: (1)
application of cement or spray to rubber
components; and (2) evaporation of
VOC from cement or spray applied to a
rubber component. Effective capture of
VOC must account for both of these
sources of VOC emissions.
Industry-supptled data show that at
an undertread cementins operation
about 70 percent of total emission is
attributable to evaporation of VOC from
application equipment. and about 30
percent is attributable. to evaporation of
VOC from rubber component surfaces.
Similar data for tread end cemen~
and green tire spraying show that about
80 percent of total emissions Is
attributable to evaporation of VOC from
application equipment. and about 20
percent is attributable to evaporation of
VOC from robber component surface..
No such data are available to show a
ratio for sidewall cementing or bead
cemen~. However. since sidewall
cementing is a process very similar to
undertread cementing. the ratios for
these processes should be similar. Both
tread end cementing and bead
cementing involve the application of
cement to relatively small surface areas.
Therefore. EPA estimates that the ratio
for bead cementing resembles the 80:20
ratio for tread end cementing.
To approach total vapor collectIon. a
completely sealed enclosure of the
emission source would be necessary.
However. completely sealed enclosures
are not practical in the rubber tIre
industry. Some affected facilities require-
intermittent worker access. usually for
startup. maintenance. and repair
purposes. while other facilities. such as
manual tread end cementing. require
continual worker aecess to the tire
component.
Capture systems for cement
application areas that require only
intermittent access to the eqwpment.
such aa automatic tread ad cementing.
undertread ce88Dting. sidewaU
cemenq and mUer bead AlDenting.
could coaai8t of eacIonru comainin8
access pm18 ~~ wtIb ~
doors. ne C8ptWe .,.. C8mft'ICly iD
use at 08 .....b...d 1:- ~
operatioD wbkk... .'1:.1' r...w.
225
could be adapted for use at other
undertread cementing operationl'l as well
as at automatic tread end cementmg and
sidewail cementing. Capture efficiencH~s
of at least 80 percent couid be achJ~ved
on a contmuous basia.
Capture systems for cement
application areas that require constant
worker access could be similar to those
used on portable chipping and gnnding
tables or soldering tables in other
industries. These enclmlures provide
worker access and conveyor movement
through side openings and are designed
to minimize pressure losses through the
openings. Associated with these cement
application areas an! conveyors that
transport the cemented component.
Solvent evaporates from the component
while it i'l on the conveyor. To acl1ieve
maximum capture effIciency. the
conveyors must be enclosed to allow for
capture of the Imtporated solvent.
Conveyor encJ08IU'8s IJUCh &s those used
for l'Itraight-line automatic buffing would
be appropriate. Tltese enclol'lures consIst
of hoods. with hinged access doors. that
surround the top. side... and underside of
the conveyor. Each end of the hood is
partially covered by flaps to minimize
the opening size. Capture efficiencies of
such enclosures are related to the
percentage of total solvent that
evaporates off the component while it 1S
inside the enclosed area: however.
efficiencies of at least eo percent could
be achieved on a continuous basis. Th~
length of the enclosure would depend on
the conveyor speed and the ra te of
evaporation of the solvent.
Dip bead cementing and inside and
outside green tire spraying operations
usually consist only of a cement or
spray application area. For dip bead
cementing. the beads are lowered inte a
tank which can be enclosed and ihe
enclosure equipped with access pGr~s.
P. 'Ids could be placed in the enclosure
through access ports which would
remam open only until the beads were
inside. The beads could be dipped into
the cement. then raised. and would
remain in the enclosure for enough tl:ne
to allow maximum evaporation of
solvent. For inside and outside W-een lire
spraying. spray booths are usually used
for application. Tires could remain
inside the booths for a sufficient time
after cement application to allow for
maximum evaporation. Capture
efficiencies of at least 110 percent could
be achieved on a continuous basis.
The most effecttft capture systems
applicable at re&8Gllable emit to
Mkhelin-B opdalMae an similar to
those deKribeti deft for ~tI~
and sidewall....&&RO"ti..e v.,....tiu.... and
can achine at le88t 88 pera!IIt capture
-------
Z882
Federal Register I Vol. 48. No. 14 I Thursday, Tanuary 20. 1983 / Proposed Rules
-
efficiency. Capture systems for
Michelin-A and Michelin-C-automatic
operations must allow for cOAtinual
intrusion of mechanical devices.
frequent worker access. and
introduction of additional tire
components into both the cement
application and drying areas. Tbese
features limit capture efficiency at these
operations. EPA has determined that the
most effective capture system applicable
at reasonable cost to Michelin-A and
Michelin-C-automatic operations is
capable of achieving 70 percent capture
efficiency.
Technology exists for new and retrofit
systems to achieve emission reductions
of 75 percent at undertread cementing.
sidewall cementing. tread end
cementing, bead cementing. inside and
outside green tire spraying, and
Michelin-B operations. and of 65 percent
at ~,itchelin-A and Michelin-C-automatic
operations. Control deVIces
demonstrated in other industries. which
achieve an average removal or
destruction efficIency of at least 95
percent. are available and Call be used
in conjunction with capture systems
similar to those described above to
achieve these levels of overall emission
reductlon.
Low Sol~'ent Use Techniques
Emission reduction in the rubber tire
industry can also be achieved by
reducing cement usage. For tread end
cementing I!I1d for bead cementing
operations. each company reportlng
solvent use data has demonstrated that
it can achieve an emission rate of 10 g/
tire without the use of an emission
reduction system. Solvent use rates as
low as 2 g/tire have been reported for
some plants.
MOBt of the low solvent use rates
reported for tread end cementing
operations were for those where cement
is applied manually. However. low
solvent use rates were also reported for
operations where cement is applied by
automatic spray arms. Moat low solvent
use rates for bead cementing operations
were for facilities that use rollers to
appiy the cement. However. low solvent
use rates were also reported for
facilities that use a bead dipping
method. EPA identified the following
good work practices as helping to
achieve low solvent use rate!f:
mj~i%ing the surface area for openinga
on cement pots at manual tread end
cementing stationa. covering cement
tanks used for bead dippins. and
minimizing overs pray at automatic tread
end cementing atationa. In EPA's
judgment. any new, modified. or
reconstructed tread end or bead
cementing operation can use 10 g/tire or
les8 of voe.
Substitution of Low vac Content
Materrals
Green tire spraying represents another
affected facility where significant
emis.ion reduction can be achieved
Wlthout the. use of emission reduction
systems. Water-based sprays have been
substituted for organic solvent-based
sprays at inside and outside green tire
spraying operations in a number of
planta. Uncontrolled emission rates
calculated for water-baaed inside tire
sprays ranged from zero to 1.2 g/ tire:
uncontrolled emission rates calculated
for water-based outside sprays ranged
from zero to 9.3 g/tire. Product quality
considerations have been cited by
industry as the reason for retaining a
small amount of VOC in some water-
based sprays. Emissions from water-
based green tire sprays are at least 90
percent less than average uncontrolled
emissions from solvent-based sprays.
Water-based sprays have been widely
used under conditions representative of
the industry and are available to all
companies.
Selection of the Regulatory ,ilternatives
The regulatory alternatives
considered in developing the standards
of performance are baaed on the
methods available to control the voe
emISSIons from the rubber tire industry
The three control methods considered
were emission reduction systems
(capture and control technology), low
solvent use techniques, and low voe
content materiala were considered..
Impacts calculated for the regulatory
alternatives were based on the use of
carbon adsorber control devices where
emisiion reduction systems are used.
The proposed standards would allow
the use of other types of control devices.
Regulatory Alternative I represents
the regulatory baseline. State
Implementation Plan (SIP) regulations
for control of VOC emissions from
rubber tire manufacturing plants are
expected to be based on information
presented in the control techniques
gwdeline (erG) document "Control of
Volatile Organic Emissions from
Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber
llreS" (EPA~/ 2-7&-030). Therefore.
Regulatory Alternative I has been set at
the level of control recommended in the
erG. Under Regulatory Alternabve L
VOC emiuions from undertread
cementing. tread end cemeqting. bead
cementing. and inside and outside green
tire spraying operations would be
reduced by an average of about 70
percent. ~idewall cementing operations
and Michelin-A. Michelin-B. and
226
Michelin-C-automatic operations were
not addressed in the erG; therefore.
Regulatory Alternative I does not limit
VOC emissions from these affected
facilities.
EmIssion reduction systems could be
used for all affected facilIties under
Regulatory Alternative I to ar.hieve a 7'0
percent emission reduction efficiency.
Water-based sprays could be used at
insIde and outside green tire sprayin!j
facIlitie!t to meet or exceed a 70 percent
emission reduction for Regulatory
Alternative I.
Regulatory Alternative II is based
upon the use of 75 percent efficient
emission reduction systems for
undertread cementing, sidewii;I
cementing. tread end cemenring. and
bead cementing facilities. and upon the
use of water-baaed sprays (90 percent
errjssion reduction) for inside dnd
outside green tire spraying fac::;r~es.
Since Michelin-A. MichelIn-B. 'H:d
Michelin-C-automatic operations are
believed unique to Michelin TLe
Corporation. they were not inc!eded 'f:
Regulatory Alternative U. Reguiation .i
these operations was com:,:t'~ed
separately and is discussed l~cipr L1e
section on "Best System of c.jntmuous
Emission Reduction,"
Emission reductions achievable wIth
water-hased green tire sprays are
s!gruficanUy greater than the red'JC'!Cr.5
achievable where organic soiver.t-~;d'."':
spray voe emissions are reduce-i ., ",
the use of an emission reduction SY5:e::'..
Water-based inside and outside gre:'::
tire sprays have been adequately
demonstrated in the industry and are
available to all companies.
E.7l'/ror.mental Impacts
Under Regulatory Alternat!\"! 1 :~he
reguiatory baseiine). emISSIOns In rh'
flfth year from new. modified. ar.'::!
recoMtructed affected facilities WO'J!C
be about 3.120 Mg/year (3.430 t'J,.';, : r
The fifth year air quality impact of
Regularory Alternative U wouid be a
reducnon of about 1.700 Mg/)oT!1 B71J
tonsl yrJ from baseline emisslC":5 ThIs .s
a reduction of 55 percent from the
Odsedne.
Under each of the regulatory
alternatives there could be effluent ~~lJm
steam regeneration of carbon adsorp"cn
beds dIld from overspray of insIde and
outside water-baaed green tire sprays.
Tbe voe used in tire manufactu.rmg IS
virtually insoluble in water. Therefore.
most adsorbed VOC which escapes
decanting and most VOC contained lD
overspray from imide and outside
water-based green tire sprays will
volatilize rather than remain in the
water. Wastewater flow in 1985 under
-------
Federal Repter I Vol. 48, No. 14 I Thuraday, January 20. 1983 I Proposed Rules
2683
Resulatory Alternative I would be about
4.8 million m'!yr (1.3 billion gal!yr).
Regulatory Altemative D would not
increue the wastewater Dow beyond
the bueline.
Under Regulatory Altemative I. solid
waste generated in 1985 would be about
238.000 Mg/yr (263.000 tona/yr).
Regulatory Alternative D would not
increase the quantity of solid waste
generated. Solid waste could result from
disposal of spent carbon from carbon
adaorbers. Spent carbon can be recycled
for other industrial uses. incinerated or
disposed of by landfilling.
Energy Impacts
Energy use for pollution control
equipment is based on the use of carbon
adsorbers u the control technique for
both regulatory alternatives. Under
Regulatory Alternative L facilities that
are built. modifIed. or reconatructed by
1985 would use a total of about 2.5 x 1017
joules/yr of electricity for process. non-
process. and pollution control purposes.
Emission reduction to the level of
Regulatory Alternative D would not
increase the fifth-year energy usage.
Economic Impacts
A detailed analysis of the economic
impact of the regulatory alternatives on
the rubber tire manufacturing industry
has been developed. Price increases or
alternative decreases in return on
investment (ROI) were determined to be
reasonable for both regulatory
alternatives. even under worst case
conditions. In no case do capital costs of
control exceed 1 percent of total
investment reqW1'ements.
Regulatory Altemative I (baseline)
fifth-year cumulative capital control
costa would be about $16.3 million.
Fifth-year annualized control costs
without solvent recovery credits would
be about $4.9 million; with solvent
recovery credits. annualized control
cOlts would be about 53.3 million.
Regulatory Alternative D fifth-year
cumulative c..apital control costs would
be about $7.9 million above the baseline.
Fifth-year annualized coats without
solvent recovery credits would increase
above the baseline figure by about 912.3
million. The increase above the baseline
in fifth-year annualized costs with
solvent recovery credits would be about
$1.5 million. Under full cost pricing. the
product price would increase by about
0.14 percent under worst case
conditioDa. Under full cost ab801'ptioo.
the ROI of new radial tire manufacturin8
plants may decline from an aHumed
rate of 5 percent to 4.93 perceat in the
worst case. In either situatioD the wont
cue is repreaented by the U8e of .
I8parate capture system aad a carbon
adsorber control device at each affected
facility where control equipment is used
to reduce emissions. Neither impact
would inhibit industry growth or
replacement.
Best Systems of CootiDuoua Eminioo
Reduction
Regulatory Altemative D is
technically and economically feasible
for all affected facilities, would achieve
greater emission reduction than
Regulatory Alternative I, and would
cause no adverse water. solid waste. or
energy impacts. Capture and control
technology is available to meet
Regulatory Alternative Demission
reductions for undertread cementing.
sidewall cementing. tread end
cementing. and bead cementing. Water-
based inside and outside green-tire
sprays are available to all rubber tire
manufacturers and are already is use by
most companies at one or more plants.
Water-based sprays can meet or exceed
Regulatory Alternative n emission
reductions. Alternative n would
decrease overall vac emissions from
the affected facilities by about 55
percent below the baseline. Annualized
costs without recovery credits would
increase by about 47 percent; with
recovery credits the increase would also
be about 47 percent. The increase is due
primarily to addition of sidewall
cementing a.s an affected facility. Based
on consideration of these factors.
Regulatory Alternative D was judged
superior to Regulatory Alternative I. and
~egulatory Alternative n was used as
JIe basis for selecting the best system of
continuous emission reduction.
Data on existing plants indicate that
there is a wide variation in solvent use
rates (and a corresponding wide range
in uncontrolled emission rates) from
ea.ch type of affected facility. At some
low solvent use rate. the cost of
employing an emission rduction system
could be unreasonably high for the
amount of emission reduction achieved.
Since the cost per unit of emission
reduction achieved is an important
factor in determining the reasonableness
of control at facilities with low
uncontrolled emissions. the Agency
considered requiring less efficient
emission reduction at facilities with low
solvent use rates and/or establishing
solvent use cutoffs. below which no
level of control would be required.
These choices would be considered it.
indeed. there was a solvent use rate at
which the control costs were judged to .
be unreasonably high when compared to
the emminion reduction.
As a first ship in the Agency's
determination, annualized costs of
applying a 75 percent efficient emission
227
reduction system were calculated for the
range of solvent use rates (numbers
equal to the uncontrolled e[Illssion rates)
at undertread cementing. sidewall
cementing. tread end cementing. and
bead cementing facilities. Annualized
costs per megagram of vac emission
reduction were then plotted across the
range of solvent use rates. (See Figures
~1 and ~2 in the BID.] It was assumed
that a separate capture system and
control device would be used for each
operation and that flow rates and
capital costs for each operation are
constant over the entire range of solvent
use rates. These costs do not represent
the actual amounts of money spent for
any particular plant. Rather. the costs
are estimates which represent
additionalliaes and plants likely to be
built. The costs of vac emission
reduction systems will vary according to
production rate. production equipment.
plant layout. geographic location. and
company preferences and policies.
As was expected. the annualized cost
per megagram of emission reduction
increases as the solvent use rate
decreases. For solvent use rates above
50 grams per tire (g/tire]. the total
annualized costs for a carbon adsorber.
assuming recovery credits. would be
about S400 per megagram of VOC
emissions reduced. As the solvent use
rate decreases. through changes in
process and manufacturing techniques.
from 50 to 25 s/tire. the costs gradually
increase to about $1250 per megagram.
From 25 to 15 g/tire costs begin Msing at
a more rapid rate. However. there is no
point on the curve at which a sharp
upward swing is distinguishable. In the
25 to 15 g/Ure range. costs begin to
exceed $2.000 per megagram. Based on
VOC emission control costs in other
industries regulated by standards of
performance. costs above $2,000 per
'legagram are generally considered to
be unreasonably high (allhough, in
some instances, there may be overriding
considerations that affect the
determination of reasonable cost).
To reduce the cost per megagram of
pollutant removed for facilities within
the 25 to 15 gl tire range. the Agency
considered less effective and less costly
emission reduction systems for those
facilities. However. systems which are
less than 75 percent efficient are not
significantly lower in cost than 75
percent efficient systems. Consequently.
requiring a level of control less than 75
percent efficient for facilities ~een 25
and 15 g/tire would not brins the cost
per megagram significantly below the
level pnerally coD8identd tmna80Dably
high.
-------
..
F8d8ral b8i*r I Vol. 48. No. 14 I ThursdaY. January 20. 1983 I Proposed Rule.
-== ! !
To tdeatify a cutoff point betwen 25
and 11 a/ tire. th8 A3eoq COI18idered
otb8r coat-t8ated faeton in lelecting the
exact czdDff. Specifically. the Agency
cOD8idered the additional COlt HYingI
that would be achieved by eltablishing
a cutoff at 25 a/tire rather than 15 g/tire.
These COlt laYingI are associated with:
cOl18ervation of energy required to
operate these systems. conservation of
resourcel required for their operation
and maintenance. and the
encouragement of solvent conservation
at facilities that can. or may develop
methods to. reduce solvent usage to
meet the cutoff limits rather than install
capture and control systems. In light of
these benefits and the general view that
the Agency should set standards that
encourage development of inherently
low-emitting procesaes. and in the
absence of a clearly identified VOC use
rate at which the control costs per
megagram reduction are clearly
unreasonable. the Administrator is
proposing 25 g/tire as the cutoff solvent
use rate for undertread cementing and
sidewall cementing facilities. While
solvent u!le rates average about 63 g/tire
for existing undertread cementing and
41g/tire for existing sidewall cementing
facilities. solvent use rates below 25 g/
tire have been reported for each of these
operationa. The costs to reduce
emissions by 75 percent at solvent use
i'8tes above 25 g/tire are considered
reasonable. and 25 S/tire is an
appropriate cutoff point considering
both the benefits which accrue and the
rapidly increasing cost per megagram
auociated with control at solvent use
rates below 2S S/ure. Therefore. the best
system of continuous emission reduction
for undertread and sidewall cementing
operations is an emission reduction
system that achieves 75 percent overall
control for facilitiel that use more than
25 g/tire. and low solvent techniques for
facilities that use 25 g/tire or less. The
75 percent efficient emission reduction
system was based on an 80 percent
efficient capture system and a 95
percent efficient carbon adsorber
control device. The propoled standards
would also allow use of other types of
control devices. and any combination of
C8pture and control efficiencies that
l'88ult in at !eut a 75 percent overall
emi8sion reduction..
A Iimilar 8D8lJ8ia ... done for tread
end cementin& and bead cementing. and
catof& of Z5 ad ZD S/tire l'88p8Ctively
wwe ... :W (See F'Ipme W m W ill
lID.) n- a8I6 W8nI biII-""
VOC - rates for IIKI8t 8Xi8tms tread
end....-tiqandbe8d- ".
~---"""""" 1i8------arbe8li
-... apenH......~-
. use more than the 25 or 20 g/ tire cutofh.
Therefore. requirinB those tread end
cementing or bead cementing operatiol18
that use more than the cutoff amounts of
VOC to reduce emissions by 75 percent
would achieve no emission reduction.
However, an alternative means of
minimizing emissior.s has been
adequately demonstrated to achieve
effective control at tread end ceme.ting
and bead cementing facilities. Industry-
supplied solvent use data show that
each company has at least one plant
that uses 10 g/tire or less at each of
these operations. Further. many existing
plants already use substantially less
than 10 g/tire. Emission rates of 10 g/
tire. or less. could be achieved without
the use of emission reduction systems. A
10 g/tire emission liinit for all tread end
cementing and bead cementing
operations would result in a greater
nationwide emission reduction than
would be achieved by requirinB
installation of a 75 percent efficient
emission reduction system for those
facilities that use more than the cutoff
amounts of VOC. Since no emission
reduction systema would be used.
capital and operating costs. and water.
solid waste and energy impacts would
be reduced. For the above reasons. the
best system of continuous emission
reduction for tread end and bead
cementing operations is low-solvent
techniques that use less than 10 s/tire.
The best system of continuous
emission reduction for inside green tire
spraying and outside green tire spraying
operations is water-based green tire
sprays. Water-based green tire sprays
result in lower emissions than when
solvent-based sprays are used in
conjunction with emission reduction
systeml.
Choosing low solvent use techniques
as the best system of continuous
emission reduction for tread cementing
and bead cementing operations. and
setting 25 g/tire cutoffs for undertread
cementing and sidewall cementing
operatiol18 result in the impacts of the
proposed standards being different from
the impacts of Regulatory Alternative II.
Under the proposed standards. baseline
emissions from undertread cementing,
sidewall cementing. tread end
cementing. bead cementing. iI18ide green
tire spraying. and outside green tire
spraying would be reduced by about
1.430 Mg (1.510 tOl18) in the fifth year. a
46 percent reduction. Thia emission
reductioa would be about 9 percent leu
than the ~i..v... reduction estimated
for these affected faciliti.e8 under
Regulatory Altemative II. The 8IDOUDtI
of eneED ued. ad wet-. pol1Idiaa 8Dd.
sotici wute .... ....... t~ 1IIIder -
228
proposed .standards would be leis thin
under Regulatory Alternative II.
Because the proposed standards
would not in most cases require the use
of emission reduction systems for
affected facilities other than undertread
cementing and sidewa!lcementing,
capital and annualized costs would be
less than those for Regulatory
Alternatives I and U. Fifth-year
cumulative capital costs would be about
$10.8 million above uncontrolled levels,
about 34 percent less than the baseline
and about 55 percent less than
Regulatory Alternative II. Annualized
costs in the fifth year without recovery
credits would be about $3.4 million
above uncontrolled levels: with recovery
credits the fIfth-year annualized cost
would be about $1.5 million above
uncontrolled levels. These annualized
costs represent reductions from the
baseline of about 31 percent and 54
percent. respectively; they represent
cost reductions from Regulatory
Alternative II of about 53 percent and 69
percent. respectively. The average
product price would rise about 0.26
percent above uncontrolled !evels in the
worst case. The product price is not
expected to increase above baseline
levels. Under full cost absorption. using
uncontrolled levels as a base
comparison. the ROI would decrease
from an assumed rate of 5.17 percent to
about 5.04 percent under worst case
conditions. The ROI is not expected to
decrease below baseline levels.
Based on EPA's analysis of
information submitted by Michelin Tire
Corporation. the Agency has determined
the best technological system of
continuous emission reduction for the
Michelin-B operation to be a VOC
capture system and carbon adsorber
control device that will achieve a 75
percent overall emission reduction. For
Michelin-A and Michelin-C-automatic
operations. EPA has determined the best
technological system of emission
reduction to be a VOC capture system
and carbon adsorber control device that
will achieve a 65 percent overall
emission reduction. EPA has determined
that these systems are available at
reasonable cost and do not impose
unreasonable adverse water. solid
waste. or energy impacts. The proposed
standards would also allow the use of
control device8 other than carbon
adsorbers.
Selection 01 Format 01 Proposed
Standard
Concentration. masl unita. and
efficiency were COD8idered al formats
for the pc.. r ... at8Jldard8. A
...nil 1~~.ai08lamat far the }l"lpoeed
-------
federal ~r I Vol. 48. No.. 14 I Tb8r8da,. Janaary 20. 1983 I Propoaed Rules
2881
could be nriDimized by restricting access
opening size and by maintaining
sufficient ventilation to contam Voc.
Where cemented rubber components are
allowed to dry on a conveyor after
cement is applied. enclosed conveyors
could be employed to contain vac
emitted from cemented rubber. The
length of conveyor enclo~ed would
depend upon conveyor speed and the
time required to con tam vac emitted.
Analysis of evaporation rates has
shown that abont 90 percent of VOC
applied to rubber components is emitted
within 30 seconds after application.
Other design features to minimize vac
loss, such as vapor loss seals attached
to a switching damper. could also
improve overall system efficiency.
Cement tanks could be covered durina
periods of non-use. Desorbed carbon
beds could be air dried and cooled
between cycles. These improvements In
operating practices would improve
overall system efficiency. VOC los. due
to absorption is the only area in which
improvements in design alK! opera~
practices would have little or no effect.
Several sources of information were
used to establish the level of control that
could be achieved by emission reduction
systems in the rubber tire industry.
Information was obtained from: (1)
Available technical literature
concerning emission reduction systems
applicable for the control of vac
emissions in the rubber industry; (2)
hood and enclosure design parameters
from Industrial VentilatIOn: .4 Manual
of Recommended Practice: (3) vac use
and process information supplied by the
rubber tire industry; (4) visits to rubber
tire manufacturing plants; (5) results of
emission measurements and materials
balance tests conducted by EPA; and (6)
results of tests of vac absorption by
rubber conducted by industry.
Thermal and catalytic incinerators are
effective vac emission control devices
for the types of solvents used in rubber
tire manufacturing operations. A
thermal incinerator operating at 870.C
(1600°F) with 3/4 second residence time
will typically achieve 98 percent vac
reduction efficiency or 20 parts per
million on a continuous basi.. A
catalytic incinerator can be designed to
achieve a 98 percent emission reduction
efficiency on a continuous basis. In both
cases, primary heat recovery should be
employed to reduce operating coats.
Carbon absorbers bave beea
~emoD8trated in the rubber JIIOC888iDs
mduatry, the prel81ft aenaitiw tape aM
label iaduatlJ, .... . other -..... to
achieve MU8r ... 96 peIC8_N88nl
of VQC .-'wi.. ... CGBtina088118ei.
wIIID applied ta aha- ,.. ........
similar to those geJ1erated in the rubbft
tire industry. Steam is usually employed
for carboD bed regeneration. although
any hot. non-reactive gas may be used.
The overall degree of continuous
emission reduction achieved is not only
a fanction of control device' efEciency.
but also of captuM efficiency. A capture
system contains vac vapors at the
emission source and directs them to the
control device. VQC emissions from
rubber tire plant operations result
primarily from twa activities: (1}
application of cement or spt'8y to rubber
components; and (2) evaporation of
vac from cement or spt'8y applied to a
rubber component. Effective capture of
vac must account for both of these
sources of vac emissions.
Industry-suppHed data show that at
an undertread cemenliD8 operation
about 70 percent of total emission is
attributable to evaporation of vac from
application equipment, and about 30
percent is attributable'to evaporation of
vac from rubber component surfaces.
Similar data for tread end cemen~
and green tire spraying show that about
80 percent of total emissions Is
attributable to evaporation of vac from
application equipment. and about 20
percent is attributabie to evaporation of
vac from rubber component surface..
No such data are available to show a
ratio for sidewall cemen~ or bead
cemen~. However. since sidewall
cementing is a process very similar to
undertread cementing, the ratios for
these processes should be similar. 80th
tread end cementing and bead
cemen~ involve the application of
cement to relatively small surface areas.
Therefore. EPA estimates that the ratio
for bead cemen~ resembles the 80:20
ratio for tread end cementing.
To approach total vapor collecl1on. a
completely sealed enclosure of the
emission source would be necessary.
However, completely sealed enclosures
are not practical in the rubber tire
industry. Some affected facilities require-
intermittent worker access. usually for
startup. maintenance, and repair
purposes. while other facilities. such a8
manual tread end cementing. require
continual worker aecess to the tire
componenL
Capture systeJD8 for cement
application areas that require only
intermittent accesa to the eq1Iipment.
such as automatic tJead aut cementing.
undertread CI!88Dting. sidewaU
cemenq aDd roUer bead f:'eDN!nting.
could COII8i8t of 8IICionru euntaining
access porta ..,..d~ wtIb ~
doors. '111. C8pt8e.,... ~ iR
use at 088 .....b...d CL~l Ib.."
operatioa wbick -- dit[.1 r rj ..w.
225
could be adapted for use at other
undertread cementing operation!! as well
as at automatic tread end cementmg and
sidewail cementing. Capture eific:enoes
of at least 80 percent could De achlt!ved
on a contmuous basis.
Capture systems for cement
application areas that require constant
worker access could be similar to those
used on portable chipping and grinding
tables or ,soldering tables in other
industries. These enclosures provide
worker access and conveyor movement
through side openings and are designed
to minimize pressure losses through the
openings. Associated with these cement
application areaa are conveyors that
transport the cemented component.
Solvent evaporat.. from the component
while it i'l on the conveyor. To achieve
maximum capture efficiency, the
conveyors must be enclosed to allow for
capture of the lmlporated solvent.
Conveyor enclO8Ul'8s 9Ucl1 8S those used
for straight-line automatk buffing would
be appropriate. Tbne enclosures consIst
of hoods, with hinged access doors. that
surround the top. skin, and underside of
the conveyor. Each end of the hood is
partially covered by flaps to minimize
the opening me. Capture efficiencies of
such enclosures are related to the
percentage of total solvent that
evaporates off the component while it !s
inside the enclosed area: however.
efficiencies of at least 80 percent could
be achieved on a continuous basis, Th~
length of the enclosure would depend on
the conveyor speed and the rate of
evaporation of the solvent.
Dip bead cementing and inside and
outside green tire spraying operations
usually consist only of a cement or
spray application area. For dip bead
cementing. the beads are lowered inte a
tank which can be enclosed and ,he
enclosure equipped with access pGr~s,
<:1. 1ds could be placed in the enclosure
through access ports which would
remam open only until the beads were
inside. The beads could be dipped into
the cement. then raised, and would
remain in the enclosure for enough t:me
to allow maximum evaporation of
solvent. For inside and outside g!et!n tire
spraying, spray booths are usually used
for application. Tirea could remain
inside the booths for a sufficient time
after cement application to allow for
maximum evaporation. Capture
efficiencies of at leaat 80 percent couki
be achieved on a continuous basi8.
The most effectift capture systems
applicable at 1'H8IIItabie cost to
Michelin-B .ratlo8& ant similar to
those deKribeti ehft for 1IDd.Mb:=-d
and sidewail_.......th.e op-..ti..ns and
can aem"" at In8t 89 pen:eDt capture
-------
%882
Federal Register I Vol. 48. No. 14 I Thursday, Tanuary 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules
-
efficiency. Capture systems for
Michelin-A and Michelin-C-automatic
operatioI18 must allow for cOlltinual
intrusion of mechanical devices.
frequent worker access. and
introduction of additional tire
components into both the cement
application and drying areas. These
features limit capture efficiency at these
operations. EPA has determined that the
most effective capture system applicable
at reasonable cost to Michelin-A and
MicheUn-C-automatic operations is
capable of achieving 70 percent capture
efficiency.
Technology exists for new and retrofit
systems to achieve emission reductions
of 75 percent at undertread cementlng.
sidewall cementing. tread end
cementing, bead cementing, inside and
outside green tire spraying. and
Michelin-B operations. and of 65 percent
at Michelin-A and Michelin-C-automatic
operations. Control devices
demonstrated in other industries. which
achieve an average removal or
destruction efficiency of at least 95
percent. are available and can be used
in conjunction with capture systems
similar to those described above to
achieve these levels of overall emission
reduction.
Ł.ow Solvent Use Techniques
Emission reduction in the rubber tire
industry can also be achieved by
reducing cement usage. For tread end
cementing and for bead cementing
operations. each company reporting
solvent use data has demonstrated that
it can achieve an emission rate of 10 g/
tire without the use of an emission
reduction system. Solvent use rates as
low as 2 g/tire have been reported for
some plants.
Most of the low solvent use rates
reported for tread end cementing
operations were for those where cement
is applied manually. However. low
solvent use rates were also reported for
operatioI18 where cement is applied by
automatic spray arms. Most low solvent
use ratel for bead cementing operations
were for facilities that use rollers to
appiy the cement. However. low solvent
use rates were also reported for
facilities that use a bead dipping
method. EPA identified the following
good work practices as helping to
achieve low solvent use rates:
mi~min.,g the surface area for openings
on cement pots at manual tread end
cementiDIJ stationa. covering cement
tank! used for bead dipping. and
mimmin"g ovenpray at automatic tread
end cementiDIJ ataticma.1D EPA's
judgment. any DeW. modified. or
reconstructed tread end or bead
cementing operation can use 10 g/tire or
lesa of VOC.
Substitution of Low vac Content
MaterIals
Green tire spraying represents another
affected facility where significant
emission reduction can be achieved
without the. use of emission reduction
systems. Water-based sprays have been
substituted for organic solvent-based
sprays at inside and outside green tire
spraying operations in a number of
planta. Uncontrolled emission rates
calculated for water-based inside tire
sprays ranged from zero to 1.2 g/tire;
uncontro!led emission rates calculated
for water-based outside sprays ranged
from zero to 9.3 g/tke. Product quality
considerations have been cited by
industry as the reason for retaining a
small amount of VOC in some water-
based sprays. Emissions from water-
based green tire sprays are at least 90
percent less than average uncontrolled
emissions from solvent-based sprays.
Water-based sprays have been widely
used under conditions representative of
the industry and are available to all
companies.
Selection of the Regulatory Alternatives
The regulatory alternatives
considered in developing the standards
of performance are based on the
methods available to control the VOC
elI11S8ions from the rubber tire industry
The three control methods considered
were emission reduction systems
(capture and control technology). low
solvent use techniques. and low VOC
content materiala were considered.
Impacts calculated for the regulatory
alternatives were based on the use of
carbon adsorber control devices where
emia.ion reduction systems are used.
The proposed standards would allow
the use of other types of control devices.
Regulatory Alternative I represents
the regulatory baseline. State
lmplementation Plan (SIP) regulations
for control of VOC emissions from
rubber tire manufacturing plants are
expected to be based on information
presented in the control techniques
gwdeline (CTG) document "Control of
Volatile Organic Emissions from
Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber
Tires" (EPA-450/ 2-78-000). Therefore.
Regulatory Alternative I has been set at
the level of control recommended in the
CTG. Under Resulatory Alternative L
VQC emiuiona from undertread
cementing. tread end ceme~ting. bead
cement:ins. and inside and outside green
tire spraying operations would be
reduced by an average of about 70
percent. ~idewall cementing OperatiOl18
and Michelin-A. Michelin-a. and
226
Michelin-C-automatic operations were
not addressed in the CTG; therefore,
Regulatory Alternative I does not limit
VOC emissions from these affected
facilities.
EImssion reduction systems could be
used for all affected facihties under
Regulatory Alternative I to ac:hieve a 70
percent emission reduction efficiency.
Water-based sprays could be used at
inside and outside green tire spraying
facilities to meet or exceed a 70 percent
emission reduction for Regulatory
Alternative I.
Regulatory Alternative II is besed
upon tbe use of 75 percent efficient
emission reduction systems for
undertread cementing, sidewH;!
cementing. tread end cemenri!'g, and
bead cementing facilities. and upon the
use of water-baaed sprays (90 percent
emission reduction) for inside and
outside green tire spraying fac;:;r~p'S.
Since Michelin-A. Michelin-B. ~!'d
Michelin-C-automatic operatlQns are
believed unique to Michelin he
Corporation. they were not ineit.:ded 'n
Regulatory Alternative U. Regll!a!!on ..-
these operations was cons.':t'~ed
separately and is discusseC! ,:Jcer l!Je
section on "Beat System of C,;ntinuoll8
Emission Reduction."
Emission reductions achievable wHh
water-based green tire sprays are
sIgnificantly greater than the red'.1c'~cr.s
achievable where organic solver:t.f;as...,;
spray VOC emissions are reduee-i ., "~
the use of an emission reduction sys:e!':!,
Water-based inside and outside gre: ~
tire sprays have been adequately
demonstrated in the industry and are
available to all companies.
Ennronmentollmpacts
Under Regulatory Altematl\'~ ! ~:he
regulatory baseline), emissIOns m r~..
fifth year from new. modified. ar..:
reconstructed affected facilities wO:.ild
be about 3.120 Mg/year (3.430 t,)~C :.r
The fifth year air quality impact of
RegulatOry Alternative n would be a
reduction of about 1.700 Mg/jT '187'1)
tonsl yrJ from baseline emissle,-5. Ths .5
a reduction of 55 percent from the
Odse,me.
Under each of the regulatory
alternatives there could be effiuen! ~~Qrr.
stearn regeneration of carbon adsorp"cn
beds and from overspray of inside and
outside water-based green tire sprays.
The VOC used in tire manufacturmg 19
virtually insoluble in water. Therefore.
most adsorbed VQC which escapes
decanting and moat VOC contained In
overspray from inside and outside
water-based green tire sprays will
volatilize rather than remain in the
water. Wastewater flow in 1985 Wlder
-------
Federal ~ I Vol. 48, No. 14 I Thursday, January 20. 1983 I Proposed Rules
2883
Replatory Alternative I would be about
4.8 million m'/yr (1.3 billion gaJ/yr).
Regulatory Alternative n would not
increase the wastewater flow beyond
the baseline.
Under Regulatory Alternative L solid
waste generated in 1985 would be about
238.000 Mg/yr (263.000 tons/yr).
Regulatory Alternative n would not
increase the quantity of solid waste
generated. Solid waste could result from
dispolal of spent carbon from carbon
adaorbers. Spent carbon can be recycled
for other tndUltrial uses. incinerated or
disposed of by lanclfilli.ng.
Energy Impacts
Energy use for pollution control
equipment is based on the use of carbon
adaorbers as the control technique for
both regulatory alternatives. Under
Regulatory Alternative L facilities that
are built, modified. or reconstructed by
1985 would use a total of about 2.5 x 1011
joules/yr of electricity for process. non-
process. and pollution control purposes.
Emission reduction to the level of
Regulatory Alternative n would not
increase the fifth-year energy usage.
Economic Impacts
A detailed analysis of the economic
impact of the regulatory alternatives on
the rubber tire manufacturing industry
has been developed. Price increases or
alternative decreases in return on
investment (ROI) were determined to be
reasonable for both regulatory
alternatives. even under worst case
conditions. In no case do capital costs of
control exceed 1 percent of total
investment requirements.
Regulatory Alternative I (baseline)
fifth-year cumulative capital control
costs would be about $16.3 million.
Fifth-year annualized control costs
without solvent recovery credits would
be about $4.9 millio~ with solvent
recovery credits. annualized control
costs would be about 53.3 million.
Regulatory Alternative n fifth-year
cumulative t.apital control costs would
be about $7.9 million above the baseline.
Fifth-year annualized COlts without
solvent recovery credits would increase
above the baseline figure by about $2.3
million. The increase above the baseline
in fifth-year annualized costs with
solvent recovery credits would be about
$1.5 million. Under full COlt pricing. the
product price would increase by about
0.14 percent under worst case
conditions. Under full cost absorption.
the ROI of new radial tire manufacturiDs
plants may decline from an a88umed
rate of 5 percent to 4.93 percest in the
worst cue. In either lituatioD the wont
cue is represented by the 11M of .
separate capture 8Jstem end . carbon
adsorber control device at each affected
facility where control equipment i. used
to reduce emissions. Neither impact
would inhibit industry growth or
replacement.
Beat Systems of Continuous EmisaiOD
Reduction
Regulatory Alternative n is
technically and economically feasible
for all affected facilities. would achieve
greater emission reduction than
Regulatory Alternative L and would
cause no adverse water. solid waste. or
energy impacts. Capture and control
technology is available to meet
Regulatory Alternative n emission
reductions for undertread cementing,
sidewall cementing, tread end
cementing. and bead cementing. Water-
based inside and outside green-tire
sprays are available to all rubber tire
manufacturers and are already is use by
most companies at one or more plants.
Water-based sprays can meet or exceed
Regulatory Alternative n emission
reductions. Alternative n would
decrease overall vac emissions from
the affected facilities by about 55
percent below the baseline. Annualized
costs without recovery credits would
increase by about 47 percent; with
recovery credits the increase would alao
be about 47 percent. The increase is due
primarily to addition of sidewall
cementing as an affected facility. Based
on consideration of these factors.
Regulatory Alternative n was judged
superior to Regulatory Alternative I. and
1eguliltory Alternative n was used as
.Ile basis for selecting the best system of
continuous emission reduction.
Data on existing plants indicate that
there is a wide variation in solvent use
rates (and a corresponding wide range
in uncontrolled emission rates) from
each type of affected facility. At some
low solvent use rate. the cost of
employing an emission rduction system
could be unreasonably high for the
amount of emission reduction achieved
Since the cost per unit of emission
reduction achieved is an important
factor in determining the reasonablenesa
of control at facilities with low
uncontrolled emissions. the Agency
considered requiring less efficient
emission reduction at facilities with low
solvent use rates and/or establishing
solvent use cutoffs. below which no
level of control would be required
These choices would be considered it.
indeed. there was a solvent use rate at
which the control COlts were judged to .
be unreasonably high when compared to
the emminion reduction.
As a first step in the Agency's
determination. annualized cosu of
applying a 75 percent efficient emission
227
reduction system were calculated for the
range of solvent use rates (numbers
equal to the uncontrolled errussion rates)
at undertread cementing. sidewall
cementing. tread end cementing, and
bead cementing facilities. Annualized
costs per megagram of VOC emission
reduction were then plotted across the
range of solvent use rates. (See Figures
8-1 and 8-2 in the BID.) It was assumed
that a separate capture system and
control device would be used for each
operation and that flow rates and
capital costs for each operation are
constant over the entire range of solvent
use rates. These costs do not represent
the actual amounts of money spent for
any particular plant. Rather, the costs
are estimates which represent
additional lines and plants likely to be
built. The costs of VOC emission
reduction systems will vary according to
production rate. production equipment.
plant layout. geographic location, and
company preferences and policies.
As was expected. the annualized cost
per megagram of emission reduction
increases as the solvent use rate
decreases. For solvent use rates above
50 grams per tire (g/tire), the total
annualized costs for a carbon adsorber,
assuming recovery credits. would be
about S400 per megagram of VOC
emissions reduced As the solvent use
rate decreases, through changes in
process and manufacturing techniques.
from 50 to 25 g/tire. the costs gradually
increase to about $1250 per megagram.
From 25 to 15 g/tire costs begin rising at
a more rapid rate. However, there is no
point on the curve at which a sharp
upward swing is distinguishable. In the
25 to 15 g/tire range. costs begin to
exceed $2.000 per megagram. Based on
VOC emission control costs in other
industries regulated by standards of
perfonnance. costs above $2,000 per
'Jegagram are generally considered to
be unreasonably high (although. in
some instances, there may be overrfding
considerations that affect the
determination of reasonable cost).
To reduce the cost per megagram of
pollutant removed for facilities within
the 25 to 15 g/tire range. the Agency
considered less effective and less costly
emission reduction systems for those
facilities. However, systems which are
less than 75 percent efficient are not
significantly lower in cost than 75
percent efficient systems. Consequently.
requiring a level of controlles. than 75
percent efficient for facilities between 25
and 15 g/tire would not brin8 the cost
per megagram significantly below the
level generally coD8iderM UDIea80Dably
high.
-------
-
F8d8raI Rewi8ter I Vol. 48. No. 14 I Thursday. January 21). 1983 I Propo8ed Rule.
-==
To ideatify a cutoff perint betwen 25
and 151/tire. the ~ COD8idered
otb8r coat-ntated faeton in selecting the
exact CIItDIf. Specifically. the Agency
CODIidered the additional coat savings
that would be achieved by establishing
a cutoff at 25 s/tire rather than 15 s/tire.
These COlt savings are associated with:
conservation of energy required to
operate these systems. conservation of
resource. required for their operation
and maintenance. and the
enco~ntofsolventconservation
at facilitiea that can. or may develop
metboda to. reduce solvent usase to
meet the cutoff limits rather than install
capture and control systems. In light of
these benefits and the seneral view that
the Agency should set standards that
encourage development of inherently
low-emitting processes. and in the
absence of a clearly identified VOC use
rate at which the control costs per
megagram reduction are clearly
unreasonable. the Administrator is
proposing 25 s/tire as the cutoff solvent
use rate for undertread cementing and
sidewall cementing facilities. While
solvent use rates averase about 63 g/tire
for existiq undertread cementiq and
41 s/tire for existiq sidewall cementing
facilities. solvent use rates below 25 gl
tire have been reported for each of these
operations. The costs to reduce
emission. by 75 percent at solvent use
rates above 25 g/tire are conlidered
reasonable. and 25 s/Ure is an
appropriate cutoff point considerins
both the benefits which accrue and the
rapidly mcrealing cost per megagram
associated with control at solvent use
ratel below 25 s/tiIe. Therefore. the best
system of continuous emislion reduction
for undertread and sidewall cementing
operation. is an emission reduction
system that achieves 75 percent overall
control for facilities that use more than
25 s/Ure. and low solvent techniques for
facilities that Ule 25 s/tire or les.. The
75 percent efficient emission reduction
syltem was based on an 80 percent
efficient capture system and . 95
percent efficient carbon adsorber
control device. The propoeed atandarda
would also allow use of other types of
control devices. and any combination of
C8pture and control efficiencie8 that
result in .t lent a 75 percent overall
emi88ion reduction.
A similar ualysia ... done for tread
end cementins and bead cementing, and
cutof& of Z5 ud 2D 81th r88p8Ctively
were ..k ::tM. (See PIgam8 1-3 to W In
lID.) n- C8tDI& W8I8 ...........
VOC .. rates for -- axi8tms tread
end ..-....tiq and bud -- tI...
. ""10.- .............
v- -~ aperatiaa8...~-
. use more than the 25 or 20 S/ tire cutoffs.
Therefore. requiring those tread end
cementiq or bead cementing operations
that use more than the cutoff amounts of
VOC to reduce emissions by 75 percent
would achieve no emission reduction.
However, an alternative means of
minimizing emissions has been
adequately demonstrated to achieve
effective control at tread end cemeating
and bead cementing facilities. Industry-
supplied solvent use data show that
each company has at least one plant
that uses 10 g/tire or lesl at each of
these operations. Further, many existing
plants already use substantially less
than 10 s/tire. Emission rates of 10 g/
tire, or less, could be achieved without
the use of emission reduction systems. A
10 g/tire emission liinit for all tread end
cementing and bead cementing
operations would result \II a greater
nationwide emission reduction than
would be achieved by requiring
installation of a 75 percent efficient
emission reduction system for those
facilities that use more than the cutoff
amounts of VOC. Since no emission
reduction systems would be used.
capital and operating costs, and water.
solid waste and energy impacts would
be reduced, For the above reasons. the
best system of continuous emission
reduction for tread end and bead
cementing operations is low-solvent
techniques that use less than 10 g/tire.
The best system of continuous
emission reduction for inside green tire
spraying and outside green tire spraying
operations is water-based green tire
sprays. Water-based green tire sprays
result in lower emissions than when
solvent-based sprays are used in
conjunction with emission reduction
systems.
Choosing low solvent use techniques
as the best system of continuous
emission reduction for tread cementing
and bead cementing operations, and
setting 25 g/Ure cutoffl for undertread
cementiq and sidewall cementing
operations result in the impacts of the
proposed standards being different from
the impacts of Regulatory Alternative II.
Under the proposed standardl. baseline
emissions from undertread cementing,
sidewall cementing, tread end
cementing, bead cementing, inside green
tire spraying, and outside green tire
sprayina would be reduced by about
1.430 Mg (1.570 tons) in the fifth year. a
46 percent reduction. 'I1U. emill.ion
redudioa woa)d be about 9 perceDt le88
than the ~i88inn reduction e8timated
for thele affected facilities under
Regulatory Alternative n. The IIIDOUDI:8
of enerwy 1I8i. aad W8t8r pol1DtiaD 8td.
aoHd wut8 r-tw 1IIIdŁ tile-
228
proposed .standards would be le88 than
under Regulatory Alternative U.
Because the proposed standards
would not in most cases require the use
of emission reduction systems for
affected facilities other than undertread
cementing and sidewall cementing.
capital and annualized costs would be
less than thole for Regulatory
Alternatives I and II. Fifth-year
cumulative capital costs would be about
$10.8 million above uncontrolled levels.
about 34 percent less than the baseline
and about 55 percent less than
Regulatory Alternative II. Annualized
costs in the fifth year without recovery
credits would be about $3.4 million
above uncontrolled levels: with recovery
credits the ruth-year annualized cost
would be about $1.5 million above
uncontrolled levels. These annualized
costs represent reductions from the
baseline of about 31 percent and 54
percent. respectively: they represent
cost reductions from Regulatory
Alternative II of about 53 percent and 69
percent, respectively. The average
product price would rise about 0.26
percent above uncontrolled levels in the
worst case. The product price is not
expected to increase above baseline
levels. Under full cost absorption. using
uncontrolled levels as a base
comparison. the ROI would decrease
from an assumed rate of 5.17 percent to
about 5.04 percent under worst case
conditions. The ROI is not expected to
decrease below baseline levels.
Based on EPA's analysis of
information submitted by Michelin Tire
Corporation. the Agency has determined
the best technological system of
continuous emission reduction for the
Michelin-B operation to be a VOC
capture system and carbon adsorber
control device that will achieve a 75
percent overall emission reduction. For
Michelin-A and Michelin-C-automatic
operations. EPA has determined the best
technological system of emission
reduction to be a VOC capture system
and carbon adsorber control device that
will achieve a 65 percent overall
emission reduction. EPA has detennined
that these systems are available at
reasonable cost and do not impose
unreasonable adverse water. solid
waste. or energy impacts. The proposed
standards would allo allow the use of
control devices other than carbon
adsorbers. ~
Selection 01 Format 01 Proposed
Standard
Coocentration. mall unita. and
efficiency WW8 COD1Iidered .. formats
for the pro.. u.« atandard8. A
C'.... ......,I...ai08 itnoat far tbe propueed
-------
Federal Register I Vol: 48, No. 14 I Thursday, January 20. 1983 I Proposed Rules
2685
standards would limit the amount of
vac per unit volume of exhaust gas
discharged into the atmosphere but not
the total mass of vac discharged. The
advantage of the concentration format is
that the test method would not require
measurement of gas flow or composition
of the solvent. The primary
disadvantage of using a concentration
format is that solvent application rates'
(hence emissions) are variable, and, as a
result, vapor concentrations also vary
widely. A further complication is the
assertion by some industry
representatives that air flow rates affect
product quality, and companies may
therefore differ in their ventilation
specifications. For these reasons,
concentration units were rejected as a
format for the proposed standards.
A second option is to express the
proposed standards in terms that limit
VOC emissions to a maximum
allowable mass per unit of production.
A mass standard for this industry could
be expressed in grams of vac emitted
per tire processed (g/Ure). A gltire
standard is suitable where low solvent
use techniques are employed to
minimize vaG emissions at tread end
cementing and bead cementing facilities,
and where water-based sprays are
employed 10 minimize vac emissions at
inside and outside green tire spraying
facilities. As a result, the proposed
standards for tread end cementing, bead
cementing. and green tire spraying
facilities are expressed as grams of vac
emitted per tire procesled (g/tire).
Gram per tire emission limits were not
considered to be appropriate where the
best system of continuous emission
reduction is an emission reduction
system. Establishing gltire emission
limits based on reduction from the
highest uncontrolled emissior. rates
woul4 enJW'e achievability of the
standards but would require installation
of the best system of continuous
emission reduction only on the few
facilities with the highest emission rates.
Facilities with lower uncontrolled rates
could achieve the standards without
using best control technology. Gram per
tire emission limits based on reduction
from less than the highest (e.g., the
average) uncontrolled emission rates
could result in limits that may not be
achievable by all facilities, especially
those with the highest uncontrolled
emissions. Further, some industry
representatives expressed concern at
the December 2, 1980. meeting of the
National Air Pollution Control
Techniques Advisory Committee that
gram per tire emission limits based on a
reduction from even the highest reported
emission rate may not be achievable.
This concern was based on the
possibility that a new facilty could bave
an uncontrolled emission rate higher
than those reported for existing
facilities. These problems could be
overcome by choosing an efficiency
format. which would reflect the use of
captUre and control systems irrespective
of the uncontrolled emission rate 8t the
facility. Therefore, an efficiency format
was chosen for the standards for
U!ldertread and sidewall cementing
operations that use more than 25 gltire
and for Michelin-A. Michelin-B. and
Michelin-C-automatic operations. To
ensure that all aspects of the issue have
been considered adequately, the Agency
requests comments from interested
parties about the recommended percent
reduction format.
Selection of Numerical Emission Limits
Based on the best systems of
continuous emission reduction. the
proposed standards consist of the
following numerical emission limits.
Each undertread cementing operation
and each sidewaJ1cementing operation
where more than Z5 grams of VQG are
used per tire would be required to
reduce emissions by at least 75 percent.
Undertread cementing and sidewall
cementing operations that use less than
Z5 gl tire would not be required to install
emission reduction systems. Each tread
end and bead cementing facility would
be required to limit emiSsions to no
more than 10 g/tire. Each inside green
tire spray operation would be required
to limit emissions to no more than 1.2 gl
tire, and each outside green tire spray
operation would be required to limit
emissions to no more than 9.3 g/tire.
Each Michelin-B operation would be
required to reduce emissions by at least
75 percent. Each Michelin-A opera~'nr
and each Michelin-C-automatic
operation would be required to reduce
emissions by at least 65 percent. As
stated above, these emission limits
reflect application of the best
demonstrated system of emission
reduction at each affected facility in a
rubber tire manufacturing plant.
Rubber tire industry representatives
have requested EPA to consider adding
a provision to the proposed standards
which would allow a plant owner or
operator the option of meeting an
emission limit calculated for a group of
individual affected facilities rather than
individual limits for each affected .
facility. The emission limit for the group
would be calculated by combining
prescribed emission limits for individual
affected facilities and. for purposes of
the following discussion. is termed an
NSPS compliance bubble. i.e., a tradeoff
229
of emismons among affected facilities
for compliance purposes.
EPA believes a compliance tradeoff
for rubber tire manufacturing may be
appropriate anamay be consistent with
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act and is
considering incorporating such a
tradeoff in the standards before
promulgation. Standards currently
proposed or promulgated under Section
111 of the Act do not contain such a
provision. EPA is in the early stages of
evaluating a general policy for Section
111 standards which. if adopted. would
provide for compliance tradeoffs where
determined appropriate for plants-
containing multiple affected facilities.
Until EPA establishes a policy for
Section 111 standards in general, the
Agency is not prepared to propos~ such
a policy in the rubber tire standard.
However, EPA will make a decision on
this policy before the rubber tire
standard is promulgated. Therefore. EPA
is requesting comments on the use of a
compliance tradeoff as a part of this
package. It is anticipated that any
compliance tradeoff incorporated into
the rubber tire standard would allow
aggregation of individual emission limits
only for those facilities within a plant
which are subject to the standards
(newly constructed. modified, or
reconstructed) and which are present in
that specific plant. .
Modification/Reconstruction
Cqll8iderations
Modification. as defined in i 60.14 of
Chapter I, Title 40 of the Gode of Federal
Regulations (CFR), may occur when any
physical or operational change to an
existing facility results in an increase in
emission rate to the atmosphere of any
pollutant to which a standard applies.
However, there are several changes that
result in increased emission rates which
are exempt from the modification
provision. Once such provision is for a
production rate increase that is
accomplished without a "capital
expenditure" as defined in i 60.2.
The production rate of a rubber tire
manufacturing plant is usually directly
related to the capacities of the tire
building or curing press operations.
which are not subject to the proposed
standards. Other operations, including
operations selected 8S affected facilities,
normally nm at less than full capacity,
and their production rates can usually
be increased up to full capacity without
a capital expenditure. Most changes
expected to occur would be of this
nature. As a result, few, if any,
modificatiODll are expected.
Reconstruction, as defined in i 6(1.15
of Chapter L Title 40 of the CFR., occurs
-------
2686
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 14 I Thursday, January 20. 1983 I Proposed Rules
-
when the fixed capital cost of
replacement components of an existing
facility exceeds 50 percent of the fixed
capital cost that would be required to
construct a comparable entirely new
facility and compliance is technically
and economically feasible. Upon
replacement of components. the
Administrator vo.ill determine, on a case-
by-case basis. whether a reconstruction
h~s taken place and whether the '
existing facility becomes an affected
facility under the NSPS.
Investigation of the rubber tire
manufacturing industry has indicated
that repair or rebuilding of an existing
facility where costs would exceed 50
percent of the cost of replacing the
facility is unusuaL
Selection of Performance Test Methods
Tne proposed standards would
require two types of performance tests.
initial performance tests and Ir.;::nthly
perfor.:larlce tests. Initial performance
tests would be required for all affected
facilities except those facilities that
demonstrate compliance with thE'
percent emission reduction requirements
by meeting certain equipment
specifications. These facilities would
conduct an initial performance test on
the control device but not on t..'le capture
system, However. the O\'\'Iler or operator
would be required to state in the initial
compliance report whether or not each
capture system specification has been
met Monthly performance tests would
be required for most. but not all.
affected facilities,
Monthly performance tests were
chosen. where practical. to ensure
continual compliance. Requiring only an
initial performance test would
somewhat reduce the monitoring
workJoad on the owner or operator. but
would not be as useful to either the
owner or operator or to the Agency for
ensuring continual compliance. In
addition. most of the data required for
monthly performance tests are routinely
collected and maintained by the source
as part of production and inventory
records. Performance tests that consist
of costly stack testing are not required
on a monthly basis in order for EPA to
ensure that ~ompliance costs are
maintained at a reasonable level.
Monthly performance tests would be
required to determine compliance- with
each of the gltire limits. Whether or not
monthly performance tests would be
required to determine compliance with
the percent emission reduction
standards depends primarily on the type
of control device used. and then on the
method of demonstrating compliance. If
the control device recovers VOC and
compliance is demonstrated by
achieving a 75 percent emission
reduction. monthly performance tests
would be required. If the control-device
recovers VOC but compliance is
demonstrated by meeting the equipment
specifications. monthly performance
tests would not be required. If the
control device destroys VOG. monthly
performance tests would not be .
required. regardless of the method used
to demonstrate compliance.
Performance test procedures for each
type of affected facility vary depending
on the format of the standard (g/tire or
percent emission reduction) and the type
of emission control device. if any. that is
used. The performance test procedures
are outlined below.
For each affected facility that
complies with a gjtire limit. the mass of
VOC emitted per tire processed for a
calendar month would be determined
during the initial performance test. This
determination would necessitate a
materials balance calculation if
compliance is achieved by reducing
solvent usage or by using a control
device that recovers VOC. If a control
de\o.;ce that destroys VOC is used. the
determination wwld require a stack'
test
Monthly performance tests for
facilities that comply with gjtire limits
would be the same as the initial
performance test except for those
affected facilities wbere a control device
that destroys VOC is used. For these
affected facilities. the overall emission
reduction efficiency determined in the
initial performance test could be used
for monthly performance tests until the-
Administrator requests that the
efficiency be redetermined. or the
operating conditions of the system are
changed. The rationale for this provision
is that a requirement for an owner or
operator to conduct monthly stack tests
could result in unreasonable costs.
For each affected facility for which
the owner or operator choose to use an
emission reduction system with a
control device that recovers VOC to
meet a percent reduction requirement.
the overall efficiency of the emission
reduction system for a calendar month
would be determined during the initial
performance test. This would be done
by comparing the mass of VOC
recovered by the emission reduction
system to the mass of VOC used at the
affected facility. No stack testing would
be required. Monthly performance tests
would be the same as the initial
performance test.
For each affected facility for which
the owner or operator chooses to use an
emission reduction system that destroys
VOC to meet a percent reduction
requirement. the overall efficiency of the
230
emission system would be determined
by a stack test performed during the
initial performance test. No montJrly
performance test would be required. The
emission reduction system efficiencr
would be redetermined by a stack test
when requested by the Administrator or
when the operating conditions of the
system are changed.
Dat8 necessary to calculate the VOC '
content of cement or spray material
would be obtained from formulation
data supplied by the manufacturer of the
spray. or through the analysis of each
cement or spray material by Reference
Method 24 "Determination of Volatile
Organic Compound Content o[Paint, .
Varnish, Lacquer. or Related Products"
or an mternative or equivalent method
acceptable to the Administrator.
Reference Method 24 would serve a5 the
reference method for the calculation of
the VOC content of the cement or spray
materials in case of dispute.
Altemauve ComplianCil Method
As an alternative method for
demonstrating compliance with the
proposed standards for undertread
cementing. sidwall cementing. or
lvUchelin-B operations. the owner or
operator may elect to meet equipment
specifications for capture systems nsed
in conjunction with a 95 percent efficient
control device. These specifications
include enclosure of cement application
and drying 'ireas. maintenance of 100
feet per mim...e race \'elocity through
each permanent opening to an
enclosure. and an upper limit on the
area of permanent openings to an
enclosure. The Administrator has
determined that meeting these
specifications in conjunction with
operating a 95 percent efficient control
device is an acceptable means of ,
demonstrating compliance.
An initial performance Jest of L'le
control device would be required within
180 days after initial start-up of the
affected facility. This test would be
repeated when requested by the
Administrator or when control device
operating conditions are changed. The
owner or opera tor would be required to
continuously monitor the control device
as described in the section on Selection
of Monitoring Requirements. No monthly
performance tests would be required
because the cost of monthly stack tests
could be unreaso..able.
Neither an initial perfonnance test nor
monthly performance tests would be
required for the capture system.
However. the owner or operator would
be required to include in the initial
compliance report a statement
-------
=
Federal Rqister I Vol. 48. No. 14 I Thursday. January 20. 1983 I Propoled Ruln
2887
indl....... whether each of the
equip8l88t .pecifu:atioaa baa been met
SeJIJClitm of MonilMillB Requirements
Monitoring requirements are included
In standards of performance to provide
a means for ensuring proper operation
and maintenance of emission reduction
sYltema and ~o provide plant and
enforcement personnel with sufficient
data to detennine compliance with the
proposed standards.
Where thermal incineration Is used to
aclUeve compliance. the owner or
operator would be required to install.
calibrate. operate. and maintain a
mooitoring device to continuously
record the combustion (firebox)
temperature of the control device. II
catalytif: incineration were used. the
owner or operator would be required to
install a monitoring device to
continuoualy record the gas temperature
both upstream and downstream of the
catalyst bed. The owner or operator
would be required to continually record
these values.
Where a control device that recovers
VOC III used to achieve compliance with
a percent reduction requirement by
meeting equipment apecifications. the
owner or operator would be required to
inatall a contlmlous monitoring device.
Equipment I. available to monitor the
operatioual variablee asaoc:iated with
solvent recovery ayatem operation.
Monitoring of operations indicates
whether the solvent recovery system is
being properly operated and maintained.
and whether the system is continuously
reducing VOC emissions to an
acceptable level. The variable which
would yj.eld the best indication of
sYltem operation is VOC concentration
at the solvent recovery system outlet.
EPA has not yet developed
performance specifications for solvent
recovery system monitors. but a
program is underway to develop these
specifications. Consequently. until EPA
propoee. and promulgates monitor
performance specifications. owners and
ope!8tortl subject to the requirement to
install a continuoua monitor on the
solvent recovery system will not be
required to do 110.
RecordJUlepinS and Rsporting
RequiremBnJs
The propoeed .taDdarda would
require tb8t the 0-- 01' operator
maintaia rec:md8 of all data and
calcu1daaa 1IIed to ttet-ina VOC
emiasiona from eac:h .- . ~ facility for
at leMt -,....,. 88Ih affected
fuilitJ""" -""'l8ciBeration
tG.....-pAi~ CGDIbmau
~01 d8 mM.._- CXI8Ibution
eII""~b8
maintained at the source for a period of
at least two yean. Where catalytic
incineration is used. continuous records
of the gas temperature. both upstream
and downstream of the incinerator
catalyst bed. must be maintained at the
source for a period of at least two years.
Where a control dev4ce that recovers
VOC is used to achieve compliance with
a percent reduction requirement by
meeting the equipment specifications.
the owner or operator must maintain at
the liOurce for a period of at least two -
years continuous recorda of VOC
concentration at the solvent recovery
system outlet
The proposed standards would
require the owner or operator to
maintain records of all 3-hour periods
dunng which the average temperature of
a thermal incinerator is more than 28°C
(SO°P) less than the average temperature
during the moat recent performance te.t
at which the destruction efficiency was
determined. For catalytic incinerators
the owner or operator would maintain
records of all 3-hour periods during
which the average temperature
immediately before the catalyst bed ia
more than ZSOC (SO°P) less than the
average temperature dUl'in8 the most
recent performance test at which the
destroction efficiency was determined
or the temperature difference across the
catalyst bed i.le.. than 80 percent of
the average temperature difference
during the most recent performance teat
at which the destroction efficiency was
determined. Where a control device that
recovers VQC is used to achieve
compliance with a percent reduction
requirement by meeting the equipment
specificati0D8. the owner or operator
muat maintain recorda of all 3-hour
periods during which the average vac
concentration from the outlet of the
solvent recovery system is greater than
the average value measured d~ thl'!
most recent teet of the control dE: - --~.
The proposed standards would
require notification reports and reports
of all initial performance tests. as
required by the General Provisions.
Impacts of ~tlu1S RequirelD8Dts
A reports impact analysis for the
robber tire manufacturing industry was
prepared. The purpose of the analysis is
to estimate !!be 1!conomic impact of the
reporting and recordkeeping
requirementa that would be impond by
the propoaed .tandarda and by thoBe
appeariD8 ill the Geaeral Proviaion. of
40 CFR Part 60. Included in the analy8i.e
are the ratioDale for the eelection of the
prop0ee8~ aD evalliatioa of
the major ala8mativ88 considered prior
to the Ielectioa of the propo88i
rBqJrira--.. aad. dncriptioa. .. die
231
informs tion required by tl!e General
Provisions and by the proposed
standard&. A copy of the reports impact
analysis is included in the rubber tire
manufacturing docket (EPA Docket ~o.
A-8O-Q-[J-~14).
Based on the reports impact analysis.
a maximum of 3 person-years would be
required industry-WIde to comply with
the recordkeepmg and reportmg
req~ents through the first five years
of applicability.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980
(Pub. L. 9&-511) requires ciearance from
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) of certain public reporting/
recordkeeping requirements before this
rulemaking can be promulgated as final.
The reporting/ recordkeeping
requirements associated with this
standard have been submitted to OMB
for approval.
Public Hearins
A public hearing will be held to
discuss the proposed standards in
accordance with Section 307(d)(5) of the
Clean Air Act Persons wishing to make
oral presentations should contact EPA
at the addre.. given in the ADORESSES
section of tha preamble. Oral
presentations will be limited to 15
minutes each. Any member of the public
may file a written statement before.
during. or within 30 days after the
hearing. Written IItatements should be
addressed to the Central Docket Section
address given in the ADDRESSES section
of this preamble.
A verbatim transcript of the hearmg
and written statements will be available
for public inspection and copying during
normal working hours at EPA's Central
Docket Section in Washington. D.C. (see
ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
Docket
The docket is an organized and
complete file of all the information
submitted to or otherwise considered in
the development of this proposed
rulemaking. The principal purposes of
the docket are (1) to allow interested
parties to readily identify and locate
documents so that they can intelligently
and effectively participate in the
rulemaking process. and (Z) to serve 8S
the record in case of judicial review
(except for thOH portions of the docket
excluded from the record under Section
307( d)(7)(A)).
Miac:8Uaaeau
As prescribed by Section 111.
establishment of staDdarda of
performaDCe for rubber tire
1DaDlliacturiD8 plata wa. preceded by
the Admmiatrator's determination (40
-------
.
,...... R8Pter / Vol. 48, No. 14 / Thursday, January 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules
===
CPR 80.18. 44 FR 49222. dated August 21.
1m) that thne sourcea contribute
.igrdftcantly to air pollution which may
reuonably be anticipated to endanger
public health or welfare. In accordance
with Section 117 of the Act publication
of this proposal was preceded by
consultation with appropriate advisory
committee.. independent experts. and
Federal departments and agencies. The
Administrator will welcome comments
on all upects of the proposed
regulation. including economic and
technological is.ues. and on the
proposed test methods.
It should be noted that standards of
performance for new stationary sources
established under Section 111 of the
Clean Air Act reflect:
. . . application of the best technological
system of continuous emission reduction
which (taking into consideration the cost of
achievins such emission reduction. any
nonair quality health and environmental
Impact and enel'l!Y requirements) the
Adminiatrator determines has been
adequately demonstrated. (Section 111(a)(1).)
Although there may be em181ion control
technology available that can reduce
emil8ions below those levels required to
comply with standarda of performance. this
technology might not be selected 8!1 the basis
of standards of performance due to costs
usociated with its \188. Accordingly.
standards of performance should mlt be
viewed a. the ultimate in achievable
emiNion control. In fact. the Act requires (or
has the potential for requiring) the imposition
of a more strlnaent emission standard in
severalsituatioDs.
For example. applicable costs do not
playas prominent a role in determining
the "lowest achievable emission rate"
for new or modified sources located in
nonattainme1\t areas, i.e., those areas
where statutorily-mandated health and
welfare standards are being violated. In
this respect, Section 173 of the Act
requires that a new or modified source
constructed in an area where ambient
pollutant concentrations exceed the
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) must reduce emissions to the
level that reflects the "lowest
achievable emission rate" .(LAER). as
defined in Section 171(3), for such
category of source. The statute defines
LAER u that rate of emissions based on
the following. whichever is more
stringent:
(A) The most stringent emi8sion limitation
which fa contained in the Implementation
plan of any State for such clau or catesory of
source. aalea the owner or operator of the
fII\'JP08ed IIOI1l'Ce dell1OD8tratn thet such
limitattcma ant not achinable. or
(8) 'lbe DI08t ItrIngent emi88ioa limitation
wbi8 fa addnwd lit practice by 81ICh cia.. or
calJlllllJ of.....
In no event can the emission rate exceed
any applicable new source performance
standard (Section 171(3)).
A similar situation may arise under
the prevention of significant
deterioration of air quality provisions of
the Act (Part C). These provisions
require that certain sources (referred to
in Section 169(1)) employ "best
available control technology" (BACT) as
defined in Section 169(3) for all
pollutants regulated under the Act. Best
available control technology must be
determined on a case-by-case basis,
taking energy, environmental and
economic impacts and other costs into
account In no event may the application
of BACf result in emissions of any
pollutants which will exceed the
emissions allowed by any applicable
standard established pursuant to
Section 111 (or 112) of the Act
In all events. State Implementation
Plans (SIPs) approved or promulgated
under Section 110 of the Act must
provide for the attainment and
maintenance of NAAQS designed to
protect public health and welfare. For
this purpose. SIPs must in some cases
require greater emission reduction than
those required by standards of
performance for new sources.
States are free under Section 116 of
the Act to establish even more stringent
emission limits than those established
under Section 111 or those necessary to
attain or maintain the NAAQS under
Section 110. Accordingly. new sources
may in some cases be subject to
limitations more stringent than
standards of performance under Section
111, and prospective owners and
operators of new sources should be
aware of this possibility in planning for
such facilities.
This regulation will be reviewed four
years from the date of promulgation as
required by the Clean Air Act. This
review will include an assessment of
such factors as the need for integration
with other programs. the existence of
alternative methods, enforceability,
improvements in emission control
technology, and reporting requirements.
The reporting requirements in this
regulation will be reviewed as required
under EPA's sunset policy for reporting
requirements in regulations.
Section 317 of the Clean Air Act
requires the Administrator to prepare an
economic impact assessment for any
new source standard of perfonnance
promulgated under Section 111{b) of the
Act. An economic impact assessment
was prepared for the proposed
regulatiollJl and for other regulatory
alternative.. All aspects of the
assessment were considered in the
formulation of the propoeed standard8
232
to ensure that the proposed standardt
would represent the beat system of
emission reduction considering costs.
The economic impact assessment is
included in the Background Information
Document.
"Major Rule" Detennination. Under
Executive~der1~,EPAisreq~
to judge whether a regulation is a
"major rule" and therefore subject to
certain requirement. of the Order. The
Agency has determined that this
regulation would result in none of the
adverse economic effects set forth in
Section 1 of the Order as grounds for
finding a regulation to be a "major rule."
Fifth-year annualized costs of the
standard. compared to an uncontrolled
situation. would be about $3.4 million in
the worst case. The product wholesale
price is not expected to increase. The
Agency has therefore concluded that the
proposed regulation is not a "major
rule" under Executive Order 12291.
This regulation was submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget for
review as required by Executive Order
1~. Any comments from OMB 10 EPA
and any EPA response to those
comments are available for public
inspection in Docket No. A-60-9. EPA's
Central Docket Section. West Tower
Lobby. Gallery 1. Waterside Mall. 401 M
Street, S.W.. WaahiDgton. D.C. 20480.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Certification. The Regulatory Flexibility
Act of 1980 requires that adverse effects
of all Federal regulations upon small
businesses be identified. According 10
current'Small Busines. Administration
guidelines. a small business in the SIC
category 3011, "T'll'eS and innertubes." is
one that has 1.000 employees or les..
This is the criterion to qualify for SBA
loans or for the purpose of government
procurement. Of the 16 tire
manufacturing companies, 3 existing
companies have less than 1.000
employees. An industry representative
has stated that employment in a typical
new plant is expected to average 1.400.
with a range of 1.000 to 2.000. Thus. it is
unlikely that any new plant would be
considered a small entity. Existing small
entities are not expected to become
subject to the NSPS through new
construction. modification. or
reconstruction. However. if a small
business did become subject to the
NSPS. the cost of co~HlIl'r.e would
have minimal impacts.
Pursuant to the proviaiOll8 of 5 U.S.C.
605(b). I hereby certify that the attache?
rule will not have a ligaificant econOmIC
impact on a nbatantial number of small
entitie..
-------
Fedwal Jt8Pter I Vol. 48, No. 14 I Thursday, J8II11arY 20, 1983 I PIv~ Rules
2889
List 01 Subjects In 40 CPR Put .
Air pollution controL Aluminum.
Ammonium sulfate plant-. Aapbalt.
Cement industry, Coal. Copper. Electric
power plana. GlaSI and glaaa products.
Grains. Intergovernmental relations.
Iron. Lead. Metall. Metallic minerals.
Motor vehicles. Nibic acid plants, Paper
and pqper products industry, Petroleum.
Phosphate, Sewage disposal Steel
sulfuric acid plants. Waste treatment
and disposal Zinc. Tires.
Dated: January 5, 1983.
Joim W. HerD8Ddes. Jr..
Actina Administrator.
PART 8O-{AIIENDED]
It is proposed that 40 CFR Part 60 be
amended by adding a new Subpart BBB
to read as follows:
$ubp8rt 888-Stand8rd8 of Perform8nc8
for tile FIubb8r Tire M8nuf8CturIng Industry
See.
60.540 Applicability and de.ignation of
affected facilities.
60.541 Definition..
60.54% Standards for volatile organic
. compounds.
60.543 Performance te.t and compliance
provl.icms.
6O.5M MODitorins of eminioDa and
operatioD8.
60.5411 ReporIiDI and rec:ordk.eepiDs
requirementl.
60.548 Reference methods and procedures.
Aulbarity: Sees. 111 and 301(a}, Clean Air
Act, as amended. (42 U.S.c. 7411. 7801(a)),
unle.. otherwise noted.
.
.
Subpart BBB-StaIId8rd8 of
Performance tor the Rubber T1r8
IIInut8cturtng Industry
'80.540 App8c..,.... dullll-lion of
sffected f8cIIII88.
(a) The provisiona of this subpart
apply to the following affected facilities
in rubber tire manufacturin8 plantl: each
undemead cementing operation. each
sidewall cementing operation. each
tread end cementing operation. each
bead cementing operation. each inaide
green tire spraying operation. each
outside green tire spraying operation.
each Michelin-A operation. each
Michelin-B operation. and each
Michelin-C-automatic operation.
(b) The provisions of this subpart
apply to each affected facility wbich is
identified in paragraph (a) 01 this section
and which COIDIIIenc:et COII8trac;tioD. or
modUicalioa after JanU8IJ 2D. 1J8I.
(e) The pIOYiaions 01 18 U-
IlIO.MS(c)(3}. I tn545(f). 811d18O.M5(h)
will DOt 8PPIJ 1IIdIIPA ... ....hH-'-I
IIIdpnom'tv.-.-1!.
spedL.tIoaIfar dI8 9Oe'
concentration monitoring device. After
the promulgation of performance
specifications. these provisiona will
apply to each affected facility under
paragraph (b) of this section.
t 80.541 DeftnttIora.
(a) All terms which are used in this
subpart and are not defined beiow are
given the same .......ni.. as in the Act
and in Subpart A of this part.
(1) "Bead" means rubber covered
strands of wire. wound into a circular
form. which ensure a seal between a tire
and the rim of the wheel onto which the
tire is mounted. Each tire usually
contains two beads.
(Z) "Bead cementing operation" means
the system which is used to apply
cement to the bead rubber before or
after it is wound into its final circular
form. A bead cementing operation
consists of a cement application station.
such as a dip tank, spray booth and
nozzles. cement through and roller or
swab applicator: and all other
equipment necessary to apply cement to
wound beads or bead rubber and to
allow evaporation of solvent from
cemented beads.
(3) "Component" means a piece 01
tread. combined tread/ sidewall. or
separate sidewall rubber of the length
needed to manufacture a tire of th~ size
and type fot wbich the component 18
produced.
(4) "Drying area" means the area
where VOC from applied cement or
green tire sprays is allowed to
evaporate.
(5) "EnclolJ,U"e" means a structure.
designed to contain evaporated Vac.
which surrounds a cement. solvent. or
spray application area. and/ or dryina
area and ducta contained vac to a
control device(s). Encloeures may have
permanent and temporary openings.
(6) "Green tire" meana an assembled.
uncured tire.
(7) "Inside green tire spraying
operation" meaD8 the system used to
apply a mold re1eue agent and
lubricant to the inaide of green tires to
facilitate the curing process and prevent
rubber from stiddDg to the curing press.
Sprays may be organic solvent-baaed or
water-baaed. An inside green tire
spraying operation conaists of the inside
spray application station and related
equipment. such. 81 the lubricant supply
system, the booth ~ spraying is
performed, and auociated fana and
ductwork.
(8) "MicbeliD-A operation" meaD8 ~
operation where cement is applied
wbich 18 idenUtl8d a MJcbeUn-A in the
Emi88IoD stududs-8Dd Eagineerin8
DlvfIIiaa e-~~ file.. .0Ł&..--4
in Dockef A~1%
(9) "Michelin-B operation" means that
operation where cement is applied
which is identified as Michelin-B in the
Emission Standards and Engineering
Division confidential file as referenced
in Docket A~-B-IZ.
(10) "Michelin-C-automatic operation"
means that operation where cement is
automatically applied which is
identified as Michelin-C-automatic in
the Emission Standards and Engineering
Division confidential file as referenced
in Docket A~n-B-1Z.
(11) "Outside green tire spraying
operation" means the system used to
apply a mold release agent to the
outside of green tires to facilitate the
curing process and prevent rubber from
sticking to the curing press. Sprays may
be organic solvent-based or water-
based. An outside green tire spraying
operation consists of the outside spray
application station and related
equipment. such as the lubricant supply
system. the booth where spraying is
performed. and associated fans and
ductwork.
(12) "Permanent opening" means an
opening designed into an enclosure to
allow tire components to pass through
the enclosure by conveyor or other
mechanical meana. to provide access for
permanent mechanical or elecbical
equipment. or to direct air flow through
the enClosure. A permanent opening is
not equipped with a door or other means
of obstruction.
(13) "Sidewall cementing operation"
means the system used to apply cement
to a continuous strip of sidewall
component. A sidewall cementing
operation consists of a cement
application station and all other
equipment. such as the cement supply
system and feed and takeaway
conveyors, necessary to apply cement to
sidewallsbips and to allow evaporation
of solvent from cemented sidewall.
(14) "Temporary opening" means an
opening into an enclosure that is
equipped with a means of obstruction.
such as a door. window. or port. which
is normally closed.
(15) "Tire" means any agricultural.
airplane. industrial, mobile home, light-
duty truck and/or passenger vehicle tire
which has a bead diameter leas than or
equal to 0.5 meter (m) [19.7 inches) and
cross section dimension less than or
equal to 0.325 m (12.8 in.) and is mass
produced in an assembly-line fasbion.
(16) "Tread end cementing operation"
meana the sy8tem used to apply cement
to one or both enda of tread or combined
tread/ sidewall component. A tread end
cementin& operation conai8ts 01 a
C8III8Dt eppIk:attaR ..don aDd aU other
equipment, such 81 die C8III8I1t supply
233
-------
..
Federal Resia- I Vol. 48. No. 14 I Thursday, January 20, 1983 I Proposed Rules
system and feed and takeaway
conveyors. necessary to apply cement to
tread ends and to allow evaporation of
solvent from cemented tread end..
(17) "Undertread cementing
operation" means the system used to
apply cement to a continuous strip of
tread or combined tread/ sidewall
component. An undertread cementing
operation consists of a cement
application station and all other
equipment. such as the cement supply
system and feed and takeaway
conveyors, necessary to apply cement to
tread or combined tread/sidewall strips
and to allow evaporation of solvent
from cemented tread or combined tread/
sidewall.
(18) "vac emission control device"
means equipment that destroys or
recovers vac.
(19) "vac emission reduction system"
means a system composed of an
enclosure. hood. or other device for
containment and capture of vac
emissions and a vac emission control
device.
(b) Notations used under this subpart
are defined below:
C.=Concentration ofVaC in gas
stream in vents after control device
(parts per million by volume)
C.. = concentration of vac in gas
stream in vents before control device
(parts per million by volume)
~=concentration ofVaC in gas
stream in vents from affected facility to
atmosphere (parts per million by
volume)
D.=density of cement or spray
material (grams per litre)
Dr=density of vac recovered by an
emission control device (grams per litre)
E=emission control device efficiency,
inlet versus outlet (fraction)
F.=capture efficiency, vac captured
and routed to one control device versus
total vac used for an affected facility
(fraction)
Fo=fraction of total mass of vac
used in a calendar month by all facilities
served by a common cement or spray
material distribution system that is used
by a particular affected facility served
by the common distribution system
G = monthly average mass of vac
used per complete tire processed for a
particular affected facility (grams per
tire)
L.=volume of cement or spray
material used for a calendar month
(litres)
1..= volume of vac recovered by an
emission control device (litres)
M=total mass ofVaC used for a
calendar month by all facilities served
by a common cement or spray material
distribution system (grama)
Mo=total mass ofVaC used at an
affected facility for a calendar month
(grams)
Mr= mass of vac recovered by an
emission control device (grams)
N = mass of vac emitted to the
atmosphere per complete tire processed
for an affected facility for a calendar
month (grams per tire) .
Q.=volumetric flow rate in vents
after control device (dry standard cubic
meters per hour)
Q..=volumetric flow rate in vents
before control device (dry standard
cubic meters per hour)
Q,=volumetric flow rate in vents from
affected facility to atmosphere (dry
standard cubic meters per hour)
R=overall efficiency of an emission
reduction system (fraction)
To= total number of wes processed at
a particular affected facility for a
calendar month
Wo=weight fraction of vac in a
cement or spray material.
f 60.542 Standard. for vol8t11e organic
compound..
(a) an and after the date on which
t 6O.8(b) requires a performance test to
be completed. each owner or operator
subject to the provisions of this subpart
shall not cause to be discharged into the
atmosphere more than:
(1) For each undertread cementing
operation:
(i) 25 percent of the vac used (75
percent emission reduction) for each
calendar month if the operation uses
more than 25 grams of vac per tire
procesaed; or
(ii) 25 grams of vac per tire
processed for each calendar month if the
operation uses 25 grams or less of vac
per tire processed and does not employ
a vac emission reduction system.
(2) For each sidewall cementing
operation:
(i) 25 percent of the vac used (75
percent emission reduction) for each
calendar month if the operation uses
more than 25 grams of vac per tire
processed; or
(Ii) 25 grams of vac per tire
processed for each calendar month if the
operation uses 25 grams or less of vac
per tire processed and does not employ
a vac emission reduction system.
(3) For each tread end cementing
operation: 10 grams of vac per tire
process for each calendar month.
(4) For each bead cementing
operation: 10 grama of vac per tire
processed for each calendar month.
(5) For each inside green'me-spraying
operation: 1.2 grows per tire processed
for each calendar month.
234
(6) For each outside green tire
spraying operation: 9.3 grams per tire
processed for each calendar month.
(7) For each Michelin.A operation: 35
percent of the vac used for each
calendar month (65 percent emission
reduction).
(8) For each Michelin.B operation: 25'
percent of the vac used for each
calendar month (75 percent emission
reduction).
(9) For each Michelin.C.automatic
operation: 35 percent of the vac used
for each calendar month (65 percent
emission reduction).
f6Q.543 Performance teat IIIId complllnce
provl8lon8.
(a) Section 6O.8(d) does not apply to
the monthly performance test
procedures required by this subpart.
Section 6O.8(d) does apply to initial
performance tests. Section 6O.8(f) does
not apply when Reference Method 24 is
used.
(b) The owner or operator of an
affected facility shall conduct an initial
performance test as required under
I 6O.8(a) except as described in
paragraph (h) of this section. The owner
or operator of an affected facility shall
thereafter conduct a performance test
each calendar month except as
described in paragraphs (e)(l) and (h) of
this section. Initial and monthly
performance tests shall be conducted
according to the procedures in this
section.
(c) For each undertread cementing,
sidewall cementing, tread end
cementing, bead cementing, inside green
tire spraying, and outside green tire
spraying operation which does not use a
vac emission reduction system, the
owner or operator shall use the
following procedure to determine
compliance with the applicable g/tire
limit specified under I 6O.542(a).
(1) CalcUlate the total mass of vac
(Mo) used at the affected facility for the
calendar month by the following
procedure.
(i) For each affected facility for which
cement or spray is delivered in batch or
via a distribution system which serves
only that affected facility:
M,,= fL",D"W..
,-I
where: n equals the number of different
cementa or sprays used during the
calendar month.
(ii) For each affe<:ted facility for which
cement or spray is delivered via a
common distribution system which also
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 48. No. 14 I Thursday. January 20, 1983 I Propoaed Rules
2691
88"e. other affected or existing
facilltiet.
(AI Calculate the total mass (M) of
VOC used for all of the facilities served
by the common distribution system for
the calendar month:
M= iL,.D"W~
.-1
where: n equals the number of different
cementa or sprays used during the
calendar month.
(HI Determine the fraction (F 0) of M
used by the affected facility by
comparing the production records and
process specifications for the matenal
cemented or sprayed at the affected
facility for the calendar month to the
production records and process
specifications for the material cemented
or sprayed at all other facilities served
by the common distribution system for
the calendar month or by another
procedure acceptable to the
Administrator.
(C) Calculate the total monthly mass
of VQC{M.,) used by the affected
facility:
M.=MP.
(2) Determine the total number of tirea
(T.) processed at the affected facility for
the calendar month by the following
procedure.
(i) For undertread cementing, To
equals the number of tread or combined
tread/sidewall components which
receive an application of undertread
cement.
(ii) For sidewall cementing. T. equals
the number of sidewall components
which receive an application of sidewall
cement, divioded by 2.
(iii) For tread end cementing, To
equals the number of tread or combined
tread/sidewall components which
receive an application of tread end
cement.
(iv) For bead cementing, To equals the
number of beads which receive an
application of bead cement. divided by
2.
(v) For inside green tire spraying. To
equals the number of green tires which
receive an application of inside green
tire spray.
(vi) For outside green tire spraying. T.
equal. the number of green tires which
receive an application of outside green
tire spray.
(3) Calculate the ma.. of VOC used
per tire proceued (G) by the affected
facility for the calendar month:
G=~
T.
(4) Calculate the mass of vac emitted
per tire processed (N) for the affected
facilitY for the calendar month:
N=G
(5) Where the value of the mass 'Of
VQC emitted per tire processed (N) is
less than or equal to the applicable g/
tire limit specified under I 6O.542(a). the
affected facility is in compliance.
(d) Tbe owner or operator shall use
the following procedure for each tread
end cementing. bead cementing. inside
green tire spraying. and outside green
tire spraying operation which uses a
vac emission reduction system with a
control device that dl!stroys vac (e.g..
incinerator) to comply with the
applicable g/tire limit specified under
t 6O.542(a).
(1) Calculate the mass of vac used
per tire processed (C) for the affected
facility for the calendar month as .
described under 160.543(c)(3).
(2) Calculate the mass of vac emitted
per tire processed (N) for the affected
facility for the calendar month:
N=G(l-R1
For the Initial performance test. the
overall reduction efficiency (R) shall be
determined as prescribed in (d)(2) (i).
(ii), and (iii) of this section. In
subsequent months. the owner or
operator may use the most recently
determined overall reduction efficiency
(R) for the performance test providing
the control device and capture system
operating conditions have not changed
Tbe procedure in (d)(2) (i), (ii), and (iii)
of this section shall be repeated when
directed by the Administrator or when
the owner or operator elects to operate
the control device or capture system at
conditions different from the most
recent determination of overall
reduction efficiency.
(i) Determine the fraction (Fe) of total
vac used for the affected facility which
enters the control device. the owner or
operator of an affected facility shall
construct a temporary total enclosure
around the application and drying areas
during the performance test for the
purpose of capturing fugitive VQC
emissions and use the following
equation:
fc...Q.,.
Pc::l 1-1
f e...Qr. + i CeQa
I-I I-I
235
where: m is the number of venls from the
affected facility 10 the control deVIce and
n II the number of vents from the
affected facility to the atmosphere.
(ii) Determine the destrucllOn
efficiency (E) of the control device by
using values of the volumetric flow rate
of each of the gas streams and the 'lac
content (as carbon) of each of the gas
streams in and out of the control devlce
by the following equation:
i Oboe... - f Q.,C..
Be: l::IOt 1-=1
i~e...
I-I
where: n is the number of venta before the
control device. and m is the number of
venta after the control device.
(iii) Determine the overall reduction
efficiency (R) using the following
equation:
R=EF.
(3) Where the value of the mass of
VQC emitted per tire processed IN) II
less than or equa! 10 the appllcable g/
tire limit specified under ~ 6O.524(a). the
affected facility is in compliance.
(e) The owner or operator shall use
the following procedure for each
undertread cementing. sidewall
cementing. Michelin-A, Michelin-B. and
Michelin-C-automatic affected facility
which uses a VOC emission reduction
system with a control device that
destroys VOC (e.g., incinerator) to
comply with the applicable percent
emission reduction requirement
specified under I 6O.542(a).
(1) For the initial performance test. the
overall reduction efficiency (R) shall be
determined as prescribed in
I 6O.543(d)92)(iHiii). The performance
test shall be repeated using this same
procedure when directed by the
Administrator or when the owner or
operator elects to' operate the control
device or capture system at conditlCns
different from the most recent
determination of overall reduction
efficiency. No monthly performar.ce
tests are required
(2) Each undertread cementing.
sidewall cementing, or Micheiln-B
facility where R is greater than or eq'.lal
to 0.75 is in compliance.
(3) Each Michelin-A or Michelin-C.
automatic facility where R is greater
than or equal to 0.65 is in compliance.
(Ł) The owner or operator shall use the
following procedure for each tread end
cementing. bead cementing. inside green
tire spraying. and outside green tire
sprayiq affected facility which uses a
-------
-
J 0.' - IJ . 1 I va .. No. 14 / 11..-.4.1. J8IU" 2D. 18J I P..~ RI8J
===
vex: ". ~..~ .,.... widt .
C881i8f""'''' "..... VOC (e.,.,
carbon ~ kr CGBJPIT wftft the
applicaMw I/tfM 1fmtr. ~ under
I 80.542( a).
(1) Ca1cul..~.. IDII.. of VOC used
p. tire proc..ed (G) at the affected
facility for.. caleo8er month as
described udal IOO.543{c)(3).
(2) Calc:u1a'- d:1e total mall of vac
recovered [M.) from the affected facility
for the calendar month using the
following equation:
M.==L.D.
(3) Calculate the overall reduction
efficiencv rR I for the vac emission
reduction ~tem for the calendar month
using the following equation:
It=~
t.t"
(4) Calculate the mass of vac emitted
per tint proc:e88ed (N) for the affected
facillfy for the calendar IDOIIth using the
followillg eqvation:
N == G f1-R)
(5~ Where the value of the mass of
vac emitaed per tire proceased (N) is
less than or ~ to the applicable gl
tire ~ apeC:ified WKier 160.542(a), the
affec:ted f8cilliy i. in 8DlDpliaDce.
(g) The OW1ler or operator shall use
the followins procedure for each
undertread cemenq sidewall
cementing, Michelin-A. Michelin-B. and
Michelin-C-automatic affected facility
which uses a vac emiasion reduction
system with a control device that
recovers vac (e.g.. carbon adsorber) to
comply with the applicable percent
reduction requirement specified under
I 6O.542(a).
(1) Calculate the total mass of vac
used at the affected facility (Mo) for the
calendar month as described under
IOO.543(c)(1).
(2) Calculate the total mass of vac
recovered [M. from the affected facility
for the calendar month using the
following equation:
M.== L.D.
(3) CaInIa. die O9U8J1l'8d8&tion
effic:ie8:1 (J'. for the VOC euUelion
reduction system for the caleRdar month
usin8 dw fJwL-..eq1l8liml:
.~
...
(4) Each ....... tnred ce-tins.
sideW8IJ. f:eII'WoMi'1J, m MI8be8n-B
facility where R ia greater than or equal
to 0.75 Ia in compliance.
(5) Each Michelin-A or Michelin-C-
automatic facility where R 18 greater
than or equal to 0.64 i8 in compliance.
(h) Rather than demonstrate
compliance with the provision8 of
160.542(a)(1).(2), or (8) using the
performance test procedures described
in paragraphs (e) and (g) of this section.
an owner or operator of an undem;ead
cementing, sidewall cementing, or
Michelin-B affected facility that U8eS a
vac emission reduction Iystem may
demonstrate compliance by meetins the
equipment design and perfG1'1MDC8
specifications listed in (lHS) bekaw and
by conducting a performance test to
demonstrate compliance with (5) bekaw.
The owner or operator aball conduct thia
performance test of the coo~ device
efficiency (aa apedfied in 111O~}} not
later than 180 day. after iAitial atartup
of the affected facility. Tba
Administrator bas decided t8et ruetiq
the capture system design and
performance specifications. in
conjunction with operatina a 95 perceDt
efficient control device. is an ac:c:eptable
means of demonstrating compliance
with the standard. Therefore. in
accordance with A 6O.8(b). the
Administrator has waived the
requirement for a performance test on
the enclosure (as required by 10.8(a)).
No monthly performance tnts are
req wred.
