United States Office of Air Quality Planning EPA-340/1-82-005b
Environmental Protection and Standards June 1982
Agency Research Triangle Park IMC 27711
Stationary Source Compliance Series
x>EPA Standards
of Performance
for New Stationary
Sources -
Volume 2:
Proposed
Amendments
A Compilation
As of May 1, 1982
-------
EPA-340/1-82-005b
Standards of Performance
for New Stationary Sources -
Volume 2:
Proposed Amendments
A Compilation as of May 1, 1982
by
PEDCo Environmental, Inc.
Cincinnati, Ohio 45246
Contract No. 68-01-6310
EPA Project Officer: Kirk Foster
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air, Noise and Radiation
Stationary Source Compliance Division
Washington, D.C. 20460
June 1982
-------
SECTION IV
PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS
-------
The Stationary Source Compliance series of reports is issued by the Office of
Air, Noise and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, to assist the
Regional Offices in activities related to compliance with implementation
plans, new source emission standards, and hazardous emission standards to be
developed under the Clean Air Act. Copies of Stationary Source Compliance
reports are available - as supplies permit - from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Administration, General Services Division, MD-35,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, or may be obtained, for a nomi-
nal cost, from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal
Road, Springfield, Virginia 22151.
11
-------
PREFACE
This is Volume 2 of a three-volume compilation of the New Source Perfor-
mance Standards promulgated under Section III of the Clean Air Act, repre-
sented in full as amended. The information contained herein supersedes all
compilations published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency prior to
1982.
The large number of proposed NSPS regulations and amendments and the
increasing amount of full text for promulgated amendments has necessitated
dividing the compilation into three volumes. Volume 1 contains the introduc
tion, summary table, and regulations as amended. Volume '2 (this document)
contains the full text of all proposed regulations divided by section affect-
ed. The Table of Contents also serves as a complete listing of proposed
amendments, including Reference Methods and Performance Specifications, cross-
referenced, if necessary, to the standard with which they were proposed.
Volume 3 presents the full text of all promulgated regulations.
The Stationary Source Compliance Division will issue future supplements
to New Source Performance Standards-A Compilation on an as-needed basis.
Comments and suggestions should be directed to: Standards Handbooks,
Stationary Source Compliance Division (EN-341), U.S. Environmental Protect-
ion Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460.
TIT
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Subpart
APPENDIX A - REFERENCE METHODS
2A Direct Measure of Gas Volume through Pipes and Small
Ducts, see Subpart XX
2B Determination of Exhaust Gas Volume Flow Rate from
Gasoline Vapor Incinerators, see Subpart XX
6A Determination of Sulfur Dioxide, Moisture, and Carbon
Dioxide Emissions from Fossil Fuel Combustion Sources
«
6B Determination of Sulfur Dioxide and Carbon Dioxide
Daily Average Emissions from Fossil Fuel Combustion
Sources
16A Determination of Total Reduced Sulfur Emissions from
Stationary Sources
21 Determination of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks, see
Subpart VV
22 Visual Determination of Fugitive Emissions from Mate-
rial Processing Sources, see Subpart UU
23 Determination of Halogenated Organics from Stationary
Sources, see Subpart JJ
25A Determination of Total Gaseous Organic Concentration
Using A Flame lonization Analyzer, see Subpart XX
25B Determination of Total Gaseous Organic Concentration
Using A Nondispersive Infrared Analyzer, see Subpart XX
26 Determination of Particulate Emissions from the Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing Industry, see Subpart UU
27 Determination of Vapor Tightness of Gasoline Delivery
Tank Using Pressure - Vacuum Test, see Subpart XX
29 Determination of Volatile Matter Content and Density of
Printing Inks and Related Coatings, see Subpart QQ
Appendix A-4
Appendix A-7
Appendix A-10
APPENDIX B - PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS
1 Specifications and Test Procedures for Opacity Contin-
uous Monitoring Systems in Stationary Sources
2 Specifications and Test Procedures for S02 and NO
Continuous Monitoring Systems in Stationary Sources
vii
Appendix B-3
Appendix B-12
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Subpart Page
APPENDIX B - PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS
3 Specifications and Test Procedures for C02 and 02
Continuous Monitors in Stationary Sources Appendix B-24
4 Specifications and Test Procedures for Carbon Monoxide
Continuous Monitoring Systems in Stationary Sources Appendix B-34
5 Specifications and Test Procedures for TRS Continuous
Emission Monitoring Systems in Stationary Sources Appendix B-43
APPENDIX E - SYNTHETIC ORGANIC CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY,
see Subpart VV
vm
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IV. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
Subpart ' Page
A General Provisions A-l
Definitions, see also Subpart JJ
Notification and recordkeeping, see Subpart VV
Compliance with standards and maintenance requirements,
see Subpart VV
Monitoring requirements, see Performance Specification
5 and Reference Methods 6 A/B
Priority list
B Adoption and Submittal of State Plans for Designated B-l
Facilities
D,Da Fossil Fuel-Fired Industrial Steam Generators D-l
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking
Fossil Fuel-Fired Steam Generators
Test methods, see Reference Method 6 A/B
Emission monitoring, see Reference Method 6 A/B
E Incinerators E-l
Review of standards
F Portland Cement Plants F-l
Review of standards
G Nitric Acid Plants
Review of standards G-l
H Sulfuric Acid Plants
Review of standards H-l
J Petroleum Refinery
Review of standards J-l
L Secondary Lead Smelters
Review of standards L-l
M Secondary Brass and Bronze Ingot Production
Review of standards M-l
N Iron and Steel Plants, Basic Oxygen Furnace
Review of standards N-l
0 Sewage Treatment Plants
Review of standards 0-1
T,U,V, Phosphate Fertilizer Plants T,U,V
W,X Review of standards W,X-1-
v
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Subpart Page
Z Ferroalloy Production Facilities Z-l
Review of standards
AA Electric Arc Furnaces (Steel Industry)
Review of standards AA-1
BB Kraft Pulp Mills
Test methods, see Reference Method 16 A BB-1
EE Surface Coating of Metal Furniture
Proposed standards EE-1
FF Stationary Internal Combustion Engines
Proposed standards FF-1
JJ Organic Solvent Cleaners
Proposed standards JJ-1
MM Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating Operations
Notice of intent to review MM-1
00 Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaners
Proposed standards 00-1
QQ Graphic Arts Industry: Publication Rotogravure Printing
Proposed standards QQ-1
RR Pressure Sensitive Tape and Label Surface Coating Operations
Proposed standards RR-1
SS Industrial Surface Coating: Appliances
Proposed standards SS-1
TT Metal Coil Surface Coating
Proposed standards TT-1
UU Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacture
Proposed standards UU-1
VV VOC Fugitive Emission Sources; Synthetic Organic Chemicals
Manufacturing Industry
Proposed standards VV-1
WW Beverage Can Surface Coating Industry
Proposed standards WW-1
XX Bulk Gasoline Terminals
Proposed standards XX-1
vi
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR
NEW STATIONARY
SOURCES
GENERAL PROVISIONS
SUBPART A
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 106 / Thursday, May 31,1979 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[40 CFR Parts 60 and 61]
[FRL 1085-1]
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants; Definition of "Commenced"
AJQENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed Rule.
SUMMARY: This action proposes an
amendment to the definition of
"commenced" as used under 40 CFR
Parts 60 and 61 (standards of
performance for new stationary sources
and national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants). The
legislative history of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1977 indicates that EPA
should revise the definition of
"commenced" to be consistent with the
definition contained in the prevention of
significant deterioration requirements of
the Act. This proposal would effect that
revision.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before July 30,1979.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be
submitted to Jack R. Farmer, Chief,
Standards Development Branch (MD-
13), Emission Standards and Engineering
Division, Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711. Public comments
received may be inspected and copied
at the Public Information Reference Unit
(EPA Library) Room 2922, 401 M Street,
S.W., Washington. D.C.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Don R. Goodwin, Director, Emission
Standards and Engineering Division
(MD-13), Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number 919-
541-5271.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For
many of EPA's regulations, it is
important to determine whether a
facility has commenced construction by
a certain date. For instance, as provided
under section 111 of the Clean Air Act,
facilities for which construction is
commenced on or after the date of
proposal of standards of performance
are covered by the promulgated
standards. The definition of
"commenced" is thus one factor
determining the scope of coverage of the
proposed standards. "Commenced" is
currently defined under 40 CFR Part 60
as meaning:
* * * with respect to the definition of "new
•ouroe" In section lll(a)(2) of the Act that an
owner or operator has undertaken a
continuous program of construction or
modification or that an owner or operator has
entered into a contractual obligation to
undertake and complete, within a reasonable
time, a continuous program of construction or
modification.
A similar definition (minus the
reference to section lll(a)(2)) is used
under 40 CFR Part 61, As provided under
section 112 of the Act, facilities which
commence construction after the date of
proposal of a national emission
standard for a hazardous air pollutant
are subject to different compliance
schedule requirements than those
facilities which commence before
proposal.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of
1977 include a definition of
"commenced" under Part C—Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) of Air
Quality. The PSD definition of
"commenced" requires an owner or
operator to obtain all necessary
preconstruction permits and either (1) to
have begun physical on-site construction
or (2) to have entered into a binding
agreement with significant cancellation
penalties before a project is considered
to have "commenced."
On November 1,1977, Congress
adopted some technical and conforming
amendments to the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1977. Representative
Paul Rogers presented a Summary and
Statement of Intent which stated:
In no event is there any intent to inhibit or
prevent the Agency from revising its existing
regulations to conform with the requirements
of section 165. In fact, the Agency should do
so as soon as possible. It is also expected
that the Agency will act as soon as possible
to revise its new source performance
standards and the definition of 'commenced
construction' for the purpose of those revised
standards to conform to the definition
contained in part C
In view of this background, EPA has
decided to make the definition of
"commenced" as used under Part 60
consistent with the definitions used
under the PSD requirement of Parts 51
and 52. Even though Congress did not
specify any changes to the definition
under Part 61, it is reasonable to also
change that definition to be consistent
with those under Parts 60, 51, and 52.
The manner in which the definition
would be interpreted is expressed in the
preamble to the PSD regulations 43 FR
26395-26396. For complete consistency
with the Clean Air Act and Parts 51 and
52, a new definition of "necessary
preconstruction approvals or permits"
has also been added.
EPA does not intend that sources
would be brought under the standards
by the revised definitions that would not
have been covered by the existing
definitions, The revised definitions
would be effective 30 days after
promulgation of the final definitions.
Facilities which have commenced
construction under the present
definitions before the effective date of
the revised definitions would be
considered to have commenced
construction under the revised
definitions, i.e., the revised definitions
would not be applied retroactively.
Note, however, that under the PSD
regulations, sources could be required to
apply control technology capable of
meeting the most recent standard of
performance even though that standard
is not applicable, because the applicable
standard of performance requirements
are only the minimum criteria for
granting a PSD permit.
During the public comment period.
comments are invited regarding the
impact of the revised definition. In
particular, comments are invited
regarding actual compliance problems
which may occur because of this
revision.
Dated: May 23, 1979.
Douglas M. Costle,
Administrator.
It is proposed to amend 40 CFR Parts
60 and 61 by amending §§ 60.2(i) and
61.02(d) and by adding §§ 60.2(cc) and
61.02(q) as follows:
PART 60— STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
STATIONARY SOURCES
Subpart A— General Provisions
J60.2 Definitions.
(i) "Commenced" means, with respect
to the definition of "new source" in
section lll(a)(2) of the Act, either that:
(1) An owner or operator has obtained
all necessary preconstruction approvals
or permits and either has:
(i) Begun, or caused to begin, a
continuous program of physical on-site
construction of the facility 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
construction of the facility to be
completed within a reasonable time, or
(2) An owner or operator had
commenced construction before
(effective date of this definition) under
IV-A-2
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 106 / Thursday, May 31.1979 / Proposed Rules
the definition of "commenced" in effect
before (effective date of this definition).
* o * * *
(cc) "Necessary ^reconstruction
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.
(Sec. 111. 301(a) of the Clean Air Act as
amended (42 U.S.C. 7411. 7601(a)JJ,
IV-A-3
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 18. I960 / Proposed Rules
40 CFR Part 60
|ADFRL-1505-7al
Standards of Performance for new
Stationary Sources; Priority List
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed amendment.
SUMMARY: Studies of the asphalt
processing and roofing industry have
revealed that asphalt is processed at oil
refineries and asphalt processing plants
as well as at asphalt roofing plants.
These locations were not specifically
included in the asphalt roofing source
category included in the priority list for
regulation of new sources under Section
111 of the Clean Air Act, promulgated on
August 21,1979. Therefore, the
Administrator is proposing to amend the
priority list to specifically include
asphalt processing locations in the
source category currently listed as
asphalt roofing plants. The proposed
amendment to the priority list is based
on the Administrator's judgment that
asphalt blowing stills and storage tanks
at asphalt processing facilities and oil
refineries contribute significantly to air
pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be
received on or before January 19. 1981.
Public Hearing. A public hearing will
be held, if requested. Persons wishing to
request a public hearing must contact
EPA by December 8,1981. If a hearing is
requested, an announcement of the date
and place will appear in a separate
Federal Register notice.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments
should be submitted (in duplicate if
possible) to: Central Docket Section (A-
130). Attention: Docket No. OAQPS A-
79-39. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 401 M Street. SW.. Washington.
D.C. 20460
Public Hearing. Persons wishing to
request a public hearing should notify
Ms. Deanna B. Tilley. Emission
Standards and Engineering Division
(MD-13). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park. North
Carolina 27711. telephone (919) 541-
5477.
Background Information Document.
Background Information on the
emissions from the asphalt processing
and roofing manufacturing industry may
be obtained from the U.S. EPA Library
(MD-35). Research Triangle Park. North
Carolina 27711, telephone (919) 541-
2777. Please refer to "Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing Industry. Background
Information for Proposed Standards,"
EPA^J50/3-80-021a.
Docket. A docket, number OAQPS A-
79-39. containing information used by
EPA in development of the standards of
performance for the asphalt processing
and roofing manufacturing industry, 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.
Waterside Mall, 401 M Street. SW..'
Washington. D.C. 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Susan R. Wyatt, Emission Standards
and Engineering Division (MD-13).
Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina
27711. telephone (919) 541-5477.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Proposal To Amend Priority List
The Clean Air Act of 1970 established
a program under Section 111 to develop
standards of performance for new
stationary sources which the
Administrator determines may
contribute significantly to air pollution
which may reasonably be anticipated to °
endanger public health or welfare.
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1977 requires that the
Administrator publish, and from time to
time revise, a 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 development of regulations.
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 categories on the list.
asphalt roofing plants are listed as
number 45.
Source categories are intended to be
broad enough in scope to include all
processes associated with the particular
industry. In the asphalt roofing industry
studies have revealed that initial steps
in the preparation of asphalt for roofing
manufacture may take place not only at
roofing plants but also at locations
which do not manufacture roofing
products. These locations were not
specifically listed with the asphalt
roofing source category included in the
priority list promulgated on August 21,
1979. Blowing stills, where air is forced
through hot asphalt flux (crude oil
residuum) as the initial step in asphalt
processing, may be located at oil
refineries and/or asphalt processing
plants as well as at asphalt roofing
plants. The coating and saturant
asphalts which result from the blowing
process are stored in tanks located at oil
refineries and asphalt processing plants
as well as at roofing plants. These two
facilities at either an oil refinery or an
asphalt processing plant would
contribute more than 100 tons of
purticulate emissions per year and are,
therefore, considered major sources.
The emissions, processes, and
applicable controls for blowing stills
and asphalt storage tanks at oil
refineries and asphalt processing plants
are the same as those at asphalt roofing
plants. It is therefore reasonable to treat
the asphalt processing and roofing
manufacture industry as a single
category of sources for the purposes of
establishing standards of performance.
In the Administrator's judgment,
asphalt processing operations which
take place at oil refineries and asphalt
processing plants contribute
significantly to air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health or welfare.
Proposed standards of performance
for Asphalt Processing and Roofing
Manufacture appear elsewhere in this
issue of the Federal Register.
|Sec. 111. 301(a), Clean Air Act us amended.
(42U.S.C. 7411. 7601(b)))
Dated: November 10, 1980.
Douglas M. Costle,
. \Jministmtor.
It is proposed to amend 40 CFR Piirt
(30, subpiirt A, as follows:
§60.16 Priority list.
45. Asphalt Processing and Roofing
Manufacture
(Sue. 111. 301(a), Clean Air Act as amended
[42 U.S.C. 7411. 7601(;i)J)
|KK D.ic BO- I5«W Filrd ll-!7-«0: 8:45 .im|
BILLING CODE 6560-26-U
IV-A-4
-------
/ Vol. 45, No. 249 / Wednesday. December 24, I960 / Proposed Rules
49 (SPG? F>art SO
[AD— FRL 1325-So]
Porformonce for Mew
Stationary Sources; Priority List;
v: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed Rule: Amendment to
Priority List.
v: The priority list of major
source categories for which EPA is to
promulgate NSPS includes the category
"Industrial Surface Coating: Large
Appliances." Studies of the appliance
manufacturing industry have revealed
that the operations, processes, and
emissions characteristic of the coating
of certain comparatively small
appliances are similar, and in many
cases identical, to those associated with
larger appliance surface coating.
Because there is therefore no reason to
distinguish among the emissions from
appliance surface coating operations
based solely on the size of the appliance
being coated, it is appropriate to treat
surface coating of all types of
appliances as a single source category
for the purpose of establishing
standards of performance. The
Administrator is therefore proposing to
amend the priority list to aggregate all
appliance surface coating operations in
one source category. The proposed
amendment is based on the
Administrator's judgment that emissions
from cne appliance surface coating
operations contribute significantly to air
pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare.
A public hearing will be held to
provide interested persons an
opportunity for oral presentation of
data, views, or arguments concerning
the proposed amendment.
SATES: Comments. Comments must be
received on or before February 23, 1981.
Public hearing. The public hearing
will be held on January 28, 1981
beginning at 9:00 a.m.
Request to speak at hearing. Persons
wishing to present oral testimony at the
hearing should contact EPA by January
21, 1981.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments
should be submitted (in duplicate if
possible) to: Central Docket Section (A-
130). Attention: Docket No. A-80-6, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, SW., Washington, DC"20460.
Public hearing. The public hearing for
the proposed standards of performance
for appliance surface coating operations
will be held at O.A. Auditorium, R.T.P..
North Carolina and comments will be
received at this time on the proposed
amendment to the priority list. Persons
wishing to present oral testimony should
notify Mrs. Naomi Purkie, Emission
Standards and Engineering Division
(MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone (919) 541-
5331.
Background Information Document.
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 27711.
telephone (919) 541-2777. Please refer to
Industrial Surface Coating:
Appliances—Background Information
for Proposed Standards. EPA-450/3-80-
037a.
Docket. A docket, number A-80-6.
containing information used by EPA in
development of the standards of
performance for the appliance surface
coating industry, is available 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 1, Waterside Mall. 401 M
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. A
reasonable fee may be charged for
copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Gene W. Smith. Emission Standards
and Engineering Division (MD-13),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711. telephone (919) 541-5421.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Proposal to Amend Priority List
Under Section 111 of the Clean Air
Act, EPA is required to develop
standards of performance for new
stationary sources which the
Administrator determines may
contribute significantly to air pollution
which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public hearlth or welfare.
Section lll(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 development of regulations,
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 categories on the list, large
appliance surface coating operations are
listed as number 28.
Each source category should be broad
enough in scope to encompass emissions
from all similar processes and
operations. Studies of the appliance
manufacturing industry have revealed
that the operations, processes, and
emissions associated with surface
coating operations for appliances of all
sizes are similar enough to warrant
treatment as a single source category.
Many appliances not customarily
considered to be large household
appliances are similar in size and shape
to common household appliances such
as refrigerators, freezers, washers,
dryers, and ranges. The coating
application methods—flow coat, dip
coat, electrodeposition, and air, airless,
and electrostatic spray—are identical.
These additional appliance coating
operations use coating materials similar
to those used in large appliance coating
operations. Coating performance
specifications are also similar except for
slight variations depending upon
whether the unit is designed for indoor
or outdoor use. Therefore, these
operations produce the same types, and
proportionately the same quantities, of
VOC emissions as large appliance
surface coating operations.
As a result, there is no reason to
distinguish among appliance surface
coating operations based solely on the
size of the appliance passing through the
coating process. It is therefore more
appropriate to treat surface coating of
all appliances as a single category.
In promulgating the priority list,
coating operations for large appliances
were found to contribute significantly to
air pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare. Accordingly, the category of
surface coating operations for all
appliances, which encompasses large
appliance surface coating operations,
also constitutes a major source category
and will be treated as a single category
of sources for the purpose of
establishing standards of performance.
Proposed standards of performance
for appliance surface coating operations
appear elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register. This proposed
rulemaking is issued under the authority
of Sections 111 and 301(a) of the Clean
Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7411 and
7601(a)J.
IV-A-5
-------
Dated: December 18.1980.
Douglas M. Costle,
Administrator.
It is proposed to amend 40 CFR Part
60, § 60.16. by revising item 28 to read as
follows:
§60.16 Priority list
*****
28. Industrial Surface Coating:.
Appliances.
*****
(Sees. 111. 301(a), Clean Air Act as amended
(42 U.S.C. 7411, 7601(a))
|FR Doc. 80-40136 Filed 12-23-8O. 8:45 am|
Federal Register / VoL 46. No. 16 / Wednesday, January 28, 1981 / Proposed Rules
40 CFR Part 60
IAD-FRL. 1625-8a]
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources; Priority List;
Amendment
Correction
In FR Doc. 80-40136, appearing on
page 85099, in the issue of Wednesday.
December 24,1980, the twenty-eighth
line of the "Summary" should have read:
"from appliance surface coating."
IV-A-6
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR
NEW STATIONARY
SOURCES
ADOPTION AND SUBMITTAL
OF STATE PLANS FOR
DESIGNATED FACILITIES
SUBPART B
-------
tag / Vol. 45. No. 129 / Wednesday. July 2, 1980 / Proposed Rules
Part 60
1530-1]
California Plan to Control Fluoride
(Emissions From Existing Phosphate
PartlllSGir Plants; Standards o?
Performance for Mew Stationary
Sourcos
AeEMgv: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTON: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
V: This notice proposes to
approve, with certain exceptions,
California's plan for controlling fluoride
emissions from existing phosphate
fertilizer plants. Portions of California's
plan were submitted to EPA by the
Governor's designee on February 26,
and July 16, 1979, and April 7, 1980 to
comply with the requirements of Section
lll(d) of the Clean Air Act. Section
lll(d) requires States to develop plans
to control emissions of designated
pollutants from certain existing sources.
EPA invites interested persons to
comment on the plan, the identified
deficiencies, or the consistency of the
plan with respect to the requirements of
the Clean Air Act. '
©ATES: Comments may be submited up
to September 2, 1980.
AOORESSES: Comments may be sent to:
Regional Administrator, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region IX, Attn: Air
& Hazardous Materials Division,
Planning Branch, Program Development
Section (A-2-1), 215 Fremont Street, San
Francisco CA 94105.
Copies of the proposed plan are
available for public inspection during
normal business hours at the EPA,
Region IX, office at the above address,
and at the following locations:
California Air Resources Board, 1102
"Q" Street, Sacramento CA 95812.
Public Information Reference Unit,
Room 2404 (EPA Library), 401 "M"
Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20460.
p©|3 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Wayne Blackard, Chief, Program
Development Section (A-2-1),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region IX, 215 Fremont Street, San
Francisco CA 94105. (415) 556-2353.
OUTOLEMENTARV UMPOBC3AT10N:
Proposed Action
EPA evaluated California's plan,
hereafter referred to as the plan, by
comparing it with the requirements for
State plans for designated facilities, as
set forth in Subpart B of 40 CFR Part
80— Adoption and Submittal of State
Plans for Designated Facilities, and with
the EPA Guideline Document: Control of
Fluoride Emissions From Existing
Phosphate Fertilizer Plants. EPA is
proposing to approve the plan, with
exceptions, because it is consistent with
most of the requirements of Part 60. The
exceptions are summarized below.
The plan does not contain an emission
inventory of designated facilities and a
list of witnesses who appeared at each
public hearing. Although the plan
requires sources to maintain records on
the nature and amount of emissions, it
does not provide for periodically
reporting this information to the State;
there are also no provisions for making
periodic inspections of subject sources.
In addition, the plan does not provide
for correlating any compliance
information obtained by the State with
applicable emission standards and
making this data available to the public.
EPA is working with the California
Air Resources Board to correct these
deficiencies. It is anticipated that the
deficiencies will be corrected within 6
months.
In accordance with Section 111 of the
Clean Air Act (amended August 1977,
Public Law No. 95-95), "Standards of
Performance For New Stationary
Sources," EPA has promulgated
standards of performance for certain
source categories. These standards
include emission limits for criteria
(pollutants for which National Ambient
Air Quality Standards have been
published) and non-criteria pollutants.
and apply to "new" sources (i.e., new,
modified, or reconstructed sources)
which commenced construction after the
date on which EPA proposed standards
for that particular source category.
Paragraph (d) of Section 111 requires
States to develop plans for the control of
emissions of the non-criteria, or
designated, pollutants from "existing"
sources. "Existing" sources are defined
as those which are present prior to the
date on which EPA proposed new
source performance standards for that
particular source category. The
requirements for such plans are set forth
in Subpart B of 40 CFR Part 60
(November 17,1975; 40 FR 53346).
Subpart B states that EPA will publish
a guideline document for each source
category for which a State plan is
required. Once a guideline document is
published, and a notice of its •
availability announced in the Federal
Register, States have nine months to
adopt and submit a plan for the control
of emissions of the designated pollutant
from existing sources. The Guideline
Document for the control of fluoride
emissions from existing phosphate
fertilizer plants was published in March,
1977.
Designated pollutants which may
contribute to the endangerment of public
health are called "health related
pollutants" while those that do not are
called "welfare related pollutants." This
distinction determines the closeness
with which the States must follow the
Federal guidelines in developing their
plans. States have considerable
flexibility to consider factors other than
technology and costs in establishing
plans for the control of welfare related
pollutants. EPA has classified fluoride
as a welfare related pollutant.
EPA Proposed Actions
On February 26 and July 16,1979, and
April 7,1980, the Executive Officer of
the California Air Resources Board
(ARE) submitted a plan for controlling
fluoride emissions from existing
phosphate fertilizer plants.
California's plan consists of three
local regulations.
Rule No.
RuloWte
District
Da'e submitted
Rute 424
plants.
odd plants.
ood plants
Bey Area Air Quality
fetonegament District
Feb. 26. 1979
Feb 26 1979.
EPA is proposing to approve the plan,
with certain exceptions, because it is
consistent with most of the requirements
of Part 60. A discussion of how the plan
compares to the requirements of 40 CFR
Part 60 follows.
Public hearing requirements for State
plans submitted in accordance with
Section lll(d) are set forth in 40 CFR
60.23. The ARB has certified that 30 day
notices were given by the local districts
prior to the public hearings. The public
hearing requirements of 40 CFR 60.23
have been satisfied, with the exception
of paragraph (f)(2). Paragraph (f)(2)
requires the State to submit a list of
witnesses who appeared at each public
hearing and a brief summary of their
presentations. The requirements of
paragraph (f)(2) have not been fulfilled.
IV-B-2
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 2, 1980 / Proposed Rules
In addition, a letter from the ARE
referencing the appropriate portions of
the California legal code was submitted
on April 7,1980. These references
satisfy the EPA requirement that the
State show that it has the legal authority
to carry out the plan.
The submitted regulations specify
emission standards, test methods, and
compliance schedules. EPA has
evaluated the California plan by
comparing it with the requirements for
State plans for designated facilities, as
set forth in Subpart B of 40 CFR Part
60—Adoption and Submittal of State
Plans for Designated Facilities, and with
the EPA Guideline Document: Control of
Fluoride Emissions From Existing
Phosphate Fertilizer Plants.
California's plan fulfills the legal
authority requirements of 40 CFR Part
60. These provisions require that the
plan show both the State and local
agency's legal authority to carry out the
plan. California has shown this by
including in the plan, references to the
appropriate provisions of the State
Health and Safety Code.
The plan contains the required
emission standards, but does not
completely provide for monitoring the
status of compliance. Although the plan
requires sources to maintain records on
the nature and amount of emissions, it
does not provide for periodically
reporting this information to the State:
there are also no provisions for making
periodic inspections of subject sources.
These requirements have not been
completely fulfilled.
Related to the above requirement, the
plan must also contain provisions for
correlating compliance data with the
applicable emission standards, and
making this available to the public. This
requirement has not been satisfied.
The plan does not contain an emission
inventory of designated facilities, and is
therefore deficient with respect to this
requirement.
EPA is proposing to disapprove those
portions of California's plan that do not
complete satisfy EPA requirements.
Other Issues
Fresno County's fluoride standard is
less stringent than EPA's recommended
standard. Since fluoride has been
classified as a welfare related pollutant,
adoption of a less stringent standard is
permissible, if adequate justification is
provided. The State should submit
justification for this deviation.
Fresno and San Joaquin County have
adopted rules for only one of the six
source categories contained in the
Guideline Document. For the remaining
five categories, the State should either
certify that no sources exist, or submit
the required regulations for those
categories.
Public Comments
Under Subpart B of 40 CFR Part 60,
the Administrator is required to approve
or disapprove the regulations submitted
as a plan to control fluoride emissions
from existing phosphate fertilizer plants.
The Regional Administrator hereby
issues this notice setting forth this plan
as a proposed rulemaking and advises
the public that interested persons may
participate by submitting written
comments to the Region IX Office.
Comments received on or before
September 2,1980, will be considered.
Comments received will be available for
public inspection at the EPA Region IX
Office and at the locations listed in the
Addresses section of this notice.
The Administrator's decision to
approve or disapprove the proposed
plan will be based on the comments
received and on a determination of
whether the plan meets the
requirements of Section lll(d) of the
Clean Air Act and Subpart B of 40 CFR
Part 60—Adoption and Submittal of
State Plans for Designated Facilities.
EPA has determined that these
regulations are "specialized" and
therefore not subject to the procedural
requirements of Executive Order 12044.
(Sec. Ill, 301 (a). Clean Air Act. as amended)
(42 U.S.C. 7411 and 7601(a))
Dated: June 18.1980.
Sheila M. Prindiville,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 80-19851 Filed 7-1-80; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-01-M
IV-B-3
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR
NEW STATIONARY
SOURCES
FOSSIL FUEL-FIRED
STEAM GENERATORS
SUBPART D
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 126 / Thursday, June 28, 1979 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[40 CFR Part 60]
[FRL 1094-6]
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources; Fossll-Fuel-Flred
Industrial Steam Generators
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking.
SUMMARY: EPA seeks comments on its
plan to develop and implement new
source performance standards for air
pollutants from fossil-fuel-fired
industrial (non-utility) steam generators.
The Clean Air Act, as amended, August
1977, requires the EPA to develop
standards for categories of fossil-fuel-
fired stationary sources. The standards
will require application of the best
systems of emission reduction for
particulates, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen
oxides to new industrial steam
generators.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before August 27,1979.
ADDRESS: Comments should be
submitted to the Central Docket Section
(A-130), United States Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460, ATTN: Docket
No. A79-02.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stanley T. Cuffe, Chief, Industrial
Studies Branch (MD-13), Emission
Standards and Engineering Division,
United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, (919) 541-5295.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In
December 1971, pursuant to Section 111
of the Clean Air Act, the Administrator
promulgated standards of performance
for particulate, sulfur dioxide, and
oxides of nitrogen from new or modified
fossil fuel fired steam generators with
greater than 250 million BTU/hour heat
input (40 CFR 60.60). Since that time, the
technology for controlling these
emissions has been improved. In August
1977, Congress adopted amendments to
the Clean Air Act which specified that
the Environmental Protection Agency
develop standards of performance for
categories of fossil-fuel-fired stationary
sources. The standards are to establish
allowable emission limitations and
require the achievement of a percentage
reduction in the emissions. EPA is
required to consider a broad range of
issues in promulgating or revising a
standard issued under Section 111 of the
Clean Air Act.
Pursuant to the requirements of the
Act, EPA developed and proposed on
September 19,1978, a revised standard
applicable to fossil-fuel-fired utility
boilers with heat input greater than 250
MM BTU/hour.
Development of Industrial Boiler
Standard
In June 1978, the Agency initiated a
program to develop standards which
would apply to all sizes and categories
of industrial (non-utility) fossil-fuel-fired
steam generators. In this program, the
Agency is studying the technological,
economic, and other information needed
to establish a basis for standards for
particulate, sulfur dioxide and oxides of
nitrogen emissions from fossil-fuel-fired
steam generators. Pertinent information
is being gathered on eight technologies
for reducing boiler emissions: oil
cleaning and existing clean oil. coal
cleaning and existing clean coal;
synthetic fuels; fluidized bed
combustion; particulate control; flue gas
desu furization; NOx combustion
modifications; and NOx flue gas
treatnent. The studies for each
technology will discuss the
characteristics, emission reduction
methods and potential control costs.
energy and environmental
considerations and emission test data. A
status report on the studies was
presented to the National Air Pollution
Control Techniques Advisory
Committee (NAPCTAC), on January 11.
1979. Future presentations to the
NAPCTAC will be announced in the
Federal Register. The final technological
and economic documentation necessary
to support the standards is scheduled for
completion by June 1980. Interested
persons are invited to participate in
Agency efforts by submitting written
data, opinions, or arguments as they
may desire. The Agency is specifically
interested in information on the
following subjects.
a. Should one standard be proposed
for all industrial applications or should
standards be set for separate industrial
categories?
b. Should a single standard be
proposed for all sizes of industrial
boilers or should several standards be
proposed for various boiler size
categories?
c. Should emerging technologies such
as solvent refined coal, fluidized bed
combustion, and synthetic natural gas
be exempt from industrial boiler
standards, should they have separate
standards, or should they be required to
meet the same standards as
conventional boilers burning natural
fuels?
d. Will enforcement of standards at
cogeneration facilities present special
problems which should be considered?
e. How prevalent is the use of lignite
and anthracite coal in industrial boilers?
f. Are there special problems which
should be considered when controlling
particulate, SO,, or NO, emissions from
combustion of lignite or anthracite
coals?
Dated: June 13.1979.
Douglas M. Costle,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 79-20059 Fifed B-27-7& MS am)
BILLING CODE (MM1-M
IV-D-2
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR
NEW STATIONARY
SOURCES
INCINERATORS
SUBPART E
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 229 /.Tuesday, November 27.1979 / Proposed Rules
40 CFR Part 60
[FRL 1310-2]
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources: Incinerators;
Review of Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Review of standards.
SUMMARY: EPA has reviewed its
standard of performance for municipal
incinerators (40 CFR 60.50, Subpart E).
The review is required under the Clean
Air Act, as amended August 1977. The
purpose of this notice is to announce
EPA's intent to investigate the
establishment of a revised standard
which would be consistent with the
performance capabilities of
demonstrated best available control
technology and which would include a
limitation on the opacity of emissions.
DATES: Comments must be received by
January 28. 1980.
ADDRESS: Send comments to: Central
Docket Section (A-130). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20460,
Attention: Docket A-79-18. Comments
should be submitted in duplicate if
possible.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Robert Ajax, Telephone: (919) 541-
5271. The document "A Review of
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources—Incinerators"
(EPA^t50/3-79-009) is available upon
request from Mr. Robert Ajax (MD-13).
Emission Standards and Engineering
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park, N.C.
27711.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Nrw Source Performance Standards
(N'SPS) for incinerators were
promulgated by the Environmental
Protection Agency on December 23. 1971
(40 CFR 60.50, Subpart E). These
standards regulate the emission of
particulate matter to the atmospheie
from municipal solid waste .incinerators
having charging rates greater than 45 M(>
(50 tons) per day. These regulations
apply to any affected facility which
commenced construction or
modification after August 17. 1971.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of
1977 require that the Administrator of
the EPA review and, if appropriate.
revise established standards of
performance for new stationary sources
at least every 4 years [Section
lll(bHl)IB)]. Following adoption of the
Amendments, EPA contracted with the
MITRE Corporation to undertake a
review of the municipal incinerator
industry and the current standard. The
MITRE review was completed in March
1979. This notice announces EPA's
decision regarding the need for revision
of the standard. Comments on the
results of this review and on EPA'?
decision are invited.
Findings
Industry Status: In 1972 there were 193
incinerator plants operating in the U.S.
By 1977 this number had decreased to
103 plants which include a total of 252
furnaces and a total solid waste
disposal capacity of about 36,000 Mg/
day (40,000 tons/day). The estimated
national particulate emissions from
municipal incineration in 1975 were
between 60,000 and 100,000 tons or
between 0.4 and 0.6 percent of all
particulate emissions in the U.S.
Since 1971 five new incinerator
facilities involving a total of eight new
furnaces with a combined capacity of
2,700 Mg/day (2,970 tons/day) have
become operational. In 1978,17 cities
were identified where new incinerators
are planned or under construction. Both
existing units and the units which are
planned or under construction are
concentrated primarily in the Northeast
and Midwest.
Coincineration: A factor having an
increasingly important impact on the use
of incineration as a waste disposal
process is the increasing cost of energy
and the relatively new concept of
resource recovery not only for recycling
of material but also for utilization of the
energycontent of solid waste as a
processed fuel source. A recent survey
indicates that there are at least 28
resource recovery systems in operation.
under construction, or in the final
contract stage. Total capacity of these
operations will be about 27,000 Mg/day
(30,000 tons/day), or about three-fourths
of the current installed incinerator
capacity. For the most part, these
systems are characterized by
substantial processing of solid waste
into usable recycled material and a
homogenous fuel.
The processing of solid waste prior to
combustion is a growing trend that has
implications in the definition of
incineration and the applicability of the
standard. Refuse derived fuel (RDF) may
be used in an industrial or utility boiler
which may or may not be located at the
new solid waste processing center.
Similarly, RDF may be used to provide
fuel for incinerating sewage sludge in a
fluidized bed reactor. Such
coincineration of municipal solid waste
and sewage sludge has been practiced
in Europe for several years and on a
limited scale in the U.S. Where energy
resources are scarce and land disposal
is economically or technically
'unfeasible, the recovery of the heat
content of dewatered sludge as an
energy source will become more
desirable. Due to the institutional
commonality of these wastes and
advances in the preincineration
processing of municipal refuse to a
waste fuel, many communities may find
Joint incineration in energy recovery
incinerators an economically attractive
alternative to their waste disposal
problems.
Coincineration of municipal solid
waste and sewage sludge as described
above is not explicitly covered in 40
CFR 60. The particulate standard for
municipal solid waste described in
Subpart E (0.18 grams/dscm or 0.08
grains/dscf at 12 percent CO3) applies to
the incineration of municipal solid waste
in furnaces with a capacity of at least 45
Mg/day (50 tons/day). Subpart 0, the
particulate standard for sewage sludge
incineration (0.65 grams/kg dry sludge
input or 1.3 lb/ton dry sludge), applies to
any incinerator that burns sewage
sludge with the exception of small
communities practicing coincineration.
When coincineration is practiced,
determination of the applicability of the
two standards is made by EPA's Office
of Enforcement according to policies
which are described in the information
document identified at the beginning of
this notice. Such determinations are not
straight forward, however, due to the
differing form of the two standards and
the relative stringency which, in terms
of particulate matter concentration or
grain loading, differs by a factor of more
than two.
Particulate Matter Emissions and
Control Technology
Control systems on municipal
incinerators have evolved from the use
of simple settling chambers which
remove large particles, to the use of
electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) that
remove up to 99 percent of all
particulate matter. Many of the
incinerators constructed prior to 1971
utilized mechanical cyclone collectors
with removal efficiencies in the range of
60 to 80 percent. Various scrubber
techniques including the submerged
entry of gases, the spray wetted-wall
cyclone, and the venturi scrubber were
also employed. High efficiency
electrostatic precipitators were utilized
in a limited number of cases.
Since the adoption in 1971 of the new
source performance standard, the
control device which has been most
widely used and which has been most
IV-E-2
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 229 / Tuesday. November 27. 1979 / Proposed Rules
effective is the electrostatic precipitator.
A limited number of venturi scrubbers
and. in one case, a fabric filter have also
been employed.
In this review of the standard, a total
of 19 emission tests were identified
which had been performed on 14
incinerators. The control equipment on
these incinerators was designed to
comply with the Federal new source
performance standard for paniculate
matter or State or local standards which
are as stringent or more stringent than
the NSPS. The emission tests in each
case were performed with EPA Method
5. A summary of the test results is
provided in Table 1.
Table 1.—Municipal Incinerator Test Results
State
City/name
(Tons/day)
Control
Test results
Massachusetts E. Bndgewatet
Massachusetts Saugus
Tennessee Nashville
Virginia Norfolk (Navy)
Utah Ogden-3
District ol Columbia Washington
'*nois Chicago NW
Maryland Baltimore No 4....
Pennsylvania EC Philadelphia....
Pennsylvania NW Philadelphia..
Illinois Calumet
Kentucky Louisville
Wisconsin Sheboygan Falls.
Rhode Island Pawtucket
The results shown in Table 1 indicate
that ESP control technology is capable
of limiting emissions to the values well
below the 0.18 g/dscm (0.08 gr/dscf)
level at 12 percent CO2. Specifically, the
results from 11 tests performed at 9
facilities employing electrostatic
precipitators showed results ranging
from .041 to 0.14 g.dscm (0.018 to 0.06 gr/
dscf) at 12 percent CO2; 10 of the 11
were below 0.114 g/dscm (0.05 gr/dscf)
The Baltimore Number 4 incinerator
emission control system meets the stricl
Maryland standard for incinerators of
0.07 g/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf) at 12 percent
CO:,. Similarly, the Saugus,
Massachusetts, facility was designed for
the State standard of 0.11 g/dscm (0.05
gr/dscf) at 12 percent CO2 and was
successfully tested at this level of
compliance.
The use of scrubbers on municipnl
incinerators has met with mixed results
and an overall difficulty in complying
with the particulate emission standard.
Although the data obtained from five
tests at three venturi scrubber-
controlled sources ranged from 0.015 to
6.166 g/dscm (0.046 to 0.0775 gr/dscf).
the scrubber performance results, which
are discussed in more detail in the
information document, indicate that
venturi scrubbers for control of
municipal waste particulate emissions
may involve considerable risk of
nonattainment of the current NSPS. The
150
600
360
280
150
200
400
300
300
300
200
200
30-90
200
F.F.
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
VSI15)
VS(IS-16)
S(7-8)
VS (35-40)
(Gr/dscf at
12 pet CO,)
0.024
0.049
0.018
0.05
0.045
0.040/0.06
0.030/0.050
0.025
0.047
0.048
0.046/0049
0.05/0.06
0.11
0.416
0.0775
Year
1975
1976
1976
1976
1974
1973
1971/7S
1976
1977
1976
1974
1976
1977
1976
1978
Pawtucket facility venturi scrubber, for
example, operates at pressure drops
higher than the original design to barely
meet the standard of 0.18 g/dscm (0.08
gr/dscf) at 12 percent CO,.
The Sheboygan Falls, Wisconsin,
incinerator utilizes a spray chamber
with baffles. Although reportedly
designed to meet a 0.08 gr/dscf
standard, this type of control technology
would not normally be expected to
exhibit the control efficiency necessary
to obtain the standard.
Since 1971, only the East Bridgewater,
Massachusetts, facility has been tested
with a fabric filter control device. In
1975. that facility tested at 0.054 g/dscm
(0.024 gr/dscf) at 12 percent COa, well
below the Massachusetts standard of
0.11 g/dscm (0.05 gr/dscf) at 12 percent
COj. However, problems of bag and
baghouse corrosion and periodic high
opacity observations have persisted.
Currently, Framingham,
Massachusetts, is the only other
municipal incinerator facility with a
fabric filter control system. The
specially coated bags are designed to
prevent deterioration and to achieve
0.07 g/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf) at 12 percent
CO,.
Gaseous and Trace Metal Emissions
Caseous and trace metal emissions
are not specifically controlled under the
present NSPS although the incinerator
and the particulate matter control
equipment do limit such emissions.
Among possible gaseous emissions, the
potential for high levels of hydrochloric
acid (HCL) from the increased
incineration of poly vinyl chlorides has
received particular attention. Similarly.
lead and cadmium have been subject to
several studies. Cadmium emissions are
reported to represent approximately 0.2
percent of all particulate emissions and
about 0.4 percent of emissions less than
2 microns. Lead concentrations are
reported to represent about 4 percent of
all particulate matter and 11 percent of
respirable particulates emitted from the
scrubber. Emission factors are 9X10"'
kg/Mg (18X10'1 Ib/ton) refuse for
cadmium and 1.9x10"'kg/Mg (3.8X10"1
Ib/ton) refuse for lead.
In this review of the current NSPS no
new findings were identified which
indicate the need for a specific, •
nationally applicable limitation on the
gaseous or trace metal emissions. There
is, however, currently a program
underway within EPA to independently
look at the need to regulate cadmium
from incinerators and other sources.
Separate documents have been prepared
which examine emissions, resulting
atmospheric concentrations, and
population exposure. These documents
are part of an overall EPA program to
satisfy requirements of the 1977 Clean
Air Act to evaluate the need to regulate
emissions of cadmium to the air.
Opacity
The current NSPS does not contain a
standard for opacity because testing of a
limited number of incinerators priot to
promulgation of the standard in 1971 did
not indicate a consistent relationship
between emission opacity and
particulate mass concentrations.
However, a survey of current Stale
regulations shows that every State has
an opacity standard for new
incinerators of 20 percent or stricter
except Illinois (30 percent), Indiana (40
percent), and Delaware (no standard).
Maryland has a "no visible emissions"
standard and the District of Columbia
has a new source ban on the
incineration of municipal waste.
However, data were not found in this
review of the NSPS to determine
whether sources are consistently in
compliance with these limits.
Conclusions
Based upon a review of the current
NSPS and other available information as
summarized above, EPA concludes that
there is a need to undertake a program
to revise the standard. This program,
which is expected to begin in FY 1980.
will be directed toward:
IV-E-3
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 229 / Tuesday. November 27, 1979 / Proposed Rules
(1) Investigation of a more restrictive
particulate matter limitation consistent
with the capabilities of the best
available technology. This is based upon
the available data which indicate that
the capability of electrostatic
precipitators applied to incinerators has
improved measurably since the standard
was developed in 1971. This
investigation will include analysis of the
costs associated with a more restrictive
standard.
(2) Establishment of an opacity
standard. Such a standard is considered
important by EPA as a means for
assessing proper operation and
maintenance of particulate matter
control equipment and is included in
most of the Agency's particulate matter
NSPS. Although a relationship between
particulate mass and opacity was not
established when the standard was
adopted in 1971, the additional number
of well controlled plants which are now
in operation and the widespread
existence of State opacity limits are
expected to provide a basis for
estalishment of an opacity standard.
Consistent with EPA policy, such a
standard would not be more restrictive
than the particulate mass standard.
(3) Establishment of a consistent basis
for the limitation of particulate
emissions from differing combustion
devices independent of the fuel or waste
material being fired. While a single
standard is probably not possible, there
is a need to investigate the possibility of
expressing standards for sludge
incinerators, and municipal incinerators
on a common basis, and of making the
standards more uniform. To do so, EPA
plans to closely coordinate the
development of the industrial and
waste-fired boiler standards which are
now underway, and the planned
revision of the sewage sludge
incinerator standard and the municipal
incinerator standard.
(4) In addition, if the need to reduce
cadmium emissions is indicated as a
result of the EPA program noted above,
appropriate action will be taken to limit
cadmium emissions.
Public Participation
All interested persons are invited to
comment on this review, the conclusions
and EPA's planned action.
Dated. November 16. 1979.
Barbara Blum,
Acting Administrator.
|FR Doc 79-36474 Filed 11-26-7!): 845 am|
IV-E-4
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR
NEW STATIONARY
SOURCES
PORTLAND
CEMENT PLANTS
SUBPART F
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 205 / Monday October 22. 1979 / Proposed Rules
40 CFR Part 60
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources: Portland Cement
Plants; Review of Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Review of Standards.
SUMMARY: EPA has reviewed the
standards of performance for portland
cement plants (40 CFR 60.60). The
review is required under the Clean Air
Act, as amended August 1977. The
purpose of this notice is to announce
that, based on an assessment of the
Industry, applicable control technology,
and results of performance tests
conducted pursuant to the standard,
EPA has determined that no revision to
the particulate emission limitation is
needed but that the standard should be
revised to require continuous opacity
monitoring.
DATES: Comments must be received by
December 21,1979.
ADDRESS: Comments should be
submitted to the Central Docket Section
(A-130), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, B.C. 20460, Attention:
Docket No. A-79-19.
The document, "A Review of
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources—Portland Cement
Industry" (EPA-450/3-79-012), is
available upon request from Mr. Robert
Ajax (MD-13), Emission Standards and
Engineering Division, Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Robert Ajax, telephone: (919) 541-
5271.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 17,1971, the Environmental
Protection Agency proposed a standard
under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act
to control particulate matter emissions
from portland cement plants. The
standard, promulgated on December 23,
1971, applies to any facility constructed
or modified after August 17,1971, which
manufactures portland cement by either
the wet or dry process. Specific affected
facilities are the: kiln, clinker cooler,
raw mill system, finish mill system, raw
mill dryer, raw material storage, clinker
storage, finished product storage,
conveyor transfer points, bagging, ana
bulk loading and unloading and
unloading systems.
The standard prohibits the discharge
into the atmosphere from- any kiln any
gases which:
1. Contain particulate matter in excess
of 0.15 kg/Mg (0.30 Ib/ton) feed to the
kiln, or
2. Exhibit greater than 20 percent
opacity.
The standard prohibits the discharge
into the atmosphere from any clinker
cooler any gases which:
1. Contain particulate matter in excess
of 0.050 kg/Mg (0.10 li/ton) feed (dry
basis) to the kiln, or
2. Exhibit 10 percent opacity or
greater.
The standard prohibits the discharge
into the atmosphere from any affected
facility other than the kiln and clinker
cooler any gases which exhibit 10
percent opacity, or greater.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of
1077 require that the Administrator of
the EPA review and, if appropriate,
revise established standards of
performance for new stationary sources
at least every 4 years [Section
lll(b)(l)(B)]. This notice announces that
EPA has undertaken a review of the
standard of performance for portland
cement plants. As a result of this review,
EPA has concluded that the present
particulate emission limit is appropriate,
and does not need revision. However, a
provision to require opacity monitoring
should be added. In addition, EPA is,
however, planning to undertake a
program, in its Office of Research and
Development, to investigate and
demonstrate methods such as
combustion modifications which could
reduce NO, emissions from combustion
used in process sources such as cement
plants. Positive results from this
program would form the basis for a
possible revision to the standard in 1982
or 1983. Comments on these findings and
plans are invited.
Findings
Industry Status
Capacity. There are currently 53
cement companies producing portland
cement in the U.S. The 53 companies
operate 158 cement plants throughout
the U.S. with single plant capacity
ranging from 50,000 Mg to 2,161,000 Mg
per year. The industry also includes 8
plants with only clinker grinding
facilities which use either an imported
or domestic clinker as feed material.
Cement plants are found in nearly every
State because of the high cost of
transportation. The actual clinker
capacity of these plants is also
distributed throughout the U.S., although
some regions have little capacity due to
a lack of demand; and although many
areas of the Country are presently
experiencing cement shortages and
delays, announced capacity increases in
these areas are still small.
Energy Considerations. The portland
cement industry is very energy intensive
with energy costs accounting for
approximately 40 percent of the cost of
cement. Accordingly, significant
emphasis in the industry is on increasing
energy efficiency. For this reason,
almost all new and planned construction
will use the dry process which can be
twice as energy efficient as the wet
process. Additional savings can be
realized by using preheated MpcciaDy
suspension preheater*.
These process changes have both
positive and negative effect* on
particulate emissions. The replacement
of wet process units with dry process
units increases potential emissions,
particularly in the grinding, mixing,
blending, storage, and feeding of raw
materials to the kiln. The suspension
preheater, on the other hand, tends to
decrease particulate emissions due to its
multicydone construction. It also
ensures more thorough contact of the
kiln exhaust gases with the feed
material which may increase sorption of
sulfur oxide from the exhaust on the
feed.
Economic Considerations. Almost aD
cement produced is utilized by the
construction industry. As a result, the
production of cement follows the
cyclical pattern of the construction
industry. Relatively high cement
production has occurred during periods
of growth in new home and other
construction markets, and production
has decreased in such periods of
recession as occurred in 1973-1975.
In contrast, over the short term,
production capacity has not closely
paralleled actual production. This is due
apparently to the lead time required to
add capacity, to the difficulty in
accurately predicting future demand,
and to economic and other factors
including the effect of pollution control
requirements on the closure of old,
marginal plants.
An examination of production and
capacity over the past 10 years suggests
the difficulty which the industry has
experienced in attempting to meet
demand while avoiding excess capacity.
In the early 1970's, utilization of
production capacity was greater than 90
percent. However, wage and price
controls were in effect from 1971 to 1973
during which time the industry
experienced its lowest profit margin
since the 1930's. New plant construction
was postponed while some older plants
were being closed. As a result, regional
cement shortages occurred in 1972-1973.
When price controls were removed in
IV-F-2
-------
/ Vol.
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR
NEW STATIONARY
SOURCES
NITRIC ACID PLANTS
SUBPART G
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 119 / Tuesday. June 19. 1979 / Proposed Rules
[40 CFR Part 60]
[FRL 1095-1]
Review of Standards of Performance
for New Stationary Sources: Nitric
Acid Plants
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Review of standards.
SUMMARY: EPA has reviewed the
standard of performance for nitric acid
plants. The review is required under the
Clean Air Act, as amended August 1977.
The purpose of this notice is to
announce EPA's intent not to undertake
revision of the standards at this time.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before August 20,1979.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to the
Central Docket Section (A-130), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460,
Attention: Docket No. A-79-08. The
document "A Review of Standards of
Performance for New Stationary
Sources—Nitric Acid Plants" (EPA
report number EPA-450/3-79-013) is
available upon request from Mr. Robert
Ajax (MD-13), Emission Standards and
Engineering Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Robert Ajax, (919) 541-5271.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Prior to the promulgation of the NSPS
in 1971, only 10 of the existing 194 weak
nitric acid (50 to 60 percent acid)
production facilities were specifically
designed to accomplish NO, abatement.
IV-G-2
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 19, 1979 / Proposed Rules
Without control equipment, total NO,
emissions are approximately 3,000 ppm
in the stack gas, equivalent to a release
of 21.5 kg/Mg (43 Ib/ton) of 100 percent
acid produced.
At the time of the NO, New Source
Performance Standard (NSPS)
promulgation there were no State o;
locat NO, emission abatement
regulations in effect in the U.S. which
applied specifically to nitric acid
production plants. Ventura County,
California, had enacted a limitation of
250 ppm NO, to govern nitric acid plants
as well as steam generators and other
sources.
In August of 1971, the EPA proposed a
regulation under Section 111 of the
Clean Air Act to control nitrogen oxides '
emissions from nitric acid plants. The
regulation, promulgated in December
1971, requires that no owner or operator
of any nitric acid production unit (or
"train") producing "weak nitric acid"
shall discharge to the atmosphere from
any affected facility any gases which
contain nitrogen oxides, expressed as
NOa, in excess of 1.5 kg per metric ton of
acid produced (3.0 Ib per ton), the
production being expressed as 100
percent nitric acid; and any gases which
exhibit 10 percent opacity or greater.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of
1977 require that the Administrator of
the EPA review and, if appropriate,
revise established standards of
performance for new stationary sources
at least every 4 years [Section
lll(b)(l)(B)J. This notice announces that
EPA has completed a review of the
standard of performance for nitric acid
plants and invites comment on the
results of this review.
Findings
Industry Growth Rate
The average rate of production
increase for nitric acid fell from 9
percent/year in the 1960-1970 period to
0.7 percent from 1971 to 1977. The
decline in.demand for nitric acid
parallels that for nitrogen-based
fertilizers during the same period.
Nitric acid production shows an
increasing trend toward plant/unit
location and growth in the southern tier
of States. In 1971, 48 percent of the
nations • -~s in the south.
This figv , >4 percent in
1976.
About 50 percent of plant capacity in
1972 consisted of small to moderately
sized units (50 to 300-ton/day capacity).
Because of the economies of scale some
iroducers are electing to replace their
existing units with new, larger units.
New nitric acid production units have
been built as large as 910 Mg/day (1000
tons/day). The average size of new units
is approximately 430 Mg/day (500 tons/
day).
Control Technology
A mixture of nitrogen oxides (NO,) is
present in the tail gas from the ammonia
oxidation process for the production of
nitric acid. In modern U.S. single
pressure process plants producing 50 to
60 percent acid, uncontrolled NO,
emissions are generated at the rate of
about 21 kg/Mg of 100 percent acid (42
Ib/ton) corresponding to approximately
, 3000 ppm NO, (by volume) in the exit
gas stream. The catalytic reduction
process which was considered the best
demonstrated control technology at the
time the present standard was
established has been largely supplanted
by the extended absorption process as
the preferred control technology for NO,
emissions from new nitric acid plants.
The latter control system appears to
have become the technology of choice
for the nitric acid industry due to the
increasing cost and danger of shortages
of natural gas used in the catalytic
reduction process. Since the energy
crisis of the mid-1970's, over 50 percent
of the nitric acid plants that had come
on stream through mid-1978 and almost
90 percent of the plants scheduled to
come on stream through 1979 use the
extended absorption process for NO,
control.
Levels Achievable with Demonstrated
Control Technology
All 14 of the new or modified
operational nitric acid production units
subject to NSPS and tested showed
compliance with the current standard of
1.50 kg/Mg (3 Ib/ton). The average of
seven sets of test data from catalytic
reduction-controlled plants is 0.22 kg/
Mg (0.44 Ib/ton), and the average of six
sets of test data from extended
absorption-controlled plants is 0.91 kg/
Mg (1.82 Ib/ton). All of the plants tested
were in compliance with the opacity
standard. It appears that the extended
absorption process, while it has become
the preferred control technology for NO,
control, cannot control these emissions
as efficiently as the catalytic reduction
process. In fact, over half of the test
results for extended absorption were
within 20 percent of the NO, standard.
The extended absorption process thus
appears to have limitations with respect
to NO, control, and compares
unfavorably with catalytic reduction in
its ability to reduce NO, emissions much
below the present NSPS level.
Economic Considerations Affecting the
NO* NSPS
The anhualized costs of the extended
absorption process and the catalytic
reduction NO, control methods appear
to be quite comparable. Capital cost for
the extended absorption process is
appreciably higher than that for
catalytic reduction. However, this is
offset by the higher operating cost of the
latter system which requires
increasingly costly natural gas.
Conclusions
Based on the above findings, EPA
concludes that the existing standard of
performance is appropriate at this time.
While lower emission levels are
attainable, the energy penalty and
shortages of natural gas are concluded
to be a basis for retaining the current
standard of performance under Section
111 of the Clean Air Act. However, the
recent deregulation will alter the price
and availablity of natural gag, and
provides a basis for optimism about its
future availability for process and
pollution control purposes. The Agency.
therefore, plans to continue to assess the
standard as. the effect of deregulation
materializes. Moreover, it should be
noted that for the purpose of attaining
and maintaining national ambient air
quality standards and prevention of
significant deterioration requirements.
State Implementation Plan new source
reviews may in come cases require
greater emission reductions than those
required by the standards of
performance for new sources.
Public participation
All interested persons are invited to
comment on this review, the
conclusions, and EPA's planned action.
Comments should be submitted to: Mr.
Don Goodwin (MD-13), Emission
Standards and Engineering Division,
U.S. Environmenal Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711.
Dated: June 11,1979.
Douglas M. Costle,
Administrator.
|FR Doc. 79-19002 Filed 6-18-79: 8:45 am)
BILLING CODE 6SW-01-M
IV-G-3
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR
NEW STATIONARY
SOURCES
SULFURIC ACID PLANTS
SUBPART H
-------
NEW STATIONARY SOURCES: SULFURIC ACID
PLANTS
Review of Performance Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Review of Standards.
SUMMARY: EPA has reviewed the
standards of performance for sulfuric
acid plants (40 CFR 60.80). The review
is required under the Clean Air Act, as
amended August 1977. The purpose of
this notice is to announce EPA's deci-
sion to not revise the standards at this
time and to solicit comments on this
decision.
DATES: Comments must be received
by May 14, 1979.
ADDRESS: Send comments to: Mr.
Don Goodwin (MD-13), Emission
Standards and Engineering Division,
Environmental Protection Agency, Re-
search Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Mr. Robert Ajax, telephone: (919)
641-5271. The document "A Review
of Standards of Performance for
New Stationary Sources—Sulfuric
Acid Plants" (EPA report number
EPA-450/3-79-003) is available upon
request from Mr. Robert Ajax (MD-
13), Emission Standards and En-
gineering Division, Environmental
Protection Agency. Research Trian-
gle Park, North Carolina 27711.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND
Prior to the proposal of the standard
of performance in 1971, almost all ex-
isting contact process sulfuric acid
plants were of the single-absorption
design and had no SO2 emission con-
trols. Emissions from these plants
ranged from 1500 to 6000 ppm SO2 by
volume, or from 10.8 kg of SO3/Mg of
100 percent acid produced (21.5 lb/
ton) to 42.5 kg of SOa/Mg of 100 per-
cent acid produced (85 Ib/ton). Several
State and local agencies limited SO,
emissions to 500 ppm from new sulfu-
ric acid plants, but few such facilities
had been put into operation (EPA,
1971).
In August of 1971, the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency (EPA) proposed
a regulation under Section 111 of the
Clean Air Act to control SO* and sul-
furic acid mist emissions from sulfuric
acid plants. The regulation, promul-
gated in December 1971, requires that
no owner or operator of any new sul-
furic acid production unit producing
sulfuric acid by the contact process by
burning elemental sulfur, alkylation
acid, hydrogen sulfide, organic sul-
fides, mercaptans, or acid sludge shall
discharge into the atmosphere any
gases which contain sulfur dioxide in
excess of 2 kg/Mg (4 Ib/ton); any gases
which contain acid mist, expressed as
H»SO4, in excess of 0.075 kg/Mg of
acid produced (0.15 Ib/ton), expressed
as 100 percent H2SO,; or any gases
which exhibit 10 percent opacity or
greater. Facilities which produce sul-
furic acid as a means of controlling
SOa emissions are nof included under
this regulation.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of
1977 require that the Administrator of
the EPA review and, if appropriate,
revise established standards of per-
formance for new stationary sources
at least every 4 years [Section
lll(bXlXB)]. This notice announces
that EPA has completed a review of
the standard of performance for sulfu-
ric acid plants and Invites comment on
the results of this review.
FINDINGS
IKDUSTRY GROWTH
Since the proposal, 32 contact proc-
ess sulfuric acid units have been con-
structed. Of these, at least 24 units
result from growth in the phosphate
fertilizer industry and are dedicated to
the acidulation of phosphate rock.
mainly in the Southern U.S.
In 1976, over 70 percent of the tot-a]
national production of new sulfuric
acid was in the South. It is projected
that three of the four units predicted
to be coming on line each year will
most probably be located in the Sout;r
BEST BEMOWSTRATED CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY
Sulfur dioxide and acid znisl . -
present in the tail gas from the .-.>
tact process sulfuric acid prct'ur; .:
unit, lin modem four-stage conv;.; ,
contact process plants burning sulfur
with approximately 8 percent SO, in
the converter feed, and producing 93
percent acid, SOj and acid mist emis-
sions are generated at the rats of .13 to
88 kg/Mg of 100 percent acid (2fi to 56
Ib/ton) and 0.2 to 2 kg/Mg of 100 per-
cent acid (0.4 to 4 Ib/ton), respectively.
The dual absorption process is the
best demonstrated control technology
for SO* emissions from sulfuric acid
plants, while the high efficiency acid
mist eliminator is the best demonstrat-
ed control technology for acid mist
emissions. These two emission control
systems have become the systems of
choice for sulfuric acid plants built or
modified since the promulgation of
the NSPS. Twenty-eight of the 32 sul-
furic acid production plants subject to
the standard incorporate the dual ab-
sorption process; all 32 plants use the
high efficiency acid mist eliminator.
COMPLIANCE TEST RESULTS
All 32 sulfuric acid production units
subject to the standard showed com-
pliance with the current SO, standard
of 2 kg/Mg (4 Ib/ton). The 29 compli-
ance test results for dual absorption
plants ranged from a low of 0.16 kg/
Mg (0.32 Ib/ton) to a high of i.9 kg/
Mg (3.7 Ib/ton) with an average of 0.9
kg/Mg (1.8 Ib/ton). Information re-
ceived on the performance of several
sulfuric acid plants indicates that low
SOa emission results achieved in NSPS
compliance tests apparently do not re-
flect day-to-day SO= emission levels.
These levels appear to rise toward the
standard as the conversion catalyst
ages and its activity drops. Additional-
ly, there may be some question about
the validity of low SO, NSPS values,
i.e., less than 1 kg/Mg (2 Ib/ton), due
to errors in the application of the
original EPA Method 8. This method
was revised on August 18, 1877, to in-
clude more detailed procedures to pre-
vent such errors.
All 32 affected sulfuric &cld produc-
tion units also showed compliance
with the current acid mist standard of
0.075 kg/Mg of 100 percent acid (0.15
Sb/ton). The compliance test tiata r.re
all from plants with acid mist emission
control provided by the high sfficicn-
KDERAl REGISTER, VOL. SO, NO. §2—TOUGSSAV, MAdOXl
IV-H-2
-------
cy acid mist eliminator. The data
showed a range with a low of 0.008 kg/
Mg (0.016 Ib/ton) to a high of 0.071
kg/Mg (0.141 Ib/Con), and an overall
average value of 0.04 kg/Mg (0.081 lb/
ton). Acid mist emission (and related
opacity) levels are unaffected by fac-
tors affecting SO, emissions, i.e., con-
version efficiency and catalyst aging.
Rather, acid mist emissions are pri-
marily a function of moisture levels in
the sulfur feedstock and air fed to the
sulfur burner, and the efficiency of
the final absorber operation. The
order-of-magnitude spread observed in
compliance test values is probably a
result of variation in these factors. Ad-
ditionally, the potential for impreci-
sion in the application of the original
EPA Method 8 may have contributed
to this spread.
POSSIBLE REVISION TO STANDARD
The compliance test data indicate
that the available control technology
could possibly meet both lower sulfur
dioxide and sulfuric acid mist emission
standards. However, the available test
data indicate that variability in indi-
cated emission rates occurs—possibly
as a result of process variables, and
test method precision. Therefore, to
meet a tighter standard designers and
operators would need to design for at-
tainment of a lower average emission
rate in order to retain a margin of
safety needed to accommodate emis-
sion variability. The available compli-
ance data do not provide a basis for
concluding that this is possible.
In contrast, the effect of catalyst
aging is controllable by more frequent
replacement. As an outside limit, com-
plete replacement of catalyst in the
first 3 beds of a four-bed converter 3
times as frequently as is normally
practiced could potentially maintain
emissions in the range of 1 to 1.5 kg/
Mg and would result in a net emission
reduction of approximately 0.3 kg/Mg
(0.6 Ib/ton \
Based on an estimated sulfuric acid
plant growth rate of four new produc-
tion lines per year between 1981 and
1984, a 50 percent reduction of the
present SO, NSPS level—from 2 kg/
Mg (4 Ib/ton) to 1 kg/Mg (2 Ib/ton)—
would result in a drop in the estimated
SO, contribution to these new sulfuric
acid plants to the total national SO,
emissions, from 0.04 percent to 0.02
percent (8,000 tons to 4,000 tons).
CONCLUSIONS
Based upon the above findings, EPA
concludes that the current best dem-
onstrated control technology, the duel
absorption process and the acid mist
eliminator are identical in basic design
•to that used as the rationale for the
'original SO, standard. Therefore, from
the standpoint of control technology,
and considering costs, and the small
PROPOSED RULES
quantity of emissions in question, it
does not appear necessary or appropri-
ate to revise the present standard of
performance adopted under Section
111 of the Clean Air Act. It should be
noted that for the purpose of attain-
ing national ambient air quality stand-
ards and prevention of significant de-
terioration, State Implementation
Plan new source reviews may in some
cases require greater emission reduc-.
tions than those required by standards
of performance for new sources.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
All interested persons are invited to
comment on this review, the conclu-
sions, and EPA's planned action. Com-
ments should be submitted to: Mr.
Don Goodwin (MD-13), Emission
Standards and Engineering Division,
Environmental Protection Agency, Re-
search Triangle Park. N.C. 27711.
(Section 11K6X1XB) of the Clean Air Act,
as amended (42 U.S.C. 7411(6>(1HB».
Dated: March 9, 1979.
DOUGLAS M. COSTLE,
Administrator.
IFR Doc. 79-7926 Filed 3-14-79; 8:45 am)
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 44, NO. 52—THURSDAY, MARCH IS, 1979
IV-H-3
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR
NEW STATIONARY
SOURCES
PETROLEUM REFINERY
SUBPARTJ
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 205 / Monday October 22. 1979 / Proposed Rules
40 CFR Part 60
IFRL 1295-1)
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources: Petroleum
Refineries Review of Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Review of Standards.
SUMMARY: EPA has reviewed its
standard of performance for petroleum
refineries (40 CFR 60.1TJO, Subpart J). The
review is required under the Clean Air
Act, as amended August 1977. The
purpose of this notice is to announce
EPA's intent to undertake the
development of a revised standard
which would limit SO, emissions from
catalyst regenerators.
DATE: Comments must be received by
December 21,1979.
ADDRESS: Send comments to: Central
Docket Section (A-130), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460,
Attention: Docket A-79-09.
The document "A RevieV of
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources—Petroleum
Refineries" (EPA-450/3-79-008) is
available upon request from Mr. Robert
Ajax (MD-13), Emission Standards and
Engineering Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Robert Ajax, Telephone: (919) 541-
5271.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) for petroleum refineries were
promulgated by the Environmental
Protection Agency on March 8.1974. (40
CFR 60.100, Subpart J). These standards
regulate the emission of particulate
matter and carbon monoxide, and the
opacity of flue gases from fluid catalytic
cracking unit (FCCU) catalyst
regenerators and FCCU regenerator
incinerator-waste heat boilers. They
also regulate the emission of sulfur
dioxide from fuel gas combustion
devices. These regulations apply to any
affected facility which commenced
construction or modification after June
11,1973.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of
1977 require that the Administrator of
the EPA review and, if appropriate,
revise established standards of
performance for new stationary sources
at least every 4 years [Section
lll(b)(l)(B)J. This notice announces that
EPA has completed a review of thn
standard of performance for petroleum
refineries and invites comment on the
results of this review.
Findings
On the basis of a review of
compliance data available in EPA's
Regional Offices and a review of
literature describing recent control
technology applicable to catalyst
regenerators and fuel gas combustion
devices, EPA has made the following
conclusions regarding the need to revise
the existing standard.
Particulate Matter
The available data indicate that the
current limitation on particulate matter
emissions accurately reflects the
performance capability of best available
control systems. It is, therefore,
concluded that no revision should be
made to'the particulate standard. New
technologies such as high efficiency
separators, high temperature
regenerators, and new catalysts have
Deduced the tojal quantity of
uncontrolled particulate matter emitted.
However, the method established in the
standard for calculating the allowable
emissions effectively corrects for the
reduction due to changes in catalysts
and operating procedures.
While it is concluded that the
particulate matter standard should not
be revised, a question has been raised
as to the validity of Reference Method 5
when high concentrations of
condensible sulfur compounds are
present. This test method, which is used
to measure compliance with the
particulate standard, operates at a
nominal temperature of 120°C and, as
such, is capable of collecting
condensible matter which exists in
gaseous form at stack temperature. If.
significant quantities of such
condensible material exist which are not
controllable by the best systems of
emission reduction, then a facility
employing such systems could be found
to be in non-compliance with the
standard. An analysis of data available
when the standard was established
indicated this was not a problem at that
time. However, with high sulfur content
feed, there is evidence that condensible
sulfur oxides may. exist at
concentrations sufficient to affect
compliance.
EPA is currently studying this
question. Depending on the results of
this study, EPA may revise the standard
or the test method.
Carbon Monoxide
The present standard for carbon
monoxide emissions was established at
a level which would permit regenerator
in situ combustion. This method of
controlling carbon monoxide emissions
offers production and energy efficiencies
but is recognized to be less effective
than a carbon monoxide boiler. No new
data were obtained during this review to
alter the original finding that it is not
practical to control CO emissions to less
than 500 ppm by in situ regeneration
and. therefore, no revision in the
standard is planned at this time.
However, it should be noted that the
recent advent and increased use of CO
oxidation catalysts and additives may
provide data showing that
concentrations lower than 500 ppm are
achievable. If such data become
available, the Agency will consider
revision of the standard. It should be
further noted that for the purpose of
attaining and maintaining the national
ambient air quality standards. State
Implementation Plan new source
reviews may,-in some cases, require
greater CO emission reductions than
those required by the standards of
performance for new sources.
At the time the standard was
established, EPA concluded that CO
emissions should be continuously
monitored. A requirement for such
monitoring was, therefore, included in
the standard. This requirement is
applicable to all catalyst regenerators
subject to the standard. However, the
effective date of the monitoring
requirement was deferred until EPA
develops performance specifications for
CO monitoring systems. EPA has found
no basis for revising this monitoring
requirement and performance
specifications are currently under
development and evaluation. It is
planned to issue an advanced notice of
proposed rulemaking in 1979 setting
forth the specifications which have been
developed and which will be assessed
in field studies.
Sulfur Dioxide
The present standard currently limits
SO> emissions resulting from the
combustion of fuel gas. The catalyst
regenerator is also a significant source
of SOi emissions but is not subject to
the standard. The review considered
both the need to revise the current
limitation and the need to include
limitations on SO> emissions from the
catalyst regenerator..
Available compliance test data
indicate that the current standard
limiting sulfur to 230 mg H»S/dscm from
combustion of fuel gas is being met and,
in some cases, exceeded by a wide
margin. Six tests showed an average of
107 mg HaS/dscm and a range of 7 to 229
mg H,S/dscm. While these data indicate
that a reduction in the present limitation
IV-J-2
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 205 / Monday. October 22. 1979 / Proposed Rules
is possible, the range exhibited is
consistent with the control device
performance documented at the time the
standard was established. On the basis
of this, along with the increased sulfur
content of feedstock expected with
increased imports and the variable
crude oil supply conditions now
existing, it is concluded that the fuel gas
sulfur limitation is appropriate and that
no revision is needed.
A deficiency in the current standard
limiting sulfur in fuel gas relates to the
lack of a continuous monitoring method.
EPA recognized the need for continuous
monitoring at the time the standard was
adopted. However, at that time, no
monitoring systems had been
demonstrated to be adequate for this
purpose and EPA had not established
performance specifications for such
'systems. Consequently, application of
the monitoring requirement was
deferred until performance
•pecifications could be adopted. Since
the adoption of the standard, EPA has
pursued a program to develop and
assess the performance of an HiS
monitoring system. On this basis,
performance specifications are now
being developed. It is planned to issue
an advanced notice of proposed
rulemaking in 1979 setting forth the
specifications which have been
developed and which will be assessed
in field studies.
During the review of the standard, an
ambiguity was identifed in the current
limitation on sulfur in fuel gas
concerning the applicability of this
limitation to fuel gas burned in waste-
heat boilers. To clarify this, an
amendment was prepared which was
published in the Federal Register on
March 12,1979. This amendment makes
clear that fuel gas fired in waste-heat
boilers is not exempt from the standard.
Sulfur dioxide emissions from fluid
catalytic cracking unit (FCCU) catalyst
regenerators are not regulated by the
standard. However, sulfur dioxide
scrubber technology is available and
being used to control steam generator
emissions and a limited number of
FCCU regenerators. Also, Amoco Oil
Company has developed a new cracking
process which reduces sulfur oxide
emissions from FCCU regenerators. The
process uses a new catalyst that retains
sulfur oxides arid returns them to the
reactor where they are removed with the
product stream. If a low sulfur product is
required, the sulfur will be removed by
amine stripping or hydrotreating and
eventually recovered in a sulfur
recovery unit. Pilot tests indicate that
the new catalyst is capable of reducing
sulfur oxide emissions 80 to 90 percent
and commercial tests are planned to
confirm these data.
The potential uncontrolled emissions
from new, modified, or reconstructed
catalyst regenerators are significant.
Uncontrolled emission rates from
catalyst regenerators are typically 5 to
10 Mg/day and range up to 100 Mg/day
from the largest units. The growth rate
in terms of new catalyst regenerators is
uncertain due to the present uncertainty
of petroleum supplies and demand.
However, for perspective a growth rate
of 0.5 percent in capacity from 1979
through 1985 would result in additional
emissions from uncontrolled new
sources of 23 Mg per day in 1986; a
growth rate of 0.75 percent would result
in additional uncontrolled emissions of
58 Mg SO./day. Emissions from
modified or reconstructed sources would
add to this total.
Based on the existence of these SO,
control technologies, EPA plans to
initiate a program later this year to
assess the applicability, cost,
performance, and non-air environmental
impacts of these technologies. If
supported by the findings of this
program EPA will propose a limit on
FCCU SO, emissions.
Volatile Organic Compounds
The emission of volatile organic
compounds (VOC) from FCC unit
regenerators is not limited in the present
NSPS. These are, however, of concern,
both because of their role as oxidant
precursors and as potentially hazardous
compounds. Of particular concern are
the polynuclear aromatic compounds
(PNA) because of their potential
carcinogenic effects. The most abundant
PNA measured in regenerator flue gas is
benzo-a-pyrene (BAP) with a
concentration of 0.218 kg BAP/1,000
barrels of feed. The concentration of
BAP can effectively be reduced in a
carbon monoxide boiler to 1.41 x 10"*
kg BAP/1,000 barrels of feed. However,
there are no data indicating the
concentration of BAP in the flue gas
from high temperature (in situ)
regeneration nor from regenerators using
CO oxidation promoting catalyst. This,
therefore, has been identified as an area
for future study by EPA's Office of
Research and Development.
Public Participation
All interested persons are invited to
comment on this review, the
conclusions, and EPA's planned action.
Douglas M. Costle,
Administrator.
Dated: October 15,1979.
|FR Doc. 79-32567 Filed 10-19-79; 8:« am)
IV-J-3
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR
NEW STATIONARY
SOURCES
SECONDARY LEAD
SMELTERS
SUBPART L
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 76 / Thursday, April 17,1980 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part SO
[FRL 1415-3]
Standards of Performance (or New
Stationary Sources: Secondary Lead
Smelters; Review ot Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Review of standards.
SUMMARY: EPA has reviewed the
standards of performance for secondary
lead smelters (40 CFR 60.120). The
review is required under the Clean Air
Act. as amended August 1977. The
purpose of this notice is to announce
EPA's plans to undertake a program
which will be designed, depending upon
its findings, to develop fugitive
participate matter emission standards
and SOj standards applicable to
secondary lead smelters.
DATE: Comments must be received by
June 16,1980.
ADDRESS: Comments should be
submitted to the Central Docket Section
(A-130), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington. D.C. 20460, Attention:
Docket No. A-79-20.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Robert Ajax, telephone: (919) 541-
5271. The document "A Review of
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources—Secondary Lead
Smelters." EPA-450/3-79-015, is
available upon request from Mr. Robert
Ajax (MD-13), Emission Standards and
Engineering Division, Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
On June 11,1973, the Environmental
Protection Agency proposed a standard
under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act
to control particulate matter emissions
from secondary lead smelters. The
standard, promulgated on March 8,1974,
and amended on April 17 and October 6,
1975, applies to any secondary lead
smelter under construction,
modification, or reconstruction on or
after June 11,1973. The specific lead
smelter facilities subject to the standard
are reverberatory furnaces (stationary,
rotating, rocking, or tilting), blast
(cupola) furnaces and pot furnaces of
more than 550-lb charging capacity.
Furnaces for smelling lead alloy for
newspaper linotype are subject to the
standards if they meet the same size
requirement as applied to pot furnaces.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of
1977 require that the Administrator of
EPA review and. if appropriate, revise
established standards of performance
for new stationary sources at least every
4 years (Section lll(b)(l)(B)). Following
the adoption of the amendments, EPA
contracted with the MITRE Corporation
to undertake a survey of available
literature and information pertaining to
secondary lead processes, emissions
and control technologies, including'
results from tests of new lead smelters
to assess the need for revision of the
standard. The survey involved visits to
each EPA Regional Office as well as
review of recent literature and study
results, but did not include visits to
plants. Based principally on this review,
EPA plans to begin a program to
develop standards which would limit
the emission of fugitive particulate
matter, and sulfur dioxide from
secondary lead smelters. This program
will include an extensive technical
investigation and assessment. Final
decisions pertaining to whether
[standards should be adopted and the
level of any such standards will not be
made until after these investigations and
assessments are completed. The time
required to develop these standards for
proposal will be approximately 2 years.
Industry Review
Secondary lead produced by smelting
of scrap accounts for roughly half of all
lead produced in the United States.
After a record output of over 626,000
tons in 1976, secondary lead output
declined in 1977 to between 588,000 and
600,000 tons. However, production of
lead from both primary and secondary
sources is expected to grow at an annual
rate of slightly under 2 percent or by
about 50 percent between 1976 and 2000.
This compares with an average annual
increase in demand for lead from 1967 to
1976 of about 3 percent. It is expected
that the relative share of the market
held by secondary lead production will
remain near the 50"percent level.
It is estimated, based on an assumed
secondary smelter capacity of 50 ton/
day, that on the average, two new plants
and one to two modified smelters will
become subject to NSPS each year. This
estimate is consistent with the latest
Bureau of Mines data (1978) which show
six plants completed or scheduled for
completion in the 1977-1979 period
(including major expansions of existing ,.
plants). Through 1978, six plants have
been identified which have come on line
subject to the standard.
The secondary lead market is
dominated by a few companies. In
addition, the trend is toward fewer and
larger plants as evidenced by the
decrease in the total number of smelters
from 160 in 1967 to about 115 in 1975.
Overall, the average annual output per
smelter is in the range of 5,700 to 6,000
tons. Geographically, the industry is
somewhat dispersed with secondary
lead smelters located in all of the ten
EPA regions.
Emissions and Control Technology
Process Particulate Emissions. The
present standard of performance limits
the emission of particulate matter from
blast or reverberatory furnaces to 50
mg/dscm (0.022 gr/dscf) and to less than
20 percent opacity. In addition, the
standard limits the opacity of emissions
from pot furnaces to less than 10 percent
opacity. For a typical reverberatory or
blast furnace with uncontolled
emissions of 147 Ibs/ton and 193 Ibs/ton
of feed material respectively, the
standard limits emissions to one and 2
Ibs/ton. This compares to an estimated
controlled emission level of 21 and 28
Ibs/ton in the absence of the new source
standard. In this review, results from
four compliance tests were obtained.
The results from reverberatory and blast
furnace tests were 0.015 gr/decf and
' 0.0135 gr/dscf respectively.
Lead Emissions. The present standard
of performance does not specifically
limit the atmospheric emission of lead
from secondary lead furnaces. However,
lead is controlled by the same devices
employed to limit particulate matter
emissions. Reported lead emission data,
although variable, indicate uncontrolled
lead emissions to be approximately 23
percent of the total particulate matter
emissions. Controlled lead emissions
measured in six tests conducted on
emissions from seven furnaces were
found to range in concentration from
0.009 to 0.0846 Ib/ton with five of the six
below 0.04 Ib/ton. In another survey of
11 controlled secondary lead smelters in
the Chicago area, an emission rate of
0.002 Ibs lead/ton of product was
reported. Results of a further test at a
baghouse controlled reverberatory
furnace indicated particulate matter and
lead concentrations of 0.016 and 0.001
gr/dscf, respectively. The variability in
these data and the lack of other
simultaneous inlet and outlet data do
not allow a precise statement of relative
control effectiveness. However, the data
do consistently indicate that the ratio of
lead to particulate emissions from
controlled furnaces is not higher than
the ratio (i.e., 23 percent) for
uncontrolled furnaces.
Fugitive Emissions. In addition to the
material discharged through the stack of
a secondary lead furnace, particulate
IV-L-2
-------
/ Vol. 45. No. 76 / Thursday. April 17,1980 / Proposed Rules
and gaseous matter may be emitted into
the atmosphere in and around a plant
from other operations. Some of these
fugitive emissions are process-related,
s.g., when materials escape from the
hoods provided around potential outlet
points of a furnace. Others result from
auxiliary operations. No fugitive
emission points, whether related to
processing or to auxiliary operations at
the site, are currently subject to specific
control under NSPS for secondary lead
smelters.
In some situations, fugitive emissions
may be high. For example, the high
concentration of lead, particularly in the
soil, close to two Toronto smeltero was
ascribed by Canadian investigators to
"low-level, dust-producing operations
rather than * * * stack fumes." In
apparently extreme situations, fugitive
particulate emissions from processing
may amount to over 15 Ib/ton of charge
from reverberatory furnaces and as
much as 12 Ib/ton from blast furnaces.
These rates, although much lower than
uncontrolled emission rates from
furnace stacks, are substantially higher
than rateo from stocko meeting the
NSPS.
Several techniques havs been applied
to raducs fugitive emission rates and
recently significant improvements in the
technology for controlling fugitive
emissions from both process- and site-
rslated operations in secondary smelting
of lead havs been reported in Denmark.
The methodology uses improved
furnaces that minimize the escape of
dusts during smelting and also enable
baghouse contents to be recharged as
collected, thereby eliminating the
eccumulation of these fines in storage
piles where they are subject to transport
into the environment. Specialized waste
management and housekeeping
procedures are used in conjuction with
the furnaces to reduce the opportunity
For emissions from storage of raw
materials and other sources on the site.
The technology has been investigated by
the EPA Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory in Cincinnati in
connection with the National Institute of
Occupational Safety and Health
I'iMIOSH). Testing of the furnaces has
been conducted under the joint auspices
of EPA and NIOSK af a plant in
Denmark. Initial reports radicals the
technology as having high potential for
application in reducing fugitive
emissions from secondary leari smeltero
in the United States.
Sulfur Dioxide. The rate of
uncontrolled emissions of SOa from
cecondary lead smelters K
approximately 76 Ib/ton of lead
produced for blast furnaces and of 1M
Ib/ton for reverberatory furnaces. A
reverberatory furnace of 50 tons/day
(2.08 tons/hr) would emit about 2.8 tons
of SOa each day and a blast furnace of
the same capacity about 1.9 tons.