(1) The cement application and drying
area of the affected facility shall be
contained in an enclosure which meets
the criteria in paragraphs (h) (2), (3). and
(4) of this section;
(2) The drying area shall be enclosed
between the application area and the
water bath or to the extent necessary to
contain all tire components for at leut
30 seconds after cement application.
whichever distance is less;
(3) A minimum face velocity of 100
feet per minute shall be maintained
through each permanent opening into an
enclosure;
(4) The total area of all permanent
openings into the enclosure shall not
exceed the area that would be
necessary to maintain the vac
concentration of the exhaust gal stream
at 25 percent of the lower explosive limit
(LEL) under the following conditicma:
(I) The affected facility ia operating at
maximum solvent WJ&.rate;.
(Ii) The face velocity throlJ8h each
permanent opening is 100 feet per
minute;
(Iii) All temporary OJenings are
closed.
(5) All captnred vue are ducted to a
vac emissiCJ8 eoDtruf device which
achieves at least 95 percent d88truction
or recovery efficiency. To detemdDe the
efficiency (E) of the control device. for
236
the initial performance test. use nluea
of the volumetric flow rate of each of the
gas streams and the VQC content (as
carbon) of each of the gas streams in
and out of the control device by the
following equation:
i Q",c",- f Q.,c.,
E.,-' -, ,_.
i Qboc..
.-.
The control device efficiency shall be
redetermined when directed by the
Administrator or when the owner or
operator elects to operate the control
device at conditions different from the
most recent1teterm.ination of control
device efficiency.
t 60.544 ilol"".." of emI88Ion8lnd
operatIan8.
(a) E8ch OWDer or operator subject to
the provision8 of this subpart and U81I1!1
a vac emission reduction syatem WIth
a thermal incinerator shall continuously
monitor and record the temperature of
the gas in the combustion zone. The
monitoring instrument shull !lave an
accuracy equal to ZO.75 perceet of the
temperature being measured in 'c or
:t:2.5'C. whichever i8 greater.
(h) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart and using
a vac emission reduction system with
a catalytic incinerator shall
continuously monitor and record the
temperature in the gas stream
immediately before and after the
catalyst bed. The monitoring
instruments shall have an accuracy
equal to ::to.75 percent of the
temperature bemg measured in 'C or
~2.5
-------
Federal a...- I Vol. 48. No. 14 I Thursday. January 20. 1983 I Ptql 11l1li R.ulee
2688
, 10.145 A$pO(tIIIg 8ftd I KOf""'"
,..........
(a) Each owner or operator of an
affected facility shall include the
following data in the initial performance
test report required under 160.8(a).
(1) For each affected facility which
compliel with a g/tiJ:e limit speClfied in
160.542(a) without the use of a vac
emission reduction system.
(i) The mass ofVaC used (M.,), the
number of tires processed (To). and the
mass of vac emitted per tire processed
(Nl.
(ii) A description of the method used
to determine M.. and To.
(2) For each affected facility which
uses a vac emission reduction system
with a control device that destroys vac
(e.g.. incinerator) to comply with a g/tire
limit specified in 160.542(a).
(i) The mass of vac used (M.,). the
number of tires processed (To). the mass
of vac emitted per tire processed (N).
the mals of vac used per tire processed
(G), the emission control device
efficiency (E). the capture system
efficiency (Fe). the overall system
emission reducti.on (R). and-the mass of
vac emitted per tiJ:e processed (N).
(ii) A description of the method used
to determine M". T... E. and F co
(3) For each affected facility which
uses a vac emission reduction system
with a control device that destroys VOC
(e.g.. incinerator) to comply with a
percent emission reduction requirement
specified in 160.542(a).
(i) The emission control device
efficiency (E). the capture system
efficiency (Fe). and the overall system
emission reduction (R).
(ii) A description of the method used
to determine E and Fe.
(4) For each affected facility which
uses a VOC emiaaion reduction system
with s control device that recovers VOC
(e.g.. carbon adsorber) to comply with a
S/tire limit specified in 160.542(a).
(i) The mass of vac used (M.,). the
number of tires processed (To). the masa
of vac used per tire processed (G). the
mass of vac recovered 1Mr). the overall
system emission reduction (R). and the
mall of vac emitted per tire processed
(N).
(ii) A description of the method used
to detenmne Me. and T...
(5) For each affected facility which
uses . VOC emiaaion reduction system
with a control device that recovers VOC
(e.lI.. carbon adsorber) to comply with a
percent emi88icm reduction requirement
8pIIdfied in I 8O.M2(a).
(1) The DIU8 of VOC U88d (M.). the
IIIU8 of VOC recovered ŁMr). BDd the
OYerallsyateID emiaion reduction (R).
(Ii) A de8cription of the method U88d
10 determme M.
(b) Each owner or operator of an
undertread cementing. sidewall
cementing, or Michel in-B affected
facility where ~e method in 1 6O.543(h)
has been chosen to demonstrate
compliance shall include in the initial
compliance report a statement
indicating which of the equipment
design and-performance specifications
have been met and identifying ead
which has not been met The inltial
compliance report shall also include the
following data.
(1) Tbe emission control device
efficiency (E). the airflow through all
permanent enclosure openings with all
temporary enclosure openings
unobstructed, the total area of all
permanent enclosure openings. the total
area of all temporary enclosure
openings. the maximum solvent use rate
(kg/hr). the type(s) of vac used. the
lower explosive limit (LEL) for each
vac used, and the length of time each
component is enclosed after application
of cement or spray material.
(2) A description of the method used
to determine E. the system airflow. and
the maximum solvent use rate.
(c) Each owner or operator of an
affected facility shall include the
followiq data. as measured by the
continuous monitoring device(s). in the
initial performance test report.
(1) The avenige combustion
temperature during the test of
incinerator destruction efficiency for
each thermal incinerator.
(2) The average temperature before
and after the catalyst during the test of
incinerator efficiency for each catalytic
incinerator.
(3) The average vac concentration of
the exhaust gas stream from the vac
recovery device during the test of vac
recovery device efficiency for each
undertread cementing. sidewall
cementing. or Michel in-B operation that
uses a VOC emission control device thr '
recovers vac to meet the requirements
of t60.543(h)(5).
(d) Each owner or operator of an
affected facility which uses a thermal
incinerator aha1l maintain at the source.
for a period of at least two years.
records of all 3-hour periods of
operation for which the average
combustion temperature was more than
28"C (serF) below the temperature at
which the destruction efficiency of the
thermal incinerator was last determined.
(e) Each owner or operator of an
affected facility which uae8 a catalytic:
iDciDentor shall maintain at the eoarce.
for a period of at least two years.
recarda of all 3-hour perioda of
operaliGD for wbida the av...
t.......-ature before the catalyst bed is
more tb8D WC below the telDl8atare
237
at which the de8truCtiOIl efficiency of
the catalytic incinerator was last
determined. and all 3-qour periods for
which the average temperature
difference across the catalyst bed is less
than 80 percent of the temperature
difference when the destruction
efficiency of the catalytic incinerator
was last determined.
(f) Each owner or opera to: of an
undertread cementing. sidewall
cementing. or Michelin-B operation
which uses a vac emission control
device that recovers vac to meet the
requirements of 160.543(h)(S) shall
maintain at the lOW"Ce. for a period of at
least two yean. records of all 3-hour
periods of operation for whicl1 the
average VOC com:entration of the
exhaust gas stream from the vac
recovery device exceeds the average
value measured during the most recent
test of the control device.
(g) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisi0D8 of thia subpart shall
maint.1D at the source. for a period of at
least two yeers. recorda of all data and
calcu1aticm8 uaed to determine vac
emiWona from each affected facility. At
affected faciIttie8 where compliance is
achieved tJuoash the I18e of thermal
incineration. each owner or operator
shall maintain at the source. for a period
of at least two years. continuoua records
of the incinerator combustion chamber
temperature. If catalytic incineration is
used. the owner or operator shall
maintain at the source. for a period of at
least two years. continuous records of
the gas temperature. both upstream and
downstream of the incinerator catalyst
bed.
(h) Each owner or operator of an
undertread cementing. sidewall
cementing. or Michelin-B operation that
uses a vac emission control device that
recovers vac to meet the requirements
of t 6O.543(h)(5) shan maintain at the
source. for a period of at least two
years. continuous records of the VOC
concentration of the exhaust gas stream
from the VOC recovery device.
(i) Each owner or operator is
e)(empted from the quarteriy reports
required under t 6O.7(c).
f 80.548 ...r..a.l1IC61Mthoda 8ftd
~
(a) The reference methods in
Appendix A to this part, e)(cept as
provided in I eo.a. shall be used to
r.nndyd performaace testa.
(1) Reference Method 24 for the
determination of the vac content of
cementa or ... tire spray materials. In
the eveDt of di8pute. Reference Method
24 ahall be the refereDC8 method.
-------
~
rd.If'.",. I Vol. 48. No. 14 I Thursday, January 20. 1983 I Proposed Rules
(%) RefeNnce Method Z5 for the
determfDation of the VOC concentration
in the effluent gal in each stack entering
and leaving an emission control device.
The owner or operator shall notify the
Adminittrator 30 days in advance of any
stack test by Reference Method 25. The
following reference methods are to be
uaed In conjunction with Reference
Method 25:
(I) Method 1 for sample and velocity
traV81'18'.
(ii) Method 2 for velocity and
volumetric flow rate.
(ill) Method 3 for gas analysis. and
(iv) Method .. for stack gal moisture.
(b) For Reference Method 24. the
cement or green tire spray sample must
be a I-litre sample collected in a l-litra
container at a point where the sample
will be representative of the material 8S
applied in the affected facility.
(c) For Reference Method 25. the
samplins time for each of three runs
must be at least one hour. The minimum
sample volume must be 0.003 dscm
except that shorter samplins times or
smaller volumes. when necessitated by
proces. variables or other factonl. may
be approved by the Adminiatrator.
(See. 114 of the Clean Air Act u amended (42
U.s.c. 7414))
lPR De&....1441 PIW 1-1'" -...
..... CCIOI -....
238
-------
r .
-- s.
--- -:I
,.,- ~
=== -
L..A aa !
. ..=tI
- -
. ~ ==.......
1-1'
W!!!!!!!!!I!! - ~
s.
s
;;
=r- = --
- - -
- - -
- --
':=
E~
- a
..... =
;;::;;"""" - --.:
-~ -..-
--
--
-
~ : ~
- =
=-. =
. Friday
February 4, 1983
Part III
Environmental
Protection Agency
Waivers From New Source' Performance
Standards; Innovative Technology
Waivers for F~ve Automobile and Ught-
Duty Truck Surface Coating Operations;
Final R':ft
239
-------
5:15'2
.
Fedsral Register I Vol. 48. No. 25 I Friday. February 4.1983 I Rules and Regulations
-
standard are low- VOC content 8Olvent.
borne coatings, add-on control devices
such as incinera tora and carbon
adsorbers. and high efficiency coating
applicationtechtUque&
Trends in Automobile Topcoal$
Since the standard was proposed in
1979. the trend in the domestic
automobile industry has been to develop
and use low- VOC content solvent-borne
topcoats with iDiproved transfer
efficiency. rather than more costly
waterborne coatings, to reduce vac
Plant 1cIca- Dack8t emissions and improve finish quality.
No. Low-VOe content topcoats are
,. GM-WentzW18. .... 1>-82-11 available for production line use. These
2. ~ MicIIIg8n.. . A-82-12 coatings have been demonstrated to be
So GM-OtIofI Town8IIp. 1oIichIpft-- A-82-13 of acceptable quality and appearance
: ~ ~...1~=- ~:: and. when used in combinaticm with
- better transfer efficiency and/or bake
oven emission control systems (Le.,
energy efficient incinerators), will meet
the standard.
Recently, however, a new type of
topcoat called baae coatI clear coat (Bcl
CC) has been developed for automobiles
and light-duty trucks. BC/CC topcoats
consist of a relatively thin layer of
highly pigmented base coat followed by
a thicker layer of clear coat. BC/ce
coatings have a more appealiDs
appearance than single coat topcoats
and also offer improved chemical
resistance and gloss retention. Vehieles
coated with Be/cc topcoats are now
being imported to the United States in
significant quantities by both European
and Japanese manufacturers. Because of
the general appeal and acceptance by
U.s. consumera of vehicles coated with
BC/CC topcoats, U.s. automobile and
light-duty truck manufacturers must
duplicate the performance of this type of
topcoat to be competitive.
The BC/ce coatings that are being
used in foreign plants contain relatively
large quantities of VOC. U U.S.
manufacturers used similar coati.."1g!. the
only possible method of meeting the
existing standards of performance for
automobile and light-duty trm:k su.tf~
coating operations would be to use an
entirely new generation of very
expensive add-on controls to minimize
emissions. Be/Ce topcoats with VOC
content low enough to comply without
such add-on controls are not yet
commercially available. The coatinp
manufacturln& companies are workins
with automobile manufacturers to .
develop lower VOC content Be/CC
topcoats. The automobile manufacturerS
and equipment vendors are developing
efficient spray coating methods for theae
coatinp. The results of this intensive
Industry development program will
ultimately permit the automobile
ENYIAONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
(A>FRL-2242-4]
W3lvers From New Source
Perfonnanc:e StandardS; Innovative
Technofogy Waivers for FIve
Automobile and Ught.cuty Truck
Surface CoatIng Operations
AQEHCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).. . -
l\~ON: Notice of final rulemaking.
SUMMARY: On August 6. 1982 (47 FR
34342), the Environmental Protection
Agency pro;')oaed to grant innovative
technology waivers. pursuant to Section
1110) of the Clean Air Act, as amended
(the Act). 42 U.S.c.. 74Um, for topcoat
operations at five automobile and light-
duty truck assembly plant& This action
grants those waivers. Thase waivera
pro vide an opportunity to demonstrate
tr:e capability of base coat/eleru coat
(BC/CC) topcoat coating systems to
achi2ve greater VOC (volatile organic
chemicals) emission reductions than
required by the exiating standards at
lower costs. -
~ DATE February 4,1983.
Under Section 3O'l(b )(1) of the Clean
Air Act. judicial review of these waivene
is available only by the filing of
petitions for review in the U.S. Court of
Appeala for the District of Columbia.
Circuit within 60 daya of today's
pllblicatiOIL The issuance of these
waiwn is based on determinations of.
nationwide scope and effect. Under
Section 3O'l(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act,
tl:e requirements that are the subiect of
today'. notice may not be challenged
Mer in civil or criminal proceedinp
brought by EPA to enforce these
requirement&
ADDRESSES: Under Section 307(d)(2), 42
U.S.C. 7607(d)(Z), the Administrator is
required to establish two separate
rulemaking dockets for each rule thet
wDllld apply only within the boundaries
of one State. One copy of each docket is
located in Washington, D.C. at ŁPA'a
Central Docket Section, West Tower
Lobby, Gallery 1. 40t M Street, S.W. A
second copy of each docket is located at
the EPA Regional Office for the State
where the plant is located. The Regional
Office locations are listed below:
. For GM's Wentzville, Miaaouri plant:
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region vn. Mr. Charles Whitmore,
Docket number (See Table 1), 342 East
11th Street, Kanau City, Missouri
. For GM's Detroit..Michigan. plant,
GM'a Orion Township, Mlcbigan
plant, andlor Honda's Marysville.
Ohio plant: Environmental Protection
Agency, Region V, Mr. Gary
Gulezman, Docket Numbers (See-
Table 1), 230 South Dearborn Street,
Chicago, lllinois
. For Nissan's Smyrna, Tennessee,
plant: Environmental Protection
Agency. Region IV. Mr. Brian Beela,
. Docket Number (See Table 1), 345 .
Courtland Street, N.E., Atlanta,
Georgia -
TABU: 1.-DocKET NuMBERS.
The dockets may be inspected at the
listed addresses between 8 a.m. and.
p.rn. on weekdays. A reasonable fee
may be charged for copying.
FOR FURT!oIER INFORMATION COfWTAC'r.
Mr. Fred Porter. Standards Development
Branch, Emission Standards and
Engineering Division (MD-13), U.s.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina
Z77'11. telephone number (919) 541-5578.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Backgrauud
Current Regulations.
On October 5, 1979, pursuant to
Section Ul of the Clean Air Act;
standarda of performance were -
proposed to limit emissions of voi'ati1e .
organic compounds (VOC) from new,
modified, and reconstructed automobile
and light-duty truck surface coating
operations (44 FR 57792). Final
8tandards were published in the Federal
Resister on December 24, 1980 (45 FR.
85410).
Standards of performance under
Section 111 are established at levels that
tenect best demonstrated technology
(BDT). For automobile and light-duty
truck topcoat operations, BDT was
determined to be the use of low-VOC
content waterborne coatings applied
with the best demonstrated air atomized
spray techniques. The standard of 1.47
kg voe per liter of applied coating
solids for topcoat operations was baaed
on the use of this coating system at three
u.s. plants. The standard does not,
however. require use of waterborne
coatings. Any coating system capable of
reducing voe emisaions to 1.47 kg voe
per liter of applied coating solids may be
used. Other methods which could be
!1Sed independently or in various
combinations to achieve the topcoat
240
-------
~
Federal Register I Vol. 48,: No. 25 I Friday, February 4, 1983 I Rules and Regulations
5453
co:npanin to meet the topcoat standard
and still apply BC/CC coatings to
automobile!! in sufficient number to
meet market demand without having to
use expenaive add-on control..
Waiver lU1qussts
General Motors Corporation (GM)
8ubmitted a request an October 30, 1981,
for iJmovative technology waivers under
Section U1(jJ of the Clean AU Act for
the topcoat operations at three
automobile plant8 now under
constradioo. GM planned to initiate
producticm in taD'aDd 19IN at these
pl2Dts. GM claimed that they needed to
use BC/CC IDpcoata on all of the cars
p~ at tbe8e planta 80 that they
could caarpete withJmportecI cars. The
~tio'I of oven controla. use of the
low8Ia VOC c:antent w;;JCC coating.
and die .. of the best control
~tbm ayatem available to GM
waaId haw ruulted in BC/CC topcoat
VOC emiuicms of 3.Z kg VOC per liter
of appliad caat:iD8 saIida at each of the-
plallt& -
Handa submitted a request on
November 19, 1981,Jar an ianovative
technology waiver UDder Section 11(0)
o( the Clean AJr Act far the topcoat
GiJ8l&tian lit an automobile plant that i8
beiDa Imilt in Mu,svilIe, Ohio. The
plaut... ecb~ to begiD produr:tion
by die.. af 198:. Haada would like to
CGIItJllll8t of their cars with BC/CC
CI8IIIIIa- that thep em match the
quaIitJ of tbIrir cars pmdm:ed in Japan
aud ..,.W to tII8 us. the uae af the
lowelt VOCCl8lteDt BC/CC caatiD& &Dd
the bBt caaIfD8 applicatioD system "
BVail8lda tD Hcmda wouJci have resulted
In HC/a: tupcaat emissiCJ118 of 3.1 kg of
VOC 18' liter of applied coatiq salida.
N'IUIID Motor Mamd'acturina
Company (NisaaD) submitted a request
on March 1Z. 198Z. for an innovative
teclmaloSJ wai'nr under Section U1m
01 the Oean Air Act for the topcoat
opcqtiua at a1faht-duty track plant that
ia b8iat~~b1 Smyma.
T.,,- .... The plat was scheduled to
begiD~inAqust1983. N'-
wouJd lib to coat their lisht-dut)" tmcb
with BC/CC tapcaat coatiDp 10 that
they can match the" quality of their light-
duty trucks pradw:ed in Japan &Dd
exported to the U.s. The U88 of the
lowat VOC conteDt BC/CC coatiq, th8
application of ovm VOC c:antraI.. and
the IDe of the bat coatiq application
system uaiJable to N'1UaD would have
rtsuIt8d ill BC!CC topcoat VOC
-' '?II af %.3. of VOCper liter of
...... Cl8lbla18lids.
no ..-A. . at SaIitm ZU(j)
htiaa mm al die Clan Air Act
1eIa!arth.. . lo".fwtbai88aec8crf
waivers for the development of
innovative technology. In the 1977
Amendments to the Clean AU Act,
Congress added this provision to
encourage the use of innovative
"technological systems of continuous
emission reduction" for the control of air
pollutants. Their intent in doing so was
to provide a statutory incentive for the
improvement of emission control
technology and for reducing costs, .
environmental impacts, and energy
usage of such technology.
Under Section 111m of the Act, upon
request by the owner or operator of a
new source and with the consent oi the
Governor of the State in which the
source is located, the Administrator is
authorized to grant a waiver from the
requirements of Section 111 for a limited
time period provided certain statutory
prerequisites are satisfied. The
Administrator must determine that:
a. The proposed innovative system
has not been adequately demonstrated;
b. The proposed innovative system
will operate effectively and there is
substantial likelihood that the system
will achieve greater continuOUI emission
reduction than otherwise required or
achieve an equivalent emission
reduction at lower cost in terms of
energy, ecoaqmic, or nonair quality
environYn..ntel impact;
c. The owner ar operator or the
proposed system has demonstrated to
the Administrator's satisfaction that the
system will not cause or contribute an
unreasonable risk to public health,
welfare. or safety; and
d. The proposed waiver for the
specific innovative technological system
is not in excess of the number of
waivers aeceaary to ascertain whether
ar not such IJllteM will achieve the
conditicma set forth in "b" aud Iffi'
immediately above.
Additioaally, Section 111(J1(1)(B) of
the Act require8 an innovative
tecbnolomr waiver to be granted on such
teIms aud conditions duriDg the waiYer
period as the Administrator detemUnea
nec:essary:
a. To ensure emis&icms from the
source will not prevent attainment and
maintenam:e of any national ambient air
. quality staDdarda. and
b. To ensure proper functioniq of the
innovative technological system.
Proposed Wainnr
The ApDcy reviewed the waiver
reqaats with reprd to the reqairemeuts
under Section U10) of the Act and
~ that these requests met the
requirements of the Act.. 'Ihefd..... the
Administrator propaeetl8D Aas-t ..
198Z. to snmt inDaYative ~"8.J
waivers to fiYe auh._m tbiIe aad tight-
241
duty truck plants subject to the
concurrence of the Governors of the
States where thP. plants are located.
Public participation
The waivers were proposed and
published in the Federal Rexister OD
August 6, 1982 (47 FR 34342). The
preamble to the proposed waivers
discussed in detail information relating
to BC/CC systems and the requirements
of waivers under Section 111m of the
Clean Air Act. Public comments were
Bolicited at the time of proposal and
interested persons were given the
opportunity to request a public hearing
on each of the waivers. No public
hearings were requested.
Comment letters were received from
the automobile indWitry, State air .
pollution control agencies. State.
Governors, and a regional commerce
association. The comments in these
letters have been carefully COI15idered
and where determined to be appropriate
by the Administrator, changes have
been made to the proposed waivers.
This preamble contains a summary of
these comments and the Agency's
re5ponses which serves sa a basis lar
the revision made to the waivers
between propoaal and promulgation.
Sil"iRcaat Comments
General
One commenter, Ford Motor
Company, argued that the standards
should be revised by treating topcoat
operations using BC/CC lIS a separate
class of sources subject tG a more
lenient (or no) emiasion limit. This
comment. in effect. really corcems the
validity of the stmdards rather than the
appropri:atenes8 of. the waivers. The
topcoat standards of performance reflect
the best demoaatrated teclmo!cgy for
topcoat OP"'8"" as required by
Section 1t1(a)ft) af the Act. The
standards D8d IIIJt be nrrised merely
because SGUrCI8 a.aen are developing
alternative ~~ techniques. some
of which. like BC/cc. promise to lower
tM cost of ~ and improve
product qualitJ.
Two comm....~ GM and Honda.
requested that the waivers be exteaded
to allow tbe use of aU BC/CC topcoats
and not just metallic BC/CC topcoats.
1'I1e COI114o..""'" pointed out that since
the initial.....requats went
submitted. .. -- far denloping n0n-
metallic BC/a;; IDpcoat coatinp to meet
fareip ~hu emersed. When
the8 ..-..".. - "~.d..~ they will
be.we tDlII88I tfamAng tnpcoat
standaJd of ~L-...nc;. at a lower cost
and result in a C8tmg that has
-------
54~
IJ
r'edet11l Register I Vol. 4<3. No. 25 I Friday. February 4. 1983 I Rules and Regula.tions
-
improved chemical resistance and gloss
retention. The commenters pointed out
that tite advantages of the development
of BeIGe topcoats and the level of vac
emissions are identical for both the non-
metallic and the metallic BC/CC topcoat
coatulgs. The Agency hall evaluated this
comment and found that BC/CC for non-
mt!tallic coatings meets all of the
requirements of Section 1110) of the Act.
Therefore. the waivers have been
revised to apply to all BC/CC topcoat
coatings.
One commenter pointed out that the
clear coat portion of the Be/GC coatin8
may be purposely tinted in some cases
and may not be completely clear. The
commenter wanted this type of clear
coat to also be covered by the waiver
provisions. The Agency has reviewed
this comment and finds that the
innovative features of the technology
will not chaDge as a result of the tinting
of the clear coat and agrees that tinted
clear coats are covered by the waiver
provisions. No definition wu-added nor
were changes made to the waivers as a
result of this comment.
GM Waivers
In their initial waiver request. GM had
planned to start-up their three plants
tlsing a topcoat system composed of a ZO
volume percent solida base coat and a
42 volume percent solids clear coat (i.e.,
a 20/42 BG/Ce coating). GM submitted
11 comment during the comment period
which stated that they could be able to
start-up with a 32/44 BC/GC coating
which had been in development testing
but which they now feel will be
available by the second quarter of 1983.
the date that the first plant will be
started up. The waivers for these three
GM plants. therefore. have been revised
to limit VOG emissions from BG/CC
t,:>pcoat coatings to 1.9 kg VOG/liter of
applied coating solids- rather than the
proposed emission limit of 3.2 kg VOGI
liter of applied coating solids. This
change will reduce the annual increase
in VOC emissions as a result of the
waivers from each GM plant by
approximately 850 tons per year.
Summary of the Fioal Waivers
General Motors
Three identical waivers are granted to
GM for automobile assembly plants
being built in Detroit, Michigan, Orion
Township. Michigan. and Wentzville.
Miaaouri. The Orion Township and
Wentzville plants are scheduled to start
production in mid 1983 with the start-up
of the Detroit plant planned in mid 1984.
The waivers allow VOC emissions from
the portion of ilie topcoat operations
which use BC/CC-coatinga of 1.9 kg of
vac per liter of applied coating solids.
The waivers are effective from plant
start-up to December 31. 1986.
Honda
A waiver is granted to Honda for an
automobile assembly plant being built in
Marysville, Ohio. That plant is
scheduled to start production in late
1982. The waiver allows VOC emissions
from the portion of the to~coat
operations which use BC/CC coatings of
3.1 kg VOC/liter of applied coating
solids. The waiver is effective from
plant start-up to December 31, 1986-
Nissan
A waiver is granted to Nissan for a
light-duty truck assembly plant being.
built in Smyrna. Tennessee. That plant
is now scheduled to begin production in
late 1982. The waiver allows VOC
emissions from the portio.n of the
topcoat operations which uses Be/CC
coatings of 2.3 kg VOC/liter of applied
coating solids. The waiver is effective
from planl start-up to December 31.
1986.
Governors' Concurrences
Honorable James A. Rhodes,
Governor of the State of Ohio.
Honorable Lamar Alexander. Governor
of the Stale of Tennessee. Honorable Kit
Bond., Governor of the State of Missouri,
and Honorable William Milliken.
Governor of the State of Michigan. have
concurred in the innovative technology
waivers as set forth herein under
Section 111(j)(1)(A) of the Act, 4Z U.s.c.
7411(j)(1)(A). Such concurrences are a
prerequisite for the granting of
innovative technology waivers by the
Administrator under Section 111(j) of
the Act. The waivers as set forth herein
are hereby granted.
Miscellaneous
In accordance with Section 111 of the
Act, publication of these final waivers
was preceded by consultation with -
Federal departments and agencies.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980
(pI. 9&-511) requires EP A to submit to
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) certain public reporting I
recordkeeping requirements before
proposaL This rulemaking does not
involve a "collection of information" a.
defined in the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Therefore. the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act applicable to
collection of information do not apply to
this rulemaking.
The Administrator certifies that a
regulatory flexibility analysis under 5
U.S.C.601 et seq. is not required for this
rulemaking because the rulemaking
would 110t ha ve a significant impact on a
242
substantial number of small entitie,. The
rulemaking would not impose any new
requirements and therefore no
additional costs would be imposed. It is,
therefore. cla3sified as nonmajor under
Executive Order 12291.
List of Subjectl in 40 GFR Part 60
Air pollution controL Aluminum.
J'.nunonium sulfate plants, Cement
industry. Coal. Copper. Electric power
plants, Glass and glass producb, Grains,
Intergovernmental relations. Iron. Lead,
Metals. Motor vehicles, Nitric acid
plants, Paper and paper producU
industry. Petroleum, Phosphate, Sewage
disposal. Steel. Sulfuric acid plants,
Waste treatment, Disposal and Zinc.
Dated: January 28, 1983.
Anne M. Gorsuch,
Administrator.
PART6~STANDARDSOF
PERfORMANCE FOR NEW
STATIONARY SOURCES
Title 40 Part 50. Subpart MM of the
Code of Pederal Regulations it amended
by adding a new t 60.398 as set forth
below: .
160.::198 InnoY8t1Y8 technology WI'''et'8
(a) General Motors Corporation,
Wentzrille, Missouri, automobile
assc'mbly plant. (l} Pursuant to Section
111m of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.c.
74110). each topcoat operation at
General Motors Corporation automobile
assembly plant located in Wentzville,
Missouri. shall comply with the
following. conditions:
(i) The General Motors Corporation
shall obtain the necessary permits as
required by Section 173 of the Clean Air
Act, as amended August 1977. to operate
the Wentzville assembly planl
(ii) Commencing on February 4. t983,
and continuing to December 31. 1988. or
until the base coat/clea:r coat topcoat
system that can achieve the standard
specified in 40 CFR 6O.392(c) (December
24. 1980) is demonstrated to the
Administrator's satisfaction the General
Motors Corporation shall limit the
discharge of vac emissions to the
atmosphere from each topcoat operation
at the Wentzville, Missouri, assembly
plant, to either:
(A) 1.9 kilograms of VOC per liter of
applied coating solids from base coati
clear coal topcoats. and 1.41ki1ograms
of VOC per liter of applied caating
solids from all other topcoat caatings; or
(8) 1.47 kilograms of VOC per liter of
applied coatil'.g solids from all topcoat
coatings.
(iii) Commencing on the day after the
expiration of the- period described in
-------
Federal Register I VoL 48, No. 25 I Friday, February 4. 1983 I Rules and RegulatioIl8
S455
- ----
paragraph (a}f.1){ii) of uu. llection, and
continuing thereafter. emia8iolU of VQC
from each topcoat operations shall not
exceed 1.47 kilograma of VOC per litei'
of applied coating solids 8.1 specified in
40 CFR 6O.392(c) (December 24. 1980).
(iv) Each topcoat operation shall
comply with the provisions of I 60.393.
g 60.394, I 60.395, ! 60.396, and I 60.397.
SFJparate calcula!:iona shall be made for
base coat/c1eucoat coatings and all
other topcoat coatings when necessary
to demonstrate compliance with the
emission limits in 160.398(a)(1) (ii)(A).
(v) A technology development report
shall be sent to EPA Region vn. 324 East
11th Street. Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
postmarked before 60 days after the
promulgation of thia waiver and
annually thereafter while this waiver is
in effect The technology development
report shall summarize the base coat/
clear coat development work including
the results of exposure and endurance
tests of the various coatmga beiDg
evaluated. The report shall include an
updated schedule of attainment of 40
CFR 6O.392(c) (December 24. 1980) based
on the most current information.
(2) This waiver shall be a Federally
promulgated standard of performance.
As such. it shall be unlawful for General
Motors Corporation to operate a topcoat
oP!!ration in violation of the
requirements established in this waiver.
Violation of the terms and conditions of
this waiver shall subject the General
Motors Corporation to enforcement
under Section 113 (b) ,..:J.d (c). 42 U.S.c.
7412 (b) and (c), and Section 120, 42
U.S.C. 7420, of the Act as well as
possible citizen enforcement under
Section 304 of the Act. 42 U.S.c. 7604.
(b) General Motors Corporation.
Detroit, Michigan. Automobile
Assembly plant (1) Pursuant to Section
1110) of the Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.c.
7411(j), each topcoat operation at
General Motors Corporation's
automobile assembly plant located in
Detroit. Michigan, shall comply with the
fol;owing conditions:
(i)"The General Motors Corporation
shall obtain the necessary permits as
required by Section 173 of the Clean Air
Act. as amended August 1977, to operate
t~e Detroit assembly plant.
(il) Commencing on February 4. 1983.
and continuing to December 31. 1986. or
until the base coat/clear coat topcoat
system that can achieve the standard
specified in 40 CFR 6O.392(c) (December
24, 1980). is demonstrated to the
Administrator's satisfaction, the General
Motors Corporation shall limit the -
discharge of VOC emissions to the
atmosphere from each topcoat operation
at the Detroit. Mic:hiaan. assembly plant.
to either:
(A) 1.9 kiIograma of VOC per liter of
applied coating solids from base coati
clelU' cost topcoats, and 1.47 kilograms
of VOC per liter of applied coating
solids from all other topcoat coatings; or
(B) 1.47 kilogram.a of VOC per liter of
applied coating solida from all topcoat
coatings.
(ill) Commencing on the day after the
expiration of the period describ~ in (ii)
above. and continuing thereafter.
e.missiona of VOC from each topcoat
operation shall not exceed 1.41
kilograms of VOC per liter of applied
coating solids as specified in 40 CFR
5O.392(c) (December 24.1980).
(iv) Each tDpcoat operation shall
comply with the provisions of t 60.393.
! 60.394. t 6O.39s.t 60.396, and t 60.397.
Separate calculations shall be made for
base coat/ clear coat coatings and all
other topcoat coatings when necessary
to demonstrate compliance with the
emission limits in t 6O.398(b)(1)(ii)(A).
(v) A teclmology development report
shall be sent to EPA Region V, 230 South
Dearborn Street, Chicago. lliinois 60604,
postmarked before 60 days after the
promulgation of this waiver and
annually thereafter while this waiver is
in effect. Tbe technology development
report shall summarize the base coat/
clear coat development work including
the results of exposure and endurance
tests of the various coatings being
evaluated. Tbe report shall include an
updated schedule of attainment of 40
CFR 6O.392(c) (December 24.1980) based
on the most current information.
(2) This waiver shall be a Federally
promulgated standard of performance.
As such. it shall be unlawful for General
Motors Corporation to operate a topcoat
operation in violation of the
requirements established in this waiver.
Violation of the terms and conditions of
this waiver shall subject the General
Motors Corpora tion to enforcement
under Section 113 (b) and (c), 4~ U.S.C.
7412(bJ and (c). and Section ~.:..-. "'-
U.S.c. 7420. of the Act as well as
possible citizen enforcement under
Section 304 of the Act. 42 U.S.C. 7604.
(c) General Motors Corporation.
Orion Township. Michigan, automobile
assembly plant (1) Pursuant to Section
1110) of the Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.C.
74110), each topcoat operation at
General Motors Corporation automobile
assembly plant located in Orion
Township, Michigan, shall comply with
the following conditions:
(i) The General Motors Corporation
shall obtain the necessary permits as .
required by Section 173 of the Clean Air
Act, as amended August 1977. to operate
the Orion Township assembly plant.
(ii) Commencing on February 4, 1983.
and continuing to December 31. 1986, or
243
until the base coat/claar coat topcoat
system that can aehie,. the standard
specified in 40 CFR 60.39Z{.::) (December
24, 1980) 18 demonstrated to the
Adminiittrator's satisfaction. the General
Motors Corporation shall limit the
discharge of VOC emissions to the
atmosphere from each topcoat operatio.Q
at the Orion Township, Michigan.
assembly plant, to either.
(A) 1.9 kilograma of vac per Ii ter of
applied coating solids from base coatI
clear coat topcoats, and 1.47 kilograms
of VOC per liter-of applied coating
solids from all other topcoat coatings; eX'
(B) 1.47 kilograms of VOC per li ter of
applied coating solids from all topcoat
coatingll.
(Iii) Commencing on the day after the
expiration of the period described in
parapph (c)(l)(ii) of this section and
continuing thereafter, emissions of VOC
from each topcoat operation shall Dot
exceed 1.47 kilograms of VOC per liter
of applied coat1ng solids as specified in
40 CFR 6O.392(c) (December 24, 1913O).
(iv) Each topcoat operation shall
comply with the provisions of I 60.393,
t 60.394. I 60.395, I 60.396. and t 60.397.
Separate calculations shall be made for
base coat/clear coat coatings and all
other topcoat coatmgs when necessary
to demonstrate compliance with the
emission limits in t 6O.398(c)(l) (il)(A).
(v) A technology development report
shall be sent to EPA Region V. 230 South
Dearborn Street, Chicago.lllinois 60604.
post:marited before 60 days after the
promulgation of this waiver and
annually thereafter while this waiver is
in effecL The technology development #
report shall summarize the base coat/
clear coat development work including
the results of exposure and endurance
tests of the various coatings being
evaluated. The report shall include an
updated schedule of attainment of 40
CFR 6O.392(c) (December 24.1980) based
on the most current information.
(2) This waiver shall be a Federally
promulgated standard of performance.
As such, it shall be unlawful for General
Motors Corporation to operate a topcoat
operation in violation of the
requirements established in this waiver.
Violation of the terms and conditions of
this waiver shall subject the General
Motors Corporation to enforcement
under Section 113 (b) and (c). 42 U.S.c.
7412 (b) and (c), and Section 120,42
U.S.C. 7420, of tPe Act as well as
possible citizen enforcement t1nder
Section 304 of the Act, 42 U.S.c. 7604.
(d) Honda of America Manufacturing.
Incorporated {Honda}, Marysville, Ohio.
automobI1e assembly plant. (1) Pursuant
to Section 111(j) of the Clean Air Act, 42
U.S.C. 74110). each topcoat operation at
-------
::4;';0
-
}O.edend Register I -VoL 48, No. 25 I Friday, Febroary 4, 1983 I RulP.9 and R~atians
-:::!!!!!!! !
HiJ'\da's automobile 89sembly plant
lOCI! ~eci in ~arysville, Ohio. shall
c~,-:pl," w1U the fcllowingconditions:
(~) Honda shall obtain the necessary
ppcmits 89 required by Section 173 of the
Cl~an Air Act. as amended August 1977,
t.J operate the Marysville 8ssembly
plant.
(!i) Commencing on February.., 1983,
End continuing for 4 years or to
C~cember 31. 198tt, whichever is sooner,
or \Ultil the base coat/clear coat topcoat
~J3tem t:lat can achieve the standard
s;Jectfied in 40 CFR 6O.392(c) (December
24, 19SO) is demonstrated to the
Administrator's satisfaction. Honda
shall limit the discharge of VOC
emissions to the atmosphere from each
topcoat operation at Mary.ville, Ohio.
8.S:lembiy plant. to either:
(A) 3.1 kilograms of VOC per liter of
applied coating solids &om base caatl
clear coat topcoats, and 1.41 kilograms
of VOC per liter of spplied coatins
solids from all other topcoat coatings: or
(3) 1.47 kilograms of VOC per liter of
applied coating solids fro!Z1 all topcoat
coatin~
(ill) Commencing on the day after the
expiration of the period described in
~ar3gr8ph (c!J(1)(ii) of this section and
continuin8 thereafter. emissions of VOC
from each topcoat operation shall not
ext;eed 1.47 kilograms of VOC per liter
of applied coatins solids aa specified in
40 CFR 6O.392(c} (December 24. 1980).
(iv) Each topcaat op'!!ation shall
comply with the provisions of t 60.393-
100.394. A 60.395, I 00.396, and ~ 60.397.
Sepantr: calculations shall be made for
ba3e ccrat/clear coat crat:iqs and all
ollie!" topr.oat coatings when necessary
to demomtrate compliance with the
emission limits in 160.3S8(d)(1)(iiJ(A}.
(v) A technology development report
shall be sent to EPA Region V, 230 South
Dearborn Street, Chicago. Illinois ooeo4,
postmarked before 60 days lifter dIP
promulgation of this waNer and
annually thereafter while this waiver ia
in effect. The tecbnology development
report shall summarize the base coati
clear coat development work including
the results of exposure and endurance
tests of the various coatings being
evaluated. The report shall include an
updatedschecruueofattaUunentof4O
CFR 6O.392(c) (December Z4. 1980) based
on the most current information.
(2) This waiver shall be- a Federally
promulgated standard of performance.
As such, it shall be unlawful for Honda
to operate a t~pcoat operation in
violation of the requirements
established in this waiver. Violation of
the terms and conditioIUI of this waiver
shaU subject Honda to enforcement
under Section 113(b) and (c). 4Z U.S.c.
7412(b} and (c), and Section 120. 42
U.s.c. 7420. of the Act as well as
possible citizen enforcement under
Section 304 of the Act, 4Z U.S.c. 7604.
(e) Nissan Motor Manufacturing
Corporation. U.S.A. (Nissan). Smyrna.
Tennessee, light-duty truck O8IIembly
plant. (1) Pursuant to Section 111(j) of
the Clean Air Act, 4Z U.s.C. 7411U); each
topcoat operation at Nisaan's light-duty
truck assembly plant located in Smyrna,
Tennessee. shall comply with the-
following conditions:
(i) Nissan shall obtain the necessary
permits sa required by Sectian 173 of the
244
Clean Air Act, 88 ame.nded Au,uat 1977,
to operate the Smyrna assembly plant.
(ii) Commencing on February 4, 1983,
IIDd continuing for 4 years or to
December 31, 1986. whichever is sooner,
or until the base coat/clear coat topcoat
system that can achieve the st!!I1dard
specified in 40 CFR 6O.392{c) (December
24, 19eo). is demonstrated to the
Administrator's satisfacticm, N"19S8D
shall limit the discharge of VOC
emissions to the atnT~ from each
topcoat operation at the Smyma.
Tennessee, assembly plat, to either:
(A) 2.3 kilograms of VOC per liter of
appUed coatins solids from base coat/
clear coat topcoats, and 1.47 kiloarams
of VOC per liter of applied coatiq
solids from all other topcoat caatiDgl; or
(BJ 1.47 kilograms of VOC P8F liter of .
applied coaq solida from all topcoat
coatings.
(ii11 c"mm""""'lJ aD the day after the
expiration of the period described in
paragraph (e){1)(ii) of thi8 sectiGu and
continuing thereafter. emissicma of voc
from each topcoat operatimr shall not
exceed 1.47 kilograms of VOC per liter
of applied coating solids as apecffied in
40 CPR 6O..392(cJ (December 24.1980).
Each topcoat operation shall comply
with the prcvisiona of t 60.393, t 6O.39f,
I 60.:195. 160.398, and I S397. ~..
calculations shall be made.....
coat/clear coat coatillp8llllaD atI8r
topcoat coatinp when. ... J fa
demonstrate c:ompIiaam wfIh tire
mlti...i.,.. limits in i eo.3!!IIII(eItJ
[PI' Da&-fIW~"'"
a&JIIIJ c:aD8 - . .
-------
-
-
-
-
~
- --
- --
= === =
~:
- -
- -
---- - --.
!. E~ ~
-
-
---
- -
---
:=: -=-_'5 -
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
:~
--- - """8iiiiii
~~
""'""=
.;
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
=
..=
-
--
--
- ===-
-
-
-- =
- -
- - _.=-
~;;
E
=
Thursday
August 18, 1983
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources; Bulk Gasoline
Terminals
245
-------
37578
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 161 / Thursday. August 18. 1983./ Rules and Regulations
.
:ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
(Ao-FAL-22W)
Standarc18 of Performance for New
Stationary Sources; Bulk Gasoline
Terminals
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: Standards of performance for
b~,ilk gasoline terminals were proposed
in the Federal Register on December 17.
1980 (45 FR 83126). This action
promulgates standards of performance
for bulk gasoline terminals. These
standards implement Section 111 of the
Clear Air Act and are based on the
Administrator's determination that
petroleum transportation and marketing
cause. or contribute significantly to. air
pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare. The intended effect of these
standards is to require all new,
modified. and reconstructed facilities at
bulk gasoline terminals to control
emissions to the level achievable
through use of the best demonstra ted
system of continuous emission
reduction. considering costs, nonair
quality health. and environmental and
energy impacts.
'EFFECTIVE DATE: August 18. 1983.
Under Section 307(b}(1) of the Clean
Air Act. Judicial review of this new
source performance standard is
a\'ailable only by the filing of 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 rule. Under Section 307(b)(2) of the
Clean Air Act. the requirements that are
the subject of today's notice may not be
challenged later in civil or criminal
proceedings brought by EPA to enforce
these requirements.
ADDRESSES:
8aclcground Information Document.
The background information document
(BID. Volume II) for the promulgated
standards may be obtained from the
U.S. EPA Library (MD-35). Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
telephone number (919) 541-2777. Please
refer to "Bulk Gasoline Terminals-
Background Information for
Promulgated Standard," EPA-450/3-80-
038b. BID. Volume II. contains (1) a
summary of all the public comments
made on the proposed standards and the
Administrator's response to the
comments, (2) a summary of the changes
made to the standards since proposaL
and (3) the final environmental impact
statement which summarizes the
impacts of the standards.
Docket. Docket No. A-7~2.
containing information considered by
EPA in developing the promulgated
standards. in available for public.
inspection and copying between 8:00
a.m. and 4:00 p.m.. Monday through .
Friday. at EPA's Central Docket Section.
West Tower Lobby, Gallery 1.
Waterside Mall. 401 M Street. SW..
Washington. D.C. 20460. A reasonable
fee may be charged for copying.
'0" FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For information concerning the
background information supporting the
promulgated standards contact Mr.
James F. Durham, Chemicals, and
Petroleum Branch, Emission Standards
and Engineering Division (MD-13), U.S,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711. telephone number (919) 541-5671.
For futher information concerning the
promulgated standards contact Mr.
Gilbert H. Wood. Standards
Development Branch, Emissions
Standards and Engineering Division
(MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park. North
Carolina 27711. Telephone number (919)
541-55i8.
SUPPUMENTARY INFORMATION:
Summary of Promulgated Standards
Standards of performance for new
sources established under Section 111 of
the Clean Air Act reflect:
. . . application of the best technological
system of continuou. emi..ion reduction
which (taking into con.ideration the cOlt of
achievill8 .uch emission reduction. and any
nonair quality health and environmental
impact and energy requirements) the
Admini.trator detenninee ha. been
adequately demon.trated [Section 111(aJ(lJJ.
For convenience. this will be referred
to as "best demonstrated technology" or
"BDT."
The promulgated standards of
performance limit volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions from each
affected facility on which construction,
modification. or reconstruction
commenced after December 17, 1980
(after August 18.1983, for
reconstructions necessitated by State or
local regulations). The affected facility
is the total of all the loading racks at 11
bulk gasoline terminal which deliver
either gasoline into any delivery tank
truck or some other liquid product into
trucks which have loaded gasoline on
the immediately previous load.
The promulgated standards require
the installation of vapor collection
equipment at the terminal to collect total
246
organic compounds vapors displaced
from gasoline tank trucks during product
loading. The standards limit emissions
from the collection system to 35
milligrams of total organic compounds
per liter of gasoline loaded. unless the
facility has an existing vapor processing
system (construction or refurbishment
commenced before December 11,1980).
In this latter case, the standards limit
emissions from the vapor collection
system to 80 mg/liter.
The Agency has concluded that it is
quite costly in light of the resulting
emission reduction for an owner whose
existing facility becomes subject to
NSPS (e.g" through modification or
reconstruction) to meet 35 mg/liter when
the facility already has a system
capable of meeting 60 mg/liter.
To control tank truck leakage
emissions during loading. the
promulgated standards require that
loadings be made only into gasoline
tank trucks tested for vapor tightness.
The terminal owner or operator is
required to obtain the identification
number and test documentation for each
gasoline tank truck loading at the
facility. In accordance with Section
111(h}(3) of the Clean Air Act. the
Administrator may approve alternative
procedures that assure that loading will
be limited to vapor-tight trucks,
These standards are based on the use
of carbon adsorption and thermal
oxidation type vapor processors for the
35 mg/liter limit. which represent the
best demonstrated technology. Test data
show the ability of these systems of
continuous emission reduction to
achieve the 35 mg/liter emission limit of
the standards of performance. Although
only some of the refrigeration s)'stems
tested met 35 mg/liter (all the systems
tested were designed to meet the Statt!
implementation plan (SIP) limit of eo
lng/liter), test data and engineering
calculations also support the ability of
refrigeration systems to achieve the 35
mg/liter emission limit of the standards,
In addition. the major manufacturer has
stated that all currently manufactured
refrigeration systems can be specified to
operate at 35 mg/liter. In selecting these
standards. the Agency considered costs.
nonair quality health and environmental
impacts. and energy requirements,
The proposed section on continuous
monitoring of operations. 160.504. bas
been reserved pending development of
monitor performance specifications.
MonOlly system 1eak inspections are
required under I 6O.502(j). but
submission of leak inspection records i.
not required in the final regulation.
However, under 160.505(c). these
records are required to be kept at the
-------
Feeeral Register I Vol. 48. No. 161 I Thw'Sday, August 18. 1983 I Rules and Regulations
37579
terminal for at least 2 years. The
requirement for quarterly reports of
excess emissions under t 6O.7(c} of the
General Provisions is deleted under
t 6O.505(e).
SUIIIDI81'Y of Major Cbaape Since
PIopo881
Several changes of varying
importance have been made to the
standards since proposal Most of the
changes were made in response to
tomments. but some of them were made
for the sake of clarity or consistency.
One of the most significant of the
changes dealt with proposed t 6O.502(d),
which required loadings of gasoline tank
trucks to be restricted to vapor-tight
tanks only. as evidenced by an annual
vapor tightness test. Most of the
comments on this requirement
concerned the terminal operator's
apparent liability for the condition of
tank trucks owned by other parties.
Several commenters felt that terminals
would have to provide extra personnel
at the loading racks to enforce this
restriction. Section 6O.502(d} [now
160.502(e}] was expanded to delineate
clearly the terminal owner or operator's
responsibilities and to clarify that on-
the-spot monitoring of product loadings
would not be necessary. A terminal
operator need only compare a tank
identification number against the file of
vapor tightness documentation within 2
weeks after a loading of that tank took
place. If a terminal owner or operator
checked his files and found that a
nonvapor-tight truck was loaded
without vapor tightness documentation.
he would then be required to take steps
assuring that no further loading into that
tank truck took place until the proper
vapor tightness documentation was
received by the terminal. ThUs. the final
standard clarifies that a terminal owner
or operator can comply with this part of
the standard by cross-checking files and
does not have to monitor loadings.
One paragraph about facilities with
exiŁting vapor processing equipment
was added to.t 60.502. The Agency has
concluded that it is quite costly in light
of the resulting emission reduction for
an owner whose existing facility
becomes subject to NSPS (e.g.. through
modification or reconstruction) to meet
35 lng/liter when the facility already has
a system capable of meeting 60 mg/liter.
but not 35 ms/liter. For this reason. EPA
has added 160.502(c). which permits
affected facilities with such vapor
control equipment to meet 80 ms/liter if
construction or substantial.l'89Wldiq
(i,e., "refurbishment") of that equipment
commenced befpre the proposal date.
December 17, 1980. This is based on the
Administrator's judgment that BDT for
these facilities is no further control.
while BDT for facilities with vapor
processing systems on which
construction or refurbishment
commenced after proposal is the
replacement or add-on of technology
that would enable the facility to achieve
35 ms/liter.
Several commenters objected to the
requirement for excess emissioI}8
reports and to using an average
monitored value as the basis for an
excess emissions determination. Section
60.504, Monitoring of Operations. has
been reserved pending the development
and proriIulgation of performance
specifications for continuou8 monitoring
devices. Therefore, specific comments
concerning the propoaed continuous
monitoring requirements cannot be
addressed at this time. The Agency is
currently investigating several types of
simple. low-cost monitors for various
types of vapor processors. After
specifications have been selected. they
will be proposed in a separate action in
the Federal Register for public comment.
A new 160.500(c} has been added to
change the applicability date from the
date of proposal to the date of
promulgation for existing facilities
commencing component replacement
prior to the promulgation date for the
purpose of complying with State or local
regulations. Such facilities are not
subject to the standards by means of the
reconstruction provisions. New 160.506
was added in response to commenters'
concerns about the burden of
accumulating records of component
replacements at an existing source over
the lifetime of the source for the purpose
of determining reconstruction. Section
6O.506(b) limits the time period for
determination of reconstruction to 2
years and 160.506(a) excludes
frequently replaced components for
consideration in applying the
reconstruction proviaiona to bur.
gasoline terminals.
In response to industry comments, a
size cutoff by gasoline throughput was
added to the definition of "bulk gasoline
terminal" (only facilities handling more
than 78.700 liters. or 20.000 gallons. per
day are covered). to clarify that bulk
plants served by ship or barge are not
covered by these standards. AlSo, the
word "wholesale" has been removed
because the throughput cutoff should
exclude retail outlets (service stations)
from possible applicability.
The terminology used in the emission
limits in the standard has chaqed smce
proposal The emission limits are now
expressed in tenna of total organic
compounda rather than VOC (VOC is
the proportion of the OIpDic compounds
247
that is regarded as photochemically
reactive). This change does not change
the effect on stringency of the standard.
but it does make the standard better
reflect the intent behind the standard
and the data base and test procedures
used in establishing the standard.
The standard is intended to reduce
emissions of VOC through the
application of best demonstrated
technology (BDT) (conaidering costs and
other impacts), and the emission limits
in the standard are designed to reflect
the performance of BDT. The best
demonstrated technologies applicable to
bulk terminals do not selectively control
VOc. but rather they control all organic
compounds. Furthermore, the emission
limits in the standard are based on test
data and test procedures that measure
total organic compounds, and the test
methods used to determine compliance
with the standard measure total organic
compounds. Therefore, to reflect
accurately the performance of the
technologies selected 88 BDT and to be
consistent with the data base and test
methods upon which the emission limits
are based. the emission limits in the
proposed standard should have been
expresaed in terms of total organic
compounds. To reflect the applicable
technology and test methods, the
emission limits in the promulgated
standard are expressed in those terms.
EP A is relying on control of total organic
compounds as the best demonstrated
surrogate for controlling volatile organic
compounds, which react to form ozone
in the atmosphere.
However. the test procedures in the
proposed standard gave the owner or
operator the option to subtract methane
and ethane in determining compliance
with the standard. Because the test
procedures were proposed in this way
and because the relative quantity of
these compounds is expected to be
small. the promulgated standard retains
this option in the test procedures. The
owner or operator may invoke this
option only by using a method approved
by the Administrator.
Summary of EaviromDeDta1, En8r1Y.
Economic Impacts
The promulgated standards will
reduce projected 1986 VOC emissions
from affected bulk terminals from about
8.300 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) to
about 2.600 M,,/yr, or 68 percent.
The promulgated standards are based
on the use of carbon adsorption (CA)
and thermal oxidation (TO) type vapor
processors for the 35 ms/liter emission
limit. TO 8ystelO8 emit a small quantity
of carbon moaoxide (CO) and oxides of
nitrogen (NOJ, but Iince few oxidation
-------
37580
Federal Register I Vol. 48. No. 161' I Thursday, August 18. 1983 I Rules and Regulations
systema are expected to be installed.
total emissioIU of CO and NO.. will be
negligible.
Neither of these control systems uses
water as a direct control medium. and
so the water pollution impact will be
minimaL Refrigeration (REF) systems.
which may also be used to meet the
standards. discharge a small amount of
water which condenses in the system
due to the hu.nlidity of the air. Organics
are separated from the condensed water
in an oil-water separator on the
refrigeration unit. The excess water is
subsequently handled by the bulk
terminal's existing drainage system.
There will be no solid effluent from
any of the control systems. CA systems
may produce a small quantity of solid
waste if the activated carbon must be
replaced due to a loss in working
capacity of the carbon beds. The worst-
case nationwide waste production is
estimated at about 50.000 kilograms (kg)
per year. which represents a small solid
waste impact.
Ail of the vapor processors considered
in setting the standards consume
electricity in the course of their
operation. to power fans. dampers.
pumps. compressors. valves. timers. and
other miscellaneous components.
However. all of the processors. except
the thermal oxidizer. recover energy in
the form of liquid gasoline. Therefore.
while the power costs to operate control
equipment to comply with the
promulgated standards average about 25
percent higher than the power costs tl)
comply with a typical SIP at a 950.000
liter per day terminal. the extra product
recovery realized under these standards
means that this terminal will experience
a net energy savings which is equivalent
to about 15.000 liters of gasoline per
year greater than the SIP. The total net
energy recovery experienced by the bulk
terminal industry in the ruth year of the
standards will be about 1.0 million liters
of gasoline equivalent. .
Compliance with these standards will
result in net annualized costs in the bulk
gasoline terminal industry of about $1.6
million by 1986. Cumulative capital costs
of complying with the promulgated
standards will amount to about $10.3
million by 1988. Net annualized and
cumulative capital costs to the for-hire
tank truck industry will total about $0.9
million and $1.4 million. respectively. by
the fifth year of the standards. The total
annualized cost for this standard would
then be S2.5 million. This annualized
cost. coupled with the estimated
emmiuion reduction of 5.100 Mgfyr,
results in a cost per unit emission
reduction of $MO/Mg. The percent
increase in the price of gasoline
necessary to offset costs of CODlpliance
with the promulgated standards will
range from zero for certain larger
tenninala up to about 0.48 percent for
the smallest tenninalL The overall
impact on national gasoline prices will
be negligible. The environmental
energy, and economic impacts are
discussed in greater detail in the BID.
Volume IL Also discussed are all of the
commenters' suggested changes in the
impact calculations and tbe rationale- for
making some of these changes and not
others.
The nationwide impact numbers
presented here include a composite of
impacts for new. modified, and
reconstructed facilities in locations
where States require the level of control
recommended in the control techniques
guideline document (CTG) and in
locations where States have no control
requirements. If an average size bulk
tenninal (950.000 liters/day gasoline
throughput) subject to the standards due
to modification or reconstruction were
located in an area with State
requirements equivalent to the level
recommended by the CTG and the
tenninal had an existing vapor
processing system which met these
State requirements. no additional
controla would be required. For the
same size new terminal the incremental
annualized cost for a term.ina.l using CA
or TO would be negligible because the
same baais control device could be used
to meet either set of requirements. If a
new. modified. or reconstructed terminal
of the same size were located in an area
with no State requirements. the
uncontrolled emissions would be
reduced by about 160 Mg/yr at an
annualized cost of about $38.000. which
is less than $240fMg of VOC reduced.
Public Puticipetioa
Prior to proposal of the standards.
interested parties were advised by
public notice in the Federal Register (45
FR 30666. May 9. 1980). of a meeting of
the National Air Pollution Control
Techniques Advisory Committee
(NAPCTAC) to discuss the bulk gasoline
terminalstandarda recommended for
proposal This meeting was held on June
5.1980. The meeting was open to the
public and each attendee waB given an
opportunity to comment on the
recommended standards. The standarda
were proposed and published in the
Federal Register on December 11. 1980.
(45 FR 83126). The preamble to the
proposed standards dilCUlsed the
availability of the background
information document. "Bulk Gasoline
Terminale--Background Information for
Proposed Standards," EPA-I5O/3-80-
038a (BID. Volume I). wbich described in
detail the regulatory alternatives
248
considered and the impacts of those
alternatives. Public comments were
solicited at the time of proposal and.
when requested, copies of the BID.
Volume I, were distributed to interested
parties. To provide interested persons
the opportunity for oral presentation of
data. views. or arguments concerning
the proposed standards. a public hearing
was held in two sessions. on January 21
and 28, 1981. at Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. The hearings were open
to the public and each attendee was
given an opportunity to comment on the
proposed standards. The public
comment period was from December 17.
1980. to March 20. 1961.
Forty-two t:omment letters were
received and six interested parties
testified at the public hearings
concerning issues relative to the
proposed standards of performance for
bulk gasoline tenninals. The comments
have been carefully considered and,
where determined to be appropriate by
the Administrator, changes have been
made in the proposed standards..
Major Comments OD the Proposed
Standarda
Comments on the proposed standarda
were received from bulk gasoline
tenninal owners and operators. Federal
agencies. State and 10CS\1 air pollution
control agencies. trade associationJ, and
air pollution control equipment
supplier.. A detailed discussion of these
comments and Agency responses can be
found in the background information
document for the promulgated standard.
(BID, Volume II). which is referred to in
the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble. The summary of comments
and responses in the BID. Volume n.
servetl 88 the basi. for the revisions
which have been made to the standardl
between proposal and promulgatiOD.
The major comments and respoD188 are
summarized in thia preamble.
Need for Standard
Several commenters recommended
that the proposed standard. be csnceled
and that no additional regulation be
adopted. Instead. the State
implementation plans (SIP's) should be
relied upon to control VOC emissions
from bulk gasoline tenninals. One
re8lon given was that galOline demand
is projected to stabilize or decline in the
future, 80 that emissions from new.
modified, or reconstrUcted soW'C88
should not present any increuins
environmental hazard.
Other commenten felt that the
additional emission reduction achieved
under Alternative IV (35 IDI/liter from
processor plus vapor-tight tank trucks)
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 48, No. 161 I Thursday, August 18, 1983 I Rules and Regulations
37581
as opposed to Alternative II (80 mg/liter
from processor plus vapor-tight tank
trucks) would be insignificant. The
commenters stated that the control limit
of 80 mg/liter required by many SIP's
has already reduced VOC emissions by
90 percent; the proposed 35 mg/liter
limit would reduce nationwide bulk
terminal VOC emissions by the fifth
year by only an extremely small
percentage, Due to these small
reductions. these commenters felt that
standards had been proposed simply
because they are "technically feasible."
Thus, the commenters felt EPA had not
demonstrated. as required by Section
111, that new terminals will present a
significant air pollution problem.
The Agency proposed these standards
of performance under the authority of
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7411) as amended. Section
111(b)(1) requires the Administrator to
establish standards of performance for
categories of new, modified. or
reconstructed stationary sources which
in the Administrator's judgment cause or
contribute significantly to air pollution
which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare.
The Ageney's listing of Petroleum
Transportation and Marketing 23rd on
the Priority List. as required under
Section 111(f) (40 CFR 60,16. 44 FR 49222,
August 21, 1979). reflects the
Administrator's determination that this
source category contributes significantly
to air pollution, Before arriving at this
decision, the Administrator considered
the projected rate of growth in the
number of facilities in this industry, the
emission rates at uncontrolled facilities.
and the emissions allowed under typical
SIP's. EPA used the emissions forecasts
in the BID. Volume I, and cited by the
commenters. in analyzing these factors.
and the Administrator has found no
reason to alter the conclusions based on
that analysis,
It is important to note that VOC is
emitted by a wide variety of source
categories. The emissions contribution
from many categories with VOC
emissions that appear small in
comparison with the total VOC emitted
by all source categories is nonetheless
significant to ozone formation. This is
because failure to control these sources
to the level achievable by the best
demonstrated technology would serve to
undermine the Congressionally
mandated effort to prevent further
deterioration of air quality caused by
additional ozone formation. Emission
reductions from this source category
also appear small because the projected
Dumber of affected facilities i. only a
small percentqe (leu than 5 percent) of
the total number of terminals
nationwide.
The Agency accounted for the
projected demand for gasoline in the
coming years in estimating the emission
reduction achievable through the NSPS.
Despite a leveling off or reduction in
gasoline demand. there will still be a
significant number of affected terminals
which will result in significant emissions
reduction under these standards.
Although the small number of new
terminals (five in the next 5 years)
reflects this leveling off in product
demand, the current industry trend is
toward the consolidation of existing
terminals rather than the construction of
new terminals. As a result, estimates
indicate that there will be as many as 50
modified or reconstructed terminals in
the next 5 years.
Regulatory alternatives. reflecting
different levels of control technology,
were evaluated for these 55 affected
facilities, and it was determined that the
control technology was available, at a
reasonable cost, to control emissions
from new, modified, and reconstructed
terminals. Relying only on the SIP's for
this category would mean that many
sources, in areas not requiring controls
under SIP's will remain uncontrolled. It
appeared reasonable, therefore, to
require additional controls. for the
affected facilities in both controlled and
uncontrolled areas, that were
technologically demonstrated to be both
readily achievable and economically
reasonable.
Standards of performance have other
benefits in addition to achieving
reductions in emissioD8 beyond those
required by a typical SIP. They establish
a degree of national uniformity, which
precludes situations in which some
States may attract new industries as a
result of having relaxed air pollutior
standards relative to other States.
Further, standards of performance
provide documentation which reduces
uncertainty in case-by-case
determinations of best available control
technology (BACT) for facilities located
in attainment areas, and lowest
achievable emission rates (LAER) for
facilities located in nonattainment
areas. This documentation includes
identification and comprehensive
analysis of alternative emission control
technologies. development of associated
costs, an evaluation and verification of
applicable emission test methods. and
Identification of specific emission limits
achievable with alternate technologies.
The costs are utilized in an economic
analysis that determines the
affordability of controls in an unbiased
249
study of the economic impact of controls
on an industry.
The rulemaking process that
implements a performance standard
assures adequate technical review and
promotes participation of
representatives of the industry being
considered for regulation,
representatives from government, and
the public affected by that industry's
emissions. The resultant regulation
represents a balance in which
government resources are applied in a
well publicized national forum to reach
a decision on a pollution emission level
that allows for a dynamic economy and
a healthful environment.
The promulgated standards reflect
application of the best demonstrated
technology for new, modified, and
reconstructed sources in the bulk
terminal subcategory. While technical
feasibility is a fundamental criterion for
standard-seting. EPA considered
additional factors, including cost. energy
requirements. and other impacts, before
arriving at the final standard. Based
upon these factors, the Agency selected
at proposal a control alternative which
reflects Alternative IV. As explained in
the preamble section on "Modification
and Reconstruction," the Agency has
revised the standard in response to
these and other comments; the
standards are now based upon a
oombination of Alternatives II and IV.
Several commenters were concerned
that a number of their smaller loading
facilities. typically considered as bulk
plants. would be included under the
definition of a terminal for purposes of
this standard. These commenters felt a
throughput cutoff should be added to the
definition of a terminal.
To clarify the intended applicability of
the NSPS. a definition of bulk terminal
dependent upon a throughput cutoff has
been included in 11;10.501. The purpose
of this definition is to exclude the
smaller bulk plant. With this intention, a
bulk terminal has been defined to have
a gasoline throughput greater than
75.700 liters per day. The gasoline
throughput shall be the maximum
calculated design throughput as may be
limited by compliance with an
enforceable condition under Federal.
State. or local law. Reference to an
enforceable condition allows a source to
limit its maximum design throughput by
limiting its hours of operation, or by
controlling any other operating
parameter. The only requirements are
that this limitation be a part of an
enforceable document and that the
source maintain compliance with it. This
document could be issued by any
government entity as 10118 as it was
-------
31532
Federal Register I Vol. 48. No. 161 I Thursday, Au~st 18, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
---=:::
discoverable by both EPA and any
citizen as contemplated in Section 304 of
the Clean Air Act. By obtaining such
documentation. which would reflect a
source's maximum expected actual
throughput. ambiguities as to how one
would determine throughput are
eliminated. For example. a bulk plant
which receives gasoline by barge. with a
statement (documented in an
enforceable permit) that they will not
exceed a throughput of 15,140 liters/day
(4,000 gal/day), would not be
misconstrued as a bulk terminal.
Modification and Reconstruction
Several commenters were concerned
that conversions being made to
terminals to satisfy SIP control
requirements, such as top-ta-bottom
loading conversions and installation of
vapor control equipment, could subject
these terminals to the more stringent
requirements of these standards through
the reconstruction provisions of 40 CFR
60.15, Also, the economic impact would
be significant for these terminals since
they have already made commitments
toward complying with SIP limitations.
It was suggested by some of the
commenters that these conversions
shouid be exempted from the
reconstruction provisions (40 CFR 60.15).
The section entitled "Impacts of
Regulatory Alternatives" in the
preamble to the proposed standards
dlscussed the environmental, costs, and
economic impacts on bulk terminal
facilities complying with the
requirements of those standards.
Included in the discussion were impacts
on new, modified, and reconstructed
facilities. The impacts estimated for the
standards did not include any
reconstructions resulting from
application of State or local air poUution
requirements. However, as several
commenters pointed out, a large number
of terminal facilities that the Agency did
not project as affected could indeed
become subject to the standards in the
process of complying with such
requirements. Thus, the preamble
discussion suggested that existing
facilities commencing component
replacement in response to State or
local requirements would Dot be subject
to 40 CFR 60.15.
The Agency believes that this
suggestion introduced some doubt as to
the otherwise straightforward
application of the reconstruction
provisions to existing facilities
undergoing such changes. Consequently,
owners and operaton making plana to
install control systems at these facilities
may have been misled to believe that
stricter NSPS requirements might not
apply, and may therefore not have
considered the stricter NSPS
requirements when designing their
systems.
For this reason. the Administrator has
determined that any facility that has
commenced substantial component
replacement in response to State 0'
local emission standards after the
applicability date (the proposal date-
December 17,1980) but prior to the date
of promulgation wiU not be subject to
these NSPS requirements by operation
of the reconstruction provisions of 40
CFR 60.15. Under 160.5OO(c), any
component replacement program
commenced (as defined in Section 60.2)
before today's date. and determined by
the Administrator to be necessitated by
State or local bulk terminal regulations.
will not subject a bUlk terminal facility
to the NSPS by means of the
reconstruction provisions.
It should be noted. however, that 40
CFR 60.15 applies by straightforward
application to any existing facility
undergoing component replacement.
Neither the language nor the purposes of
that provision and the defmition of "new
source" in Section 111 supports
exemptions based on the owner's intent
in performing construction on the
facility.
Because this preamble corrects the
misimpression that Section 60.15 does
not apply to facilities undergoing SIP
component replacement, the Agency is
applying that provision to SIP
component replacement programs
commenced after today's date. Of
course, owners or operators performing
reconstruction for other purposes, or
modifications or new construction for
any purpose, are still governed by the
applicability date of December 17, 1980,
contained in 160.500(b).
Commenters also felt that EPA had
greatly underestimated the number of
existing terminals which would be
affected by the modification and
reconstruction provisions. At least 30
SIP's will contain bulk terminal vapor
recovery requirements, and it was
believed that conversion work
performed at affected facilities would
subject those facilities to the provi~ions
of these standards.
Since most State of local regulation-
related construction programs at bulk
terminals will have commenced by the
promulgation date. the change in the
applicability date, in effect, excludes
these terminals from the standards.
Therefore, EPA'I estimate at the time of
proposal of 55 new, modified. or
reconatructed terminals in 5 yean is still
considered B reasonable projection. The
estimate of 5 new facilities and 50
modified or reconstructed facilities was
250
based primarily on information obtained
from oil companies through response8 to
Section 114 letter requ,ests. Telephone
conversations with several control
agencies. oil companies, and terminal
construction engineering firms provided
supplementary information.
Many of the commenters stated that
the interpretation of "reconstruction" is
an unwarranted extension of EPA'8 past
procedure in defining this provision and
an illegal extension of EPA's authority
under Section 111. They felt that the
reconstruction provisions were meant to
be applied to each capital construction
project as it occurs, and not applied on a
cumulative basis over an unlimited time
period. The commenters felt that under
the present interpretation of
reconstnrction every existing loading
rack, including those in attainment
areas, would, through ordinary
maintenance and replacement of
components, become a new source lon8
before the end of its useful life. They
concluded that the use of cumulative
costs would be a tremendous
administrative burden on the industry
and EPA.
The Agency promulgated the
reconstruction provisions to ensure that
essentially new facilities due to
reconstruction would be subject to "new
source" performance standards. The
reconstruction provisions were
prcmulgated in 1975 (40 FR 5846), and
EPA has applied these provisions
consistently since that time. Further, the
Agency's authority to subject
reconstructed sources to new source
standards of performance has not been
questioned in any court decision.
If one considers the 50 percent cost
factor which triggers reconstruction
strictly on a project-by-project. basis. a
wide variety of interpretations can arise
as to what a "project" entails. For
example, a terminal with three top
loading racks may convert one rack to
bottom loading, and then 6 months litter
convert a second loading rack to bottom
loading. If the two conversions were
interpreted as separate projects. neither
one would likely exceed the 50 percent
replacement cost to trigger
reconstruction. If, however, it was the
terminal owner's original intent to
convert both loading racks, the two
conversions would be interpreted alone
project and would probably constitute a
reconstruction. In many cases. it would
not be possible to determine the original
intent of the terminal owner or operator.
In order to reduce the number of
subjective determinations conceminll
intent in these C811e8, the reconstruction
provisions will be applied on a basil
which considers the expenditures made
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 161 / Thunday, Angust 18, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
37583
toward a facility over 8 fIJ(ed time
period.
To eliminate the ambiguity in the
current wording of f 60.15 and further
the intent underlYin8 Section 111 (as
described above), the Agency ill
clarifying the meanilJ8 of "proposed"
component replaceJMl1ts in t ~>.15.
Specifically, the Agency ill interpreting
"proposed" replacement components
under t 60.15 to include components
which are replaced ptD'Suant to aU
continuous programs of component
replacement which commence (but are
not necessarily completed) within the
period of time detennined by the
Agency to be appropria te for the
individual NSP involved. The Agency is
selecting a Z-year period as the
appropriate period for purposes of the
bulk gasoline terminal NSPS
(160.506(b)). Thus. the Agency will
count toward the 50 percent
reconstruction threshold the '"fixed
capital cost" of all depreciable
components (except those described
below) replaced pursuant to all
continuous program! of reconstruction
which commence within any 2-year
period following proposal of these
standards. In the administrator',
judgment, the 2-year period provides a
reasonable, objective method of
determining whether aD owner of bulk
gasoline terminal facilitiea is actually
"proposiIli" extensive component
replacement, within the Agency',
original intent in promulgatin8 160.15.
The administrative effort to keep the
required records ,howd not be a burden
on the industry. The recmdkeeping
required under this interpretation of
reconstruction is the same as the
recordkeeping that would be requih:d
under a strictly project-by-project
interpretation. In either case, the dollar
amount of the component replacemeuts
taking place at the facility must be.
determined and recorded Section 6.15
defines tbe "fixed capital cost" of
replacement components as the capital
needed to provide all the "depreciable"
components. By excJudiDs
nondepreciable components from
consideration in calculating component
replacement COIJts, this definition
excludes II18D)' components that are
replaced frequently to keep the plant in
proper workins order. There may.
however. be aome depreciable
components that are replaced frequently
~or similar purpoaes. In the ~'II
Judgment. maintlliDiDs records of the
repair or replacement of the8e items
may c~stitute aD IIIIDeCe88aI)' burdeJL
Moreover. the A8encY does DOt coasider
the replac:emeDt of these items aD
elelDeDt of the tmDover iD the Dfe of the
facility concerning Congress when it
enacted Section 111. Therefore. in
accordance with 40 CFR 6O.15{g}, these
standards (t 6O.506) will eoxempt certain
frequently replace components, whether
depreciable or nondepreciable, from
consideration in applying the
reconstruction provisions to bulk
gasoline terminal facilities. The emfs of
these ctImponents will not be consiBered
in calculating either the Mfixed capital
cost of the new components" or the
"fixed capital costs that would be
required to constnlct a comparable
entirely new facility" under t 60.15. In
the Agency's judgment, these items are
pump seals, loading arm &Bskets IInd
swivels. coupler gaskets, overfill
sensors, vapor hoses, and groundtng
cables.
One commecter felt that if the
proposed standards further limited
allowable total organic compounds
emissions from 80 mg{liter to 35 mg/liter
of gasoline loaded, then over half af his
terminals would experience "immediate
operational constraints." since they are
equipped with vapor processing units of
the compression-refrigeration-
absorption (CRA) or lean oil absorption
(LOA) type, which EPA data indicate
cannot meet tbe propolled 35 mg/liter
limi t.
The existing facilities described by
the commenter would not be subject to
the standards unless modification or
reconstruction were commenced after
the proposal date of December 17. 1980.
For those facilities with existing vapor
processing systems which become
affected facilities UDder modification or
reconstruction. the Administrator
concluded that it was Dot reasonable for
the owner or operator to replace or
perform costly upgrading an exiating
vapor proceaaing systema. in order to
achieve the small incremental emisaion
reduction which reflects the changE' .:L.
80 mg/liter to 35 mg/liter. As an
example. emissions from a 95Q,OOO liter/
day terminal would decrease about 15
Mg/year in the change from 80 to 3S mgJ
liter, at a net annualized c.o&t of about
$50,000 for replacemeDt or add-oD
controls. In the Administrator's
judgment. however. it ia Wll'eaacmably
costly to require such a facility to iDsliiil
the .dd~ teclmology that will achieve
35 mg/liter only if the facility began
conatructins or substantially rebuilding
{i.e.. "refurbishing"} the control system
before receiving notice December 17.
1980. that BDT for those facilities, were
they later to come under NSPS. would
likely be equipment capable of meeting
35 mg/liter.
By CODtrut, EPA CIID8iden it
reasonable to apply the 3S mgfliter limit
251
to 8 facility whose owner commenced
construction or refurbishment of a
control system not capable of meeting 35
mg/liter despite having reC'!!'tved this
notice. It is reasonable to expect such an
owner to avoid the high cos1 of going
from 80 mg/liter to 35 mgJliter simflly by
constructing or refurbishing the facility's
control system with teclmoIogy that
would meet EPA's proposed 35 mg/liter
limit and make later retrofit
unnecessary. This is reasonable to
require even of facilities with existing
control systems constructed or
refurbished after Det'pm~ 17, 1980. for
the purpose of meeting an 80 mg/liter
Sta te limit.
For these reasons, EPA baa added
180.50Z{c}, which permit. affected
facilitie, with such vapor cootrol
equipment to meet eo mg/liter if
construction or substantial rebuilding
(i.e., Mrefurbishment'1 of that equipment
commenced before the proposal date.
December 17, 1980. This is based on the
Administrator', judgment that Bur for
these facilities is no further control.
while BIJI' for facilities with npar
processing eystems on which
construction or refurbishment
commenced after ,..~ is the
technology that would enable the
facility to achieve 35 mg/Jiter.
Definitions far -existing vapor
processing system" and "refurbishment"
were added to the regulation to indicate
that if in any Z-year period following the
date the facility become. an affected
facility the fixed capital cost of
improvements or changes to an exiatin8
vapor processing system ex~ds 50
percent of the cost of a comparable
entirely new vapor processing system.
the altered vapor processing system
must then meet the 35 mg/liter limit
Consequently,refurbUUunentapplies
only to those syste~ which become
extensively rebuilt over this period.
Several commentenl felt that the
interpretation of "modification" is
oYerly broad because it may include
altered facilities from which the overall
emissions bave not increased. A
clarification was sought 80 that
replacement of needed components that
improve loading efficieociea would not
be considered modificatioos unlesa they
resulted in an increase in the average
daily emissions.. For example. the
replacement of worD-Otit pumps with
new higher capacity pumps would allow
faster loading. increasing emiuiona on a
kg/hour basis daring peak loaq
periods. but not on a mg/liter basis.
which is the measurement of the
standard. In fact. the namber of taDk
trucb loaded duriDg a de, would DOt
-------
37584
Federal Register / Vol. 18. No. 161 / Thursday. August 18, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
-==
necessarily increase due to a faster
loading rate.
Section 6O.14(e)(2) was purposely
included in the General Provisions to
exclude from consideration under the
modification provisions increases in
emissions due to relatively small
changes. If a change increases
production capacity and yet does not
result in a "capital expenditure" as
defined in the definitions in the General
Provisions. the change would not be
considered a modification.
Economic Impact
Some of the commenters stated that
many of the costs of compliance to
industry presented in BID. Volume I.
were seriously underestimated. Two
reasons provided were that control
systems necessary to achieve the
proposed standard of performance
would cost mere than systems capable
of meeting only the less stringent SIP
emission limit, and the actual number
for affected facilities would be greater
than the estimate due to conversions
resulting from SIP requirements.
Many control systems being installed
under SIP programs are capable of
controlling emissions below 35 mg/liter.
the limit of the promulgated standards of
performance. Test data show that. in
their normal operating mode. carbon
adsorption (CA) and thermal oxidation
(TO} units can consistently operate well
below the 35 mg/liter limit. Therefore,
for CA and TO units there are no
additional costs involved in meeting 35
mg/liter versus the units currently being
installed to meet 60 mg/liter.
Test results on current refrigeration
(REF) units~bow that only some of
these units meet the 35 mg/liter limit.
However. these systems were installed
to comply with a limit at or near the 80
mg/liter limit contained in most SIP's.
The major manufacturer of these
systems bas indicated that adjustments
to operating parameters can be made
which will increase the control
efficiency of individual systems (docket
item IV-E-32). Such adjustments would
be likely to increase electrical costs.
Cost increases of up to 50 percent were
reported by the manufacturer (docket
item IV-F-3). The assumption that costs
would not increase in the case of CA
and TO units in order' to meet 35 mgJ
liter is still considered valid. However.
since data show that state-of-the-art
REF technology can meet the standard,
at somewhat increased capital and
operating cost levels from the average
current system. and since a larse
segment of industry i8 presently using
this form of control (approximately 25
percent of existing units are
refrigeration units), the potential cost
impact to industry, if current use
patterns are maintained. was examined.
As discussed under the preamble
section "Modification and
Reconstroction," the vast majority of
conversions necessary to comply with
State or local regulations will have
commenced before the revised
applicability date, and, therefore, not be
regulated under these standards. Odly
those few State or local regulation-
related conversions which commence
after the promulgation date will be
affected. Thus. the estimate of 55
facilities affected in 5 years is still
believed to represent a rease.able
approximation, based on Section 114
letter responses from industry. The
updated industry costs were used to
recalculate the nationwide cost impact.
with the costs of purchasing and
operating continuous monitors added to
these estimates. By 1986, the terminal
and independent tank trock industries
will spend about $12.2 million in capital
investment. and the net annualized cost
in the fifth year will be $2.5 million. The
capital and annualized cost estimates
have decreased since the original
evaluation mainly because of re-
analysis of loading rack top-to-bottom
loading conversion costs and changes in
the requirements for existing vapor
processing systems. In the previous
analysis. presented in the BID, Volume I.
the costs for the top-to-bottom loading
conversiora were attributed to the
standards for all affected top loading
terminals in the nationwide cost
determination. However. in the revised
evaluation. the cost of top-to-bottom
loading conversions (not as a result of
vapor control requirements) which
would trigger reconstroction were not
included in the costs to comply with the
promulgated standards. These costs
would be incurred by the tenninal
owner regardless of the standards since
the conversions were performed'
voluntarily.
One commenter felt that even the
small cost per gallon of product
necessary to comply with the standards
would discourage an owner or operator
from investing in conversion work
which might make a tenniIial subject to
the standards. and that this could make
tenninal closures more prevalent. In
response to this and similar comments,
the economic analysis which supported
the proposal was reviewed and many
cost estimates were updated. The results
of both the original and revised
economic analyses showed that for the
two smallest model plants the standards
could. in the worst case. have a
significant negative impact on.
profitability in the unlikely absence of
complete control cost pasa-througb.
252
In the original analysis on existing
facilities both the 380,000 liter/day and
950.000 liter/day model plants (model
plants 1 and 2) would encounter returns-
on-investment (ROl's) of less than 11
percent. taken to be the minimum
acceptable level. The revised analysis
indicates that only a 380.000 liter/day
top-loaded facility (projected to be only
2 or 3 affected facilities per year) would
experience a significant decrease in
profitability, with a post-control ROI
range of 7.7 to 8.0 percent. A 950.000
liter/day terminal would still maintain a
marginal profitability level with a post-
control ROI range of 10.6 to 11.0 percent
However, the preceding impacts are
worst-case scenarios and very unlikely
~to occur. Since the price increase
necessary to offset the control costs is
less than 0.5 percent, the most likely
scenario will involve an impact with
most of the control costs passed through
and very little cost absorption. Under
this scenario no existing terminals are
expected to close. Industry profiles do
forecast a trend away from new small
bulk tenninals to larger terminals;
however. this is a result of previous
technological advances and economies
of scale and is not a result expected 10
be accelerated by the implementation of
these standards.
Some commenters questioned the BID.
Volume 1. cost estimates associated with
purchasing, installing. operating. and
maintaining vapor control systems. In
particular. most CA system costs and
some REF system costs were pointed out
as being ~derestimated.
Most carbon adsorption units are
currently being produced by two.
manufacturers. The purchase costs used
in the original cost analysis were
received from one major manufacturer
at the time the analysis was performvd.
After proposal, estimated costs were
updated through contacts with both
manufacturers. The average cost of
installing a vapor processor was
estimated as 85 percent of the initial
purchase price of the unit, based on 14
actual installatiora. Values used to
compute the average installation cost
ranged from 37 to 147 percent. Since no
trend in this percentage as a function of
purchase cost or unit type was noted. a
single value representing the averags.
was selected. Consequently. some unit
installation costs will be higher and
some lower than those presented in the
analysis. Installation costs submitted by
one commenter averaged about 115
percent of the purchase price of the
processor, which is consistent with the
range of values considered in deriving
EPA's 85 percent figure. Another
commenter submitted data showins that
-------
Federal Register I VoL 48. No. 161 I Thursday, August 18. 1983 I Rules and Regulations
37585
the typical installation cost for a REF
unit at his terminals was $90.000. or 55
percent of the S165,OOO purchase price.
Again, this percentage falls within the
range of values ccrnsidered previously
by the Agency.
Operating costs for all ccrntrol
technologies considered in developing
the standards were calculated using
electrical consumption data supplied by
the system manufacturers. The REF unit
purchase cost and electric-.al
consumption figures used to develop
impacts of the proposed standards
applied to systems used to achieve the
SIP limit of 80 mgfliter. The data have
subsequently been reassessed using
more current costs. The manufacturer of
essentially all of the current REF units
was contacted to obtain present
purchase and operating figures which
would be reflected for a system to meet
the emission limit of 35 mgfliter. Unit
models were selected for application to
the four model plants. based on the
parameter suggested by the
manufacturer, peak hourly product
loading. Models were selected with
considerable excess capacity, so that
cost estimates would be conservative.
The power costs for current CA systems
were calculated in the same way as
those for REF systems. using updated
manufacturers' infonnation. The limited
available field data on the operating
costs of installed units generally
correlate well with the calculated
figures.
Emission Control Technology
Several commenters remarked that
the technology to achieve the 35 mgfliter
emission limit bas not been
demonstrated, because only 8 few shoct-
term tests have been performed. These
commenters stressed the necessity for
data on continuous performance. and on
the ability of the considered systems to
achieve the emission limit over the long
term.
Since the beginning of the standards
development. the Agency has sought the
most recent results of tests performed by
oil companies and State 88encies. in
order to collect the best possible data
base. Since all oC the tested systems
were installed in response to SIP
limitations at or near the ao mg/liter
limit. oil company and system
manufacturer technical representatives
were consulted to determine the
assumed design conditions for the
installed systems and the collection
potential of the various control
technologies. Emission test results on
several CA units tested between 1979
and 1981, representiq over 30 days oC
testing. were received after proposal
from four State 88encies and one control
system manufacturer. Outlet total
organic compounds m.a.as emissions
measured in these testa ranged from 0.34
to 17.9 mgfliter. with Z8 of the daily test
values below 10 mg!liter. Three REF
units owned by a single oil company in
two States were tested in 1980 and 1981.
Daily average emissions in these tests
were 21.9, 22.6. and 41.8 mgfliter. These
results support the observation that.
current REF units perform at various
levels with respect to the 35 mgfliter
limit. Since total organic compounds
mass emissions are related to the
condenser temperature maintained in
these units, setting the thermostatic
controls at different levels can produce
a range of emission levels from the SCime
control equipment. The current
generation of REF units can he adjusted
to maintain the low temperatures
(approximately -84"C. or -120"F)
required to achieve 35 mg/liter
consistently. Recent tests of TO systems
verify the ability of oxidation units to
limit emissions to levels considerably
below 35 mg/liter.
Even though the tests did not follow
EPA procedures exactly. the recent test
data collected since proposal of these
standards demonstrate the ability of the
best systems to achieve the required
level of 35 mg/liter. The continuing
ability of these systems to achieve this
limit depends on their proper operation
and maintenance. The costs of operating
and maintaining CA. TO. and REF type
vapor processors were considered in
assessing the economic impact of the
promulgated standards. As discussed
earlier. the 80 mgfliter limit applied to
facilities with existing vapor proceaaors
should be able to be met by any of the
control equipment which was installed
under SIP requirements.
Some commentera stated that it bad
not been shown by EPA that the
proposed standards would be
achievable Wlder all the variable
operating conditions that may exist
throughout the industry. However. these
commentera did not identify any specific
variable operaq conditions which
they Celt may affect emission levels. nor
was any technical information included
with the comments. The typical
performance test on bulk terminal
control systems does not monitor
operatin8 conditions and their possible
effect an emissions, because generally
all that is required in this test procedure
is the measurement of outlet mass
emissions over several hours. However.
data were collected during the EPA-
sponsored teat program and variablea
(gasoline composition. vapor
concentration. IUJd peak loading levels)
have been identified as having a
253
possible effect on the mas. emission
level or control efficiency of the control
tec.hnologies considered capable of
achieving the limit of the stand. rd.
Gasolines with different Reid vapor
pressures (RVP) are marketed in
different leasons of the year. in order to
maintain approximately constant actual
vapor pressure as the mean ambient
temperature changes. Under winter
conditions. therefore. maSt! emissions
may be higher for some systems because
of increased light ends in the inlet
vapors. If CA and REF units are siz.ed
with sufficient collection area to meet
the emission limit in winter. emissions
in summer will then be well below the
IimiL TO systems are often designed to
handle saturated streams stored in
vapor holders. and should not be
affected by the variable RVP. Tests of
CA to TO units considered by the
Agency show that the emission limit
was achieved at various times of the
year and. therefore. under various
gasoline compositions.
Both CA and TO systems have been
tested under a range of inlet VOC
concentrations returned from tank
trucks. and the test results indicate the
ability of these technologies to achieve
the limit of the standards under high
inlet concentrations. AlSo, theoretical
estimations and analyse. for CA and
REF systems have indicated that these
systems will collect efficiently. and
exhibit outlet emissioN below 35 mg/
liter. throughout the range of
concentrations which will be
experienced at new bulk terminals
(docket items IV-A-2, IV-D-36. IV-D-
38). Efficiencies. in fact. are likely to
increase with increasing inlet
concentration. TO systems are easily
designed to handle saturated inlet
streams.
Moat control systema are designed for
peak loading hours at a terminal. rather
than daily throughput. because of the
fluctuation in loading activity
throughout the day. Thus. . properly
sized unit that can handle peak periods
should bave improved performance
during the remainder of the day.
It was concluded that the operational
variables at a terminal are merely
design variables which affect the
selection and sizing of the vapor
processor. No nriables have been
identified which would prevent these
standards from beiOS met 011 a
consistent basis.
Several commenters felt that the
proposed emiaion limit of 35 mg/liter
for new vapor processors is too 8trinaent
for the current generation of vapor
processors in use 8\ bWk terminals.
Some of the commenters stated that
-------
37586
Federal Regi!ter I Vol. 48. No. 161 I Thursday. August 18. 1983 I Rules and Regulations
-
certain types of processors would be
unable to achieve this limit. whole
others felt that the limit was
unnecessarily stringent for any of the
existing technologies. Alternate limits of
55 mg/liter and 80 mg/liter were
suggested.
Standards of performance. in the form
of numercial emission limits. are
intended to reflect the degree of
emission limitation achievable through
application of the best adequately
demonstated technological system of
continuous emission reduction. taking
into consideration the cost of achieving
such emission reduction. any nonair
quality health and environmental
impacts. and energy requirements.
Carbon adsorption vapor processors
manufactured by both of the major
suppliers have demonstrated the
capability to achieve emission levels
below 35 mg/liter on a regular basis.
Also. thermal oxidation units have
shown the capability to achieve 35 mg/
liter. although some TO systems may
r~quire a vapor holder to achieve thi.
limit reliably. Compression-oxidation
hybrid systema have been found to
achieve the same high control
efficiences as the straight TO systems.
In addition. te8t data. computer
modeling. and the manufacturer's claima
sugge.t the REF systems can be
designed and operated to meet 35 mg/
Ii ter.
Based on a number of emission tests.
EPA has identified carbon adsorption
and thermal oxidation as the best
demonstrated technologies (BOT) for
controlling vapors from gasoline loading
racks. Section 111 requires EPA to set
numerical emission limits achievable
through application of BOT (considering
the statutory factors). even if by doing
so the Agency precludes the use of less
effectfve systems. Owners are
nonethelen free to use any teclmologr
that will achieve the limit
Some commenters referred to carbou
bed temperature excursions at several
CA unit installatior.. during the summer
of 1980. Due to the resulting extended
shutdowns. one commenter felt that
doubt had been cast on the ability of
currently designed systems to maintain
high efficiency consistently. Contacts
were made by EPA with system
manufacturers and oil industry
representatives. to determine the
apparent reasons for the six reported
occurrences of carbon bed overheating.
Discussions indicated that the
overheating incidents were primarily the
result of improper flow distributioD and
improper startup procedures ruultina in
the insufficient preloading of the virgin
carbon in some new; larpr unib.
Precautionary n1easures to prevent
overheating including: (1) Complete
conditioning of the virgin carbon to
ensure that an adequate heel has been
placed on the carbon to minimize
subsequent high adsorption heat
releases. and (2) sizing the unit to
maintain proper vapor velocity and flow
distribution through the carbon beds.
According to the system manufacturers.
overheating should not occur if these
precautionary measures are employed
(docket item IV-D-36).
Industry representatives have
addressed the carbon bed overheating
issue by incorporating emergency
shutdown measures and bed coolinS
devices on newer systems. Two
additional oil industry representatives
indicated that. on any new carbon
system ordered (and possibly retrofitted
to existing systems). they will specify
cooling provisions and additional
temperature sensors. Since only 6
temperature excursion occurrences have
been identified in the approximately 200
operating carbon systems. the
overheating problem does not appear to
be widespread. EPA agrees with the
manufacturers and with industry
representatives that an effort should be
made to follow carefully the
recommended startup and operational
procedures to minimize the conditions
which may tend to promote temperature
excursions. The added costs of
emergency shutdown and bed cooling
provisions on the newest CA units have
been incorporated in the revised cost
analysis in estimating the control cost of
the standards to the bulk terminal
industry.
Two commenters felt that CA systems
have sevet'al general operational
problems and that this technology is 'Still
in the developmental stages. The first
carbon adsorption system for bulk
terminal vapor recovery was installed in
November of 1978. and today the market
is shared by two manufacturers with
approximately 200 units in operation.
Most types of vapor processors can be
considered to be under development in
the sense that continual design
improvements are being made. Some
problems with vacuum valve actuators
and vacuum pump seals have occurred.
as well as problema related to extremely
cold weather operation. Many of these
problems have been solved (docket item
1V-E-53). and EPA haa not been made
aware of any remaining operational
problems which would affect the ability
of CA systema to comply with the
promulgated standards.