Assuming an equal mix between blast
and reverberatory furnace production,
the total secondary lead production in
1975 of 658,500 tons would have resulted
in about 31,000 tons of SOa. Currently,
no NSPS for SOa from secondary lead
smelters are in effect.
SOa control is not normally practiced
at lead smelters. However, both
regenerative SOa control systems which
are used in the primary smelting
industry to control SOa and produce
sulfuric acid, and non-regenerative
scrubbing systems used to control SOS
emissions from steam generators are
potentially applicable to SO2 control at
secondary lead smelters. A more
detailed engineering assessment is
needed to further assess the
applicability of these technologies to
determine the best demonstrated control
technology and an appropriate level for
any standard. In addition, the cost of
SOa control and the associated
economic impact require further study
as these may be the primary
consideration in analyzing the feasibility
of control.
EPA believes that the information
obtained in this review of the secondary
lead industry does not provide a basis
for determining conclusively that the
standard should be revised nor at what
level any revised standard should be
set. However, the available data show
that a project should be undertaken to
further assess the need for and, as
appropriate to develop standards
limiting fugitive particulate matter
(including lead) and sulfur dioxide
emissions from secondary lead plants.
The available particulate matter
compliance test data obtained in this
review are consistent with the tesl data
used by EPA in establishing the present
(standard and, although very limited,
these data, added to the data used in
developing the present standard support
the validity of the present standard.
Similarly, the data available on lead
emissions from furnace stacks suggest
that the particulate matter standard is
adequate to require installation of
control systems which represent best
available control technology for both
particulate matter and lead. Therefore, a
separate standard for lead is considered
unnecessary. EPA will welcome any
additional data pertaining to this
decision on the particulate matter
standard and on lead emissions. In
addition, EPA in the planned standards
development discussed below, will seek
to obtain additional recent compliance
test data and will assess this in terms of
the current standard.
The project to assess the need for and,
as appropriate, to develop fugitive'
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide
standards will be undertaken by EPA's
Emission Standards and Engineering
Division. This project is expected to
begin early in 1980 and will follow a
standardized approach which involves
detailed engineering and economic
assessments proceeding proposal of any
standards. Standards resulting from this
project would be proposed for comment
in early 1982.
Dated: April 9,1980.
Douglas M. Costle,
Administrator.
(FR Doc. 80-11666 Filed 4-16-80; 8:45 am)
BILLING CODE 6560-01-M
IV-L-3
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR
NEW STATIONARY
SOURCES
SECONDARY BRASS
OR BRONZE INGOT
PRODUCTION PLANTS
SUBPART
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 119 / Tuesday. June 19.1979 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[40 CFR Part 60]
IFRL-1231-1]
Review of Standards of Performance
for New Stationary Sources:
Secondary Brass and Bronze Ingot
Production
AOENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Review of Standards.
SUMMARY: EPA has reviewed the
standard of performance for secondary
brass and bronze ingot production
plants (40 CFR 60.130. Subpart M). The
review is required under the Clean Air
Act, as amended August 1977. The
purpose of this notice is to announce
EPA's intent not to undertake revision of
the standards at this time.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before August 20,1979,
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent
to the Central Docket Section (A-130).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401M Street, SW., Washington, D.C.
20460. Attention: Docket No. A-79-10.
The Document "A Review of Standards
of Performance for New Stationary
Sources—Secondary Brass and Bronze
Plat Plants" (EPA-450/3-79-011) is
available upon request from Mr. Robert
Ajax (MD-13), Emission Standards and
Engineering Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Robert Ajax. telephone: (919) 541-
5271.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In June of 1973, the EPA proposed a
standard under Section 111 of the Clean
Air Act to control particulate matter
emissions from secondary brass and
bronze ingot production plants (40 CFR
60.230, Subpart M). The standard,
promulgated in March 1974, limits the
discharge of any gases into the
atmosphere from a reverberatory
furnace which;
1. Contain particulate matter in excess
of 50 mg/dscm (0.022 gr/dscf). '
2. Exhibit 20 percent opacity or
greater.
In addition, any blast (cupola) or
electric furnace may not emit any gases
which exhibit 10 percent opacity or
greater.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of
1977 require that the Administrator of
the EPA review and, if appropriate,
revise established standards of
performance for new stationary sources
at least every 4 years [Section
lll(b)(l)(B)]. This notice announces that
EPA has completed a review of the
standard of performance for secondary
brass and bronze ingot production
plants and invites comment on the
results of this review.
Findings
Industry Statistics
In 1969, there were approximately 60
brass and bronze ingot production
facilities in the United States. Currently,
only 35 facilities are operational, and
only one facility has become operational
since the promulgation of the NSPS in
1974. No new facilities or modifications
are know to be currently planned or
under construction.
Ingot production has shown a steady
decline from the 1966 peak year
production of 315,000 Mg (347,000 tons)
to a low of 160,000 Mg (186,000 tons) in
1975, the last year for which nationwide
statistics were published. The decline
has been caused by a decline in the
demand for products made with brass or
bronze and large scale substitution of
other materials or technologies for the
previously used brass or bronze. No
information has been reported which
would indicate a reversal of the decline
in brass and bronze ingot production or
in the number of operating plants.
Emissions and Control Technology
The current best demonstrated control
technology, the fabric filter, is the same
as when the standards were originally
promulgated. No major improvements in
this technology have occurred during the
intervening period.
High-pressure drop venturi scrubbers
are used, to some extent, in the brass
and bronze industry, but their overall
control efficiency is lower than that of
fabric filters. Electrostatic precipitators
have not been used in the industry due
to both the low gas flow rates and high
resistivity of metallic fumes.
Only one facility has become subject
to the standard since its original
promulgation. This facility was tested in
February 1978. The average test result of
16.9 milligrams/dry standard cubic
meters (mg/dscm), or 0.0074 grains/dry
standard cubic feet (gr/dscf), is lower
than most of the test data used for
justification of the current standard of
50 mg/dscm (0.022 gr/dscf), but this
single test is not considered sufficient to
draw any overall conclusion about
improved control technology.
Fugitive emissions continue to be a
problem in the brass and bronze
industry. In most cases, these emissions
are very difficult to capture and equally
difficult to measure during testing. It
was primarily for the former reason that
the current particulate standard does
not apply during pouring of the ingots.
This overall situation has not changed in
that only complete enclosure of the
furnace can result in full control of
fugitive emissions. However,
information is available indicating that
there may be additives capable of
reducing fugitive emissions during
pouring. Also, improved control of
fugitive emissions may be possible
through improved hood design.
Conclusions
Based on the above findings, EPA
concludes that the existing standard of
performance is appropriate and no
revision is needed. While extension of
the standard to include fugitive
emissions would be possible, the lack of
anticipated growth in the industry does
not justify such action.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: AH interested
persons are invited to comment on this
review and the conclusions.
Dated: June 12,1979.
Douglas M. Costle,
Administrator.
|FR Doc. 79-19003 Filed 6-18-79: 8:45 em)
BHJJNO CODE 6560-01-W
IV-M-2
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR
NEW STATIONARY
SOURCES
BASIC OXYGEN
PROCESS FURNACES
SUBPART N
-------
PROPOSED RULES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[40 CFR Part 60)
tFRL 1012-1]
STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
STATIONArY SOURCES: IRON AND STEEL
PLANTS, BAS'C OXYGEN FURNACES
Reviiw of Standordt
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Review of standards.
SUMMARY: EPA has reviewed the
standards of performance for basic
oxygen process furnaces (BOPPs) used
at iron and steel plants. The review is
required under the Clean Air Act, as
amended in August 1977. The purpose
of this notice is to announce EPA's
intent to propose amendments to the
standards at a later date.
DATES: Comments must be received
by May 21. 1979.
ADDRESS: Send comments u:: Mr.
Don Goodwin (MD-13), Emission
Standards and Engineering Division,
U.S. 7'ivironmenta] Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park., N.C.
27711.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Mr. Robert Ajax, telephone: (919)
541-5271.
The document "A Review of Stand-
ards of Performance of New Station-
ary Sources—Iron and Steel Plants/
Bassic Oxygen Furnaces" (report
number EPA-450/3-78-116) is availa-
ble upon request from Mr. Robert
Ajax (MD-13), Emission Standards
and Engineering Division, U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency. Re-
search Triangle Park, N.C. 27711.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND
Paniculate matter emissions from
BOPFs fall in two categories, primary
and secondary. Emissions associated
with the oxygen blow portion of the
BOPF are 'orme'd "primary" emis-
sions. These emissions are generated
at the rate of 25 to 28 kg/Mg (50 to 55
Ib/ton) of raw steel. Emissions gener-
ated during ancillary operations, such
as charging and tapping, are termed
"secondary" or fugitive emissions.
These emissions are generated at a
lower rate in the range of 0.5 to 1 kg/
Mg (1 to 2 Ib/ton) of raw steel.
In June of 1973, EPA proposed a reg-
ulation under Section 111 of the Clean
Air Act to control primary particulate
emissions from basic oxygen process
furnaces at iron and steel plants. The
regulation, promulgated in March
1974. requires that no owner or opera-
tor of any furnace producing steel by
charging scrap ste~l, hot metal, and
flux materials into a vessel an.1 intro-
ducing a high volume of «.r xygen-
rich gas shall discharge ii..o i>ie at-
mosphere any gases which contain
particulate matter in excess of 50 mg/
dscm (0.022 gr/dscf).
The Clean Air Act Amendments of
1977 require that the Administrator of
the EPA review and, if appropriate.
revise established standards of per-
formance for new stationary sourcs at
least every 4 years (Section
HKbXlXB)). This notice announces
that EPA has completed a review of
the standard of performance for basic
oxygen process furnaces at iron and
steel plants and invites comment on
the results of this review.
FINDINGS
INDUSTRY GROWTH RATE
The present economic conditions in
the United States and worldwide steel
industry have created a significant
excess U.S. BOPF capacity and a
tightening of the availablitly of capital
for future expansion. Since the pro-
mulgation of the BOPF standard, new
BOPF construction has declined sig-
nificantly. For example, three of the
four units scheduled for startup in
1978 were originally scheduled to
begin production in 1974. This coupled
with the lack of any additional indus-
try announcements of new U.S. BOPF
contruction, indicates that construc-
tion of new BOPFs which would be
subject to a revised new source per-
formance standard (NSPS) is not
likely to commence before 1980, if
then. Construction of new plants
beyond 1980 will be dictated by domes-
tic economic conditions and interna-
tional competition, and is, therefore,
uncertain.
PRIMARY EMISSION CONTROL
Review of the literature and per-
formance test data indicates that the
use of a closed hood in conjunction
with a scrubber or an open hood in
conjunction with either a scrubber or
electrostatic precipitator currently
represents the best demonstrated con-
trol technologies for controlling BOPF
primary emissions. All BOPFs that
have been installed since 1973 incorpo-
rate closed hood systems for particu-
late emission control. The closed hood
control system in combination with a
venturi scrubber has become the
system of choice of the U.S. steel in-
dustry because this system saves
energy and has generally lower main-
tenance requirements compared with
the older open-hood electrostatic pre-
cipitator syste n. Use of the closed
hood system requires that approxi-
mately 80 percent less air be cleaned
than with the open hood system. The
potential* also exists with the closed
hood system for using the carbon
monoxide off-gas as a fuel source.
As of early 1978. no NSPS compli-
ance tests had been carried out since
the promulgation of the standard. Per-
tinent data are available, however.
from emission tests on a limited
number of new BOPFs. These tests.
carried out using EPA Method 5. indi-
cate that primary particulate emission
levels of between 32 and 50 mg/dscf
(0.014 and 0.022 gr/d.scf) are being
achieved using the same control tech-
nology as that existing at the time- the
standard for primary emissions was es-
tablished for BOPFs. The rationale
for the current NSPS level of 50 mg/
dscm (0.022 gr/d.scf) for primary stack
emissions, as described in 1973. is
therefore, still considered to be valid.
SECONDARY EMISSION CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY
Secondary or fugitive emissions not
captured by the BOPF primary emis-
sions control system during various
BOPF ancillary operations currently
amount to more than 100 tons annual-
ly. One of the principal sources of
these emissions, the hot metal charg-
ing cycle, can generate amounts of fu-
gitive emissions on the order of 0.25
kg/Mg (0.5 Ib/ton) of charge. These
emissions are presently uncontrolled
in most of the older BOPFs and only
partially controlled in most BOPFs
that have come on stream during the
past 5 years.
Control of secondary emissions in-
volves a developing technology that
requires in-depth study to determine
the most effective methods of fume
capture. Although potentially expen-
sive to construct, the complete furnace
enclusure equipped with several auxil-
iary hoods is currently the only dem-
onstrated technology exhibiting the
potential for effectively minimizing fu-
gitive emissions from a new BOPF.
Seven new BOPFs installed in the
U.S. in the past 7 years have incorpo-
rated partial or full furnace enclosures
as part of the origina! particulate
emission control system. Since these
designs had deficiencies, these systems
are operating with varying degrees of
success. Six new furnace enclosure in-
stallations due to commeiu-e oper-
ations in 1978, including four on new
BOPFs and two retrofit installations.
will incorporate a secondary hood
inside the furnace enclosure with suf-
ficient volume for fugitive emission
control.
CLARIFICATION OF WORDING OF NSPS
STANDARD
Review of the existing standard re-
vealed possible ambiguity in the word-
ing of the NSPS with regard to the
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 44, NO. 56—WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21, 1979
IV-N-2
-------
PROPOSED RULES
definitions of a BOPP. Also, the defi-
nition of the operating cycle during
which sampling is performed requires
clarification. Specifically, the stack
emissions averaged over the oxygen
blow part of the cycle could be signifi-
cantly different from the emissions av-
eraged over a period or periods that
includes scrap preheating and turn-
down for vessel sampling. The current
standard is unclear as to which averag-
ing time should be used. Since no tests
to date have come under the NSPS,
averaging time has not been an issue;
however, interpreting the standard
will be a problem until this matter is
resolved.
CONCLUSIONS
Based upon the above findings, the
following conclusions have been
reached by EPA:
(1) The best demonstrated systems
of emissions control at the time the
standard for primary emissions was es-
tablished for BOPP have not changed
in the past 5 years. (See APTD-1352c
(EPA/2-74-003), Background Informa-
tion for New Source Performance
Standards, Volume 3, Promulgated
Standards.) These technologies con-
trol emissions to a level consistent
with the current standard; therefore,
revision to the existing standard is not
required, if only primary emissions are
to be controlled.
(2) Secondary or fugitive emissions
from BOPFs represent a major air pol-
lution emission source. EPA, there-
fore, intends to initiate a project to
revise the existing standard of per-
formance to include fugitive emissions.
This development project is planned
to begin during 1979 and lead to a pro-
posal 20 months after initiation. In ad-
dition, an assessment of foreign tech-
nology, which ahs been initiated by
the Agency, will be included in the
basis for the revised standard. The as-
sessment may lead to further conclu-
sions about the allowable emissions
from the primary gas cleaning stack
due to the interdependence of primary
and secondary control technologies.
(3) The ambiguities in the present
standard concerning definition of a
BOPF and the operating cycle to be
measured should be clarified, and a
project to do so has been initiated.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
All interested persons are invited to
comment on this review, the conclu-
sions, and EPA's planned action. Com-
ments should be submitted to: Mr.
Don Goodwin (MD-13), Emission
Standards and Engineering Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
27711.
Dated: March 9, 1979.
BARBARA BLUM,
Acting Administrator.
IFR Doc. 79-8360 Filed 3-20-79: 8:45 am]
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 44, NO. 56—WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21, 1979
IV-N-3
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR
NEW STATIONARY
SOURCES
SEWAGE TREATMENT
PLANTS
SUBPARTO
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 27, 1979 / Proposed Rules
40 CFR Part 60
[FRL 1310-3]
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources: Sewage
Treatment Plants; Review of Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION Review of standards.
SUMMARY: EPA has reviewed the
standards of performance for sewage
treatment plant sludge incinerators (40
CFR 60.150). The review is required
under the Clean Air Act, as amended
August 1977. The purpose of this notice
is to announce EPA's plan to defer
decision on the need to revise the
standards and to undertake a program
to further assess emission rates, control
technology, and the current standard.
DATES: Comments must be received by
January 28,1980.
ADDRESS: Comments should be
submitted to the Central Docket Section
(A-130), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460, Attention:
Docket No. A-79-17.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Robert Ajax, telephone: (919) 541-
5271. The document "A Review of
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources—Sewage Sludge
Incinerators" (EPA-450/3-79-010) is
available upon request from Mr. Robert
Ajax (MD-13). Emission Standards and
Engineering Division, Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park. North Carolina 27711.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Prior to the promulgation of the NSPS
in 1974. most sewage sludge incinerators
utilized low pressure scrubbers (2 to 8
in. WG) to reduce emissions to the
atmosphere. These scrubbers were
designed to meet State and local
standards that were on the order of 0.2
to 0.9 grams/dry standard cubic meter
(dscm) or 0.1 to 0.4 grains/dry standard
cubic foot (dscf) at 50 percent excess air.
Incineration standards, for the most
part, reflected general incineration of all
types with emphasis on municipal solid
waste. A separate standard for sewage
sludge incineration emissions was
unusual. Control efficiencies, based on
an uncontrolled rate of 0.9 grains/dscf.
were between 50 and 90 percent.
In June of 1973, the Environmental
Protection Agency proposed a standard
under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act
to control particulate matter emissions
from sewage sludge incinerators. The
standard, promulgated in March 1974
and amended in November 1977, applies
to any incinerator constructed or
modified after June 11,1973, that burns
wastes containing more than 10 percent
sewage sludge (dry basis) produced by
municipal sewage treatment plants, or
charges more than 1000 kg (2205 Ib/day)
municipal sewage sludge (dry basis).
The standard prohibits the discharge of
particulate matter at a rate greater than
0.65 grams/kg of dry sludge input (1.30
Ib/ton) and prohibits the discharge of
any gases exhibiting 20 percent opacity .
or greater.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of
1977 require that the Administrator of
the EPA review and, if appropriate,
revise established standards of
performance for new stationary sources
at least every 4 years [Section
lll(b)(l)(B)]. This notice announces that
EPA has undertaken a review of the
standard of performance for sewage
sludge incinerators and sets forth initial
findings based on this review. EPA is
however, deferring a final decision on
the need to revise the standard until
further data can be obtained and
analyzed pertaining to the form of the
standard, parameters affecting emission
rates, and coincineration. Comments on
these findings and this action are
invited.
Findings
Status of Sewage Sludge Incinerators
It is estimated that approximately 240
municipal sludge incinerator units are
presently in operation. A large number
of incinerators were built in the 1967-
1972 period and this growth has
continued, although at a somewhat
slower rate since 1972. A compilation of
incinerator units subject to the
construction grants program indicated
that 92 new units were either in the
contruction or planning stages in mid-
1977. A total of 23 sludge incinerators
have been identified which are subject
to the standard and which have been
tested for compiiar.ee.
Emission Rates and Control Technology
Particulate matter from the inert
material in sludge is present in the flue
gas of sewage sludge incinerators.
Uncontrolled emissions may vary from
as low as 4 g/kg (3 Ib/ton) dry sludge
input to as high as 110 g/kg (220 Ib/ton)
dry sludge input depending upon the
incinerator type and the sludge
composition (e.g.. percent volatile solids,
percent moisture, and source treatment).
Since adoption of the standard, wet
scrubbers operating with pressure drops
in the range of 7 to 32 in. WC and a
mean of 20 in. WG have been employed
exclusively and have been successful for
controlling emissions to the level
required by the standard. The average
emission from tests of 26 facilities since
1974 was 0.55 g/kg with a standard
deviatin of 0.35 g/kg (1.1 ±0.7 Ib/ton)
dry sludge input. When tests from one
obviously underdesigned facility and
three facilities not subject to the
standard were deleted, the average
emission was 0.45 g/kg with a standard
deviation of 0.17 g/kg (0.91 ± 0.33 lb/
ton) dry sludge input or about 30 percent
below the standard. The scrubber
configurations which were employed
included three-stage perforated plate
impingment scrubbers operating at 7 to 9
in WG and venturi scrubbers, or venturi
scrubbers in series with various
impingment plate scrubbers operating in
the 9 to 32 in. WG range.
While these test results are consistent
with the standard, an analysis of the test
results shows an inconsistent
relationship between scrubber pressure
drop and emissions as expressed in
units of the standard. This appears to be
due to both the facility type and input
sludge composition, particularly solids
content. Moreover, experimental data
from some of the tested units suggest
that incinerators burning sludge below
20 percent solids may have difficulty
complying with the NSPS. Because
combustion air requirements per unit of
dry sludge increase with increasing
sludge moisture, actual stack volume
concentrations of 0.01 grains/dry
standard cubic meter or less are needed
to meet the standard when high
moisture sludges are incinerated. For
example, two incinerators burning
sludges of 16 percent solids achieved
only marginal compliance ar.d low
volume concentrations cf 0.009 and 0.010
grains/acf.
An additional finding b.j.sed on an
analysis of the test data which are now
available concerns the relationship
between emissions expressed in terms
of grain loading on a dry basis and
emissions per weight of dry sludge
burned. As initially proposed, the
standard was expressed as a volume
concentration standard equal to 0.031
grains/dscf. Due to comments received
relative to the use of dilution air and the
difficulties involved in measuring and
correcting to dry volume, the
promulgated standard was established
at 1.3 Ib/dry ton sludge input. This was
based on data available at the lime of
promulgation showing that the
promulgated and proposed standards
were equivalent. However, an analysis
IV-0-2
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 229 / Tuesday. November 27, 1979 / Proposed Rules
m
of tha data which are now available
indicate a nominal equivalence between
1.8 Ib/ton dry sludge and 0.031 grains/
dscf for typical sludges.
One factor at least partially
responsible for the difference in
equivalent emission factors, in addition
to affecting the relationship between
pressure drop and mass emissions, is
the moisture content in the input sludge.
The average solids content of the sludge
associated with the data cited above is
24 percent. However, tests of two other
facilities with input sludge having a
relatively high solids content of between
27 and 33 percent showed an
equivalence similar to that found by
EPA in 1973 (e.g., 0.03 grains/dscf
equivalent to 1.3 Ib/ton dry sludge
input).
Opacity levels from successful
emissions tests never exceeded 15
percent and were most often either 0 or
5 percent. These results are similar to
those found when the standard was first
proposed as a 10 percent value with
exceptions allowed during 2 minutes of
a 60 minute test cycle. This standard
was changed to 20 percent with no
exemptions except during startup, shut
down, or malfunctions. The current data
indicate that the rationale used to arrive
at the 20 percent opacity level till
applies. This rationale, in addition to
'ield observations obtained with Method
r9, involved instrumental data and
theoretical projections of the opacity
which could, under extreme conditions,
occur at a facility complying with the
particulate matter standard. A
revaluation of this standard was
undertaken and reaffirmation was
announced in the Federal Register on
February 18,1976.
Application of the Standard to
Coincineration
The coincineration of municipal solid
waste and sewage sludge has been
practiced in Europe for several years,
and on a limited scale in the U.S.
However, as energy resources become
scarce and more costly, and where land
disposal is economically or technically
unfeasible, the recovery of the heat
content of dewatered sludge as an
energy source will become more
desirable. Due to this and the
institutional commonality of these
wastes and advances in the
preincineration processing of municipal
refuse to a waste fuel, many
communities may find joint incineration
in energy recovery incinerators an
economically attractive alternative to
their waste disposal problems.
Coincineration of municipal solid
aste and sewage sludge, as described
bove, is not explicitly covered in 40
CFR 60. The particulate standard for
municipal solid waste described in
Subpart E (0.18 g/dscm or 0.08 g/dscf at
12 percent COj) applies to the
incineration of municipal solid waste in
furnaces with a capacity of at least 45
Mg/day (50 tons/day). Subpart O, the
particulate standard for sewage sludge
incineration (0.65 g/kg dry sludge input
or 1.3 Ib/ton dry sludge), applies to any
incinerator that burns sewage sludge,
with the exception of small communities
. practicing coincineration.
To clarify the situation when
coincineration is involved, EPA adopted
the policy that when an incinerator with
a capacity of at least 45 Mg/day (50
tons/day) burns at least 50 percent
municipal solid waste, then the Subpart
E applies regardless of the amount of
sewage sludge burned. When more than
50 percent sewage sludge and more than
45 Mg/day (50 tons) is incinerated, the
standard is based upon Subpart O or,
alternatively, a proration between
Subparts O and E. The proration
scheme, however, has a discontinuity
when a municipal incinerator burns 50
percent solid waste.
The alternative of prorating the
Subparts E and O is not straight-
forward, since the two standards are
stated in different units. The proration
scheme requires a transformation of the
municipal incineration standard
(Subpart E) from grams per dry standard
cubic meter (grains per dry standard
cubic foot] at 12 percent CO» to grams
per kilograms (pounds per dry ton)
refuse input, or a transformation of the
sewage sludge standard (Subpart O)
from grams per dry kilograms (pounds
per dry ton) input to grams per dry
standard cubic meter at 12 percent CO2.
Such transformations are dependent on
the percent COj in the flue gas stream,
the stoichiometric air requirements,
excess air, the volume of combustion
products to require air, and percent
moisture in refuse or sludge, and the
heat content of the sludge and solid
waste.
Other Pollutants
Incineration of sewage sludge results
in the emission to the atmosphere of
trace elements and compounds, some of
which are hazardous or potentially
hazardous. Substances of concern
include mercury, lead, cadmium,
pesticides, and organic matter. Among
these, mercury emissions from sewage
sludge incinerators are specifically
limited under the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(40 CFR 61.50 et seq.).
The emission of other trace
compounds and elements, while not
subject to specific limitations is
controlled by particulate matter control
equipment or directly by the high
temperatures in the combustion process
and with the exception of cadmium, no
data were obtained during this review to
indicate a need for specific limitations
on emissions of these materials resulting
from incineration of typical sludges.
Tests have shown high destruction
efficiencies for pesticides, and organics
in sewage sludge incinerators. Similarly.
test data suggest that high pressure
scrubbers of the type normally
employed to meet the particulate
standards also reduce lead emissions to
below the level required to meet
ambient standards. In contrast, data
suggest that cadmium emissions may
not be adequately controlled. A separate
program is underway in EPA to
independently assess the need to
regulate cadmium. Final decisions on
this will be announced in a separate
action. In the event that the need to limit
cadmium emissions from sewage sludge
incinerators is indicated, appropriate
action will be taken.
Conclusions
The available test data support the
validity of the standard. However, the
marginal compliance of several facilities
operating with high pressure drops, the
apparent relationship between sludge
moisture content and emission rates,
and the inconsistent relationship
between pressure drop and scrubber
performance as measured in terms of the
standard are matters which require
further study. Such a study will be
undertaken later and will include further
analysis of data regarding sludge
dewatering, incinerator types, control
technology, and the relationship
between control device operating
parameters, sludge solids content,
emission rates, and alternative forms for
expression of emission rates. This will
also include an analysis of alternative
means for establishment of standards
applicable to coincineration. A final
conclusion on the need for revision of
the standard will not be made until this
study is complete.
Dated: November 16. 1979.
Barbara Blum,
Acting Administrator.
|FR Doc. 79-3M73 Filed 11-26-79: 8:45 urn]
IV-O-3
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR
NEW STATIONARY
SOURCES
PHOSPHATE
FERTILIZER PLANTS
SUBPARTS T, U, V, W, X
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 227 / Friday. November 21. 1980 / Proposed Rules
40 CFR Part 60
[AD-FRL-1551-7]
Review of Standards of Performance
for yew Stationary Sources:
Phosphate Fertilizer Plants
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Review of Standards.
SUMMARY: EPA has reviewed the
standards of performance for control of
total fluoride emissions from phosphate
fertilizer plants (40 FR 33152). The
review is required under the Clean Air
Act, as amended August 1977. The
purpose of this notice is to announce
EPA's intent not to undertake revision of
the standards at this time.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before December 22.1980.
ADDRESSES: Comments, Send comments
to the Central Docket Section (A-130),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street, SW., Washington. D.C.
20460, Attention: Docket No. A-80-10.
Docket: Docket No. A-80-10,
containing supporting information used
in reviewing the 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, SW.,
Washington, D.C. 20460. A reasonable
fee may be charged for copying.
Background Information Document.
The document "Review of New Source
Performance Standards for Phosphate
Fertilizer Industry" (EPA report number
EPA-450/3-79-038) is available upon
request from the U.S. EPA Library (MD-
35), Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711,
telephone (919) 541-2777.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Stanley T. Cuffe, (MD-13) U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, N.C..27711:
telephone (919) 541-5295.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Fluoride was the only pollutant other
than the criteria pollutants, specifically
named as requiring Federal action in the
March 1970 "Report of the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare to the
United States (01st) Congress." The
report condud/d that "inorganic
fluorides are highly irritant and toxic
gases" which, even in low ambient
concentrations, have adverse effects on
plants and animals. The United States
Senate Committee on Public Works hi
its report on the Clean Air Amendments
of 1970 (Senate Report No. §1-1196,
September 17,1970, page 9] Included
fluorides on a list of contaminants thai
have broad national impact and require
Federal Action.
The "Engineering and Cost
Effectiveness Study of Fluoride
Emissions Contror (contract EHSD 71-
14), published in January 1972, listed the
phosphate fertilizer industry among the
largest fluoride emitters in the United
States, accounting for nearly 14 percent
of the total soluble fluorides emitted
annually at that time.
On October 22,1974 (39 FR 37802),
under section 111 of the Clean Air Act
and amended, the Administrator
proposed standards of performance for
five new affected facilities within the
phosphate fertilizer industry as follows:
Wet-process phosphoric acid plants.
superphosphoric acid plants,
diammooium phosphate plants, triple
superphosphate plants, and granular
triple superphosphate storage facilities.
The regulation, promulgated on
August 6,1975 (40 FR 33152). limits total
fluoride emissions to the following
weights per unit of P«O, inputf Wet
process phosphoric acid, 0.01 g/kg (0.02
Ib/ton); superphosphoric acid, 0.005 g/kg
(0.01 Ib/T); diammonium phosphate, 0.03
g/kg (0.06 Ib/T); triple superphosphate
and granular triple superphosphate, 0.1
g/kg (0.20 Ib/T). Emission limits for
granular triple superphosphate storage
facilities are 2J x 10 * g/hr per kilogram
stored (5xlO"4lb/hr ton). There is no
opacity regulation.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of
1977 require that the Administrator of
EPA review and, if appropriate, revise
established standards of performance
for new stationary sources at least every
4 years (Section lll(b)(l)(B)). This
notice announces that EPA has
completed a review of the standard of
performance for phosphate fertilizer
plants and invites comment on the
results of this review
Findings
Industry Growth Rare
During the years 1^74 through 1979,
the production capa ,'y of the domestic
fertilizer industry in ireased as follows.
For wet process phosphoric acid. 4»
percent: wiperphosfhoric acid, 60
percent diammonjum phosphate, 25
percent; and triple superphosphate. 15
percent. Superphosphoric add nmitirin«
much lees water per unit of PtO* than
does wet process phosphoric add;
therefore, the resulting saving ID weight
and shipping costs has encouraged
increasing the capacity for
manufacturing superphosphoric add.
Also, superphosphoric acid is less
corrosive than wet process phosphoric
acid and cu be stored with less
deposition of impurities. Additions to
triple superphosphate capacity have
decreased because of the recent trends
toward liquid fertilizers, which are
easier for the fanner to apply.'
The estimated growth from 1960 to
1985 in domestic phosphate fertilizer
plants is limited, for the following
reasons. Facilities for the manufacture
of phosphate fertilizer from phosphate
rock were overbuilt in the 1970's and are
only now approaching full utilization of
production capacity. The use at
phosphate fertilizer in the United States
decreased about 9 percent in 1978,
partly because of alleged
overfertitization of some soils. Potential
production increases outside the United
States may reduce exports.
Control Technology
Current ContraJ Technology
There have been no notable
improvements in the design of aqueous
scrubbers since the present standards
were promulgated. Some improvement
has been reported in the operation of the
scrubber with lees plugging and with
reduced downtime when plugging
occurs.
Emerging Control Technology
The gypsum pond is considered to be
one of die major fluoride emission
sources in a phosphate fertilizer plant
However, the pond emits a relatively
large weight of fluoride from an area
that is very great compared with that of
the other sources. Nevertheless, pood
contribution to ground level
concentration of fluorides is evidently
small, as indicated by die effectiveness
of scrubber controls in redodag high
ground level concentrations.
An interesting recent development to
claimed to permit nominating about half
of the pond area with a resulting pond
fluoride emission reduction of aboufSO
percent This reduction is made by
shifting the plant cooting load from the
pond to a closed-circuit cooling tower.
The cooling tower in turn supplies a
fluoride scrubbing system with water.
Fluoride evolution from this scrubbing
system has been reduced at one of two
plants by partial recovery of fluoride as
salable 25 percent fluosilisic acid and by
liming to further prevent or reduce
IV-T,U,V,W,X-2
-------
Federal JUgbter / VoL 45, No. 227 / Friday, November 11. 1968 / Proposed Ruteg
fluoride emissions. It is not practical to
depend on timing alone, however.
because of the coats of me large tonnage
of (IBM that wonld be required These
processes that combine pond area
reduction with closed cooling tower,
scrubber, and liming systems now
appear to be in their development stage.
More experience is needed to determine
their costs and performances. -
The hemihydrate process, aa old
process revived by the Japanese, makes
wet process phosphoric acid by
crystallising calcium sulfate twice ia
different forms. The final crystal is the
familiar dihydrate, but this product
contains- very little phosphate in the
crystal This decrease in the phosphate
content of the gypsum crystals increases
the yield of phosphoric acid and also
produces a purer and more salable
gypsum. In addition. 30 percent or more
of the fluoride originally present in the
phosphate rock is said to be recoverable
in salable form. The hemihydrate
process has not been demonstrated in
the United States. Domestic rock causes
difficulties in mis process, and the
hemihydrate process would have to be
investigated fully to determine whether
these difficulties can be overcome.
One plant makes triple
superphosphate directly from wet
process phosphoric acid and calcium
carbonate. The only potential for
fluoride emissions arises from the
fluoride content of the wet process
phosphoric acid. This might be
advantageous in a local situation; but
the balance of the potential fluoride
evolution would only be transferred
elsewhere to wherever the wet process
acid was made from phosphate rock.
One fertilizer plant has added a dry
absorption process that is due to come
on line in 1980. In this process a dry
absorbent is continuously injected into
the plant tailgas stream. The dry solid
adsorbs gaseous fluorides, and both the
original and the added participates are
then removed in a following baghouse.
Operating data will be needed to assess
this new process.
Results Aduswabfe With Demonstrated
Control Tachaologjr
Emission source test results were
available for one of the emerging control
technologies. Source tests for the plant
that manufactures triple superphosphate
directly by reacting calcium carbonate
and wet process phosphoric acid
showed fluoride emissions just under
the new source performance standard of
0.1 g/kg PA input fOJB ib/T).
Conclusions
Based on Ik* above findings, EPA
uoacludsa thai tht existing standards of
performance for fluorides are still
appropriate. There have been no notable
improvements in aqueous scrubber
control technology. Further significant
fluoride reductions by scrubbing are
unlikely if ordinary gypsum pond water
is used. Emerging technologies or their
variants may later permit further
reductions in fluoride emissions.
EPA is studying radioactive
particulate emissions from the
phosphate fertilizer industry. If control
is found advisable, emission regulations
will be developed by the Office of
Radiation Programs for this source
under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.
Public Participation
All interested persons are invited to
comment on this review. Comments
should be submitted to the Central
Docket Section as stated under
"Addresses" above.
Dated: November 17.1980.
Douglas M. Costle,
Administrator.
iT Doc 80-36452 Filed 11-20-80: 8:45 am|
BILLING CODE I56O-26-M
IV-T,U,V,W,X-3
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR
NEW STATIONARY
SOURCES
FERROALLOY
PRODUCTION FACILITIES
SUBPART Z
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 16 / Monday, January 28, 1981 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[AD-TOL 1698-1]
Review of Standards of Performance
for New Stationary Sources: Ferroalloy
Production Facilities
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Review of Standards.
SUMMARY: EPA has reviewed the
standards of performance for ferroalloy
production facilities (41 FR 18497, 41 FR
20659). The review is required under the
Clean Air Act, as amended August 1977.
The purpose of this notice is to
announce EPA's intent not to undertake
revision of the standards at this time.'
DATE: Comments must be received on or
before March 27,1981-.
ADDRESS: Comments: Send comments to
the Central Docket Section (A-130), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460,
Attention: Docket No. A-80-45.
Docket: Docket No. A-80-45,
containing supporting information used
in reviewing the 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.
Background Information Document.
The document "A Review of Standards
of Performance for New Stationary
Sources—Ferroalloy Production
Facilities" (EPA report number EPA-
450/3-80-041) is available upon request
from the U.S. EPA Library (MD-35),
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711,
telephone (919) 541-2777.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Stanley T. Cuffe, Chief, Industrial
Studies Branch, Emission Standards and .
Engineering Division, (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711.
Telephone: (919) 541-5295.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 21,1974, EPA proposed a
standard under Section 111 of the Clean
Air Act to control particulate matter and
carbon monoxide emissions from
electric submerged-arc furnaces in the
ferroalloy industry. The standard,
promulgated on May 4,1976, applies to
any facility constructed or modified
after October 21,1974. The standard for
particulate matter under § 60.262 limits
the discharge to the atmosphere from
electric submerged-arc furnaces to:
1.0.45 kg/MW-h (0.99 Ib/MH-h) for those
furnaces that produce silicon metal and high-
tilicon-content ferroalloys.
2.0.23 kg/MW-h (0.51 Ib/MW-h) for those
furances that produce other designated
ferroalloys and calcium carbide.
3. Less than 15 percent opacity from any
.control device serving an electric arc furnace.
4. Zero visible emissions from the fume
capture system of the furnace.
5. Zero visible emissions from the fume
capture system during the tapping operation
for at least 60 percent of the tapping period
except when a blowing tap occurs.
6.10 percent opacity or less from
associated dust handling equipment.
The standard for carbon monoxide
emissions under § 60.263 limits
discharge to the atmosphere to less than
20 percent by volume.
The current standard does not cover
other types of ferroalloy production
facilities. The electrolytic and
metalothennic processes are used at 12
locations to produce relatively small
quantities of specialty metals. Because
of their limited applicaton and relatively
low air pollution potential, excluson of
these processes appears justified.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of
1977 require that the Administrator of
EPA review the established standards of
performance for new stationary sources
(NSPS) at least every 4 years and revise
them as appropriate [Section
lll(b)(l)(B)]. EPA has completed such a
review of the standard of performance
for the ferroalloy industry and has
decided not to revise this standard. EPA
invites comments on this decision and
on the finding on which it is based.
Findings:
Industry Statistics
In 19*71, there were approximately 14S
electric submerged-arc furnaces used for
the production of ferroalloys and 13 for
calcium carbide production. Domestic
production at that time was
approximately 1.8 Tg (2 million tons) per
year. Because of a sharp increase in
imports of ferroalloys, however,
domestic production has declined to a
current level of approximately 1.35 Tg
(1.5 million tons] per year, and the
number of furnaces has decreased to 89
for ferroalloy production and 7 for
calcium carbide production. Since no
new furnaces have been built or
modified since 1974, none are currently
subject to the new source performance
standard; and none are expected to be
built in the near future.
Control Technology
Current best demonstrated control
technology for the open-type electric
submerged-arc furance is the fabric filter
system. These furnaces account for
approximately 88 percent of domestic
capacity. Emissions for most of these
furnaces are currently controlled with
fabric filter systems, and a few are
equipped with high-pressure-drop
aqueous scrubbers. Existing semi-sealed
and closed furnace emissions are all
controlled by aqueous scrubbers. No
major improvements in the control
technology or in processing technology
have occurred since the emission
standard was proposed in 1974. The
installation of available control systems
on existing furnaces has generally
enabled compliance with State
regulations.
Control of particulate emissions from
the furnace tapping operations is a
problem because many existing facilities
do ndt have adequate hooding. On new
furnaces, however, hoods can be
designed into the entire system and
better fume capture can be expected.
Control of fugitive particulate emissions
from electric submerged-arc furnaces for
ferroalloy production has not been as
extensively developed as it has in other
segments of the steel industry. No
ferroalloy production facilities currently
IV-Z-2
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 1981 / Proposed Rides
operate with a building fume evacuation
system, and no furnaces have been
provided with a complete enclosure to
reduce fugitive emissions.
Results Achievable with Demonstrated
Control Technology
Because no furnaces are currently
subject to new source performance
standards, no formal Federal
compliance tests have been made.
Nevertheless, standard EPA test
methods have been used to determine
compliance with various State
particulate emission regulations, and no
unique testing problems have occurred.
Limited new test data for determining
compliance with State emission
regulations show that emissions from
existing facilities equipped with high-
efficiency control equipment ranged
from 0.022 to 0.25 kg/MW-h (0.05 to 0.54
Ib/MW-h). In general, State and local
visible emissions standards are also
being met, except during tapping
operations at some plants.
Additional Pollutants
Recently, information on the
emissions of organic compounds has
also been obtained. This information
shows that organic compounds, included
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons,
may be emitted from electric
submerged-arc furnaces. More data are
required to determine the quantity and
nature of these emissions to the
atmosphere. Emissions of trace metals
vary widely among furnaces and depend
on the feed materials; however, these
emissions are low and are controlled by
conventional particulate control
equipment Gaseous emissions are not
significant, and high concentrations of
carbon monoxide are reduced by flaring
the vent gas. Control techniques for
carbon monoxide have not been further
improved.
Conclusions
Based on this review of the currant
NSPS. no revision of the standard is
planned at this time. This decision is
based on:
1. Lack of growth and new construction in
the industry.
2. Indication from limited recent test data
that the existing standard can be met
The available particulate matter
compliance test data required by some
States show that emissions are
consistent with NSPS requirements, and
although limited, these data support the
present standard. Similarly, the data
available on furnace emissions indicate
that the particulate emission standard is
resulting in the installation of control
equipment that represents best
demonstrated control technology.
All interested parties are invited to
comment on this review, the
conclusions, and EPA's planned course
of action.
Dated: January 13.1981.
Douglas M. Costle,
Administrator.
(FR Doe. 2456 Hied 1-23-81; »:4S am]
MLUNa CODE M60-M-M
IV-Z-3
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR
NEW STATIONARY
SOURCES
ELECTRIC ARC FURNACES
(STEEL INDUSTRY)
SUBPART AA
-------
Federal Segisles- / Vol. 45, No. 78 / Monday, April 2J, 1980 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.
AGEMCV
40 CFR Part SO
[FRL 1415-2]
Review of Standards o? Performane®
for New Stationary Sources; Electric
Arc Furnaces (Steel Industry)
A©ENev: Environmental Protection
Agency.
neriow: Proposed Rule.
V: EPA has reviewed its
standards of performance for electric
arc furnaces in the steel industry (40
CFR 60.270, Subpart AA) as required
under the Clean Air Act, as amended
August 1977. EPA intends to explore
revising the standards to reflect
demonstrated best available control
technology for electric arc furnaces and
would add argon-oxygen
decarbonization (AOD) furnaces to the
standard. Visible emission limitations
would be reduced to be consistent with
improved control technology.
BATES: Comments must be received by
June 20, 1980.
A0DRESSES: Send comments to: Central
Docket Section (A-130), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460,
Attention: Docket A-79-33. Comments
should be submitted in duplicate if
possible.
P0H FURTHER IWFORMATIOH CONTACTl
Mr. Stanley T. Cuffe, Telephone: (919)
541-5295. The document "A Review of
Standards of Performance for Electric
Arc Furnaces in the Steel Industry" is
available upon request from Mr, Stanley
T. Cuffe, (MD-13), Chief, Industrial
Studies Branch, Emission Standards and
Engineering Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 21, 1974, EPA proposed a
standard under Section 111 of the Clean
Air Act to control participate matter
emissions from electric arc furnaces
(EAF) in the steel industry. The
standard, promulgated on September 23,
1975, applies to any facility constructed
or modified after October 21, 1974. The
standard for particulate matter under
8 60.272 limits the discharge to
atmosphere from an electric arc furnace
of any gases that:
1. Contain particulate matter in excess
of 12 mg/dscm (0.0052 gr/dscf).
2. Exhibit 3 percent opacity or greater
from a control device.
3. Exhibit greater than zero opacity
from a shop, due solely to operation of
any EAF(s), except:
a. Shop opacity greater than zero
percent, but less than 20 percent, may
occur during charging periods.
b. Shop opacity greater than zero
percent, but less than 40 percent, may
occur during tapping periods.
c. Zero opacity from a shop shall
apply only during periods when process
flow rates and pressures are being
monitored.
d. Where the capture system is
operated such that the roof of the shop
is closed during the charge and the tap,
and emissions to the atmosphere are
prevented until the roof is opened after
completion of the charge or tap, the shop
opacity standards shall apply when the
roof is opened and shall continue to
apply for the length of time defined by
the charging and/or tapping periods.
The standard for particulate matter
also limits the discharge to atmosphere
from dust handling equipment any gases
which exhibit 10 percent opacity or
greater.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of
1977 that require the Administrator of
EPA review, establish standards of
performance for new stationary sources
(NSPS) at least every 4 years, and revise
them as appropriate [Section
lll(b)(l)(B)j. EPA has completed such a
review of the standard of performance
for electric arc furnaces in the steel
industry and has decided to begin a
project to revise the standard. EPA
invites comments on this decision and
on the findings on which it is based.
Findings
Industry Statistics
In 1972, there were approximately 299
EAF's in the United States. In 1977, there
were approximately 303 EAFa being
operated in the United States. However,
about 30 EAF's were being installed
between 1974 and 1979, which indicates
that some older furnaces were probably
shutdown and replaced. Only five of the
new furnaces were subject to the
standards.
Information on planned new facilities
or modifications is limited by the .
reluctance of industry to state future
plans because of current economic
uncertainties. Nevertheless, EAF
production should continue to increase.
An EAF is flexible, can operate wholly
on steel scrap, is adapted to ultrarapid •
melting, can make specialty steels, and
can be quickly brought on line or taken
off production. In addition, an EAF is
relatively low in pollution potential, and
emission controls are well
demonstrated. These EAF advantages
are substantiated by industry statistics
showing that production in 1977 was
about 25.4 Mg (27.9 million tons) and 29
Mg (31.9 million tons) in 1978 versus 21.5
Mg (23.7 million tons) in 1972, when the
NSPS document was being developed.
Emissions and Control Technology
The current best demonstrated control
technology, the fabric filter, is the same
as that used when the standards were
promulgated. No major improvements in
this technology have occurred during the
intervening period; however, one
company has installed a proprietary wet
scrubber, which appears to be almost as
effective as a fabric filter and meets the
standards.
Although the fabric filter technology
has not changed, the effectiveness of
pickup systems for various process and
fugitive emissions has improved
significantly.
Some EAF shops are now operating
with closed roofs and a controlled
fugitive emission pickup system in the
roof to draw any indoor emissions into
the control device. This system may
utilize small openings in the ductwork to
draw emissions slowly out of the roof
area, or it may include dampers in the
openings that can be opened or closed
to remove these rooftop emissions. The
roof emissions include charging and
tapping emissions, and those that
escape the direct furnace evacuation
system and the canopy hoods above the
furnace. The closed-roof and fugitive
emission pickup system was designed to
meet some local agencies no-visible-
emission requirements from an EAF
shop.
Other recent technology includes total
enclosure of the furnace within the EAF
ouilding. The system is designed to
capture all emissions of the furnace
operation cycle (meltdown, charging,
tapping, and slagging). Hoods are
strategically located for capture of the
charging, tapping, and slagging
emissions. Additionally, during the
charging operation, a curtain of air is
blown across the roof opening to direct
the emissions into the intake duct of the
control device. This system theoretically
prevents almost all emissions from
escaping the enclosure and building.
Another new concept for containing
emissions from the EAF is a partial
enclosure around the furnace. The
furnace itself may be equipped with the
conventional direct shell evacuation and
canopy hood system, but the partial
enclosure around the furnace acts as a
stack to direct fugitive furnace
emissions upward into the emission
capture system. Separate hoods are
used to capture emissions during the
tapping and slagging operation. The EAF
IV-AA-2
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 78 / Monday, April 21, 1980 / Proposed Rules
shop roof is closed and the area above
the furnace and below the canopy hood
must be kept clear so that the furnace
can be charged normally by a crane. The
partial enclosure is large enough to
allow the furnace cover to be swung
over the tapping area, where it can
capture emissions from the ladle pouring
spout and tapping hoods. This total
system is reported to be virtually 100
percent effective in capturing all
emissions from the furnace shop during
normal operations.
Although about 30 furnaces were
reported to have started operation from
1974 to 1979, only 5 commenced
construction after the proposal of NSPS
and therefore were subject to regulation.
Only one of these five furnaces has been
tested for visible emissions because the
others have not completed their startup.
Although the latter met the NSPS for
visible emissions, the furnace shop did
create an enforcement issue. The
furnace shop has a closed roof;
however, some visible emissions from
charging or tapping operations drifted
out the material access doors of the
shop when they were open. Also, these
charging and tapping emissions became
intermingled and were emitted
simultaneously due to other furnaces
operating in the shop. The enforcement
issue arose when it became unclear how
to enforce NSPS when charging, tapping,
and other shop emissions became mixed
and escaped from the doors instead of
the roof. These problems are expected to
be recurring, as other new furnaces start
operation and the NSPS may require
further study to clarify the visible
emission standard to cover this
situation.
Four other recently constructed EAF's
were required by local agencies to at
least meet NSPS even though their
construction started before NSPS
proposal. One shop with two partially-
enclosed furnaces using canopy hoods
and sealed roof was tested for
particulate and visible emissions. The
local agency concluded that the system
would meet NSPS based on their source
tests. However, the control system uses
a pressure baghouse, and the testing
was conducted by company personnel in
the presence of local agency observers.
In tests of various compartments of the
baghouse with a Hi-Vol sampler, the
results show that the emissions ranged
from 0.0097 mg/dscra {0.0000042 gr/dscf)
to 0.08 mg/dscm (0.0000346 gr/dscf)
during twelve 4- to 5-hour tests.
However, this is not an official EPA r
testing method and further investigation
by EPA will be necessary to
substantiate this data.
The current standard does not cover
several types of electric furnaces. The
unregulated electric furnaces are:
vaccum-arc remelting (VAR), vacuum
induction melting (VIM), electro-slag
remelting (ESR), and consumable
electrode melting (GEM) which are
primarily used to produce small
tonnages of specialty steels.
Investigation by EPA during this review
revealed that the VAR, VIM, CEM, and
ESR furnaces do not produce any
significant emissions; therefore, they
should not be considered for NSPS.
Furthermore, these low polluting
specialty furnaces are not capable of
being replacements for the much larger
conventional electric arc furnace which
has a higher pollution potential.
Argon-oxygen decarbonization
furnaces were found to be a highly
significant emitter of particulate and
visible emissions, and these furnaces
are becoming an integral part of EAF
shops that produce stainless steels.
AOD furnaces are economical and
flexible to operate; therefore, their use is
expected to increase. Because AOD
furnaces operate within an EAF shop,
produce significant amounts of
particulate and visible emissions, and
use similar air pollution control devices,
AOD furnaces should be included in the
NSPS study for the EAF. One AOD
furnace with canopy hood and baghouse
was tested for particulate emissions.
The average test result of 6.9 mg/dscm
(0.0030 gr/dscf) for the AOD furnace is
lower than the current EAF standard of
12 mg/dscm (0.0052 gr/dscf). Hence, the
NSPS review for EAF should include
AOD furnaces.
Conclusions
Based upon the review of the current
NSPS previously summarized, a program
to revise the standard is needed. This
program, which is expected to begin in.
fiscal year 1980, will be directed toward:
1. Reviewing new particulate emission
data based on the capabilities of the
best available technology today. The
investigation will include analysis of
costs associated with this technology.
2. Reviewing new opacity data from
recently designed efficient exhaust
techniques, closed roofs for fugitive
emissions, and improved hood collection
for charging, tapping, arid slagging
emissions. These systems, where
installed, appear to significantly
reduced visible emissions from EAF
shops.
3. Consideration of including the AOD
furnace emissions in the revised EAF
standard, or development of a separate
standard for these furnaces. They are a
highly visible source of particulate
emissions.
All interested parties are invited to
comment on this review, the
conclusions, and EPA's planned course'
of action.
Dated April 11,1980.
Douglas M. Costle,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 80-11284 Filed 4-18-80: 8:49 am)
BILLING CODE £560-01-41
IV-AA-3
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR
NEW STATIONARY
SOURCES
SURFACE COATING
OF METAL FURNITURE
SUBPART EE
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 231 / Friday, November 28, 1980 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
AD-FRL 1533-7]
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources; Surface Coating oJ
Metal Furniture
AGENCV: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of
public hearing.
SUMMARY: The proposed standards of
performance would limit emissions of
volatile organic compounds (VOC) from
new, modified, and reconstructed metal
furniture surface coating facilities. The
proposed emission limit is 0.70 kilogram
of VOC per liter of coating solids
applied. Reference Method 24 would be
used to determine the VOC content or
organic coating materials and Reference
Method 25 would be used to determine
the VOC concentration in an exhaust
gas stream. Both reference methods
were promulgated on October 3, 1980,
(45 FR 65956). The proposed standards
implement Section 111 of the Clean Air
Act and are based on the
Administrator's determination that
surface coating of metal furniture
contributes significantly to air pollution.
The intent is to require new, modified,
and reconstructed metal furniture
surface coating facilities to use the best
demonstrated system of continuous
emission reduction, considering costs.
nonair quality health, and
environmental and energy impacts.
A public hearing will be held to
provide interested persons an
opportunity for oral presentation of
data, views, or arguments concerning
the proposed standards.
Dares: Comments. Comments must be
received on or before February 8,1981.
Public Hearing. A public hearing will
be held on January 9,1981 beginning at
9:00 a.m.
Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons
wishing to present oral testimony must
contact EPA by January 2.1981.
ADDRESSES: Coments. Comments should
be submitted (in duplicate if possible)
to: Central Docket Section (A-130),
Attention: Docket Number A-79-47. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street. S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
Public Hearing. The public hearing
will be held at the Environmental
Research Center Auditorium, Research
Triangle Park, N.C. Persons wishing to
present oral testimony should notify Ms.
Deanna Tilley. Standards Development
Branch (MD-13), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone
number (919) 541-5477.
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)
541-2777. Please refer to "Surface
Coating of Metal Furniture—Background
Information for Proposed Standards."
EPA-450/3-80-007a.
Docket. Docket No. A-79-47,
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, SW, Washington, D.C. 20460. A
reasonable fee may be charged for
copying.
FOH 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 number (919)
541-5421.
SUPPLEMENTAflV INFORMATION:
Proposed Standards
The proposed new source
performance standards (NSPS) would
apply to new surface coating facilities at
metal furniture manufacturing plants. In
addition, existing surface coating
facilities would be covered if they were
to undergo a modification that would
result in an increase of VOC emissions
or a reconstruction. Emission of VOC
from each affected facility would be
limited to 0.70 kilogram of VOC per liter
of coating solids applied. This numerical
emission limit takes into account the
mass of VOC per liter of coating solids
in the paint and the transfer efficiency
with which it is applied to yield the
mass of VOC per liter of coating solids
applied. The numerical emission limit
could be met by the use of high solids
coatings (i.e., 68 percent by volume
solids coating with a solvent density pf
0.88 kilogram per liter) applied at a 60
percent transfer efficiency. Transfer
efficiencies of 60 percent or greater can
be attained when applying high solids
coatings with manual or automatic
electrostatic spraying equipment.
The proposed standards could also be
met with the use of other coating types
applied by various application
techniques. Examples of these include
waterborne coatings (equivalent in
emissions reduction to a 75 percent
solids coating) applied by electrostatic,
air or airless spray, dip,
electrodeposition, or flow techniques:
powder coatings (100 percent solids)
applied by electrostatic spray or
fluidized bed; and paints with lower
solids content (less than the 68 percent
by volume solids coating) if the
increased solvent content is offset by
higher transfer efficiencies.
The proposed standards could also be
met with an emission control system
which consists of a capture system and
an emission control device or a
combination of an emission control •
system aivi a low-organic-solvent
coating (high solids or waterborne).
Either of these methods would be
acceptable if the owner or operator
could show the Administrator that the
control technology would achieve the
proposed standards.
Although none of these control
options are universally applicable, at
least one option is available for all
products produced by the metal
furniture industry.
To determine compliance,
performance tests would be conducted
each calendar month. This would
consist of calculating the monthly
weighted average mass of VOC per
volume of coating solids applied using
the transfer efficiency values provided
in the proposed standards. The owner or
operator would obtain the information
necessary to calculate emissions from
formulation data supplied by the
manufacturer of the coating or from an
analysis of each coating by Reference
Method 24 or by an equivalent or
alternative method acceptable to the
Administrator. Coating and organic
solvent usage data would be obtained
from company records. In the case of a
question regarding the VOC content of
coatings. Reference Method 24 would
serve as the means by which the VOC
content of the coating, and the resultant
emissions, would be determined.
Violations would be reported within 10
calendar days after the end of the
calendar month.
When an incinerator is used to
achieve compliance, Method 25 would
be used during an initial 3-hour
compliance test to determine the control
efficiency. During this initial compliance
testing with Method 25 the incinerator
combustion temperature woulc" be
recorded and reported. The proposed
standards also contain performance test
provisions for an affected facility ' nat
uses an organic-solvent recovers system
to attain compliance. The owner or
operator would be required to calculate,
by the equations contained in the
proposed standards, the uncontrolled
VOC emissions from each affected
facility and the emissions reduction
achieved by the recovery device. The
owner or operator would also be
IV-EE-2
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 231 / Friday, November 28. 1980 / Proposed Rules
requireJ to record daily the amount of
organic solvent recovered by the system.
EPA estimates that the proposed
standards would affect 800 new and
1.200 modified or reconstructed sources
between 1960 and 1985.
Summary of Environmental, Energy, and
Economic Impacts
Th" Vpical "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 IIL Surface Coating of Metal
Furniture" (EPA^150/2-77-032) which
defines reasonably available control
technology (RACT) recommends that a
60 percent by volume solids coating be
adopted by States in their State
Implementation Plans (SIPs). The same
metal furniture manufacturer applying a
CTG-complying coating would emit
about 60 percent less VOC than when
applying the uncontrolled coating. It is
estimated that this CTG
recommendation could reduce emissions
of VOC from about 49.8 megagrams per
year to about 19.4 megagrams per year.
The proposed standards would reduce
VOC emissions to about 13.7 megagrams
per year for the typical plant which is an
additional 30 percent emission reduction
below the CTG recommendation. Also,
when compared to uncontrolled
emissions, the proposed standards
would reduce national VOC emissions
from new, modified, and reconstructed
facilities by about 53 gigagrams during
the fifth year.
The impact of the proposed standards
on water pollution 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 proposed standards are met
by employing powder coatings.
Wastewater discharges could be
expected not to increase for plants
which utilize high solids and waterborne
coatings. The quality of wastewater
discharged is expected to remain the
same for plants that apply high solids
coatings when compared to that from
plants that apply 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 little waste.
High solids and waterborne coatings
produce about the same amount of solid
waste as solvent-borne coatings. The
use of emission control systems on a
bake oven is expected to have no effect
on the amount of solid waste generated
from the types ••/: coatings applied.
Energy savings could be possible for
all uncontrolled coating facilities that
employ ary of the available control
options to meet the proposed standards.
Compliance with the proposed
standards by using a 68 percent of
volume solids coating would result in an
energy savings of up to &3 petajoules
over the first 5 years of the proposed
standards due to a decrease in solvent
usage. This is equivalent to
apf -mately 230,000 cubic meters (1.45
million barrels) of crude oil.
For a typical metal furniture
manufacturer complying with the
recommended CTG, energy
requirements would vary depending
upon which control option is employed
to meet the proposed standards. Energy
consumption would decrease by about
20 percent (1500 gigajoules) if powder
coatings were used. Energy consumption
would increase, however, with the use
of waterborne coatings or with
incineration plus a CTG coating by
about 3 percent (230 gigajoules) and 7
percent (520 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
equipment to an existing design. Usually
powder coatings and waterborne
coatings, for example, could not be
applied in a spray booth 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 controlled facility rather
than an incremental difference in the
cost of each type of facility.
For a new typical spray coating
facility with two painting lines the initial
capital and annualized costs do not vary
significantly regardless of which control
option would be employed to comply
with the proposed standards. Capital
costs for each facility using the different
control options are expected to range
from about $860,000 (high solids
coatings) to about $1,200,000
(waterborne coatings). The capital cost
for a typical CTG coating facility or a
typical uncontrolled coating facility
would be about $960,000. The
industrywide incremental capital cost of
complying with the proposed standards
over the first 5 years is expected to
range from zero to $252,000,000
depending upon line changes because of
the selected control option. This range is
based on the projection of 2,000 affected
facilities during the first 5 years of the
proposed standards. The initial
annualized costs for the different control
options would range from about $600.000
to $700,000. These initial annualized
costs would be comparable to the initial
annualized costs for a typical CTG
coating facility ($620,000) and a typical
uncontrolled facility ($830,000).
Total annualized costs (or savings)
vary depending upon which control
option would be employed to comply
with the proposed standards for all new,
modified, and reconstructed spray
coating plants (e.g., large, medium, and
small sizes). For these facilities the fifth
year industrywide annualized costs for
incineration, and for waterborne
coatings, would be about $18,000,000. An
industrywide savings of $15,000,000
would result in the fifth year if high
solids coatings were used. The total
industrywide annualized costs for
powder coatings could vary from a
savings of $2,000,000 to a cost of
$126,000,000 depending upon achieved
coating thickness and other factors. The
projected industrywide annualized cost
to comply with the proposed standards.
based on an anticipated mix of low-
organic-solvent coatings, would be
about $11,000,000.
The economic impacts of the proposed
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.
Several industry representatives
submitted comments, following the
National Air Pollution Control
Techniques Advisory Committee
(NAPCTAC) presentation, related to the
anticipated economic impact of the
proposed standards. These comments,
along with the supporting data provided.
have been incorporated into the BID and
are reflected in the preceding summary.
However, the Administrator welcomes
additional comments related to the
economic impact analysis. Comments
should contain specific information and
data pertinent to the issue and
suggested alternative courses of action
'that would avoid this impact.
IV-EE-3
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 231 / Friday, November 28, 1980 / Proposed Rules
Rationale
Selection of Source for Control
The "Priority List and Additions to the
List of Categories of Stationary
Sources," promulgated at 44 FR 49222 on
August 21,1979, ranked sources
according to the impact that the
standards promulgated in 1980 would
have on emissions and public health in
1990. 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 facilities
typically emit less than 100 tons of VOC
per year. However, the Priority List
states that "the metal furniture coating
industry is also a significant source of
VOC 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 the United States which paint their
products. These metal furniture
manufacturers are located 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 size
range of these establishments and the
types of metal furniture products
produced are diverse. A large metal
furniture manufacturer may have six or
more coating lines while a small
manufacturer may have only one
coating line. The total number of coating
lines in this industry is estimated to be
about 3,100. This is approximately two
coating lines for each establishment,
which is considered to be a "typical"
manufacturer. This typical manufacturer
would consume from 67,600 to 87,000
liters of coating annually, and paint
780,000 square meters of metal furniture
products. About 85 percent of the new
coating lines are expected to apply paint
by spraying methods.
The metal furniture industry emits
about 95.5 gigagrams (1975 data) of VOC
per year. The emissions of VOC result
from usage of solvent-borne coatings by
the industry. These paints 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. April 1978.
Moreover, the metal furniture industry
is projected to have an annual growth
rate of 4 percent. The growth rate is
expected to remain at this level through
1985. Based on this growth, the industry
will contribute increasing amounts of
VOC to urban atmospheres.
Therefore, industrial surface coating
of metal furniture was selected for
regulation. This selection is based upon
the metal furniture industry's priority
listing, the number of affected facilities.
painting method, the yearly VOC
emission rate, the growth rate of the
industry, and the location of this
industry in or near highly populated
urban areas.
Selection of Pollutants and Affected
Facilities
Metal furniture manufacturers emit
both particulate matter and VOC.
Particulate matter is presently being
controlled by the industry; however,
VOC emissions are not controlled. They
are emitted from the coating application,
touch-up, flash-off, and bake oven areas.
VOC emissions occur when the coating
is applied and while the coated metal
furniture part travels on a conveyor line
through the application area. The
coating on the metal furniture parts
traveling on a conveyor line is the
source of VOC in the flash-off and bake
oven areas. The remainder of the
operations at a metal furniture
manufacturing plant are not included in
the proposed standards because these
are not significant sources of VOC.
Touch-up operations are not included
because they consume very little paint
in comparison to the total amount of
paint used in the coating application
area. Clean-up operations would not be
regulated under the proposed standards
because VOC emissions from these
operations are very difficult to quantify
and control. Therefore, the affected
facility is the combined coating
application area, flash-off area, and
bake oven area. This combination was
selected as the affected facility because
emissions from each area and their
controls relate directly to the coating of
the product.
The last consideration made
concerning the affected facility was
whether or not to establish a lower
"cutoff level of paint consumption in
order to exempt smaller facilities from
the proposed standards. The approach
employed was to consider a cutoff level
based on the amount of paint used or
the capacity of the coating line.
However, no cutoff level was
established because of the possibility of
wide variations In the amount of paint
consumed yearly. The variability in the
amount of paint consumed is a function
of the economy. As a result, the
consumption rate of paint may vary
significantly from year to year. Several
methods of determining the rated
capacity of a coating line were
investigated, but no decision was
reached as to which would be most
equitable. The Administrator
specifically invites comments
concerning this issue. Any comments
submitted to the Administrator on this
issue, however, should contain specific
information and data pertinent to an
evaluation of the magnitude and
severity of any adverse impact and
suggest alternative courses of action to
avoid this impact.
Selection of Basis of Proposed
Standards
Three control technologies were
identified for reducing VOC emissions
from metal furniture coating lines: (1)
low-organic-solvent coatings, (2)
transfer efficiency improvements based
on coating application technique, and (3)
emission control systems. Low-organic-
solvent coatings include powder, high
solids, and waterborne coatings. All of
these coatings are presently being
applied to metal furniture parts. None of
the three types of coatings, however, are
universally applicable for all metal
furniture products because of
differences in appearance needs,
desired Rim thickness, required color
changes, and other customer demands.
Powder coatings offer the largest
emission reduction because they do not
contain organic solvents. Powder
coatings are applied by either
electrostatic spraying devices or
fluidized bed processes. Application of
powder coatings to metal furniture parts
by electrostatic spraying requires
electrically charging the powder
particles which are then attracted to the
grounded part. In contrast, in the
fluidized bed process the metal part is
preheated, then dipped into a bed of air-
fluidized particles. Both thermoset and
thermoplastic powder coatings are being
successfully applied in the metal
furniture industry. Thermoset powders
harden during heating as a result of
cross-linking or polymerizing of the resin
in the coating. Thermoplastic powders
soften with the application of heat and
resolidify during cooling. Powder
coatings are normally selected when a
thick and-durable coating is required.
However, thinner film thicknesses are
now being achieved with thermoset
powders. Powder coatings are applied
electrostatically at thicknesses from 2.54
x 10"' to 20.3 x 10~l millimeters (1.0 to
IV-EE-4
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 231 / Friday, November 28, 1980 / Proposed Rules
8.0 mils). Coating thicknesses achieved
with the fluidized bed process range
from 15.2 x 10"* to 152 x 10~* millimeters
(6.0 to 60 mils). Powd«r coatings cannot
be used, however, at facilities requiring
a large number (greater than 10) of color
changes per day.
Coatings containing from 50 to 80
percent by volume solids are being
applied to metal furniture parts instead
of conventional solvent-borne coatings
that contain 25 to 35 percent by volume
solids. These coatings reduce VOC
emissions by replacing much of the
organic solvent with solids. For a 68
percent by volume solids coating, the
VOC emission reduction achieved
relative to an uncontrolled and a CTG
coating is 73 and 30 percent,
respectively. The use of coatings
containing up to 68 percent solids is
demonstrated in this industry with all
applicable electrostatic spraying
techniques, including guns, disks, and
bells. Although coatings containing
greater than 68 percent solids are
currently being applied in the industry,
their use has not been adequately
demonstrated using a manual
electrostatic spraying device. At
present, the majority of the metal
furniture industry using high solids
coatings applies single-component heat-
converted materials. These coatings
form a film when they are cured inside
an oven. Coating thicknesses achieved
range from 2.54 x 10'2 to 3.81 x 10"2
millimeters (1.0 to 1.5 mils). Several
metal furniture facilities using high
solids coatings are complying with
existing SIP regulations based upon the
CTG-recommended coating. High solids
coatings cannot be used, however, when
a facility desires an especially thick
coating or when the method of
application is dip or flow coating.
Waterborne coatings are applied by
spray, dip, electrodeposition, or flow
techniques. All four application methods
are used in the metal furniture industry.
The majority of waterborne coatings
currently applied contain about an 82/18
water-to-organic solvent ratio, with 35
percent by volume solids present in the
paint. Waterborne coatings applied by
the electrodeposition process usually
contain less solids by volume. These
coatings are able to achieve coating
thicknesses comparable to conventional
organic solvent-baaed coatings.
Substitution of a typical waterborne
coating applied by electrostatic spraying
or dipping could be expected to reduce
VOC emmissions relative to the
uncontrolled and CTG-recommended
facilities by about 80 and 50 percent,
respectively. A waterborne coating
applied by electrodeposition reduces
VOC emissions for the uncontrolled and
CTG-recommended facilities by about
95 and 85 percent, respectively. As with
powder and high solid* coatings,
waterbome coatings cannot be used in
all cases because of the limited Him
thicknesses achievable and the
problems associated with
electrostatically spraying such a highly
conductive material.
The second control technology is
improvement of transfer efficiency.
based upon the method employed to
apply the coating. Transfer efficiency
defines the effectiveness at which solids
are applied to the metal furniture part.
The lower the transfer efficiency, the
higher the VOC emission rates because
more coating must be used to achieve
the same thickness. The lowest transfer
efficiencies reported range from 25 to 50
percent; these are for air and airless
spraying equipment. Higher transfer
efficiencies (60 to 95 percent) for
spraying equipment are obtained with
the electrostatic type equipment. The
transfer efficiency of 60 percent
represents the lower end of a range of
efficiencies reported by paint suppliers
and application equipment vendors.
Therefore, 60-percent transfer efficiency
was selected as the basis for the
proposed standards. Although the
highest transfer efficiencies are
achieved with dip, electrodeposition,
and flow coating techniques, about 85
percent of this industry uses traditional
spraying techniques.
The only emission control system
known to be in use in this industry is an
incinerator, located at one plant. This
incinerator is used to control VOC
emissions from a bake oven.
Incineration of VOC emissions is about
96 percent efficient. This efficiency was
determined from stack test data
obtained by EPA during the
development of the proposed standard
for automobile and light-duty truck
surface coating operations.
Specific control options selected from
the available control technologies
include 65 and 70 percent by volume
solids coatings, waterborne coatings,
powder coatings, and a CTG-complying
coating plus incineration. Based upon a
comparison with CTG level of control
(i.e., 60 percent by volume solids
coating), four regulatory alternatives
were established. These regulatory
alternatives (labeled I, II, til. and IV)
require, respectively, no additional
control above the CTG (no NSPS), 30
percent above the CTG, 50 percent
above the CTG, and 85 percent above
the CTG.
All of the control option may be
employed to achieve Regulatory
Alternatives I and II. Regulatory
Alternative III requires the use of
waterborne coatings or a control options
that provides equal or higher emission
reduction.
Regulatory Alternative IV is based
upon the highest emission reduction that
may be achieved above the CTG-
recommended level of control for a
spray and dip coating line. The highest
emission reduction for the spray coating
line is about 99 percent (powder
coatings), and the highest for a dip
coating line is about 85 percent
(waterborne applied by
electrodeposition). As a result, VOC
emission reduction above CTG-
recommended requirements for
Regulatory Alternative IV was
established at 85 percent so that both
powder and waterborne
(electrodeposition) may be employed to
achieve the designated emission
reduction.
Environmental impacts were also
evaluated for the four regulatory
alternatives. None of the alternatives
resulted in increased solid waste
generation or decreased water quality.
Also, when compared to uncontrolled
facilities, there are energy savings
possible with each regulatory
alternative. The energy impact for a
facility complying with the CTG-
recommended level is about the same as
that for each regulatory alternative.
For all regulatory alternatives the
estimated total capaital costs are about
the same. However, total annualized
costs for the first 5 years of the proposed
standards would vary depending on
which control option is utilized to
achieve the control level specified by
each regulatory alternative. If coatings
containing 60 to 70 percent by volume
solids are employed to comply with
Regulatory Alternatives I and II, there is
a potential for annualized savings.
Regulatory Alternative III results in the
highest annualized costs if waterborne
coatings are employed to achieve the
required regulatory alternative.
The proposed standards are based on
Regulatory Alternative II. This selection
was based on the decision that all
estimated impacts associated with
Regulatory Alternative II were
considered to be reasonable. This
alternative also provides all facilities
with at least one control option that
could be used to comply with the
proposed standards. Basing the
proposed standards on an alternative
that would require the use of
waterborne or powder coatings would
preclude the use of high solids coatings.
This approach would prevent some
facilities from complying with the
proposed standards because of their
inability to use powder or waterborne
IV-EE-5
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 231 / Friday, November 28, 1980 / Proposed Rules
coatings. Basing the proposed standards
on the use of incineration was rejected
because of the cost and energy impacts
associated with this option. There is
also a potential for an annualized cost
saving with Regulatory Alternative II.
Selection of Format of Proposed
Standards
A number of difference formats for the
proposed standards are available. The
format ultimately selected must be
compatible with any of the cor.trol
options that could be used to comply
ivith the proposed standards. The
formats considered were emission limits
expressed in terms of: (1) the
concentration of VOC emissions in the
exhaust gases discharged to the
atmosphere; (2) overall control
efficiency; [3) mass of VOC emissions
per unit of production; (4) mass of VOC
emissions per volume of coating (less
water); and (5) mass of VOC emissions
per volume of coating solids applied.
The major advantage of a
concentration format is simplicity of
enforcement. Compliance could be
directly measured using Reference
Method 25. There are, however, two
significant drawbacks to the use of this
format. Regardless of the control
approach chosen, emission testing
u-culd be required for each stack
exhausting gases from the surface
coating operations. Another potential
problem with this format is the difficulty
of determining whether dilution air is
intentionally added to reduce the
concentration of VOC in the gases
discharged to the atmophere, or whether
the air is added to the application or
drying operations to optimize
performance and maintain a safe
working space. The concentration
format therefore, is unacceptable.
A control efficiency format would
require coating facilities to reduce
emissions by a specified percentage.
This has the advantage of allowing each
facility to use whatever method is
preferred to reduce the emissions. The
disadvantage is that a baseline emission
rate must be established for each facility
to determine how much the emissions
must be reduced to comply with the
proposed standards. This baseline is
(ikely to vary from plant to plant. In
addition, this type of format would
require well operated facilities to reduce
emissions by the same percentage as
poorly operated facilities. This could
place the well-operated coating facilities
at an economic disadvantage relative to
their competitors. For these reasons, this
format was not selected.
A format of mass of VOC emissions
per unit of production would relate
emissions to individual plant production
on a direct basis. Where .high solids or
conventionally applied waterborne
coatings are employed, the average
VOC content of the coating materials
could be determined by using Reference
Method 24 or coating supplier's
formulation. The volume of coating
materials used and the percent solids
could be determined from purchase
records. VOC emissions could then be
calculated by multiplying the VOC
content of the coating materials by the
volume of coating materials used in a
given time period, and dividing the
result by the number of furniture items
produced during that time period. This
would provide a VOC emission rate per
unit of production. Consequently,
procedures to determine compliance
would be direct and straightforward.
However, this procedure woud be very
time consuming because it would
require data collection every time the
product mix was varied or a new part
was added. In addition, this format
would not account for the difference in
surface coating requirements for various
items due to size and configuration. This
would result in a different emission
standard for every piece of metal
furniture coated. As a result,
manufacturers of larger items would be
required to reduce VOC emissions more
than manufacturers of smaller items. For
these reasons, this format was not
selected.
The fourth format, mass of VOC
emissions per volume of coating applied
(minus water), is the one employed in
the CTG document. The principal
advantage of this format is that
enforcement is relatively simple.
However, one disadvantage is that
transfer efficiency is not part of the
format and as a result, a CTG or NSPS
coating may emit more VOC than a non-
complying coating because of the
differences of obtainable transfer
efficiencies due to different painting
techniques. Also, it is difficult to
determine a numerical limit for affected
facilities using a new coating and add-
on control equipment because this
format does not consider transfer
efficiency. As a result, this format was
not selected.
The last format, which uses mass of
VOC emissions.per volume of coating
solids applied, has the advantage of not
requiring stack emission tests unless
add-on emission control devices are
used to comply with the proposed
standards. Dilution air in the exhaust
stream would not present a problem
with this format. The problem of varyng
part sizes and configurations would be
eliminated because the format is in
terms of volume of coating solids
applied, which is independent of the
surface area and number of items
coated. This format would also allow
flexibility in the selection of control
systems because it is usable with any of
the control methods. The format also
takes into consideration the transfer
efficiency of the coating technique.
Because this format overcomes the
varying dilution air and part size
problems inherent with the other
formats and considers transfer
efficiency where other formats do not, it
has been selected as the format for the
proposed standards.
Selection of Numerical Emission Limit
The numerical emission limit selected
for the proposed standards is 0.70
kilogram of VOC per liter of coating
solids applied. This numerical emission
limit is based on the selection of
Regulatory Alternative II as the basis of
the proposed standards. Regulatory
Alternative II was previously defined as
an additional 30 percent reduction in
VOC emissions beyond that
recommended in the CTG document.
Establishing the numerical emission
limit based upon Regulatory Alternative
II permits each metal furniture
manufacturer to select one of the
available control options to achieve
compliance. The numerical emission
limit of the proposed standard could be .
calculated from the following
conditions:
I. The use of a coating material
containing 68 percent by volume solids.
2. The coating is applied at a transfer
efficiency of 60 percent.
3. The solvents in the coating material
have a density of 0.88 kilogram per liter.
These conditions are based on data
provided by the metal furniture industry.
and coating and application equipment
vendors. Each of the conditions
represents currently available
technology which has been used
successfully in the metal furniture
industry.
For a coating system meeting the
conditions stated above, the emission
rate is calculated to be 0.70 kilogram of
VOC per liter of coating solids applied.
Due to the numerous emission reduction
techniques available and the flexibility
allowed by the format of the proposed
standards, a variety of technologies may
be used to meet the emission limit. The
proposed standards can be achieved as
a minimum by using any of the low-
organic-solvent coatings, if applied
electrostatically. Low-organic-solvent
coatings applied by dip, flow, or
electrodeposition techniques will also
achieve the proposed numerical limit
because of the high transfer efficiency of
these methods. Powder coatings applied
IV-EE-6
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 231 / Friday. November 28. 1980 / Proposed Rules
by electrostatic spray or fluidized bed
meet the proposed numerical limit. As a
result, all of the control options can
meet the proposed numerical limit.
Modification and Reconstruction
Considerations
New source performance standards
apply to modified and reconstructed, as
well as to new facilities. Upon
modification or reconstruction, an
existing facility becomes an affected
facility. The criteria for making
modification and reconstruction
determinations are presented in § 60.14
and i 60.15, respectively, of the general
provisions of 40 CFR Part 60, and are
applicable to all standards of
performance promulgated under Section
111 of the Clean Air Act.
If the proposed standards go into
effect, during the first 5 years there are
expected to be about 2,000 affected
facilities. Of these 2,000 affected
facilities, approximately 60 percent are
expected to be modified or
reconstructed facilities, which would be
required to comply with the proposed
standards.
The metal furniture industry has
expressed concern that expenditures
made to comply with SIP requirements
might bring the facility under the
proposed standards as a reconstruction.
The industry believes that it is unfair for
compliance with one regulation to
trigger coverage by a more stringent
regulation. Comments are requested on
the legality and economic consequences
of an exemption from the reconstruction
provisions under these circumstances.
Any comments submitted to the
Administrator, however, should contain
specific information and data pertinent
to an evaluation of the magnitude and
severity of any adverse impact and
suggested alternative courses of action
that would avoid this impact.
Method of Determining Compliance
The procedure for determining
monthly compliance with the proposed
standards could vary depending on
which control option is selected by the
facility. The compliance determination
procedure for all facilities begins as
follows:
1. Calculate the mass of VOC, as
applied, of all coating materials used
during the calendar month for which the
determination is being made. The data
necessary to calculate the mass of VOC
may be obtained from the coating
formulator or through a coating analysis
using Reference Method 24. When
coating formulation data are used, the
owner or operator must also include all
dilution solvents added to the coating at
the facility.
2. VOC emissions are then calculated
by dividing the mass of VOC (step 1) by
the multiplication product of the coating
solids by volume applied and the
appropriate transfer efficiency
expressed as a decimal.
If the VOC emissions calculated in
step 2 are greater than the proposed
numerical emission limit, the facility is
in violation of the proposed standards
for the month and additional control is
necessary. In situations where a lower
solvent content coating or an increased
transfer efficiency is used to bring the
facility into compliance, the preceding
steps are repeated in subsequent
performance tests using the new set of
conditions. However, if the facility
chooses to achieve compliance by
adding a control device, the following
additional steps must be followed:
1. The initial compliance
determination requires the use of
Reference Method 25 to determine the .
VOC concentration in the effluent gas
stream before and after the control
device. Calculate the control efficiency
of the device by using the test results.
2. Determine the percentage of the
total VOC emissions from the facility
which enter the emission control device.
3. Calculate the overall VOC emission
reduction efficiency- achieved by
multiplying the percentage of VOC
emissions which enter the control device
(step 2) by the efficiency of the control
device.
Detailed procedures, as well as the
equations to be used for these
calculations, are containd in the
proposed standards. These procedures
would require determining the VOC
emissions from the coating materials
used in each surface coating operation.
This could be accomplished by periodic
analysis of paint samples collected at
the application area; however, such an
analysis is expensive and time
consuming. Paint companies routinely
perform analyses of the solids and
solvent content of the coatings they sell,
This represents an inexpensive method
of determining the VOC emissions from
the coating. Therefore, a record of the
coating supplier's coating formulation or
analysis of the solvent and solids
content of all coating materials
purchased for each coating line within a
plant would be required to be
maintained. The Administrator would
reserve the right to require Reference
Method 24 testing to assure that
compliance with the proposed standards
is being achieved. This in itself,
however, would not provide sufficient
information to determine compliance
because solvent paint dilutions may
occur prior to paint application. In order
to account for this, a record would also
be required of all organic solvent which
is purchased and used for the purpose of
coating dilution by each coating line
within the plant. This information would
allow calculation of the total mass of
VOC in all coatings consumed after
viscosity control, thereby permitting
determination of whether the applied
coating formulation conforms to the
requirements of the proposed standards.
Selection of Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring requirements are normally
included in standards of performance to
ensure that emission control
requirements are met and that control
devices are properly operated and
maintained.
The owner or operator would be
required to calculate and record the
VOC emissions per volume of applied
solids from each affected facility for
each calendar month. Each monthly
calculation would be considered a
performance test. Where incineration is
used to comply with the proposed
standards, a monitoring device would be
required to continuously record the
combustion temperature of the control
device. Following the performance test.
the combustion temperature would be
monitored and any period of more than
3 hours during which the temperature
drops more than 50°C below the
compliance test level would be reported
quarterly.
Selection of Performance Test Methods
Performance tests would be required
for add-on control devices to determine
compliance with the proposed
standards. Reference Method 25,
"Determination of Total Caseous Non-
Methane Organic Emissions as Carbon,"
would be used to measure VOC
concentration before and after the add-
on control device. The estimated cost for
conducting a test with this method
before and after the control device is
about $4,000.
The solids and organic solvent
content of coatings would be determined
based upon the paint supplier's coating
formulation. However, Reference
Method 24, "Determination of Volatile
Organic Matter, Water Content, Density,
Volume Solids, and Weight Solids of
Surface Coatings," would be used to
verify the paint supplier's data. This
method combines several ASTM
procedures which are published
industry techniques.
Measurement of transfer efficiency
would not be required for the proposed
standards. Instead, transfer efficiency
numbers are provided for each coating
application technique. These numbers
are based upon data collected from
metal furniture manufacturers, paint
IV-EE-7
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 231 / Friday, November 28, 1960 / Proposed Rules
manufacturers, and paint application
equipment manufacturers. However, if a
manufacturer can justify to the
Administrator's satisfaction that other
values for transfer efficiencies are
appropriate, the Administrator will
approve their use on a case-by-case
basis. In making this determination the
Administrator will consider: (1) the
surface area of all parts painted on the
new coating line, (2) the number of parts
painted. (3) the coating consumed and
the procedures used to measure
consumption, (4) the thickness of
applied coating, and (5) the method of
calculating transfer efficiency.
Impact of Reporting Requirements
During 1960 to 1985, there are
expected to be about 2,000 affected
facilities. The time required for
compiling the initial compliance report
for a typical spray painting plant (two
coating lines) would be about 23 person-
hours. The total time required by the
industry for all of the affected facilities
would be about 46,700 person-hours by
1985.
An additional report would be
requ'red for affected facilities that
ins tail a new add-on control device. For
a typical plant the time required for
performing the initial compliance test. .
compiling data and reviewing the test
report would be about 400 person-hours.
After the initial compliance test, the
incinerator combustion temperature
would be reported quarterly.
The Administrator specifically invites
comments concerning the reporting
requirements of the proposed standards.
These requirements can be found in
§ 80.314 and § 60.315 of the proposed
standards. Any comments submitted to
the Administrator should contain
specific information and data pertinent
to an evaluation of the magnitude and
severity of any adverse impact and
should suggest alternative courses of
action to avoid this impact.
Recommended alternative reporting
requirements should contain complete
instructions and should state all the
reasons why the recommended
requirements would be considered an
improvement.
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 this preamble. Oral
presentations will be limited to 15
minute 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 to the Central Docket Section
address given in the ADDRESSES
section of this 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
complete file of all the information
submitted to or otherwise considered in
the development of this proposed
rule making. 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 (2) to serve as
the record in case of judicial review.
Miscellaneous
As prescribed by Section 111,
establishment of standards of
performance for surface coating of metal
furniture was preceded by the
Administrator's determination (40 CFR
60.16, 44 FR 49222, dated August 21,
1979), that these sources contribute
signficantly to air pollution which may
reasonably 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
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.
It should be noted that 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
nonair quality health and environmental
impact and energy requirements) the
Administrator determines has been
adequately demonstrated [Section lll(a)(l)|.
Although there may be an emission
control technology available that can
reduce emissions below those levels
required to comply with standards of
performance, this technology might not
be selected as the basis of standards of
performance due to costs associated
wuli its use. Accordingly, standards of
p< •>Vjrmance should not be viewed as
thi ultimate in achievable emission
control. In fact, the Act requires (or has
the potential for requiring) the
imposition of a more stringent emission
standard in several situations.
For example, applicable costs do not
necessarily play as prominent a role in
determining the "lowest achievable
emission rate" (LAER) for new or
modified source locating in
nonattainment 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 new or modified sources
constructed in an'area where ambient
pollutant concentrations exceed
NAAQS must reduce emissions to the
level that reflects LAER, as defined in
Section 171(3) for such category of
source. The statute defines LAER as that
rate of emissions based on the
following, whichever is more stringent:
(A) the most stringent emission
limitation which is contained in the
implementation plan of any State for
such class or category of source, unless
the owner or operator of the proposed
source demonstrates that such
limitations are not achievable, or
(B) the most stringent emission
limitation which is achieved in practice
by such class or category of source.
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 BACT 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, 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.
Finally, 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
IV-EE-8
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 231 / Friday. November 28. 1980 / Proposed Rules
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, and
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 lll(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 ensure that the proposed standards
would represent the best system of
emission reduction considering costs.
The economic impact assessment is
included in the Background Information
Document. •
Dated: November 21.1980.
Douglas M. Costle
Administrator.
It is proposed that 40 CFR Part 60 be
amended by adding a new Subpart EE
as follows:
Subpart EE—Standard* of Performance for
Surface Coating of Metal Furniture
Sec.
60.310 Applicability and designation of
affected facility.
60.311 Definitions and symbols.
60.312 Standards for volatile organic
compounds.
60.313 Performance tests and compliance
provisions.
60.314 Monitoring of emissions and
operations.
60.315 Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
60.316 Test methods and procedures.
Authority: Sees. 111. 114. and 301 (a) of the
Clean Air Act. as amended, (42 U.S.C. 7411,
7414, 7601 (a)), and additional authority as
noted below.
Subpart EE—Standards of
Performance for Surface Coating of
Metal Furniture
§ 60.310 Applicability and designation of
affected facility.
(a) The affected facility to which the
provisions of this subpart apply is the
volatile organic compound (VOC)
emitting portion of each metal furniture
surface coating line which is defined as
the paint application area, the flash-off
area, and the bake oven area.
(b) This subpart applies to any-
affected facility on which construction,
modification, or reconstruction is
commenced after November 28,1980.
8 60.311 Definitions and symbols.
(a) All terms used in this subpart not
defined below are given 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 a method of
applying coatings in which the part 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 line 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 coatings from
many different angles onto the surface
of the part.
"Spray application" means a method
of applying coatings by atomizing and
directing the atomized spray toward the
part to be coated.
"Transfer efficiency" means the ratio
of the amount of coating solids
transferred onto the surface of a part or
product to the total amount of coating
solids used,
"VOC content" means all volatile
organic compounds (VOC) that are in
coatings and evaporate during the
application, drying, or curing process.
VOC are expressed in terms of
kilograms of VOC per liter of coating
solids applied.
(b) All symbols used in this subpart .
not defined below are given meaning in
the Act and in Subpart A of this part.
C.j = concentration in gas stream in the
"jth" vent after control device (parts
per million as carbon)
Cw = concentration in gas stream in the
"ith" vent before control device
(parts per million as carbon)
Ck = concentration in gas stream in the
"kth" uncontrolled vent (parts per
. million as carbon)
Dci = density of the "ith" coating
(kilogram per liter)
D,
E
F
G
i =
j =
k —
L,
L,
Mr
L,u
L,
L=
Md
M
Mr
m =
N =
Qbi
QK
R =
= density of the "jth" diluent VOC-
solvent (kilogram per liter)
= density of VOC-solvent recovered
by emission control device
(kilogram per liter)
emission control device efficiency
(inlet versus outlet, fraction)
capture efficiency (captured versus
potential, fraction)
weighted average mass of VOC per
volume of coating solids applied
(kilograms of VOC per liter of
coating solids applied)
indexing subscript designating the
"ith" coating or "ith" vent before
control device, ranges from 1 to n
indexing subscript designating the
"jth" diluent VOC-solvent or the
"jth" vent after control device.
ranges from 1 to m
indexing subscript designating the
"kth" uncontrolled vent, ranges
from 1 to n
= volume of "ith" coating, as
received (liters)
= volume of "jth" diluent VOC-
solvent added to coating (liters)
= volume of VOC-solvent recovered
by emission control device (liters)
= volume of coating solids (liters)
= mass of VOC-solvent added to
coating for dilution purposes
(kilograms)
= mass of VOC-solvent in coaling.
as received (kilograms)
= mass of VOC-solvent recovered
by emission control device
(kilogramsJIieLd^: volume of "jth"
coating, as received (liters)
=volume of "jth" diluent VOC-
solvent added to coating (liters)
volume of VOC-colvent recovered
by emission control device (liters)
volume of coating solids (liters)
=mass of VOC-solvent added lo
coating for dilution purposes
(kilograms)
=mass of VOC-solvent in coating, as
received (kilgrams)
=mass of VOC-solvent recovered by
emission control device (kilograms)
a known variable quantity of
different diluent VOC-solvenls or
controlled vents
VOC emissions (kilograms of VOC
per liter of coating solids applied)
a known variable quantity of
coatings or vents
= volumetric flow rate in the "jth"
vent after control device (dry-
standard cubic meters per second)
= volumetric flow rate in the "ith"
vent before control device (dry
standard cubic meters per second)
= volumetric flow rate in the "kth"
uncontrolled vent (dry standard
cubic meters per second)
overall VOC emission reduction
efficiency (fraction)
IV-EE-9
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 231 / Friday, November 28, 1980 / Proposed Rules
"['--transfer efficiency for each surface
coating application method
(fraction)
VM = volume fraction of solids in the
"ith" coating, as received (fraction)
W01 = weight fraction of VOC-solvent in
the "ith" coating, as received
(fraction)
z = indexing subscript designating the
"zth" control device
§ 60.312 Standards for volatile organic
compounds (VOC).
(a) On and after the date on which the
initial performance test required to be
conducted by § 60.8(a) is completed, no
owner or operator subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall cause
the discharge into the atmosphere of
VOC emissions from any metal furniture
coating line in excess of 0.70 kilogram of
VOC per liter of coating solids applied.
§60.313 Performance tests and
compliance provisions.
(a) Sections 60.8(d) and (f) do not
apply to the performance test
procedures required by this subpart.
(b) Each owner or operator of an
affected facility shall conduct a
performance test for each calendar
month for each affected facility
according to the procedures in this
section, except as specified in § 60.315.
(1) Each owner or operator shall
compute the weighted average mass of
VOC per volume of coating solids
applied for each month except as
specified in § 60.313(c) and (d). Each
monthly calculation is considered a
performance test for the purposes of this
subpart. Each owner or operator shall
determine the composition of the
coatings or by formulation data
suppplied by the manufacturer of the
coating or by analysis of each coating
by Reference Method 24. The
Administrator may require an owner or
operator who uses manufacturer's
formulation data to determine the VOC
content of the coatings by Reference
Method 24 or an equivalent or
alternative method acceptable to the
Administrator. Each owner or operator
shall determine the coating and dilution
solvent usage from company records.
Each owner or operator shall obtain the
density of each dilution solvent from the
supplier of the dilution solvents. The
weighted average mass of VOC per
volume of coating solids applied for
each month will be determined by the
following procedures.
(2) Compute the mass of VOC from all
coating materials, as applied, in any
surface coating operation by the
equation:
Md=;
:1 °ci Woi + * Ldj °c
(3) Compute the total volume of
coating solids used during each month
by the equation:
Application method
Transfer
efficien-
cy ("0
n
-s = I L
' ^—1
•ci Vsi
(4) Compute the weighted average
mass of VOC per volume of coating
solids applied by the equation:
Air atomized spray „ .
Airless spray _
Manual electrostatic spray -
Nonrotaional automatic electrostatic spray
Rotating head electrostatic spray (manual and
automatic)
Dip coat
Flow coat
Electrodeposibon _
Powder application _ _
025
0.25
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
090
0.95
0.95
G =
Ls^
Values for transfer efficiency
(fraction) are to be selected from the
following table:
If the owner or operator can justify to
the Administrator's satisfaction that
other values for transfer efficiencies are
appropriate, the Administrator will
approve their use on a case-by-case
basis. Where more than one application
method is used on an individual surface
coating operation, the owner or operator
shall perform an analysis to determine
the relative volume of coating solids
materials applied by each method. The
owner or operator shall use these
relative volumes of solids to compute a
weighted average transfer efficiency for
the operation. The Administrator will
review and approve this analysis on a
case-by-case basis.
(5) For affected facilities with no add-
on control devices, N = G
Where N is less than or equal to 0.70
kilogram of VOC per liter of coating
solids applied, compliance with § 60.312
is demonstrated and no further
calculations are required.
(6) For affected facilities where N is
greater than 0.70 kilogram of VOC per
liter of coating solids applied, the
facility is not in compliance with
§ 60.312. Compliance with § 60.312 may
be achieved by a change to a lower-
organic-solvent content type of coating
material, through an increase in transfer
efficiency or through the addition of an
add-on control device.
(i) If an affected facility selects a
change of coating materials, compliance
must be demonstrated by performing the
calculations described in § 60.313(b)(l),
(2). (3), (4), and (5).
(ii) If compliance is to be
demonstrated through an increase in
transfer efficiency, the calculations
described in § 60.313(b)(4) and (5) must
be performed.
(iii) Where add-on emission control
equipment is used, the control efficiency
must be calculated as described in
§ 60.313(c) or (d):
(c) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart, who uses
an incinerator, shall determine
compliance by the following procedures.
(1) The owner or operator shall use
Reference Method 25 to determine the
VOC concentration in the effluent gas
before and after the emission control
device for each stack that is equipped
with an emission control device. The
owner or operator shall use Reference
Method 2 to determine the volumetric
flow rate of the effluent gas beforr and
after the emission control device on
each stack.
(2) The owner or operator shall
determine the fraction efficiency of each
emission control device by the following
equation:
Ez =
.
11— A
IV-EE-10
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 231 / Friday. November 28, 1980 / Proposed Rules
(3) The owner or operator shall
determine capture efficiency of the
incinerator by calculating the fraction of
total VOC discharged from the surface
coating line which enters each emission
control device on that operation by the
following equation:
F2 =
T.1
(4) The owner or operator shall
determine the overall emission
reduction efficiency of incineration
systems by the following equation:
R =
n
IE
2=1
(5) The owner or operator shall
determine the mass of VOC per volume
of coating solids applied emitted after
the control device(s) on the applicable
surface coating line using the following
equation:
N = G(l-R)
(6) For affected facilities where N is
less than or equal to C 70 kilogram of
VOC per liter of coating solids applied,
compliance with § 60.312 is
demonstrated and no further
calculations are required.
(7) For affected facilities where N is
greater than 0.70 kilogram of VOC per
liter of coating solids applied, the
facility is not in compliance with
§ 60.312 for the month and additional
control is required to bring the facility
into compliance for future operation.
(d) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart, who uses
an emission control system that
recovers the VOC in order to comply
with § 60.312, shall determine
compliance for each calendar month by
the following procedures:
(1) Calculate the weighted average
mass of VOC per volume of coating
solids applied emitted after the control
device(s) on the applicable surface
coating Ijne using the following
procedure:
(i) Calculate the total mass of VOC
recovered in the calendar month
(kilograms) by the equation:
Mr = L, Dr
(ii) Calculate the overall emission
reduction efficiency of the solvent
recovery system by the equation:
R =
+ M.
(iii) Calculate mass of VO' nitted
by the equation:
N = C(l-R)
(2) For affected facilities where N is
less than or equal to 0.70 kilogram of
VOC per liter of coating solids applied,
the facility has demonstrated
compliance with § 60.312 and no further
calculations are required.
(3) For affected facilities where N is
greater than 0.70 kilogram of VOC per
liter of coating solids applied, the
facility is not in compliance with
§ 60.312 for the month and additional
control is required to bring the facility
into compliance for future operation.
§ 60.314 Monitoring of emissions and
operations.
(a) The owner or operator of an
affected facility which uses an
incinerator to comply with the emission
limits specified under § 60.312 shall
install, calibrate, maintain, and operate
temperature measurement devices
acording to the following procedures:
(1) A temperature measurement
device shall be installed in the firebox of
each incinerator.
(2) Each temperature measurement
device shall be installed, calibrated, and
maintained according to accepted
practice and the manufacturer's
specifications. Each device shall have
an accuracy of the greater of ± 0.75% of
the temperature being measured
expressed in degrees Celsius or ± 2.5"C.
(3) Each temperature measurement
device shall be installed in a location
that is representative of the temperature
in the firebox of each incinerator.
(4) Each temperature measurement
device shall be equipped with a
recording device so that a permanent
continuous record is produced.
(b) For the purposes of reports
required under § 60.315, periods of
excess emissions for incinerators are
defined as any period of 3 hours or
longer during which the average
incinerator temperature, when the
coating line is in operation, is more than
28" C (50° F) less than the average
incinerator temperature during the most
recent performance test at which the
emission control device efficiency was
determined as specified under
§ 60.313(c).
§ 60.315 Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
(a) Each owner or operator of an
affected facility shall include the
following data in the initial performance
test report required under § 60.8:
(1) Where compliance is achieved
without the use of add-on control
devices, the owner or operator shall
report for each affected facility the
weighted average mass of VOC per
volume of coating solids applied during
the calendar month.
(2) Where compliance is achieved
through the use of incineration, the
owner or operator shall include the
following data in the initial performance
test required under § 60.8(a) or
subsequent performance tests during
which Reference Method 25 is utilized.
(i) The combustion temperature,
(ii) The weighted average mass of
VOC per volume of coating solids
applied before and after the incinerator,
(iii) Capture efficiency,
(iv) The emission control device
efficiency used to attain compliance
with the applicable emission limit
specified under § 60.312.
(b) Following the initial performance
test report, each owner or operator of an
affected facility shall record the
weighted average mass of VOC per
volume of coating solids applied for
each affected facility during each
calendar month and shall report within
10 calendar days each instance in which
the weighted average is greater than the
limit specified in § 60.312. Each monthly
determination shall be considered a
performance test.
(c) Where compliance with § 60.312 is
achieved through the use of incineration.
IV-EE-11
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 231 / Friday, November 28. 1980 / Proposed Rules
the owner or operator shall continuously
record the incinerator combustion
temperature and report on a quarterly
basis any periods of excess emissions
which occurred during each month or
submit a report indicating that no
periods of excess emissions occurred.
(d) Where compliance with § 60.312 is
achieved through the use of a solvent
recovery system, the owner or operator
shall record and maintain daily records
of the amount of solvent recovered by
the system for each affected facility.
(e) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall
maintain at the source* for a period of at
least 2 years, all records, data, and
calculations which were used to
determine the VOC content of coatings
and the weighted average mass of VOC
per volume of coating solids applied for
each affected facility.
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act. as amended
(42 U.S.C. 7414))
§ 60.316 Test methods and procedures.
(a) The reference methods in
Appendix A to this part except as
provided under § 60.8(b) shall be used to
determine compliance with § 60.312 as
follows:
(1) Method 24, or coating
manufacturer's formulation date, for use
in the determination of VOC content of
each bate!, of coating as applied to the
surface of the metal parts.
(2) Method 25 for the measurement of
VOC concentration in the effluent gas
entering and leaving the control device
for each stack equipped with an
emission control device.
(3) Method 1 for sample and velocity
traverses.
(4) Method 2 for velocity and
volumetric flow rate.
.[') Method 3 for gas analysis.
(6) Method 4 for stack gas moisture.
(b) For Method 24, the coating sample
must be at least a 1 liter sample taken at
a point where the sample will he
representative of the coating material as
applied to the surface of the metal part.
(c) For Method 25, the minimum
sampling time for each run is 60 minutes
and the minimum sample volume is
0.003 dry standard cubic meters excnpt
that shorter sampling times or smaller
volumes, when necessitated by process
variables or other factors, may be
approved by the Administrator.
(Soc. 114 of the Clean Air Act. as amended
[-12 U.S.C. 7414))
^R IJur.. HD-.'CDIi- r'lcd 11-26-W). H.45 *m!
BILLING CODE 6560-26- U
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 26 /
Monday, February 9, 1981 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
•'&i,
1AD-FIII.-1749-5)
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources; Surface Coating of
Metal Furniture; Extension of
Comment Period „
AOENCY: Environmental Protection
AgencyfEPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of
comment period.
SUMMARY: This action provides for a 30-
dayfextension of the comment period for
••ftjMoposed standards of performance
for-surface coating of metal furniture.
These standards were proposed in the
Federal Register on November 28,1980
(45FR.79390). This action responds to a
request from the Health Industry
Manufacturers Association for an
sxtension of the comment period. This
extension will allow additional time for
IheTndustry to further evaluate the
proposed standards and submit
•dditional information and data.
DATES: Comments must be postmarked
no later than March 10,1981. Also.
written comments responding to.
supplementing, or rebutting written or
oral comments received at the public
hearing on January 9,1981. must be
postmarked no later than March 10.
1981.
ADDRESS: Comments should be
submitted (in duplicate if possible) to:
Central Docket Section (A-130)..
Attention: Docket Number A-79-47, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460
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 number (919)
541-5421.
Dated: February 4.1981.
Paul Stolpman.
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air. Noise.
and Radiation.
|FR Doc. «1-»S36 Filed 2-&-B1: *45 «m|
IV-EE-12
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR
NEW STATIONARY
SOURCES
STATIONARY INTERNAL
COMBUSTION ENGINES
SUBPART FF
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 142 / Monday. July 23,1979 / Proposed Rules
[FRL 1099-5)
[40 CFR Part 60]
Stationary Internal Combustion
Engines; Standards of Performance
for New Stationary Sources
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The proposed standards,
which would apply to facilities that
commence construction 30 months after
today's date, would limit emissions of
nitrogen oxides (NO.) from new,
modified, and reconstructed stationary
gas, diesel, and dual-fuel internal
combustion (1C) engines to 700 parts per
million (ppm), 600 ppm, 600 ppm,
respectively at 15 percent oxygen (Oi)
on a dry basis. A revision to Reference
Method 20 for determining the
concentration of nitrogen oxides and
oxygen in the exhaust gases from large
stationary 1C engines is also proposed.
The standards implement the Clean
Air Act and are based on the
Administrator's determination that
stationary 1C engines contribute
significantly to air pollution. The intent
is to require new, modified, and
reconstructed stationary 1C engines to
use the best demonstrated system of
continuous emission reduction,
considering costs, non-air quality health,
and environmental and energy impacts.
A public hearing will be held to
provide interested persons an
opportunity for oral presentation of
data, views, or arguments concerning
the proposed standards.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be
received on or before September 21,
1979.
Public Hearing. The public hearing
will be held on August 22, 1979
beginning at 9:30 a.m. and ending at 4:30
p.m.
Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons
wishing to attend the hearing or present
oral testimony should contact EPA by
August 15,1979.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments
should be submitted to Mr. Jack R.
Farmer. Chief, Standards Development
Branch (MD-13), Emission Standards
and Engineering Division,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711.
Public Hearing. The public hearing
will be held at the Environmental
Research Center Auditorium, Room
B101, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
27711. Persons wishing to attend or
present oral testimony should notify
Mary Jane Clark, Emission Standards
and Engineering Divison (MD-13),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5271.
Standards Support Document. The
support document for the proposed
standards may be obtained from the
EPA Library {MD-35), Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone
number (919) 541-2777. Please refer to
"Standards Support and Environmental
Impact Statement: Proposed Standards
of Performance for Stationary Internal
Combustion Engines," EPA-450/3-78-
125a.
Docket. The Docket, number OAQPS-
79-5, is available for public inspection
and copying at the EPA's Central Docket
Section, Room 2903 B, Waterside Mall,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Don R. Goodwin, Director, Emission
Standards and Engineering Division
(MD-13), Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone (919) 541-
5271.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Proposed Standards
The proposed standards, which are
summarized in Table A, would apply to
all new, modified, and reconstructed
stationary internal combustion engines
as follows:
1. Diesel and dual-fuel engines greater
than 560 cubic inch displacement per
cylinder (CID/cyl).
2. Gas engines greater than 350 cubic
inch displacement per cylinder (CID/
cyl) or equal to or greater than eight
cylinders and greater than 240 cubic
inch displacement per cylinder (CID/
cyl).
3. Rotary engines greater than 1500
cubic inch displacement per rotor.
The proposed standards, .which would
go into effect 30 months after the date of
proposal (i.e., today's date), would limit
the concentration of NO, in the exhaust
gases from stationary gas, diesel and
dual-fuel 1C engines to 0.0700 percent by
volume (700 ppm), 0.600 percent by
volume (600 ppm), and 0.0600 percent by
volume 600 ppm, respectively, at 15
percent oxygen (Oi) on a dry basis.
These emission limits are adjusted
upward linearly for 1C engines with
thermal efficiencies greater than 35
percent.
Tsbte A.—Summary of Internal Combustion Engine New Source Performance Standard
Internal combustion engine size and fuel type NO, emission ft
Diesel Engines > 560 CID/cyl or > 1500 CID/rotor _
Dual-Fuel Engines > 560 CID/cyl or > 1500 CID/rotor
Gas Engines > 350 CID/cyl or =? 8 cylinders and > 240 CID/
cyl or 1500 > CID/rotor
mif (ppm)
600
600
700
Applicability date
30 months from date of
proposal (i.e.. today's date)
30 months from date of
proposal (i.e.. today's dale)
30 months from date of
proposal (i.e.. today's date)
"NO, emission limit ad|usted upward for internal combustion engines with thermal efficiencies greater than 35 percent
Measured NO, emissions adiusled to standard atmospheric conditions ol 101.3 Kilopascals (29.92 inches mercury). 29 4 de-
grees Centigrade (65 degrees Farhenheit). and 17 grams moisture per kilogram dry aid (75 grains moisture per pound of dry av)
in determmmg compliance with the NO. emission limit.
The proposed standards would be
referenced to standard atmospheric
conditions of 101.3 kilopascals (29.92
inches mercury), 29.4 degrees centigrade
(85 degrees Fahrenheit), and 17 grams
mositure per kilogram dry air (75 grains
moisture per pound of dry air).
Measured NO, emission levels,
therefore, would be adjusted to standard
atmospheric conditions by use of
ambient correction factors included in
the standard. Manufacturers, owners, or
operators may also elect to develop
custom ambient condition correction
factors, in terms of ambient temperature,
and/or humidity, and/or ambient
pressure. All correction factors would
have to be substantiated with data and
approved for use by EPA before they
could be used for determining
compliance with the proposed
standards.
Emergency-standby 1C engines and all
one- and two-cylinder reciprocating gas
engines would be exempt from the NO,
emission standard.
Summary of Environmental and
Economic Impacts
The proposed standards would reduce
uncontrolled NO, emissions levels from
stationary 1C engines by about 40
percent. Based on industry growth
projections, a reduction in national NO,
emissions of about 145,000 megagrams
per year (160,000 tons per year) would
IV-FF-2
-------
Federal Register / Vol. .44, No. 142 / Monday, July 23, 1979 / Proposed Rules
be reahzed in the fifth year after the
standards go into effect. Except for a
few local areas (e.g. Los Angeles), there
are currently no state standards
liminting NO, emissions from 1C
engines.
The proposed standards, however,
would increase uncontrolled CO and HC
emissions levels from stationary 1C
engines. Based on industry growth
projections, an increase in national CO
emissions of about 216,000 megagrams
(238,000' tons) annually would be
realized in the fifth year after the
standards go into effect. Similarly, an
increase in national total HC emissions
of about 4600 megagrams (5000 tons)
annually would be realized hi the fifth
year after the standards go into effect.
The large increase hi CO emissions is
due primarily to carbureted or naturally
aspirated gas engines. These engines
operate closer to stoichiometric
conditions under which a small change
in the air-to-fuel ratio results in a large
increase in CO emissions.
Though total national CO emissions
would increase significantly, ambient air
CO concentrations in trie immediate
vicinity of these carbureted or naturally
aspirated gas engines would not be
adversely affected. As a result of the
proposed standards of performance, the
CO emissions from a naturally aspirated
engine would increase about 160
percent. NO, emissions from the same
engine, however, would decrease
concurrently about 40 percent.
Thus, there exists a trade-off between
NO.-emissions reduction and CO
emissions increase, particularly for
carbureted or naturally aspirated gas
engines. It should be noted though that
CO emissions are considered to be a
local problem since CO readily reacts to
form CO*. Additionally, most naturally
aspirated gas engines are operated in
remote locations where CO is not a
problem. NO, emissions, however, are
linked to the formation of photochemical
oxidants and are subject to long range
transport. Also, NO, emission control
techniques are essentially design
modifications, not add-on equipment.
therefore. NO, emissions reductions are
much harder to achieve than CO or HC
emissions reductions which may be
achieved more easily from other
sources.
One alternative is to propose a CO
emissions limit based on the use of
oxidizing catalysts. These catalysts can
provide CO and HC emissions
reductions on the order of 90 percent.
Initial capital costs are high, however.
averaging about $7500 for a typical 1000
horsepower naturally aspirated gas
engine, or about 15 percent of the
purchase price of this engine. EPA feels
these costs for control of CO emissions
are unreasonable.
The trade-off between NO, and CO
emissions appears reasonable.
However, EPA invites comments from
state and local air pollution control
agencies, environmental groups, the
industry, and other interested
individuals concerning all aspects of the
attractiveness of these standards which
reduce NO, emissions at the expense of
CO emissions.
Industry has requested a waiver from
the national mobile source standards for
diesel engines used in light duty
vehicles. Based on their tests, industry
believes that the application of NO,
control techniques to these mobile diesel
engines causes increased particulate
(smoke) emissions. The plumes from
most well maintained large-bore
stationary 1C engines, however, are .
virtually invisible when the engine is
operating at steady state. Though
excessive retard will cause diesel,and
dual fuel units to emit smoke, the NO,
control results used in the development
of this standard were only considered if
the plume did not exceed ten percent
visibility. Therefore, EPA feels the NO,
control techniques used to meet the
proposed standards for large stationary
1C engines will not cause excessive
visible and/or particulate emissions.
However, EPA invites comments on the
aspects of the proposed standards
which reduce NO, emissions at the
expense of visible and/or particulate
emissions.
There would be essentially no adverse
water pollution, solid waste, or noise
impact resulting from the proposed
standards.
The energy impact of the proposed
standards would be small.
Turbocharged gas 1C engine fuel
consumption would be increased about
two percent. Dual-fuel 1C engine fuel
consumption would be increased about
three percent. Diesel 1C engine fuel
consumption would be increased about
seven percent. Naturally aspirated gas
1C engine fuel consumption would be
increased by about eight percent. The
fifth year energy impact of the proposed
standards would be equivalent to an
increase in fuel oil consumption of about
1.5 million barrels of oil per year (4,300
barrels of oil per day). This represents
an increase of only 0.03 percent of the
oil projected to be imported in the
United States five years after the
standards go into effect. In addition,
these estimates are based on "worse-
case" assumptions which yield the
greatest energy impacts, and actual
impacts are expected to be lower.
The economic impacts of the proposed
standards are considered reasonable.
The proposed standards would increase
1C engine manufacturers' total capital
investment requirements for
developmental testing of engine models
by about $5 million. These expenditures
would be made over a two year period.
Analysis of financial reports and other
public financial information indicates
that the manufacturers' overhead
budgets are sufficient to support these
requirements without adverse impact on
their financial positions. The proposed
standards would not give rise to a
significant sales advantage for one or
two manufacturers over competing
manufacturers. The maximum intra-
industry sales losses, based on "worst-
case" assumptions, would be about six
percent.
The proposed standards would
increase the total annualized costs to
users of a large stationary 1C engines of
all fuel types by about two to seven
percent. The capital cost or purchase
price of a large stationary 1C engine
would increase by about two percent.
The proposed standards would
increase the total annualized costs for
all engine users by about $32 million in
the Fifth year after standards go into
effect. The total capital investment
requirements for all users would equal
about 9.6 million on a cumulative basis
over the first five years the standards
are in effect.
These impacts would result in price
increases for the end products or
services provided by the industrial and
commercial users of large stationary 1C
engines. The electric utility industry
would pass on a price increase after five
years of 0.02 percent. After five years.
delivered natural gas prices would
increase 0.04 percent. Even after a full
. phase-in period of 30 years, during
which new controlled engines would
replace all existing uncontrolled
engines, the electric utility industry
would pass on a price increase of only
0.1 percent. Delivered natural gas prices
would increase only 0.3 percent.
Rationale—Selection of Source for
Control
Stationary 1C engines are sources of
NO,, hydrocarbons (HC), particulates,
sulfur dioxide (SO,), and carbon
monoxide (CO) emissions. NO,
emissions from 1C engines, however, are
of more concern than emissions of these
other pollutants for two reasons. First,
compared to total U.S. emissions for
each pollutant, NO, is the primary
pollutant emitted by stationary engines.
Second, EPA has assigned a high
priority to development of standards of
IV-FF-3
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 142 / Monday, July 23. 1979 / Proposed Rules
performance limiting NO, emissions. A
study by Argonne National Laboratory,
"Priorities and Procedures for
Development of Standards of
Performance for New Stationary
Sources of Atmospheric Emissions"
(EPA-150/3-76-020), concluded that
national NO, emissions from stationary
sources would increase by more than 40
percent between 1975 and 1980 in the
absence of additional emission controls.
Applying best technology to all sources
would reduce this increase but would
not prevent it from occurring. This
unavoidable increase in NO, emissions
is attributable largely to the fact that
current NO, emission control techniques
are based on combustion redesign. In
addition, few NO,, emission control
techniques can achieve large (i.e., in the
range of 90 percent) reductions in NO,
emissions. Consequently, EPA has
assigned a high priority to the
development of standards of
performance for major NO,, emission
sources wherever significant reductions
in NO, can be achieved. Studies have
shown that 1C engines are significant
contributors to total U.S. NO, emissions
from stationary sources. Internal
combustion engines account for 16.4
percent of all stationary source NO,
emissions, exceeded only by utility and
packaged boilers.
Studies have investigated the effect
that standards of performance would
have on nationwide emissions of
particulates, NO,, SO,, HC, and CO
from stationary sources. The "Priority
List for New Source Performance
Standards under the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1977," which was
proposed in the August 31,1978. Federal
Register, ranked sources according to
the impact, in tons per year, that
standards promulgated in 1980 would
have on emissions in 1990. This ranking
placed spark ignition 1C engines second
and compression ignition 1C engines
third on a list of 32 stationary NO,
emission sources. Consequently,
stationary 1C engines have been
selected for development of standards of
performance.
Selection of Pollutants
Nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, and
carbon monoxide.—Stationary 1C
engines emit the following pollutants:
NO,, CO. HC, particulates, and SO,. The
primary pollutant emitted by stationary
1C engines is NO,, accounting for over
six percent (or 16 percent of all
stationary sources) of the total U.S.
inventory of NO, emissions.
Stationary 1C engines also emit
substantial quantities of CO and HC.
Numerous small (1-100 hp) spark
ignition engines, which are similar to
automotive engines, account for about
20 percent of the uncontrollad HC
emissions and about 80 percent of the
uncontrolled CO emissions. The large
annual production of these small spark
ignition engines (approximately 12.7
million), however, makes enforcement of
a new source performance standard for
this group difficult.
Large-bore engines, which account for
three-quarters of NO,, emissions from
stationary 1C engines, contribute
relatively small amounts to nationwide
HC and CO emissions, especially if one
considers that 80 percent of the HC
emissions from large-bore 1C engines are
methane. An additional factor in
considering CO and HC control is that
inherent engine characteristics result in
a trade-off between NOB control and
control of CO and HC.
As mentioned before, in some cases.
particularly naturally aspirated gas
engines, the application of NO, emission
control techniques could cause
increases in CO and HC emissions. This
increase in CO and HC emissions is
strictly a function of the engine
operating position relative to
stoichiometric conditions, not the NOB
control technique. These engines
operate closer to stoichiometric
conditions under which a small change
in the air-to-fuel ratio results in a large
increase in CO emissions. Any increase
in CO and HC emissions, however,
represents an increase in unburned fuel
and hence a loss in efficiency. Since 1C
engines manufacturers compete with
one another on the basis of engine
operating costs, which is primarily a
function of engine operating efficiency,
the marketplace will effectively ensure
that CO and HC emissions are as low as
possible following application of NO,
control techniques.
Though total national CO emissions
would increase significantly, ambient air
CO concentrations in the immediate
vicinity of these carbureted or naturally
aspirated gas engines would not be
adversely affected. As a result of the
proposed standards of performance, the
CO emissions from a natually aspirated
engine would increase about 160
percent. NO, emissions from the same
engine, however, would decrease
concurrently about 40 percent.
Thus, there exists a trade-off between
NO, emissions reduction and CO
emissions increase, particularly for
carbureted or naturally aspirated gas
engines. It should be noted though that
CO emissions are considered to be a
local problem as CO readily reacts to
form COS. Additionally, most naturally
aspirated gas engines are operated in .
remote locations where CO is not a
problem. NOB emissions, however, are
linked to the formation of photochemical
oxidants and are subject to long range
transport. NO0 emissions reductions are
also much harder to achieve than CO or
HC emissions reductions which may be
achieved more easily from other
sources.
In addition, promulgation of CO
standard of performance could, in effect,
preclude significant NOE control. NOE
emissions are primarily a function of
combustion flame temperature.
Decreasing the air-to-fuel ratio of a gas
engine lowers the flame temperature
and consequently reduces NOn
formation. As will be discussed later,
this technique is the most effective
means of reducing NOn emissions from
gas engines. CO emissions, however, are
primarily a function of oxygen
availability. Decreasing the air-to-fuel
ratio reduces oxygen availability and
consquently increases CO emissions.
Hence naturally aspirated gas engines
show a pronounced rise in CO emissions
as the air-to-fuel mixture becomes richer
(i.e., decreasing air-to-fuel ratio). Thus,
placing a limit on CO emissions from
internal combustion engines could
effectively limit the decrease in the air-
to-fuel ratio which would be applied to
reduce NOn emissions from naturally
aspirated gas engines and,
consequently, could limit the amount of
NO, emissions reduction achievable.
One alternative is to propose a CO
emissions limit based on the use* of
oxidizing catalysts. These catalysts can
provide CO and HC emissions
reductions on the order of SO percent.
Initial capital costs are high, however,
averaging about $7500 for a typical 1000
horsepower naturally aspirated gas
engine, or about 15 percent of the
purchase price of this engine. EPA feels
these costs for control of CO emissions
are unreasonable.
The trade-off between NO, and CO
emissions appears reasonable, and
consequently, only NO, emissions from
large stationary 1C engines were
selected for control by standards of
performance.
EPA, however, invites comments from
state and local air pollution control
agencies, environmental groups, the
industry, and interested individuals
concerning all aspects of the
attractiveness of these standards which
reduce NOn emissions at the expense of
CO emissions.
Particulate,—Virtually no data are
available on particulate emission rates
from stationary 1C engines. It is
believed, however, that particulate
emissions from stationary 1C engines are
TV-FF-4
-------
Federal Regagief / Vol. 44. No. 142 / Monday. July 23. 1979 / Proposed Rules
very low because the plumes from most
of these engines are not visible.
Therefore, neither particulate emissions
nor visible emissions (plume opacity)
were selected for control by standards
of performance.
Sulfur oxides.—Sulfur oxides (SO,)
emissions from an 1C engine depend on
the sulfur content of the fuel and the fuel
consumption of the engine. Scrubbing of
CC engine exhausts to control SOa
emissions does not appear to be
reasonable from an economic viewpoint.
Therefore, the only viable means of
controlling SO, emissions would be
combustion of low sulfur fuels. 1C
engines, however, currently burn low-
sulfur fuels and will likely continue to
do so because of the lower operating
and maintenance costs associated with
combustion of these fuels. Therefore,
SO, emissions were not selected for
control by standards of performance.
Selection of Affected Facilities
A relatively small number of large-
bore 1C engines account for over 75
percent of all NO, emissions from
stationary engines. The remaining
smaller bore 1C engines, which make up
the majority of all engine sales, are.
from a NO, emission standpoint, a
considerably less significant segment of
the industry. These engines have
different emission characteristics due to
their size, design, and operating
parameters. The NO, reduction
technology developed for use on the'
large-bore 1C engines may not be
directly applicable to these smaller
engines. Therefore, at this time, only
large-bore engines have been selected
for control by standards of performance.
Diesel engines.—The primary high
usage (large emissions impact) domestic
application of large-bore diesel engines
during the past five years has been for
oil and gas exploration and production.
The market for prime (continuous)
electric generation and other industrial
applications all but disappeared after
the 1973 oil embargo, but was quickly
replaced by sales of standby electric
units for building services, utilities, and
nuclear power stations. The rapid
growth in the oil and gas production
market occurred because diesel units
are being used on oil drilling rigs of
various sizes. Sales of engines to export
applications have also grown steadily
since 1972, and are now a major
segment of the entire sales market.
Medium-bore as well as large-bore
engines are sold for oil.and gas
exploration, standby service, and other
industrial applications. Applying
otandards of performance to medium-
Ibore engines serving the same
applications as large-bore designs
would increase the number of affected
facilities from about 200 to about 2,000
units per year (based on 1976 sales
information) but consequently further
reduce national NO, emissions.
Medium-bore sales accounted for
significant NO, emissions in 1976
(approximately 12,500 megagrams). It is
estimated that approximately 25
percent, or about 500 of tnese units in
high usage applications, accounted for
most of the medium/bore NO,
emissions, since most of the remainder
of these units were sold as standby
generator sets. Though the potential
achievable NOn reduction is significant,
this alternative causes the standard to
apply to lower power engine models
with fewer numbers of cylinders
competing with other unregulated
engines in different stationary markets.
Additionally, considering this large
number, and the remoteness and
mobility of petroleum applications, this
alternative would create serious
enforcement difficulties. Consequently.
a definition is required that
distinguishes large-bore engines
competing with medium-bore high
power engines used for baseload
electrical generation from large-bore
engines competing solely with other
large-bore engines.
One approach would be to define
diesel engines covered by. standards of
performance as those exceeding 560
cubic inch displacement per cylinder
(ie., CID/cyl). 1C engines below this size
are generally used for different
applications than those above it.
Considering the sizes and displacements
offered by each diesel manufacturer and
the applications served by diesel
engines, this definition was selected as
a reasonable approach for separating
large-bore engines that compete with
medium-bore engines from large-bore
engines that compete solely with each
other.
Dual-fuel engines.—The concept of
dual-fuel operation was developed to
take advantage of both compression
ignition performance and inexpensive
natural gas. These engines have been
used almost exclusively for prime
electric power generation. Shortages of
natural gas and the 1973 oil embargo
have combined to significantly reduce
the sales of these engines in recent
years. The few large-bore units that
were sold (11 in 1976) were all greater
than 350 CID/cyl.
Although a greater-than-350-CID/cyl
limit would subject nearly all new dual-
fuel sources to standards of
performance, the criterion chosen to
define affected diesel engines (i.e..
greater than 560 CID/cyl) has also been
oelected for dual-fuel engines. The
primary reason is that supplies of
natural gas are likely to become even
more scarce; thus dual-fuel engines will
likely operate as diesel engines.
Gas engines.—The primary
application of large-bore gas engines
during the past five years has been for
oil and gas production. The primary uses
are to power gas compressors for
recovery, gathering, and distribution.
About 75 to 80 percent of all gas engine
horsepower sold during the past five
years was used for these applications.
During this time, sales to pipeline
transmission applications declined.
Pipeline applications combined with
standby power, electric generation, and
other services (industrial and sewage
pumping) accounted for the remaining 20
to 25 percent of horsepower sales. The
growth of oil and gas production
applications during this period
corresponds to the increasing efforts to
find new, or to recover marginal. g;is
reserves and distribute them to the
existing pipeline transmission network.
It is estimated that the 400,000
horsepower of large-bore gas engine
capacity sold for oil and gas production
applications in 1976 emitted 35,000
megagrams of NO, emissions, or nearly
three times more NO, than was emitted
by the 200,000 horsepower of large-bore
diesel engine capacity sold for the same
application in that year. Thus, large-bore
gas engines are primary contributors of
NO, emissions from new stationary 1C
engines, and standards of performance
should be directed particularly at these
sources.
If affected engines were defined as
those greater than 350 CID/cyl, then all
competing manufacturers of large-bore
gas engines except one would be
affected by the proposed standards of
performance. This one manufacturer
produces primarily medium-bore
engines. Therefore, a 350 CID/cyl limit
would give this one manufacturer an
unfair competitive advantage over other
large-bore engine manufacturers.
Consequently, this definition should be
lowered, or another definition adopted.
to include the manufacturer in question.
Either of the following two definitions
would subject this manufacturer's gas
engine to standards of performance:
° Greater than 240 CID/cyl
° Greater than 350 CID/cyl or greater
than or equal to 8-cylinder and greater
than 240 CID/cyl
Both measures would essentially
include only this manufacturer's gas
«ngines which compete with other
manufacturer's large-bore gas engines.
The second definition has a slight
IV-FF-5
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 142 / .Monday. July 23. 1979 / Proposed Rules
advantage over the first since itiincludes
only gas engines produced by all
manufacturers'that have competitor
counterparts of about the same power.
Therefore, this second definition :of
affected gas engines was selected.
Rotary engines.—'Rotary or wankel
type engines.have only recently been
introduced as power sources in package
Stationary applications. These internal
combustion engines convert energy in
the fuel directly to rotary motion rather
than 'through reciprocating pistons and a
crankshaft. These engines consist .of a
triangular rotor rotating eccentrically
inside an epitrochoidal housing.
Until recently the largest rotary engine
in production was 90 cubic inches per
rotor. Now, however, one manufacturer
is producing a rotary engine with a
displacement of 2,500 cubic inches per
rotor. This engine is being offered as a
one rotor model rated at 550 horsepower
and a two rotor unit rated at 1,100
horsepower.
The displacement of the rotary engine
is defined as the volume contained in
the chamber, bordered by one flank of
the rotor and the housing., at the instant
the inlet port closes. These engines are
presently sold as naturally aspirated
gaseous fueled units primarily for fuel
gathering compressors and power
generation on offshore platforms.
NO, emissions from these large rotary
engines are similar to NO, emissions
from naturally aspirated four stroke,
gaseous fuel reciprocating engines.
Further sales of these engines are
estimated to be 50,000 horsepower per
year over the next five years. Since
these large rotary engines contribute to
NO, emissions, standards of
performance for new stationary 1C
engines should include these sources.
Due to design differences, rotary
engines develop more power per cubic
inch displacement than reciprocating
engines. If the lower cutoff limit for
affected rotary engines were 350 CID/
rotor—in an attempt to equate
displacement per cylinder and also use
the same limit as for gaseous fueled
engines—then rotary engines of
approximately 100 horsepower would be
regulated by standards of performance.
Thus rotary engine manufacturers would
be at a competitive disadvantage with
unregulated reciprocating engine
manufacturers in this power range. To
ensure that the standards of
performance do not alter the competitive
position of the two types of engines, the
lower size limit for affected rotary
engines should correspond to an engine
whose power output is the same as the
smallest affected reciprocating unit.
Based on this-criterion of .equivalent
horsepower, it is estimated that rotary
engines greater
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 142 / Monday, July 23, 1979 / Proposed Rules
increase is about 25 percent. Therefore,
in continuous service applications this
system is expensive compared to control
techniques such as retard or air-to-fuel
changes.
It is also important to note that the
consumption of ammonia can be
expressed as a quantity of fuel since
natural gas is generally used to produce
ammonia. Assuming a conservative NO,
emission rate of 20 g/hp-hr, and engine
heat rate of 7500 Btu/hp-hr, a heating
value of 21,600 Btu/lb for natural gas,
and a requirement for approximately 900
Ibs of gas per ton of ammonia produced,
then the ammonia necessary for the
catalytic reduction has the same effect
on the supply of natural gas as a two
percent incrsase in fuel consumption.
Additional fuel is required to operate
the plant which produces the ammonia.
Catalytic reduction, therefore, is
currently not a demonstrated NO,
emission control technique which could
be used by all 1C engines. Consequently,
although catalytic reduction of NO,
emissions could be used in a few
isolated cases to comply with standards
of performance, it could not be used as
the basis for developing standards of
performance which are applicable to all
1C engines.
The data and information presented in
the Standards Support and
Environmental Impact Statement clearly
indicate that the four demonstrated
control techniques mentioned above will
reduce NO, emissions from 1C engines.
Due to inherent differences in the
uncontrolled emission characteristics of
various engines, it is difficult to draw
conclusions from this data and
information concerning the ability of
these emission control techniques to
reduce NO, emissions from all 1C
engines to a specific level. In general,
engines with high uncontrolled NO,
emissions levels have relatively high
controlled NO, emissions levels and
engines with low uncontrolled NO,
emissions levels have relatively low
contolled NO, emissions levels. To
eliminate these inherent differences in
NO, emission characteristics among
various engines, the data were analyzed
in terms of the degree of reduction in
NO, emissions as a function of the
degree of application of each emission
control technique.
Ignition retard in excess of eight
degrees in diesel engines frequently
leads to unacceptably high exhaust
temperatures, resulting in exhaust value
and/or turbocharger turbine damage.
Similarly, changes in the air-to-fuel ratio
in excess of five percent in gas engines
frequently lead to excessive misfiring or
tonation which could lead to a serious
explosion in the exhaust manifold. Eight
degrees of ignition retard in diesel
engines and five percent change in air-
to-fuel ratios in gas engines yield about
a 40 percent reduction in NO, emissions.
Consequently, in light of these
limitations to the application of these
emission control techniques, it is
apparent that a 40 percent reduction in
NO, emissions is the most stringent
regulatory option which could be
selected as the basis for standards of
performance. An alternative of 20
percent NO, emission reduction was
also considered a viable regulatory
option which could serve as the basis
for standards of performance.
Environmental impacts.—Standards
of performance based on alternative I
(20 percent reduction) would reduce
national NO, emissions by 72,500
megagrams annually in the fifth year
after the standards went into effect. In
contrast, standards of performance
based on alternative II (40 percent
reduction) would reduce national NO,
emissions by about 145,000 megagrams
annually in the fifth, year after the
standards went into effect. Thus,
standards of performance based on
alternative II would have a much greater
impact on national NO, emissions than
standards based on alternative I.
Standards of performance based on
either alternative would, with the
exception of naturally aspirated gas
engines, result in a small increase in
carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrocarbon
emissions (HC) from most engines. A
typical diesel engine with a sales-
weighted average uncontrolled CO
emission level of approximately 2.9 g/
hp-hr would experience an increase in
CO emissions of about 0.75 gj'hp-hr to
comply with standards of performance
based on alternative I, and an increase
of about 1.5 g/hp-hr to comply with
standards of performance based on
alternative II. Total hydrocarbon
emissions would increase a sales-
weighted average uncontrolled emission
level of 0.3 g/hp-hr by about 0.06 g/hp-hr.
to comply with standards based on
alternative I, and would increase by
about 0.1 g/hp-hr to comply with
standards of performance based on
alternative II.
Similarly, a typical dual-fuel engine
with a sales-weighted average
uncontrolled CO emission level of
approximately 2.7 g/hp-hr would
experience an increase in CO emissions
of about 1.2. g/hp-hr and about 2.7 g/hp-
hr to comply with standards of
performance based on alternatives I and
II, respectively. Total HC emissions,
however, would increase by about 0.3 g/
hp-hr from a sales-weighted average
uncontrolled level of approximately 2.8
g/hp-hr to comply with standards of
performance based on alternative I. To
comply with standards of performance
based on alternative II total
hydrocarbon emissions would decrease
by 0.6 g/hp-hr.
A typical turbocharged or blower
scavenged gas engine with a sales-
weighted average uncontolled CO
emission level of approximately 7.7 g/
hp-hr would experience an increase in
CO emissions of about 1.9 g/hp-hr to
comply with standards of performance
based on alternative I and about 3.8 g/
hp-hr to comply with standards of
performance based on alternative II.
Total hydrocarbon emissions would
increase a sales-weighted average
uncontrolled level of approximately 1.9
g/hp-hr by about 0.2 g/hp-hr to comply
with standards of performance based on
alternative I. To comply with standards
of performance based on alternative II
total hydrocarbon emissions would
increase by about 0.4 g/hp-hr.
A typical naturally aspirated gas
engine with a sales-weighted average
uncontrolled CO emission level of
approximately 7.7 g/hp-hr would
experience an increase in CO emissicns
of about 3.9 g/hp-hr to comply with
standards of performance based on
alternative I and about 17 g/hp-hr to
comply with standards of perfomance
based on alternative II. Total
hydrocarbon emissions would increase
a sales-weighted average uncontrolled
level of approximately 1.8 g/hp-hr by
about 0.04 g/hp-hr to comply with
standards of performance based on
alternative I. To comply with standards
of performance based on alternative II
total hydrocarbon emissions would
increase by about 0.08 g/hp-hr.
As noted earlier, the increase in
ambient air CO levels resulting u-om
compliance with NO, standards of
performance based on either alternative
would be insignificant compared to the
NAAQS of 10 mg/ms for CO.
Additionally, CO emissions are a local
problem as CO readily reacts to form
COa. Additionally, most naturally
aspirated engines are operated in
remote or sparcely populated areas, CO
emissions will not present a problem.
Currently, national stationary CO
emissions are approximately 33 million
megagrams per year. Standards of
performance based on alternative 1
would increase these emissions by
approximately 63,000 megagrams
annually in the fifth year after the
standards went into effect. In contrast.
standards of performance based on
alternative II would increase national
CO emissions by about 216,000
IV-FF-7
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 342 // Monday. July 23. 1979 / Proposed .Rules
megagrams annually .in the fifth year
after the standards went into effect.
.Standards of performance baaed cm
alternative I would 'increase national
total HC emissions by about .2.3DD
megagrams annually .in .the fifth year
after the standards went into effect
compared to an .increase of about 4,800
megagraras annually aeaociated -with
alternative ,11. It is .estimated Jhat more
than 90 percent of total HC emissions
from large-bore gas-fuel engines and 75
percent of .total HC emissions from
large-bore dualrfuel engines
-------
TABLE I
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES
I
10
Pollutant
National NO Emissions
National CO Emissions
National Total IIC Emissions
Water Pollution
Solid Waste
Noise
Base Level3
14.6 x I0r> megagrams
33.0 x 10" megagrams
10.2 x 10G megagr 'ms
--
--
--
Alternative I
Reduced by 72,500 niegagranis
annually in the fifth year
after standard goes into
effect
Increased by 63,000 i«;ga-
grams annually in the fifth
after standard goes into
effect
Total Hydrocarbons
Increased by 2,300 megagrams
annually in the fifth year
after standard goes into
effect
Reactive Hydrocarbons
Increased by H08 megagrnms
annually in the fifth year
after standard goes into
effect
No increase
No Increase
No adverse impact
Alternative II
Reduced by MS ,000 megagrams
annually in the fifth year
after standard goes into
effect
Increased by 216,000 mega-
grams annually in the fifth
after standard goes Into
effect
Total Hydrocarbons
Increased by •I.COO megagrams
annually In the fifth year
after standard goes into
effect
Reactive Hydrocarbons
Increased^ by ?1G niegagrams
annually in the fifth year
after standard goes Into
effect
No Increase
No increase
No adverse impact
2.
I
3
I"
aTolal U.S. emission from stationary sources as per EPA Nationwide Air Pollutant Inventory for 1975
a.
I
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 142 / Monday. July 23. 1979 / Proposed Rules
Energy impacts. The potential energy
impact of standards of performance
based on either alternative is small.
Standards of performance based on
alternative.! would increase the fuel
consumption of a typical blower-
scavenged or turbocharged gas engine
by approximately one percent, whereas
standards of performance based on
alternative II would increase the fuel
consumption by approximately two
percent.
Standards of performance based on
alternative I would increase the fuel
consumption of a typical dual-fuel
engine by about one percent. Standards
of performance based on alternative II,
however, would increase the fuel
consumption by three percent.
Standards of performance based on
alternative I would increase the fuel
consumption of a typical naturally
aspirated gas engine by approximately
six percent. Standards of performance
based on alternative II, however, would
increase the fuel consumption by
approximately eight percent.
Standards of performance based on
alternative I would increase the fuel
consumption cf a typical diesel engine
by approximately three percent.
Standard; of performance based on
alternative II, however, would increase
the fuel consumption by approximately
seven percent.
The potential energy impact in the
fifth year after the standards go into
effect, based on alternative I, would be
equivalent to an increase in fuel
consumption of approximately 1.03
million barrels of oil per year compared
to the uncontrolled fuel consumption of
1C engines affected by the standards of
31 million barrels per year. The potential
energy impact in the fifth year after the
standard goes into effect, based on
alternative II, would be equivalent to
approximately 1.5 million barrels of oil
per year.
It should be noted that the largest
increase represents only 0.02 percent of
the 1977 domestic consumption of crude
oil and natural gns. The largest increase
also represents only 0.03 percent of the
projected total oil imported to the U.S.
five years after the standards go into
effect.
Thus, the energy impacts of standard
of performance based on either
alternative are small and reasonable.
Economic impact of alternatives.
Manufacturers of stationary 1C engines
would incur additional costs due to-
standards of performance. These costs,
however, would be small. It is estimated
that the total cost to the manufacturers
for each engine model family, including
development, durability tests, and
retooling, would be approximately: (1)
' $125,000 for retard and air-to-fuel
change; (2) $150,000 for manifold air
temperature reduction; end (3) $25,000
for derate. For each manufacturer
therefor, total costs would vary
depending on (1) the number of engine
model families produced; (2) their
degree of advancement in emission
testing; (3) the uncontrolled emission
levels of their engines; (4) the -^
development and durability testing
required to produce engines that can
meet proposed standards of
performance; and (5) the emission
control technique selected for NO,
emission reduction.
The manufacturer's total capital
investment requirements for
developmental testing of engine models
' is estimated to be about $4.5 million to
comply with standards of performance
based on alternative I and about $5
million to comply with standards of
performance based on alternative II.
These expenditures would be made over
a two year period. Analyses of the
financial statements and other public
financial information of engine
manufacturers or their parent companies
indicate that the manufacturer's
overhead budgets are sufficient to
support the development of these
controls without adverse impact on their
financial position.
Manufacturers would not experience
significant differential cost impacts
among competing engine model families.
Consequently, no significant sales
advantages or disadvantages would
develop among competing
manufacturers as a result of standards
of performance based on either
alternative. Based on "worst-case"
assumptions, the maximum intra-
industry sales losses would be about six
percent as a result of standards of
performance based on either alternative.
Thus, the intra-industry impacts would
be moderate and not cause any major
dislocations within the industry.
The total annualized cost penalities
imposed on 1C engines by standards of
performace would also have very little
impact with regard to increasing sales of
gas turbines. Standards of performance
based on alternative I would result in no
loss of sales to gas turbines whereas
standards of performance based on
alternative II could result in the possible
loss of sales for one diesel
manufacturer.
It should be noted that this conslusion
is based on limited data. It is quite
likely, however, that this manufacturer's
line of diesel engines, through minor
combustion modifications, could reduce
its NO, emissions as discussed in the
SSEIS to levels comparable to those of
other manufacturers. Further, due to
technical limitations, economic
considerations, and customer
preference, it is unlikely that 1C engine
users would switch to gas turbines.
Thus, the impact on sales would be
minimal.
Therefore, the economic impacts oh
the manufacturers of standards of
performance based on either alternative
are considered small and reasonable.
The application of NO, controls will
also increase costs to the engine user.
The magnitude of this increase will
depend upon the amount and type of
emission control applied. Fuel penalties
are the major factor affecting this
increase.
The following four end uses represent
the major applications of diesel, dual-'
fuel, and natural gas engines: (1) Diesel
engine, electrical generation; (2) dual-
fuel engine, electrical generation; (3) gas
engine, oil and gas transmission and (4)
gas engine, oil and gas production.
The manufacturers' capital budget
requirements to develop and test engine
NO, control techniques would be
regarded as an added expense and most
likely passed on to the engine users in
the form of higher prices. Therefore,
users of 1C engines would have to
expend additional capital to purchase
more expensive engines. This capital
cost penalty, however, is small. A two
percent increase in engine price would
be expected on the average as the result
of standards of performance based on
either alternative. Typical initial costs
for uncontrolled diesel and dual-fuel,
electrical generation engines, and
natural gas oil and gas transmission
engines are about $150/hp. Initial costs
for gas, gas production engines are
about $50/hp.
The total additional capital cost for all
users would equal about $9.6 million on
a cumulative basis over the first five
years to comply with standards of
performance based on either alternative.
As mentioned earlier, fuel penal'ics
are the major factor affecting the total
annualized cost of high usage engines.
The total annualized cost of a typical
uncontrolled diesel. electrical generation
engine is about 2.5$/hp-hr. As a result of
standards of performance based on
alternative I this total annualized cost
would increase by about 0.04*/hp-hr (1.5
percent). As a result of standards of
performance based on alternative II this
total annualized cost would increse by
about O.lU/hp-hr (4.5 percent).
The total annualized cost of a typical
uncontrolled dual-fuel electrical
generation engine is about 2.8C/hp-hr.
As a result of standards of performance
IV-FF-10
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 142 / Monday. July 23, 1979 / Proposed Rules
base on alternative II this total
annualized cost would increase by
about 0.07c/hp-hr (2.5 percent). As a
result of standards of performance
based on alternative li this total
annualized cost would increase by
about 0.09e/hp-hr (3.2 percent).
The total annualized cost of a typical
uncontrolled gas, oil and gas
transmission engine is about 2.2{/hp-hr.
As a result of standards of performance
based on alternative I this total
annualized cost would increase by
about 0.02
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 142 / Monday. July 23,1979 / Proposed Rules
TABLE II
ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES
Inpact
Uncontrolled
Level of Cost
Alternative I
Alternative II
Inoact on Manufacturer
Capital budget requirements
Intra-industry competition
Competition fron gas turbines
Impact on End-Use Applications
Total annualized costa
Diesel fuel, electrical
generation
Dual-fuel, electrical gen-
eration
Natural gas fuel, oil and
gas transmission
Natural gas fuel, oil and
gas production
Totals of all new engines
after 5 years
Capital Cost Penalty*
Diesel fuel, electrical
generation or c'ual fuel,
electrical generation or
natural gas fuel, oil and
gas transmission
Natural gas fuel, oil and
;as production
Totals etc.
laoact on "roquet Prices and
users
Electricity prices
Cas prices
2.5«/hp-hr
2.8t/hp-hr
2.2t/hp-hr
2.2«/hp-hr
SSSO Billion
SISO/hp
$ 50/hp
$450 Billion
$4.5 Billion over two years;
•tile to generate Internally
fro* profits.
Maxinua sales loss unlikely to
exceed 65 of Internal comous-
tion engine sales for any fira.
No losses.
Base Increased by 0.04t/hp-hr
Increased by 0.07e/hp-hr
Increased by 0.02C/hp-hr
Increased by 0. l«/h?-hr
Increased by S2$_ ail lion
Increased by S3.00/hp
Increased by $1.00/hp
$9.6 million on a emulative
basis over first 5 years after
jianoaros go into effect.
U.S. electric bill uo 0.025
after 5 years. U.S. electric
bill up 0.IS after full phase-
in.
Delivered natural gas prices up
0.025 after 5 years. Delivered
natural gas prices up 0.IS
after full phasein.
$5 Billion over two years; able
to generate internally froa
profits.
SZ Mxiauii loss for any fint
Possible sales loss for one
diesel manufacturer.
Increased by 0. llc/'hp-hr
Increased by O.C9«/hp-nr
Increased by 0.04:/hp-nr
Increased by 0.16
-------
Federal KogistBS- / Vol. 44, No. 142 / Monday, July 23, 1979 / Proposed Rules
Based on the assessment of the
impacts of each alternative, ir.d since
ahernative II achieves a greater degree
of NO, reduction, it is selected as the
bast technological system of continuous
emission reduction of NO,, from
stationary large-bore 1C engines,
considering the cost of achieving such
emission reduction, any nonair quality
health and environmental impact, and
energy requirements.
Selection of Format for the Proposed
Standards
A number of different formats could
be used to limit NO, emissions from
large stationary 1C engines. Standards
could be developed to limit emissions in
terms of: (1) Percent reduction; [2) mass
emissions per unit of energy (power)
output; or (3) concentration of emissions
in the exhaust gases discharged to the
atmosphere.
Analysis of the effectiveness of the
various NO, emission control techniques
clearly shows that the ability to achieve
a percent reduction in NO, emissions is
what has been demonstrated. However,
a percent reduction format is highly
impractical for two reasons. First, a
reference uncontrolled NO, emission
level would have to be established for
each manufacture's engine, a difficult
task since some manufacturers produce
as many as 25 models which are sold
with several ratings. Second, a reference
uncontrolled NO, emission level would
have to be established for any new
engines developed after promulgation of
the standard. This would be quite simple
for engines that employed NO, control
techniques such as ignition retard or air-
to-fue! ratio change to comply with
standards of performance. Emissions
could be measured without the use of
these techniques. For engines designed
to comply with the standards through
the use of combustion chamber
modifications, however, this would not
be possible. Thus, new engines would
receive no credit for the NO, emission
reduction achieved by combustion
chamber redesign and this would
effectively preclude the use of this
approach to comply with the standards.
A mass-per-unit-of-energy-output
format, typically referred to as brake-
opecific emissions (g/hp-hr), relates the
total mass of NO, emissions to the
engine's productivity. Although brake-
specific mass standards (g/hp-hr)
appear meaningful becasue they relate
directly to the quantity of emissions
discharged into the atmosphere, there
. are disadvantages in that enforcement
of mass standards would be costly and
complicated in practice. Exhaust flow
and power output would have to be
determined in addition to NOE
concentration. Power output can be
determined from an engine
dynamometer in the laboratory, but
dynamometers cannot be ueed in the
field. Power output could be determined
by: (1) Inferring the power from engine
operating parameters (fuel flow, rpm,
manifold pressure, etc.); or (2) inferring
engine power from the output of the
generator or compressor attached to the
engine. In practice, however, these
approaches are time consuming and are
less accurate than dynamometer
measurements.
Another possible format would be to
limit the concentration of NOa emissions
in the exhaust gases discharged to the
atmosphere. Concentrations would be
specified in terms of parts-per-million
volume (ppm) of NOn. The major
advantage of this format is its simplicity
of enforcement. As compared to the
formats discussed previously, only a
minimum of data and calculations are
required, which decreases testing costs
and minimizes errors in determining
compliance with an emission standard
since measurements are direct.
The primary disadvantages associated
with concentration standards are: (1) A
standard could be circumvented by
dilution of exhaust gases discharged
into the atmosphere, which lowers the
concentration of pollutant emissions but
does not reduce the total pollutant mass
emitted; and (2) a concentration :
standard could penalize high efficiency
engines. Both these problems, however,
can be overcome through the use of
appropriate "correction" factors.
Since the percent reduction format is
impractical, and the problems
associated with the enforcement of mass
standards (mass-per-unit energy output)
appear to outweigh the benefits, the
concentration format was selected for
standards of performance for large
stationary 1C engines.
As mentioned above, because a
concentration standard can be
circumvented by dilution of the exhaust
gases, measured concentrations must be
expressed relative to some fixed dilution
level. For combustion processes, this
can be accomplished by correcting
measured concentrations to a reference
concentration of O2. The Oj
concentration in the exhaust gases is
related to the excess (or dilution) air.
Typical Oa concentrations in large-bore
1C engines can range from 8 to 16
percent but are normally about 15
percent. Thus, referencing the standard
to a typical level of IS percent Oi would
prevent circumvention by dilution.
As also mentioned above, selection of
a concentration format could penalize
high efficiency 1C engines. These highly
efficient engines generally operate at
higher temperature and pressures and,
89 a result, discharge gases with higher
NOn concentrations than less efficient
engines, although the brake-specific
mass emissions from both engines could
be the same. Thus, a concentration
standard based on low efficiency
engines could effectively require more
stringent controls for high efficiency
engines. Conversely, a concentration
standard based on high efficiency
engines could allow such high NO,
concentrations that less efficient engines
would require no controls.
Consequently, selecting a concentration
format for standards of performance
requires an efficiency adjustment factor
to permit higher NO, emissions from
more efficient engines.
The incentive for manufacturers to
increase engine efficiency is to lower
engine fuel consumption. Therefore, the
objective of an efficiency adjustment
factor should be to give an emissions
credit for the lower fuel consumption ol
more efficient 1C engines. Since the fuel
consumption of 1C engines varies
linearly with efficiency, a linear
adjustment factor is selected to permit
increased NO, emissions from highly
efficient 1C engines.
The efficiency adjustment factor
needs to be referenced to a baseline
efficiency. Most large existing stationary
1C engines fall in the range of 30 to 40
percent efficiency. Therefore. 35 perceni
is selected as the baseline efficiency.
The efficiency adjustment factor
included in the proposed standdrds
permits a linear increase in NO,
emissions for engine efficiencies above
35 percent. This adjustment would noi
be used to adjust the emission limit
downward for 1C engines with
efficiencies of less than 35 percent. Thi.s
efficiency adjustment factor also applies
only to the 1C engine itself and not the
entire system of which the engine may
be a part. Since Section 111 of the Clean
Air Act requires the use of the best
system of emission reduction in all
cases, this precludes the application of
the efficiency adjustment factor to an
entire system. For example, 1C engines
with waste heat recovery may have H
higher overall efficiency than the 1C
engine alone. Thus, the application of
the efficiency adjustment factor to the
entire system would permit greater NO,
emissions because of the system's
higher overall efficiency, and would not
necessarily require the use of the best
demonstrated system emission
reduction on the 1C engine.
IV-FF-13
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 142 / Monday. July 23. 1979 / Proposed Rules
Selection of Numerical Emission Limits
Overall approach.—As mentioned
earlier it is difficult to select a specific
NO, emission limit which all 1C engines
could meet primarily through the use of
ignition retard or air-to-fuel ratio
change. Because of inherent differences
among various 1C engines with regard to
uncontrolled NO, emission levels, there
exists a rather large variation within the
data and information included in the
Standards Support and Environmental
Impact Statement concerning controlled
NO, emission levels. Generally
speaking, engines with relatively low
uncontrolled NO, emissions levels
achieved low controlled NO, emissions
levels and engines with high
uncontrolled NO, emissions levels
achieved relatively high controlled NO,
emissions levels. Consequently, the
following alternatives were considered
for selecting the numerical
concentration emission limits based on
a 40 percent reduction in NO, emissions:
1. Apply the 40 percent reduction to
the highest observed uncontrolled NO,
emission level.
2. Apply the 40 percent reduction to a
sales-weighted average uncontrolled
NO, emission level.
3 Apply the 40 percent reduction to
this sales-weighted average
uncontrolled NO, emission level plus
one standard deviation.
The highest observed uncontrolled
NO, emission levels for gas. dual-fuel
and diesel engines are as follows: (1)
Gas. 29 g/hp-hr 121 dual-fuel. 15 g/hp-hr,
and 131 diesel. 19 g/hp-hr.
Sales-weighted uncontrolled NO,
emission levels were determined by
applying a sales weighting to each
manufacturer s average uncontrolled
NO, emissions for engines of each fuel
type The sales weighting, based on
horsepower sold, gives more weight to
those engine models which have the
highest sales The sales-weighted
average uncontrolled NO, emission
level for each engine fuel type are as
follow 111 Gas I5g/hp-hr.'(2) dual-fuel.
8 g/hp-hr and 131 diesel. 11 g/hp-hr.
The third alternaiive incorporates a
"margin for engine variability" by
adding one standard deviation to the
sales-weighted average uncontrolled
NO, emission level and then applying
the 40 percent reduction. Standard
deviations were calculated from the
uncontrolled NO, emission data
included in the Standards Support and
Environmental Impact Statement,
assuming the data had normal
distribution. A subsequent statistical
evaluation of the data indicated that this
assumption was valid: The standard
deviations for each engine fuel type are
as follows: (1) Gas. 4 g/hp-hr. (2) dual-
fuel. 3.2 g/hp-hr. and (3) diesel, 3.7 g/hp-
hr.
The standard deviation of the
uncontrolled NO, emission data base is
relatively large compared to the sales-
weighted average uncontrolled NO,
emission level for each engine type. This
indicates that the distribution of
uncontrolled NO, emissions levels is
quite broad. In addition, the standard
deviation is of the same magnitude as
the 40 percent reduction in NO,
emissions that can be achieved. Thus.
regardless of which alternative
approach is followed to select the
numerical NO, concentration emission
limit, a significant portion of the 1C
engine population may have to achieve
more or less than a 40 percent reduction
in NO, emissions to comply with the
standards.
It is important to note that the 40
percent reduction in NO, emissions is
based on the application of a single
control technique, such as ignition
retard, or air-to-fuel ratio change. Other
emission control techniques, however,
such as manifold air cooling and engine
derate, exist, although they are generally
not as effective in reducing NO,
emissions. Since emission control
techniques are additive to some extent,
it is possible in a number of cases to
reduce NO. emissions by greater than 40
percent.
The following factors were examined
for each engine type to choose the
alternative for selecting the numerical
NO, concentration emission limit: (1)
The percentage of engines that would
have to reduce NO, emissions by 40
percent or less to meet the standards: (2)
the percentage of engines that would be
required to do nothing to meet the
standards: and (3) the percentage of
engines that would be required to
reduce NO, emissions by more than 40
percent to meet the standards. The
normal distribution curve presented in
Figure I illustrates the trade-offs among
the three alternatives for selecting the
numerical NO, concentration emission
limit.
The first alternative is to apply the 40
percent reduction to the highest
uncontrolled NO, emission level within
a fuel category. For example. 29 g/hp-hr
is the highest uncontrolled NO, emission
level for gas engines. The application of
a 40 percent reduction would lead to an
emission level of about 17 g/hp-hr. As
illustrated in Figure 1, if this level were
selected as a standard of performance.
99 percent of production gas engines
could easily meet the emission limit by
reducing emissions by 40 percent or less.
However. 69 percent of production
engines would not have to reduce NO,
emissions at .all. Only one percent of
production engines would have to
reduce NO. emissions by more than 40
percent.
IV-FF-14
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 142 / Monday. July 23,1979 / Proposed Rules
ALTERNATIVE I
ALTERNATIVE II
ALTERNATIVE III
STD
^_ 7% _>J
STD
^ 18% ^ !
1
< «4v
v 1 ^ lfi* ^
FIGURE 1. Statistical effects of alternative emission limits on gas engines,
IV-FF-15
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 142 / Monday, July 23, 1979 / Proposed P
The second alternative is,to apply 40
percent reduction to the sales-weighted
average uncontrolled NO. emission
level. For example, the sales-weighted
avergage uncontrolled NO, level for gas
engines is 15 g/hp-hr. The application of
a 40 percent reduction would lead to a
NO, emission level of 9 g/hp-hr. As
illustrated in Figure I, if this level were
selected as a standard of performance,
50 percent of production gas engines
could meet the standard with 40 percent
or less reduction in NO, emissions.
However, 50 percent of production gas
engines would be required to reduce
NO, emissions by greater than 40
percent. Only seven percent of
production gas engines would not have
to reduce NO, emissions at all.
The third alternative is to base the
standards on a 40 percent reduction in
NO, emissions from the sales-weighted
average uncontrolled NO, emission
level plus one standard deviation. For
example, the sales-weighted average
uncontrolled NO, emission level for gas
production gas engines is 15 g/hp-hr and
the standard deviation of the production
gas engine data base is 4 g/hp-hr. Thus,
the application of a 40 percent reduction
to the sum of these two values would
lead to an emission level of 11 g/hp-hr.
As illustrated in Figure I, if this level
were selected as a standard of
performance, 84 percent of the
production gas engines could easily
meet the emission limit by reducing
emissions by 40 percent or less.
However, 18 percent of the production
gas engines would not have to reduce
NO, emission at all. Only 16 percent of
the production gas engines would have
to reduce NO, emissions by more than
40 percent.
This same analysis applied to dual-
fuel and diesel engines leads to the
results summarized in Table 111. If
standards of performance were based
on Alternative I, essentially all engines
could achieve the emission limit by
reducing NO, emissions 40 percent or
less. A significant reduction in NO,
emissions would not be achieved.
however, since 50 to 70 percent of the 1C
engines would not have to reduce NO,
emissions at all. If the standards of
performance were based on Alternatve
II. about 50 percent of the 1C engines (in
all categories) would have to reduce
NO, emissions by greater than 40
percent. Less than 10 percent would not
have to reduce NO, emissions at all.
Thus this alternative would achieve a
significant reduction in NO, emissions
from new sources. If standards of
performance were based on Alternative
III. the r«*ults would be similar to those
achieved with Alternative I. About 85
percent of engines could easily meet the
standards by reducing NO, emissions by
less than 40 percent. About 20 to 30
percent of 1C engines would not have to
reduce NO, emissions at all, and about
15 percent of 1C engines would have to
reduce NO, emissions by more than 40
percent.
In light of the high priority which has
been given to standards directed toward
reducing NO, emissions and the
significance of 1C engines in terms of
their contribution to NO, emissions from
stationary sources, die second
alternative was chosen for selecting the
NO. emission concentration limit. This
approach will achieve the greatest
reduction in NO, emissions from new 1C
engines.
IV-FF-16
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 142 / Monday. July 23.1979 / Proposed Rules
TABLE III
SIWVRY Of STATISTICAL ANALYSES OF ALTERNATE EMISSION LIMITS
GAS ENGINES
Alternative
Standard
Percent required to apply
less than or equal to
40 percent control
Percent required to do
nothing
Percent required to apply
•ore than 40 percent con-
trol
I
17
99
69
1
II
9
50
7
50
III
11
34
18
16
DUAL-FUEL ENGINES
DIESEL ENGINES
Alternative
Standard
Percent required to apply
less than or equal to
40 percent control
Percent required to do
nothing
Percent required to apply
acre than 40 percent con-
trol
I
9
98
62
2
II
5
54
18
46
III
7
37
48
13
Alternative
Standard
Percent required to ap.pl y
less than or equal to
40 percent control
Percent required to do
nothing
Percent required to apply
•ore than 40 percent con-
trol
I
11
98
50
2
II 1 III
7 j 9
56
4
44
36
29
14
IV-FF-17
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 142 / Monday. ]uly 23. 1979 / Proposed Rules
Selection of limits.—A concentration
(ppm) format was selected for the
standards. Consequently, the brake-
specific NO, emission limits
corresponding to the second alternative
for selecting numerical emission limits
(i.e., gas - 9 g/hp-hr; dual-fuel - 5 g/hp-
hr; diesel - 7 g/hp-hr) must be converted
to concentration limits (corrected to 15
percent O» on a dry basis]. This may be
done by dividing the brake-specific
volume of NO, emissions by the brake-
specific total exhaust gas volume.
Determining the brake-specific volume
of NO, emissions is straight-forward.
Determining the brake-specific total
exhaust gas volume is more complex, in
that the brake-specific exhaust flow and
the exhaust gas molecular weight are
unknown. Knowing the fuel heating
value and composition, the brake-
specific fuel consumption, and assuming
15 percent excess air, however, defines
these unknowns. (The complete
derivation is explained in detail in the
Standards Support and Environmental
Impact Statement.) Combining these
factors leads to the following conversion
factor:
NO
x (BSNOx)
/106\
.VAT/
/16.6 + 3.29 Z\
\ 12.0 «• Z /
x (BSFC)
where:
NO, = NO, concentration (ppm) corrected to
15 percent Oa.
BSNO, = Brake-specific NO, emissions, g/
hp-hr.
BSFC = Brake-specific fuel consumption, g/
hp-hr.
7. = Hydrogen/Carbon ratio of the fuel.
For natural gas, a hydrogen-to-carbon
(H/C) ratio of 3.5 and a lower heat value
(LHV) of 20,000 Btu/lb was assumed.
Diesel ASTM-2 has a H/C ratio of 1.8
and a LHV of 18,320 Btu/lb.
Applying this conversion factor to the
brake-specific emission limits
associated with the second alternative
for selecting NO, emissions limits leads
to the NO, concentration emission limits
included in the proposed standards:
Engine: NO, emission limit
Gas 700 ppm.
Dual-fuel/ Diesel 600 ppm.
These emission limits have been
rounded upward to the nearest 100 ppm
to include a "margin" to allow for source
variability. The standard for diesel
engines has also been applied to dual-
fuel engines. If a separate emission limit
has been selected for dual-fuel engines,
the corresponding numerical NOB
concentration emission limit would be
400 ppm. Sales of dual-fuel engines,
however, have ranged from 17 to 95
units annually over the past five years,
with a general trend of decreasing sales.
Dual-fuel engines serve the same
applications as diesel engines, and new
dual-fuel engines will likely operate
primarily as diesel engines because of
increasingly limited natural gas
supplies. Thus, the combining of dual-
fuel engines with diesel engines for
standards of performance will have little
adverse impact and will simplify
enforcement of the standards of
performance.
The effect of ambient atmospheric
conditions on NO, emissions from large
stationary 1C engines can be significant.
Therefore, to enforce the standards
uniformly, NO, emissions must be
determined relative to a reference set of
ambient conditions. All existing ambient
correction factors were reviewed that
could potentially be applied to large
stationary 1C engines to correct NOt
emissions to standard conditions.
The correction factors that were
selected for both spark ignition (SI) and
compression ignition (CI) engines are
included in the proposed standards. For
the compression ignition engines (i.e.,
diesel and dual-fuel), a single correction
factor for both temperature and
humididty was selected. For spark
ignition engines (i.e., gas), separate
correction factors were selected for
humidity and temperature, and
measured NO, emissions are corrected
to reference ambient conditions by
multiplying these two factors together.
No correction factor was selected for
changes in ambient pressure because no
generalized relationship could be
determined from the very limited data
that are available. These correction
factors represent the general effects of
ambient temperature and relative
humidity on NOn emissions, and will be
used to adjust measured NO, emissions
during any performance test to
determine compliance with the
numerical emission limit.
Since the recommended factors may
not be applicable to certain engine
models, as an alternative to the use of
these correction factors, engine
manufacturers, owners, or operators
may elect to develop their own ambient
correction factors. All such correction
factors, however, must be substantiated
with data and then approved by EPA for
use in determining compliance with NOa
emission limits. The ambient correction
factor will be applied to all performance
tests, not only those in which the use of
such factors would reduce measured
emission levels.
As discussed in "Standards Support
and Environmental Impact Statement:
Proposed Standards of Performance for
Stationary Gas Turbines," EPA-450/2-
77-017a, the contribution to NO,
emissions by the conversion of fuel-
bound nitrogen in heavy fuel to NO, can
be significant for stationary gas
turbines. The organic NO,, contribution
to total gas turbine NOE emissions is
complicated by the fact that the
percentage of fuel-bound nitrogen
converted to NO, decreases as the fuel-
bound nitrogen level increases. Below a
fuel-bound nitrogen level of about 0.05
percent, essentially 100 percent of the
fuel-bound nitrogen is converted to NO,.
Above a fuel-bound nitrogen level of
about 0.4 percent, only about 40 percent
is converted to NO,.
As discussed in the Standards
Support and Environmental Impact
Statement, Volume I for Stationary Gas
Turbines, assuming a fuel with 0.25
percent weight fuel-bound nitrogen
(which allows approximately 50 percent
availablility of domestic heavy fuel oil),
controlled NO, emissions would
increase by about 50 ppm due tc the
contribution to NO, emissions of fuel-
bound nitrogen. In gas turbines, this
contribution was significant when
compared to the proposed emission limit
of 75 ppm. However, for large 1C
engines, the contribution of fuel-bound
nitrogen to NO, emissions is likely to be
small (approximately 10 percent). Sales
of 1C engines firing heavy fuels is
insignificant and not expected to
increase in the near future. Given that
the emission limits have been rounded
upward to the nearest 100 ppm and the
potential contribution of fuel-bound
nitrogen to NO, emissions is very small,
no allowance has been included for the
fuel-bound nitrogen content of the fuel
in determining compliance with the
standards of performance.
Selection of Compliance Time Frame
Manufacturers of large-bore 1C
engines are generally committed to a
particular design approach and,
therefore, conduct extensive research,
development, and prototype testing
before releasing a new engine model for
sale. Consequently, these manufacturers
will require some period of time to alter
or reoptimize and test 1C engines to
meet standards of performance. The
estimated time span between the
decision by a manufacturer to control
NOn emissions from an engine model
and start of production of the first
controlled engine is about 15 months for
any of the four demonstrated emission
control techniques. With their present I
facilities, however, testing can typically
IV-FF-18
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 142 / Monday, July 23, 1979 / Proposed Rules
be conducted on only two to three
engine models at a time. Since most
manufacturers produce a number of
engine models, additional time is
required before standards of
performance become effective. In
addition, a number of manufacturers
produce their most popular engine
models at a fairly steady rate of
production and satisfy fluctuating
demands from inventory. Consequently,
additional time in necessary to allow
manufacturers to sell their current
inventory of uncontrolled 1C engines
before they must comply with standards
of performance.
It is estimated that about 30 months
delay in the applicability date of the
standard is appropriate to allow
manufacturers time to comply with the
proposed standards of performance. In
addition, in light of the stringency of the
standards (i.e., many engine models will
have to reduce NO, emissions by more
than 40 percent) this time period
provides the flexibility for
manufacturers to develop and use
combinations of the control techniques
upon which the standards are based or
other control techniques. Consequently,
30 months from today's date is selected
as the delay period for implementation
of these standards on large stationary 1C
engines.
Selection of Monitoring Requirements
To provide a means for enforcement
personnel to ensure that an emission
control system installed to comply with
standards of performance is properly
operated and maintained, monitoring
requirements are generally included in
standards of performance. For
stationary 1C engines, the most
straightforward means of ensuring
proper operation and maintenance
would be to monitor NO, emissions
released to the atmosphere.
Installed costs, however, for
coniinuous monitors are approximately
$25.000. Thus the cost of continuous NO,
emission monitoring is considered
unreasonable for 1C engines since most
large stationary 1C engines cost from
$50.000 to $3,000.000 (i.e., 1000 hp gas
production engine and 20,000 hp
electrical generation engine).
A more simple and less costly method
of monitoring is measuring various
engine operating parameters related to
NO, emissions. Consequently.
monitoring of exhaust gas temperature
was considered since this parameter
could be measured just after the
combustion process during which NO, is
formed. However, a thorough
investigation of this approach showed
no simple correlation between NO,
emission and exhaust gas temperature.
A qualitative estimate of NO,
emissions, however, can be developed
by measuring several engine operating
parameters simultaneously, such as
spark ignition or fuel injector timing,
engine speed, and a number of other
parameters. These parameters are
typically measured at most installations
and thus should not impose an
additional cost impact. For these
reasons, the emission monitoring
requirements included in the proposed
standards of performance require
monitoring various engine operating
parameters.
For diesel and dual-fuel engines, the
engine parameters to be monitored are:
(1) Intake manifold temperature; (2)
intake manifold pressure; (3) rack
position; (4) fuel injector timing; and (5)
engine speed. Gas engines would require
monitoring of (1) intake manifold
temperature; (2) intake manifold
pressure; (3) fuel header pressure; (4)
spark timing; and (5) engine speed.
Another parameter that could be
monitored for gas engines is the fuel
heat value, since it can affect NO,
emissions significantly. Because of the
high costs of a fuel heating value
monitor, and the fact that many facilities
can obtain the lower heating value
directly from the gas supplier,
monitoring of this parameter would not
be required.
The operating ranges for each
parameter over which the engine could
operate and in which the engine could
comply with the NO, emission limit
would be determined during the
performance test. Once established,
these parameters would be monitored to
ensure proper operation and
maintenance of the emission control
techniques employed to comply with the
standards of performance.
For facilities having an operator
present every day these operating
parameters would be recorded daily. For
remote facilities, where an operator is
not present every day, these operating
parameters would be recorded weekly.
The owner/operator would record the
parameters and, if these parameters
include values outside the operating
ranges determined during the
performance test, a report would be
submitted to the Administrator on a
quarterly basis identifying these periods
as excess emissions. Each excess
emission report would include the
operating ranges for each parameter as
determined during the performance test,
the monitored values for each
parameter, and the ambient air
conditions.
Selection of Performance Test Metho
A performance test method is requ
to determine whether an engine
complies with the standards of
performance. Reference Method 20,
"Determination of Nitrogen Oxides,
Sulfur Dioxide, and Oxygen emission
from Stationary Gas Turbines," whic
was proposed in the October 3,1977
Federal Register, is proposed as the
performance test method for 1C engir
Reference Method 20 has been showi
provide valid results. Consequently,
rather than developing a totally new
reference test method, Reference
Method 20 would be modified for use
1C engines.
The changes and additions to
Reference Method 20 required to mal
applicable for testing of internal
combustion engines include (by sect!
1. Principle and Applicability. Sulf
dioxide measurements are not
applicable for internal combustion
engine testing.
6.1 Selection of a sampling site anc
the minimum number of traverse poii
6.11 Select a sampling site located
least five stack diameters downstrea
of any turbocharger exhaust, crossov
junction, or recirculation take-offs an
upstream of an dilution air inlet. Loc;
the sample site no closer than one mi
or three stack diameters (whichever i
less) upstream of the gas discharge tc
the atmosphere.
6.1.2 A preliminary Oj traverse is n
necessary.
6.1.2.2 Cross-sectional layout and
location of traverse points use a
minimum of three sample points loca
at positions of 16.7, 50 and 83.3 perce:
of the stack diameter.
6.2.1 Record the data required on tl
engine operation record on Figure 20.
Reference Method 20. In addition, rec
(a) the intake manifold pressure; (b) t
intake manifold temperature; (c) rack
position; (d) engine speed; and (e)
injector or spark fuming. (The water (
steam injection rate is not applicable
internal combustion engines.)
NO, emissions measured by
Reference Method 20 will be affected
ambient atmospheric conditions.
Consequently, measured NO, emissic
would be adjusted during any
performance test by the ambient
condition correction factors discussec
earlier, or by custom correction factoi
approved for use by EPA.
The performance test may be
performed either by the manufacturer
at the actual user operating site. If the
test is performed at the manufacturer'
facility, compliance with that
performance test will be sufficient prc
IV-FF-19
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 142 / Monday, July 23, 1979 / Proposed Rules
of compliance by the user as long as the
engine operating parameters are not
varied during user operation from the
settings under which testing was done.
Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held to
discuss these 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
Sectioa of this preamble. Oral
presentations will be limited to 15
minutes each. Any member of the public
may file a written statement with EPA
before, during, or within 30 days after
the hearing. Written statement should
be addressed to Mr. Jack R. Farmer (see
ADDRESSES Section).
The docket is an organized and
complete file of all the information
considered by EPA in the development
of this rulemaking. The principal
purposes of the docket are (1) to allow
interested parties to identify and locate
documents so that they can intelligently
and effectively participate in the
rulemaking process, and (2) to serve as
the record for judicial review. The
docket requirement is discussed in
section 307(d) of the Clean Air Act.
Miscellaneous
As prescribed by Section 111 of the
Act, this proposal is accompanied by the
Administrator's determination that
emissions from stationary 1C engines
contribute to air pollution which causes
or contributes to the endangerment of
public health or welfare, and by
publication of this determination in this
issue of the Federal Register. In
accordance with section 117 of the Act,
publication of these standards was
preceded by consultation with
appropriate advisory committees,
independent experts, and federal
department and agencies. The
Administrator welcomes comments on
all aspects of the proposed regulations,
including the designation of stationary
1C engines as a significant contributor to
air pollution which causes or contributes
to the endangerment of public health or
welfare, economic and technological
issues, monitoring requirements and the
proposed test method.
Comments are specifically invited on
the severity of the economic and
environmental impact of the proposed
standards on stationary naturally
aspirated carbureted-gas 1C engines
since some parties have expressed
objection to applying the proposed
standards to these engines. Comments
are also invited on the selection of
rotary engines for control by standards
of performance. These engines were
included because they are expected to
be contributors to NO, emissions from
stationary sources and can be controlled
by demonstrated NO, emission control
techniques. Any comments submitted to
the Administrator on these issues,
however, should contain specific
information and data pertinent to an
evaluation of the magnitude of this
impact, its severity, and its
consequences.
It should be noted that standards of
performance for new sources
established under section 111 of the
Clean Air Act reflect:
The degree of emission limitation and the
percentage reduction achievable through
application of the best technological system
of continuous emission reduction which
(taking into consideration the cost of
achieving such emission reduction, any
nonair quality health and environmental
impact and energy requirements) the
Administrator determines has been
adequately demonstrated [section lll(a)(l)j.
Although there may be emission
control technology available that can
reduce emissions below those levels
required to comply with standards of
performance, this technology might not
be seclected as the basis of standards of
performance because of costs
associated with its use. Accordingly,
standards of performance should not be
viewed as the ultimate in achievable
emission control. In fact, the Act may
require the imposition of a more
stringent emission standard emission in
several situations.
For example, applicable costs do not
necessarily play as prominent a role in
determining the "lowest achievable
emission rate" for new or modified
sources located in nonattainment 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 new
or modified sources constructed^ an
area which exceeds the National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
must reduce emissions to the level
which reflects the "lowest achievable
emission rate" (LAER), as defined in
section 171(3). The statute defines LAER
as that rate of emissions which reflects:
(A) The most stringent emission limitation
which is contained in the implementation
plan of any state for such class or category of
source, unless the owner or operator of the
proposed source demonstrates that such
limitations are not achievable or
(B) The most stringent emission limitation
which is acheved in practice by such class or
category of source, whichever is more
stringent.
In no event can the emission rate exceed
any applicable new source performance
standard.
A similar situation may arise under
the prevention-of-significant-
deterioration-of-air-quality provisions of
the Act. These provisions require that
certain sources 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 BACT 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 cases, State Implementation
Plans (SIP's) 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, SIP's must in some cases
require greater emission reduction than
those required by standards of
performance for new sources.
Finally, 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.
Under EPA's "new" sunset policy for
reporting requirements in regulations.
the reporting requirements in this
regulation will automatically expire five
years from the date of promulgation
unless EPA takes affirmative action to
extend them.
EPA will review this regulation four
years from the date of promulgation.
This review will include an assessment
of such factors as the need for
integration with other programs, the
existence of alternative methods,
enforceability, and improvements in
emissions control technology.
An economic impact assessment has
been prepared as required under section
317 of the Act and is included in the
Standards Support and Environmental
Impact Statement.
IV-FF-20
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 142 / Monday. July 23, 1979 / Proposed Rules
Dated: July 11,1979.
Douglas M. Costle.
Administrator.
It is proposed to amend Part 60 of
Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
1. By adding Subpart FT as follows:
Subpart ff—Standard* of Performance for
Stationary Internal Combustion Engines
Sec.
60.320 Applicability and designation of
affected facility.
60.321 Definitions.
60.322 Standards for nitrogen oxides.
60.323 Monitoring of operations.
60.324 Test methods and procedures.
Authority: Sees. Ill and 301(a) of the Clean
Air Act. as amended. (42 U.S.C. 1857c-7,
1857g(a)), and additional authority as noted
below.
Subpart FF—Standards of
Performance for Stationary Internal
Combustion Engines
{60.320 Applicability and designation of
affected facility.
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to the following affected
facilities which commence construction
beginning 30 months from today's date:
(a) All gas engines that are either
greater than 350 cubic inch displacement
per cylinder or equal to yt greater than 8
cylinders and greater than 240 cubic
inch displacement per cylinder.
(b) All diesel or dual-fuel engines that
are greater than 560 cubic inch
displacement per cylinder.
(c) All rotary engines that are greater
than 1500 cubic inch displacement per
rotor.
8 60.321 Definitions.
As used in this subpart, all terms not
defined herein shall have the meaning
given them in the Act or in subpart A of
this part.
(a) "Stationary internal combustion
engine" means any internal combution
engine, except gas turbines, that is not
self propelled. It may, however, be
mounted on a vehicle for portability.
(b) "Emergency standby engine"
means any stationary internal
combustion engine which operates as a
mechanical or electrical power source
only when the primary power source for
a facility has been rendered inoperable
during an emergency situation.
(c) "Reference ambient conditions"
means standard air temperature (29.4°C,
or 85°F), humidity (17 grams HtO/kg dry
air, or 75 grains H,O/lb dry air), and
pressure (101.3 kilopascals, or 29.92 in.
Hg.).
(d) "Peak load" means operation at
. 100 percent of the manufacturer's design
capacity.
(e) "Diesel engine" means any
stationary internal combustion engine
burning a liquid fuel.
(f) "Gas enine" means any stationary
internal combustion engine burning a
gaseous fuel.
(g) "Dual-fuel engine" means any
stationary internal combustion engine
that is burning liquid and gaseous fuel
simultaneously.
(h) "Unmanned engine" means any
stationary internal combustion engine
installed and operating at a location
which does not have an operator
regularly present at the site for some
portion of a 24-hour day.
(i) "Non-remote operation" means any
engine installed and operating at a
loction which has an operator regularly
present at the site for some portion of a
24-hour day.
(j) "Brake-specific fuel consumption"
means fuel input heat rate, based on the
lower heating value of the fuel,
expressed on the basis of power output
(i.e., (kj/w-hr).
(k) "Weekly basis" means at seven
day intervals.
(1) "Daily basis" means at 24 hours
intervals.
(m) "Rotary engine" means any
Wankel type engine where energy from
the combustion of fuel is converted
directly to rotary motions instead of
reciprocating motion.
(n) "Displacement per rotor" means
the volume contained in the chamber of
a rotary engine between one flank of the
rotor and the housing at the instant the
inlet port is dosed.
§ 60.322 Standards for nitrogen oxides.
(a) On and after the date on which the
performance test required to be
conducted by § 60.8 is completed, no
owner or operator subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall cause to
be discharged into the atmosphere,
except as provided in paragraphs (b)
and (c) of this section—
(1) From any gas engine, with a brake-
specific fuel consumption at peak load
more than or equal to 10.2 kilojoules/
watt-hour any gases which contain
nitrogen oxides in excess of 700 parts
per million volume, corrected to 15
percent oxygen on a dry basis.
(2) From any diesel or dual-fuel engine
with a brake-specific fuel consumption
at peak load more than or equal to 10.2
kilojoules/watt-hour any gases which
contain nitrogen oxides in excess of 600
parts per million volume, corrected to 15
percent oxygen on a dry basis.
(3) From any stationary internal
combustion engine with a brake-specific
fuel consumption at peak load of less
than or equal to 10.2 kilojoules/watt-
hour any gases which contain nitrogen
oxides in excess of:
(i) STO = 700 i^? for any gas engine,
"(11) STD = 600 i^y= for any diesel or
dual-fuel engine
where:
STD = allowable NO, emissions (parts-per-
million volume corrected to 15 percent
oxygen on a dry basis).
Y = manufacturer's.rated brake-specific fuel
consumption at peak load (kilojoules per
watt-hour) or owner/operator's brake-
specific fuel consumption at peak load as
determined in the field.
(b) All one and two cylinder
reciprocating gas engines are exempt
from paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) Emergency standby engines are
exempt from paragraph (a) of this
section.
$60.323 Monitoring of operations.
(a) The owner or operator of any
stationary internal combustion engine,
subject to the provisions of this subpart
must, on a weekly basis for unmanned
engines and on a daily basis for manned
engines, monitor and record the
following parameters. All monitoring
systems shall be accurate to within five
percent and shall be approved by the
Administrator.
(1) For diesel and dual-fuel engines:
(i) Intake manifold temperature
(ii) Intake manifold pressure
(iii) Engine speed
(iv) Diesel rack position (fuel flow)
(v) Injector timing
(2) For gas engines:
(i) Intake manifold temperature
(ii) Intake manifold pressure
(iii) Fuel header pressure
(iv) Engine speed
(v) Spark ignition timing
(b) For the purpose of reports required
under § 60.7(c), periods of excess
emissions that shall be reported are
defined as any daily (for manned
engines) or weekly (for unmanned
engines) period during which any one of
the parameters specified under
paragraph (a) of this section falls
outside the range identified for that
parameter udner § 60.324(a)(3). Each
excess emission report shall include the
range identified for each operating
parameter under § 80.324{a)(4j, the
monitored value for each operating
parameter specified under § 60.323(a),
IV-FF-21
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 142 / Monday. July 23. 1979 / Proposed Rules
the ambient air conditions during the
period of excess emissions, and any
graphs and/or figures developed under
§ 60.324(a)(4)
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act. as amended
(42 U.S.C. 1857C-9))
§ 60.324 Test methods and procedures.
The reference methods in Appendix A
to this part, except as provided in
§ 60.8(b), shall be used to determine
compliance with the standards
prescribed in § 60.322 as follows:
(a) Reference Method 20 for the
concentration of nitrogen oxides and
oxygen. The span for the nitrogen oxides
analyzer used in this method shall be
1500 ppm.
(1) The following changes and
additions [by section) to Reference
Method procedures should be followed
when determining compliance with
§ 60.322:
1. Principle and Applicability. Sulfur
dioxide measurements are not
applicable for internal combustion
engine testing.
6.1 Selection of a sampling site and the
minimum number of traverse points.
6.11 Select a sampling site located at least
five stack diameters downstream of any
rurbocharger exhaust, crossover junction, or •
recirculation take-offs and upstream of any
dilution air inlet Locate the cample site no
closer than one meter or three stack
diameters (whichever is less) upstream of the
gas discharge to the atmosphere.
6.1.2 a preliminary O, traverse is not
necessary.
6.2 Cross-sectional layout and location of
traverse points. Use a minimum of three
sample points located at positions of 16.7,50
and 83.3 percent of the stack diameter.
6.2.1 Record the data required on the
engine operation record on Figure 20.7 of
Reference Method 20. In addition, record (a)
the intake manifold pressure; (b) the intake
manifold temperature; (c) rack position, fuel
header pressure or carburetor position; (d)
engine speed; and (e) injector or spark timing.
(The water or steam injection rate is not
applicable to internal combustion engines.)
(2) The nitrogen oxides emission level
measured by Reference Method 20 shall
be adjusted to reference ambient
conditions by the following ambient
condition correction factors:
NO. corrected = (K) NO. observed
where K is determined as follows:
Fuel
Diesel and
Dual-Fuel
Gas
Correction Factor
K = 1/(1 * 0.
K = (KH) (KT)
KH = 0.844 +
KT = 1 - (T -
00235(H - 75) + 0.00220 (T - 85))
0.151 (Jg) * 0.075 (^g)2
85)(0.0135)
where:
H = observed humidity, grains HtO/lb dry
air
T = observed inlet air temperature, °F
The adjusted NO. emission level shall be
•sed to determine compliance with § 60.322.
(3) Manufacturers, owners, or
operators may develop custom ambient
correction factors in terms of ambient
air temperature and/or pressure, and/or
humidity to adjust the nitrogen oxide
emission level measured by the
performance test to reference ambient
conditions. These correction factors
must be substantiated with data and
must be approved by the Administrator
before they can be used to determine
compliance with § 60.322. Notices of
approval of custom ambient condition
correction factors will be published in
the Federal Register.
(4) Testing shall be conducted and
ranges identified for each parameter
specified under § 60.323(a) over which
the numerical emission limits included
under § 60.322 are not exceeded. This
will be accomplished by measuring NO,
emissions, using Reference Method 20,
and these parameters at four points over
the normal load range of the internal
combustion engine, including the
minimum and maximum points in the
range if the stationary internal
combustion engine will be operated over
a range of load conditions.
(b) ASTM D-2382 shall be used to
Determine the lower heating value of
liquid fuels and ASTM D-1826 shall be
used to determine the lower healing
value of gaseous fuels.
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act, as amended
(42 U.S.C. 1857C-9})
|FR Doc. 79-22221 Filed 7-20-79. 8:45 am]
IV-FF-22
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 142 / Monday. July 23.1979 / Notices
IFRL 1099-6]
Air Pollution Prevention and Control;
Addition to the List of Categories of
Stationary Sources
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 1857C-6) directs the
Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency to publish, and from
time to time revise, a list of categories of
stationary sources which he determines
may contribute significantly to air
pollution which causes or contributes to
the endangerment of public health or
welfare. Within 120 days after the
inclusion of a category of stationary
sources in such list, the Administrator is
required to propose regulations
establishing standards of performance
for new and modified sources within
such category. At present standards of
performance for 27 categories of sources
have been promulgated.
The Administrator, after evaluating
available information, has determined
that stationary internal combustion
engines are an additional category of
stationary sources which meets the
above requirements. The basis for this
determination is discussed in the
preamble to the proposed regulation that
is published elsewhere in this issue of
the Federal Register. Evaluation of other
stationary source categories is in
progress, and the list will be revised
from time to time as the Administrator
deems appropriate. Stationary internal
combustion engines are included on the
proposed NSPS priority list (published
August 31. 1978) required by section
I1l(f)(l). but since the priority list is not
final, stationary internal combustion
engines are also being listed as
indicated below at this time. Once the
priority list is promulgated, all source
categories on the promulgated list are
considered listed under section
lll(b)(l)(A), and separate listings such
as this will not be made for those source
categories.
Accordingly, notice is given that the
Administrator, pursunnl to section
lll(b)(l)(A) of the Act. and after
consultation with appropriate advisory
committees, experts and Federal
departments and agencies in accordance
with section 1l7|f) of the Act, effective
July 23. 1979 amends the list of
categories of stationary sources to read
as follows:
List of Categories of Stationary Sources
and Corresponding Affected Facilities
Source Category
*****
Affected Facilities
Internal combustion engines
Proposed standards of performance
applicable to the above source category
appear elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register.
Dated: July 11.1979.
Douglas M. Costle,
Administrator./
|FR Doc. 79-22225 Filed 7-20-79: 6:45 am|
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 18, 1979
[40 CFR Part 60]
[FRL 1321-5]
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources; Stationary Internal
Combustion Engines
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Extension of Comment Period.
SUMMARY: The deadline for submittal of
comments on the proposed standards of
performance for stationary internal
combustion engines, which were
proposed on July 23,1979 (44 FR 43152),
is being extended from September 21,
1979, to October 22,1979.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before October 22,1979.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be
submitted to Mr. David R. Patrick, Chief,
Standards Development Branch (MD-
13), Emission Standards and Engineering
Division, Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Don R. Goodwin, Director, Emission
Standards and Engineering Division
(MD-13), Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)
541-5271.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July
23, 1979 (44 FR 43152), the
Environmental Protection Agency
proposed standards of performance for
the control of emissions from stationary
internal combustion engines. The notice
of proposal requested public comments
on the standards by September 21,1979.
Due to a delay in the shipping of the
Standards Support Document, sufficient
copies of the document have not been
available to all interested parties in time
to allow their meaningful review and
comment by September 21,1979. EPA
has received a request from the indusjry
to extend the comment period by 30
days through October 22,1979. An
extension of this length is justified since
the shipping delay has resulted in
approximately a three-week delay in
processing requests for the document.
Additionally, page 9-75 of the
Standards Support Document was
inadvertently omitted. Persons wishing
to obtain copies of this page should
contact Mr. Doug Bell, Emission
Standards and Engineering Division,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5477.
Dated: September 12.1979.
David G. Hawkins,
Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise, and
Radiation.
|FR Doc. 79-2W27 Filed »-17-7K (:4J un]
IV-FF-23
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR
NEW STATIONARY
SOURCES
ORGANIC SOLVENT
CLEANERS
SUBPART JJ
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 11.1980 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
FRL 1375-3]
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources Organic Solvent
Cleaners
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of
public hearing. <
SUMMARY: The proposed standards
would limit emissionsof volatile organic
compounds (VOC) and trichloroethylene
1,1,1-trichloroethane, perchloroethylene,
methylene chloride, and
trichlorotrifluoroethane from new,
modified, and reconstructed organic
solvent cleaners (degreasers) in which
solvents are used to clean (degrease)
metal, plastic, fiberglass, or any other
type of material. The proposed
standards would specify several
equipment designs and work practices
for controlling emissions from cold
cleaners, open top vapor degreasers,
and conveyorized degreasers. When
carbon adsorber control systems are
used, a performance standard would
also apply. To determine the emissions
from carbon adsorbers, a new test
method, Reference Method 23, is
proposed to measure the concentration
of the above mentioned halogenated .
compounds, and Reference Method 25
which was proposed on October 5,1979
(44 FR 57792) would be used to measure
emissions of VOC.
The proposed standards implement
the Clean Air Act and are based on the
Administrator's determination that
organic solvent cleaners contribute
significantly to air pollution. The intent
is to require new, modified, and
reconstructed organic solvent cleaners
to use the best demonstrated system of
continuous emission reduction,
considering costs, nonair quality health,
and environmental and energy impacts.
It is also proposed that standards be
developed under section lll(d) of the
Clean Air Act, as amended, for the
control of emissions from existing
facilities of the five halogenated organic
solvents listed above. EPA is not
committed to developing section lll(d)
standards unless, after review of public
comments, standards for one or more of
these five solvents are promulgated for
new, modified, or reconstructed
facilities. If such standards were
promulgated, EPA would develop a
guideline document that would require
Slates to develop emission control
regulations for existing organic solvent
cleaners which use any of the five
halogenated solvents to which the
promulgated regulations would apply.
A public hearing will be held to
provide interested persons an
opportunity for oral presentation of
data, views, or arguments concerning
the proposed standards.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be
received on or before August 25,1980.
Public Hearing. The public hearieg
will be held on July 24,1980, beginning
at 9:00 a.m.
Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons
wishing to present oral testimony should
contact EPA by July 17,1980.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments
should be submitted (in duplicate if
possible) to the Central Docket Section
(A-130), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460, Attention:
Docket No. OAQPS-78-12.
Public Hearing. The public hearing
will be held at Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, in the EPA
Environmental Research Center
auditorium (Room B-102). Persons
wishing to present oral testimony should
notify Deanna Tilley, Standards
Development Branch (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number: (919) 541-5421.
Background Information Document.
The Background Information Document
(BID) for the proposed standards may be
obtained from the U.S. EPA Ubrary
(MD-35), Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)
541-2777. Please refer to Organic
Solvent Cleaners—Background
Information for Proposed Standards
(EPA-450/2-78-045a).
Docket. Docket number OAQPS-78-
12, containing supporting information .
used by EPA in development of the
proposed 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, Room
2903B, Waterside Mall, 401 M Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
FOH FURTHER INFORMATION eOMTACT:
Mr. John D. Crenshaw, Standards
Development Branch, Emission
Standards and Engineering Division
(MD-13), Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)
541-5421.
SUPPLEMENTARY INF0BKJflYt©M:
Proposed Standards
The proposed standards would limit
the emissions of organic solvents from
new, modified, and reconstructed
degreasers in which solvents are used to
clean and degrease metal, plastic,
fiberglass, or any other type of material.
Three types of degreasers would be
regulated: cold cleaners, open top vapor
degreasers, and conveyorized
degreasers. The proposed regulations
consist of a combination of design,
equipment, work practice, and
operational standards that allow for the
best emission control and enforceability.
Each type of degreaser would be
required to have specific features for
effectively reducing emissions. Pollution
control devices for degreasers would
include covers, raised freeboards,
refrigerated freeboard devices and
carbon adsorption systems. Work
practices and operational procedures
would also be required for each type of
degreaser. These practices and
procedures would assure the maximum
•effectiveness of a specific piece of
control equipment, and would require
use of techniques that reduce solvent
emissions.
An inspection and maintenance
program would also be required to
prevent and correct solvent losses from
leaks and equipment malfunctions. An
operator training program is a proposed
requirement because proper equipment
operation and work practices play a
significant role in effective control of
solvent emissions from degreasers.
Finally, owners and operators would be
required to keep records on the amount
and type of solvent purchased for a
period of two years.
Summary of Environmental, Economic,
and Energy Impacts
Environmental Impact. The proposed
standards would reduce emissions of
organic solvents (i.e., volatile organic
compounds, trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, perchloroethylene,
methylene chloride, and
trichlorotrifluoroethane) from all
degreasing units for which construction
was commenced after (date of proposal).
Affected facilities that come on-line
between 1980 and 1985 would emit an
estimated 332,000 megagrams (366,000
tons) of organic solvents in 1985, if the
degreaser units are uncontrolled. With
implementation of the proposed
regulations, controlled emissions from
these facilities would be 120,000
megagrams (132,000 tons) in 1985, which
constitutes a reduction of 64 percent.
The only potentially adverse impact
on water quality of the proposed
regulation would derive from the solvent
dissolved in the steam condensate from
regeneration (solvent desorption) of
carbon adsorbers. Because the solubility
of solvent in the condensate is very
small, the amount of dissolved solvent is
IV-JJ-2
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 114 / Wednesday. June 11. 1980 / Proposed Rules
slightly greater than one-tenth of one
percent (0.1%) of the amount which
would be discharged into the air if the
proposed controls were not
implemented. In a typical system, the
carbon adsorber has a solvent capacity
of 95 kilograms (210 pounds), and
requires 3 kilograms (6.6 pounds) of
steam to desorb each kilogram of
solvent. Although desorption generates
approximately 283 liters (10 cubic feet)
of steam condensate per cycle, most
solvent would be recovered by a water
separator. Only 74 grams (0.16 pound) of
solvent per day is expected to be lost in
the waste stream from a typical carbon
adsorber. The environmental impact of
the disposal of this small amount of
condensate is insignificant. Alternatives
are under consideration by EPA for
controlling the solvent in the effluent
from desorption of a carbon adsorber.
EPA may establish regulations
pertaining to these effluents in the
future.
The only solid waste impact due to
implementation of the proposed
standards would be disposal of the
spent carbon from the carbon adsorbers
used as air pollution control devices on
certain types of degreasers. With
replacement of spent carbon every 10
years, disposal of spent carbon from
carbon adsorbers on affected facilities
would amount to 243 megagrams (268
tons) nationwide starting in 1989 and
would increase to 271 megagrams (299
tons) in 1995. Therefore, the solid waste
impact from spent carbon would be
minimal.
Economic Impact. The costs of
compliance with the proposed standards
are based on control equipment
currently in use and commercially
available. Economic analysis indicates
that, under most conditions, the capital
and annualized costs for the control
equipment can be fully recovered by
credits for the recovered solvent.
Consequently, no adverse economic
impact is anticipated to result from
implementation of the proposed
standards. The economic impact, may,
in fact, be positive in the sense that net
credits lead to lower production costs in
most, if not all, industries. Methods to
reduce solvent consumption and save
money generally have not been
accomplished in the past since
degreasing costs generally average less
than four-tenths of one percent of
industry output.
Energy Impact. Energy consuming
emission control devices for degreasing
operations would include (1)
refreigerated freeboard devices, (2)
'carbon adsorption systems, and (3)
distillation equipment. Operation of
these control devices in 1985 is
estimated to require about 0.27 million
kWh per day (equivalent to 440 barrels
of oil per day); however, the proposed
standards would result in the prevention
or capture of degreaser emissions. Based
upon the amount of energy that would
have been required to manufacture
replacement solvent, use of the required
control devices on new organic solvent
cleaners would conserve an estimated
3800 barrels of oil per day. Thus, the
proposed standards in 1985 would result
in a net conservation of energy
equivalent to an estimated 3350 barrels
of oil per day.
Rationale—Selection of Source for
Control
Organic solvent cleaners (degreasers)
. have been identified as significant
sources of air pollutant emissions which
cause or contribute to the endangerment
of the public health or welfare.
Degreasing is not an industry but is an
integral part of many manufacturing,
repair, and maintenance operations.
Volatile organic compounds, as well as
1,1,1-trichloroethane,
trichlorotrifluoroethane, methylene
chloride, trichlorethylene, and
perchloroethylene constitute the
emissions from organic solvent cleaners.
There were an estimated 725,000
megagrams (800,000 tons) of organic
solvents emitted from organic solvent
cleaning operations in 1975. This
represents about 4 percent of the total
national volatile organic emissions from
stationary sources, making organic
solvent cleaners the fifth largest
stationary source category for organic
emissions. There are over 1,500,000
organic solvent cleaners currently in
operation. If the current growth rate of
4.1 percent per year continues as
expected, over 300,000 new organic
solvent cleaners would be subject to
these standards of performance by 1985.
Degreasing emissions include losses
due to evaporation from the solvent
bath, convection, carry out, leaks, and
waste solvent disposal. Thus, the
emissions from a degreaser are fugitive
in nature. Many of the degreasers
currently in use are operated without
proper control emissions to the
atmosphere. Emissions from degreasers
may be controlled by the use of various
equipment options (including a cover,
extended freeboard, refrigerated
freeboard device, and carbon adsorber)
and specific work practices (involving
parts handling, proper use and
maintenance of equipment, preventing
drafts, and controlling the rate of the
degreasing operation).
Based on the large number of sources
and their wide geographic distribution
across the United States, the current
sales and projected growth rate in the
"industry" and the possible reduction in
adverse environmental and health
impacts which can be achieved, organic
solvent cleaners have been selected for
control through the development of
standards of performance.
Selection of Affected Facilities
Organic solvent cleaning is not a
specific industry but is an integral part
of many manufacturing, repair, and
maintenance operations. Practically
every business that works metal or has
maintenance or repair operations does
some type of degreasing. Degreasing
operations are often concentrated in
urban areas where there are a large
number of manufacturing facilities.
The solvents used in degreasing
operations include halogenated
hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates,
ketones, ethers, and alcohols. These
solvents are emitted as fugitive
emissions from each of the three types
of degreasers which would be regulated:
(1) a cold cleaner, in which the article to
be cleaned is immersed, sprayed or
otherwise washed in a solvent at or
about room temperature; (2) an open top
vapor^ degreaser, in which the article is
suspended in solvent vapor over a pool
of boiling solvent and the solvent vapors
condense on the article and dissolve or
wash soil and grease from it; and (3) a
conveyorized degreaser, in which
articles are conveyed on a chain, belt or
other conveying system either through a •
spray or pool of cold solvent, or through
the vapor of a boiling solvent. In order
to achieve significant reduction in
volatile organic compound emissions
from degreasing operations, all types of
new, modified, or reconstructed
degreasers would subject to control.
The mode of disposal of waste solvent
can also contribute significantly to
solvent emissions. In the past, disposal
has generally been handled by the
owners of organic solvent cleaners. If
waste solvent disposal in 1985 were to
follow the pattern of waste solvent
disposal in 1974, about 43 percent of the
waste solvent from new sources would
be reclaimed, incinerated, landfilled and
the remaining 57 percent could be an
immediate source of air or water
emissions.
A number of alternatives for
regulating waste disposal have been
considered. These include requiring
incineration or reclamation, and
establishment of standards under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). Because of the impact on
these small sources of requiring
reclamation or incineration, regulation
here is not now planned. Rather, the
IV-JJ-3
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 11, 1980 / Proposed Rules
Administrator is deferring at this time
on waste disposal requirements and is
pursuing this matter under RCRA. The
section on waste disposal is being
reserved, however, pending completion
of the evaluation and resolution of the
issues.
Selection of Pollutants and Regulatory
Approach
Among the solvents used in
degreasing operations, approximately 40
percent are non-halogenated
hydrocarbons and 60 percent are
halogenated hydrocarbons. Most of
these solvents are also reactive volatile
organic compounds (VOC), defined by
this proposal as organic compounds
which participate in atmospheric
photochemical reactions or which may
be measured by the applicable reference
method specified under any subpart of
40 CFR Part 60. The proposed standards
of performance apply to reactive VOC
(ozone precursors) used as cleaning
solvents and to five halogenated
compounds for which there is a •
reasonable anticipation of public health
endangerment.
Reactive Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOC). f
The proposed standards require
control of any VOC demonstrated to be
precursors to the formation of ozone and
other photochemical oxidants in the
atmosphere. While not all compounds
are equally reactive, analysis of
available data indicates that very few
VOC are of such low photochemical
reactivity that they can be ignored in
oxidant control programs. EPA's
"Recommended Policy on Control of
Volatile Organic Compounds" (42 FR
35314; July 8,1977) affirmed that many
compounds which produced negligible
oxidant concentrations during initial
smog chamber tests were found to
contribute appreciably to ozone levels
when exposed to multiday irradiations
in urban atmospheres. In those
geographical areas where industrial and
automotive emissions are subjected to
long hours of sunlight, or where air
stagnation occurs frequently, such low
reactivity compounds may become
significant source of photochemical
oxidant.
EPA is developing standards of
performance under section lll(b) for a
number of categories of sources which
emit these volatile organic compounds,
which are ozone precursors. Ozone air
pollution endangers the public health
and welfare, as reflected in the
Administrator's promulgation of a
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
for ozone (44 FR 8202; February 8,1979).
Emissions of ozone precursors from
these source categories cause or
contribute significantly to ozone air
pollution. Trichloroethylene and, to a
lesser extent, perchloroethylene react to
form ozone and therefore would be
subject to new source performance
standards for reactive VOC.
The Administrator is also concerned
about certain other possible health
effects of perchloroethylene and
trichloroethylene, apart from their role
in ozone formation, and he believes that
regulation of existing emission sources
is necessary. Both substances have been
found to induce a high incidence of
hepatocellular carcinomas (liver tumors)
in mice and have shown positive results
in bacterial mutagencity assays (a
screening technique for potential
carcinogens). The Agency's initial
evaluation of this information is that it
presents "substantial evidence" (41 FR
21402; May 25,1976) that both
substances are human carcinogens.
Consistent with EPA's proposed rules
for regulating airborne carcinogens (44
FR 58642; October 10,1979), if these
initial evaluations are sustained after
consideration of comments by EPA's
Science Advisory Board, it is likely that .
perchloroethylene and trichloroethylene
will be classified as high-probability
carcinogens and, in light of the
significant emissions of each, regulated
as hazardous air pollutants under
section 112 of the Act. This regulation
would include both new and existing
emission sources.
It is also possible that the
Administrator will ultimately conclude
that one or both of these chemicals is a
moderate-probability carcinogen rather
than a high-probability carcinogen. As
the proposed airborne carcinogen rules
explain, under the circumstances
presented here, EPA could then
"designate" the substance for regulation
of existing organic solvent cleaners by
the States under section lll(d) of the
Clean Air Act. The Act provides for the
designation of such substances for
regulation under section lll(d) if the
substances themselves have not been
listed previously under section 108 or
section 112. Because the evidence is
clearly sufficient for the Administrator
to conclude that both substances are at
least moderate-probability carcinogens
and that their emission by organic
solvent cleaners causes air pollution
which endangers public health and
welfare, he is proposing designation of
these two substances under section
lll(d) at this time. Although a final
determination by the Agency of the
evidence of carcinogenicity would
normally precede the selection of a
regulatory alternative, the Administrator
is proposing designation of
perchloroethylene and trichloroethylene
today for two reasons. First, this will put
existing sources within the industry on
notice that nerchioroethylene and
trichloroethylene would not be
unregulated substitutes for the other
three solvents for which designation is
proposed today. Second, in the event
that the Administrator ultimately
concludes that perchloroethylene and
trichloroethylene are moderate-
probability rather than high-probability
carcinogens, it will enable the section
lll(d) process to proceed without delay
as part of a coordinated regulatory
program for the organic solvent cleaning
industry. The Administrator intends to
make a final carcinogenicity assessment
for these two chemicals before
promulgating today's proposals.
Negligibly Reactive Halogenated
Compounds.
In addition to reactive halogenated
compounds, the proposed new source
regulations would apply to three
additional halogenated solvents: 1,1,1-
trichlorethane, methylene chloride, and
trichlorotrifluoroethane. Since these
chemicals are acknowledged by EPA to
be negligibly reactive, they are not
ozone precursors and must be
designated under section lll(d) of the
Act. As described above, the
designation for the purpose of obtaining
coverage under new source standards
also requires the development under
section lll(d) of standards for existing
sources.
Both methylene chloride and 1,1,1-
trichlorethane have scored positive as
well as negative results in short-term
mutagenicity and cell transformation
tests. The weight of evidence has led the
EPA Carcinogen Assessing Assessment
Group to conclude in preliminary
assessments that both chemicals exhibit
suggestive evidence of human
carcinogenicity. Under EPA's proposed
airborne carcinogen policy, this finding
would establish 1,1,1-trichlorethane and
methylene chloride as candidates for
regulation under section 111 as air
pollutants "reasonably anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare." In
addition, trichlorotrifluoroethane and
1,1,1-trichlorethane have been
implicated in the depletion of the
stratospheric ozone layer, a region of the
upper atmosphere which shields the
earth from harmful wavelengths of
ultraviolet radiation that increase skin
cancer risks in humans.
The judgments of whether and to
what extent 1,1,1-trichlorethane and
methylene chloride are human
carcinogens, and 1,1,1-trichlorethane
and trichlorotrifluoroethane deplete the
IV-JJ-4
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 114 / Wednesday. June 11. 1980 / Proposed Rules
ozone layer, are issues of considerable
debate. While the scientific literature
has been previously reviewed and
summarized in the docket prepared for
this rulemaking, more detailed health
assessments are currently in preparation
by EPA's Office of Research and
Development. These assessments will
be completed and submitted for external
review, including review by the Science
Advisory Board, prior to the
promulgation of the regulations and the
proposal of EPA guidance to States in
developing existing source control
measures. The extent to which the
preliminary findings are affirmed by the
review process may affect the final
rulemaking for new as well as existing
sources.
While the measure of concern is less
for these latter three solvents than for
perchloroethylene and trichloroethylene,
the Administrator has chosen to proceed
with the designation of 1,1,1-
trichlorethane, methylene chloride, the
trichlorotrifluoroethane at this time
because emissions from these sources
and the associated health risks can be
reduced at a very low cost. This
decision reflects EPA's concern that
continued growth in uncontrolled
emissions of 1,1,1-trichlorethane,
methylene chloride, and
trichlorotrifluoroethane from solvent
cleaners may endanger public health,
and is reinforced by projections that,
were these chemicals exempted from
regulation, the resulting substitution of
exempt for non-exempt solvents could
result in large increases in the emissions
of these pollutants.
The designation of 1,1,1-
trichlorethane, methylene chloride, and
trichlorotrifluoroethane incorporates
these chemicals under today's proposed
new source standards and invokes
section lll(d) which requires States to
develop controls for existing sources. As
described in detail below, the new
source standards do not place
unreasonable economic costs on the
industry. While the impact of similar
controls on existing sources could be
more significant due to the technological
problems associated with retrofit, this
factor would be an important
consideration in determining the
appropriate control level for existing
sources. In view of the substantial
reduction in emissions which can be
achieved at low cost, and the potential
for substitution between these five
compounds, the Administrator is
persuaded that the present approach
represents a prudent policy to protect
public health. It should be emphasized
that the health assessments discussed
here are not final. The Administrator is
aware of other relevant information that
may become available. All applicable
information will be carefully evaluated
prior to making the final regulatory
decision.
Summaries of the health basis for
designating perchloroethylene,
trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane,
methylene chloride, and
trichlorotrifluore'thane are available in
the public rulemaking docket described
at the beginning of this notice.
Selection of Format for the Proposed
Standards
Under the Clean Air Act, as amended,
there are two regulatory alternatives
available for establishing standards of
performance for new stationary sources.
Section lll(b) provides for establishing
emission limitations or percentage
reductions in emissions. However, when
such standards are not feasible to
prescribe or enforce, section lll(h) of
the Clean Air Act provides that EPA
may instead promulgate a design,
equipment, work practice, or operational
standard, or combination thereof. In
either event, the standards prescribed
would require new, modified, end
reconstructed organic solvent cleaners
to use the best demonstrated system of
continuous emission reduction
considering costs, nonair quality health
and environmental impacts, and energy
impacts. The emissions from organic
solvent cleaners are unconfined
(fugitive). Although techniques have
been developed to measure the solvent
lost from degreasing equipment (such as
mounting entire organic solvent cleaners
on scales), these methods are
impractical for enforcement of
regulations due to the length of time
needed to accurately determine the
solvent losses and because of the
disruption this would cause in degreaser
operations. For this reason, an
equipment and work practice standard
has been selected since it is not feasible
to enforce emission limitations or
percentage reductions in emissions for
organic solvent cleaning operations.
Selection of the Best System of Emission
Reduction
Emissions of volatile organic
compounds from degreasers would be
reduced significantly by the use of
various pollution control devices, singly
or in combination, as would be
appropriate for each method of
degreasing. These controls would
include: cover, drain rack, raised
freeboard, refrigerated freeboard device,
downtime port covers, hanging flaps,
and drying tunnel or lip exhaust in
conjunction with a carbon adsorber.
Degreaser emissions would be reduced
further through the implementation of
prescribed work practices. These work
practices would include: closing the
cover when work is not being lowered
into or removed from the degreaser,
storing solvent in covered containers,
not exposing open degreasers to steady
drafts with velocities exceeding 40m/
min (131 ft/min), and not overloading
the degreaser.
The best system of emission'control
for each type of degreaser was selected
on the basis of EPA tests of the
effectiveness of various controls used on
degreasers operating under different
conditions and using different solvents.
These are described as follows:
Cold Cleaners.—The emission control
system selected for cold cleaners (CC)
would consist of both control equipment
and a series of work practices. These
controls used in combination would
reduce solvent emissions from cold
cleaners by about 80 percent. The
equipment requirements would include a
cover, a drain rack, and a visible fill
line. The cover would be dqsigned to be
readily opened and closed at any time.
External drain racks would lead the
drainage back to the tank. If the CC is
equipped with a parts basket, internal
hooks to permit suspension of the
basket above the solvent could be
substituted for the drain rack. One of the
work practices would require that the
solvent level not exceed the visible
internal maximum fill line. The proposed
standards would require that the
freeboard ratio for CC would be at least
0.7 if the solvent vapor pressure is
greater than 4.3 kPa (33 mm Hg or 0.6
psi) measured at 38° C (100° F). The
purpose for this is to prevent excessive
volatilization, i.e. vaporization. Higher
freeboard ratios impede excess
vaporization of highly volatile solvents
under normal operating conditions.
However, many solvents used in cold
cleaning operations do not volatilize as
rapidly as others. For solvents with a
vapor pressure of less than or equal to
4.3 kPa measured at 38° C (100° F), the
proposed standards would require a
freeboard ratio of 0.5.
The economic analysis for this
emission control system for cold
cleaners was based on a typical unit.
The uncontrolled cold cleaner was
assumed to be uncovered all the time,
whereas the controlled unit had a cover
that was used all but 2 hours per
working day (20 loads cleaned per day).
Based on these assumptions, the cover
would reduce emissions by 349
kilograms (769 pounds) per year at a
savings of $69.80. The drain rack would
reduce emissions by 36 kilograms (79
pounds) per year with a savings of $7.92.
IV-JJ-5
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 11. 1980 / Proposed Rules
Remote Reservoir Cold Cleaner.—The
emission control system selected for
remote reservoir cold cleaners (RRCC) is
less stringent than that proposed for
conventional cold cleaners. During non-
use periods, the solvent is enclosed in a
reservoir and not subject to evaporation
loss to the atmosphere. While parts are
being cleaned, solvent is pumpted
through a sink-like work area which
drains back-i«to the enclosed contaier.
Because the reservoir is remote from the
work area, this type of organic solvent
cleaner is not subject to the evaporation
losses suffered by conventional cold
cleaners. Therefore, the proposed
standards for remote reservoir cold
cleaners would not require closable
covers, provided the solvent used has a
vapor pressure of less than or equal to
4.3 kPa (33 mm Hg or 0.6 psi) measured
at 38° C (100° F), but would require
covers if the solvent volatility was
greater than 4.3 kPa.
Open Top Vapor Degreaser.—The
emission control systems would be
required for all new, modified, or
reconstructed open top vapor degreasers
(OTVD) consists of covers, raised
freebacks, and refrigerated freeboard
devices or carbon adsorption systems.
EPA and industry tests have shown that
covers are the most effective control
device in reducing solvent emissions
during nonoperating conditions. Raised
freeboards have also been show to be
effective at reducing these emissions. By
raising the freeboard ratio from 0.5 to
0.75, solvent emissions are generally
reduced 25-30 percent during idling
conditions. Emission reductions are less
during actual operating conditions due
to the transference of loads through
vapor/air interface. Freeboard ratios
larger than 0.75 may yield greater
emission reductions, however, higher
freeboards tend to icrease the difficulty
of transferring loads into and out of the
degreaser. The demonstrated ability of
covers and raised freeboards to reduce
solvent emissions, and the minimal cost
of these two control devices have been
the primary reasons for requiring the use
of covers during nonoperating periods
and ,'reeboards ratios of at least 0.75 for
all new, modified, and reconstructed
open top vapor degreasers.
Emission tests have also shown that
refrigerated freeboard devices and lip
exhausts connected to carbon adsorbers
are more effective at reducing solvent
emissions than raised freeboards.
During operating conditions, emission
reductions as high as 65 percent have
been demonstrated with the use of
carbon adsorbers, while refrigerated
freeboard devices have been
demonstrated to reduce solvent
emissions by at least 40 percent. A
raised freeboard ratio of 1.0 has also
shown promise (55 percent reduction),
but its effectiveness under cross-draft
conditions has not been adequately
evaluated. It is expected that the cold
air blanket produced by a refrigerated
freeboard device would provide greater
control of cross-draft induced vapor
losses. For these reasons, all new,
modified, and reconstructed OTVD with
vapor/air interface areas greater than
one square meter would be required to
use refrigerated freeboard devices, or
have lip exhausts connected to carbon
adsorbers.
Reference Method 23, "Determination
of Halogenated Organics from
Stationary Sources," would be the
required test method to measure
emissions of the regulated halogenated
compounds from carbon adsorbers. The
principle of the method is an integrated
bag sample of stack gas that is subjected
to gas chromatographic analysis, using
flame ionization detection. The range of
this method is 0.1 to 200 ppm. The
emission limitation proposed by these
standards of performance would be 25
ppm of any regulated halogenated
organic compound measured over the
length of the carbon adsorber cycle, or
for three hours, whichever is less. The
Administrator specifically requests
comments on this proposed test method
and emission limitation.
A cut-off size of one square meter was
determined to be the most effective for
OTVD, taking into consideration the
absolute reduction in solvent emissions
and economic analyses. Although the
capUal expenditures for refrigerated
freeboard devices are greater than for
raised freeboards, solvent savings
would completely offset the added
capital expenditures, provided the
degreasers were operated properly.
However, for small OTVD (less than 1
m2 in open top area), refrigerated
freeboard devices would not be a cost-
effective alternative. Taking into
consideration the small reduction in
solvent emissions and economics, small
open top vapor degreasers would not be
required to have refrigerated freeboard
devices. ,.
EPA realizes that refrigerated
freeboard devices with sub-zero (0°C)
refrigerant temperatures are patented. If
any degreaser manufacturer is unable to
demonstrate alternative methods of
control, and certifies that the licensing
terms for sub-zero refrigerated
freeboard devices are unreasonable,
relief under section 308 of the Clean Air
Act, as amended can be sought.
Although the proposed standards
require specific control technologies,
they do not preclude the use of other
control options which are demonstrated
to be equally effective in reducing
solvent emissions. After proposal of
these regulations, any person may
request an equivalency determination.
EPA expects to approve other methods
of continuous emission reduction when
they have been demonstrated to be as
effective in reducing emissions as
refrigerated freeboard devices. The
Administrator will also welcome any
additional data and information
concerning the control efficiencies of
raised freeboards and refrigerated
freeboard devices. Tests are currently
being conducted to investigate the
effectiveness of refrigerated freeboard
devices and increased freeboard ratios
under cross-draft conditions.
Preliminary results of these tests have
shown varying test results for different
solvents. Because of possible variation
in test outcomes, additional tests are
planned. Tests are also being conducted
to evaluate the effectiveness of
automated covers which close after the
workload enters the degreaser. These
test results and any additional
information and data submitted to EPA
during the public comment period will
be used to further evaluate the
appropriateness of the proposed
emission control options. Expansion or
deletion of these options will be
evaluated prior to promulgation. All
information obtained during the course
of this investigation and received during
the public comment period would be
placed in the docket for public review
and considered by EPA before taking
final action to promulgate standards for
new, modified, and reconstructed
degreasers.
ConveyorizedDegreasers.—There are
two major types of conveyorized
degreasers: conveyorized vapor
degreaser (CVD) and conveyorized cold
cleaners (CCC). Conveyorized vapor
degreasers use the vapors of boiling
solvent to clean and degrease surfaces,
while conveyorized cold cleaners use
non-boiling solvent in the liquid phase
to clean surfaces. The emission control
system selected for conveyorized
degreasers consists of both control
equipment and a series of work
practices. Using these controls in
combination will reduce solvent
emissions from conveyorized degreasers
by 60 percent.
The two major emission control
requirements for CVD are carbon
adsorbers or refrigerated freeboard
devices, provided the CVD is greater
than 2 square.meters (21.6 ft2) in vapor/
air interface area. This cutoff size was
determined to be the most effective,
taking into consideration the absolute
IV-JJ-6
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 114 / Wednesday. June 11. 1980 / Proposed Rules
reduction in solvent emission and
economic analyses. For larger crossrod
and monorail CVD, carbon adsorbers
produce greater emission reductions at
higher savings than do refrigerated
freeboard devices. For owners or
operators of small crossrod and
monorail degreasers, the capital costs of
a carbon adsorber could be prohibitive.
Because of this, a refrigerated freeboard
device may be used instead of a carbon
adsorber. As with OTVD, the type of
conveyorized vapor degreaser, the type
of work being processed, and ambient
conditions would determine which
emission control system should be used.
For conveyorized cold cleaners, the
major emission control requirement
would be a carbon adsorber, provided
the CCC is greater than 2 square meters
(21.6 ft2) in solvent/air interface area.
Like CVD, this cutoff was determined to
be the most effective, taking into
consideration the absolute reduction in
solvent emissions and economic
analyses. Refrigerated freeboard devices
would not be an option for CCC since
they are only effective in reducing
emissions of warm solvent vapors.
Equivalent Systems of Emission
Reduction
These standards of performance do
not preclude the use of other degreaser
emission control equipment or
procedures of operation which can be
demonstrated to be equivalent, in terms
of reducing solvent emissions, to those
prescribed in the proprsed regulation.
For determination of equivalency, any
person may write the Administrator of
EPA and request approval of a test plan
for demonstrating equivalency. The test
plan must propose the use of specific
equipment, test procedures, a date, and
a U.S. location at which the person
making the request wishes to
demonstrate equivalency. In order to
determine equivalency, the
Administrator must find a substantial
likelihood that the control technology
used in normal operations would
produce equivalent emission reductions
as the standards would require, at
approximately the same or less
economic, energy, or environmental
cost. An alternate equipment design
would not be considered equivalent to
the proposed requirements if it placed a
greater burden upon the personnel
operating the degreaser to manually
operate the emission capture device
(e.g., use of an automated cover could
potentially be found equivalent to use of
refrigerated freeboard devices, but a
manually operated cover would not
qualify). Automated operation of the
emission control system is required
because manual operation would be
burdensome due to the frequency with
which work enters and exits open top
vapor degreasers (cycle times of only 6
minutes are not unusual) and because
enforcement of these standards would
primarily depend upon equipment
certifications. Although work practices
could not be substituted for equipment
design requirements, alternatives to the .
work practices contained in the
proposed standards could also be
included in an equivalency
determination.
Selection of Enforcement Methods
More than 325,000 new degreasers are
expected to be in operation by 1985. The
large number of degreasers precludes
the inspection of all units on a periodic
basis. Therefore, enforcement must be
achieved through a combination of
degreaser manufacturer certifications
and EPA random inspections. Because
EPA cannot inspect al! degreasers that
will be in operation, adherence to the
work practices will basically depend
upon voluntary compliance. Although
the work practices are important, the
equipment design requirements will be
the primary mechanism for ensuring the
control of organic solvent emissions
from degreasing operations. A random
inspection program would be designed
to inspect all degreaser design types
produced, but would cover only a
sample of shops using degreasing
equipment. To facilitate this program,
the primary reporting burden would be
place upon the manufacturers of
degreasing equipment
Under section lll(a)(5) of the Clean
Air Act, as amended, manufacturers of
degreasers would be considered owners
until the degreasers are sold. Thus, the
original manufacturer of a newly
constructed degreaser would be
responsible for making the proposed
reports. Section 114(a)(l) of the Act
specifies that the Administrator can
require owners or operators to report
information to EPA as may be
reasonably required. Manufacturers of
cold cleaners, remote reservoir cold
cleaners, open top vapor degreasers,
and conveyorized degreasers would be
required to notify the Administrator of
the date construction began on a new
degreaser, certain equipment features,
and the name, date and location to
whom the ownership of the degreaser
was transferred. This information would
be reported once for each degreaser
constructed, modified, or reconstructed
and the reports would be submitted
each quarter. If any manufacturer or
other owner or operator feels that the
information to be submitted is
proprietary in nature, a request for
confidential treatment can be submitted
with the report. On September 1,1976,
EPA promulgated regulations (40 CFR
part 2) which govern the treatment of
confidential business information,
including that obtained under section
114 of the Clean Air Act.
Under certain circumstances, the
operator of the degreaser rather than the
original manufacturer would be
responsible for making the report. This
would occur when a modification or
reconstruction to an existing degreaser
was made by any person other than the
original manufacturer or when any
affected degreaser is resold.
Certification would be supplemented
by an EPA inspection program of
representative types of models of
degreasers from owners and operators
selected at random. This program would
determine compliance with the design
requirements for all new degreasing
equipment, and would determine
compliance with the work practice and
operational requirements by a random
sample of degreasing operations.
Inspection would include a visual check
of the operation and an examination of
the methods of waste solvent disposal.
This method of enforcement has been
selected as the best option considering
the savings in time and money for
effective enforcement. As mentioned
previously, the large number of new
sources expected within the next five
years prohibits inspection of each unit.
Effort has been made to reduce the
proposed reporting and recordkeeping
burdens to the minimum needed to
administer an effective enforcement
program. EPA also considered requiring
each degreaser operator to report
directly to EPA upon installation of a
new degreaser and to periodically report
work practice methods in use. However,
the reporting requirements would have
caused an excessive burden to be
placed on each degreaser operator and
would have caused the generation of a
large number of reports. For these
reasons, the proposed reporting
requirements are minimized to include a
one-time report per degreaser of a few
basic items. In addition, spot checks of
representative types and models of
degreasers in operation were selected as
the best available option. Operators of
degreasing equipment would only be
required to keep records of solvent
usage and disposition and would not be
required to make written reports. These
records can be discarded after a two
year period. To further reduce the
impact of these requirements, operators
of small cold cleaners (less than 1 m2),
such as are commonly used in gasoline
service stations, would be exempt from
any recordkeeping or reporting except
IV-JJ-7
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 11, 1980 / Proposed Rules
for maintaining a simple record of the
disposition of waste solvent.
Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held to
discuss these 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 this preamble. Oral
presentations will be limited to 15
minutes each. Any member of the public
may file a written statement with EPA
before, during, or within 30 days after
the hearing. Written statements should
be addressed to the Central Docket
Section (A-130), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street. SW.,
Washington, D.C. 20460, Attention:
Docket No. OAQPS-78-12.
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, Room 2903B, Waterside
Mall, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,
D.C. 20460.
Docket
The docket is an organized and
complete file of all the information
submitted to or otherwise considered by
EPA 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 (2) to serve as
the record in case of judicial review
[section 307(d)(7)].
Miscellaneous
As prescribed by section 111 of the
Clean Air Act, as amended,
establishment of standards of
performance for organic solvent
cleaners was preceded by the
Administrator'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 endanger
public health or welfare. In accordance
with section 117 of the Act, publication
of this proposal was preceded by
consultation with 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 on the proposed
test methods.
It should be noted that standards of
performance for new sources
established under section 111 of the
Clean Air Aqt reflect:
... application of the best technological
system of contunuous emission reduction
which (taking into consideration the cost of
achieving such emission reduction, any
nonair quality health and environmental
impact and energy requirements) the
Administrator determines has been
adequately demonstrated [section lll(a)(l)].
Although there may be emission
control technology available that can
reduce emissions below those levels
required to comply with standards of
performance, this technology might not
be selected as the basis of standards of
performance due to costs associated
with its use. Accordingly, standards of
performance should not be viewed as
the ultimate in achievable emission
control. In fact, the Act requires (or has
the potential for requiring) the
imposition of a more stringent emission
standard in several situations.
For example, applicable costs do not
necessarily play as prominent a role in
determining the "lowest achievable
emission rate" for new or modified
sources locating in nonattainment 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 new
or modified sources constructed in an
area which exceeds the National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
must reduce emissions to the level
which reflects the "lowest achievable
emission rate" (LAER), as defined in
section 171(3) for such category of
source. The statute defines LAER as that
rate of emissions based on the
following, whichever is more stringent:
(A) the most stringent emission limitation
which is contained in the implementation
plan of any State for such class or category of
source, unless the owner or operator of the
proposed source demonstrates that such
limitations are not achievable, or
(B) the most stringent emission limitation
which is achieved in practice by such class or
category of source.
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 BACT 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 (SIP's) 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 SIP's must in some cases
require greater emission reduction than
those required by standards of
performance for new sources.
Finally, 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.
In order to prevent duplicative
regulatory reuirements, and in order to
avoid conflicts in standard setting, EPA
has been in contact with representatives
of the Interagency Regulatory Liaison
Group (IRLG). This group, composed of
members from EPA, the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA), the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), and the
Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC) was formed in August, 1977, to
ensure that the agencies work closely
together in areas of common interest
and responsibility. In particular, EPA
has been in contact with OSHA to
ensure that the requirements for the
proposed standard do not conflict with
OSHA's requirements for ventilation of
open surface tank operations (29 CFR
1910.94).
Under EPA's sunset policy for
reporting requirements in regulations,
the reporting requirements in this
regulation will automatically expire five
years from the date of promulgation
unless EPA takes affirmative action to
extend them. To accomplish this, a
provision automatically terminating the
reporting requirements at that time will
be included in the text of the final
regulations.
EPA will review this regulation 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, and
improvements in emission control
technology.
Section 317 of the Clean Air Act
requires the Administrator to prepare an
IV-JJ-8
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 114 / Wednesday. June 11. 1980 / Proposed Rules
economic impact assessment for any
new source standard of performance
promulgated under section lll(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.
The economic impact assessment is
included in the Background Information
Document.
Dated: April 17,1980.
Douglas M. Costle,
Administrator.
It is proposed to amend Part 60 of
Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
1. By adding alphabetically a
definition of the term "volatile organic
compound" to § 60.2 of Subpart A—
General Provisions as follows:
§60.2 Definitions
*****
"Volatile organic compound" means
any organic compound which
participates in atmospheric
photochemical reactions or is measured
by the applicable reference methods
specified under any subpart.
2. By adding Subpart JJ as follows:
Subpart JJ—Standards of Performance for
Organic Solvent Cleaners
Sec.
60.360 Application and designation of
affected facility.
60.361 Definitions.
60.362 Standards for volatile organic
compounds, trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, perchloroethylene,
methylene chloride, and
trichlorotrifluoroe thane.
60.363 Equivalent method of control.
60.364 Reporting and Recordkeeping.
60.365 Waste disposal, (reserved).
60.366 Test method.
Authority: Sec. Ill, 301(a) of the Clean Air
Act as amended [42 U.S.C. 7411, 7601(a)], and
additional authority as noted below.
Subpart JJ—Standards of
Performance for Organic Solvent
Cleaners
§ 60.360 Applicability and designation of
affected facility.
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to all organic solvent
cleaners for which construction was
commenced after (date of proposal)
which are used for organic solvent
cleaning (degreasing) of any materials.
§ 60.361 Definitions.
All terms used in this subpart, but not
specifically defined in this Section shall
have the meaning given them in the Act
and in Subpart A of this part.
"Adsorption cycle" means a solvent
recovery process which begins when
solvent laden air is directed through an
activated carbon bed, resulting in the
capture of solvent vapors. An
adsorption cycle shall be considered
complete when the activated carbon bed
becomes saturated with solvent,
resulting in breakthrough of solvent
vapors.
"Carbon adsorber" means a device in
which an organic compound is brought
into contact wiia activated carbon and
is retained.
"Certification" means a written
statement signed by the owner or
operator of the affected facility.
"Cold cleaner" means any device or
piece of equipment which contains and
uses an organic solvent in the liquid
phase to clean surfaces.
"Conveyorized cold cleaner" means
any conveyorizer degreaser which uses
an organic solvent in the liquid phase to
clean surfaces.
"Conveyorized degreaser" means any
device which uses an integral,
continuous, mechanical system for
moving materials or parts to be cleaned
into and out of an organic solvent liquid
or vapor cleaning zone.
"Conveyorized vapor degreaser"
means any conveyorizer degreaser
which uses an organic solvent in the
vapor phase to clean surfaces.
"Drain rack" means any basket, tray,
or sink located in, on, or exterior to a
degreaser, which permits excess or
condensed solvent to drain from the
parts after degreasing and to return to
the solvent bath.
"Drying tunnel" means an enclosed
extension of the exit from a
Conveyorized degreaser.
"Equivalent method of control" means
any method that can be demonstrated to
the Administrator to provide at least the
same degree of emission control as the
specified control.
"Extended freeboard" means an
addition to the sides of a degreaser to
increase the freeboard height.
"Fill line" means a permanent mark in
a degreaser tank that indicates the
maximum operating liquid level
recommended by the manufacturer.
"Freeboard height" means, for a cold
cleaner, the distance from the liquid
solvent level in the degreaser tank to the
lip of the tank. For an open top vapor
degreaser it is the distance from the
solvent vapor level in the tank during
idling to the lip of the tank. For a
Conveyorized cold cleaner it is the
distance from the liquid solvent level to
the bottom of the entrance or exit
opening, whichever is lower. For a
Conveyorized vapor degreaser, it is the
distance from the vapor level to the
bottom of the entrance or exit opening,
whichever is lower.
"Freeboard ratio" means a ratio of the
freeboard height to the smaller interior
dimension (length, width, or diameter) of
the degreaser.
"Lip exhaust" means a device
installed around the lip of a degreaser
that draws in air and solvent vapor
emissions and ducts them away from
the degreaser area.
"Open top vapor degreaser" means
any open top device or piece of
equipment that contains and uses an
organic solvent, at the boiling point of
the solvent, and solvent vapor to clean
equipment surfaces.
"Organic solvent" means any liquid
substance which contains carbon and
has the power to dissolve, causing
solution.
"Organic solvent cleaner" or
"degreaser" means any cold cleaner,
remote reservoir cold cleaner, open top
vapor degreaser, and Conveyorized
degreaser equipment and their ancillary
components.
"Organic solvent cleaning" or
"degreasing" means those processes
using organic solvents to clean and
remove soils from the surfaces of
materials being processed.
"Refrigerated freeboard device"
means a device which is mounted above
the water jacket and the primary
condenser coils, consisting of secondary
coils which carry a refrigerant to
provide a chilled air blanket above the
solvent va'por to reduce emissions from
the degreaser bath. The chilled air
blanket temperature, measured at the
centroid of the degreaser at the coldest
point, shall be no greater than 30 percent
of the solvent's boiling point (°F).
"Remote reservoir cold cleaner"
means any device in which liquid
solvent is pumped through a sink-like
work area which drains back into an
enclosed container while parts are being
cleaned and in which the solvent in the
enclosed container is not subject to
evaporation losses to the atmosphere
during non-use periods.
§ 60.362 Standards for volatile organic
compounds, trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-
trlchloroethane, perchloroethylene,
methylene chloride, and
trichlorotrlfluoroethane.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph
(d) of this section, an owner or operator
shall operate a cold cleaner, or a remote
reservoir cold cleaner only if it has a
cover that may be readily opened and
IV-JJ-9
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 11, 1980 / Proposed Rules
closed. A fusible link shall not interfere
with cover operation.
(b) An owner or operator shall
operate a cold cleaner only if it
conforms to the following design
requirem'ents:
(1) A drain rack. If an external drain
rack is used, it must allow the drained
solvent to return to the solvent bath in
the cold cleaner. If the cold cleaner is
equipped with a parts basket, internal
hooks to permit suspension of the
basket above the solvent may be
substituted for the drain rack.
(2) A freeboard ratio of at least 0.5. If
the solvent used has a volatility greater
than 4.3 kPa (33 mm Hg or 0.6 psi),
measured at 38°C (100°F), the freeboard
ration shall be at least 0.7.
(3) A visible fill line.
(c) Except as provided in paragraph
(d) of this section, an owner or operator
shall not operate a cold cleaner without
meeting the following work and
operational practices:
(i) The solvent level shall not exceed
the fill line.
(2) When a flexible hose or flushing
device is used, the pressure of solvent
delivered by the pump may not exceed
69 kPa (10 psi), measured at the pump
outlet, and the pumped solvent shall be
delivered in a continuous stream and
not a droplet spray. Flushing shall be
performed only within the confines of
the cold cleaner.
(3) When an air- or pump-agitated
solvent bath is used, the agitator shall
be operated so as to produce a rolling
motion of the solvent but not observable
splashing against tank walls or parts
being cleaned.
(4) The cover shall be closed when the
cold cleaner is not in use and when
parts are being cleaned by solvent
agitation.
(5) When the cover is open, the cold
cleaner may not be exposed to drafts
greater than 40 m/min (131 ft/min), as
measured between 1 and 2 meters
upwind and at the same elevation as the
tank lip.
(6) Solvent cleaned parts shall be
drained for 15 seconds or until dripping
has stopped, whichever is longer. Parts
having cavities or blind holes shall be
tipped or rotated while draining.
(7) Waste solvent, still, and sump
bottoms shall be collected and stored in
closed containers. The closed containers
may contain a device that would allow
pressure relief, but would not allow
liquid solvent to drain from the
container prior to disposal.
(8) Each owner shall provide a
permanent label for each cold cleaner
which states the required work and
operating practices. If the freeboard
ratio on a cold cleaner is less than 0.7,
the label shall state the types of solvents
which may be used in the cold cleaner.
Such solvents include xylenes, mineral
spirits, stoddard solvents, or other
solvents with a volatility less than or
equal to 4.3 kPa. The label shall be
placed near the front of the degreaser in
full view of the degreaser operator and
written in English, and any other
language that may be necessary for
comprehension by personnel operating
the degreaser. The label must be kept
visible and legible at all times. The plant
owner or operator shall ensure that each
person who operates a cold cleaner
understands the instructions on the
label.
(9) Spills during solvent transfer shall
be wiped up immediately. The wipe rags
shall be stored in covered.containers.
(d)(l) An owner or operator who
operates a remote reservoir cold cleaner
which uses solvent with a volatility of
less than or equal to 4.3 kPa (0.6 psi or
33 mm Hg) measured at 38°C (lOO'F),
and which has a drain area less than 100
cm2 (15.5 in2) shall be subject to the
provisions of paragraph (c)(2), (c)(5),
(c)(6), (c)(7), (c)(8), and (c)(9).
(2) An owner or operator who
operates a remote reservoir cold cleaner
which uses solvent with a volatility
greater than 4.3 kPa (0.6 psi or 33 mm
Hg) measured at 38° C (100° F), or has a
drain area greater than or equal to 100
cm2 (15.5 in2) shall be subject to the
provisions of paragraphs (d)(l), (c)(4),
and (a).
(e) An owner or operator shall operate
an open top vapor degreaser only if it
conforms to the following design
requirements:
(1) Each open top vapor degreaser
shall be equipped with a cover that may
be readily opened or closed. If the open
t: T vapor degreaser is equipped with a
lip exhaust, the cover shall be located
below the lip exhaust.
(2) Each open top vapor degreaser
shall have a freeboard ratio of at least
0.75.
(3) Each open top vapor degreaser
shall be equipped with the following
devices:
(i) A device which shuts off sump heat
if sump liquid solvent level drops down
to the height of sump heater coils, and
(ii) A vapor level control device which
shuts off sump heat if the vapor level
rises above the height of the primary
condenser.
(4) Each open top vapor degreaser
greater than 1.0 square meter (10.8 ft2)
shall be equipped with one or more of
the following equipment controls:
(i) A refrigerated freeboard device, or
(ii) A lip exhaust connected to a
carbon adsorber. The concentration of
organic solvent in the exhaust from this
device shall not exceed 25 ppm of any
regulated halogenated organic
compound as measured by Method 23
for the length of the carbon adsorber
cycle or three hours, whichever is less. If
other volatile organic compounds are
used, then the emissions shall not
exceed an average of 25 ppm as carbon,
measured by Method 25 for the length of
the carbon adsorber cycle or three
hours, whichever is less.
(f) An owner or operator shall not
operate an open top vapor degreaser
without meeting the following required
work and operational practices:
(1) The cover shall be closed when
parts are not being degreased.
(2) When the cover is open, the open
top vapor degreaser shall not be
exposed to drafts greater than 40 m/min
(131 ft/min), as measured between 1 and
2 meters upwind and at the same
elevation as the tank lip.
(3) For any open top vapor degreaser
equipped with a lip exhaust, the exhaust
shall be turned off when the degreaser is
covered.
(4) Parts being degreased shall not
occupy more than 50 percent of the
vapor-air interface area.
(5) The vertical speed of a powered
hoist, if one is used, shall not be more
than 3.3 m/min (10.8 ft/min) when
lowering and raising the parts.
(6) Spraying operations shall be done
within the vapor layer.
(7) Work shall not be lifted from the
vapor layer until condensation or
dripping has stopped. Parts having
cavities or blind holes shall be tipped or
rotated before being raised from the
vapor layer.
(8) During start up, the primary
condenser and the refrigerated
freeboard device, if one is used, shall be
turned on before the sump heater.
During shutdown, the sump heater shall
be turned off, and the solvent vapor
layer allowed to collapse before the
condenser water and refrigerated
freeboard device are turned off.
(9) Porous or absorbent material shall
not be degreased in an open top vapor
degreaser.
(10) A routine inspection and
maintenance program shall be
implemented to reduce or prevent
solvent losses from dripping drain taps,
cracked gaskets and malfunctioning
equipment. Leaks must be repaired as
soon as they are discovered.
(11) Waste solvent, still, and sump
bottoms shall be collected and stored in
closed containers. The closed containers
may contain a device that would allow
pressure relief, but would not allow
liquid solvent to drain from the
container prior to disposal.
iv-jj-io
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 114 / Wednesday. June 11. 1980 / Proposed Rules
(12) Each owner shall provide a
permanent label for each open top vapor
degreaser which states the required
work and operating practices. The label
shall be placed near the front of the
degreaser in full view of the degreaser
operator and written in English, and in
any other language that may be
necessary for comprehension by
personnel operating the degreaser. The
label must be kept visible and legible at
all times. The plant owner or operator
shall ensure that each person who
operates a degreaser understands the
instructions on the label.
(13) When sumps are drained, solvent
shall be transferred using threaded or
other leakproof couplings.
(14) The carbon absorber bed shall
not be bypassed during desorption.
(g) An owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall
operate a conveyorized degreaser only if
it conforms to the following design
requirements:
(1) Each conveyorized degreaser shall
have a freeboard ratio of at least 0.75.
(2) Each conveyorized degreaser shall
be equipped with a drying tunnel, a
rotating (tumbling) basked, hanging
flaps, or other device to prevent cleaned
parts from carrying out solvent liquid or
vapor. When a drying tunnel is used, the
air which moves through the tunnel to
enhance drying shall be exhausted to a
carbon adsorber. The concentration of
organic solvent in the exhaust from this
device may not exceed 25 ppm of any
regulated halogenated organic
compound as measured by Method 23
for the length of the carbon adsorber
cycle or three hours, whichever is less. If
other volatile organic compounds are
used, then the emissions shall not
exceed an average of 25 ppm as carbon,
measured by Method 25 for the length of
the carbon adsorber cycle or three
hours, whichever is less.
(3) Each conveyorized degreaser shall
be equipped with downtime port covers
at the entrance and exit openings.
(4) Each conveyorized cold cleaner
with a solvent-air interface area of 2.0m*
(21.6 fti] or greater shall be equipped
with a carbon adsorber. The
concentration of organic solvent in the
exhaust from this device may not
exceed 25 ppm of any regulated
halogenated organic compound as
measured by Method 23 for the length of
the carbon adsorber cycle or three
hours, whichever is less. If other volatile
organic compounds are used, then the
emissions shall not exceed an average
of 25 ppm as carbon, measured by
Method 25 for the length of the carbon
adsorber cycle or three hours,
whichever is less.
(5) Each conveyorized vapor
degreaser with a solvent-air interface of
2.0m3 (21.6 ft2) or greater shall be
equipped with one or more of the
following equipment controls:
(i) A refrigerated freeboard device, or
(ii) A carbon adsorber. The
concentration of organic solvent in the
exhaust from this device shall not
exceed 25 ppm of any regulated
halogenated organic compound as
measured by Method 23 for the length of
the carbon adsorber cycle or three
hours, whichever is less. If other volatile
organic compounds are used, then the
emissions shall not exceed an average
of 25 ppm as carbon, measured by
Method 25 for the length of the carbon
adsorber cycle or three hours,
whichever is less.
(6) Each conveyorized vapor
degreaser shall be equipped with the
following devices:
(i) A device which shuts off sump heat
if sump liquid level drops down to the
height of sump heater coils, and
(ii) A vapor level control device which
shuts off sump heat if the vapor level
rises above the height of the primary
condenser coils.
(7) Each owner shall provide a
permanent label for each conveyorized
degreaser which states the required
work and operating practices. The label
shall be placed near the front of the
degreaser in full view of the degreaser
operator and written in English and in
any other language that may be
necessary for comprehension by
personnel operating the degreaser. The
label must be kept visible and legible at
all times. The plant owner or operator
shall ensure that each person who
operates a degreaser understands the
instructions on the label.
(8) Waste solvent, still, and sump
bottoms shall be collected and stored in
closed containers. The closed containers
may contain a device that would allow
pressure relief, but would not allow
liquid solvent to drain from the
container prior to disposal.
(9) The carbon adsorber bed shall not
be bypassed during desorption.
§ 60.363 Equivalent methods of control.
Upon written application, the
Administrator may approve the use of
equipment or procedures after they have
been demonstrated to his satisfaction to
be equivalent, in terms of reducing
solvent emissions to the atmosphere, to
those prescribed for compliance within
a specified paragraph of this subpart.
The application must contain a complete
description of the proposed testing
procedure and the dale, time, and
location scheduled for the equivalency
demonstration.
§ 60.364 Reporting and recordkeeplng.
(a) The owner or operator of any
degreaser affected by this subpart shall
furnish the Administrator with a single
report for each degreaser. These reports
shall be submitted each quarter for all
degreasers which were newly
constructed, modified, or reconstructed
and which were placed in operation or
for which ownership was transferred in
the previous quarter. Each report shall
contain written notification
(certification) of the following:
(1) Date construction, modification, or
reconstruction of each degreaser was
commenced.
(2) Make and model of degreaser
(including the serial number if
applicable).
(3) Name, date, and location to whom
the ownership of the degreaser was
transferred.
(4) Dimensions of the solvent-air
interface area and the freeboard ratio.
(5) Specify whether a refrigerated
freeboard device or carbon adsorber has
been installed (if applicable) and certify
that the required controls (design
parameters), under section 60.362, are
part of the degreaser for which this
notification is required.
(6) The name, title, and signature of
the individual making the certification.
(b) Each owner or operator of an
affected facility subject to the provisions
of this subpart, except as provided in
paragraph (c) of this section, shall
maintain records for a period of 2 years
of the following:
(1) The amount and date of each
purchase of new solvent.
(2) The name and/or type of solvent
purchased.
(3) The amount, date, and method of
disposal for spent solvent, sump
bottoms, and/or still bottoms, as
applicable.
(c) Each owner or operator of a cold
cleaner with a solvent-air interface area
of less than 1.0 m2 (10.8 ft2) is not
subject to the requirements of paragraph
(b) of this section, but is required to
maintain for a period of 2 years a record
of the method of waste solvent disposal.
(d) The reporting and recordkeeping
requirements under this section will
automatically expire 5 years from the
date of promulgation of this regulation
unless affirmative action to extend them
is taken by EPA. (Section 114 of the
Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C.
7414))
§60.365 Waste disposal [Reserved]
§60.366 Test method.
(a) Reference Method 23 or 25 of
Appendix A, as applicable, shall be
used to determine compliance with the
IV-JJ-11
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 114 / Wednesday. June 11. 1980 / Proposed Rules
requirements under § 60.382 when
carbon adsorbers are used. The results
shall be reported as ppm of organics
(Method 23) or ppm or carbon (Method
25). Each performance test shall consist
of 3 separate samples, and the
arithmetic mean of the 3 samples shall
be used to determine compliance.
(Section 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended
(U.S.C. 7414))
3. Appendix A to part 60 is amended
by adding reference method 23 as
follows:
Appendix A—Reference Methods
Method 23. Determination of Halogenated
Organics From Stationary Sources
Introduction
Performance of this method should not be
a I tempted by persons unfamiliar with the
operation of a gas chromatograph. nor by
those who are unfamiliar with source
sampling because knowledge beyond the
scope of this presentation is required. Care
must be exercised to prevent exposure of
sampling personnel to hazardous emissions.
1. Applicability and Principle
1.1 Applicability. This method applies to
(he measurement of halogenated organics
such as carbon tetracholoride, ethylene
dichloride. perchloroethylene.
trichloroethylene, Methylene chloride. 1,1,1-
Irichloroelhane. and trichlorotrifluoroethane
in stack gases from sources as specifiedd in
the regulations. It does not apply when the
halogenated organics are contained in
particulate matter.
1.2 Principle. An integrated bag sample of
stack gas containing one or more halogenated
organics is subjected to gas chromatographic
(CC) analysis, using a flame ionization
detector (FID).
2. Range and Sensitivity. The range of this
method is 0.1 to 200 ppm. The upper limit may
be extended by extending the calibration
range or by diluting the sample.
3. Interferences. The chromatograph
column with the corresponding operating
parameters herein described normally
provides an adequate resolution of
halogenated organics; however, resolution
interferences may be encountered in some
sources. Therefore, the chromatograph
operator shall select the column best suited
to his particular analysis problem, subject to
the approval of the Administrator. Approval
is automatic provided that confirming data
are produced through an adequate
supplemental analytical technique, e.g.
analysis with a different column or GC/mass
•spectroscopy. This confirming data must be
available for review by the Administrator.
4. Apparatus.
4.1 Sampling (see Figure 23-1). The
sampling train consists of the following
components:
4.1.1 Probe. Stainless steel, Pyrex* glass.
or Teflon* tubing (as stack temperature
'Mention of (rode Dames or specific products
docs not constitute endorsement by the
Environmental Protection Agency.
permits), each equipped with a glass.wool
plug to remove particulate matter.
4.1.2 Sample Line. Teflon,' 6.4-mrn outside
diameter, of sufficient length to connect
probe to bag. Use a new unused piece for
each series of bag samples that constitutes an
emission test, and discard upon completion of
the test.
4.1.3 Quick Connects. Stainless steel.
male (2) and female (2), with ball checks (one
pair without). located as shown in Figure 23-
1.
4.1.4 Tedlar or Aluminized Mylar Bags.
100-liter capacity, to contain sample.
4.1.5 Bag Containers. Rigid leakproof
containers for sample bags, with covering to
protect contents from sunlight.
4.1.6 Needle Valve. To adjust sample flow
rate.
4.1.7 Pump. Leak-free, with minimum of 2-
liters/min capacity.
4.1.8 Charcoal Tube. To prevent
admission of halogenated organics to the
atmosphere in the vicinity of samplers.
4.1.9 Flow Meter. For observing sample
flow rate; capable of measuring a flow range
from 0.10 to 1.00 liter/min.
4.1.10 Connecting Tubing. Teflon, 6.4-mm
outside diameter, to assemble sampling train
(Figure 23-1).
4.2 Sample Recovery. Teflon tubing. 6.4-
mm outside diameter, to connect bag to gas
chromatograph sample loop is required for
sample recovery. Use a new unused piece for
each series of bag samples that constitutes an
emission test and discard upon conclusion of
analysis of those bags.
4.3. Analysis. The following equipment is
needed:
4.3.1 Gas Chromatograph. With FID.
potentiometric strip chart recorder, and 1.0-
to 2.0-ml sampling loop in automatic sample
valve. The chromatographic system shall be
capable of producing a response to 0.1 ppm of
the halogenated organic compound that is at
least as great as the average noise level.
(Response is measured from the average
value of the baseline to the maximum of the
waveform, while standard operating
conditions are in use.)
4.3.2 Chromatographic Column. Stainless
steel, 3.05 m by 3.2 mm, containing 20 percent
SP-2100/0.1 percent Carbowax 1500 on 100/
120 Supelcoport. The analyst may use other-
columns provided that the precision and
accuracy of the analysis of standards are not
impaired and he has available for review
information conforming that there is
adequate resolution of the halogenated
organic compound peak. (Adequate
resolution is defined as an area overlap of
not more than 10 percent of the halogenated
organic compound peak by an interferent
peak. Calculation of area overlap is
explained in Appendix E, Supplement A:
"Determination of Adequate
Chromatographic Peak Resolution."
4.3.3 Flow Meters (2). Rotameter type, 0-
to-100-ml/min capacity.
4.3.4 Gas Regulators. For required gas
cylinders.
4.3.5 Thermometer. Accurate to 1'C. to
measure temperature of heated sample loop
at lime of sample injection.
4.3.6 Barometer. Accurate to 5 mm Hg. to
measure atmospheric pressure around gas
chromatograph during sample analysis.
4.3.7 Pump. Leak-free, with a minimum of
100-ml/min capacity.
4.3.8 Recorder. Strip chart type, optionally
equipped with either disc or electronic
integrator.
4.3.9 Planimeter. Optional, in place of disc
or electronic integrator (4.3.8). to measure
chromatograph peak areas.
4.4 Calibration. Sections 4.4.2 through
4.4.6 are for the optional procedure in Section
7.1.
4.4.1 Tubing. Teflon, 6.4-mm outside
diameter, separate pieces marked for each
calibration concentration.
4.4.2 Tedlar or Aluminized Mylar Bags.
50-liter capacity, with valve; separate bag
marked for each calibration concentration.
4.4.3 Syringe. 25-fil, gas tight, individually
calibrated, to dispense liquid halogenated
organic solvent.
4.4.4 Syringe. 50-^1, gas tight, individually
calibrated to dispense liquid halogenated
organic solvent.
4.4.5 Dry Gas Meter, with Temperature
and Pressure Gauges. Accurate to ±2
percent, to meter nitrogen in preparation of
standard gas mixtures, calibrated at the flow
rate used to prepare standards.
4.4.6 Midget Impinger/Hot Plate
Assembly. To vaporize solvent.
5. Reagents. It is necessary that all
reagents be of chromatographic grade.
5.1 Analysis. The following are needed
for analysis:
5.1.1 Helium Gas or Nitrogen Gas. Zero
grade, for chromatographic carrier gas
5.1.2 Hydrogen Gas. Zero grade.
5.1.3 Oxygen Gas or Air. Zero grade, as
required by the detector.
5.2 Calibration. Use one of the following
options: either 5.2.1 and 5.2.2. or 5.2.3.
5.2.1 Halogenated Organic Compound. 99
Mol Percent Pure. Certified by the
manufacturer to contain a minimum of 99 Mol
percent of the particular halogenated organic
compound; for use in the preparation of
standard gas mixtures as described in
Section 7.1.
5.2.2 Nitrogen Gas. Zero grade, for
preparation of standard gas mixtures as
described in Section 7.1.
5.2.3 Cylinder Standards (3). Gas mixture
standards (200,100, and 50 ppm of the
halogenated organic compound of interest, in
nitrogen). The tester may use these cylinder
standards to directly prepare a
chromatograph calibration curve as
described in Section 7.2.2. if the following
conditions are met: (a) The manufacturer
certifies the gas composition with an
accuracy of ±3 percent or better (see Section
5.2.3.1). (b) The manufacturer recommends a
maximum shelf life over which the gas
concentration does not change by greater
than ±5 percent from the certified value, (c)
The manufacturer affixes the date of gas
cylinder preparation, certified concentration
of the halogenated organic compound, and
recommended maximum shelf life to the
cylinder before shipment from the gas
manufacturer to the buyer.
5.2.3.1 Cylinder Standards Certification.
The manufacturer shall certify the
concentration of the halogenated organic
compound in nitrogen in each cylinder by (a)
directly analyzing each cylinder and (b|
IV-JJ-12
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 11, 1980 / Proposed Rules
calibrating his analytical procedure on the
day of cylinder analysis. To calibrate his
analytical procedure, the manufacturer shall
use, as a minimum, a three-point calibration
curve. It is recommended that the
manufacturer maintain (1) a high-
concentration calibration standard (between
200 and 400 ppm) to prepare his calibration
curve by an appropriate dilution technique
and (2) a low-concentration calibration
standard (between 50 and 100 ppm) to verify
the dilution technique used. If the difference
between the apparent concentration read
from the calibration curve and the true
concentration assigned to the low-
concentration calibration standard exceeds 5
percent of the true concentration, the
manufacturer shall determine the source of
error and correct it, then repeat the three-
point calibration.
5.2.3.2 Verification of Manufacturer's
Calibration Standards. Before using, the
manufacturer shall verify each calibration
standard by (aj comparing it to gas mixtures
prepared (with 99 Mol percent of the
halogenated organic compounds) in
accordance with the procedure described in
Section 7.1 or by (b) having it analyzed by the
National Bureau of Standards, if such
analysis is available. The agreement between
the initially determined concentration value
and the verification concentration value must
be within ±5 percent. The manufacturer must
reverify all calibration standards on a time
interval consistent with the shelf life of the
cylinder standards sold.
5.2.4 Audit Cylinder Standards (2). Gas
mixture standards with concentrations
known only to the person supervising the
analysis samples. The audit cylinder
standards shall be identically prepared as
those in Section 5.2.3 (the halogenated
organic compounds of interest, in nitrogen).
The concentrations of the audit cylinders
should be: one low-concentration cylinder in
the range of 25 to 50 ppm,. and one high-
concentration cylinder in the range of 200 to
300 ppm. When available, the tester may
obtain audit cylinders by contacting:
Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Monitoring and Support
Laboratory, Quality Assurance Branch (MD-
77), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711. If audit cylinders are not available at
the Environmental Protection Agency, the
tester must secure an alternative source.
6. Procedure
6.1 Sampling. Assemble the sampling
train as shown in Figure 23-1. Perform a bag
leak check according to Section 7.3.2. Join the
quick connects as illustrated, and determine
that all connections between the bag and the
probe are tight. 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
that will more than half fill the bag in the
specified sample period. After allowing
sufficient time to purge the line several times,
connect the vacuum line to the bag and
evacuate the bag until the rotameter indicates
no flow. At all times, direct the gas exiting
the rotameter away from sampling personnel.
IV-JJ-13
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 11,1980 / Proposed Rules
Stack Wall
Filter
(Glass Wool)
Probe
Teflon
Sample Line
Vacuum Line
Quick
Connects
Female
Rigid Leak-Proof
Container
Figure 23-1. Integrated-bag sampling train. (Mention
of trade names or specific products does not con-
stitute endorsement by the Environmental Protection
Agency.)
IV-JJ-14
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 114 / Wednesday. June 11. 1980 / Proposed Rules
Then reposition the sample and vacuum
lines and begin the actual sampling, keeping
the rate constant. At the end of the sample
period, shut off the pump, disconnect the
sample line from the bag, and disconnect the
vacuum line from the bag container. Protect
bag container from sunlight.
6.2 Sample Storage. Keep the sample bags
out of direct sunlight and protect from heat.
Perform the analysis within 1 day of sample
collection for methylene chloride, ethylene
dichloride, and trichlorotrifluoroethane, and
within 2 days for perchloroethylene,
trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and
carbon tetrachloride.
6.3 Sample Recovery. With a new piece of
Teflon tubing identified for that bag, connect
a bag inlet valve to the gas chromatograph
sample valve. Switch the valve to receive gas
from the bag through the sample loop.
Arrange the equipment so the sample gas
passes from the sample valve to a O-to-100-
ml/min rotameter with flow control valve
followed by a charcoal tube and a 0-lol-in.
HiO pressure gauge. The tester may maintain
the sample flow either by a vacuum pump or
container pressurization if the collection bag
remains in the rigid container. After sample
loop purging is ceased, allow the pressure
guage to return to zero before activating the
gas sampling valve.
6.4 Analysis. Set the colum temperature
to 100°C and the detector temperature to
225°C. When optimum hydrogen and oxygen
flow rates have been determined, verify and
maintain these flow rates during all
chromatograph operations. Using zero helium
or nitrogen as the carrier gas, establish a flow
•ate in the range consistent with the
ianufacturer'8 requirements for satisfactory
detector operation. A flow rate of
approximately 20 ml/min should produce
adequate separations. Observe the base line
periodically and determine that the noise
level has stabilized and that base-line drift
has ceased. Purge the sample loop for 30 sec
at the late of 100 ml/min, then activate the
sample valve. Record the injection time (the
position of the pen on the chart at the time of
sample injection), the sample number, the
sample loop temperature, the column
temperature, carrier gas flow rate, chart
speed, and the attenuator setting. Record the
barometric pressure. From the chart, note the
peak having the retention time corresponding
to the halogenated organic compound, as
determined in Section 7.2.1. Measure the
halogenated organic compound peak area,
Am, by use of a disc integrator, electronic
integrator, or a planimeter. Record Am and
the retention time. Repeat the injection at
least two times or until two consective values
for the total area of the peak do not vary
more than 5 percent. Use the average value
for these two total areas to compute the bag
concentration.