Comments on refrigeration units
concerned the ability of this technology
to achieve the proposed standard of
254
performance. Some commenters agreed
that REF units could be designed and
operated to achieve 35 mg/liter
consistently. b~t felt that the added
costs over current units would not be
economically practical. The promulgated
emission limit of 35 mg/liter was
selected to reflect the performance of
the best control systems. which test data
showed to be the CA and TO
technologies. The most current
refrigeration systems have generally
been installed to meet the BO mg/liter
limit and have achieved 35 mg/liter in
only some instances. with emissions
from most units slightly above the 35
mg/liter limit. Indications are that these
units can be specified and operated to
meet 35 mg/liter, at increased capital
and operating costs over most current
units. The capital costs for most sizes of
REF units fall between the costs for TO
and CA type units. Electrical costs for
REF units are comparable to those for
TO and CA units. except for the smaller
bulk terminal sizes. where they are
slightly higher. Detailed costs are
presented in Appendix B of BID. Volume
H.
Tank Troclc ISSUeB
Several commenters questioned EPA's
legal authority to impose restrictiona.
i.e" retrofitting and vapor tightness
testing. on gasoline tank trucks. They
felt that trucks do not fall within the
category of a stationary source and.
therefOTe. cannot be regulated under
Section 111. The commenters further
stated that EPA could not regulate a
mobile source directly or indirectly
under Section 111. One commenter
ooaracterized the regulation of tank
truck emissions as constituting "the
taking of private property without cause,
compensation. or due process."
For purposes of this NSPS. the
stationary source. or affected facility, is
the total of all bulk terminal loading
racks loading liquid product into
gasoline tank truCkL Those loading
racks are essential to carrying out the
activity known as product loading.
While product loading involves both the
affected facility and mobile equipment.
including the tank truck. it is clearly.
stationary activity. since it requir.es no
movement from the affected facility site.
Among the pollutants created by
product loading are vapors forced from
the tank truck as a direct result of the
pumpins of liquid product into the tank
truck. Since escape of these vapors ia
caused by stationary activities at a
stationary facility, they are "stationary
source" emissions subject to regulation
under Section l11-even though the tank
trucks from which they escape durin8
-------
Federal Reafster I Vol. 48. No. 161 I Thursday. August 18. 1983 I Rules and Regulations
37581
that activity have the capability to
move.
M indicated above. the tank truck is
not included in the designation of the
"affected facility" under these
standards. The standards place
reeponsibility on the terminal owner
only, requiring the owner to restrict
loadings to vapor-tight tank trucks
equipped with compatible vapor
recovery equipment. The regulation
would not directly require either new or
old tank trucks to be vapor-tight or
equipped with certain types of
hardware.
Section 111(a)(2) defines "stationary
source" 8& any "building, structure.
facility, or installation which emits or
may emit any air pollutant." EPA
identifies the "stationary source" as
certain specified stationary equipment
(termed the "affected facility") that
"emits" a pollutant. In the
Administrator's view, stationary
equipment "emits" a pollutant if it
caUlel that pollutant to enter the
atmosphere. I
In the Administrator's view, affected
facility emissions subject to regulation
under Section 111 include all pollutants
that enter the atmosphere as a result of
the stationary industrial activities at the
affected facility, even those that enter
the atmosphere after contacting
equipment with mobility. Stated
differently. the test for whether
emissions are "stationary source"
emissions subject to regulation under
Section 111 iI whether the emissiCBIS are
caused by a statiODlUJ faci1ity duriDa
activities that require no movementfnB
the facility. not whether the emissions
escape to the atmosphere without
touching equipment having the
capability to move.
Interpreting "stationary source"
emissions to include emissions resulting
from stationary activities in which both
the affected facility and some mobile
equipment taIce part serves the intent of
the statute. Consress enacted Section
111 for the "overriding purpose" of
"prevent(iDg} new pollution problems."
S. Rep. No. 91-1198. 1970 Leg. Hiat at
418. The Senate Report states that
Section 111 seeks to attain thia goal by
requiring control of new commercial and
industrial establishments "to the
maximum practicable desree reprd1eea
of their. . . industrial operatioua." Id.
Similarly, the Report states thet
"maximUm use of available meana of
'!PA'. authority to deffDe tile tenD "emi18" ia tbia
war dIriv. rr. SectIaa 301 of !be Ad. ..
iDlwpNted In - - (- ...... A1I1brID» PfzwrY.
~ .F.zd 3D (D.c. CIr. 19'J9}).1n --.......
"'18 thia Jll'llVilIon. tbe Jctmcy i8 iate.pI..1iDI tile
... "1IIIi18" braadl,. to - the bn.t ~
afSlctia 111 (cIeIaib8d iD tile tat b81aw).
pre9enting and controlling air pollution
is essential" to the attainment of the
goals of Section 111. Id. The legislative
history thUi indicates that Consreu
intend Section 111 to addreN emissions
from all stationary operation. at
industrial establishments when the
Agency can identify the maximum
practicable degree of control for these
emissions, To interpret Section 111(,.)(2)
so that emissions resulting from certain
stationary activities involving the
stationary source would not constitute
"stationary source" emissions simply
because those emissions pass through
some equipment with the capability to
move would be incompatible with that
intent.
The Agency recognizes that
promulgation of 8tandards regulating
loading racks as "stationary sources"
may -tgrrincantly affect tank truck
owners and other segments of the
petroleum marketing and transportation
industry, The fact that standards within
an agency's statutory authority
indirectly affect nonregulated entities,
however, does not in and of it8elf
dimiDish the authority to set the
standards. Nothing in the statute or its
hiltary indicates that. in the case at
hand. the indirect impact that regulation
of emissions from loading racks will
have on certain tank truck owners
deprives the Agency of its clear
authority to set new source performance
standards for this source category.
In fact. it is likely that most new.
source standards affect to some desree
induatrin other than that to which the
standards directly appl,. The 8tandards
for electric utility steam generators, for
instance (40 CPR 60.408-498. Subpart
Da). significantly affect the coal mining
and railroad industries. The impact on
tank trucks of a requirement that certain
bulk terminals load only into vapor-tight
trucks equipped with compatible
equipment does not differ in kind fnr~
the indirect impacts resulting from
Subpart Da and other new source
performance standards. Bulk terminala
deal exteD8ively with delivery vehidea.
Aa a result. it is to be expected that
regulation of bulk terminals would affec:t
delivery vehicles in some manner.
The potential effect of the standards
on tank truck ownera does not amount
to a denial of due process or an
unconatitutional taldng of property.
Becauae the commenter did not
elaborate OD the specific buee for theee
cIaima of unconstitutionality, the
Apncy can respond only generally. The
Clean Air Act reflects 8 congressional
determination that air pollution bas a
substantial effect on interstate
commerce and therefore may be
255
regulated by Congres8 (and. through
proper delegation. EPA) under the
commerce clause. Djstrjct of Columbja
v. Train, 521 F.2d 971. 988 (D.C. Cir.
1975). It iI ume880nable to suggest that
regulation of emissions forced from the
tank truck duriDg loading bears no
rational relatinntdtip to protection of
public health and welfare, and thus
violates the due process clause of the
Fifth Amendment There is a rational
relationship between escape of these
vapors and the public health and
welfare. because these emi8sions
contribute to ozone formation. Sjerro
Club v. EPA. 540 F.2d 1114. 1139 (D.C.
Cir. 1978). There i8 also a proper
lesislative purpose underlying the
requirements aimed at controlling these
emissions. Moreover. the meaJUI the
Agency has chosen. as discussed above,
are reasonable and appropriate. [d.. at
1139 n.ao (citing Heart of Atlanta Motel.
Inc. v. Unjted States. 379 U.S. 2A1. 258-
59 (1964)],
Nor do these s~andards trfm88re9s the
takings prohibition in the Constitution.
Given the substantial public intere3t in
preserving clean air. tight restrictions
may constitutionally be imposed on
private property, South Termjnal Corp.
v. EPA. 5(M F.2d M8. 117'8-8) (1st Cir.
1974), While thi8 NSPS indirectly limits
the uses of tank trucb. the limitation iI
not 80 extreme as to ccmstitute an
appropriation 01 the vehicles. Siernt
Club v. EPA, supra. at 1140. This
regulation affects only ODe of the tank
truck uses nailable to tile truck
owner--loediDa at affected facilities.
The right to - ......~t tank
truw at other facilities is neither
extingui8bed nar transferred to somt1)ne
else.
Several commenters felt that the
terminal owner or operator 8hould not
have any reepoulbility for the vapor-
tight status of for-hire tank trucks. The
commenters felt that the terminal
operator sbould not be required to police
the testing and uee of taU truclta which
are owned by otbera.
FuaitiYe. or leakage. VOC emiuiaaa
from tank tracks which occur durintl
loediDs CIID be e significant emission
1IOU1'C8. Test data indicate that. on the
avenge. a nonvapor-tight tank could
lose 30 percent of the potential Y8pOI'
transferred throaab leaka in dome
covers and preaeure-V8CUWD vents. The
data further abow that. by requiriaa the
tanka which handle SHOJi,.. to p-. an
annual vapor tip~ test. the &Vel'aRe
vapor 1088 due to Jeekase duriq the
,.. betweeB tests C8B be f~ 810
peraDt of the poteDtial vapGD
traD8ferred. ~ VOC lo8eee &am
tank trw:ka JIDt ooly iDc:re88e the
-------
31588
reder8l RegiMew , VoL 48, No. 161 , Thunday. August 18. 19&9 I Rule. and Regulatfol18
pollution prob1ela but decrease die . tipIDe.. reqglrement .. necesl8l'y 18 ' , . tightne88 documentation for .. 1118IlJ It
amount of product that can be reclaimed order for these mmdard8 to be effec.ti ..... 400 to 500 transport trucks using. Jivee
A....- the tightDe88 terminaL SeftraJ' other commentera
in Yapol' """"....eI, equipmeDL 1b8 ~- to ~._- t-~ '.! general1...--I that ~ tank truck
terminal owner 01' operator could Ioee as requirement haft ~ UftMrpora CQ UT GqlUVU
much u s:z ill recovered product per into the promulgated regulation to controls would represent an
loadins into DOIIVapor-tight truck-. Por a clarify that the .taDdards do not require administrative burdbeD. .. weU .1 beq
small 380,000 Ht-fday (100.000 gallartl the terminal operator to monitor each co.tly and inequita Ie.
day) terminal this could 1"I'""aent a tank truck load.fDs. A reqmremenUo 101 The testing and maintenance offlJlk
th ...._L id ..:e_tion munL-- of aD truw for vapor tI~a.tnes. has been
daily 1088 of 0'181' $25. For alarse e UIIlA enw.......' 11m' "6"
/d gaaoIine tank truc:ka Ioedins at affKted shoWD to have a significant effect bL '
3.aoo.ooo liter/day (1.000.000 gallon ay) faciliti.. ha. been iDco~ted into the reducing total emissions durina loadiJIa.
terminal the loneS could be over $2501 th . of Thus. tbiJ Procedure hat a v"'"
day. Bulk tmminaI industrT final regulation. Since e quantify -.,
th t th product which pa.... through the important function in bulk terminal VOC
representatives agree a e vapor terminal and it. correspondins worth i. emission. limitation. The administrative
t:!ghtnea requirement for tank trucks is th .... _1- dy 'd bl burden of keepina the documentation on
a necealllIPW Provision of the -.'ation ve17la.rse. ere.. lIInra consl era e -0
-, IV-F ."a...) paperwork iuvolved in tracking the file would be minimal since the
(docket item8 IV-E-19, ~ .. products in and out of the-terminaL The- information would in moat cues be
The objectiont from the bulk terminal-' truck identification information could be- supplied by the OWDer of for-hire tank
industry arise regarding the recorded by the truck driver as part of truckl and the terminal would simply
respoasibility for assuring 10adinp are the normal paperwork which already me the data. Crosl..checkins these files
into vapor-tight tanka. The induatry feela acc0mpanie8 each loacfins. If the tank with tank identification numhmlogged
the responaibility should be on the tank identification number is losged each during loading should be a limple .
truck operator. who in fad maJ be the time the tank I. loaded. the owner ClIft procesl and would not be an excellive
terminal operator QI' oil company. ~ an periodican., c:ro..-check the tank burden. Furthermore. thia filiDs and
independent who operate8 for-hire tank ' indentificatioa number with the Yapor' crosa-checking would represent much
trucka. However. in order for the tightnesl documentation on me at the les. of a burden then the in-pmOD
respoaaibility under new 801UC8 terminal This c:rou-chec1dns is requirecf monitoring by terminal personQe1 of
standard8 to be on an independent tank within 2 ween of the loadins. If the each loadina II it occurred.
truck operator. the tank truck would terminal diaco'f'en that an unauthorized Docbt
have to be put of the affected facility. tank truck hal received p80liDe. tINt
The feuibility 01 iDcludina the tank terminal operator notifies the tank The docket is an organized and
truck II put of the affected facility wu owner, and takes steps to amnit that complete file of information IUbmitt8d,
reviewed in the preamble tD the ' the noO'f'8por-tisht truck does not reload, or otherwiae COD8idered. in the
propoeed staDdarda.. It .as determined at the terminal mrtil proper npor , ; development 01 thia ."IAm.kina The
that the be8t approach to cootrollina tightness documentation i8 obtained. docket i8 a dynamic fife. lince material
fugitive tak truck leaksp -II to make. 'Ibi8 notification I!I1I8t be documented is added throughout the ralemakiDt
the standards applicable only to balk and kept" OIl file at the t8rmina1. Methoda developmenL The docketins IYltem it
termiDala. with a requirement that of achierins this are aYaiJable to the inteDded to allow memben of the pabli.c
affected terminal8 load ooly into truck- termmaI owner. or operator and could and iDduatrie8 involved to identify ~,
mounted taob that ha". pueed a Yapol' include revocatiCIII oIlo8dins prfviIese8 locate documenw readily 10 that tbe1f ,
tightneaa tat. BecaUM tank trucb load or contractun1 agreement8 between the caD effectively participate in the
primarilJ with aqllipmem owned bJ the terminal owner or operator and the- rulemakmgproceu. AlOll& with tI.
termiDal owner. and oa the property of truck owner 01' operator. Howner, BPA statement of ba8ia and pwpoae of the
the terminal owner, EPA MDeves it i8 has not apedfJed any particular method. proposed and promulpted standardIJ
reasonable to presame. for the pmpoee to aDow the terminal owner 01' operator and EPA respGl1HI to significant
of this regulatiml, that theM ownen call the OexibiUty to meet the requirementa, r.nmm4mta, the content8 of the dodIat. ,
exerciM sufficient coatlol ower the with mbdmum d88ptioa to terminal except fOl' certain interasencY nMnP :
source to justify III8Jdna them . OperatiODL SectIon 111(b)(3) of the material.e, will aerft II the record ill
responsible for the emi8ioas tbes:e&o-. Clem Air Act pnmdet that if the- cue of judidal re'riew (SectiD8 .
EPA did DOt InteDd fOI' terminal terminal CJWDeI', after notice aad 307(dK7KA)).
JI8ft08D8t to lIUU1 the racb 2t hours peI" opportunity for pabUc hearins ~_II.......
day, or actually obsanw the lo8diDs of "eatab1i8hee to the satisfactiOll of the
eVerJ talE tNc:k to 'f"IrifJ' Ibat eech Admmiatrator that ... altematift IIIe8D8' The IItffecti'f'8 dam of tbia-reauJ.atioa.
truck bad p8888d 811 annual 'f'8par of ,.mieeion HmitatiOll wiD ac:hieft 8 August 1& 1.98:1. SectioD 111 of tb8 ae.
tightDea8188t. EPA felt that ""t.J.h.t ' redactiaa ill emi88iori. . . at le88t Air Ad. prv..ide. that .tandarda u .
documeatatkla - me tb8t IJB80Iine tank equivaleat to the recIuctimt ill emia8ion8 peftOllD8DC8 QI' reYiaioDa thereof
trucb opera.., oat of the t8rmiDaI bad of 88C:h air pollutant'" ac:hiend UDder become effBctive upon prmnulptiaa ...
pased 8 npor tislatneu te8t woUI the taDk tnc:k vapor tisbllk.. apply to affected fac:iliti-. CDIIaractiaIt
provide 8 -fII. lor.. 81'" 01 ...~ requirema8l, the ~tor "1h8II, or 8Jdifk:ation of whida we.
loacIiu8s bato npar-tisht ...... Indueb)" permit the U88 oI.ch altematlv.. -commenced after the date of propoeel
oppo8llN8.. C8DtI...",d 8ftI8d the . . ... -n... the I8rmiDaI ~ .... ~ 17. 1tBJJ., , '.:.
liabi1n,. 48 tba t8mda8I 0W88f far bmk I wtdt EPA apprevalundeP SectIon A. prescribed by Section U1. tha,
trI8:b b8 doee DOt OWIL At --cI; 111(hK3). to drIeIop e diff_-a lira. pIOI8I1ptioD 01 tbeee ataDcWda --
automated......... tlte ttndu.d "','r farC08trallia&,.........OII8 &0.. preceded by the Administratar'1
Dp......h,. il1I8IIaIIJ DOt pneeat 8DIf. ':' ~. taS tracb. . ,-. determination (40 CFa ..14 44 ~
cannot del1lrmine which trucb an ,',. 0118 Oftmn~ter felt th8t 8JI 49222. dated Auaut 21.187'1) that ~
loadfas. n. AIflICf I'MJiaa thea. - . adminiatrathe bardea woald be Cle8bK1' IOaIC88 contrib8te ....A-ndr to-
limitatioaa bat belt'n- that the 'f'8par by a req.6-...ut 10 keep YIIpar T poUutlaa which may re8lOD8b1y be-
~
256
-------
Federal ...... I Vol. 48. No. 181 I Thursday, Ausuat 18. 1983 I Rules and Regulations
37589
anticipated to endA"" public health or
,,_)fare. In accordance with Section 117
of the Act, publication of thete
promulgated .tandard8 wu preceded by
COJIIultstion with appropriate advi80ry
committee.. independent expert8. and
Federal deplirtmenta and aseaci-.
ThiI replation will be reviewed
within 4 years from the date of
promulsation as required by the Clean
Air Act. This review will include an
aeseument of such factora a. the Deed
for integration with other prosrama. the
exietence of alternative methods.
enforceability, emission control
technology, and reportins requirementa.
Section 311 of the Clean Air Act
requires the Administrator to prepare an
economic jmpact a88essment for any
Dew source .tandard of performance
under Section 111(b) of the Act. An
'ecoDomic Impact alle88ment was
prepared for this regulation and for
other regulatory alternatives. All
aepectl of the assessment were
considered in theformulation of the
etandards to eneure that cost was
carefully considered in determinins
BDT. The economic impact aBsessment
Ie included in the background
Information documenta for the propoaed
and promulgated Btandards (BID,
VOlumeBI and ll).
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
of1980 (Pub. L. 96-511) requires
clearance from the Office of Mangement
and Budset (OMB) of reportins and
recordkeeping requirementB that qualify
Ie an "information collection request"
under the PRA. For the purposeB of
OMB'. review, and analysis of the
burden associated with the reporting
and recordkeeping requirements of this
regulation has been made. During the
first Z years of this regulation, the
average annual burden of the reporting
and recordkeeping requirements would
be 4.8 person-years, based 011 an
average of 11 respondents per year.
Information collection requirements
contained in this regulation (II 60.502,
80.503, 80.505) have been approved by
the OMB under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44
UAC. 3S01 et aeq. and have been
U8igned OMB control number ~
IIOCI1.
The ResuJatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(RFA) requireI that differential impaeta
on amaU buaineaees resulting from all
Federal resuIationa be identified and
analyzed. The RFA does not by its te~
apply to resuIationa proposed prior to
JIDuary I, 1981. Consequently the RF A
does DOt impose any requirements in the
Aaency'. development of the bulk
88BOIine terminal NSPS (propoeed
Dec:ember 17, 1980). However, the
ApncJ bas COD81dered the economic
impact of the ltandarda on relatively
lIDall termiDa1a and tank truck firma,
and the economic anal)'8il has since
been reviewed in reference to the RF A.
The defiaition of a lIDall business in the
bulk terminal induatry (SIC 5111),
ac:cordina to the criterion to qualify for
8BA loans. 18 a firm with lea than S22
million in annual receipta. .
Approximately 50 to 80 percent of the
bulk terminal iDdu8try can be
CODIidered u IIDaU buaineues
accordins to this criterion. In the for-hire
tank truck induatry (SICa 4212, 4213, and
4%14), a small business is defined as a
firm with Ie.. than $8.5 to S'7 million in
annual receipta. Approximately 60
percent of the for-hire tank truck
industry can be considered as amall
bu.inell8l accordina to this criterion.
The RFA further .tipulates that the
analYBis mUlt be prepared if 20 percent
of the .mall busines..s are significantly
affected.
Five new terminals are expected to be
constructed in the first five years. and
approximately SO facilities will become
affected through modification or
reconstruction. Of the 55 affected
facilities, 15 terminals, a 27 percent
share. can be considered small.business
entities (assuming Model Plant 1
approximates a small business), and so
the 20 percent criterion is exceeded. The
analysis concluded that significant
impact for small business entities would
occur only under the worst-case
a88umption of complete cost absorption.
Under a more likely scenario. further
analysis revealed no significant impact.
Since the impact on small bulk terminal
businesses is not expected to be
significant, no Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis is required for this industry
sector.
Thirty-four model firms in the for-hire -
tank truck industry are expected to be
affected by 1985. Twenty-three affected
firms are expected to be small business
entities. representing a 68 percent share.
which exceeds the 20 percent criterion.
The potential exists for a significant
impact to occur in worst-case scenario if
control costs are completely absorbed.
The resulu from the return-on-
transportation investment analysis not
only auaested as significant worst-case
impact, but that the impacts are more
severe for the largest model trucking
firms. A more likely eoenario was.
analyzed and no significant economic
impact was found. This ec:enario was
based on the realistic assumption that '
most of the control coats will be passed
through with very little coat absorption
affecting the ROT!. Even under complete
coat pau-through the price of psoline
257
increases at most by 0.03 percent. Since
the impact on small independent tank
truck firms is not expected to be
significant. no Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis is required for this industry
sector.
Under Executive Order 1229l, EPA is
required to judge wbether a regulation is
a "major rule" and therefore subject to
certain requirements of the Order. The
Agency. has determined this regulation
will result in none of the adverse
economic effects set forth in Section 1 of
the Order as grounds for finding a
regulation to be a "major rule." The net
annualized coats through the first 5
years of implementation. including
depreciation and interest. are projected
to be considerably below the thresbold
cost for defining a "major rule." Only
negligible increases in the price of
gasoline attributable to implementation
of these etandards are expected. The
Agency bas therefore concluded that
this regulation is not a "major rule"
under Executive Order 12291. In
addition to the economic analysis. the
Agency carefully examined the cost of
various technical alternatives in terms
of the emission reductions achieved.
This was done for the range of
configurations and facility sizes wbich
are anticipated to be affected by the
standard and; as described under the
preamble section "Modification and
Reconstruction." led to relaxation of the
proposed standard for sources with SIP
level controls in-place. The incremental
coat of the final standard in terms of the
incremental emission redUctiOD
achieved would range from a 88vingS at
certain medium to large size plants to a
cost of approximately '1,100/Ms for a
typical small facility. The total cost per
unit of VOC emission reduction
associated with this regulation is $440/
-Ag. This cost is consistent with that of
other new source performance
standards some of wbich COBt $1.000/Mg
to $2.000/Ms of VOC emiasion
reduction. or higher.
Li8t of Subjects in. en Put.
Air pollution control Aluminum.
Ammonium sulfate plants. Asphalt,
Cement industry. Coal copper. Electric
power plants. Gla.. and sla.. products.
GraiDa.lntersovemmei1ta1 relations.
Iron. Lead. Metals. Metallic minerals,
Motor vehicles. Nitric acid plants. Paper
and paper products industry. Petroleum.
Phosphate. Sewage disposal Steel
Sulfuric acid plants. Waate treatment
and disposal. Zinc, Tires.
-------
37590
Federal Register I Vol. 48. No. 161 I Thursday, August 18. 1983 I Rules and Regulations
Dated: August.. 1983.
William D. RuckelahaUII,
.4dministrotor.
PART 6O-{AMENDED]
40 CFR Part 60 is amended as tollows:
1. By adding a new subpart as follows:
Subpart XX-Standarda of Performance for
Bluk Gasoline Terminals
Sec.
60.500 Applicability and designation of
affected facility.
60.501 Defmitiona.
60.502 Standards for Volatile Organic
Compound (VOG] emissions from bulk
gasoline tenninals.
60.503 Test methods and procedures.
60.504 [Reserved.)
60.505 Reporting and recordkeeping.
60.506 Reconstruction.
Authority: SectioDJ 111 and 301(aJ of the
Clean Air Act. as amended [42 U.S.C. 7411.
7601(a)), and additional authority as noted
below.
Subpart XX-Standards of
Performance for Buill: Gasoline
Terminals
~ 60.500 ApplIcabilIty and designation of
affected f8cf11ty.
(a) The affected facility to which the
provisions of this subpart apply is the
total of all the loading racks at a bulk
gasoline terminal which deliver liquid
product into gasoline tank trucks.
(b) Each facility under paragraph (a)
of this section. the construction or
modification of which is commenced
after December 17. 1980, is subject to the
provisions of this subpart.
(c) For purposes of this subpart. any
replacement of components of an
existing facility, described in paragraph
I 6O.5OO(a), commenced before August
18, 1983 in order to comply with any
emission s~andard adopted by a State or
political subdivision thereof will not be
considered a reconstruction under the
provisiona of 40 CFR 60.15.
tNot.: The intent of these standard. i. to
minimize the emisaioDl of VOC throuah the
application of best demonstrated
technologies (BDT]. The numerical emission
limits in thiJ standard are expressed in term.
of total organic compounds. This emiuion
limit reflectl the performance of BCT.)
~ 80.501 DeflnttIon8.
The terms used in this subpart are .
defined in the Clean Air Act, in I 60.2 of
this part, or in this section as follows:
"Bulk gasoline terminal" meana any
gasoline facility which receives gasoline
by pipeline, ship or barge, and has a
gasoline throughput greater than 75.700
liters per dal. Gasoline throughput shall
be the maximum calculated design
throughput as may be limited by
compliance with an enforceable
condition under FederaL State or local
law and discoverable by the
Administrator and any other person.
"Continuous vapor processing
system" means a vapor processing
system that treats total organic
compounds vapors collected from
gasoline tank trucks on a demand basis
without intermediate accumulation in a
vapor holder. .
"Existing vapor processing system"
means a vapor processing system
[capable of achieving emissions to the
atmosphere no greater than 80
milligrams of total organic compounds
per liter of gasoline loaded]. the
construction or refurbishment of which
was commenced before December 17.
1980. and which was not constructed or
refurbished after that date.
"Gasoline" means any petroleum
distillate or petroleum distillate/alcohol
blend having a Reid vapor pressure of
27.6 kilopascals or greater which is used
as a fuel for internal combustion
engines.
"Gasoline tank truck" means a
delivery tank truck used at bulk gasoline
terminals which is loading gasoline or
which has loaded gasoline on the
immediately previous load.
"Intermittent vapor processing
system" means a vapor processing
system that employs an intermediate
vapor holder to accumulate total organic
compound.l vapors collected from
gasoline tank trucks. and trea Is the
accumulated vapors only during
automatically controlled cycles.
"Loading rack" means the loading
arms, pumps. meters, shutoff valves.
relief valves, and other piping and
valves necessary to fill delivery tank
trucks.
"Refurbishment" means, with
reference to a vapor processing system.
replacement of components of, or
addition of components to, the system
within any 2-year period such that the
fixed capital cost of the new
components required for such
component replacement or addition
exceeds 50 percent of the cost of a
comparable entirely new system.
''Total organic compounds" meana
those compounds measured according to
the procedures in I 60.503.
"Vapor collection system" means any
equipment used for containing total
organic compounds vapors displaced
during the loading of gasoline tank
trucks.
"Vapor processing system" means all
equipment used for recoverin8 or
oxidizing total organic compound.l
vapors displaced from the affected
facility.
"Vapor-tight gasoline tank truck"
means a gasoline tank truck which has
258
demonstrated within the 12 preceding
months that its product delivery tank
will sustain a pressure change of not
more than 750 pascals (75 mm of water)
within 5 minutes after it is pressurized
to 4.500 pascals (450 mm of water). This
capability is to be demonstrated using
the pressure test procedure specified in
Reference Method 27.
~ 60.502 Standard for Volatile Orglnlc
Compound (VOC) eml88lona from bulle
gasoline termln""
On and after the date on which
I eo.8(b) requires a performance test to
be completed. the owner or operator of
each bulk gasoline terminal containing
an affected facility shall comply with
the requirements of this section.
(a) Each affected facility shall be
equipped with a vapor collection system
designed to collect the total organic
compounds vapors displaced from tank
trucks during product loading.
(b) The emissions to the atmosphere
from the vapor collection system due to
the loading of liquid product into
gasoline tank trucks are not to exceed 35
milligrams of total organic compounds
per liter of gasoline loaded, except as
noted in paragraph (c) of this section.
(c) For each affected facility equipped
with an existing vapor processing
system, the emissions to the atmosphere
from the vapor collection system due to
the loading of liquid product into
gasoline tank trucks are not to exceed BO
milligrams of total organic compounds
per liter of gasoline loaded.
(d) Each vapor collection system shall
be designed to prevent any total organic
compounds vapors collected at one
loading rack from passing to another
loading rack.
(e) Loadings of liquid product into
gasoline tank trucks shall be limited to
vapor-tight gasoline tank trucks using
the following procedures:
(1) The owner or operator shall obtain
the vapor tightness documentation
described in 160.505(b) for each
gasoline tank truck which is to be
loaded at the affected facility.
(2) The owner or operator shall
require the tank identification number to
be recorded as each gasoline tank truck
is loaded at the affected facility.
(3) The owner or operator shall cras..
check each tank identification number
obtained in (e)(2) of this section with the
file of tank vapor tightness
documentation within 2 weeks after the
corresponding tank is loaded.
(4) The terminal owner or operator
shall notify the owner or operator of
each nonvapor-tight gasoline tank truck
loaded at the affected facility within :I
weeb after the loading hat occurred.
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 48. No. 161 I Thursday, August 18. 1983 I Rules and Regulations
37591
(5) The terminal owner or operator
shall take steps assuring that the
nonvapor-tight gasoline tank truck..~,m
not be reloaded at the affected fa,cihty
until vapor tightness documentation for
that tank is obtained.
(6) Alternate procedures to those
described in (e)(l) through (5) of this
section for limiting gasoline t~ tru~
loadings may be used upon applicatIon
10, and approval by. the Administrator.
(f) The owner or operator shall act to
assure that loadings of gasoline tank
trucks at the affected facility are made
onlv into tanks equipped with vapor
coliection equipment that is compatible
with the terminal's vapor collection
s\'slern,
. [g) The owner or operator shall act to
assure that the terminal's and the tank
truck's vapor collection systems are
connected during each loading of a
gasoline tank truck at th~ affected
facility. Examples of actIons to
accomplish this include training drivers
in the hookup procedures and posting
\'isible reminder signs at the affected
loading racks.
(1:) The vapor collection and ~iquid
loading equipment shall be deslgne~ and
operated to prevent gauge pressure In
the delivery tank from exceeding 4.500
pascals (450 mID of water) during
product loading, This level is not to be
exceeded when measured by the
procedures specL.;ed in ~ 6O.503(b),
(i) ~o pressure-vacuu..-n vent in the
bulk gasoline terminai's vapor collection
5\'stem shall begin to open at a system
pressure less than 4.500 pascals (450 nun
orwaler).
(j) Each calendar month. the vapor
collection system. the vapor processing
s\'stem, and each loading rack handling
gasoline shall be inspected during the
loading of gasoline tank trucks for total
organic compounds liquid or vapor
leaks. For pUfPoses of this paragraph.
detection methods incorporating sight,
sou.'1d, or smell are I;lcceptable. Eac..'1
detection of a leak shall be recorded and
the source of the leak repaired within 15
calendar days after it is detected.
(Approved by the Office of Managemenl and
Budget under control number .2D6{H)OO6)
~ 60.503 Test methods and procedures.
(a) Section 60.8(i) does not apply to
the performance test procedures
required by this subpart.
(b) For the purpose of determining
compliance with i 60.502(..'1), the
rolJowing procedures shall be used:
(1) Calibrate and install a pressure
measurement device (liquid manometer,
magnehel.ic gauge. or equivalent
instrument), capable of measuring up to
500 mm of water gauge pressure with
::!::2.5 mm of water precision.
(2) Connect the pressure measurement
device to a pressure tap in the terminal's
vapor collection system. located as close
as possible to the connection with the
gasoline tank truck.
(3) During the performance test.
record the pressure every 5 minutes
while a gasoline tank truck is being
loaded. and record the highest
instantaneous pressure that occurs
during each loading. Every loading
position must be tested at least once
during the
(c) For the purpose of determining
compliance w'iL, the mass emission
limitations of i 6O.502(b) and (c), the
following reference methods shall be -
used:
(1) For the determination of volume al
the exhaust vent
(i) Method 2B for combustion vapor
processL."18 systems.
(ii) Method ZA for all--other vapor
processing systems.
(2) For tl(e determination of total
organic compounds concentration at the
exhaust vent Method 25A or Z5B. The
calibration gas shall be either propane
or butane.
(d) Imm'ediately prior to a
performance test required for
determination of compliance with
i 6O.502(b). (c). and (h), all potential
sources of vapor leakage in the
terminal', vapor collection system
equipment shall be monitored for leaks
using Method 21. The monitorLrlg shall
be conducted only while a gasoline tank
tr<.1ck is being loaded. A reading of
10.000 ppmv or greater as methane shall
be considered a leak. All leaks shall be
repaired pri~ to conducting the
performance test.
(e) The test procedure for determini~'~
compliance with i 6O.50zfb) and (c) is as
follows:
(1) All testing equipment shall be
prepared and installed as specified in
the appropriate test methods.
(2) The time period for a performance
test shall be not less than 6 hours,
during which at least 300,000 lite,;, of
gasoline are loaded. If the througnput
criterion is not met during the initial 6
hours, the test may be either continued
until the throughput criterion is met. or
resumed the next day with another
complete 6 hours of testing. As much as
possible. testing should be conducted
during the 6-hour period in which the
highest throughput normally occurs.
(3) For intermittent vapor processing
systems:
259
(i) The vapor holder level shalt be
recordeci at the start of the pe!formance
test. The end of the performance test
shall coincide with a time when the
vapor holder is at its original level.
(ii) At least two startups and
shutdowns of the vapor processor sha1l
occur during the performance test. If this
does not occur under automatically
controlled operation. the system shall be
manually controlled.
(4) The volume of gasoline dispensed
during the p-=:formance test period at all
loading racks whose vapor emissions
are controlled by the processing system
being tested shall be determined, This
volume may be determined from
terminal records or from gasoline
dispensing meters at each loading rack.
(5) An emission testing interval shall
consist of each 5-minute period during
the performance test For each interval;
(i) The reading from each
measurement instrument shall be
recorded. and
(ii) The volume exhausted and the
average total organic compounds
concentration in the exhaust vent shall
be determined. as specified in the
appropriate test method. The average
total organic compounds concentration
shall correspond to the volume
measurement by taking into account the
sampling system response time.
(6) The mass emitted during each
testing inten'al shall be calculated as
follows:
M.,=10-
-------
37592
Federal Register I Vol. 48. No. 161 I Thursday, August 18. 1983 I Rules and Regulations
===~~
(f) The owner or operator may adjust
the emission results to exclude the
methane and ethane content in the
exhaust vent by any method approved
by the Administrator.
[Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended [012
U.S.C. 7414J)
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2060-0006.)
~ 60.504 [R88erYed].
~ 60.505 Reporting and recordkeeping.
(a) The tank truck vapor tightness
documentation required under
160.502(e)(1) shall be kept on file at the
terminal in a permanent form available
for inspection. .
(h) The documentation file for each
gasoline tank truck shall be updated at
least once per year to reflect current test
results as determined by Method 27.
This documentation shall include, as a
minimum. the following information:
(1) Test Title: Gasoline Delivery Tank
Pressure Test-EPA Reference Method
27.
(2) Tank Owner and Address.
(3) Tank Identification Number.
(4) Testing Location.
(5) Date of Test.
(6) Tester Name and Signature.
(7) Witnessing Inspector. if any:
Name. Signature. and Affiliation.
(6) Test Results: Actual Pressure
Change in 5 minutes, mm of water
(average for 2 runs).
(c) A record of each monthly leak
inspection required under I 6O.502(j)
shall be kept on file at the terminal for
at least 2 years. Inspection records shall
include, as a minimum. the following
information:
(1) Date of Inspection.
(2) Findings (may indicate no leaks
discovered: or location. nature. and
severity of each leak).
(3J Leak determination method.
(4) Corrective Action (date each leak
repaired; reasons for any repair interval
in excess of 15 days).
(5) Inspector Name and Signature.
(d) The terminal owner or operator
shall keep documentation of all
notifications required under
160.502(eJ(4) on file at the terminal for
at least 2 years.
(e) [Reserved).
(f) The owner or operator of an
affected facility shall keep records of all
replacements or additions of
components performed on an existing
vapor processing system for at least 3
years.
[See. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42
U.s.c. 7414)]
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 206(HJ(J(J6.)
~ 60.508 Reconstructloft.
For purposes of this subpart:
(a) The cost of the following
frequently replaced components of the
affected facility shall not be considered
in calculating either the "fixed capital
cost of the new components" or the
"fixed capital costs that would be
required to construct a comparable
entirely new facility" under I 60.15:
pump seals. loading arm gaskets and
swivels. coupler gaskets. overfill sensor
couplers and cables. flexible vapor
hoses, and grounding cables and
connectors.
(b) Under I 60.15. the "fixed capital
cost of the new components" includes
the fixed capital cost of all depreciable
components [except components
specified in 160.506(a}] which are or
will be replaced pursuant to all
continuous programs of component
replacement which are commenced
within any 2-year period following
December 17. 1980. For purposes of this
paragraph, "commenced" means that an
owner or operator has undertaken a
continuous program of component
replacement or that an owner or
operator has entered into a contractual
obligation to undertake and complete.
within a reasonable time, a continuous
program of component replacement.
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42
U.S.C.7414))
2. By adding five new Reference
Methods (Method ZA, Method 2B.
Method 2SA. Method 25B. and Method
27) to Appendix A as follows:
Appendix A-Reference Methods
Method ZA. Direct Measurement of Gas
Volum. Through PiJM8 8Dd Small Ducts
1. Applicability and Principle.
1.1 Applicability. This method applies to
the measurement of gas flow rates in pipes
and small ducts. either in-line or at exhaust
positions. within the temperature range of 0
toSO"C.
1.2 Principle. A gas volume meter is used
to measure gas volume directly. Temperature
and pressure measurement. are made to
correct the volume to standard conditions.
2. Apparatu6. .'
Specifications for the apparatus are given
below. Any other apparatus that has been
demonstrated (subject to approval of the
Admini.trator) to be capable of meetins the
specificatioDl will be considered acceptable.
2.1 eo. Volume Meter. A po.itive
dillplacement meter. turbine meter. or other
direct volume mea.urins device capable of
measurins volume to within Z percent. The
260
meter shall be equipped with a temperature
gauge (:!: percent of the minimum absolute
temperature) and a pressure gauge (::t2.5 mm
Hg). The manufacturer's recommended
capacity of the meter shall be sufficient for
the expected maximum and minimum now
rates at the samplins conditions.
Temperature, pressure, corrosive
characteristics. and pipe size are factors
neces.ary to consider in choosing a suitable
gas meter.
2.2 Barometer. A mercury. aneroid. or
other barometer capable of measuring
atmospheric pressure to within 2.5 mm Hg.1n
many cases. the barometric reading may be
obtained from a nearby national weather
service station. in which case the station
value (which is the absolute barometric
pressure) shall be requested. and an
adjustment for elevation differences between
the weather station and the sampling point
shall be applied at a rate of minus 2.5 mm Hg
per JO-meter eleva tion increaae. or vice-vena
for elevation decrease.
2.3 Stopwatch. Capable of measurement
to within 1 second. .
3. Procedure.
3.1 Installation. A. there are numerous
I}'pes of pipes and small duct. that may be
subject 10 volume measurement. it would be
difficult to describe all possible installation
schemes. In general. flange fittings should be
used for all connections wherever possible.
Gasket. or other seal materials should be
used to assure leak-tight connections. The
volume meter should be located so as to
avoid severe vibrations and other factonthat
may affect the meter calibration.
3.2 Leak Test. A volume meter installed
at a location under positive pressure may be
leak-checked at the meter connections by
usins a liquid leak detector solution
containing a surfactant. Apply a small
amount of .the solution to the connections. If .
leak exists. bubbles will fonn. and the leak
must be corrected.
A volume meter installed at a location
under negative preasure i. very difficult to
test for leaks without blocking flow at the
inlet of the line and watching for meter
movement. If this procedure is not possible.
visually check all connections and assure
tight seals.
3.3 Volume Measurement.
3.3.1 For sources with continuous. steady
emission flow ratn. record the initial meter
volume reading. meter temperature(s). meter
pressure. and start the stopwatch.
Throughout the test period. record the meter
temperature(s) and pressure 80 that average
values can be detennined. At the end of the
test. stop. the timer and record the elapsed
time. the final volume reading. meter
temperature(s). and presaure. Record the
barometric pressure at the beginning and end
of the test run. Record the data on a table
similar to Fisure ZA-t.
IIII..1JMG cou. ......
-------
Federal RewJ.ster I VoL 48. No. 161 I Thursday, August 18. 1983 I Rules and Regu]atioDa
3'1S93
111111
Plant
Date
Run t':!i~~er
Samp 1e L.ocation
BaT~tric Pressure ~ Hg
O~eratoTs
Start
F-inish
Meter NuQer
~~ter Ca1ibration Coefficier.:
liS: Da.te Ca1ibrated
Time
, Vol ume
IStatic: .
, oressure i
f.ieter I Tsperatu:-e I
Run/clock'. readinq rr:m Hq -c -1<
. I
,
, . t I
I
i
I
I
I
/' I
j
~
- I I
,
I I
! ,,--
-
i t
I
, I
,
.
I '
I
I
.
~Yerage I l
Fi~re 2A-'.
Volu::e f1o~1 rate lheisure::ant data.
261
-------
37594
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 161 / Thursday. August 18. 1983 / Rules and Regulations
~
-
-
3.3.2 For sources with noncontinuous.
aon-steady emission flow rates. use the
procedure in 3.3.1 with the addition of the
following: Record all the meter paramete!'3
and the start and stop times corresponding to
eacb process cyclical or noncontinuous event.
4. Calibration.
4.1 Volume Meler. The volume meter is
calibrated against a standard reference meter
prior to its initial use in the field. The
referenca meter ia a spirometer or liquid
di.aplacement meter with a capacity
consistent with tbat of the test meter.
Alternately. a calibrated. standard pitot
may be used as the reference meter in
conjunction r"th a wind tunnel assembly.
Attach the test meter to the wind tunnel !O
that the total flow passes through the test
meter. For eacb calibration run. conduct a 4-
point traverse along one stack diameter at a
position at least eight diameters of straight
tunnel downstream and two diameters
upstream of any bend. inlet, or air mover.
Determine the traverse point locations II
specified in Method L Calculate tbe reference
volume using the velocity values following
the procedure in Method Z. the wind tunnel
cross-sectional area. and the run time.
Set up the test meter in a configuration
similar to that used in the field installation
(i.8., in relation to the flow moving device).
Connect tbe temperature and pressure gauges
81 they are to be used in the field. Conncet
the reference meter at the inlet of the flow
line. if appropriate for the meter. and begin
pi flow through the system to condition the
meters. During this conditioning operation.
check the system for leaks.
The calibration mall be run over at least
three different flow rates. The calibration
flow rates ahall be about 0.3.0.8. and 0.9
times the test meter'a rated maximum flow
rate.
For each calibration run. the data to be
collected include: reference meter initial and
fmal volume readingl. the test meter initial
and final volume reading. meter average
temperature and pressure. barometric
pressure. and run time. Repeat the ruIUI at
each flow rate at least three times.
Calculate the test meter calihration
coefficient, Y.: for each run as follows:
y. -
IV..-V..) (1.+273)
(V..-V..J(Ia + 273)
1\
(P.+P,,]
Eq. ZA-1
Y.=Test volume meter calibration
coefficient. dimensionieSL
V,=Reference meter volume reading. ma.
V..=Teat meter volume reading. ma.
t.=Reference meter average temperature.
0c.
t.=Test meter average temperature. 0c.
p.=Barometric pressure, mm Ha-
P.=Teat meter average static pressure. mm
Ha-
f =F'mal reading for run.
i=Initial reading for run.
Compare the three y. values at each
of the flow rates tested and determine
the maximum and minimum vailies. The
difference between the maximum and
minimum values at each flow rate
should be no greater than 0.030. Extra
runs may be required to complete this
requirement. If this specification cannot
be met in six successive runs. the teat
meter it not suitable for use. In addition.
the meter coefficients should be
between 0.95 and 1.05. If these
specifications are met at all the flow
rates. average all the Y.. values from
runs meeting the specifications to obtain
an average meter calibration coefficient.
Y...
The procedure above shall be
performed at least once for each volume
meter. Thereafter. an abbreviated
calibration check shall be completea
following each field test. The calibration
of the volume meter shall be checked by
performing three calibration runs at a
single. intermediate flow rate (based on
the previous field test) with the meter
pressure set at the average value
encountered in the field test. Calculate
the average value of the calibration
factor. If the calibration has changed by
more than 5 percent, recalibrate the
meter over the full range of flow as
described above.
Note.-lf the volume meter calibration
coefficient values obtained before and after a
teat series differ by more than 5 percent, the
teat seriea .hall either be voided. or
calculations for the test series shall be
performed using whichever meter coefficient
value (i.e.. before or after) gives the greater
value of pollutant emission rate.
4.2 Temperature Gauge. After each
test series. check the temperature gauge
at ambient temperature. Ule an
American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) mercury-in-glass
reference thermometer. or equivalent, as
a reference. If the gauge being checked
agrees within 2 percent (absolute
temperature) of the reference. the
temperapu-e data collected in the field
shall be considered valid. Otherwise.
the test data shall be considered invalid
or adjustments of the test results shall
be made. subject to the approval of the
Administrator.
4.3 Barometer. Calibrate the barometer
used against a mercury barometer prior to the
field test,
5. Calculations.
Carry out the calculations. retaining at
least one extra decimal figure beyond that of
the acquired data. Round off figures after-the
final calcula tion.
5.1 Nomenclature
~=Barometric pressure, mm ffs.
P.=Average static pressure in volume meter.
mm Ha-
Q.=GII flow rate, ma/rnin. atandard
conditiOl1L
T.=Averqe absolute meter temperature. "IC.
V. = Meter volume reac:Iins. m a.
Y.=Averqe meter calibration coefficient,
dimensionJesa.
f=Final readins for teat period.
i = Initial readins for test period.
s=Standard conditiOll8, 20. C and 780 mm
Hg.
9=ElapMd test period time. miD.
5.2 Volume.
V- ~ Q.3III53 T. (V.rV.,J
(Po. + PJ
262
T.
Eq. ZA-Z
5.3 Gas Flow Rate.
Q.
V-
o
Eq. ZA-a
8. Bib/jograpby.
6.1 Rom. Jerome J. Maintenance.
Calibration. and Operation of l80kinetic
Source Sampling Equipment. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Research
Triangle Park. N.C. Publication No. APTD-
0576. March 197%.
6.2 Wortman. Martin. R. Vollaro. and P.R.
Westlin. Dry Gaa Volume Meter Calibration..
Source Evaluation Society Newsletter. Vol. 2.
No. %. May 1977.
6.3 Westlin. P.R. and R.T. Shigebara.
Procedure for Calibrating and Usill8 Dry Ws
Volume Meters aa Calibration Standards.
Source Evaluation Society Newsletter. Vol, 3.
No.1. February 1978.
Method 2&-Oet8nnIn8llon of ExIt.. GII
Volume Flow R8t8 From G880IIne Vapor
lnc:ln8ratora
Applicability and Principle
1.1 Applicability. This method appliea to
the measurement of exhaust volume flow rate
from incinerators that process gasoline
vapors consisting primarily of alkanes.
alkenes. and/or arenas (aromatic
hydrocarbons). It is assumed that the amount
of auxiliary fuel i. negligible.
1.2 Principle. The incinerator exhaust
flow rate i. determined by carbon balance.
Orpnic carbon concentration and volume
flow rate are meallllred at the incinerator
inIet. Organic carbon. carbon dioxide (cOt),
and carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations
are meaaured at the outlet. Then die ratio of
total carbon at the incineratDr inlet and outlet
is multiplied by the inlet volume to determine
the exhaust volume and volume flow rate.
%. Apparatus.
2.1 Volume Meler. Equipment described
in Method 2A.
2.2 Organic Analyzer (2). Equipment
described in Method 25A or 258.
2.3 CO .4nolyzer. Equipment described in
Method 10.
2.4 Co. Analy"Zer. A nondispersive
infrared (NDIR) Co. analyzer and supporlinl
equipment ~ith comparable specificationa aa
CO analyzer described in Method 10.
3. Procedure.
3.1 Inlet II18taliation. Install a volume
meter in the vapor line to incinerator imet
accordins to the procedure in Method 2A. At
the volume meter inlet. install a aample probe
as described in Method Z5A. Connect to the
probe a leak-tight, heated (if necessary to
prevent condeuaation) sample line (Stainlell
steel or equivalent) and an organic analyzer
system as described in Method 25A or 258.
3.2 Exhaust Installation. Three sam pl.
analyzers are required for the incinerator
exhaust Co.. CO. and organic analyzers. II.
sample manifold with a single aample probe
may be used. Install a sample probe 81
described Method 2M. Connect . \eak-tiFt
heated ample line to the aample probe. Heat
the sample line aufflciently to prevent any
condensation.
3.3 Recording ReqWrement6. The output
of each analyzer must be permanently
recorded on an anaJos atrip chart. digital
recorder. or other recording device. The chart
speed or number of readinp per time unit
-------
reoerB1 Aegllner I Val- 48, 1'10. 1b1 / Thursday. August lB. 1983 I Rules and Regulations
37595
must be similar for aU analyzers 80 that data
can be correlated. The minimum data
recordintl requirement for each analyzer i.
one mea.urement value per minute.
3.4 Preparation. Prepare and calibrate all
equipment and analyzers according to the
procedures in the respective methods. For the
cOt analyzer, foUow the procedures
de&eribed in Method 10 for CO analysis
substituting C~ calibration gas where the
method caUl for CO calibration gaa. Tbe span
value for the C~ analyzer shall be 15 percent
by volume. All calibration gases must be
introduced at the connection between the
probe and the sample line. If a manifold
system is used for the exhaust enalyzers, all
the analyzers and sample pumps must be
operating when the calibrations are done.
Note: For the purposes of this test. methane
should not be used as an organic calibration
lias.
3.5 Sampling. At the beginning of the test
period. record the initial parameters for the
inlet volume meter according to the
procedures in Method 2A and'mark all of the
recorder strip charts to indicate the start of
the test. Continue recording inlet organic and
exhaust C~, CO. and organic concentrations
throughout the test. During periods of process
interruption and halting of gas flow. stop the
timer and mark the recorder strip charts so
that data from this interruption are not
included in the calculations. At the end of the
test period. record the final para=neters for
the inlet volume meter and mark the end on
all of the recorder strip chans.
3.6 Past Test Calibrations. At the
conclusion of the sampli."1g period. int!'oduce
the calibration gases as specified in the
respective reference methods. If an analyzer
output does not meet the specifica tions of the
method, invalidate the test data for the
period. Alternatively. calculate the volume
!'Hults using initial calibration data and using
final calibration data and report both
resulting \'olumes. Then, for emiuioRS
calculations, use the volume measurement
resulting in the greatest emi~sion rate or
concentrs tion.
4. Calculations.
Carry out the calculations. retaining at
[east one extra decimal figure beyond that of
the acquired data. Round off figures after the
final calcula tion.
4.1 Nomenclature
CO.=Mean carbon monoxide concentration
in system exhaust. ppmv.
CO:.=Mean carbon dioxide concentration in
system exhaust. ppmv.
HG.=Mean organic concentration in system
exhaust as defined by the calibration
gal. ppmv.
HC1=Mean organic concentration in system
inlet as defined by the calibration gas,
ppmv,
K=Calibration gas factor= Z for et.'Ul11e
calibration gas,
=3 for propa::!e calibration gas.
=4 for butane calibration gas.
=Appropriate response factor for other
calibration gas.
V.=Exhaust gas \'olume. !\P,
VII=Inlet gas voluee. M'.
Q.=Exhaust gas \'olume fio\\' rate. rn'/min.
Q.=Inlet gas volume flow rate. :r.'/r:.in.
8= Sample run ti::1e, min.
I=Standard Conditions: ZC'c. ;60 tr'.m Hg.
300 = Estimated concentration of ambient
C~. ppmv. (C~ concentration in the
ambient air may be measured during the
test period using an NDIR and the mean
value substituted into the equation.)
4~ Concentrationa. Determine mean
concentration of Inlet organics, outlet C~.
outlet CO. and outlet organics according to
the procedurel in the respective methods and
the analyzers' calibration curves. and for the
time inten-als specified in the applicable
regulations. Concentrations should be
determined on a parts per million by volume
(ppmv) basil. -
4,3 Exl'Jaust Gas Volume. Calculate the
exhaust (las volume as follows:
K(HC,J
K(HCe) + CO:, - 300
Vft
v..
Eq. ZB-1
4.4 E.'i.haust Gas Volume Flow Rate.
Calculate the exhaust gas volume flow rate
as follows:
v...
Q..=-
e
Eq. ZB-2
5. Bibliography.
5.1 Measurement of Volatile Organic
Compounds. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Office "f Air Quality Planning and
Standar~. Research Triangle Park. N.C.
Z7711. Publication No. EPA-450/2-78-041,
October 1978. p. 55.
Method 25A-Determination of Totaa
Gaseoua Organic Con<;ef.tration Using.
Flame Ionization Analyzer
1. Applicabilio' and Principle.
1.1 ApplicabiliO'. This method applies to
the measw:ement of total gaseous organic
concentration of vapors consisting primarily
of alkanes, alkenes. and/or arenes (aromatic
hvdrocarbons), The concentration is
expressed in terms of propane (or other
appropriate organic calibration gas) or in
terms of carbon.
1.2 Principle, A gas sample is extracted
from the source through a heated sample line.
if necessary. and glass fiber filter to a flame
ionization analyzer (FlA). Results are
reported a5 volume concentration equivalents
of the calibration gas or as carbon
equivalents.
2. Definitions.
2.1 Measurement System, The total
"'Olaf
.. oILCll
equipment req~ for the determination of
the gas concentration. The aystem consisu of
the following major aub8)'stema:
2.1.1 Sample Interfacs. That portion of the
system that i. used for one or more of the
fonowing: sample acquisition. aample
transportation. sample conditiC1lliJl8. or
protection of the analyzer from the effects of
the atack effluent.
2.1.2 Organic Analyzer. That portion of
the system that senses OFganic concentration
and generates an output proportional to the
gas concentration.
2.2 Span ~'alue. The upper limit of a gas
concentration measurement range that is
specified for affected source categories in the
applicable part of the regulations. The span
value is established in the applicable
regulation and is usually 1.5 to 2.5 times the .
applicable emission limit. If no span value is
pro\;ded. use a span value equivalent to 1.5
to 2.5 times the expected concentration. For
convenience. the span value should
correspond to 100 percent of the recorder
scale.
2.3 Calibration Gas. A known
concentration of a gas in an appropriate
diluent gas.
2.4 Zel'o Drift. The difference in the
measurement system response to a zero level
calibration gas before and after a stated
period of operation during which no
unscheduled maintenance. repair. or
adjustment took placa.
2.5 CDlibration Drift. The difference in the
measurement system response to a mid-level
calibration gas before and after a stated
period of operation during which no
IlJUIcheduled maintenance. repair or
adjustment took place.
2.6 Response Time. The time interval
from a step chan~ in pollutant concpntration
at the inlet to the emission measurement
system to the time at which 95 percent of the
corresponding final value is reached as
displayed on the recorder.
2.7 Calibration Error. The difference
between the gas conCl!1ltration indicated by
the measurement system and the \mown
concentration of the calibration gaL-
3. Apparatus.
A schematic of an acceptable measurement
system is shown in Fi3Ufe 25A-1. The .
essential components of the measurement
system are described below:
ORGANIC
_Al VZl:1I
AHa
RfCOROiIl
ŁAWl E
"....
f.....25A t o."",.w: c...,,-- ~- ~.,.-
263
-------
31596
Federal Register I VoL 48. No. 161 I Thursday, August 18. 1983 I Rules and Regulations
-
~
3.1 Organic ConcentratiOTl Analyzer. A
flame ionizatioo analyzer- (FIA) capable of
meeting or exceediJJs the tpedfic8tionl in
thi. method.
3.2 Sample Probe. Stai..weu aieeL or
equivalent. three-bole rake type. Semple
bola ahali be 4 mID in diameter or smaller
and located at 16.7. SO. and 83.3 percent of the
equivalent .tack diameter_Alternatively, a
single opening probe may be used 80 that a
g&8 .ample ia collected froin the centrally
located 10 percent area of the stack cross-
section. .
3.3 Sample Line. Stainless steel or Teflon"
tubi:1g to tranBport the IBIIlple sa s to the
analyzers. The sample line should be heated.
if necessary. to prevent condensation in the
line.
3.4 Calibraaon Valve Assembly. A three-
way valve assembly to direct the zero and
calibration ga.es to the analyzera is
recommended. Other methods. such as qtrick-
connect linea. to rotrte calibration gas to the
analyzers an: applicable.
3.5 Particulate Filter. An in-stack or an
out-of-stack gla88 fiber filter i. recommended
if exhaust gas particulate loading is
signjfi=t. AD. out-of.stack filter should be
heated to prevent any condensation.
3.6 &corder. A Itrip-chart recorder.
analog computer. or digital recorder for
recording lDeasurement data. The minimum
data recording requirement is one
measurement value per ciliJute. Note: This
method is often applied in highly explosive
areas. Caution and care should be exercised
in choice of equipment and installation.
4. Calibration and Other Gases.
Gases used for calibrations. fuel. and
combustion air (if required) are contained in
compressed ga.s cylindera. Preparation of
calibration gases shall be done accordins to
the procedure in Protocol f'.:o. 1. listed in
Reference 9.2.. Additionally. the manufacturer
of the cylinder &bould provide a
recommended shelf life for each calibration
gas cylinder over which the concentration
does not change more than :;:2 percent from
the certified value. For calibration gas values
not generally available (Le.. organics
between 1 and 10 percent by volume).
alternative methods for preparing calibra.tion
gas mixtures. such as dilution systems.. ma~'
be used with prior approval of the
Administrator.
Calibration gases usually consist of
propane in air or nitrogen and are determined
in terms of the span value. Organic
compounds other than propane can be used
folJowinj the above guidelines and making
the appropriate corrections for response
factor.
4.1 Fuel A 40 percenl H./60 percent He or
W percent Ho/60 percent N:8" mixture is
recommended to avoid an oxygen synergism
~ect that reportedly occurs when oxygen
~ncentration varies significantly from a
:nean \'alue. .
4.2 Zera Gas. High purity air with less
:han 0.1 pam per million by volume (ppmv)
:Jf organic material (propane or carbon
. Mention of trade oam... Or .pecific p~ucta
ioe. not constitute endorsement by the
~vironrnental Protection Agency.
equivalent) or lea than 0.1 percent of the
span value. wtrlchever iIi sreatfJr.
4.3 Low-ltM!! Calibration Gas. An O!1Janic
calibration ga with a .............bation
equivalent to %S to 35 perceIlt of the
applicable span value.
4.4 Mid-ll!Vf!l Calibration Gas. An organic
calibration gas with . concentratioo
equivalent to 45 to 55 percelof the
applicable span Y8lue. .
4.5 High-level ColibrotioD Co.. An
organic calibration gaa with a cooceutration
equivalent to 80 to 90 percent of the
applicable span value.
5. Measurement System PerforrntJI1Ce
Specifications.
5.1 Zero Drift. Less than:l:3 percent of
the span value.
5.2 Calibration Drift. Less than :t:3
percent of span value.
5.3 Calibraaon Error. Less than :1:5
percent of the calibration gas value.
6. Pretest Preparations.
6.1 Selection of Sampling Site. The
location of the sampling me is generally
specified by the applicable regulation or
purpose of the test; i.e.. exhaust stack. inlet
line, ete. The sample port shall be located at
least 1.5 meters or 2 equivalent diameters
(whichever is leas) uprneam of the gas
discharge to the atmolphere.
6.2 ŁDeation of Sample Probe. Install the
sample probe so that the probe is centrally
located in the stack. pipe. or duct and is
sealed tightly at the stack port connection.
6.3 Mec1$urement System Preparation.
Prior to the emisaion teat. a.semble the
measurement system following the
manufacturer's written instructions in
preparing the sample interface and the
organic analyzer. Make the system operable.
FlA equipment can be calibrated for almost
any range of total organics concentrations.
For high concentrations of organics (> 1.0
percent by volume B8 propane) modifications
to most commonly available analyzers are
necessary. One accepted method of
equipment modification ia to decrease the
size of the sample to the analyzer throush the
use of a sm&ller diameter sample capillary.
Direct and continuous measurement oC
organic concentration i5 a necessary
consIderation when determining any
modification design.
6.4 Calibrotion Error Test. Immediatelv
prior to the test series. (within 2 hours of the
start of the test) introduce zero gas and high-
level calibra tion gas a t the calibration valve
assembly. Adjust the analyzer output to the
appropriate levels. if neceuary. Calculate the
predicted responae for the low-level and mid-
level gases based on a linear responae line
between the zero and high-level responses.
Then introduce low-level and mid-level
calibration gases successively to the
me~urement ~'stem. Record the analvzer
responses Cor l~w-level and mid-level -
calibration gases and determine the
differences between the measurement svstem
responses and the predicted responses. These
differences must be lea. than 5 percent of the
respective calibration gas value. If not. the
measurement system is not acceptable and
must be replaced or repaired prior to testing.
No adjustments to the measurement system
shall be conducted after the calibration and
264
before the drift check (Section 7.3). If
adjuatmenta IIJ'e neceauy before the
completion of the te.t aeriea, perform the c&ift
check. prior to the required adjutmea18 8Dd
repeat the calibration followiq the
adjustments. If multiple electronic l'BD8ft Irt
to be uled. each additional ra. mUit be
checked with a mid-level cah'bratiaa IUIo
verify the multiplication factor. .
6.5 &sponse Time TesL Introducw: zerv
gal into the measuremellt system at'the
calibration valve assembly. When the I)'8tem
output has stabiliZed. switch quicldy to the
high-level calibration gaL Record the time
from the concentration change to the
measurement system response equivaltllt 10
95 percent of the step change. Repeat the tilt
three timea and average the reaulta.
7. Emission Measurement Test
7.1 Organic Measurement. Begin samplina
at the start of the test period. recordiDa lime
and any required process information II
appropriate. In particular. note on the .
recording chart periods of process
interruption or cyclic operation.
7.2 Drift Delerminatian. Immediately
follow1n8 the completion of the te.t period
and hourly during the.1elt period. reintroduce
the zero aDd mid-level calibration ga8e8, ODe
at a time, to the measurement sy!'lem at the
calibration valve assembly. (Make DO
adjuetments to the meaS1ll'ement system until
after both the zero aDd calibration drift
checks are made.) Record the analyzer
response. If the drift values exceed the
specified limits. invalidate the test raul18
preceding the check and repeat the tat
following correctiona to the meuureIIII!IIt
system. Alternatively. recalibrate the telt
measurement system a. in Section 6.4 and
report the results using both seta of
calibration data (i.e~ data determined prior to
~e test period and data determined followina
the test period). .
8. Organic Concentration CDlcuJation&
Determine the average orga.nic
concentration in terms of ppmv 81 propane or
other calibration gas. The averqe aball he
determined by the integration of the output
recording over the period specified in t!Je
applicable regulation.
Ii resulta are required in terms of ppmv 88.
carbon. adjust measured concentrationllllinl
Equation 25A-1.
Cc=K G.-
Eq.25A-1
Where:
Cc=Organic concentration 8S carbon. ppmv.
G.-=Organic concentration .s measured.
ppmv.
K = Carbon equivalent correction factor.
K = 2 for ethane. .
K = 3 for propane.
K=4 for butane.
K=Appropriate response factor for other
organic calibration gaseL
9. Bibliography.
9.1 Measurement ofVolati]e Orpnic
Compounds-Guidenne Seriel. U.s.
Environmental Protection Agency. Research
Triangle Park, N.C. Publication No. EPA-4501
2-78-()41. lune 1976. p. 46-501.
9.2 Traceability Protocolfor EatablishiDI
True Concentrations of Gasel Used for
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 48. No. 161 I ThW'Sday. Aug~st 18. 1933 I Rules and Regulations
37597
Calibration and Audita of ContiDuoua Source
Emluion Monitort (Protocol No.1). U.s.
Envinmlllental Protection .\pncy.
Environmental Monitorins and Support
Laboratory. Research Triall8le Park. N.C.
June 1878.
9.3 Guoline Vapor Emillion Laboratory
Evaluaticm-Part Z. U.S. Environmental
Protection Asency. Office of Air Quality
P\anniD8 and Standards. Relearch Triall8le
PBI'k. N.C. EMB Report No. 75-G~. August
1875.
II8thod 2S8-D8t8f".III8tIOft of Tot8I
~OrpnIcCoM-.b..~ u-...
~ Infr8r8d An8Ip8r
1. Applicability and Principle.
1.1 Applicability. Thll method applies to
the DIIasurement of totalpll8C)U8 orpnic
concentration of vaport coDliatiq primaril,.
of aIkanea. (Other OI'Ianic: materiala ma,. be
mealUl8d Ulins the pneral procedure in thi.
method. the appropriate calibration .... and
an analyzer ... to the appropria.. ablOrption
band.) The concentration I. expressed in
terIIII of propane (or other appropriate
orpnlc calibration lal) or in term8 of carbon.
13 Principle. A pI sample i. extracted
&om thelOurce throqh a beated sample line,
IfDIC8II8J'y. and slall 6ber filter to a
DOndilperlive infrared analyzer (NDIR).
Rewta art reported u volume concentration
equlvalenta of the calibration su or aa
cuboa equivalaatl.
Z. Delinitiana.
The termI and definitioDl are the same 88
for Method %SA.
3. Apparatu& The apparatu. are the IIUIIe
U for Method %SA with the exception of the
followlD&:
3.1 OlJanic Concentration Analyzer. A
aoadilpenive infrared analyzer deaiped to
m...ure alkane OI'Ianica and capable of
meetlq or exceeding the speci6catiODl in
this method.
4. Calibmtian ea.e..
The calibration ..... are the aame a. 8ft
requIrad far Method 25A. Section 4. No fuel
...18 rwquired for an NDIR.
I. Mecuurement Syat.m Performaru:tl
SpeciliCDtianl.
6.1 Z8m Drift. Leu than :%:3 percent of
the .pan value.
$.I Calibmtion Drift. Lell than :%:3
perceDt of the Ip8D value.
11.3 CaJibmtion Error. Leu than :%:5
pel'l:8Dt of the calibration su valve.
e. Pre_t Pnparationa.
tu Selection of Sampling Site. Same.. in
Method Z5A. Sectioa 8.L
U LoctIlion of SampJjna Probe. Same ..
In Method 25A. Sectiau 8.2.
II M_arement Syat.m Preporotion.
Prior to the emiuiaa teat. aaaemble the
m'''1InIID8Dt .,..tem followiDI the
lD8D1IIactanr'a written 1aatruc:ti0Dl in
JII'IPIriDa tha aamplelnterface and the
DIpDIc lII8lyur. Wake the ay.tem operable.
4f CaJibrrztiDII Error T- Same .. in
Method Z5A. Sectioa U.
II &.pan. Tan. T88I Prot:ttdrzrw. Same
u Ia Method Z5A. Sacttaa U.
7. B1niaion ~ T88I 1'roctNJm..
Ptac:eed witb the eI8i88iaD III888UI'8III8D
~aatW8Cta17 completioD aI
7.1 Organic MeaJlu~m8nt. Same a. in
Method 2M. Section 7.1.
7.2 Drift Detltrminatian. Same aa in
Method %SA. Section 7.Z.
8. Organic Cor.centratian Calculations.
The calculationa are the I8me a. in Method
25A. Section 8.
9. Bibliogmphy.
The bibliosraphy Is the same as in Method
25A. Section 9.
Method 27-oet.....n8t1on of VIIPOI'
TIghtnna of GaoIIne D8IIv8rJ Tank U81ng
~V8CUUIII Test .
1. Applicability and Principle.
1.1 Applicability. Thi. method i.
applicable for the detennination of vapor
tishtneea of a I8IOMe deliv.ery tank which ia
equipped with vapor collection equipment.
-1.2 Principle. Prealure aod vacuum are
applied alternately to the compartmentl of a
paolin. delivery tank and the chanse In
preuure or vacuum ia recorded after a
specified period of time.
Z. Definitiona and Nomenclature.
301 Ga8alin& An, petroleum diatillate or
petroleum diatillatefalcobol blend ba\iDs a
Reid vapor preuure of 27.8 kilopaacal. or
greater which II uaed u a fuel for internal
combustion engiDea.
2.2 Delivery tank. Any container.
includins allOCiated pipes and 6ttinp. that Is
attached to or forma a part of any truck.
trailer. or railcar uaed for the transport of
I880Me.
2.3 Compartment. A liquid-tight diviaiOll
of a delivery tank.
2.4 Delivery tank vapor collection
equipment. Any pipin&, boaet. and devices on
the delivery tank uaed to collect and route
psollne vapors either from the tank to a bulk
tenninal vapor control ayatem or from a bulk
plant or service atatkm into the tank.
2.5 Time period of 1M pl'flfl8Ure or
vacuum test (t). The time period of the tel" as
.pecified in the appropriate regulation. during
which the chaDae in preuure or vacuum Ie
monitored. In minutes.
2.8 Initial preuu~ {PJ. The preaaure
applied to the delivery tank at the begInniDs
of the atatic presaure teat. .. apecifjed in the
appropriate I'I!IJUlation. in DIm H.O.
2.7 Initial vacuum {VJ. The vacuum
applied to the delivery tank at the besfnnin8
of the static vacuum telt. .. apecified in the
appropriatel'l!lJUlation. in DIm H.O.
2.6 Allowable preuun cht1tr8* („t. The
allowable amount of decrea. in pressure
durina the atatic preuure teat. within the time
period t. .. apecified in the appropriate
resulation. In !DID HaC.
2.9 I' Allowable vacuum cJwmse (4.v). The
allowable amDUDt of dec:reue In vacuum
durina the static V8C1I1IID teat. within the time
period t. .. .pecified in the appropriate
resulation. In I11III H.O.
3. Apparotu&
3.1 Prea~ M1fUf:a Pump or.......... Intt
IJ88 cylinder of air OJ' iDert sa IIIIfficient to
prenurize the deli".". tank to 500 DIm H.O
above atmoapheric praaure.
:u Regu}OtDr. Low ..-re resulator for
controlliDa preMu1a.tion. of the delivery ,
tank.
3.3 VCIQIUJD NIII'C& V8CU1IDI pump
capable of 1IQQI8tln8 the deli.., ... to
ZSO !DID H.O below atma8pberic: preaure.
265
3.4 Pressun!-vacuum supply hose.
3.5 Manometer. Liquid manometer. or
equivalent instrument. capable of measurins
up to 500 mm H.O puse prenUfe with :t2.S
mm H.O precjmon.
3.6 Pressure-vacuum ~lief valves. The
test apparatUllhaIJ be equipped with an in-
line preuure-vacuWD relief valve set to
activate at 675 mm HoD above atmospheric
pressure or 250 mm H.O below atmospheric
pressure. with a capacity equal to the
pressurizins or evacuatins pumps.
3.7 Test cap for vapor recovery hose. This
cap shall have a tap for manometer
connection and a 6ttiq with ebut-off valve
for connection to the pressure-vacuum supply
bose.
3.8 Capa far liquid delivery hoses.
4. Pretest Preparatiana.
1.1 Summary. Testin8 problema may
occur due to the prnence of volatile vapors
and/or temperature fiuctuatiODl inside the
delivery tank. Under these conditioDl. it is
often difficult to obtain a etable initial
pressure at the besinnin8 of a teat. and
erroneous test resultl may occur. To help
prevent this. It ia recommended that. prior to
testi1J8. volatile vapors be removed from the
tank and the temperature iDaide the tank be
allowed to atablliza. Beca- It la not alwave
pouib1e to attain completely these pretest'
conditioDl a provtlion to ensure reproducible
resu1ta I. iDcluded. The difference in results
for two conaecutiva rune mua8 meet the
criterion In SectiODI5.2.5 and 5.3.5.
f.2 Emptying of tank. The delivery tank
ahaIl be emptied of aU liquid.
4.3 Purging of vapor. As much a. ponible.
the delivery tank aha11 be pmpd of all
volatile vaporII by an,. eafe. acceptable
method. Qua method il to carry a load of
noo-voIatile liquid fueL aucb .. dieael or
heatill8 oil. Immediately prior to the teat. thu8
fluahina out all the volatile 1J88O\iDe..pen. A
ucond method ia to rtIIIIO„e the volatile
vaport by blowiDa ambient air into each tank
compartment for at leaat 20 minute8. 1'IU8
aecond method i8 URB1ly DOt .. efreetift and
oftea C8U1188 atabilization. prob\ema. requirinf
a much lonser time for atabilization. durin,
the teatiJJI.
4.4 Temperotu~ BtabilizDtiolt. As much
as possible. the teat aba1J be conducted under
'othennal conditiODl. The temperature of the
delivery tank ahou1d be allowed to
equilibrate in the t.t environment. Durins
the teat. the tIIDk abauId be protected from
extreme eDvIro~taI and tclDl*odure
variability. 8Uc:b.. direct aun\iPt.
5. Test Proc«Ju.-e.
5.1 PreporotiOu&
5.1.1. Open and c:Io8e eech dome CO„er.
5.U Connect Itlltic electrir:aJ grmmd
ccmnec:tit1n6 tD tank. Attach the liquid
delivery and \'8por return boae8. remove the
liquid delivery eIbGwa, and pbta the liquid
delivery 6ttiDp.
(Nota.- The purpaae of t88tiDa the liquid
delivery boea8 ia to detact taua or boles thai
would allow liqaid ...... cI8riDt a deli"."..
Liquid delivery boaea are DOt CGII8idered to
be poaaibJe aourcea of vapeII' lHkate. and
thua. do DOt ha.. to - att8c:bed for a yapor
leakap teat. 1Dltead. a liquid deliYery boee
-------
3'7598
Federal Register I Vol. 48. No. 161 I Thursday. August 18. 1983 I Rules and Regulationa,.
.:::::::::
could be eithentsually iuspected. 01' filled
with wat« to detect any liquid leakage.t
5.1.3 Attach the IeIt cap to tlte end of the
vapor recovery hose.
5.1.4 Connect the pressure-vacuum 8tIpplJ
hose and the presaure-vacuum relief valve 10
the shut-Gff valve.. Attach a manometer to \be
pressure tap.
5.1.5 Connect compartments of the tank
intemally to each other if possible. H not
possible. each compartment IDU8t be Iftted
separately. .. if it were an individual
delivery tank..
5.2 Preuwe lest.
5.2.1 Connect Ihe pres8II1'1! source to the
pressure-vacuum supply hoee.
5.2.2 Open the shut-off valve in the vapor
recovery hose cap. ApplYinB air pressure
slowly. pressurize the tank to P,. the initial
pressure specified in the regulation.
5.2.3 CIoae the sbut-off valve and allow
the preu1D"I!! in the tank to stabilize. adjU8tinJ
the pressure if necessary to maintaiIr
pressure ofp'. When the preS8Ul'l! stabilizes.
record the time and initial prelsure.
5.2.4 At the end of ( miDutes. record the
time and final pressure.
5.2.5 Repeat steps 5.2.2 through 5.2.4 until
the cbaD8e in preuun fur two COl18eCUtiv.
runs agrees within:%:1%.5!DID H.O. CalcuJate
the arithmetic averap of the two results.
5.2.8 CompIII'e the average IJIea8aRd
change in preuUft to the lIlJowable pressure
change. 6p. n specified in the replatioa. If
the delivery tank does oot satisfy the vapor
tightne81 criteriOD specified iD the ~latiOD,.
repair the .-a!8 of leakage. and repeat the
pressure test until the criteriOD ia !DeL
52.7 Diaunmect the presaure source from
the pre.ure-vacuum 8UJ'ply Iaose. and slowl,
open the abut-off valve to briDg the tank to
atmospheric pressure.
5.3 VQCUl/m tes/t.
5.3.1 Coanect the vacuum IOIl1"CI! (0 the
pressure-YIIC\ItDJJ 8tIppIJ hoee.
5.3.2 Open the slmt-off valve in the vapor
recovery hOR cap. Slowly eYacuate the tank
to V.. the initiaJ 1'1ICIItI!It specified in the
regulatiolt.
5.3.3 CJoee dJ. sfmt-oft' vah. and ane-
the pre.ww in the tank lID ..abili.. adjustins
the ~ if DeCII88I')' to maintain .
vacuum of Vt. When the pressure atabilize..
record the time ad initial Y&CIJUIIL
U4 At the eud a( t miaatea. reconi ..
time and fiD8i Y8CUIIID.
5.3.5 Repeat at. U~ thnJqit ~3.41D1D1
the cban&e in VKnIllD b two COI8eCUDft
runs agrees withiJI Ou.s mm H.Q. Ca~..
the arithmetior. aV'l!R8l' 01 the two results.
5.3.8 CoIIIp8I'8 the aftr88e meesaed
chaup in vacuum to the allowable Vacmml
chan88. 6p. u specified ilk the regIIoI.anolL Ii
the delivery tank. doea nat latisfy the vap«
tightnesa criterioA apec:ified iu. the resWa tiem.
repair the II08I'C8 of Iukage. and repeat the
V8CIIum. tut until tile criterion is IIII!L
5.3.1 DilCOllllect tl1e YBC1U1m 80111C1! from
the pl'el81lJ'e-YllCIIIDD IUpply ItOI8, .:ad alowfr
open the shut-off valve to brina the tank to
atmospheric pre8RI'e.
5.4 A1«-lt!IIt cIemHJp. DlKOIIIIeCt aD tnl
etlaipaMDt ad NttInI die deIiwry buill Ie ~
pretHt amditioo.
8. Al~..di_~
&1 n. JIUIIIpiIIw 01-- inIo the bo*-
of a ~ bulk i8 _-=ep1aWe
alternative to the pressure ~ described
above. Likewise. the drainiD8 oI_ter oat fJI
the bottom of a delivery tank ID8Y btr
substituted for the vacuum lOurce. Note that
some of the specific st~8tep procedul'l!ll
in the metbod JJIOIIt he altered slishtl, to
accommodate these different prenunr and
vacuum sources.
8.Z Teclmiqaes odser than specified akve
may be used for purging and pressuriziDg .
delivery tank. if prior approval ia obtained
from the Administrator. Such approval ~il1
be based upon demonatrated equivalency
with the above method.
[FR Doc. ~ PII8d ""1~ 11:--1
IIIUJ8 c:oaa ----
40 CfR Part eo
[~-224""")
Addttfon of R.r.....~ IIetrtod %1 CD
Appendix A
AGENCY: Enviroamentat .Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACT'ION: Pinal rule.
SUIIMAAY: This action eatablishes a new
refereou method to be added to
Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 80.
standards of performance for new
stationary sources. Reference Method ZI
wiD be used to determine volaill.,.
organic compound (VOC} lew from
process equipment such a8 valves.
flanges and other connecticma. pump
and compresaor Nala. ~ relief
device.. procel8 drains. OpeD-eDded
valves, pump 8I1d c:ompl'eS8m Ie81
system degassing vents, ac:cumulator
Yelsel vents, asitator seals. and 8c:ces8
door seale. 'Ibis refere~ method wiD
be used in several air pollutioa
regulations for the limitation of fugitive
VOC emissiona which an beiDg
developed Łor propoul aDd
promulgation.
EFFECTIW DATI: Aqust 18, 1983.
ADDRaa& Docket. A dociet. uumber
A-79-3%. contAining information
considered by EPA in development of
standards of performuce for fugitive
emission 80urces ill the 8)"Dthetic
organic c:bemical m8ll11factarin8
industry, and which .180 contam.
infonnation considered in development
of the pramtdgated reference method, is
available Cor public inspection and
copying between 8:00 IUD. and 4:00 p.m..
Monday through Friday, at EPA'.
Central Docket SectioD (A-l30). Wed
Tower Lohb,. Gallery 1. 401. M Street.
SW., Washiqbl, D.c. 2Ot8G. A
reasonable fee 1D81' be charpd fur
copying.
FOR fIURTHER IItFCMIllATION COIn'ACT:
Mr. WintoD Kelly. EmiJaioD
MeulllemeGt Bnmcb. R............
Standarda BDd ~ DiviaiCD
266
{MD-13}. U.S. EnvirOOdn:-Idal Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Part. North
Carolina 21'711, telephone (919) 54t-
5543.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SWIUII8IJ of the Ilef8r8DC8 Method
Reference Method 21. '"Determination
of Volatile Organic Compound Leak." i.
used to detect VOC leaks from
individuallOurces of fugitive emission&.
Thia procedure is used to identify and
classify lew oniJ, and ia not to be Wled
as a direct measure of masa emission
rates from individual source.. A
portable instrument ia used to measure
the local organics concentration at the
surface of 8 potentialleai: source. If a
meter reading equal to or greater than I
limit specified in an applicable
regulation is obtained, a VOC emission
(leak} exists, The procedure can .Iso be
used to confirm that "no detectable
emiaaiona" are presenL If the measured
difference betweeu the ~ ambient
concentration and the concentration
present at the surface of the potential
leak sourclt ii, less than a concentration
specified in an applicable regulation,
then there are no detectable emiuiol1l.
Backpaund
011 January 5. 1981. .. an appendix to
the propoeed standud8 of perfonnanl:e
for fugitive emission sourcea in the
synthetic organic chemical
manufacturing indaatry, EPA propoaed
Reference Method ZI, Tbia method
would normally be promulgated with
those standards. However, the method
is being promu}gated earlier because
several additional regulatioDi are beiDs
developed for pnmmlption in the -
future that specify that Reference
Method 21 be used. This early
promulgation will ensure that the
reference procedure will be promulgatad
prior to being specified in promulgated
standards. of performauC8.
Under Executiye Order 12291. EP"
must judge whether 8 regulation i.
"major'" and, therefore, Rbject to the
requirement of a regulatory impact
analysis. This regulation ia not major
becauae it win not have an annual effect
on the economy of S100 million or more;
it will not result in. a major increaM ia
costs or pricea; and there will be DO
significant adnne effI!Ct8 aD
competition, emph.,........d. iDYntmeDt.
produdiYity. innovatiOlt, or on the
ability of U.S,-based enterpri- to
compete with foreign-based enterpriHt
in domestic or export markets.
Pursuant to the pnwiaion8 of 5 U.s.c.
tlJ6(b). I bereb, certify that the attacPM
rule will not have a significaDI ---
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 161 I Thursday. August 18. 1983 I Rules and Regulations
37599
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Public: Participation
During the development of the test
method. trade and professional
associations -and individual companies
supplied comments on the methods.
After proposal on January 5. 1981.
comments were received from various
sources. A public hearing was held on
March 3. 1981. to receive additional
formal comments. The formal comment
period was extended from April 6. 1981.
to July 31. 1981.
PubUc Comments and Changes Made to
the Proposed Refenmce Method
Numerous comments were received in
response to proposal of the standards of
perfonnance for fugitive emissions from
synthetic organic chemical industry.
Most of the comments concerning the
test method were specifically related to
the selection of the definition of a leak.
and not to the procedure alone. These
comments have been carefully
considered and. where determined to be
appropriate, changes have been made in
the proposed test method. A detailed
discussion of the comments and full
responses will be included in Docket No.
A-~2.
The following discussion summarizes
the changes made to the reference
method based on additional review and
in response to public comment.
The promulgated reference method
has been reorganized to improve the
clarity of the description of the
procedures. A "Definitions" aection has
been added to place all the definitions
in one section.
A change in the requirements for
instrument performance evaluation was
also made to improve the quality control
of the procedure. Instead of requiring a
calibration precision test consisting of
nine repetitioDl at 6-month intervals. the
new requirements specify a test
consisting of three repetitions at 3-
month intervals. This change will
provide a quality control result every
quarter and will require less effort.
The definition of "no detectable
emissions" has been changed to be
consistent with the inatnunent
specification of scale readability. Tbe
propOled procedure defmed "no
detectable emissions" as 2 percent of
the leak definition concentration. with a
minimum scale readability of 6 percent
of the leak definition. The definition of
"no detectable emissions" has been
changed to correspond to the minimum
readability specification and will be
specified in applicable regulations.
Several commenters noted that the
instruments used during screening
studies responded differently for
different chemicals. One commenter
stated that the actual response factor
was poorly rel"ted to the theoretical
response factor and cited inconsistent
responses for nonane and decane. as
well as no response for some chemicals.
to support his claims. Another
commenter suggested that the leak
concentration for the standards should
vary according to the process unit since
a wide variability (0 to 571) in response
factors has been determined for the
industry. And. another commenter
stated that aromatic compounds such as
benzene. toluene. and xylene
demonstrate a nonlinear response close
to 10.000 ppmv. In response to these
comments. Reference Method 21 gives
specifications for the instrument to be
used in monitoring fugitive VOC
emission sources. The technique is
intended to classify leaks only. not to
provide a rigorous analytical
concentration or mass emission rate of
VOC. A specific statement has been
added to Method 21 to clarify the
intention to classify leaks only. The
variation in response factor due to
compound or instrument is not expected
to affect significantly the number of
leaks detennined through screening
because screening values are usually
much greater than the leak definition for
leaks and much less than the leak
definition for nonleaks. Two industry
commenters concur with EPA in this
position. However. to remove some of
the wide variability. a defmition.
specification. and teat procedure for
response factors have been added to
Method 21. This specification will
assure that the analyzer used will
respond to the compounds to be
measured.
Another commenter suggested that the
gas specification section be amended to
include a turnover of calibration gas
standards every 3 montha since
calibration gases can deteriorate
significantly over time. A provision has
been added to the promulgated
Reference Method 21 to require a shelf-
life specification on calibration gases
and procedures to follow to ensure that
calibration gas concentratiOD8 are
accurate.
Two comments concerned the
instrumentation requirements of
Reference Method 21. The commenter
stated that only two instnunents on the
market today could be considered. and
neither one wQuld meet the
specifications of the reference method
entirely: the first instrument fails the
calibration accuracy. and the section
instnunent does not meet the response
time requirement. In response. although
there are oDly two instruments which
267
have been used to any great extent, the
technical literature and product
information suggest that there are others
which could be used for detecting leaks.
The specifications included in the
proposed reference method are
achievable based on performance during
EPA studies.
One comment letter expressed
concern that no provision was made for
the use of new instruments or
calibratjon procedures which would
provide equivalent or more accurate
results. They asked that equivalency
provisions be added for test methods
and procedures. In response. Reference
Method 21 gives specifications for the
monitoring instrument that are general
enough so as not to preclude new
analytical developments. In addition.
the General Provisions (40 CFR Part 60.
Subpart A) allow for equivalent methods
and procedures to be used for .
performance testing and monitoring
when the results of the equivalent
method have been demonstrated to be
at least as accurate as results obtained
by the required methods.
One commenter suggested that use of
a windscreen upwind of the component
being screened would prevent
meteorological effects on the instrument
readings. During EPA studies. the
selection of 8 measurement location at
the surface of the source was made to
minimize meteorological effects. During
the data collection efforts, no further
provisions were found necessary to
obtain repeatable screening values.
Therefore. all of the field data were
collected without a windscreen. In view
of these facts. it seems unnecessary to
require that 8 windscreen be used.
An alternative screening procedure
has been added for those sources that
can be tested with a soap solution.
These sources are restricted to those
with non-moving seals. moderate
~ .rface temperatures. without large
openings to atmosphere. and without
evidence of liquid leakage. The soap
solution is sprayed on all applicable
sources and the potential leak sites are
observed to determine if bubbles are
formed. If no bubbles are formed. then
no detectable emissions or leaks exist. If
any bubbles are formed. then the
instrument measurement techniques
must be used to determine if a leak
exists, or if no detectable emissions
exist. as applicable.
The alternative soap solution.
procedure does not apply to pump seals.
sources with surface temperatures
greater than the boiling point or less
than the freezing point of the soap
solution. sources such as open-ended
lines or valves. prenure relief value
-------
37600
Federal Register I Vol. 48, No. 161 I Thursday, August 18. 1983 I Rules and Regulations
-
horns, vents with large openings to
atmosphere. and any source where
liquid leakage is present The instrument
technique in the method must be used
for these sources.
The alternative ofestablishing a soap
scoring leak definition equivalent to a
concentration-based leak definition is
not included in the method and is not
recommended for inclusion in an
applicable regulation because of the
difficulty of calibrating and normalizing
a scoring technique based on bubble
formation rates. A scoring technique
would be based on estimated ranges of
volumetric leak rates. These estimates
depend on the bubble size and
formation rate, which are ,ubjective
judgments of an observer. These
subjective judgments could only be
calibrated or normalized by requiring
that the observers correctly identify and
score a standard series of test bubbles.
It has been reported that trained
observers can correctly and repeatably
classify ranges of volumetric leak rates.
However, because soap scoring requires
subjective observations and since an
objective concentration measurement
procedure is available. a soap scoring
equivalent leak definition is not
recommended for the applicable
regulation. The alternate procedure that
has been included will allow more rapid
identification of potential leaks for more
:igorous instrumental concentration
measurement.
M1sc:eUanl!OU8
This fmal rulemaking is issued under
the authority of Sections 111. 114. and
301(a) of the Clean Air Act. as amended
[42 U.S.C. 7411. 7414. and 7691(a)).
List of Subjects iD 40 CFR Part 80
Air pollution control Aluminum.
Ammonium sulfate plants. Asphalt.
Cement industry. Coal copper. Electric
power plants. Glass and glass products.
Grains. Intergovernmental relations,
Iron. Lead. Metals. Metallic minerals,
Motor vehicles. Nitric acid plants. Paper
and paper products industry. Petroleum,
Phosphate. Sewage disposal Steel
Sulfuric acid plants. Waste treatment
and disposal Zinc, 1"1res.
Dated: August 4. 1983.
William D. ill"".'''''''''
Iulministrator.
Appendix A of 40 CPR Part 80 i8 amended
by addiDs Reference Method Z1 al foUo-
A...-.Bx A-Ref..... Metboda
.
Med80d Z1. o....Ih..lkIa of Vo&atile ()rpI8c
r. '"'tI \"'~ L.b
I. Applicability and Principl&
1.1 Applicability. Thil method applies to
the determination of volatile orsanic
compound (VOC) leakl from procels
equipment. These sources include. but are not
limited to. valvel. flangel and other
connectionl. pumpl and compressors.
preslure relief devices. procels drains. open-
ended valves. pump and compreasor seal
system degassing venti. accumulator vesael
vents. agitator seals. and eccesl door seals.
1.2 Principle. A portable instrument il
used to detect VOC leaks from individual.
sources. The instrument detector type il not
specified. but it must meet the specificationa
and performance criteria contained in Section
3. A leak definition concentration baled on a
reference compound is specified in each
applicable regulation. Thil procedure ie
intended to locate and clasaify leakl only.
and il not to be used al a direct meas~ of
mass emission rates from iDdividualsources.
2. Definitions.
2.1 Leak Definition Concentrab'on. The
local VOC concentration at the surface of 8
leak source that indicatel that a VOC
emission (leak) is present. The leak definition
is an inltrument meter reading based on a
reference compound.
2.2 Refe1WlCe Compound. The VOC
species selected al an instrument calibration
basi. for specification of the leak definition
concentration. (For exampl8: If a leak
definition concentration i. 10.000 ppmv a.
methane. then any source emission that
resultl in a local concentration that yielda 8
meter reading of 10.000 on an instrument
calibrated with methane would be classified
- as a leak. In this example. the leak definition
\a 10.000 ppmv. and the reference compound
i8 methane.)
2.3 Calibration Gas. The VOC compound
used to adjust the instrument meter reading
to a known value. The calibration 881 i8
IIsually the reference compound at 8
concentration approximately equal to the
leak defmition concentration.
2.4 No Detectoble Emission. The local
VOC concentration at the surface of a leak
source that indicate. that a VOC emission
(leak) i. not present. Since background VOC
concentrations may exilt. and to account for
instrument drift and imperfect
reproducibility. 8 difference between the
lOurce surface conoentration and the local
ambient concentration i. determined. A
difference baaed on meter readinp of Ie.
than 8 concentration conesponding to the
lDiDimum readability epecificatioa indicatn
that a VOC emiuion (leak) is not preaenL
(For example. if the leak definition in a
regulation i8 10.000 ppmv. then the allowable
mcreaae in surface concentration versus local
ambient concentration would be 500 ppmv
be8ed on the in8trument meter readinp.)
2.5 Response Factor. The ratio of the
known concentration of 8 VOC compound to
the observed meter readlna when measured
1IIin8 an inltrument calibrated with the
reference compound specified in the
application regulation.
2.8 Calibration Precision. The degree of
apeement between meanrementl of the
I8JIIe known value. expresaed u the relative
percentase of the "erase diffenmc:e betweeD
the meter readinp and the Imowa
oonceatratiOl1 to the ~ CODOeDtration.
268
2.7 Response Time. The time interval
from a step change in VOC concentration It
the input of the sampling system to the time
at which 90 percent of the corresponding final
value is reached a. displayed on the
instrument readout meter.
3. Apparatus.
3.1 Monitoring /nstromenL
3.1.1 Specifications.
a. The VOC instrument detector shall
respond to the compoundl beins proces8ed.
Detector typel which may meet !hil
requirement include. but are not limited to.
catalytic oxidation. flame ionization. infrared
absorption. and photoionizalion.
b. The instrument shaU be capable of
measuring the leak definition concentration
specified in the regulation.
c. The scale of the instrument meter shall
be readable to 5 percent of the specified lea~
definition concentration.
d. The instrument shall be equipped with a
pump so that a continuous sample il provided
to the detector. The nominal sample flow rate
sball be 'fa to 3 liters per minute.
e. The inltrument shaU be intrinsically safe
for operation in explosive atmospheres as
defined by the applicable U.s.A. standardl
(e.g.. National Electrical Code by the National
Plre Prevention AIIociation).
3.1.2 Performance Criteria.
a. The inltrument response factors for the
individal compounda to be measured must be
len than 10. .
b. The instrument response time must be
equal to or lesl than 30 second.. The
response time must be determined for the
lnatrumeat configuration to be \lied durin,
testiq.
c. The caJibratioa praci8ion muat be equal
to or Ian than 10 percent of the calibratioD
88s value.
d. The evaluation procedure for each
parameter i. given in Section 4.4.
3.1.3 Performam;. Evaluation
Requirements.
a. A response factor muat be determined
for each compound that i. to be meaaured.
either by testing or from reference 1IOUlCet.
The response factor teltl are required before
placing the analyzer into service. but do not
have to be repeated as subsequent Intervals.
b. The calibration precision test must be
completed prior to placil18 the analyzer into
service. and at lubsequent 3-month intervall
or at the next use whichever i. later.
c. The response lime test i. required prior
to placing the inatrument into service. If a
modification to the sample pumping system
or flow configuration i. made that would
change the response time. a new test ill
required prior to further U8e.
3.2 Calibration CoB.. The monit0rin8
lnatrument il calibrated in terma of pertl per
millioa by volume (ppmv) of the reference
oompound specified in the applicable
regulation. The calibratiOl1ga888 required for
laonitorinl and lnatrument performance
evaluation are !I zero gae (air. lese than 10
ppmv VOC) and a calibration 88' in air
mixture approximately equal to the leak
definition specified in the resuJation. U
cylinder calibration u mixture are U88d. they
mult be analyzed and certified by the
manufacturer to be within %2 percent
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 48. No. 161 I Thursday. August 18. 1983 I Rules and Regulations
37601
accuracy. ami . 8helf life ml18t be epecified.
Cylinder atamianil ml18t be either reanalyzed
or replaced at the end of the specified 8he1f
life. Alternately. calibration gaaea may De
prepared by the \1111' according to any
accepted pseou standards preparation
procedure that will yield a mixture accurate
to within %2 pen:enl Prepared standards
must be replaced each day of uae unleu it
can be demonstrated that degradation does
not occur during storage.
Calibrations may be performed using a
compound other than the reference
compound if a conversion factor is
determined for that alternative compound so
that the resulting meter readings during
10uree surveys can be converted to reference
compound results.
4. Procedures.
4.1 Pretest Preparations. Perform the
instrument evaluation procedures given in
Section 4.4 if the evaluation requirements of
Section 3.1.3 have not been met.
4.2 Calibration Procedures. Assemble and
Itart up the VOC analyzer according to the
manufacturer's in.truction.. After the
appropriate warmup period and zero internal
calibration procedure, introduce the
calibration gas into the instrument sample
probe. Adjust the instrument meter readout to
correlpond to the calibration gas value.
Nole.-II the meter readout cannot be
adjusted to the proper value, a malfunction of
the analyzer is indicated and corrective
actions are necessary before use.
4.3 Individual Source Surveys.
4.3.1 Type /-Leak Definition Based on
Concentration. Place the probe inlet at the
lurface of the component interface where
leakage could occur. Move the probe aloD8
the interface periphery while obaerviD8 the
instrument readout. If an increased meter
reading il oblerved, .Iowly sample the
interface where leakage is indicated until the
maximum meter reading i. obtained. Leave
the probe inlet at thia maximum reading
location for approximately two time. the
instrument response time. If the maximum
observed meter readiD8 is greater than the
leak definition in the applicable regulation.
record and report the resul ts as apecified in
the regulation reporting requirements.
Examples of the application of this general
technique to specific equipment types are:
a. Valve_The most common source of
leak. from valve. i. at the seal between the
Item and housing. Place the probe at the
interface where the stem exists the packiD8
sland and IlUDple the stem circumference.
Also, place the probe at the interface of the
packing gland take-up flaD81 aeat and sample
the periphery. In addition. survey valve
housiDp of multipart a88embly at the surface
of all interfaces where leak could occur.
b. Flanget and Other Connections-For
welded Danges, place the probe at the outer
edge 01 the flanae-8aaket interface and
lample the circumference of the flange.
Sample other typeI of nonpermanent join"
lauch u threaded connections) with a similar
traveraa.
Co Pumpa and Compre'80r8-Conduct .
circumferential lraverae at the outer surface
of the pump or compresaor shaft and -I
interrace. If the IIOUrC8 ia a rotaq shaft.
polilion the probe inlet within 1 em of the
.haft--al intenace for the survey. If the
housins configuration prevents a complete
traverse of the ahaft periphery, sample all
accessible pomona. Sample all other joints
on the pump or compressor houa1D8 where
leakage could occur.
d. Pressure Relief Devic_The
COnfigUr8tion of most pressure relief devicea
prevents sampliI18 at the aealing aeat
interface. For thoae devices equipped with an
enclosed extension. or horn. place the probe
inlet at approximately the center of the '
exhaust area to the atmosphere.
e. Proce.s Drains-For open drains. place
the probe inlet at approximately the center of
the area open to the atmosphere. For covered
drains. place the probe at the surface of the
cover interface and conduct a peripheral
traverse.
f. Open-Ended Lines or Valve&-Place-the
probe inlet at approximately the center of the
opening to the atmosphere.
g. Seal System Degassing Vents and
Accumulator Venta-Place the probe inlet at
approximately the center of the opening to
the atmosphere.
h. Access Door Seal&-Place the probe inlet
at the surface of the door seal interface and
conducfa peripheral traverae.
4.3.2 Type //-"No Detectable Emission".
Determine the local ambient concentration'
around the source by moving the probe inlet
randomly upwind and downwind at a
distance of one to two meters from the
lOurce. If an interference exists with this
determination due to a nearby eminion or
leak. the local ambient concentration may be
determined at distances c10aer to the aource.
but in no CBse shall the distance be 1888 than
25 centimeters. Then move the probe inlet to
the surface of the aource and determine the
concentration described in 4.3.1. The
difference between these concentrations
determines whether there are no detectable
emillions. Record and report the results as
specified by the regulation.
For those cases where the regulation
requirea a specific device installation. or that
.pecified vents be ducted or piped to a
control device. the existence of these
conditions shall be viaually confirmed. When
the regulation also requires that no
detectable emissions exist. viiual
obaervations and aamplins surveys are
required. Examplea of this technique are:
la) Pump or Compressor Seal-U
applicable. determine the type of shaft seal
Preform a .urvey of the local area ambient
VQC concentration and determine if
detectable emissions exist as deacribed
above.
(b) Seal System Degass1D8 Vents.
Accumulator Vessel Vents. Pressure Relief
Device-U applicable, observe whether or
not the applicable ducting or pip1D8 exista.
Also. determine if any .ouree. exist in the
ductiD8 or pipiD8 where emissions could
occur prior to the control device. If the
required ducting or pipins exists and there
are no sources where the emiaaiona could be
vented to the atmosphere prior to the control,
device. then it it presumed that no detectable
emissions are present. If there are aourcea in
the ducting or pipins where emiaaiona could
be vented or lOurcea where lew could
occur, the aamplins lurveys deacribed in this
269
par-agrapb ahall be uaed to determine if
detectable em.iuiona exisl .
4.3.3 AllemativIJ Screening P~ure. A
acreenin8 proc:eciure baaed oa the formation
of bubblea in a IOap solution that i. sprayed
on a potential leak I01Il'CI may be uaed for
thoae IOW'CII that do not have continuously
moving parts. that do not have surface
temperatures greater than the boiling point or
less than the &eezing point of the soap
solution. that do not have open areas to the
atmosphere that the soap solution cannot
bridge. or that do not exhibit evidence of
liquid leakage. Sources that have these
conditions present muat be surveyed uamg
the instrument techniquea of 4.3.1 or 4.3.2.
Spray a soap solution over all potential
leak sources. The soap solution may be a
commercially available leak detection
solution or may be prepared using
concentrated detergent and water. A pressure
sprayer or a squeeze bottle may be used to
dispense the solutJon. Observe the potential
leak sites to determine if any bubbles are
formed. If no bubbles are observed. the
source i. presumed to have no detactable
emis.ions or leaka 88 applicable. If any
bubbles are observed. the instrument
techniquea of 4.3.1 or 4.3.2 shall be used to
determine if a leak exists. or if the .ource has
detectable emiaaions. 88 applicable.
4.4 Instrumerrt Evaluation Procedures. At
the beginning of the instrument performance
evaluation test, asaemble and start up the
instrument according to the manufacturer's
instroctions for recommended warmup period
and preliminary adjuatments.
4.4.1 Response Factor. Calibrate the
instrument with the reference compound as
specified in the applicable regulation. For
each organic .peciea that is to be measured
during individual souree surveys. obtain or
prepare a known standard in air at a
concentration of approximately 80 percent of
the applicable leak definition unless limited
by volatility or explosivity. In theae cases.
prepare a standard at 90 percent of the
saturation concentration. or 70 percent of the
lower explosive limit. respectively. Introduce
thi. mixture to the analyzer and record the
observed meter reading. Introduce zero air
until a atable reading is obtained. Make a
Jtal of three measurements by alternating
between the known mixture and zero air.
Calculate the response factor for each
repetition and the average response factor.
Alternatively, if response factors have been
published for the compounds of interest for
the instrument or detector type. the response
factor determination it not required. and
existing reaulbI may be referenced. Examplea
of published response facton for flame
ionization and catalytic: oxidetion detectors
are included in Section 5-
4.4.2 Calibration Preci8ion. Make a total of
three mea.urements by altemately uiD8 zero
g88 and the specified calibration gaa. Record
the meter readinp. Calculate the average
algebraic difference between the meter
readinga and the known value. Divide thia
average difference by the known calibration
value and mutiply by 100 to expresa the
resulq calibration precision aa a
percentage.
-------
37802
Federal Register I Vol. 48. No. 161 I Thursday, August 18. 1983 I Rules and Regulations
=::
4.4.3 Response Time. Introduce zero gas
into the instrument sample probe. When the
meter reading has stabilized. switch quickly
to the specified calibration g81. Measure the
time from switching to when 90 percent of the
final .table feeding i. attained. Perfonn thia
test .equence three times and record the
re8Ults. Calculate the average response time.
S. Bibh'ography.
S.1 DuBose. D.A.. and G.B. Harris.
ResponH Factora of VOC Analyzers at e
Meter Reading of 10.000 ppmv for Selected
Organic Compounds. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park,
N.C. Publication No. EPA 6OO/z-81~L
September 1981.
5,2 Brown. G.B., fit oj. Response Factors of
VOC Analyzers Calibrated with.Methane for
Selected Organic Compounds. U.s.
Environmental Protection Agency. Research
Triangle Park, N.C. Publication No. EPA 6001
z-81~22. May 1981.
270
6.3 DuBose. D.A.. fit aL Response of
Portable VOC Analyzers to Chemical
Mixt1UeI. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Reseerch Triangle Park, N.C.
Publication No. EPA 6OO/W1-llo. September
1981.
IFR,Dac. --- FlIed "11-&1; --t
...... COllI ......
-------
Thursday
. August 25, 1983
Part IV
Environmental
Protection Agency
Standards of Performance for New
StaUonary Sources; Beverage Can
Surface CoaUng Industry
271
-------
S8728
Federal R-egiater I Vol. 48, No. 166 I Thunday, August 25, 1983 I Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
. CFR P8rt 80
[AD-FRL-2OI1-2]
St8I.. of '-for1Ml1Ce for .....
St8tIorwy ~ Iev.r..,. C8n
Iurf8c8 CoatIng Indu8try
AGDCY: Environmental Protection
Apncy (EPA).,
ACTIOII: Final rule..
1II-~1r'I: Standards of performance for
the beverage can surface coating
IDduitry were propoaed in the FedenJ
...... on Noyember 28, 1980 (45 FR
78980). Thil action promulgates
standarda of performance for the
beverage can surface coating industry.
These standarda implement Section 111
of the Clean Air Act and are baaed on
the Administrator's determination that
beverage can surface coating operationa
ceuse. or contribute significantly to. air
pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare. The intended effect of these
standards is to require all Dew,
modified. and reconatructed beverage
can surface coating operations to control
emi8siona to levels achievable through
the best demonstrated system of
continuous emiuion reduction.
considerins COlts. nonair quality health.
and environmental and energy impada..
- . -CTIVW DATI: Aupat 25, 1983.
Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act. judicial review of this new
lOurce performance standard is
available only by the filing of a petition
for review in the U.s. Court of Appeal.
for the District of Columbia Circuit
within 80 day. onoday's publication of
this rule. Under Section 307(b)(2) of the
qean Air Act. the requirement. that are
the subject of today's notice may Dot be
challenged later in civil or criminal
proc:eedinp brought by EPA to enforce
these requirements.
ADOMI8U: Background Infonnation
Document The Background Information
Document (BID) for the promulgated
standards may be obtained &om the
u.s. EPA Library (MD-35), Research
Triangle Park. North Carolina 27111.
telephone number (919) 541-2771. Plea..
refer to "Beverage Can Surface Coating
Industry-Background Information for
Promulgated Standards "EPA-tSO/3-8-
038b. The BID containa (1) a aummary of
all the public commenb made OQ tha
proposed .tandards and the
Administrator'. reapoD88 to the
comments. (2)"a .ummary of the chanse8
made to the standards since propo8al.
and (3) the final Env\ronmentallmpact
Statement, which summarizetl the
imp8Cta of the .andards.
Docket A docket. number A~
containing information considered by
EPA in development of the promulsated
.tandard. Is available for public
inspection between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00
p.m~ Monday through Friday, at EPA's
Central Docket Section (A-130). Weet
Tower Lobby, Gallery 1. 401 M Street .
SW~ Washington. D.C. 20460. A .
realOnable fee may be charged for
copying.
POR IIUIITMBIII8PCMIIIAT108t CCMn'AC'I:
Mr. Fred Porter, Standards Development
Branch, Eminion Standards and
EnsiDeerin8 Division ~13). VA
Environmental Protection Ageacy.
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-557&
..........-rAllY tNPOMIATIOIC
Tbe StaDdaId8
Standards of penormance for new
1Oun:e8 ..tabli.hed under Section 111 of
the Clean Air Act reflect:
. . . Application of the be8t tedmolOlical
lyatem of continuoua emiuion reduction
which (taldna into consideration the C08t of
ac:hievin8 web emiuion reduction. [and] an)'
nonair quality health and enYironmelital
impact and eueru requirementl) the .
Admini8trator determin.. bal been
adequatel)' demoll8tr'ated [Section UI(e)(I}).
For convanieuce. thi. criterion will be
referred to .. "be.t demoD8trated
tedmolosy" or "BDT."
The promulpted standards apply to
all new, modified. and reconstructed
two-piece beverage can surface costilla
operationa for which construction.
modification. or reconstruction
comllNln~ after November 28, 198D.
The .tandards define a two-piece
bev.... can a. any two-piece steel or
. alwninum container in which soft drinka
or beer (includins malt liquors) are
packaged. Containers in which fruit or
vegetable juices are packased are
excluded. Existing facilities would not
be subject to the .tandards unl... they
undergo a modification or reconstructioa
as defined in 40 CFR 80.14 or 80.15.
Emiuiona of volatile organic compounda
(VOC) &om affected facilitie. at two-
piece can planb are limited u foUOWK
0.29 q VOC/litre of coatiba solida from
each exterior be. coating operation
except clear bue coaq 0.48 let vael
litre of coatiDs solida &om each
overvamith coating operation and each
clear base coating operation. and 0.89 ..
VOC/litre of coatins solida from each
In8ide spray coating operation. Each
affected facility consiat8 of a coetiJII
application station, a flashoff area and a
cure oven.
BDT for the aurface coatins opentloa8
covered by the promuJpted standarda i8
272
the use of best available waterbome
- coatings. However, the standarda would
permit the use of any .ystem of
continuous emis.ion reduction that
alJows the facility to comply with these
emission limit.. For example. the
atandards could al80 be achieved
through the use of 8Olvent-bome
coatinp in combination with an
emi8sion control system. The
compliance proceduret outlined in the
promulgated regulations are de'isned to
.bow equivalence between thj use 0'
waterborne coatinp and the use of
aolvent-bome coating. and an emillion
control .ystem.
The owner or operator i. required to
conduct a perfonnance test each .
calendar month for each affected facility
ud record the results. The calculatioD
, of the volume-weighted average mall of
VOC per volume of coating solid, durina
each calendar month constitutes a
performance test. The 01!D8I' or operator
i8 required to identify and report,
semiannually. each wtance that the
calculated~olume-averased ma.. of
VOC per volume of coating exceeds the
emi.sion limitations. When Method Z4
data are used to determine VOC content
of waterbome C08tinga for compliance
determinatioD8, precision factors ,ball
be used as described in Section U of
Method 24.
Where compliance i8 achieved
throqb the U88 of waterborne coatiJlal.
compliance with the standarda iI
determined by comparins the calculated
volume-weighted averaae man of VOC
per volume of coatins solida with the
applicable emis.ion limitation in the
pramulgated .tandarda. Volume and
VOC content of each coating used at the
affected facility for the calendar month
are required for this determination. If
each coatins used at an affected facility
during a calendar month baa a VOC
content equal to or len than the
emission limitationa preacribectin the
standards. and DO VOC aolvenb are
added during distribution and
application of the coatinp, the affected
facility i8 in compliance and calculatiOll
0{ the vo1ume-weishted 8verqe VOC
content i8 not required.
Where compliance i. achieved
through the use of solvent-borDe
coatinp and an emis.ion control
system. the volume-weishted av..
VOC content is calculated as for
waterbome coatinp. The calculated
VOC content iI reduced by the moat
recantly determined ovenU reductioD
efBcienCJ of the capture and emiaioD
controlly8tem. The promulgated
resuJatiOD8 prescribe procedurn far
detenninina overall reduction efficieDcJ
-------
.F8deral1lePa&er I Vol. 41. No. 186 I nn_day. August Z5. 298S I RD1es 8Dd RegulatiOI18
5129
for ..'1011 mntro18)'Uema_aiag
IDcineratimi or IDbreat recowery.
The owner or operator of an affecaed
facility who 11881 i8cineratioa to CllDlplr
with the ltanderd. mu.t ..u.tain
recorda of iDdDerator performance ad
identify 8D4 report. .emi1umually, aD a-
hour perioda durin8 .lOch the aver-se
temperature of the dmce. durins
processin8 of C8D8, 18 ~ifi(o.aDtly JGwer
than the averase temperatDre observed
durin8 the most recent perfol'lD8Dce leat
atwhich4eatructiOli eflicien~ .a.
determined. .
Surface coating operations in Ibe
. JDIDIIfacture of C8J\ enda and tlaree-piece
.teel C8III are excluded from the
.tan4arda bec:aue indutr:r prajectiona
Pow an exaen ClqJ8city for theee
opel'8tiODl, iDdicatiq that DO lacilities
will become object to the 1Itandarda
tbroush 1985. Application of inkl
Uthograpby is excluded because
emiuioDt from this operation are
Insipific:ant ApplicetioD 'Of md-.eating
compound to end. for two-piece
biverqe CIID8 iaexcluded becB1lle BDT
Is the IIUIIe - that in COIIDOO 1188
today.
Summary afL..~....,. aDd
Icouomic IIIIpacIs -
The proID1Iipted atandud8 wauld
reduce VOC emiaimu by
approximately C pen:ent bum the
bueHne emiaion leveL The standard8
of perf01'lD8DC8 woa1d.renlt in a 47-
percent reductioa in VOC eminiOM
from the exterior.Oue coat operation. .
15-pen:em .eJDiaioD reduction lram the
overvarniah c:eating operation. aad. 2&-
perctDt --liaIIleMcIioDfram die
wide 8J11'8J c:oaq oPeratiaa. A8Dual
nationwide VOC8Dia8i1m8 wouW be
NdaOld by.t..t 2.8OD", (UI08m8')
byUIB.
Little_." .......I..aer
pondoD iatp&ct 110m DeW.ao8ifi....
recwutructeci .„8IIIpcu ..nace
coatq 8peI8tiou .weu}d le8uJt frem
impl--"lieaaf Ihe .w8dard8.
~e jJIODII/Jp&ed .......,", 'MIIIId
also llavi Ji.aIe_- iacremeIIt8I.did
wutejapac:L '
Baed -MaduIrr tJDMh.fll'Oiedaa8,
applic:atioa. die ..nd.....J. would
ruulta..aet8eQY ~Gf eb8ut
llU1111 GJ Ua 2885. -..r-I'~_1
ptreent &om tM -_line. rile..
enellY 18ducti88..au",'-me 01
let. coatiDspercu _MM"""
IOIWacaaten.t _tile r'aMrbInae
coatUlp upca -- 1M r~--..I-;..
hued: .
'I1ae ...-,...~ ~-~...
expected tobaftliWe _18ic: 8aped
OI1i1a ~4188 :--a.~~.At--
- GIIIIIIDI4IptieQ. .. ... of -- at
1q1IIJ... ..... diu dle4:8t al
IGIDpliuae with tile a..eline level of
control. ia na&We - 88d18fi1cted
faailittr.
11Ie .4_.0-...tal e8r1Y.8Dd
ecouomic impacta 81'1! 4i8C11118e8 in
sreater detail iD 6e Blaitsround
Informatiou Documeat lBID) for dte
propoMd ataadarda, "Bewail Can
Surface Coating 1nd8try-BacksrollDd
Information for PropoHd Standar.da,"
EPA-t50{~.
Standarda of perform8RC8 have oft1er
b8nefi18 in addition 110 ac:bievins
reductions ill emiuiona berond thD8e
Jeq1Iired by .. typical SIP. They utabIiU
I 8epee of aatioaaJ mifarmity, wbicb
preclude. 8ituationa in wbic'h«JlDe
Statea may attract new industria u.
..ult of haWlg relaxed air po1IutiOll
Uandarda relative to other States.
Further. standards III performance
pmvide docume:atatiOl1 which reQuces
uncertainty in cue-by-cue
determinatiou of beat anilable control
technelogy (BACI') lor feciJiti_located
in attainment 8J'88a, and loweat
acltieYable emiuion nte8 (LAERJ far
facilitie8 located in DCIDIIttaiDment
are... This documentation linc::h.dw
identification end OD8IpI'8hensive
analyllil of alternative emiuioa control
technologiea. development of auociated
C08t8, an evaluation ad Y8rification of
applicable emi.aion _18 mriloda. and
identification of 8peci6c emiuioD timi18
achievable with alternative .
technolosin. The ~ are prcMded for
an economic analyai8 that reveall the
affordability Df control. in an unbiaeed
atady of the eamamicimpact of oontrela
ODan~
Public P..-..p-R- -
Pl'ior*,propoaalmlU----,
interes8d partiea ,...m.d by
public notice.. the.Fed8nl R81i*r1U
FR.ao888;~19.1_) ef. - .........." t:Ii
tile Natioual AirAlhtioB ~
Teclmiquea A~ CIIImmittee~
diacua. the -erase GIll aIface ...tirl"
induaby standcda ....~_.......... ..
proponl. Thi8 ~ IuM! - time 4-
1.980, WID open to 1he public, aDd each
. aMendee.... 8inaea ......-t...tty to
eomm8lltaa 1IIe.l8DdImb
.......anaded for~.11Ie -
at8ndarda W8N'-r ."1IDd1l~li8bed
in the F8denI ..... - No~ 28.
1980 (45iR~.1he"II!8IIIWetolbe
~ 8tandarda cti8eu II'" 8e
avaiJabiDtr.. '-18:kpnmd
~~""'I.-- -'lit. pCaD
Surfa_c.8a~ .1.I5--'..d
lnfolZMiDm- ~S~..-
EPA-4BJ/J . ... whidtd-."!II iJt.
detail tlIe ~~, .1aB:aa~
COD8ideaed...e ..hdllpme"~.
atamIuda8Dd tile ...,....~ of--
aI~.~._.._.- ... ,...
273
.olicited at the time of proposal and.
when 1'2que8ted. mlliea of the BID wee
..triOOted to intere.ted parties. 1'G
provide intereated~ the
(fJporbmity for oral pnIIe8taQoa of
data. Yiew..« &rgumeDtaQHIcerning
the plOpoaed 8WIdarda. .. pubtic 1ae81"iDB
was held 011 January e. 1i81. .. Reeearch
Triangle Park. NGrth Carolilta. The
hearing wa. qIeD to the public. 4IDd
each attendee wa. BiveD an opportunitjr
to ~t on the propo8ed etaadarda.
The public r.mnnuorrt period wa. from
November 26, 1980 to February 5. '1981.
At .induatry'. request, the public
mmment period .a. reopeoecI &om
February Z/ thraush March.3O, 1981.
Eighteea ~mnt letters went
received and four intellnted partin
teltified at the public bearing cunceminr
i.ane. relative to the pIIDpOHd
.tandarda of perfonD8JlCe for the
beverage can aurfac:e coatin& iBdatry.
The commen18 haWl beeD carefully
considered; and. where determined to w
appropriate by the Admimatrator.
chanan have been ...de ia the
propoaed staDdard8.
Siplflr.-t C. ......~ .... a..ap. 10
the PI:~ Stadatda
Commen18 OlD the ~ 8tanduds
were received from the beftrqe can
.urfaoa DD8tiJJ8 iDd1l8trJ. CI08tiDt
manufacturera. Federal qmcia, State
pollution c:ontrol qenciea.1IIId a trade
a.8Oc:iatioD. A detailed diaCU88ion of
these Ct'ftIM~"tI aDd I8IpOII8a C8D be
fouad in the BID. which i8 ref8nled to in
the ADDRESSES '8dDI of tb.i8
pream'ble. The commentl and aaJY8el
expreaetl in the retpOIIH8 .,...-..
basi. for t8e reWaiOllS that ...... heeD
m8de 8D die ataDdarda betwna pI8p8I8A
aDd promllil.uon. 'DIe major...........~ta
and respoD8e8 are 88DD11uized jg ..
preamble. Tbe~-tliI8ve--
divided into theiaillOlllilD881888:
:'~neral emi8aiuceabal-iltn...
modificafiom and l'8COG6tt-:tiiDll,
economic impact. eaWroamentat 8npad.
eDellY impact.le8al tXJMiclenti088. te8t
methoda aDd monitorizl&, nportiDs aDd
rec:ordbepius.18Dd mi8cel1aDeoU8.
Major cAana- in the IIIQIINIpted
.tandarda from the propoaed standard.
are ft) nclu8ionof dtt~~iece C8D8
&om b atand8rda. fZ) ndution of 1!Dd
.lIeet CINItiBI from 1he tltandard8. t3l
aiding abe Rq8irement thet precilin
factOl'l, .. describe4 m 98ction 4.4"r
Metb8ct 24. be ... MIen Method '!It
da8a are emptor-! - _b.-.~ VDC
content ....terbome ....A.e.. Jar
compli8lCe etf!'l"llUltation., aDd {t)
clm~I.1'eqIIirement far :IIIWlec1i8te
reJlU'~" e:xceechmcea to~l
reportiBs.
-------
38130
Federal Register I Vol. 48. No. 168 I Thursday, August 25, 1983 I Rules and Regulations..
-==
G.8r8I
Six commenten Itated that ~
piece beverap CIU18 wel'8'being ph~8ed
out. with an eltimated 1985 production
of between 0.5 and 1.5 billion caDI, and
Ihould be excluded from the .tandards.
A8 a result of these commenta. EPA
analyzed previous projectiona and .
determined that utimated demandl for
three-piece can capacity in 1985 would
be about 50 percent of the estimated
available capacity. CoDIequently, ~
piece caDI are excluded from the
promuJsated Itan~ The deemse in
tbree-piece can production would free
more coatiq capacity than il needed for
the coatins of lteel and aluminum Iheeta
for the manufacture of beverage can
end&. Thi8 capacity can be uaed for
coating aluminum Iheeta for enda with
little or no chanae. ThuI, no end sheet
coatins capacity would become lubject
to NSPS through 1985. Conaequently,
aurface coating of end Itock i8 alao
excluded &om the standards.
Several commenta were received
ltating that the proPOled .tandards
were not baaed on the be.t
demonstrated lystelDl of continuous
emillion reduction. Three commenten
stated that the use of waterborne
coatinp h.u not been demonstrated al
beinl commercially available. One
commenter doubted that solvent-borne
coatinp and incineration could be used
in the event waterborne coatinp were
impracticable. One commenter .tated
that promulption of the proposed
.tandarda would force the indUitry to
turn to one aupplier for inaide spray
materiala.
A8 a mult of these commenta. EPA
lignificantly expanded the data base
upon which the promulgated ltandarda
are bued through telephone and written
communicatiODI with coaten and
coaq supplien. The expanded data
bBle lubatantiated EPA'lprevioUi
determination that the UI8 of
waterborne coatinp i8 BOT and that
coatinp meetin8 the promulgated
emission limits are available &om more
than one aupplier. Summary of the data
base by coaq OperatiODl follow:
Two-piece Can Exterior Base Coot
Five (:81'Imalrera, four merchant and
one captive. reported uaina coatinp
with VQC contents equal to or leu than
that specified in the ltandarda. Three of
these canmaken identified four coatinp
&om ODe aupplier u bem, U8ed, two
reportins the UI8 of complJin8 coatinp
for all bue coat requirements. Of the
remainina ('-"nm.~era. one did not
identify the coaq beina uaed, and the
other claimed confidentiality for the
'=08tina beiaa ued. ODe,additional
coatins from a aecond supplier hal been
qualified for use on one merchant
coater'l Dew and exi8tins can lin...1n
di8cua.ioDi with camnakera durins the
collection of the data, no apecific ca...
were identified in which waterborne
coatinp could not be used for the .
applicatioD of exterior ba.. coat to ~
piece beverap C8II8.
Two-Piece Can CJvervarrtWr/Clear BlUe
Coat . '
Four r.anm"lrere, three merchant and
one captive. reported using coatinge .
with VOC contenta equal to or Ie.. than
that specified in the Itandarda. Two of
these ".JI"maJ.en identified four coatinge
from two suppliers u being uaed. one
reporting the use of complying coatinp
fur aU overvamiab requirementa. Of the
remaining canmakel'8, one did not
identify the coatins being used. and the
other claimed confidentiality for five
coatings used. AU of the captive
canmaken' requirementl are being
satisfied by waterbome coatinp
meetins the NSPS emis.ion limitatione.
Five additional coatings meeting the
NSPS emillion limitatiODI are available
from three supplien. Future te.ting il
planned for lome of the.. coatings. In
discu..ioDl with canmakera during the
collection of the data. no .pecific ca...
were identified in which waterborne
'coatings could not be used for the
application of overvarniab or clear baM
coat to two-piece beverage cans.
Two-Pi«e Can wide Spray
Seven canmuen, five merchant and
two captive. reported usm, coatinp
with VOC contenta equal to or lell than
that specified in the ltandarda. Five 01
these canmakera identified four coatins.
&om three lupplien a. being uled. two
canmakera reportiq the use of
complying coatinp for aU inlide .pray
requirements. Of the remainins two, one
did not identify the coating being used,
and the other claimed confidentiality for
the coatinp bem, ued. Durins the
collection of the data. two specific caan
were identified in which ..tilfactOl"J
waterborne coatinp were not available.
One canmaker reported that at two
planta making canl for export. exceslive
pinhoq occurred becauae the extreme
abuse the caDI received in ahippins and
hancllins caU88d eeparation of the
coatfns. ID aubaequent dilculliona. the
canmaker reported that tha problema
had been rnolved and that waterborne
coatinp meetias the NSPS eminion
limitatiODl are now bem, used for aU
inside spray operatiODI at ODe plant,
and that a program it underway at the
l8Cond plant to develop a IlUitable
waterborne In8ide spray Iy.tem. Thia
plant i8 currently iDciDeratiq voc
274
eniis.ionl from inlide Ipray OperatiOlll
to meet local regula tiOD8. In the I8COftd
case, difficulty wa. hem, experienced ia
applying waterborne inlide Ipray to
Iteel caDI. In this ca... IOlvent-bome
coatinp are required to mue
.ati.factory cana and incin~ticm i8 .
employed to ..tisly the local emiaiolt
limitationa. The 18me proceduret CID be
used to I8tiafy NSPS e~uiOD
limitationa. The nec8laary capture IDd
4e.tructioD of VOC can be attained bJ
enclo.ins the fiashoff area and
incineratins fiaaboff and cure DVm
exhauata. .
One public heariDs participant took
exception to ltatementa made in the
beverase can factaheet thatprobablY'4
new three-piece can planta and 10 to 2D
new two-piece can plants were to be
built between 1980 and 1985. The
participant felt that thi. wa. not .
conliltent with data that indultry
pre.ented at the NAPCT AC meeting in
June 1980 that indicated. dramatic
reduction in three-piece can production
and a leveling off of demand for two-
piece cans.
The beverase can factaheet. .
.ummary of the propoaal BID and
regulation publi8hed at the time of
proposal. .tatea that "EPA estimatel10
to 20 two-piece beverase can plantalDd
4 three-piece beverap can planta will
be affected by the proposed NSPS. the
latter subject under the modificaticm or .
recoDltruction provilioD8." The.. pluta
are model planta and are the number
that were conaidered lubject to NSPS
for the purpo8et of the economic
analy.... It .hould be noted that th&
.tatemenf concerniDs three-piece can
plantl .pecifically exclud.. new
facilities and indicat.. that facilities iD
place in 1979 would become Iubject to
the modification or reconatruction
provilioDi. The estimatel of the number
of model planta that would be IUbject to
NSPS were baaed on industry estimates
of the projected market ahare of tw~
piece and three-piece beverase caDI that
were later chanaed by data provided bJ
the induatry during the public comment
period. AI previoualJ mentioned. EPA
analyzed the new induatI'J data and
developed reviled projectiona that Ihow
that no three-piece can planta woulct be
subject to the NSPS throush 1985.
Insofar al two-piece can plants are
concerned. baaed on the reviled
projection it il ..timated that betweeD 7
and 15 two-piece model plant
equivalenta would be subject to NSPS ID
1985, half under the feCOD8tructioD or
modification provisiOll8.1beee
estimat.. are baled on an average of 5
percent of exiatiq capacity becomin8
lubject to NSPS under the modification
-------
-
F8dera1 8egi8ter ( Vol.g, No. 168 /1bunday, August "%5, 1983 I Rule. and Regulations
S8731
~.
eel ~ plU„i8iaD8uch JIIIB
tbrouIb 1985. These _time- &Ie
coDlilteDt with Jadutr)r proiKti.-o that
thaw an iDcntae iD two-piece QII
lhipmenta &om 48.8 billion C8B8 in t9II)
to 11.8 billion C8D8 Ua 1985.
Two partic;:ipan" .t the public heariDa
were aIm:emed that if NSPS eminirm
limitatioDa were )II'OIDIIIeated. major
nformulatioD of ~ developed to
meet RAer wauld be required. Thi8
redirectioa of aoatiD& nppliel'8' efforta
would be at the expeue of de„ek\JriDI
coa- to ..tialy RAer. Such aD
approach couldJ'l!8Ult ill acbievq
Jllither Mer nor NSPS.
EPA qree. that major refomiuJa6on
may be required for aome low-80lvent
coatiD,p. However, liveD the coatin,g
data obtained from ,.....ft... 'It.... and
coatiqsuppliera. thiJ does not 1WIe&r
to be a problem. A majoritJ of &he
coatiDp developed to ntiafy"RACT
requirements would also Htisfy NSPS
requiremut.. Four coatinp each Tor
exterior baae coat, overvamish. and
Inside lpJ'8y, developed in responae to
RAtT requirements but also meefiDg the
NSPS eminion 'imitations, are beina
widelyuaed by1he iJldustry.
Two comments were received
que.tioniDg the c:banse in t'mmat afthe
.tandarda from ~ lUll' ofVOC per
Utre of coatinglen water, 88111ed in
RACI', to kilograms of VOC per tin of
IOlida. VA bas determim!d that 1he
format of the promtdgated Mandant. i8
appropriate. Compliance with the
promuIsated mnderds is determined by
compariDs a ..,1ume-wei8hted 1IWIr8ge
of the VOC content of aD coatiJ181 and
dilueat IOlventi applied .t an affected
facility dvins each calendumanth with
the emillicm limitationa of the
pnmaulpted standarda. Thia feCIUi!e.
coDVerlioa aIf VOC CDIItmt Gf each
coatiD& used to 188.. of VOC per YOIume
of coaq IOlids. 'I'1u. procedur.. _t
be used in 8Y8'8gins VOC COIIteat of
coatiJlp for Mer determination ..
well. ConIequent1y lID c:IwIse i8 ..de
to the fonaat of the .tandards.
ODe c:ommenter queatiaDed the need
for an NSPS that Nqmre. iDdustry to do
what ill1ready being dcme. New
illlta1IatiOlll in DODattaiDment areu
would be required to II8e Ioweat
IchieVlble eaUaioD rate (LAER), whidt
In this caR would be "8cbieved ill
practice," that would be the 8DI8 .. the
pro)lOled NSPS. InltalJaticm8 iD
IttaiJImem areu. if any, would of
COUl'll be required to apply beat
IV~ble GJatroi technolosy (BACI'),
whicti WOIIId - the coaUnp now in II8e
and the I8IDe U the propoaed NSPS.
In~SectiOD111.~
Intended to ilia..... that every eew.
IIIDdified, 0, I8COD8tructed fdity.
wberever 1ocated. antlol ftIiasi- to
.t least. -tiunaUJ uifona emiQi8ft
ceiling. Conpe88 ~~ that in
individual G88ft..- emie8iene
reductioa C081d be ec:hieved th8n ~
achievable dJroush application efBIJT.
For tI88e iDdividuaJ caHlt, -die #dJt me,
requa appiic:ation ef more 8trin&eot
requireme8ta. Eve8 dKNP. as the
coDllllellter -ante. BACT or ~
requirements applicable in neb
illdividuaJ C118ett11U1J lI'ftIttuaU, ~
dev~ of bI'OadIJ demonatntted
coatings similar 10 01' "better tha. NSPS-
level mm"Po Section 1111till1'eqUirn
tile Agency to 8et miRimut uationeUy
applicableataDdard8 tIt.t will iDnre
control of emi88icm8 lit DeW I01II'ce8 10 at
leut &be level ac:hievable throuah 1IIIe of
BDr.
One ...........111- ..ted that the
propoaeti ataDda:rds do not require tile
"best demODStrated .,.tem of
c:ontimum8 mni8ioD reduction * * *-
and that hy rewuIatins the roc II8I1tI!Dt
of coaliDp 1m -- IOIIlC8I witft08t
regard to qu8l1tity of C88tiuB npplied,
the~iI~the
canstractioa of DeW facilitin with
greater emissicma 1haa identical uhtms
CI'G facilities. 1be ...............nter fvt8er
stated tkat the quantity of 1::08tiRt
needed by the ..riaas ~ to
pnxiuce an acceptable can i. a IIIIICh
mOil! 8igDificant factor in ...ion
redtaction tedmology than is the VOC
content of the waterbome COIIti.np uaed.
8Id that 1D8DIJfac:t12rin8 materials that
inherently reqaiJ'e leu applied coetin8
tJsan other materia1a repreHDtI a better
system of eminion reduction. 1be
COl8lDeDter .ubmitted that this man
obvious conclusion drawn &om the draft
EIS and from information contained in
Docket A-8-4. A8 a mult of iporiDs
this fact, the AgetJq hn prepared.
nmdard that C8IIDot ponibly be
construed .. meetins the intent of
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act.
In EPA's judgment, the promulgated
standarda C8 bued on BDT. Forma~
the .tandarda in tel1Dl of m... of VOC
per aDit of prodac;ticm. e.g., 1.000 CIIft8,
was CDD8idered ill the development of
the standarda. 1'bi8 approach W88
discarded bec:a- of iDOexibility ill
accommodatins the l'8JI8f: ef c:oatiD8
tbicknean aeed by the indu8try to meet
the requiremeats. the DI8DJ type8 of
beverage C8D8 produced by the indutry,
especiaUy at men:bant caD pItmta. Such
an approacta aI80 rai8ed problema in
aettins D1DBerieallimiti fer 1he
standards. If an iDduatry--81l'erese
co8tiD8 dUcbeu is used.s the baai..
coaten aing an above-averqe coeq
thickneu wou1d be penalized. The
Aaency coll8idera the COlt of specifyiDs
maximum CD8tiD8 tbickne.. for 88c:b
U88ge unreasonable and ~itaDt.
Comequent\y, this fmmat was rejected
in favor of the mau of VOC per volume
of C08tin8 801ids format.
5'_~ Ca8baI T. J.... IllS
A commem was made that the
prcposed emission limitationa were 80
8tringent that coatma BUJlPtiert wouid
not ban any latitude to vary
fcmnulatiom as required to meet the
wide range of equipmeD1 'U8ed and the
-=u vixuWhl:'utal conditions em:011Dtered
in beverage caD surface c:t.af:inB
operations.
EPA has determined.from coaq
data obtained from canmakera t1aat
coatins suppliers are proYiding coatings
meeting the promulgated eminiona
limitationa for. wide range.of
equipment and envinmmental
conditiona. 001y two specific cues
were identified involving two-piece ~
inside spray aperationa in which
satisfactory waterbome4'!O"ti..,- weM
not available. In tlaese casu opel8Wmal
and envinnnrNlJntaI.raqujnments were
being utisfied through the U8e of
801vent-bGrne coetinp JlDd mciDerati8n.
Furthermore. the monthly averasiDI
provisiona of the 8taDdarda lor aach
affected facility wollld permit the 11M of
some coatiql.not meeti8& tiDe
ltandarda. provicied other coati'l8'" with
lower VOC c:cntent were ued to briDs
the monthly voltune-weiahted averase to
the promuJsated emi88ion mmtatioa..
Ooe commenter .tated that under
NSPS. exi8tins coatins syateIna thai
have DOt yet been able to meet RAer
values must meet even more 8triD8ent
emiasion standard8. BuentiaJjy oaIy
incineration. a CQUJlterproduc1ive
enerzy~naumin8 system. can be.8ed.
ExiatiD8 coatins systeD18 are DOt
required to meet tJte promuJpted
standards wen die fac:ilitJ IIIUIersoa
modification or recDD8tn1ction u
defined in 40 CPR Part eo. Under such
( . !'CUIDatanCeI, iD EPA'. judsemeDt,
there are sufficient coetiDp
commercially available far. wide
variety of coatms .,ste1118 to meet the
standards. Baeed em tile e()I'IftmoriC
. analylil in Chapter a. .-v~ BID.
incineration i8 cmmidered to be .
reasonable .and affardabIe uptiaD.
Several cnmmf'l'lte!8 expreued
concem that if NSPS material8 Ear tw~
piece caD inside apray are DOt 8Vailab&e.
afterbumere will have to be aed. '11aia'
could verywell call for8nOV'8'8U
control effiGiency of 80 perceD&,
requiring appro>Jmately 90 peroetd
capture efficieDcy, wbicb iaftOt
attaiaable.
In IIIe8pODM to thi8 - other
commeJItB, EPA ..rIW the C08tinI
275
-------
38132
Federal Register I Vol. 48. No. 168 I Thursday, August 25, 1983 I Rules and RegulatioDl
-
data base with information from
canmakers and coating suppliel'll that
indicates the availability of a variety of
waterborne coatings for inside spray.
The VOC content of waterborne
coatings reported a. being used by both
merchant and captive canmuers range.
from 0.48 q VOC/litre of IOlids to 0.90
q VOC/litre IOlids compared with the
promulgated emi.sion limitation of 0.89
q VOC/litre of IOlida. The promulgated
regulations permit monthly averaging,
which .hould facilitate satisfying the
requirementa.
During the collection of data only two
cases were identified in which
satisfactory waterborne coatings were
not available. In these cases, solvent-
borne coatings and incineration
provided the emission reduction
required by the applicable SIP.
A typical higher solids solvent-home
inside spray coating in general use
contains 3.01 q VOC/litre of coating
solids (Table 4-2. proposal BID). An
overall control efficiency of 70 percent is
required to reduce the VOC emissiol18
from the UN of thia typical inside spray
coating to the emission level prescribed
in the promulgated .tandards. A test at
a two-piece can plant. using Method Z5
procedures. .bowed a 7~percent
capture efficiency of VOC emissioDl
from coater, na.hoff area, and cure oven
on an inside spray line. Thi. capture
efficiency is col18idered to be
conservative because the cure oven
quench exhaust was not quantified in
the test. Combining this capture
efficiency with a nominal 9O-percent
incinerator destruction efficieacy results
in an overall control system efficiency of
70 percent. It i. the Apncy's engineering
judgment that in instances in which the
use of waterborne coatings may not be
applicable. the necessary capture and
control (destruction or recovery) are
attainable at a realOnable and.
affordable cost (Chapter 8. proposal
BID).
Several commentel'll stated that
because of (t) difficu1tiel being
experienced in implementing the RACT
program. (2) the limited capabilities of
usel'll to qualify new coatinp. (3) tha
problems involved in qUalifying NSPS
material. on exiating line8 prior to the
construction of new facilitiea. and (4)
small incremental emission reduction
from NSPS compared to that relulting
from the trend away from three-piece
cans to two-piece C8I18, RACT valuea
should form the basis for NSPS.
. EPA hu determined that the
promulgated emillion limitationa for
two-piece cana represent BOT. The
problema of implementing RACT and
the problem generated by the limited
capabilities of UHJ'S to qualify-new
coatinp appear to be cmmtt.ted in lisht
of the coating data obtained from
canmuera and coating suppliers.
Numeroua coatings with VOC content
equal to or lesl than RACT are being
used on existing two-piece can lines. In
addition to meeting RACT. many of
~ele coatings allO satisfy the NSPS
requirementa. The problems of
qualifying NSPS materials on existing
lines prior to the construction of new
facilitie. would not be resolved by using
RACT a. the basis of the NSPS. One
practice prevalent throughout the
industry i8 that coatings must be
qualified on each line regardless of their
use in other plants operated by the same
canmaker. EPA agrees that there has
been a significant reduction in. VOC
emissiona al a result of RACT and the
trend away from three-piece cans to
two-piece cans. However. EPA is
mandated under Section t11 of the
Clean Air Act to base NSPS on BOT.
which for this Industry is the use of
coatings with lower organic solvent
content than RACT coatings.
One commenter Itated that EPA. in
proposing NSPS, has tried to design can
lines and specific materiala.
EPA formulated model plants in order
to perform the environmental and
economic analyses required in NSPS
development These are not Intended to
represent what an actual plant should
look like. but rather present a range of
capacities 81 the basil for subsequent
analyse.. The model plants are based on
coatings currently in use on sufficient
lines to wammt the determination of the
availability of NSPS-compliance
coatings. EPA's specification of BOT is
not in any way a requirement that
facilities use a specific technology.
Two commenters challenged1he
implied assumption in the BID that the
industry is using coatings that are RACT
as defined in CT~
The assumption that indultry is
currently using RACT coatins was not
made in the development of the NSPS.
Rather. the aaaumption was made that
SIP emission limitations would be based
on RACT and that RACT should form
the baseline cue against which the
environmental and energy analyses.
could be made.
EPA recoprize8 that on IOme can
lines, coatings with VOC content lower
than RACT are being uaed. These
coatings aerYe as the buea for the
promulgated emission limitations. On
other lines RACT coatings are being
u8e4 and OD the remaining lines
'coatings with VOC content higher than
RACT are in use. In the development of
a baseline for the environmental and
energy analyses. EPA made the
as8UJDption that in the abaence of NSPS.
276
.s
the induatrywic:le averqe vex: content
would be equal to RACT.
One commenter atated that the
dilrtinction ahould be made in the draft
ŁIS (po ~10) between steel and
aluminum with reprd to exterior bile
coat for two-piq C8D8.
EPA made no distinction between
Iteel and aluminum two-piece can. in
the development of model plants; While
it is recognized that different coatings
thicknesses are required. the additional
effort i. not juatified by the marginll
improvement in accuracy that would
result in estimating emissions and
energy requirementa in the nbsequent
analyses.
One commenter took exception to
EPA's statement in 4S FR 78982 that
"transfer efficiencies o.f 90 percent with
inside spray operatioDl are consistently
acbieved." Exactly what EPA's use of
to-percent VOC uaesament in tbi8
instance mean. was.unclear.1t was
requested that EPA coDlider allowm,l
facility that demonstrate. a consi8tlnt
transfer efficiency (for inside coatins
operatioDl) of greater than 90 percent to
credit that percentage above 90 percent
againat other coating operations that
may exceed the compliance limits.
Because of the ableDce of
standardized proc:edurea for determininr
transfer efficiencies, the complicated
calcu1atiol18 for eatimatins transfer
efficiencies. and the high tranafer
efficiencie. consi.tently achiend for
inside spray operatiol18 (oyer 90
percent). EPA determined that
introducing a transfer efficiency Into the
equatioDl prescribed for determinin8
compliance would unnecessarily
complicate the compliance procedures..
Because of the high transfer efficienciet
(90 percent or higher) that are
cOl18istently achieved. inclusion of such
a term in the compliance equation
would be equivalent to introducin,
essentially the same term on both sidea
of the equation. Consequently, the
promulgated standard8 are bued on 1ft
assumed tOD-pen:ent transfer efficiency.
It should be noted that a 9D-pm:ent
transfer efficiency was used in the
environmental and energy analy... for
inside spray operationl.
Two commenters queationed the ...
of an asswned VOC del18ity of 0.85 .,,/
litre in converting RACT numbera to .
kilograms of VOC per litre of solidi;
One commenter claimed that it i.
dangerous to propose new Itandarda 011
assumptions rather than bard data. For
example, an mor of 5 percent in VOC .
density would result in a ell.. of 31
pe~nt in the celculatr,! ldlQsraIDl of
VQC per litre of IOlidL Furthermore. no
can manufacturer or coating aapplier
-------
Federal RegIster I VoL 48. No. 188 I ThUl'lday, August 25. 1983 I Rules and Regulations
88733
mfnfml-cl tbroqh application of BDT
with the turnover in the aation',
industrial compcment hue. Thi8 parpoee
18 advanced tbrouah coverqe of
faciliti88 that mulerao IUbetantial
c:omponent replacement, whether the -
npILu.....umt 18 due to wear or lDaeued
material..... and whether or not an
emi8,iOlllIDcreue reeulte from the
replacement. - --
. Under I 8(J,15, the nplac:emeDt df .
piece of equipment don not in itlelf
aubject an exi8ting facility to NSPS.
However. wbeD the COlt of COJDpODmte
over time exceed8 50 percent of the COlt
of. comparable DeW facility and it i8
teclmologica1ly and economically
fealible for the facility to comply. NSPS
would apply. In maJdna deciliODl that
iDYolve the expenditure of lunda that
would trtaer the recODItruction
proviIicma. lDdutry 8180 abouId
c:ODIider the COlt of any control 8Y8tem
that may be DeCe888l')' to meet the NSPs
. nqab'emeD:tI.
IW--'" IIIIp8Ct
i'hree COIIIIDeDterI questioned ŁPA',
c:onchuicm that the propoeed ,tandard8
.... would have little economic impact on
...... the beverqe can IDdUitry. EPA would
be impoIiDg VOC eminion limita. below
, the (current) lowest achievable 1eve18 of
u 8eV8l8I can coatin& 1D8D11fac:tunn. If
:.. thole 1DBDufacturer8 could DOt achieve
the DeW Ievel8. the November 28
1.1 propoeaIa would be resuJatin& them oat
~ 1 out of bu8inea at the outlet. Thia in tam,
. would reduce or rutrict competition
within the coatin& nppIy lDdutry,
which would caU18 aub8tantial
economic bard8bip on can
ID8D11facturerl. ODe CODUDeDter etatad
that industry" commente on tbia matter
werelpolecL -
Beca1IIe EPA', anaIyeee of iDdUItry
projectiODl8bowed that no 8Dd or tbnte-
piece can capacity would be Abject to
tile 8tandard8 In t885. only ~iece
caDI are C()..n:d by the promuJaated
,tandard8. Therefore. NIpOD88 will be
limited to two-piece beverage CIIII8. 'l1ut
promuJaated ,tandarde will not apply to
exi8ting facilities except when they
become 8Ubject to the modification or
18CDDItructi0D proviIiOIII of 40 CPR Put
8O.1Dduatry', rec:ommeadatiODa
c:oac:emide the adoption of -~.....
Iimita lower th8D MCJ' were DOt ,
tpored. For example. .. a NIUIt of
iDduatry c:ommeate.t the NAPCrAC
DIIIetfu8, applicatioD of 8Dd I.-I~
COIDpOUIId ... excluded from the
propoead It8Ddarda.lDduatry
18COIIUDeIIdaticm8 went COIIIidered ill
baa been able to duplicate the data In
Ibe BID.
EPA ncopfzn that the comrenioD of
VOC CGDteDt from MCJ' tenDI i,
1IDIitiY8 to the deDlity of the VOC
IOIveDt. 'l'1II eeIected chmaity of 8.85 ks/
litre II below that of the VOC DDrIII8IIy
- in ..terbome coat1Dp. U.. of tbia
dIIIIIty rnulteln a higher VOC conteDt
per volume of lOud. than if t1.e actual
VOC deDlity of the coatin& upon which
tb, prumulpted eminicm limitatiODl are
bued WII8 aaed.lDumucb u tbia
favon tile coater, EPA CODIiden tbi8
appntac:b appropriate. The 37-pen:mt
error In calculated kiIosram of VOC per
litre of IOIidI from . ~perceDt error In
dIJIIIty 8ppean to be overstated. EPA
CI1cuIatioJll em the Impact of . ~t
error in deaaity iDdicate. .. 8bowa
below, that mID if the anumed deaaitr
of o.ea ka/utre were iaaccurate by 5
percent, the rnultin& effect on
IXIIIYIIIioD from MCT to NSPS terms
wuaId DOt be 1friI'...ant,.
DIIIIIIf
CIIUI8III
voc:
-11IIIIIIII
~
- -- .
.......,....... -- -...
.. x aa 1.111
.. ' 1.1,.
"x t- 1.117
......,.......-- - 0..
"xaa 0...
ow 0.'.
..xt- 01.
'I1Ie foDowm, equation wu used In
CIIIDV8rtiq the Mer faa:!aat to MSPS.
1iI0BrUDI of VOC per litre of aoIide -
liJoaraIu of VOC per litre of C08tiDa -
water/t (litre of CD&tiD&) - 1dI0FBJDII of
VOC per litre of coatiDa - waterf .
deuity of Voc.
........... i8d 1- r ........
Obe~ felt that the
npJaC8lll8Dt of a COBter or oven 8houId
lOt be cIaIIified Bll'8COIIItrudion
. becauee it II replacement In Idnd due to
WIIr DOt to iDcreued material.....
lid tbat~t aboaId DOt be
I1Ibiect to NSPS.
':=.tbla4OaRlIJ.U, EllA
to IIIbject to NSPS exi8tiDa
- tbat baft anderaou-laCb
IXteuive ~ nplac:emmt that
tbe, bave becOme IIIIIIDti8IIy II8W
-. AppIJcatlaa of BDT to faciIitie8
With Juae1J ... COIDpOII8DtI fartbet.
,die iDt8Dt of CouareD that .....1_, be
277
the dneloli.....ut of th~ promulgated
1taDdarda. but In thelisht of other
ecomcmic and coatiq availability data,
a determination wu made that the
promulption of NSPS for the beverqe
can lWface coatiq indu8try would Dot
mult In exorbitant or IIIU'e8IOD8b1e
economic impacta. .
AI di8caned In the General
CoJDmenta lection above. waterborne
coatinp that can meet the promuJaated
ltandarda are available and in ue in a
-lUffident number of case, to conclude
that the technology iI available for all
11881 except for lDIide lpI'8y for Iteel
caDI. -r.,o -exi8tina plante have Dot been
_able to find a waterborne coatin& that
perfOI'lDl properly for their particular
8PplicatiODl and are Ulios IOlvent-bome
fDaide 'PraYI with incineration to meet
State and local eminion ltandarde.
EPA', analyai8 indicat.. that there an
no economic impactI to the IDdUltry.if
waterborne coatinp are ueed.
Waterborne coatinp which comply with
the ltandard are comparable In COlt
with waterborne coatinp U88d to meet
State and local replatiODl baled on
MCT; and both are leu COItly than the
1IIe of IOlvent-bome coatfn8a with add-
on controle. AI noted above. two
.exi8tiq planta are currently meetiD8
State and IocaIItaDdardI by 1IIiD8
IOlvent-bome coatinp with
incineration. 'lbue l81De control8 could
be ued at DeW planta and. while
additicmal costa ID8J be required for
fugitive capture to meet the NSPS and
for alliahtly Iarpr iDcinerator, the8e
",..-..-eDt a IID81I Increment of the
exi8t:in8 capture and iDcineration COIta
and would not affect plant Yiability or
competitioD.
ID8ru Impact
- One eommtmt ... made that the
8D8I1Y requiremeDteln Tablet..., 7-tl,
and 7-22. draft EIS. do not take iDID
8CCOUDt that ventiJatiD8 ajrlDU8t be
iaeated In winter:
Ventilatiq air ID1IIt be heated iD the
winter whether or DOt NSPS are
promuIpted. Tbe 8De!ID' .....,. i8
hued on the incJementaleaeru
nquiremeDta betweer1 the hue cue ad
the emiuioD control optiaa UDder
COD8ideration.ln aU C8Ie8 except ODe,
the ventilatiq air requirementI are
,f8njfiamtly Jeee than for the beee C818.
End fOllDiD& the exception. bu heeD
excluded from the ItIDdard8. 1'hUl, any
error introduced by DOt u-dud;.. the
beatin& or ventilatiDa ajr re8Ulteln .
lower eneru ..vinp th8D would
ac:ta8IIJ be realized over the hue cue.
-------
38734
Federal Register I Vol. 48. No. 188 I 'n1ursday. August 25, 1983 I Roles and Regulations
One commenter took exception to the
statement in the preamble that the
proposed standards would result in a
net energy reduction because less
coatins per can would be used (based
upon higher IOlida contents of
waterborne coatinp). Experience
indicates that waterborne coatingB
require as much or more energy
expenditure as solvent coatings. Further
review or data collection concerning this
issue wu recommended. The
commenter offered to submit data for
both waterborne and 8Olvent-baaed can
coatings. upon EPA's request.
This comment wu subsequently
withdrawn by the commenter because
appropriate inquiries to other
canmakersled to the conclusion that the
comment was not applicable to the
industry u a whole. However. because
the issue wu raised. EPA considers that
a general diacuuion of energy
requirements ia appropriate. It is
asaumed that the comment applies only
to two-piece cans because the
commenter's company makes only that
type of can. Under IOme conditions. cure
oven enel'BY requirements for
waterborne coatinss for two-piece cana
may be higher than for solvent-borne
coatings. Aa discuued in Chapter 3 of
the propoaal BID. when waterborne
coatinp are used. exhaust air flow
through the cure oven ia based on
considerationa other then the lower
exploaive limit. Sufficient air must pasa
through the oven to clear the VOC and
compounds that may be formed during
the curina proce... In generaL air flows
are about the same as when solvent-
borne coatinp are used.
In such a caae the energy to heat and
vaporize the water content of the
coatins would be-greater than that
required for lID equivalent volUme of
voc. HoweYel', eneray required to heat
and vaporize water or VOC is I... than
10 percent of the total energy
requirements when pin ovens are used.
The greater portion of the enero
requirements are for heating the air.
heatina the cans. and heatins the pina.
Similar CODIi.derationa would apply to
other the pia-type ovena.
In determiDiD8 incremental energy
impacta. both the base case aad
regulatofy altematiYe energy
requirements wen b88ed on the use of
waterborne coetmp. Bec:aU8e the
enerv impact ta bued on the difference
between the hue cue ami the
altematiftl UDder ana1pia and for the-
I'eUOns cited abaft. the energy
analyaea are considered to be
sufficiently accurate for s"ndarda
development. .
EaYiIoaIDMItat Imp8c:I
Two coJD,mentera stated that emisaioD
reductioDl will occur naturally as a
result of conversion from three-piece to
two-piece can production. Coa ting
material \lied for the manufacture of
two-piece C8D8 is approximately 28
percent le88 than the coating material
used for the manufacture of three-piece
cans, regardless of whether the material
used is conventional high solvent or
RACf. Therefore. a net emission
reduction results with the shift from
three-piececana to two-piece cane. This
reduction far outweighs any reduction
that will occur u a result of
implementation of NSPS.
EPA agrees that there has been a
significant reduction in VOC emissions
as a result of the trend away from three-
piece cans to two-piece. cans. Emission
data to date substantiate this. It is also
tme. that reduction attainable through
the promulgation of the beverage can
surface coating NSPS will be much less
than that achievable upon complete
implementation of the RACf program.
However. EPA is required under Section
111 of the Clean Air Act to promulgate
NSPS for industries within source
categories on the Priority wt where. as
in the case of this industry, application
of control technolosy will achieve
significant reduction beyond that
achieved without NSPS. Application of
BDT. which for this industry is the use of
coatings with lower organic solvent
content than RACf coatings. would
achieve such a reduction. Aa a result.
Section 111 requires EPA to promulgate
standards reflectins such application.
Lepl C_..d.1 .diOll8
Two canmakers were concerned that
moving an existing plant to another site
would subject the plant to NSPS or State
new source emission limitations.
Movement of an affected facility to
another site, in itself. is exempted from
NSPS under 180.14(e}(8). This
exemption applies to 40 CFR 80 only.
State and local regulations and other
Fed~ regulatiana covering prevention
of significant deterioration or new
source review could apply.
Two commenters stated that the
Agency's definition of an affected
fa~ty u any coating operation. -as
opposed to an entire line or an en~
manufacturing plant, may not providlt
the same degree of latitude u the.
exiatins "bubble concept" and may limit
methoda of compliance and preclude the
use of altemamre compliance
pnx;edt.n:w baed on total plant
emiuio~ If the total facility emiuiona
are eqwvalent to NSPS limitationa using
an alternate compliance plan. there is no
278
detriment to the envirorunent: therefore.
an alternate compliance plan should be
permiuible. Particularly in a facility
that would have a combination of NSPS
and RACf limitations. an ahemate
compliance plan should be allowed.
This would permit the facility to use the
ume mat.riaw for all linea. NSPS and
RACf in combination. This plan would.
improve implementation of an air
pollutioncontrolpro~
The "bubble concept" refers to
application of a standard to an entire
plant rather than to individual emission
point.. although emillion ceilings may
concurrently be alligned to individual
emisaion points. The term "affected
facility" refers to the particular portion
of a plant to which a standard applies.
In this case the affected facility has
been defined u a surface coating
operation. which consists of. coatin,
application station(s). flashoff &rea(s).
. and cure oven. The choice of the
affected facility for any stsndard is
based on the Agency's interpretation of
the Clean Air Act. u amended. and
judicial construction of its meanin,.
Under Section 111, the NSPS mus' apply
to "new sourcn"; a "source" i. defined
as "any buildina, structure, facility. or
installation which emits or may emit
any air pollutant" (Section 111(a}(3}).
Most industrial plants. however, consist
of numerous pieces or groups of
equipment that emit air pollutants and
that might be viewed as "80urces." EPA
uses the term "affected facility" to
designate the equipment. within a
particular kind of plant. that is chosen
as the "source" covered by a given
standard.'
In choosing the affected facility, EPA
must decide which pieces or groups of
equipment are the appropriate units for
separate emission standards in the
particular industrial context involved.
The Agency does this by examining the
situation iri light of the terms and
purpose of Section 111. One major
consideration in thia examination is that
the use of a narrower definition results
in bringing replacement equipment
under the NSPS sooner. if. for example.
an entire plant w~ designated the
affected facility. no part of the plant
would be covered by the standard
unless the plant aa a whole were
"modified." If. on the other hand. each
piece of equipment were designated the
affected facility. as each piece were
replaced. the replacement piece would
be a new source subject to the standard.
Because the purpoae of Section 111 is to
minimize emi8siona by application of ~
best demonstrated control technolCl81
(considering cost. other health and
environmental effecta. and en~
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 48, No. 166 I Thursday. August 25, 1983 I Rules and Regulations
38735
requirements) at a1l new, modified. or
reconstructed sources, the presumption
I. that a narrower designation of the
affected facility i. proper. This
de.ignation In.urea that new emission
80urces within plants will be brought
under coverage of the standards as they
are Installed. This presumption can be
overcome where the impacts
Itttributable to the narrower
designation are unreasonable In theiight
of the emissions reduction resulting from
the selection of that deflnition.
The Agency has determined that in
these standardl the aelection of each
coating operation as the affected facility
would not result In unreasonable
impacts. It Is technologically and
economically feasible to control each
surface coating operation. Choo.ing a
combination of surface coating
operations or the whole plant as the
Iffected facility would be Inconsistent
with the language and intent underlying
Section 111 because this broader
definition would delay NSPS coverage
of new facilities within the plant
Bubbling emissions at NSPS-regulated
facilities with emissions at RACT
facilities could permit all NSPS-
regulated facilities in a plant to achieve
less than BDT-level control. Thil would
be inconsiltent with Section 111'.
requirement that emissions at NSPS-
regulated facilities be controlled to the
level reflecting application of BDT.
Therefore. the Agency has selected each
lunace coating operation as the affected
facility for these standards.
One commenter Itated that EPA's
banking policy provides a built-in
incentive for industry to develop
materials superior to RACT. Resulting
reduction in emissions from existing
plants will far outweigh any benefits
that might result Łrem the
implementation of NSPS.
The NSPS program does not prevent
existing plants from banking emissions.
NSPS are emission limits for new,
modified. and reconstructed affected
flcilitiel based on BDT. In accordance
with Section 111. these standards Insure
It leSlt a .pecified minimum level of
control at new, modified. and
reconstructed facilities. wherever
located-including those for which
banking and other economic incentives
may not be sufficient to induce SOod
control of VOC emiasiona in the ab8ence
of NSPS.
One commenter W8S concemed that
the promulgation of NSPS would
jeopardize the onsoins RACT progra:D if
. Dew line were added to aD existing
plant. which iI very common in the can
business. The new line would be
IOvemed by NSPS limitations. Different
coatinp would be recnzired for un on
the new line than on the old line.
Maintaining inventory and regulating
the u.e of the two different .ets of
coatings for the production of the same
can would be unmanageable. If the plant
used alternate compliance, a
complicated calculation scheme would
be needed to demonstrate compliance
with both NSPS and RACT. The dual
Iystem of RACT and NSPS in a plant
will not work and will lead to demise of
one or another in terms of practicality.
Either the entire facility will be Iwitched
to NSPS, or RACT materials will be
incinerated on NSPS linea. This concept
is contrary to the recent U.S. EPA policy
of discouraging the u.e of afterburners.
EPA considers that the situation that
would result from the addition of a new
line subject to NSPS to an existing plant
appean to be no different from the
situation in existing plant. that make
more than one type of beverage can,
each of which may require different
types of coating. The same procedures
used to maintain inventories and
regulate the use of different coatings in
the latter plant are considered to be
applicable to the situation described in
the comment.
The procedurea outlined for
determining compliance for plan.. using
RACT coatings and in the draft
regulation for plants using NSPS
coatings are not incompatible and
permit the use of RACT coatings on one
line and NSPS coatingl on another.
Furthermore. in enacting Section 111.
Congrell recognized that to enhance air
quality over the long run it i. important
that new sources within a plant achieve
limits based on the best demonstrated
technology, irrespective of the level of
control at exi.ting sources within the
plant.
Compliance of the NSPS affected
facilities in a can plant would be
determined using volume of coatings.
VOC content thereof. and diluent
solvent used in the affected facility by
the procedures presented in the
proposed regulations. Compliance of
. that portion of the plant subject to
RACT would be ill accord with
provisions of the applicable State and
local regulations. The data required for
these calculations are considered to be
those that any prudent manufacturer
would maintain even if these atandard8
were not promulgated.
One commenter felt that the
information needed by EPA to
determine compliance and to calculate
emilsion inventories could be done with
aMual reports as opposed to monthly
compliance determinations. Theae
reports would only need to lilt each
coating used by the plant alons with
kilosrama of VOC per litre of solid. and
279
actual usage amounts. Those plants
required to run control equipment would
also have to report the average
percentage of VQC reduction by the
equipment and the number of production
hours that the control equipment was
not running. which could be backed up
by a simple chart record.
Annual compilations are not
considered an acceptable basis for
determining compliance. Such an
approach would permit a wide
fluctuation in the mass of VOC emitted
to the atmosphere at anyone time. All of
the canmakers contacted during the
development of the standards reported
maintaining coating-usage data on at
least a monthly basis. As stated in a
subsequent section of this preamble.
EPA has investigated alternatives for
reducing recordkeeping and reporting
burdens and has changed the .
requirement for immediate reporting of
noncompliance to aemiaMual reporting.
The promulgated regulations do not
require reporting the average percentage
of VOC reduction if an incinerator wa.
used. or the number of hours the control
.ystem was not operating. Where
compliance is achieved through the use
of incineration. the owner or operator i.
required to identify and report,
semiaMually, all 3-hour periods during
which the operating temperature, when
cans are being proceaaed. is more than
28" C below the average temperatures of
the device during the most recent
performance test or. for catalytic
incinerators. when the average
temperature difference il less than 80
percent of that determined during the
most recent performance test. The
destruction efficiency of the control
device determined during the most
recent performance teat il uaed in
determining compliance during any
calendar month.
Test Methods and MethOdology
Two commentera questioned the
relationship of the propo.ed standards
and the use of Reference Method 24 for
determining compliance.
Recommendations were made that the
proposed standarda should include a
"cushion" that would allow for .
differences in teat findings resulting
from variation of the three
experimentally determined physical
constants used to calculate VOC content
of coatings. Upward readjustment of the
proposed standards to at least RACT
level il required to avoid capricious
erroneous noncompliance findings.
EPA recognizes the potential
variability in the resulta when Method
24 iI used to analyze waterborne
coatinp. The promulgated replatiC'ln
-------
38738
Federal Register I Vat 48. No. 166 I Thursday. August 25. 1983 I Rules and Regulations
requires that. when Method 24 data are
used to determine VOC content of
waterborne coatings for compliance
determinations, they be adjusted 81
described in Section U of Method 24.
If the VOC level of a waterborne
coafiDg. based on formulation. is at or
below the standard. there is less than
one chance in 10.000 that the Method 24
adjusted results would show the VOC
level to be above the standard. The
Agency considers this risk insignificant
compared to the usefulness of Method
24 in determining compliance.
ReponiDa ami R8c:ordbepias
One commeDter stated that the
recardkeeping requirements are
unnecessarily tedi01ll and time
consuming. uk for mach nonessential
information. and necessitate
intimidating and complex calculation..
Production people would be required to
do day-to-day and even hour-ta-hour
moaitoriDg. The recordkeeping
requirements penalize manufacturers
that must meet the standard using
control equipment instead of compliance
coating.. The Agency's estimate that the
proposed requirements would cost the
industry 12 person-yean over the first 5
yean of the standards is unrealistically
low. The commenter added that his
company has less than 10 percent of the
nation'. two-piece can business. and
conservatively estimates a cost of 2.3
person-yean over the first 5 years of the
standards. Even if the Agency's estimate
is correct. the requirements are
unnecessarily involved and are another
example of an inflationary.
nonproductive expense imposed UpOD
industry by a governmental agency.
EPA has been investigating
alternative ways of reducing monitoring.
recordkeeping and reporting burdens OD
owners and operators. The goal is to
reduce all recordkeeping and reporting
that is not essential to insuring proper
operation and mAintenance. After
reviewing the requirements in the
proposal. EPA determined that
monitoring and compiling data are
essentild for both the owner or operator
and EPA to insure proper operation and
maintenance. A responsible owner or
operator would need monitoring
information compiled in a usable form to
determine when adjustments in the
control system are needed to wure that
it is performing at its intended
effectiveness level. Because EPA judges
that monitoring and recordkeeping are
essential for proper operation and
maintenance. these requirements have
not been changed since proposal It waa
judpd. however, that immediate
reportiDl of noncompliance ~th the
standards is not essential to EPA.
Semiannual reporting is conaidered
sufficient to enable EPA to discharp its
enforcement responsibility. Therefore.
after initial performence testms. the
requirement to report immediately all
instances of noncompliance. as requ4"ed
in the proposal package. has been
changed to require only semiannual
reports. Reports required under the
general provisions of 40 CFR part 60
remain unchangecL States delegated.the
authority to enforce these standards
remain Cree to impose their own
reporting requirements in conjunction
with this regulation.
EPA disagrees that day-to-day or
hour-to-bour monitoring will be
required. Compliance is determined on a
monthly basis and requires data that
any prudent manufacturer would
nonnally maintain. ~or facilities using
waterborne coatings. required data
consist of the volume and VOC content
of each coating and the volume and
density of each diluent VOC solvent
used during each caleudar month. When
an emisaion control system is used. the
most recently determined overall
reduction efficiency of the system also i.
required.
Recordkeeping provisions of the
proposed standards require maintaining
records of all data and calculations for
at least 2 years. In addition. records of
incinerator operating temperatures are
required if incineration is used. as are
data on daily solvent recovery if .
solvent-recovery system is used.
Incinerator temperatures and daily.
solvent recovery data are considered 8S
essential to the operation of these
devices and would be generated.
maintained. and examined. whether or
Dot required by the standards.
Details of the estimate that 12 person-
yean would be required by industry
during the fint 5 yean of the standard
are contained in the Reports Impact
Analysis (Docket Item U-I-53). The
estimate of industry requirements during
the first 5 years haa been revised
downward to 11 person years as . result
of the changes between proposal and
promulgation (Docket Item IV+2).1n a
. subsequent discusaion the commenter
stated that the 2.3 person-years waa .
worst case estimate based on all
existing facilities being modified or
reconstructed during 1980-1985.
It is EPA'. judgment that the estimates
are based on best available data. that
the estimates are realistic. and that the
requirements are not inflationary.
~-u.-.w
One commenter felt that the draft EIS
and the propoeed preamble and
regulation are D11K:b more complex aad
lengthy than neceuary. Diacassion of
280
incineration and the three-piece can
should be eliminated.
EPA considered that the material in
the draft EIS and in the proposal
preamble and regulation was necessary
to present the technical basis and the
rationale for the development of the
proposed standards. The beverap can
surface coating industry is complex.
involving as many as eleven coating
operations on five separate items.
Discussion of each of these was
considered necessary to determine the
scope and level of the proposed
standards. A discussion of incineration
was considered essential because one
canmaker had recently constructed two
plants using solvent-borne coatings.
Also inceneration is considered to be an
affordable and reasonable alternative to
the use of waterborne coatings.
Docket
The docket is an organized and
complete file of all the information
considered by EPA in the development
of this rulemaking. The docket is a
dynamic file. since material is added
throughout the rulemaking development.
The docketing system is intended to
allow members of the public and
industries involved to identify readily
and locate documents so that they can
intelligently and effectively participate
in the rulemaking process. Along with
the statement of basis and purpOlft of
the proposed and promulgated
standards and EPA responses to
significant comments. the contents of
the docket [except for certain materials
noted in Section 307(d)(7)(A)) will serve
as the record in case of judicial review.
Mi-.n..........
The effective date of this regulation is
August 25, 1983. Section 111 of the Clean
Air Act provides that standards of
performance or revisions thereof
become effective upon promulgation and
apply to affected facilities for which
construction. reconstruction. or
modification was commenced after the
date of proposal (November 26. 19SJ).
As prescribed by Section 111, the
promulgation of these standards wu
preceded by the Administralor's
determination (40 CFR 60.16. 44 FR
49222. dated August 21. 1979) that these
sources contribute significantly to air
pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanpr public health or
welfare. In accordance with Section 117
of the Act. publication of these
promulgated standard8 we. preceded by
consultation with appropriate advi8at'y
committees. independent experts. and
Federal department. and apm:ies.
-------
3&740
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 166 / Thursday. August 25. 1983 / Rules and Regulations
total mass of vac per volume of coating temperature difference across the
solids before and after the incinerator. catalyst bed is less than 80 percent oŁ.
capture efficiency. and the destruction the average temperature difference
efficiency of the incinerator used to across the catalyst bed during ~e most
attain compliance with the applicable recent performance test at which
emission limit specified under f 60.492. destruction efficiency was determined
The owner or operator shall also include as specified under i 60.493. .
a description of the method used to . (c) Each owner or opera tor subject to
establish the amount of vac captured the provisions of this subpart shall
by the capture system and sent to the maintain at the source, for a period of at
control device. least 2 years, records of all data and
(b) Following the initial performance calculations used to determine vac
test. each owner or operator shall emissions from each affected faciity in
submit for each semiannual period the initial and monthly performance
ending June 30 and December 31 a tests. Where compliance is achieved
written report to the Administrator of through the use of thermal incineration,
exceedances of vac content and each owner or operator shall maintain.
incinerator operating temperatures at the source, daily records of the
when compliance with i 60.492 is - incinerator combustion chamber
achieved through the use of incineration. temperature. H cattily tic incineration is
All semiannual reports shall be used. the owner or operator shall
postmarked by the 30th day following maintain at the source daily records of
the end of each semiannual period. For the gas temperature, both upstream and
the purposes of these reports. downstream of the incinerator catalyst
exceedances are defined as: bed. Where compliance is achieved
(1) Each performance period in which through the use of a solvent recovery
the volume-weighted average of the system. the owner or operator shall
total mass of vac per volume of coating maintain at the source daily records of
solids. after the control device. if the amount of solvent recovered by the
capture devices and control systems are system for each affected facility.
used, is greater than the limit specified (d) The requirements of this
under i 60.492. subsection remain in force until and
(2) Where compliance with i 60.492 is unless EPA. in delegating enforcement
achieved through the use of thermal authority to a State under Section lU(c)
incineration. each 3-hour period when of the Act, approves reporting
cans are processed. during which the requirements or an alternative means of
average temperature of the device was compliance surveillance adopted by
more than 28" C below the average such State. In that event, affected
temperature of the device during the facilities within the State will be
most recent performance test at which relieved of the obligation to comply with
destruction efficiency was determined this subsection. provided that they
as specified under i 60.493. comply with the requirements
(3) Where compliance with i 60.492 is established by the State.
achieved through the use of catalytic (Approved by the Office of Management and
incineration, each 3-hour period when Budget under control number 2060-00(1)
cans are being processed. during which (Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42
the average temperature of the device U.S.C. 1714))
immediately before the catalyst bed is
more than 28" C below the average
temperature of the device immediately
before the catalyst bed during the most
recent performance test at which
destruction efficiency was determined
as specified under ~ 60.493 and all 3-
hour periods. when cans are being
processed. during which the average
f 60.496 Test method. and procedures.
(a) The reference methods in
Appendix A to this part, except as
provided in t 60.8. shall be used to
conduct performance tests.
(1) Reference Method 24. an
equivalent or alternative method
approved by the Administrator. or
284
manufacturers formulation for data from
which the vac content of the coatings
used for each affected facility can be
calculated. In the event of dispute.
Reference Method 24 shall be the referee
method. When vac content of
waterborne coatings, determined from
data generated by Reference Method 24.
is used to determine compliance of
affected facilities. the results of the
Method 24 analysis shall be adjusted as
described in Section 4.4 of Method 24.
(2) Reference Method 25 or an
equivalent or alternative method for the
determination of the vac concentration
in the effluent gas entering and leaving
the control device for each stack
equipped with an emission control
device. The owner or operator shall
notify the Administrator 30 days in
achrance of any State test using
Reference Method 25. The following
reference methods are to be used in
conjunction with Reference Method 25:
(i) Method 1 for sample and velocity
traverses. -.... -
(ii) Method ~c.for velocity and
volumetric ftfiw rate.
(Hi) Metho!i~3 for gas analysis. and
(iv) Method 4 for stack gas moisture.
(b) For Reference Method 24. the
coating sample must be a I-litre sample
collected in a 1-litre container at a point
where the sample will be representative
of the coating material.
(c) For Reference Method 25. the
sampling time for each of three runs
must be at least 1 hour. The minimum
sample volume must be 0.003 dscm
except .that shorter sampling times or
smaller volumes. when necessitated by
process variables or other factors. may
be approved by the Administrator. The
Administrator will approve the sampling
of representative stacks on a case-by.
case basis if the owner or operator can
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Administrator that the testing of
representative stacks would yield
results comparable to those that woulti
be obtained by testing all stacks.
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as arr.ended (42
U.S.C. 7414))
In! Doc. 1B-23299 Filed ~ 8:45 amI
81WNG CODŁ ~
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 166 / Thursday, August 25. 1983 I Rules and Regulations
38739
For the initial performance test. the
overall reduction efficiency (R) shall be
determined as prescribed in A. B. and C
below. In subsequent months, the owner
or operator may use the most recently
determined overall reduction effidency
for the performance test providing
control device and capture system
operating conditions have not changed.
The procedure in A. B. and C. below.
shall be repeated when directed by the
Administrator or when the owner or
operator elects to operate the control
device or capture .system at conditions
different from the initial performance
test
(A) Determine the fraction [F) of total
vac used by the affected facility that
enters the control device using the
following equation:
F = S.H. + s.,H..
where H. an Hit shall be determined by
8 method that has been previously
approved by the Administrator. The
owner or operator may use the values of
S. and s.. specified in Table 1 or other
values determined by a method that has
been previously approved by the
Administrator.
TABLE 1.-DISTRIBUTION OF VOC
EMISSIONS
Coa1lnlJ~
e---
CoaI8l'I Cumg
"it\" .,.., Cs.!
T~-fl/f-C8ft
&I8ru - CII8I ap8I8IIDn-
o-v.m.n CX>811ng ap8I8IIDn '.-..
- - coaling apera1lDn--.
0.75
0.75
0.80
(5)
(8) Determine the destruction
efficiency of the control device (E) using
values of the volumetric flow rate of
each of the gas streams and the vac
content (as carbon) of each of the gas
streams in and out of the device by the
following equation:
n
]:
-------
38738
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 166 / Thursday, August 25, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
enterinl the atmosphere (partl per
million aa carbon)
c.=the VOC concentration in each gas
,tream entering the control device [parts
per million .. carbon)
D....denaity of each coatins. as received
(kilosrams per litre)
D.=deneity of each VOC-solvent added to
coatings [kilogr&1D8 per li tre)
D,-density of VOC-sol.ent recovered by an
emiuion control device [kilograms per
. litre)
Eo: VOC destruction efficiency of the control
devic;e [fraction)
F=the proportion of lotal VOC emitted by an
affected facilitv which enters the control
device to lota(emissions (fractjon)
G..the volume-weighted average of VQC in
coatings consumed in a catendar month
per volume of coating soilds applied
(kilograms per litre of coating solids)
H.=the fraction of VOC emitted at the coster
and fiashoff areas captured by a
collection system
H.=the fraction ofVOC emitted at the cure
oven captured by a collection system
L.=the volume of each coatir.o consumed. as
received [litres)
L.=the volume of each VQC-so!vent added
to coatings [litres) .
L,=the volume of VOC-solvent recovered bv
an emiasion control device [Htres) .
I.=the volume of coating solids consumed
(litres)
M.=the mus of VOC-solvent added to
coatings (kilograms) .
M.=the mass of VOC-solvent in coatings
consumed. as received [kilograms)
M,= the mass of VOC-solvenl recovered by
emission control device [kilograms)
N=the volume-weighted average mass of
VQC emissions to atmosphere per unit
volume of coating solids applied
(kilograms per litre of coating solids)
Q.=the voll1!:letric flow rate of each gas
stream leevins the control device and
entering the atmosphere (dry .tandard
cubic metera per bour)
Q.= the volumetric flow of each gas stream
enterin(l the contral device (dry standard
cubic meters per hour)
R '" the overall emission reduction efficiency
for an affected facility (fraction)
S.=the fraction of VOC in coating and
diluent VOC-solvent emitted at the
coater and flashoff aree for a coating
opera tion
Sh=the fraction of VOC in coatins and
diluent solvent emitte.d at the cure oven
for a coatins operation
V.=the proportion of solids in each coati!IJ.
81 received (fraction by volume)
W.=the proportion of VOC in each coating.
sa received (fraction by weight).
f 80..412 Standards for volatile organic
catnpounds.
On or after the date on which the
initial performance test required by
i 6O.8(a) is completed. no owner or
operator subject to the provisions of this
s~bpart shall discharge or cause the
discharge of VQC emissions to the
atmoshpel! that exceed the following
volume-weighted calendar-month
average emissions:
(a) 0.29 kilogram of VOC per litre of
coating solids from each two-piece can
exterior base coating operation, except
clear base coat;
(b) O.46'kilogram of VOC per litre of
coating solids from each two-piece can
clear base coating operation and from
each overvaIT'jsh coating operation; and
(c) 0.89 kilogram of VOC per litre of
coating solids from each two-piece can
inside spray coating operation.
~ 60.43; Performance test and compliance
provisions.
(a) Section 6O.B(d) does not apply to
monthly performance tests and t 6O.8(f)
does not apply to the performance test
procedures require,d by this subpart.
(b) The owner or operator of an
affected facility shall conduct an initial
performance test as required under
~ 6O.8(a) and thereafter a performance
test each calendar month for each
affected facility.
(1) The owner or operator shall use
the following procedures for each
affected facility that does not use a
capture system aod a control device to
comply with the emission limit specified
under i 60.492. The owner or operator
shall determine the VOC-content of the
coatings from formulation data supplied
by the manufacturer of the coating or by
an analysis of each coating. as received.
using Reference Method 24. The
Administrator may require the owner or
operator who uses formulation data
supplied by the manufacturer of the
coating to determine the VOC content of
coatings using Reference Method 24 or
an equivalent or alternative method. The
owner or operator shall determine from
company records the volume of coa ting
and the mass of VOC-solvent added to
coatings. If a common coating
distribution system serves more than
one affected facility tlr serves both
affected and exiting facilities. the owner
or operator shall estimate the volume of
coati."1g used at each facility by using the
average dry weight of coating, number
of cans, and size of cans being
processed by each affected and existing
facility or by other procedures
acceptable to the Administrator.
[i) Calculate L~e volume-weighted
average of the total mass of VOC per
volume of coating solids used during the
calendar month for each affected
facility. except as provided under
i 60.493(b)(1)(iv). The volume-weighted
average of the total mass of VOC per
volume of coating solids used each
calendar month will be determined by
the following procedures.
282
(A) Calculate the mass of VOC used
(Mo + Md) during the calendar month for
the affected facility by the following
equation:
n m
Mo + Md = ~ Lc DOl Woo + ~ L.tl Ddj,(1)
i = 1 j = 1
[J:L 41 D4I will be 0 if no VOC solvent is added
10 the coatings. as received.) where n is the
number of different coatings used during the
calendar month and m is the number of
different diluent VOC-solvents used during
the calendar menth. -
(B) Calculate the total volume of
coating soHds used (L.) in the calendar
month for the affected facility by the
following equation:
n
1.. = I Lei V.i.
i=1
(2)
where n is the number of different coatings
used during the calendar month.
(C) Calculate the volume-weighed
average mass of VOC per volume of
solids used (G) during the calendar
month for the affected facility by the
following equation:
G=
Me + Md
LT2.
(3)
(ii) Calculate the volume-weighted
average of VOC emissions discharged to
the atmosphere (N) during the calendar
month for the affected facility by the
followiI).g equation:
(4)
N=G.
(iii) Where the value of the volume-
weighted average of mass of VOC per
volume (if solids discha.rged to the
atmosphere (N) is equal 10 or less than
the applicable emission limit specified
under i 60_492, the affected facility is in
compliance.
(iv) If each individual ceating used by
an affected facility has a VOC content
equal to or less than the limit specified
under i 60.492, the affected facility is in
compliance provided no VOC-solvents
are added to the coating during
distribution or application.
(2) An owner or operator shall use the
following procedures for each affected
facility that uses a capture system and 8
control device that destroys VOC (e.g.,
incinerator) to comply with the emission
limit specified under i 6O.49z'
(i) Determine the overall reduction
efficiency (R) for the capture system and
control device.
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 48, No. 166 I Thursday, August 25. 1983 / Rules and RegulatiOIlJ
38737
The standard requires that owners or
operators of affected facilities submit
three types of reports, those required
under the General Provisions of 40 CFR
Part 60. initial performance test reports,
and semiannual reports of instances in
which the VOC content of coatings used
exceeds the allowable level established
in the standard and instances in which
incinerator operating temperatures vary
significantly from those used to
establish emission control system
efficiencies where compliance is
achieved through the use of incineration.
This regulation will be reviewed no
la ter than four years from the da te of
promulgation as required by the Clean
Air Act. This review will include an
assessment of such factors as the need
for integration with other programs. the
existence of alternative methods,
enforceability, improvements in
emission control technology, and
reporting requirements. The reporting
requirements in this regulation will be
reviewed as required under EPA's
sunset policy for reporting requirements
in regulations.
Section 317 of the Clean Air Act
requires the Administrator to prepare an
economic impact assessment for any
new source standard of performance
promulgated under Section 111(b) of the
Act. An economic impact assessment
was prepared for this regulation and for
other regulatory alternatives. All
aspects of the assessment were
considered in the formulation of the
standards to insure that cost was
carefully considered in determining
8DT. The economic impact assessment
is included in the BID for the proposed
standards.
Under Executive Order 12291. EPA
must judge whether a regulation is
"major" and therefore subject to the
requirement of a Regulatory Impact
Analysis. This regulation is not major
because it would result in none of the
adverse economic effects set forth in
Section 1 of the Order as grounds for
finding a regulation to be major. There
will be no increase in industrywide
annualized costs as a result of this
regulation. No significant increase in
price is associated with the proposed
standards; thus there would be no
"major increase in costs or prices"
specified as the second criterion in the
Order. The economic analysis of the
proposed standards' effects on the
industry did not indicate any significant
adverse effects on competition.
investment. productivity. employment.
innovation. or the ability of U.S. firms to
compete with foreign firms (the third
criterion in the Order).
This regulation was submitted. to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review as required by
Executive Order 12291. Any comments
from OMB to EPA and any EPA
response to tho8e comments are
availa ble for public inspection in the
docket referenced in the address section
of this preamble.
Information collection requirements
contained in this regulation (Sections
60.493. 60.494. and 60.495) have b,een
approved by OMB under the provisioa
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and have been
assigned OMB control number 2060-
0001.
List of Subjects in 4O'CFR Part 60
Air pollution control, Almninum,
A.'1Ul1oniwn sulfate plants. Asphalt.
Cement industry. Coal copper, Electric
power plants. Glass and glass products,
Grains. Intergovernmental relations,
Iron, Lead. Metals. Metallic minerals.
Motor vehiclee. Nitric acid plants. Paper
and paper products industry, Petroleum,
Phosphate. Sewage disposaL Steel.
Sulfuric acid plants, Waste treatment
and disposal. Zinc. Tires. Incorporation
by reference. Can surface coating.
Dated Augu:' 18. 1983. '
William D. Ruckelshaua.
Administrator.
PART 6G-{AMENDED]
40 CFR Part 60 is amended by adding
Subpart WW as follows:
Subpart WW-Standards of Performance
for the Beverage Can Surface Coating
Industry
See.
60.490 Applicability and designation of
affected facilitv.
60.491 Definjtiona~
60.49% Standards for volatile organic
compound8.
60.493 Performance test and compliance
provi8iona.
60.494 Monitorins of emissions and
operationa.
60.495 Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
60.496 Test methods and procedures.
Authority: Seca.111 and 301(a) of the Clean
Air Act, u amended [4% U.S.c. 7411 and
76Ol(a}J. and additional 8UthOrity, 85 noted
beiow.
~ 60.490 Applic:abHlty and de8ign8tIon of
affected facility.
(a) The provisions of this subpart
apply to the following affected facilities
in beverage can surface coating lines:
each exterior base coat operation. each
overvamish coatins operation. and each
inside spray coating operation.
(b) The provisions of this subpart
apply to each affected facility which is
identified in paragraph (a) of this section
and commences construction.
281
~
modification. or reconstruction after
November 26. 1980.
f 6O..S1 D8tInIItana.
(a) All terma which are used in this
subpart and are not defined below are
given the same meanins 4S in the Act
and Subpart A of this part.
(1) Beverage can means any two-pi~
steel o~ aluminum c~ntainer in which
80ft drinks or beer. mcludins malt liquor
are packaged. The definition does not'
include containers in which fruit or
vegetable juices are packaged.
(2) Exterior base coating operation
means the system on each beverage can
surface coating line used to apply a
coating to the exterior of a two-pifCI
beverage can body. The exterior base
coat provides corrosion resistance and e
background for lithography or printins
operations. The exterior base coat
operation consists of the coating ,
application station. flashoff area, and
curing oven. The exterior base coat mey
be pigmented or clear (unpigmented).
(3) Inside spray coating operation
means the system on each beverage can
surface coating line used to apply a
coatins to the interior of a two-piece
beverage can body. This coating
provides a protective film between the
contents of the beverage can and the.
metal can body. The inside spray
coating operation consists of the coating
application station. flashoff area, and
curing oven. Multiple applications of aD
inside spray-coating are considered to
be a single coating operation.
(4) Overvarnish coating operation
means the system on each beverage can
surface coating line used to apply a
coating over ink which reduces friction
for automated beverage can f1lling
equipment. provides gloss' and protects
the finished beverage can body from
abrasion and corrosion. The overvamisb
coating is applied to twcrpiece beverage
can bodies. The overvamish coating
operation consists of the coating
application station. flashoff area, and
curing oven.
(5) Two-piece can means any
beverage can that consists of a body
manufactured from a single piece of
steel or aluminum and a top. Coatings
for a two-piece can are usually applied
after fabrication of the can body.
(6) vac content means all volatile
organic compounds (Voq that are in e
coating. VOC content is expressed in
terms of kilograms of VOC per litre of
coating solid..
(b) Notations used under 160.493 of
this subpart are defxned below:
C.=the VQC concentration in eec:h8.
stream leaving the control device IDd
-------
G. :..
~-;. 1
=-.twI
&r.
fl1
~
r II
---
----
--'-_.- -----
-r--ar
CkkMr ft, 1983
Part VII
Environmental
Protection Agency
Standards of PerIor88I.c. for ....
SWlvnary Sources; Ratogravure Printing
and Coating of Flexible Vlnyt ...
UrethaI..
285
-------
482ZC
Federal Repter I Vol. 48. No. 197 I Tuesday, October 11. 1983 I Proposed RaTes
-
-
ENVIRONIIENAL PROTECTIOIt
AGENCY
40 CPR P8rt 10
A8eDCf, R.-rch Triansle Park, N.c.
21111, talephoDe number (919) 541-I8K.
~AIIY INFORMATION: Flexible
vinyl priJltiDg refers to the roto8f8Wl8
proce18 of printing and coatint vinyl
web. with any mixture of ink. coatint
.olid&. volatile organic compoUDcIa
(VOC), and water that is applied to the
web IUbitrate of a rotogravure priDtint
line. The web may COD8ilt of . vinyl
coated eub8trate referred to a.. .
IUpported web, or a vinyl 8beet with DO
lubltrate. referred to a. an unsupported
web. Printing and coating metboda for
IUppOJ'ted and unsupported products are
essentially identical.