6.5 Determination of Bag Water Vapor
Content. Measure the ambient temperature
and barometric pressure near the bag. From a
water saturation vapor pressure table.
determine and record the water vapor
content of the bag as a decimal figure.
(Assume the relative humidity to be 100
percent unless a lesser value is known.)
7. Preparation of Standard Gas Mixtures,
'all bra lion, and Quality Assurance.
7.1 Preparation of Standard Gas Mixtures.
(Optional procedure—delete if cylinder
standards are used.) Assemble the apparatus
shown in Figure 23-2. Check that all fittings
are tight. Evacuate a 50-liter Tedlar or
aluminized Mylar bag that has passed a leak
check (described in Section 7.3.2) and meter
in about 50 liters of nitrogen. Measure the
barometric pressure, the relative pressure at
the dry gas meter, and the temperature at the
dry gas meter. Refer to Table 23-1. While the
bag is filling, use the 50-jil syringe to inject
through the septum on top of the impinger,
the quantity required to yield a concentration
of 200 ppm. In a like manner, use the 25-fil
syringe to prepare bags having approximately
100- and 50-ppm concentrations. To calculate
the specific concentrations, refer to Section
8.1. (Tedlar bag gas mixture standards or
methylene chloride, ethylene dichloride, and
trichlorotrifluoroethane may be used for 1
day, trichloroethylene and 1,1,1-
trichloroethane for 2 days, and
perchloroethylene and carbon tetrachloride
for 10 days from the date of preparation.
(Caution: If the new gas mixture standard is a
lower concentration than the previous gas
mixture standard, contamination may be a
problem when a bag is reused.)
BILLING CODE 6560-01-M
IV-JJ-15
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 11,1980 / Proposed Rules
Syringe
Nitrogen Cylinder
Dry Gas Meter
Septum
Boiling
Water
Bath
Tedlar Bag
Capacity
50 Liters
Figure 23-2. Preparation of Standards.
(optional)
IV-JJ-16
-------
I
Q
C)
I
TABLE 23-1. INJECTION
Compound
Perchloroethylene C,,C1.
Trichloroethylene C2HC13
1,1,1-Trlchloroethane C2H3d3
Methylene Chloride CH2C12
Trlchlorotrlfluoroethane C2C1.
Carbon Tetrachlorlde CC14
Ethylene Dlchlorlde C2H.C12
VALUES FOR PREPARATION OF STANDARDS (Optional, See Section 7.1)
Molecular
Weight
g/g-mole
165.85
131.40
133.42
84.94
jF3 187.38
153.84
98.96
Density at pi/50 liters of N2 required
293°K for approximate concentration of:
g/ml 200 ppm 100 ppm 50 ppm
1.6230 42.5 21.2 10.6
1.4649 37.3 18.6 9.3
1.4384 38.6 19.3 9.6
1.3255 26.6 13.3 6.7
1.5790 49.3 24.7 12.3
1.5940 40.1 20.1 10.0
1.2569 .32.7 16.4 8.2
Federal Register /
£
5"
p
^
(D
a.
a>
a*
DO
"c*
n
M
1
o .
•a
o
CD
a.
5*
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 11. 1980 / Proposed Rules
7.2 Calibration.
7.2.1 Determination of Halogenated
Organic Compound Retention Time. (This
section can be performed simultaneously
with Section 7.2.2.) Establish chromatograph
conditions identical with those in Section 6.4.
above. Determine proper attenuator position.
Flush the sampling loop with zero helium or
nitrogen and activate the sample valve.
Record the injection time, the sample loop
temperature, the column temperature, the
carrier gas flow rate, the chart speed, and the
attenuator setting. Record peaks and detector
responses that occur in the absence of the
halogenated organic. Maintain conditions
(with the equipment plumbing arranged
identically to Section 6.3), flush the sample
loop for 30 sec. at the rate of 100 ml/min with
one of the halogenated organic compound
calibration mixtures, and activate the sample
valve. Record the injection time. Select the
peak that corresponds to the halogenated
organic compound. Measure the distance on
the chart from the injection time to the time
at which the peak maximum occurs. This
distance divided by the chart speed is
defined as the halogenated organic
compound peak retention time. Since it is
possible that there will be other organics
present in the sample, it is very important
that positive identification of the
Halogenated organic compound peak be
made.
7.2.2 Preparation of Chromatograph
Calibration Curve. Make a gas
chromatographic measurement of each
Standard gas mixture (described in Section
5.2.3 or 7.1) using conditions identical with
those listed in Sections 6.3 and 6.4. Flush the
sampling loop for 30 sec at the rat? of 100 ml/
min with one of the standard gas mixtures
and activate the sample valve. Record Cc. the
concentration of halogenated organic
injected, the attenuator setting, chart speed.
peak area, sample loop temperature, column
temperature, carrier gas flow rate, and
retention time. Record the laboratory
pressure. Calculate \, the peak area
multipled by the attenuator setting. Repeat
until two consecutive injection areas are
within 5 percent, then plot the average of
those two values versus Cc. When the other
standard gas mixtures have been similarly
analyzed and plotted, draw a straight line
through the points derived by the least
squares method. Perform calibration daily, or
before and after each set of bag samples.
whichever is more frequent.
7.3 Quality Assurance.
7.3.1 Analysis Audit. Immediately after
the preparation of the calibration curve and
prior to the sample analyses, perform the
analysis audit described in Appendix E.
Supplement B: "Procedure for Field Auditing
GC Analysis."
7.3.2 Bag Leak Checks. While
performance of this section is required
subsequent to bag use, it is also advised that
it be performed prior to bag use. After each
use, make sure a bag did not develop leaks
by connecting a water manometer and
pressurizing the bag to 5 to 10 cm HiO (2 to 4
in. HsO). Allow to stand for 10 min. Any
displacement in the water manometer
indicates a leak. Also, check the rigid
container for leaks in this manner. (Note: An
alternative leak check method is to pressurize
the bag to 5 to 10 cm H,0 (2 to 4 in. H20) and
allow to stand overnight. A deflated bag
indicates a leak.) For each sample bag in its
rigid container, place a rotameter in line
between the bag and the pump inlet.
Evacuate the bag. Failure of the rotameter to
register zero flow when the bag appears to be
empty indicates a leak.
8. Calculations.
8.1 Optional Procedure Standards
Concentrations. Calculate each halogenated
organic standard concentration (Cc inppm)
prepared in accordance with Section 7.1 as
follows:
BILLING CODE 656O-01-M
IV-JJ-18
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 11, 1980 / Proposed Rules
P. (24.055 x TO3) , BO \
Cc - E— . 6.240 x 104 j^-fp-
„ v 293 Pm m m
m T Tm 760
Eq. 23-1
Where:
B e Volume of halogenated organic Injected, ul.
D * Density of compound at 293°K, g/ml.
M » Molecular weight of compound, g/g-mole.
V s Gas volume measured by dry gas meter, liters.
Y B Dry gas meter calibration factor, dimensionless.
'P s Absolute pressure of dry gas meter, mm Hg.
T = Absolute temperature of dry gas meter, °K.
24.055 - Ideal gas molal volume at 293° K and 760 mm Hg,
liters/g-mole.
10 = Conversion factor. £(ppm)(ml)]/yl.
8.2 Sample Concentrations. From the calibration curve
described in Section 7.2.2 above, select the value of C that
corresponds to A . Calculate C , the concentration of
halogenated organic in the sample (in ppm), as follows:
C P T,
c< *
Where:
C = Concentration of the halogenated organic
indicated by the gas chromatograph, ppm.
P = Reference pressure, the laboratory pressure
recorded during calibration, mm Hg.
T. » Sample loop temperature at the time of
analysis, °K.
PJ * Laboratory pressure at time of analysis, mm Hg.
T « Reference temperature, the sample'loop temperature
recorded during calibration, °K.
S b = Water vapor content of the bag sample, volume fraction,
IV-JJ-19
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 114 / Wednesday, June 11. 1980 / Proposed Rules
9. References.
\. Feairheller. W. H., A. M. Kemmer. B. ).
Warner, and D. Q. Douglas. Measurement of
Caseous Organic Compound Emissions by
Gas Chromatography. EPA Contract No. 68-
02-1404. Task 33 and 68-02-2818. Work
Assignment 3. January 1978. Revised by EPA
August 1978.
2. Supelico, Inc. Separation of
Hydrocarbons. Bulletin 747. Belleforte.
Pennsylvania. 1974.
3. Communication from Joseph E. Knoll.
Percholoroethylene Analysis by Gas
Chromatography. March 8,1978.
4. Communication from Joseph E. Knoll.
Test Method for Halogenated Hydrocarbons.
December 20.1978.
(Sections lll(b), I1l(d). 114. and 301(a) of the
Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7411.
7414. iind 7G01(a)))
|KR Dec. BO-13IW Piled 6-10-00: 8:45 am|
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No, 166 / Monday. August 25. 1980 / Proposed Rules
40 CFR Part 60
[FRL 1588-7]
Standards for Performance for New
Stationary Sources; Organic Solvent
Cleaners
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Extention of public comment
period and correction to proposed rule.
SUMMARY: On June 11,1980, the
Environmental Protection Agency
proposed in the Federal Register (45 PR
39765) standards of performance for
new, modified or reconstructed organic
solvent cleaners. In this action, EPA also
proposed to add Reference Method 23 to
Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 60. Today's
notice makes corrections to the
proposed reference method, and extends
the public comment period for the
proposed rule from August 25,1980, to
October 24,1980.
DATE: Written comments to be.included
in the record should be postmarked no
later than October 24,1980.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be
submitted (in duplicate if possible) to:
Central Docket Section, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. West
Tower Lobby, Gallery 1, 401 M Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460, Attention:
Docket No. OAQPS-78-12.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. John D. Crenshaw, Standards
Development Branch, Emission
Standards and Engineering Division
(MD-13), Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)
541-5421.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In
response to requests from several
manufacturers of equipment and
chemicals that would be affected by the
proposed rule, the public comment
period will be extended for 60 days from
August 25,1980, to October 24,1980.
These requests expressed the need to
review more completely the large
amount of information that is being
developed, and to prepare written
comments on the associated health,
technological and policy related issues.
Make the following corrections: On
page 39776 in the Federal Register,
replace the last sentence in paragraph
4.3.2 Chromatographic Column as
follows: "Calculation of area overlap is
explained in Appendix C of 40 CFR part
61, Supplement A, 'Determination of
Adequate Chromatographic Peak
Resolution.'" On page 39783 in the
Federal Register, replace paragraph 7.3.1
Analysis Audit as follows: "Immediately
after the preparation of the calibration
curve and prior to the sample analyses,
perform the analysis audit described in
Appendix C of 40 CFR Part 61,
Supplement B: 'Procedures for Field
Auditing GC Analysis'" (45FR 26660).
Persons interested in this rule .iking
are also reminded that a Subcommittee
of the Agency's Science Advisory Board
will be meeting .to review the Agency's
assessments of carcinogenicity and
human exposure for a number of
pollutants, including four to be regulated
by this proposed rule: Methyl
chloroform, methylene chloride,
perchloroethylene and trichloroethylene.
The Subcommittee on Airborne
Carcinogens will meet to review these
assessments on September 4-5 at EPA
Headquarters, 401 M Street. S.W.,
Washington, D.C. For further details, see
the full notice of the meeting at 45 FR
50652 (July 30,1980).
Dated: August 20,1980.
Edward Tuerk,
Acting Assistant AdminsitratorforAir, Noise.
and Radiation.
|FR Doc. 80-26042 Filed 9-22-80: 8:45 am|
IV-JJ-20
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 216 / Wednesday. November 5. 1980 / Proposed Rules
40CFKt * 39
[Docket No. OAQPS-79-12; AH-FRL
1655-6]
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources; Organic Solvent
Cteaners; Extension of Comment
Period
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Extension of public comment
period.
SUMMARY: On June 11,1980, the
Environmental Protection Agency
proposed in the Federal Register (45 FR
39766) standards of performance for
new, modified or reconstructed organic
solvent cleaners. On August 25.1980 (45
FR 56373). the public comment period
was extended for the proposed rule from
August 25,1980, to October 24,1980.
Today's action further extends the
comment period.
DATE: Written submissions on this
proposal will be received until close to
business on December 8,1980.
ADOMESS: Information should be
submitted (in duplicate, if possible) to:
Central Docket Section, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, West
Tower Lobby, Gallery 1, 401 M Street,
SW, Washington. D.C. 20460. Attention:
Docket No. OAQPS-78-12.
POM FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
Mr. Robert Schell, Pollutant Assessment
Branch, Strategies and Air Standards
Division (MD-12), Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 76
Tuesday. April 21. 1981
Proposed Rules
Park. North Carolina 27711, telephone
number (919) 541-5345.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Several
requests have been received to extend
the comment period to allow submittal
of additional technical and health
related information. Although the
Agency had not originally intended to
further extend the comment period.
some confusion exists as to whether in
fact these requests would be granted or
not. Because of this confusion and its
potential impact on the submittal of
relevant information, the comment
period is hereby extended to December
8,1980.
Dated: October 30.1980.
Edward F. Tuerk,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise.
and Radiation.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[AD-FRL-1799-3]
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources; Organic Solvent
Cleaners
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Amendment of proposed rule.
SUMMARY: On June 11,1980, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
proposed standards of performance for
organic solvent cleaners (degreasers) (45
FR 39765). The proposed standards
would limit emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOC) and
trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene,
methylene chloride, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, and
trichlorotrifluoroethane from new,
modified, and reconstructed organic
solvent cleaners by specifying a
combination of equipment requirements
and operational procedures. The
affected facilities are cold cleaners,
open top vapor degreasers, and
conveyorized degreasers. Today's action
proposes to defer the applicability date
of the proposed standards. The effect of
today's action is to exempt from
coverage any sources constructed or
modified on or before the new
applicability date is established. The
new date will be fixed later, by
publication of a notice in the Federal
Register.
DATES: Comments on the amendment to
the proposed rule must be received on or
before May 21,1981.
ADDRESS: Comments should be
submitted (in duplicate if possible) to:
Central Docket Section (A-130), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street SW., Washington. D.C. 20460,
Attention: Docket No. OAQPS-78-12.
Docket. Docket No. OAQPS-78-12,
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 SW., Washington, D.C. 20460. A
reasonable fee may be charged for
copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. John D. Crenshaw. Standards
Development Branch, Emission
Standards and Engineering Division
(MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)
541-5421.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA
proposed new source performance
standards for organic solvent cleaners
on June 11.1980 (45 FR 39765). Under the
provisions of Section 111 of the Clean
Air Act, these standards, when finally
promulgated, would have applied to any
organic solvent cleaner manufactured
after June 11,1980.
At proposal, the Agency concluded
that the cost impacts of the proposed
standards were reasonable. Based on
the public comments received, however,
we now believe that there are a number
of types of degreasers which are
specifically designed to minimize
solvent loss and emissions, but which
could not comply with the proposed
design and equipment standards at
reasonable cost. Manufacturers of such
degreasers would therefore be unable to
sell them at competitive prices. We are
now analyzing these types of degreasers
to determine what constitutes best
demonstrated technology for them and
what standard should be applied to
them. Information about this problem
has been supplied by several
IV-JJ-21
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 76 / Tuesday. April 21. 1981 / Proposed Rules
manufacturers and is available in the
docket for public review and comment.
We expect this analysis to take
several months. Because the analysis is
not yet complete, we are not yet able to
specify which types of degreasers can
comply with the proposed standards at
reasonable cost and which cannot. In
the interim, however, many prudent
purchasers of degreasers are willing to
buy only degreasers conforming to the
proposed standards. As a result,
manufacturers of degreasers which
cannot comply with the proposed
standards at reasonable cost face now
the competitive barrier they would have
faced if the standards were promulgated
as proposed, despite the Agency's
conclusion that application of the
proposed standards to at least some of
those products will not be required by
the final standards.
Ordinarily, if EPA were to conclude
that the proposed standards would
impose unreasonable costs and that the
standards therefore should be
substantially changed, it would alleviate
this situation promptly by proceeding to
repropose or promulgate the standard
with appropriate changes. Here,
however, we believe that the proposed
standards would impose unreasonable
cost for some degreasers, but are unable
to relieve the interim effects of the
proposal until technical analysis is
complete. Under these circumstances,
we believe that the action most
consistent with the congressional intent
is to defer the applicability date beyond
the date of proposal. See,
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. EPA,
618 F. 2d 991,1000 n. 1. (3rd Cir. 1980).
This action, therefore, amends
§ 60.360 of the proposed rule to delete
June 11,1980, (the date of the proposal)
as the applicability date. The
promulgated standard will apply to
degreasers constructed or modified after
some later applicability date. The
Agency will give notice of that later
applicability date in the Federal
Register, and the applicability date will
be no earlier than the date of
publication of such notice.
Under Executive Order 12291, EPA is
required to judge whether a regulation is
a "major rule" and therefore subject to
certain requirements 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."
In fact, this action would impose no
additional regulatory requirements, but
instead would defer the effective date of
the standard in order to avoid adverse
economic impacts on manufacturers of
certain types of organic solvent
cleaners. The Agency has therefore
concluded that this regulation is not a
"major rule" under Executive Order
12291.
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 United
States Code section 605(b) I hereby
certify that the proposed rule, if
promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This proposed
extension of the date of applicability
will not impose any new requirements
on small entities.
Dated: April 13,1981.
Walter C. Barber, Jr.,
Acting Administrator.
|KR Due. 61-11896 Filed 4-20-81: 8:45 am|
•IV-JJ-22
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR
NEW STATIONARY
SOURCES
AUTOMOBILE AND
LIGHT-DUTY TRUCK
SURFACE COATING
OPERATIONS
SUBPART MM
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 70 / Monday. April 13. 1981 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 50,51,60,85 and 86
[AMS-FRL 1803-5]
National Primary and Secondary
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Requirements for Preparation,
Adoption, and Submrttal of
Implementation Plans
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources
Control of Air Pollution from Motor
Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Engines
Control of Air Pollution From New
Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicle
Engines: Certification and Test
Procedures
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice of intent.
SUMMARY: This notice describes a
number of actions the Environmental
Protection Agency intends to implement
in an effort to reduce the regulatory
burden on the motor vehicle industry.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gregory J. Dana, Mobile Source Air
Pollution, Control (ANR-455),
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20460,
Telephone: (202) 755-0596.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In light
of the serious financial problems facing
the motor vehicle industry, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
has reviewed its regulations to identify
administrative changes which could
reduce the regulatory burden on the
industry without significantly affecting
air quality. The purpose of this notice is
to describe the immediate and long-term
actions EPA intends to take to reduce
regulatory pressures on the industry.
Rulemaking or other administrative
proceedings will be necessary to
implement many of these actions.
Where rulemaking and other actions are
necessary, EPA intends to initiate them
by the dates specified for items
described below.
EPA estimates that these actions will
result in savings to the motor vehicle
industry of $817 million and a consumer
cost savings of $4.3 billion over the next
five years.
Following are descriptions of the
actions EPA intends to take:
17. Explore deferring standards for
paint shops.
EPA will discuss with the states
changes in their State Implementation
Plans (SIP») which, subject to their
willingness to submit revisions of plans,
would have the effect of not requiring
electrostatic deposition of undercoat in
the next two years. Additionally, SIP
requirements in those states which now
require electrostatic high transfer
efficiency in topcoat application would
be deferred until 1984.
EPA is also reviewing the recently-
promulgated ' new source performance
standard (NSPS) for auto body painting
to consider the effects of increased use
of clear coat.
EPA will discuss changes in SIPs with
the states by May 1981, with timing of
subsequent changes dependent on the
states. EPA plans to complete its review
of the NSPS for auto body painting by
July 1981.
18. Provide sufficient leadtime for
compliance with emission regulations.
EPA will assure, in future
rulemakings, that there is sufficient
leadtime for compliance with
automobile emission regulations, as
measured from the date of promulgation
of regulations.
Dated: April 6.1981.
Walter CBaiber. Jr.,
Acting Administrator.
(FR Doc. «1-110B2 Flkd 4-10-81:8:45 im|
1 See rule published on December 24. I960 at 45
FR 85410.
IV-MM-2
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR
NEW STATIONARY
SOURCES
PERCHLOROETHYLENE
DRY CLEANERS
SUBPART OO
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 229 / Tuesday. November 25. 1980 / Proposed Rules
40CFRPart60
[AD-fRL-1546-2]
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources; Perchloroethylene
Dry Cleaners
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of
public hearing.
SUMMARY: The proposed standards
would limit emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOC) from new, modified,
and reconstructed perchloroethylene
(perc) dry cleaners. The standards
would require the installation of carbon
adsorbers or equivalent control devices
on affected perc dryers and dry-to-dry
machines and would require good
operating and maintenance procedures
on all affected dry cleaning equipment.
The proposed standards implement
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act and are
based on the Administrator's
determination that perc dry cleaners
contribute significantly to air pollution
that may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare. The
intent is to require new, modified, and
reconstructed perc dry cleaners to use
the best demonstrated system of
continuous emission reduction,
considering costs and nonair-quality
health, environmental, and energy
impacts.
A public hearing will be held to
provide interested persons an
opportunity for oral presentation of
data, views, or arguments concerning
the proposed standards.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be
received on or before January 26,1981.
Public Hearing. A public hearing will
be held on January 8,1981 (about 30
days after proposal] beginning at 9:00
a.m.
Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons
wishing to present oral testimony must
contact EPA by January 2,1981.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments
should be submitted (in duplicate if
possible) to: Central Docket Section (A-
130), Attention: Docket Number A-79-
30. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street S.W., Washington,
D.C. 20460.
Public Hearing. The public hearing
will be held at Env. Research Ctr.
Auditorium RTP, NC 27711. Persons
wishing to present oral testimony should
notify Ms. Deanna Tilley, Standards
Development Branch (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5477.
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)
541-2777. Please refer to
Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaners—
Background Information for Proposed
Standards, EPA-45O/3-79-O29a.
Docket Docket No. A-79-30, •
containing supporting information used
by EPA in developing the proposed
IV-00-2
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 25, 1980 / Proposed Rules
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 photocopying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. John Crenshaw, Standards
Development Branch, Emission
Standards and Engineering Division
(MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)
541-5421.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Proposed Standards
The proposed standards would limit
emissions of VOC from the two
segments of the perchloroethylene dry
cleaning industry: new, modified, and
reconstructed professional dry cleaners
and new, modified, and reconstructed
coin-operated dry cleaners. Professional
dry cleaners (both commercial and
industrial] are distinguished from coin-
operated dry cleaners in that
professional equipment is not coin-
operated and is not accessible to the
customer. Coin-operated equipment is
usually operated by the customer.
The proposed regulations consist of a
combination of equipment, work
practice, and operational standards that
allow the best emission control.
Professional dry cleaners using
perchloroethylene would be required to
install and operate a carbon adsorber or
equivalent control device. Professional
and coin-operated dry cleaners using
perchloroethylene would be required to
use good operating and maintenance
procedures to prevent liquid and vapor
leaks of perc from the affected facility.
In addition, the treatment of waste
solvent would be required to reduce the
perc content before disposal. An
inspection and maintenance program
would also be required to prevent and
correct solvent losses from leaks and
equipment malfunctions.
Background
The dry cleaning industry is composed
of approximately 30,000 small
businesses and is generally located in
the same area as the population it
serves'. Dry cleaners may use either
perce, petroleum solvents, or
trichlorotrifluoroethane to clean such
articles as suits, dresses, or uniforms. At
present the coin-operated segment of the
industry shows a zero growth rate
whereas the professional perc segment
js growing at about the same rate as the
eneral population, 0.0 percent.
The proposed standards affect only
new, modified, or reconstructed dry
cleaners using perc. Perc emissions
contribute to ambient levels of ozone
because perc participates in
atmospheric ozone formation. Many
areas of the country have ambient levels
of ozone above the national ambient air
quality standard. To assist States in
controlling emissions from existing
sources, EPA has published several
Control Techniques Guideline (CTG)
documents. Among these is a CTG for
the perc dry cleaning industry (Control
of Volatile Organic Emissions from
Perchloroelliyiene Dry Cleaning
Systems, EPA-450/2-78-050). The
purpose of the CTG is to recommend
reasonably available control technology
(RACT). The information developed for
the perc CTG also serves as part of the
basis for this proposed new source
performance standard.
Initial work on controlling air
emissions from the dry cleaning industry
encompassed all three of the principal
dry cleaning solvents. Draft standards
were presented at a meeting of the
National Air Pollution Control Technical
Advisory Commitee (NAPCTAC)
meeting on August 28,1976. In respone
to numerous industry comments on that
presentation, further work was begun
with the intention of writing a separate
standard for each of the three solvents.
A; draft standard for perc dry cleaners
tha( would have established an emission
limitation for dryer exhausts was
presented to NAPCTAC in August 1979.
Industry comments received on that
draft standard, particularly those
concerning the excessive economic
impact of a performance test for the
contorl device, resulted in the draft
standard's being changed to an
equipment standard.
By 1984, projected nationwide perc
dry cleaner emissions from new and
existing sources without the new source
performance standard would be about
55,000 megagrams per year based on the
industry's revenue data reported to the
Bureau of Census. Data on the amount
of perc sold to the industry indicates
that the total perc emissions may be
three times higher than the estimate
given above. The impact analysis
presented below uses the lower
emission estimate to calculate the costs
and emission reduction that would
result from implementation of this
standard. Selecting the lower emission
estimate is a more conservative
assumption to evaluate cost impacts
because the smaller emission value
minimizes the credit for solvent
recovered by the control equipment.
Using the lower estimate also results in
a more conservative estimate of the
emission reduction attributable to the
standard. Because an understanding of
baseline emissions is important in
estimating the impacts of this rule, the
Administrator solicits comments on the
national perc consumption estimate
used and requests additional data of
clarify the apparent discrepancy
between the data bases.
The regulation of perchloroethylene at
this time is based principally upon its
role as an ozone precursor and, as such,
this action has not been coordinated
with EPA's Toxic Substance Priority
Commitee (TSPC). Although the
potentially hazardous effects of
perchloroethylene provide strong
support for this action, the Agency's
investigations on the possible listing of
perchloroethylene as a hazardous air
pollutant are being considered
separately from this action. These
investigations and recommendations
will be coordinated with the TSPC.
Summary of Environmental, Energy, and
Economic Impacts
The proposed standards would reduce
perc emissions from typical coin-
operated facilities by about 25 percent
and would reduce emissions from
typical professional dry cleaners by
about 50 percent. Affected facilities that
are projected to come on line between
1980 and 1989 are expected to emit
18,000 megagrams of perc in 1989. if they
are uncontrolled. If the proposed
regulation is implemented, controlled
emissions from these facilities are
expected to equal 9,800 megagrams in
1989. Thus the proposed standards
would reduce perc emissions by about
8,200 megagrams per year by 1989. This
figure represents a reduction of 46
percent from the estimate of
uncontrolled emissions.
Also affecting nationwide emissions
estimates would be any emission
reduction attributable to State or local
regulations. Revised State
Implementation Plans (SIP's) that may
incorporate the RACT recommendations
in the CTG for perc dry cleaners were
due to be submitted to the Administrator
by July 1,1980. Revised SIP's for perc
dry cleaning are only required in those
areas that are in violation of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for photochemical oxidants
and that cannot demonstrate
compliance with the NAAQS without
applying RACT by July 1982. The
previous emission estimates do not
attribute any emission reduction that
may occur due to State SIP's because
the magnitude of their impact will not be
known until after proposal of this
standard.
IV-00-3
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 25, 1980 / Proposed Rules
The water quality impact associated
with this standard is considered smalL
The only potentially adverse impact of
the proposed regulation on water quality
would be caused by solvent in the steam
condensate from the regeneration
(solvent desorption) of carbon
adsorbers. The effluent water stream
from this process may contain up to 100
parts per million (ppm) perc by weight
It is estimated that the total perc to be
sewered nationally by perc dry cleaners
with carbon adsorbers in 1984 will be 1.5
to 4 megagrams and will increase to 3 to
9 megagrams in 1989. Therefore, no
single body of water would receive more
than an insignificant amount of perc
because this effluent would be dispersed
across the entire country. The increase
in perc effluent represents an increase of
about 15 percent over the amount of
perc that would be disposed of by perc
dry cleaners without a new source
standard.
The solid-waste impact of the
proposed regulations is considered
insignificant. The proposed standard
would not increase the quantity of filter
and still wastes generated because the
standard would require some removal of
perc from these wastes before their
disposal; however, activated carbon
used in carbon adsobers must
eventually be replaced. This would
create new solid wastes, although the
replacement should occur only at 15-
year intervals. Therefore, the first solid
waste impact of the proposed standards
would not occur until 1995 and would
amount to less than 120 megagrams of
spent carbon for that year. The amount
of solid waste is expected to grow at the
same rate as the dry cleaning industry,
0.9 percent.
The total increased electricity usage
resulting from the proposed regulations
for all affected facilities in 1984 is about
13.9 gigawatt hours per year (CWh/yr).
This increased usage, which results from
the use of fans on carbon adsorbers, is
equivalent to about 23,000 barrels of fuel
oil per year for electrical generation.
Thus the proposed regulations result in a
nominal (less than 1 percent) increase in
electricity usage for the industry.
An increase in fuel usage (normally
natural gas or fuel oil) is required to
produce steam to desorb the carbon. For
new sources in 1984, the increase will be
about 51.0 terajoules per year (TJ/yr)
(48,000 X 106Btu/yr). This figure
represents an increase of less than 1' .
percent in the total fuel usage by the
industry and is equal to about 8^00
barrels of fuel oil per year.
Coin-Operated Dry Cleaners
Under the proposed regulations, coin-
operated dry cleaners would not be
required to install any additional
equipment The equipment cost for a
new coin-operated dry cleaner would
increase from about $9,000 to about
$18,000 if emission controls like those
required on professional dry cleaners
were required on coin-operated
facilities. Because of this cost increase
and the attendant increase in operating
costs, the proposed rule does not require
carbon adsorbers for coin-operated dry
cleaners. Therefore, only proper
operation and maintenance of the
affected facility and proper treatment of
waste materials are required for these
facilities. Costs for these procedures are
negligible.
Professional Dry Cleaners
The proposed regulations for
professional dry cleaners (both
commercial and industrial) require the
use of a carbon adsorber or equivalent
control device to control emissions from
dryer or dry-to-dry machine exhausts. In
addition, there are maintenance and
operating practices and waste content
requirements similar to those required
for coin-operated dry cleaners. Capitol
costs for control equipment are expected
to range from $4,000 to $12,000.
Calculated annualized costs range from
about $600 per year for a small
commercial dry cleaner to a savings of
over $13,000 per year for an industrial
dry cleaner however, because the lower
solvent consumption figures were used
to estimate these annualized costs in
order to give the "worst-case costs,"
actual annualized costs may be lower
than projected. Reclaimed solvent
accounts for the savings achievable with
these control techniques, and this saving
increases with increased throughput.
The cost imposed on small dry cleaners
is, however, relatively minor and is not
expected to affect industry investment
or structure.
The annualized cost for the standards
after 5 years is expected to be about $1
million for approximately 3,300 new,
modified, and reconstructed
professional perc dry cleaners. This
industry, however, is highly competitive.
Thus new facilities would be unlikely to
charge higher prices when competing
with existing dry cleaners. Therefore, no
retail price increase is expected from the
regulations. Rather, the profitability of
new sources would be decreased
slightly, by a maximum of about 0.9
percent
Rationale
Selection of Source
Section 111 of the Act requires
establishment of standards of
performance for new, modified, or
reconstructed stationary sources that
cause or contribute significantly to air
pollution that may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare. EPA has determined that
sources that emit perc contribute to the
formation of ozone, a criteria pollutant
for which national ambient air quality
standards have been established under
the authority of Section 109 of the Act.
Though perc has a relatively low •
chemical reactivity rate in the ozone
formation process, the Agency's policy
for ozone precursors (44 FR 35314)
affirmed that many of the volatile
organic compounds (VOC) previously
designated as having low reactivity
were moderately or highly reactive
under conditions characteristic of urban
atmospheres. Most dry cleaners are
located in or near urban areas. Also,
compounds that have low reactivity can
form appreciable amounts of ozone
under multiday stagnation conditions
such as those that occur during summer
in many areas. The potential for ozone
air pollution from emissions of perc may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger
the public health and welfare; therefore,
perc emissions from dry cleaners are
proposed for regulation under Section
111 of the Act.
The Priority List of sources for new
source performance standards (NSPS)
(44 FR 49222) identified various sources
of emissions on a nationwide basis in
terms of the potential improvement in
emission reduction that could result
from the imposition of NSPS. The
sources on the list are ranked based on
decreasing order of potential emission
reduction. When all three primary dry
cleaning solvents were considered, dry
cleaners ranked 5th of 59 sources on the
list. If listed separately, it is estimated
that perc dry cleaners would rank
between 8th and 12th on the list.
Though other dry cleaning solvents
are currently in use, the proposed
standard applies only to perc because
sufficient data for the establishment of
standards for other dry cleaning
solvents are not yet availabe. A
standard for petroleum dry cleaning is
under development. The third dry
cleaning solvent,
trichlorotrifluoroethane, will be
considered for regulation in the future.
Selection of Pollutants and Affected
Facilities
Perc dry cleaning facilities emit only
one air pollutant, perchloroethylene. The
largest sources of perc emissions in perc
dry cleaning facilities are dryers or dry-
to-dry machines. The affected facilities
are defined as perc dry cleaning dryers
or dry-to-dry-machines, washers, filters,
muck cookers, and stills.
IV-00-4
-------
Federal Regaslteg / Vol. 45. No. 229 / Tuesday. November 25. 1980 / Proposed Rules
In the dry cleaning industry, the
replacement rate of worn-out equipment
is greater than the expected growth rate
of new facilities. Selection of dryers and
dry-to-dry machines as affected
facilities is made to ensure that
replacement of existing dryers or dry-to-
dry machines with new equipment
would require the facility to meet
control requirements. Designation of the
dry cleaning system as the affected
facility would have exempted
replacement dryers and dry-to-dry
machines from the standard unless an
increase in resulting emissions or a
capital expenditure of 50 percent of the
system replacement cost accompanied
the replacement.
Selection of Basis of Proposed
Standards
Two principal control options were
apparent for reducing perc emissions
from dry cleaning plants:
1. Replace perc with a
nonphotochemically reactive solvent.
2. Require the use of a carbon
adsorber or other control devices to
control perc emissions from dryers or
dry-to-dry machines, the identification
and repair of all leaks, and the reduction
of perc content in waste materials.
The only readily available alternative
solvents are petroleum solvents and
trichlorotriflouoroethane. Petroleum
solvents are photochemically reactive,
so their use in place of perc would not
reduce ozone formation. Furthermore,
few dry cleaners are expected to be able
to use petroleum solvents instead of
perc, primarily because petroleum
solvents are flammable and are,
therefore, controlled by fire codes and
insurance regulations. Existing perc dry
cleaning equipment is not designed to
utilize flammable solvents.
Trichlorotrifluoroethane also has its
disadvantages; for example, it does not
have the same cleaning characteristics
as perc and, according to industry
spokespersons, may be unsuitable for
heavily soiled articles.
Trichlorotrifluoroethane equipment is
more expensive than perc equipment
and the solvent itself is three to four
times as expensive as perc. Many of the
projected new plants in the commercial
sector would not be constructed if the
only solvent available were
tricblorotrifluoroethane.
Switching to trichlorotrifloroethane
would, however, result in a 100-percent
reduction in perc emissions for the dry
cleaning systems affected. New source
standards eliminating perc emissions
would reduce national VOC emissions
by approximately 8,000 megagrams by
1884. However, there rjould be an
accompanying increase in
trichlorotrifloroethane emissions of
about 3,100 megagrams for this option.
Trichlorotrifloroethane has been
implicated in the depletion of the
stratospheric ozone layer, a region of the
upper atmosphere that shields the earth
from harmful ultraviolet radiation that
increases skin cancer risk in humans. In
view of this potential impact, it would
be inappropriate for EPA to require perc
dry cleaners to switch to
trichlorotrifloroethane solvents.
New source standards based on the
second control option would reduce
national VOC emissions by about 4,000
megagrams annually by 1984 without an
accompanying increase in
trichlorotrifloroethane emissions. There
would be three types of emission points
covered by this option: (1) dryer or dry-
to-dry machine exhausts, (2) leaks, and
(3) waste materials. Dryer or dry-to-dry
machine emissions would be directed to
the control device. Perceptible leaks
would be identified and repaired. Filter
and distillation wastes would be treated
to minimize the perc content before
disposal.
Carbon adsorption has been
commercially accepted as a dryer
exhaust control technology for use in the
professional dry cleaning sector of the
industry, but not in the coin-operated
sector. Fewer than 5 percent of the
existing coin-operated machines use this
control technique. Carbon adsorption is
not considered economically reasonable
for the majority of coin-operated dry
cleaners because of the additional cost
for boiler facilities to produce the steam
necessary to desorb the carbon bed. For
this reason, a coin-operated dry cleaner
would only be require to control leaks
and waste materials. This control would
require good operation, maintenance,
and inspection practices.
Selection of Format of Proposed
Standards
Two basic approaches appeared
applicable to establishing the format for
the standard. The first focueed on the
emission points and led to separate
standards for each specific emission
source. The second approach focused on
solvent consumption and led to a mass
emission limitation format that would
place a limit on the total consumption of
perc per unit of articles cleaned. This
format is similar to the industry
technique of computing solvent
"mileage" in pounds of articles cleaned
per drum of solvent.
The first approach would require
different formats for each of the three
types of emission points: (1) equipment
exhausts and vents, (2) leaks, and (3)
waste materials. This approach is the
same as that in the control techniques
guideline (CTG) on perc dry cleaning
and was chosen as the format for the
proposed standards, based on the
considerations discussed below.
Under Section lll{h) of the Clean Air
Act, the Administrator may promulgate
a design, equipment, work practice, or
operational standard if he
* ' * determines that (A) a pollutant or
pollutants cannot be emitted through a
conveyance designed and constructed to emit
or capture such pollutant, or that any
requirement for, c? use of, such a conveyance
would be inconsistent with any Federal,
State, or local law, or (B) the application of
measurement methodology to a particular
class of sources is not practicable due to
technological or economic limitations.
Either concentration limitations, mass
emissions standards, or equipment
standards %ould be used to limit
emissions from dryer or dry-to-dry
machine exhausts at professional dry
cleaners. An equipment standard
reduces the impact on the profitability of
small dry cleaners because this format
for the standard does not require an
expensive performance test but does
require the use of a carbon adsorber or
equivalent control device. The
annualized cost to a small commercial
dry cleaner would be approximately
$300 for an equipment standard and
$1,000 for a concentration limit or mass
emission standard, assuming no more
than one performance test would be
required over the life of the adsorber.
The use of performance tests is not
feasible because the economic impact of
even a single performance test is
considered to be too great for small dry
cleaning plants. Foe these reasons, an
equipment standard requiring the use of
carbon adsorbers was chosen to limit
emissions from these sources.
As much as 25 percent of the
emissions from a controlled facility can
be attributed to leaks. Possible formats
for a standard to control these leaks are
a work practice standard or a maximum
emission limit standard. Because the
control of these emissions requires
maintenance, a logical format for a
standard is a work practice standard,
specifying an inspection program to
locate leaks and limiting the time period
for performing the required
maintenance. The maximum emission
limit format for a leak standard would
require the enclosure of the leak source
to quantify the emission rate. Because
this procedure is time consuming and
the application of measurement
methodology is not practicable due to
economic limitations, the work practice
standard was chosen as the preferred
format.
Possible formats for a standard
limiting perc emissions from waste
IV-00-5
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 229 / Tuesday, November 25, 1980 / Proposed Rules
materials are the establishment of work
practices that reduce perc content in
waste materials before disposal or the'
establishment of a limit on the
concentration of perc in the waste. Perc
dry cleaners generate three different
types of waste materials: (1) regenerable
filter wastes, (2) residue from solvent
stills, and (3) used cartridge filters. The
possible formats for a standard have
been evaluated separately for each of
these waste materials.
Regenerable filter washes are typically
heated in a muck cooker to drive off
perc. The perc is recovered by
condensation. A concentration limit on
the waste material after cooking would
require good operation of the muck
cooker to minimize the perc content in
the muck before disposal. This
concentration can be determined by a
simple, inexpensive test.
Residue from solvent stills presents a
case similar to that of the regenerable
filters. Contaminated solvent is boiled at
a temperature that volatilizes the
solvent without volatilizing the
contaminating greases or oils. The
solvent vapor is then condensed and
recovered. A concentration limit has the
same advantages for controlling
emissions fror solvent stills as it has for
controlling emissions from regenerable
filter material.
Cartridge filters present a different
case, however. Thes 3 filters cannot
normally be heated to recover perc
because most of these filters are
designed to be disposable and,
therefore, are not designed for ease of
solvent reclamation. Instead they are
drained of excess solvent in their
housings and are then disposed of.
Performance tests for a concentration
format would require the drying of used
cartridges to a constant weight. This
process can take 2 weeks or longer and
cannot usually be performed without the
use of laboratory facilities for the entire
time which is expensive, making
performance testing economically
unfeasible. A work practice format
would specify a minimum drain time for
cartridge filters. This format has the
advantage of not requiring a lengthy
performance test while maintaining the
same control level. Therefore, a work
practice standard was chosen for
cartridge filters.
Equivalent Systems of Emission
Reduction
These standards of performance do
not preclude the use of other emission
control equipment or procedures of •
operation that can be demonstrated to
be equivalent, in terms of reducing VOC
emissions, to those prescribed in the
proposed regulation. For determination
of equivalency, any person may submit
test data and request the
Administrator's approval of alternative
equipment The submittal must describe
the equipment, test procedures, date and
location of the test and test results.
Upon request the Administrator will
also review proposed test procedures for
technical feasibility.
Equivalency for dryer or dry-to-dry
machine exhaust control equipment can
be demonstrated by any person
including users or manufacturers of
equipment In order to determine
equivalency, the Administrator must
find a substantial likelihood that the
control technology used in normal
operations would produce equivalent
emission reductions as the standards
would require, at approximately the
same or less energy or adverse
environmental impact
To .permit the use of alternative
systems for carbon adsorption, the
Administrator must find either (1) that
the control device reduces dryer or dry-
to-dry machine emissions by a minimum
of 95 percent, averaged over the drying
cycle, or (2) that a dry cleaning system
employing the control device can
achieve an average solvent loss rate of 5
kilograms, or less, per 100 kilograms of
articles cleaned. These limits were
chosen based on test data from carbon-
adsorber-equipped facilities where both
types of tests were performed. Although
there is no exact correspondence
between dryer emission control and
average solvent loss, the latter
demonstration of equivalency is allowed
because control efficiency
measurements of multipass control
systems are substantially more difficult
than such measurements for single-pass
systems (e.g., carbon adsorbers).
Some of the other control devices
available for perc dry cleaners are
multipass control systems, such as
refrigerated condensers and direct
contact condensers. These units are
typically installed to eliminate the
exhaust to the atmosphere from the
dryer (or dry-to-dry machine) with a
closed-loop arrangement. Test data from
one solvent mileage test indicate that
refrigeration units on dry-to-dry
machines may achieve emission rates
comparable to a well-operated carbon-
adsorber-equipped facility, and industry
sources have reported equally promising
results for the direct contact condenser.
Selection of Numerical Emission Limits,
Equipment Standards, and Work
Practice Standards
1. Equipment Exhausts and Vents
The standard is based on the
predominant type of carbon adsorber in
use by the industry today. Activated
carbon in those systems typically
adsorbs about 1 kilogram of perc for
each 5 kilograms of carbon before
regeneration. Test data and industry
sources also indicate that a well-
operated, well-maintained dry cleaning
machine ducts about 1 kilogram of perc
to the carbon adsorber for each 30
kilograms of articles cleaned. The •
proposed standard, therefore, requires
the carbon bed to be desorbed before it
reaches its capacity, as indicated by the
throughput of articles cleaned. The
maximum throughput allowed by the
standard before desorption is 6
kilograms of articles cleaned per
kilogram of carbon in the adsorber. This
number is based on the above data
which indicate that to capture each
kilogram of perc no more than 30
kilograms of articles can be cleaned for
each 5 kilograms of carbon in the
adsorber.
To prevent ineffective desorbing
techniques, a requirement for desorbing
the bed with a minimum of 170
kilopascals (kPa) (10 pounds per sq. inch
(psig)) steam is included in the
regulation. This requirement is based on
current industry practice. Additionally,
carbon adsorbers must be designed to
accommodate the unrestricted air flow
from the dry cleaning equipment to
prevent back pressure on the dry
cleaning machine and possible vapor
leaks. Also, the air flow must achieve a
minimum rate to dry the bed after the
desorbing process to ensure proper
operation after desorption.
2. Leaks
The control of leaks depends on
finding the leaks and repairing them.
Inspections to find leaks can be
performed daily, weekly, monthly, or at
other intervals. Daily inspections were
judged too burdensome for the many
small dry cleaners who would be
affected. Weekly inspections could be
made during days of lower consumer
demand without affecting production.
Longer intervals would not allow for
timely discovery of leaks. Therefore,
weekly inspections are required.
After leaks are found, repairs are
required. Emissions from leaks can be
reduced by minimizing the length of time
before repair. Immediate repair could be
burdensome to dry cleaners because of
lost production during periods of peak
demand. Also, in some cases, required
parts may not be on hand. To lessen the
impact of the standard. 3 days have
been allowed for the leak to be repaired
or for required parts to be ordered.
IV-00-6
-------
/ Vol. 45. No. 229 / Tuesday. November 25. 1980 / Proposed Rules
3. Waste Materials
The proposed standard would set
limits on the amount of perc contained
in waste products generated at a dry
cleaning facility. These waste products
may include residue from regenerable
filters, cartridge filters, and solvent
stills.
The processing of waste materials to
minimize the perc content before
disposal is the objective of the proposed
standards. Stills can be operated,
according to test data, to reduce the perc
content to 60 kilograms per 100
kilograms of wet waste material.
Industry representatives ha,ve agreed
that these levels can be achieved by
increased distillation times which result
in the optimum operation of the still to
reduce the perc content without
significantly increasing the operating
cost of the still. Care must be taken,
however, to prevent grease and oils
from being evaporated along with the
perc. More stringent control levels are '
not viable for typical dry cleaners
because of the likelihood that these
contaminates would appear in the
reclaimed perc.
Similarly, the proper operation of a
muck cooker at test dry cleaners has
been demonstrated to reduce the perc
content to 25 kilograms per 100
kilograms of wet waste material through
the use of improved operating
procedures. This technique has been
endorsed by industry trade
organizations in recommendations to
their members. Control levels below 25
kilograms per 100 kilograms of wet
waste material are too stringent for
typical dry cleaners because of the
length of cooking time required. The
proposed standard would require the 25-
kilograms-per-lCO-kilograms level to be
met.
Cartridge filters are usually drained in
their housings or other sealed containers
before disposal, the proposed standard
would require a minimum of 24 hours of
drain time. This time is based on
manufacturers' recommendations.
Normally, draining would occur over a
weekend with the filter's being replaced
on the following Monday morning.
Therefore, no loss of production time
would 6ccur. Another option would
have required cartridge filters to be
dried jn housings vented to carbon
adsorbers. This option was not chosen
because it could preclude development
of other control devices that might be
equivalent to carbon adsorbers.
Selection of Monitoring Requirements
The principal monitoring technique
that can be used is inspection for leaks.
Inspection by the owner or operator for
leaks is routine maintenance necessary
for the most efficient operation of the
dry cleaner. Leaks would be required to
be repaired within 3 days; otherwise, a
copy of a purchase order showing
required parts to be on order must be in
evidence. This procedure would
minimize perc losses from perceptible
leaks by limiting the time for such leaks
to be repaired. No other monitoring
requirements are included because
sufficiently accurate continuous
monitors were not found.
For determining compliance witha the
liquid leak standard, any liquid leak
large enough to drip or run off would be
considered "perceptible" and would
have to be repaired. This inspection
would be visual. Perceptible vapor leaks
are more difficult to quantify, but would
consist of vapor leaks that are obvious
from the odor of perc in the general area
or by observation of gas flow by feel,
application of bubble solution, or similar
means.
Determination of the perc content of
waste materials would be accomplished
by using ASTM D322-87, with
modifications to account for the fact that
perc is heavier than water and to give a
weight percent rather than a volume
percent.
No reports to the Administrator or
records are required for several reasons.
First, when a carbon adsorber is
installed, it is to the economic
advantage of the owner or operator to
use it. Second, this industry is primarily
made up of small businesses upon which
recordkeeping would be burdensome.
Finally, it is in the spirit of regulatory
reform to minimize the burden of
regulations when possible and when
consistent with achieving a given
environmental goal.
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 whould contact EPA
at the address given in the Addresses
section of this preamble. Oral
presentations will be limited to 15
minutes each. Any member of the public
may file a written statement with EPA
before, during, or within 30 days after
the hearing. Written statements should
be addressed to the Central Docket
Section address given in the Addresses
section of this 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
complete file of all the information
submitted to, or otherwise considered
by, EPA 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 (2} to
serve as the record in case of judicial
review.
Miscellaneous
As prescribed by Section 111,
establishment of standards of
performance for perc dry cleaners was
preceded by the Administrator's
determination (40 CFR 60.16, 44 FR
49222) 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 this proposal was preceded by
consultation with 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.
Standards of performance for new
sources established under Section III of
the Clean Air Act reflect:
application of the best technological system
of continuous emission reduction which
(taking into consideration the cost of
achieveing such emission reduction, any
nonair quality health and environmental
impact and energy requirements) the
Administrator determines has been
adequately demonstrated. [Section lll(a)(1)l
Although there may be emission control
technology available that can reduce
emissions below those levels required to
comply with standards of performance,
such technology might not be selected as
the basis of standards of performance
because of costs associated with its use.
Accordingly, these standards of
performance should not be viewed as
the ultimate in achievable emissions
control. In fact, the Act requires (or has
the potential for requiring) the
imposition of a more stringent emission
standard in several situations.
For example, applicable costs do not
necessarily play as prominent a role in
determining the lowest achievable
emission rate (LAER) for new or
modified sources locating in
nonattainment areas (i.e., thse areas
where statutorily mandated health and
welfare standards are being violated). In
this respect, Section 173 of the Act
requires that new or modified sources
IV-00-7
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 25. I960 / Proposed Rules
constructed in an area where ambient
pollutant concentrations exceed the .
NAAQS must reduce emissions to the
level that reflects the LAER, as defined
in Section 171(3), for that source
category. The statute defines LAER as
that rate of emissions based on the
following, whichever is more stringent:
(A) The most stringent emission limitation
[that] is contained in the implementation plan
of any state for such class or category of
source unless owner or operator of the
proposed source demonstrates that such
limitations are not achievable,
(B) The most stringent emission limitation
(that] is achieved in practice by such class or
category of source.
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, hi no event
may the application of BACT result in
emissions of any pollutants that would
exceed the emissions allowed by any
applicable standard established
pursuant to Section 111 (or 112) of the
Act.
In all events. State Implementation
Plans (SIP's) 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, SIP's must, in some cases.
require greater emission reductions than
those required by standards of
performance for new sources.
Finally, 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.
Ths 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 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 lll(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 ensure that the proposed standards
would represent the best system of
emission reduction considering costs.
The economic impact assessment is
included in the Background Information
Document.
Dated: November 18,1980.
Douglas M. Owne,
Administrator.
PART 60—STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
STATIONARY SOURCES
It is proposed that 40 CFR Part 60 be
amended by adding a new subpart as
follows:
1. Add Subpart OO to the Table of
Sections as follows:
Siittffsrt OO—Stsntfsrttt of PutniHimf'^ for
PcrcMoroettiytam Dry Omars
Sec.
60.410 Applicability and designation of
affected facility.
60.411 Definitions.
60.412 Standards for volatile organic
compounds.
60.413 Equivalent equipment and
procedures.
60.414 Test methods and procedures.
Authority: Sec. 111. 301(a) of the Clean Air
Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7411.7601(a)), and
additional authority as noted below.
2. Add Subpart OO as follows:
Subpart OO—Standards of
Performance lor Perchloroethylana
Dry Cleaners
$60.410
affected facaty.
(a) The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to the following affected
facilities: perchloroethylene dry cleaning
dryers, dry-to-dry machines, washers,
filters, muck cookers and stills.
(b) Any facility under paragraph (a) of
this section that commences
construction or modification after
(date of proposal) is subject to
the requirements of this part
§60411 Drtlntaons.
As used in this subpart. all terms not
defined herein shall have the same
meaning given them in the Act and in
subpart A of this part.
"Carbon adsorber" means a bed of
activated carbon into which
perchloroethylene vapors are introduced
and trapped for subsequent desorption.
"Cartridge filter" means a discreet
solvent filter unit designed to be
replaced periodically.
"Coin-operated dry cleaner" means a
perchloroethylene dry cleaner activated
by the customer. Such dry cleaners are
typically coin-operated.
"Desorption" means regeneration of
an activated carbon bed by removal of
the adsorbed solvent usually with
steam.
"Dryer" means a machine used to
remove perchloroethylene from articles
of clothing or other textile or leather
goods, after washing and extraction of
excess perchloroethylene.
"Dry-to-dry machine" means a
perchloroethylene dry cleaning machine
in which washing, extraction, and drying
are all achieved in the same single unit.
"Dry cleaning system" means an
affected dryer or dry-to-dry machine
and its ancillary washers, filters, muck
cookers, stills, interconnecting piping
and ducts, and solvent tanks which must
be present in order to complete the dry
cleaning process.
"Muck cooker" means a device for
heating regenerable filter material to
drive off perchloroethylene vapors for
reclaiming.
"Perchloroethylene dry cleaners"
means the dry cleaning dryers or dry-to-
dry machines and their ancillary
equipment.
"Perceptible leaks" means any
perchloroethylene vapor or liquid leaks
that are obvious from (1) the odor of
perchloroethylene, (2) observation of gas
flow by feel or application of bubble
solution, or (3) visual observation, such
as pools or droplets of liquid.
"Professional" means any
perchloroethylene dry cleaner not
activated by the customer and includes,
but is not limited to, commercial and
industrial perchloroethylene dry
cleaners.
"Regenerable filter material" means
the residue from a filter using loose
diatomaceous earth.
"Still residue" means the mixture of
perchloroethylene, oils, and other
material that must be periodically
removed from a solvent still.
"Stills" are defined as devices used to
volatilize and recover perchloroethylene
from contaminated solvent removed
from the cleaned articles.
IV-OO-8
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 229 / Tuesday, November 25. 1980 / Proposed Rules
"Wet waste material" means the
undiluted filter material from a
regenerable filter or the undiluted *
residue from a solvent still.
§60.412 Standards for volatile organic
compound*.
(a) Each owner or operator of a
perchloroethylene dryer or dry-to-dry
machine used by a professional dry
cleaner shall install, operate, and
maintain a carbon adsorption unit for
the control of volatile organic compound
emissions from the dryer or dry-to-dry
machine. The carbon adsorber must be
designed and operated to meet the
following requirements:
(1) Desorption before cleaning 6
kilograms of articles per kg of activated
carbon, based on dryer or dry-to-dry
machine rated capacity,
(2) Desorption with a minimum steam
pressure of 170 kPa,
(3) A rated air flow capacity at least
equal to the unrestricted exhaust rate of
the dry-to-dry machine or, if applicable,
at least equal to the sum of the
unrestricted exhaust rates of the washer
and dryer, and a minimum air flow
capacity of 0.3 cubic meter per second,
(4) no bypass to the atmosphere
during desorption.
(b) No owner or operator of a
regenerable filter subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall dispose
of regenerable filter material unless the
perchloroethylene content of the
regenerable filter material has been
reduced to 25 kilograms of
perchlorethylene, or less, per 100
kilograms of wet waste material.
(c) No owner or operator of a still
subject to the provisions of this subpart
shall dispose of still residue unless the
perchloroethylene content of the still
residue has been reduced to 60
kilograms of perchloroethylene, or less,
per 100 kilograms of wet waste material.
(d) No owner or operator of cartridge
filters subject to the provisions of this
subpart shall dispose of used cartridge
filters unless the cartridge filter has
been drained in its housing, or other
sealed container, for a minimum of 24
hours, or has been dried in an enclosure
vented to a carbon adsorber.
(e) The owner or operator of an
affected facility subject to the provisions
of this subpart shall repair perceptible
leaks-within 3 working days or, if repair
parts are necessary, a purchase order
for those parts must be initiated within 3
working days.
§60.413 Equivalent equipment and
procedure*.
(a) Upon written application from any
person, the Administrator may approve
the use of equipment or procedures that
have been demonstrated to his
satisfaction to be equivalent, in terms of
reducing VOC emissions to the
atmosphere, to those prescribed for
compliance within a specified paragraph
of this subpart. The application must
contain a complete description of the
testing procedure and the date, time,
and location of the test, and a
description of the test results.
(b) For the purpose of determining
equivalency of control equipment
required by § 60.412(a), the
Administrator will evaluate the
application to determine the adequate
demonstration of either:
(1) 95 percent control of dryer
emissions, averaged over the drying
cycle, or
(2) An average solvent loss rate of 5
kg, or less, per 100 kg of articles dried,
for the dry cleaning system, averaged
over a minimum of 20 consecutive work
days and based on machine capacity.
(c) If the the Administrator's judgment
an application for equivalence may be
approvable. the Administrator will
publish a notice of preliminary
determination in the Federal Register
and provide the opportunity for public
hearing. After notice and opportunity for
public hearing, the Administrator will
determine the equivalence of the
alternative means of emission limitation
and will publish the final determination
in the Federal Register.
{ 60.414 Teat method* and procedure*.
(a) Each owner or operator of an
affected facility subject to the provisions
of this subpart shall make a weekly
inspection of the affected facility to
determine compliance with 5 60.412(e).
(b) ASTM Method D322-67, as
modified below, is used to determine
compliance with § 60.412(c) and
S 60.412(d). A sample of the wet waste
material to be disposed of is taken from
each of three different batches of waste
materials. Each of the three samples is
analyzed using ASTM Method D322-67
modified by using a Bidwell-Sterling
type distillation trap in place of a
gasoline dilution trap and by adding a
known sample mass to the flask instead
of a known sample volume so as to
obtain a weight prcent of
perchloroethylene in the waste material.
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act. as amended
(42 U.S.C. 7414))
|FR Doc. W-38702 Filed 11-24-80; 8:45 Ul]
MJJNOCOOCIf
IV-00-9
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR
NEW STATIONARY
SOURCES
GRAPHIC ARTS INDUSTRY
PUBLICATION
ROTOGRAVURE PRINTING
SUBPART QQ
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 210 / Tuesday. October 28.1980 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[1579-1]
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources; Graphic Arts
Industry: Publication Rotogravure
Printing
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of
public hearing.
SUMMARY: Standards of performance are
proposed to limit emissions of volatile
organic compounds (VOC) from new,
modified, and reconstructed publication
rotogravure printing presses. Emissions
would be limited to 16 percent of the
total VOC solvent volume used at the
press. Reference Method 29 is also
proposed for determination of the VOC
volume content of solvent-borne inks
and related coatings.
The proposed standards implement
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act and are
based on the Administrator's
determination that the graphic arts
industry contributes significantly to air
pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare. The intent is to insure that new,
modified, and reconstructed publication
rotogravure printing facilities use the
best demonstrated system of continuous
emission reduction, considering costs,
nonair quality health and evnironmental
impacts, and energy requirements.
A public hearing will be held to
provide interested persons an
opportunity for oral presentation of
data, views, or arguments concerning
the proposed standards.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be
received on or before December 29,
1980.
Public Hearing. A public hearing will
be held on November 25 (about 30 days
after proposal) beginning at 9:00 a.m.
Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons
wishing to present oral testimony must
contact EPA by November 18 (1 week
before hearing).
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments
should be submitted (in duplicate if
possible) to: Central Docket Section (A-
130). Attention: Docket Number A-79-
50, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
Public Hearing. The public hearing
will be held at Environmental Research
Center Auditorium RTP, NC. Persons
wishing to present oral testimony should
notify Ms. Deanna Tilley, Standards
Development Branch (MD-13) U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5477.
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)
541-2777. Please refer to "Publication
Rotogravure Printing—Background
Information for Proposed Standards,"
EPA-450/3-80-031a.
Docket. Docket No. OAQPS-79-50,
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:
Mr. Gene W. Smith, Section Chief,
Standards Development Branch,
Emission Standards and Engineering
Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone
number (919) 541-5421.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Proposed Standards
The proposed standards would apply
to new publication rotogravure
production presses. Existing presses
would not be subject to the proposed
standards unless they undergo a
modification or a reconstruction as
defined in 40 CFR 60.14 and 40 CFR
60.15, respectively. The smaller four-unit
proof presses, used only to check the
quality of the image formation of newly
etched or engraved printing cylinders,
would not be affected by the proposed
standards. Emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOC) from publication
rotogravure presses would be limited to
16 percent of the total VOC solvent
volume used at the press. Total VOC
solvent used would include all VOC
solvent in the purchased raw inks and
related coatings used at the press, all
VOC solvent added to the inks and
coatings, and all VOC solvent used as a
cleaning agent at the press. For
compliance purposes, the emission
percentage could be reported as
rounded-off to the nearest whole
number.
The proposed standards are based on
the use of solvent-borne ink systems.
with a solvent vapor cpture system and
a fixed-bed carbon adsorption/solvent
recovery system for VOC emission
control. For the use of waterborne ink
systems, the proposed emission limit is
expressed as a maximum allowed VOC
volume to solids volume ratio of 0.64 in
the purchased raw inks and related
coatings, with only water addition
allowed for dilution. Emission control
equipment and metering devices would
be required with waterborne ink
systems only if the specified waterborne
conditions are not met.
Initial compliance with the proposed
emission limit would have to be
demonstrated in a long-term
performance test. This initial test would
cover normal operations over 30
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
over the 30 days would be determined
by an overall VOC solvent volume
balance. The total volume amount of
recovered solvent would be compared to
the total volume amount of solvent used
at the press. The amount of recovered
solvent would include all VOC solvent
recovered by the emission control
system, all waste VOC solvent, and all
waste inks removed from the affected
facility. VOC volume analyses of raw
solvent-borne inks and related coatings,
as purchased, would be obtained from
the ink manufacturer or determined by
the proposed Reference Method 29. VOC
analyses of air streams from the facility
or the control system, and any waste
water streams would not be required.
Once the initial performance test is
completed, the affected facility would be
required to monitor and calculate the
amount of VOC emissions as a
percentage of the VOC solvent volume
used each month at the press. Emissions
would be determined using the same
procedures used in the initial
performance test. These monthly test
records of emissions would serve to
determine compliance on a continuing
basis, but would be reported only for the
months during which non-compliance is
determined. Compliance with the
proposed standards would thus be
determined for 12 periods each year
from monthly performance test records.
As an alternative, four-week
performance test averaging periods
could be chosen in order to coincide
with the plant's normal accounting
procedures. This alternative would ,
require 13 compliance periods per year.
Affected facilities using waterborne
ink systems would also be subject to
continual compliance after completion
of the initial performance test.
Determination of compliance procedures
would be the same as previously
described, except that the VOC volume
IV-QQ-2
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 210 / Tuesday. October 28, 1980 / Proposed Rules
analyses of raw waterborne inks and
related coatings, as purchased, would be
from only the ink manufacturer's data. A
reference test method for verification of
the VOC content of waterborne ink
systems is not being proposed.
The proposed emission limits can also
be met through the use of solvent
destruction (i.e. oxidation) control
systems. However, specific procedures
for determination of compliance with
solvent destruction are not being
proposed since this control technique is
not expected to be used on any new.
modified, or reconstructed press. The
Administrator will welcome comments
on whether this expectation and the
exclusion of compliance provisions for
solvent destruction devices are
reasonable.
Summary of Environmental, Energy, and
Economic Impacts
The environmental, energy, and
economic impacts of the proposed
standards are expressed as incremental
differences relative to a baseline level.
A 75 percent overall VOC reduction
efficiency, JOT 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 Existing
Stationary Sources—Volume VIII:
Graphic Arts—Rotogravure and
Flexography" (EPA-450/2-78-033
|CTG]). The states are expected to use
this document in developing their
revised Stale Implementation Plans
(SIP) for existing publication rotogravure
printing facilities. The 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 facilities installed
before the year 1980 are assumed to be
controlled at the 75 percent baseline
level.
The projected impacts are based on
the expectation that, most of the time,
only 15 percent (85 percent overall
control) of the total VOC solvent used at
affected facilities would be emitted.
Emissions are expected to increase to
the 16 percent level (84 percent overall
control) during only one or two months
per year.
Compared to the baseline control
level, the proposed standards would
further reduce VOC air pollutant
emissions from typical affected facilities
by 40 percent. A typical sized new plant
in this industry would have four
production presses, each consisting of
eight printing units, and would have the
capacity for a total annual solvent usage
of about 6.400 megagrams. The potential
reduction in VOC emissions from a
typical sized plant controlled under the
proposed standards would be about 700
megagrams per year more than that for
control at the baseline level. The
proposed standards would reduce the
industrywide VOC emissions from both
affected and existing facilities by about
7,900 megagrams per year in the year
1985. the fifth year after the appliable
date of the standards. This would
represent about 13 percent less industry
emissions than with control of affected
facilities at the baseline level. This
projection is based on the expectation of
7 percent annual real growth rate in this
industry.
Potential water pollution from a
facility controlled under the proposed
standards would be 3 percent greater
than that from one controlled at the
baseline level. The incremental potential
wastewater discharges from a typical
four-press plant would be about 2.6
million liters per year more than for
baseline control. Dissolved organic
compounds in this effluent would
amount to an incremental increase of
about 0.5 megagram per year. Projected
national discharges for 1985 would be
increased by about 32 million liters
above that for control at the baseline
level. In the year 1985, dissolved organic
solvents in the nationwide effluent
would potentially amount to about 6
megagrams per year more than for
control at the baseline level. This would
represent about a five percent
incremental increase. The dissolved
solvent content could be virtually
eliminated on-site by demonstrated,
inexpensive removal systems. The
resultant solvent-free water could be
recycled as make-up feed water to the
plant steam boiler. Alternatively, the
waste water could be discharged to a
conventional biological waste treatment
system.
The solid waste impact resulting from
the proposed standards would increase
proportionally over those for baseline
control because of additional amounts
of spent carbon, carbon fines, and used
sr' .Tit laden air (SLA) filters. In 1985.
'"'• Amount of nationwide waste carbon
would be increased by about 85
megagrams above that for control at the
baseline level. An estimate of the
incremental bulk quantity of waste
filters was not attempted, but should be
a very small impact.
The only significant source of noise
would be 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
proposed standards' environmental
impacts as just described are
reasonable.
The energy impact of the proposed
standards is not unreasonable on an
industry basis and is entirely favorable
when viewed from a national
perspective. The direct energy
consumption by a facility controlled
under the proposed standards would be
about 18 percent higher than if
controlled at the baseline level. The
direct annual energy consumption for a
typical four-press plant would be
increased by about the equivalent of
2,200 barrels of fuel oil. The industry's
total direct energy consumption for the
year 1985 would be about 40.200 barrels
of fuel oil above that required for
baseline control. This would represent
an energy consumption increase of
about 9 percent more than with control
of affected facilities at the baseline
level.
The national energy impact of the
proposed standards would result in net
national energy savings when the fuel
energy value of the recovered solvent is
considered. Under the proposed
standards, nationwide energy
consumption for the year 1985 would be
actually decreased by about the
equivalent of 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 which
would result from decreased solvent
demand.
The proposed standards would
increase the required total plant capital
investment and annualized operating
costs over that for emission control at
the baseline level. However, the high
cost value of the recovered solvent
would enable the installation of solvent
recovery control systems to provide a
net profit (negative annualized costs)
and positive return on investments for
emission controls under the proposed
standards. The capital investment for a
typical four-press plant would be
increased by about $650,000. or about
two percent more than for control at the
baseline level. Industry's cumulative
five-year capital investments, through
the year 1985. would be increased by
about $17 million. For the typical plant,
the annualized control cost with solvent
recovery credit would be about
-$345,000 at baseline level and
— $271,000 under the proposed
standards, for an incremental cost
increase of about $74,000. In the year
1985, the industrywide total annualized
control cost with solvent recovery credit
would be an estimated -$4.2 million at
baseline control level and —$1.7 million
IV-QQ-3
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 210 / Tuesday. October 28. 1980 / Proposed Rules
under the proposed standards, for an
incremental cost increase of about $2.5
million.
The increase in capital requirements
and annualized control cost under the
proposed standards would have a
negligible impact on industry growth,
profitability, and product prices. First,
the two percent incremental increase in
initial capital costs is not large enough
to reduce capital availability and,
therefore, would not restrict industry
growth. Secondly, the industry's average
pre-tax profit of eight percent at the
baseline control level would not be
reduced below 7.8 percent under the
proposed standards. Finally, there
would be no significant price increases
for publication gravure products. The
Administrator, therefore, believes that
the economic impacts of the proposed
standards are reasonable.
Rationale—Selection of Source
The publication rotogravure printing
industry is a significant source of
volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions. The EPA has ranked the
graphic arts industry, of which
publication rotogravure is a part, sixth
out of 59 on the "Priority List and
Additions to the List of Categories of
Stationary Sources". This list for New
Source Performance Standards was
promulgated at 44 FR 49222 on August
21,1979. This priority list ranks the
emission sources on a nationwide basis
in terms of quantities of air pollutant
emissions from the source category, the
mobility and competitive nature of each
' source category, and the extent to which
each pollutant endangers public health
and welfare.
The publication rotogravure printing
industry is a rapidly growing segment of
the graphic arts industry, and a rapidly
increasing source of potential VOC air
pollutants. In the year 1977, the entire
graphic arts industry was responsible
for about 380,000 megagrams of organic
solvent vapor emissions in the United
States. Although in sales, publication
rotogravure constituted only about five
percent of the graphic arts industry, it
was responsible for almost 15 percent of
the total graphic arts VOC emissions in
1977. Growth projections show that the
publication rotogravure industry will
experience about a seven percent
annual real growth rate through the year
1985. Potential uncontrolled emissions
from a typical four-press plant amount
to about 6,400 megagrams per year. In
the year 1985, the cumulative potential
uncontrolled VOC emissions from this
industry are projected to be about
236,000 megagrams.
Selection of Pollutants and Affected
Facilities
Volatile organic compounds (VOC)
are the only air pollutants emitted from
publication rotogravure printing
facilities. The sources of the VOC
emissions are the solvent components in
the inks and related coatings used at the
printing presses, as well as solvent
added for printing and cleaning. The
gravure printing method usually
involves only four colors of inks—
yellow, red, blue, and black. The related
coatings are usually referred to as
extenders or varnishes. There are two
general types of solvents used by the
publication rotogravure industry. In a
few cases only toluene is used, but the
more common solvent is a toluene-
xylene-lactol spirits (naphtha) mixture.
The various solvent components exhibit
a range of moderate to high
photochemical reactivity. VOC along
with nitrogen oxides are precursors to
the formation of ozone and other
oxidants. Photochemical oxidants result
in a variety of adverse impacts on
health and welfare, including impaired
respiratory function, eye irritation,
necrosis of plant tissue, and
deterioration of selected sysnthetic
materials, such as rubber. Further
information on these effects can be
found in the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) document
entitled "Air Quality Criteria for Ozone
and Other Photochemical Oxidants"
(EPA-600/8-78-004).
At present, this industry uses only
solvent-borne ink systems. The
proposed standards would also allow
the use of waterborne inks, but -none
have been successfully developed yet
for the rotogravure printing method.
Current research is being directed
toward development of low-VOC,
waterborne inks so that the proposed
emission limit could be met without the
use of emission control systems. The
industry expects to develop waterborne
inks in the next five to ten years.
All new web-fed (roll-fed) rotogravure
presses used to print salable products,
described under SIC Code numbers
27541 and 27543, would be the "affected
facilities." These presses typically
consist of 8 to 12 printing units. They are
used to print magazines, catalogs,
newspaper supplements, and
advertising products, as well as other
products. Existing rotogravure
production presses in this industry
which are determined to have been
modified or reconstructed in accordance
with 40 CFR.14 or 40 CFR.15 would also
be subject to the proposed standards.
There are expected to be very few, if
any. such facilities. Installation of the
higher speed, more efficient, and better
electronically controlled newer presses
will be more attractive than upgrading
existing presses because of the highly
competitive and fast growing nature of
this industry. In addition, it would be
easier to control VOC emissions from
newer pressses than from older presses
because modern presses are designed,
for economic reasons, to minimize
fugitive solvent vapor losses.
VOC emissions from ink and solvent
storage and transfer facilities, as well as
emissions from other printing operations
would not be affected by the proposed
standards. The emissions from storage
and transfer facilities should normally
be negligible compared to the printing
press emissions. Additional presses that
print other gravure products and
different types of printing processes are
sometimes housed within the same
plant. The other sectors of gravure
printing are slightly smaller and are not
growing as rapidly as the publication
sector. In addition, each gravure printing
sector and other printing processes have
different operating and emissions
control characteristics. An attempt to
cover entire printing plants would have,
therefore, dramatically increased the
complexity of the proposed standards.
Air pollutant emissions from these other
gravure presses and other printing
processes may be regulated under future
standards.
The smaller four-unit proof presses,
used only to check the quality of the
image formation of newly engraved or
etched printing cylinders, would not be
affected. These proof presses are
operated intermittently and at much
slower speeds compared to the
production presses. The inks and
solvents used at the proof presses are
normally not metered, but are handled
out of drums. The total solvent usage by
proof presses in this industry is
estimated to be about only one percent
of the usage by production presses.
Selection of the Basis of the Proposed
Standards
VOC emissions from publication
rotogravure printing facilities could be
controlled by either emission control
systems, or by using low-VOC,
waterborne ink systems. Emission
control devices in this industry presently
involve only solvent recovery, although
solvent destruction (i.e. oxidation) could
be used. The overall performance of
control devices can be enhanced by
installation of well-designed fugitive
VOC vapor capture systems.
Control Technologies
The complete emission control system
in a modern publication rotogravure
IV-QQ-4
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 210 / Tuesday, October 28, 1980 / Proposed Rules
printing plant consists of two sections:
the capture system and the emission
control device system. The capture
system is designed to gather the VOC
vapors emitted from the presses. The
captured vapors are then directed to a
control device where they are either
recovered or destroyed.
Most of the solvent used in the
rotogravure printing process is driven
off in the drying operation after the ink
has been applied to the paper web. All
new and existing presses have dryer
enclosures and ductwork to capture and
convey dryer exhaust vapors away from
the press (e.g.. to a control device].
Vapors that are not captured by the
dryers are called fugitive emissions. Of
the total amount of solvent used at the
press, 80 to SO percent is captured by the
dryers and the rest is fugitive. Fugitive
emission capture systems can be
designed to capture part of all of the
fugitive vapors in the pressroom.
The capture efficiency of the dryers is
limited by their temperature and the
operating speed of the newer presses.
Dryer temperatures range from ambient
to about 120°C (250°F). The higher
temperatures in this range can only be
used on the units printing with black
ink. Higher temperatures impair product
quality and increase the frequency of
web breaks. The increasing operating
speeds of modern presses of over 10 m/s
(2,000 fpm) limit the web's residence
time in the dryers. Thus, significant
amounts of fugitive vapors are emitted
from the presses because of the limited
dryer capture efficiency.
Facilities that capture only the dryer
exhausts must install some type of
ventilation to remove the fugitive
solvent vapors from the pressroom. The
solvent vapor concentration in the
pressroom air must be kept below the
level of OHSA regulations (29 CFR
1910.1COO). The present OSHA time-
weighted average (TWA), 8-hour
exposure limit for toluene vapors is 200
ppmv. The allowable vapor
concentration limits for the components
of the naphtha-based mixed solvents
range from 100 ppmv up to 500 ppmv.
OSHA has a proration formula for
determining compliance with vapor
component mixtures.
A highly efficient capture system is
necessary to achieve high overall
emission reduction efficiencies. Fugitive
solvent vapors, as well as the
concentrated dryer exhausts must be
captured. Some of the fugitive solvent
vapors result from evaporated solvent in
the ink fountains, from the exposed part
of the gravure printing cylinder, and
from exposed portions of the paper web
before entering the dryers. Enclosed ink
fountains and extended enclosed dryer
designs of newer presses help to
minimize the escape of fugitive vapors
from these locations during press
operation. However, these areas must
be uncovered to obtain access to the
press during shutdowns for web breaks.
cylinder changes, or maintenance items.
The major source of fugitive vapors from
newer presses during operation is the
paper web after exiting the dryers.
Fugitive vapors are emitted from this
source even during press shutdowns. In
addition, the final printed product
retains some of the solvent used at the
press, and continues to be a source of
fugitive vapors from the cutting and
folding areas after leaving the press.
All of the products printed in this
industry retain a small amount of
solvent. The amount of retained solvent
appears to vary from about one to seven
percent of the total solvent used at the
press, depending on the finished
product. Product solvent retention is
apparently influenced by the ink
coverage, the use of varnish and other
coatings, and the type of paper and inks
used. The ultimate efficiency of any
capture system is, therefore, limited by
the amount of solvent retained in the
printed product.
Three types of capture systems were
evaluated. The first type, demonstrated
at the facilities of Texas Color Printers,
Inc., captured only dryer exhaust vapors
while pressroom ventilation air was
discharged to the atmosphere. Naphtha-
based mixed solvents were used at
these tested facilities. Test data for this
capture system showed that the amount
of ventilation air required represented
about 30 percent of the total dryer
exhaust and ventilation air removed
from the pressroom. In addition, the
solvent vapor content in the ventilation
air accounted for about eight percent of
the total solvent volume used at the
press. The test results showed that the
dryers alone captured as must as 85 to
89 percent of the total solvents used at
the press. Calculated addition of the
discharged fugitive solvent vapors to the
dryer exhausts showed potential total
capture effciencies of 93 to 97 percent.
The remaining 3 to 7 percent represents
solvent retained in the product.
A second type capture system was
demonstrated at the newest facilities of
Meredith/Burda, Inc. Cabin enclosures
were installed over the top portion of
the printing presses. Fugitive solvent
vapors (toluene only at these tested
facilities) from the paper web and from
around the printing presses were pulled
up through the cabin enclosures and
then directed along with the dryer
exhausts to a carbon adsorption system.
Pressroom ventilation fans were not
installed at these facilities. Test data
showed capture efficiencies ranging
from 94 to 97 percent. Solvent retained
in the printed product thus represented
the remaining 3 to 6 percent of the
solvent used at the presses.
Application of the demonstrated
Meredith/Burda cabin enclosure design
may, however, present difficulties in
meeting some OSHA regulations.
Toluene vapor concentrations inside the
enclosures were measured to be as high
as 200 to 300 ppmv, during press
shutdowns. These vapor concentration
levels are within the ceiling limits of
OSHA regulations; however, repeated
exposure to these high concentrations,
combined with pressroom ambient
vapor concentration levels, measured at
40 to 200 ppmv, may cause some press
operators to be exposed in excess of the
8-hour TWA limit. In addition,
Meredith/Burda handles larger volume
print orders than some printers in this
industry. Some of the shorter-run
products not handled by Meredith/
Burda may cause more frequent web
breaks and press shutdowns. The
printing of these more troublesome
products could require the press
operators to enter a cabin enclosure
more often than required at Meredith/
Burda, thereby increasing their potential
for exposure to solvent vapors. Press
operating data supporting this reasoning
were obtained for two types of products
printed during tests conducted at both
the Merdith/Burda and Texas Color
facilities. The test results showed a wide
range of actual press printing times of
about 62 to 88 percent of the total test
time, with shutdown frequencies
averaging about 10 to 12 press
shutdowns per equivalent 24 hour
period. The magazine product printed at
Meredith/Burda caused twice as many
press shutdowns and a lower percentage
printing time than the advertising
product. At Texas Color, the advertising
product caused more press shutdowns,
but resulted in a slightly higher
percentage printing time than the
magazine product. Press shutdown data
for other products printed in this
industry were not available; however,
these test results were consistent with
general information provided by
industry on typical operations.
The Administrator believes that for
most facilities in this industry cabin
enclosures could be designed to very
effectively capture fugitive solvent
vapors without violating OSHA
regulations. As explained in Chapter 4
of the BID (Section 4.2.1), the Meredith/
Burda capture system design could be
improved to easily meet OSHA
regulations by (1) modifications of the
IV-QQ-5
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 210 / Tuesday. October 28, 1980 / Proposed Rules
cabin enclosure design, (2) modification
of the pressroom air handling system,
and (3) increasing the ventilation air
flow rate through the cabin. The
required increase in air flow rate would
cause a decrease of less than 0.5 percent
in the carbon adsorber efficiency. In
addition, the use of naphtha-based
mixed solvents rather than toluene
would pose fewer problems in meeting
OSHA regulations because of the higher
allowable vapor concentration limits.
On the other hand, the Administrator
acknowledges that printing of some
products handled by this industry might
cause more press down time than other
products, and thus a cabin enclosure
design may not be a suitable capture
system for some facilities.
A third type control system which
captures all the pressroom air was
demonstrated at the facilities of
Standard Gravure, Inc. Naphtha-based
mixed solvents are used at these
facilities. This capture system is similar
to what the potential Texas Color
capture system would be with the
fugitive ventilation air directed to the
control device system. In addition,
ventilation air from the cutting, folding,
and product storage areas are captured
at this plant and sent to a carbon
adsorption system. EPA testing was not
conducted at this plant because its
con'.-ol system was assumed to be less
cost effective than the other systems just
described. The amount of captured air
needed to be treated with this design is
much greater than for the other systems,
causing it to be less economical. Plant
data was obtained from Standard
Gravure, however, and the
Administrator believes these are of
sufficient accuracy to be used in support
of the proposed standards.
There are three alternative emission
control devices which can effectively
reduce the VOC emissions from a
publication rotogravure press: solvent
destruction (i.e. oxidation), fixed-bed
carbon adsorption, and fluidized-bed
carbon adsorption. Any of these systems
can control 95-99 percent of the vapors
they receive, but fixed-bed carbon
adsorption is currently used almost
exclusively in this industry.
Some modern solvent destruction
devices could possibly be economical in
certain cases. Conventional thermal
oxidation would require large amounts
of supplemental fuel. The operating
costs could be reduced somewhat by
utilizing waste heat recovery designs.
Catalytic oxidation permits lower
oxidation reaction temperatures, and
therefore, requires about 50 percent less
energy than thermal oxidation. A third
technique involves regenerative thermal
combustion. This method would
probably be the most energy efficient,
and thus most economical solvent
destruction device. However, as the
solvents used in this industry are refined
from crude oil, they are expected to
become increasingly expensive in the
future. Recovery rather than destruction
of captured solvent vapors is, therefore,
expected to be the only economically
justifiable control alterative for new
publication rotogravure printing presses.
Fixed-bed carbon adsorption has
undergone considerable research,
development, and modification in recent
years. Most of the corrosion problems of
the past have been solved. Energy
requirements, and thus operating costs
for the fixed-bed system are greater than
that of a fluidized-bed carbon adsorber
system, but capital costs are less.
Problems associated with the use of a
fluidized-bed carbon adsorption system
to control VOC emissions from
publication rotogravure presses cannot
be adequately assessed because
available data is very limited.
The average operating efficiencies of
fixed-bed carbon adsorption systems
were determined during the two plant
tests. The newest Meredith/Burda
adsorbers operated at 97 to 98-|- percent
efficiency. The Texas Color plant
adsorbers operated at 94 to 96 percent
efficiency. The difference in
performance results from higher inlet
SLA vapor concentrations, lower outlet
vapor concentrations, and better
instrumentation controls at Meredith/
Burda. The total VOC vapor
concentrations at Meredith/Burda
ranged from about 300 to 1,800 ppmv at
the adsorber inlet and about only 10 to
30 ppmv at the outlet. The vapor
concentrations at Texas Color ranged
from about 70 to 1,000 ppmv at the inlet
and about 20 to 300 ppmv at the
adsorber outlet.
The average operating efficiency of
the better designed carbon adsorption
systems available to this industry
should remain at or above the 97 percent
level, when printing most products.
Several carbon adsorption systems
installed in this industry provide
evidence that the carbon bed maintains
the design "activity" for more than five
years. Bed blockages from high
molecular weight reaction products have
not occurred with existing adsorption
systems and solvent blends used in the
publication rotogravure printing
industry. Routine maintenance requires
periodic filtering out of carbon fines,
addition of makeup carbon, and
repairing valve leaks. However, the
capture system design affects the air
handling requirements, as previously
mentioned, and thus could result in
lower adsorber efficiencies. Moreover,
adsorber efficiencies may be somewhat
lower when more troublesome, shorter
run products are printed.
In summary, the standards as
proposed are based on the use of fixed-
bed carbon adsorption with a solvent
vapor capture system. As previously
explained, the facilities at both tested
plant sites demonstrated that at least a
90 percent average capture efficiency
can be expected when fugitive solvent
vapors are captured along with the
dryer exhausts from new presses. This
conservative average efficiency allows
for printing of products that retain larger
amounts of solvent or that cause more
fluctuations in the printing operations
than were experienced during the two
short-term plant tests. If only dryer
exhausts are directed to the control
device, then the average capture
efficiency can be expected to be only
about 85 percent, as demonstrated
during tests at Texas Color. Older
facilities treating only the dryer
exhausts can be expected to achieve an
average capture efficiency of about 84
percent. This lowest capture efficiency
reflects an estimate of slightly more
fugitive solvent vapor losses from the
more exposed areas of older press
designs. Modern carbon adsorber/
solvent recovery control devices can be
expected to achieve a long-term average
performance of about 95 percent
efficiency. Short-term efficiencies of the
best demonstrated adsorbers may be
higher at times, but this average
efficiency accounts for the wide
fluctuations of vapor concentrations in
the solvent laden air (SLA) inlet to the
adsorber. In comparison, older adsorber
systems were designed to perform at
about only a 90 percent average
efficiency.