The c;nmmeDt period for the propoeed
ltandards for 8exible vinyl coating and
printins operationa ended on April 1,
1983. DuriDa the comment period. .
letter was received from . major
manufacturer of 8exible urethane
produces. After reviewiDs the regulation
and baclqpooand information document.
the commenter Itated that there were DO
known teclmica1 or 8cientific re880D8
why the printing of 8exible urethane
coated fabrics should be regulated
differently than the printiDg of 8exible
vinyl coated fabria. The commenter
further 8tated that reprd1... of the
chemical compolitioon of the coatiD&
whether polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or
urethane. the webl are finilhed by
printing with solvent IOlutiona of PVc.
urethane. and/or acrylic re8iD.1.
Urethane and vinyl products are
commonly printed al a continUOlD web
em rotogravure equipment. At le.lt two
JlUlDUfacturers IOmetimes U88 uretbaDe
web. and/or urethane iDka on
equipment aormally uaec\ for vinyl
producf8. The ItaDdard. which renect8
Ibe bat demoutrated tec1molD81 (BDT)
for the vinyl iDdUltry. al80 renectl BOT
for the uredume industry. The
AdmiDUtrator believes that urethane
product manufacturers can achieve the
emiuion 8taDdard at realonable coata.
Therefore. ill the Administrator'.
judgment, baed an the information
preeented br the commenter, it is
~le to iDclude the priDtiDg of
flexible aretbaD8 coated fabrics in the
propG8ed It8Ddarda for flexible YiDyI
coaq and pI'iDtina opentiOll8. lince
the AaeDc1 bu DOt iDvesti8ated the
811VirmuDeDtal, eaeru, &ad ~
IIIIpacts of the It8Ddard 1IpOII aretbae
product III8DIIfactunn. we are IOik:itiDt
pabUc ~''''.._.18 an tbia I88ae. . -
S8cticm 801 of th. Retu1atar? . .
Flexibility h:t (RFA) requires that the.
AdmiDiatratar certify whether
JeBulatioDa bn. . ~fiADt iIDpact -
a nbltaDtiaI number olllD8l1 1IDtiti8e.
There are apprmdmaaly four COAot-rd-.
that 8I8IrUfac:bn aretb8IIe ~ oae
[AD-PRL-Z3I2-2]
StMd8rd8 of Performance for New
S81tiunary Sources; Rot0gr8Wr8
P.~6~ 8nd Coating of Flexl* VInyt
.... Ur8thM8
MIBICY: Environmental ProtectiOD
Agency (EPA).
ACTIOIC Supplemental Notice of
Propo.al Rule.
.-&801: Thi. notice aupplemeDtl the
propo..d rule on the Randardl 01
performance for Flexible vinyl coating
md printins operatioD8 that appeared at
page Z278 in the FedenI Regist8r of
January 18. 1983 (48 FR 2216). This
actioD i.8 being taken to provide notice
that the printins of 8exible uretb.aae
coated fabriCi is included in the
proposed ltandard for flexible vinyl
coatin& and priDtin& operatiODl and to
IOlicit public comments on urethane
printin& only.
DATU: Comments. The propoled
replation is being reopened for
commmt concemiDg urethane oaly.
Comments must be received OD or
before November 10. 1883.
AIII,IIA-..tt: CozruzMnu. Comments
8baald be lUbmitted flD duplicate if
pouible) to: Central Docket Section
(LE-131). attention: Docket Number Ir-
..... U.s. Emiroamental Protection
Apacy. 401 tot Street, SW.. Wuhingtoa.
D.C. 2DI8O.
BDckground Information Document.
The backgrouad information ckv-nm...t
(BID) for the propo8ed ttaDdard may be
obtained from the Us. EPA Library
(MD-3S), Research Triangle Park. North
C8r0liDa 27711. telephone D1UDber (819)
511-217'1. PIe... refer to "Flexible Vinyl
Coating and Printing Operaticm.-.
Bacqround 1Dformation for Proposed
Staadarda," EPA-ISO/Wt-ot8L
lJot:UL Docket number A4-&
_t_,m.,. IUppOI'tint iDformatiaD ued
to cIneJopiDa the pro~ ItaDdard. 18
naiJable few public iD8pection and
c:apytq between 1:00 &.m. 8Dd 4:GO p.m..
Waad8r tIuaup Friday, at BPA'.
C8draI Docket Sec:tioD. Welt Tower
Labb" Cal1ery 1. Wat8nide MalL 401 ..
SIN8t. SW.. WuhiD8toa. D.c. 2IM8D. A
.......bIa ,. ma, be dwpd for
~
.....,... """TIOII COII'rACT:
Yr. CeDe w. Smith. Staadarda
~"""I' ....... Bracb. Emiaioa
........ ad ID8ineeriDI DiYi8krD
~ us. ".fh-.tal ProtectIoa
286
of which would be cOD8idered IID8ll.
The economic 8081y.18 conaucted for
8IDall vinyl manufacture!'l indicated DO
-eignificant impacts. Similarly, it il not
expected that thi. supplement, if
promul8ated. will lignificantly impact
.8IDall bUlines8es. Further. thil
IUpplement will have no impact on any
other lD1all entities.
Paperwork R8ductioa Ad
The information provilion8 allOcated
with the propoeed rule which thil notice
propO!e8 to amend will be submitted for
approval to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork
ReductiOD Act of 1980 US.c. 3501 et Ieq.
Comments on these requirementa should
be lubmitted to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affain of
OMB marked Attention: Delk Officer for
EPA. The final rule packase will
respond to any OMB or public comment
on the information collection proYisiODl.
Dated: September ze. 1813.
WiDI8m D. RnrIr-w.-
AdlniniMrrztDr.
WI of Subjects in . CFR Part .
Air pollutiaa control.
Intersovernmental relations. PBper and
paper products industry.
PART 8O-{AllDlDEDJ
The proposed resulaticm publi8hed at
48 Fa ZZ78. January 18, 1883 is amended
u follows:
1. The authority for Part 80 is:
AutIMriy: See. 111. 301(a) of the Clean AIr
Act u amended [42 U.s.c. 7411. 7I01(a}), and
additicmal authority AI DOteG below.
Z. The headiD8 for Subpart FFF is
revised to read u follows: .
8ubp8rt FFF-Sl8nd8fda of
Perlorm818C8 for Rotogr8wr8 PrIntIng
8nd Co8tIng of fie.... Vlnylilld
Ur6ttwa..
3. Parqrapb (a) of t8O.58D 18 reviled
to read u follows:
.1-- Ir.$r - I ~ .. .11'., .In"
8ff8cI8d f8c8ty.
(a) ne affected faciJitJ to which the
provisicma of thia 8Ubpert appl, is eec:Ia
nrtopvure priDq UD8 1I88CI to print tII
GOat flexible YiDyI or aretbaae producta.
. . . . .
-4. In t 80..581. the defbIitioa8 for
'"8miaioD CODtroI deW:e8", "eminioa
controIlJ8tem", "'tDk", "Rotop'a......
printq J1ne", 8Dd '"vapor capture
.,.tem" are revi8ed. 1be term '"Flexible
'riDy1 products" ta 1!ha"l8Ci to "P1exibJe
viDyI ad aretbaDe produc:ta.., aDd tb8
definition i8 reYi8ed to read.. followl:
-------
Fedenl R.egi8I8r I Vol. 48. No. 197 I Tuesday. October 11. 1983 I Propoaed Rulea
. 8Z2S
.-, DItIrI_o 'N. 8IId ..,.,uol&.
(a) All terIDI ued ill tbia 1Ubpart. DOt
cleftaed below. are given the aame
meaDiD8 al ill the Act or in Subpart A of
tbilpart.
"EmiJaion CODtrOI dnice" JDe8D8 any
8OInI1t recovery dmce ued to caatrol
VOC emiuiODl from flexible viDyllIDd
urethane rotosravure printiqliD8e.
"EmiJIiOD coDtroll)'8tem" meana the
combination of an emi88ion control
device and . vapor capture 1}'8tem for
the purpoae of ntduciDa VOC em.iuiona
from flexible YiDyI and urethane
IUtop'Ivure printiq liDea.
"Flexible vinyl and urethane
-producta.. meana thOle product8. except
1or1'eltilieat floor COYerinp (1977 SIC
lDduatry 3988J. that conai.t of or contain
. vinyl or lll'ethane sheet or . vinyl or
urethane coated web. and lire more than
50 1Dk-...-tm. (Q.002 inches) thick.
.
.
.
.
.
'"fDk" III88D8 any mixture of ink.
coating aoIid8. Voc. and water that i8
applied to the web aubatrate of a
flexible vin)'I or urethane rotosravure
printiDI Iia&
.
.
.
.
.
287
'"RotoIrawre printiusline" puna any
Dumber of rotograwre print 8tatiaD8 and
al80ciated dryera capable of priDtiIJI or
coating IimultaneoU8iy on the 88DIe
contWIoua vinyl or aretb.aDe web or
aubstrate. which i8 fed flora .
CODtimaoaa roll
'"Vapor captunt sy8tem" ID88D8 any
device or combination of deYic8a
deaigDed to contain. collect, and route
80lYeDt vapors releaeed from the
ilexible.vinyl or urethane fOto8ravure
printiDs !iDe.
.
.
.
.
.
fila Dl&.1WIIII/' JIII8d --- ~.-
au. c=-- ......
-------
288
-------
Tuesday
October 18. 1983
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sourc88; Synthetic 0rg8nIc
Chemical Manufacturtng Industry;
Equipment Leaks of YOC, Refer...
Methods 18 and 22; Final Rule
289
-------
48328
Federal Register f Vol. 48, No. 202 / Tuesday, October 18, 1983/ Rules and Regulations
-
-
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR P8rt 80
[AD-FRL 2217-2)
St8KI8rd8 of PerfonnallC8 for ....
St8tJon8ry Soun:e8; Synthetic OrganIc
Ch8miC8IIIanuf8cturtng Industry;
Equipment Leak. of Voc, R.f..nce
llethoda 18 8nd 22
AGINCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTIOIC Final rule.
IUMMARY: Thi. action promulgate.
.tandards of performance for equipment
leak. of Volatile Organic CompoundJ
(VOC) in the Synthetic Organic
Chemical Manufacturing Industry
(SOCMI). The .tandards were propo.ed
in the Federal Regieter on January 5,
1981 (46 FR 1136). Theile .tandards
implement Section 111 of the Clean Air
Act and are ba.ed on the
Administrator's determination that
emis.iona from the eynthetic organic
chemical manufacturing indu.try cause,
or contribute .ignificantly to, air
pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare. The intended effect of these
.tandard. i. to require all newly
conatructed, modified, and
reconstructed SOCMI proCelS units to
use the best demonstrated system of
continuous emillion reduction for
equipment leaka of Voc. considerins
costs, nonair quality health and
environmental impact and energy
requirementa.
DATU: Effective date: October 18, 1983.
These standards of performance
become effective upon promulgation but
apply to affected facilities for which .
cQnstruction or modification
commenced after January 5, 1981.
Under Section 307(b)(I) of the Cleo
Air Act, judicial review of these
standards of performance is available
only by the filing of a petition for review
in the U.S. Court of Appeal. for the
District of Columbia Circuit within 80
days of today's publication of thia rule.
Under Section 307(b)(2) of the Clean Air
Act, the requirement. that are the
subject of today's notice may not be
challenged later in civil or criminal
proceedings brought by EPA to enforce
these requirements.
The Director of the Federal Register
approves the incorporation by reference
of certain publications in 40 CFR
effective on October 18, 1983.
ADDRESSES: Background Information
Documents. The background
information document (BIQ) for the
promulgated .tandarda may be obtained
from the U.s. EPA Ubrary (MD-3S),
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-2717.
Please refer to "Equipment Leaka 01
VOC in Synthetic Organic Chemical.
Manufacturing Industry-Background
Information for Promulgated Standarda.
of Performance" (EPA-450/3-6I).OO3b).
The BID containl (1) a .ummary of all
the public comments made on the
proposed standards and EPA's '
response. to the comments, (2) a
summary of the change. made to the
.tandards since proposal, and (3) the
'final Environmental Impact Statement
which summarizes the impact. of the
promulgated standards. The BID for the
propo.ed .tandards may. be obtained.
from the National Technical Information
Service, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Springfield, Virginia 22161. Please refm:
to "VOC Fugitive Emis.iona in Synthetic
Organic Chemical. Manufacturing
Industry--Background Information fpr
Propo.ed Standards," EPA-450/3-4IO-
033b (NTIS PB81-152167). The ad~ti~nal
information document (AID) descnblDB
emis.ions, eminion reduction., and' .
co.ts related to equipment leak. ofVOC
may al.o be obtained from the National
Technical Information Service, u.s. .
Department of Commerce, Springfield. ..
Virginia 22161. Plea.e refer to "Fugitive
Emi.sion Source. of Organic
Compounds-Additional Information on
Emis.ions, Emi.sion Reduction., and
Co.t8," EPA-t50/~O (NTIS PB8Z-
217126).
DocksL A docket, number A-79-32;
containing information con.idered by
EPA in development of the promulgated
Standards, i. available for public \
inspection between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00
p.m., Monday through Friday, at EPA's
Central Docket Section (A-I30), West
. Tower Lobby, Gallery I, 401 M Street.
SW., Wa.hington. D.C. 20460. A
reasonable fee may be charged for
copying. .
FOfIII"URTHEIt INFOIIIMATION CONTAC'r.
Mr.. Fred Dimmick, Standards
Development Branch, Emi.sion
Standards and Engineering Divi.ion -
(MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone (919) 541-
5578.
SUPPLDIENTAIIY INFOItMATION:
SUIIUIIUy of Slandarda
Standards of performance for new
source. established under Section Ul 01
the Clean Air Act reflect .
. . . application of the best technological
system of continuoua emission reduction.
wbich (taking into consideration the coat of
Icbievina such emission reduction. and any
290
DOnair quality health and 8nvironrnental
Impact and enersY requirementl) the
Administrator determines has been
adequately demolUltrated [Section 111(a)(1)~
As prescribed. by Section 111 of tile
Clean Air Act, promulgation of the..
.tandarda was preceded by the
Administrator's determination (40 CFR
80.18, 44 FR 49222. dated August 21,
- 1979) that these sourcel contribute
.ignificantly to air pollution which may
rea.onably be anticipated to endanser
public health or welfare.
Standard. of performance for
equipment leaks of volatile organic
.compound. (VOC) in the synthetic
organic chemical manufacturing
indu.try (SOCMI) were propoeed on
January 5, 1981 (48 FR 1136).1 The
promulgated .tandards apply to specific,
equipment .with the potential to leak
VOC within process unit. operated to
produce one or more of the organic
chemical. li.ted in the .tandards. The
equipment covered by the standards and
grouped in a procen unit are delignated
as the "affected facility" for detel'll1inin8
applicability of the .tandards. A process
unit is a group of equipment that can be
u.ed independently, if .ufficient raw
material and product storage capacity
could be supplied, to produce one or
more chemical.. Proces. units used to
produce the chemical. covered by the
.tandards may involve chemical
,ynthesia, bilological eynthesia. other
proce.sing. or phy.ical operationa. neb
88 .eparation. A plant may be composed
of one or more proce.. units.
Valve., pump., compressors, pressure
relief device.. sampling systems. and
open-ended lines in VOC .ervieet (that
ii, containing 10 percent or more VOC
by weight) are the equipment cove~
b~e standards. The standards reqwre
(1) a leak detection and repai~ pro~~
for valve. in ga./vapor and light liquid
.ervice and pump. in light liquid .~ce:
(2) eqilipment for compressors, sampling
'Yltems. and open-ended lines: (3) 110
detectable emissions (500 ppm 81
determined by Reference Method 21) for
pressure relief devicel in gal/~apor
se.rvice during nonnal operation. In
response to comments on the propoeed
.tandards, EPA i. exempting from the
.. propo8ed standard8 referred to fu8lUV8
emillion sources of VOC u the air pollution
emillion poinla covered by the standards. Tb8
terminology fugitive smi..ion soan:es can be
confusina. The standards apply to equipm8llt with
the potential to leak VOC and. therefOft. tJ.
promulgated standards refer to equipment leaks of
VOC u the air pollution emillion points covarad II)'
.the standards. The Priority Ust (40 CPR eo.tSI
specifies fugitive emis.ion lOun:etI within the
SOCMI source cateaory. Equipmentluks ofVoe
81'8 included in fuaitive emisiaa IOUn:eI for the
pUlpOl8 olth. Priority Us!.
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 48, No. 202 J T1!eSday, October 18. 1983 I Ru1.a and Regulations
-18329
standards facilities p~~ Ins thn
1,000 1UjAl8J'8D18 (Wg) of SOCMI
chemica1J per leaI..faciliJ.iu P"""'"'aai'1j
ODly heavy UquidJ 011' .oiida. .aDd
facilities produciDi blwemse.wcoho1. 18
additicm. 1he fina1.tanc18rds pmWde .
procedure for detel1l1iniq !]ae
equiva1ency of iIltematiye contro1
meallJJ1!s similar 1D Jhe propoaed
procedure.
Standards for Valves. ~e aandan1s
for valves bave not substantially
cbaqed lince 'proposal. The)' are based
on a leak detection and repair JD'OgraID
that requlJ'2I 1'1) montb1y manitorinB for
valves m pslvapor and tight tiqWd
service, {2) an mti'tiaJ attempt at
repairing thne nm. widDn S days
after detection of 11 teak. I') repa1r 01
leaking "!fts withift 15 d1Iys after
detection of the teak .en repab' wou!d
require a proceu unit shutdoWn. and {.)
repair of V1IMt during the next procen
unit shutdown after t'ep81ri8 delayed
UDtiI. pmceu.mt Ihutdown. v..
foUDd not 10 leak for 2 ~ive'
months can be IIiOnitared quutedy 81til
lab are deteted. MonitoriD8 of .
equipment 10 deted lab i8 cond8ded
in accordauce with RefBeDce MeIbod Z1
and a leak is defiaed u a meuared
ollaDic COJICeDtratiaa equal to '" ..--
than 1D,OOO part8 per miUiOD br'VOlame
(PIDV). .
Two altern.tift staDdan18 bne been
Provided ~ vaivel ia ../yapa;.-
light liquid .emce in the fiaal
standardL These altemativel anf1) a
limit orz pen:ent of valves wbida JDaI
be Jeakias at anJ ODe time aDd LZI .
lkip-period Jsak detectio. 4Dd repair
program" proceu UDit8 8C!Iiewq -
than Z percent of their Y8lva IeakiDs-
Tbue altemative.ataDdard8. altboush -
slisbtIy cWlarent than the altematiwe
staDdanU ind"lIed iD the proposed
staDdarda. atablish ataDdards for
owners and Dperalon who de:8ip and
operate low-peak proceu UDib. For low.
leak proceu wait&. the coat8 01 a8e
monthly leak detection and repair .
program is uareuonably 1Ush in '
comparison 10 the emission reduction&.
Standards for Pumps. The final
standards include a leak detection and
repair prosram that requires!l) mOl1th1y
monitorm, d 'pumpl m ligh1tiq1lid
service, 121 wa1dy visual inspedion8 at
the seals on pumps in tipt Dquid
IefYice, (!] 110 altempt aI replririDJ a
pump withm I dayi after ~ df a
leak, and 14' repair of a 1eakins-pump
Within 1S elB,. after detection of a Ie81
'allure or leak unless repatr would t
require. plQCe8a anil ahutdown. Pampa
that haw repair elelayed aDftI . proce.
IlDit.tt1ltdown ID1I8t be repaired chIrins
the next pIUCeI8 _t ehutelowa. If .
pump canna( be ~6h...
-------
48330
Federal Register I Vol. 48, No. 202 I Tuesday, October 18, 1983 I Rules and Regulatioqs
-
-
than 0.3 1d1opascals at ZO°c. Even
though the standards do not require
m.$)nitoring these equipment for leaks,
the standards require vor leaks which
are visually or otherwise detected from
these equipment to be repaired within 15
daYI if a leak is confirmed using
Reference Method 21. Thil provision'
improves current induatry housekeeping
practices for these piece. of equipment.
Under Section 111(h)(a), any person
may request the Administrator to permit
the Ute of an alternative means of
emission limitation instead of a design,
equipment. work practice or operational
standard. The Administrator will permit
the use of such alternative means if the
Administrator determines, after notice
and opportunity for a public hearing.
that it will achieve emission reductions
at least equivalent to those required by
the design, equipment, work practice or
operational standards. The permission
will take the form of an amendment to
the appropriate standards.
Compliance with the leak detection
and repair program and equipment
requirementB will be asselsed through
semiannual repom, review of record..
and by inspection. The semiannual
reportB provide a sumuiary of the data -
recorded on leak detection and repair 01
valve.. pumps, and of other equipment
.types. In response to public comments.
requirementB for routine reporting were
.reduced from quarterly to semiannual
reporting. Notifications are still required
u described In the General Provisions
for new IOUrCe standards (40 CFR 00.7).
The semiannual repom may be
waived for affected facilitielln States
where the regulatory program bal been
delegated, if EPA.1n the course 01
delegatins such authority. approvel
reporting requirementB or an alternative
meanl of source surveillance adopted
by the State. In these cases, such
sources would be required to comply
with the requirementB adopted by the
State.
Recorda of leak detection. repair
attempts, and maintenance for
equipment leaks of VOC are required by
the standards. These recorda, aloDl with
Hmiannual reporting and plant
iD8pectiona, will be uaed to enforce the
standards. The record8 remain
essentially the same a. tho. in the
proposed .tandards. Some changes bav.
occurred becauae the requirements for .
the equipment covered by the .tandard8
have changed. In addition. EPA has
made it clear that an owner or operator
may keep the recorda for several
affected facilitiel at one location ilu
plant rather than at each pl'OC888 unit.
MiscellaneoU8 Actions. The General
Provisions of Part 00 are being revised to
provide technical amendmeDta to the
provisions in 40 CFR 60.7, 00.11, and
00.17. Also, Reference Method 18 i.
being added to Appendix A of Part 00
and Reference Method 22 i. being
revised. These methods will be used to
determine compliance with the
requirementB for flares.-
Summary of Impad8
Emission Rt/ductions. The .tandarda
of performance will reduce equipment
leaks of VOC from newly constructed.
modified, and reconstructed proces.
unitB in SOCMI by approximately 58
percent in compari80n to those
emissions that would result in the
absence of the standards. The standard8
will cover about 830 newly constructed.
modified, and recon.tructed sources in
1985. The standards will reduce the
emissions associated with current
industry practice. from approximately
83,000 to 37,000 Mg in 1985 (that i8.
91,000 to 41,000 tons) for newly
constructed. reconstructed, and
modified proces. units.
Cost and Economic Impacts. The cost
and economic impacts of the ltandard8
are reasonable. The standard8 will
require an industry-wide capital
investment over the 5-year period fro~
1981 to 1988 of approximately $44
million for those facilitiel which are
newly constructed, reconstructed, or
modified. The induatry-wide net
annualized cost will be about $14.8
million in 1985. This net annualized COlt
includes a credit resulting from .
"recovered" emissions. The costB will be
distributed among 830 facilities affected
during the 5-year period. Induatry-wide
price increases are not expected to
result from these .tandards. .
Other Impacts. The .tandard8 01
performance will not increase the
energy usage of SOCMI process units. In
general. the controls required by the
standards do not require energy.
Futhermore, the effect of the .tandard8
will be to increase efficiency of raw
material usage so that a net positive.
energy ilnpact will result.
Implementation of the standards will
have no impact on solid waste within
, SOCMI. In contralt. the standards cou„!
also cause a 8D1all positive impact aD
water quality by coi1talnment of
potential liquid leaks. The
recordkeeping and reporting .
reqWrementB will require an average 01
65 Industry person years annually for
the years of 1983 and 1984.
The environmental, eneray, and
economic impactB are di8CUHed in
greater detail in tha background
information document for the
promulgated standards. [See the
ADDRU8U .ecti~ of this preamble.]
292
Public Partidpatioa
Prior to proposal of the standards, " .
interested partie. were advised by
public nOtice in the Federal RIIiate (45
FR 18474, March 21, 1980) of a meetina
of the National Air Pollution Control
Technique. Advisory Committee to
discuss the standards for equipment
leaks of VOC in SOCMI recommended
for proposal. This meetins was held on
April 16, 1980. The meetins wal open to
the public, and each attendee was Biven
an opportunity to comment on the
standards recommended for proposal
The standards were proposed in the
Federal Resister on January 5, 1981 (48
FR 1136). The preamble to the proposed
Itandards diecualed the availability of~
the background Information document
for the proposed standards which
described in detail t4e rep1atory
alternative. cODlidered and the iJDpac:te
of those alternatives.
Public comment. were solicited at the
time of proposal and, when requested.
copies of the BID were dietribut,d to
. interested parties. To provide Interuted
persons the opportunity for oral
pre.entation of data, view.. or
argumentB concemin8 the proposed
.tandards. a public hearing wal held 011
March 3, 1981, at Research Trian&le .
Park, North Carolina. The heariq wu
open to the public and each attendee
was given an opportunity to comment on
the proposed atandarda. The public
comment period was from January 5,
1981 to July 31.1981. The'comment
period was extended to July :n. 1t181, to
allow interested parties to comment lID
severalstl1die. performed by EPA'I
Office of Research and Development
which became available at proposal or
after proposal. F'1fty-aix comment letten
were received and 9 interested partin
testified at the public hearing COIICI!ftIiD8
issue. relative to the proposed
standards of performance for equipment
leaks of VOC from SOCMI units.
EPA published an Additional .
Information Document (AID) in April 0{
1982. The AID contains a tedmical
diecussion of methDdoJosie. aad
estimates of emissions. elJlj-tion
reductiODl, and costB U80ciated with
control of equipment lew of VOc. A I
notice of the availability of the AID and
a request for commentB on the AID ..
. published in th~ Fedenl a.ptIr OD
May 7,1982 (47 FR 19724). FourteeJI
letters were received containin8
comments on the AID.
CommentB on the proposed standudJ
and on the AID have been carefu1ly
considered and, where determined to be
appropriate by the Administrator.
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 48, No. 202 I Tuesday, October 18, 1983 I Rules and Regulations
48331
-
changes have been made in the
proposed standards.
Slpific:8Dt Comments ud CbaDp8 to
dae PavpaIed Standuda
Comments on the proposed standards
were received from industry, State and
local air pollution control agencies,
trade associations, and environmental
poups. A detailed discussion of these
comments and responses can be found
!D the BID for the promulgated
.tandards. [See the ADDRESSES section
of this preamble.] The comments and
responses in the BID serve as the basis
for the revisions which have been made
to the standards between proposal and
promulgation. Major changes made in
the .tandards since proposal are
indicated in the "Summary of
Standards" lection of the preamble. The
major comments and responses are
.ummarized in the next sections of this
preamble. The comments and responses
In this preamble have been combined
IDto the following areas: Need for
Standards, Selection of the Final
Standards, Control Tec:hnoIogy-Use of
Flares, and Test Methoda and
Monitoring.
Need for SlaDdanls
Comment 1: Commenters questioned
whether standards of performance are
needed for SOCMI because SOCMI
equipment lew emit small quantities of
voc.
Response 1: SOCMI i8 a si8nificant
.ouree of VOC emiuions and equipment
leaks of VOC are one of the primary
contributors to the total VOC emissions
from SOCML EPA estimates that 540,000
meaagrams per year (Mg/yr) of v.oc are
emitted from all sources in SOCMI
(docket item IV-B-Zt). This estimate of
emissions is based on detailed studies of
Individual process source types
!Deluding air oxidation processes,
distillation operations, storage
operations, carrier gas processes.
equipment leaks, and secondary
lources. Five hundred forty thousand
Ms/yr is a significant quantity of VOC
to be emitted as air pollution.
The significance of SOCMI VOC
emissions js reflected in the Priority List.
40 CFR BD.18. Of the 59 major source
cateaories on this list for which
standards of performance were to .be
promulgated by 1982. the SOCMI source
category ranked first. The Priority List
consists of cateaories of air pollution
IOurces that. in EPA's judsment. cause
or contribute significantly to air
pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or
we~are. In developing the Priority List.
maJor soun:e categories were ranked
ICCCIrdins to three criteria apecified in
Section 111(f) of the Act: (1) The"
quantity of emiisions from each source
tategory. (2) the extent to which each
pollutant endangers public health or
welfare, and (3) the mobility and
competitive nature of each stationary
source category. Commenters have not
presented any new information which
would change the decision to list
SOCMI on the Priority List.
Based on comments and information
received during this rulemaldng, EP A
has revised the estimates of emissions
of VOC from equipment leaks within
SOCMI since the standards were
proposed. The current estimate of
540.000 Mg/yr includes the revised
emission estimates. Even with the
revised emission estimates, the
- Administrator still considers SOCMI a
source cateaory that causes or
contributes 8ignificantly to air pollution
which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare. It
should be noted that because VOC
emissions come from many, diverse
source categories, each source cateaory
contributes a relatively 8ID81l percentage
to the large overall total emissions. Even
though SOCMI ma): represent a small
percentage oftotafVOC eminions, the
magnitude of emissions from SOCMI i8
significant. ."
Since SOCMI is on the Priority List ..
a significant contributor to air pollution
under section 111(f), standards of
performance are required to be
promulgated for those new sources
within this source category for which
the EPA can identify the best
demonstrated technology (considerins
costs). EPA has identified several
alternative systems of control capable of
achieving additional emission reduction
at reasonable cost at SOCMI 80urces. It
is, therefore, reasonable for EPA to
establish standards for these sources.
In addition. standards of performance
have other benefits in addition to
achieving emillions reductions.
Standards of performance establish a
degree of national uniformity to air
pollution standarda. and therefore.
preclude situations in which some
States may attract new industries as a
result of having relaxed standards
relative to other States. Further,
-standards of performance provide
documentation that reduces uncertainty
in evaluations of available control
technology. This documentation
includes identification and
comprehensive analyses of alternative
emission control technologies.
development of associated costs, ,
evaluation and verification of applicable
emission test methods, and
identification of 8pecific emission limits
ac1Uevable' with alternate technologies.
293
This documentation al80 provides an
economic analysis that reveals the
affordability of controls in a study of the
economic impact of controls on an
industry.
Comment 2: Commentert etated that
there is no need for the standards
because emissions of VOC in SOCMI
are adequately controlled by other
regulations, specifically:
(a) National ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) and the State
implemimtation plans (SIP) to implement
these standards:
(b) National emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP); and
(c) Occupational safety and health
standards under the Occupational
Safety and Health Act (OSHA).
R.esponse 2: Standards of performance
required by Section 111 playa unique
role under the Clean Air Act. The main
purpose of standards of performance- i8
to require new sources, wherever
located, to reduce emissions to the level
achievable by the best technological
system of continuous emission reduction
considering the cost of achieving such
emission reduction. any Donair quality
health and environmental impact. and
energy requirements [(Section
111(a)(1))]. Congress recognized that
utablishin8 such standards would
minimi- increases in air pollution from
new sources, thereby improving air
quality as the Nation's industrial base i8
replaced over the 10Di term. The role of
standards of performance in achieving
the goals set forth in the Clean Air Act
i8 distinct from that of other regulations.
(a) NAAQS and SIP: Reasonably'
available control technology (RAeT)
requiremen18 apply to exiatina sources
and are based on SlP's developed for
the purpose of attaining the NAAQS.
Standards of performance supplement
the role played by RAer and the two
typel of control do not conflict. In the
few areas where RACT-level control is
already in place, tIie environmental
impact of standards of performance wilJ
be smaller than calculated. EPA has
determined, however, that exiating
RACT-Ievel facilities that become
subject to the standards of performance
(e.g., through modification) will be
achieving additional emillion
reductions at reasonable costs. In most
areal of the Nation, RACT-level controls
are not in place and the standards fulfill
their role of preventing new air pollution
from ,developins .. the Nation's
industrial base i8 replaced.
(b) NESHAP: NESHAP, .. JDaDdated
under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.
are distinctly leparate from NAAQS or
new lource standarda of performance.
NESHAP are developed to control
-------
t8333
Federal Regitt. J Vol. 48. No. 2D:! , Tuesday. Ottober 18. 1983 I Rule. am! Resulation.
-==
poUutuda that .re h.zardoaa bec8ase
they are carciDogen8 or the canse of
other uriOUl diseues. Some of the
Individual SOCMl cbemica1a haft beet
identified 88 hazardous air pollublDt8
and IOIIIe SOCMI UDita 1118)" be .ffected
by NESHAPregulationa. However.
SOCMI VOC emiAiou.. . clue bone
not been identified a. hazardou
pollutants, and therefore. an DOt IUbjei:t
to NESHAP.
(c) OSHA Many of tIr. chemical.
covered by the standarda are also liated
in Table Z-1, Toxic and Hazardoua
Subatances. in the general proviaioDS for
OSHA (29 CFR. 1910.1000). and some of
these chemicals are also covered by
more specifi~ health atandarda under
OSHA. As a consequence. the SOCMl
standarda and the OSHA standards may
affect the same equipment in VOC
service. However, thit po..ibility does
nof negate the need for the .tandarda.
The SOCMI standards or performance
serve to limit mall emission rates
directly; OSHA standarda for toxic
cbemicaJ8 generally do noL Under
OSHA. control of emillion sources may
include sub.titution with le.. hzardoua
material., procua modification. worker
rotation. process or worker isolation.
ventilation controls, or modification of
work practicea. These controls reduce
occupational expollUl'eS, but they do not
neceaaariJy reduce the. ma.. rate ofVOe
emi8lioDl to the atmosphere.
Furthermore. OSHA regulatioDl would
require control to different
concentration levela. depending on tfJe
toxicity of a sPJdftc chemical while the
ltandardl or performance require
emiaaioa control for all Voc. Relying on
indirect control. that mayor may not
reduce emi8aiona that woald degrade m
quality would be an unreasonable
approach to ~ucfng eminiODl of voc..
Comment 3: Commenterw claimed that
the Itandards are not needed to protect
the public health and welfare. Then
commenters noted that the ambient air
quality standard for ozone which i. let
to protect the public has ~y been
raised. The commentenr continued by
adding that. because IDOIt of tbe eouJItry
. II in compliane» with tJ. CIZODe
ataDdard. the public health and weIrIU'8'
iI already protected and. therefar., the
ltandarda of perform8DC» ant Dot
needed.
Rftpon_1: Standard8 orperform~
ant not directly deaiped to 8Chieve- the
ambient air quality pla. Their
overridin& pul'p08e'lI rathw to "'~
emi8aioDl at aD new and modified
I08I'Ce8. wherever they are located. tD-
prevent new pollution problelD8 &om
dne10pins. and to enhance air quality
u the Nation'. indU8trial b8- i.
replaced. Thai, the ~tancl8ld. mlly."
oear direc:tfJ aD CIIIreIrt attaimnent-
. noaattainmellt oi NAAQS ,.. alone..
NolJlltbe1esa; tbey do make room for
future industrial grvwda whit.
preventiq ftrtar. air qnality probIezu-
complementiD8 the pn!'ftIJtion of
sigDificant deterimatiaD (PSD) aDd no8-
atta:iDm8nt rul- .. . mesn. aI
achievins and mamtainiD8 the NAAQ&.
Clearly, resideJda i.a both atblimuM
and oo.attamllNOftt ueu will .
ultimately beDefit fmDl au:h stancbrda.
Basil Cor the Fraal StaDdaMa
CommefJt: Several c:ommentera
questioned EPK. selectioD of rh~
proposed atandarda. The commeDters
felt that other regulatolJ 'optioas woaId
have been more COIt-effectiY~ IIDd..
therefvre. should have been chosem.
Referring ta the regblatory altematifts -
preeated in EPA-I50/:J-8O..m3a. some
COmD1ente.rs recommended selection al
regulatory alternatives norm instud
of regulatory Jltematin IV. Some
coIIUDel1ten also auaated that EPA
select die final 8tandard8 after
,..,.,.;d..i"R tile colt effectjyeuaa of
each CODb'ai technique far eadt piece of
equipme.ut crnaed ~the standardL
Other r.nmm....t_rs reciimmeDded
lelectiou of replatory alternatift IV.
Response: Section 111 of the C!eaD Air
Ad. .. amended. requires that
st~ of per(orm.aDCe b8 baled -
the best ayatl!lll of continuous emieaioD
reduction that has been adequately
demon8tratect considering co.. DOI18ir
qualifJ health and environmental
impacts and l'IIersy requirements. The
controlliechniquea for equipment leU.
of VQC hllft beeR adequately
demoDmated. The nonaiF quality health
and 8'IIYironmenta1 impac:1a lI880ciatetf
with implemenbrion of the standards ant-
positi...
Sine» propont EPA h.. decided foo
accept tlt_suggestioM of tit.
commentelY and focua further on coat
effectiveness aa the basis for tit.
lelectfOD 0( final standards. fa U8ins'
COlt effectfveneas of indiYiduaf con~
technique. .. th~ basi. rw seleetioD,lII.
regulatory altemativ. &"IJ'~
presented in the BID for the pI'OpoIeG
standards i. no Ifmaer pertinent aDd.
not presented. The control strategies
h'l.lI dented by the regulatory .
altematinl weTe', however, ~nsidered
in the selection of the finalmndards.ln
choosing among the control techniques
for each type of equipment covered by
the standards. EP A first considered their
relative cO,at effectiveness. Then. for the
control techniques whid1 were selected
88 the most effective with reasonabIa
coats. EPA considered the ecqpamic
impact on the industry of these conum
techniqueL
Cost-Effecalle1Je8 ConsjderotiOlJ&.
EPA analyzed the annualized COlt of
cootrollina V~.emissioDs and the
resultant VOC reduction for each
altemative control technique. The
control. cnsta per megagram of VOC
reduced lor mediwn-eized proceu units
are presented in Table 1 for each
equipment type CD„'ered by the
standarda. Th... casts do DOt repruat
the actual UDOUDtI at money speullt
any particular plant site. The colt of
VOC emission reduction systema will
vary according to the chemical product
bems produced, proct.dion equipment,
plant layout. se.osraphie location. and
company preferences ami policies.
However, the.. costlt and emission
reduction. are considered typical 01
control teclmiq1lelt for leaking eqtripment
within SOCMJ urnt. and can be used in '
selectinz the teftl of control to b~
reqtrired by the standards.
Pressure &Iief Device,. The
annuamed cost. and VOC emislion
reductions achie.ved for monthly and
quarterly leak detecfton-and repair
programs and for the use of control.
equipment (rupture «UsbJ were
detennined for pressura relief deYicea ia
gas service. Aa Table 1 shows, both the
quarterly and monthly leak de~tion
and repair programs are Ie.. expensive
thm iaaLallation of rupture diaks.
T..ut.~ COsTs ~ MEGAGAMf C» VOC AmucED .
EmII8aIt ...... -
~- ...-.....,.. ....... .....
~- SIMr US'
"'-18IIf --- '
0u8t8ItJ ......... ... --- - " '---
~ ... d8I8ctan - .... 51 ., -
~.-r, 10.0 110 IJDII
eo....-.. ~........., ..It 1"7 1'1
'JsI8D 111114l1li8& c::.- Q8 ... ..".., e.a .. .
~ ~ aa..I~....... U - .
v...
s.m...-.... ....... ....... 17,t I'r ~
~ ..... ..... d8I8cII8......... .. " ..
......... ... ..... .",...... ... . -
.......
CII8I8IIIr ... ........ ---- &, t.8IJ :..-.:
--.... --- -......, 7.. .. "
294
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 48, No. 202 I Tuesday. October 18, 1983 I Rules JiIld Regulations
48333
TAlLE1.-<:oNTAoL CosTa pP MEGAGRAM Of YOC REDuCED o.....{:oatiDued
EnoiIIiDn' .... .....
~.,.... carnt........ -- ..... II
tMIIIyr) IIMg' Mg'
Dull ~ ... ...... ...... lit .... 12.1 UIID l,IIIO
8Ca1t8 8l1li lmi8lian ....... ba8d - """"1 - III ..... UaIt .. .. &8ctIo8 U vi die lID rar tIIo
~""'18CI ,tand8nIa.
'Furihor cll8cuuion vi -.aaI I8chaIq!'ft C8II .. Ioed III I8dIa8 . vi tIIo BID rar .. --18d .......
.~ daIJan PIt ........ 1- ~I - 1- -u..I - PIt -.-.at) + "1-aI voc -
tlductian JIll' compa.....I). .
'Jncnm....., dDUan JIll' ....... - 1- 8IIIIII8IiDd - of the _troIl8CImiqDa) - - ....ua.cI .-I of !be -
.. nttricliVI control iacIIIIIqua ;. 1-1181 ami88ioD Ndactioo vi _trill l8cbaiqae - ~ 88iaakIII -- of the
_tin' nalricl1ve control teChnique). .
'Yaluaa .... 88„ifI88 with the Iat8.I 88YIaII iaclJc8l8d ill !be tal
'CG!I1J0118I:baiq1IIi ..1ecI8d - the bui.' lor Ibe 8IaDdard.
Leak detection and repair programs
ielult in average credits of $24O/Ms and
$150/Mg of VOC for quarterly and
monthly programs. respectively. A
monthly leak detection and repair
program achievel an additional 0.7 MgI
yr emillion reduction for medium-sized
procell units at an incremental COlt of
8500/Ms compared to a quarterly leak
detection and repair pr:ogram. Rupture
dilks achieve an additional 4.9 Ms/yr
emillion reduction at an incremental
COlt of $1,200/Ma compared to a
monthly leak detection and repair
program. However, EPA i. establishing
a performance ltandard (81 indicated by
DO detectable emislion limit) allowiq a
variety of alternative ways to complying
with the Itandard. Because EPA uled
conservative a~lumptionl in making tlris
incremental COlt calculation. the $1,2.001
Mg incremental COlt of achieving tlril 4.9
Mv./yr of emillion reduction is {Dore
than what many procell units would
experience. Thill. a no detectable
emillion limit wal selected a. the basil
for the prellure relief device ltandard.
CompreBBorw. Only one control
technique can be coDlidered for
comprellor seall: the installation of
control equipment IUch al barrier fluid
qlteml. If a comprellOl' is found
lealciq, the repair procadure would be
the installation of control equipment
Because comprelsors are not generally
Ipared, repair would be delayed until
the next turnaround. thereby reducing
the effectiveneu of a leak detection and
repair prosram to nleDtiall)tS8l'O. The
installation of control equipment mults
in a lllvinsl (Stoo/Ms of VOC),
indicatina that the the value of product
retained by control1ina the barrier fluid
Iystem exceedl the cost of the control
equipment Thi8 COlt is realonable and.
therefore. control equipment waa
elected u the ba.i. for the Itandard for
comp..........' -
Open-ended Lbrft and Samp/ins
SYltem& EPA CODIidered caps or
clOIU1'e8 al the control tec1mique for
open-ended lines. Caps and dOlUl'el are
in widHpread UIe in SOCMI and are
expected to be U88d eYeD mare .
frequently in new SOCMI units. The COlt
and emission reduction presented in
Table 1 are the cost and emission
reduction which would be realized for
an open-ended line that is not
, controlled. The $tOO/Nt coat for
controlling emtasioDl of VOC from open-
ended linn is reasonable.
EPA coDlidered cJoled purse
lampling al the control technique for
88D1p!ing sYltema. Cl08ed pulp systema
are becoming increuinsly common in-
the chemical industry. The S590/Ms coat
for control1ina emiuiODl of VOC from
aampling systems iI reasonable.
Valve. Severallealt detection and
repair progrBml were coDlidered for "
valvel. The programa differed in the
monitoring frequency which would be
implemented. As Table 1 show.. the
quarterly monitoring program multa in
savingl (S41/Ms of VOC on the
average). Thil occ:ura because the value
of the recovered VOC is greater than the
cost to implement the quarterly
monitoring program. However, the
larselt emilsion reduction is 88IOciated
with the monthly program at an avenae
cost of 862/Ms. Furthermore. the
incremental coat per Ms VOC emi88iODl
reduced for the monthly program is
8510/Ms with an incremental eminiaa
reduction of 6.7 Ms/yr for a medium-
lized procea. unit EPA coDliden thne
costs to be realonable. Therefore, EPA
selected a monthly leak detection and
repair program al the buis for the
Itandard for valva. '
, PumPB. The control costs incurred for
each megagram of VOC emissiODl
reduced were determined for two leak
detection and repair progrIUD8 and for
the use of dual mech8Dica1 seall with
controlled degassing venti. Both leak
detection and repair prograJDl incur
lower cOlts than the costa which would
be incurred with equipment installatiolL
The lowelt averase and incremental
COlts per Ms are auoc:iated with a
monthly leak detection and repair ,
program. The monthly program achievel
a higher degree of control dum the
quarterly program. but it achieYn a
lower degree of control than iD8tallation
295
01 cantol equipment However, even
though control equipment provides for
the great..t amount of VOC reduction.
the S5.eoo/Ms incremental costs to
obtain the additional 5 Ms/yr are judged
to be unreasonably high. Because the
COlts for equipment are unreasonably
high. monthly leak detection and repair
wal lelected al the balis for the
8tandard for pumpa.
Economic Impact ConsiderationB. An
economic analysil wae performed which
evaluated the economic imp acta of the
selected Itandards. The results of that
analysis are presented in detail in the
BID for the promuJsated Itandardl. As
summarized in the Summary of the
Impacts of the Standards lection of thia
preamble. the industry-wide net
annualized cost will be about $14.&
million in 1985. This cost iI not expected
to relult in indultry-wide price
increases. Th... impacts are
rea80nable.
Coatrol TecbDoIou-U- of FIanta
Comment: Several commentera
expressed the de8ire to use flam al
alternatives to encl08ed incineraton or
vapor recovery lyatema. The commenta
focused on: (1) Data base support of low
flare emciency. (2) high efficiencie8
reported for f1are8 on refinery sase.. (3)
alternative flare deligns for low flow
applicetioDl, (4) ..fety coDlideratioDl in
choosing control 8Y8tenul, and (5)
equivalency to other combustion
devicea.
ResporlU: The control technology for
control1ina equipment leaka of VOC
from SOCMI is dilCUl88d in the
background information doamtentl
(BID's) for the proPOled atandards and
for the promuJsated .tandarda. (See
ADDMS8U section of tlril preamble.] In
the BID for the propoeed 1tandard8. EPA
discuS8ed the control technolOlY that
can be uled in complying with the .
standards. As diec:uued in the BID for
the promqated itandard8. EPA
reviewed the commentl rec;ei"ed on the
control technology for controUiDt
equipment leak8 and found nothing
which would alter the ori&inal
judgments conc:emina the. c:oatroI
techniques except with regard to the
control emciency u80ciated with ....
used in SOCML
The use of f1are8 wu rec:onaidered by
EPA. Flares are U88d widely in SOCMl
for handlins em8f8eDCY reIeueI from
proceu unita and forcombuatiDt
ItreBml from continuous venti. Since
the Dare efficiency ntimete at propoeal
wal made. further actual flare
measurement resulta bave become
available. moat notably from the
Chemical Manufacturers Aaoc:iatiaa
-------
43334
Federal Repst. J Vol 48. N8. 202 I Tuesday. Octcber 18. 1983 J Rules uad Res'..dationa
(CMA}-EPA study. In ~ CMA-EPA
study. Oara were investigated over.
wide ranp of exi1 velocity. composition.
and flare gas heat content cooditioza .
After review or available flare efficiencJ
data. EPA baa cooduded that smokeless
fllll'U desigped for and operated UDder
certain COnditiOIlS Bra acceptable
alternatives to enclosed combuation
devices (incinerators. boilers. procua
heaters) or vapor recovery systems.
such a& carbon adsorbers and
condensation units. For example. steam-
aSMed flarel must have flare gu heat
contents greater than 11.Z mega joule a
per standard cubic meter and exit
velocities less than 18 meters per
second. Flare8 achieving these
conditions are acceptable because they
achieve more than 9S percent emission
reduction. The presence of a Bame CaD.
be ensmed by monitoring the flare'.
pilot light with an appropriate heat
sensor. such as a thennocouple. To
ensure smokeless operation. visibfe
emissiooa from a Dare woWd be 1imit8d
to lesl than 5 minutel in any 2-hour
period as determined by Referenar
Method 22.
ImpadOD SmaU ~
Comment: Commenten requested aft
exemption fur smaD man~
Thes. eommentelT were ID01Itir
concerned with the impad 08 ~
units with few equipment ed proc:e..
units with low produdioa volumea.
RespoDl!: nata &om test work 08
equipment leaks of VQC. however. da
not show any definite relaticmship
between emisaiooa aDd. prodactiaa
volume. EquipmenlleUa of VOCauct
the cost of theircootnX are proportional
to the number of eqtIipment C8IDpODeI118
in a plant rather than the pflUlt size (8
production volume. However. there are
some procesl uni18 'e.... researdt 8Dd
development Łacilitiea) which have
production rates 10 small that their YQC
emiuions from equipmeo1leaks are-
likely to be very small arKla .
consequeoce.. the mQ &.0 conUol the.
emissiona would be unreuooablJ Irish-
EPA hu acluded from the sta0dard8
proce.. uni~ produci.D8- tkaa 1.000
Mg/yr. The lower produdioa rata catoff
was dneloped oa tbe basi8 vi C08t aad
emiaaioa reductioB CODBiderstioaa aad
is explained in Section 5.7 of the BID for
the promul gated. ltandards.
Te8t Medtod.... ~
Comment: Commenlels requested. thal
hexane be the required cafibrati.Dn gas
for the application of Reference MetIaod.
21 to SOCMI leu detectiOD and repaiE
programs. Reference Method 21
specifies the moDitaP and the
methodolOS)' to be uaed ~ detect Ie&b
for req~red leak detec&n aad repaia
programa. The proposed. staDdarda
. required that me~ be used 81 the
calibration gal. Two-reasons were given
for their desire Ie use hexane. First.
commenters believed (OD th~ b8sts of'
response facton} tDat the use or .
methane would result in the detection of
more Ieaka. Second. u.. i& at Ieut OllIe
type of portable VOC detector whid1.
respondlJ to he-xan~ but does lICIt
respond to methane. .
Response: EPA considered the
differences between leak frequencies
found uaing henne aDd. leak.
&equenciea found using methane. The
differences are Dot significanL The
. variability seen ill repeat ~li"lt of
the same piece or equipment was 23
percent. The variability ia in the same
range u the- 30 percent differenca seen
in response between the TL V -hexall8
system and the OVA-methana systema.
at the 10.000 ppmv definition of a leak.
Because the variability in repeat
sampling is similar to the differences in
response at 1a.000 ppmv. tfIlt da ta can be
used intercl1angeablJ" within 30 percent
at the action level. Because an error of
30 percent at the action level is It smalt
error considering aU the emmr
associated with leak detection. ~ fa
no need to cIt1mae the l"'fu';n,d
calibration gas on the ban. offered h,.
the conunenters. However. since IIOfIIe
types of analyzem lli8J be a8efa.l iIt
certain SOCMl procese UDita Bnd theft.
typft de.not respond tit methane.
hexan. hu been added to tfIe ~alfolt
as an altel'Da~ calibratien meteria}.
The use of hexane as aD altem&te-
calibration niateri.at fa not fnni1eG to .
singte typ. 01 detector. 'The owner or
operator"may cbao8e to DIe eida8
calibnm with any allowable instrument
Howe'!8r. in 1m'! perfoRuance tn.
condadeci by EPA or a State asency. tit.
vac detector is libIy to be calibrated
with methmJe. neB if the calibnml
selected. by the Cl1VD8 ca opera- i.
diffennt. hecaase ~~fte c:8libra..
are easi8 tD abtaia aad detRriara. ...
than hexane calibranw.
Docbt
The docket i8 aD 0IpDiad aDd
complete file. of all the infOl'lDatioa
considezed by FoPA iA the de-veopm8Dt
of this rul.......Ici" The docket is a
dyn8ll1i& file.. since material ia add.ed
throughout the ndemaking proeHL 'The
docketiDg system. i& intended tiO allow
members or ~ p1lhlic aDd iDdutriu
involved to idaDtify and Iaca "-
documenta so t&a& they caa participat&
effectively in tha fI,r-..1ri"8 58'OC88L
Along wUh tfIa staWmeIU of buia. aM
purpose of tile prapoaed aIMi.
prnmn\i,.tad .,..--... and EiA
296
~.IIt~~b,the
c:onte~ of the docket wiU aerva u the
record in case of iudicial review. except
for interagency review materia"
[Section 307( d)(7)(A)J.
Mier.eUaneeue
In accordance with SectioIr tt7 01 Iha
Act. publicatioa of these Pl'OIIIDlseted
ataDdarda 'was preceded by &ClDSuitali08
wittt appropriate adYisory committees,
iDdependent expertB. aad Federal
departments and agencies. This
regulation will be reviewed 4 years from
the dale of proamlgau. as required by
the Cean Air Act. This review will
include an uaessment of !Udi factors u
the need for iDte8ntion with. other
programa. the exi5teace of altematin .
methods.. eufon:eability. improvements
in emiaaioD t:OntnN tedmoJO@Y; ana
reportiDa requiremen~
Sedioa 311 of the Clean Air Act
requires the Administrator to preJ)ar. ID
econmaic impact assesmnent for aD)/
new 8DIIr'Ce standard. of performllJlm
promulgated 88der Set:tiGD l1t(b} of t"
Act. An ec:ooomic: impBct aBsesemeat
was prepared far thia regulation aDd fur
aUla resulatory altemativa An
aspects 0( the uaesament were
coaaidend ill the formulatioD of the
standards to ix:aure that coat ..
carefully conaidered in determi.ains 1M
bat demoostl"ated lKhnolosY. The
ecooomic impact auesame:ot ia i8d8d1li
in the bec.#<&round iIlformatioa
documen1. for the proposed standalda
and the proaIulpteQ staBdarda.
Infunutimt c:aUectioII requiremem.
associated with tID reaalatioD (thaw
included Ui 40 CFR Parlin Sebpen A
and Subpart VV) !lave been approveQ
by the Office of Maoaaemw and
Budget laMB} ~ ~e pEOVWouS of
the Pape:wodt BIINi"rlioa Act of 1980. 44
U.S.C. 35G1 et S8J. aDd haye b..
assigned OMS contn» numbeP 208&-
0012-
"MojorlUJJe.'~~ UndeF
Executive Ord812291. ~
AdaWUstrakJr is req Dired to judge
whether. regulatioa ia II "majeJr ru}."
aDd. tberefGre.. subject to certaiD
requirements of the 0rdeF. The
Atbai"i-.ar'" dete!'DliDed tat tlI8
re8Ulatiall _Id malt ia DIllIe af the
adve'8e KOIIOmiŁ effects - forth iD
Sedion 1 of the Ore as gJa8nOa far
finding a ~ t& be. "maiOI' nde,"
Fiftb..yeu 1UIlHIali2ed c;osh at 1M
standards would be as much_8.)
million for the &:I) Dewly COO8trw:~
modified. and recoutnl.ded ~tiOD
facilitie projected that could be
affected. by the staDdaJd. ~ &be
first a yeus. Sipiiicana pnca ~
are not expec;tid tG result fIgm
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 48. No. 202 I Tuesday. October 18. 1983 1 Rules and Regulations
48335
implemeotation of these s1andards
because the annuaiized cost is a small
fraction (about G.2.5 percent) of the
yearly revenue expected for the new.
modified. and reconstrocted units
affected during the ~year period. The
Administrator has concluded that this
rule is not "major" under any of the
criteria established in the Executive
Order.
As discussed in the "Basis For Toe
Final Standards" section of this
preamble. costs per megagram of vac
emj~~ion reduction were used in
selecting the standards promulgated by
this rulemaldng. T.his regulation was
s::bmitted to the OMB for review as
required by Executive ~r 12291. Any
COr:1IIle:!ts froIIi OMB to EPA and any
EP A reSDonses to those .comments are
availabfe for public inspection in Docket
Ne. A-79-32, Central Docket Section. at
the address given in the ADORŁSSES
section of Ibis preamble.
Regulator)' Flexibility Analysis
CertfficDtion. The Regulatory Flexibility
Act of 1980 requires that adveTSe effects
oi all Federal regulations upon small
bu~inesses be identified. According to
current Smail Business Administration
guidelines. a small business in the
-organic chemical maIlufa~uring
industT: is one that has 1.000 er.1ployees
or fewer. Current estimates i!lIiic:ote
between 10 and 30 percent of the
exi~tL"1g bdustry employ fewer than
1.000 people. EV1!n if facilities oy,..ned by
smaU bu&inesse~ do become subject to
the standards. none will be adversely
affected. Tr.Js conclusion is based o~ the
finding that the annualized cost of the
standards would be less than Q.25
percent of the yearly revenue expected
for units affected bv the standards. This
finding reflects the 'economic impact for
facilities owned bv small businesses
and is not conside'red significant.
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.c.
6OS[b}. I hereby certify that thjs rule will
not have a sigtlific:.ant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
enUties.
List of Subjects in 40 crn Part 60
Air pollution control Aiuminum..
Ammonium sulfate plants. Asp':1alt. '
Cement industry. Coal Copper. Electric
power plants. Glass and glass products.
Grains, InteI1!overnmen tal rela lions..
lren, Lead. Metals. Metallic Mi!1erals.
Motor ve}ucles: Nitric acid plants. Paper
and paper products industry. Petroleum.
Phosphate. Sewiige dispcs.;t Steel
Sulfuric acid plants. Waste treat.-nenl
and disposal. Zinc. Tires. incorporation
by Reference. Can surface coating.
Sulfuric acid plants. Industrial organic
chemicals.
Dated; Sept.embeT 3&. 1983-
William D. RuckeishaWl,
A dmini1l1rl1Jor.
PART 6U-{AMEHDED]
40 CFR Part 80 is amended as follows:
1. By adding par~aph If} to i 6Q.7 of
Subpart A-General Provisions as
follows:
~ 6tI.7 HotIflC8tioa 8ftd teGOt'dkeep."g.
(f) Individual subparts of this part
may include specific pro\1sions which
clarify or make inapplicable the
pro';isions set forth in this section.
(Sec. 111. 114. 301(a) of the Clean Air Act. 88
amended (42 U.s.c. 7411) 7601{a))J
Z. By adding paragraph {f) to i 60.11 of
Subpart A-General Provisions as
follows:
~ 60. , 1 CompIi8nc:e wHh IIt8nd8rd8 and
maintenance requirwnentL
If) Special provisioDs set forth ODder
an applicable subpart of this part shall
supersede any conflicting provisions of
this section.
(Sec. 111. 301 (a) of tl1e Oean Air Act. as
amended (42 U-s.c. 7411. 7801(a)J)
3. By adding paragraphs [a){34).
(a)[35), (a)[36), (a~37). {a)(38). and
(a )(39) to ~ 60.17 of Subpart A-General
Prm.isions as follows:
~ 60.17 IncorponltiGns by reference..
[a) . . .
(341 ASTM. E169-63 (Reapproved
1977), General Techniques of Ultraviolet
Quantitative Analysis. rBR approved for
~ 6O.485( d).
(35) ASTM E168-67 (Reapproved
1977). General Techniques of Infrared
Quantifative AnalysIs. lBR approved f-~
~ 6O.485{dJ.
(36) ASTI.f E260-73, General Gas
Chromatography Procedures. IBR
approved for A 6O.485(d).
(37) ASTM DZ8j9-70, Vapor
Pressure-Temperature Relationship
and Initial Decomposition Temperature
of Liquids by IsoLe:1iscope. lBR
approved for ~ 6O.485(e).
(38) ASTM D2382-76. Heat of
Combustion of Hydrocarbon Fuels by
Bomb Calorimeter (High-Precision
Method). rBR approved for S 6O.485(g).
(39) ASTM DZ504-67 (Reapproved
1977). Noncondensable Gases in C, and
Lighter Hydrocarbon Products by Gas.
Chromatography. lBR approved for
~ 60.485[g).
(Sec. 111. 114. 301(a) of the Clean Air Act. as
amended [42 U.s.c. 7411) 7601(a))).
297
4. By adding a new Subpart VV as
follows:
Subpart 'YV-Standards of Performance for
Equlpmem Leau of VOC In the SynlMtic.
Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry
Sec.
60.480 Applicability and rl..."ilP'I'lioll of
affected facility.
60.481 Defini1iom.
60.482-1 Standards: General.
60.482-2 Standards: P:xmps in light nquid
service.
BO.482-3 Standards: Com~.
60.482-4 StaDdards: Prenun! rel1ee devices in
gas/vapor service.
60.482-5 Stmdards: Sampling connection
systems.
60.482~ Standards: Open-ended valves or
lines.
60.482-7 Standards: Va~ in pa/vapor and
in lightliqui d service.
6O.482-B Stan.dards; Pampa and valve. iD
heavy liquid service. pressure relief
devices in light liquid or heavy liquid
~ervice. and flanges and other
connectol'll.
60.482-9 Standards: Deby ofTep8ir.
60.482-10 Slandardr.OoSl'd _t ~
and control devices.
60.483-1 Alternative standards for valves-
aliowable perc.emage of valves leaking.
60.483-2 Alternative standards for valves-
skip period leak detection and repair.
60.484 Equivalec.ce of means of emissioD
limitation. .
60.485 Test methods aDd procedures.
60.486 Recordkeeping requirements.
60.487 ~eporting requirements.
60.488 {Reserved}
60.489 List of chemicals produced by aff~
facilities.
Authority: Sec. 111 and 301(a) oftbeC1ean
Air Act. as amended (42 U.s.c. 7411. 7601{a)).
and additional authority as noted below.
Subpart VV-5tandarda of
Performance for Equipment Leaks of
VOC in the Synthetic Organic
Chemicals Manufacturing Industry
~ 60.~80 Appllcab!lity and dntgnatIon of
affected faetlity.
(a)(l) The provisions of this subpart
apply to affected facilities in the .
synthetic organic chemicals
manufacturL'1g indusUJ'.
(2) The group of all equipment
(defined in ~ 60.481) within a process
unit is an affected facility.
(b) Any affected facility under
paragraph (a) of this section that
commences construction or modification
after January 5. 1981. shall be subject to
the requirements of this subpart.
(c) Addition or replacement of
equipment for the purpose of process
improvement v,;'hich is accomplished
without a capital expenditure shall not
by itself be considered a modification
under this subpart.
-------
48338
FedenI Rezi8ter I Vol. 48. No. 202 I Tuesday, October 18, 1983 I Rules and Regulation.
-
(d)(t) If an 0WDer or operator applie.
for ODe of ODe of the exemptiona in this
parqraph, theu the owner or operator
aII8f) maintain records as required in
180.48B(h).
(2} Any affected facility that has the
design capacity to produce less than
1.000 Ms/yr is exempt from 1 80.482.
(3) If an affected facility produce.
heavy liquid chemicals only from heavy
liquid feed or raw materials. then it is
exempt from 1 80.482.
(4) Any affected facility that produce.
beverage alcohol is exempt from
160.482.
(5) Any affected facility that has no
equipment in VOC serviQ! is .exempt
from 180.482-
f 10.481 De""~..
Aa used in this subpart. all terms not
defined herein shall have the meaning
given them in the Act or in Subpart A of
Part 80. and the following terms shall
have the specific meanings given them.
"Closed vent system" means a system
that is not open to the atmosphere and
that is composed of piping. connections.
and. if D8C8l1ary. flow inducing devices
that transport gas or vapor from a piece
or pieces of equipment to a control
device.
"Connector" means flanged. screwed.
welded. or other joined fittings used to
connect two pipe lines or a pipe line and
a piece of process equipmenL
"Control device" meant an enclOHd
combustion device. vapor recovery
sYltem. or flare.
"Diltance piece" meana an open or
enclosed casing through which the
piston rod travels. separating the
comprelsor cylinder from the crankcase.
"Equipment" meana each pump.
compressor. prellur8 relief device,
sampling connection Iystem. open-
ended valve or line. valve. and flange or
other connector in VOC service and any
devices or Iystems required by thil
lubparL
"First attempt at repair" meana to
take rapid action for the purpose of
stopping or reducing leakage of organic
material to atmosphere using beat
practices.
"In lal/vapor service" means that the
piece of equipment contains procell
fluid that il in the galeous state at
operating conditions.
"In heavy liquid lervice" meanl that
the piece of equipment"is not in ga./
vapor service or in light liquid lervice.
"In light liquid service" meani that the
piece of equipment contains a liquid that
meets the conditions specified in
180.485(e). . ,
"Liquids dripping" meana any Yi8ible
leakase from th seal illdutli.
spraying, misting. clouding, and ice
formation.
"Open-ended valve or line" meana
any valve. except safety relief valves.
having one lide of the valve .eat in
contact with procell fluid and one side
open to the atmosphere. either directly
or through open piping. .
"Pressure release" means the
emillion of materials resulting from
system prellure being greater than set
prelsure of the pressure relief device"
"Proces. improvement" means routine
changes made for safety and
occupational health requirements. for
energy savings. for better utility. for
ease of maintenance and operation. for
correction of design deficiencies. for
bottleneck removal for changing
product requiremel?ts. or for
environmental control.
"Process unit" means components
allembled to produce. as intermediate
or final products. one or more of the
chemicals listed in 1 80.489 of this perL
A procels unit can operate
independently if supplied with sufficien~
feed or raw materials and lufficient
storage facilitiel for the product.
"Process unit shutdown" means. ,
work practice or operational procedure
that stops production from a process
unit or part of a process unit. An
unscheduled work practice or
operational procedure that stops
production from a proces. unit or part of
a process unit for less than 24 hours is
not a process unit Ihutdown. The ule of
spare equipment and technically
fealible bypalsing of equipment without
ItOpping production are not process unit
shutdowns.
"Quarter" means a 3-month period;
the first quarter concludes on the last
day of the lalt full month during the 180
daYI following initialltartup.
"Repaired" means that equipment is
adjusted. or otherwise altered, in order
to eliminate a leak as indicated by one
of the following: an instrument reading
or 10.000 pp~ or greater. indication of
liquids dripping. or indication by a
sensor that a leal or barrier fluid IYltem
has failed.
"Sensor means a deviQ! that measures
a physical quaDtity or the change in a
physical quantity I~ch al temperature.
pressure. flow rate. pH, or liquid level.
"In-situ sampling systems" means
nonextractive sample1'8 or in-line
aemplera.
"Synthetic orpnic chemicals
manufacturing industry" means the
industry that produces. .. intenuediatea
or final products. one or more of the
chemicall listed in 1 80.488. .
"In vaCIIUID service" means that u .
equipment is operatiq at lID iDt~l
298
pressure which is at least 5 JUlopasCala
(kPa) beli)w ambient pressUre.
"Volatile organic compounds" or VOC
means, for the purpOles of this subpart.
any reactive organic compounds II
defined in 1 80.2 Definitions.
"In VOC Service" means that the .
piece of equipment contains or contact.
a process fluid that il at lealt 10 percent
VOC by weight. (The provisions of
180.485(d) specify how to determine
that a piece of equipment is not in VQC
lervice.)
f 10.482-1 ......... G8Mr8I.
(a) Each owner or operator lubject to
the provilion. of this subpart shall
demonstrate compliance with the
requirements of 160.482-1 to 180.482-10
for all equipment within 180 days of
initial .tartup.
(b) Compliance with 1 60.482-1 ta
180.482-10 will be determined by
review of records and report.. review of
performance test results, and inspection
using the methods and procedurn
specified in 1 80."'.
(C)(1) An owner or operator may
request a determination of equivalence
of a means of emislion limitation to the
requirements of 1 60.482-2, -3. -0. ~,-7.
-a. and -10 al provided in 160.484.
(2) If the Administrator makes a
determination that a mean. of emisaion
limitation i. at lealt equivalent to the
requirements of 1 80.482-2, -3. -0. ~. -7,
-a. or -10. an owner or operator shall
comply with the requirements of that
determination.
(d) Equipment that i. in vacuum
lervice is excluded from the
requirementl of 160.482-2 to 1 8O.4&2-iO
if it is identified 81 required in
1 8O.486(e)(4). .
f 10.482-2 .....dID Pump81n light liquid
..mce.
'(a)(1) Each pump in light liquid service
shall be monitored monthly to detect
leaks by the methods specified in
160.485(b), except as provided in
t 6O.482-1(c) and paragraphs (d). (e),
and (f) of this lection.
(2) Each pump in light liquid service
shall be checked by visual inlpection
each calendar week for indications of
liquids dripping from the pump seal.
(b)(1) If an instrument reading of
10.000 ppm or greater is measured. a
leak is detected.
(2) If there are indications of liquids
dripping from the pump seal. a leak i.
detected. .
(c)(t) When 8 leak il detected. it shall
be repaired as soon as practicable. but
not later than 15 calendar days after it is
detec.ted, except .. provided in 1 80."
~ '
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 202 I Toesday, October 18. !983 I Rules and hgulatiODJ
48337
(Z) A first atteJnpt at repair shaH be
made no later than 5 cafendar days after
each leak. detected.
(d) Each plSlIIp 8Of~ with 8 dHaJ
mechanical seal system that inclades 8
barrier flmd .,stem i8 exempt from 8be
requiretnellu of paragraph (a). JI"T"*-d
. the foUawin@ requirements are 81«
(1) Each dul mec8anic:a1 ...1 sys1em
~ . .
(i) Operated with the b8rrier fluid at a
preuure that is at all times sreat!!r t.8aa
the pump stuffing box presanre: or
(ii) Equipment with . baI:ri8 fluid
dqUlin8 reservoir that i8 ŁOIlDeCted ~
a closed vent system to a &::QDtral device
that complies with the requ!rements of
J 60.482-10: 81'
(iii) Equipped with alyStem that
purges the barrier DWd ioto a pmcesa
stream with zero VOC eai:saionl to the
atmosphere.
(Z) The barrier fIDid IJStI!ID is iIt
heavy liquid .rvice ... i8 DIJt ia VOC
service.
(3) Each berrier fluid 8)'8tem .
equipped with a 88D8OI' that .ill det8:t
failure of tlte seal system. the b8rrier
fluid system. or both.
(4) Each plUDp i& checked by viAal
Inspection. each calendar week. fw
...J,ndications of liqW.da drippi.Dg from the
pump seal..
(5)(i) Each IeILIOr as deauihed iD
paragraph (d)(3) i& cltecked daily Dr i&
equipped with an audible alarm. and
(ii) The owner or operator determiDe8.
based on design considerations aad
operating experience, a crit.erion that
indicates failure of die sealsysteIn. the
barrier fluid system. or both.
(8)(i) IT there are indications ofliquida
dripping from the pump seal or the
lenear indicates failure of the seal
Iystem. the banier fluid system. or both
based on the criterion determined in
paragraph (d)(5)(ii). a leak iw detected.
(ii) When a leak i. detected. it shan be
repaired as soon as practicable. but not
later than 15 calendar days after it is
detected. except as prmided in I 88.4G-
9.
(iii) A lint attempt at repair shaD be
made no later than 5 caletidM days after
each leak ie detected.
(e) Any pwnp that is deeipati!!d. ..
described in 180.488(e} (t) 8IId (Z),lor .
:n° detectable emiHiiJn. 118 indicated by
an instnunent reading of len than 500
ppm above becksround. is ecempt &om
the requirements of perasrapbs fa]. fe).
and (d) if the pump: .
(1) Hu DO externally actuated shalt.
penetrating the pump bau8in8. .
(2) II demonstrated to be operatiDa
With DO detectable emi88iona 88' .
indicated by an in8tnJment reacfins or
18S1 thlD SUO ppm above bacqround ..
measured.by the methoda specified in
160.485{c}. and-
(3) Is tested for"
-------
48338
Federal Register I Vol. 48. No. 202 I Tuesday, October 18, 1983 I Rules and Regulation.
-
-
110.482-1 St8IIda... S8mpIng
COl._110ft Iy8iem8.
(a) Each sampling connection system
shall be equipped with a closed purge
aystem or closed vent system, except as-
provided in 160.482-1(c).
(b) Each closed purge aystem or
closed vent system as required in
~ph(a)ah~
(1) Return the purged procell fluid
directly to the process1ine with zero
VOC emissiona to the atmosphere: or
(2) Collect and recycle the purged
procell fluid with zero VOC emissiona .
to the atmosphere; or
(3) Be designed and operated to
capture and transport all the purged
process fluid to a control device that
compliea with the requirementa of
I 60.482-10. .
(c) In-aito aampling aystema are
exempt from paragrapha (a) and (b}.
'1O.A8204 St8Ild8rdL ap.~ „8M8
or .....
(a)(l) Each open-ended valve or line
ahall be equipped with a cap, blind
flange. plug. or a second valve. except
aa provided in t 6O.482-1(c).
(2) The cap. blind flange. plug. or
second valve ahall aeal the open end at
all time8 except during operationa
requirtq proceaa fluid now throush the
open-ended valve or line.
(b) Each open-ended valve or line
equipped with a second valve shall be
operated in. manner such that the
valve on the process nuid end is closed
belon the aecond valve is cloted.
'---7 ........ V8Ive81n gMlWIpor
---In light liquid .....
(a) Each valve ahall be monitored
monthly to detect leaka by the methoda
apecified in t 6O.48S(b) and shall comply
with paragrepha (b}-{e). except aa
provided in paragrapha (I). (g). and (h).
t eo.~l. 2, and t 6O.482-1(c).
(b) If an instrument reading 01 10.000
ppm or greater is meaaured. a leak i8
detected.
(c)(l) Any valve for which. leak is
not detected lor 2 auc:t:essive montha
may be monitored the first mobth of
every quarter. begimIing with the next
quarter. until . leak is detected.
(2) If. leak is detected. the valve ahall
be monitored monthly until a lead is not
detected for 2 succellive montha.
(d)(l) When sleak ia detected. it shall
be repaired aa lOOn as practicable. but
no later than 15 calendar daya after the
leak ia detected. except u provided in
t 60.482-8.
(2) A ftrat attempt at repair shall be
made no later than 5 calendar daya after
each leak 18 detected. -
(e) Fint attempts at repair include, but
are not limited to, the following best
practicea where practicable:
(1) Tightening of bonnet bolta;
(2) Replacement of bonnet bolta:
(3) Tightenin8 of packing gland nuta:
(4) Injection of lubricant into
lubricated packing.
(I) Any valve that ia deaignated. as
described in t 6O.488(e)(2), for no
detectable emisliiona. aa indicated by an
instrument reading of Ie.. than 500 ppm
above background. is exempt from the
requirementa of paragraph (a) if the
valve:
(1) Has no external actuating
mechanism in contact with the process
fluid.
(2) II operated with emissiona Ie..
than 500 ppm above background as
determined by the method specified in
I 6O.48S(c), and
(3) Ia tested for compliance with
paragraph (1)(2) initially upon
. designation. annually. and at other timea
requested by the Administrator.
(g) Any valve that ia designated. aa
deacribed in I 60.486(1)(1). aa an unsafe-
to-monitor valve ia exempt from the
requirements of paragraph (a) if:
(1) The owner or operator of the valve
demonstratea that the valve ia unsafe to
monitor becaUie monitorin8 personnel
would be exposed to an immediate
denser aa a consequence of complying
with paragraph (a). and
(2) The owner or operator of the valve
adherea to a written plan that requirea
monitorin8 of the valve u frequently as
practicable during safe-to-monitor time..
(h) Any valve that is designated. as
described in 1 60.486(1)(2). as a difficult-
to-monitor valve is exempt from the
requirements of~ph (a) if:
(1) The owner or operator of the valve
demonstratea that the valve cannot be
monitored without elevating the
monitoring personnel more than z
meters above 8 aupport surface.
(2) The procesa unit within which the
valve islocated becomes an affected
facility throush I 60.14 or I 60.15. and
(3) The owner or operator of the valve
follows 8 written plan that require8
monitoring of the valve at leaat once per
calendar year.
110.482-1 St8IId8rd8: Pumpe and "...
In ....., liquid aervIc8, prHIUN relief
de„Ic88 In light liquid or heavy liquid
aervIc8, and tI8nges and other COI.18CtGr8.
(a) Pumps and valves in heavy liquid
service. pressure relief devices in light
liquid or heavy liquid service, and
flangea and other connectors shall be
monitored within 5 days by the method
apecified in t 6O.48S(b) if evidence of.
potential leak is found by Yiaual
300
audible. olfactory, or any other
detection method.
(b) If an instrument reading ollO,IQI
ppm or greater ia meaaured, I leak 18
detected.
(c)(1) When a leak i. detected. it 8ba11
be repaired as soon aa practicable, but
not later than 15 calendar daya after it II
detected. except u provided in
t 60.482-9.
(2) The fint attempt at repair shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days after
each leak is detected.
(d) Fint attempts at repair include.
but are not limited to, the best practices
described UIUIer 160.482-7(e).
t 10.482-1 St8IdIrd8: DeI8y of ......,.
(a) Delay of repair of equipment for
which leaks have been detected will be
allowed if the repair ia technically
infeasible without a process unit
ahutdown. Repair 01 thia equipment
shall occur before the end 01 the next
proce.. unit ahutdown.
(b) Delay of repair of equipment will
be allowed for equipment which ia
isolated from the procen and which
doea not remain in VOC aervice.
. (c) Delay of repair for valvea will be
allowed if:
(1) The owner or operator
demonatrates that emiuioDl 01 purged
material resulting from immediate repair
are greater than the fugitive emiuiona
likely to result from delay 01 repair, and
(2) When repair procedurea are
effected. the purged material ia collected
and destroyed or recovered in a control
device complying with I 80.482-10.
(d) Delay of repair for pumpa will be
allowed if:
- (1) Repair requirea the use of a dual
mechanical seal system that includea a
barrier fluid system, and
(2) Repair ia completed as lOon u
.practicable. but not later than 8 montha
after the leak waa detected.
(e) Delay of repair beyond a procell
unit ahutdown will be allowed lor a
valve. if valve assembly replacement it
neceuary during the proce.. unit
shutdown. valve a88embly supplies have
been depleted. and valve assembly
supplies had been sufficiently stocked
before the auppliea were depleted. Delay
of repair beyond the next process UDit
shutdown will not be allowed !lDiesa tht
next procesa unit shutdown occura
sooner than 8 months after the flJ'lt
procesa unit ahutdown.
'10.""10 Stallcw. CIo88d nnt
8y8t8ma and control cI8vIc88.
(a) Owners or operators of cloaed Vlllt
systema and control devicea used to
comply with provisioDl of this IUbpart
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 48, No. 202 I Tuesday, October 18, 1983 I Rules and Regulations
48339
thallcomply with the provisiou of this
_on.
.(b) Vapor recovery aystem8 (for
IX8IDple, condeD8e1'8 and ad.8orben)
thall be designed and operated to
recover the VOC emiuions vented to
them with an efficiency of 85 ~ or
pater.
(e) F.Iu:1oHd combuRion devicea mall
be delipted and operated to reduce the
VOC emislions vented to them with an
efficiency of 95 percent or greater, or to
provide a minimum residence time of
. 0.75 aecond8 at a miDimum temperature
of 818'C. .
(d)(l) Flares eba1I be d~ for and
operated with DO viaibl. emia8ions a.
determined by the methods Ipecified ill
1 80.485(&), except for peri0d8 not to
exceed a total of 5 minutes durina aD}' Z
CGD8IC11tive hour8.
(2) Flares eba1I be operated with a .
flame present at aU times, a determined
by the methoda apecified ill t 80.485(g).
(3) Flam eba1I be uaed only with t68
net heating value of the pa beiDa
combuated beiD811.% MJ/ICID (300 Btu/
.Id) or areater if the flue i8 ateam-
wilted or air-u8i8ted: or with the net
beatins value of the au beiq
combuated beiD8 7.45 MJ /ICID or pe..
if the flare is DOD8IIi8ted. The net
beatins value of the pa beiDs
combuated lhall be determined by the
methods specified in t eo.485(g).
(4) Steam-ali8ted and ~~..ted I
.fJarU .hall be deaiped for and
operated with an exit velocity, ..
determined by the methoda apecified ill
180,485(&)(4), leu than 18 m/ HC: (80 ft.1
see). .
(I) Plant uaed to comply with thi8
subpart shall be ate8llHl8iated, ..
aui8ted. or nonal.iated.
(8) Air-uailtedflana aball be
dniped and operated with an exit
velocity leaa than the velac:ity, V- ...
determined by the method. apec:ified in
1110.485(1)(5).
(e) Owners or operatan of caatral
devica used to comply with the
. proviaioaa of this IUbpart 8ball monitor
these control devicea to enaure that they
are operated and maiDtained in
canformanc:e with their desjpa.
(Q(l) Cosed vent ayatema abaJl be
desipd and operated with DO
deteCtable emia8iana. .. indicated b, a
laatnlment readiq of lest than SOD ppID
IIbove bac:qroand and vi8ual
~ a determined by the
methods apecified ill t eo.tII5(e).
(2) Cloa8d vent .,atmu 8ball be
IIIODikhd to determiDe compliance with
tJda _on initially ill 8CCGrdance with
1110.8, annuaIlJ ad at other time8
~0ae7 the Ammm.t.atar.
(a) veld .,.... &lid caatml
-- -.I to CGIIIp1J with ..v.~
of this aubpart shall be oPerated at all
time. when emi88iou may be vented to
them.
. f 10.4130-1 AI ,1i8IIft ....Ate. A. f8r
nt".. 8118..8Ite ,........ Of...
I88Idng. .
(a) An owner or operator may elect to
comply with an allowable percentap of
valv..leakins of equal to or 1... than
z.o percenL .
(b) The fbllowina requirementa abaU
be met if an owner or operator wiabea to
comply with an allowable perc:mrtqe of
valve. leaking:
(1) An owner or operator moat notify
the Adminiatrator that the owner or
operator baa elected to comply with the
allowable percentap of valvet leakins
before implementing this alternative
standard. as specified in t eo.487(b).
(2) A performance tnt .. apec:ified ill
paragraph (e) of this aection ahall be
conducted initially upon designation.
annually, and at other times requeated
by the Admmi8trator.
(3) If a valve leak i8 detected, It ahall
be repaiied ill accordance with t 80.482-
1(d) and (e).
(e) Performance testa 8ball be
conducted in the following ID8JU1f!r.
(1) All valvn in ps/vapor and light
, liquid service within the affected facility
shall be monitored within 1 week by the
Q1ethoda specified hi t 8O.485(b).
(2) If an instrument readins of 10.000
ppm or greater is measured. a leak 18
detected.
(3) The leak percentqe shall be
determined by dividins the nmnber of
valve. for which leaks are detected by
the number of valVel in SU/vapor and
light liquid aervice within the affected
facility.
(d) Owners and operators who elect
to comply with this alternative atandard
aball not have an affected facility with a
leak percentap greater than z.o percent.
f~J ~MtI..~.f8r
nIv.. -............ 4811 1~"
18p81r.
(a)(l) An owner or operator 1118)' eJect
to comply with one of the altema:tNe
work pnctice8 specified ill palagfapba
(b) (2) and (3) of this aectioD.
(2) An owner or opei'8tor JD1I8t natify
the Adminiatrator before itrIpl...._q
one of the altematNe work practicea. ..
apecified ill t 8O.481(b).
(b)(1) An owner or operator 8ball
comply initially with the Nq..iJ:emeDta
for valvel in .a/vapor .mea and
valwee in light liquid aemce. ..
deac:ribed in. 80.84.
(2) After 2 ~ve quarterly leak
detection perioda with the percent of
valVea leakiDs equal to or - tban z.o.
a 0W'8r IX" opa.tu.-1D8J be&iD to 8Idp
301
1 of the quarterly leak detection perioda
for the valves in pa/vapor ad light
liquid service. .
(3) After 5 conaecutive quarterly leak
detection peri0d8 with the percent of
valve. leaJeins equal to or Ie.. than z.o.
an OWDer or operator may begin to akip
3 of the quarterly leak detection perioda
for the valves in au/vapor and lisht
liquid service.
(4) If the percent of valva leakins i.
greater than z.o, the owner or operator
ahall comply with the requirementa ..
described in I 80.482-7 but can again
elect to use this section.
(5) The percent or valvea leakiDs ahaU
be determined by dividina the 8WII of
valvn found leakins during carreat
. monitoring and valVel for which repair
baa been delayed by the total nmnber of
valvet subject to the requirementa of
I 8O.4D-Z.
(8) An 0WD81' fW operator muat keep a
record of the percent of YBlvea found
leaJdns during each leak detection
period. .
f 10.414 Equt..8Ac6 of_of
81111111- 1mIIIdIoI.
(a) Each owner or operator subject to
the pr0vi8i0D8 of this aubpart may apply
to the Admmiatrator for determination
of equiva1ance for any meana of
emilsion limitation that achiev.. a
. reduction in emia8iou of VOC at leaat
equivalent to the reducticmin emiNi0D8
of VOC achieved by the ~tro1a
required in this subpart.
(b) DetermiDation of equjY8leace to
the equipment. desip, and operational
requirementa of thia .ubput will be
evaluated by the followiDt pd.lin8r
(1) Each owner or operator applJiDI
for an equivaleDce determi_tion 8ball
be responaible for c:01Iectins and
verifying teat data to demonstrate
equivalence of ID88II8 of emiaaion
lir:1itation.
tZ) The AdmiDistrator will compare
telt data for the means of emia8ion
limitation to teat data for the equipment.
design. and operaticm8l reqairemeDt8.
(3) The AdmiDiatratOr may conditiaD
the approval of eqaiv8JeBce on
requiremeDta that may be nec:eaMJy to
aaaure operation and mainteDaDce to
achieve the same emi88icm redudiOD -
the equipment. design. and opeIatiGD8l
requirements.
(c) Determination of equivaleDC8 to
the required work pncticea In this
aubpart will be evaluated by the
, foll0win8 guidelinea: .
(1) Each owner or operator applyina
for a determination of equivaleDc:e sbaI1
be reapcm8ible for c:allectiD8 and
-m1f',yjq t&t data to demonstrate
-------
48340
Federal Rqister I VoL 48, No. 202 I Tueeday. October 18. 1983 } Rules and Regulationa"
equivalence of aD equivalent mean. of. .
eminioa limitaticm.
(2) For each ~ faci1ity for which
a determination 01 equivalence i8
requested. the emia8iOII reduction
achieved by the required work pradice
ahall be demonstrated.
(3) Por each affected fad!tJ. far
whic:b a determinatioa of eqmv.1ence i8
requested. the emiuicm reduction .
achieved by the equivalent meana of
emiuioa limitation shall be
demonstrated.
(4) Each owner or operator appIyiDs
for a determinatiaD of ~aleBce abaft
commit in writing to work practice(a!
that proyida far emis8ion reduc:tiona
equal to ell' peater than the emiaioB
reductiona achie9ec1 bJ the reqaireII
work practice.
(5) Tha AdminiatratCll' will OODlpMe
the demonatrated emiaaioD red1ICtioa far
the equivalent meana of emiuloD
limitation to the dotmnn~ted emi88ioa
reductioa far the.reqaind wark
practicel and will Cllll8ider the
commitment in paragraph (c)(4).
(8) The AdJ:irlnimator may condition
the approval of equivalence on
requirementa that may be nece888ry to
uaure operation and maintenece to
achine the IIUDe emi88ioa reductioD ..
the reqlliNd work pract1C8.
(d) An owner or operatOl'mey offer a
aoique approach to demonatrate the
equlvaleDce of 8DJ equivalent 1DUD8 of
811riqioa limitation.
(e)(1) After a request fur
determination of eqaivalt!lll:e i8
received. the Admmiatrator wiD pabliala
. notice ill the F""" Resiat8r and
provide the opportuuity fOl' pabUc
hearma if the AdmiDUtratCll' Jada- dlat
the requnt III8J be approved.
(2) After DOtice 8Dd opporbmitJ far
public heariD& the ,..t...;..~tar wiB
determine the equiva1eDce of. meaD8 of
emiuion IimitatioD 8Dd will pnbJish the
determination in the Fedend Reziata
(3) Any equivalent ceaD8 of emiuioa
IimitatiOD8 approved UDder tbia aectioD
8hal1 COII8titute . required work
practice. equipment. desip. or
operatioaal ataDdard within the lIIe...;."
of Section 11l{h)(1) of the Cleu M Act.
(1)(1) Mauufaduren of equipment
1I88d to CQDtroI equipmem leab of VOC
may app1J to the AdmiDiatator for .
determination of equiva1euce for aDJ
equivalent meana of emiuion limitation
that achieYea . reductioD in emiuiODa fIl
VOC achieved by the equipm-..deaip.
8Dd operatioua1 requiremeuta of thi.t
8abpart...
(2) The Adminiatratur wiD make an
equivalence determiDatioa acc:ordiDa to
the provisiona of parasraphs (b). (c). Cd).
and(e).
IIUII T88I _Ihod. 8IId pra.I"""" organic c:cmPOIIIIU iD .w....u.m, the
(a) Esda 0.. 01' operator subject &0 percent VOC content of the proceu
the provisi0D8 of thIa aubpart thaD Buid. the ~ will be allowed if:
comply with the test method and (I) 'I1Io8e 88bstancee nc:Iadecf 8ft
procedme requiremeDta ~ ill tbi8 thON considered - laam, nesfiBibie
aectiOlL 'photochemic8l radWity b)o the
(b) Monitorlnt. .. required iD Admintstrator; and
II 1O.48Z, 80.483. and 80." ahaU - (ii) The owner or operator
compl, with the foIlowiDs.requiremeDb: demon~ that the percent OIIanic
(1) MoaitoriJas lhaM complJ' wida. content. excluding DOlH'e8ctive 0raanlc
Reference Method 21. . compounds. can be reuonablJ expeaH
(2) The detedioa inaUwDeut abaI never to exceed 10 ......._"t }... -.iftW
meet the perfmmanc:e criteria 01 r-- 01' -"'-e-
Reference Method ZL (3)(i) An owner 01' operatCll' may Ole
(3) The inatrument shall be caIibnteci engineering judgment rather than the
before 11M! OIl ead1 da, of ita use by the procedwea in peragraph. (d) (1) 8Dd (2)
methoda 'lp"""ifiA(j in Method Z1. of thIa aedioa to demonatnte that the
(4) CalimatioD 88188 8ba1I be: percent VOC coateat don not exceed-l0
(I) Zero air (leu than 10 ppm of percent byweight. proYided that the
hydrocarbon in air): and engineering judgment demonatrat.. thlt
(Ii) A mixture of nie-tt.ane or D-haxaae. the VOC content clearly don not
and Ilk at a cm'I~tration of. exceed 10 percent by -sill When 811
approximatel)'. but - tJaaa. ~ ppaa owner or operator and the
methane or u-hexane. Adminiatrator do not asree OD whether
(5) The inatrument probe ..-n be a piece of eq8pment II not iD VOC
traversed around aU potential leak h the d iD
iDterface8 .. clo8e to the iDterface .. .ervice. owever. proce W'88
poulble u deacribed in ReW~ paragraphs (d) (1) and (2) aha1l be uaed
Method 21. to reaolve the disagreement.
(c) When equipment II tnted fCll' (Ii) If an OWlUll' or operator detel'llliDe8
compliance with DO detectable that . piece of equipment 1.1 iD VOC
emiuioD8 .. required iD 180.482 -2{e). - ..rviee. the determination can be
3(i). ...... -7{f}. and -IO(e), the teat ahall revi.ed only aft.. followins the
comply with the followina requiremea. proced1lr88 iD par8lr8pU (tQ (1) aad (ZJ..
(1) The requirementa ofparagraplaa (e) EquipmeDt II in lisbt liquid...a
(b)(1H4) ahalIapply. if the fol1owiaa coaditi0a8 appIr-
(2) The bacqrOtuid level.hall be (1) The v8pOr prel8U1'8 of one or men
determined. .. let forth in Reference of the compcmenta I. sreater than 0.3
Method 21. kPa at 'lJ1' C. Vapor pre8surea may be
. (3) The inltrameat probe ahall be obtained from standard Ier....,ut.4 tata
travened around all potmtialleak or may be determined by ASTM I}..Z87I
interfacea .. cto.e to the mterface .. (incorporated by refetence .. apecified
pouible .. deecn'betl in Reference. in 1 80.11).
Method ZL the
(4) The arithmetic difference betweea (2) The total concentrAtion of puI8
the a-.J.w..... CODCe4tr.tion Indicated componen.ta haviDa . vapor preuure
by the in8trament and the baa,rli..od greater tbaa (U kPa at 'lJ1' C 18 equal to
level i8 c:ompared with SOD ppm for or greater thaa ZG perceDt by weiPa:
de~ comptiance. and
(d)(I) Each piece of equipment within (3) The Buid i8 aliqaiclat CJl8lltiq
a PI'OCe88 aoit 18 presumed to be ill VQC conditi0D8.
aervice ..... an owner or operator (I) SampIea used in conjanction with
dem0D8trate8 that the piece of paragrapha (d), (e), aDd (sJ.baD be
equipment 18 not iD VQC Mrvice. For a repre.entatN. of the proceI8 fluid that
piece of ~ to be CC8I8idered .. II contained iD or CIDIIt8d8 the .
in VOC aervice. it must be determined equipment 01' the pi beias combaated
that tM pen:ent VOC conteId can be in the Bare. .
percentrea8ODa~ ==~ ~» (g)(1) Ref.....uIoC Method 2Z shall be
.., used to determine the compliance of
detenniDing the percent Voc content m Bare. with the viaible emi8aion .
the procesa Buid that II coataiDed in - proviaiona of tbi8 aubpart.
contaeta equipmeDt. procedures that (2) The P- of . flare pilot 0-
conform to the general metboda --
de.cribed in ASTM E-2IIO. ~188. 8-188 abaU be monitGred U8iD8 . ~
(Incorporated by reference u apecifie8 or any other equivalent deYic8 to detect
in 1 80.17) IhaU be II88Il - - the presence of . nam..
(2) If an owner or operator decide8 to.. (3) The net heatiq val- of the ..
exclude DOD-reactiYe organic \ beins combuated in . flare ahaU be
compoanda from the total quantity cd . calculated.1I8iDI the followint eqaatia8:
302
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 48. No. 202 I Tuesday. October 18. 1983 "I Rules and Regulations
48341
HTZ~\
~J
Where:
HT=Net heating value of the sample. MJI
scm; where the net enthalpy per mole of
offgas is based on combustion at 25°C
and 760 nun Hg. but the standard
temperature for determining the volume
corresponding to one mole is 20°.
K=Conslanl. 0jb mole ~(~\
1.740 X 10' \ppm)\ sern }\ kcat. J
where
9 mole
...ud ............ far - IS 2O"C.
IICII'I
c.=Concentration of sample component i in
ppm. as measured by Reference Method
18 and ASTM D2504-67 (reapproved
19:7) [incorporated by reference as
specified in ~ 60.17).
H,=~el heal of combustion of sample
componenl.i. kcalfg mole. The heals of
combustion may be determined using
ASTM D2382-76 (incorporated by
reference as specified in'! 60.17) if
published values are nol availablE' or
cannot be calculated.
(4) The actual exit velocitv of a flare
shall be determined by dividing the
volumetric flowrate (in units of standard
temperature and pressure). as
determined by Reference Method 2. 2A.
zC. or 2D as appropriate: by the
unobstructed (free) cross sectional area
of the fiare tip.
(5) The maximum permitted velocity.
V m... for air-assisted flares shall be
determined by the following equation;
VIDu=8.706+0.7084(HT)
V.... = Maximum permitted velodty. m/sec.
8.i06=Constant. .
0.7084 =Constanl.
HT=T!te nel heating value as determined in
paragraph (g)(4).
[Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as ilmended (42
U.S.C.7414))
~ 60.486 Recorclkeeping requIr8ments.
(a)(l) Each O~'11er or operator subject
to the provisions of this subpart shall
comply with the rec:ordkeeping
requirements of this section.
(2) An owner or operator of more than
one affected facility subject to the
Pr,o\'isions of this subpart may comply
wIth the recordkeeping requirements for
these facilities in one recordkeeping
system if the system identifies each
record by each facility.
(b) When each leak is detected as
specified in t 60.482-2. -3. -7. -8. and
t 60.483-2, the following requirements
apply:
(1) A weatherproof and readily visible
identification. marked with the
equipment identification number. shall
be attached to the leaking equipment.
(2) The identification on a valve may
be removed after it has been monitored
for 2 successive months as specified in
t 6O.48Z-7(c}-and no leak has been
detected during those 2 months.
(3) The identification on equipment
except on a valve. may be removed after
it has been repaired.
(c) When each leak is detected as
specified in t 60.482-2, -3. -7. -8. and
t 60.483-2, the following information
shall be recorded in a log and shall be
kept for Z years in a readily accessible
location:
(1) The instrument and operator
identification numbers and the
equipment identification number.
(Z) The dat1 the leak was detected.
and the dates of each attempt to repair
the leak.
(3) Repair methods applied in each
attempt to repair the leak.
(4) "Above 10.000" if the maximum
instrument reading measured by the
methods specified in t 6O.485(a) after
each repair attempt is equal to or greater
than 10.000 ppm.
(5) "Repair delayed" and the reason
for the delay if a leak is not repaired
within 15 calendar days after discovery
of the leak.
(6) The signature of the owner or
operator (or designate) whose decision
it was that repair could not be effected
without a process shutdown.
(7) The expected date of successful
repair of the.leak if a leak is not
repaired within 15 days.
(8) Dates of process unit shutdown
that occur while the equipment is
unrepaired.
(9) The date of successful repair of the
leak.
(d) The following information
pertaining to the design requirements for
closed vent svstems and control devices
described in i 60.482-10 shall be
recorded and kept in a readily
accessible location:
(1) Detailed schematics. design
specifications. and piping and
instrumentation diagrams.
(Z) The dates and descriptions of any
changes in the design specifications.
(3) A description of the parameter or
parameters monitored. as required in
t 6O.482-10(e). to ensure that control
devices are operated and maintained in
303
confonnance with their design and an
explanation of why that parameter (or
parameters) was selected for the
. monitoring.
(4) Periods when the closed vent
systems and control devices required in
t 6O.482-Z. -3. -4. and -5 are not operated
as designed. including periods when a
flare pilot light does not have a flame.
(5) Dates of startups and shutdowns of
the closed vent systems and control
devices required in t 60.482-2, -3. -4. and
-5.
(e) The following information
pertaining to all equipment subject to
the requirements in t 60.482-1 to -10
shall be recorded in a log that is kept in
a readily accessible location:
(1) A list of identification numbers for
equipment subject to the requirements
of this subpart.
(2)(i) A list of identification numbers
for equipment that are designated for no
detectable emissions under the
provisions of t 6O.482-2(e). -3(i) and
-7(f).
(ii) Tbe designation of equipmenf as
subject to the requirements of t 60.482-
2(e). -3(i), or -7(f) shall be signed by the
owner or operator.
(3) A list of equipment identification
numbers for pressure relief devices
required to comply with A 6O.48Z-4.
(4)(i) The dates of each compliance
test as required in t 6O.482-2(e). .3(i). -4.
and -7(f).
(ii) The background level measured
during each compliance test.
(iii) The maximum instrument reading
measured at the equipment during each
compliance test.
(5) A list of identification numbers for
equipment in vacum service.
(f) The following information
pertaining to all valves subject to the
requirements of t 60.482-7 (g) and (h)
shall be recorded in a log that is kept in
a readily accessible lo~tion:
(1) A list of identification numbers for
valves that are designated as unsafe-ter
monitor. an explanation for each valve
stating why the valve is unsafe-ter
monitor. and the plan for monitoring
each valve.
(2) A list of identification numbers for
valves that are designated as difficult-
to-monitor. an explanation for each
valve stating why the valve is difficult-
to-monitor. and the schedule for
monitoring each value.
(g) The following information shall be
recorded for valves complying with
~ 60.483-2:
(1) A schedule of monitoring
(2) The percent of valves found
leaking during each monitoring period.
-------
48342
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 202 / Tuesday. October 18, 1983 I Rules and a.l.ft0D8
-;=~~
(h) The following information shall be (2) For each month dmiq the
recorded in a log that is kept in a readily semiannual reporting period.
accessible location: (i) Number of valvee for which leaks
(1) Design criterion required in were detected as described iD
t 6O.48Z-2(d)(5) and t 6O.482-3(e)(Z) and t 6O.48Z{7}(b) or t 60~
explanation of the desi~ ~t~on; and (ii) Number of vahe fur which leska
(2) Arr1.. changes to this crttenon and were not reported as required in
the reasons for the changes. t 6O.482-7(d){t).
(i) The ~nowing inf~ti~n shall b~ (Hi) Number- of ~ fm-which leaks
recorded m a lo~ that IS ke~t m a readily were detected IrS described in It 60.482-
accessi?': locatron ~ornse m . . 2(b) and (d}{&}{iJ .
determmmg exemptions as prov1ded m .
160.480(d}: (iv) Numbe: ofpwnp6 ~or~hich leaks
(1) An analysis demonstrating the erer not replUl'ed as req~m
design capacity of the affected faCllity. t ~ 6O.482-Z(cJ(t) and (d){6)(ul. .
(2) A statement listing the feed or raw (v) Number of CGm~ for ~hich
material'S and products from the affected leaks were detected as desctibed m
facilities ami an analysis demonstrating t 6O.482-3(f}.
whether these chemicals are heavy (vi) Number of compre8SOf'S far which
liquids or beverage alcohol. and leaks were not repQrted a8 required in
(3) An ana1ysis demonstrating that t 60.48Z-3{g}(1).1DJd
eq~ipment is not in VQC service.. (vii) The facts that explain each delcry
OJ InfDmlaDon and data aaed to of repair and. where ".....upW.te. why a
demonstrate that a piece of equipment is process mri1: shutdown was techn;cally
not in VQC service shall be recorded in infeasible.
a log.that is kept in a readily accessible (3) Dates of procesS mrit sfmtdowna
location. which occurred within the semiCUL1.lu..!
(k) The provisions of Ai 60.7 (b) and reporting period.
(d) ~o not a~ply to affected facilities (4) Revisions to items reported
subject to this subpart. . .
according to paragraph (bJ if changes
(See. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42 have occurred since the initial report or
U.S.c. 1414)) subsequent revisions to the initial
(ApfJroved by the Office of Management and -- report.
Budget under the coatrol DUmber 206()...(J()U) (d) An owner or opertor electing to
f 60."'7 Re~ AequirementL comply with the provision. of ~ t ~
(a) Each owner or operator subject to 1 and -2. shall ~otify the Administrator
the provisions of this subpart sball of the altem~tive stan~ard ~ected 90
submit semiannual reports to the days. b.efore lmplem.entiDg either of the
Administrator begimring sht months proVISIOns.
after the initial mart up date. (e) An owner or operator shall report
(b) The initialsemiammal report to the resl,l.lts of all performance tests ill
the Administrator shall include the accordance witb . 60.8 of the General
following information: Provisions. The provisicma of I 8O.8(d)
(1) Process unit identification. do not apply to affected facilities subject
(2) Number of valves subject to the to the provisions of this subpart except
requirements of t 60.482-7. excluding that an o~ or operator must notify
those valves designated for no the Administrator of the scbedule for the
detectable emisskJns Imder the initial performance msts at leut 30 daYB
provisions of t 6O.482-7(f}. before the initial performance testa.
(3) Number of pumps subject to the (f) The requirements of psragraphs (a)
requirements of i 60.482-2, excluding through (c) of this subsection remain ill
those pumps designated for no force until and tmlt!Ss EPA. in delegating
detectable emissions under the enfo~cement authority to a State under
provisions of t 6O.~(e) and thoee Section 111(c) of the Act. Ctl-'l-'=V~
pumps complying with t 6O.482-Z{f). reporting requin:wents or an alternative
(4) Number of compressors subject to means of compliance surveillance
the requirements of i 60.482-3. adopted by such State. In that event,
excluding those compressors designated affected 80W'CeS within the State will be
for no detectable emissions tmder the relieved of the obligation to comply with
provisions of A 6O.482-3(i) and those the requirements of paragraphs (a)
compressors complying with ~ 60.482- through (c) of this subsection, provided
3(h). that they comply with the requirements
(c) All semiannual reports to the established by the State.
Admi..:is~tor shall include the (Sec.114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42
foll~wmg UU:0~tion. summarized from U.S.C.1414})
the information ~.I 6(J.;186~ . Approved by the Office of Managemen, am:t
(~) Process umt identification.. Budget under the control DUlnber 2011{).0012.)
304
110.488 [R..""]
160."" LJat of ~ pro""_d tip
affected IKiIitie.. "
(a) rhe following chemicitls are
produced. as intermediatea or final
products. by process urrita covered
under thi. subpart. The applicability
date for process units produciq «me or
more of these "h..m;,..,l.. ia Jauwuy S.
1981.
;:"!=--- --
,07....., .-. .--.
~5._- ~
1~ ---
64-1~7 ~ 8CId.
108-24-7 ACIbC"",-.
67-64-1.- --
75-*06.__.- ~~
7s-os.. ..---. ~
88-86-2.__. Ac8IopMI-.
7s-:a..6 .-- Ac:8I„I c:NcIrid8.
7~2.- ~
107..(12-8 . Acra8fL
~1._~
711- I ~7 . AayIic ead.
107-13-1 - AayIaN8I8.
12~. Adipic 8ad.
111..0..:L.- ~
P1.-...-. ~~
107-18-6._- AJIyI-.oL
107~1 AiIIII-
'32'!-1'-5.- A.,';'~8CII1
"'~1-1- A...._~........i-
123-30-8 p"" . _r ...A.
62&-83-7. 1~ NIf;o-
82-2.
71~ 1~' /Wr(I81caha18.
1 1 ~511-7 ....,. ....
~. ,.",.....
11~7' NIf;o. -' -
1322~1 NtrfI pIIMal
82-53-3 AniIiN.
142~1 ....... r, J .....
a181-52"" Aa8IiII&
1()C)..6&.3 - . .
I 18-82-3 AnIInniIic 8CII1
~1 A""-q!",-
100.52-7 s.~
55-21~ ~
71 a.-
8&-4-8 e.. - A" ~Kid.
~11-a. e..\1-~8ad.
134-81 -6 .....
7~7 II8rIIiIic Kid.
6S-85-G EI8raIoic 8CII1
"9-63-4 ~
100-47-0 B8'1ZC11i1ri18.-
118-61-41. e..-.A--
118-07-7 e.._>41 ..
-. ~c:IWaNa
100.51-6..- B8nzyt--.
1Q0....46..8 e..-r...--
:~. I==-
81-417-3 ...,. oIicIIIIIIiIIa
82-~ ~
~7 - EIoIpIwa A.
1G-11-1 "-- &_......b-_-
27497-51.... e.o.._ooj)IIIbfJi-...
10&-ee-o.- ~
108-8&-8- 1.0.:-
1~ ~-
'.'-32-2- rHIuIy!8a\'II&
7"1-3S-3 rHIuIy! 8ICI:II8I.
78-eZ-2 ~ 8IDaII8L
75-45-4 . I~ 8ICI:II8I.
'~73-8 A~ :.LJ ~
13152~---, ~
75-64-8--.1 t~
8&-73-7 ...-. ~........,....... 8CII1
'07-8&-O"_'--I'~~
123-72-8__00 ~
107.112-6 - BaI\one --
106-31..0 .==1 BuI,Iic -,.-
10&-74-0- ~
1~2_~
75-1-50 ---:...l ~ ......
~ : :
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 48, No. 202 I Tuesday. October 18. 1983 I Rules and Regulations
48343
CAS lID. .
08IIic8I
CheroaI
.".. c.ma"'A. .at!.
56-2106 CIIIban 18InoCI1I~4L
8l1li'-35-7 c...... -
79-1''''---. ~8CId.
108-'2-8 w-I.b.._.a.-
15-6,..2_..dIII. ~. -
108-'7"'--. ~
3591"""---. O~
10140-1-"_00 O~A.--_.
"..,.. -I O. ~... -
80-1, 14-11-
3'.
21~1-4. CI~b.a.......
21"2.
521&-2>".
1321~ ~ c:NooId8.
2~97-2I-4._1 ~
7s-1W----....I CI\Io...4iL-....I__.
67-16-3-1 CNoraIanIt.
25~-- o-o,lII''''a'....
8&-73-3-.- o-d1IoIo...~I2-
,~ ..-......... p.d1Iu......~---
ZSI87~._.. a~..
126-8H..-- ~
7790-e..s CNorosuIIonoc acid.
108-'1'" .---.. m-dIIaIaI~.
_9-8--...- ~
IC1&-G-01 ~
75--72-8 - CI1IoroIriIIuor-
1011-a9-4- 1IHftIGi..
9s-11-7 ---..- o-crem.
111&-44-5 --. p.awaI.
13~77..'1.._- 1iI88d-.
13111-77..'1._- ...... acid.
.'7G-3G-O- O'orao......,...
~_. ~8\:Id.
98-82... 0.-
80-15--8- c.-I>,-d>~
3724-8'--'1 ~acid.
~77-4-1 Cy8IIIgIIII-
'08-IIW- C\o8N*_.
'08-77-0 c,---
110-12-7 -'-..- ~
108-lI3-O- ~.
108-~1_.- ~--_.
llGo«!-I- ~
101-aS... CtcJot... ...~._-
111-7"'- C)CicIOC:I8dI8M.
112-»-1 ..--.... Dc8IIII.
'~2-2 .....-..-. 008cIII0M 8IeaIIal
27578-04-1- ~oob-~acid.
85--71-1. 95--82- ~.
9. 554-00-7.
608-27-5.
6Ot41-1.
fIa.4-7.
271:w.a7""
5T.I11-82-1'.
S.1-73-1 ....-..... ............--.
~1 .---1 Ho.;I~
1~7 '''--'--'1 ~.-........
75--71""_'_'-"1~
111""""'""_"",,,~-,
IG7~~ 12~.....(EDQ.
96-23-1 Coc:IIIo.."""'L
28952-23-8__. Dc:hI...~...
101-13-7._... ~-,..__.
109-8-7- ~
1 11-46-1 ~ gIJocaI.
112-31-7 - ~ gt,coI dI8III!'I-.
1TI-~'''_'-'''1 ~ gI!o:iDI-"""_.
"24t-5_.. ~tI\CII--..,._.
12""7-7 ----I o.e.,.... !III'CIII IIICIIOCIDOIt'/ -- --
111-80-0-1 ~ gIjocaI-.,._.
n2_'5--2~' IJiIIIIIyI8ne QIIC:II ~ - ..
111-77..'1.__...-.- ~ gI!o:iDI...().~_.
&1-17-5._.. Di8IIIyt SUII81.
75--37"'._- DIft.o.OO'II__.
ZSl67-'7G-I ---- je...-
26781~........... 0iis0a8cyI pfI\II8IMa.
27~- Cii8Dac!yt phIIIaI8Ie.
67~_-.......! Dike-
12WC1-3-la I.~'
12'''''7 ---- N.N-ci"""l~~-
115--10-1,,,,,,-,,,,,,1 N.~_.
~'2-2 ......--....., N.~~H.~.........
57-1"'7 ""'-"-"1 O->t'I.,.G-
77-71-1 ..... ......-1 C8n8III,I"""
75--18-39' 0iI-.,t......
67-t8-S.- a.-. 1IIIIaJIid8.
120-11-45...- DiIoIMI„ 1.......1--
!19..'101-3......-....... 3.$0..._- acid.
CAS No. .
0.....-
51-28-5 -_. !:WL.d--d.
25321-''''' I)oo...A.. ..
123-91-1 00a8aaL
60&~._. ~.
122-39-4 -_....- ~-~......
101""'" Dd8„-
1G2~e .....-1 ~ 1IIoau8.
25265-71""=1 ~!Ii\ICCL
25376-22-7 Dadc8a
28675-17-4_.._.. 0 ~ ~.._.
2719~_1 ~~~
1~ j~~;"
&&-17-5..- E!II8naI.
141~5' EIha."".m-
141-7&-41 .-...-..., Bh1' 8CIII8\II.
,,,-V.. 1-.. .
140-66-5.._..__- EIIIyt ecryI8e.
75-04-7 .--...-.... EtItyIanww.
10Q..41... EI!>~
74-96-4.- EIr>„! bram0d8.
eoo.-57-3---I' E~
75-00-3 ....-..--. EtrIyI d1toride.
105-39-5 ---I E1b,oI .......
1Q5-56..6 j Br1, ~- -~...
7~I I EIhpIenL
_, .--.-.. Eth\'IN C8ftIor8M.
"'-V"- T---
107-15-3 ~~._...
106-9~ ~~
107-21-1 Eu„8M gIjocDL
111-55-7'_- E\r1yt8n8 gI!ocd ~
110-71-4.."""':" E1I1yI8n8 gIycoI......,._.
111-7W---:-I.E\11t118n8 gIjocaI JIICInDIaIIIIO _.
112"'()7-2- EII„8n8 gt)OCQI monatIUIyI----
I 1G-8Q..5~ EII„8n8 glyCDllIIDII08II1p _.
I 11-1!>-8 .- E""..... gI)'IXII rIIOnIIII„ - 8C81a18.
10&-116-4.._- E\11t118n8 gI,coI n__....~_.
11~i-6.- E\t„8ne gqaI .06~o8Ih1I - -
lata.
122-K-6 a.,..... gt,coI .. j1 .....
2807-30-9 ' EIbpI8n8 gIJcaI ~_.
75-21... a E\t„8ne 0XICI8.
60-26-7.__. en,. -
lo.-n-? ~........
122-51...() EII„ _I"""'..""'"
95-92-1 EII„ 0I8I8a
.'892-71-1.- EIIIyt......-
so-oo..o.. Fom~
.. 75-12-7 ...........
&&-18-6._- Fonnc--
110-17"'- "-aacI.
98-01-1 -.-. FurIInI.
56-..f 1-5 ""'-_00-" G„:8oal
~73-7.__. GIy-~
25791~2_. ~oI_.
56-40-6 -. Glyane.
107-22-2 ~
'16-7""_- HeIl8ChlOrobenz8n
67-72-1 I~'-"
36653-82-4 ~---
124-09-4::::j ~~..... ,1.1 1.... .;.-
68-1'''''. 1""'.-'-' gIJcaI.
10Q..97...()- II~_......~........_,--
74-90-45 .....___.)1 ~.".....
123-3~q'l~
~91-1 ~-
26760-64-5 -- .....,...
7&-0-1..._.._..., -
110-19-(1..._.'''''''' -
115-11-7 - ........,...
78-84-2-1 ~."
79-31-2..- 1sobuIJnC--
25339-17-7 -'" Isad8C8Ial
2695:0-21 ~-I iIIIaCI!'i 8IcahaI.
7ll-7&-4'_"_j ~.
711-59-1 ----..
1:01-91-5.._. IsapIIIhaIIc ecid..
711-79-5 ----I ----
67-63-0----1 ~
10&-21-4---1 ~ -.ta.
75-31"'() '-~=I hoO,..",,~.__.
~~~~=~.
'l6)..51-4__~ K_.
('1.............-...---.., u.- allyl UIOMa.
123...()1-3.........._...1 u- """""04_- ~ !IodM:,-~
1-1-. .
110-16-7......_, M8I8c --
106-31~ .--.-.......1 ...-c ~
6915-15-7 -----4... 8CiIL
141-79-7 ----..l -,. CIIIid8.
121-47-1----1 MeI8niIoc:--
79-41-4 "-'''__'''11 ~ 8CicI.
563-47..'1_.- -...,.. c:IIIOoId8.
305
CAS No . j
67-56-1 -..-..I M8InMal
79-20-9_-1 ~-
105-45-3-1 .....,. --
74-1&-5._..__.-j r,.., -
1~1~_."..._1" ~7~-
70&-83-9 ----.J ~ ~
37365-71-2 -..-.....i Melll\ll tIUtynal
7.....7-3 -.........1 M8II„ - .
1~7-2_...._..1 ~,....,,,,,--
'33'-22-2_.~ "-7J-~--
75-09-2 '----""1 ,....,...~.
101-77-9.__- "..."...._.
101-68-8_.., ~~ -':,.........
711-83-3 '-'-'.'1 tote""" etI>yI k-
107~11-3 --.-- MeIIIyI~.
108-11 -2 ---...1 MeII1yIIOObuIyI c:arborooI.
106-10-1......__....1 Mellly! -'''Y' k8lO:"8.
~~ .-...........:J MeIIIyI ...eII_"......
77-75-..f -"''''''1 _,...,.....4,.....
96-63-1"--''''''1 a..-.~I!II,._.
110-91""__....... ~
115-47-Z -..-.-1 a~--,"""" ~ -.e_.
120-16-3__......1 tr.~.I1"""'~ -..: 8Od.
90-15-3 -"j 6-f1IPI1II'oI.
135-19-3__.. ~.
75-96-11_-'-""'1 "'-.-.. .t..- acid.
86-7- --.. CH""''''-.
100...()1~'_'_-'''''1 p"'W_-
91-23-6_..- ~_.
100-17-4_-...-.....1.........--
98-95-3-.......1 111-
27176-83-2"..........i NiI>'-~ -Io.m. - PI.
79-20t-3 -.-...........' NiIra8IIwa
75-52-6 -I Noc._.d-
86-75-5--"'12~.ot.
25322...()1-4.._.- 11111.....0.-'"
1321_12~..__~, _.
ml!>-8!>-1_-_. Nor8I8.
251~- Non\IIPIWIOI.
271a-a-a- ~
1~-! ,.....,.
115-77-6 -I f'8o~ ,1..101.
108-8&-0_'--1---
1011-67-1 --, 1~
127-18-4-1 F-.I""'~...
584-42-3-----1 F..."'_,..01/„ III8QPI8n.
9ot-1N;--1 ~_..a.t._.
1~._..,...."""'~_.
108-95-2 -_..-..... PIwIaI.
96-67~, 585- ~"'--
-. 609--46-
I. I333-3&-7 '.
~~~~=='::'1 =.acid.
75-44-5-'-"1 ~
IIS-44-9 - PIIItI8Ioc ~
85-41"" -.--. PIIIh8-.
106-98-6.____... ~
11Q..15-O....._.-.. ~
~ ~--
2~.
25322-61h'J_j P~.. WODI-
25322-6&-4-1 ~ gI)Cal
123-- ...-...-, Prapion8t -,.aa
~_..., Poupiooc ecid.
. 71-23-6--4~-
107-1Q..8--j FftIp,-
5AO-5ot-5..............., Pr-op,I c:Non08.
115-07-1 .-............\ Propylene.
127...()Q-4..............., ~~
~==j::::=-
7s..~9---..-J ~C1111118.
11~ ---i Pyndina
1116-51"'" ..-...I 0.-.
10&-4-3.-i~
27136-57-4_.-.i ~ acid.
69-<"2-7 --I S8ic,oIic: acid.
127~3 --...-.....: Sodium acetale.
532-32--1 _..._....~ Sodiam--
900<-32-4"'''''-''''1 Sodium ~-
3926-&2-3--1 ~ """'-
"1-53-7 _...J Sodium tomIale.
:~t:..1'''-'''--1 ~ =-
1~----i~
110-15-6............_.i Suc:anIC acid.
11Q..81-2 ........_.,i ~.
121-57-3._--.-.. ~-.
12&-33...() ! ~
~1-5S-4-===1 T_..."
100-21...()_.! T8fWPIIIII* acid.
79-34-5'_..-'... TdI>..;JoIu....d-
117-08-8..._........ T"'",,,-,,,,,oII--~.
-------
48344
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 202 I Tuesday, October 18, 1983 / Rules and Regulatio~
-
CASIoio.'
0I8m0c8I
78-00-2.- T~ 188d.'
118-60&-2__.. T~.
85-4-8 '-'--. T~ 8I1I1ydnde.
7S-74-1 "__'_00 Te1ratn8Ihyt 1e8d.
110-60-1__._._.. T--;I8t_.
11~18_!1._"--'1 T~-.._...
1~_.. T,*-.
9>«)..7 ...--- T.....2.~
5&&-64-9._- T_2.4-<1Usocy_te.
26471-C!-5__- T- dilsaeyarwt- (rnmur.).
1333-07-9__.... T--...onemode.
104-1~'__- T~8Ods,
98-~.- T~~.
2691S-12-8.___- T-
87~1~. 108- TnchIorC1t>enan8S.
7~.1~-
I',
7' -5~ ..-...---.. 1.1.1.!richIo-&W cn&mocals.
. CAS nun1I>e
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 48. No. 202 I Tuesday. October 18. 1983 I Rules and Regulations
48345
U.4 Calibration SolutiOl1l. Samplet of all
the c:ompounda of interett in a liquid form. far
retention time ltudies.
W Extraction Solvenl8. For extractioa
of Idlorbent babe aampla in preparatioa for
Inalysil.
5.2.8 Fuel N recommended by the
manuflcturer for operation of the GC.
U7 Carrier Cu. Hydnx:arbon free. ..
recommended by the manufacturer for
operation of the detector and compatability
with the column.
5.U Zero Cal. Hydrocarbon free air or
nitrogen. to be used for mlutionl. blank
preparation. and standard preparation.
5.3 Semplins.
5.3.1 Collection of Samples with Ch.D
Samplin8 Flasks. Presurvey samples can be
collected in precleaned 250-ml double-ended
&1S.1 samplins Oasks. Teflon stopcocks.
without grease. are preferred. Flasks should
be deaned as follows: Remove the stopcocks
from both ends of the flasks. and wipe the
partl to remove any grease. Clean the
.topcocks. barrels. and receivers with
methylene dichloride. Clean all glass porte
with l108p IOlution. then rinse with tap and
deionized distilled water. Place the flask in a
cool&1asl 8DJIealina furnace and apply heat
up to 500° C. MaintaiD at this temperatuft for
1 hour. After this time period. shut off and
open the fumace to allow the flask to cool.
Grease the etopcocks with stopcock grease
and return them to the flask receivers. Purse
the assembly with hip-purity nitrogen for 1
to 5 minute.. Cloae off the Itopcocks after
PUJ1ins to maintain a slight positive nitrogen
presSllre. Secure the atopc:ocb with tape.
Presurvey _pIes can be obtained either
by drawinl the pHI into the previoally I
eVlCU8ted Oaak or by drawin& the pHI into
and JIUIIiDI the flaak with a rubber auction
bulb.
5.3.1.1 Evacuated Flalk ProcedUJ'e. UH a
hip-98cuum pump to evacuate the flask to
the capacity of the pump; then cloH off the
stopc:ack leadins to the pump. Attach a tHI1m
oullide diameter (OD) glas. tee to the Dalk
Inlet with I Ihort piece of Teflon tubins.
Select I ~mm OD boroailicate aamplins
JIIObe.lII1arpd at ODe end to I 12-mm OD
and of aufficient leu&th to reach the centroid
of the duct to be aampled. wert e glau wool
plUS in the enlaraed end of the probe to
remove particulate matter. Attach the other
end of the probe to the tee with a short piece
of TefioD tubiDa. CoImect a rabber laCtion
bulb to the third I. of the tee. Place the filter
end of the probe at the centroid of the dud.
and JIIII'88 the probe with the rubber auc:tioa
bulb. After the probe ia campletely purpd
and filled with duct ...... CIp8D the ItopcocIt
to the III'8b Oaak IIDtiI the preI8UJ'e ill the
IJuk reaches duct prenure. ClOH off the
ItOpcock. aDd remove the probe from the
duct. Remove the tee &om the flaak and tape
the stopcocka to prevent Iew duriDa
shipment. Meuan and record the dact
temperature 8Dd preaunt.
5.3.12 Pwpd FIaak Proced- AIt8ch
one end of the aampliq Ouk to . rubber
auction bulb. Attach the other end to a IMam
CD glll.. probe .. dncribed ill Sectioa
1.3.1.1. Place the filter end of the probe at the
centroid of the dw:t. and apply .udioe with
tilt bulb .. ~J pIIIJe the probe ad
flalk. After the fIaak .... been pursed. cIoae
off the atopcock - the auction bulb. and
then close the 8topcock DellI' the probe.
Rem.,.,. the probe &om the duct. and
disCOl8t8Ct both the probe and auction balb.
Tape the etopcockrto prevent leakqe durins
lhipmeaL Weuure and record the duct
tempenture.and preaure.
5.3.2 Flexible BaS PI o..«Iare. Tedlar 01'
aluminized Mylar bass can also be used to
obtain the presurvey sample. Ule new bap.
and leak check them before field Ule. In
addition. check the baS before un for '
contamination by filling it with nitrogen or
air. and analyzing the gal by CC at high
lenaitivity. Experience iDmcatee that it ia
desirable to allow the illert gu to remain in
the bag about 24 houri or longer La check for
de.orption of oraanice from the blli- Fonow
the leak check and sample coUection
procedures (liven in Section 7.1.
5.3.3 Determination of NcUture ContenL
For combultion or water-amtroUed
proceeees. obtain the moiatuft content &om
plant perlormel or by meanrement during
the presurvey. If the IIOUJ'Ce i. below SIr C.
meuUJ'e the wet bulb and dry bulb
temperat1Iree. and calculate the moilture
content uains a p.ycbrometric charL At
higher temperat1Iree. uae Method . to
determine the moiature contenL
5.4 Determination of Stetic Preuure.
Obtain the ltatic preaure &om the plant
peraonne\ or meanmnent. If a type S pitot
tube and an IDclined manometer are uaecI.
take care to align the pitot tube 110° &om the
djrection of the flow. DilCODDect one of the
tuhee to the manometer. and read the ltatic
preslUre; DOte whether the reading ia po8itiYe
or nesative.
5.5 Collection of Pleaa! ve) Samp\el with
Adsorption Tube. folIo Section 7.. for
prelurftJ aampImg.
e. AnaJy8i$ Dttre.'rJpment
Plea... vq I8111pIe8 abaU be aed to develop
and coafirm the be8t aamplias and _11*
acheme.
U SeJec:tioD of cc P8r8meten.
e.1.1 ColmnD Choice. !aed on the initial
contact with pIaDt peno_1 c:oncernin& the
plut proc:e8I and the antic:ip8ted emiaai0D8.
ch- a column that pnmdn pel
I'etCllutiOD aad rapid ~pia time. The
choice of u appropriate collllllD caD be aided
by a literature MarCh. CDDtac:t with
manufacturen of CC coIUJD118. and diK\J8lion
with peI'8OlIIIel at the emiuiOD eoun:e.
. Most coImnD manafacturen keep exC8lJeDt
record8 of their prociucta. Tbair t.ecImical
aervice departmenta may be able to
recOlllJDeDd appropriate cohmma aad
detector tJpe for 88p8r8q the anticipated
COIDpOUJ1dI. and they may be able to pnmde
informatiOD 011 iDterferencee. optimum
operatins coaditiOll8, md cohmm IimitatioaL
PIanta with 8D8lJtica1l8bont0rie8 may be
able to pnmde information - their
.analytical procecL.r- IIIdudiDt ....~
detector type. coIUIDD typeI. c:ampoundI
emitted. md approximate cooceatratiaDI.
8.1.2 PrelimiDar7 CC Adju8tmenL U8iDI
the ataadarda and colUIIID obtaiaed ill
Section 8.1.1. perfonD iDitiall8lt8 to
dertermiDe appropriate CC coaciitiODa that
provide aood reaolUtiOD aad J8iDim1llll
anal,.. time fur the cr.mpoaDda of iDtere8t.
8.1.3 Preperation of Presun-ey Samples. If
the 18DI1'I.. were collected on an adJorbent.
extract the aample 81 recommended by the
manufacturer far removal of the compound.
with e IOIvent euitBble to the type of GC
analym. Prepare other .amples in an
appropriate manner.
8.1.4 Presurvey Sample Analysis. Before
ana\ysia. heat the presurvey sample to the
duct temperature to vaporize any condensed
material. Analyze the samples by the CC
procedure. and compare the retention times
qaiDst thOle of the calibration samples that
contain the components expected to be in the
stream. If any compoundJ cannot be
identified with certainty by this procedure.
identify them by other means .uch a. GC/
maas apectroecopy (CC/MS) or CC/inIrared
technique.. A CC/MS aystem ia
recommended.
Uae the CC CODditioua determined by the
procedure. of Sectiou 6.1.2 for the fint
injection. Vary the CC parameters during
lubaequent injections to determine the.
optimum settings. Once the optimum settings
have been determined. perform repeat
injectioua of the sample to determine the
retention time of eadt C01DpO\U1d. To inject a
aample. draw ..mple throush the loop at B
COOItant rate (100 ml/min for 30 leconds). Be
careful not to preslW'ize the sas in the loop.
Turn off the pump 8Dd allow the gaa in the
sample loop La come La ambient pressure.
Activate the aample valve. and record
injection time. Loop temperature. column
temperature. carrier flow rate. chart Ipeed.
and attenuator settiJ18. Calculate the
retention time of each peak uaing the
diatance from injection La the peak maximum
djyjded by the chart apeed. Retention times
ahould be repeatable within o..s aeconda.
If the concentrationa ue too high for
appropriate detector reaponae. a lmaller
.ample loop or dilutiona may be uaed for ps
aemples. and. for liquid I8D1plea. dilution
with aolvent ~ appropriate. U.. the ltandard
curvu (Section 6.3) to obtain an eatimate of
the CODC8I1tratiDDa.
Identify all peake by camll8l'iDa the known
-retention times of compounda expected to be
in the retention times of peaks in the lample.
Identify any remainins unidentified peaks
which have areas larger than 5 percent of the
total using a CC/MS. or eatimation of
possible compoanda 'by their retention times
compared to known compounda. with
confirmation by further CC analyais.
8.2 Calibration Standarda. If the
preaurvey aamp\ea ue collected in an
adaorbent tube (charco8l. XAD-Z. T-.
etc.). prepare the ltandards iIt the aame
aolvent uaed for the extr8ction procedUJ'e for
the adaorbent. Prepare I8'Vef8I atandard8 for
each compoand tbraaPout the,.. of the
aample.
8.2.1 Cylinder Calibratioa Caaas. If
available. Ute NBS ref..........,... or
commercial (IU mixturw CIIftifieci tbroqh
direct analy. for the calibration aarv...
8.2.1.1 Optional Cylinder Approach. At
an altematiwe procedUJ'e. _intaiD hiah Ind
low calibration etanduds. UN the h.iJb
concentratimt (SO to 100 ppm) ItaDdard to
prepare . ttn.point calibr8tion canoe with
an .flp'''I'.1.te dilution techni.tue. Ute tlaia
307
-------
48346
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 202 / Tuesday. October 18. 1983 / Rules and Regulations
-==
same approach also to verify th~dilution
techniques for higb-concentration source
gases.
To prepare the diluted calibration samples.
use calibrated rotameters to meter both the
high concentration calibration gas and t~e
diluent gas. Adjust the now rates througn the
rotameters with micrometer valves to obtam
the desired dilutions. A positive displacement
pump or other metering techniques may be
used in place of the rotameter to provide a
fixed flow of high concentration gas. .
To calibrate the rotameters. connect each
rotameter between the diluent gas supply and
a suitably sized bubble meter. spirometer. or
wet test meter. Wl:ile it is desirable to
calibrate the calibration gas flowmeter with
calibration gas. generally the available
amount of this gas will preclude it. The error
introduced by using the diluent gas is
insignificant for gas mixtures of up to 1.000 to
2.000 ppm of each organic component. Record
the temperature and atmospheric pressures
as follows:
(P.T'j
Q.==Q. - 1/2 Eq. 18-1
P, T.
Where:
Q,==Flow rate at new absolute temperature
(T.) and new absolute pre5sure (P.).
Q,=Flow rate at calibration absolute
temperature (T,) and absolute pressure
(P,).
Connect the rotamelers to the calibration and
diluent gas supplies using 6-mm Teflon
tubing. Connect the outlet side of the
rotameters through a connector to a leak-free
Tedlar bag a5 shown in Figure 18.5. (See
Section 7.1 for leak check procedures.) Adjust
the gas flows to provide the de5ired dilution.
and fill the bag with sufficient gas for
calibration. Be careful not to fill to the point
where it applies additional pressure on the
gas. Record the flow rates of both rotameters.
the ambient temperature. and atmospheric
pressure. Calculate the concentration of
diluted gas as follow5:
10,!X. qJ
Co=
Eq. 18-2
q.+q.
Where:
c,,=Concentration of component "a" in ppm.
X.=Mole fraction of component "a" in the
calibration gas to be diluted.
q. = Flow rate of the calibration gas contains
1118 component "a" at measured
tempera lure and pressure.
q,,=Diluent gas flow at measured
temperature and pressure.
Use s1D8le-stase dilutions to prepare
calibration mixtures up to about 1:20 dilution
factor. For greater dilutions. use a double
dilution system. Assemble the apparatus. as
shown in Figure 1~. using calibrated
flowmeters of suitable range. Adjust the
control valves so that about 90 percent of the
diluted g8& from the first stage is exhausted.
and 10 percent goei to the second stage
flowmeter. Fill the Tedlar bag with the dilute
gas from the second stage. Record the
temperature. ambient pressure. and water
manometer pressure readiHgs. Correct the
flow reading in the first stage as indicated by
the water manometer reading. Calculate the
concentration of the component in the final
gasmixture as follows: .
C.=1oa X. ( q.l ~) FAt. 18-3
q.l +Q.l \ q.2+q,,2 .
Where:
C.=Concentration of component "a" in ppm.
X.=Mole fraction of component "a" in
original gas.
q.l = Flow rate of component "a" in stage 1.
q.z= Flow rate of component "a" in stage 2-
qd1 =FJow rate of diluent gas in stage 1.
q,,2=Flow rate of diJu,mt gas in stage 2.
Further details of the calibration methods
for rotameters and the dilution system can be
found in' Citation 21 in Section 8. .
6.2.2 Preparation of Standards from
Volatile Materials. Record all data shown on
Figure 18-3.
6.2.Z.1 Bag Technique. Evacuate a l~liter
Tedlar bag that has passed a leak check (see
Section 7.1). and meter in 5.0 liters of nitrogen
through a O.5literperrevolution dry test
meter. While the bag is filling. use a 0.5-ml
syringe to inject a known quantity of the
material of interest through the wall of the
bag or through a septum-caped tee at the
bag inlet. Withdraw the syringe needle. and
immediately cover the resulting hole with a
piece of masking tape. In a like manner.
prepare dilutions having other
concentrations. Prepare a minimum of three
concentrations. Place each bag on a smooth
rurface. and alternately depress opposite
sides of the bag 50 times to mix the gases.
. Record the average meter temperature. gas
volume. liqujd volume. barometric pressure.
and meter pressure.
Set the electrometer attenuator to the Xl
Position. Flush the sampling loop with zero
helium or nitrogen. and activate the sample
valve. Record tbe injection time. sample loop
temperature. column temperature. carrier gas
flow rate. chart speed. and attenuator setting.
Record peaks and detector responses that
occur in the absence of any sample. Maintain
conditions. FJush the sample loop for 30
seconds at the rate of 100 ml/min with one of
the calibration mixtures. and open the sample
valve. Record the injection time. Select the
peak that corresponds to the compound of
interest. MeasW'e the distance on Ihe chart
from the injection time to the time at which
the peak maximum occurs. Divide this
quantity by the chart speed. and record the
resulting value as the retention time.
6.2-Z.Z Preparation of Standards from less
Volatile Liquid Materials. Use the equipment
shown in Figure 1&-8. Calibrate the dry gas
meter with a wet test meter or a spirometer,
Use a water' manometer for the pressure
gauge and glass. Teflon. brass. or stainless
steel for all connections. Connect a vah'e to
the inlet of the 50-liter Tedlar bag.
To prepare the standards. assemble the
equipment as shown in Figure 18-3. and leak
check the system. Completely evacuate the
308
bag. Fill the bag with hydrocarbon-free air.
and evacuate the bag again. Close the inlet
valve.
Turn on the hot plate. and aHow the "iter
to reach boiling. Connect the bag to the,
impinger outlet. Record the initial meter
reading. open the bag inlet valve. and open
th~ cylinder. Adjust the ~te so that the bal
will be completely filled In approximatelv 15
minutes. Record meter pressure. tempera"lure.
and local barometric pressure.
Fill the syringe to the desired liquid volume
with the material to be evaluated. Place the
syringe needle in to the impinger inlet usil1l
the septum provided. and inject the liquid
into the flowing air stream. Use a needle of
sufficien t length to permit injection of the
liquid below the air inlet branch of the tee.
Remove the syringe.
Complete flUing of the bag; note and record
the meter pressure and temperature at retular
intervals. preferably 1 minute.
When the bag is filled. stop the pump. and
close the bag inlet valve. Record the fmal
meter reading.
Disconnect the bag from the impinaer
outlet. and set it aside for at least 1 hour to
equilibrate. Analyze the sample within the
proven life period of ita preparation.
6.2.2.3 Concentration Calculations:
Average the meter temperatW'e (T..) and
pressure (P..) readings over the bag fillint
precess.
Measure the solvent liquid density at room
temperature by accurately weighina a knOWn
volume of the material on an analytical
balance.to the nearest 1.0 milligram. Take
care during the weighing to minimize
evaporation of the material. A ground-gJasl
stoppered zs-ml volumetric flask or a glall"
stoppered specific gravity bottle is suitable
for weighing. Calculate the result in termaof
g/ml. As an alternative. literature values of
the density of the liquid at 2O"C may be ~
Calculate the concentration of material in
the sanlpie In mg/liter at standarq conditiOllJ
a~ follows:
76O(L.I(p)(Z73+ T..}
Eq.1~
c-..= 273(M,-M.I(P_+ P.I }
Where:
c... 101 = Standard solvent concentration. mal
std liter.
L. = Liquid volume injected. ml.
p=Liquid density at room temperature.l/mL
T.. = Meter temperature. 'Co
Mf.M1=Final and initial meter readiug.liters.
P....=Local barometric pressure (absolute).
mmHg.
p.. = Meter pressure (gause). mm Hg.
6.3 . Preparation of Calibration Curves.
Obtain gas standards as described in Sectioa
6.Z such that three concentrations per
attentuator range are available. Establish
proper GC conditioning. then flush the
sampling loop for 30 seconds at a rate of1111
ml/min. Allow the sample loop pressure 10
equilibrate with atmospheric pressure. and
activate the injection valve. Record the
standard concentration. attentuator settilll.
injection time. chart speed. retention time.
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 48. No. 202 I Tuesday, October 18, 1983 I Rules and Regulations
4834 7
pelk area, Ample loop. temperature, column
teIIIperature, and carrier gal flow rate.
Repeat the Itandard injection until two
coll8ecutive injections give area counts
within 5 percent of their aYel8p. The
IYerage multiplied by the attenuator IettiD8
It then the calibration area value for that
concentration.
Repeat thiI prveedure for each atandard.
Plot conc:entratiOlU alOlll the abaciua and
Ibe calibration area valuu along the
onIinete. Perform a regreuion analYlis, and
drew the leut squarel line.
SA Optional Uee of Prepared Cy1inder8
for Dilution Calibration Checb. and
RelpOIlH Factor Determinatione. A let of
three .tandarda of the major component in
the emillionl il required. Tbil let of
8I8I\dardJ can be taken into the field and
thereby replace the need to prepare
ltendarde al described in Section e.z.z.
The hi&h concentration atandard C8D t.
nIB tbn:Iuah the dilution IYltem to a.... the
eccuracy of the ayltem. First. 9rt!pare a
c:alibration curve uina the three ltaDdudI
foUowina the procedure dacribed in SactioD
U. Then. prepare a dilute IImple uain8 the
blsh c:onc:entration Itandard 10 that the dilute
88/11P1e will fall within the lower limits of the
c:alibration curve.
Next. 8D8lyze the dilute IIIJDple. and
calculate the meaaured concentration from
the calibration curve al de8cribed in Section
U. The dilute concentration calculated from
the analYlit .ball be within 10 percent of the
Cllllcentration expected from tlJe dilution
ay8Iem; otherwise determine the aource of
eft'Or in the dilution ayltem. and correct iL
'111. calibration curve from the cylinder
II8ndIllds for a lin8le orwanic can aiao be
related to the GC rupcmae curvel of all the
campoundl in the IOU1"C8 by reaponae facton
developed in the laboratory. In the .field. the
. calibration curve from the cylinder
ItIDdIIlds and the calculated relpOnae
flcton mellored in the laboratory can then
be U8d to replace the need to prepare and
8II81yze calibration atandarda for each
orpnic compound (see Section 8.5 on daily
qUllity control procedure).
Recheck the relative peak area of ODe of
the calibration 'tandarda daily to pard
Igllnll dearadation. If the relative peak
areal on Iucceuive days differ by more than
5 percent, remake all of the ltandarda before
PfUCHding to the final.ample analyseS.
8.5 Evaluation of Calibration and
Analyail Procedure. Immediately altar the
preparation of the calibration curve and prior
to the 6Da1l8D1ple analy.... perform the
lII8lysi. audit dacribed in Part 81. Appendix
C. Pracedun. Z: "Procedure for Yield Auditm,
GC ADalyaia" (41 Fa 38179. September 7.
1_), ne infonnation required to cIocumeDt
the lII8lyaia of the audit IIIJDpla baa been
lIIcluded GD the example deta IheetJ ahown
ill Fiprea 11-3 and tW. The audit analyses
......... with the audit c:oncntratioll8
within 10perceat. When availabJe. !be tater
III, obtaiD audit CJlinders by coatactiDF
Enviromnental Protection A&ency. .
Eavtromnental Mcmitorin& Sy.tem8 -
Laboratory, Quality Auunnce DiviaioD
(MD."). Rellarch 1'riaJIIle Park. North
~ Z7711. Audit cylinder8 obtainad
~ a COIIIIII8rciaI p.1D8D1Ifac:turer ~ be
UIed provided: (a) the pi manufacturer
certifju the.aadit cylinder u desaibed in
Section 5.2.3.1 of Method 23 and (b) the gas
manufacturer obtains an independent
analysis of the audit cylindert to verify thil
analy. IDdepeadeot anaIY8is i. defined as
an analysis performed by an individual other
than the individual who performs the 8U
manufacturer'l analy. while IIIin8
calibration Itandarda tmd analyeia equipment
different from those ueed for the ga.
manufacturer', analysil. Verification i. .
complete and aoceptable wheD the
independent 8B8IYli. concentration. within
5 percent of the pi manufactarer'l
- cons:entration.
7. Final Samp/ins and Anal,. ~
Considering safety (flame hazarda) 8Dd the
IOU!'CI! conditiona, aelect an appropriate
IIDlpling and analysil procedure (Section 7.1.
7.2.7.3. or 7.41.1D situations where a
hydrogen name i8 a hazard and DO
intrinaically .efe GC i8 IUitabie. uae the
nexible ball collection technique or an
adJqrption technique. If the 8OIIr'Ce
temperature ~8 below 1OO'C, and the orpnic
concentratione are 8Uitable for the detector to
be used. use the direct interface metbod.lf
the aource gasel require dilution. UIIt a
dilution interface and either the b8g18111p1e
or adlOl'ption tube.. The choice between
theee two techniqua will depend on the
phYlicallayout of the lite. the aoun:e
temperature. and the storage Itability of the
compounds if collected in the bag. Sample
polar compounds by direct interfacing or
dilution interfacing to pr8ftIIt aample lOll by
adaorption on the bag.
7.1 Intqrated Bag SamPliDt and AD8lJ8i8
7.1.1 Evacuated Container Samplins
Procedure. In thi. PI~~. the b8p are
6lled by evacuaq the risid air-lf8ht .
container holdina the bap. Therefore. c:beck
both the bap and the container for leab
before and after De al follows: Ccnmect a
water manometer uain8 a tee connector
t.tween the bag or risid container and .
prelaure aource. Pntaurize the baa or
container to 5 to 10 em "'0 (2 to 4 in. HlO).
and allow it to atand CMIIIIi8ht. A deflated
bag indicata a1eak.
7.1.1.1 Appantua.
7.1.1.1.1 Probe. Stainlea lteet. Pyrex
gill" or Teflon tubing probe. ac:cardin8 to the
duft temperature, with 6.4-mm.OD Teflon
tubins of IUfficient Jensth to connect to the
IIDlple bag. U.. atainleu ateeI or Teflon
llDioDl to connec:t probe and ample liDe.
7.1.1.1.2 Quick <>-- Male (2) 8Dd
female (2) of ataiDIaa ateel conatruction.
7.1.1.1.3 NeedJe Valva. To c:aatrul go
flow.
1.1.1.t.4 Pump. Lealdea8 TefIoD.c:oated
diaphragm-type pump or eqai98AeDL To
deliver at leut 1 U-/miD.
7.1.1.1.5 Cwcoal A6u..,tion Tube. Tube
Med with activated charcoal. with glua
,..1 plllp at eacb aDd. to adaorb orpIIic
v.pan.-, . .
7.1.1.1.8 Flu-...ete.. 0 to 5OO-ml flow
I1IJI88: with 1D8DIIfacturer'l calibration curve.
7.1.1.2 Samp1ins Procedure. To obtain a '
Ample. uaemble the ample train .. lbowa
in Fipft 1&-8. Leak ~ both the.bq ami
the container. Cormect the Y8CUUID line from
the aeedle nlve to the Teflaa aample liDa
309
from the probe. Place the end of the probe at
the centroid of the stack. and start the pump
with the needle valve adjusted to yield a flow
of a.Sliter/minute. After allowing sufficient
time to PUJ'81! the line several timea. connect
the vacuum line to the bag. and evacuate
until the rotameter indicates no now. Then
position the IImple and vacuum linea for
lamp ling. and begin the actual sampling.
keeping the rate proportional to the Itack
velocity. At a precaution. direct the g81
exiting the rotameter away from I8mplina
personnel. At the end of the IImple period.
shut off the pump. disconnect the lample line
from the bag. and diaconnect the vacuum line
from the ball container, Record the louree
temperature, barom~c pre8lDre. ambient
temperature, IImpling flow rate, and initial
and final aampling time on the datalheet
mown in Figure 18-10. Protect the Ted1ar bag
and ita container from sunligl!t. When
pollible. perform the analYlia within 2 houn
of lample collection. .
7.12 Direct Pump Sulplins Procedure.
Flow 7.1.1. except place the pump and needle
valve between the probe and the bag. U.. a
pump and needle valve CODItrocted of
ltaiDIell Iteel or IOIDIt other material not
affected by the .tack "I. Leak check the
- ayatem. and then parae with Btack II" befont
the connectina to the preYiOUllly evllCWlted
bag.
7.1.3 Explosion Risk Area Bas Samp1ins
Procedure. Follow 7.1.1 except replac:e the
pump with IDOther evacuated C8D (see Fipnt
18-91). Use thi8 method whenever there it a
poaibility of an explolion due to pampe.
heated proba. or other flame producing
equipment.
7.1.4 Other Modified Bel Sampling
Proced\lrt!l. In the event thet condenaation ia
obaerved in the bag while collectin8 the
IIIJDple and a direct interface syatem C8DDOI
be uled. heat the bag during collection. and
maintain it at a auitably elevated temperature
durina all aubeequeat operationa. (Note: Take
care to leak check the ayltem prior to the
dilutiODlIO U not to create a potentially
explolive atmoapbere.) AI an alternative.
collect the IIJDple 188. and IimultBll8Oll81y
dilute it in the Tedlar bag.
In the firtt procedure, heat the box
containing the 8IUDple bag to the aourca
~!''I1perature. provided the componeatl of the
. ball and the 8Ul1'OUndin8 box can withatand
thi8 temperature. Then tranaport the bag ..
rapidly 88 pouible to the analytical area
- while maiDtaiDiD8 the be8tiq. or cower the
box with an iDIalating blaDket.ln the
analytical area. keep the box heated to
lOurce temperature mtilanalyail. Be ...
that the method of be81ing the box BOd the
control for the hutm, c:in:uit are CDIIp8tibie
with the safety reItrictioDI required in eacb
area. -
To UIIt the aec:oaci precedure. prefi11 the
Ted1ar bag with almown cpIIIIItity of baert.
go. Meter the iDert go iDto the b88
ac:cordins to the pi D ... u. far tile
preparation of... CllllC8fttration a88Ddarda af
volatile liquid materia18 (Section 6.Z.2.Z). blat
eliminate the midpt imJrinIer IItdioa. Take
the partly filled bq tit the aoun:e. 8Dd ID8ter
the aoun:e ... iDIo tba bag throuP be8tecI
umpltna ~ 8Dd a _tad &....-.. CII'
-------
48348
Federal Register I Vol 48. No. 202 I Tuesday. October 18. 1983 I Rules and Regulation.
Tenon poaitive displacement punp. Verify
the dilutioa fectorl periodicall)' tbroa88
dilution aDd a_ly. of pH8 of known
concentration.
7.1.5 Analyti8 of Bag Samplet. Conned
the needle valve. pump. charcoaJ wbe. and
flowmeter 10 draw 888 aample8 throuah the
gas sampling valva. FlIIIIa the sample loop
with gal from ona of the three Tedlar bap
containillg a calibration mixtW'e. aDd analyze
the lample. Obtain at leaat two
chromatograms for the sample. The resulta
lire acceptlilile when the peak areu from two
coaaecutive injec:tioDa aaree to within 5
percent of their average. If they do not agree.
run additional NlDplelllDtil coaaistent area
data are obtained. If thil agreement is not
obtained. correct the inatrument technique
problema before proceeding. If the results are
acceptable. analyze the other two calibration
au mixturn in the same manner. Prepare the
ca1ibratiDn curve by uaing the least sguaru
method.
Analyze the two field audit lamples a.
deacribed in Section 8.5 by connectin8 each
TedJar bag containina an audit pi mixture to
the lampling valve. Calculate the results:
record and report the data to the audit
aupeniaor. If the ranltl are acceptable.
proceed with the anaJysil of the IOUJ'CII
NlDplea.
Analyze the IOun:e gal IIIIIIIplea by
connecting each bag to the sampling valve
with a piece 01 Teflon tubing identified with
that bq. Follow the restrictions on repticate
NlDpln lpeCified for the calibration pm.
Record the data. Analyze the o~ two b..
I18111pIee 01 lOUrCe pi in the same manner.
After aU three beg_pin have been
analyzed. repeat the analysis 01 tha
calibratiOD gu mixtllres. U.. the average of
the two calilntion CI1I'Ve8 to determine the
re~a_p.am~ntratioM.Ifthe~
calibration CID'Y" differ by more than 5
peramt from their IDea value. then report
the final nnIta by both calibration ~
7.1.8 DetermiDatian 01 Bag Water V8pCIr
Conteal Mea- tha ambiat temperatun
UId barometric preaure near the beg. Fram a
water aaturatioa vapor prell1In! table.
determine aDd NCOI'd the _tar vapor
content of the bag al a decimal figure.
(AasuiDe the relative bamidity to be 100
percent anleaa a le- ..lua ilknoWILI
u.. the field 8D8lytical data sheet a.
aho- in F"IIUN 1&-11. The 8heet baa bea
dnipled to tabulate informatiOlt from the b..
collectioa, direct interface. UId dilutioa
interface ayatellll; a. a result, not aU of the
requested iDformatioD will appIJ to 8DY
lingle method. Note the data that do DOt
apply with.the aotalic8 "NA" Sammariz8
the aaalJ8ia.
7.z Direct 111--- s..~ aDd
Analy.iI Procedura. The direct intedae»
procedure can be used provided that the
moilture content 01 the gn does DOt interfere
with the aaalyaia procedure. the pbysic81
requirementa 01 the equipmnt can be _t at
the lite. and the IOan:8 ... coaceatratioa ia
low enoup that detector aaturatiOD i8 DOt a
problem. Adhere to all aafetJ req\o4-.xa
with thD method. .
7.%.1 Apparel-.
7.2.1.1 Probe. Canalraded of fWaJea8
iteeL Pyrex ..... Or TefIGD tabia8 ..
required'" d8d tmnpet'8ture. I.4-m8 00.
enlarged at dud end tD c:oatain glue woaI
plUS. If necel88!')'. heat the probe widI
heating tape or a .pecial beatins WIit capebIe
. 01 maiDtainia8 dud tl!mpenltIIre.
7.2.1.% Sample LiDea. 6.'- 00 TefJOII
linea. bellt-tr8Ced 10 pre'Vat c:aodeaaatioD GI
material -
7.2.1.3 Qaic:k CaaaedIL To CIIJIIJII!d
lample line to p8 ....,plift! .aI.. 011 GC
inltroment and to pamp ait 88ed ..
withdraw sonrce gaa. U.. a quick CUM8CI or
equivalent on the cylinder or baS CODtaininI
calibration aU to .llow connection of die
calibration gas" the... aamplins val...
7.2.1.4 Thermocouple Readout Orrice.
Potentiometer or digital tbenaometer. tD
measure soW'Ce temperature and pro~
temperature.
7.2.1.5 Heated Gal Samplina Valve. Of
two-poaition. lix-port dnign. to allow lample
loop to be purged wid!. source 181 or 10 direct
10urce ga. into the ~ inltrumeDt.
7.2.1.8 Needle ValYe. To control gal
aampling rate from the eoarce.
7.%.1.7 Pump. LeakJeu Tefloa-coated
diaphragm-type pump or equivalent. capable
01 lit lent 1 liter/minute sampling rate.
7.2.1.8 Flowmeter.. Of suitable ranp to
mea.ure sampling rate.
7.%.1.9 Charcoal AdlortJer. To adaarb
organic vapor collected from the 10urce to
prevent exposure 01 personael to aoUfC8 ....
7.2.1.10 Cas Cylinders. Carrier gaa
(helium or nitrogen). and oxygen aDd
hydrogen for a flame ionization detectar (F1D)
if one iI uaecL
7.2.1.11 Ga. Chromatograph. Capabla of
be~ moved into the field. with datector. ....
heated saa lamp!ina valve. collllDD ~
to complete separation 01 deaired
componenta. and option for temperature
programmin&.
7.2.1.12 RecardIr/1DteptaE. To rwconi
relults.
7.2.2 Procechue. TD ob&aiD a aampl8.
a.aemble the aampliDa 8J.tem .. ebowa iD
F"JIUle 1&-1%. Make .ure all COIIII8Ctiona ..
tight. Tuna on the probe ad aample line
beaters. ,.. the temperature of the probe ad
heated line approachel the source
temperature.. indicated OD the
thermocouple readout device. control the
heaq to maiD1ain a temperatura of 8 to 3.C
above the Ioun:8 tempenatUl'a. Wbi)e the
probe and healed line are beiDa beetad.
disconaec:t the aample liDe from the 8M
aamplil18 val... and attach the line fro. the
calibration pa mixture. Flaah the aample
loop with calibntiOD pa and analyze .
portion of that .... Record the raaItI. AftI!r
the calibratioa au sample baa been fluahed
into the GC iaatrument. tarn the 1188 .ampliDl
valve to Dub position. tbeII reconnect the
probe aample line to the ..lve. Move the
probe to the aamplilll poeitioB. and draw
source p' into the probe. heated line. and
lample loop. After thorouah fltIIhiDs. aaal,.
the sample ulq the aame conditiODl .. ,.
the calibration 1188 mixture. Repeat the .
analysia on 811 additional aample. Meuare
the peak una lor the two samples. ad if
they do not a&ree to within 5 percent of t1Ietr
mean value. anal,. additioaall8lllplea until
twe COIII8CUtive _1,..!Met this criteria.
Record the data. After coaaiatnt resulta ...
310
obtMned. ~ die pnbe front the ICIInI
and analyze. aeconcl calibratiClft ..
mixture. Record ttri8 talibration data and ilia
other required data on the data theet lhown
in Figure 1&-11. deleting the dilution ..
information.
(Note.-Take care to draw aU .amplea.
calibration mixturaa. and audits lIInMIab.tIIe
sample loop at the IMI8 presaura.)
III addition. aaa1)'ze the field audit aa....
by connecting the audit aample cyIinden t.
the ga. .ampling valva. U.. the ..me
instrument aonditioas .. - used far the
lOurce lamples. Record the data. and I'IpIIIt
the reeulta of thaa ualJ181 &0 the audit
wp~ .
7.3 DilutiOD Interface SampliDI and
Analy. Procedure. Source aampln that
contain a high COIlCelltratioD of organic
ma teriaw may require dilution prior to
analyli. to preveDt aatmatin& the GC
detector. The appantaa required lor thie
diiect interface procedure il basically the
.ame .. that delCribed ID the Section 7.z.
exCllpt a dil.tiOD 8Jltem I. Idded between
the heated ..mple line aDd the gn I8111pliJlg
valva. The apparataals arnnged 10 thlt
ei ther a 10:1 or 100:1 dilution of the aoarce
gal can be directed to the chromatograph. A
pump of laraer capacity i. allo required. IIId
this pump mUlt be belted and placed in the
IYltem between the aample line and the
dilutioa appIIratua.
7.3.1 Apparatua. The equipment requiNd
iD addition to that lpeCified for the direc:t
interface aystem ill a. '0110"'1:
7.3.L1 Sllmple Pump. Lnklea Tellu.
coated diaphragm-type that can withstand
being beated to"UD"C aDd deliver 1.51iter1J
minute.
7.3.1.2 DIhstkm Pumps. Two Model A-lSO
Komhyr Tefton po8iti.. diaplacement type
deliverin8 150 cc/mimrte. or equivalent. AI
an option. calibrated flowmeters I:8n be URd
in conjunatioa with Teftcm-c:oated diapbrqal
pwapl.
7.3.1.3 Valva. Two Teftoa thrIe-way
valves. IDitable for COIIIItIding to 8.4-1111D CD
Teflon tubm,. .
7.3.1.4 Flowmetera. Two. for mealUftlllllll
01 diluent gas. expected delivery fiow rate tll
be 1.350 cc/miD. .
7.3.1.5 Diluent Cas with Cyf1nden and
Regulatora. eal can be rUtrogen er cleaD cIrJ
air. depenciina on the natura 01 the aoarc:e
ga.ea.
7.3.U . Heated Box. Suitable lor beia8
beated to l2O"C. to c:antaiD the three JIIIIIIII8-
three-way val.... aad uaociated
connectiona. 1be box .hould be equipped
with quick connect 6ttiap 10 facilitate
connectioa of: (11 The heated .ampIe IiaI
from the probe. (Z) the gu -pIiDa valn. (3)
the calibratioa saa mixturea. and (oil dilUlll1
gallinel. A .chematic: di.qram of the
componenta and conn-oae ia aIIowniD
Figure 1~u..
(No~.1118 be tak8D to leak c:bar:!&
the aystem prior to !be diluti0D8 .. .. DIll 10
create a potentially expiaIiY8 Itmo.,..,1
The heated ~ IhCJWD in F1pre 1"1' II
designed to rec:eiYe a bnted line from the
probe. AD optional desigD ia to build a pIaIIe
unit that 8tta!=hea diradly to the ba8I8d ...
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 48. No. 202 I Tuesday. October 18. 1983 I Rules and Regulations
48349
In thil way. the heated box contains the
control. for the probe heatera. or. if the box I.
placed alaiDlt the duct being u.mpled. It may
be p088ible to eliminate the probe heatera. In
either cue. a heated Teflon !iDe 18 U88d to
c:onnect the beated box to the ... umpliDa
valve on the chromatograph.
1.3.1 Procedure. Anemble the appulltua
. by ccmnectinI the beated box. Mown In
F'JI1U'I1"13. between the heated AlDple line
from the probe and the sa. ..mplq mve on
the chromatDlJrlpb. Vent the 8OUJ'Ce ,., from
the pi 88JDP!iDa valve direct1y to the
clwcoal mter. elimiDatiDt the pump aDd
rotameter. Heat the I81Dple probe. sample
1Ine. aDd beated box. Insert the probe and
IOUl'Ce thermocouple at the centroid of the
dueL Mea8U1'8 the 1OUfC8 temperature. aDd
.dlut all beatiD8 unitl to a temperature 0 to
3.C above thI8 temperature. If thi8
temperature I. abOve the ..fe operating
temperature of the Teflon componenta. adjult
the beatina to maintain a temperature high
enouP to prevent c:ondenAtiOD of watlH' and
Ill'lllniC compounda. Verify the operatiOD of
the dilution lfIIem by anaIyzIq a bigb
concentration pa of known compoaition
tbrouP either the 10:1 or 100:1 dilutiOD
.tqe8. I' Ippropriate. (If nec:euary, vary the
now of the diluent pt to obtain other .
dilution ratios.) Determine the CODCeDtr8tioa
of the diluted calibration gaa Ulq the
dilution factor and the calibration CUI'Y88
prepered in the1aboratory. Record the
pertinent data on the data Meet 8hown ill
F!pre 1..11. If the data on the diluted
calibrltion pi are not within 10 percent of.
the expected values. determine whether the
cbromatDlJrlpb or the dnution 8)'8tem 18 ill
error. and correct It Verify the GC operation
uin!lalow COIICeDtration standard by
dlvertina the gal into the I8IDple loop. .
hypalllDa the dilution Iystem. If theM
analysel are not withill acceptable limita.
corract the dilution ayatem to provide the
duired dilution factora. Make thi8 correction
by dilutina a m,IH:oncentration ltandard ...
mixture to adjUit the dilution ratio u
required. .
Once the dilutioD aYatem and GC
operatiODl are ..tiefactory, proceed with the
anaIysil of 1OUfC8 gal, mailltainiD8 the same
dilution seltiD8t u used for the atandarda. .
Repeat the analy... until two canaecutiYtt
values do not vary by more than 5 percant
from their mean value are obtained.
Repeat the analysis of the calibration "I
mixturel to verify equipment operation.
Analyze the two field audit aamplea uaiD8
either the dilution aystem. or directly COIID8ct
to the laa ump!iDa valve aa required. Record
all data and report the multi to the audit
lupervisor.
1.4 Adaorption Tube Procedure
(Alternative Procedure). It 18 augetted that
the teater refer to the NationallDatitute of
Occupational Safety and Health (MOSH)
method for the particular OI'Ianica to be
aampled. The principallnterferent will be
water vapor. If water vapor ia pnlHDt at
COnCIDtratiODl above 3 percent. silica pi
ahouid be used ill front of the charcoaL
Where men than one compouDCi it preaent ill
the emlllioDl, then develop relative
adaorptiie capadty information.
741 Adchtional Apparatul.1n addition to
the Iq1Iipment liatad in .. NlOSH method
for the particular orpnic(s) to be aampled.
the followiDt item8 (or equivalent) are
ngeated. .
7.4.1.1 Probe (Optional). BoruIilicate tI...
or atainl... steeL approximatel-y 8-mm m..
with a bealiD8 ayatem If water condenntion
fa a problem. and a mt. (either in-atack or
out-ltack beated to Iteck temperature) to
remove particulate matter. In mast inataDc:e8,
a plug of tI... wool it a I8tiafactory filter.
7.4.1..2 Flexible Tubq. To CODDect probe
to adaorption tube8. U- a material that .
exhibitl miDima1 AlDple adsorption.
7.4.1.3 LeaJde.. Sample Pump. Flow
controlled. COD8Iant rate pump. with a let of
limitiDI (lODic) orificea to provide pumpina
rates from approximately 10 to 100 cc/mm.
-7."1.4 Bubble-Tube Flu.....etel. Volume
accuracy within % 1 percent. to calibrate
pump.
7.4.1.5 Stopwatch. To time aampJiDs and
pump rate calibration.
7.4.1.8 Adaorption Tubes.. Similar to onea
apecified by NlOSH. except the amoanta of
adsorbent per primary lbackup 18cti0Dl are
aID ID8 for charcoal tubes and UMO/Z80
ID8 for ailica pi tuba. A8 an altemative. the
tubes may contain a porous polymer
adsOrbent neb aa Tenax GC or XAD-z.
".4.1.7 Barometer. Accurate to 5 DIm HJ.
to meuare atmoapberic pnaare duriDt
I81Dplq and pump calibration.
7.4.1.8 Rotameter. 0 to 100 cc/mm. to
detect changea in Dow rate durin8 aampUq.
7.4.2 SampIiDa and Analyaia. 11 18
augeated that the teeter follow the lilmpling
and analyaia portion of the rnpective NlOSH
method aection entitled "Procedure."
Calibrate the pump and limitint orifice flow
rate through adaorption tubes with the bubble
tube Dowmeter before aampq The u.mple
l)'ltem can be operated aa a "recirculatiDI
loop" for thi8 operation. Record the ambient
temperature and barometric preuure. Then.
durins I81DPIing. U88 the rotameter to verify
that the pump and orifice .....pliDs rate
remaiJJt COD8tant
Uae a sample probe. If required. Minimize
. the length of Dexible tubiDc between the
probe and ad8orption tuba. Several
adaorptiOD tubes can be gmaected ill ..ma.
if the extra adaorptive capadty it needed.
Provide the au tample to the aample ayalem
at a preuure auffident for the limiting orifice
to function u a sonic orifice. Record the totL.:
time and sample flow rate' (or the number of
pump Itrokea), the barometric p,"aunt. and
.ambient temperature. Obtain a tota188JDPle
wo1ume COIDIIIeII8Ufate with the expected
caDC:eDtration{a) of the wlatile orpnic{a)
prnent. and recommended aample loadq
faetora {weisht aample per wei8ht ad80rption
media). Laboratory testa prior to actual
aampliDa may be D8C8I8UY to predetenDiDe
thia volume. When more than ODe orpDic: 18
preeent ill the emiaaiona, then develop
relative adsorptive capacity iDformation. If
water vapor it preeent ill the aample at
concentrationa aboYe 2 to 3 perc8ftt. the
adsorptive capacity may be aeverely reduced.
Operate the SU cbromatOll'8pb acc:ordiDt to
the manufacture'a iDttructiona. After
eatablisbinl optimum conditiODl. verify and
document these conditiou cIuriJII aD.
operationa. ADalyze the audit tampl.. (aee
Section 7.404.3); then the emiIIion aampIa.
311
Repeat the analyai. ofI8ch aample until the
relative deviation of two conaecutive
.injections does not exceed 5 percent.
7.4.3 Standards and Calibration. The
atandards can be prepared ac:cardina to the
respective NIOSH method. Uae a minimum of
three different atandarda: aelect the
concentrationa to bracket the expected
average I81Dple caacentration. PerfonD the
calibration before and after 88Cb day'.
aample 'ana1yaea. Prepare the calibration
curve by uslDg the least IQuant8 method.
7.4.4 Quality Aisurance. ,
7.4.4.1 . Determination ofDelorption
Effidency. Duriug the teat:int program.
determine the desorption effideru:y in the
expected aampla co.....cuh.tion I'8DI8 for
each batch of adsorption media to be uaed.
Use an internal atandard. ~um
desorption efficiency of 50 percent lhall be
obtained. Repeat the desorption
determination until the relative deviation of
two conaecuti". determinationa does not
exceed 5 percent. Uae the averqe daMJption
eftidency of these ~ COD88CUtive .
determinationa for the COIl ",tiutI specified ill
SectIon 7.4.4.5. If the desorption effidency of
the compound{a) of iDtM8t 18 quntioD8ble
under actuall8lDpliDa coaditI-. - of the
Method of Standard Ac:Iditiona may be
belpful to determine thia value.
. 7.404.2 Determination of S8mple
Coll~ction Efficiency. For the IOUJ'C8 ~l...
analJU the primary and backup portiaDa of
the adsorption tubes separately. If the backup
portion exceeda 10 percent of the total
amount (primary and backup). repeat the
aampliDa with al.araer' aampliDa portioa.
7.4.4.3 ADalym Audit Immediately
before the aample anaIyaea. analyze the two
audita ill accordaDce with Section 1.U The
analysia audit ahall ..... with !be audit
concentration with 10 percent
7.404.4 Pwnp IAak Checb and Volume
Flow Rate Checka. Perform both of these
ebew immediately after aampliDa with aD
aampling train componentl ill place. Pvform
aD leak check8 ac:cordiDg to the
manufacturer'a In8tructiona. and record the
nsulta. Uae the bubble-tube flowmeter to
meaaure the pump volume flow rate with the
orifice UIed in the teat aampllng. and the
result. If it hu changd by more than 5 bat
''!II than 20 percent. calculate an averqe
uow rate for the teat. U the flow rate has
changed by more thao 20 pen:at. recaIibrate
the pump and repeat the 181Dpliq.
7.404.5 Calculationa. All calculationa can
be performed accordina to the rnpective
. NIOSH method. Ccmect all aample volWDe8
to Itandard conditions. If a ..mple dilution
ay8tem has been ueed. multiply the raultt by
the appropriate dilution ratio. Coftect all
results by dividina by the de8orpt!on
efficiency (decimal value). Report reau1ta aa
ppm by volume. dry buia.
7.5 Reporting of Raulta. At the
. completion of the field anal,.. partioa of tha
atudy. enaure that the date tbeeta abown ill
f"J8W'I1~11 have been completed.
Summarize thI8 data 011 the data abeeta
abown ill Fipre ~15.
a. Bib1iopzphy
1. Americ8D Society forTeatiD8 aiid
Materiala. C. ~ C. Hydrocarbona in
-------
48350
Federal Rezisw I Vol. 48. No. 202 I Tuesday, October 18. 1983 I Role. and Regulationi
-
the Atmosphere by Gu Cuumatoaraphf.
ASTM D ~72. Put a ptu1..d"lptoaa. Pa.
23:9~1973..
2. Coruon. V. V. MethodolosJ for
Collectins and Analyzing Organic Air
Pollutants. U.s. Environmental ProtectiOD
A,ency. Publication No. EPA-800j~
Febroary 1979.
3. Drnnieb. A.. B. K. KnrtoszynR:f. J.
Whitfield, A. O'DolmeD. met T. Burpald.
Eovirorm:mrt81 Science md T~I08J.
5(12):12t&-12ZZ. 11"11.
4. EgmJen. P. T~ aDd P. M. Nelsen. GM
Chromatoaraphic Analylia of Engine ~
and Almolphere. ADalytical Chemistry. JfJIIj:
1~1oa. "'19511.
5. FeairheUer. W. It. P. J. MUD. D. H.
Harris. and D. L. Hurls. TeclmicaI Manual
for Process SampliDs Strateps far Orpnic
Materials. U.s. Eovjronmental Protection
Aaenqr. Research Trianale Park. N.c. .
Publicatiola No. EPA eoo/~12Z. April197&.
17Zp.
8. FR. 39 FR 93D-9323. 197
-------
J. "'''.' 'OIIIpa"1
Addr'lI
Dat.
Contactl
'hone
ProCIIi to be IUlp1td
Duct or v.nt to bl lI!IIp1td
II. Proclls description
Rawmatert.1
.. .
(JO
......
(JO
. .
- l
Products
,
.
Operating C'II:18
Ch.lck; BU'h Conttnuous -. - Cyc11c
Timing of batch or cyc1t
lISt till. to nit
Jigurt 18-1. 'r.'imin,ry survey data sheet.
121
III. Sa8p1tng Itt.
~. DescrtpUon
stt. descrtptt~
Duct shape and sb,
Matt,t,1
Va11 tbtckness
Upstrlam dtstance ;
Downstream distanct
5111 of port
Sfl. of 'CC'SI ,r..
Hazards
tnches
tnches
tnches
diameter
diameter
B. Properttes of gas str.a.
Temperature --.....C ~F. Oata source
Ve10cttl . Olta source
Static Prlssure ----tnches H~O. Olta source
Moisture content S. Olta source
P,rttcu1ate content . Olta source
Gaseous components
"2 S
02 I
CO I
C02 S
502 I
Hydrocarbon components
Preliminary survey data sheet.
Figure 18..1 (Clnt1nued).
12,
Ambient temp.
Hrdrocarbons - ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
p~
ppm
"11
(II
0..
(II
DJ
-
~
(II
1t9.
III
;-
.,
-
eF
<:
9.-
.
~
Z
P
N
o
N
-
~
!:
(II
'"
C!-
po
':<
o
n
~
a
CT'
co
..,
.....
?>
.....
(Q
~
-
~
S-
et>
'"
Il>
:J
c..
~
ro
I~
;:::
o
;:I
en
~
CJI
....
-------
t. Samplfng consfderatfons
Locatton to i,t up lie
Components to be 'naly~ed
Expected concentration
Specfal haurds to be Goonsfdtred
Power avanabl, at duct
POtier Ivanabl, for IIC
Pllnt stftt1 r,qufrements
Su;ge.ted chromatoqraph1c column
VeMclt t"rlfffc rules
Column flow rat. _1I\1/m1n R.ad pre.sure- mm"9
Column temperature'
Isothermal .C
Pro;rammed from -----8C to ----8C at ~.C/m1n
Injectionport/lampl. loop temperature .C
Detector temperature .C
Detectot flow rat.s, Hydrogen -----ml/min.
he.4 pre.sur8---- mm H9
Air/OxY;8n ~l/m1n,
hea4 pre..ure- mm "9
inches/minute
Pllnt entry tequfrements
Securf t1 a grtlllllnts
Potentfal problems
00
.....
~
D. Sfte eNagrams.. (Attach ~dftfonal sheets if requfrtd).
" Figure 18-1 (contInued). Prelfminlr,y survey data sheet.
Chart .peed
Compound datal
Compound
Retention Ume
Attenuation
I'.) .
Figure 18-2.
Chromatographic conditions data .heet.
i..4
~
~
.,.,
CD
0-
CD
...
e?.
~
CD
z
~
N
o
N
-
~
c
m
(II
0-
III
':'=
o
~
o
c::r
CD
"'1
....
SX>
....
CD
CJ)
W
-
~
E-
m
1111
III
~
0-
~
CD
E-
li!
-
....
o
::J
{II
"
-------
Calib~ation Curve Oata - Volatile and
~iquid ...ple. Colleoted in . Tedl.~ ..;
Mix~ure Hix~ure
Ilank,.. 1 2
'i.8 of T.dlar b.V (liter.'
Dilution ,a. (n...)
Vol. of dilution ,a. (litarl)
Component (n...)
Volume of component (al)
Avarav. ..ter ta~p. (.C)
Avarag. .eter prallur. (na)
Atmo.phario pre.lur. (na)
Danlity of liquid component
(v/al)
Sample loop voluma (~l)
Sampla loop t.mp. (.CI
Carri.r ,a. flov rate (al/llin)
Column temperatura
initial (.CI
program rata (.C/min)
,Unal (.C)
Injection time (a4 hr. b.liA)
~ Dhtance to peak (eml'
U1 Chart IpaeeS (=/minl
aetention time (ain)
Calculated concentration (ppm)
Attenuator .ettin;
'uk hlight (II1II)
'uk ana (.,.2)
Area . .tt.~u.tion
-
Mixture
J
.lot p..k ar.. x attanuation .,.1nlt con~antration to obtain
c.11br.t1on curve.
--
Figure 18-3.. C811brIUon curv. daU .hut . 1nJecUon
of v011tt1. ...p1. into T.d1lr big.
-'
-'-
Id
l
CD
..
!.
=a
CD
~.
QI
-
CD
..
-
~
"..
p:»
Z
?
I'-.)
S
-
~
CD
tn
~
':c:
o
s:!-
o
cr'
~
.....
~
.....
~
to)
-
:;tI
E.
111
UI
~
~
:;tI
CD
~
II)
t:t.
o
e
12G
E
~
Rotameter n~er
S.S used
Method: Bubble ..eter- Spirometer - Wet test ",ter
Rotameter construction
F1 oa t type
Laboratory temperature (T obs.) .C
Laboratory pressura (P obs.) _in Hg
.F
an Hg
1.
Flow rate
Flowmeter readinG Time (min) Gas volumea (lIb condltlons)b
. Vol. of 91s may be ..e.surld in milliliters. liter. or cubic f.et.
b Convert to "tlndlrd conditions (209; C .nd 760 1m H9).
760 ~ T obs. 1/2
QSTD . ~b. l' obi. x m-
F1owmeter'read1nQ
F10w rate (STD conditions)
"ot .eter r.ading against f10w rate (std) Ind draw smooth curve.
Figure 18-4. Rotameter Cl1lbr.t1on date sheet.
-------
48354
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 202/ Tuesday, October 18.1983/ Rules and Regulations
.,. ~C1OR
COMPONOO
GAS
CYUNDEI
\
/'
\
CALIBRAtED ROTAMmRS
wmt ROW aJI1RCI.
VALVES
1DUR lAC
DJt.IDT
GAS
~
o
FftIIN 11-5. Stll91e-sbge caU""tt. 9U 4t1wtt. QStI&
HIGH
mNCOnRATD8
WASTE
--~ ~
~ ~
..
CONCDIIRAt8
GAS
PlESSURE
I8iUtAIOI
DIUJOIt All
DIlUOIf AIR
PUR( SUISTANa 01
PUR( SUISTIIICŁ/Nz MJX1UR(
Ff.-e 18-6. T~sUgt dt,-t. .........
316
-------
~.
BŁVh co"~~n~~.~Ło" .. ~x~u~.
Co.po".n~ Conc.n~~.~1o"
D11u.n~ V..
D11u~1on and lnaly.1. .~.
J.
SUge 1
Componlnt ,a.-rotameter l'ea41n;
Dilulnt ;I,-rotamltlr rea4in;
Ambient tlmp. C.CI
Hanometer re.4in,. inche. HzO
Flow rate componlnt ,ae (m1/minl
Flow rate diluent ,a. (ml/min)
litag. ~
Component ,a,-rotameter r..4in,
Diluent ,a,-rotamlter rea41n9
'low rate componlnt ,a. (ml/min)
Flow rate diluent ,a. (ml/min)
Calculated concentration (ppm)
Mixture 1
t.IO
~
"-J
Analy.h
Sample loop volW118 (81)
lamPle loop temp. (.C)
Carrier 9a. flow rate (ml/minl
Column temperature
initial (.C)
pro, ram rate (.C/81nl
Unal (.CI
Injection timl C24-u.- ~ad8)
Di.tance to plak (inche'l
Chart 8peed (inch/minI
..t.ntion time (81nl
Att.nuatar factor
r.ak h.ight (mml
Peak ana (I11III2)
Area x Attenuation factor Cmm2)
Plo~ peak ar.a x attenuator factor
obtain'ca"bration curv..
Pplll
Dat.
Mixtur. 2 Mixture 3
a,ain.t conc.ntration ~o
Figurt~18-7. Catibratlon curve ~\ta Iheet -
dttution ..thod.
1,9
3. - IopV Cbnc.n~~.~1ol\ a~...4.d
~oWl\ COI\C.I\~~.~1ol\ (PP8)
a.~.n~ion t1.. (81n)
Injection U.. '(Z4-lIour'ISh)
~~tenuadon factor
P.ak bd,ht (III)
'uk ana (..2)
'.ak ana. attenuadon (...2)
Calculated ooncentration (ppml
Deviadon Ctl
~. Audit lample.
Ret8ntion time (min)
Inje.ctiora time 24-hour bash)
Attenuation factor
'Iak hdliht (nn)
'uk ana (.2)
'Iak arIa x attenuation factor
Hla,ured concentration
~ta raported on Cdatel
Data reported by (initial I
~.rtified conclntration (ppml
Deviadon C'I '
Sampll 1
sample 2
."
~
~
"
~.
~
'"
-
<:
o
~
~
5»
Z
?
~
N.
-
;;i
ID
en
P-
ili
':'=
o
n
-
o
C""
ID
....
~
!XI
Note.
If a.pump i8 u.ed in8tee4 of a rotameter for component ,a5
flow, 8~8t1tut. pump delivery rata for rotametlr rla4in,I).
FIgure 18-7 (Conttnued). tatibratton curve data sheet -
dttiltion ..thod.
IJv
~
to
CD
c.:>
-
:;0
g.
ID
CII
III
::1
P-
:;0
111
E-
III
:::r.
o
::1
en
~
I:Jt
en
-------
48356
Pederal RegIster I Vol. 4& Na. 2OZ. J TueadaJ. October-1& 1988/ Rules and Regulationa
SYRINGE
BOIlING
WATER
BArn
MIDGET
- IMPINGER
HOT PLATt
NITROGEN
CYlINDER
n...,. 18-8. Jpparatus for "..nttca of l'qat. -terl.1s.
S1ACI
WML
-R- D
ClASS laD ...
.eo
-------
Federal Register I Vol 48. No. 202 I Tuesday, October 18.1983 I Rules and Regulations
48357
PYC Tubin,
"nclt C1.,
F1CM1eter
Of recti.. 1
Need1. '.19.
Probe
5' Ttf1CJft Tub'n,
GF"OIIIIII!t
.~
1\..
. .-.
. .-.
.
. Atr Tf9ht Stee1 en.
s.p1e 'a,
. '.
.
.
. .
.
,. . .
, :
. .
. .
. .
. 1
. .. -",.
EYaaated Stee1
DruI
..
Figure 18-9a. Explosio" risk gas sampling method.
Pllnt
Stte
~u
S11:I1I1. 1
$amp" Z
$l1IIp" 3
Source temperlture ("C)
1&m'e~1c preSS1lf'1 (II1II Hg)
A:ier.t ~rltgre C8C)
$&:;1. naw rib (IPpr. )
lLillIIIIIbtr
Start tf..
F1"fsb t1a:
Ffgure 15-10. Field Simple lSati sh~t - Te41.r
big co1'ection ~thcd.
319
-------
'lant
J.ocaUon
Dat.
1.
G.n.~al ~nform.tlon
lou~e. te.p.~ature (.C)
'~obe t'mp.~atur. (.C)
Ambient t.mp.~.tur. (.C)
Atmo.phl~lc p~I"ur. (~)
Sou~c. p~I"U~. ("89)
Ab.olute .ourel pre..ure (~I
lamplin, ~ate (lite~/~n)
S8IIIple 100' vo1U111. '(11111
Sample loop tempe~atu~e I.C)
Columna~ temperetu~el
Initial (.C)/time (~n)
,rovr8111 rate (.C/minl
Final (.CII ttN (lIIin)
C.rrie~ ,a. flow ~ate (ml~n)
Detector tempel'atul'e '(.C)
Injection t1ae (34-IIDur buts)
Ch.~t Ipeed (mm/~n)
00
NI
o
Dilution V.. flow I'ate (ml/lllin)
Dilution G.I uled (ly8bo1)
DUuUon ntio
Ftgure 18-11. ftlld analysis data slliits.
2. ?i.1d Analy.i. Data - Calibration Ca.
aun No. '1'1l1li
~ompon.nt' !!!! Attenuation A x A ractor
Jh'n No.
Component.
JWn No.
fomponentl
,
!Ł!.!.
-
!Ł!!.
'rial.
Attenuation
'1'1111.
Attenuation
A x A 'Ictor
A X A ractor
Cone. (ppm)
Cone:. Ippml
COhC, (tlpm)
'tOure '8~11 (conttnuad). Fte'd ana'Jsts data sheets.
I
~
[
i
ff
-
<
f?.
~
Z
?
~
-
~
m
$"
o
n
6'
C"
~
,.a
SO
~
~
-
i
111
..
[
~
i-
III
~
g
GO
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 202 / Tuesday. October 18. 1983 / Rules and Regulations
48359
Heated Line
Fro.'ll Prcbe
u
Quick
Connect
Source
Gas Pump
1.5 L/Hin
1C
II(ADIUI
,. C IIWICJUJ
01
CDmItWI
81Ł.19 ftRtltUtl(
INSCUnCit
1DII"OIAftIU
CDIII'IKUD
I
I0IO CAS
SNIIPlIIC YAW
"G C
Figure 18.12. Direct tnterf.ce salllp11n9 systs.
\(ent to Charcoal Adsorbers
----- ---- -------
10:1
100:1
Quick Connects
To Gas Sample
Val~
150 cc/Hi"
Pump
Check Valve
Quick Connects
For Calibration
----------------------------lC
Heated Box at 120°C Or Source Temperature
Figure 18-13. Schematic diagram of the heated box required
for dilution of sample gas.
'IWHO COOE ~5O-C
321
. R-.J
lOC t 1.s1~
III"
F1 owrneters
(On Outside
Of Box)
Flow Rate Of
1350 cc/Hi"
-------
48360
Federal Register / VoL 48, No. 202 / Tuesday, October 18. 1983 / Rules and Regulations
-
Gaseous Organic Sampling and Analysis
Check List
(Respond with initials or number as
appropriate)
1 ~u" e}" dat.:
A. Grab IImpl. colu.c.od ..................
Ii Grab IImpl. analyud lor corn-
posltion.____.-.-.-.....-...-... .
Mothod GC ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
GCIMS ""'-""''''''''
Other ................"""
C. CC-F1D ana1ysis performed..._....
Z. Laboratory ulibratlOn data:
A. Calibr1l"0n CU1Ve-s prepa~........
Nwnber of compcment, "'m
Number of concentra.
tions/component (3 re-
qwrod) ..-..........................
B. Audll Ampl.s lophonal):
AnalyslJ completed............
Venfied for concentra-
tion n_....__........-...-..........,.
OK oblalned lor field
work _............,.. ........_..
3. Sampling proc:edura:
A. Methocl:
Boil nmp~e .......-.--......--...
Dire<:! inmiace.._..............
Dilu"on mteriace '_"_0_".
B. Number 01 tamples collec:lod .....:
t. Field analyalJ;
A. TOlal hydrocarbon analy.i.
perfonned........---........--.....
B. Calibrauon curve preparod .-.....
Nwnber 01 compon.enu _n.
Number of C
-------
Ii
~ ~
i~
~ „
~
'"
t
.
.!
Complny
Lac. lion
Company represenrl.iv8
Ob.IIV..
Affllistion
FUGITIVE OR SMOKE EMISSION INSPECTION
OUTDOOR LOCATION.
Dall
Sky Condi,ions
Precipi.l.ion
Wind dillctlon
Wind ,pI.d
Induslry
Process unit
Skelch plocess uni.; indlc", obulVlr position ..I.IIVI 10 SOUICI and sun; indlc,," porlnria'
em'5Slon pOlnlllnd/or actual emiSSion poin...
OBSERVATION'
(jQ
N)
(jQ
alg'n Observallon
End obS8rvioon
Clack
lime
Figur. 22.'
7
143
Observation
period
dur8l1on.
min:s.c
Accumula..d
Imislion
tim..
min SfC
Fugi~ivc Rni!islon In~rect.ian Irdoor Locat.ion Table
Canpany
Location
nx;rrI VE DlISSIet! INSPECl'Iet!
INDOOR - UJeAT let!
(j)servee
At f U latlon
Canpany Ropresentatlve
Date
Inc1ustry
Pcocess unit
LI\Jht type (fluorescent, Incandescent, natueal
Llyht location (overhead, behind observer, etc. I
Illuminance (lux oe footcandlesl
Sketch peocess unit, inc1icate obscrvee position relative to aoucce, Indicate potential
emission points and/oe actual emission pnlnts.
OOSERVPJICtlS
Clock
time
Beginning observation
DId obssrvatlon
flguee 22-2
- 144 -
Cbserva tlon
reeled
dueatlon ,
mln:aec
Accumulated
emission,
time,
mlnssec
"!1
a-
CD
eL
~
(II
~.
-
CD
...
-
<
o
r-'
~
Z
o
N
a
N
-
..;
~
nI
'"
0.-
IIJ
~
o
n
o
cr'
(1)
....
.....
9'
.....
(0
~
-
~
E.
(1)
'"
IIJ
::!
0.-
~
(1)
~
IIJ
c::t.
o
::!
en
~
0)
~
-------
324
-------
-
~
-
..=
-
-
-
-
-
- -
--~ == -
. -- -
- === =
-. -== =
.- ..E
---
- -
---
---
- -::.
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
-
-
=- = ~
- - -
- - -
-- -=-=-
~ ~
~ =.=-~
- -
- - -
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
--
:::;
- - -
5L- 55 -=
325
Tuesday
October 18, 1983
Part IV
Environmental
Protection Agency
Standards of Performance for New
Sources; Pressure Sensitive Tape and
Label Surface Coating Industry
-------
48368
Federal Register I Vol. 48. No. 202 I Tuesday. October 18.1983 I Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[AD-RIL 2224-6]
Standards of Performance for New
Sources; Pressure Seos.!ive Tape and
Label Surface Coating Industry
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: Standards of performance for
the pressure sensitive tape and label
surface coating industry were proposed
in the Federal Register on December 30.
1980 (45 FR 86278). This action
promuJgates a standard of perfomIance
to limit emissions of volatile organic
compound ('JOC) from new, modified.
and reconstructed pressure sensitive
tape and label coating lines. This
standard implements Section 111 of the
Clean Air Act and is based on the
Administ."ator's determination that
industrial paper coa ting facilities
contribute significantly to air pollution
which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public hea!th or welfare.
Pressure ser.sitive tape and label
manufacturing is one of the largest
contributors to air pollution in the
industrial paper coating category. The
intended effect of the standard is to
require all new. modified. and
rei:onstructed pressure sensitive tape
and label surface coating lines to use the
best demonstrated system of continuoua
emU.ion. reduction. considering coats.
nonair quality heaJth. and
environmentaJ and energy impacts.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 18, 1983.
Under Section 307(bJ(1) of the Clean
Air Act. judicial review of this new
source performance standard is
available only by the filing of 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 rule. Under Section 307(b)(2) of the
Clean Air Act, the requirements that are
the subjei:t of today's notice may not be
challenged later in civil or criminal
proceedings brought by EPA to enforce
these requirements.
ADDRESS: Background Information
Document. The background information
document (BID) for the promulgated
standard may be obtained from the U.S.
EPA Ubrary ~5). Research Triangle
Park. North Carolina 27711. telephone
number (919) 541-2777. Please refer to
"Pressure Sensitive Tape and Label
Surface Coating Industry-Background
Infonnation for PromuJgated Standards"
(EPA 450/3-60-003b). The BID contains:
(1) A summary of all of the public
comments made on the proposed
standards and the Administrator's
response to the comments; and (2) a
summary of the changes made to the
regulation aince proposal. The final
environmental impact statement which
summarizes the impacts of the standard
is included in "Pressure Sensitive TIJpe
and Label Surface Coating Industry-
Background Information for
Promulgated Standards" (EPA 450/~
003b). The environmental impacts have
not changed since proposal.
Docket. Docket number A-79-38.
containing information conside~ by
EPA in the development of the
promuJgated standard. is available for
public inspection betWeen 8:00 a.m. and
4;00 p.m.. Monday through Friday. at
EPA's Central Docket Section (A-I30).
West Tower Lobby. Gallery 1.401 M
Street. SW. Washington. D.C. Z048O. A
reasonable fee may be charged for
copying.