As an alternative emission control
technique, this industry is researching
the possibilities of using low-VOC,
waterborne ink systems to reduce their
VOC emissions. At present, waterborne
inks have not been developed for
publication rotogravure printing. In
order not to discourage future
development of waterborne inks, the
proposed standards would allow
printing of publication rotogravure
products without air pollution control
equipment if .waterborne inks containing
sufficiently low amounts of VOC are
used. To qualify for this allowance, the
VOC content would be limited to not
more than 16 volume percent of the total
volatile portion of the walerborne ink
mixture as applied to the gravure
printing cylinder.
IV-QQ-6
-------
lair / Vol. 45, No. 210 / Tuesday, October 28, 1980 / Proposed Rules
Regulatory Alternatives
The overall reduction efficiency for
VOC emission control systems is equal
to the capture system efficiency times
the control device efficiency. The
expected average efficiencies for
capture systems and control devices
applicable to this industry were
combined to develop three regulatory
alternatives. The alternatives
considered call for an overall VOC
reduction at 75, 80, and 85 percent
levels. Fixed-bed carbon adsorption
systems were assumed as the control
devices for all alternatives. Alternatives
were not developed to represent VOC
reduction by low-VOC, waterborne ink
system usage without emission controls
since waterborne inks have not been
developed yet for this industry.
The first regulatory alternative is a 75
percent overall control level that
represents capturing the dryer exhausts
from older presses—baseline level. This
corresponds to the CTG
recommendation for existing facilities.
This control level is achievable by
capturing about 84 percent of the
potential solvent vapors from the press,
with a SO percent adsorber efficiency.
The second regulatory alternative is
an 80 percent overall control level that
represents capturing the dryer exhausts
from new, well-designed presses. In this
case 85 percent capture would be
required with a 95 percent efficient
adsorber. This corresponds to a typical,
modern facility. Overall emission
reduction in the 80 to 84 percent range
were determined from short-term test
data and five months of plant data at
Texas Color Printers. In addition, over
four months of plant data from World
Color Press showed four-week average
overall control efficiencies ranging from
78 to 84 percent.
The third regulatory alternative is an
85 percent overall control level that
represents capturing the dryer exhausts
from newer presses, as well as some of
the fugitive solvent vapors. This is
intended to correspond to a SO percent
efficient capture system with a 95
percent efficient adsorber. This
alternative represents application of the
best demonstrated control technology.
The fugitive vapors would be captured
by-
° A partial enclosure fugitive vapor
capture system that is vented to the
control device; or
0 A system of multiple fugitive vapor
capture vents that are located around
the press and collectively ducted to the
control device; or
0 Total pressroom ventilation air that
is directed to the control device.
Overall control efficiency data for the
three best demonstrated VOC emission
reduction systems support the long-term
average achievability of an 85 percent
regulatory level. Four-week average
overall control efficiencies reported by
Standard Gravure range from 85 to 90
percent for over a year of typical
operations. Corrected overall control
efficiencies of 89 to 92 percent were
demonstrated in short-term tests at the
Meredith-Burda plant. In addition, data
were obtained from this plant for normal
operations over ten separate months
indicating corrected overall control
efficiencies ranging from 84 to 91
percent. Calculations using short-term
test data combined with five months of
plant data indicated that the Texas
Color facilities might potentially achieve
about 88 percent overall recovery by
directing their existing floor sweep vents
to the adsorber system, rather than to
the atmosphere, these data show that
considerable variation occurs in the
long-term control performance; however,
an average 85 percent overall control
level is achievable, with performance
dropping to a low point of about 84
percent for one or two months a year.
Environmental, Energy, and Economic
Impacts
The incremental potential
environmental, energy, and economic
impacts of the two higher regulatory
alternatives relative to the baseline
alternative were determined through
development of model plants,
representing new facilities. Projections
of these impacts were based on
analyses of two model plant sizes,
resulting in a total of six model plant
cases. The small model plant consisted
to two eight-unit presses; the large
model plant consisted to four eight-unit
presses. Only one press width of 1.83
meters (72 inches) with an operating
speed of 10.16 m/s (2,000 fpm) was
considered. There are some smaller and
some larger existing presses; however,
the press size chosen is the most
common. Most modern rotogravure
presses are designed to operate at about
the speed chosen for study, although
older presses operate at only about half
that speed.
The control of VOC emissions from
each model plant was based on solvent
vapor capture systems combined with
fixed-bed carbon adsorption/solvent
recovery devices. Model plants were not
developed for emission control by any
other solvent recovery devices, such as
fluidized-bed carbon adsorption,
because sufficient operating information
for use in this industry was not
available. Also, model plants were not
developed for analysis of VOC
emissions control by solvent destruction
devices (i.e., oxidation) since these
devices are not presently used and not
expected to be employed in the future
by this industry. Furthermore, model
plants representing the use of low-VOC,
waterborne ink systems without
emission control systems were not
analyzed since waterborne inks are not
expected to be developed for this
industry for another five to 10 years.
Since modified and reconstructed
existing facilities are also subject to
standards proposed under Section III of
the Clean Air Act, model plants
representing these affected existing
facilities are typically developed.
However, model plants representing
these affected facilities were not
developed because neither modification
nor reconstruction is expected in this
industry, as explained in a later section.
The environmental, energy, and
economic impacts on modified and
reconstructed facilities to comply with
the proposed standards would be
essentially equivalent to those impacts
on new facilities.
The seven percent annual real growth
rate projected for this industry
corresponds to about 75 new presses to
be installed by the year 1985. Most of
these new facilities will provide
expansion capabilities; however, some
of these new presses will simply replace
old, worn-out existing presses, with no
production expansion intended. Also,
since modern presses operate at higher
speeds with increased efficiency
compared to older presses, the required
utilization of new presses would be less
than that for older presses to meet
customer demands. No modifications or
reconstructions are expected during this
period, the annual total solvent usage in
this industry will increase to about
236,000 megagrams by 1985. New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) set at
the 80 percent control level would
further reduce 1985 nationwide VOC
emissions by about 4,000 megagrams per
year over control at the 75 percent
baseline level. An 85 percent regulatory
control level would result in an
additional reduction of 1985 VOC
emissions by about 7.SOO megagrems per
year over that for baseline control.
Emissions of air pollutants from two
secondary sources result form the
energy required for operation of the
carbon adsorption/solvent recovery
control systems. First, required electrical
power was assumed to be generated by
coal/fired utilities (worst cast). Fuel
combustion emissions from these power
generation facilities are regulated under
MSPS promulgated at 44 FR 33580 on
June 11,1979. Secondly, required steam
IV-QQ-7
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 210 / Tuesday, October 28, 1980 / Proposed Rules
production or regeneration of the carbon
beds results in fuel combustion
emissions from the uncontrolled plant
steam boilers. Total resultant secondary
flue gas emissions from these two
sources was estimated to represent
about 0.5 percent of the corresponding
VOC emission reduction from the
publication rotogravure presses. Control
ov VOC emissions from a typical four-
press printing plant at the 80 and 85
percent levels would result in total
secondary emissions of about two and
five megagrams per year more than for
control at the baseline level,
respectively. In 1985, the nationwide
total secondary emissions for control at
the 80 and 85 percent levels would be
about 25 and 100 megagrams more than
for control at the baseline level,
respectively. Corresponding incremental
VOC reductions would be 4,000 and
7,900 megagrams for the 80 and 85
percent levels. Therefore, the resulting
total air pollutants emitted from
secondary sources only slightly offset
the primary impact of reducing VOC
emissions.
There are three potential sources of
water pollution associated with carbon
adfeorption/solvent recovery systems.
The largest source would be the
dissolved solvent in the condensate
discharged from the decanter section of
the adsorber system. This condensate
typically contains from 130 to 200 ppm
solvent, but can be as high as 1.900 ppm
solvent, depending on the solvent used
and the temperature. Control of VOC
emissions at the 80 and 85 percent levels
would result in increased potential
wastewater discharges of about seven
and thirteen percent over that for
baseline control, respectively. The VOC
content in the condensate respresents
less than 0.1 percent of the respective
VOC emission reductions from the
presses. Also, this potential water
pollution source could be virtually
elimiated by air-stripping the
condensate and recycling the resultant
solvent-free water as make-up feed
water to the plant steam boiler. The
solvent laden air from the stripping
tower could be recycled to the
adsorption beds. Alternatively, the
condensate could be discharged to a
conventional biological waste treatment
system. A small amount of the dissolved
VOC solvent would naturally evaporate
out of the waste water during biological
treatment, but these vapor emissions
would be part of the 16 percent emission
limit allowed under the proposed
standards, and would not constitute any
additional primary VOC emissions or
any secondary air pollutant emissions.
Dissolved organics and solids in the
plant cooling tower and steam boiler
blowdowns represent two minor sources
of water pollution. The cooling tower
water and steam usages increase in
direct proportion to the amount of
solvent recovered. The respective
blowdown rates would thus increase
correspondingly. All three waste water
sources are subject to State and local
effluent regulations for five-day
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5),
chemical oxygen demand (COD), and
some specific compound contents.
There are two potential sources of
solid waste material resulting from VOC
emissions control by carbon adsorption/
solvent recovery systems. Activated
carbon used in the absorbers should last
at least five years for service in this
industry before replacement is required.
The total amount of activated carbon
used for control at the 80 to 85 percent
overall recovery levels would be larger
by about seven and thirteen percent
over that for baseline control,
respectively. In 1985, the amount of
nationwide waste carbon for control at
the 80 and 85 percent levels would be,
.respectively, about 42 and 85
megagrams more than for control at the
baseline level. The second source of
solid waste is the SLA filters, which are
usually made of fiberglass material.
Usage of the filters increases
proportionately to the SLA flow rate.
The amount of waste filters for control
at the 80 to 85 percent levels would,
thus, increase by about nine and 40
percent over that for baseline control,
respectively. Some of the spent carbon
can be regenerated and recycled.
Likewise, some of the air filters can be
cleaned and reused. The solid waste
impact from emissions control at any of
the three regulatory levels is not
expected to cause any significant
handling problems.
In the Administrator's opinion, these
incremental environmental impacts for
the two higher regulatory alternatives
are reasonable.
There would be direct energy
consumption increases for plants with
affected facilities controlled at either of
the alternative regulatory levels above
75 percent baseline control. Control of
VOC emissions at the 80 percent level
would require about seven percent more
direct energy than at the 75 percent
level. Similarly, control at the 85 percent
level would increase energy
consumption by about 18 percent over
that for baseline control.
On the national level, there would be
net energy savings for VOC emissions
control at all of the regulatory
alternative levels considered when the
fuel energy value of the recovered
solvent is included. Fuels and organic
solvents can both be derived from a
common source of crude oil. A decrease
in the demand for solvents will thus
increase the potential for fuel
availability. The net energy savings in
the year 1985, compared with baseline
control, would be increased by about
the equivalent of 15,600 and 21,800
barrels of fuel oil per year for controlling
new press emissions at the 80 and 85
percent levels, respectively.
The Administrator believes that the
direct incremental energy impacts on the
industry for the 80 and 85 percent
control levels are reasonable,
particularly in view of the net national
energy savings which would result from
decreased solvent demand.
The economic impacts of the
regulatory alternatives were analyzed in
terms of capital investment
requirements, total annualized costs,
and affects on product price and
profitability. VOC emissions control
equipment would represent a significant
fraction of total plant capital investment
at any level of control, although the
incremental capital costs required for
either plant size to attain higher levels
of control would be very small
compared to control at the baseline
level. The installed capital investment
for a baseline level VOC emissions
control system for a four-press plant
would represent about 5.5 percent of the
controlled plant's total cost; VOC
controls for a two-press plant would
represent about seven percent of the
total costs. The total plant installed
capital cost for control at the 80 and 85
percent levels, relative to the cost for
baseline control, would increase by
about 0.5 and two percent, respectively.
The capital investment in the model
plant carbon adsorption systems were
mainly influenced by the air flow
handling requirements. Model plant
characteristics, representing current
practice in this industry, included usage
of naphtha-based solvents with dryer
exhaust vapor concentrations at the 19
to 20 percent of the Lower Explosive
Limit (LEL) level. The LEL is the lowest
vapor concentration in air, expressed as
volume percent, at which the mixture
could support a flame or explosion at
temperatures b'.ilow 121°C (250"F).
Insurance safety regulations require
normal operation at less than about 25
percent of the LEL. Operation up to 50 to
60 percent of the LEL is permitted when
continuous vapor monitoring systems
are employed to control the vapor
concentration in the air.
The cost value of the recovered
solvent would provide for annualized
cost savings and positive return on
investments (ROI) for emissions control
for all six model plant cases studies.
IV-QQ-8
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 210 / Tuesday, October 28. 1980 / Proposed Rules
Annualized cost savings and ROI for the
emission controls increase in going from
75 to 80 percent overall control as a
result of the additional solvent
recovered from dryer exhausts.
However, the savings and positive ROI
decrease in going from 80 to 85 percent
control because of the added costs of
capturing and treating fugitive vapors. A
profit-maximizing operation would
therefore practice about 80 percent
overall control. ROI for emission
controls with the large model plant is
about ten percentage points higher at all
three control levels than that for the
small plant. These analyses are based
on the cost value of recovered solvent at
the early 1979 market price of $0.17 per
liter ($0.65/gallon). The increment in
cost savings are much more favorable
for both the 80 and 85 percent control
levels when projected late 1979
conditions are assumed (i.e. solvent cost
value at $0.24 per liter ($0.90/gallon)
with 10 percent increased operating and
capital costs). The late 1979 conditions
reflect inflationary price increases in the
cost of solvent and yield more favorable
economic impacts for solvent recovery.
An 85 percent solvent recovery
requirement would not pose any
problems of capital availability and
thus, would not restrict industry growth.
The average pre-tax profit for this
industry with baseline controls is about
eight percent of the total sales. For
control at the 85 percent level, small
sized plants' profitability would only
decrease by about 0.2 percentage points
at both the early and late 1979 economic
conditions; profitability for larger sized
plants would decrease by an estimated
0.1 percentage point. No measurable
price increases for gravure products
would occur with VOC control at any of
the three regulatory alternatives
considered. The Administrator believes
that the incremental economic impacts
for the 80 and 85 percent regulatory
alternatives are reasonable.
In summary, the model plant analyses
show that the impacts associated with
85 percent overall control are the most
reasonable of the three regulatory
alternatives considered. The
environmental impacts of the 85 percent
alternative would not pose any major
wastewater or solid waste problems.
while providing a significant increase in
the primary benefit of VOC reduction.
National energy consumption would
decrease compared with that for
baseline control because of the fuel
energy value of the extra recovered
solvent. Finally, the cost value of the
recovered solvent would provide for
annualized control cost savings for the
85 percent alternative. While this cost
savings is less than the savings that
could be achieved at the 75 to 80 percent
regulatory levels, the economic impact
would not adversely affect profit margin
and thus industry growth. Moreover,
publication gravure product prices are
not expected to increase noticeably.
Selection of Format for Proposed
Standards
Three formats were considered for the
proposed standard: (1) a mass emission
rate related to unit production, (2) a
concentration limitation and (3) a
percentage overall reduction or emission
limit.
A fixed emission percentage limit
format, or overall percentage reduction,
is selected because it provides the only
adequate measure of actual VOC
emissions control. A variable emission
percentage limit corresponding to a
fixed VOC emission rate allowance per
unit of applied solids is not necessary
for this industry. A characteristic of
rotogravure printing is that the solvent
to solids ratio of the applied ink mixture
can only vary within a narrow range
and still have the correct fluid properties
for high quality printing. For solvent
recovery control systems, the average
emission percentage can be determined
over long-term periods by simple
comparison of the total liquid volume
amount of recovered solvent to the total
liquid volume amount of solvent used at
the facility. This format allows for
determination of compliance without the
necessity for monitoring of any gas
streams, and inherently indicates
whether or not VOC vapors are being
adequately captured. Also, the VOC
retained by the printed product is
accounted for with this format. Finally,
an emission limit format is simple to use
and insensitive to the many process
fluctuations, upsets, variations in
product types, and variations in the
captured SLA VOC vapor concentration.
An allowable VOC vapor
concentration in the gas streams vented
to the atmosphere would appear to be
the easiest format for standards
enforcement. However, a typical
printing facility may have numerous
direct atmospheric vents, as well as, the
exhaust stream out of the control device.
Short-term monitoring of all the vents
may be feasible, but continuous on-line
monitoring of all vents would be very
expensive. Moreover, monitoring of just
the control device exhaust stream would
not provide for sufficient indication of
effective capture of VOC vapors emitted
from the facility. In addition, the amount
of VOC retained by the printed products
can not be determined by monitoring
just the VOC vapor concentration of the
gas stream vents. Furthermore,
concentration limitation formats are
susceptible to dilution problems, which
can cause poor indication of true
emission rates. Thus, a concentration
limitation would not be a suitable
standards format for this industry.
The printing of rotogravure products is
characterized by the variable amounts
of solvent usage and-ink coverage on the
paper web. There is no fixed
relationship between the amount of
solvent used, or VOC emitted, and the
bulk quantity of printed products.
Therefore, a mass emission rate per unit
of product format is inappropriate for
this industry.
For solvent recovery control systems,
an overall solvent volume balance
around the affected facility is selected to
be used with the emission percentage
limit format. Most new rotogravure
printing plants install liquid volume
meters for process monitoring and
control, and for customer billing
purposes. Meters are used to measure
the amount of ink and related coatings.
and solvent used for printing and
cleaning at the facilities. A meter also
measures the amount of liquid solvent
recovered by the adsorption system. The
total amount of solvent used would be
determined by the liquid meter readings
combined with the VOC content
analyses of the purchased raw inks and
related coatings. The total amount of
recovered solvent would be determined
by the liquid meter readings combined
with miscellaneous liquid volume
amounts of unmetered waste solvent
and waste inks from the affected
facility. Subtracting the total amount of
solvent recovered from the total amount
of solvent used and then dividing that
result by the total amount of solvent
used would complete an overall solvent
balance, and determine the VOC
emissions percentage for the affected
facility.
The same overall solvent volume
balance and emission percentage limit
format would be used when more than
one affected facility is controlled by a
common solvent recovery system. For
these cases, the total amount of solvent
used would be the collective volume
amounts for all associated affected
facilities. •
The VOC emissions from some
existing and affected facilities could be
controlled in common by the same
solvent recovery system. Some existing
control systems were originally
oversized in order to handle future press
installations. In addition, new carbon
adsorption systems could be installed to
control emissions from affected presses,
as well as some uncontrolled existing
presses. For these combination cases,
the same overall solvent volume balance
IV-QQ-9
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 210 / Tuesday. October 28. 1980 / Proposed Rules
and emission percentage limit format
would be used. The proposed standards
would still apply to only the affected
facilities. Determination of compliance
for the affected facilities in these
combination cases is explained in the
Compliance Provisions section.
Some plants may decide to capture
and recover the relative small amount of
solvent vapors from existing or new
proof presses. Captured VOC vapors
from either of these operations could be
sent to the emissions control systems for
affected facilities; however, the
proposed standards would still apply to
only the affected facilities. The ink and
solvent usage at the proof press would
not have to be accounted for in
determining compliance with the
proposed standards.
In principle, the same emission
percentage format could be used with
solvent destruction emission control
devices. Procedures for determination of
the emission percentage with these
control devices are not being proposed,
however, because these control devices
are not presently employed by this
industry, and are not expected to be
used in the future. The Administrator
will welcome comments on whether this
expectation is a reasonable assumption.
The emission percentage format
would also be used for affected facilities
using low-VOC, waterborne ink systems
without emission controls. The actual
emission percentage would not be
determined for these cases, however.
Instead, the affected facility would be
determined to be in compliance with the
proposed emission percentage limit if
the VOC content is not more than 18
volume percent of the total volatile
portion of the waterbome ink mixture as
applied to the gravure printing cylinder.
Since there are no waterborne inks
presently used in this industry, a
suitable analysis method could not be
developed for determination of the VOC
content in the ink mixture as applied.
Therefore, in the absence of test data a
allowable VOC to solids volume ratio
for purchased inks and coatings was
developed on a theoretical basis to
correspond to the proposed 16 percent
emission limit. A general material
balance for typical solvent-borne ink
systems usage showed that the ink
mixture as applied contains an average
of 20 volume percent solids and 80
volume percent VOC. An allowable 16
percent emission of the VOC content
shows that an equivalent waterborne
ink mixture would have to have a VOC
to solids volume ratio of less than or
equal to 0.64. Thus, if only water were
added to dilute the raw inks and related
coatings, the ink manufacturer's
analysis data on the purchased inks and
coatings could be used to determine
compliance with the proposed emission
limit.
Liquid metering devices would not be
required with waterborne ink systems
provided that only water is added for
ink dilution. If VOC solvent were added
for ink dilution, liquid meters would be
required to facilitate calculation of the
VOC content in the applied ink mixture.
The Administrator believes that the
stipulation for water dilution only is
reasonable for two reasons: (1) Not
having to install liquid meters should
provide an extra incentive for using
waterborne ink systems, and (2) If ink
formulation technology advances far
enough to develop useable low-VOC,
waterborne inks, there should be no
need nor desire to dilute the ink with
VOC solvent.
Selection of Numerical Emission Limits
The proposed 16 percent emission
limit, or 84 percent overall reduction, is
the maximum control level judged by the
Administrator to be achievable on a
continual basis by the best
demonstrated system of emission
reduction. The most stringent regulatory
alternative considered, requiring 85
percent overall control or a 15 percent
emission limit, is achievable most of the
time and has, in the Administrator's
judgment, acceptable environmental,
energy, and economic impacts.
However, long-term plant data showed
that a 15 percent emission limit might
not be achievable during one or two
months over a year's operation.
Therefore, the emission limit has been
set at 16 percent to accommodate this
expected variation in overall control
efficiency. As noted previously in the
control technologies and regulatory
alternatives sections, the proposed
overall emission control level of 85
percent has been demonstrated by
existing facilities employing VOC vapor
capture systems of greater than 90
percent efficiency combined with
solvent recovery devices of greater than
95 percent efficiency. These efficiencies
were First of all achieved during tests at
the newest Meredith/Burda facilities.
Secondly, tests conducted at Texas
Color Printers showed that those
facilities could potentially achieve the
85 percent overall control level. Thirdly,
more than a year of data reflecting
normal operation at Standard Gravure
showed long-term achievement of the 85
percent level. Finally, evaluation of
more data from Meredith/Burda
covering ten months of normal plant
operation caused the Administrator to
select 84 instead of 85 percent overall
control as the correct basis for the
proposed emission limit.
The newest facilities at Meredith/
Burda were tested after observation
revealed that these modern facilities
employed the best continuous fugitive
VOC vapor capture system combined
with a thoroughly instrumented, modern
carbon adsorption/solvent recovery
system. The two presses involved in the
tests consisted of eight printing units
each and were printing a magazine and
an advertising product at average press
speeds of 4.6 to 9.6 m/s (900 to 1,900 f/
m), while using toluene as solvent.
Overall liquid solvent volume balances
were conducted during three separate
nine-hour runs, and over 50 hours of
normal printing operations. The normal
operations involved numerous press
shutdowns and startups for web breaks
and other typical problems. Liquid meter
readings and manufacturers data on the
VOC content of the purchased raw inks
and related coatings were used as first
calculations of the overall solvent
volume material balances. As explained
in Chapter 4 of the BID (Section 4.1.2),
the apparent overall VOC control
efficiency results were then reduced by
five percent to compensate for two
unique characteristics at these facilities.
A two percent factor was required for
the density variation of the higher
metered temperature of the recovered
solvent over the assumed metered
temperature of the raw inks and toluene
used at the presses. An additional three
percent factor was required for
infiltration of toluene vapors from
neighboring pressrooms. The results of
supplemental measurements showed
that some air containing 60 to 70 ppmv
toluene vapors was drawn into the
newest pressroom from other
pressrooms and plant areas. The final
adjusted tests results showed overall
solvent recovery efficiencies ranging
from about 89 to 92 percent. In addition
to the short-term test results, ten
individual months of plant material
balance data were compensated for the
temperature and infiltration factors
resulting in adjusted overall VOC
control efficiencies ranging from about
84 to 91 percent.
The test results and reported plant
data on the overall VOC control
efficiency by liquid meter readings are
believed to be based on the most
accurate measurements that continuous
modern instrumentation can provide.
The meters were not calibrated before
testing, however the tests were
conducted within six months after the
new meters were installed and should
still have been within the original
factory calibrations. Also, the meter
IV-QQ-10
-------
/ Vol. 45, No. 210 / Tuesday, October 28, 1SSO / Proposed Rules
readings were not cross-checked with
storage tank level readings, but the
Administrator believes that the liquid
meters should be more accurate than
solvent inventory by tank level readings.
The capture system demonstrated at
Meredith/Burda consisted of dryer
exhaust collection combined with
fugitive vapor cabin enclosures around
the top portion of each press. The cabin
enclosures represent the most effective
VOC vapor capture system, requiring
the least amount of SLA handling to
capture essentially all fugitive vapors
from the presses. However, as explained
in the "Control Technologies" section,
application of this type enclosure may
require some modifications to alleviate
potential OSHA violations.
The product mix handled at Meredith/
Burda is somewhat specialized and is
therefore not fully representative of the
entire publication rotogravure printing
industry. Meredith/Burda handles
special long run products, while most
other plants print shorter run products.
The shorter run products cause more
frequent web breaks and press
shutdowns during printing, as well as
more press downtime between job runs.
In addition, some of the industry's
products may retain more solvent than
the products printed at Meredith/Burda,
although there is no known satisfactory
method for this determination.
Therefore, the high VOC vapor capture
efficiencies demonstrated at Meredith/
Burda may not be representative of that
achievable by the rest of the industry.
It was realized that the Meredith/
Burda facilities had several unique
features so facilities at a second plant
site were tested. The two Texas Color
Printers facilities were tested because
they were modern printing facilities
which use the more common mixed,
naphtha-based solvent. Unfortunately,
the facilities did not employ a fugitive
vapor capture system and the solvent
recovery system was not as well
instrumented as that at Meredith/Burda.
The tested presses consisted of eight
and twelve printing units each and were
printing a magazine and advertising
products at average press speeds of 4.6
to fl.l m/s (SCO to 1,800 f/m). Overall
liquid solvent volume balances and gas
phase monitoring of pressroom
ventilation air streams were conducted
during three four and one-half hour runs.
In addition, a solvent volume balance
was conducted over a 27 hour period of
normal operation. The test results from
direct liquid meter readings, ink
manufacturers data, and the gas phase
monitoring showed that overall solvent
recovery efficiencies ranging from about
61 to 83 percent could potentially be
achieved if the pressroom ventilation air
streams were directed to the control
device rather than to the atmosphere.
However, combination of the test data
with five months of plant data indicated
potential overall solvent recovery
efficiencies of only about 88 to SO
percent. The lowest calculated potential
efficiency, in each case, was based on a
one percent decrease in adsorber
efficiency which would iesult from the
30 percent increase in the captured SLA
flowrate. The highest calculated
potential efficiencies would correspond
to increased adsorber efficiencies from
modification and better instrument
controls comparable with those at
Meredith/Burda.
A third data source considered in
setting the proposed emission limit level
consists of over a year of plant data
from Standard Gravure. This plant is
regarded as having the most thorough
capture system; however, the average
adsorber efficiency is probably lower
than Meredith/Burda's because of the
lower solvent vapor concentration in the
inlet SLA. At this plant, the VOC
emission control system performance is
determined by overall liquid solvent
mass balances, instead of volume
balances. Converted recovered solvent
meter readings are compared to total
amount of solvent used, determined
from converted solvent addition meter
readings plus tank truck weighings of
purchased raw inks combined with ink
manufacturers VOC analysis data. Six
rotogravure production presses,
consisting of eight to 16 printing units
each, are used to print only newspaper
supplements at average press speeds of
6.6 to 7.6 m/s (13CO to 15CO fpm). The
mixed, naphtha-based type solvents are
used at these printing facilities. The
long-term plant data showed individual
four-week averaged overall recovery
efficiencies ranging from 85 to SO
percent. The plant suggested that the
inlet SLA vapor concentration, and thus
the adsorber efficiency, is lower during
periods of less solvent usage because
the SLA capture system has no
turndown or valve diverting
mechanisms. The overall recovery
versus solvent usage data, however,
does not show any definite correlation.
The Administrator believes that the
Standard Gravure plant da'ta should be
included as part of the data base for
setting the proposed emission limit level,
even though EPA testing was not
conducted at this plant. These plant
data serve as additional sources of long-
term performance data, which have
been shown to be more realistic than
short-term tests for evaluating the
achievable overall emission control
performance. The Standard Gravure
plant data show overall efficiencies
continually above the proposed
standard 64 percent level (16 percent
emission limit). The normal plant
procedure for determining the emission
control system performance does not
follow the exact format for the proposed
standards, but the Administrator
believes that the method used should
provide sufficient accuracy for
supporting the proposed emission limit.
The variations in press widths, press
operating speeds, and number of
printing units per press can significantly
affect the overall efficiency of a carbon
adsorption/solvent recovery system.
Operating conditions such as a narrow
web being printed on a wide press,
decreased ink coverage, and
technological advancements allowing
press speeds of over 10.2 m/s (2,000 fpm)
could cause decreased capture
efficiency and excessive dryer exhaust
SLA dilution. These effects were shown
during the two plant tests while printing
both narrow and full width webs with
several different products and ink
coverages.
The Administrator acknowledges
these potential effects and believes that
they can be minimized by careful design
of new presses and the SLA capture
system. A VOC vapor monitor could be
installed in the dryer exhausts streams
to control the amount of internal air
recirculation; this would maximize the
VOC vapor concentration in the SLA
stream treated by the control device.
Adjustable width openings for the dryer
inlets and outlets could be designed to
help minimize the amount of dilution air
drawn into the dryer. These adjustments
could be made when the printing
cylinders are changed between job runs.
More thorough dryer designs will need
to be utilized to handle the higher press
speeds. In addition, fugitive vapor
capture-air systems incorporating valve-
diverting or turndown mechanisms
could be installed for periods of low
production and press shutdowns. The
Administrator believes that the
proposed standards allow for these
effects, since the emission limit is based
on long-term, typical operations while
printing various types of products at
three different plants.
In conclusion, the Administrator
selected the proposed 16 percent
emission limit after a thorough
evaluation of the data base and a
careful consideration of factors which
influence control system performance.
The data base consists of short-term test
data and long-term plant data for
facilities at the Meredith/Burda and
Texas Color plant sites, along with long-
IV-QQ-11
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 210 / Tuesday. October 28. 1980 / Proposed Rules
term plant data from Standard Gravure.
The data base shows that 90 percent
overall control is achievable under some
conditions; however, the Administrator
realized that 90 percent control is not
representative of all conditions for the
entire affected industry. The
Administrator believes that the
proposed 16 percent emission limit (84
percent overall control) is reasonable
and is continually achievable. The
proposed emission limit level allows for
control efficiency variations resulting
from such factors as low solvent usage,
solvent retention in the product, and
printing products that cause frequent
production delays.
Selection of Compliance Provisions
Performance Averaging and Reporting
After the required initial performance
test is completed, continual compliance,
with the proposed standards would be
determined on a calendar month
averaging basis. Each calendar month
would be considered a performance test.
The results of the monthly compliance
determinations would have to be
reported within ten calendar days
following the end of any calendar month
for which non-compliance is determined.
Reporting of performance test results
showing compliance with the standards
would not be required. As an
alternative, four-week averaging
compliance periods may be chosen by
an owner or operator in order to
coincide with the plant's normal
accounting procedures. Affected
facilities would be subject to potential
enforcement action for any compliance
period in which a violation of the
proposed standards is determined.
The variability of rotogravure printing
requires a long-term averaging period to
adequately assess the true performance
of fixed-bed carbon adsorption/solvent
recovery systems. Several different
types of publication and advertising
products are printed with a wide range
of coverage of ink and related coatings.
Operating parameters such as press
speed, web width, production run length
(number of printed copies), press
shutdown frequency, product solvent
retention, liquid hold-up volume of
printing unit ink fountains, and solvent
hold-up volume in carbon adsorbers
vary substantially within this industry
on a daily basis. The combination of
these factors influences the amount of
solvent vapors generated and the
performance of the emission control
system. The Administrator believes that
calendar monthly or four-week period
averaging would allow enough time for
printing operation fluctuations to
average out.
The necessity for longer-term
averaging periods, such as over several
months, was considered. The emission
limit increase from 15 to 16 percent on a
calendar month averaging basis was
selected for proposal instead of an
option for allowing performance
averaging over several months with the
15 percent emission limit alternative.
The long-term adjusted Meredi ','Burda
data showed that a minimum averaging
time of four calendar months would
have been required on a rolling calendar
month basis to meet continual
achievability of the 85 percent
regulatory alternative.
Initial Performance Test
For affected facilities controlled by
solvent recovery systems, the initial
performance test would cover 30
consecutive calendar days. The long-
term test period was chosen to allow
sufficient time for averaging of process
variations. A certain number of test
days is specified rather than a calendar
month so that the initial test could begin
as soon as the facility is ready without
having to wait until the first day of a
month. Determination of compliance
during the initial performance tests
during the succeeding months or four-
week periods, as described in the
FORMAT section.
The apparent overall solvent volume
balance calculation would have to be
density corrected to a base temperature
to compensate for the temperature
differences between the recovered
solvent and the ink/solvent used at the
press. This requirement is necessary
because of the volumetric expansion of
liquid solvent with temperature.
Temperature indicators would have to
be installed by each meter for the inks,
coatings, and solvent used at the press.
An automatic temperature compensator
would have to be installed for the
recovered solvent meter. The
temperature of the metered liquids used
at the press would probably represent a
constant and uniform base temperature
at about 20°C (69°F) since the liquids
should be at ambient temperature and
the meters would be located inside the
pressroom. The temperature of the
metered recovered solvent can vary
from ambient to over 40°C (104°F),
depending on the condenser and cooler
designs and performance. Since
automatic temperature compensators
are employed, only direct meter
readings would be required.
For affected facilities controlled in
common with existing facilities by the
same solvent recovery system, the initial
performance test would also cover 30
consecutive calendar days. The existing
facilities involved would have to install
liquid meters and temperature
monitoring devices just as required of
affected facilities. Raw ink and related
costing supplies used at the subject
existing facilities would have to be
analyzed for VOC content just as for
affected facilities. The initial
performance test would be performed
with both affected and existing facilities
simultaneously connected to the solvent
recovery system, although only the
affected facility would be subject to the
proposed standards. For these
combination cases, one of two options
may be chosen for the initial
determination of compliance for the
affected facilities.
The first compliance determination
option would require a separated initial
emission test for the controlled existing
facilities involved before the initial
performance test is conducted. To
determine the true control performance
for the affected facilities involved, the
amount of VOC emissions from the
existing facilities would first need to be
subtracted from the total emissions for
the combined facilities controlled in
common. The separate emission test
would determine the average operating
emission percentage for the controlled
existing facilities by using the overall
solvent volume balance procedures
developed for affected facilities. The
emission test would be performed on the
controlled existing facilities without the
affected facilities being connected to the
emission control system. The emission
test would cover 30 consecutive
calendar days. Only on existing
facilities sharing control systems with
affected facilities would emission
testing be required. Initial compliance of
the affected facilities would then be
determined by the initial performance
test after being connected to the
emission control system with the
existing facilities. The existing facilities'
tested average emission percentage
would then be multiplied by the 30-day
total volume of solvent used at only the
existing facilities during the initial
performance test to determine the
amount of VOC emissions from only the
existing facilities. The performance of
the affected facilities would finally be
determined by subtracting the VOC
emissions of the existing facilities from
the total solvent volume balance for the
combined affected and existing
controlled facilities.
The second compliance determination
option for the combination cases would
not require separate testing of existing
facilities, but would require more
thorough control of emissions from
existing facilities.The combined
performance of the affected and existing
IV-QQ-12
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 210 / Tuesday. October 28, 1980 / Proposed Rules
controlled facilities would have to show
compliance with the proposed 16
percent emission limit. Fugitive
emissions would have to be captured at
the existing facilities to meet the
emission limit. From an environmental
impact view, this option would be the
more favorable choice.
Initial performance test compliance
provisions for affected facilities
controlled by solvent destruction
devices (i.e. oxidation) are not being
proposed. These control devices are not
presently used by this industry and are
not expected to be employed in the
future.
For affected facilities using low-VOC,
waterborne ink systems without
emission control systems, the initial
performance test would cover 30
calendar days. Determination of
compliance during the initial test would
be by VOC analysis data of the
purchased raw inks and related coatings
used at the affected facility. The
affected facility would be in compliance
with the proposed 16 percent emission
limit provided that the VOC to solids
volume ratio is less than or equal to 0.64
for each shipment of all purchased raw
inks and related coatings, and only
water addition is used as dilution.
Subsequent Performance Tests
For solvent recovery controlled
facilities, the second performance test
would start with the first day of the next
calendar month following completion of
the initial performance test or the
following Monday for facilities using the
four-week averaging period. The period
between completion of the initial
performance test and the start of the
second performance test would not
constitute a performance test.
Determination of compliance with
solvent recovery systems would be by
liquid meters and analysis of all solvent-
borne inks and related coatings used at
the press. Non-resettable totalizer
meters would have to be permanently
installed to determine the volume
quantities of solvent addition and inks
and related coatings used at the press.
In addition, a non-resettalbe totalizer
meter would be required for the
recovered solvent stream from the
solvent recovery decanter. Meter
readings would have to be taken and
recorded during each day of press
operation. Daily meter readings would
also serve to detect meter malfunctions,
and account for the times when the
totalizer's reading turns over to zero.
Volumetric quantities of any waste inks
and waste solvent from the tested
'acility would be determined using any
uilable means approved by the
'Administrator and recorded as they
occur. The VOC volume content
analysis of each shipment of ink and
related coatings could be obtained from
the ink manufacturers. Alternatively, a
routine weekly average VOC content
could be determined by analysis of the
liquid mixtures in the respective storage
tanks.
The overall solvent volume balance
format, previously described, would
then be applied at the end of each
performance test averaging period to
determine the actual averaged emission
percentage and compliance. The total
volume amount of solver),! in the inks
and related coatings would be
determined from a summation of several
calculated quantities. The VOC volume
fraction of each purchased liquid
mixture would be multiplied by the
respective volume amount of liquid
used. This proration is required to
compensate for liquid mixture analyses
which may change somewhat with each
shipment. Alternatively, a weekly
average VOC volume fraction for each
liquid used could be multiplied by the
volume amount of the respective liquid
mixture used that week. In either case,
the volume amounts of each liquid
mixture used at the press would be
determined directly from meter
readings. The amount of solvent added
for printing and cleaning at the press,
and metered recovered solvent would be
determined directly from meter
readings. The quantities of waste inks
and waste solvent would be included
directly as recovered solvent. Analyses
of these two sources of solvent would
not be required since they should
normally represent relatively
insignificant quantities.
The proposed standards would
require that the liquid meters necessary
for determining compliance be
calibrated at least every six months.
This requirement is in accordance with
maintenance recommendations by most
meter manufacturers. This calibration
would be done onsite. or the meter could
be removed for calibration while a
calibrated spare meter is used in its
place. The confidence limits of each
calibration must be determined and kept
on record. Manufacturer's data on some
of the liquid meters currently installed in
this industry were used to set meter
accuracy requirements. Meters used for
the inks and related coatings would
have to show an accuracy of within
±1.5 percent. Meters used for solvent
added at the press and recovered
solvent would ha^e to show an accuracy
of within ±0.5 percent, since solvent
doesn't contain any solids and is an
easier metering service.
For affected facilities controlled in
common with existing facilities by the
same solvent recovery system, the '
subsequent performance tests would
follow the same procedures used during
the initial performance test. If prior to
the initial performance test the option to
test the existing facilities separately was
chosen, the averaged performance of the
affected facility during each month or
four-week performance averaging period
would be calculated considering the
existing facilities' tested emission
percentage. Each existing facility's
tested emission percentage would be
assumed to remain constant for each
performance average period until the
Administrator requests another
emission test for that existing facility. If
the option to not test the existing
facilities prior to the initial performance
test was chosen, the combined
performance of the affected and existing
controlled facilities would have to show
compliance with the proposed 16
percent emission limit during each
month or four-week averaging period.
Procedures for determination of
compliance with solvent destruction
devices are not being proposed, as
previously explained.
The affected facility must be in
compliance with the proposed emission
limit during all periods of normal
operations. Non-compliance would be
allowed during periods of startups,
shutdowns, and malfunctions of the
emission control system as provided for
under 40 CFR 60.8(c). However, the
startups and shutdowns caused by web
breaks and other typical operations
upsets would be considered normal
operation of printing presses.
Determination of compliance for
affected facilities using waterboTie ink
systems, without emission controls,
would be by VOC analysis data from
the ink manufacturer, as explained for
the initial performance test. Liquid
meters would not be required, provided
that only water is added for ink dilution.
Selection of Performance Test Methods
Reference methods, equivalent
methods, alternative methods, or
procedures specified in a regulation
must be used for performance tests. This
section describes the methods and
procedures proposed for this standard.
The proposed Reference Method 29,
"Determination of Volatile Matter
Content and Density of Printing Inks and
Related Coatings", would be employed
to determine the VOC volume content of
all solvent-borne inks and related
coatings used at presses controlled by
solvent recovery systems. As an
alternative, an owner or operator may
obtain analysis data on the VOC
IV-QQ-13
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 210 / Tuesday, October 28, 1980 / Proposed Rules
content of the purchased inks used from
the ink manufacturer. Reference Method
29 could be used for verification of the
ink manufacturer's data, if needed.
Reference Method 29 would be
applicable for analysis of only solvent-
borne inks and related coatings. The
proposed method could not be used for
verification of ink manufacturer's data
on the VOC content of waterborne inks.
The proposed Reference Method 29
determines the total amount of volatile
matter content in solvent-borne inks and
related coatings. Employment of this
method for determination of VOC
content requires that the volatile portion
of the solvent-borne coating must be
assumed to consist of essentially all
organic compounds. That is, as
proposed, the method does not provide
procedures for determination of any
water content (e.g. by Karl Fischer
titration) and subsequent correction for
the actual VOC content. It is the
Administrator's understanding that all
present and future solvent-borne inks
and related coatings will usually contain
much less than one percent water in the
volatile portion, but, at most, up to about
five weight percent water. The
Administrator will welcome comments
on the proposed Reference Method,
especially regarding (1) the assumed
range of water content in solvent-borne
inks and related coatings, (2) the
necessity for correcting the Reference
Method analysis for water content, and
(3) any recommended analytical
procedures for accurately determining
the water content.
The VOC content data supplied by the
ink manufacturer for the purchased raw
inks and related coatings should be
based on the best method available to
the manufacturer. Calculated
compositions from liquid meter readings
or weigh-tank outages used for
measuring the amounts of the individual
components that go into making up the
product ink mixture may be considered.
An analysis method similar to the
proposed Reference Method 29 may be
used. In general, however, formulation
guidelines data are not regarded as the
most reliable method since the actual
composition of the ink mixture shipment
can vary somewhat from the formulation
recipe.
For affected facilities using low-VOC,
waterborne ink systems without air
pollution control equipment, no
Reference Methods would be applicable.
The owner or operator could determine
the VOC content analysis of the
purchased inks and coatings by any
method acceptable to the Administrator.
A reference method for verification of
waterborne ink analysis is not being
proposed.
Modification / Reconstruction
Considerations
Any number of printing units is
considered a single press if all the units
are capable of printing simultaneously
on the same continuous substrate. Since
additional units could be added to an
existing press to increase its versatility,
it is highly unlikely that other units of
the same press would be shutdown.
Each unit is potentially an equal source
of emissions; therefore, the addition of
units would cause an incremental
increase in emissions and would be
considered a modification as defined in
40 CFR 60.14.
A major renovation in which
substantial portions of an existing press
are replaced is considered a
reconstruction according to the
provisions under 40 CFR 60.15. If the
capital cost of the new components
exceeds 50 percent of the total
replacement capital cost of a new
printing press, the existing press would
be considered reconstructed and subject
to the proposed standards. This could be
achieved by replacement of more than
half the units of a press. It is unlikely
that only a portion of the units of a press
would be replaced, since all the units
receive the same use and care. If
extensive replacement is indicated, it is
more likely that all units will be
replaced at once.
As previously mentioned, model
plants representing modified and
reconstructed existing facilities were not
developed because these cases are not
expected in this industry. Advanced
technological designs of modern printing
presses and associated equipment
makes the installation of newer presses
much more attractive over attempts to
upgrade older presses. However, the
Administrator believes that both
modified and reconstructed existing
facilities could achieve the proposed
emission limit with reasonable
environmental, energy, and economic
impacts. These impacts would be
essentially equivalent to those impacts
for new facilities. Installation of a
fugitive vapor capture system would be
necessary for each subject facility or for
the entire associated pressroom, if
fugitive vapors are not already captured.
In addition, improvements or
modernization of older emission control
devices and associated instrumentation
may be necessary. Alternatively, low-
VOC, waterborne ink systems could be
employed to comply with the proposed
standards.
Impacts of Reporting Requirements
The "Reports Impact Analysis of New
Source Performance Standards for the
Publication Rotogravure Printing
Industry" is located in Docket No. A-79-
50, category 77/8-II-A-ll. The results of
the analysis are summarized in this
section.
The authority for the reporting
requirements necessitated by the
proposed standards is provided in
Section 114 of the Clean Air Act. Several
types of reports would be required. The
industry would be required to submit
notifications of the following:
construction, anticipated start-up, actual
initial startup, physical or operational
changes, and initial performance tests.
A report of the initial performance test
results would be required. Monthly non-
compliance reports would be required;
the industry would not be required to
submit monthly performance test results
when compliance with the standards is
determined. Records of startups,
shutdowns, and malfunctions of the air
pollution control systems, and monthly
performance test results would have to
be maintained for two years. The
industry would also be required to
maintain records of daily meter
readings, ink analyses, and liquid meter
calibrations.
The reporting requirements would
necessitate the industry to hire about
five additional personnel to cover about
22 person-years over the five years of
applicability of the standard. There are
presently 17 parent companies in this
industry. Thus, less than one-third of an
extra person's time would be required
per company. This estimate was based
on the projection of 7 percent annual
real growth in the publication
rotogravure industry. Seventy-five new
presses would be affected over the five-
year period, for an average of 15 presses
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 this 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 iifter the
hearing. Written statements should be
addressed to the Central Docket Section
address given in the Addresses section
of this preamble.
A verbatim transcript of the hearing
and written statements will be available
for public inspection and copying during
IV-QQ-14
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 210 / Tuesday, October 28, 1980 / Proposed Rules
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 (2) to serve as
the record in case of judicial review.
Miscellaneous
As prescribed by Section 111,
establishment of standards of
performance for publication of
rotogravure printing presses in the
graphic arts industry was preceded by
the Administrator's determination (40
CFR 60.16, 44 FR 49222, dated August 21,
1979), that the graphic arts industry
contributes significantly to air pollution
which may reasonably 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 committees,
independent experts, and Federal
ipartments 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. Comments are
especially welcomed concerning the
exclusion of compliance procedures for
solvent destruction devices.
It should be noted that standards of
performance for new sources
established under Section 111 of the
Clean Air Act reflect:
. . . application of the best technological
•yatem of continuous emission reduction
which (taking into consideration the cost of
achieving such emissions reduction, any
nonair quality health and environmental
impact and energy requirements) the
Administrator determines has been
adequately demonstrated [Section 1ll(a)(l)].
Although there may be emission
control technology available that can
reduce emissions below those levels
required to comply with standards of
performance, this technology might not
be selected as the basis of standards of
performance due to costs associated
with its use. Accordingly, standards of
performance should not be viewed as
the ultimate in achievable emission
control. In fact, the Act required (or has
the potential for requiring) the
imposition of a more stringent emission
standard in several situations.
For example, applicable costs do not
necessarily play as prominent a role in
determining the "lowest achievable
emission rate" for new or modified
sources locating in nonattainment 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 new
or modified sources 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 as that rate of
emissions based on the following,
whichever is more stringent:
(A) the most stringent emission limitation
which is contained in the implementation
plan of any State for such class or category of
source, unless the owner or operator of the
proposed source demonstrates that such
limitations are not achievable, or
(B) the most stringent emission limitation
which is achieved in practice by such class or
category of source.
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 BACT 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 (SIP's) approved or promulgateJ
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, SIP's must in some cases
require greater emission reduction than
those required by standards of
performance for new sources.
Finally, 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
NAAQPS under Section 1110.
Accordingly, new sources may in some
cases by 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 performance
promulgated under Section lll(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.
The economic impact assessment is
included in the Background Information
Document.
Dated: October 16,1980.
Douglas M. Costle,
Administrator.
It is proposed that 40 CFR Part 60 be
amended as follows:
1. A new Subpart QQ is added as
follows:
Subpart OO—Standards of Performance for
the Graphic Arts Industry: Publication
Rotogravure Printing
Sec.
60.430 Applicability and designation of
affected facility.
60.431 Definition and notations.
60.432 Standards for volatile organic
compounds.
60.433 Compliance provisions.
60.434 Performance test procedures.
60.435 Emission monitoring and
recordkeeping.
60.436 Reporting requirements.
60.437 Test methods and procedures.
Authority: Sec. Ill and 301(a) of the Clean
Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7411, 7601(a)),
and additional authority as noted below.
IV-QQ-15
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 210 / Tuesday, October 28, 1980 / Proposed Rules
Subpart QQ—Standards of
Performance for the Graphic Arts
Industry: Publication Rotogravure
Printing
§ 60.430 Applicability and designation of
affected facility.
(a) The affected facility to which the
provisions of this subpart apply is each
publication rotogravure printing press.
(b) Any facility under paragraph (a) of
this section which commences
construction, modification, or
reconstruction after [date of publication
in the Federal Register) 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" means a device which
continuously senses the temperature of
the fluid flowing through a metering
device and automatically adjusts the
registration of the measured volume
amount to the corrected equivalent
volume amount at a base temperature.
"Base temperature" means the
average temperature of the total amount
of VOC solvent as metered at a
publication rotogravure printing press.
"Density" means the mass of a unit
volume of liquid, expressed as the
weight in grams per cubic centimeter, at
a specified temperature.
"Gravure cylinder" means a plated
cylinder with a printing image consisting
of minute cells or indentations, specially
engraved or etched into the cylinder's
surface to hold ink when continuously
revolved through a fountain of ink.
"Performance averaging period"
means 30 calendar days, one calendar
month, or four consecutive weeks as
specified in the sections of this subpart.
"Publication rotogravure printing
press" means any number of publication
rotogravure printing units used to print
saleable products described under SIC
code numbers 27541 and 27543, and
capable of printing simultaneously on
the same continuous web or substrate.
which is fed from a continuous roll, but
does not include proof presses which
are used to check the quality of the
image formation of newly engraved or
etched gravure cylinders.
"Publication rotogravure printing unit"
means any device designed to print one
color ink on one side of a continuous
web or substrate using the intaglio
printing process with a gravure cylinder.
"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 are used at publication
rotogravure printing presses.
"Solvent-borne ink systems" means
raw ink and related coatings whose
volatile portion consists essentially of
VOC solvent with not more than five
weight percent water.
"Solvent recovery system" means an
air pollution control system by which
VOC solvent vapors in air are captured
and directed through a control device
containing beds of activated carbon or
other adsorbents. The vapors are
adsorbed, then desorbed by steam or
other media, and finally condensed and
recovered.
"Total amount of VOC solvent used"
means all VOC solvent added to the ink
used at the subject facility, all VOC
solvent included by the ink
manufacturers in the inks and related
coatings used at the facility, and all
VOC solvent used as a cleaning agent at
the facility.
"VOC" means volatile organic
compound as defined in § 60.2(dd).
"VOC solvent" means an organic
liquid mixture consisting of VOC
components.
"Waterborne ink systems" means raw
ink and related coatings whose volatile
portion consists of a mixture of VOC
solvent and more than five weight
percent water.
(b) Symbols used in this subpart are
defined as follows:
Bc = the average metered temperature of
each respective color or raw ink and
each related coating used at the
subject facility (or facilities).
Bd = the average temperature of the
metered VOC solvent added to dilute
the ink used at the subject facility (or
facilities) over one performance
averaging period.
B, = the average temperature of the
metered VOC solvent used as a
cleaning agent at the subject facility
(or facilities) over one performance
averaging period.
B, = the calculated base temperature for
the subject facility (or facilities) over
one performance averaging period.
Lc = the liquid volume amount of each
respective color of raw ink and each
related coating used at the facility of a
corresponding VOC content, V0.
Ld = the total liquid volume amount of
VOC solvent added to dilute the ink
used at the subject facility (or
facilities) over one performance
averaging period.
L, = the total liquid volume amount of
VOC solvent used as a cleaning agent
at the subject facility (or facilities)
over one performance averaging
period.
Lm = the liquid volume amount of
recovered VOC solvent registered by
meter devices from the subject facility
(or facilities) over one performance
averaging period.
L0 = the total liquid volume amount of
VOC solvent contained in the raw
inks and related coatings used at the
subject facility over one performance
averging period.
L, = the total liquid volume amount of
VOC solvent recovered from the
subject facility (or facilities) over one
performance averging period.
L, — the total liquid volume amount of
VOC solvent used at the subject
facility (or facilities) over one
performance averaging perod.
Lu = the liquid volume amount of
miscellaneous unmetered recovered
VOC solvent from the subject facility
(or facilities) over one performance
averaging period.
P = the average VOC emission
percentage for the subject facility (or
facilities) over one performance
averaging period.
V0 = the liquid VOC content, expressed
as a volume fraction, of such
respective color of raw ink and each
related coating stream used at the
facility.
(c) The following subscripts are used
in this subpart with the above symbols
to denote the applicable facility:
a = affected facility
b = both affected and existing facilities
controlled in common by the same air
pollution control equipment.
e = existing facility.
§ 60.432 Standards for volatile organic
compounds.
(a) Over the period of the initial
performance test required to be
conducted by § 60.8 and on and after the
first day of the next performance
averaging period following completion
of the initial test, no owner or operator
subject to the provisions of this subpart
and using solvent-borne ink systems
shall cause to be discharged into the
atmosphere from any affected facility
more than 16 percent of the total amount
of VOC solvent volume used at that
facility over any one performance
averaging period. The averaging period
for the initial performance test is 30
calendar days. The averaging period for
subsequent performance tests is a
calendar month or four consecutive
weeks, at the option of the owner or
operator.
(b) No owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart and using
waterborne ink systems shall use a raw
ink or related coating with a ratio of
VOC volume content to solids volume
content which is greater than 0.64. nor
IV-QQ-16
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 210 / Tuesday. October 28. 1980 / Proposed Rules
shall that raw ink or related coating be
diluted with anything other than water
addition.
9 60.433 Compliance provisions.
(a) The owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall show
compliance with the standards set forth
in § 60.432 at all times, except as
provided under § 60.8(c) and paragraph
(b) of this section. The startup,
shutdown, and malfunction provisions
in 5 60.8(c) apply only to the air
pollution control equipment and not to
the process equipment.
(b) After the initial performance test
required for all affected facilities under
S 60.6, compliance with the VOC
emission limitation under § 60.432 is
based on the emissions for one calendar
month or one four-week averaging
period. A separate performance test is
completed at the end of each calendar
month or each four-week averaging
period after completion of the initial
performance test. A new calendar
month or a four-week averaging period
VOC emission percentage is then
calculated to show compliance with
{ 60.432(a) or new VOC volume to solids
volume ratios for waterborne ink
systems are calculated to show
compliance with § 60.432(b).
(c) The owner or operator of an
effected facility controlled by a solvent
recovery system shall use the following
procedures to determine compliance
with the emission limit in § 60.432(a) for
each performance averaging period:
(1) the total liquid volume amount of
VOC solvent in all the raw inks and
related coating used at the effected
facility is determined by the following
equation:
The indexing subscript, i, designates the
"ith" coating for the number of coatings
with different VOC contents ranging
from 1 to k. V0 is determined in
accordance with § 60.437(a). L* is
determined from direct readings of the
metering devices required under
S 60.435(a)(2).
(2) The total liquid volume amount of
VOC solvent used at the affected facility
is determined by the following equation;
L,j and L, are determined from direct
readings of the respective metering
devices required under § 60.435(a)(l)
and § 60.435(a)(3).
(3) The total liquid volume amount of
VOC solvent recovered from the
affected facility is determined by the
following equation:
LU is determined as stipulated in
§ 60.435(j). I*, is determined from direct
readings of the metering devices
required under § 60.435(a)(4).
(4) The average VOC emission
percentage for the affected facility is
determined by the following equation:
- a
a
x 100
(d) The owner or operator of two or
more affected facilities that are
controlled by same solvent recovery
system shall use the procedures
specified in paragraph (c) of this section
to determine compliance, except that
(U). and (L,). are the collective VOC
solvent amounts corresponding to all the
affected facilities controlled by that
solvent recovery system. The average
VOC emission percentage for each of
the affected facilities controlled by that
same solvent recovery system is
assumed to be equivalent.
(e) The owner or operator of an
existing facility (or facilities) and an
affected facility (or facilities) that are
controlled in common by the same
solvent recovery system shall use one of
the following procedures to determine
compliance with § 60.432(a):
(1) The owner or operator shall
determine compliance for the affected
facility (or facilities) by first conducting
an emission test on only the controlled
existing facility (or facilities) and then
conducting a performance test on the
combined controlled facilities as
follows:
(i) The average VOC emission
percentage for the existing facility (or
facilities) is first determined separately
by using the following equation in
accordance with the conditions
stipulated in § 60.434(c):
x 100
(U), and [L,], are determined by the
procedures specified in articles (c)(l),
(2), and (3) of this section for one facility
or by paragraph (d) of this section for
more than one facility, except that the
VOC solvent amounts pertain only to
the existing facility (or facilities).
(ii) The average VOC emission
percentage for the affected facility (or
facilities) is then determined by using
the following equation with both
existing and affected facilities
connected to the solvent recovery
system:
x 100
(LJb and (L,.)b are determined by the
procedures specified in articles (c)(l),
(2), and (3) of this section, except that
the VOC solvent amounts pertain to all
the facilities controlled in common by
the solvent recovery system over one
performance averaging period. (L,). and
(L,), pertain to the VOC solvent amounts
used at the affected facility (or facilities)
and the existing facility (or facilities),
respectively, over one performance
averaging period, as determined by the
procedures specified in articles (c)(l),
(2), and (3) of this section. P, is assumed
to be constant during each performance
averaging period and is equivalent to
the VOC emission percentage
determined in the latest emission test in
accordance with article (l)(i) of this
paragraph.
(2) The owner or operator shall show
compliance of the combined
performance of existing and affected
IV-QQ-17
-------
Register / Vol. 45, No. 210 / Tuesday, October 28, 1980 / Proposed Rules
facilities controlled in common. A
separate emission test for existing
facilities is not required. The average
VOC emission percentage for the
combined facilities with both existing
and affected facilities connected to the
solvent recovery system is determined
by the procedures specified in
paragraph (c) of this section with the
following equation:
X 100
(f) The owner or operator of an
affected facility using waterborne ink
systems shall install air pollution control
equipment to comply with the emission
limit in § 60.432(a) if the standard in
§ 60.432(b) cannot be met. Compliance
with the standard in § 60.432(b) for each
performance averaging period is
determined by—
(1) Obtaining from the ink
manufacturer analyses of the VOC
volume and solids volume contents of
each purchased shipment of all color
raw inks and all related coatings used at
the affected facility (or facilities); and
(2) Calculating the ratio of VOC
volume content to solids volume content
from the ink manufacturer's analsyses
data for each shipment of raw ink and
related coatings used at the affected
facility during each performance
averaging period.
(a) Before start of the initial
performance test required under § 60.8,
the owner or operator subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall notify
the Administrator in writing as to
whether a calendar month or a four-
week averaging period basis will be
used for determination of compliance
with the standards under § 60.432.
(b) The owner or operator of an
affected facility (or facilities) controlled
by a solvent recovery system shall
conduct an initial performance test to
determine compliance with § 60.432(a)
as follows:
(1) The initial performance test
required under § 60.8 is based on 30
consecutive calendar days and not on
an average of three runs as prescribed
under § 60.8(0-
(2) The average VOC emission
percentage for the affected facility (or
facilities) over the 30 day test period is
determined as specified in § 60.433(c),
(d), or (e), whichever applies.
(c) If the procedures in § 60.433 (e)(l)
are used to determine compliance of an
affected facility (or facilities) controlled
by a solvent recovery system which
handles VOC emissions from both
affected and existing facilities, the
owner or operator shall conduct a
separate emission test on the existing
facility (or facilities) as follows:
(1) The emission test is based on 30
consecutive calendar days.
(2) The emission test is to be
conducted without connection of the
affected facility (or facilities] to the air
pollution system.
(3) The emission test is to be
conducted before both the affected and
existing facilities are initially connected
to the same control system, and at any
other time as requested by the
Administrator.
(4) § 60.435(h) applies to the existing
facility (or facilities) during the emission
test.
(5) The average VOC emission
percentage for the existing facility (or
facilities) over the 30 day test period is
determined as described in
§ 60.433(e)(l)(i).
(6) The emission test is to be
conducted under conditions that the
Administrator will specify to the plant
operator.
(7) The owner or operator of the
existing facility (or facilities) shall
provide the Administrator 30 days prior
notice of the emission test to afford the
Administrator the opportunity to have
an observer present.
(8) The owner or operator of the
existing facility (or facilities) shall
furnish the Administrator a written
report of the results of the emission test.
(9) After completion of this separate
emission test on the existing facility (or
facilities), the affected facility (or
facilities) is then connected to the air
pollution control system with the
existing facility (or facilities). During
emission tests on the existing facilities,
the affected facilities are still subject to
the standards stipulated in § 60.432—
neither the owner nor operator shall
operate affected facilities uncontrolled.
(d) The owner or operator of an
affected facility (or facilities) using
waterborne ink systems shall conduct
an initial performance test to determine
compliance with § 60.432(b) as follows:
(IJThe initial performance test
required under § 60.8 is based on 30
consecutive calendar days and not on
an average of three runs as prescribed
under § 60.8(f).
(2) The VOC volume to solids volume
ratio for each shipment of raw inks and
related coatings used at the affected
facility (or facilities) over the 30 day test
period is determined as specified in
§ 60.433(f).
(e) After the initial performance test,
the owner or operator shall conduct
successive performance tests during
each calendar month or four-week
averaging period as described in
§ 60.433(b).
§ 80.435 Emission monitoring and
recorcSCtoGping.
(a) The owner or operator of any
affected facility controlled by a solvent
recovery system shall install, calibrate,
maintain, and continuously operate—
(1) One or more non-resettable
totalizer metering device(s), accurate to
within ±0.5 percent, for continuously
indicating the cumulative liquid volume
amount of VOC solvent added to the ink
used at the affected facility;
(2) One or more non-resettable
totalizer metering device(s), accurate to
within±1.5 percent, for continuously
indicating the cumulative liquid volume
amount of each color or raw ink and
each related coating used at the affected
facility;
(3) One or more non-resettable
totalizer metering device(s), accurate to
within ±0.5 percent, for continuously
indicating the cumulative liquid volume
amount of VOC solvent used as a
cleaning agent at the affected facility, if
the cleaning solvent used is not
registered by the metering devices
required in article (a)(l);
(4) One or more non-resettable
totalizer metering device(s), accurate to
within ±0.5 percent, for continuously
indicating the cumulative liquid volume
amount of VOC solvent recovered by
the solvent recovery system which
serves the affected facility; and
(5) an automatic temperature
compensator, calibrated in accordance
with paragraph (i) of this section, to
adjust the totalizer volume readings of
each recovered solvent metering device
required by article (4) of this paragraph.
(b) The owner or operator shall install
all metering devices described in
articles (a)(l), (2), (3) and (4) of this
section with no taps upstream and no
unmetered bypasses.
(c) The owner or operator shall install,
maintain, and continuously operate an
air eliminator and strainer upstream of
each metering device required in
paragaph (a) of this section in
accordance with the meter
manufacturer's recommendations to
maintain meter calibration accuracy.
(d) The owner or operator shall install
and maintain a monitoring device.
IV-QQ-18
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 210 / Tuesday, October 28. 1980 / Proposed Rules
accurate to within ±2° C (±4° F), for
continuously indicating the temperature
of the fluid metered by each device
required in articles (a)(1), (2), and (3} of
this section.
(e) The metering devices described in
articles (a)(l), (2) and (3) of this sect-ion
shall not serve an affected facility and
any existing facilities simultaneously.
(f) The owner or operator shall
recalibrate all metering devices at least
semi-annually, and at other times as the
Administrator may require in
accordance with the procedures under
§ 60.13(b)(3). The requirements of
articles (a)(l), (2), (3). and (4) must be
met before the metering device can be
returned to service. The owner or
operator shall record the actual
calibrated accuracy of each metering
device and shall maintain these records
for two years.
(g) When the facility is in operation,
the owner or operator shall take daily
readings of each temperature monitoring
device and of the totalizer of each
metering device specified in this section,
shall record the readings for each
performance averaging period, and shall
maintain these records for two years.
(h) The owner or operator of an
affected facility controlled by a solvent
recovery system shall record the VOC
volume content analyses as determined
under § 60.437(a) for all color raw inks
and all related coatings used at the
affected facility, and shall maintain
these records for two years.
(i) The owner or operator shall
calibrate annually the automatic
temperature compensators required by
article (a)(5) of this section and shall
adjust the base temperature setting after
each performance averaging period, if
needed, according to the following
procedures:
(1) The density variation with
temperature of the metered recovered
VOC solvent is determined by the
methods stipulated in § 60.437(d). The
recovered VOC solvent density is
determined in temperature increments of
10° C, from 15" C to 45° C, or the
maximum expected recovered VOC
solvent metered temperature.
(2) Calibration is then carried out in
accordance with the manufacturer's
recommended procedures using the
density-temperature profile determined
in article (1).
(3) The base temperature for each
performance averaging period is derived
by the following equation on a weighted
average, by volume, basis:
The indexing subscripts, i and k, are
defined under § 60.433(c)(l).
(4) If the base temperature calculated
by article (3) deviates by more than 5° C
(9° F) from the base temperature setting
of the associated automatic temperature
compensator, that base temperature
setting is then adjusted to the newly
calculated value.
(5) The base temperature calculated
by article (3) and the corresponding
base temperature setting of each
automatic temperature compensator is
recorded for each performance
averaging period and the records
maintained for two years.
(j) The owner or operator of an
affected facility controlled by a solvent
recovery system shall determine, using
any suitable means approved by the
Administrator, the liquid volume
amounts of all unmetered solvent-borne
waste inks and waste VOC solvents
recovered from the facility. The owner
or operator shall record these unmetered
volume amounts for each performance
averaging period and shall maintain
these records for two years.
(k) If the air pollution control device
which serves the affected facility (or
facilities) also serves an existing facility
(or facilities], the exisiting as well as the
affected facility are subject to the
requirements of paragraph (a) through (j)
of this section.
(1) Affected facilities using waterborne
ink systems and in compliance with
S 60.432(b) are not subject to the
requirements of paragraphs (a) through
(k) of this section.
(m) The owner or operator of an
affected facility using waterborne ink
systems which comply with S 60.432(b)
shall record for each performance
averaging period the ink manufacturer's
analysis data for—
(1) Each purchased shipment of raw
inks;
(2) Each purchased shipment of
related coatings; and
(3) The corresponding calculated
ratios required in { 60.433(f1. The owner
or operator shall maintain these records
for two years.
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42
U.S.C. 7414)]
$60.436 Reporting requirements.
(a) The owner or operator of any
affected facility Shall prepare a written
non-compliance report for each calendar
month or each four-week averaging
period in which non-compliance with
§ 60.432 is determined. Each report shall
state—
(1) The identification of whether
continual compliance is determined
based on calendar month or four-week
averaging periods;
(2) The identification of the calendar
month or four-week averaging period
covered by the report;
(3) The type of air pollution control
system used;
(4) The average VOC emission
percentage calculated in accordance
with § 60.433(c), (d), or (e), whichever
applies, for the calendar month or four-
week averaging period;
(5) Which procedure and equation
from § 60.433 was used to calculate the
emission percentage;
(6) The total liquid volume amounts of
VOC solvent used and recovered at the
equivalent base temperature for the
affected facility during the performance
averaging period;
(7) How many and which affected
facilities are served together by the
same air pollution control device;
(8) What existing facilities are served
by an air pollution control system in
common with an affected facility;
(9) The measured average VOC
emission percentage for the existing
facility (or facilities) when § 60.433(e)(l)
is used to determine compliance for the
affected facility;
(10) The date and time identifying any
periods during which the required
metering devices described under
§ 60.435(a) were inoperative and the
nature of the system repairs or
adjustments;
(11) Specific identification of each
period of excess emissions resulting
from the startup, shutdown, or
malfunction of the air pollution control
equipment;
(12) The nature and causes of any
malfunctions of the air pollution control
equipment (if known) and the corrective
action taken or preventative measures
adopted:
(13) For affected facilities using
waterborne ink systems without air
pollution control equipment, a copy of
the record of ink manufacturer's data
and calculated ratios required by
§ 60.435(m); and
(14) Affected facilities using
waterborne ink systems which comply
with § 60.432(b) are not subject to the
requirements of articles (4) through (12)
of this paragraph.
(b) The owner or operator of any
affected facility shall submit to the
Administrator the non-compliance
reports required under paragraph (a) of
IV-QQ-19
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 210 / Tuesday, October 28, 1980 / Proposed Rules
this section postmarked by the 10th
calendar day following the end of—
(1) The calendar month when
compliance with the standards in
§ 60.432 is determined for each calendar
month; or
(2) The four-week period when
compliance with the standards in
| 60.432 is determined for each four-
week period.
[Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42
U.S.C. 7414)1
§ 60.437 Test methods and procedures.
(a) The owner or operator of an
affected facility (or facilities) controlled
by a solvent recovery system shall
determine the VOC volume content of
raw solvent-borne inks and related
coatings used at the affected facility
through one of the following procedures:
(1) Routine weekly samples of raw ink
and related coatings in each respective
storage tank are analyzed using
Reference Method 29.
(2) Samples of each shipment of all
purchased raw inks and related coatings
are analyzed using Reference Method
29, or analysis of each shipment of all
purchased raw inks and related coatings
may be obtained from the ink
manufacturer.
(3) The results of verification analyses
by Reference Method 29 is used for
determination of compliance when
discrepancies with ink manufacturer's
analysis data occur.
(b) The owner or operator of an
affected facility (or facilities) controlled
by a solvent recovery system in common
with any existing facilities shall
determine the VOC volume content of
raw solvent-borne inks and related
coatings used at the existing facility (or
facilities) by following one of the
procedures specified in paragraph (a) of
this section.
(c) The owner or operator of any
affected facility using water borne ink
systems shall determine, using any
suitable method approved by the
Administrator, the VOC volume content
of raw inks and related coatings used at
the affected facility.
(d) The owner or operator of an
affected facility (or facilities) controlled
by a solvent recovery system shall
determine the density of liquid solvents
according to—
(1) The procedure outlined in ASTM D
1475-60 by making a total of three
determinations for each solvent sample
at a specified temperature, and
recording the density as the arithmetic
average of the three determinations; or
(2) Other values acceptable to the
Administrator.
|Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42
U.S.C. 7414)|.
2. Method 29 is added to Appendix A
as follows:
Appendix A—Reference Methods
Method 29—Determination of Volatile Matter
Content and Density of Printing Inks and
Related Coatings
1. Applicability and Principle
1.1 Applicability. This method applies to
the determination of the volatile organic
compound (VOC) content and density of
solvent-borne (solvent reducible) printing
inks or related coatings as defined in
§ 60.431.
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 BOC 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
density 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 Weight Fraction VOC.
2.1.1 Apparatus.
2.1.1.1 Weighing Dishes. Aluminum foil. 58
mm in diameter by 18 mm high, with a flat
bottom. There must be at least three weighing
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 ±2°C and
an obsolute pressure of 510 ±51 mm Hg for 4
hours. Alternatively, 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 to assure that all the solids are
completely suspended. Label and weigh to
the nearest 0.1 mg a weighing dish and record
this weight (M.,).
Using a 5-ml syringe without a needle
remove a sample of the coating. Weigh the
syringe and sample to the nearest 0.1 mg and
record this weight (Mc>1). Transfer 1 to 3 g of
the sample to the tared weighing dish.
Reweigh the syringe and sample to the
nearest 0.1 mg and record this weight (McVJ).
Heat the weighing dish and sample in a
vacuum oven at an absolute pressure of 510
±51 mm Hg and a temperature of 120±2°C
for 4 hours. Alternatively, heat the weighing
dish and sample in a forced draft oven at a
temperature of 120 ±2° 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 related coating according to the
procedure outlined in ASTM D 1475-60. Make
a total of three determinations for each
coating. Report the density De as the
arithmetic average of the three
determinations.
2.3 Solvent Density. Determine the density
of the solvent according to the procedure
outlined in ASTM D 1475-60. Make a total of
three determinations for each coating. Report
the density D, as the arithmetic average of
the three determinations.
J. Calculations
3.1 Weight Fraction VOC. Calculate the
weight fraction volatile organic content W0
using the following equation:
«0f»i * "cY! - *cY2 -H«2| Eq- „_,
McYl " McY2
Report the weight fraction VOC W0 as the
arithmetic average of the three
determinations.
3.2 Volume Fraction VOC. Calculate the
volume fraction volatile organic content V0
using the following equation:
Eq. 29-2
4. Bibliography
4.1 Standard Method of Test for Density of
Paint. Varnish. Lacquer, and Related
Products. In: 1974 Book of ASTM Standards.
Part 25, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. ASTM
Designation D 1475-60.1974. p. 231-233.
4.2 Telecon. Wright, Chuck. Inmonl
Corporation with Reich. R.A.. Radian
Corporation. September 25. 1979. Cravure Ink
Analysis.
4.3 Telecon. Oppenheimer. Robert. Gravure
Research Institute with Burt. Rick. Radian
Corporation. November 5. 1979. Cravure Ink
Analysis.
|KR Do,. 80-33550 Filed \0-27-9O: 8:45 am|
BILLING CODE 656O-26-M
IV-QQ-20
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 1981 / Proposed Rules
40 CFR Part 60
(1579-11
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources; Graphic Arts
Industry: Publication Rotogravure
Printing
Correction
In FR Doc. 80-33550 appearing on
page 71538 in the issue of Tuesday,
October 28,1980, make the following
changes:
Page
Column/Inline
71S38
71539
71541
71543
71544
71546
71548
Col. 2. last I. line 3
Col. 2. I 2. lineS
Col. 1.« 2. 2nd to last line
Col. 2.1 3. line 18
Col. 3.1 1. line 14
Col. 3. last «. line 2
Col. 3. last H, line 7
Col. 3, lasl I. 2nd to last line..
Col. 1. II 1. Ime 10
Col. 1.12. line 9
Col. 3. last line
Col. 1.1 1. line 7
Col. 1.1 4. line 19
Col. 3. line 47
Col. 2. I 2. line 13
71550 .
71551 ..
Col. 3. line 4
Col. 3. I 2. line 2
Col. 3. 5th line Irom bottom..
Col. 1, line 3
Col. 1.1 3. Iine3
"cpture" should be "capture".
"3 percent" should be "13 percent".
"of" should be "or".
"musl" should be "much".
"Section III" should be "Section 111".
"form" should be "from".
"coal/fired" should be "coal-fired".
"MSPS" should be "NSPS".
"ov" should be "of".
"1.900 ppm" should be "1.900 ppm".
"studies" should be "studied".
"Compliance Provisions" should be all caps.
"a" should be "an".
"tests" should be "test".
Insert the following after "test": "would be based on
the same format and procedures as for the perform-
ance tests
"costings" should be "coatings".
"separated" should be "separate"
"Addresses" should be all caps.
"Addresses" should be all caps.
"of" should not be there.
Regulation
71551
71552
71554
71555
71556
Col. 3. j 60.431
Cot. 1. |60.430(b)
Col. 2. 5 60.430(0). B,. line 2
Col 3 { 60 430{b) V, line 2
Col 2 S 60 434 ( (c)(2|, line 4 ..
Col 3. 560.434. 1 (a)(5l. line 1
Col 3 5 60436(8) line 2
Col 1 } 60 437 1 (c) fin* 2
Col 2 U 1 2 line 4
•Col 3 f 2 2 line 5
Col. 3 > 2.3. Kne5
Col 3 f 3 1 line 5
There should be an "s" on "Definition".
"October 28. 1980" should be inserted in "[date of
publication • • •]".
"or" should be "of".
"an" should be "An".
"60.432" should be "60.432".
"water borne'* should be one word.
• BOC" should be "VCC".
"D," should be "0,".
"O," should be "D,".
"W." should be "W,".
Federal Register / Vol. ^6. No. 17 / Tuesday. January 27, 1981 / Proposed Rules
40 CFR Part 60
[AD-FRL 1739-1]
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources; Graphic Arts
Industry: Publication Rotogravure
Printing; Clarification
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; clarification.
SUMMARY: This document clarifies a
proposed rule on the standards of
performance for publication rotogravure
printing presses that appeared at page
71538 in the Federal Register of
Tuesday, October 28,1980, (45 FR
71538). The action is necessary to cite
the source of the referenced SIC product
classes and to clarify what products are
covered under these product classes.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Gene W. Smith, Section Chief,
Standards Development Branch,
Emission Standards and Engineering
Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone
number (919) 541-5421.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Environmental Protection Ajjency is
clarifying the proposed definition of
"publication rotogravure printing press"
appearing in the first column on page
71552 in the Federal Register issue of
October 28,1980. This clarification
notice is being published because
several rotogravure printers and one
State Agency requested clarification of
the SIC product classes used to define
"publication rotogravure printing press."
The source of the five-digit SIC product
classes referenced in the proposed
definition was not cited in the proposed
rulemaking. These classes were taken
from the 1972 Census of Manufacturers
(U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau
of the Census. 1972 Census of
Manufacturers. Vol II, Industry
Statistics. Part II, SIC Major Groups 27-
34. August 1976. p. 27B21-27B22). The
above edition lists the following
products under SIC codes 27541 and
27543:
Product
Product Product
class code
Publication Printing. Gravure 27541
Newspapers 27541
Magazines and periodicals, excluding
magazine and comic supplements
for Sunday newspapers 27541
Magazine and comic supplements for
Sunday newspapers 27541
33
35
Catalogs 27541 74
Directories:
Telephone 27541 77
Other, including business refer-
ence services 27541 79
Publication printing, gravure, n.s.k 27541 00
Advertising Printing, Gravure (designed
to sell products or services) 27543
Advertising printing (direct mail, includ-
ing circulars, loners, pamphlets,
cards, and printed envelopes) 27543 41
Display advertising:
Posters, including outdoor adver-
tising- car cards: and window 27543 43
Counter, and floor displays; point-
of-purchase, and other printed
display material 27543 45
Preprinted newspaper inserts (advertis-
ing supplements not regularty
issued):
Rolls, including hi-fi and spectaco-
lor 27543 46
Sections (2 pages or more) 27543 47
Other advertising printing, including
brochures. pamphlets, catalog
sheets, circular folders, announce-
ments, package inserts, book jack-
ets, market circulars, magazine in-
serts, etc 27543 49
The use of SIC product classes will be
deleted in final rulemaking. Instead,
only the above list of products will-be
included in the definition of "publication
rotogravure printing press."
Dated: January 15,1981.
David Hawkins,
Assistant Administrator for Air. Noise, and
Radiation.
|FR Doc. 81-2880 Filed 1-28-81: 8:45 am)
IV-QQ-21
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR
NEW STATIONARY
SOURCES
PRESSURE SENSITIVE
TAPE AND LABEL
SURFACE COATING
OPERATIONS
SUBPART RR
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 251 / Tuesday, December 30, 1980 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFH Part 80
[AD-FRC 1533-8]
Standards @ff Performance (or Nora
Stationary Sources; Pressure Sensitivo
Tap® and Label Surface Coating
Operations
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed Rule and Notice of
Public Hearing.
SUMMARY: Standards of performance are
proposed to limit the emission of volatile
organic compounds (VOC) from new,
modified, or reconstructed pressure
sensitive tape and label (PSTL)
manufacturing facilities. Emissions
would be limited to 0.20 kilograms of
VOC per kilogram of coating solids
applied for each affected coating line as
measured by Reference Methods 24 and
25 (promulgated in the Federal Register
on October 3,1980 45 FR 65956). As an
alternative, the owner or operator may
demonstrate either a 90 percent overall
VOC emission reduction or an overall
percent emission reduction which is
equivalent to the 0.20 kilograms per
kilogram of coating solids applied level,
whichever is less stringent. This overall
reduction is based on the amount of
solvent applied with the coating solids.
The proposed standards implement
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act and are
based on the Administrator's
determination that industrial paper
coating facilities contribute significantly
to air pollution which may reasonably
be anticipated to endanger public health
or welfare. Pressure sensitive tape and
label manufacturing is one of the largest
contributors to air pollution in the
industrial paper coating category. The
intended effect of this proposal is to
require new, modified, and
reconstructed pressure sensitive tape or
lable manufacturing facilities to use the
best demonstrated system of continuous
emission reduction, considering costs,
nonair quality health, and
environmental and energy impacts.
A public hearing will be held to
provide interested persons an
opportunity for oral presentation of
data, views, or arguments concerning
the proposed standards.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be
received on or before March 2,1981.
Public Hearing. A public hearing will
be held on January 30,1981 (about 30
days after proposal) beginning at 9 a.m.
Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons
wishing to present oral testimony should
contact EPA by January 23,1981.
ADOBESSES: Comments. Comments
should be submitted (in duplicate if
possible) to: Central Docket Section (A-
130), Attention: Docket Number A-79-
38, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington,
D.C. 20460.
Public Hearing. The public hearing
will be held at OA Auditorium EPA,
R.T.P. North Carolina. Persons wishing
to present oral testimony should notify
Mrs. Naomi Durkee, Standards
Development Branch (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711. telephone number (919) 541-5331.
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)
541-2777. Please refer to "Pressure
Sensitive Tape and Label Surface
Coating Industry, Background
Information Document for Proposed
Standards, "EPA-450/3-80-003a.
Docket. Docket Number A-79-38,
containing supporting information used
in developing the proposed standards, is
available for public inspection and
copying between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, 'at EPA's
Central Docket Section, Room 2S02,
Waterside Mall, 401 M Street SW..
Washington, D.C. 20460. A reasonable
fee may be charged for copying.
FSXsl FURTHER !NF©BMATIOM CONTACT:
Mr. Gene W. Smith, Standards
Development Branch, Emission
Standards and Engineering Division (M-
13), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)
541-5421.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Proposed Standards
The proposed standards would apply
to new, modified, and reconstructed
adhesive, release, and precoat coating
lines used in the manufacture cf PSTL.
The emission of VOC would be limited
to 0.20 kilograms per kilogram of coating
solids applied. As an alternative, the
owner or operator may demonstrate
either a 90 percent overall VOC
emission reduction or an overall percent
emission reduction which is equivalent
to the 0.20 kilograms per kilogram of
coatings solids applied level, whichever
is less stringent. Compliance will be
determined over a calendar month
averaging period by Reference Method
24. Reference Method 25 will be used to
performance test coating lines
controlled by incineration systems.
Coating lines which emit no more than
125 kilograms of VOC per day and 15
megagrams of VOC per year are not
subject to the emission limits of the
proposed standard. If either the daily or
yearly limit is exceeded, the coating line
will become subject to the proposed
emission limit of 0.20 kg VOC per kg
coating solids applied. If the daily or
yearly limits are not exceeded an
affected facility is only subject to the
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements of the proposed standard.
The proposed standards are based on
an overall VOC emission reduction. The
overall reduction is calculated by
multiplying the operational efficiency of
the control device (carbon adsorbers or
incinerators) by the operational
efficiency of the vapor capture system
(hooding or enclosures). The resultant
efficiency is the overall VOC emission
reduction achievable by a coating
facility.
The proposed standard allows for
compliance by using either low-soivent
coatings or add-on control equipment.
Carbon adsorption and thermal
incineration control systems are capable
of meeting the proposed standard.
Generally, hot melt and waterborne
adhesive coatings and 100 percent solid
and waterborne release coatings would
comply with the proposed standard
because they would contain less than
0.20 kilograms of VOC per kilogram of
coating solids applied.
Summary of Environmental, Energy, and
Economic Impacts
The Environmental, energy, and
economic impacts of a new source
performance standard (NSPS) are
expressed as incremental dii'ferences
between the impacts for facilities
complying with the proposed standard
and for those complying with a typical
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
emission standard. Most existing PSTL
surface coating operations are located in
areas which are considered
nonattainment areas for purposes of
achieving the National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone.
New facilities are expected to locate in
similar areas. For the purpose of this
analysis it is assumed lhat states have
adopted or will adopt the recommended
guidelines in the control techniques
guideline (CTG) document, "Control of
Volatile Organic Emissions from
Existing Stationary Sources—Volume II:
Surface Coating of Cans, Coil, Paper,
Fabrics, Automobiles and Light-Duty
Trucks" (EPA-450/2-77-008 [CTG]). The
States, however, are not legally bound
to adopt the recommended emission
IV-RR-2
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 251 / Tuesday, December 30, 1980 / Proposed Rules
limits of the CTG document. In this
analysis the CTG limits were used as a
comparison baseline because they
reflect the control level most likely to be
instituted in the states' air pollution
control regulations (State
Implementation Plans).
Compared to emission control levels
recommended in the CTG document, the
proposed standards of performance
would further reduce emissions of VOC
from new, modified, or reconstructed
pressure sensitive tapes and labels
manufacturing operations by about 16
percent fn 1985. National emissions of
VOC would be reduced by about 4,300
megagrams (metric tons] per year in
19G5.
National wastewater discharges
would be 13 percent greater than those
occurring from plants controlled to the
CTG level. National discharges of
wastewater would increase in 1985 by
about 2.5 million liters (661.0XX) gallons)
as a result of the 13 percent change. This
increase is reasonable in light of the
nationwide reduction in VOC emissions
being achieved.
The solid waste impact of the
proposed standards would be small
compared to the amount of solid waste
generated by the daily production
operations of a PSTL coating facility. A
coating facility can generate large
quantities of solid waste consisting of
flawed coated products, imperfect face
stock, substandard release paper, empty
cartons, and spools. The only additional
solid waste from a controlled facility is
spent activated carbon from carbon
adsorption units. In 1985 the maximum
expected increase in national solid
waste as a direct result of the NSPS
would be about 55 megagrams (metric
tons). The proposed standard is
reasonable despite this solid waste
increase.