FOR FUATHER INFOAMATtON CONTACT:
Mr. Fred Porter, Section Chief.
Standards Development Branch.
Emissions Standard and Engineering
Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park. North Carolina 27711. telephone
(919) 541-5578.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OMB
Control Number: 2060-0004.
Tbe Standarda
Standards of performance for new
sources established under Section 111 of
the Clean Air Act reflect:
. . . application of the best
tei:hnological system of continuous
emissions reduction which (taking into
consideration the COlt of achieving such
emissions reduction. and any nonair
quality health and environmental impact
and energy requirements) the
Administrator determines has been
adequately demonstrated [Section
111(a)(I)].
For convenience. this will be referred
to a8 "best demonstrated tJ!chnology" or
BOT.
The promuJgated standard applies to
each new. modified, and reconatructed
pressure sensitive tape and label coating
line for which construction is
commenced after December 30. 198). A
coating line consists of any number or
combination of adhesive. release. or-
precoat coating applicators. flash off
areas. and drying ovens which coat a
continuous web. located between a web
unwind station and a web rewind
station. to produce pressure sensitive
tapes and labels. Each coating line
constitutes the affected facility for the
purposes of this IItandard.
326
Under the standard. emissions from
an affected facility would be limited to
0.20 kilograms of volatile organic
compounds (VOC) per kilogram of
coating solids applied to..the substrate
material. as measured by EPA Reference
Methods 24 and 25 [promulgated in the
Federal Register on October 3.1980 (45
FR 65956)]. As an alternative. the owner
or operator of the affected facility may
demonstrate either a 90 percent overall
VOC emissions reduction or an overall
emissions reduction which is equivalent
to the 0.20 kilograms per kilogram of
coating solids applied level. whichever
is less stringent. This overall emissions
reduction is based on the amount of
solvent applied with the coating solids,
In establishing the standard. EPA
accounted for emissions from startups
and shutdowns. which are nonnal
occurrences and hence representative
conditions for this source category. As a
result. all data obtained during the
performance test is to be ulled in
calculating removal efficiency. except
for data obtained during malfunction of
. a control device. In this instance only,
data may be discarded provided the
source demonstrates that a malfunction
occurred and also demonstrates that
any discarded data is clearly
attributable to the malfunction.
Compliance will then be determined on
all remaining data.
Compliance with the standard can be
determined over a calendar month
averaging period by Reference Method
24 or by manufacturer's data. For
coating lilies which are controlled by
incineration systems. Reference Method
25 or an approved alternative method
will be used for perfonnance testing.
Coating lines which input to the
coating process 45 Mg (SO tons) of vac
or less per 12 month period are not
subject to the emission limits of the
proposed standard. but are subject to
the recardkeeping requirements of the
standard. If the 12 month limit stated
above is exceeded. the affected facility
becomes subject to the emission limits
and all other requirements of the
standard.
Compliance with the standard may be
achieved through either the addition of
control equipment to the facility, such as
carbon absorption or thennal
incineration. or through the use of low-
solvent coatings in the production
process. Certain coatings currently in
use in the pressure sensitive tape and
label surface coating industry. including
hot melt and waterborne adhesive
coatings. as well as 100 percent solid
and waterborne release coatings would
comply with the standard without the
addition of control equipment because
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 48. No. 202 I Tuesday, October rn. 1003" I Rules and Regulations
48369
they contain less than 0.20 kilograms of
. solvent per kilogram of coating solids
applied.
The standard requires the owners or "
operators of pressure sensitive tape aDd
label coating facilities to submit
semiannual r~ports of instances in
which the temperature fluctuations of an
incinerator control device and the VOC
emissioEls from an affected facility
exceed the allowable leveiJI established
in the standard. This requirement may
bl! waived in States where the program
has been delegated. if EPA in the course
of delegation. approves reporting
requirements or an alternative means of
source surveillance adopted by the
State. Such sources are required to
comply with the requirements adopted
by the State. .
Information collection requirements
contained in this regulation (Section
60.447) have been approved by the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. aDd have been a9Signed
OMB control number 2060-0004.
Summary of Environmental Energy and
Economic Impacts
In determining the environmental
impacts which will result from the new
source performance standard for the
pressure sensitive tape and label surface
coating industry. EPA established as a
baseline for analytical purposes the
level of emissions reduction identified in
the control techniques guideline (CTG)
document for this industry entitled
"Control of Volanle Organic EmissiolUl
from ExistinS Stationary Sources-
Volume n: Surface Coating of Cans.
Coil. Paper. Fabrics. Automobiles. and
Light-Duty Trucks" [EPA 42O/Z-77-
008(CTGJ). Although States are not
required to adopt the emission limits
and control techniques recommended in
this document. they are the limits and
techniques most likely to be instituted in
the State implementation plans (SIP's).
Compared to this baseline. the
natiollal emissions of VOC from the
pressure sensitive tape and label surface
coating industry would be further
reduced by 16 percent in 1985. Annual
emissions of VOC from affected
facilities would be reduced by 9.500
megasrams (10.600 tons} in 1985.
Other em'ironmental impacts of the
application of the standard to the
pressure sensitive tape and label surface
coating industry would be reasonable in
light of the gains in emissions reduction
being achiev~ through the standard.
National wastewater discharges from
the industry would increase by 13
percent over the discharses occurring
under baseline controls re~ultin8 iD an
annual increase in discharges of about
Z.5 million liters (661.000 gallons) in
1985. The generation of solid waste from
an affected facility would be increased
slightly in relation to the present
generation of large quantities of flawed.
product and -discarded packing
materials and spools which are disposed
of as solid waste. The only addition to
this material from an affected facility is
spent s(;!ivated carbon from carbon
adsorption units. Under this standard.
the maximum increase in solid waste
generated by affected facilities on a
nationwide basis is expected to be 55
megagrams (60 tons) per year in 1985.
The national energy impact of the
standard iswdependent upon which of
three control scenarios are followed by
the industry in complying with this
standard. The use of low-solvent
coatings for VOC emissions control
would result iD no energy impact from
this standard. since this method would
involve no additional control technology
or Iosl of solvent. However. since EPA
is unable to predict the extent to which
this technology will be employed by the
industry. this analysis focused on the
two other technological controls capable
of meeting the standard~arbon
adsorption and incineration. Based on
an analysis of the industry during the
development of the standard. the
majority of plants using VOC emission
control devices used carbon adsorpnon
instead of incineration. It has been
estimated that 80 percent of the control
systems to be installed by 1985 will be
carbon adsorption. The energy impacts
associated with this ltandard will be
more closely approximated by the
figures given for carbon adsorption
controls.
The substantial use of carbon
adsorption controls would result in a net
energy savings because usable Bolvent
would be recovered fromlhe prr. .~ '.
These net savings would be the
equivalent of Z7.100 barrels (4.3 million
liters} of crude oil per year in 1985 if all
affected facilities URd carbon
adsorption. The use of incineration
control. by some facilities
(approximately 20 percent) will reduce
the potential energy savings achievable
below the 21.100 barrel figure since this
technique rect)veT'8 no solvent. However.
the efficient use of heat recovery by
incinerator users will enable an overall
net energy savings to be maintained.
The situation of all or the majority of
affected facilities using inCineration to
control VOC emissions is not expected.
U incineration did become the
predominant control technique a
potentia! energy demand of 31.QOO
barrels (9.9 million liters) of crude oil
could result. However. for practicality
327
and energy efficiency indnerator users
would perform some de~e of heat
energy recovery such th~ t the energy
demand would realistical1v be much less
than 31.000 barrel figure. The use of
primary and secondary beat recovery by
a large number of facilities could even
result in a net energy savings. Under
both the probable and worst case
situations the energy impacts of the
standard are reasonable.
. EPA has analyzed the effect of the
standard on a wide range of model
facilities of varying sizes and production
capacities. Both the capital and
annualized costs of compliance were
found to be reasonable except for
coating lines which input to the coating
process 45 Mg (SO tons) or less per 12
month period. The 45 Mg (SO tons) per 12
month period or les8 lines have been
exempted from compliance with the
emission limits of the standard.
Incremental compliance costs are
those incurred by a plant above what is
normally required of the facility under a
typical SIP regulation. For example. a
typical affected facility with a 1.5 meter
(60 inch) wide coating line would be
projected to incur approximately
$300.000 in incremental capital
expenditures for control equipment.
Incremental annualized costs in 1985 for
emissions control would be 543.000 for
carbon adsorption. while incineration
would result in a cost savings of about
S8.000. These costs were calculated
assuming a 50 percent credit value for
usable solvent or heat recovery.
The incremen~ cumulative capital
cost of compliance to the tape and label
industry in 1985 would be $12.5 million.
The annualized cost of compliance to
the industry in 1985. including capital
costs (interest and depreciation). would
be $1.7 million over the baseline costs.
This.annualized cost was also
determined .assuming a SO percent credit
value for solvent/heat recovery.
Further economic impact of the
standard on the pressure sensitive tape
and label surface coating industry is
expected to be minimaL A product price
increase of 0.9 percent would be
expected in order to allow the industry
to recover the cost of compliance wi th
the standard and the installation of
control equipment. The effects of this
standard on growth in the industry. and
industry structure and profitability
would not caUH significant inflationary
impacts or market withdrawals.
The environmental. energy. and
economic impacts are discussed in
greater detail in the background
information document for the
promulgated standards. "Pressure
Sensitive Tape and Label Surface
-------
48370
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 202 / Tuesday. October 18. 1983 / Rules and Regulations
-==
Coating Industry-8ackground
Infonnation for Promulgated Standards"
(EPA 450/J....ro..OO3b).
Standards of perfonnance have other
benefits in addition to achieving
reductions in emissions beyond those
required by a typical SIP. They establish
a degree of national unifonnity, which
precludes situations in which some
States may attract new industries as a
result of having relaxed air pollution
standards relative to other States.
Further, standards of perfonnance
provide documentation which reduces
uncertainty in case-by-case
detenninations of best available control
technology (BACT) for facilities located
in attainment areas, and lowest
achievable emission rates (LAER) for
facilities located in nonattainment
areas. This documentation includes
identification and comprehensive
analysis of alternative emission control
technologies. development of associated
costs, an evaluation and verification of
applicable emission test methods. and
identification of specific emission limits
achievable with alternative
technologies. The costs are provided for
an economic analysis that reveals the
affordability of controls in an unbiased
study of the economic impact of controls
on an industry,
Public Participation
Prior to proposal of the standards.
interested parties were advised by
public notice in the Federal R~ter on
November 14. 1979 (44 FR 65670) of a
meeting of the National Air Pollution
Control Techniques Advisory
Committee to discuss the new source
performance standard for the pressure
sensitive tape and label surface coating
industry recommended for proposal.
This meeting was held on December 13,
1979. The meeting was open to the
public and each attendee was given the
opportunity to comment on the
standards recommended for proposaL
The standards were proposed and
published in the Federal Register on
December 30, 1980 (45 FR 862i8). The
preamble to the proposed standards
discussed the availability of the
background information document (BID)
"Pressure Sensitive Tape and Label
Surface Coating Industry-Back~U!1d
Information for Proposed Standards"
(EPA-I50/~a). which described
in detail the regulatory alternat1vI!
considered and the impacts of those
alternatives. Public comments were
solicited at the time of proposal and.
when requested. copies of the BID were
distributed to interested parties. To
provide interested persons the
opportunity for oral presentation of
da ta. views. or arguments concerning
the proposed standards, a public hearing
was held on January 30, 1981 at
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
The hearing was open to the public and
each attendee was given an opportunity
to comment on the proposed standards.
The public comment period was from
December 30. 1980 to March 2. 1981.
Fourteen comment letters were
received and two interested parties
testified at the public hearing concerning
issues relative to the proposed
standards of performance for the
pressure sensitive tape and label surface
coating industry. The comments have
been carefully considered and, where
determined to be appropriate by the
Administrator. changes have been made
in the proposed standard.
Significant Comments and Changes to
the Proposed Standard.
Comments on the proposed standards
were received from industry. two
members of Congress. one State
pollution control agency. and one trade
association. A detailed discussion of
these comments and responses can be
found in the background information
document (BID) which is referred to in
the AOOAESS section of this
preamble. The summary of comments
and responses in the BID serve as the
basis for the revisions which have been
made to the standards between proposal
and promulgation. The major comments
and responses are summarized in this
preamble. Most of the comment letters
contained multiple comments. The
comments have been divided into the
following areas: General. Emission
Control Technology. Modification and
Reconstruction. Economic Impact.
Affected Facility Definition, Reporting
and Recordkeeping. Small Source
Exemption. Level of the Proposed
Standard. and NSPS and State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Coordination.
General
One commenter pointed aut that the
discussion-of solventless technologies in
the BID did not reflect the latest
im~rovements in such technologies
which. although not in common use in
the United States. are being used in
Europe. The technological variations
disc.ussed by thia commenter were
coroSidered in the deveJopmenl of the
BID and this standard, but ~
determined not to add significantly to
the standa:-d. Upon further
consideration, the technological
configuration discussed by this
commenter might offer advantages to
the industry in reducing VOC emissions,
and the promulgation and operation of
the standard will not adversely affect
the U8e of such technology.
328
Another commenter discussed the
application of the standard to radiation.
cured coatings, asking that they either
be exempted from the standard or that
analytical methods be revised to
accommodate the characteristics of this
process. It was determined that
radiation-cure coaling processes do not
involve coatings containing VOCa. and
therefore the processes would fan below
the standard of 0.20 kilograms of VOC
per kilogram of coating solida without
requiring further controls.
Another commenter objected to the
inclusion of water in water-based
coa lings as a part of the emissions, to be
measured in determining whether the
facility is subject to the standard. This is
an apparent misunderstanding of the
provisions of the standard. The standard
does not include water in the calculation
of VOC emissions.
Another commenter objected to certain
commenter objected to C2rtain
conclusion. stated in the background
information document concerning the
level of inlet vac concentration
required to operate an incinerator for
the control of vac emissions without
the necessity of adding supplementary
fuel to the incinerator. This objection
was based on the results of tests
performed on the commenter's own
incinerator in 1972 which varied from
the results reported in EPA's analysis.
The level reported in the BID is based
on a model incinerator designed to
represent the typical incinerator used
for VOC control in the PSTI. industry
and is intended to indicate the trends in
incinerator performance as various
loadings of solvent are added to the
incinerator. Therefore. variance
between the results reported for this
representative model incinerator study
and for other tests on individual
incinerators is to be expected (see
Section 2..1.4 of the BID for further
discussion).
Several commenters in this section
stated that no standard is necessary
since there is already adequate
economic incentive for the users of
coatings containing VOC to recover the
maximum amount of solvent possible for
reuse. Although the Administrator
viewed these economic incentives as
important to the overall operation and
success of the standard. an examination
of the industry indicates that economic
incentives alone are not sufficient to
ensnre that the pressure sensitive tape
and label surface coating industry will
use the best demonstrated technology
for the control of VQC emissions.
Indeed. during the examination of these
facilities leadins to the development of
this standard. it was noted that in spite
of these incentives. some facilities did
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 48. No. 202 I Tuesday. ~tober 18. 1983 I Rules and Regulations
48371
not recover any solvent from their
coating operation..
Emission Control Technology
One commenter stated that the use of
hooding to capture fugitive VOC
emissions from coating heads has not
been demonstrated except on a
theoretical basis. During the
development of this standard. EPA
examined a facility which employed
hooding to capture fugitive emissIOns.
Based on tests performed at this facility
and observation of other facilities
employing hooding for the capture of
fugitive emissions. the Administrator
has determined that hooding is an
effective device for capturing these
emissions and that compliance with the
standard can be achieved employing
this technology and add-on control
devices.
Modification and Reconstruction
Several comments were received
concerning the application of the
modification and reconstruction
provisions of the GeneraJ Provisii?nS of
40 CFR Part 60 to this standard for the
pressure sensitive tape and label surface
coating industry. One stated that these
provisions were vague and subject to
misinterpretation. Experience with these
provisions and examination of their
applicability to this industry indicates
that problenu with interpreting when a
facility has been modified or
reconstructed and thereby made subject
to the standard should be minimal. The
modification provisions establish a
fairly Itraightforward rule that when an
alteration to a facility results in an
increase in emissions the facility is then
subject to the standard. unless the
alteration falls within certain
specifically listed exemptions. The
reconstruction provision involves a
plant specific review by the Agency to
determine whether a major expenditure
at a facility should include the
provisions of the control technology
required for compliance with the
standard. Although the operation of this
provision involves the application of
judgment to the circumstances of the
alteration. it alae provides for the
inclusion of a greater variety of factors.
IUch al the economic impact of the
standard. in determining whether the
facility will be subject to the standard.
Two comments were received
concerning the applicability of the
modification and reconstruction
provisions to specific alterations to a
facility. The first comment questioned
whether normal repairs to a facility
constitutes a modification. The
applicable .ections of the modification
provi.ions .tate that normal repairs to a
facility do not constitute modifications
which would render a facility subject to
the standard. The second comment
concerned the application of the
standard to a facility which converts to
solventless or low-solvent coatings. This
case would not constitute a modification
of the facilit}'. sinCE! there would be no
increase in emissions from the fadity.
Whether such a conversion would
constitute if reconstruction would
involve a calculation ofwnether the CQSt
of the conversion was greater than 50
percent of the cost of an entirely new
plant. and then involve an additional
review of the circumstances of the
conversion by the Administrator before
the applicability of the standard to the
facility could be determined.
A final commenter stated generally
that the standard should not be made
applicable to a facility which undergoes
updating and modification because this
will result in outdated and less efficIent
plants being left in operation for a
longer period of time. While it is true
that the effect of the standard will enter
into decisions concerning the updating
of plants. the savings in energy and
efficiency resulting from improvements
to the facility are expected to be .
overriding considerations in this
decision. Therefore. the application of
the standard to pressure sensitive tape
and label surface coating facilities
which undergo extensive alteration is
consistent with the scheme of the Clean
Air Act.
Economic Impact
One commenter on the economic
analysis performed in the development
of the standard objected that the cost
figures reported in the BID (Volume I)
were not consistent with current values.
The values listed in the BID. and the
basis of the analysis performed there.
were based on 1979 figures. Although
these figures may change in time. they
remain consistent in relation to each
other and do not change the validity of
the conclusions reached in the analysis
concerning the reasonableness of the
standard. If converted into current cost
figures and reanalyzed. the relations of
cost to the achievements of the standard
would remain the same. Therefore. it is
the relationship between the figures. and
not their abaelute accuracy for all points
in time. that is crucial to the analysis of
the economic impact of the standard.
Another commenter stated that the
added costs of pollution control required
, by the standard would be passed on to
consumers. resulting in an inflationary
impact on the economy. EPA's analysis.
however. shows that even with full
pass-through of the costs to the
consumer the maximum product price
329
increase would be 0.9 percent. This
mimimal cost increase is considered by
the Administrator to be reasonable and
noninflationary.
In several comments. objections were
made to the standard on the basis of the
minimal reduction in emissions which
would be achieved under the standard
as compared to existing S:ate
regu~atlons as comparea 10 the greatly
increased cost of compliance with the
standard. These reductions and costs
were analyzed by the EPA in the BID. It
was determined that by 1985 emissions
from pressure sensitive tape and label
surface coating facilities would be
reduced by 16 percent per year as
compared to the controls required by
existing regulations. The increase in
product price necessitated by this 16
percent reduction in emissions would be
less than 1 percent. Therefore. the
additional emissions reduction seems
well justified in terms of the costs
required for achieving them.
The effect of the standard on the
conversion of the industry to solventless
and low-solvent technologies was also
the subject of one comment. This
commenter was concerned that the cosls
of complying with the standard would
cause owners of facilities to forego
conversion. However. low-solvent and
solventless technologies are treated
essentially equally under the standard
and under eXisting regulations. since
they typically are able to comply with
the standard without the necessity of
further add-on controls. In addition. it is
believed that economic factors outside
of the opera tion of this standard. such as
the cost and availability of solvents. will
provide additional incentive for the
conversions of coating lines to low.
solvent and solventless costing
technologies.
Four commenters stated that the
economic analysis performed by EPA
was insufficient. particularly with
relation to small facilities. Chapter 8 of
the BID contains this ecomonic analysis.
which is directed specifically to small
facilities as well as large and medium
facilities. Model coating lines of all three
sizes and various technological
characteristics were analyzed and the
impact of the standard on each
determined in the development of the
standard. This analysis is necessarily
representative rather than exhaustive of
each facility in the industry. but does
accurately reflect the standard and its
impact on the industry.
A final commenter in this segment
stated that the standard should only be
applied on a case-by-case basis after
analyzing the costs and benefits of the
additional control to each individual
-------
48372
Fe'derel Register I Vol. 48, No. 202 I Taesday. October 18. 1983 I Rules and Re8ulatioDS
plant. Section 111 of the Clean Air Act
does not provide for case-by-case
application of a standard but instead
requires that the standard be applied to
the entire source category or to
distinguishable subgroups within that
categolY.In addition, it is not expected
that the impact of this standard on any
individual plant will vary from the
models used in the development of the
standard to the extent that the impact of
the standard would be unreasonable.
Affected Facility CefiaitioD
The Administrator has determined
that the definition of affected facility
proposed for inclusion in the standard
should be changed in response to
comments made on thia iaaue by several
commenters and upon further
consideration by the Agency.
As explained in the preamble to the
proposed standard. EPA adopta that
definition of affected facility which
produces the greatest emisaion
reduction without imposing
unreasonable coats or other impacts.
The original definition proposed for this
industry provided that each separate
coating head and drying oven
combination along a coating line would
constitute an affected facility for the
purpose of this standard. Thus, there
would be more than one affected facility
associated with each coaUngline. each
of which would be required to comply
with the standard. Several commenters
urged the Agency to amend this
definition to make the affected facility,
for the purposes of this standard. the
entire coating line, including all .
individual coating heads and drying
ovens. Under this definition. the
combination of sources along a coating
line would be required to comply with
the sttindard. rather than each
individual source.
In urging this change. the commenters
made several points. First. they argued
that the coating line is the basic
production unit for the industry and
marks the most logical unit for control in
terms of the configuration of the
production processes and plants. In
support, they pointed out that the
various State implementation plans
(SIP's) under which they operate
consider the coating line to be the basic
unit for control. not each coating head
and oven combination. Secondly. they
argued that this broader definition
would allow the operators of facilities to
control their emissions in the most cost
effectiv,= manner. By grouping these
emission sources together under one
overall requirement. the owner or
operator of the facility may control
these sources where the greatest
reduction may be achieVed at the lowest
cost and minimize expenditures for
emissions control where the benefits in
reductions would be small. Finally, they
pointed out that the broader definition
covering the entire coating line would
promote the development and use of
low-solvent and solventIess
technologies as emissions control
techniques. resulting in an overaIl
betterment in air quality beyond that
achievable by the standard and
technological requirements alone. In
support of !bis position, new data were
submitted by the industry showing that
the relative costs of low-solvent
compared to sONent-based adhesive
coating technology have changed since
EPA's BID was prepared. These data
show that low-solvent technology ill
more limited in application than the EPA
and industry had previously anticipated
and that the cost is higher than the
current cost of comparable solvent-
based systems.
After reviewing these comments and
the two definitjons, the Administrator
detennined that in light of the similar
degree of overall emissions reduction
achievable under either definition. the
greater flexibility in allocating con trot
costs available under the broadened
definition. and the physical
compatibility of the broadened
definition with the characteristics of the
pressure sensitive tape and label surface
costing production line. the affected
facility definition should be amended to
provide for the inclusion of the entire
coating line. The Administrator believes
that the broad definition will encourage
the use of low-solvent and solventless
adhesive coatings. and achieve an equal
or greater emission reduction than the
naITOW definition. When the standard is
reviewed in four years as required under
Section 111(b) of the.Act, the low-
solvent and solventless adhesive
technology will be closely evaluated.
ReportiDg and Recordkeeping
several commenters objected to the
reporting and recordkeeping
requirements of the standard. stating
that these requirements are costly and
burdensome. They further contended
that these requirements would hinder
the development and adoption of
innovative coating technologies by the
industry by requiring facilities to keep
records and make reports even though
the characteristics of their coatings
bring them within the limits set by the
standard without technological controls.
The Administrator hu reviewed the
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements of the proposed standard,
and determined that those requirements
calling for reports to be submitted to the
Agency should be modified in the
330
promulgated standard. Reporting
requirements in the promulgated
standard have been reduced to only
requiring semiannual reports of
instances w)1en the temperature
fluctuatiolLl of an incinerator control
device and the vac emissions from aa
affected facility exceed the allowable
levels established in the staJIdard.ln the
proposed standard such reports were
required on a calendar month basis. The
other reporting requirement in the
proposed standard for the submittal of
inittal (and any subsequent)
performance test results to the
Administrator remains IlDchanged in the
promulgated standard.
The compiling and keeping of records
of the performance of the control
equipment installed in compliance with
this standard is necessary. both to the
Agency in determining compliance and
to the company operating the facility to
petennine whether the control
equipment is functioning adequately.
The recordkeeping requirements
therefore have not been changed since
proposal. In order to determine
compliance with the standard. the
Agency may inspect the records kept by
a facility at any time.
Small Solvent Use ExemplioD
One commenter urged the Agency to
include an exemption for small sources
in the standard. raising the minimum
levels of emissions for inclusion under
the regulation from 15 megagrams per
year to an anspecified higher level. The
reasans stated by this commenter in
support of the change were that small
sources comprise a minor part of the
total vac emissions for the entire
industry, that the cost of emissions
control for small sources is
unreasonable for the benefits in
emissions reduction achieved. and that
a small source exemption would
encourage the development oflow-
solvent and solvent/ess coatings. In
analyzing this issue. the Administrator
has determined that a broadened small
source exemption is not warranted on
the bases of contributing a minor part to
total industry emissions or the failure of
the standard to encourage the
development of low-solvent or
solventless coatings. Section 111
requires n~w source performance
standards to reflect the best
demonstrated technology. It does not
provide a basis for exempting
subcategories of sources (for which
contral technology is technically and
economically available) from any
standard merely because their emissioD.
are less than tbe emissions of other
subcategories. Further. it has been
-------
-
Federal Register I Vol. 48. No. 202 I Tuesday, October'18. 1983 I Rules and Regulations
48373
determined by the Administrator that
this standard will not impede the
conversion to and development of
solventless and low-solvent
technologies.
However, the Agency has reanalyzed
the coit effectiveness (i.e.. the cost of
VOC emissiot18 control relative to the
emission reduction wbich is achieved by
such controls) over the range of l!ne
sizes found in this industry, For each
type of line. anDualized control costs
were calculated..and compared to the
emission reductions which wCluld occur
if potentiaL uncontrolled emissions are
reduced to the level of the standard.
This analysis showed that the cost
effectiveness of controls is primarily a
function of the quantity of solvent used.
and that the parameters are inversely
related. That is. as solvent use (and
therefore potential emissions) increases.
the cost effectiveness decreases. It
should be noted that this cost cmve .
does not necessarily represent the
actual amounts of money that will be
spent to install and operate VOC
controls for any particular coating line. .
Rather. the costs are estimates which
are representative of facilities likely to
be buill The costs for a VOC control
system will vary according to coating
line size. system airflow rate. solvent
loading level. the lower explosive limit
levels maintained in the oven. the
degree of solvent or heat recovery
practiced. and other factors. However.
the cost curve provides a useful guide
for judging the reasonableness of
requiring VOC controls at different
potential VOC emiuion levels.
In the past. the maximum estimated
cost per megagram of pollutant material
removed (VOC, particulate matter. SOz)
has ranged from somewhat le88 than
$1.000 to 52.000. This package has a
maximum estimated cost per megagram
of $2,000. In prior source categories for
which NSPS have been developed. VOC
maximum estimated control costs have
generally. not exceeded $1.000 per
megagram. In this case. because of the
"worst.case" character of the cost
calculations. EPA believes the proposed
standards are reasonable.
The maximum estimated cost in this
package will not be viewed as a
precedent for future actions. Instead. In
the future. we will continue to evaluate
each package on an individual basis.
The coat curve for the application of
VOC controls to coating lines shows
that the potential cost per Mg of VOC
controlled is greater than $2.000 for
input solvent levels of about 45 Mg (SO
tons) per year or less. Therefore. in the
promulgated standard. coating lines
which input to the coating process 45 Mg
(SO tons) per 12 month period or less of
VOC will not be subject to the
standard's emission limits. These lines
will. however. be subject to all
applicable recordkeeping and reporting
requirements given in the standard.
The Agency realizes that this
exemption could inadvertently create an
incentive for the construction of smaller
lines in order to avoid the need for VOC
emissions control. The AgencY does not
believe. however. that this incentive is
sufficient to markedly alter the
construction pattern of new PSTL lines
such that national VOC emissions
would be greatly increased. However.
this standard will be reviewed four
years from now. and the effect of the
small solvenruse exemption on the size
of new facilities will specifically be
examined.
Level of Proposed Standard
One commenter stated that the 90
percent reduction level in the standard
seemed to be arbitrary. On the contrary.
the 90 percent reduction level was
developed through extensive study and
analysis of the pressure sensitive tape
and labe~surface coating industry, the
available emissions control equipment.
and the environmental. energy and
economic impacts of various control
levels. It was determined that the best
demonstrated control technology could
continually achieve a 90 percent
reduction in emissions over a long term
period of operation. The analyses of the
technological systems of emissions
coatrol are contained in Chapter 4 of the
BID-Volume L and the energy.
environmentaL and economic impacts of
these technologies are discussed in
Chapters 7 and 8 of the BID- Volume I.
Another commenter stated that a
turndown ratio of 10 to 1 could not be
achieved In drying oven exhausts. as
stated in the BID. (Turndown ratio refers
to the degree by which oven exhaust air
can be reduced from the level for which
the oven is designed in response to
reduced solvent loadings.) In its
examination of this issue. the Agency
. has determined that the technical points
made by this commenter are generally
valid (particularly for his own plant. on
which his comments were based). but
that new facilities are still capable of
achieving compliance with the standard
on a consistent basis even with a lower
turndown ratio. such as the four to one
ratio cited by the commenter. This .
determination is based on the
experience of other facilities examined
by the Agency during the course of the
development of this standard which
were able to meet the reduction level
required by the standard even at the
lower turndown ratios. This analysis is
331
presented in detail in Volume I of the
BID.
A third commenter on the issue of the
level of the standard stated that the
mass emission limit should be 0.25
kilograms of VOC per kilogram of
coating solids. rather than 0.20
kilograms. in order to allow a wider
range of low-solvent coatings to be used
without requiring the use of additional
control technology in order to comply
with the standard. The EPA examined a
number of solventless and low-solvent
coatings during the preparation of this
standard. It was determined that a 0.20
kilogram emission limit could be
attained using the best technological
system of emissions reduction
(consistent with energy. environmental.
and economic considerations). No
comments were received which
presented argument or data
contradicting this determination.
Although there will be some new'
coatings which cannot be used without
further controls in compliance with the
standard. these coatings may still be
useful in combination with other
coatings in achieving the emissions
reduction required. If used with other
low-solvent coatings on a line, coatings
capable of achieving 0.25 kilograms of
VOC per kilogram of coating solid could
help keep the monthly compliance
average below 0.20 kilograms. 1Ł used
with conventional solvent based
coatings. these coatings would reduce
the level of control necessary to achieve
compliance with the standard.
NSPS aDd SIP Coordination
Two commenters suggested that the
implementation of the standard be
postponed for a 5 to 10 year period in
order to assess the impact on air quality
of the newest limits recommended for
State implementation plans (SIP's) of 2.9
pounds of VOC per gallon of applied
coating. During the development of the
standard. this SIP requirement was
examined and its impact on national
VOC emissions projected. Further. this
SIP requirement formed the baseline
against which each of the regulatory
alternatives has been evaluated.
Therefore. no further delay in the
promulgation of this standard is
required in order to determine the
impact of the SIP provisions since these
impacts have been projected and formed
a major consideration in the
development of the standard.
The last two commenters in this
section pointed out that the units of
measurement in the standard (kg vael
kg coating solidsT are different from
these used in many of the SIP's (pound!.,
gallon of coating minus water). and that
-------
48374
Federal Register I Vol. 48. No. 202 I Tuesday. October 18. 1983 I Rules and Regulations
-
this difference would be confusing to
owners and operator of facilities wbich
must aUempt to comply with both the
new source standard and a SIP. The unit
of measurement used in this standard
was developed through consultation
with industry representatives who
pointed out that companies have
experienced difficulties in interpreting
and implementing the mass per volume
measurement used in the SIP's. The
masl measurement used in this standard
was found to be simpler to understand
and to calculate from typical coating
fonnulation data. Further, there should
be no confusion over compliance with
different standards which may apply to
a facility since compliance wi.th the
more stringent in each case also
satisfies the requirements of the less
stringenL In this case. compliance with
the 0.20 kilograms VOC per kilogram of
coating solid new source standard
would also constitute compliance with a
2.9 pounds VOC per gallon requirement
of a SIP.
Docket
The docket is an organized and
complete file of an the infonnation
considered by EPA in the development
of this rolemaking. The docket is a
dynamic file. since material is added
throughout the rolemaking development
The docketing system is intended to
allow members of the public and
industries involved to readily identify
and locate documents so that they can
intelligently and effectively participate
in the rolemaking process. Along with
the statement of basil and purpose of
the proposed and promulgated
standards and EPA responses to
significant comments. the contents of
the docket will serve as the record in
case of judicial review [Section
307(d)(71{A}J.
~lisceUaneous
The effective date of this regulation is
October 1& 1983. Section 111 of the
Clean Air Act provides that stand~ of
performance or revisions thereof
become effective upon promulption and
apply to affected facilities. constructiOl!'
or modi~tiOD oCwhich was
commenced after the date of proposal
(December 30. 1980).
As prescribed in Section tU. the
promulgation of these standards was
preceded by the Administrator's
detennination (40 CFR 80.16. 44 FR
49222. dated August 21. 1!J79) that these
sources contrihute significantly to air
pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare. In acccrdance with Section 111
of the Act. publication of these
promulgated standards was preceded b,
consultation with appropriate advisory
committees. independent experts. aIHI
Federal departments and agencies.
The rulemaking process that
implements a perfonnance standard
assures adequate technical review and
promotes participation of
representatives of the industry being
considered for regulation. government.
and the public affected by that .
industry'. emisaioDS. The resultant
regulatiOD represents a balance in wbich
government resources are applied in a
well-pubIid%ed national forum to reach
a decision on a pollution emissioD level
that allows for a dynamic economy and
a healthful environment
This resuIation will be reviewed 4
years from the date of promulgation as.
required by the Clean Air Act This
review will include an assessment of
such factors as the need for Integration
with other programs. the existence of
alternative methods. enforceability.
improvement. in emission control
technolOlJY. and reporting requirements.
The reporting requirements in this
regulation will be reviewed as required
under EPA's sunset policy for reporting
requirements in regulations.
Section 317 of the Clean Air Act
requires the Administrator to prepare an
economic impact assessment for any
new source standard of perfonnace
promulpted under Section lI1(bl of the
Act. AD eeonomic impact assessment
was prepared for this regula tion and for
other regulatory alternatives. All
aspects of the assessment were
considered in the formulation of the
standuds to insure that cost waS"
carefully considered in detennn,illg"
BOT. The economic impsct assessment
is included in the background
infonnat1on dor.ument fur the proposed
standards.
In addition to condw:ting an economic
impact analysis. EPA examined the
emission reduction and annuamed
costs. expressed in dolJars per Mg (ton)
of pollutant reD!m'ed per T!1!1'. for t~e
altematiTe level. of control. The three
levels of control are an oyeran
emissions reduction of 31 percent. a.s
specified i.D many exisong SIP'~ an
overall emissions reduction of as '
percent and aD O\'er!!1J emissions .
reduction of 90 perr."mt. IS ~~d by
the NSPS. Thi. examination showed
that for a typical medi~ pres5'll:re
sen.si!hre ta~ and 1abel rorface roating
line an 85 percent level at etmtro!
red!!CeS t'Mi,sions by 41 Mg (45 tmuJ per
yeer ~la~ to the 81 percent Jeve1 (SIP
level) ~nd incre8s~ aMualized com by
5145/Mg (S130iton). It also sftowed that
the incremental emission reduction
achieved by increasing the control !evel
332
from 85 to g) percent is (38 tons} at an
incremental annualized cost ofS1t5Ng
(S105/ton). These annualized costs 'per
ton of pollutant removed are
comparable to costs and associated
emissions in other industries that
control VOC emissions. In addition. as
described in the sei:ti.on -sman Salvent
Use Exemption.- the Agency also
. analyzed the overall cost effectiveness
of adding controls to uncontrolled lines
and on the basis of this established a
low solvent ule cut-off.
The PaJlerwork Reduction Ad of 1980
(Pub. 1.. 96-~11) requires EPA to sublIUt
to the Offu:.e of Management and Budget
(OMB) certain public reporting} .
recordkeeping requirementa. The
reportingl recordkeeping requirements
associated with this standard have been
approved by OMB.
Under Executive Order 12291. EPA
must judge whether a regulation is
"major" and therefore subject to the
requirement of a Regulatory Impad
Analysis. Thia regulation is not major
because it would result in Done of the
adverse economic effects set forth in
Section 1 of the Order as grounds for
finding a regulation to be major. The
industry-wide annualized costs in the
fifth year after the standards would go
into effect woald be S13 million. much
less than the $100 million established as
the first criterion for a major regulation
in the Order. The estimated price
increase of less than 2 percent
associated with the standards would not
be cooaidered a "major increase in costs
or prices" specified as the second
criterion in the Order. The economic
analytria of the standards' effects 011 the
ind1lStry did not mdicate any significant
adverse effect. on competition.
investment produc:tivity. employment.
innovation. or the ability of the U.S.
firms to compete with fareip firms (the
third criterion in the 01"dert.
Infonnation collection requirements
contained in this regulation (U 00.443,
60.444. 60.445. and 60.447) have been
approved by the Office of Management
and ~ tOMB} ander the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act at 1980,
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and have been
assigned OMB ccr:!rof number 2080-
0004.
Ust of Subjects in 40 CFR Pat 80
Air ~Uution ccn~ol. AlumiDum.
Am.mciniurn rul::.~e plants. Asphelt.
Cement indusT:y. Coa! Copper. Electric
power plants. G1=;o.> and glass products.
Grains. Intergovernmental relations.
Iron. Lead. Metals. Metallic ~finerals.
Motor vehicles. Nitric acid plantŁ. Paper
and paper products industiy, Petroleum.
Phosphate. Sewage disposal. Sfeer
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 202. I Tuesday.. Odobei' 18. 1983 / Rules and Regula.tions
48375
Sulfuric acid plants. Waste treatment
and disposal Zinc. Tires. Incorporation
bv reference. Can surface coating,
Sulfuric acid plants. Industrial organic
chemicals.
Dated:. Oi:1ober 11. 1983.
William D. Ruckelsbaua,
AdmitzistratDr.
PART 6O-[AMENDED]
40 CFR Part 60 is amended by adding
a new Subpart RR es follows:
Subpart RR-Standards of Performance for
Pressure Sensitive Tape and Label Surface
. Coating OperaUons
See.
00.440 Applicability aDd designation of
affec\2d facility.
60.4~1 Definitions and s\"mbols.
60.442 Sta:1dard for v.o:';1'i1e organic
compounds.
60.443 Compliance provisions.
60.444 Performance test procedures.
60.445 Monitoring of operations and
recordkeepil18. .
6Q.446 Test methods and procedures.
60.447 Reporting requirements.
Authority: Sec. 111. 301(a), Clean Air Act
as amended (4Z U.s.c. 7411, 7601(a)), and
sdditiODsl authority as noled below.
Subpart RR-Standards of
Performance for Pressure Sensitive
Tape and Label Surface Coating
Operations
f 6O.44D Applicability and designation of
affected facility.
(a) The affected facility to which the
provisions of this subpart apply is each
coating line used in the manufactur~ of
pressure sensitive tape and label
materials.
(b) Any affected facility which inputs
10 the coating process 45 Mg of VOC or
less per 12 month period is not subject
.10 the emission limits of I 6O.442(a),
however. the affected facility is subject
10 the requirements of all other
applicable sections of this subpart. If the
amount of VOC input exceeds 45 Mg per
12 month period, the coating line will
become subject to 160.442(a) and all
other sections of this subpart.
(c) This subpart applies to any
aIrected facility which begins
construction, modification, or
reconstruction after December 30.1980.
f 60.441 Definitions and symbols.
(a) Except as otherwise required by
the context. terms used in this subpart
are defined in the Act. in Subpart A of
this part. or in thi5-6ectioR as follows:
"'Coating appliCator" means an
apparatus used to apply a surface
coating 10 a continuous web.
"Coating line" means any number or
combination of adhesive, release. or
preJ:Oat coating applicators. flashoIf
areas. and ovens which coat a.
continuous web. located between a web
unwLT1d station and a web rewind
station. to produc:e pressure. sensitive
tape and label materiaIs~
"Coating sallas applied" means the
sonds content of the- coated adhesive.
release. or pre coat. as measured by
Reference Method 2.4. .
"Flashoff area".means the portion of a
coating line after the coating applicator
and usually before the oven entrance.
"Fugitive volatile organic compounds"
means any volatile organic. cwnpoimds
which are emitted from the coating
applicator and flashoff areas and are
not emitted in the oveI'-
"Hood or enclosure" means any
device used to capture fugitive volatile
organic. compounds.
"O\'en- means a chamber which uses
heat or irradiation to bake. cure,
polymerize. or d.."ya surface coating.
"Pr.ecoat" means a. coating operation
in which. a coating other than an
adhesive or release is applied to a
surface during the production of a
pressure sensifive tape or label product.
"Solvent applied in the coating"
means all organic solvent contained in
the adhesive. release, and precoat
formulatior.s that is metered into the
coating applicator from the formulation
area.
"'Total enclosure"' means a structure
or building around the coating
applicator and i1ashoff area or the entire
coating line for the purpose of confming
and totally capturing fugitive VOC
emissions,
"VOC" means volatile organic
compound.
(b) All symbols used in this subpart
not ~fined below are given meaning in
the Act or in Subpart A of this part.
"a" means the gas stream vents
exiting the emission control de..ice.
"b" means the gas stream vents
entering the emission control device.
"C..." means the concentration of VOC
(carbon equivalent) in each gas stream
(j) exiting the emission control devi.ce. in
parts per million by volume.
"c.,;" means the concentration of VOC
(carbon equivalent) in each gas stream
(i) entering the emission control device,
in parts per million by volume.
"CIk" means the concentration of VOC
(carbon equivalent) in each gas stream
(k) emitted directly to the atmOiphere. in
parts per million by volume.
"G"' means the calculated weighted
average mass (kg) of VOC per mass (kg)
of coating solids applied each calender
month.
"M.:," means the total mass (kg) of
each coating (i) applied during the
333
calendar month as determined.fram
facility records.
"Mr" means the total mass (kg) of
solvent recovered for a calendar month.
"Q..." means the volumetric flow rate
of each effluent gas stream (j) exiting the
emission control device. in dry standard
cubic meters per hour.
"Qbt means the volumetric flow rate
of each effluent gas stream (i} entering
the emission control devit:e. in dry
standard cu.bic meters per hour. ,
"QIII" ml!1l.DS the volumetric. flow rate
of each effluent gas stream (k) emitted
to the atmosphere. in dry standard cubic
meters per hour.
"rr' means the overall VOC emission
reduction achieved for a calendar month
(in percent).
"R.." means the required overall VOC
emission reduction (in percent).
"Wot" means the weight fraction of
organics applied of each coating (i)
applied during a calendar month as
determined from Reference Method 24
or coatL,g manufacturer's fonnulation
data.
"W.s" means the weight fraction of
solids applied of each coating (i) applied
during a calendar month as determined
from Reference Method.24 or coa ting
manufacturer's fonnulation data.
~ 60.442 Standard for volatile organic
compounds.
.(a) On and after the date on which the
performance test required by I 60.8 has
been completed each owner or operator
subject to this subpart shall:
(1) Cause the clischarge into the
atmosphere from an affected facility not
more than 0.20 kg VOC/kg of coating
solids applied as calculated on a
weighted average basis for one calendar
month; or
(2) Demonstrate for each affected
facility; .
(i) a 90 percent overall VOC emission
reduction as calculated over a calendar
month; or
(ii) ~e percent overall VOC emissIOn
reduction specified in 160.443(b) as
calculated over a calendar month.
~ 60.443 Compliance pro.vlslons.
(a) To determine compliance with
I 60.442 the OVl."Iler or operator of the
affected facility shall calculate a
weighted average of the mass of solvent
used per mass of coating solids applied
for a one calendar month period
according to the following procedures:
(1) Determine the weight fraction of
organics and the weight fraction of
solids of each coating applied by using
Reference Method 24 or by the coating
manuŁacturer's formulation data.
-------
48376
Federal Register I Vol. 48, No. 202 I Tuesday, October 18. 1983 I Rules .and Regulations
-=
(2) Compute the weighted average by
the following equation:
D
I \\'~I..
;=1
c&
n
I Wr\{"
i-1
(3) For each affected facility where
the value of G is less than or equal to
0.20 kg vac per kg of coating solids
applied. the affected facility is in
compliance with i 6O.442(a}(1).
(b) To determine compliance with
i 6O.44Z(a}(2}. the owner or operator
shall calculate the required overall vac
emission reduction according to t.~e
following equation:
R.',,G~ X100
G
If R.less than or equal to 90 percent.
then the required overall vac emission
reduction is R.. If R. is greater than 90
percent. then the required overall vac
emission reduction is 90 percent.
(c) "Vhere compliance with the
er:1ission limits specified in
S 60.442(a}(2) is achieved through the
use of a solvent recoven' svstem. the
c\'.'I1er or operator shall'deiermine the
overall vac emission reduction for a
one calendar month period by the
foHowing equation:
R=
M,
)0:100
D
I w_\I"
i-1 .
If the R value is equal to or greater
than the R.\'alue specified in paragraph
(b) of this section. then compliance with
~ 6O.44Z[aJ(2) is demonstrated.
(d) Where compliance with the
emission limit specified in S60.442(a}(2}
is achieved through the use of a solvent
destruction device. the owner or
operator shall determine calendar
monthly cOI:'lpliance by comparing the
monthly required overall vac emission
reduction specified in parasrapb (b)1 of
this section to the overall vac emission
reduction demonstrated in the most
recent performance test which complied
with f 6O.442(a}(Z). If the monthly
required o\'erall vac emission
reduction is less than or equal to the
overall vac reduction of the most
. recent performance test. the affected
facility is in compliance with
i 6O,44Z[a1(2J,
(e) Where compliance with
t 6O.442(a)(Z) is achieved through the
use of a solvent destruction device. the
owner or operator shall continuously
record the destruction device
combustion temperature during coating
operations for thennal incineration
destruction devices or the gas
temperature upstream and downstream
of the incinerator catalyst bed during
coating operations for catalytic .
incineration destruction devices. For
thermal incineration destruction devices
the owner or operator shall record all 3-
hour periods (during actual coating
operations) during which the average
temperature of the device is more than
ZSoC (50°F) below the average
temperature of the device durir.g the
most recent performance test complying
with i 6O.442(a}(2). For catalytic
incineration destruction devices. the
owner or operator shall record all3-hour
periods (during actual1:oating
operations) during which the average
temperature of the device immediately
before the catalyst bed is more than
3SOC (50°F) below the average
temperature of the device during the
most recent performance test complying
with i 6O.442(a)~). and all3-hour
periods (during actual coating
operations) during which the average
temperature difference across the
catalyst bed is less than 80 percent of
the average temperature difference of
the device durin!! the most recent
performance test complying with
S 6O.442(a}(2}.
(f) After the initial performance test
required for all affected facilities under
~ 60.8, compliance with the vac
emission limitation and percentage
reduction requirements under! 60.442 is
based'on the average emission reduction
for one calendar monl~. A separate
, compliance test is completed at the end
of each calendar month after the initial
performance test. and a new calendar
month's average vac emission
reduction is calculated to show
compliance with the standard.
(g) If a common emission control
device is used to recover or destroy
solvent from more than one affected
facility. the perfonnance of that control
device is assumed to be equal for each
of the affected facilities. Compliance
with! 6O.44Z(a)(2) is determined by the
methods specified in paragraphs (c) and
(d) of this section and,is performed
simultaneouslv on all affected facilities.
(h) If a com~on emission control
device is used to recover solvent fro:n
an existing facility (or facilities) as well
as from an affected facility (or facilities).
the overall vac emission reduction for
the affected facility (or facilities). for the
purpose of compliance. shall be
determined by the following procedures:
334
(1) The owner or operator of the
existing facilitY (or facilities) shall
determine the mass of solvent recovered
for a calendar month period from the
existing facility (or facilities) prior to the
connection of the affected facility (or
facilities) to' the emission control device.
(2) The affected facility (or facilities)
shall then be connected to the emission
control device.
(3) The owner or operator shall
determine the total mass of solvent
recovered from both the existing and
affected facilities over a calendar month
period. The mass of solvent determined
in paragraph (h}(1) of this section from
the existing facility shall be subtracted
from the total mass of recovered solvent
. to obtain the mass of solvent recovered
from the affected facility (or faeiliU,!!s).
The overall vac emission reduction of
the affected facility (or facilities) can
then be determined as specified in
paragraph (c) of this section.
(i) If a common emission control
devices is used to destruct solvent from
an existing facility (or facilities) as well .
as from an affected facility (or facilities),
the overall vac emission reduction for
the affected facility (or facilities). for the
purpose of compliance. shall be
determined by the following procedures:
('1) The owner or operator shall - .
operate the emission control device with
both the existing and affected facilities -
connected.
(2J The concentration of vac (in parts
per million by volume]-after the common
emission control device shall be
determined as specified in I 6O.444(c).
This concentration is used in the
calculation of compliance for both the
existing and affected facilities.
(3) The volumetric flow out of t.'Je
common control device attributable to
the affected facility (or facilities) shall
be calculated by first determining the
ratio of the volumetric flow entering the
common control device attributable to
.the affected facility (facilities) to the
total volumettic flow entering the
common control device from both
existing and affected facilities. The
multiplication of this ratio by the total
volumetric flow out of the common
centrol dm,~ce yields the flow
a ttributable to the affected facility
(facilities). Compliance is determined by
the use of the equation specified in
S 5O.444(c).
OJ Startups and shutdowns are normal
operation for this source category.
Emissions from these operations are to
be included when determining if the
standard specified at I 5O.442(a)(2} is
being attained.
(Approved by the Office of Manegement and
Budget under control number 2060-0(4)
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 48. No.. %OZ I Tuesday. October 18. 1983 I Rules and Regulations
48377-
160.444 Performance test procedures.
(a) The performance test for affected
facilities complying with I 60.442
without the use of add-on controls shall
be identical to-the procedures specified
in 160.443(a).
(b) '[he performance tesUor affected
facilities controlled by a solvent
recove~ device shall_be conducted as
foUows:
(1) The performance test shall be a
one calendar month test and not the
average of three runs as specified in
1 60.8( f).
(2) The weighted average mass gf
VOC per mass of coating solids appliE'd
for 8 one calendar month period shall be
determined as specified in I 6O.443(a)(1)
and 160.443(8)(2).
(3) Calculate the required percent
overall vac emission reduction as
specified in 160.443(b).
(4) Inventory vac usage and vac
recovery for a one calendar month
period..
(5) Determine the percent overall vac
emission reduction as specified in
I 60.443( c).
(c) The performance test for affected
facilities controlled by a solvent
destruction device shall be conducted as
follows:
{1) The performance of the solvent
destruction device shall be determined
by averaging the resuJts of three test
runs as specified in 1 6O.8(f).
(2) Determine for each affected facility
prior to each test run the weighted
average mass of vac per mass of
coating solids applied being used at the
facility, The weighted average shall be
determined as specified in I 6O.443(a). In
this application the quantities of Wol.
W.io and Ma shall be determined for the
time period of each test run and not a
calendar month as specified in I 60.441.
(3) Calculate the required percent
o\'erall vac emission reduction as
specified in I 6O.443(b).
(4) Determine the percent overall vac
emission reduction of the solvent
destruction device by the following
equation and procedures:
n
I
R= 131
n p
I Q..c.. ~ I Q"c..
i=1 k-:1
m
Q..c.. - I Q..C~
i=1
(i) The bwner or operator of the
affected facility shall construct the
o\'erall vac einission reduction svstem
so that all volumetric flow rates and
total vac emIssions can be accurately
determined by the applicable test
methods and procedures specified in
160.446(b).
.1(10
(ii) The owner or operator of an
affected faCl1ity shall constnld It
temporary total enclosure around the
coating line applicator and flamoffarea
during the performance test for the .
purpose of capturing fugitive VOC
emissions. If a permanent total
enclosure- exists in the affected facility
prior to the performance test an~ the
Administrator is satisfied that the
enclosure is totally capturing fugitive
vac emissions. then no additional total
enclosure ~ill be required for the
performance test.
(Hi) For each affeeted facility where
the value of R is greater than or equal to
the value of R., calculated in ~ 6O.443(b),
compliance with I 6O.442(a)(2) is
demonstrated.
(Sec. 114. Clean Air Act as amended (42
V.S.C.- 7414))
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control n_umber 206().-{)()()4) .
~ 60.445 Monitoring of operations and
recordlceeping.
(a) The owner or'operator of an
affected facilj,ty subject to this subpart
shall maintain a calendar month record
of all coatings used and the results of
the reference test method specified in
i 6O.446(a) or the manufacturer's
formulation data used for determining
the vac content of those coatings.
(b) The owner or operator of an
affected facility controlled by a solvent
recovery device shall maintain a
calendar month record of the amount of
solvent applied in the coating at each
affected facility.
(c) The owner or operator of an
affected facility controlled by a solvent
recovery device shall install, calibra te~
maintain. and operate a monitoring
device for indicating the cumulative
amount of solvent recovered by the
device over a calendar month period.
The monitoring device shall be accurate
within :i:2.0 percent. The owner or
operator shall maintain a calendar
month record of the amount of solvent
recovered by the device.
(d) The owner or operator of an
affected facility operating at the
conditions specified in i 6O.440(b) shall
maintain a 12 month record of the
amount of solvent applied in the coating
at the facility.
(e) The owner or operator of an
affected facility controlled by a thermal
incineration solvent destruction de\'ice
shall install. calibrate, maintain. and
operate a monitoring device which
continuouslv indicates and records the
temperature of the solvent destruction
device's exhaust gases. The monitoring
device shall have an accuracy of the
greater of :::0.i5 percent of the
335
temperature being measured expressed.
in degrees Celsius or :i:2.5- C. .
-If) The owner or operator-of an
affected facility controlled by a catalytic
incinera tion solvent destruction device
shall instan. calibrate. maintain. and
operate- a monitoring device which
continuously indicates and records fhe
gas h!mperature both upstream and
downstream of the catalyst bed.
(g) The owner or operator of an
affected facility controlled by a solvent
destruction device which uses a hood or
enclosure to capture fugitive vac
emissions shall install. calibrate.
maintain. and operate a monitoring
device which continously indicates that
the hood or enclosure is operating. No
continuous monitor shall be required if
the owner or operator can demonstrate
that the hood or enclosure system is
interlocked with the affected facilitv's
oven recirculation air system. '-
(h) Records of the measurements
required in U 60.443 and 60.445 must be
retained for at least two years following
the date of the measurements.
(See. 114. Clean Air Act as amended (42
V.S.C. 7414))
[Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget uDder control number 2060-0004)
~ 60.446 Test methods and procedures.
(a) The vac content per unit of
coating solids applied and compliance
with ~ 6O.422(a)(1) shall be determined
by either Reference Method 24 and the
equations specified in ~ 60.443 or by
manufacturers' formulation data. In the
event of any inconsistency between a
Method 24 test and manufacturers'
formulation data, the Method 24 test will
go\'em. The Administrator may require
an O\l\,11er or operator to perform Method
24 tests during such months .as he deems
appropriate. For Reference Method 24.
the colfting sample must be a one liter
sample taken into a one liter container
at a point where the sample will be
representative of the coating applied to
the web substrate.
(b) Reference Method 25 shall be used
to determine the vac concentration, in
parts per million by volume. of each
effluent gas stream entering and exiting
the solvent destruction device or ils
equivalent. and each effluent gas stream
emitted directly to the atmosphere.
Reference Methods 1. 2. 3. and 4 shall be
used to determine the sampling location.
volumetric flowrate, molecular weight.
and moisture of all sampled gas streams.
For Reference Method 25. the sampling
time for each of three runs must be at
least 1 hour. The minimum sampling
volume must be 0.003 dscm except that
shorter sampling times or smaller
volumes. when necessitated by process
-------
48378
Federal Register I Vol. 48,. No. 202 I Tuesday, October 18. 1983 I Rules and Regulations
-==
variables or other factors. may be
approved by the Administrator.
(c) If the owner or operator can
demonstrate to the Administrator's
satisfaction that testing of
representative stacks yields results
comparable to those that would be
obtained by testing all stacks. the
Administrator will approve testing of
representative stacks on a case-by-case
basis.
(Sec. 114. Clean Air Aetas amended (42
U.S.c. 7414))
~ 60.447 Reporting requirements.
(a) For all affected facilities subject 10
compliance with I 60.442, the
performance test data and results from
"
the perfonnance test shall be submitted
to the Administrator as specified in
160.8(a) of the General Provisions (40
CFR Part 60 Subpart A).
(b) :The owner or operator oreach
affected facility shall submit semiannual
reports 10 the Administrator of
exceedances of the following.
(1) The vac emission limits specified
in I 60.442; and
(2) The incinerator temperature drops
as defined under 160.443(e). The reports
required under paragraph (b) shall be
postmarked within 30 days Jollowing the
end of the second and fourth calendar
quarters.
(c) The requirements of this
subsection remain in force until and
336
unless EPA. in delegating .enforcement
authority to a State under Section 111(c)
of the Act. approves reporting
requirements or an alternative mean. of
compliance surveillance adopted by
such States. In that event. affected
sources within the State will bfJ relieved
of the obligation to comply with this
subsection. provided that they campI,
with the requirements established by the
State.
(Sec. 114. Clean Air Act a5 amended (42
U.S.C. 7414))
(Approved by the Office of Manasement and
Budset under control number 20I10-OOO4)
IFR Doc. -28158 Filed lG-17-«1: l:tS 1m)
8ILUNG CODE .--...
-------
-
Oil -
iEiI
r_,;a
'=!J .-
--==
--
M]
~-'tj
~ ..... ......
--
~
LLI
Friday
October 21, 1983
Part IV
Environmental
Protection Agency
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources; VOC Emissions From
the Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) Air
Oxidation ~.;h, Processes
337
-------
48932
Federal Register / Vol. 48, ~o. 205 i Friday, Octobe; 21, 1983 / Proposed Rules
-=::
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY.
40 CFR Part 60
[AD-FRL 2258-8]
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources; VOC Emissions
From the Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) Air
Oxidation Unit Processes
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of
public hearing.
SUMMARY: The proposed standard
would limit emissions of vo]aUe organic
compounds (VOC) from new. modified.
and reconstructed air oxidation
facilities. These proposed standards
would require. for each air oxidation
process vent stream. either use of a
combustion de\'ice which reduces total
organic compound emissions (minus
methane and ethanej by 98 \,,Ieight
percent or to 20 ppm by v{)lum~.
whichever is less stringent. or
maintenance of a total resource-
effectiveness (TRE) index value greater
than 2.2.
The proposed standard ir.:?lements
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act and is
based on the Administrator's
determination that the synt~etic organic
chemical manufactu:L'1g industry
[':Oo,.U) contributes significantly to air
Dollution which mav reasona'olv be
anticipated to endanger pub;ic. health or
~~'elfare. The intent is to reqdre new.
Qoc.iiied. and reconstr..:cted SOCMI air
oxidation facilities to control emissions
to the level ach;evable through use of
the best demonstrated S\ slern of
cor:tinuous emission red'uclicn.
cG;'!sidenng costs. nenair q!:ality health.
a:1d environmental and energy Impacts.
A public hearing will be held, if
requested. to provice interested persons
6.n opportunity for oral presentation of
Gata. \'iews. er arg\,;.ments concerning
the proposed standards.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be
received on or before January 3. 1984.
Public Hearing: If anyone contacts
EPA requesting to speak at a public
hearing by November 15. 1983. a public
hearing will be held on December 1.
1983 beginning at 10 a.m. Persons
interested in attending the hearing
should call Mrs. Naomi Durkee at the
telephone number li~ted u;Jder
FOA FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT to
\'erify that a hearing will occur.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments
should be submitted (in duplicate. if
po~sible) to: Central Docket Section [A-
130). Attentio~ Docket :\:":r:1oer .'\-B1-
22. C.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 401 M Street, SW.. \Vashington.
D.C. 20460.
P:..:bl:"c Hec::ng. If anyone requests a
p:.lblic hearing, it will be held at the
Environmental Research Center
Auditorium. comer of highway 54 and
Alexandria Drive. Research Triangle
Park. ~orth Carolina.
Persons wishing to present oral.
testimonv should notify Mrs. Naomi
Durkee, Standards Development Branch
(MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection
Acencv, Research Triangle Park. North
C~roJi;a 17711. telephone number (919)
541-5578.
Backoround In form a tlOn Document.
The b~kground 'information document
(BID) for the proposed standard may be
obtained from the U.S. EPA Library
(MD-35) . Research Triangle Park. North
Carolina 27711. telephone number (919)
541-2777. Please refer to "SOCMI Air
Oxidation Processes-Background
Information for Proposed Standards."
EPA-450/~2-OO1a.
Docket. Docket Number A-81-22.
containing supporting information used
in developing the proposed standard. is
available for pubiic inspection and
copying between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m..
Monday through Friday, at EPA's
Central Docket Section. West Tower
Lobby, Gallery 1, Waterside Mail, 401 M
Street. SW.. Washington. D.C. 20460. A
reasonable fee may be charged for
copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Robert E. Rosf:nsteel. (919) 541-5596.
concerning technical aspects of the
industry and control technologies, and
Mr. Gilbert H. Wood. (919) 541-5578.
concerning regulatory decisions. The
address for both parties is Emission
Standards and Engineering Divisjon
(~fD-13). U.S. E.'1Vlronmer. tal Protection
Agency. REsearch TnaTIgle Park. North
Carolina, 27711. As Indicated above.
please call the U.S. EPA Library for
background information documer.ts.
Persons ::1ter~sted in atte:lding the
hearing should call ~lrs. !\;;omi Durkee
iit (919) 541-5578 to verify that a heari.'1g
will occur.
SUFPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Proposed Standards
Standards of performance for new
sources established under Section 111 of
the Clean Air Act reflect:
. . . application of the be~t technological
sntem of cont::1UOUS emissic:: reduction
V:;hich (takmg If!LO conslderatic:: [he cost of
achievmg such emiss!Of! reduc::on. and any
nO:1alr qt:al:ty health and em.;rorlmental
impact and energy requ!reme::ts) Ihe
.d,dml::istrator deterrnmes has been
adequateiy ciernc:1stca'ed Section 11::a)(1).
338
For convenience. this will be referred to
as "best demonstrated technology" or
EDT.
The Administrator has determined
that for most aIr oXjdation facllities BDT
far VOC reductIOn is incineration, which
can reduce total organic emissions
(minus methane and ethane) by 98
percent by weight or to 20 ppm. by
volume. Due to variations in fai::tors
such as flowrate and organics
CDncentration, the total costs for
incineration per unit VOC emission
reduction would vary considerably
among the different types of air.
oxidation facilities. The Administrator
has also determined. therefore. that for
some air oxidation facilities. the cost of
incineration per unit of VOC reduced is
unreasonably high and BDT is no
CDntroJ. To distinguish between those
facilities for which BDT is incineration
and those facilities for which EDT is no
control. a means of measuring the total
cost of control VOC emissions from air
oxidation facilities by incineration was
developed. This means of measuring the
cost of control is called the total
resource-effectiveness (TRE) index and
is explained more fully in the section
entit]ed "Selecrion of the Basis of the
Proposed Standard."
The proposed standard would require
each owner or operator of an affected
facility to either reduce process vent
stream emissions by 98 weight percent
or to 20 parts per million by volume,-
whichever is less stringent, or to
main tab a TRE index value greater than
:.2 The affected facility is designated as
any indi\'idu?.1 product recovery system
along with all air oxidation reactors
feedings offgas into this system. Each air
oxidatioTI reactor not feeding offgas into
a product recovery system wouid
CDnstitute a separate affected facI1ity.
An eq;,;ation is included In the
reg.l:" tion for dete:mining the TRE
index \.alue of each vent stream. The
process vem stream ŁloVirate. total
orga!:ic ccmpou:1d [min:.:s methane and
etba!!e) emission rate. net heating value
a.."d corrosIOn properties (whether or not
cnlorinated compounds are prese;.t)
would be reauired to be measured
according to'the specified Reference
Methods in order to calculate the TRE
index value. These vertt stream
d:.aracteristic!> would be measured
fcllewing the last product recovery
device (e.g. condensers. absorbers.
car'::::on aGsor!:;e.s). The structure of the
proposed sta!':c:;:d aHows an aifecled
[adit\' with a -T?.E ;ndex value of iess
than i.2 to add a prod:.:ct recovery
de',ice or imprCJve an existmg product
recovery device to change the vent
stream charac:er~s~ics :Jsed for
-------
-
Federal Register / ''''01. 48. !\;o. 205 / Frida:;. October 21. 1983 / 'Proposed Rules
48933
calculating the TRE index value so that
the TRE index value will be above 2.2
and incineration would not be requIred.
An owner or operator might choose to
improve product recovery rather than
incinerate in some cases due to the
lower cost of improved product
recovery. Increased product recovery
would also have the advantage over
incineration of less energy usage and
increased retention of product.
Each owner or operator complying
with the proposed standard by using an
incinerator or stream generating unit
(such as a boiler or process heater) with
a design heat input capacity of less than
44 MW (150 million Btu/hr) would be
required to continuolisly monitor and
record the firebox operatmg temperature
(cr, if a catalytic oxidizer were used. the
temperature before and after the
catalvst bed). If this emission reduction
requirement were achieved by use of a
steam generating unit with a design
capacity of 44 MW or greater. no
continuous monitoring would be
required. However. records (such as
steam production records) would be
required which would verify the periods
of operation of the steam generating
u:lit.lf t.1e vaG reduction requirement
were achieved by any other means. the
OI'<11er or operator would be required to
provide information describing the
operation of the control device and the
process parameter(s) which would
indicate proper operation and
maintenance of the device so that the
enforcing agency could specify
appropriate monitoring requirements.
Each o.....ner or operator who seeks to
demonstiate compliance with the
proposed standard by maintaining a
rent stream TRE index value above 2.2
would be required to maintain records
of any change in the design or operation
of the facilitv which could affect the
IRE index v'alue. Such records would
include changes in the production
capacity. feecstock type. or catalyst
type. as well as the replacement.
removal. or addition of product recovery
equipment. When any such change takes
place. t::e owner or operator of the
facility is required to demonstrate that
he is in compliance with the standard:
that is. he is to recalculate the TRE
index \'a;ue to document that the facilitv
cc~ti:n:es to have a TRE index value -
abore 2.2. Such recalculation can be
based on test data refiecting the ~ha!1ges
1:1 the system. or best engineering
estimates of the effects of the changes. If
the reca:culated TRE index \'a]ue for the
facility is less than 2.2. the owner or
operator shall demonstrate compiiance
\~ith the 98 percent or 20 ppmv emission
hmits. Prio: notice of any performance
testing shall be glVen to EPA as requIred
bv the General Provisions. Performance
testing may also be required on a case-
by-case basis by the Administrator
following any change to the product
recoverv svstem in order to verify the
TRE index" value for the facilitv. '
In .addition to maintaining records of
certain operating parameters to ensure
the proper operation and maintenance
of combustion control equipment or
product recovery devices. records of
instances where the monitored values
exceed allowable limitations must be
maintained. In addition to maintaining
these records. an owner or operator
must submit a semi-annual report of the
recorded e:\ceedances. of Deriods when
the TRE index value is rec'alculated and
of perioQs when a steam generating unit
is not operating, The requirement of
semi-annual reporting may be waived
for affected facilities in States that have
been delegated authority for,
enforcement, provided EP1\ approves
the reporting requirements or alternative
means of Gompliance surveillance
adopted by the State and the affected
facilities comply-with the requirements
established bv the State.
In addition "to this proposed standard
Reference Methods lA. ZG. and 2D are
being proposed in today's Federal
Register.
Summary of Environmental. Energy. and
Economic Impacts
The environmental. energy. and
economic impacts associated with the
proposed standard were projected by
using a national statistical profile of
offgas characteristics at existing plants.
The offgas parameters included were
offgas flo\-\<,ate. net heating value. total
organics (minus methane and ethane)
emission rate. and corrosion properties
(presence or absence of halogenated
compounds).'It was assumed that the
national dlst::~ution of these offgas
parameters fur new sources would be
the same as the distribution for existing
sources. Determmation of these impacts
was based on the use of a single VaG
control technique. thermal oxidation.
Thermal oxidation is the onlv VaG
control technique universally applicable
to SaGJ'."n air oxidation processes. Some
processes would employ product
recovery equipment to achieve a TRE
index value higher than the exemption
cutoff. and. in fact. the proposed
standards are structured in such a way
that encourages this. Such equipment
generally has lower associated costs.
energy use. and emission reduction.
Therefore. the environmental. energy.
and economic impacts associated with
the proposed standard are somewhat
overstated. However. the degree of
339
overstatement of the impacts cannot be
quantIfied.
Under the proposed standL :J.
approximately 19 percent of 2:: new.
modified. or reco:1structed al: ':xidatJOn
facilities would be under the TRE cutoff.
If all of these facilities used incineration
to meet the standard, the projected 1986
natJOnal vac emissions from new air
oxidation process and product recovery
vents would be reduced bv an estimated
12.500 megagrams per year [Mgjyr). This
national VQG reduction would be
approximately 57 percent beyond the
22.000 Mg/yr level that would be
expected under typical State
implementation pJans (SIP's).
Any u:u:rease in emissions of other air
pollutants as a result of controlling vaG
emissions would be negligible. There
would be no direct solid \"..aste impacts
under the proposed standards. and
impacts on noise. space requirements.
and availabilitv of resources would be
negligible. "
No increase in total plant wastewater
is projected under the proposed
standard. There is no organic
wastewater effluent associated with
incineration. Therefore. the only
facilities which could have an
associated water pollution impact are
those which might use additional
product rean-ery to achieve a total
resource-effectiveness (TRE) value
above the proposed z.z cutoff. Carbon
adsorption is the only product recovery
technique currently in use in the
industry which has an associated
organic wastewater effluent. Based on
past industry experience. only three air
o..idannn duom~l manufacturing
processes are expected to employ
carbon adsorption. Of these three
processes only the maleic anhydride
from benzene feedstock process might
have a TRE value below the propDsed
',2 cutoff. However. if any new maleic
anhvdride facilities are built. it is
pro{ected they will utilize butane
feedstock rather than benzene. The
maleic anhydride from butane feedstock
process would not use carbon
adsorption for product recovery and
therefore would havE: no additional
wastewater.
If an existing benzene-feedstock
maleic anhvdride facllitv were modified
or recoTIstriIcted (which'is unlikely),
such a facility might have a TRE value
below the proposed cutoff. in such an
. event. an if additional carbon
adsorption were employed in lieu of
incineration or some other type of
product recovery. the adsorption unit of
a typical maleic anhydride facility
would generate approximately 500 ~1g/
lo' of VOC which would be sent to
-------
48934
Federal Regi5ter I VoL 48. No. 205 I Friday. October 21. 1983 I Proposed Rule5
wastewater treatment. The organic load
of the wastewater from carbon
adsorption would be less than 10
percent of the total liquid waste from
such a facility. This wastewater stream
could be treated along with the other
plant effluent or recycled to the process.
No new wastewater treatment piant or
additional sewer capacity WQuId be
necessary.
The fifth year energy requirements
due to vac control under the proposed
standard would be 0.77 billion
megajoules per year (MJ/yr). (360 bbl
eil! day). Tbe projected national and
individuai plant energy impacts are
considered reasonable.
Tbe fLfth yt'ar cost impacts of the
proposed standards also would be
reasonable. The 1986 national
annualized cost for vac control would
be 510 millieI'.. The fifth year national
capital cost for vac control would be
$18 million.
An economic am!.lysis indicated that
the costs of vac control due to the
proposed standard could be passed on
with little or no effect on the
profitability of the air oxidation
chemical producing industry. Projections
made by employing process-specific
assumptions indicate that all air
oxidation chemicals would have product
cost increases due to th_e proposed
standard of less than 5 percent of the
projected product price. The price
changes for the 36 chemicals that are
ccrrently produced using the air
oxidation process. assuming clJntrol
costs would be passed through totally.
would range from 0 to a 3.1 percent
i!1crease. except for maJeic anhydride
produced by the benzene process. which
showed an estimated 4.2 percent
increase. New maleic anhydride plants
are expected to employ the butane
process (which showed an estimated 3.1
percent increase). instead oi the
benzene process. even in the absence of
t~e proposed standard. Finally. there
would be no adverse effects on
employment because the proposed
standard would not affect demand for
the air oxidation chemicals.
It is projected that in the absence of
the proposed standarc.s. uncontrolled
vac emissions would be reduced an
average of 72 percent by State
regulations. Seventy-two percent
represents a weighted average of the
regulations in States where new sources
are projected to be built. The actual
control rt:quired would vary
considerably from State to State.
Therefore. the impacts for individual
plants would vary depending on the
State where the affected facility is
located. A typical air oxidation facility
located in a State with a relatively
stringent standard would reduce vac
emissions 1200 MgJyear beyond what
the SIP would require at an incremental
annualized cost of $1.4 million under th~
recormnended standard. A typical air
oxidation facility in a State with no
State requirement wuuld reduce vac
emissions by about 7400 MgJyr at an
estimated annualized cost of $2.1 million
under the recommended standard.
Standards of performance have other
benefits in addition to achieving
reductions in emissions beyond those
required by a typical State
implementation plan (SIP).. They provide
documentation which reduces
lli"1certainty in case.bY-<:aJre
determinations of best av3.ilabie centrol
technology (BACT) for facilitLos located.
in attainment areas. and lowest
achievable emission rates (LAER) for
facilities located in nonattainment
areas.-This documentation includes
identification and comprehensive
analvsis of alternative emission control
techi'1Qlogies (if any). development of
associated costs. an evaluation an.d
verification of applicable emission test
methods. ide!1}ification of specific
emission limits achievable with
alternate tec1mologies and an economic
analysis that reveals the affordability of
controls. .
The rulemaking process that
implements a periormance standard
assures adequate technical review and
promotes participation of
representaDves of the industry being
considered for regu~ation. government..
and the public affected by that
industrY's emissions. The resultant
regclatlon represents a bal
-------
=-
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 205 / Friday. October 21. 1983 / Proposed Rules
48935
Administrator has determined that the
following organic compounds are not
photochemically reactive: methane:
ethane; 1.1.1-trichloroethane; methylene
chloride; trichlorofluoromethane.
dichlorodifluoromethane:
trifluoromethane:
trichlorotrifluoroethane;
dichlorotetrafluoroethane:
chloropentafluoroethane. Even though
the standards cover only those
processes which emit vac. the emission
limits for processes which emit vac are
expressed in terms of total organic
compounds (minus methane and ethane)
rather than vac. This is a reflection of
the technology. data. and test method
upon which the standards are based.
This is discussed in greater detail in a
later section of this preamble entitloed
Compounds Used in Determining
Compliance. ..
Oxychlorination and ammoxidation
processes have reaction. emission, and
control system design characteristics
sufficiently similar to the other air
oxidation processes that all of these
may be grouped together. For this
reason. all oxidation unit processes,
including ammoxidation and
oxychlorination processes. that use air
(or a combination of air and oxygen)
have been chosen as the source for
control by the proposed standard.
In addition to vac emissions. other
pollutants emitted from SaCM! air
oxidation sources °included carbon
monoxide (CO). nitrogen oxides (NO.J
and sulfur oxides (SO,,). These other
pollutants are emitted in much lower
quantities than the estimated VOC
emissions. VOC is the only pollutant
covered by the proposed standard. Due
to the size of this source category.
covering other smaller pollutants at this
time would have been an unmanageable
task. The Agency will examine these
other pollutants independently.
SelectioD of Regulatory Approach and
Affected Facilities
TwO' general regulatory approaches
could be used in developing standards
for SOCM!. The-first approach involves
the chemical-by-chemical development
of standards. which has historically
~een the most commonly used approach
In developing standards of performance
for new stationary sources. This
approach would involve establishing
standards for each specific chemical
manufacturing process.
The second approach involves the
development of standards on the basis
of similar types of emission sources and
applicable emission control techniques.
The second approach is more resource-
efficient than the first approach because
a large number of specific chemical
processes can be covered by one
regulation. In addition. because of the
. similarity of processes regulated by a
particular standard and the similarity of
applicable controls. the energy and cost
impacts can be adequately addressed as
required by the Clean Air Act.
Air oxidation facilities currently use
36 specific reaction and equipment
configurations to manufacture 36
different organic chemicals. Because'of
the many types of facilities and -
processes in the air oxidation industry. a
chemical-by-chemical development of
standards would require large amounts
of time. Therefore. compared to the unit
process approach. a chemical-by-
chemical approach would result in a
long delay in achieving a significant
emission reduction from air oxidation
processes.
Despite the large variation in reaction
types used to produce air oxidation
chemicals, air oxidation processes can
be grouped together because they have
several similar characteristics. including
the need to vent to the atmosphere large
quantities of VOC-containing nitrogen
from the process air, the VOC content of
which is too low t6 be further recovered
with a cost savings. Therefore. air
oxidation process vent streams typically
have high flowrates and low VOC
contents. Although further VOC
retovery does not result in cost savings
due to the low VOC content. technology
does exist for control of these VOC
emissions from all air oxidation
processes. This technology is thermal
oxidation. The design characteristics
and. therefore. costs for thermal oxidizer
control systems would be similar among
- - air oxidation facilities and different
from a typical design for control of other
SOCMI process emissions such as
oxygen oxidation unit processes or
distillation unit operations. These
similar design characteristics would be
large equipment sizes. due to the
relatively high air oxidation vent stream
flowrates. and high supplemental fuel
requirements. due to the relatively low
vent stream VOC contents and heating
values. Therefore. because control
techniques are available for the entire
industry group and because regulating
the entire group would be more
resource-efficient. a single regulation is
being proposed for controlling process
VOC emissions from all SOCM! air
oxidation facilities.
The choice of the affected facilitv for
these standards is based on the .
Agency's interpretation of Section 111 of,
the Clean Air Act and on the judicial
construction of its meaning [ASARCO.
Inc v. EPA. 578 F.2d 319 (D.C. Cir. 1978)].
Under Section 111. the standards of
performance for new stationary sources
341
must apply to "new sources;" "source"
is defined as "any building. structure.
facility. or installation which emIts or
may emit any air pollutant" [Section
111(a)(3)]. Most industrial plants.
however. consist of numerous pieces or
groups of equipment which emit air
pollutants. and which may be viewed as
"sources." EPA therefore uses the term
"affected facility" to designate the
,equipment. within a particular kind of
plant. wbich is chosen as the "source"
covered by a given standard.
In designating the affected facility.
EP A must decide which piece or group
of equipment is the appropriate unit (the
source) for separate emission standards
in the particular industrial context
involved. The Agency must do this by
~ examining the situation in light of the
terms and purpose of Section 111. One
major consideration in this examination
is that the use of a narrower designation
results in bringing replacement
equipment under standards of
performance sooner. If. for example. an
entire plant is designated as the affftcted
facility. no part of the plant would be
covered by the standard unless the
replacement causes the plant as a whole
to be "modified" or "reconstructed." The
plant as a whole could be considered
modified only if the replacement results
in an increase in the aggregate
emissions from the entire plant. The
Agency would consider the plant as a
whole to have been reconstructed only if
the cost of the replacement exceeds 50
percent of the cost of an entire plant. If.
on the other hand. each piece of
equipment is designated as the affected
facility. then as each piece is replaced.
the replacement piece will be a new
source subject to the standard. Since the
purpose of Section 111 is to minimize
emissions by application of the best
demonstrated control technology at all
!Jew and modified sources (considering
\.:ost. other health and environmental
effects, andOenergy requirements), there
is'a presumption that a narrower
designation of the affected facility is
proper. This ensures that new emission
sources within plants will be brought
under the coverage of the standards as
they are installed. This presumption can
be overcome. however. if the Agency
concludes either that: (a) A broader
designation of the affected facility
would r:esult in greater emissions
reduction than would a narrow
designation; or (b) the other relevant
statutory factors (technical feasibility.
cost. energy. and other environment~l
impacts) point to a broader designation.
Several air oxidation reactors mav
feed offgases into a common product
recovery train. The characteristics of the
-------
48936
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 20.5 / Friday. October 21. 1983 I Proposed Rules
-==
emissions vented into the atmosphere
from the product rea7Very train are
determined by the oHgases from each of
the reactors, as wen as by the prodnct
recovery process from each of the
reactors. as well as by the product
recovery process i~elf. The contribution
of each reactor to these emissions
cannot be determined precisely.
Consequently, designating each of
several reactors conneded to a common
product recovery train as a seperate '
affected facility was judged to be
tf:chnically infeasible. Since all the
real:tors and their common product
recovery train operating in conjunction
d~iermine the emissions from the air
oxidation process. the narrowest
feasible affected facility is that defined
as the combination of those reactors and
their common product recovery train.
It is feasible, although uncommon, for
emissions from a reactor to be vented
directly to the atmosphere. Since the
cta,al:teristics of emissions from
reactors not feeding offgases into a
common product recovery train can be
determined for each reactor separately.
each such reactor has been designated
as a separate affected facility.
Therefore. the Administrator
designated the individ:.:al reactor-
product recovery train consisting of an
individual product recovery system
(series of product recovery tUlits) aiang
with all air oxidation reactors feeding
offgas mto this system as the affected
fsl:iiity. Each air oxidation react~ not
feeding offgas to a product ret:owery
system would be designated as a
separate affected facility. The affected
facility would end at the vent at which
the air oxidation reactor oifgas is
e!llitted to the atmosphere.
If !wo or more series of prcduct
recovery equipment units were IL1LcU!ged
in paraJle! rnch that they shared an
cltimG.te vent to the atmosphere. eal:h
train of recovery equipment. with its
associated m oxidation reactors. would
te considered a separate affected
f.lcillty. as long as each reactor ....-as
~iped to only one of the senes of
recovery ~uipment. Also. if a new
reactor were added to an existing
facility sud!. that a modification
resulted, the affected facility would
include the new reaetar. all reco\'erV
equipment into which the new reactor
was piped, and any other reactors also
piped to the saIne recovery equipment.
Ar:y nonair oxidation reactors feed:i:I!g
offgas into an affected. facilitv's
equipment train would not b;
considered part of that affected facilitv.
If any or all of the air oxida tion reactor
offgas at any point were conducted
through the equipment of any other
process in the plant (other than the air
oxirlation prodDct. ~velJ train}. the
intervening nonair oxidation equipmem
wculd not be indDded as part of the
affected facility. Sach a diversion of air
oxidation affgas might be dene ti)
provide an inert blanket far another type
of reactor. Such a diversion might result
in the air oxidation reactor offgas being
emitted from more than one atmospheric
venlln this case. each vent. along'With
any product recovery equipment through
which the vented air oxjdatioo offgas-
would have paued. and any associated
air oxidation reactors. wmud constitute
an affected facility.
Selection of Regulatory Alternatives
Control TecJmjques. A variety of
control devices. incJ,uding condensen.
absorbers. adsorbers, and incinerators.
can be used to reduce VOC emissions
from air oxidation unit processes.
However, selecting the most applicable
VOC control device far a particular
chemical manufactnri:ng process and
determining the degree of control
acbevable would depend on the
che:nical composition of the waste
stream and other process
characteristics. The spec:iŁicity and
effectiveness of devices such as
condensers, absorbers. adsorbers, and
catalytic incinerators may be greatly
affected hy the vent stream flowrate and
VOC concentration. the chemical and
physical properties of the VOC and
other contaminants. and the ...-ent stream
water content and tempenrtrure. As a
result. none of these potential cantrol
de"ices wowrl be aniversaliy o:pplkable
for reduction of vac emissWn5 from all
air oxidation processes.
Air oxidation precesses use a
combination of absorption devices.
condensers. or carbon adsorption mrits
for product reCO'Je..~- {or for rec:::r:,e...'Y of
UlU'eac~eri raw mate1ial). These devices
ara :.!sually designed to recr)'\,er aDJ.! as
m~ch cf the VOC as redts in a CDst
Sa \iI::.gs and. theefo.~ would not be
cansiciered control de\-jces. H()we"er, in
some plants t.':1~e devices are designed
to remove more than t..':1at iUlOunt which
resu.i-:s in cost sa\ings.ln this case. the
devices operate boih for product
recovery and as coDtrol devices far
emission reduction or to redu::e the
pollutant load on seme other final
control device. -
Thermal oxidation is a co!!trol
ted'~'1ique i.::r. which a mlxtu.--e of gases.
including a vent stream. ~s
CDmbustion air. and I or fuel is held at a
sufficiently high tmperature for a
sufficiently long period of time to insure
complete combustimt of the vac to
carbon dioxide and water. If the VOC
stream has a sufficiently high beating
342
value. part of it is paned throqA the
burner in place of part 01' aU ollbe fuel.
The tbermal oxidizer opera1iDs
temperattIre, chamber residence time,
combustion ga5 mixing. and le"Ienti
other factors related to indMduaI1nst~
stream characteristics determine the
exact efficiency of this reaction. .
Operation of a thennal oxidizer is nmch
leS1l dependent on process and \I'I!!It
stream characteristics than are o1her
VOC control and/or product n!CO'„'el1
devices and. consequently. is the amy
demonstrated VOC control t~
anhrerselly applicable to SOCMI air
oxidation proce~es. Also. data mow
that thermal oxidation can achieve the
highest feasible vac controlleftl of all
cUITently demonstrated technologies. An
new. incineratOJ'! can achieve at least a
98 percent VOC reduction or 20 ppmv
exit concentration. This cOIltrollevel
can be achieved for all air oxidation
re-action processes by incmerator
operation at conditions which include a
maximmn of 870"C (1600"F) and 0.15'
second residence time.
Tests were performed on the
destruction efficiency of incinerators
operating at various temperatues [7IXrC
(1300°F) to BOO"C (1500°F)) and residence
times (0.5 to 1.5 seCDnds). These tests
showed a destruction efficiency or98
percent to be ac.;ievable.ln addition.
kinetics calculatio:lS were perfomed
which compared the tested conditions
with the destruction efficiency of an
incinerator operated with a residence
time of 0.75 s~cond at 870"C. This
temperature is known to be achievable
in existing incinerators. These
calculations show that these conditions
are ~ore candu.ctive tc complete
destruction than t.;e tested candiliana.
Therefore. B.70.C and Q.75 second were
determined to represent the achieTable
operating conditions ",hid eight be
necessa.."Y to achievE 98 perce::!t total
organics (minus methane and ethane}
destuction under the wtJrst case
conditions.
Kinetics cc.lculatiDns ~cribing
complex coma-.JStian reaction
mechnisn:s iT.7Ult to mt1Ch sIay,--er
re3coon rates at ve.ry low total organics
CCnl:Entratior.s. Because of these slower
combustion reaction rates. maxi::lum
ac,;-.ievable organic compounds '
dest:-uction efficiencv decreases as inlet
concentration decreases.. A\-ailable data
show that the lowest amcetrtratiC!l
achievzble by combustion of inlet
streams below ap;nmcimately ZOOO
ppmv is 20 ppmv. (Far air oxidation vent
stream "",ith a concentration of ZOOO
ppm. the incinerator con.bustion air
introduces a dilution factor of about Z.
so that the act'.LBl incinerator inlet
-------
-
Federal Register I Vol. 48, No. 205 I Friday, October 21. 1983 ! Proposed RuleS
48937
concentration is about 1000 ppm.} The
Agency bas therefore selected 20 ppmv
as the liDrlt that allows fully for tbe drop
in achievable destruction efficiency with
decreasing inlet concentration.
The data also show that the effect of
compoUDd identity on destruction
efficiency increases at incineration
temperatures lower than 760°C (14OO°F).
although precise quantitative relations
could not be determined. However. at
temperatues above 760°C. the identity of
nonhalogenated compounds has little
effect on the destruction efficiency of
thermal oxidizers. Because organic
compounds which contain halogens
undergo complete combustion more
slowly. at any given temperature. more,
stringent conditions are required to
achieve 98 percent destruction when
incinerating halogenated vent streams.
The impacts of emission control were
projected assuming a combustion
temperature of 1100.C (2ooo°F) and 1.0
second residence time for halogenated
vent streams. Because the incinerator
outlet stream for such facilities would
contain corrosive hydrogen halide. a
flue gas quencher and scrubber were
included in the incineration system
design and considered in the projection
of cost impacts. .
At temperatures over 760.C (14OO°F).
the oxidation reaction rate is much
faster than the rate at which mixing
takes place. Therefore. organic
compou!ld destruction becomes more
dependent upon the fluid mechnics
\'.~thin thl:! oxidation chamber, Chamber
design and burner and baffle
configurations provide for turbulent flow
for improved mixing. One practical
manner of achieving good mixing and
efficiency is to adjust the newly
installed equipment (e.g. by changing
baffle configurations) to improve
performance.
Allho).lgh the emission test data cited
above would also support the
achievability of 95 percent reduction at
a thermal oxidizer operating
temperature of i60CC (14OO"F), this
reduction efficiencv was not considered
as an alternative cOntrol technique. This
95 percent alternative was not
considered because the additional
emission reduction associated with 98
percent control at '870"C relative to 95
percent control at 760"C was judged to
?e large when compared to the small
mcremental cost and energy impacts
associated with the two control levels.
In summarv. thermal oxidation is the
only VQC control device that is
\IlI~versally applicable to SaCM! air
oXIdation processes. Thermal oxidation
can achieve a greater degree of vac
control than anv other device and
requires only a iimited amo~t of vent
stream data (flowrate. heating value.
and whether chlorinated compounds are~
present) to determine control costs.
Selection of Format for Proposed
Standard and Emission Limits. Several
formats could be used to implement the
proposed standard. Section 111 of the
Clean Air Act requires that standards of
performance be prescribed unless. in the
judgment of the Administrator. it is not
feasible to prescribe or enforce such.
standards. Because emission from air
oxidation process or product recovery
vents, as well as emissions from any
type of combustion control equipment.
can be measured. it was determined that
'an emission limitation (performance)
standard would be appropriate. A mass
emission standard. a percent reduction
standard. and a concentra.tion standard
were considered.
Because of the variety in offgas
flowrates and vac contents for the
many chemical reaction proces~s and
facilities in the air oxidation source
category. mass emission rates from
sources using 98 percent efficient
incinerators would vary considerably.
Consequently. a mass emission limit
based on an aVefage source would
require more than 98 percent control
demonstrated technology (EDT) at some
facilities and less at others. Therefore. a
mass emission standard was considered
inappropriate. because it would not
require best demonstrated techn.ology
(EDT) at each source.
Air oxidation process vent streams
have as much variation in volume
percent vac concentration as h, mass
emission rates. AIty standard based
solelv on a concentration limit would
require more than BDT at some facilities
and less than BDT at others. Therefore.
a standard based solely upon
concentration was considered
inappropriate. However. a concentration
limit might be used in combination with
another type of emission limit. if the
applicablilty of the concentration limit
were restricted to facilities with a '
limited range of offgas organics content.
A weight percent reduction standard
would be feasible because the control
device inlet and outlet emission rates
can be measured. Furthermore. a given
set of incinerator operating conditions
tends to result in a given weight percent
organics reduction. rather than in an
absolute outlet organics concentration
or emission rate. As discussed above in
the section entitled Control Techniques.
all new incinerators can achieve at least
a 98 weight percent reduction in total
organics (minus methane and ethane).
provided that the total organic (minus
methane and ethane) concentration of
the process vent stream is greater than
approximately 2000 ppm (volume. by
343
compound). Therefore. a weight
percentage reduction standard. based on
the mass-rate of organics exiting-the
control device versus the mass rate of
organics entering the device. would be
appropriate for "ent streams with total
organics (minus methane and ethane)
concentrations above approximately
2000 ppm. For vent streams with
organics concentrations below
approximately 2000 ppm. it has been
determin~that an incinerator outlet
concentration of ZO ppm (volUme. by
compound), or lower. is achievable by
all new thermal oxidizers. Therefore..
EPA concluded that the format of the
proposed standard for air oxidation
process vent emissions should include a
combination of weight percent reduction
and a volume concentration standard.
The proposed emission limits would be
a 98 percent total organics (minus
methane and ethane) reduction. or total
organics (minus methane and ethane)
reduction to 20 ppm (volume. by
compound). whichever would be less
stringeDt for a given facility. The
concentration limit of ZO ppmv would be
based on a vent stream oxygen
concentration, at the control device
outlet.. of 3 percent by volume.
Regulatory Analysis. As explained
above. thermal oxidation is clearly the
most effective control technology and is
demonstrated for application at all
faciliti~s. For this reason. the Agency
concluded that any regulatory
alternative under the Administrator's
consideration would necessarily
incorporate the use of thermal oxidation.
(This contrasts with the development of
most other NSPS's where the Agency
has examined regulatory alternatives
distinguished from each other by control
device.) Accordingly. each alternative
would require a control efficiency of 98
weight percent or reduction to ZO ppmv
9' ;t concentration. whichever is less
stringent. for those affected facilities
required to control emissions.
However. because this standard
would cover a variety of types of
saCM! plants. the offgas parameters
wruch would affect the cost and ene.-gy
impacts of vac control by thermal
oxidation would vary. These parameters
include volume flowrate (which affects
equipment size) and heating value
(which affects the amount of
supplemental fuel required to achieve
complete combustion). Other varying
offgas parameters include organics
content and corrosion properties (such
as the presence of.chlorinated
compounds. which affect control
equipment structural properties).
Because of this variety. control costs per
weight unit emission reduction would
-------
...
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 205 / Friday, October 21. 1983 / Proposed Ru1e~
==
also vary considerably from plant to
plant. Therefore. the Agency needed to
decide whether thennal oxidation is the
"best demonstrated technology" for all.
or only a portion. of the projected
affected facilities. This depends on the
impacts associated with thennal
oxidation control at facilities with
different vent stream characteristics.
Thus. as discussed in the section
entitled Identification of Regulatory
Alternatives. under each additional
alternative an additional percentage of
sources would be required to meet the
proposed standards. (For example.
under the first alternative. 7 percent of
the projected affected facili ties would
be required to meet the standards.
Under the second alternative. those 7
percent plus an additional 7 percent of
projected facilities would be required to
meet the standards. and so on.)