The national energy impact would be
dependent on whether the majority of
new solvent-based coating lines used
incineration, carbon adsorption, or low-
solvent coatings for VOC control
purposes. Because the Agency is unable
to predict with certainty the fraction of
new facilities which will use each of
these technologies, this analysis is
performed on the two technologies—
carbon adsorption and incineration—
which would result in the extreme
impacts. The best case energy situation
would result if all lines used carbon
adsorption. If. in 1985, all solvent-based
lines used carbon adsorption controls, a
potential net national energy savings
equivalent to 27,100 barrels (4.3 million
liters) of crude oil per year is projected.
A savings is possible because of the
arge credit received for usable
ecovered solvent. The worst case
energy situation would occur if all
solvent-based coating lines used
incinerators to control VOC emissions.
All solvent would be destructed and no
recovery value could be obtained. A
potential national energy demand of
31,000 barrels (4.9 million liters) of crude
oil for VOC control is estimated. The
proposed standard is reasonable even
taking into account the worst case
energy estimate.
The proposed standards would have
minimal economic impact on the PSTL
industry. The maximum expected price
increase necessary to offset the impact
of the proposed standards would be 0.9
percent. Nationwide in 1985, the
anticipated incremental annualized cost
of compliance, including depreciation
and interest, would be $2.6 million.
Effects on growth, industry structure,
and profitability would not cause
significant inflationary impacts or
market withdrawals.
In addition to emission reductions
beyond those achieved by a typical SIP,
standards of performance have other
benefits. They establish a degree of
national uniformity to avoid situations
in which some States may attract
industries by relaxing air pollution
standards relative to other States.
Further, standards of performance
improve the efficiency of 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, by providing a starting point for
these determinations. This results from
the process for developing a standard of
performance, which involves a
comprehensive analysis of regulatory
alternatives. Detailed cost and economic
analyses of various regulatory
alternatives are presented in the
supporting documents for the proposed
standards.
Rationale
Selection of Source
The "Priority List and Additions to the
List of Categories of Stationary Sources
for New Source Performance Standards
under the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1977", promulgated at 44 FR 49222 on
August 21,1979. ranked sources
according to the impact that the
standards promulgated in 1980 would
have on emissions and public health in
1990. The paper coating industry ranked
fourth on this list of 59 sources to be
controlled for air pollutants. The
manufacture of pressure sensitive tapes
and labels is the largest organic solvent-
using segment of the paper coating
industry.
Approximately 80 percent of all
pressure sensitive tapes and labels are
coated with organic solvent-based
coatings. All but a very small percentage
of this solvent is emitted during the
manufacturing process. The pressure
sensitive tape and label surface coating
source consists of any rollcoating
operation which applies pressure
sensitive adhesives. release coatings or
precoats on a continuous web material.
Oecals and adhesive specialty products
are included in the definition of pressure
sensitive tapes and labels because plant
visits and industry literature showed
that the manufacturing operations and
coating formulations for a!! of these
products are similar.
In 1978 nationwide emissions of VOC
from the pressure sensitive tape and
label industry were estimated at 600.000
megagrams (metric tons). This estimate
was based on PSTL industry production
data and typical formulation data. Very
few of these emissions were controlled
by State regulations.
Selection of Pollutants ard Affected
Facilities
VOC are the primary air pollutants
emitted from pressure sensitive tape and
label surface coating operations. VOC
along with nitrogen oxides are
precursors to the formation of ozone and
oxygenated organic aerosols
(photochemical smog). Ozone and
oxygenated organic aerosols result in a
variety of adverse impacts on health
and welfare, including impaired
respiratory function, eye irritation.
deterioration of materials such as
rubber, and necrosis of plant tissue.
Further information on these effects can
be found in the April 1978 EPA
document "Air Quality Criteria for
Ozone and Other Photochemical
Oxidants", EPA-600/8-78-O04. This
document can be obtained from the EPA
Library (MD-35), Research Triangle
Park. North Carolina 27711. telephone
number (919) 541-2777.
Solvent drying ovens are potentially a
source of pollutants other than VOC (for
example NO,, SOt. and particulates).
The drying ovens are operated with
electricity, indirect heat sources, or
direct-fired burners. The electrical ovens
do not add to the pollutants expected at
the source. The indirect-healed ovens
are usually steam-tube heaters with an
on-site steam boiler. Control of the
boiler emissions is being examined by
EPA in a separate strdy of industrial
boilers.
Generally, natural gas or liquid
petroleum gas is used in the direct-fired
heaters. Coal and fuel oil are not used
because fly ash material in the oven
gases can adversely affect the expected
IV-RR-3
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 30, 1980 / Proposed Rules
tape or label quality. The SO> emissions
rate from the combustion of natural gas
is very low. Also, the relatively low
temperature environments in the direct-
fired burners would result in low NO,
emissions.
Basod on their overall volume
r.-.agi'.itude and their severity as an air
pollutant problem, VOC emissions
would be the only pollutants regulated
by iHs standard.
For the purposes of this standard, a
single coating line, consisting primarily
of an adhesive, release, or precoating
head, a drying/curing oven, and the
flasho.ff area between the coating head
and oven. ;f defined as the affected
faciiirv. 5-Vr systems which have tandem
coat: s: :.;ci'ities. each individual
coa^r;-, line would be considered as an
affected facility. A tandem coating
facility is one which coats releases and
ndlicsivos in serins en one line.
The choice of the affected facility for
this standard is based on the Agency's
ir:erpre!ation of Section 111 of the Act,
d;;0 judicial construction of its
nvnning.' 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
niia)(3j). 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 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 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 the NSPS sooner, if, for example,
an entire plant were designated as the
affected facility, r.o 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
replaced, 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
'The mos' important case if ASAttCO. Inc. v.
EPA. 578 F jj .)!<( |D.C. Cir. 1978).
health and environmental effects, and
energy requirements) at all new and
modified sources, there is a presumption
that a narrower designation of 'he
affected facility if 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
relevant statutory factors (technical
- feasibility, cost, energy, and othsr
environmental impacts) point to a
broader definition. The application of
these factors is discussod below.
Designation of the entire coating
operation from unwind to rewind as an
affected facility was also considered.
Such a designation would allow those
sources that achieve highly effective
control on some coating sections (of a
single coating line) to provide less
control on other sections, so long as the
aggregate emissions from the coating
line are less than or equal to those
allowed under the proposed standard.
The proponents of a broader designation
of affected facility (us the operation
from unwind to rewind) believe it would
provide additional incentive to industry
for the innovative use of low-solvent
technology in processes where it is not
currently available.
Based on currently available
information, EPA believes that the cost
and energy savings already associated
with using low solvent technology are so
great that any additional incentive
derived through the use of the broader
designation of affected facility will have
little or no impact on the rate cf
innovation. If this is true, the proposed
designation of affected facility would
give more total emission reduction than
the alternative broader designation
because the low-solvent materials
would be used regardless and the other
sections of the coating line would still
have to be fully controlled with a
capture system and a control device.
In order to promulgate the broader
designation, EPA would have to find
that it would achieve greater total
emission reductions or equivalent total
reductions with significant other
benefits such as reduced costs, energy
consumption or other environmental
impacts. EPA solicits comments on this
issue.
Persons urging consideration of the
alternative broader designation should
specifically address the issue of how
much additional incentive (or
disincentive) the designation of affected
facility is likely to provide for an owner
or operator's decision to use low-solvent
coatings. Where possible the comments
should present an economic and
environmental analysis to support the
position taken.
New coating lines which do not
discharge into the atmosphere more
than 125 kilograms of VOC per day or 15
megagrams of VOC per year would not
be subject to the emission limits of the
proposed new source standard. A major
factor influencing the institution of these
limits was PSTL industry comment
concerning the treatment of research
and development (R&O) coating lines.
The industry felt that R&D lines should
not be subject to the same emission
limits as a production facility. Upon
examination of these operations, the
EPA determined that: the cost to control
R&D emissions would be high, the
achievable emissions reduction would
be minimal, and normal production
coating lines would operate well above
the stated daily and yearly limits. For
these reasons the exemption limits were
developed. The limits were based on
industry information concerning R&D
operations. The exemption limits,
however, apply to all new, modified, or
reconstructed coating lines, and net just
to R&D facilities. If either the daily or
yearly limit is exceeded, the coating line
would be subject to all the requirements
of the proposed standard. If the
exemption limits are not exceeded, the
owner or operator must only record
solvent usage at the coating line and
report it to the Administrator.
The daily and yearly exemption limits
are based on data received from tape
and label companies on their R&D
facilities and on the model plant
analysis in Chapter 6 of the BID
Manufacturers in the tape and label
industry have indicated that 61 cm (24
in) coalers are very popular fpr use in
R&D projects. This size corresponds to
the small size mode! plant in the BID
analysis. Industry sources also stated
that R&D coaters, when used, only run
about two hours a day. The model plant
analysis determined that a 61 cm coaler
will use, on the average, about 29 kg (64
Ib) of solvent per hour. A typical PSTL
facility will then consume about 58 kg
(128 Ib) of solvent per day for R&D
purposes. Taken on an annual basis, this
translates to about 15 megagrams of
solvent for a facility operating 6000
hours a year. The EPA feels this number
is reasonable because industry sources
proposed exemption emission limits of 5
to 10 megagrams per year for R&D
coating lines.
Manufacturers also indicated that
R&D projects are run for more than two
hours a day in some cases. These cases
occur when larger quantities of material
are needed for quality testing and
marketing purposes. Industry sources
IV-RR-4
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 251 / Tuesday, December 30. 1980 / Proposed Rules
estimated that one-half a day or 4 hours
is usually sufficient for these R&D
coating situations. Based on this
information and the model plant figures.
the daily emission limit of 125 kg (275 Ib)
was calculated and determined to be
reasonable. The level of the daily limit
allows coating firms greater flexibility in
their R&D operations.
The affected facility was chosen to
incorporate the primary sources of VOC
emissions from PSTL coating. The
drying/curing oven represents the major
source of V.OC emissions within the
affected facility. The coated web is
heated in the oven where 80 to 95
percent of the solvent is evaporated and
vented either to the atmosphere or to a
control device. These oven emissions
can be effectively controlled by ducting
them so they discharge to the
atmosphere through either a carbon
adsorption or a thermal incineration
system. One to eighteen percent of the
total applied solvent escapes as fugitive
emissions and zero to five percent ends
up trapped in the final coated product.
The area from the coating head to the
entrance of the oven is potentially the
highest source of fugitive VOC
emissions. Hoods or enclosures can be
used in this area to effectively capture
fugitive emissions. Once captured the
fugitives may be ducted to either the
oven or to a control device.
Other equipment such as wind and
rewind stations are a part of the
affected coating line, but are not VOC
emission sources. VOC emissions from.
formulation, storage, and cleanup
operations are not included in this
regulation. These emissions are not
being regulated at this time because: (1)
Formulation emissions are already
controlled to low levels due to
occupational safety reasons and (2) the
solvent cleanup emissions are generally
low concentration, low volume sources
which are very difficult to capture and
control.
Selection of Basis of Proposed
Standards
This section describes the emission
control technology applicable to the
PSTL industry and the regulatory
alternatives considered by EPA in the
development of this standard. Included
is a summary of the environmental,
energy, and economic impacts, and
nonair quality health impacts of the
aternatives and a description of the
basis of the proposed standards.
Control Technologies. Available
control technologies for reducing VOC
emissions from PSTL facilities include
the use of low-solvent coatings or an
emission capture and control system.
Low-solvent coatings provide the best
environmental alternative for reducing
VOC emissions. By 1985, it is estimated
that 80 percent of all pressure sensitive
coatings will be low-solvent-type
coatings. These alternative coatings are
available for both adhesives and
releases and can be purchased as
waterborne. emulsion, or 100 percent
solids formulations. Advantages of these
coatings include low cost, low energy
use, good viscosity even at a high solids
content, and negligible air pollution,
toxicity, or fire hazards. However, low-
solvent coatings are not technologically
advanced to the point where they can be
interchanged with all solvent-based
formulations. Major technical problem
areas for low-solvent coatings include
cohesive strength, solvent resistance.
UV degradation, wettability, and
dimensional stability. The added
difficulty of total customer acceptance
further reduces the range of product
substitutability for low-solvent coatings.
Because low-solvent coatings cannot be
applied in all cases, they cannot be used
as the sole basis for the proposed
standard.
Carbon adsorption and thermal
incineration used in conjunction with
emission capture systems have both
been used as control devices to reduce
VOC emissions from pressure sensitive
tape and label coating facilities.
Available performance data indicate
that the two devices are equivalent in
reducing VOC emissions. Although both
control devices have experienced
operating problems, it has been
demonstrated that they can be
successfullly used. Two of the problems
are: (1] Poor control performance on low
VOC concentration gas streams and (2)
plugging or fouling problems resulting
from volatilization of oligomeric
adhesive and release materials. Both of
these problems can be reduced or
eliminated through proper design and
operation of drying ovens and the
control devices to the extent that a
facility will comply with the proposed
standard.
A thermal incinerator is an effective
VOC emission control device for all
types of solvents. Thermal incinerators
operating at temperatures greater than
760°C (1400°F) have demonstrated the
ability to achieve at least 95 percent
reduction of all VOC in the incinerator
feed. The EPA document "Control of
Volatile Organic Emissions from
Existing Stationary Sources—Volume I:
Control Methods for Surface Coating
Operations" (EPA-450/2-76-028),
verifies that this level of reduction is
achievable. Catalytic incineration has
also been demonstrated, in the same
EPA document to be capable of
achieving at leal 95 percent efficiency in
reducing VOC from an inlet feed s'.-jarn.
Chapter 4 of the BID examines the use of
catalytic incineration for PSTL plants.
However, the primary incineration focus
in this rationale was devoted to thermal
incineration, because no catalytic
incineration was found in use in PSTL
facilities for VOC emissions control.
Thermal incineration is most cost
effective when heat exchange equipment
is used to recover the heat from the
combustion of the solvent and any
additional fuels. At 40 percent of the
lower explosive limit (LEL), the
implementation of primary (preheating
of the incinerator feed gases] and
secondary heat recovery could supply
the primary and secondary heat
requirements for one coating line and
the secondary requirements for another
line. At the very least, primary heat
recovery should be included in new
incinerator design. Additional hea! can
be easily recovered and used as heat
energy for work area space heating.
The question of LEL is important for
safety and economic reasons. The LEL is
the lowest vapor concentration in air,
expressed as volume percent, at which
the mixture would support a flame or
explosion at temperatures below 121 °C
(250°F). Insurance safety regulations
require normal operation at lees than
about 25 percent of the l-RI- Operation
up to 50 to 60 percent of the LEL is
permitted when continuous vapor
monitoring systems are employed to
control the vapor concentration in the
air. The operation of an incinerator at
higher LEL values is cost effective
because less supplemental fuel is
required. While optimal, operating at
high LEL fevels is not always possible in
every coating facility. Factors such as
poor coating line design, operation at
slow line speeds, and stream dilution by
excess ventilation air may limit the
achievable LEL Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA)
rules may require excess ventilation air
in some facilities to meet certain
maximum solvent concentrations in the
worker area.
Heat exchanger fouling has been one
of the greatest problems with
incineration systems. This is especially
true in silicone release and adhesive
systems. The silicone monomers which
volatilize are oxidized in the incinerator
and coat the heat exchanger surfaces as
a silica material. Operating experience
has indicated that routine heat
exchanger surface cleanup is required
for proper incinerator operation. The
experience of one manufacturer with
this type of system and these operating
IV-RR-5
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 251 / Tuesday. December 30. 1980 / Proposed Rule8
problems is detailed In Chapter 4 of the
BID.
The second means of effectively
controlling VOC emissions from
pressure sensitive tape and label coating
lines is carbon adsorption. Several
plants in the industry presently use this
technology with success. Test data from
PSTL plants and self-monitoring data
supplied by PSTL manufacturers have
indicated that operational efficiency
levels of at least 95 percent or greater
are attainable with carbon adsorbers.
For the purposes of this analysis, carbon
adsorbers were assumed to be 95
percent efficient in reducing VOC
emissions. This efficiency level has been
attained in PSTL facilities despite the
occurrence of problems such as: bed
fires, carbon fouling, freeze damage.
corrosion, and low I .El. inlet streams,
Carbon adsorption systems are
generally regenerated with steam,
although any hot, non-reactive gas can
be used to strip the beds. If steam is
used, the carbon adsorption system is
generally limited to solvents which are
not water soluble (unless the operator
uses add-on distillation or separation
processes). All systems currently
operating on PSTL coating lines in the
United States use steam for carbon bed
regeneration. Fouling of the carbon beds
by volatilized adhesives and releases is
a recurring operational problem. This
problem can be adequately reduced by
filtering the feed gas before it enters the
carbon beds. Again silicone materials
are a greater problem than the adhesive
resins. Generally carbon beds on
silicone coating lines are changed twice
as often as beds on rubber or acrylic
resin coating lines.
Low VOC concentration gas streams
(less than 10 percent LEL) are a problem
for both carbon adsorption and
incineration VOC control equipment. In
incinerators the low concentration gas
stream will require much more fuel to
incinerate the same amount of solvent
gases as in a high concentration stream.
The higher fuel usage will mean higher
operating costs. Data from existing PSTL
facilities demonstrate that the
attainment of a 90 percent overall VOC
emission reduction, on a monthly basis.
is possible at less than 10 percent LEL.
For carbon adsorption systems, the
low VOC concentration means poor bed
performance. The beds are usually
designed for a certain maximum VOC
concentration based on a desired outlet
VOC concentration. Operating
experience has shown that at low
solvent concentrations the performance
of the bed decreases resulting in a lower
overall VOC reduction. Higher gas
stream. VOC concentrations can be
maintained through design of drying
ovens with high turn down ratios and air
tight gas ducting systems. Operators cfen
also minimize the low VOC
concentration problem by, whenever
possible, coating products with similar
solvent loadings on the same coating
line.
The use of hoods or enclosures can be
an effective means for capturing fugitive
solvent emissions around the coater
area. Fugitive solvent is that solvent
which is emitted from the coating
applicator and flashoff areas. The hood
can be located directly over the web to
capture vapors released from the coated
surface. In small lines the time interval
between when the web is coated and
when it enters the oven is about two to
five seconds. In large and medium lines
the interval is two seconds or less. Since
most solvents are heavier than air, floor
seeps and hooding under the web can
also be used to effectively capture
emissions. The ideal situation is to
totally enclose the coater and get an
effective 100 percent VOC capture.
When a hood or enclosure is used, all of
the captured fugitive solvent emissions
should be ducted back into the system
and the control device. If the captured
gases are used as makeup air to the
ovens, the dilution of the oven gases is
minimized.
Presently no total enclosure structures
are used in the pressure sensitive tape
and label industry. However, when
sun-eyed, firms engaged in similar
coating operations (for example, zinc
oxide paper coating) responded
favorably concerning the use of totally
enclosed coalers. No problems related
to enclosure use were given. In addition
to environmental benefits, occupational
safety concerns were also given as a
reason for enclosure use. Enclosures
were useful in reducing VOC levels
along the floor and in the general work
area around the coater. thereby
lessening any potential explosion
hazards.
In the tape and label industry one firm
does operate a total building air
evacuation system. This system removes
all air from the coating building and
sends it to a carbon adsorber. In effect
the plant operates a total building
enclosure. Calculations on the overall
efficiency of this system indicate that a
solvent capture efficiency of 95 percent
is being obtained.
The best controlled coating operating
examined in the tape and label
manufacturing industry has four coating
lines controlled by one carbon
adsorption unit. Three of the lines are
0.71 meters (28 inches) wide and one
line is 1.4 meters (56 inches) wide. The
company produces a wide variety of
label stock materials. Their operations
are typified by short products runs (less
than four hours), varied line speeds, and
varied solvent-adhesive mixtures. These
operating conditions make this facility a
more difficult control situation than
operations which run on a continuous
basis. Over a four week period this
system has shown an overall solvent
recovery efficiency of slightly greater
than 93 percent. During that time the
company performed 140 runs and used
such solvents as toluene, acetone,
hexane, ethyl acetate, methyl ethyl
ketone. rubber solvent, heptane, xylene,
ethyl alcohol, isopropanol and
recovered solvent* The coating lines
use hoods to capture VOC emissions
over the freshly coated web. The hoods
are ducted into the ovens. The oven
makeup air is pulled from the coater
room with the ovens running at a
slightly negative pressure with respect
to the room. The overall effect is to draw
all fugitive emissions into the oven with
their eventual discharge through the
carbon adsorption system. This plant
demonstrated that high VOC reductions
can be achieved even with low VOC
concentration streams. During this four
week recovery period the LEL in the
system was less than ten percent.
A second tape coating facility with a
carbon adsorption control system has a
near 90 percent overall reduction. This
system has hoods over the coating
areas: however, all hood gases are
vented directly to the atmosphere. Test
data indicate that if the solvent vapors
captured by the hoods are ducted back
into the ovens the system would show a
greater than 90 percent overall VOC
reduction. Further data from this plant
indicated an average overall VOC
reduction of 90 percent for the entire
year of 1979. The overall reduction for
most of the calendar months was 90
percent or more. In the latter part of the
year the overall reduction dropped
below 90 percent on a monthly basis.
This drop occurred because the carbon
life of the control device had been
exceeded by several months. With the
installation of new carbon the overall
reduction efficiency once again reached
90 percent or more. Through April of
1960 an average overall VOC reduction
of about 94 percent has been attained.
Regulatory alternatives. The
regulatory alternatives considered in
developing the standard are based on
the methods available to control the
VOC emissions from the PSTL industry.
In this industry the two primary
emission sources are the oven exhausts
and fugitives, with the oven exhausts
being the more significant source.
Therefore, the regulatory alternatives
IV-RR-6
-------
/ Vol. 45, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 30. 1980 / Proposed Rules
are designed to control: (1) The oven
emissions only or (2) the oven and
fugitive emissions together.
Regulatory Alternative I is a no
additional regulation alternative. This
alternative represents what could
happen if no NSPS were written end
new sources were regulated by the SIP
regulations. The recommended guideline
for the SIP regulations represents a
system which captures SO percent of all
volatilized solvents and then destroys or
recovers 80 percent of those emissions.
The overall reduction of VOC emissions
from all affected facilities would be
about 80 percent. The Alternative I
control level is the baseline of
comparison for the other regulatory
alternatives. Regulatory Alternative 1
control could be achieved by the use of
carbon adsorption, incineration, or low-
solvent coatings.
Regufatury Alternative II is based on
Ihe control of oven emissions only. This
regulatory alternative is very similar to
Alternative I except that the efficiency
of the add-on control device is selected
as 95 percent rather than the 80 prcent
control level because it is more
indicative of current control system
operations. Therefore, with a capture
efficiency of 90 percent, the overall VOC
redaction for this control system is
approximately 65 percent. Carbon
adsorption, incineration, or low-solvent
coatbjgs could be used to control
emissions under this alternative.
Regulatory Alternative III is based on
the control of both oven and fugitive
VOC emissions. To obtain a high degree
of fugitive capture a fugitive control
device (such as a hood or a complete
enclosure of the coating area) is used
between the coater and the oven. The
caputured fugitive VOC emissions are
ducted into the oven or the add-on
control device. The recommended
method of ducting is to use the captured
gases containing fugitive VOC as
makeup air to the drying oven. Control
of the fugitives results in a higher VOC
capture. In this case, 95 percent of the
applied solvent that is volatilized is
captured. Under Alternative III the
control device reduces 95 percent of the
captured emissions, and an overall VOC
reduction of 90 percent or greater is
achieved. Data from existing well-
designed pressure sensitive tape and
label coating facib'ties indicate that up
to 93 percent overall VOC reduction can
be achieved. Chapter 4 and Appendix C
of the BID examine data from well-
controlled facilities in greater detail.
Environmental, Energy, and Economic
Impacts
The environmental, energy, and
economic impacts of the NSPS are based
on a comparison of the expected
impacts of Regulatory Alternatives II
and III to Regulatory Alternative 1. The
overall impacts of the regulatory
alternatives are heavily influenced by
the predicted decline in the use of
organic solvent-based systems.
Currently, 80 to 85 percent of all
pressure sensitive tape and label
coatings are applied with organic
solvent formulations. By the year 1SSO it
is predicted that organic solvent coating
will only constitute 10 percent of PSTL
all coatings. Based on total solvent use
these numbers represent approximately
600,000 megagrams (metric tons) of
solveifi used in 1978 while only 91,000
megag^ims (metric tons) are expected in
1990. The use of organic solvent coatings
will decline because of: (1) The
increasing availability of alternative
low-solvent coatings, (2) the high cost
and lessen! «3 supply of organic
solvents, and (3) increasing
environmental regulations relating to
solvent use.
Environmental Impacts. An analysis
was made to compare the estimated
national impacts of VOC emissions,
wastewater effluents, solid waste
generation, and energy use associated
with the regulatory alternatives. The
impacts in 1978 are based only on
Regulatory Alternative I which
represents no NSPS action and SIP
adoption of the CTG recommended
emission limit. For all environmanlal
parameters the impacts decrease due to
the predicted dramatic increase in the
use of energy-efficient, low-solvent
coating technology. In 1985 the expected
increases in adverse environmental
impacts from Regulatory Alternatives II
and III are not major.
By 1985 it is predicted that the PSTL
industry will use 125,000 megagrams
(metric tons) of solvents. Regulatory
Alternative 1 (no NSPS with SIP control
only) would result in expected total
VOC emissions of 27,400 megagrams
(metric tons) per year. If Regulatory
Alternative II is applied these emissions
are expected to be reduced by 2,600
megagrams (metric tons) to 24,800
megagrams (metric tons) per year. This
represents a 9.5 percent reduction in
emissions. If Alternative III control is
exercised the total VOC emissions are
expected to be 23,100 megagrams
(metric tons) per year. This represents a
16 percent reduction in total emissions
over the projected baseline control level.
Wastewater discharge from PSTL
coating operations increases with the
use of carbon adsorption systems for
VOC control. The additional
wastewater comes from steam
condensate which is separated from the.
recovered solvent. Generally this water
is routed into local waste treatment
systems or is emitted directly to the
environment. If one assumes that all
VOC emissions from PSTL coating
facilities are controlled by carbon
adsorption units (worst case estimate),
the resulting wastewater flow for
Alternative III is 13 percent greater than
that expected from systems required to
meet the Alternative I control level. In
1985, if all the solvent-based coating
facilities used carbon adsorption, the
total amount of wastewater would be
about 20 million liters per year. The
amount of VOC potentially in this
volume of water is about 10 megagrams
(metric tons). Even in the worst case
situation the proposed standard is
reasonable.
The solid waste impact from the
addition of VOC controls in the PSTL
industry is expected to be small. The use
of carbon adsorption systems produces
waste activateds carbon. The carbon
must be replaced every one to six years
depending on performance. The waste
carbon can be landfilled, burned as a
solid fuel, or sold to firms which
reactivate the carbon. The landfill
operation represents the greates!
potential adverse environmental
problem. This problem can be minimized
by proper design, construction, and
operation of the landfill site. In 1985 the
estimated national incremental carbon
solid waste production from PSTL
facilities is approximately 55 megograms
(metric tons). This waste load would
occur under Regulatory Alternative III
control. The solid waste impact is
reasonable when compared to the tolal
nationwide VOC reduction being
achieved.
Energy Impact. The total industry-
wide use of electricity and fossil fuols is
expected to decline in the next ten
years. The primary reasons for this
decline is the greater use of more fuel
efficient. low-solvent systems, such as
hot melts and waterborne adhesives and
100 percent solids and waterborne
releases. The low-solvent systems
eliminate the need for large, full-
consuming solvent drying ovens.
For an individual coating facility, the
supplement energy use is higher for a
solvent-type coating line with an add-on
VOC control device than a line with no
controls at all. More electrical energy is
needed to power an increased number
of fans and fans with higher capacities.
For coating lines controlled by carbon
adsorption units, fossil fuels must be
used to run the steam boilers. Coating
lines controlled by incineration would
have fuel requirements that are
dependent on the concentration of the
IV-RR-7
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 251 / Tuesday, December 30, 1980 / Proposed Rules
incinerator feed gases. If the
concentration can be maintained near 40
percent LEL, fuel requirements will be
low.
There is a potential in the PSTL
industry for a net national energy
savings. This savings would be possible
if many or all solvent-based coating
lines used solvent recovery control
systems. The recovered solvent more
Shan, offsets the supplemental energy
needed to operate the systems. The net
recovered solvent could be translated
tr.to barrels of oil. consequently equaling
barrels of oil that would not then have
to be imported.
In 1935, Regulatory Alternative il
wou'.d have an increased energy
•requirement of about 7,900 barrels (1.26
ir^'llior. liters) of crude oil per year
•above that required by Regulatory
Alternative (. If all solvent-based
coating lines were controlled by carbon
adsorption to the Alternative II level, a
best case, gross energy savings of about
23.500 barrels (3.75 million liters) of
crude oil is estimated. By deducting the
required energy for controls, a potential
(ret national energy savings of 15,700
barrels {2.5 million liters) of crude oil
exists.
Under Regulatory Alternative III an
incremental (above Alternative I) energy
demand of approximately 12.000 barrels
(1.9 rniKiun liters) of crude oil is
projected. Assuming all controls are
carl)on adsorption units, a gross
national energy savings of about 39,100
barrels (6.2 million liters) of crude oil is
predicted. This gross savings equates to
a potential net national energy savings
of 27.100 barrels (4.3 million liters) of
crude OL! for Alternative III. This
estimate reflects the best case energy
impact.
If all sovlent-based coating lines were
controlled by incineration the worst
case national energy impacts result.
Because no solvent is recovered, there
are no credits to offset the increased
energy used by the VOC control
systems. For Alternative II control an
annual 17,700 barrels (2.8 million liters)
of crude oil may be consumed by the
PSTL industry over that required under
r\!tf-rnative I. Under Alternative III
incinerations controls would require
aproximately 31.000 barrels (4.9 million
liters) of crude oil per year.
Neither total carbon adsorption nor
total incineration control is anticipated
in this industry. The actual use of the
two control devices will be determined
by*:he availability and price of solvent.
the applicability of alternative fuels, the
rapidity with which low-solvent
technologies replace solvent-based
ones, and the stringency of
environmental regulations.
Economic Impact. The economic
impacts of all three regulatory
alternatives are minimal. In cases where
they can be used, owners or operators
will invest in low-solvent coating
methods such as 100 percent solids or
waterborne coatings. If technological
constraints prevent the use of
waterborne and 100 percent solid
technologies, the regulatory alternatives
will have a small impact on the industry.
Based on the net present value (NPV)
analysis, the large lines will generally
experience a greater impact than the
medium and small lines. Industry-wide,
it is estimated that a price increase of
0.0 to 0.9 percent would be required to
offset the impact of the NSPS.
The economic impact of the NSPS was
evaluated through the costing of model
facilities. These model facilities are
based on sizes and flow-rates which
represent typical new coating facilities.
For this study, three line widths (0.61 m.
0.9 m and 1.5 m) and three line speeds
(0.13 m/sec, 0.30m/sec. and 1.2 m/sec)
were examined. The large width and
high speed were combined in one case
to represent a facility which is a large
volume (39 million mVyear} producer.
The medium and small widths and
slower speeds were combined to
represent facilities which are small
volume (1.7 million mVyear and 5.8
million mVyear) coating operations. The
adhesive coating cases were examined
separately from the silicone release
coating operations. Tandem coating
facilities were also analyzed during the
economic study.
(n the impact analysis, alternative
low-solvent technologies are used to
give a comparison for the systems which
required add-on VOC controls. These
alternative systems include hot melt and
waterborne adhesives and 100 percent
solid and waterborne silicone releases.
Detailed cost data were developed for
the adhesive and silicone release model
plants. All cost data were based on
model plants that would be operating for
6,000 hours per year. The model plant
costs were used in an economic model
to assess the economic impact of the
proposed standard. Both control
equipment and coating line costs were
developed. A discount rate of 16 percent
and capacity utilization rales of 75 and
100 percent were used in the analysis.
Inputs on different company structures
were also used in the economic model.
The model takes all the inputs and
analyzes the various alternatives to rate
them on net present value (NPV). The
alternatives with the highest NPV's are
considered as the best alternatives. High
NPV's are advantageous because they
represent the highest annual cash flows
generated by an investment. All impacts
represent the situation in 1985.
An economic analysis was not
performed for the precoat coating lines
because the physical and operational
characteristics of a precoat line are very
similar to those of release coat lines. To
avoid duplications of effort and
information, only release coat lines were
examined in the economic analysis.
Conclusions determined for release coat
lines would apply to precoat coating
lines.
To adequately represent the
alternatives available to a coating
operation the economic analysis is done
from two perspective cases. In the
unconstrained case, it is assumed that
both low-solvent and high-solvent
technologies can be used as identical
product substitutes. This means that the
100 percent solid and waterborne
formulations will produce a product
equal to that of the solvent systems. In
the constrained case, it is assumed that
neither waterborne nor 100 percent
solids coatings can be used as solvent-
based product substitutes. A firm may
only use solvent-based technology (with
controls) to produce a tape or label
product.
In the unconstrained cases,
Regulatory Alternative II and III would
have no impacts on the pressure
sensitive tapes and labels industry.
Waterborne and 100 percent solids
coatings are available that meet the
control requirements of these
alternatives. Because low-solvent
systems are more profitable than
solvent-based ones, firms in the PSTL
industry would have an economic
incentive to adopt them even in the
absence of an NSPS based on
Alternatives II or III. The regulatory
alternatives would not force firms to
change the type of coating line they
would build in the absence of any
regulatory alternatives.
In the constrained cases, Regulatory
Alternatives II and III would have minor
impacts. Under Alternative II control, a
product price increase of 0.0 to 0.4
percent would result if all costs for
controls were passed on to the
consumer. If ail costs were absorbed by
the manufacturer, an industry-wide
decrease in return on investment (ROI)
of 0.0 to 0.6 percent would result. Under
Alternative III control, a product price
increase of 0.0 to 0.9 percent is
predicted. Full cost absorption by the
manufacturer would reduce the ROI by
0.0 to 1.0 percent. With both regulatory
alternatives, the large coating lines
would be slightly more impacted than
the medium and small lines.
The regulatory alternatives would
have little or no impact on the industry's
IV-RR-8
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 251 / Tuesday. December 30. 1980 / Proposed Rules
growth rate and structure. The
availability of low-solvent technologies
and the small price and RO1 impacts on
the conventional solvent-based systems
imply that the regulatory alternatives
would not deter new investment and
adversely affect growth. Although the
large facilities would be affected more
than the medium and small facilities, the
difference is not great enough lo put the
large facilities at a competitive
disadvantage. Thus, the regulatory
alternatives would not cause any
significant changes in'the structure of
the industry.
Best System of Emission Reduction
Based on the environmental, energy.
and economic impacts, Regulatory
Alternative III is selected as the best
system of continuous emission
reduction. This alternative is considered
affordable and the impacts reasonable.
Although this alternative is based on the
use of a control device operated in
conjunction with a well-designed VOC
capture system. It is recognized that
low-solvent coatings are available for
some applications and are just as
effective in reducing VOC emissions.
The control device may be either'a
carbon adsorber or incinerator. Both
control devices have been determined lo
be capable of at leasl 95 percent
efficiency in reducing VOC emissions.
The attainable efficiency of VOC
capture systems has been estimated
based on PSTL facilities' overall VOC
emission reduction data and control
device efficiencies for these systems.
Based on these calculations the bes'
hooding and enclosure systems are 95
percent efficient in capluring all VOC
emissions from a coating operation The
remaining five percent of total emissions
are trapped in the coated product or are
lost as fugitive emissions. The
continuous overall emission reduction
achievable by the best system is 90
percent. After consideration, the
Administrator has determined thai
under normal operating conditions u!)
affected facilities could achieve the
level of the proposed siandard using the
best system.
Selection of Formal of Proposed
Standard
The formats were examined besed on
their effectiveness in ensuring overall
VOC control. The criteria for choosing
the format are effectiveness,
compatibility with existing coalings and
control systems, complexity of
compliance testing, and ease of
application in the industry.
The formats considered for the
pressure sensitive tape and label
industry were: (1) Total concentration of
emissions {ram all exhaust gases
discharged to the atmosphere. (2)
kilograms of emissions pe; unit of
production, (3) control efficiency, and (4)
kilograms of emissions per unit weight
or volume of coating solids. The
following paragraphs diseuss the
advantages and disadvantages of the
regulatory formats.
An allowable concentration of
emissions in the exhaust gases
discharged to the atmosphere is the
easiest standard to enforce. Direct
emission measurements can be made
using Reference Method 25 on a single
effluent stream. The major disadvantage
of this format is its poor effectiveness in
identifying overall VOC control. The
level of fugitive emissions capture
cannot be determined with a single
point measurement. Siu.h a
determination requires either absolute
containment or material b;iisnce testing
of all potential points. As stated earlier,
fugitives may amount to 18 percent of
the total applied solvent Another
disadvantage is thai it does not promote
efficient oven energy use. In order to
reduce oven energy consumption, the
operator generally tries to increase the
concentration of solvent in the oven
exhaust gases. Therefore, more solveni
leaves in a smaller volume of gas. This
means lower energy consumption
because eneregy use is approximately
proportional to oven exhaust gas flow
rate. With the higher concentration the
operator is required to ge! a higher
percent VOC reduction than an operator
with less efficient ovens. In fact.
concentration limits allow an operator
lo emit twice as much solvent by simply
doubling the amount of dilution air
drawn through the ovens. The overall
effect is to promote higher energy
consumption, while allowing grealei
lotal VOC emissions.
A format of kilograms of emissions
per unit of production relates emissions
lo individual plant production on a
direct basis. This type of standard
would be inequitable for different types
of coatings. In the PSTL industry,
adhesive coatingss vary in thickness
and in kilograms of VOC coated per unit
area of production. This is further
complicated by the inclusion of solveni
silicone release and precoat coatings.
These coatings tend to be much thinner
and contain less VOC per unit area of
production than adhesive coalings.
Therefore, if a single value for the
standard was used, some solvent
coatings would require no addition;:!
controls while others would require a
very high level of control.
The control efficiency standard would
be developed from two viewpoints. The
first would be to set a control level
across the add-on control device. This
form would provide a good means for
reducing oven emissions bat would no)
insure the control of fugitive emission*.
The second viewpoint would require an
overall VOC reduction based on the
total amount of solvent in the
formulated coating before application.
This would include both fugitive VOC
emissions and oven emissions.
Compliance testing for this situation
would require a material balance-type
test which is a problem for any
standard.
A regulatory format which would
relate total allowable mass of VOC
emissions to the amount of costing
applied would be a very' effective
standard. For the PSTL industry, this
form was examined for mass of VOC
emissions with respect to volume of
coating, volume of coating so!:d&. tnd
weight of coating solids. Weight of
coating solids was chosen as the best of
these forms because most formulations
are derived on a weight basis.
Generally, resin density is constant
Therefore, the weight basis is eas\ to
calculate from formulation data.
The format of the proposed standard
is a combination of the percent oveiH.il
VOC reduction and the mass of VOC
emissions per mass of coating solids
formats. The percent overall VOC
reduction would provide an effective
menns of requiring an overall VOC
control, while not being prohibitive for
high-solvent coalings. The mass
emission per weight of coating Sfhcrs
would allow the use of low-soivent
coatings without the need for ali-or,
VOC control devices. This comb'naiinn
would permit add-on VOC cori'.jvU iur
nearly all solvent-based coatin.s sys;e.~s
iind promote the development ui.c: ;::->.- of
low-solvent coatings.
Selection of Emission Limits.
Section lll(a)(l) requires She t~.;..^•-.•n
limits to reflect "application of the- 'x-s:
technological system of continuo::!.
emission reduction which (takir.^ into
consideration the cost of achieving Fuch
emission reduction, any nor.aii violin
health and environmental irr.pan isnc
energy requirements) the Adrnlnistr;!'.<.>r
determines has been adequately
demonstrated." Section lll(a}(lV Thf.
"best technological system" defined (•>
Section lll(a)(l) is one lhat is not
"exorbitantly costly." Esssx Chen:;:...}
Corp. v. Ruckleshaus, 486 F. 2d 427. 433
(D.C. Cir. 1973).
Application of the "besl technologic,:!
system" results in a two-step s'-andaid:
for coatings with VOC contents of 2 t<;_')
kg of coating solids or less, the stand.;; cJ
is 0.2 kg/kg: for coatings with greatt;
IV-RR-9
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 251 / Tuesday, December 30. 1960 / Proposed Rules
than 2 kg/kg VOC content, the standard
is a 90 percent reduction in VOC
emissions.
As discussed earlier, VOC reductions
of 30 percent are achievable by systems
of capture and control. However, the
cost and energy requirements of
achieving VOC emission reductions
vary according to the VOC content of
the coating being controlled. The lower
the VOC content of the coating, the
higher are the cost and energy
requirements of achieving a given
reduction in emissions. This is for two
reasons. First, a given percent control of
lower VOC coatings generally requires
capture and control systems of at least
the same size and cost as the same
percent control of higher-VOC coatings,
but it achieves less mass emission
reduction because there is less VOC to
be controlled. Second, the cost and
energy requirements of controlling
lower-VOC coatings in incinerators are
further increased by the need to use
additional supplemental fuel to operate
the incinerator.
In the Administrator's judgment, the
cost and energy requirements of a
capture and control system that
achieves 90 percent reduction are
reasonable on coatings with VOC
contents of 2.0 kg/kg and greater. Such a
control system is therefore the "best
technological system," and the standard
for such high VOC coatings is 80 percent
reduction.
For coatings with lower VOC
contents, the "best technological
system" is one that can achieve 0.2 kg/
kg. In the Administrator's judgment, the
cost and energy requirements of
achieving significantly greater emission
reduction on such lower VOC coatings
would be exorbitant. Therefore, the
standard for such coatings is 0.2 kg/kg.
This can be achieved by all sources at
reasonable cost and energy requirments.
The effect of solvent retention in the
final tape of label product and its impact
on the achievability of a 90 percent
overall emission reduction were
considered. Test data obtained during
this study indicate that the amount of
solvent retained in the product does not
affect the ability of a facility to achieve
the proposed standard. A well-
controlled PSTL facility has
demonstrated a four-week overall VOC
emission reduction of 93 percent. This
overall reduction includes the amount of
solvent that was retained in the product.
During this period the facility coated 18
different adhesives with varying
amounts of retained solvent. Neither the
four week period nor the many varied
adhesive products coated (i.e., varied
amounts of retained solvent) affected
the plant's ability to achieve the
proposed standard. Therefore EPA
believes that 90 percent overall emission
reduction efficiency can be achieved
under all solvent retention conditions.
Selection of Compliance Procedures
After the required initial performance
test, compliance with the proposed
standard will be determined on a
calendar month basis. Every calendar
month will be considered a performance
test for carbon adsorption-controlled
coating lines, for incinerator-controlled
coating lines, and for coating lines using
low-solvent coating technology. The
owner or operator will report to the
Administrator within ten days following
the end of a calendar month only if an
affected facility exceeded the proposed
standard for that calendar month being
reported.
The variability of operation of the
PSTL industry makes it well-suited to a
monthly compliance period. Many
products are produced in this industry
using hundreds of different coatings.
Operating parameters such as line
speed, line width, length of a coating
run, product solvent retention, and
control device solvent hold-up vary
substantially within this industry on a
daily basis. The combination of these
factors influences the quantity of
emissions and the ability to meet a
standard. Compliance with the proposed
standard on a monthly basis would
allow enough time for poating system
fluctuations to average out.
To determine compliance with the
proposed standard, an owner or
operator of an affected facility using
low-solvent coatings must calculate the
weighted average of the mass of VOC
(solvent) used per mass of coating solids
applied each calendar month. The mass
of VOC per mass of coating solids
applied can be obtained by using a
modified version of Reference Method
24 or coating manufacturer's formulation
data. At any time the Administrator may
require a Reference Method 24 test to
verify the VOC content. The reference -
method must be performed so that mass
per mass units are obtained and not
muss per volume units as the method is
currently written. The mass per mass
modification actually simplifies the
method. If the calculated weighted
average is less than or equal to 0.20 kg
VOC per kg of coating solids applied,
compliance with the proposed standard
would be demonstrated. Affected
facilities with weighted averages greater
than 0.20 would have to install add-on
control devices to achieve compliance
with the proposed standard. For
enforcement purposes Reference
Method 24 and not manufacturer's
formulation data would be used.
Every affected facility using add-on
control devices to achieve compliance
with the proposed standard, must
determine the weighted average of the
mass of VOC used per mass of coating
solids applied each calendar month. The
weighted average VOC content would
be compared to the 0.20 kg limit each
month to determine the required level of
overall VOC reduction. The maximum
required overall VOC reduction is 80
percent.
Affected facilities controlled by
carbon adsorption will determine
monthly compliance using a solvent
inventory test. The total mass of solvent
used every calendar month will be
divided by the total mass of solvent
recovered by the carbon adsorber every
month to determine the overall VOC
emission reduction obtained. If the
overall VOC emission reduction
obtained is greater than or equal to the
required overall reduction, compliance
with the proposed standard is
demonstrated.
Affected facilities controlled by
incineration will determine monthly
compliance by comparing the required
overall VOC emission reduction of each
calendar month to the overall VOC
emission reduction demonstrated during
the most recent performance test which
complied with the proposed standard. If
the required monthly reduction is less
than or equal to the performance test
reduction, the affected facility is in
compliance with the proposed standard.
Modification and Reconstruction
Facilities which are modified or
reconstructed as defined in 40 CFR 60.14
and 60.15 after the date of proposal of
this standard are subject to the
standard. In the case of PSTL facilities,
a modification, and thus an increase in
VOC emissions, will most likely be
related to an increase in production.
Production increases contributing to
emission increases can result from
changes in web width, line speed, or
hours of operation. An increase in the
hours of operation is specifically
excluded from new source performance
standards. If changes in line speed and
line width are part of the existing
equipment capability and do not require
capital expenditures, they are also
excluded from new source performance
standards.
Production increases, however, may
require capital expenditures, although
this is not expected to be a frequent
occurrence. A coating line with a drying
oven is usually designed for a maximum
solvent vaporization loading. The
limiting factor is the LEL level allowed
in the ovens. Line speed and line width
can often be readily changed as long as .
IV-RR-10
-------
Fedsral Register / Vol. 45, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 30, 1980 / Proposed Rules
the production is kept under the
maximum design of the oven. If
production is increased above the
maximum designed for the oven, a
significant capital expenditure will be
made for larger exhaust fans and
possibly larger recirculation fans, and
larger drive motors for the coaler and
wind and unwind equipment. If there is
an increase in VOC emissions the
facility will be a modification and will
have to comply with the proposed
standard. All control procedures
previously discussed are applicable to
modified PSTL facilities, therefore, the
proposed standard is determined to be
reasonable for such
facilities.IllReconstructed facilities are
also a potential occurrence in this
industry. Existing control technologies
would be applicable to the VOC
emissions from such facilities. Because
the emissions from reconstructed
facilities can be controlled to the level
specified in Regulatory Alternative HI.
the proposed standard would be
reasonable for these types of facilities.
Selection of Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring requirements are included
in the proposed standard to ensure good
operation and maintenance of the VOC
emission control equipment. Monitoring
procedures for the proposed standard
were chosen based on three factors:
Reasonable cost, ease of execution, and
utility of the resulting data to both the
owner and to EPA for assuring
continued proper operation.
Affected facilities controlled by
incineration must monitor the
temperature of the incinerator exhaust
gases. The average temperature is being
monitored to determine the occurrence
of improper incinerator operation. The
temperature drops stated below shall be
indications of improper incinerator
operation. For thermal incinerators the
exhaust gas temperature mus! be
continuously monitored and recorded.
Any three hour period (during actual
coating operations) during which the
average temperature of the device is
more than 28C° (50F) less than the
average temperature of the device
during the most recent performance test
complying with the proposed standard
shall be reported to the Administrator.
For catalytic incinerators the gas
temperature upstream and downstream
of the'catalyst bed must be monitored.
Any three hour period (during actual
coating operations) during which the
average temperature of the device
immediately before the catalyst bed is
more than 28C' (50F°) less than the
average temperature of the device
during the most recent performance test
complying with the proposed standard.
or any three hour period 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 complying with
the proposed standard shall be reported
to the Administrator.
Temperature monitoring equipment is
usually a standard feature on most
incinerators. For this reason, the
requirement to monitor temperature
should not be an additional cost burden
on the industry. If it is not included, the
cost to purchase and install an accurate
temperature measurement device and
recorder is estimated at Si.200.
Any affected facility which use
incinerators to comply with the
proposed standard and which uses a
hood or enclosure to capture fugitive
VOC emissions, must operate a
monitoring device which continuously
indicates that the hood or enclosure is
operating. Examples of such devices
include fan amperage meters and flow
meters in ducts. No continuous
monitoring will be required if the hood
or enclosure system is interlocked with
the affected facility's oven air
recirculation system.
Selection of Performance Tests Methods
Performance lest methods are used to
determine the solvent content in the
coating and the overall control
efficiency of the add-on control system.
Furthermore, the test method for
determining control efficiency differs
depending on whether carbon
adsorption or incineration is used.
The proposed method for measuring
the solvent content in the coating is
Reference Method 24 promulgated at
October 3. 1980 45 FR 65956
"Determination of Volatile Matter
Content. Water Content, Density.
Volume Solids, and Weight Solids of
Surface Coatings." This method
combines several ASTM standard
methods to determine the volatile matter
content, density of the coating, volume
of solid, and water content of the paint.
varnish, lacquer, and related surface
coatings. From this information, the
mass of volatile organic compounds
(VOC) per unit volume of solids is
calculated.
Because the proposed PSTL regulation
for coating is in units of mass of volatile
organic compounds per mass of coating
solids. Refer3nce Method 24 must be
modified so its results are in the same
units as the standard. This actually
shortens the test method by eliminating
several steps because only the non-
aqueous volatile content needs to be
determined. For non-aqueous coatings,
the procedure to be used is ASTM D
2369-73, "Standard Test Method for
Volatile Content of Paints." For coatings
with water, the previously mentioned
procedure (ASTM D 2369-73) is
combined with another procedure which
determines the water content of the
coating. There are two acceptable
procedures for this: (1) ASTM D 3792.
"Standard Test Method for Water m
Water Reducible Paint by Direct
Injection into a Gas Chromatograph,"
and (2) an ASTM draft "Standard Test
Method for Water in Paint or Related
Coatings by the Karl Fischer Titration
Method." The results from these
procedures are the nonaqueous volatile
content of the coating (as a weight
fraction) and the water content (as a
weight fraction). The weight fraction
solids content in the coating can also be
determined from these procedures. The
VOC content in the coating, in mass of
VOC per mass of coating solids applied.
may be determined by dividing the
weight fracton of non-aqusous volatifes,
by the weight fraction of solids.
The estimated cost of analysis per
coating sample is $50 for the total
volatile content procedure (ASTM D
2369-73). For aqueous coatings, there is
an additional $100 per sample for water
content determination. Since the testing
equipment is standard laboratory
apparatus, no additional purchasing
costs are expected.
In certain cases, for the proposed
PSTL standard, the density of 8
particular coating may be required. The
density may be determined from the
coating manufacturer's formulation data
or from a procedure that is a part of
Reference Method 24. The procedure in
Method 24 is ASTM D 1475-60.
"Standard Test Method for Density of
Paint, Varnish, Lacquer, and Related
Products." The analysis of a coating
sample would cost about $25. Testing
can be performed with standard
laboratory equipment.
If the amount of solvent in the coating
exceeds 0.20 kg per kg of coating solids
applied, then the efficiency of the vapor
control system must be determined The
overall efficiency is determined by
comparing the amount of solvent
controlled (either recovered or
destroyed) to the potential amount of
solvent emitted with no controls. For the
proposed standard two different
performance test methods were
selected. The method to use depends
upon the type of add-on control device
being installed. In the PSTL industry,
only two types of control devices ar®
expected: carbon adsorbers and
incinerators.
For carbon adsorbers, performance Is
demonstrated by comparing the solvent
used versus the solvent recovered. In
IV-RR-11
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 251 / Tuesday, December 30, 1980 / Proposed Rules
using a solvent inventory system, if is
necessary to monitor two things: The
amount used of each coating, and the
amount of solvent recovered by the
carbon adsorption system.
The performance test will consist of a
one calendar month solvent inventory as
opposed to the three test runs method
specified in 9 60.8(0. Compliance in the
months following the performance test
will also be determined on a calendar
month basis.
To determine the efficiency of the
carbon adsorber system, these data
would be collected over a period of one
calendar month. This time interval
allows the test to be conducted using a
representative variety of coatings and
products, as well as reducing the impact
of variations in the process that would
otherwise affect the representativeness
of a short-term test. It should be noted
that this procedure determines the
overall control efficiency based on the
original amount of solvent used, not on
the amount entering the carbon
adsorber, and fugitive emissions are
allowed as long as the overall control
efficiency meets the standard.
The cost of such a performance test
should be minimal since the solvent
inventory data would be part of normal
operating equipment in the plant. If not,
the estimated purchase cost of two
accurate liquid weight meters is $1.400.
Because incinerators destroy the
solvent rather than recover it, a different
type of performance test is used.The
proposed procedure measures the mass
of VOC (as carbon) in the incinerator
system vents (incinerator inlet,
incinerator outlet, and fugitive emission
vents], and determines the incinerator
system's overall control efficiency.
There are important differences
between the carbon adsorber and
incinerator test procedures that should
be notud. The test procedure for the
carbon adsorber system relates the
original amount of solvent used at the
coating head to the amount of solvent
controlled, i.e. recovered, by the
adsorber. It is possible to compare the
two amounts because the same
measurement method is used (liquid
solvent used versus liquid solvent
recovered). However, for incinerator
systems, the amount of solvent used
should not be directly related to the
amount of solvent controlled, i.e.
destroyed, because different
measurement procedures are used,
(liquid solvent used in the coating is
measured as mass of solvent, while the
gaseous emissions destroyed are
measured as mass of carbon). Thus, for
incinerators, the amount controlled or
destroyed is determined by using the
amount of solvent measured in the inlet
vent versus the outlet vent. The overall
incinerator system control efficiency is
determined by relating the amount
destroyed to all the potential emissions.
To make the incinerator test
procedure equivalent to the carbon
adsorber test procedure, one must be
able to measure all the potential
emissions, both fugitive emissions and
oven emissions ducted into the
incinerator. That is, all fugitive VOC
emissions from the web coating area
must be captured and vented through
stacks suitable for testing. Prior to the
performance test for incineration-
controlled affected facilities, the owner
or operator will be required to construct
a temporary total enclosure around the
coating line for the purpose of capturing
fugitive VOC emissions. A total
enclosure is defined as any structure or
building around the coating applicator
and flashoff area or the entire coating
line for the purpose of confining and
totally capturing fugitive VOC
emissions. If a permanent total
enclosure exists on the line prior to the
performance test, and the enforcing
agency is satisfied that the enclosure is
totally capturing fugitive emissions; the
construction of a temporary enclosure is
not required.
The concentration of VOC (as carbon)
in the incinerator vent system is
measured by Reference Method 25,
"Determination of Total Caseous
Nonmethane Organic Emissions as
Carbon (TGNMO)." The results of this
method combined with the results of
Reference Methods 1 through 4 yields
the mass of VOC (as carbon) in the vent.
Three one-hour runs of Reference
Method 25 are required for a complete
test, with Reference Methods 2, 3 and 4
being performed at least twice during
that period. Measurements at the inlet.
outlet and fugitive emission vents
should be performed simultaneously.
The total time required for one complete
performance test is estimated at 8 hours.
with an estimated overall cost $4,000.
plus $2,000 for each fugitive vent
measured.
The TGNMO method (Reference
Method 25) was selected to measure the
VOC concentration in incinerators for
certain reasons. It is simple to use,
especially in explosive atmospheres ur
when sampling high-temperature, moist
streams. Also because the detector used
in Reference Method 25 measures all the
non-methane organics as methane, all
carbon atoms give an equivalent
instrument response. Therefore, the
problem of varying response ratios for
different organic compounds (typical of
all flame ionization units) is avoided.
The decision to propose two different
performance test methods was made
after considering several factors. It is
usually preferable to have the same
performance test method regardless of
the type of control device. In this case,
the stack sampling procedure described
for incinerators is also applicable to
carbon adsorbers. However, the solvent
inventory method is a far more practical
and accurate procedure. It is very
inexpensive, requires no special
technical sampling and analytical
procedures, and has a test period of one
month, so that a representative variety
of coatings can be tested. Unfortunately,
an inventory-type method cannot be
applied to incinerators. The one-day
TGNMO inlet and outlet stack test
procedure is the best method for testing
incinerators, but this method would
become exorbitantly expensive and
impractical if a longer test period were
required. The advantages of the solvent
inventory-type test for carbon adsorbers
outweigh the disadvantages of having
two different performance test methods.
Reports Impact Analysis
The reporting requirements
necessitated by the proposed standard
are authorized in Section 114 of the
Clean Air Act. The proposed standard
would require the preparation of three
types of reports. First, the general
provisons (Subpart A of 40 CFR Part 60)
would require notification reports which
inform the agency of facilities subject to
new source performance standards
(NSPS). These reports include
notification of construction, anticipated
start-up, acutal start-up, and physical or
operational changes. Second, reports of
performance test results and
performance evaluations of the
continuous monitoring systems would
be required. These reports show
whether a facility is initially meeting the
level of the standard. Third, monthly
reports explaining whether an affected
facility is in or out of compliance with
the standard would be required
The respondent group to the reporting
requirements of the proposed standard
would be the pressure sensitive tapes
and labels (PSTL) industry. It is
estimated that through the fifth year of
standard applicability, approximately
290 new PSTL sources will have been
established which would have to comply
with the reporting requirements of the
proposed standard. This number of
sources includes adhesive, release, and
precoat coating facilities. To implement
the reporting requirements of the
proposed standard, through the first five
years of applicability, the PSTL industry
would incur a manpower demand of
about 12 man-years. Comments are
invited on any of the reporting
requirements of the proposed standard.
IV-RR-12
-------
F®d®ral Rsgistor / Vol. 45, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 30. 1980 / Proposed Rules
Section 60.447 of the proposed standard
explains specific reporting requirements
in further detail.
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 this 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
addresstJ to the Central Docket Section
address given in the ADDRESSES
section of this 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
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 (2) to serve as
the record in case of judicial review.
As prescribed by Section. 111.
establishment of standards of
performance for the manufacture of
pressure sensitive tapes and labels was
preceded by the Administrator'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 endanger public health or
welfare. In accordance with Section 117
of the Act. publication of this proposal
was preceded by consultation with
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.
Comments are .specifically invited
from small PSTL companies on the
definition of the affected facility. Larger
companies in this industry have
objected to the present definition. They
feel the affected facility should be
defined as a coating line from initial
unwind to final wind. Any comments
submitted to the Administrator on this
issue should contain specific
information and data pertinent to an
evaluation of the affected facility
definition. Alternative courses of action
should be suggested.
It should be noted that 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, any
nonair quality health and environmental
impact and energy requirements) the
Administrator determines has Lren
adequately demonstrated (Section lll(a)(l)).
Although there may be emission
control available that can reduce
emissions below those levels required to
comply with standards of performance,
this technology might not be selected as
the basis of standards of performance
due to costs associated with its use.
Accordingly, standards of performance
should not be viewed as the ultimate in
achievable emissions control, in fact,
the Act requires (or has the potential for
requiring) the imposition of a more
stringent emission standard in several
situations.
For example, applicable costs do not
necessarily play as prominent a role in
determining the "lowest achievable
emission rate" for new or modified
sources located in nonattainment areas,
i.e., those areas where statirtorily-
mandated health and welfare standards
are being violated. In this respect
Section 173 of the Act requires that new
or modified sources constructed in an
area which exceeds the National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (KAAQS)
must reduce emissions to the level
which reflects the "lowest achievable
emission rate" (LAER), as defined in
Section 171(3) for such category of
source. The statute defines LAER as that
rate of emissions based on the
following, whichever is more stringent:
(A) Tne most stringent emission limitation
which \s contained in the implementation
plan of any State for such class of category of
source, unless the owner of operator of the
proposed source demonstrates that such
limitations are not achievable, or
(B) The most stringent emission limitation
which is achieved in practice by such class of
category of source.
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 BACT result in emissions of any
pollutants which will exceed the
emissions allowed by an applicable
standard established pursuant to
Section 111 (or 112) of the Act.
In all events, State Implementation
Plans (SIP's) 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, SIP's must in some cases
require greater emission reduction than
those required by standards of
performance for new sources.
Finally, 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 prospactive 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 promulgated Thi6
review will include an assessment of
such factors an the nesd for integration
with other programs, the existence of
alternative methods, enforceability. and
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
under Section lll(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. The economic impact
assessment is included in the
Background Information Document.
IV-RR-13
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 251 / Tuesday. December 30. 1980 / Proposed Rules
Dated: December 22,1980.
Douglas M. Costle,
Administrator.
It is proposed that 40 CFR Part 60 be
amended by adding a new Subpart RR
as follows:
Subpart RR—Standards of Performance for
Pressure Sensitive Tape and Label Surface
Coating Operations
3«c.
60.440 Applicability and designation of
affected facility.
60.441 Definitions and symbols.
60.442 Standard for volatile organic
compounds.
60.443 Compliance provisions.
60.444 Performance test procedures.
fiO.445 Monitoring of operations and
recordkeeping.
60.4-48 Test methods and procedures.
60 447 Reporting requirements.
Authority: Sec. 111. 301(a) of the Clean Air
act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7411. 7601(a)). and
additional authority as noted below.
Subpart RR—Standards of
Performance for Pressure Sensitive
Tape and Label Surface Coating
Operations
t; 60.440 Applicability and designation of
.iflected facility.
[aj The affected facility to which the
provisions of this subpart apply is each
pressure sensitive adhesive coating line.
each release coating line, and each
precoat coating line used in the
manufacture of pressure sensitive
materials.
(b) 'This subpart applies to any
".(fected facility which begins
construction, modification, or
reconstruction after [ date of
publication in Federal Register].
S 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 this section as follows:
"Coating applicator" means an
apparatus used to apply a surface
Oj.jt'ng to a continuous web.
''Coating line" means a coating
applicator, flashoff area, and oven.
"Coating solids applied" means the
solids content of the coated adhesive.
release, or precoat as defined by
Reference Method 24.
'"F'ashoff area" means the portion of a
coating line after the coating applicator
«rtd usually before the oven entrance.
"Fugitive volatile organic compounds"
means any volatile organic compounds
which are emitted from the coating
applicator and flashoff areas and are
not emitted in the oven.
"Hood or enclosure" means any
device used to capture fugitive volatile
organic compounds.
"Oven" means a chamber which uses
heat or irradiation to bake cure,
polymerize, or dry a surface coating.
"Precoat" means a coating operation
in which a primer, lacquer, or tackifying
coating (or their equivalent) is applied to
a surface as a precursor to the
production of a pressure sensitive or
release product.
"Pressure sensitive tape and label
.surface coating operation" means any
coating line which coats a continuous
web with either pressure sensitive
adhesive, release or precoat coatings
associated with pressure sensitive
products.
"Solvent applied in the coating"
means all organic solvent contained in
the adhesive, release, and precoat
formulations that is metered into the
coating applicator from the formulation
area.
'"Total enclosure" means a structure
or building around the coating
applicator and flashoff area or the entire
coating line for the purpose of confining
and totally capturing fugitive VOC
emissions.
"Volatile organic compound (VOC)"
means any organic compound which is
measured by Reference Methods 24 or
25.
(b) All symbols used in this subpart
not defined below are given meaning in
the Act or in Subpart A of this part.
"a" means the gas stream vents
e Kit ing the emission control device.
"b" means the gas stream vents
entering the emission control device. .
"Ca" means the concentration of VOC
(carbon equivalent] in each gas stream
(j) exiting the emission control device, in
parts per million by volume.
"Cbj" means the concentration of VOC
(carbon equivalent) in each gas stream
(i) entering the emission control device.
in parts per million by volume.
"Cm" means the concentration of VOC
(carbon equivalent) in each gas stream
(k) emitted directly to the atmosphere, in
parts per million by volume.
C" means the calculated weighted
average mass (kg) of VOC per mass (kg)
of coating solids applied each calendar
month.
M,, means the mass (kg) of VOC per*
mass (kg) of coating solids applied in
each coating (i) used in the calendar
month.
"Mr" means the total mass (kg) of
solvent recovered for a calendar month.
"M,," means the mass (kg) of coating
solids applied in each coating (i) used in
the calendar month as measured by the
reference method specified in § 60.448(a)
or by the coating manufacturer's
formulation data.
"Q.T means the volumetric flow rate
of each effluent gas stream (j) exiting the
emission control device, in dry standard
cubic meters per second.
"Qbi" means the volumetric flow rate
of each effluent gas stream (i) entering
the emission control device, in dry
standard cubic meters per second.
"Qrk" means the volumetric flow rate
of each effluent gas stream (k) emitted
to the atmosphere, in dry standard cubic
meters per second.
"R" means the overall VOC emission
reduction achieved for a calendar month
(in percent).
"R," means the required overall VOC
emission reduction (in percent).
§ 60.442 Standard for volatile organic
compounds.
(a) On and after the date on which the
performance test required by § 60.8 has
been completed each owner or operator
subject to this subpart shall—
(1) Cause the discharge 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) The percent overall VOC emission
reduction specified in § 0.443(b) as
calculated over a calendar month.
(b) Any coating line which causes the
discharge into the atmosphere of not
more than 125 kilograms of VOC per day
and 15 megagrams of VOC per year is
not considered an affected facility and
is not therefore subject to the emission
limits of § 60,442(a). If either the 125
kilogram per day limit or the 15
megagram per year limit are exceeded.
the coating line shall become an
affected facility and will be subject to
§ 60.442(a) and all its associated
subparts.
§ 60.443 Compliance provisions.
(a) To determine compliance with
{ 60.442(1), the owner 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) Measure the VOC content (kg
VOC/kg coating solids applied) of all
coatings applied using the reference
method specified in § 60.446(a) of this
subpart or by using the coating
manufacturer's formulation data.
(2) Compute the weighted average by
the following equation:
IV-RR-14
-------
* Msi>
nsi
1=1
(3) For each affected facility where
the value of C is less than or equal to
0.20 kg VOC per kg of coating solids
applied, the affected facility is in
compliance with § 60.442(a)(l).
(b) To determine compliance with
§ 60.442(a}(2). the owner or operator
shall calculate the required overall VOC
emission reduction according to the
following equation:
G - 0.20 \ x 100
R =
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 251 / Tuesday. December 30, 1980 / Proposed Rules
performance test, and a new calendar
month's average VOC emission
reduction is calculated to show
compliance with the standard.
(g) If a common emission control
device is used to recover or destrucl
solvent from more than one affected
facility, the performance of that control
device is assumed to be equal for each
of the affected facilities. Compliance
with S 60.442(a)(2) is determined by the
methods specified in { 60.443(c) and
§ 60.443(e) and is performed
simultaneously on all affected facilities.
(h) If a common emission control
device is used to recover solvent from
an existing facility (or facilities) as well
as from an affected facility (or facilities),
the overall VOC 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 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 facilities).
The overall VOC emission reduction of
the affected facility (or facilities) can
then be determined as specified in
§ 60.443(c).
(i) If a common emission control
device is used to destruct solvent from
an existing facility (or facilities) as well
as from an affected facility (or facilities),
the overall VOC 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.
If R, is less than or equal to 90
percent, then the required overall VOC
emission reduction is R,. If R, is greater
than 90 percent, than the required
overall VOC emission reduction is 90
percent.
(c) Where compliance with the
emission limits specified in
§ 60.442(a)(2) is achieved through the
use of a solvent recovery system, the
owner or operator shall determine the
overall VOC emissior reduction for a
one calendar month period by the
following equation:
100
If the R value is equal to or greater
than the R, value specified in
§ 60.443(b), then compliance with
§ 60.442(a)(2) is demonstrated.
(d) Where compliance with the
emission limit specified in § 60.442(a)(2)
is achieved through the use of a solvent
destruction device, the owner or
operator shall determine calendar
monthly compliance by comparing the
monthly required overall VOC emission
reduction specified in { 60.443(b) to the
overall VOC emission reduction
demonstrated in the most recent
performance test which complied with
§ 60.442(a)(2). If the monthly required
overall VOC emission reduction is less
than or equal to the overall VOC
reduction of the most recent
performance test, the affected facility is
in compliance with $ 60.442(a)(2).
(e) Where compliance with
§ 60.442(a)(2) 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 thermal 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 report all
three hour periods (during actual coating
operations) during which the average
temperature of the device is more than
28C° (50F°) below the average
temperature of the device during the
most recent performance test complying
with § 60.442(a)(2). For catalytic
incineration destruction devices, the
owner or operator shall report all three
hour periods (during actual coating
operations) during which the average
temperature of the device immediately
before the catalyst bed is more than
28C°(50P) below the average
temprature of the device during the most
recent performance test complying with
§ 60.442(a)(2), and all three 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
during the most recent performance test
complying with § 60.442(a)(2).
(f) After the initial performance test
required for all affected facilities under
§ 60.8, compliance with the VOC
emission limitation and percentage
reduction requirements under § 60.442 is
based on the average emission reduction
for one calendar month. A separate
performance test is completed at the end
of each calendar month after the initial
IV-RR-15
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 30. 1980 / Proposed Rules
I2\ The concentration of VOC (in parts
per million by volume) after the common
emission control device shall be
determined as specified in § 60.444(c).
This concentration is used in the
calculation of compliance for both the
existing and affected facilities.
(3) The volumetric flow out of the
common control device attributable to
the affected facility (or facilities) shall
be calculated as a weighted average of
'the volumetric flows into the control
device from the affected facility (or
facilities) and the existing facility (or
facilities). Compliance is determined by
iihe use of the equation specified in
5 60.444(c).
5 60.444 Performance test procedures.
(a) 'The performance test for affected
fatiUlies complying with § 60.442(a)
without the use of add-on controls shall
be identical to the procedures specified
in <&0.443{a).
(b) The performance test for affected
facilities controlled by a solvent
recovery device shall be conducted as
follows:
{1} The performance test will consist
of one calendar month run and not the
average of three runs as specified in
§ 50.3{f).
(2) The weighted average mass of
VOC per mass of coating solids applied
for a one calendar month period shall be
deJer-..sined as specified in § 60.443(a)(l)
sr.d § 50.443(a)(2).
(3; Calculate the required overall VOC
remission reduction as specified in
1 50 W3(b).
(4) Inventory solvent usage and
soh'eni recovery for a one calendar
month period.
(5! Determine the performance of the
solvent recovery device as specified in
5 60.443(c).
(c! The performance test for affected
facilities controlled by a solvent
destruction device shall be conducted as
follows:
(13 The weighted average mass of
VOC per mass of coating solids applied
u'j* a one calendar month period shall be
"•ieterrr.ioed as specified in § 60.443(a)(l)
j.:;d § 60.443(a)(2).
(2; Calculate the requried overall VOC
reduction as specified in
(3) Determine the performance of the
solvent destruction device by the
following procedures:
100
I
k-=l
(i) The owner or operator of the
affected facility shall construct the
overall VOC emission reduction system
so that all volumetric flow rates and
total VOC emissions can be accurately
determined by the applicable test
methods and procedures specified in
§ 60 446(b).
(ii) The owner or operator of an
affected facility shall construct a
temporary total enclosure around the
coating line applicator and flashoff area
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 and the
Administrator is satisfied that the
enclosure is totally capturing fugitive
VOC emissions, then no additional total
enclosure will be required for the
performance test
(iil) For each affected facility where
the value of R is greater than or equal to
the value of R, calculated in § 60.443(b).
compliance with § 60.442(a)(2) is
demonstrated.
(iv) The performance of the solvent
destruction device shall be determined
by averaging the results of three runs as
specified in § 60.8{f).
(Sec 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42
U.S.C. 7414)1
§ 60.445 Monitoring of operations and
recordkeeping..
fa) The owner or operator of an
affecfed facility subject to this subpart
shall maintain a calendar month record
of all coatings used and the results of
the reference test method specified in
§ 60 446(a) or the manufacturer's
formulation data used for determining
the VOC 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 controled by a solvent
recovery device shall install, calibrate.
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 ±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 a coating
line operating at the conditions specified
in § 60.442(b) shall maintain a daily and
yearly 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 device
shall install, calibrate, maintain, and
operate a monitoring device which
continuously indicates and records the
temperature of the solvent destruction
device's exhaust gases. The monitoring
device shall have an accuracy of (he
greater of ±0.75 percent of the
temperature being measured expressed
in degrees Celsius or ±2.5°C.
(f) The owner or operator of an
affected facility controlled by a catalytic
incineration solvent destruction device
shall install, calibrate, maintain, and
operate a monitoring device which
continuously indicates and records the
gas temperature 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 VOC
emissions shall install, calibrate.
maintain, and operate a monitoring
device which continuously 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
systom is interlocked with the affected
facility s oven recirculation air system.
(Sec. 114 of the Clear. Air Act ".s amended (42
USC 7414)]
IV-RR-16
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 30, 1980 / Proposed Rules
§ 60.446 Test methods and procedures.
(a) The VOC content per unit of
coating solids applied and compliance
with § 60.4421 a )(1) shall be measured by
either Reference Method 24 or
manufacturers' formulation data. In the
event of any inconsistency between a
Method 24 test and manufacturers'
formulation data, the Method 24 test will
govern. The Administrate. :r.ay require
an owner or operator to perform Method
24 tests during such months as he ^-ejis
appropriate.
(1) For Reference Method 24, the
coating sample must be a one liter
sample taken at a point which will be
representative cf the coating applied to
the web substrate. The one liter sample
is to be divided into three aliquots for
Iriplicate analyses.
(b) Reference Method 25 shall be used
to determine the VOC concentration, in
parts per million by volume, of each
effluent gas stream entering and exiting
the solvent destruction device or its
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 flow rate, 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 one hour. The minimum sampling
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.
(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-CHse
basis.
(Src. 114 of the Cliian Air A<:l as amended |42
L'.S.C. 7414))
C 60.447 Reporting requirements.
(a) For all affected facilities, the
performance test data from the initial
performance test are submitted to the
Administrator.
(b) The owner or operator of a coaling
line operated st the conditions specified
in § 60.442(b) shall report the total
amount of the solreni appKed in the
coating for each operating day. Every
fourth quarter the yearly amount of
solvent applied in the coating shall be
reported.
(c) For affected facilities complying
with $ 60.442 without solvent recovery
or solvent destruction devices the
weighted average VOC content for each
calendar month as specified in
§ 60.443(a)(2) shall be reported to the
Administrator.
(d) For all affected facilities
complying with } 60.442 by using a
solvent recovery device, the following
information shall be rep-->d to the
Administrator for each :a'endar month.
(1) The required overall emission
reduction specified in 160.443(b).
(2) The demonstrated overall emission
reduction as specified in § 60.443(c).
(e) For all affected facilities complying
with § 60.442 by using a solvent
destruction device, the following .
information shall be reported to the
Administrator for each calendar month.
(1) The required overall emission
reduction specified in § 60.443(b)
(2) The overall emission reduction
demonstrated during the most recent
performance test which complied with
§ 60.442.
(3) All periods of temperature drop as
defined under § 60.443(f).
(f) The owner or operator of an
affected facility shall submit the written
reports required under paragraphs |a)
and (b) of this section to the
Administrator for every calendar
quarter. All quarterly reports shall be
postmarked by the 30th day following
the end of each calendar quarter.
(g) The owner or operator of an
affected facility shall submit the written
reports required under paragraphs |c),
(d), and (e) of this section to the
Administrator within ten days following
the end of the calendar month being
reported only if:
(1) The emissions limits of §60.442
were exceeded during the calendar
month: or
(2) Temperature drops as defined
under § 60.443(f) occurred during the
calendar month.
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Ai;l as amemirti |42
U.S.C. 7414))
1KB IJ'i. u>-UHU<) Kil.'il 12-2U-W-. »:4.S ,irn|
BILLING CODE 656O-26-M
IV-RR-17
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR
NEW STATIONARY
SOURCES
INDUSTRIAL
SURFACE COATING
APPLIANCES
SUBPART SS
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 249 / Wednesday. December 24. 1980 / Proposed Rules
40 CFR Part 60
[AD-FRL 1625-6]
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources; Industrial Surface
Coating: Appliances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed Rule and Notice of
Public Hearing.
SUMMARY: Standards of performance are
proposed to limit emissions of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) from new,
modified, or reconstructed surface
coating operations within appliance
assembly plants. The standards
implement Section 111 of the Clean Air
Act and are based on the
Administrator's determination that
surface coating operations within
appliance assembly plants cause, or
contribute significantly to, air pollution,
which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare. The
intent is to require new, modified, and
reconstructed appliance surface coating
operations to use the best demonstrated
system of continuous emission
reduction, considering costs, nonair
quality health, and environmental and
energy impacts.
A public hearing will be held to
provide interested persons an
opportunity for oral presentation of
data, views, or arguments concerning
the proposed standards.
DATE: Comments. Comments must be
received on or before February 23,1981.
Public hearing. The public hearing will
be held on January 28,1981 beginning at
9a.m.
Request to speak at hearing. Persons
wishing to present oral testimony should
contact EPA by January 21,1981.
AOOMCSSCK Comments. Comments
should be submitted (in duplicate if
possible) to: Central Docket Section (A-
130), Attention: Docket number A-80-6,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street, S.W., Washington, DC
20460.
Public hearing. The public hearing will
be held at OA Auditorium EPA, R.T.P.,
North Carolina. Persons wishing to
present oral testimony should notify
Mrs. Noami Durkee. Emission Standards
and Engineering Division (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5331.
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)
541-2777. Please refer to Industrial
Surface Coating: Appliances—
Background Information for Proposed
Standards. EPA-450/3-«0-037a.
Docket. The docket, number A-80-6,
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, SW, Washington, DC 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 number (919)
541-5421.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Proposed Standards
The proposed standards would limit
VOC emissions from each surface
coating operation to 0.90 kilogram of
VOCs per liter (kg//) of coating solids
applied to appliance parts or products.
Compliance with the proposed
standards could be achieved by the use
of coatings that result in VOC emissions
less than or equal to 0.90 kg// of applied
coating solids or 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// of applied
coating solids. Formulation data from
the coating manufacturer would be used
to determine the VOC content of
coatings applied for each affected
facility. Reference Method 24 published
on October 3,1980 (45 FR 65956) would
be the reference method for verification.
Reference Method 25 published on
October 3,1980 (45 FR 65956) would be
used to determine the percentage
reduction of VOC emissions achieved
through the use of a capture system and
control device.
The proposed standards would apply
to each new, modified, or reconstructed
surface coating operation within an
appliance assembly plant. Existing
facilities would not be subject to the
regulation unless modified or
reconstructed as defined in 40 CFR 60.14
or 60.15. For these standards, any of the
following organic surface-coated metal
products manufactured for household,
commercial, or recreational use would
be considered appliance products:
Range Dryer
Range hood Dry cleaning equipment
Microwave oven Water heater
Oven Trash compactor
Refrigerated display case Water Softener
Refrigerator Interior lighting fixture
Freezer Vacuum cleaner
Washer Ice maker
Dishwasher
The following organic surface-coated
metal products manufactured for
household use would also be considered
appliance products:
Air purifier
Baseboard heater
Room heater
Humidifier
Dehumidifier
Fan
Furnace
Window air conditioner
Unitary air conditioner
Heat pump
The majority of the data upon which
the proposed standards were developed
pertained to the surface coating of
traditional household appliances such
as cooking equipment, laundry
equipment, refrigerators, and freezers.
Recent EPA research indicates that
many other appliances are coated with
similar materials by similar methods.
These other appliances are often similar
. in size and shape to the traditional
household appliances. The coating
application methods—flow coat, dip
coat, electrodeposition, and air, airless,
and electrostatic spray—are identical.
These additional appliance coating
operations use coating materials similar
to those used in large appliance coating
operations. Coating performance
specifications are also similar, except
for slight variations depending upon
whether the unit is designed for indoor
or outdoor use. Therefore, these
IV-SS-2
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 24, 1980 / Proposed Rules
operations produce the same types, and
proportionally the same quantities, of
VOC emissions as large appliance
surface coating operations. EPA believes
that similarities also often exist in the
ratio of the cost of coating the appliance
to its total unit cost.
Because these other segments of the
appliance industry are similar in key
respects to the large appliance surface
coating industry and because these
segments would not be subject to other
standards under development by the
Agency, EPA believes that the source
category for appliance surface coating
operations should be expanded to
include products other than large
household appliances.
There appears elsewhere in this issue
of the Federal Register a proposed
amendment to the priority list for
standards of performance for new
stationary sources. The amendment
proposes to change the source category
"Industrial Surface Coating: Large
Appliances" to "Industrial Surface
Coating: Appliances," thereby including
in the source category appliance
products in addition to the traditional
large household appliances. All
references in this preamble to proposed
standards for appliance surface coating
operations take into account the
proposed amendment source category.
omments are invited concerning the
ist of products to be subject to the
proposed standards (see Miscellaneous
section of this preamble).
An affected facility is defined as a
surface coating operation. A surface
coating operation may be a prime coat
or a topcoat operation and includes the
application station(s) (spray booth(s),
dip tank, or flow coating unit), flashoff
area, and curing oven. The proposed
standards would require each owner or
operator, unless otherwise specified, to
calculate for each affected facility the
total mass of VOC emissions per liter of
coating solids applied to appliance parts
or products during 1 calendar month.
Following this initial performance test
period, the owner or operator would
calculate VOC emissions for each
calendar month. Each monthly
calculation would be considered a
performance test. Violations would be
reported within 10 days of the end of the
month. Equations and transfer
efficiencies for calculating the emissions
for each affected facility are provided in
the proposed standards.
The proposed standards contain
tables specifying the maximum
allowable VOC content per unit volume
of coating solids for generic families of
application equipment. When the VOC
Content per unit volume of coating solids
f each coating used during the month is
less than or equal to the maximum
allowable VOC content for the lowest
transfer efficiency of any application
equipment used in the affected facility,
the owner or operator will not be
required to calculate VOC emissions for
each month.
The owner or operator would obtain
the information necessary to calculate
emissions from formulation data
supplied by the manufacturer of the
coating or from an analysis of each
coating by Reference Method 24 or by
an equivalent or alternative method
acceptable to the Administrator. Coating
and organic-solvent usage data would
be obtained from company records. In
the case of a question regarding the
VOC content of coatings, Reference
Method 24 would serve as the means by
which the VOC content of the coating,
and the resultant emissions, would be
determined.
The proposed standards also contain
performance test provisions for an
affected facility that elects to use
incineration as a means of compliance.
The owner or operator would be
required to determine monthly the
average uncontrolled VOC emissions
and the emission reduction achieved by
a control device. Each monthly
calculation would be considered a
performance test. Equations for these
calculations are provided in the
proposed standards.
The proposed standards would
require the owner or operator to install a
monitoring device to continuously
record the combustion (firebox)
temperature of effluent gases that are
incinerated to comply with the emission
limit. The owner or operator would be
required to report quarterly any 3-hour
period when the average combustion
temperature is more than 28° C below
the most recent level that demonstrated
compliance. If catalytic incineration is
used, the owner or operator would be
required to install a device to
continuously record the gas temperature
both upstream and downstream of the
catalyst bed. A quarterly report would
be required for any 3-hour period when
the average temperature upstream of the
catalyst bed is more than 28° C below
the most recent level that demonstrated
compliance. A quarterly report would
also be required for any 3:hour period
when the average difference between
the gas temperature upstream and
downstream of the catalyst bed is less
than 80 percent of the most recent
temperature difference that
demonstrated compliance.
The proposed standards also
contained performance test provisions
for an affected facility that uses an
organic-solvent recovery system to
attain compliance. The owner or
operator would be required to calculate,
by the equations contained in the
proposed standards, the uncontrolled
VOC emissions from each affected
facility and the emissions reduction
achieved by the recovery device. The
owner or operator would also be
required to record daily the amount of
organic solvent recovered by the system.
The proposed standards would also
require the owner or operator to
maintain at the source all records, data,
calculations, test results, or other
material supporting each calculation of
VOC emissions for a minimum of 2
years.
Summary of Environmental, Energy, and
Economic Impacts
Environmental, energy, and economic
impacts of standards of performance are
normally expressed as incremental
differences between a facility complying
with the proposed standards and a
facility complying with a typical State
Implementation Plan (SIP) emission
standard. Most existing large appliance
surface coating operations are located 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.
States are in the process of revising their
SIPs for these areas and are expected to
revise emission limitations for large
appliance surface coating operations. In
revising their SIPs. most of the States
rely on the Control Techniques
Guideline (CTG) Document, "Control of
Volatile Organic Emissions from
Existing Stationary Sources—Volume V:
Surface Coating of Large Appliances"
(EPA^i50/2-77-034 [CTG]). The true
incremental impact of the proposed
standards of performance cannot be
determined because the CTG
recommendations do not place minimum
requirements on the efficiency of the
application equipment, and it appears
that most of the revised SIPs will
incorporate the CTG-recommended
coating limit. Therefore, the CTG-
recommended limit plus an assumed 60-
percent industry average transfer
efficiency form the basis for estimating
the impacts of the proposed standards,
Based on this estimated baseline, the
proposed standards of performance
would have little environmental, energy,
or economic impact. This baseline may
be somewhat conservative, however,
because plants that are located in
attainment areas may be subject to
regulations that are less strict than the
assumed limit. The effect of this
assumption is that the actual emissions
reduction and other impacts attributable
IV-SS-3
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 24, 1980 / Proposed Rules
to the NSPS will be somewhat greater
than that calculated.
As enumerated in the supporting
documentation, the environmental,
energy, and economic impacts that
would result from imposition of this
standard on the manufacturers of
appliances not traditionally considered
to be large household appliances are
expected to be practically identical to
those projected for the more traditional
appliances. Additionally, because the
proposed standards can be achieved
with existing coatings technology and
application methods, the economic
impact is not expected to be greater on
manufacturers located in attainment
areas than on those situated in
nonattainment areas.
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 industries by relaxing
air pollution standards relative to other
States. Further, standards of
performance improve the efficiency of
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, 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 a comprehensive analysis of
alternative emission control
technologies and an evaluation and
verification of emission test methods.
Because compliance with the
proposed standards would not require
changes in coatings technology or
application methods, the water
pollution, solid waste, and energy
impacts of these standards will be
minimal. The proposed standards would
have no impact on the capital or
operating costs of new surface coating
operations within appliance assembly
plants because compliance can be
achieved with existing coatings and
application methods. Detailed cost and
economic analysis of various regulatory
alternatives are presented in the
Background Information Document for
the proposed standards of performance.