The Agency structured the regulatory
alternatives so that those facilities with
the lowest projected annualized cost of
control. per unit of VOC destroyed.
would be controlled first (i.e.. under the
first and all other alternatives) and
those with higher costs would be
controlled last (Le.. under only the latter
alternatives). This method of choosing
which facilities would be required to
control emissions ensures that for any
given regulatory alternative. the greatest
national VOC emission reduction is
obtained for the amount of money spent.
The following discussion and the
section entitled National Emissions
Profile describe how the Agency
calculated theoretical control costs for
each vent stream in order to rank vent
streams by cost per unit of VOC
destroyed. All new incinerators. if
properly installed. adjusted. maintained.
and operated. can achieve 98 percent
emission control of nonhalogenated
streams when operated at conditions no
more stringent than a combustion
chamber temperature of B7QOC and
residence time of 0.75 second. The
impacts of each regulatory alternative
were therefore projected based on the
use. by each facility with
nonhalogenated vent stream required to
reduce emissions. of a thennal oxidizer
operated at 870'C and a 0.75 second
residence time. For halogenated vent
streams. operating conditions of ll00'C
and 1.0 second residence time were
assumed. It was assumed that
adjustments of the thennal oxidizer unit
after start-up. in order to optimize
combustion gas mixing. would be
necessary. The costs of auch
optimization were considered in
projecting the costs of controL
In order to avoid an overly
conservative estimate of the cost impact
of thennal incineration. it was assumed
that heat recovery would be employed
in all intances in which it was
technically feasible. met safety
requirements. and would tend to lower
the projected annualized cost of control.
Such employment of heat recovery
equipment is standard industry practice.
Use of heat recovery equipment results
in lower projected energy use and
energy costs. but higher projected.
capital costs.
The contributing factors to annualized
costs include capital charges.
supplemental fuel. electricity, operating
labor. and maintenance labor. For offgas
containing chlorinated compounds.
scrubbing water. quench. water. and
caustic soda. as well as additional
capital charges fo~ a flue-gas scrubber.
also contribute to annualized cost.
Facilities with higher VOC emission
rates would tend to have a lower cost.
per unit of VOC destroyed. since the
achievable emission reduction would be
higher than for other vent streams.
Under each regulatory alternative.
therefore. such facilities would tend to
be controlled before other streams. Vent
streams with higher net heating values
would tend to have lower supplemental
energy requirements than other streams.
and would. therefore. tend to be
controlled before other streams under
each regulatory alternative. Facilities
with lower offgas flowrates would have
relatively higher capital costs. per unit
of VOC destroyed. than would streams
WIth simIlar VOC concentrations and
heating values. but higher flowrates.
This is true because achievable
emission reduction is proportional to
flowrate for vent streams with similar
VOC concentrations and heating values.
whereas capital costs increase less
rapidly as flowrate increases. due to
economies of scale. Under each
regulatory alternative. therefore.
facilities with higher offgas flowrates
would tend to be controlled before
streams with similar emission rates and
heating values. but lowet flowrates.
National Emissions Profile. One
model plant would not have been
sufficient for an accurate projection of
the impacts associated with each
regulatory alternative. Because of the
number and diversity of facilities and
manufacturing processes in the air
oxidation industry. a large number of
model plants would have been required.
If the use of many model plants had
been necessary. the prospective
regulatory alternative analysis would
have been predicted to take so much
time that the unit process approch to
regulation would have had little or no
advantage over a chemical-by-chemical
344
approach. However. only a limited
amount of vent stream data ia required
to detennine incinerator coata and
efficiency. The required data include
offgas flowrate. net heating value. and
total organics (minus methane and
ethane) mass emission rate. It must also
be known whether the offgas contains
halogenated compounds. Therefore.
although data from many types of
processes are still required in order to
adequately represent the air oxidation
industry. the data need not cofrsist of
fully designed model plants. Rather. a
national statistical profile of air
oxidation processes was constructed.
The national profile characterizes air
oxida tion processes according to
national distributions of the three
critical offgas parameters for
halogenated and nonhalogenated vent
streams. The impacts of each regulatory
alternative are therefore evaluated as
impacts upon the entire population of
affected facilities. as represented by the
national profile. The emission and
production factors used to construct the
data base for the statistical procedure
and national profile are from existing air
oxidation plants that represent about 36
percent of the total air oxidation plant
population. Because there is no
recognizable bias involving the four
offgas parameters in this data sampling.
this percentage of plants provides an
adequate sample size to allow
construction of a profile that is
representative of the entire air oxidatIOn
segment of SOCMI. In addition. it is
assumed that the overall distribution of
key vent stream variables for the new
air oxidation plants would be the same
as that for the existing population.
The actual use of the national
statistical profile assumes that the
distribution of offgas flow. vac
emission rate. and stream heating valL;f
is chemical independent. Chemical
identifies are not considered in the
profile. nor is there claimed to be a one-
to-one correspondence between anyone
data point of three offgas parameters
and an existing or new offgas stream. It
is assumed. however. that the overall
;Jroportions and distributions oi the
parameter values and data points are
similar to those of the new population of
air oxidation facilities. Thus. since the
national statistical profile contains 59
data points. each data point represents
1/59 of the new population. Each data
point represents a hypothetical vent.
stream. Therefore. the impacts of a gIVen
regulatory alternative. such as
annualized cost of control. VOC
emission reduction. and facility cost.
effectiveness. can be associated with
each data point. It is not assumed that
-------
Federal Register I VoL 48. No. 205 I Friday. October 21. 1983 I Proposed Rules
48939
8lJch individual impacts on a data point
would represent impacts on any given
new facility. nor are the data points
used as individual impact models.
Instead. each data point represents 1/59
of the overall projected new population
offaciJities. Therefore. the impacts of
each regulatory alternative represent
impacts on the projected new source
population. Due to the wide variation in
processes used and in the types of
control devices present across the air
oxidation industry. only uncontrolled
emission factors and vent.stream
characteristics are included in the data
set. Since uncontrolled emissions are
subject to great uncertainty because of
the difficulty in defining what is a
pollution control device. all process
stream data represent hypothetical
uncontrolled emissions, which are
considered, in this'analysis. to be the
process stream exiting the primary (first)
product recovery device.
The hypothetical uncontrolled VaG
emissions fromaHected facilities in the
fifth year after proposal of the standards
were projected to be 78.000 Mg/yr.
Actual uncontrolled emissions. in the
absence of SIP's, would probably be
lower, because some additional degree
of product or integrated energy recovery
would often result in a cost savings for a
facility. A..1 average baseline emission
control level was estimated as des.crihed
below in the section entitled Baseline
Emission Control.
Baseline Emission Control. The
regulatory baseline was estimated as a
weighted average of current SIP's except
for the assumption that modified SIP's
would be in force in ozone NAAQS
nonattainment areas requesting
extension beyond 1982. EPA assumes
that modified SIP's would reflect the
reasonably available control- fecnnology
rewmmended in the SaCMI air
oxidation draft control techniques
guideline document. For the purpose of
structuring the regulatory alternatives,
the Agency estimated the baseline to be
72 percent reduction from hypothetical
uncontrolled VOG emissions. However.
the actual control required would vary
considerably from State to State. If SIP's
in ozone NAAQS nonattamment
-------
48940 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 205 I Friday. October 21. 1983 I Proposed Rules
~
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL. ENERGY. AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF EACH REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE
-
-
A,er.ge Colt
Effectl'e-
!leSS (for
Percent ...t 1011&1 F.el1 Illes
Range 0 f Percent E.is 5 lOAS AIInua HZK Anr.ge Avenge Not Ccwe," lilt 10lIl\
tutoff flclllt, Cost of 11.110lIl1 ReductlOA Cost Cost Cost b, Previous Capital
IIe9u I. tory TRE EffeetinneSSa Sources E.lnlons f". ("11)1011 Łffeetheeess EffeettftJ!"S (Alurnlt!" CoSt
Altenwtl„e Index hlues (~/"9) Affected (1000 HgJ,r) 815el1ne $1".) (SINg) (SINg) (S/IIg) (111111. 'I
BUtllne 0 21.8 0 0 0
.14 270 1 15.2 n 3.0 130 45G. 450 6.1
-660
11" 1.5 1,100 14, 11.9 46 1.0 190 680 1.200 13
-1.300
111 2.2 1.400 19 9.4 51 10.3 230 830 1,400 18
-1.900
IV 3.1 1.900 21 1.5 66. 14.1 280 1,000 2.ZOO 26
-2.700
1.600 4.000 - 4Z
V 6.2 2,700 41 4,3 81 21.6 440
-5,500
VI 6.000 5.700 100 0.44 98 66.5 860 3.100 10,000 81
-5,400 ,000
-
alowest" tncl hlgtlest project cost-effectl_ss nlues for flcil1t1es reclucl.., ..15510115 b)' 98 pef'Ceftt under U. gt- ,...latory litemltht.
t.uL not reduelng under the prniolls .Item.ttve. These cost-effectheness ..lues c.la1l.ted wtth respect to bl5tlh.. ..lsatOlls.
"c.lcuilled with respect to uncontrolled ""sslons.
eCalcul.tecfwltb respect to baseline ..hhOlls.
Uncontrolled ŁIIlsslolIs . 78,000 Mg/,r
Suellne EtoisslG1ls . 22.000 Mg/,r
Thermal oxidizer outlet
concentrations of NO. were measured in
seven sets of thermal oxidizer tests
conducted at three air oxidation plants.
The test results indicate that NO. outlet
concentrations range from 8 to 200 ppmv
[0.015 to 0.37 g/scm).
Although there are conflicting data.
some studies report that incineration of
vent streams containing high levels of
nitrogen-containing compounds also
may cause increases in NO. emissions.
Tne maximum outlet !\Oz concentration
of 200 ppmv was measured at an
acrylonitrile plant. The vent stream of
this plant does not contain nitrogenous
compounds. The NO. outlet
concentrations measured at the other
two plants. whose vent streams do not
contain nitrogenous compounds. range
from 8 to 30 ppm (0.015 to 0.056 g/scm).
Acrylonitrile manufacture..is the only
air oxidation process expected to have
NOz emissions much higher that the
detectable limit if controlled by thermal
oxidation. However. according to the
national profile. the achievable VOC
emission reduction for acrylonitrile
fa.cilities would be about one to "",'0
orders of magnitude greater than the
increase in NO. emissions due to
control. For this reason, the
Administrator determined that the
acrylonitrile process should not be
exempt from the proposed standard.
Control of the acrylonitrile process has
one of the lowest costs per unit VOC
reduction of any air oxidation process.
Therefore. acrylonitrile facilities would
be controlled under each of the six
regulatory alternatives more stringent
than the baseline alternative. There is.
therefore. no significant incremental
increase in NO. emissions associated
\'\.ith the various regulatory alternatives.
In addition to generation of NOz. the
control of VOC emissions from
halogenated vent streams by thermal
oxidation may result in the release of
chlorinated combustion products to the
environment. However. flue gas
quenching and scrubbing could be used
to remove these compounds from the
346
incinerator outlet stream. Current
industry practice among air oxidation
facilities with chlorinated vent streams
which emp~oy combustion devicea is to
employ flue gas scrubbing. The capital
and operation costs associated with flue
gas quenching and scrubbing were taken
into account in projecting the cost
impacts.
Control of VOC emissions using
thermal oxidation would not result in
any significant increase in waste water
discharge by air oxidation unit
processes. No water effluents are
generated by thermal oxidizers
themselves.
Use of an incinerator/scrubber system
for control of VOC emissions from
oxvchlorination vent streams would
result in increased water consumption.
The increase in total plant waste water
would be relativei,y small and would not
affect plant waste treatment or sewer
capacity. However. if the scrubbed
hydrochloric acid is not recovered. it
may be necessary to adjust the pH of
the scrubber effluent by treatment with
-------
.
,"""..1 ,.1 Repter I Vol. 48, No. 205 I Friday. October 21. 198a I Pioposed Roles
48941
ClUitiC (NaOH) before it i8 released into
the plant waste water system. The salt
(NaCl) formed by the C81I8tfc treatment
must be JJ1D'88d from lb. system and
properly disposed of. Acceptable
methods of disposal include direct
waste water disc:harp or deep well
disposal. The increased water
consumption and caustic (NaOH) costs
were included in the projected operating
costs for those data vectors in the
national profile representing
halogenated vent streams. Costs
associated with disposal of NaCI were
not believed to be significant and.
therefore. were not included in the
projected impacts.
There are not expected to be any
differences among the regulatory
alternatives in cost and energy impacts
due to the special additional control
equipment and resource use associated
with control of chlorinated vent streams.
Only one air oxidation process. ethylene
dichloride manufacture. has offgas
containing chlorinated compounds. This
process has a new negative total
resource use (net total resource credit)
perunit vac destroyed. associated with
the use of incineration. Therefore. the
ethylene dichloride process would be
controlled under even the least stringent
regulatory alternative.
Energy Impact&. The projection of
energy impacts for each regulatory
alternative was baaed aD the use of
thermal oxidation to control VOC
emissions from air oxidation process
vents. Maintenance of the required
thermal oxidizer operating conditions
requires supplemental fuel. commonly in
the form of natural gaL The amount of
supplemental fuel needed depends on
vent stream temperature and net heating
value. Rowrate. incineration
temperature. and type of heat recovery
used. Due to the use of heat recovery
techniques. combustion of some air
oxidation waste streams would result in
a net production of energy even though
supplemental fuel would be necessary
for flame stability. Up ta 70 percent
waste heat recovery could be expected
usill8 techniques currently in wide use
in the air oxidation industry. In addition
to supplemental fuel. electricity
requirements for equipment such as
pamp.. blowers. and instrumentation
contribute to the total energy use for
VOC control. Total electrical needs are
relatively smaU compared to energy
l'Iquirements in the form af
lupplllDb!ntal fuel for d8ermal mridation.
:r&e 6fth ;ear national 8I*IY U8e would
mcreue from D.23 biUloa MJ'yr (110 bbl
oil/day) for Alternative I (II (I8rCeI1t
national VOC reduct188 fIaa baeeline}
to 8.0 billion MJ/yr (2.800 bbl oil/day)
for Alternatin VI (96 pem!nt national
vac reduction from baseline).
Economic Feasibility and Costs. Both
capital and annualized operating costs
were used to determine total national
costs for each regulatory alternative.
These national impacts are summarized
in Table 1. The fifth year total national
annualized coat would increase from $3
million per year for Alternative I to $67
million per year for Alternative VI: The
fifth year total national installed capital
cost would increase from $6.1 million for
Alternative I to $87 million for
Alternative VI.
An economic analysis was performed
to determine if control of VOC
emissions from individual air oxidation
processes wQuld be economically
feasible. Control by thermal oxidation
was considered to be economically
feasible if the following criteria were
met: (1) The projected product cost
increase due to control remains below 5
percent of the projected product price.
(2) the net present value of new plants
does not become negative (indicating
that they have become an unprofitable
investment). (3) th"capital costs for
control do not exceed 20 percent of the
uncontrolled plant fixed investment
costa. and (4) new plants do nat
experience substantial adverse impacts
due to foreign competition.
The first step in the economic analysis
was performed using a worst-case set of
assumptions. One worst-case
assumption was that the vent stream
contained no oxygen. which led to
maximum projected equipment sizes
and larpl' supplemental fuel
requirements. A second warst-case
assumption was that no waste-heat
boiler would be used for any stream not
containing balogenated compounds.
which led to maximum projected
supplemental fuel requirements. A third
worst-case assumption was that the
lowest capacity and lowest flowrate of
any plant using a given manufacturing
procesa was anumed in projecting
product perceut price increases due to
control. Thia a88UIDption led to higher
estimates of percent price increase. due
to economies of scale in control
equipment capital costs for facilities
with higher capacities and flowrates. In
addition. as analysis was conducted of
the sensitivity of percent product price
increase to fluctuations in discount
rates. natural gas prices. and offgu
flaWfate8 around expected values.
Those specific chemical production
processes which exceeded any of the
economic feasibility criteria under the
worska8e auumptions or UDder the
sensitivity analyaia were reaaal.yzed
using a set of aS8UIDptions more
347
representative of the characteristics of
those processes. The results of the final
economic analysis were that for each of
the regulatory alternatives. none of the
chemical production processes
exceeded any of the economic
feasibility criteria. No chemicals are
expected to have a price increase which
in the worst-case would exceed 5
percent. The price changes of the 36
chemicals. assuming control costs would
be passed through totally. would range
from 0' to a 3.1 percent increase except
for maleic anhydride (benzene process).
which showed an estimated 4.2 Dercent
increase. New maleic anhydride' plants
are expected to employ the butane
process (which showed an estima ted 3.1
percent increase). instead of the
benzene process. even in the absence of
the proposed standard. Therefore.
regardless of which alternative was
selected as the basis for the proposed
standard.. it was determined that the
costs of controls would be economically
feasible for all chemicals covered by the
proposed standard.
SeIectioD of Ba8is fOl' the Proposed
Staadard
The Clean Air Act requires that
standards of performance be based on
the best system of continuous emission
reduction. considering costs. energy
usage. and nonair health and
environmental impacts ("best
demonstrated technolosy" or BDT). As
stated above. each resuIatory
alternative represents a distinct
percentage of sources that would be
required to reduce total organic (minus
methane and ethane) emissions by 98
percentage or to 20 ppmv (limits
reflecting use of thermal oxidation). By
selecting one alternative. the
Administrator selects the portion of
projected new sources for which control
by thermal incineration (under the
conditions explained above) is BDT. For
the remaining portion of projected new
sources it is the Administrator's
determination that BDT is no organic
emission reduction from the baseline
emission leveL
As explained previously, none of
these regulatory alternatives would
either result in unreasonable energy or
nonair environmental. impacts or cause
any of the chemical production
processes to exceed any of the economic
feasibility criteria. However. because
the emi88ion reduction achievable by
applying incineration to sources is
different under each of the alternatives.
the Administrator undertook further
analysis before _lectin8 an alternative.
Thia further analyti8 was undertaken to
al8Ul'8 that the C08t of the alternative
-------
48942
Federal Register I Vol. 48. No. 205 I Friday, October 21, 1983 I Proposed Rules
~
selec~s the basis for the standard :s
reasonable.not only in terms of
economic impacts. but also in terms of
the emission reduction which would
result. In this further analysis. the data
presented in Table 1 were first
considered. As shown in the table. those
air oxidation facilities required to
reduce vaG emissions under
Alternative VI that would not have been
controlled under Alternative V bad a
control cost per megagram of vac
reduced ranging from SSiOO to
55.400.000. Those facilities controlled by
Alte:-natives V and IV were also
examined in a similar menner and
showed control costs per megagram of
VaC.reduced in the ranges of S2700 to
$5500 and $1900 to 52700. respectively.
(Tbese costs do not represent the actual
amounts of money spent for any
particular air oxidation facility. Rather.
the costs are estimates wbich represent
facilities likely to be built. The cost of
vac emission reduction systems ""ill
vary according to the cbe:Uical being
produced. production equipment. plant
layout, geographic location. and
company preferences and policies.)
However. the Administrator concluded
that the cost of requiring control of any
facility above the S1.900/Mg cutoff
shown in Table 1 is unreasonably high
compaI";!d to the emission reduction
at:hieved. In the past. the maximum
estimated cost per megagram of
poliutant material removed (Vac.
particulate matter. S~) has ranged from
somewhat less than $1000 to more than
$2000. This package has a maximum
estimated cost per megagram of $1900.
In prior source categories for which
NSPS have been developed. vac
maximum estimated control costs have
generally not exceeded 51000 per
megagram. In this case. because of the
presence of potentially toxic
constituents in the discharge streams
and the "worst case" character of the
cost calculations. EPA believes the
proposed standards are reasonable.
The maximum estimated cost in this
package will not be viewed as a
precedent for future actions. Instead. in
the future. EPA will continue to evaluate
each package on an indhidual basis.
Those air oxidation facilities required
to reduce VaG emissions by 98 percent
under Alternative Ill. that would not
have been controlled under Alternative
II. had a control cost per megagram of
vac reduced ranging from $1.400 to
51,900. Alternatives I and II would be
less expensive than Alternative m, but
would result in less emission reduction.
Since the costs per unit emission
reduction of Alternative III were judged
to be reasonable, and since there were
no eitner statutory factors, such as
adverse economic impacts or adverse
environmental impacts. for rejecting
Alternative Ill, there was no reason to
select Alternative I or II, either of which
would result in less emission reduction.
In selecting Alternative m. the
Agency noted that its average cost is
only about S830 per megagram of vac
reduced. The Agency also considered
that sac?\.l1 is the largest stationary
emission source of VaG and air
oxidation is a major vac emitting
segment of SaCMI. Also. as detailed in
the section entitled TRE Index. the costs
shown in Table 1 do not take into
account the ability of facilities to control
emissions through adding product
recovery and. in certain cases, to
thereby avoid incineration cos~ Due to
this ability, the upper end of the cost per
"Mg emission reduction of Alternative III
could be overstated by as much as SfnJ/
Mg. It is unlikely. therefore, that any air
. oxidation facility would have to spend
the maximum cutoff cost per megagram
of $1.900/Mg.
The Chemical Manufacturers'
Association (CMAj presented. at a
meeting of the National Air Pollution
Control Techniques Advisory
Committee on September 23.1981. an
analysis of the impacts of Alternative
IlL based on a set of assumptions
concerning the rate of growth in the
number of air oxidation sources which
differs from those used by EP A. In
projecting the number of new sources.
CMA assumed that the number of
affected facilities in the fifth year would
be only those facilities for wlrich
construction or expansion had already
been publicly announced. In general.
CMA's projection leads to fewer new
facilities. but with larger capacities and
larger uncontrolled vac emission rates.
All other assumptions used in the CMA
analysis (concerning the costs of -
equipment. operation and maintenance
requirements. and related factors) were
essentially the same as those used in the
EPA evaluation{Jf regulatory
alternatives. The Agency examined
GMA's analysis to determine if their
results would alter the regulatory
alternative selected as the basis for the
standard. The annualized cost estimated
by CY.A's analysis of SZ2 million is
greater than the $10 million annualized
cost estimated by EPA. However. the
projected emission reduction of 23.000
Mg/yr according to CMA's analvsis is
also larger than the 12,500 Mg/ir
projected by the Agency. The economic
impacts. such as price increases and
348
impact of foreign competition. Projected
by EPA are independent ofth.
alterna!ive selected and would not be
impacted by CMA's assumptions.
CMA's analysis shows the average co t
of incineration per unit of VaG'
destroyed to be $9OO/Mg. which is
essentially the same as the average COlt
of incineration per unit of VOC
destroyed estimated by EPA (S830/Mg)
The highest cost to incinerate per Mg .
vac destroyed for either analysis
would be $1.900. The selection of
Alternative III was not directly
influenced 'by the number of source.
which may be affected. Rather, the
selection was based on the concept that i
there is a range of source characteristics
within which costs. emission reductions
and other factors lead to the conclusion'
that centrol is reasonable. In other
words. the CMA analysis would not
have aitered the selection of Alternative
III as the basis for the proposed
sta.'1qard. The impacts of the proposed
standard are judged to be reasonable
based on either set of assumptions.
TRE Index. After selecting Alternative
III as the basis of the proposed
standard. it was necessary to develop a
method for identifying those facilities
covered by Alternative III which would
be required to reduce emissions by 98
percent or to 20 ppmv, and those
faciliti~ not included in Alternative Ill.
for which no emission reduction beyond
product recovery would be required.
The Agency. therefore. has included an
equation in the regulation to calculate
an index which is used to determine
wlrich affected facilities are required to
reduce emissions by 98 percent or 20
ppmv. This index is termed total
resource effectiveness (TREj. The
equation includes th~ parameters used
in calculating the costs considered in
selecting Alternative m. Tbese
parameters are the offgas characteristics
of flowrate. net heating value. total
organics (minus methane and ethane)
emission rate and corrosion properties
(presence of chlorinated compounds).
These parameters can be easily and
objectively measured. The TRE value
calculation allows the owner or operator
of an affected facility to detennine if
that facility would be required to reduce
emissions 98 percent or to 20 ppmv. Tbe
standardized calculation allows
objective enforcement since all TRE
values would be calculated based on the
same parameters and calculated by the
same method.
The TRE index of a process vent
stream is calculated according to the
following equation:
-------
:-
F8d8r8I Repter I Vol. 48. .No. 265 I Friday. October 21. 1983 / Propoted Rulet
48M3
TRE== ~ )( ( a+b (Q"J ""+c (Q.J +d (Q"J (HTJ+
Enx: e (Qs)o." (HT)o.D+f (HT)o..,
where:
TRE=Totall"e8OUlCe-effectivenen index
value.
Qa= Vent stream flowrate (scm/min). at a
standard temperature of W'C.
Kr=Vent stream net beating value [MJlscm).
where the net enthalpy of per mole of
o(fgu is bued on combustion at zs'C
and 760 mm Hg. but the standard
temperature for determinins the volume
corresponding to one mole is W'C. as in
the definition of Qs.
Eroc:=Hourly emissions of total orgamc
compounds [mmus methane and ethane}
reported in kg/hr measured at full
operating flowrnte.
a. b. c. d. e. and f are coefficients.
The set of coefficients which apply to
a process vent stream can be obtained
from Table 1 of the regulation. These
coefficients were derived directly from
the cost and emission reduction
equations associated with control of
VOC emissions from air oxida lion
facilities by thermal oxidation. Table 1
af the regulation is divided into the five
design categories for control equipment.
These design categories differ in the
. amount of heat recovery achieved. in the
type of heat recovery equipment used.
and in the use of flue gas scrubbing for
offgas containing chlorinated
r.ompounds. The amount and type of
teat recovery used depends upon the
offgas heating value.
The vent stream of an affected facility
is considered "chlorinated" under the
proposed ~tandard if it is determined to
contain a concentration of 20 ppmv (by
compound) or greater of chlorinated
compounds. This low 20 ppmv
chlorination cutoff was chosen to avoid
control cost and TRE underestimates.
Even small amounts of chlorinated
compounds may be corrosive. as well as
difficult enough to incinerate that a
temperature greater than 870'C is
necessary to achieve 98 percent control.
Therefore. it was judged essential to set
a low cutoff. so that control cost and
TRE would not be underestimated for
any facility. The ethylene dichlonde
process is the only current air oxidation
process with chlorinated vent streams.
Because this process may have affected
facilities subject to the proposed
standards. the Administrator decided to
set the chlorination cutoff at 10 percent
of the lowest known total chlorinated
compound concentratioD for any
exiatins ethylae dicb1orid. facility. or
m ppmv.
Under each design category listed in
Table t of the regulation. there are
several intervals of offgas flowrate.
Each flowrate interval is associated
with a different set of coefficients."The
first flowrate smaller than that
corresponding to the smallest control
equipment system easily available
wlthout special custom design. The
remaining flowrate interval in each
design category applies to vent streams
with a flowrate intervals in each design
category apply to vent streams which
would be expected to use one. two.
three. four. or five sets of control
equipment. respectively. These flowrate
intervals are distinguished from one
another because of limits to
pn'?fabricated equipment sizes.
The TRE index cutoff value associated
with Alternative III as calculated by the
above equation is 2.2. Affected air
oxidation facilities with a TRE index of
less than or equal to 2.2 would be
required to reduce emissions by 98
percent or to 20 ppmv. while affected
facilities with a TRE index above 2.2
would not be required to combus\ VQC
emissions.
The use of a TRE index cutoff value
will also encourge the use of product
recovery techniques or process
modification in an effort to raise the
TRE index value above the 2.2 cutoff.
The parameters used to calculate the
TRE index are measured at the outlet of
the final piece of product recovery
equipment. Additional product recovery
can be used to change the values of the
parameters (e.g.. decrease the emIssion
rate) and increase the TRE index value.
The total cost to a facility of improved
product recovery to exceed the TRŁ
index cutoff would probably be mud.
lower than the total cost of thermal
oxidation to achieve 98 percent
reduction. It would. therefore. be
economically advant3geous for such a
facility to choose to tmprove product
recovery. However. the necessary
reduction in emission rate to exceed the
TRE index cutoff might also be less than
98 percent. Therefore. the actual cost per
metric ton for some facIlities choosing to
improve product recovery might exceed
the projected cost per metric ton of
thermal oxidation. Nevertheless. such a
facility would probably choose to
improve product recovery rather than
incinerate due to the lower coets.
Compounds Used in Determining
Compliance. The propoaed stBRdards
349
are intended to reduce emissions of
VQC through the application of best
demonstrated technology (BDT!
(considering COlts and other impacts).
and the emission limits in the standards
are designed to reflect the performance
of BOT. The best demonstrated
technologies applicable to air oxidation
processes do not selectively control
VOC (that is. the proportion of the
organics that is regarded as
photochemically reactive). but rather
these technologies control all organic
compounds.
Moreover. the test methods applicable
for determining compliance with
standards based on those technologies
measure total organic compounds.
minus methane and ethane. Also. the
Agency derived the emission limits for
distillation operations from data
gathered using test procedures that
measure total organic compounds.
minus methane and ethane.
To reflect accurately the performance
of the technologies selected as 80T and
to make the emission limits consistent
with the data and test methods from
which the limits were den ved. L'1e
Agency has expressed the standards in
terms of total organic compounds. minus
methane and ethane. For the same
reason. the test procedure in the
proposed standards prescribes
measurement of total organic
compounds. excluding methane and
ethane. (n short. EPA is relying on
control of total organic compc,mJs.
minus methane and ethane. as the 'Je;t
demonstrated surrogate for comrodi"8
volatile organic compounds. which react
to form ozone in the atmosph~re. .
~~cation/Recon~cbon
Consideration
The proposed standard would ap?ly
to all affected facilities. which
commenced construction.
reconstruction. or modificatIon af~er ~he
date of proposal "of the NSPS.
Modification is defined in 40 CFR ':30.1-4
as "any physical change in. or cb!1lz!! In
the method of operation of. an existing
facility which increases the amount of
any air pollutant [to which a s:dr:-:.,"d
applies) emItted into the atml.is(1'n~ by
that facility. or which results in he
emission of any air poUutant (to w~:ch a
standard applies) into the atmosoht!re
not previously emitted." (SectIOn 00 14
lists a few cases which would not ~p
considered modifications even Ii
emissions increased.) ReconstructJon. f' ~
defined in 40 CFR 60.15. occurs when
components of an existing facility al'P.
replaced to such an extent that: (1) The
fixed capital cost of the new
components exceeda 50 pen:ent of the
-------
48944
Federal Register I Vol. 48. No. 205 I Friday, -October 21, 1983 / Proposed" Rules
-
fixed capital cost that would be required
to construct a comparable entirely new
facility. and (2) it is technologicaJJy and
economically feasible to meet the
applicable standards.
. Potential modifications involving
SO eM! air oxidation processes include
catalyst substitution. process equipment
changes. and combinations of these
chang~ .
Catalyst substitutions can be made to
improve product mix. reduce operating
costs. or increase conversion rates. A
change in catalysts may cause
significant changes in the quantity of
VOC emissions. In addition. these
changes could require major
modifications in the reactor system and
auxiliary process equipment.
Changes in air oxidation process
equipment could result in increased
VOC emissions and. if so. could
constitute a modification. Examples
include an increase in the size of the
reactor. addition of a reactor. and a
change in the product recovery system
from an absorber to a condenser.
However. any changes in product
recovery equipment would be intended
to increase product recovery. arfd.
therefore. VOC emissions would be
expected tp decrease.
In many cases. a combination of
changes would be chosen based on the
most advantageous economics. One
example of such a modification would
be the simultaneous change of the
reactor conditions and catalyst.
These type of changes are real
alternatives for manv air oxidation
chemical manufacturing industries.
However. they generaJJy involve
substantial changes in catalyst. reactor
conditions. or product separation/
purification equipment. Because the
expected type of changes would be so
substa..,tiaL potential modifications
would probably be infeasible due to the
costs LT'lVolved. Although much effort
wiil be directed toward identifying,
cheaper. more readily available
feedstocks. chemical manufacturers
probably would choose to build r.ew
facilities to use the cheaper feeds rather
than go to the expense of radically
modifying existing facilities. Therefore,
there would probably be very few air
oxidation facilities which would become
subject to the proposed standard as a
result of the types of changes discussed.
above.
No existing facility is expected to
undergo sufficient replacement of
components to be considered a
reconstructed facility. Reactors and
pieces of product recovery equipment
within an affected facility would. in
general. have different ages as well as
different lifetimes. Moreover. such types
of equipment are rarely replaced.
Therefore. it is likely that a considerable
interval of time would separate
replacements ofinclividual reactors or
product recovery devices. For reasons
stated in the preamble to the proposed
standard for metallic minerals which
was proposed on August 24..1982 (47 FR
36867), if the cumulative fixed capital
cost of replacements commenced within
any 2-year period exceeded 50 percent
of the fixed capital cost that would be
required to construct a comparable
entirely new facility, such replacements
could constitute reconstruction. as
defined in that section (see ~ 6O.616(a) of
this proposed standard). ,
Selection of Momtoring Requirements
and Test Methods
98 percent/20 ppmv Emission Limit.
Numerous methods exist for the
measurement of orgamc emissions.
Among these methods are gas
chromatography (GG). direct flame
ionization detection (FIDJ, and EPA
Reference Method ZS (EPA ZS)-
Determination of Total Gaseous Non-
Mathane Organic Emissions as Carbon.
Each method has 4dvantages and
disadvantages. Of the three procedures,
GC has the distinct advantage of
identifying and quantifying the
.individual compounds present in the
emissions. The major disadvantages
with this procedure are that GC systems
are expensive and determination of the
column required and analysis of
samples can be time consuming.
The direct FID technique is the
simplest procedure. However. the FID
alone responds differently to various
organic compounds and can yield highly
biased results depending upon the
compounds involved. Another
disadvantage of the FID alone is that a
separate methane measurement is
required to determine nonrnethane
organics. The direct Fill procedure alone
does not identify or quantify inclividual
compounds.
Method ZS sampling and analysis
provides a single nonmethane organic
measurement on a carbon basis: this is
com'enient for establishing control
device efficiencies on a consistent basis.
However; this method does not provide
any qualitative or quantitative
information on individual compounds
present For this reason. Method 25 was
rejected as the Reference Method for
detexplining compliance with the
proposed standard.
The combined GC/FID is the
proposed required test procedure for
determining thermal or catalytic
oxidizer control efficiency for air
oxidation processes. A general GC/FID
procedure (Method 16) is being
350
promulgated with the SOCMI fugitive
NSPS. Methane and ethane are -
measured separately by Method 18.
Details concerning the use of this
methodology. including sampling,
analysis. preparation of standards.
calibration procedures. and rep0rtins of
results are discussed in Method 18,
Measurement of Gaseous Organic
Compound Emissions by Gas
Chroma tography.
The owner or operator of a facility
using any combustion device (other than
steam generating units. such as boilel'l
or process heaters. with a design
capacity of 44MW or greater) to comply
with the proposed emission limit would
be required to determine compliance
according to Reference Method 18
during any performance test. Reference
Method 1 or 1A would be required as
appropriate to be used for selection of
the sampling site. The control device
inlet sampling site for determination of .
reduction efficiency would be required
to be prior to the inlet of any
combustion device and after all product
recovery units.
If any nonair-oxidation offgas steam
were normally routed through the
product recovery train or directly to the
control device of the affected facility,
the proposed standards would permit
such a stream to be routed normally
during any"performance test to .
determine compliance with the prop08ed
reduction requirement. The Agency
considered requiring such streams to be
rerouted or ,turned off. in order to assure
that 98 percent reduction. or reduction to
20 ppmvi would be achieved for the air
oxidation stream itself. However. the
Agency determined that if a
performance test conducted on such a
facility while routing its nonair-
oxidation offgas normally showed
compliance with the proposed emission
limit. that limit would also be achieved
by the combustion device when only the
air oxidation process stream is routed
through it. provided that the combustion
device operating parameters. such as
temperature. remained unchanged.
Therefore. the Agency concluded that
requir.ng the nonair-oxidation stream to
be rerouted or turned off during a
performance test would be unnecessary.
The air oxidation offgas stream of an
affected facility might be normally
routed through nonair-oxidation process
equipment. as a result of which its
composition or flowrate might be
altered. In such a case. the proposed
standards would permit the air
oxidation stream to be routed normally
during any performance test to
determine compliance with the proposed
emission limit. The Agency considered
-------
Fedenrl Register I Vol. 48. NQ. 20'5 f Friday, October -no 1.983 j Proposed RDles
48945
requiring that such equi;lmem be
bypassed chuing a perfum:wmce test. in
order to assure that the proposed
emission limit w.au1d tre achIeved {Dr the
una1h:!red lOr ClXidation stream itose'1f.
However.1he Agency detemrlned that if
a perfxmnB.DCe test conducted on st!t:h a
facility while roofing its ai!' oxidation'
offgas oorman, ~howed 'Campliam:e
with the proposed emission limit, that
limit wou1d eho be achieved by the
com\Just1on deviced !f tm ncmair-
oxidation eqtrlpment were bypassed.
provided that ~e 'COmbtrsOOn dM'it;e
operating 'Parameters. :rucb as
temperamre, remained'tII1c'hanged.
Therefore, the Agency concluded that
such a requirement wou\-d be
unnecessary.
Steam generating'uMs, such as
boilers. or process 1!eater.s might be -Used
for combustion of the VQC in an air
oxidation process stream. The Agency
believes that steam generating units
with a design heat input capacity of44
MW or greater achieve a reduction
efficiency of.98 percent LH' reduction to
20 ppmv. Therefore. .the Agency believes
that an inilia1 measurement of control
efficiency would not be necess-ar:Y. As
explained prevjously in the discussion
of combustion Jdnetics given in the
section en1i11ed Contr,oJ Techniques. a
firebox temp.er.atare of UOO.C and 1
second residence time represent the
conditions that might in the wor.st case
be necessary to achieve 98 percent
reduction. even if the VOC were
chlorinated. Steam generating :units with
a design capacity of 44 MW or.greater
are operated at temper.atures.and
residence times greater than ll00.C and
1 secpnd. respectively. Other than an
adequately high temperature and
residence time. the twD primaTY
conditi.cns necessa..-y for high
combw;tion de\icecontrol efficieru:v are
stable flow rate and adequate mixu;g of
gases. I! is to the economic advantage of
the owners of facilities using sw;.h iarge
steam generatiIJ,g units to -design and
operate them „ept wMd1 wcrntd
relate vent 'Stream fk1w -retft to
acceptable ~stion de'rice
1Jarameten. HIJWewI', -the Agem:y Wi!'S
unab\e to identify a meamr.gful
relationsffip t7etween flow !'ate imd VOC
destruction efficiency. f~",nncn e.
based on engineering judgmem. fl1!W
ra te would not be ~ to h1rve
much affect on the \mge CO!IxbtimJ
~s fike'iy to ~e encomtt~ m mr-
oxidatilm processes.
Because of the !'e9OU!'Ce ~en
associated with the ~ two
a1ternatives {'Comfutmms VOC
momtmmg
-------
48946
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 205 / Friday, October 21, 1983 / Proposed Rules
to determine if it deviated from the
values measured during the performance
test. The proposed standard would,
therefore, require the owner or operator
of an affected facility using a
combustion device (except for a stream
generating unit with a design heat
capacity of 44 „W or greater) to comply
with the proposed VOC emission limit to
install calibrate. maintain. and operate
according to manufacturer's
specifications a temperature
measurement device, This device would
be required to be equipped with a
continuous recorder and have an
accuracy of one percent of the
temperature being measured. expressed
in degrees Celsius. or ::t2.S°c, whichever
is greater. If a thermal incinerator or
stream generating unit were used. the
device would be required to be installed
in the firebox. If a catalytic oxidizer
were used. the temperature measuring
device would be required to installed in
the gas stream immediately before and
after the catalyst bed.
Monitoring of temperature would not
be required for steam generating units
with a design hecu capacity of 44 MW or
greater. These de\;ces always operate
at high temperatures (<;l100oq and
stable flowrates to avoid upsets and to
maximize the steam generation rate. The
maintenance of records would be
required. however. which would
indicate the periods of operation of the
steam generating unit. The nature of the
records to be kept to comply with this
requirement are left to the discretion of
the owner or operator of the facility. but
they must be readily available for
inspection.
TRE Cutoff. Calculation of the total
resource-effectiveness (TRE) index
value for an affected facility is
. dependent upon measurement of the
offgasyolumetric flowrate. net heating
value, total organic (minus methane and
ethane) emission rate. and corrosion
properties (presence or absence of
chlorinated compounds). These
measured values are used to select the
corres!)onding coefficients and then
inserted into an equation specified in
the proposed standard for calculation of
the TRE index. Reference Method 1 or
1A would be required as appropriate to
be used for selection of the site for
measuring the offgas flowrate and molar
composition. The sampling site would be
required to be prior to any post-reactor
dilution of the stream with air. prior to
any post-reactor introduction of
chlorinated compounds into the stream.
and also prior to the inlet of any
combustion de\ice. Subject to the
requirements just mentioned. the
sampling site would also be required to
be dowstream of all product recovery
equipment. The volumetric flowrate
would be required to be determined
according to Reference Method 2. lA,
2C. or 2D as appropriate. The molar
composition of the offgas stream.
including the total molar concentration
of chlorinated compounds, would be
reqUired to be calculated according to
Method 18, Measurement of Gaseous
Organic Compound Emission by Ges
Chromatography. Reference Method 10
would be required to be used for
measurement of carbon monoxide
concentration. This measured carbon
monoxide concentration would be
required to be converted from a dry
basis to a wet basis by use of an
equation specified in the proposed
regulation. The w~er vapor
concentration of the vent stream would
be required. to be calculated according
to Reference Method 4 for inclusion in
the carbon monoxide concentration
correction equation.
The net heating value of the process
vent stream (2S°C, 760 mii1 Hg) would be
required to be calculated according to
an equation specified in the regulation.
This equation would make use of the
molar composition of the offgas stream,
as measured by Method 4. Method 10,
and Method 18. The net heat of
combustion of each offgas component
would be required to be determined
using ASTM DZ382-76 if published
values are not available or cannot be
calculated. This method of determining
net heating value was chosen because it
would not require a separate test
procedure from that required for
determination of VOC reduction'
efficiency and offgas chlorination.
Moreover. the Agency believes that the
proposed method for determining net
heating value would be more accurate
than any available direct experimental
measure. such as bomb calorimetry.
The total organic (minus methane and
ethane) mass emission rate of the
process vent stream would also be
required to be calculated according to
an equation specified in the regulation.
This equation would make use of the
molar composition of the offgas stream.
as measured by Method 18. and of the
volumetric flowrate. as measured by
Method 2. The reasons for the choice of
Method 18 for determination of organic
compounds emission rate are discussed
above in the section entitled 98 Percent
.20 ppmv Emission Limit.
A nonair-oxidation offgas stream
might be normally routed through the
product recovery train of the affected
facility. Such a stream would be
required by the proposed standards to
be rerouted or turned off during any
352
performance test conducted to
determine compliance with the TRE
cutoff requirement. until the
measurements ~or determining offgal
flo\o\Tate and molar composition had
been made. This requirement is included
in the proposed standards to assure that
the TRE index value of the air oxidation
stream only is calculated. The equation
for calculating the TRE index value has
been developed based on air oxidation
streams and the 2.2 TRE index value
cutoff included in the standards was
selected based on air oxidation streams.
Using flowrates and molar compositions
of nonair-oxidation streams would
distort the calculated TRE index value.
The air oxidation offgas stream of an
affected facility might be normally
routed through nonair-oxidation process
equipmenlln such a case, the proposed
standards would require that such
monair-oxidation process equipment be
bypased by the air oxidation vent
stream during any performance test
conducted to determine compliance with
the TRE cutoff requirement, until the
measurements for determining offgas
flowrate and molar composition had
been made. This requirement has been
included in the proposed standards to
assure that the TRE index value is
calculated for an air oxidation stream
that has not been altered by routing it
through nonair-oxidation process
equipment. As discussed previously, the
TRE equation for calculating the TRE
index value has been developed based
on air oxidation streams and the Z.Z TRE
index value cutoff included in the
propose.d standards was selected based
on air oxidation streams. Using
flowrates and molar compositions that
have been altered by nonair-oxidation
process equipment would distort the
calculated TRE index value.
After-an initial performance test is
conducted to determine compliance with
the proposed TRE cutoff value. process
modifications or improper operation or
maintenance of product recovery
equipment could lead to higher
emissions and a true TRE value not in
compliance with the cutoff. Therefore.
three methods of monitoring for facilities
using product recovery to meet the
proposed standards were considered.
These methods were continuous vent
stream molar composition and f10wrate
monitoring. a combination of biannual
performance testing of the TRE index
value of the facility with continuous
monitoring of selected operating
parameters of the fmal piece of product
recovery equipment in the affected
facility L-ain , and continuous
monitoring of operating parameters
only.
-------
Federal Register / VoL 48. No. 2D5 / Frid~y. October 21. 1fI83 / Proposed Rules
48947
CooDiuwus moniwring of the V4!Dt
stream nowrate and molar composition
would be the prefe.!Ted method if
feasible. because it would be a
continU0U5. dir4!Ct measure of proper
operation of the product reCDvery
device. However. because of the many
different vac compounds in air
oxidation vent strea.ms. no- continouous
offgas malar composition monitor has
been demonstrated. Current oUgas
molar composition morJtoring systems
are not simple and automated, but
extremely complex and labor-intensive.
Therefore. the EPA has determined that
continuous monitoring of offgas molar
composition and flowra te for
determination of proper operation and
mamtenance is infeasible.
Biannual performance testing would
provide a periodic. direct measure of
compliance with the TRE rntoff
provision of the prosposed staInJard.
Huwever. bicmnual testing. particularly
the off8as molar compositiun monitoring
measurenrent. would be expensive. witil
an estima ted 1:ost of $25.000 per test.
Therefm'e. tlm Administraror has
determined that 'the cost ofbiannua!
performa!1t:e testing is not reascrnable.
considering other reliable options which
are less expensive.
Provided that product recovery
equipment
-------
48948
Federal Register I VoL 48. No. 205 I Fiiday, October 21, 1983 I Proposed Rwes
stream through any nonair/oxidation
process equipment. This value of the
parameter(s) to be monitored would be
indicative of proper operation and
maintenance during normal operation of
the product recovery device.
The enforcement agency would
specify on a case by case basis
appropriate monitoring procedures or
requirements where the owner or
operator of an affected facility uses
emission control or product recovery
techniques other than those specified to
comply with the proposed standard.
Selection of Reporting and
Recordkeeping Requirements
The General Provisions of Part 60
require submittal of several one-time
notifications for occurrences such as .
construction. modification.
reconstruction. scheduled dates for
performance tests. and performance test
results. Owners and operators of steam
generating units with a design heat
capacity of 44 MW or greater would not
report performance test results. since
the proposed standard would waive the
requirement of such a test. Instead.
operators would be required to file an
initial report stating the design heat
input capacity of the steam generating
unit to be used..
The proposed standards exempt air
oxidation facilities from the quarterly
reports required by the General
Provisions. However. records of startup.
shutdown. and malfunction would still
be required. Also. records indicating
whether control equipment is being
properly operated and maintained
would be required.
Records indicating proper operation
and maintenance would be based on the
monitoring of control device or product
recovery device parameters discussed in
the previous section. Two types of
records would be required. The first
would be the monitoring results
themselves. This information can be
automatically recorded. and. therefore.
essentially the only labor necessary for
keeping these records would consist of
filing automatically recorded
parameters. The second type of record
would be a tabulation of periods when
the measurements of these
automatically recorded parameters
significantly deviated from
measurements of the same parameters
during the most recent performance test.
Although this requires more effort. it is a
necessary step for both the owner or
operator and enforcement agency to
ensure that the control equipment is
being properly operated and maintained.
This information would be necessary for
the owner or operator to know when to
mak1:! necessary cOITections to the
control equipment. For this second type
of record. it would be necessary for the
owner or operator to record control
device or recovery equipment operating
parameters. as appropriate. during all
performance tests and keep these
records for purposes of comparison. The
owner or operator would not be required
to record all deviations from these
measurements. but only the deviations
listed below for the different types-of
control devices.
Where a combustion system is used to
comply with the proposed numerical
emission limit, the proposed standards
would require recording of the following
information regarding periods of
operation during which the parameter
boundaries established during the most
recent performance, test are exceeded:
(1) For a thermal oxidizer or steam
generation unit ~;th a design heat in~ut
capacity ofless than 44 MW. all3-hour
periods during which the average
firebox temperature was more than 28°C
(50°F) below the average firebox.
temperature measured during the most
recent performance test (2) for a
catalytic oxidizer. all 3-hour periods of
operation durid'g which the average
temperature before the catalyst bed was
more than 28'C (50'F- below the
average temperature of the device
during the most recent performance test,
and all 3-hour periods of operation
during which the average temperature
difference across the catalvst bed was
less than 80 percent of the "average
temperature difference measured during
the most recent performance test; and
(3) for steam generating units with a
design heat input capacity greater than
44 NW. all periods of operation of the
stream generating unit. All records
would be required to be kept up to date.
and in readily accessible files for 2
years. The parameter boundaries
discussed above would allow for normal
fluctuations in operation of the
equipment monitored. The reduction
efficiency of the control device would
not be affected bv such normal
fluctua tions. .
Where a product recovery system is
used to comply with the proposed TRE
index value. the proposed standards
would require recording of two types of
information. The first requirement would
be to maintain records of any change in
production capacity. feedstock type or
catalyst type. or of the replacement.
removal. of addition of product recovery
equipment. When any such change
occurs. the TRE index value would be
recalculated based on the best
engineering estimates of the effects of
the change or on emission test data. A
record shall be maintained of the
recalculated TRE index value. If the
354
recalculated TRE index value for the
facility is less than 2.2, the owner or
operator shall demonstrate compliance
with the 98 percent or 20 ppmv emission
limits. Notice of any performance test
shall be given to EPA as required by the
General Provisions.
The second provision would require
recording of the following information
regarding periods of operation during
which the operating parameter.
boundaries established during the most
recent performance test for the final
product recovery unit are exceeded: (1)
Where an absorber was the final unit in
the product recovery system. all 3-hour
periods of operation during which the
average absorbing liquid termperature
was more than nOC (20°F) above that
measured in the most recent
performance test. and all 3-hour periods
of operation in which the absorbing
liquid specific gravity was more than 0.1
unit above or below that measured in
the most recent performance test (if the
enforcing agency approves an
alternative parameter to specific gravity
for monitoring by a facility, that agency
shall define appropriate parameter -
- boundaries and periods of operation
during which they are exceeded); (2)
where a condenser was the final unit in
the product recovery system. al13-hour
periods of operation during which the
average temperature oithe recovered
liquid was more than 3°C (S8F) above
the average operating temperature
. during the most recent performance test;
,(3) where a carbon absorber was the
fmal unit in a product recovery system
all carbon bed regeneration cycles
during which the total mass of steam
used was less than the total mass of
steam used in most recent performance
test. and all carbon bed regeneration
cycles during which the temperature of
the carbon bed (after regeneration and
all cooling cycles) was more than 10
percent greater than that measured in
the most recent performance test. If the
Administrator approves the use of an
organics manitor. all 3-hour periods of
operation duljng which the average
concentration of VQC in the carbon
adsorber exhaust gases indicated by the
continuous monitoring system is more
than 50 parts per million by volume and
more than 20 percent greater than the
exhaust gas concentration measured by
the monitoring system during the most
recent performance test shall be
recorded. (Such a discrepancy would
indicate improper operatioI\ of the
carbon adsorption system.) All records
would be required to be kept up to date.
and in readily accessible files for 2
years. The parameter boundaries
discussed above would allow for normal
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 205 / Friday, October 21, 1983 / -Proposed Rules
48949
fluctuations in operation of the
equipment monitored. The TRE value for
the facility would not be affected by
such nonnal fluctuations.
In addition to the one-time
notifications and perfonnance test
reports discussed above, semi-annual
reporting of recorded data would be
required for instances where monitored
parameters exceed the allowable
limitations set forth in the standards.
These data include the operating
parameters cited above for combustion
devices and for product recovery
systems. Other instances that wO:lld be
reported semi-annually are periods
when steam generating units used for
thermal oxidation are not operating and
when changes in a product recovery
system cause the TRE index value to be
recalculated. The requirement fer semi-
annual reporting-is waived for affected
facilities in States where the program
has been delegated if EPA, in the course
of delegation. approves reporting
requirements or an alternative means of
source surveillance adopted by the
State. Such affected facilities would be
required to comply with the
requirements adopted by the State.
L-npacts of Reporting and Recordkeeping
Rf:quirements
The information provisions associated
\.\ith this proposed rule (40 CFR 60.7 and
40 CFR 6O.615) have been submitted for
approval to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Comments on these requirements should
be submitted to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of
OMB-marked Attention Desk Officer
for EPA. The final rule package will
respond to any OMB or pubiic
cornJ"nents on the information collection
provisions. During the first 2 years of
this regulation the average annual
burden of the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements would be
3.5 person-years. based on an average of
10 respondents per year.
Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held to
discuss the proposed standards in
accordance with Section 307(d)(5) of the
Clean Air Act. Persons wishing to make
oral presentations should contact EPA
at the address given in the ADDRESSES
section of the preamble. Oral
presentations will be limited to 15
minutes each. Any member of the public
may file a written statement before.
during. or within 30 days after the
hearing. Written statements should be
addressed 10 the Central Docket Section
address given in the ADDRESSES section
of the preamble.
A verbatim transcript of the hearing
and written statements will be available
for public inspection and copying during
normal working hours at EPA's Central
Docket Section in Washington. D.C. (see
ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
Docket
The docket is an organized and'
comu!ete file of a1l the information
submitted 10 or otherwise considered in
the development of this proposed
rulemaking. The principal purposes of
the docket are: (1) To allow interested
parties to readily identify and locate
documents so that they can effectively
pari~cipate in the rulemaking process;
and (2) to serve as the record in case of
judicial review [except as noted in
Section 307( d) (7)(A)].
Miscellaneowi
As prescribed by Section 111,
establishment of standards of
performance for SOCMI air oxidation
processes was preceded by "the
Administrator's determination (40 CFR
60.16,44 FR 49222, dated August 21.
1.979) that SOCMI sources contribute
significantly to air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health or welfars. In accordance
with Section 117 of the Act. publication
of this proposal was preceded by
consultation ~ith appropriate advisory
committees, independent experts. and
Federal departments and agencies. The
Administrator will welcome comments
on all aspects of the proposed
regulation. including economic and
technological issues. and on the
proposed test methods.
This regulation will be reviewed
within 4 years from the date of
promulgation as required by the Clean
Air Act. This review will include an
assessment of such factors as the nee:.....
for integration with other programs, the
existence of alternative methods.
enforceablity. improvements in emission
control technology. and reporting
requirements.
Section 317 of the Clean Air Act
requires the Administrator to prepare an
economic impact assessment for any
new source standard of performance
promulgated under Section 111(b) of the
Act. An economic impact assessment
was prepared for the proposed
regulations and for other regulatory
alternatives. All aspects of the
assessment were considered in the
formulation of the proposed standards
to insure that the proposed standards
would represent the best system of
emission reduction considering costs.
355
The economic impact assessment is
included in the background information
document.
Under Executive Order 12291. EPA
must judge whether a regulation IS
"major" and therefore subject to the
requirement of a Regulatory Impact
Analysis. This regulation is not major
because: (1) The national annualized
compliance costs. including capital
charges resulting from the standards
total less than $100 mIllion; (2) the
standards do not cause a major increase
in prices or production costs; and (3) the
standards do not cause significant
adverse effects on domestic competition.
employment. investment. productivity.
innovation or competition in foreign
markets. As explained in the section
entitled "Selection of Basis for the
Proposed Standard," cost per megagram
of emission reduction was the primary
factor considered in selecting the
alternative upon which the proposed
standard is based.
This regulations was submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review as requird by
Executive Order 12291. Any comments
from OMB to EPA and any EPA
response to those comments are
included in Docket Number A-81-22.
The docket is ~vailable for public
inspection at EPA's Central Docket
Section. West Tower Lobby, Gallery 1.
Waterside Mall. 401 M Street, S.W..
Washington. D.C. 20460.
Regulatory FlexibIlity Analysis
CertIfication. The Regulatory Flexibility
Act of 1980 requires that adverse effects
of all Federal regulations upon small
businesses be identified. According to
current Small Business Administration
guidelines, a small business in the air
oxidation industry is one that has 1000
employees or less. Currently only 4
percent of existing air oxidation
;;ompanies (three companies) employ
less than 1000 people. Since Section 111
standards apply only to newly
constructed, modified. and
reconstructed facilities. and no modified
or reconstructed facilities are expected.
nor are any of these small air oxidation
companies likely to expand by adding
new units. none of these small
companies are expected to be subjected
to the proposed standards. The
economies of scale that exist in this
industry hinder the entrance of small
businesses. Furthermore. if a company
has the capital available to enter the
industry. the NSPS will require only a
small percentage increase in the capital
required for the project. No new,
modified, or reconstructed small air
oxidation facilities will be adversely
-------
48950
Federal Register I Vol. 48. No. 205 I Friday. October 21. 1983 I Proposed Rules
-==.
affected. This conclusion is basw on the
fact that. in doing the economic analysis
for this proposal. the price increase and
profitability impacts have been
estimated from the perspecn\'e of the
smaller air ~dation facilities in
operation.
Therefore. the finding that producers
of air oxidation chemicals. under a
worst-case scenario. would be able to
pass through NSPS compliance costs to
their customers while keeping the price
increase of their product under 5 percent
accurately reflects the impacts for small
air oxidation companies.
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.c.
605(b). I hereby certify that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substaritial number of small
entities.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60
Air pollution controL Aluminum.
Ammonium sulfate plants. Asphalt.
Cement industry. CoaL Copper. Electric
power plants. Glass and glass products.
Grains. Intergovernmental relations.
Iron..Lead. Metals. Metallic minerals.
Motor verJcles. Nitric acid plants. Paper
and paper products industry. Petroleum.
Phosphate. Sewage disposal. Steel
sulfuric acid plants. Waste treatment
and disposal. Zinc. Tires. Incorporation
by reference. Can surface coating.
Sulfuric acid plants. Industrial organic
chemicals, Organic solvent cleaners.
Dated.:.October 11. 1983.
William D. Ruckelslw1s.
AdministrotDr.
PART 6O-[AMENDED]
It is proposed that 40 CFR Part 60 be
amended as follows:
1. A new Subpart III is added as
follows:
Subpart nt-Standards of Performance for
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)
Emissions From the Synthetic Organic
Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI)
Air OXidation Unit Pr~
Src:.
60.610 Applicability and designation of
affected facility.
60.611 Definitions.
60.612 Standards.
60.613 Monitoring of emissions and
operations.
60.614 Test methods and procedures.
60.615 Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
60.616 Reconstruction.
Authority: Sees. 111 and 301(a) of the Clean
Air Act. as amended. 4Z D.S.C. 7411. 7601(a).
and additional authority as noted below.
Subpart tit-Standards 01 performance
for Volatile Organic Compound (YOC)
Emissions From the Synthetic Organic
Chemical Manufacturing Industry
(SOCM!) Air Oxidation Unit Processes
~ 60.610 Apptlcabllity and designation of
affected facilIty.
(a) The provisions of this subpart
apply to affected air oxidation facilities.
An affected facility is any individucil
reactor-product recovery train
consisting of an indhidual product
recovery system receiving offgas from at
least one air oxidation reactor. along
with all air oxidation reactors feeding
offges into this system. Each air
oxidation reactor not feeding offgas into
a product recovery system would
constitute a separate affected facility.
(b) Any facility under paragraph (a) of
this section that commences
construction. modification. or
reconstruction after October 21. 1983.
would be subject to the requirements of
this subpart.
Note.-The intent of these standards is to
minimize the emissions of vac through the
appl.ication of be6t demonstrated technology
(BDT). The numem:.al emission limits in these
stimdirds are expressed in terms of total
organic compounds. measured as total
organic compounds less methane and ethane.
This emission limit reflects the performance
of BOT.
~60.611 Definitions.
As used in this subpart. all terms not
defined here shall have the meaning
given them in the Act and in Subpart A
of Part 60. and the following terms shall
have the specific meanings given them.
Air axidation Process means a unit
process, including ammoxidation and
oxychlorination unit process. that uses
air. or a combination of air and oxygen.
as an oxygen source in combination
with OIU! or more organic reactants to
produce one or more organic
compounds.
Air Olddation Reador-Product
Recovery Train means an individual
product recovery system receh'ing
offgas from at lust one air oxidation
reactor. along with all air oxidation
reactors feeding offgas into this system.
Air Oxidatian Reactor means any
device or process vessel in which one or
more organic reactants are combined
with air, or a combination of air and
.oxygen. to produce one or more organic
compounds. Ammoxidation and
oxychlorination reactions are included
in this definition.
By Compound means by indi\'idual
stream components. not carbon
equivalents.
Chlorinated Process Vent Stream
means any process vent stream
determined to have a total concentration
356
(by volume) of compounds containinB
chlorine of 20 ppmv (by compound) or
greater.
Process Vent Stream means an3' g88
stream. containing nitrogen which was
introduced as air to the air oxidation
reactor. released to the atmosphere
directly from any air oxidation reactor-
product recovery train or indirectly.
after diversion through other proces8
equipment.
Product Recovery System means an
individual unit or series of material
recovery units. such as absorbers.
condensers. and carbon adsorbers.
which recovers total organic compounds
(less methane and ethane) from a
process vent stream for commercial or
industrial use or reuse.
Steam Generating UnU means any
furnace. boiler. process heater. or other
device used for combusting fuel for the
purpose of producing steam or process
heat (inclllding fossil-fuel-fired steam
generators associated with combined
cycle gas turbines; waste-heat boilers
are not included).
Total Organic Compounds means
those compounds measured according 10
the procedures in ~ 60.614.
Total Resource-Effectiveness (TRE)
Index Value means a measure of the
supplemental total resource requirement
per. unit reduction of total organic
compolDlds (excluding methane and
ethane) associated with an individual
air oxidation process vent stream. ba!lp.~
on cffgas flowrate. emission rate and
total org
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 48. No. 205 I Friday, October 21, 1983 I Proposed Rules
48951
f 60.613 Monitoring of emissions and
operations.
(a) The owner or operator of an
affected facility that uses a combustion
device [except for a steam generating
unit with a design heat input capacity of
44 MW (150 Btu/hr) or greaterl to seek
10 comply with the total organic
compound emission limit specified
under ~ 6O.612(a) shall install, calibrate,
maintain, and operate according to
manufacturer's specifica tions a
temperature measurement device
equipped with a continuous recorder
and having an accuracy of 1 percent of
the temperature being measured
expressed in degrees Celsius or :t:2.5°C.
whichever is greater.
(1) Where a combustion device other
- than a catalytic oxidizer is used, a
temperature measurement device shall
be installed in the firebox.
(2) Where a catalytic oxidizer is used,
temperature measurement devices shall
be installed in the gas stream
immediately before and after the
catalvst bed.
(b]"The owner or operator of an
affected facility that seeks to
demonstrate compliance with the TRE
index value limit specified under
~ GO.612(b) shall install, calibrCite.
maintain, and operate according to
manufacturer's specifications the
following equipment, unless alternative
monitoring procedures or requirements
are approved for t.~a t fa cility by th e
Administra tor:
(1) Where an absorber is the final unit
in a system, a scrubbing liquid
temperature monitor having an accuracy
of 1 percent of the term perature being
measured expressed in degrees Celsius
or :t2.5°C, whichever is greater, ar:.d a
specific gravity measurement device
having an accuracy of :t:O.02 specific
gravity unit, each equipped with a
continuous recorder.
(2) Where a condenser is the final unit
in a system. a condenser exit (product
side) temperature monitor equipped
with a continuous recorder and having
an accuracy of 1 percent of the
temperature being measured exp~essd in
degrees Celsius or :t:2.5'C, whicheve~ is
grea ter.
(3) Where a carbon adsorber is the
final unit in a system. an integrating
steam flow meter having an accu~acy of
:t10 percent. and a cCirbon bed
temperature monitor having an accuracy
of 1 percent of the temperature being
measured expressed in degrees Celsius
or :!:2.5'C. whichever is greater, both
equipped with a continuous recorder.
(c) An owner or operator of an
affected facility seeking to demonstrate
compliance with the standards specified
under ~ 60.612 other than an incinerator.
boiler, process heater. absorber,
condensor or carbon adsorber shall
provide to the Administrator
information describing the operation of
the control device and the process
parameter(s) which would indicate
proper operation and maintenance Qf
the device. The Administrator may
request further information and will
specify appropriate monitoring
procedures or requirements.
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42
U.S.c. 1857c-9)J
g 60.614 Test methods and procedures.
(a) The following test methods and
procedures. except as p~ovided under
9 60.8(b). shall be used to determine
compliance with the emission limit
specified under 9 6O.612(a).
(1) Reference Method 1 or 1A. as
appropriate. for selection of the
sampling site. The control device inlet
sampling site for determination of offgas
molar composition or total organic
COlTIpOUIld reduction efficiency shall be
prior to the inlet of any combustion
device and after ail product recovery
units.
(Z) Reference Method 2, ZA. 2C, or zD
as app~opriale, for determination of the
volumetric flowrate.
(3) Reference Method 3 for air dilution
correction. based on 3 percent oxygen in
the emission sample.
(4) Reference Method 18 ar.d ASTM
DZ504-67 (reapproved 1977) to
determine hourlv emission rate of total
organic compou~ds (minus met..~ane and
ethane) in the combustion device outlet
and total organic compound reduction
efficiency of the combustion device.
(5) Where a steam generating unit
with a design heat unput capacity of 44
MW (150 million Btu/hour) or greater is
used to seek to comply with 9 6O.612(a),
the requirement for an initial
performance test is waived. in
accordance with 9 6O.8[~). However, the
Administ~ator reserves tlJ.e option to
require testing at such ot..,er times as
may be required. as provided for in
section 114 of the Act
(b) The following test methods and
precedures, except as provided under
9 6O.8(b). shall be used for determining
-,he process vent stream TRE index
value to dete:mine compliance under
9 60.612(b).
(1) Reference Method 1 or 1A. as
appropriate. for selection of the
sampling site. The sampling site for the
357
vent stream flowrate and molar
composition determination prescribed in
~ 6O.614(b )(2) and (3) shall be prior to
the inlet of any combustion device. prior
to any post-reactor dilution of the
stream with air. and prior to any post-
reactor introduction of chlorinated
compounds into the process vent stream.
Subject to the preceding restrictions on
the sampling site, it shall be after the
final products recovery unit. If any gas
stream other than the air oxidation
process vent stream is normally
conducted through the product recovery
system of the affected facility, such
stream shall be rerouted or turned off
whlle the vent stream is sampled. but
shall be routed normally prior to the
measuring of the initial value of the
parameter(s) to be monitored as
specified in 9 5O.613(b). If the air
oxidation process vent stream is
normally routed through any equipment
which is not a part of the affected
facility as defined under 9 60.610 and
9 60.611. such equipment shall be
bypassed by the process vent stream
while the vent stream is sampled, but
shall not be bypassed during the
measurement of the initial value of the
parameter(s) to be monitored as
specified in 9 6O.613(b).
(Z) The molar composition of the
process vent stream shall be determined
as follows:
(i) Reference Method 18 and ASTM
D2504-67 (reapproved 1977) to measure
vac concentration, concentration of
each compowld containing chlorine, and
conr:entration of all other compounds
present except water vapor and carboD
monoxide.
(ii) Reference Method 4 to measure
the content of water vapor.
(iii) Reference Met..~od 10 to measure
carben monoxide concentration. The
process vent stream carbon monoxide
)ncentration shall. be calculated on a
wet basis using the following equation:
c.co=Cco(l-B",J
where:
c..",,=Concentration of carbon monoxide.
wet basis. ppm.
Cco=Cencentrstion of carbon monoxide as
determined using the recommended test
method. ppm. dry.
B..=V\'ater vapor in the gas sample.
proportIOn by volume.
(3) The volt.:metric flowrate shall be
detemined usii1g Reference Methods 2.
z.A.., Zc. or 2D, as arpropriate.
(4) The net heating value of the
process vent stream shall be caJculated
using the following equation:
-------
48952
Federal Register I Vol. 48. No. 205 I Friday. Oct{)ber n. 1983 I Proposed Rules
H.-x (. :') C,H. +c..coHa.
1=1
Where:
HT=Net beating value of the sample. MI/
san. where the net enthalpy per mole of
offgas ia based of combustion at ZS"C
X=ConstanL 1.740X10-' (
whe~ .tandard tempera ture for
Ct = Concentration of sample component i.
ppm.
H.=Net heat of combustion of sample
component i. kcal/g-mole. The beats of
combustion of procen venl stream
components wouJd be required to be
detennined using ASTM DZ38Z-76 if
published value. lITe not available or
cannot be calculated.
c....=Concentration of carbon monoxide.
wet buis, ppm.
H..=Net beat of combustion of carbon
monoxide. kcal/ g-mole. -
(5) The emission rate of total organic
compounds (minus ethane and methane)
in the process vent stream shall be
calculated using the following equation:
En.c~k
( : ) Co.\(,
,=1
Q.
and 760 mm Mg. but the standard
temperature for detenninins the volume
corresponding to one mole d zo-c. 88 in
the defiDition of O. (offgaa fiowra!e}.
1
) ( 8:- ) ( k:1 ).
( g-mole ) i. 2O"C.
.em
ppm
where: emi8sion rate of tot81 org-.mic
compounda (minull1lethane and ethane) in
the sample. kg/hr.
K= Constant. 2.494 Xlcr-' (l/ppm}{g-mole/
scm) [kg/g) (minfhr}. where standard
temperature for (g-mole/scm) is ZO"c.
M,=Molecular weight of sample component i.
gfg-mole.
Q.= Vent stream floWnte (lICmfmin). at a
standard temperature of ZO"c.
(6) The total process vent stream
concentration (by volume) of
compounds containing halogens (ppmv..
by compound) shall be summed from the .
indi'ridual concentrations of compounds
containing halogens which were
measured by Reference Method 18-
(7) The TRE index value of the
process vent stream shall be calculated
using the following equation:
1
TRE= - Ie + b IQ.J ... ... c ((2.) + d 10.1 rHT) + e (Q..) .... (HT) ~.. + f (HT) """.I
E.w
where:
TRE=Total resource-eITectiveness index
value.
(b= Vent stream flO1o\Tate (sern/min). at a
standard tempera tare cf W"e.
HT=Vent stream net heating value (MJ/scm).
as calculated in ~ 6O.614(b)[~). where the
net enthalpy of combustion per mole of
oITgas is based on combustion at 25"C
and 760 mm Hg. but the standard
temperature for determining the volume
cor.-espondi.ns to one mole is lO.e. as in
the definition of (b.
Eroc= HOI.:rly emissions of total organic
compounds [minus methane and ethane)
reported in kgfhr measured at full
operating nowrate.
a.b.c.d.e. and f are coefficients.
Tne set of coefficients which apply to a
process vent stream shall be obtained
from Table 1.
(c) Each owner or operator of an
affected 'facilitv shall recalculate the
TRE index val~e for that affected
facility whenever changes are made in
production capacity. feedstock type. or
catalyst type. or whenever there is .
replacement. removal. or addition of
product recovery equipment. The TRE
index value shall be recalculated based
cn test data. or on best engineering
estimates of the effects of the change to
the product rect've!Ji svstem. In any
instance where the recalculated TRE
index value is less than 2.2. the owner or
operator shall conduct a performance
tesls as required by ~ 6O.614(a) in order
to determine compliance with
~ 60.612(a).
358
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 48. No. 205 I Friday. October 21.1983 I Proposed Rules
489S3
TABLE 1. COEffICIENTS OF THE TOTAL RESOURCE EffECTIVENESS (TRE) INDEX EQUATION
AI. FOR CHLORINATED PROCESS VENT STREAMS, IF O!NET HEATING VALUE (MJ/scm)~3.3:
Q = Standard F10wrate (scm/min) a b c d e f
Q < 15 46.21 0 0.763 -. -0.325 0 0
1~ < ~ ~ 790 38.98 0..]54 0.763 -0.325 Q Q
790 < 0 ~1590 77 .96 0.819 0.763 -0.325 0 0
1590.
-------
48954
Federal Register I Vol. 48, No. 205 I Friday. October 21, 1983 I Proposed Rules
(See. 114 of tJ8e Clean Air Act as amended (42
U.s.c. 18S7c-9))
! 60.615 Reporting and recordIceeplng
requirwl88nta.
(a) Each owner or operator subject to
! 60.612 shall notify the Administrator of
the specific provisions of ! 60.612
[! 60.612 (a) or (bJ] with which the
owner or operator has elected to
comply. Notification shall be submitted
with the notification of initial startup
required by ! 6O.7(a}(3). If an owner or
operator elects at a later date to use an
alternative provision of ~ 60.612 with
'which he or she will comply, then the
Administrator shall be notified by the
owner or operator 90 days before
implementing a change and, upon
implementing the change, a performance
test shall be performed as specified by
~ 60.614. .
(b) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of th.is subpart shall keep
an up-to-date, readily-accessible record
of the following data measured during
each performance test, and also include
the following data in the report of the
initial performance test required under
~ 60.8. except when a steam generating
uilit with a design heat input capaclty of
44 MW (150 million Btu/hour) or greater
is used to comply with ~ 6O.612(a), in
wb.ich case an initial report containing
1~2 data specified in (b}(Z) of this
~"ct:on shall be submitted at the startup
of the facility. The same data specified
in paragraph (b) (1) or (3) of this section,
as appropriate. shall be submitted in t.!-je
repo!'ts of all subsequently required
performance tests where either the total
organic compound emission control
dficiency of a combustion device or the
TRE index value of a process vent
stream from a product recovery system
is determined.
(1) Where an ov..'I1er or operator
subject to this subpart seeks to
demonstrate compliance with ~ 6O.61Z(a)
through use of a combustion device
(except for a steam generating urJt with
a design heat input capacity of 44 MW
or greater):
(i) The average firebox temperature of
t~e t.1e!"Itlal oxidizer or steam generation
unit with a design heat input capacity of
Jess than 44 M\AJ (or the average
temperature upstream and downstream
of tbe catalyst bed), every 15 minutes
and averaged over a 3-hour period. and
(H) The percent reduction of total
organic compounds (minus methane and
ethane) achieved by the combustion
device, or the concentration (ppmv. by
compound) of total organic compounds
(less methane and ethane) at the outlet
of the control device on a dry basis
corrected to 3 percent oxygen.
(2) Where an owner or operator
subject to this subpart seeks to
demonstrate compliance with t 6O.612(a)
through use of a steam generating unit
with a design heat input capacity of 44
MW or greater, the initial report will
contain a statement of the design heat
input capacity of the steam generating
unit to be used.
(3) Where an owner or operator seeks
to demonstrate compliance with .
i 6O.612(b):
(i) The specific gravity (or alternative
parameter which is a measure of the
degree of absorbing liquid saturation, if
approved by the Administrator), and
average temperature. measured every 15
minutes and averaged over a 3-hour
period, of the absorbing liquid (both
measured while the vent stream is
normally routed and constituted), where
an absorber is the final unit in a system,
or
(ii) The average exit (product side)
temperature. measured every 15 minutes
and averaged over a 3-hour period while
the vent stream is normally routed and
constituted. where a condenser is the
final unit in a s1stem. or
(Hi) The manifold steam pressure
measured every 15 minutes and
averaged over the period of the
performance test (full carbon bed cycle).
temperature of the carbon bed after
regeneration [and within 15 minutes of
completion of any cooling cycle(s)]. and
duration of the carbon bed steaming
cvele where a carbon adsorber is the
f{nal urlit in a system (aU measured
while the vent stream is normaily routed
and constituted), and
(iv) All measurements and
calculations performed to determine the
TRE index value of the process vent
stream.
(c) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall keep
up-to-date, readily-accessible
continuous records of the equipment
operating parameters specified to be
monitored under A 6O.613(a), as well as
up-to-date. readily-accessible records of
periods of operation during which the
parameter boundaries established
duri..."lg t..'1e most recent performance test
are exceeded. The Administrator may at
any time require a report ot these data.
Where a combustion device is used by
an owner or operator seeking to
demo~strate compliance with
~ 6O.612(a), periods of operation during
which the parameter boundaries
established during the most recent
performance tests are exceeded are
defined as follows:
(1) For thermal incineration or
combustion in a steam generating unit
with a design heat input capacity of less
than 44 MW (150 million Btu/hour), all
360
3-hour periods of operation during which
the average combustion the, temperature
was more than ZS.C (SO.F) below the
average combustion temperature during
the most recent performance test at
which compliance with fi 6O.612(a) was
determined.
(2) For catalytic incineration. al13-
hour periods of operation during which
the average temperature of the device
immediately before the catalyst bed is
more than ZS.C (5OcF) below the average
temperature of the device during the
most recent performance test at which
compliance with ~ 6O.612(a) was.
determined. The owner or operator also
shall record all 3-hour periods of
operation during which the average
temperature difference across the
catalyst bed is less than 80 percent of
the average temperature difference of
the device during the most recent
performance test at which compliance
with i 6O.612(a) was determined.
(d) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall keep
up-to-date. readily-accessible
continuous records of the eqwpment
operating parameters specified to be
monitored under i 6O.613(b) as well as
up-ta-date. readily-accessible records of
periods of operation during which the
parameter boundaries established
during the most recent performance test
are exceeded. The Administrator may at
any time require a report of these data. .
Where the owner or operator seeks to
demonstrate compliance with
! 6O.612(b), periods of operation during
which the parameter boundaries
establiS'hed during the most recent
performance tests are exceeded are
defined as follows:
(1) 'Where an absorber is the final unit
in a system. .
(i) All 3-hour periods of operation
during which the average absorbing
liquid temperature was more than U.C
(ZO.F) ab9ve the average absorbing
liquid temperature during the most
recent performance test, or
(ii) All 3-hour periods of operation
during which the average absorbing
liquid specific gravity was more than 0.1
unit above, or more than 0.1 unit below,
the average absorbing liquid specific
gravity during the most recent
performance test (unless monitoring of
an alternative parameter, which is a
measure of the degree of absorbing
liquid saturation. is approved by the
Administrator. in which case he or she
will define apprQpriate parameter
boundaries and periods of operation
during which they are exceeded).
(2) Where a condenser is the final unit
in a system. all 3-hour periods of
operation during which the average
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 48, No. 205 I Friday, October 21. 1983 / Proposed Rules
48955
condenser operating temperature was
more than 6°C (10"F) above the average
operating temperature during the most
recent performance test.
(3) Wnere a carbon adsorber is the
final unit in a system.
(i) All carbon bed regeneration cycles
during which the total mass steam flow
was below the total mass steam flow
pressure during the most recent
performance test, and.
(Hi All carbon bed regeneration cycles
during which the temperature of the
carbon bed after regeneration [and after
completion of any cooling cyclers)} was
more than 10 percent greater than the
carbon bed temperature (in degrees
centigrade) during the most recent
performance test.
(4) Where a carbon adsorber is the
fmal unit in the recovery system and a
total organic compound monitor
approved by the Administrator is used.
all 3-hour periods of operation during
which the average concentration of iotal
Qrganic compounds (less methane and
ethlllle) in the carbon adsorber gases is
more than 50 parts per million by
volume and more than 20 percent
greater than the exhaust gas
concentration QJeasured by the
monitoring system during the most
recent performance test
(e) Each OVl.'Der or operator subject to
the provisons of this subpart who Ilses a
.steam generating unit ~ith a design heat
input capacity of 44 MW (150 million
Etu/hour) or greater and seeking to
demonstrate compliance with ~ 6O.612(a)
shall keep an up-to-date. readily
accessible record of all periods of
operation of the steam generating unit
(Examples of such records could include
records of steam use. fuel use, or
monitoring data collected pursuant to
other State or Federal regulatory
requirements.)
(f) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart and
aeeking to demonstrate compliance with
i 6O.61Z(b} shall keep up-to-date. readily
accessible records of:
(1) Any changes in production
capacity, feedstock type, or catalyst
type. or of any replacement. removal or
addition of product recovery equipment;
(2) Any recalculation of the 'IRE index
value performed pursuant to i 6O.614(C);
(3) The results of any performance test
performed pursuant to g 6O.614(c).
(g) Each owner and operator subject
to the provisions of this subpart is
exempt from i 6O.7(c) of the General
Provisions.
(h) Each owner or operator that seeks
to comply with the requirements of this
subpart by complying with the
requirements of i 60.612 shall submit to
the Administrator semi-annual reports
of the information recorded under
U 60.615 (c). (d). and (Ł). In addition.
when a steam generating unit witb a
design heat input capacity of 44 MW
(150 million Btu/hour) or greater is used
to comply with ~ 6O.612(a), the owner or
operator of the affected facility shall
submit to the Administrator semi-annual
reports of all periods during which the
steam generating unit is not operating,
as recorded under g 6O.615(e). The initial
report shall be submitted within 6
months after the initial start-up date.
(i) Jhe requirements of ~ 6O.615(h)
remain in force until and unless EPA. in
delegating enforcement aul~ority to a
State tIllder Section 111(c).of the Act,
approves reporting requirements or an
alternative means of compliance
surveillance adopted by such Stale-In
that event. affected sources „.ithin the
State will be reUeved of the obligation to
comply with i 6o.615(h). pro...ided that
they comply with the requirements
established by the State.
OJ The Administrator will speci.~
appropriate reporting and recordkeeping
requirements where the owner or
operator of an affected facility seeks to
demonstrate compliance with the
standards specified under i 60.612 other
than as provided under i 60.613 (a) and
(b).
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42
U.S.C.1857c-9)]
! 60.615 Reconstruction.
(a) For purposes of this subpart "fixed
capital cost of the new components", as
used in i OCllS, includes the fIxed
capital cost of all depreciable
components which are or will be
replaced pursuant to all continuous
programs of component replacement
which are commenced within any 2-year
period followi.ng (date of proposal). For
purposes of this paragraph.
"commenced" means that an owner or
operator has undertaken a continuous
program of component replacement or
that an owner or operator has entered
into a contractual obligation to
undertake and complete. within a
reasonable time. a continuous program
of component replacement.
361
(See. 114 of the Clean Air Act 88 amended (42
U.S.C.7414)]
It is proposed that Appendix A of 40
CFR P~rt 60 be amended as follows:
2. Reference Method lA is added to
Appendix A as follows:
Appeodix A-ReIerence Method.
MetiJDd lA-Sample tmd ~'elocity Traverses
for Stationary Sources with Small Stacks or
Ducts
1. Applicability a.,d Principle
The applicability and principle of this
method are identical to Method 1. except its
applicability is limited to stacks or ducts less
than about 0.30 meter (12 in.) in diameter. or
0.071 m 0 (113 in. 'J in cross-sectional area. but
equal to or great!!!' than about 0.10 meter (4
in.) in diameter. or 0.0081 mO (12.57 in.") in
cross-sectional area.
In these small diameter stacks or ducts the
conventional pitot assembly (consisting of B
Type S pitot tube attached to a sampling
probe. equipped with a nome and
thermoconple) blocks a significant cross-
section of the duct and prevents a true
traverse. "Therefore. for particulate sampling
in small staeb or ducts. the gas velocity is
measured using a standard pitot tube
downstream of the actual emission testing
site. The straight run of duct between the
sampling and velocity measurement sites
allows the flow profile. temporarily disturbed
by the presence of the sampling probe. to
redevelop and stabilize.
The cross-sectional layout and location of
traverse points and the verification of the
absence of cyclonic flow are the same u in
Method 1. Sections 2.3 and 2.4. respectiveJy.
Differences from Method 1. except as noted,
are given below.
2. Procedure
2.1 Selection of Measurement Site.
2.1.1 Partico.Iate MesllU1't!ments-Steady
or UnslnCy Flow. Select . particulate
measurement site located preferably at least
eight equivalent stack or duct diameters
downstream and 10 equivalent diameters
upstream from 8!lY flow disturbances such a.
a bend&. expansion&. or contractions in the
stack. or from a visible flame. Next. locate
the veJodty measurement site eight
equivalent diameters downstream of the
particulate measurement site. See Fi~ lA-
1. If such locations are not available. select
an alternative particulate measurement
location at least two equivalent stack or dud
diameters downstream and two and one-half
diameters upstream from any now
disturbance. Then. locate the velocity
measurement site two equivalent diameters
downstream from the partiCtl.late
measurement site. (See Section 2.1 of Method
1 for calculating equivalent diameters for a
rectangular cross-section.)
-------
48956
Federal Register I Vol. 48. No. 205 / Friday. October 21. 1983 I Proposed Rules
FLOW
DIStURBANCE
.
f-~~-1~
. ./ ~ TEMPERATURE
,/ 5.ENSOR
STANDARD
PITOT
TUBE
Figure lA-I.
2.1.2 Particulate [Steady Flow) or Velocity
[Steady or Unsteady Flow) Measurements. If
the average total volumetric flow ra te in a
duct is constant with respect to time or if
only velocity measurements are required use
the same criterion as in Section 2.1 of Method
1.
2.2 Determining the Number of Traverse
Points.
2.2.1 Particulate Measurements (Steady or
Unsteady Flow). Use Figure 1-1 of Method 1
to determine the number of traverse points.
Before referring to the figure, however,
determine the distance betwee;; the velocity
and sampling sites and the distances to the
nearest upstream and downstream
disturbances and divide each distance bv the
stack diameter or equivalent diameter to'
determine the distances in terms of the
nu.'Uber of duct diameters. Then. determine
the number of traverse points from Figure 1-1
of Method 1 corresponding to each of these
three distances. Choose the highest of the
three numbers of traverse points (or a greater
number) &0 that for circular ducts the number
is a multiple of four; for rectangular ducts use
one of those numbers shown in Table 1.1 of
Method 1.
>B~
I
~I~
...
SAMPliNG
PROBE
>81\
!
0,
FLOW
DIŁTURBANCE
Recommendedrsampling arrangement for small ducts.
2.2.2 Particulate [Steady Flow) 2.::!d
Velocity (Non-Particulate) Measurements.
Use Figure 1A-3 to determine number of
traverse points, felJowing the same procedure
used for particulate traverses as described in
Section 2.2.1 of Method 1.
3. Bibliography
1. Same as Method 1. Section 3. Citations 1
through 6.
2. Vollaro, Robert F. Recommended
Procedure for Sample Traverses in Ducts
Smailer Than 12lnc.1es in Diameter. U.S.
En\'ironmentaJ Protection Agency. Emission
Measurement Branch. Research Triangle
Park. North Carolina. January 19i7.
3. Reference Method 2C is added to
Appendix A as follows:
Appendix A-Reference Methods
.
Method 2C-Detennination of Slack Gas
Velocity and Volumetric Flow Rete From
Small S:acJcs or Ducts (Standard Pitot Tube)
1. Aplicability and Principle
1.1 Applicability. The applicability of this
method i& identical to Method 2. except it is
limited to stationary source stacks or ducts
362
less than about 0.30 meter (12 in.) in diameter.
or 0.071 m 2 (113 in. "J in cross-sectional area.
but equal to or greater than about 0.10 meter
(4 in.) in diameter or 0.0081 m2 (12.57 in.") in
cross-sectional area.
The apparatus. procedure, calibration.
calculations. and bibliography are the same
as in Method 2. Sections 2. 3, 4. 5. and 6.
except as noted in the following sections.
. 1.2 Principle. The average gas velocity in a
stack or duct is determined from the gas
density and from measurement of velocity.
heads with a standard pitot tube.
2. Apparatus
2.1 Standard Pitot Tube (instead ofT~;>e
S). A standard pitot tube wh..ich meets the
specifications of Section 2.7 of Method 2, Use
a coefficient of 0.99 unless it is calibrated
against another standard pitot tube with an
NBS-traceable coefficient.
2.2 Alternative Pitot Tube. A modified
hemispherical-nosed pitot tube (see Figure
2C-1), wh..ich features a shortened stem and
enlarged impact and static pressure holes.
Use a coefficient of 0.99 unless it is calibrated
as mentioned in Section 2..1 above. This pitot
tube is useful in particulate liquid droplet
laden gas streams when a "back purge" is
ineffective.
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 48. No. 205 I Friday. October 21, 1983 I Proposed Rules
48957
IIIIIIII~
t .,
ngure 2C-1.
3. Pro~ure
Follow the general procedu."es in Section 3
of Method Z. except conduct the
measurements at thetraverse points specified
in Method 1A. The static and impact pressure
holes of standard pitot tubes are susceptible
to plugging in particulate-laden gas streams,
Therefore. the tester must furnish adequate
proof that the openings of the pitot tube ha"e
not plugged during the traverse period: this
can be done by taking the velocity head (.6.p)
heading at the fmal traverse point. cleaning
out the imDact and static holes of the
standard pitot tube by "back-purging" with
pressurized air. and then taking another .6.p
reading. If the IJ. readings made before and
after the air purge are the same (::!:O5 percent)
the traverse is acceptable. Otherwise. reject
the run. Note that if the .6.P at the final
traverse point is unsuitably low. another
point may be selected. If "back purging" at
regular intervals is part of the procedure. then
take comparative Ap readings. as above. for
the last two back purges at which suitably
high IJ.p readings are observed.
4. Reference Method 2D is added to
Appendix A as follows:
Appendix A-Reference Meth0d8
D
Modified hemispherical-nosed pitot tube.
Method 2D-Measurement of Gas Volume
Flow Rates jn Small Pipes and Ducts
1. App}jcabjljty and Princjple
1. 1 Applicability. Th.is method appliesto
the measurement of gas flow rates in small
pipes and ducts. It can only be applied to
intermitlent or variable gas flows with
particular caution.
1. 2 Principle. All the gal flow in the pipe
or duct is directed through a rotameter.
orifice plate or similar device to measure
flow rate or pressure drop. The device haa
been previously calibrated in a manner that
insures its proper calibration for the gas
being measured. Absolute temperature and
pressure measurements are made to adjust
volume flow rates to standard conditions.
2. Apparatus.
Specifications for the apparatus are given
below. Any other apparatus that has been
demonstrated (subject to approval of the
Administrator) to be capable of meeting the
specifications will be considered acceptable.
~ 1 Gas Metering Rate or Flow Element
Device. A rotameter. orifice plate. or other
volume rate or pressure drop measuring
device capable of measuring the stack. flow
rate to within 5 percent. The metering device
shall be equipped \
-------
48958
Federal Register I VoL 48, No. 205 I Friday, October 21, 1983 I Proposed Rules
==
beginning and end of the test period. Record
the data on a table similar ID Figure 2D-1.
3.3.2. Noncontinuous and Nonsteady Flow.
Use volume rate devices with particular
caution. Calibration will be affected by
variation in stadt gas temperature. pressure
and molecular weight. Use the procedure in
Section 3.3.1 with the addition of the
following: Record all the metering device
parametm-s on a time interval frequency
sufficient to adequately profile each process
cyclical or noncontinuous event. A
multichannel continous recorder may be
used.
Plant
Flow meter location
Calibration date
run number -
Operators
Metering device type
Metering device number
Calibration coefficient
Calibration gas
recalibrate
Barometric pressure (rnm Hg)
. Finish
Calibration
Date to
Start .
I Volume ral8 S!8tic Temperature
Time runt cicek or pressure I pressure
----------\--~
Figure ~1. Volume flow rate
measurement data.
4. Calibrafjon
4.1 Gas Metering Device. Use the
procedure in Method ZA. Section 4, and apply
the same performance standards. Calibrate'
the metering device with the principle stack
gas to be measured (examples: air. nitrogen)
against a standard reference meter. A
calibrated dry gas meter is an acceptable
reference meter. Ideallv. calibrate the
metering d8';ce in the field with the actual
gas to be metered. For metering devices that
bave a volume rate readout. calculate the test
metering device calibration coefficient, Y rD'
for each run as follows:
[V,) (T,) p....
Ym= (v..) [TmJ [P':+p.J
Eq. ZD-1
Where:
V,=Reference meter volume rate reading.
m'fmm.
364
V... = Test meter volume rate readil\lo m'/mm.
T.=Absoluteremnmce meter average
temperature. '1<.
T...=Abswute test meter average
temperature. OK.
P..,=Barometric pressure. mm Hg.
P.=Test meter average static pressure. mm
Hg.
For metering devices that do not have a
volume rate readout. refer to the
manufacturer's instructions to calculate the
'V. corresponding to each V..
4.2 Temperature Gauge. Use the
procedure and specifications in Method 2A.
Section 4.2. Perform the calibration at a
temperature that approximates field test
conditions.
4.3 Barometer. Calibrate the barometer to
be used in the field test with a mercury
barometer prior to the field test.
5. Gas Flow Rate Calculation
Use the equations in Method 2A. Section 5.
except time is already factored in.
6. Bibliography
1. United States Envirol'.mental Protection
Agency. Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources. Re\;sions to Methods 1-
8. Title 40. Part 60. Washington. D.C. Federal
Register Vol. 42. No. 160. August 18.1977.
2. United States Environmental Protection
Agency. Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources. Proposed Met.,od 2A.
Title 40. PartiiO. Washington. D.C. Federal
Register Vol. 45. No. 244. December 17. 1980.
(FR Doc, 83-za2117 Filed 1~: 8:45 1m}
8ILUIIIG COOE ~
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please rud llUlTUctions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO. 12. 3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIO,..NO.
4. TITL.E AND SUBTITL.E 5. REPORT DATE
APTI Course 482 April 1984
Sources and Control of Volatile Organic Air Pollutants 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
Regulatory Documents Updates and NSPS Regulations
7. AUTHORIS) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING OR"':ANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PRCJGRAM ELEMENT NO.
~orthrop Services, Inc. B 18A2C
P.O. Box 12313 11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
Research Triangle Park, HC 27709 68-02-3573 .
12, SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1\.egulatory Docur:J.ents }1anual
~1anpower and Technical Information Branch 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
Air Pollution Training Institute SPA-OAN:'..-OAnps
Research Trian!?le Park. NC 27711
1!5. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project Officer for this manual is R. E. ':'ownsend, ;SPA-ERC, }fi)-17 , RTP, ~C 27711
18. A8STRACT
The Regulatory Documents Handbook is to be used for the Air Pollution
Training Institute Course 482 "Sources and Control of Volatile Organic Air
Pollutants. " This publication contains selected Federal Register Notices,
Federal Register SIP notices, EPA policy stater:J.ents, and proposed and final
(Jew Source Perf ortTlance Standards for ne~'l sources of volatile organic compounds.
This publication is intended for use in conjunction with the Student
Horkbook (EPA 450/2-81-011) and the Instructor's Guide (EPA 450/2-81-010) for
APTI Course 482.
7, KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
L DESCRIPTORS b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Air pollution truining Training Course 13 B
Control of Volatile Organic Compounds Regulatory ~ocur:J.ents 5 I
VOC regulations 68 A
113. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT unlimited 19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report) 21. NO. OF PAGES
Available frot!1 National Technical Infor- Unclassified 365
mation Service, 5285 Port Royal Rd. 20. SECURITY CLASS (This pGp) 22. PRICE
~ ~,~,,.t UI1 "'''1~1 Unclassified
EPA Form 2220-1 <,.73)
365
------- |