Rationale
Selection of Source and Pollutants
Studies have been conducted to
investigate the effect standards of
performance would have on nationwide
VOC emissions from stationary sources
In the "Priority List and Additions to the
List of Categories of Stationary Sources"
published August 21,1979 (44 FR 49222),
source categories are ranked according
to three specific criteria established by
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977:
(1) the quantity of emissions, (2) the
extent to which each pollutant may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger
pubic health or welfare, and (3) the
mobility and competitive nature of the
source category. In this study, large
appliance surface coating operations are
ranked 28th out of 59 source categories
considered for regulation.
Volatile organic compound (VOC)
means any organic compund that
participates in an atmospheric
photochemical reaction or is measured
by the applicable reference method or
specified under any subpart.
Photochemical oxidants result in a
variety of adverse impacts on health
and welfare, including impaired
respiratory function, eye irritation,
necrosis of plant tissue, and
deterioration of selected synthetic
materials, such as rubber. Further
information on these effects can be
found in the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) document
entitled "Air Quality Criteria for Ozone
and Other Photochemical Oxidants"
(EPA-600/8-78-004).
Industrial surface Coating operations
are a significant source of VOC
emissions, accounting for over 2 million
metric tons of VOC emissions each year.
In 1976 the large appliance industry
contributed an average of 90 metric tons
of VOC emissions per plant, accounting
for annual nationwide industry
emissions of more than 15,000 metric
tons. Most of the coatings used contain
organic solvents that evaporate when
the coating dries, resulting in VOC
emissions. Typical coatings applied to
appliance products include epoxies,
epoxy-acrylics, acrylics, and polyester
enamels. These coatings generally
contain organic-based solvents such as
ketones, esters, ethers, and aromatics.
The surface coating operations is an
intergral part of a large appliance
assembly plant, accounting for about
one-quarter to one-third of the total
space occupied by a typical plant.
VOCs are the major air pollutants
emitted from the appliance industry and
result primarily from the use of organic-
based solvents. Particulate matter
emitted from the paint in this coating
industry is minimal. Technology is
currently available to reduce VOC
emissions from appliance surface
coating operations, thereby decreasing
the formation of ozone in the
atmosphere. Consequently, VOC
emissions from appliance surface
coating operations have been selected
for regulation under a new source
standard of performance.
Selection of Affected Facilities
Applicances are coated in two main
steps: prime coat and topcoat. In 1976,
prime coat operations accounted for
6,800 metric tons of VOC emissions, and
topcoat operations accounted for 8,300
metric tons.
Prime coats may be waterborne or
01 ganic-solvent-borne. Waterborne
coatings use water as the main carrier
for the coating solids, although these
coatings normally contain a small
amount of organic solvent. Where a
water-based prime coating is used, it is
usually applied by EDP or flow coat.
Organic-solvent-based prime coatings
use organic solvent as the coating solids
carrier and are usually applied by one of
the conventional spray techniques.
The large appliance top coats
presently used are almost entirely
organic-solvent-based. One or more top
coats may be applied to ensure
sufficient coating thickness. An oven
bake may follow each topcoat
application, or the coating may be
applied wet on wet (two or more layers
with no intermediate cure).
The coating application station is the
source of about 40 percent of total VOC
emissions from the surface coating
process. Coated parts then enter a
flashoff tunnel that allows the organic
solvent in the coating to evaporate
slowly, preventing cracking during the
baking process. Approximately 40
percent of VOC emissions originate from
the flashoff area. The cases, doors, lids.
panels, and other interior or exterior
parts are then baked in a multipass
oven, which accounts for about 20
percent of total VOC emissions from the
surface coating process.
Prime coating and topcoating
operations account for the majority of
the VOC emissions in appliance
assembly plants. The remaining VOC
emissions result from final topcoat
repair and equipment cleanup. Because
of the very small quantity of coating
used for final topcoat repair (touchup).
the emissions from this source are not
considered significant. Emissions from
the organic solvents used in the cleanup
operations are difficult to control
because these operations occur
intermittently and at many points along
the surface coating line. Therefore,
control devices such as incinerators
cannot be used efficiently on these
cleanup operations. Because prime coat
and topcoat operations account for the
bulk of VOC emissions from appliance
manufacturing plants and control
techniques for reducing VOC emissions
IV-SS-4
-------
/ Vol. 415. No. 249 / Wednesday. December 24, 1S®Q / Proposed Rules
from these operations have been
demonstrated, these operations have
been selected for control by standards
of performance.
The proposed standards would apply
to each surface coating operation (prime
coat and topcoat) in an appliance
assembly plant. Each surface coating
operation consists of the coating
application station (spray booth(s), dip
tank, or flow coating unit), flashoff area,
and curing oven. The use of organic
solvent as a dilution agent would be
subject to the proposed standards, but
the VOC emissions resulting from the
use of organic solvent in cleanup or
touchup operations would not.
Two other definitions of affected
facilities were considered but eliminated
in favor of the coating operation
definition selected. They were: all prime
coat (or topcoat) operations in a product
line, and all prime coat (or topcoat)
operations within an assembly plant.
Because of the possibility of adopting
different standards for prime coat and
topcoat operations, these operations
were treated separately. The product
line definition would have reduced the
number of affected facilities but would
have permitted tradeoffs between
different coatings and application
technologies. These tradeoffs could have
included the use of some systems with
.relatively high emissions in combination
/with, for instance, a powder station.
Likewise, defining all prime coating (or
topcoating) operations within a plant as
the affected facility would have reduced
the affected facilities and consequently
the associated recordkeeping and
compliance calculations. However, such
a definition would have allowed the use
of some coatings and application
methods that do not meet the best
demonstrated system of continuous
emissions reduction criterion.
Control Technologies
For prime coat operations, most new
or existing plants will comply with
revised SIP requirements by applying
waterborne coatings through EDP or
low-organic-solvent-content coatings
through conventional spraying methods.
For topcoat operations, most of these
plants will achieve compliance by
applying low-organic-solvent-content
coatings through conventional spraying
methods. Emission control devices such
as an incinerator or a carbon adsorption
system could also be used in
combination with organic-solvent-based
coatings, but their use is not expected
for economic reasons.
Transfer efficiency is the ratio of the
coating solids that adhere to a part to
he total amount of solids used.
iproving transfer efficiency is a control
technology that, in combination with the
coating selected, can reduce emissions.
The total quantity of coating needed for
a given product is directy correlated
with the resulting emissions, and an
improvement in transfer efficiency will
decrease emissions proportionately.
Each type of application equipment has
a different transfer efficiency, but not
every type of equipment can be used
with every type of coating. Transfer
efficiencies in this industry range from
40 percent for air-atomized spray
application to well over 90 percent for
some recycling systems such as EOF and
powder. Electrostatic spray equipment
imparts a charge to the paint particles
and relies on an opposite charge on the
part to be coated to attract those
particles. The transfer efficiency of this
equipment is greater than that of spray
systems that use air or hydraulic
pressure to propel the coating toward
the part.
Application of a coating by EDP
involves dipping the appliance part or
product to be coated into a bath
containing a dilute water suspension of
the coating material. Coatings in the
EDP tank usually consist of about 80
percent (vol.) water, 4 percent (vol.)
organic solvent, and 6 percent (vol.)
paint solids. When charges of opposite
polarity are applied to the dip tank and
the part to be coated, the coating
material deposits on the part. Because of
the low-organic-solvent content and the
high transfer efficiency, this control
technology is the most effective control
method for prime coating operations per
volume of solids applied. However, the
overall effectiveness of EDP as a means
of control is mitigated because the
method may result in deposition of a
greater volume of solids on the part than
is actually needed.
Waterborne coatings can also be
applied by dip coating, flow coaiing, or
spray coating. These waterborne
coatings are usually comprised of about
56 percent (vol.) water, 14 percent (vol.)
organic solvent, and 30 percent (vol.)
paint solids. These coatings contain less
organic solvent per volume of solids
than do conventional organic-solvent-
borne coatings and, depending upon the
transfer efficiency of the application
equipment used, can effectively reduce
VOC emissions. Because they contain
only a small amount of organic
cosolvent, these coatings are less .
flammable than conventional organic-
solvent-bome coatings. Waterborne
coatings can also be applied by
electrostatic spray. However, because of
the costly electrical isolation and safety
requirements, electrostatic spraying of
waterborne coatings is not common in
the large appliance industry.
The application of low-organic-
solvent-content liquid coatings by
conventional spray techniques has also
been demonstrated for topcoat
operations in the large appliance surface
coating industry. These coatings are
commonly referred to as "high-solids"
coatings. The CTG for large appliance
surface coating operations defines a
high-solids coating as containing 0.34
kilogram of organic solvent per liter of
coating (less water) (2.8 Ib/gal), which is
equivalent to a coating containing 62
percent (vol.) solids. Coating
formulations of 62 percent (vol.) solids
that meet most performance
specifications are currently available to
the manufacturers of appliances. As
with waterborne coatings, when high-
solids coatings are applied at high
transfer efficiencies, VOC emissions are
reduced to levels significantly below
those resulting from the use of
conventional organic-solvent-borne
coatings.
Powder coatings are a special class of
low-solvent coating in that they contain
no organic solvent and emit few or no
VOCs. They are an economically
attractive coating alternative in large
part because of the near absence of
waste. Spray booths are equipped with
ventilation and fabric filtration
equipment that removes the powder
overspray from exhaust air and returns
it to the coating feed tank. Unlike
conventional liquid coatings, however.
powder coatings are completely
intolerant of cross color contamination.
Even one particle of a contrasting
colored powder entrained onto an
applicance part will be visible after
cure. Powder coatings are ideally suited
for applying a single color on T product
line. Provisions for applying multiple
colors directly affect the cost of powder
systems.
Unlike other low-solvent coatings,
emissions from powder coatings are so
low that there is no equivalent control
system. Control devices such as an
incinerator or carbon adsorber cannot
achieve a comparable emission level. As
a consequence, basing the proposed
standard oh pcwder coatings would be
more restrictive than using a coating
having a typical or even low-VOC
content with a capture system and
control device. Moreover, since powder
coatings have not been adequately
demonstrated for all appliances under
all conditions, under such a standard,
any appliance for which no satisfactory
powder coating is available could no
longer be produced.
Process designs in other coating
industries allow VOC emissions to be
IV-SS-5
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 24, 1980 / Proposed Rules
more easily contained and delivered to
control devices such as incinerators or
organic-solvent recovery systems (i.e.,
carbon adsorption systems) than is
possible in the appliance industry. A
unique characteristic of this industry is
the long flashoff time required to allow
slow evaporation of the organic solvent
and prevent subsequent cracking of the
coating in the cure oven. As much as 40
percent of VOC emissions from the
coating process may occur in the
flashoff area, which may be either open
or enclosed in a tunnel. To hood and
vent a flashoff area that may be several
hundred feet long and might otherwise
be open would be impractical in most
cases.
Although thermal incinerators could
be applied to the spray booth, the spray
booth exhaust stream is typically a high-
volume stream with low VOC
concentrations, and the control of VOC
emissions from this exhaust stream
would require a large amount of
supplemental fuel. VOC emissions from
'' r incineration, but curing oven
emissions account for only about 20
percent of total VOC emissions from
surface coating operations.
Catalytic incineration permits lower
incinerator operating temperatures and
requires less fuel than thermal
incineration but still represents a
significant increase in energy
consumption over other control
techniques. In addition, because oil
firing tends to foul or mask the catalyst,
the fuel used to preheat the exhaust
gases must be a clean fuel such as
natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas
(LPG).
Generally, incineration techniques
would be more costly than the
techniques previously described. While
these control methods have not been
demonstrated in the large appliance
sector, they have been used in other
segments of the industrial finishing
industry. Even though their use is not
expected, an incineration control option
has been analyzed with one of the
regulatory alternatives discussed below.
Carbon adsorption has been used
successfully to control VOC emissions
in a number of industrial applications.
However, its ability to control VOC
emissions from curing ovens in
appliance surface coating operations is
uncertain because the high temperature
of the exhaust stream would require that
the gas stream be cooled before passage
through the carbon bed. The high
humidity of the exhaust stream from a
water-wash spray booth would
necessitate pretreatment to lower the
relative humidity before a carbon
adsorber could be effective. For these
reasons, carbon adsorption has not been
used in this industry, and it is not
expected that it will be selected as a
control technique for reducing VOC
emissions. Nonetheless, the proposed
standards would not preclude the use of
carbon adsorption to comply with
emission limitation.
Regulatory Alternatives
Low-organic-solvent-content or
waterborne coatings, a change in
application methods, capture systems
and control devices, or combinations of
the three can feasibly be used to control
VOC emissions from appliance surface
coating operations. Based on the use of
these control methods, the following
regulatory scenarios have been
evaluated. Three regulatory alternatives
were developed for prime coating
operations, and four were established
for topcoating operations.
Regulatory Alternative A-l for prime
coating operations is to forego the
development of an NSPS. In this case,
prime coating operations would be
subject only to regulations contained in
revised SIPs. These new or revised
regulations would be based mainly upon
the CTG recommendations for
controlling VOC emissions from large
appliance surface coating operations.
The CTG recommends a limit of 0.34
kilogram of organic solvent per liter of
coating (minus water) (2.8 Ib/gal), which
is equivalent to a prime coat containing
62 percent solids by volume. However,
the CTG does not stipulate a transfer
efficiency, and consequently the no
NSPS baseline is not known exactly.
The estimated industry-average transfer
efficiency is 60 percent. For this
analysis, a 60-percent transfer efficiency
has been assumed, and the no NSPS
baseline is an emissions limit equal to
that resulting from the application of a
coating containing 62 percent (vol.)
solids applied at a transfer efficiency of
60 percent.
Regulatory Alternative A-II for prime
coating operations is the promulgation
of an NSPS equivalent to the assumed
CTG limit. This option would restrict
VOC emissions from each prime coat
operation to the level equivalent to that
resulting from the application of a 62-
percent (vol.) solids coating at a transfer
efficiency of 60 percent. This level of
emissions could be achieved through the
use of a waterborne coating, or through
a number of combinations of solids
content and transfer efficiencies
yielding an equivalent amount of
emissions; e.g., 52 percent (vol.) solids
applied at 90 percent transfer efficiency.
Although lower than the rated
efficiencies of some of the application
equipment that will be used in new
sources, the 60-percent transfer
efficiency also approximates the
efficiency of hand-held electrostatic
equipment and can therefore be
economically attained by all facets of
the industry. Additionally, use of this
transfer efficiency will allow appliance
coalers some freedom in their approach
to meeting the proposed standards. That
is, if they have a higher transfer
efficiency, they may apply a coating
with a higher organic-solvent content.
Regulatory Alternative A-III for prime
coat operations is a 55-percent (per
volume of solids applied) reduction in
VOC emissions from the assumed no
NSPS baseline (Alternative A-I). This
alternative is equivalent to the use of an
EDP process containing 0.38 kilogram of
VOCs per liter of solids in the input
stream applied at a transfer efficiency of
95 percent.
Regulatory Alternative B-I for topcoat
application, like Regulatory Alternative
A-l, presumes that no NSPS is
promulgated. The CTG makes no
distinction between topcoat and prime
coat operations, and the recommended
limit is therefore 0.34 kilogram of
organic solvent per liter of coating
(minus water). Without the stipulation of
a transfer efficiency, the topcoat no
NSPS baseline, like the prime coat no
NSPS baseline, is not known exactly.
For this analysis, the no NSPS baseline
is an emissions limit equal to that
resulting from the application of a 62-
percent (vol.) solids coating applied at
an assumed 60-percent transfer
efficiency.
Regulatory Alternative B-II for
topcoat operations, like Regulatory
Alternative A-II, is the promulgation of
an NSPS equivalent to the assumed CTG
limit. This alternative would restrict
VOC emissions to the level equivalent
to that resulting from the application of
a 62-percent (vol.) solids top coat at a
transfer efficiency of 60 percent. This
emissions level could be achieved
through the use of a number of
combinations of solids content and
transfer efficiency of organic-solvent-
borne coatings or through the use of
powder coatings.
Regulatory Alternative B-III for
topcoat operations is a 30-percent
reduction of VOC emissions (per volume
of solids applied) from the no NSPS
baseline (Alternative B-I). This
alternative is equivalent to the use of a
70-percent (vol.) solids top coat applied
at a transfer efficiency of 60 percent,
although this emissions level could also
be achieved through the use of a number
of other combinations of solids content
and transfer efficiency of organic-
solvent-borne coatings or through the
use of powder coatings. We believe
IV-SS-6
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 24, 1980 / Proposed Rules
incineration of the oven exhaust is
feasible in the appliance industry.
Therefore, a control option consisting of
a 65.5-percent (vol.) solids top coat
applied at a transfer efficiency of at
least 60 percent, coupled with an
incinerator or other control device on
the topcoat oven, has also been
analyzed for this alternative.
Regulatory Alternative B-IV for
topcoat operations would essentially
eliminate VOC emissions and could only
be achieved through the use of powder
coatings (100 percent [vol.] solids).
Environmental, Energy, and Economic
Impacts
Regulatory Alternative A-I (no NSPS)
for prime coating operations represents
the status quo and would create no
incremental environmental impact,
either beneficial or adverse. Because
most States will be promulgating or
revising regulations based on this CTG-
recommended limit (0.34 kilogram of
organic solvent per liter of coating,
minus water), this level of emissions
represents the baseline from which the
environmental impact of other
regulatory alternatives is assessed.
Because the CTG-recommended limit
does not specify a transfer efficiency, a
transfer efficiency had to be assumed to
complete a meaningful analysis. The
estimated industry-average transfer
efficiency of 60 percent was used for
this purpose. Annual VOC emissions
from prime coat operations totaled
about 6.800 metric tons in 1976. By 1981,
annual VOC emissions from prime coat
operations will have been reduced to
1,700 metric tons. Anticipated growth in
the industry will cause emissions to
increase to 1,900 metric tons by 1986.
Regulatory Alternative A-II would
restrict emissions to a level equivalent
to that resulting from the use of a 62-
percent (vol.) solids coating applied at a
transfer efficiency of 60 percent. To the
extent that the assumed 60-percent
transfer efficiency used to calculate the
baseline is correct, this alternative will
have a negligible impact upon
emissions. Adoption of this alternative
would, however, permit tradeoffs
between the solids content of the
coating and the transfer efficiency of the
application equipment.
Regulatory Alternative A-II1 for prime
coat operations would hold VOC
emissions to an increase of 4 percent
between 1981 and 1986. If waterborne
prime coats were applied by EDP, VOC
emissions would total about 1,800 metric
tons per year by 1986, a reduction of 100
metric tons per year from the no NSPS
baseline.
Regulatory Alternative B-I for topcoat
operations (no NSPS) is an assumed
baseline for topcoat operations and is
equivalent to a level that would result
from the application of a 62-percent
(vol.) solids coating at an assumed
transfer efficiency of 60 percent. Annual
VOC emissions from topcoat operations
totaled about 8,300 metric tons in 1976.
By 1981, annual emissions from topcoat
operations will have been reduced to
2,100 metric tons. Anticipated growth in
the industry will cause emissions to
increase to 2,400 metric tons by 1986.
Regulatory Alternative B-II for
topcoat operations, like Alternative A-II
for prime coating, would restrict
emissions to a level equivalent to that
resulting from the use of a 62-percent
(vol.) solids coating applied at a transfer
efficiency of 60 percent. To the extent
that the assumed 60-percent transfer
efficiency used to calcuate the baseline
is correct, this alternative will have a
negligible impact upon emissions.
Regulatory Alternative B-III for
topcoat operations, equivalent to the use
of 70 percent (vol.) solids top coats
applied at a transfer efficiency of 60
percent, would reduce topcoat emissions
200 metric tons per year by 1986. An
equivalent decrease in VOC emissions
would also result from the use of a 65.5-
percent solids coating with an
incinerator on the topcoat oven. This
alternative would hold industrywide
VOC emissions to an increase of 5
percent (100 metric tons per year)
between 1981 and 1986.
Regulatory Alternative B-IV for top
coating, the virtual elimination of VOC
emissions, could only be achieved with
a powder top coat and would reduce
industrywide topcoat VOC emissions by
30 percent (about 750 metric tons) by
1986. However, because powder
coatings are often used direct-to-metal
(i.e., without a prime coat), the impact
on total emissions would be
considerably greater. The combination
of Regulatory Alternative A-I or A-II
and powder would reduce total
emissions by 1,700 metric tons per year.
Used in combination with Regulatory
Alternative A-III, total emissions would
be reduced by 1,850 metric tons per
year.
Standards based on any of the
regulatory alternatives for prime coat or
topcoat operations would have little
impact on water quality. All of the
alternatives assume the greater use of
waterborne or low-organic-solvent-
content coatings. The greater use of
waterborne coatings would increase the
COD of the wastewater discharged from
appliance surface coating operations.
This increase results from the water-
soluble organic solvents contained in
the waterborne coatings. However, the
COD increase would be minimal
compared to current COD levels at
plants using organic-solvent-based
coatings and meeting existing State
regulations. This increase would not
require the installation of additional
wastewater treatment facilities.
However, these coating operations may
be subject to regulations covering the
discharge of wastewater from coating
operations (Metal Finishing Point-Source
Category) under the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act that are now
scheduled for proposal in early 1981.
The efficiency of paint application is a
significant factor in the quantities of
water pollutants discharged because
most paint solids not applied to the
product (overspray) are trapped in the
water curtain designed for this purpose.
Because the transfer efficiency of spray
painting would not decrease with the
spraying of higher solids content
coatings, no greater amounts of solids
would be entrapped in spray booth
water.
The incremental solid waste impact of
any of the regulatory alternatives would
also be negligible because the volume of
paint sludge generated is approximately
equal for all alternatives. However,
these wastes have been defined as
hazardous (40 CFR Part 261) and
therefore must be disposed of in
accordance with the regulations in 40
CFR Part 262.
Total energy requirements of the large
appliance surface coating industry are
estimated as 6.4 million GJ/yr (6.0X1012
Btu/yr) in 1981. Because approximately
80 percent of this energy is consumed
during pretreatment, a process not
affected by any of the regulatory
alternatives, the net energy impact of
each of the regulatory alternatives is
minor. There are three regulatory
alternatives with a noticeable impact:
A-III (waterborne prime coat by EDP),
B-IV (powder), both of which would
reduce energy consumption, and B-III
(incineration option), which would
increase consumption. The dryoff oven
between pretreatment and prime coat
application is not needed when a
waterborne prime coat is used.
Therefore, a 75,000-GJ annual savings is
possible under Regulatory Alternative
A-III. Because the application of powder
often eliminates the need for a prime
coat, adoption of that alternative (B-IV)
would result in an annual savings of
145,000 GJ. With 60 percent heat
recovery, an incinerator on the topcoat
oven (B.-III) would increase energy
consumption by 70,000-GJ annually.
The economic impacts for each
regulatory alternative were estimated
using cost data for four model line
configurations developed to be
representative of those that would be
IV-SS-7
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 24, 1980 / Proposed Rules
constructed during the 1981-1986 period
in the absence of further air pollution
regulations. Two line sizes correspond
to small and large facilities in the
household cooking equipment sector
(Model plants 1 and 2) with annual
production rates of 13,000 and 107,000
units per year, respectively. The
remaining two line sizes represents
facilities in the laundry equipment
sector (Model plant 3; 657,000 units per
year) and in the refrigerator/freezer
sector (Model plant 4; 392,000 units per
year).
A discounted cash flow approach was
used to analyze the model plant costs
and to determine the price impacts of
each of the regulatory alternatives. This
analysis was based on data consisting
of the capital, installation, operating,
and maintenance costs of the equipment
that could be used to achieve
compliance with each of the baseline
levels of control and each of the
regulatory alternatives. These cost data
were obtained from manufacturers and
vendors of coating equipment for the
large appliance industry.
Regulatory Alternatives A-I and B-I—
not promulgating an NSPS—would have
no economic or price impacts on plants
subject to revised SIP limitations based
on CTG-recommended limits. Regulatory
Alternatives A-II and B-II—
promulgating an NSPS equivalent to the
assumed CTG limit for both prime coats
and top coats—would also have no
economic or price impacts. Current total
installed capital costs for a new plant
meeting Regulatory Alternatives A-I
and B-I or A-II and B-II are $397,000 for
Model plant 1, $922,000 for Model plant
2, $2,930,000 for Model plant 3, and
$2.305,000 for Model plant 4. The
annualized operating costs for these
plants are $488,000 for Model plant 1,
$738,000 for Model plant 2. $2,700,000 for
Model plant 3, and $2,100.000 for Model
plant 4.
The capital costs for a new plant
increase with Regulatory Alternatives
A-III—a water-based coating applied by
EDP—or B-III—either a 70-percent
solids coating or a 65.5-percent solids
coating with incineration of a topcoat
oven. These increases range from 3.5 to
36.2 percent, depending on the
combination. The capital costs of a new
plant decrease from 5 to 40 percent with
Regulatory Alternative B-IV—100
percent solids coatings. Annualized
operating costs for Regulatory
Alternative A-III decrease in Model
plants 1 and 3 and increase in Model
plants 2 and 4. The decrease in Model
plant 1 results from the substitution of
an automated process for a process that
is labor intensive because of the
structure of this model plant. Model
plant 3, which produces laundry
equipment and for which a prime coat is
desired on interior as well as exterior
surfaces, is ideally suited for EDP, and
Regulatory Alternative A-III would
therefore reduce annualized operating
costs. Costs increase in Model plants 3
and 4 because of the additional coating
deposited on interior surfaces; this
additional coating is not desired and is
not represented in the base case.
The powder topcoat alternative
appears to have the lowest capital cost,
giving firms an economic incentive to
adopt this relatively new technology
even in the absence of regulations.
However, powder coatings have not
been demonstrated for all appliance
products that will be covered by this
standard. If powder coatings were
excluded for this reason, Model plants 1
and 3 could coat their appliances for the
lowest cost with an EDP prime coat and
a 62-percent or 70-percent solids top
coat. Model plant 2 would be most
profitable with a 62-percent solids prime
coat and either a 62-percent or 70-
percent solids top coat. The most .
profitable line configuration for Model
plant 4 is a 62-percent solids prime coat
and a 62-percent solids top coat.
' The additional capital required to
meet regulatory alternatives ranges from
0 to 36 percent of the baseline
investment. If producers absorb the
additional costs, the return on
investment will fall by 0 to 7 percentage
points from the baseline rate of return of
19 percent. If consumers absorb the
additional costs, a product price
increase of 0 to 1 percent is expected. In
all cases EDP prime coat costs or
incineration costs caused these impacts.
The proposed standards. Regulatory
Alternatives A-II and B-II, will cause no
economic impact.
Best System of Emission Reduction
Promulgation of a prime coat standard
equivalent to the assumed CTG limit
(Regulatory Alternative A-II) would not
significantly reduce VOC emissions. The
energy and economic impacts would
also be minimal. Even without
dramatically decreasing emissions,
however, this alternative has benefits.
Standards of performance establish a
degree of national uniformity that
prevents States from attracting
industries by relaxing air pollution
standards relative to other States. They
also improve the efficiency of 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, by providing a starting point for
these determinations. This improvement
results from the process of developing
standards of performance, which
involves a comprehensive analysis of
alternative emission control
technologies and an evaluation and
verification of emission test methods.
This alternative is also advantageous
because a minimum transfer efficiency
dependent upon the solids content of the
coating would be prescribed and
tradeoffs between solids content and
transfer efficiency permitted. Prime coat
formulations of 62 percent (vol.) solids
are available to manufacturers of all the
affected appliance parts and products.
Alternatively, the application of a
waterborne prime coat by EDP
(Alternative A-III) would reduce VOC
emissions from prime coat operations by
55 percent per volume of solids applied.
However, as a dip process, it
automatically coats all surfaces of the
part and may result in the application of
more solids than desired. Manufacturers
of refrigerators, for example, commonly
apply a prime coat to exterior surfaces
only. As a result, even though EDP is the
most effective control technology per
volume of solids applied, adoption of
this technology industrywide would
decrease emissions by less than 200
metric tons per year by 1986 and would
be more costly than techniques that
would be used to meet Regulatory
Alternative A-II and would yield only
slightly lower levels of control. Another
factor in the rejection of this alternative
was the economic impact on small
existing facilities that might become
subject to the NSPS because of the
reconstruction of a prime coat operation.
EDP is expected to be adopted
voluntarily in the laundry sector, where
interior corrosion protection, and hence
an interior prime coat, is desired and
where this technique is an effective
control technology.
The promulgation of an NSPS for
topcoating operations equivalent to the
assumed CTG limits (Regulatory
Alternative B-II) would have a limited
effect on VOC emission reduction
beyond the no NSPS baseline. The
benefits of the selection of this
alternative are the same as those
described for Regulatory Alternative A-
II. The energy, environmental, and
economic impacts of this alternative
would be very similar to the impacts of
the no NSPS alternative. Topcoat
formulations of 62 percent solids that
meet most performance specifications
are currently available to manufacturers
of appliance parts and products.
Regulatory Alternative B-III for
topcoat operations is not achievable by
all segments of the industry. Coatings
IV-SS-8
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 24, 1980 / Proposed Rules
containing 70 percent (vol.) solids are
available, but their use is restricted to
specific applications. Among liquid
coatings, the more stringent corrosion-
and detergent-resistance requirements
for dishwashers and laundry equipment
can currently be met only through lower
solids content coatings. Another means
to achieve this level of control would be
to use a 65.5-percent (vol.) solids top
coat applied at a 60-percent transfer
efficiency coupled with an incinerator
on the topcoat oven. However, the costs
of incineration are seen as excessive in
light of the very small incremental
emissions reduction achieved.
A powder top coat (Alternative B-IV)
appears to achieve the highest reduction
with the fewest energy requirements
and least economic impact. Although
powder coatings are available and have
been demonstrated in many
installations, it is the Administrator's
judgment that powder coatings have not
been adequately demonstrated for all
appliances under all conditions:
therefore, powder coatings were not
selected as the best system of
continuous emission reduction. Over the
longer term, powder coatings appear to
be a very attractive air pollution control
alternative. The proposed standard
would allow powder coatings to be
used, because their VOC emissions are
fewer than the proposed emission
limitations.
Consideration of the environmental,
energy, and economic impacts of each
regulatory alternative, as discussed
above, indicates that the best
demonstrated system of continuous
emission reduction achievable for all
prime coat and topcoat operations is the
application of a 62-percent solids
coating applied at a transfer efficiency
of 60 percent (A-I1 and B-1I) or an
equivalent combination of solids content
and transfer efficiency. Unlike the
control techniques capable of meeting
the levels of Regulatory Alternatives A-
III, B-III, and B-IV. the use of
combinations of coatings and
application equipment that will meet
Regulatory Alternatives A-II and B-II
has been demonstrated for all segments
of the appliance surface coating industry
with reasonable economic and other
impacts.
Selection of Format for the Proposed
Standards
A number of different formats could
be selected for the proposed standards.
The format selected should be
compatible with any of the control
systems that may be used to comply
with the proposed standards; i.e.,
waterborne, solvent-borne, or powder
coatings applied by several different
methods and with control devices.
The formats considered were
emission limits expressed by the mass
of VOCs per volume of coating (less
water), the mass of VOCs per unit of
surface area coated at a specific coating
thickness, and the mass of VOCs per
volume of coating solids applied to the
part.
For determination of compliance with
a prescribed mass of VOCs per volume
of coating (less water), the following
data would be required: volume of
coating used during a specified interval,
organic-solvent content of the coating,
and density of organic solvent. These
data can be obtained from company
records or the coating manufacturer. By
specifying only the maximum organic-
solvent content of the coating, however,
this format allows no transferability
between organic-solvent content and
transfer efficiency. That is, no
allowance is made for the reductions in
VOC emissions gained from improved
transfer efficiency.
The format, mass per unit area at a
specific film build, would require the
following data to determine compliance:
volume of coating used during a
specified interval, organic-solvent
content of the coating, density of organic
solvent, and area coated during the
specified interval. The volume of coating
used and the number of appliances
produced are available from company
records. The area coated can be
determined by multiplying the number of
appliances produced by the area coated
per appliance. Because appliances have
rather simple configurations, surface
area can be determined easily. The
mass-per-unit-area format is
advantageous primarily because
knowledge of transfer efficiency is not
necessary to determine compliance. In
addition, this format would allow the
owner or operator at least as much
flexibility as any other in selecting a
control method. This format may be
disadvantageous primarily because it
requires specification of film thickness.
Appliances are coated at different
thicknesses depending upon the need for
durability and detergent resistance of
the unit. Selection of a single film
thickness may not be equitable to all
segments of the industry, while selection
of two or more film thicknesses would
result in an unnecessarily complicated
standard.
The problems associated with a
format that specifies a film thickness
could be overcome with a format-that
allows emissions proportional to the
thickness of the coating. Mass of VOCs
per unit of surface area coated per unit
of film thickness is an example of this
format. The only additional information
required to determine compliance would
be the film thickness. Variations in
thickness, however, would necessitate
the use of complex statistical methods to
determine average film thickness with a
reasonable degree of reliability.
Recordkeeping would be burdensome,
and enforcement would be difficult.
A format of mass of VOCs per unit
volume of applied coating solids would
require the following data to determine
compliance: volume of coating used,
organic-solvent content of the coating,
density of the organic solvent, solids
content of the coating, .and the transfer
efficiency of the application method.
With this format, a transfer efficiency
must be measured or designated for
each application method. With a
specified transfer efficiency, the
remaining data can be determined from
company records from coating analyses,
or from the coating manufacturer.
Because of the relative simplicity,
universal applicability, and ease in
determining compliance, this format was
selected for the proposed standards.
Selection of Numerical Emission Limits
The selection of the numerical
emission limits in the proposed
standards directly follows the selection
of Regulatory Alternatives A-II and B-II
as the best systems of continuous
emissions reduction for prime coating
and topcoating operations, respectively.
The proposed standards woulo" limit
VOCs emissions to 0.90 kilogram per
liter of coating solids applied to an
appliance part. The limit was calculated
as follows:
Coating f'ormu lat ion:
Average organic-
solvent density:
Transfer efficiency:
62 percent (vol.) solids
38 percent (vol.) organic solvent
0.88 kg/4 (7.36 Ib/gal)
60 percent
Mass of VOCs per unit volume solids = °'380''6°'88 = 0.54 kg/i>
Mass of VOCs per unit volume of solids applied = [pj— = 0.90 kg/t of
coating solids
applied
IV-SS-9
-------
/ Vol. 45, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 24, 1980 / Proposed Rules
Method of Determining Compliance
The procedure for determining
compliance with the proposed standard
is complicated because of the different
control techniques that may be used by
the plant owner or operator. The
following multistep procedure would be
used.
1. Determine the VOC emissions from
each prime coat and topcoat operation
during 1 calendar month. The owner or
operator may obtain the data necessary
to determine VOC emissions from
company records, from formulation data
supplied by the manufacturer of the
coating, or through an analysis of each
coating or input stream, using Reference
Method 24.
2. Select the appropriate transfer
efficiency for each surface coating
operation.
3. Calculate the mass of VOC
emissions per unit volume of applied
coating solids for each surface coating
operation. If after a 1-month period, the
value obtained is equal to or less than
specified emission limit for that surface
coating operation, the owner or operator
would be in compliance. Following the
initial compliance test period, the owner
or operator would repeat this
calculation monthly. However, if the
VOC content per unit volume of coating
solids of each coating, as applied, is less
than the maximum allowed for the
lowest transfer efficiency in the affected
facility, the calculation will not be
required.
4. If incineration is used to comply
with the standard, calculate monthly the
uncontrolled VOC emissions as in (3)
above. Calculate the destruction
efficiency of the incinerator(s) by
sampling upstream and downstream of
the control device, as described in the
proposed standard. Determine the
capture efficiency, as described in the
proposed standard. The product of the
two efficiencies gives the reduction
efficiency of the control system. The
value of the reduction efficiency
determined during the initial compliance
testing period need not be recalculated
each month, as long as no pertinent
conditions change. The actual controlled
emissions are determined by using the
uncontrolled emissions and the
reduction efficiency, as shown in the
equation in the proposed standard.
5. If an organic-solvent recovery
system is used, calculate monthly the
uncontrolled VOC emissions as in (3)
above. Then calculate the mass of VOCs
recovered by the system. The ratio of
recovered emissions to uncontrolled
emissions is the reduction efficiency for
the control system. The actual
controlled emissions are determined
using the uncontrolled emissions and the
reduction efficiency, as shown in the "
equation in the proposed standard.
Two types of violations may occur at
a source that complies by using
incineration in conjunction with low-
organic-solvent coatings. The first is an
increase in coating VOC content above
the level the incinerator can handle, and
the second is improper operation and
maintenance of the incinerator. These
two types of ^violations are discussed
below.
When incineration is used as the
method of compliance, the performance
test consists of determining the mass of
controlled VOC emissions per unit
volume of applied coating solids for the
preceding 30 days. If these emissions
exceed 0.90 kg VOC per liter of coating
solids applied, the source will be in
violation of Section 60.452. The source
may demonstrate, through another
compliance test, that its incinerator(s)
can achieve a higher destruction
efficiency than has been previously
demonstrated, if it wishes to apply a
coating with a higher organic-solvent
content.
A second type of violation may be
triggered by a repeated pattern of
incinerator temperature fluctuations.
The initial compliance test will establish
the combustion temperature needed to
achieve a particular destruction
efficiency. If during the coating
operation continuous monitoring data or
reports show repeated drops in
temperature of more than 3 hours
duration, the source could be in
violation of 40 CFR 60.11(d), which
requires proper operation and
maintenance of control equipment. If a
source's continuous monitor shows a
drop in temperature, the Administrator
may require that a performance test be
conducted at the lower temperature.
Selection of Performance Test Methods
Reference Method 24, "Determination
of Volatile Matter Content, Water
Content, Density, Volume Solids, and
Weight Solids of Surface Coating" (45
PR 65956), leads to a determination of
VOC content of coating material
measured as mass of volatile organics
per unit volume of coating solids. For
each surface coating operation,
Reference Method 24 would be used to
analyze the VOC content of each
coating. However, the owner or operator
is provided the alternative of obtaining
these data from formulation data
supplied by the manufacturer ot the
coating. Additional data may be
required from company records.
Equations provided in the proposed
standards would enable the owner or
operator to calculate the VOC
emissions. Reference Method 25.
"Determination of Total Gaseous
Nonmethane Organic Emissions as
Carbon" (45 FR 65956), is included in the
proposed standards and is used in
determining the destruction efficiency
achieved by an incinerator.
Modification/Reconstruction
Considerations
A modification is defined as any
physical or operational change to an
existing facility that results in an
increased emission rate of any pollutant
to which the standard applies (40 CFR
60.14). Upon modification, an existing
facility becomes an affected facility and,
therefore, subject to the standard.
Aproximately 160 affected facilities are
expected to be subject to the proposed
standards in the first 5 years after
promulgation. It is anticipated that 50
percent of the 160 affected facilities will
be coating operations that have been
modified or reconstructed. Alterations
characteristic of the appliance industry
that could increase emissions may
include an added coating station,
changes in coating specifications, a
change from high- to low-solids
coatings, the use of a higher density
organic solvent, increased film
thickness, or an increase in production
capacity. Any such change might cause
a facility to be subject to the standard
unless emissions were concurrently
reduced elsewhere in the plant.
A reconstruction is defined in 40 CFR
60.15 as any replacement of components
of an existing facility to the extent that:
(1) the fixed capital cost of the new
components exceeds 50 percent of the
fixed capital cost of a comparable new
facility, and (2) it is technologically and
economically feasible to meet the
applicable standards. An existing
facility designated by the Administrator
as reconstructed is subject to the
standard. Reconstructions characteristic
of the appliance industry would
probably result from changes in
application equipment to accommodate
a change in coating; e.g., conventional to
high-solids, waterborne, or powder
coatings.
The proposed standards contain no
IV-SS-10
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 24. 1980 / Proposed Rules
exemptions due to the modification or
reconstruction of existing coating lines.
which are expected to be the focus of
industry growth during the coming
years. Because the proposed standards
are based on the use of coatings that are
demonstrated and applicable throughout
the industry and could be achieved by a
wide combination of conventional
methods or techniques, the impact of
modification and reconstruction
provisions has been significantly
lessened.
Selection of Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring requirements are normally
included in standards of performance to
ensure that emission control
requirements are met and that control
devices are properly operated and
maintained.
The owner or operator would be
required to calculated and record the
VOC emissions per unit volume of
applied solids from each affected facility
for each calendar month. Each monthly
calculation would be considered a
performance test. Where direct
incineration is used to comply with the
proposed standards, a monitoring device
would be required to continuously
record the combustion temperature of
the control device. If catalytic
incineration is used, the owner or
operator would install a monitoring
device to continuously record the gas
temperature both upstream and
downstream of the catalyst bed to verify
the activity of the catalyst.
Impact of Reporting Requirements
A reports impact analysis for the
appliance surface coating industry was
prepared in response to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
guidelines for implementing Executive
Order 12044 (44 FR 30988, May 29,1979).
The purpose of the analysis is to
estimate the economic impact of the
reporting and recordkeeping
requirements that would be imposed by
the proposed standards and by those
appearing in the General Provisions of
40 CFR Part 60. Included in the analysis
are the rationale for the selection of the
proposed requirements, an evaluation of
the major alternatives considered prior
to the selection of the proposed
requirements, and a description of the
information required by the oeneral
Provisions and by the proposed
standards. A copy of the reports impact
analysis is included in Subcategory H-I
of the appliance surface coating docket
(EPA Docket No. OAQPS A-80-8).
Based on the reports impact analysis.
a total of 40 industry person-years
would be required to comply with the
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements through the first 5 years of
applicability.
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 contract EPA
at the address given above (see
ADDRESSES section). 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 to the
Central Docket Section address given in
the ADDRESSES section.
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
Section, West Tower Lobby, Gallery 1,
Waterside Mall, 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
Docket
The docket is an organized and
complete file of all the information
submitted to or otherwise considered by
EPA 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 they can intelligently and
effectively participate in the rulemaking
process, and (2) to serve as the record in
case of judicial review.
Miscellaneous
As prescribed by Section 111 of the
Clean Air Act, establishment of
standards of performance for large
appliance surface coating operations
was preceded by the Administrator's
determination (44 FR 49222, August 21.
1979) that these sources contributed
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 standards was preceded by
consultation with appropriate advisory
committees, independent experts, and
Federal departments and agencies. The
Administrator welcomes comments on
all aspects of the proposed standards
including technological issues,
monitoring requirements, and proposed
test methods.
One of the issues to be resolved
during promulgation of a final rule
concerns the definition of an appliance
part or product that would be subject to
the proposed standards. The proposed
standards were based upon analyses of
data pertaining to the surface coating of
traditional household appliances such
as cooking equipment, laundry
equipment, refrigerators, freezers,
dishwashers, water heaters, and frash
compactors. Recent analyses of industry
data indicate that other appliances may
be surface coated by the same methods
as these traditional large appliance
products. The other products include
items such as fans, air purifiers,
humidifiers, dehumidifiers, water
softeners, baseboard and room heaters,
furnaces, air-conditioning equipment,
dry cleaning equipment, vacuum
cleaners, and interior lighting fixtures.
Because there is no apparent technical
reason to exclude these products from
the proposed standards and because
these products would not be subject to
other standards under development by
the Agency, the definition of appliance
has been expanded to include these
products. Comments are specifically
invited on the following:
• The method(s) of coating application
traditionally used to coat these appliances,
• Other product(s) to be included or
excluded from the standards because of
significant differences in coating application
equipment or formulations, and
• The economic impact of the proposed
standards and whether it would result in any
plant closure.
Information regarding the number of
manufacturers producing these products,
differences in coating formulations or
equipment, and present and forecasted
production is particularly invited.
In addition, the Administrator
specifically invites comments
concerning the reporting requirements of
the proposed standards. Any comment
submitted to the Administrator should
contain specific information and data
pertinent to an evaluation of the
magnitude and severity of any adverse
impact and should suggest alternative
courses of action to avoid this impact.
Recommended alternative reporting
requirements should contain complete
instructions and should state all the
reasons why the recommended
requirements would be considered an
improvement.
It should be noted that standards of
performance for new sources
established under Section 111 of the
Clean Air Act reflect:
IV-SS-11
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 24, 1980 / Proposed Rules
'" ' * 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
Although emission control technology
may be available to reduce emissions
below levels required to comply with
standards of performance, this
technology might not be selected as the
basis of standards of performance due
to costs associated with its use.
Accordingly, standards of performance
should not be viewed as the ultimate in
achievable emission control. In fact, the
Act requires (or has the potential for
requiring) imposition of a more stringent
emission standard in several situations.
For example, applicable costs do not
necessarily play as prominent a role in
determining the "lowest achievable
emission rate" (LAER) for new or
modified sources located in
nonattainment areas; i.e., areas where
statutorily mandated health and welfare
standards are being violated. In this
respect, Section 173 of the Act requires
that new or modified sources
constructed in an area where ambient
pollutant concentrations exceed the
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) must reduce emissions to the
level that reflects LAER, as defined in
Section 171(3) for such category of
source. The statute defines LAER as the
rate of emissions based on the
following, whichever is more stringent:
(A) The most stringent emission limitation
contained in the implementation plan of any
State for such class or category of source.
unless the owner or operator of the proposed
source demonstrates that such limitations are
not achievable, or
(B) The most stringent emission limitation
achieved in practice by such class or
category of source.
In no event can the emission rate exceed
any applicable new source preformance
standard.
A similar situation may arise under
the prevention of significant
deterioration air quality provisions of
the Act (Part C). These provisions
require that certain sources (referred to
in Section 169(1) employ BACT as
defined in Section 169(3) for all
pollutants regulated under the Act.
BACT must be determined on a case-by-
case basis, with energy, environmental,
and economic impacts, and other costs
taken into account. In no event, may the
application of BACT result in emissions
of pollutants that exceed the emissions
allowed by any applicable standard
established pursuant to Section 111 (or
112) of the Act.
In all events, SIPs approved or
promulgated under Section 110 of the
Act must provide for the attainment and
maintenance of the 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.
Finally, 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 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,
emission control technology
improvements, and reporting
requirements. The reporting
requirements in these standards will be
reviewed as required under EPA's
sunset policy for reporting requirements
in standards.
Section 317 of the Clean Air Act
requires the Administrator to prepare an
economic impact assessment for any
new source standard of performance
under Section lll(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 when the proposed
standards were formulated to ensure
that they would represent the best
system of emission reduction,
considering costs. The economic impact
assessment is included in the
Background Information Document.
Dated: December 18,1980.
Douglas M. Costle,
Administrator.
It is proposed to amend 40 CFR Part
60 by adding a new subpart SS as
follows:
Subpart SS—Standards of Performance for
Industrial Surface Coating: Appliances
Sec.
60.450 Applicability and designation of
affected facility.
60.451 Definitions.
60.452 Standards for volatile organic
compounds.
60.453 Performance test and compliance
provisions.
60.454 Monitoring of emissions and
operations.
60.455 Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
60.456 Test methods and procedures.
Authority: Sees. Ill and 301 (a) of the Clean
Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7411. 7601(a)).
and additional authority as noted below.
Subpart SS—Standards of
Performance for Industrial Surface
Coating: Appliances
§ 60.450 Applicability and designation of
affected facility.
(a) The provisions of this subpart
apply to each surface coating operation
in an appliance surface coating line.
(b) The provisions of this subpart
apply to each affected facility identified
in paragraph (a) of this section that
commences construction, modification,
or reconstruction after December 24.
1981.
§ 60.451 Definitions.
(a) All terms used in this subpart not
defined are given 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 appliance part being coated.
"Applicance part" means any organic
surface-coated metal lid, door, casing.
panel, or other interior or exterior metal
part or accessory that is assembled to
form an appliance product.
"Appliance product" means any
organic surface-coated metal range.
range hood, oven, microwave oven,
refrigerator, refrigerated display case,
freezer, washer, dryer, dry cleaning
equipment, dishwasher, water heater.
trash compactor, vacuum cleaner, ice
maker, water softener, or interior
lighting fixture manufactured for
household, commercial, or recreational
use. "Appliance product" also means
any air purifier, room heater, baseboard
heater, dehumidifier, humidifier, fan,
furnace, Arindow air conditioner, unitary
air conditioner, or heat pump
manufactured for household use.
"Appliance surface coating line"
means that portion of an appliance part
of product manufacturing or assembly
plant engaged in the application and
curing or organic surface coatings on
appliance parts or products.
"Coating application station" means
that portion of the appliance surface
coating operation where a prime coat or
a top coat is applied to the appliance
part or product. The coating application
station consists of the dip tank, spray
booth(s), or flow unit.
IV-SS-12
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 249 / Wednesday. December 24. 1980 / Proposed Rules
"Curing oven" means a device that
uses heat to dry or cure the ccating(s)
applied to appliance parts or products.
"Electrodeposition" (EDP) means a
method of coating application in which
the appliance part or product is
submerged in a tank filled with coating.
material suspended in water and an
electrical field is used to deposit the
material on the part or product.
"Flashoff area" means the portion of
an appliance surface coating line
between the coating application station
and the curing oven.
"Spray booth" means the structure
housing automatic or manual spray
application equipment where a coating
is applied to appliance parts or
products.
"Surface coating operation" means
the system on an appliance surface
coating line used to apply and dry or
cure an organic coating on the surface of
the appliance part of product. The
surface coating operation may be a
prime coat or a topcoat operation and
includes the coating application
stations(s), flashoff area, and curing
oven.
"Transfer efficienty" means the ratio
of the amount of coating solids
deposited onto the surface of an
appliance part of product to the total
amount of coating solids used.
"VOC emissions" means the mass of
volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
expressed as kilograms of VOCs per
liter of applied coating solids, emitted
from an appliance surface coating
operation.
(bj All symbols used in this subpart
not defined below are given meaning in
the Act or Subpart A of this part.
B = uncontrolled VOC emissions per unit
volume of coating solids, in kilograms per
liter.
C. = the concentration of VOCs in a vent after
a control device, in parts per million by
volume (as carbon).
C0 = the concentration of VOCs in a vent
before a control device, in parts per million
by volume [as carbon).
C,= the concentration of VOCs in a vent not
routed to a control device, in parts per
million by volume (as carbon).
Dc = density of coating (or input stream), in
kilograms per liter.
D,, = density of organic solvent used for
dilution, in kilograms per liter.
Dr = density of recovered organic solvent, in
kilograms per liter.
E = the efficiency of a control device
(fraction).
F = the capture efficiency of a control device
(fraction).
G = uncontrolled VOC emissions per unit
volume of applied coating solids, in
kilograms per liter.
U = volume of coating used, in liters.
U, = volume of organic solvent used for
dilution, in liters.
U = volume of organic solvent recovered, in
liters.
U = volume of solids consumed, in liters.
Mtf = mass of VOCs in dilution solvent, in
kilograms.
M,, = mass of VOCs in coating, in kilograms.
Mr = mass of VOCs recovered, in kilograms.
N = weighted average of actual VOC
emissions per unit volume of solids
applied, in kilograms per liter.
Q. = the volumetric flow rate through a vent
after a control device, in dry standard
cubic meters per hour.
Qb = the volumetric flow rate through a vent
before a control device, in dry standard
cubic meters per hour.
Q,= the volumetric flow rate in a vent not
routed to a control device, in dry standard
cubic meters per hour.
R = the efficiency of a control device.
T= transfer efficiency.
V. = volume fraction of nonvolatile matter in
coating (or input stream) in liters per liter.
W0 = weight fraction of nonaqueous volatile
matter of coating, in kilograms per
kilogram.
§ 60.452 Standards for volatile organic
compounds.
On or after the date on which the
performance test required by § 60.8 is
completed, no owner or operator of an
affected facility subject to the provisions
of this subpart shall discharge or cause
the discharge of VOC emissions that
exceed 0.90 kilogram of VOCs per liter
of applied coating solids from any
surface coating operation on an
appliance surface coating line.
§ 60.453 Performance test and compliance
provisions.
(a) Sections 60.8(d) and (f) do not
apply to the performance test
procedures required by this subpart.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph
(c) of this section, each owner or
operator shall determine compliance
with § 60.452 by calculating and
recording the weighted average of the
VOC emissions per liter of applied
coating solids from each affected facility
during a calendar month. Following this
initial performance test period, the
owner or operator shall calculate and
record the VOC emissions from each
affected facility for each calendar
month. For this subpart, each monthly
calculation is considered a performance
test. Where coating is applied by spray
application, the owner or operator shall
obtain the information necessary to
calculate the weighted average from
formulation data supplied by the
manufacturer of the coating or by an
analysis of each coating, by Reference
Method 24 or by an alternative or
equivalent method acceptable to the
Administrator. Where a coating is
applied by dip coating, flow coating, or
EDP, the owner or operator shall obtain
the information necessary to calculate
the weighted average from formulation
data supplied by the manufacturer of the
coating or by an analysis of each input
stream by Reference Method 24 or an
alternative or equivalent method
acceptable to the Administrator. Coating
and organic-solvent usage data may be
obtained from company records. If
formulation data supplied by the
manufacturer of the coating are used to
determine VOC emissions from an
affected facility, the Administrator may
require an analysis of each coating (or
input stream) by Reference Method 24.
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.
(1) Select the transfer efficiency for
the applicable method of coating
application from Table 1. If the owner or
operator can demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Administrator that
other transfer efficiencies are
appropriate, the Administrator will
approve their use on a case-by-case
basis.
(2) For each affected facility where
the coating is analyzed prior to dilution,
(i) The mass of VOCs is calculated by
the following equation:
(ii) The volume of solids consumed is
determined by the following equation:
(iii) The weighted average transfer
efficiency is calculated by the following
equation:
T
n m
1 2 Lc
i=l k=l c
ik 5ik
IV-SS-13
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 24, 1980 / Proposed Rules
(iv) Compliance with § 60.452 is
determined by the following
relationships:
G =
LsT
N = G
N < 0.90 kg/£ ,
where
i denotes each coating (or input
stream) before dilution.
j denotes each dilution solvent.
k denotes each application station.
n or m denotes the total number of
summed components.
(3) For each affected facility where
the coating is analyzed after dilution,
(i) The mass of VOCs is calculated by
the following equation:
M
n
+ M . = I
d 1=1
(ii) The volume of solids consumed is
determined by the following equation:
n
= I
(iiii) The weighted average transfer
efficiency is calculated by the following
equation:
n m
T = 1=1 k=1 Cil
(iv) Compliance with § 60.452 is
determined by the following
relationships:
G =
LsT
N = G
N < 0.90 kg/£ ,
where
i denotes each coating (or input
stream) as applied.
k denotes each application solvent.
n or m denotes the total number of
summed components.
(c) For each affected facility where
the VOC content per unit volume of
coating solids (BJ of each coating as
applied is equal to or less than the
maximum allowable VOC content
specified in Table 2 for the lowest
transfer efficiency of any method of
application in the affected facility, the
owner or operator is not required to
calculate VOC emissions for each
calendar month. The VOC content per
unit volume of solids for each coating is
calculated by the following equations:
where
i denotes a coating (or input stream)
to which no organic dilution solvent is
added or which is analyzed after
dilution,
or
where
i denotes each coating (or input
stream) before dilution.
j denotes each dilution solvent.
n or m denotes the total number of
summed components.
Table 1.— Transfer efficiencies
Application method
Air-atomized spray
Airless spray
Manual electrostatic spray
Flow coat
Dip coal
Nonrelational automatic electrostatic spray
Rotating head automatic electrostatic spray .
Electrodeposition ...
Powder
Transfer
efficiency
(T.|
040
045
060
OSS
085
085
090
0.95
095
Table 2.—Maximum allowable VOC content
Transfer efficiency (T)
0.4D
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
Maximum
VOC content
(B,l (kg VOC/
I solids^
0.36
040
045
0.50
0.54
0.58
063
068
0.72
076
081
OB6
IV-SS-14
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 24, 1980 / Proposed Rules
(
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 24, 1980 / Proposed Rules
transfer efficiency of any application
method in use in the affected facility:
(i) The minimum transfer efficiency of
any coating application equipment used,
and
(ii) The maximum VOC content per
volume of coating solids, B,, as
calculated in § 60.453(c), of any coating
applied during the month.
(2) Where compliance is achieved
through the use of an incineration
system:
(i) The average combustion
temperature (or the average temperature
upstream and downstream of the
catalyst bed), and
(ii) A description of the method used
to establish the amount of VOCs
captured and sent to the incinerator.
(b) Following the initial performance
test report, each owner or operator shall
report within 10 calendar days each
instance in which the weighted average
of the mass of VOCs per unit volume of
coating solids applied, N, from any
affected facility is greater than the limit
specified in § 60.452.
(c) Where compliance with § 60.452 is
achieved through the use of an
incineration system, the owner or
operator shall report quarterly the
following information:
(1) For thermal incinerators, all 3-hour
periods of coating operation during
which the average combustion
temperature was more than 28° C. (50°
F) below the average combustion
temperature of the device during the
most recent performance test at which
destruction efficiency was determined.
(2) For catalytic incinerators, all 3-
hour periods of coating operation during
which the average temperature of the
device immediately before the catalyst
bed is more than 28° C (50° F) below the
average temperature of the device
during the most recent performance test
at which destruction efficiency was
determined. The owner or operator shall
also report all 3-hour periods of coating
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 destruction
efficiency was determined.
(3) Negative reports are required
quarterly if incinerator parameters
remain within the limits outlined in
paragraphs (i) and (ii), above.
(d) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall
maintain at the source, for at least 2
years, records of all data and
calculations used 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 each
affected facility.
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42
U.S.C. 7414))
§ 60.456 Test methods and procedures.
(a) The reference methods in
Appendix A to this part, except as
provided under § 60.8(b). shall be used
to determine compliance with § 60.452
as follows:
(1) Method 24 or formulation data
supplied by the manufacturer of the
coating to determine the VOC content of
a coating. Procedures to determine VOC
emissions are provided in § 60.453.
(2) Method 25 for the measurement of
the VOC concentration in the gas stream
vent.
(3) Method 1 for sample and velocity
traverses,
(4) Method 2 for velocity and
volumetric flow rate,
(5) Method 3 for gas analysis, and
(6) Method 4 for stack gas moisture.
(b) For Method 24, the coating sample
must be a 1-liter sample taken into a 1-
liter container at a point where the
sample will be representative of the
coating material.
(c) For Method 25, the sampling time
for each of three runs is to be at least 60
minutes and the minimum sample
volume is to be at least 0.003 dscm
except that shorter sampling times or
smaller volumes, when necessitated by
process variable or other factors, may
be approved by the Administrator.
(d) The Administrator will approve
testing of representative stacks 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 would
be obtained by testing all stacks.
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42
U.S.C. 7414))
|KR Due. BO-40137 Filed 12-23-HO: 11:45 iim|
BILLING CODE 6560-24-M
IV-SS-16
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 1981 / Proposed Rules
40 CFR Part 60
(AD FRL 1625-8]
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources; Industrial Surface
Coating; Appliances
Correction
In FR Doc. 80-40137, appearing on
page 85085, in the issue of Wednesday.
December 24,1980, make the following
corrections:
1. On page 85092, second column, the
eighth line should have read: "thickness.
the mass of VOCs per unit of surface
area coated per unit of film thickness.
and the mass of VOCs per".
2. On page 85095, third column;
a. The last line in the column, should
have read, "booth(s), or flow coating
unit."
b. In the ninth line from the bottom of
the column, the word "or" should have
read "or1.
c. In the eleventh line from bottom of
the column, the first word in the line
reading "of should have read "or".
3. On page 85098, second column, the
formula in § 60.453(d)(4) should have
appeared as set forth:
"N = G(l-R)<0.90kg/r.
4. On page 85097, middle column, the
line reading "k denotes each application
solvent." should have read "k denotes
each application station ".
BILLING CODE 1SM-01-M
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 107 / Thursday. June 4, 1981 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[AD-FRL-1844-1]
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources; Industrial Surface
Coating: Appliances; Correction
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Correction of proposed rule.
SUMMARY: This notice is to correct a
typographical error in FR Doc. 80-40137
(AD-FRL-1625-8), Wednesday,
December 24,1980, appearing on page
85095, third column, paragraph (b) of
§ 60.450 regarding performance
standards for industrial surface coating
for appliances.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 4, 1981.
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 number (919)
541-5624.
Paragraph (b) of § 60.450 should be
corrected to read as follows: "The
provisions of this subpart apply to each
affected facility identified in paragraph
(a) of this section that commences
construction, modification, or
reconstruction after December 24,1980."
Dated: May 28,1981.
Edwaid F. Tuerk,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air. Noise.
and Radiation.
|FF Doc. 81-19652 Filed 6-3-81: 8:45 am)
MLUNO CODE fMO-2*-M
IV-SS-17
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR
NEW STATIONARY
SOURCES
METAL COIL
SURFACE COATING
SUBPART TT
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 2 / Monday. January 5.1981 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
(AO-FRL 1629-2]
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources; Metal Coll Surface
Coating
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of
public hearing.
SUMMARY: Standards of performance are
proposed to limit emissions of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) from new,
modified, and reconstructed metal coil
surface coating operations. The
proposed standards would limit VOC
emissions to 0.28 kilogram per liter
(kg//) of coating solids applied for any
prime or finish coat operation where
low-VOC content coatings are used
without a VOC capture system and
emission control device. The proposed
standards would limit VOC emissions to
0.14 kg// of coating solids applied where
higher VOC content coatings are used in
conjunction with a VOC capture system
and emission control device. As an
alternative, the owner or operator would
also be allowed to achieve compliance
by demonstrating an overall VOC
emission-reduction of 90 percent or more
prior to discharge to the atmosphere.
The determination of average VOC
content would be made for each
calendar month for each affected
facility. Reference Method 24 would be
the reference method for determining
the VOC content of coatings but the
Administrator will allow the use of
formulation data from the coating
manufacturer except in cases where the
validity of the formulation data is in
doubt. Reference Method 25 would be
used to determine the VOC
concentration in the exhaust gas
streams. Both reference methods were
promulgated at 45 FR 65956, October 3,
1980.
The proposed standards implement
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act and are
based on the Administrator's
determination that metal coil surface
coating operations contribute
significantly to air pollution that may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health or welfare. The intent is to
require new, modified, and
reconstructed ooil coating operations to
use the best demonstrated system of
continuous emission reduction, when
costs, non-air-quality health, and
environmental and energy impacts are
considered.
A public hearing will be held to
provide interested persons an
opportunity for oral presentation of
data, views, or arguments concerning
the proposed standards.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be
received on or before March 6,1981.
Public Hearing. A public hearing will
be held on Febuary 4,1981 beginning at
9a.m.
Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons
wishing to present oral testimony should
contact EPA by January 28,1981 (1 week
before hearing).
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments
should be submitted (in duplicate, if
possible) to Central Docket Section (A-
130), Attention: Docket Number A-80-5,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street S.W.. Washington, D.C.
20460.
Public Hearing. The public hearing
will be held at OA Auditorium, R.T.P.,
North Carolina. Persons wishing to
present oral testimony should notify
Mrs. Naomi Durkee, Emission Standards
and Engineering Division (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-533.
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)
541-2777. Please refer to Metal Coil
Surface Coating Operations,
Background Information Document for
•Proposed Standards, EPA-450/3-80-
035a.
Docket. Docket No. A-80-5.
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:
Mr. Gene W. Smith, Section Chief,
Standards Development Branch,
Emission Standards and Engineering
Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone
number (919) 541-5421.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Proposed Standards
The proposed standards would apply
to all new, modified, and reconstructed
metal coil surface coating (coil coating)
operations. Existing facilities would not
be subject to the proposed standards
unless they undergo a modification or a
reconstruction as defined in 40 CFR
60.14 and 60.15. Compliance with the
proposed standards could be achieved
by any of three approaches for each
affected facility. The owner or operator
could use coatings whose average VOC
content on a monthly basis is 0.28 kg/7
of coating solids applied or less; or, the
owner or operator could apply higher
VOC content coatings if he reduces
VOC emissions to 0.14 kg// of coating
solids applied or less: or, the owner or
operator could comply by demonstrating
an overall VOC emission reduction of 90
percent or greater prior to discharge to
the atmosphere. These standards will be
reviewed at 4-year intervals after their
promulgation date.
The proposed standards would
require each owner or operator to
conduct monthly performance tests to
demonstrate compliance with the
proposed emission limits. Where
coatings are used without a VOC
capture system and emission control
device to meet the proposed numerical
limit of 0.28 kg// of coating solids
applied, the owner or operator would be
required to calculate and record a
weighted average of the VOC content of
coatings applied (including dilution
solvents) for each affected facility for
each calendar month. Reference Method
24 would be used to determine the VOC
content of coatings, but the
Administrator will allow the use of
manufacturer's formulation data for that
purpose except where the validity of the
formulation data is in doubt. For each
'affected facility, the owner or operator
would be required to report each month
for which the average VOC content of
the coatings exceeded 0.28 kg// of
coating solids applied. These reports
would have to be submitted within 10
days after the end of each such month.
Where higher VOC content coatings
are used with a VOC capture system
and emission control device to meet the
proposed numerical limit of 0.14 kg// of
coating solids applied, the owner or
operator would be required to calculate
and record the weighted average of the
VOC content (including dilution
solvents) of coatings applied for each
affected facility for each calendar month
according to the equations contained in
the proposed standards. The owner or
operator would also have to calculate
and record the overall VOC emission
reduction required to meet the emission
limit. In addition, during the first
monthly test, the owner or operator
would have to measure the actual
overall VOC emission reduction
achieved by the VOC capture system
and emission control device. Reference
IV-TT-2
-------
Hofear / Vol. 38, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 1B81 / Proposed Rules
Method 25 and the equations provided
in the proposed otandardo would be
used for these determinations.
Compliance would be demonstrated
where the measured value of the actual
overall VOC emission redaction is
greater than or equal to the overall VOC
emission reduction required to meet the
emission limit. For each affected facility,
the owner or operator would report each
month for which the average VOC
content of coatings applied, when
reduced by the overall destruction rate
of the VOC capture system and
emission control device (as determined
during the most recent measurement),
exceeds the proposed numerical limit.
These reports would have to be
submitted within 10 days after the end
of each such month.
Where compliance is achieved
through the demonstration of a BO
percent overall reduction in VOC
emissions, the owner or operator would
conduct the first monthly performance
test by using Reference Method 25 and
the equations provided in the proposed
standards to calculate the overall
percent reduction achieved by the VOC
capture system and control device.
Compliance would be demonstrated
where the overall percent reduction is
equal to or greater than 90 percent. After
the first monthly test, the owner or
operator would monitor the operating
parameters of the emission control
device.
If thermal incineration is used, the
owner or operator would be required to
install and operate a device to
continuously monitor and record the
combustion temperature of the control
device. The proposed standards would
require the owner or operator to report
quarterly all coating periods of more
than 3 hours duration where the average
combustion temperature fell 28° C
(50° F) or more below the temperature
at which compliance was demonstrated
during the most recent measurement of
incinerator efficiency. If catalytic
incineration is used, the owner or
operator would be required to install a
device to continuously monitor and
record the gas temperature both
upstream and downstream of the
incinerator catalyst bed. The owner or
operator would report quarterly all
coating periods in excess of 3 hours
where the average difference between
the temperatures upstream and
downstream of the catalyst bed falls
below 80 percent of the temperature
difference at which compliance was
demonstrated during the most recent
measurement of incinerator efficiency or
where the average inlet (or upstream)
temperature falls 28° C (50° F) or more
below the inlet temperature at which
compliance was demonstrated during
the most recent measurement of
incinerator efficiency.
Summary of Environmental, Energy, and
Economic Impacts
The environmental, energy, and
economic impacts of proposed
standards of performance are normally
expressed as incremental differences
between the impacts of complying with
the proposed standards and those for
complying with a typical State
Implementation Plan (SIP). Many
existing metal coil surface coating
operations are located in areas that are
considered nonattainment areas for
purposes of achieving the National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
for ozone. New facilities are expected to
have the same geographic distribution
as existing plants. States are in the
process of revising their SIPs for these
areas. In revision SIPs, States generally
consider the recommendations
contained in Control Techniques
Guideline (CTG) documents. The CTG
applicable to this source category is
Control of Volatile Organic Emissions
From Existing Stationary Sources,
Volume II, Surface Coating of Cans.
Coil, Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles and
Light-Duty Trucks (EPA-650/2-77-088
[CTG]). Although the CTG documents
are published for guidance only and are
not legally binding on the States, most
States are expected to revise their
existing SIPs in accordance with the
CTG recommendations or to retain their
existing limits on VOC emissions.
Approximately 70 percent of the
existing coil coating 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 content coatings. This emission
limit is more stringent than the CTG
recommendations, and it appears that
these States plan to maintain this level
of control for VOC emissions. The
remaining plants are located in States
that use a permit system for controlling
VOC emissions. These States are
expected to revise their implementation
plans to require VOC emission
reductions to the CTG-recommended
level, which is equivalent to a 64 percent
reduction in the emissions from the
average industry solvent-borne coating
formulation of 60 percent VOCs and 40
percent solids by volume.
The proposed standards would reduce
VOC emissions from a typical plant by
approximately 33 percent in those States
that currently control VOC emissions by
a numerical limit (85 percent reduction)
and would reduce emissions from a
typical plant by approximately 72
percent in those States that adopt the
CTG-recommended level of control (64
percent reduction). Nationwide VOC
emissions would be reduced by about
3,8CO megagrams (Mg) per year by 1986
from a projected level of 12,500 Mg with
no New Source Performance Standard
(NSPS).
Little or no water pollution or solid
waste impact from new. modified, or
reconstructed coil coating plants is
expected to -eoult from application of
the proposed standards. None of the
control techniques used by the coil
coating industry generates either liquid
or solid waste and, therefore, the
proposed standards would have no
impact in these areas.
Nationwide energy usage by the coil
coating industry totaled about 6,600
terajoules (TJ) in 1978. The proposed
standards would result in an energy
usage increase of about 1 percent per
year, which is equivalent to 200,000
barrels of crude oil in the fifth year.
Plants that are located in States
requiring an 85 percent reduction and
that achieve compliance through the use
of higher VOC content coatings in
combination with an incinerator could
be expected to decrease their energy
consumption by about 5 percent.
However, for those plants regulated to
the CTG-recommended level of control,
compliance with the proposed standards
through the use of incineration could
result in up to a 50 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 as the baseline. Little or no
impact in energy consumption would be
expected to result from the proposed
standards for plants meeting the
proposed emission limits with the use of
waterborne or other low-VOC content
coatings without the use of incineration.
The proposed standards could
increase both the capital and annualized
costs of new coil coating plants. Based
on a predicted industry growth rate of 12
percent per year through 1985, the
increased capital cost 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 cost of a new plant of
approximately 0.9 percent for a large
plant and 1.4 percent for a small plant.
The increase in total annualized costs
could range from $11,000 for a small
plant to $23,000 for a large plant. For
plants that locate in States that adopt
the CTG-recommended limits, capital
IV-TT-3
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 1981 / Proposed Rules
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.
Nationally, the cumulative capital costs
over the first 5 years could reach $20
million. Total annualized costs could
increase by $55,000 for a small plant and
by $395,000 for a large plant. On an
industry-wide basis, the increase in total
annualized costs in the fifth year could
be $7 million. Compliance with the
proposed 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. In the
fifth year, the average price of coil-
coated metal could have increased by
2.6 percent.
Rationale
Selection of Source and Pollutants
The "Priority List and Additions to the
List of Categories of Stationary
Sources," promulgated at 44 FR 49222 on
August 21,1979, ranked sources
according to the quantity of emissions,
endangerment of health and welfare,
and the mobility and competitiveness
associated with each source. The" coil
coating industry ranked 22nd on this list
of 59 sources to be controlled for air
pollutants. Recent studies conducted by
and for EPA estimate that current
emissions from the coil coating industry
in 1978 amount to 12.700 Mg (14,000
tons) annually.
Although coil coating plants were
identified in 27 States, most plants are
concentrated around industrial centers
in the Northeast and Midwest. A total of
109 individual coil coating plants .
containing an estimated 147 coil coating
lines were identified during this study.
Of these plants, 42 are known to be
located in areas designated as
nonattainment areas for ozone.
VOC emissions from individual plants
vary widely as a consequence of the
wide variations in annual production.
Estimated annual emissions for 60 of the
109 coil coating plants were found to be
listed in emission inventory flies
maintained by individual States. A total
of 40 of the 60 plants were identified as
having annual uncontrolled (or
potential) emissions of greater than 90
Mg (100 tons) per year, and 12 of these
40 plants had annual uncontrolled (or
potential) emissions of greater than 900
Mg (1,000 tons) per year. Emission data
for some coil coating plants are not
contained in the emission inventory
files, both because some States do not
include companies with potential
emissions of 45 Mg (50 tons) per year or
less and because many of the coil
coalers are captive operations in other
industries that are identified by their
major end products.
In the coil coating industry, VOC
emissions result from the evaporation of
organic solvents from the applied
coating during the drying process.
Typical coatings applied to coiled metal
strip include epoxies, epoxyacrylics,
acrylics, and polyester enamels. These
coatings generally contain^organic
solvents such as ketones, esters, ethers,
and aromatics. Coil coatings are applied
in two main steps: prime coat and finish
coat. Prime coat and finish coat
operations both contribute to VOC
emissions.
VOCs are the major air pollutants
emitted from the coil coating industry.
Particulate matter emitted from this
industry is minimal. Technology is
currently available to reduce VOC
emissions from coil coating operations.
The use of higher VOC content coatings
with incineration or low-VOC content
coatings was identified as having the
potential for reducing nationwide
industry emissions by as much as 46
percent from all new, modified, and
reconstructed sources. Consequently,
the coil coating industry has been
selected for regulation of VOC
emissions by new source standards of
performance.
Selection of Affected Facilities
The choice of the affected facility 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
lll(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 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 must do this by examining
the situation in light of the terms and
purpose of Section 111. One major
•The mosl important case is ASARCO, Inc. v.
EPA. 578 F-2d 319 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
consideration in this examination is that
the use of a narrower definition results
in bringing replacement equipment'
under the 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 were
"modified." If, on the other hand, each
piece of equipment were designated as
the 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 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
relevant statutory factors (technical
feasibility, cost, energy, and other
environmental impacts) point to a
broader definition. The application of
these factors is discussed below.
The metal coil coating process is a
continuous operation that begins with a
roll or coil of bare sheet metal and ends
with a roll or coil of sheet metal that has
a surface finish on one or both sides. A
typical coil coating line consists of an
inlet station, where the metal strip is
unrolled from the coil and enters the
process; a metal cleaning and
pretreatment section, where the metal is
prepared for the coating application; a
coating section, which may consist of a
single coating station and curing oven or
may consist of a prime coating station
and curing oven and a finish coating
station and curing oven; and an exit
station, where the finished metal strip is
repackaged into a roll or coil.
Significant quantities of VOC
emissions are generated from the
application and curing of each prime
coat and each finish coat on the metal
strip. The application and curing of each
coating is accomplished by three
devices in series: a coating application
station, a curing oven, and a quench
station. Existing reports on industry
studies indicate that, of the total VOC
content of the coatings, approximately
90 percent evaporates in the ovens, 8
percent evaporates at the application
station, and about 2 percent evaporates
during the quench operation.
Consideration was given to the
following alternatives in the selection of
affected facilities for proposed
IV-TT-4
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 1981 / Proposed Rules
regulation: (1) including all of the
coating operations on a coil coating line
(from unwind to rewind) as a single
affected facility: (2) designating each
application station, oven, and quench
station as separate facilities; and k.~]
treating each coating operation—
consisting of the application station,
oven, and quench station—as separate
affected facilities.
The first alternative, consideration of
all coating operations on the line as a
single affected facility, was rejected
because of the diversity of coating
formulations used throughout the
industry. A large segment of the industry
coats metal coil according to the needs
or specifications of the purchaser or
owner of the metal. In some cases, a
low-VOC content (waterborne) prime
coating may be followed by a higher
VOC content finish coating. In such a
situation, if the low-VOC content
coating has emissions much lower than
the limit required, the reduction required
for the emissions from the higher VOC
content coating would be less than
optimum because the emissions from
both coatings would be considered in
combination. A similar situation could
occur if a modification resulted in a
decrease in emissions from one coating
application and a$ increase in emissions
from the other coating application. The
net result may be no change in
emissions if the entire line is considered
a single affected facility, and the line
would not become subject to the NSPS.
This could lead to higher emissions than
the case where the best system of
control is used on each emission source.
Therefore, this alternative was rejected.
Consideration was also given to
treating each application station, oven,
and quench station as separate affected
facilities. However, the operations are
so closely associated, both physically
and operationally, that their treatment
as separate affected facilities appears
inappropriate. Many modern coil coating
lines have the coating station enclosed
in a room so that a large fraction of the
emissions occurring during application
of the coating is captured by the flow of
air into the ovens. The quench station is
also located immediately adjacent to the
oven. Emission test data in existing
reports of industry studies indicate that
VOC emissions at the quench station
may account for up to 2 percent of total
emissions. However, a large fraction
(and possibly all) of these emissions'is
captured by the flow of ventilating air
into the oven. Designation of the quench
station as a separate affected facility
would require the application of an
emission limit, method of control, and
compliance testing for any fugitive
emissions that escape from the quench
area. Because of !he close relationship
among the three emission points and the
fact that all of the emissions come from
the same coating, this alternative was
concluded to be impractical. Therefore,
this alternative was rejected.
The third alternative is the
designation of each coating operation—
consisting of a coating application
station, a curing oven, and a quench
station—as separate affected facilities.
This alternative would provide plant
owners or operators with flexibility in
their choice of coating formulations, and
compliance with the proposed standards
could be achieved by different
techniques for each coating application.
Therefore, each prime coat operation
and each finish cost operation have
been selected as the affected facilities
for control in the proposed standards of
performance.
The proposed standards would apply
to each prime coat operation and each
finish coat operation on all new,
modified, or reconstructed coil coating
lines and would include emissions that
result from the use of VOCs (solvent) as
a dilution agent. Cleanup operations
may entail equipment flushing or
cleaning. The cleanup solvent is
typically recovered by a commercial
recovery facility. The proposed
standards would not include VOC
emissions that result from the use of
solvent in cleanup operations or
activities that do not generate VOC
emissions, such as metal cleaning,
pretreatment, pickling, galvanizing, and
physical handling of materials. Although
some fugitive emissions from paint
mixing stations may occur, the quantity
of these emissions is considered
insignificant and would not be subject to
the proposed standards.
Although some flashoff occurs
between the coating applicator rolls and
the-oven, the flashoff area is not
considered a separate operation but,
instead, part of the application process.
Most coil coating lines have two
separate coating sections—one for the
application and curing of the prime coat
and another for the application and
curing of the finish coat. These lines are
referred to as tandem lines and would
contain two affected facilities. Lines that
apply a one-coat finish to the metal and,
consequently, have a single coating
section are considered as a single
affected facility. One coil coating line
was identified that uses
electrodeposition (EDP) to apply a
prime, coat, followed immediately with
a wet-on-wet application of the finish
coat by conventional roller coating. Both
coats are then curecPsimultaneously by
a single oven. Because of the wet-on-wet
application and the single curing oven,
this type of operation would be
considered a single affected facility.
Controls Technologies
The normal technique by which
coatings are applied in the coil coating
industry is roll coating. In this technique,
a roller, wet with the coating, contacts
the moving metal strip and transfers the
coating to the metal surface. A major
advantage of this application technique
is that the transfer efficiency
consistently approaches 100 percent.
Because of this characteristic, applied
coating solids are assumed to be equal
to consumed coating solids for -all
coatings. In coil coating operations,
prime and finish coats may be applied to
one or both sides of the metal in one or
two applications. After the prime coat
application, the strip generally passes
through an oven, where the prime
coating is dried and cured; after the
finish coat application, the metal strip
passes through an oven, which dries and
cures the finish coatings. Air is passed
through the ovens to carry off the
volatile solvent vapors that are released
when the volatile portion of the applied
coatings evaporates. This exhaust gas
stream, in combination with the exhaust
gas streams from the application and
quench process, is the source of VOC
emissions to the atmosphere. It is these
gas streams that are treated when
emission control devices are installed.
There are two general techniques for
reducing VOC emissions from coil
coating operations. The first is to pass
the exhaust gas stream through a VOC
emission control device, and the second
is to reduce the amount o'f VOCs in the
coating.
The only emission control device that
has been identified as effective in
controlling VOC emissions from coil
coating operations is an incinerator.
Both thermal and catalytic incinerators
have been successfully used in the
industry. The results of seven emission
tests indicate that thermal incinerators
can achieve greater than 95 percent
reduction in VOC emissions when they
are operated at temperatures of 760° C
(1,4CO° F) or greater, however, large
amounts of supplemental fuel are
frequently required to raise the exhaust
gases from oven temperatures in the
range of 260° to 426" C (5CO° to 800° F) to
incineration temperature. If heat
recovery units are installed along with
the incinerator, the energy consumption
can be dramatically reduced..The
recovered heat can be used to produce
steam or hot water for the wet section of
the line or to preheat the oven air. In
many existing installations, the use of a
IV-TT-5
-------
Bgister / Vol. 46, No. 2 /Monday, January 5, 1981 / Proposed Rules
thermal incinerator with heat recovery
has resulted in an overall energy savings
relative to a coil coating line with no
emission control.
Thermal incinerators were identified
in several configurations. In some
configurations, the internal oven burners
are replaced with incinerators (zone
incinerators) that pull air and VOC's
from the oven atmosphere, burn the
VOC's and exhaust directly back into
the oven to supply both heat and
"cleaned" oven ventilating air. These
units reportedly reduce VOC emissions
by 50 to 70 percent and reduce the
amount to extejnal oven ventilation
needed. An external incinerator can be
used in conjunction with the zone
incinerators to further reduce VOC
emissions. When this is done, the
external incinerator can be smaller that
when and external incinerator is used
alone'because the volume of external
oven ventilation required is reduced.
The zone incinerators are not widely
used without an external after burner
because alone they may not achieve
compliance with the numerical limits of
existing SIPs, and, in some cases, may
not achieve adequate odor control.
Other configurations of incinerators use
a single external incinerator and return
a portion of the incinerator exhaust back
to the oven to supply heat. These units
are used with various.forms of
additional heat recovery systems, such
as regenerative or recuperative units
that heat the oven exhaust before it
enters the incinerator and remove heat
from the incinerator exhaust before it is
returned to the oven.
Vendors of catalytic incinerators
indicate that these devices are also
capable of achieving VOC emission
reductions in excess of 95 percent, and
their use requires substantially less
energy than the thermal incinerator
because of the lower incineration
temperature. If heat recovery is used in
conjunction with the catalytic units, they
become even more attractive
economically. However, literature and
industry sources also indicate that there
are restrictions on the applicability of
catalytic incinerators because many of
the coatings used in the coil coating
industry contain ingredients that may
foul or mask'the catalyst. If this
happens, the active catalyst life is
greatly reduced, resulting in higher
operating costs for the incinerator
because of the more frequent catalyst
replacement. Consequently, the use of
catalytic incinerators is normally
restricted to those plants that use only a
few different coating formulations in
which the ingredients are accurately
known. Plants of this type are usually
captive coaters.
Although carbon adsorption has been
used to control VOC emissions from
many industrial processs, none was
identified on coil coating operations.
The high temperature of the oven
exhaust has been cited by industry
sources as the reason that these systems
are not used in coil coating. For this
reason, carbon adsorption systems were
not described in the Background
Information Document (BID) as a control
technique for the coil coating industry,
although their use would not be
precluded if desired by the plant owner
or operator.
When control devices are used to
reduce VOC emissions, capture
efficiency must also be considered.
Capture efficiency in excess of 95
percent is achievable by the judicious
application of hoods and/or enclosures
at the coating application station.
Industry has estimated that 90 percent
of the VOC emissions from coil coating
operations occur in the oven. Of the
remaining 10 percent, 8 are emitted at
the coating application station, and 2 are
emitted in the quench area. During the
background study for these proposed
standards, a number of coil coating lines
were observed in which the coating
application stations were enclosed in
coating rooms. The normal design
practice for these rooms has oven
ventilating air entering from the side of
the room opposite the oven. The oven
ventilating air then flows across the
room, the coating application equipment,
and the wet metal strip before entering
the oven. The installation of a hood that
extends from the oven entrance over the
wet metal strip to the coating
application equipment further contains
the VOCs emitted in the coating
application station. This hood, when
properly placed as close to the wet
metal strip as feasible, helps direct the
oven make-up air drawn from the
coating room through the coating
application equipment and over the wet
metal strip. Although all coating room
ventilation air cannot normally be used
as oven make-up air, EPA's study of
coating room air flow indicates that the
pattern of air flow normally used would
entrain almost all of the VOCs emitted
at the coating application station.
Coating rooms were determined to be
applicable at all new, modified, and
reconstructed coil coating plants.
When the coated metal coil exits the
oven, it is immediately cooled at the
quench station. Because of the enclosed
nature of the quench operation and its
proximity to the oven exit, most of the
quench area VOC emissions are
entrained in the ventilating air that
passes through the quench area into the
exit end of the oven. By drawing oven
ventilation air from the coating room
and quench area in this manner an
overall capture efficiency of at least 95
percent is achievable.
Low-VOC content coatings include
organosols, plastisols and other high-
solids coatings, waterborne coatings.
and powder coatings. Some of these
low-VOC content coatings are
successfully used in coil coating
processes, but their use is generally
restricted to certain specialized
applications. Organosols and plastisols
are used to coat some products, but their
use is not expected to expand to general
applications because they are costly and
because thin film thicknesses are
difficult to achieve with high speed
application equipment. Radiation cured
waterborne coatings are also in limited
use in the industry. However,
installations known to use radiation
cured coatings are restricted to single
coat processes, and the single coat
process is not expected to have more
general applications in the foreseeable
future.
Waterborne coatings are the most
widely used low-VOC content
technology in the industry.
Approximately 15 percent of all coil
coating is currently done with
waterborne coatings. However,
waterborne coatings are limited in their
application because they have not been
developed with the wide range of finish
characteristics that is needed for the
many products for which coil coated
metal is used. Data submitted by coating
manufacturers indicate that the VOC
content in the waterborne coatings now
used by the industry ranges from 0.07 to
0.54 kg/1 of solids and that most are in
the range of 0.11 to 0.28 kg/1 of solids.
Several manufacturers indicate that,
within the next 5 to 8 years, the VOC
content of most waterborne coatings
could be reduced to the range of 0.10 to
0.18 kg/1 of solids. The use of
waterbornes is expected to increase in
proportion to the general growth of the
industry, but their use is not expected to
expand rapidly into areas where
solvent-borne coatings are now
required. Although waterborne coatings
cannot be considered a universal control
technique for all coil coating operatiorjs,
they have proved effective in some
installations. Therefore, incineration
and waterborne coatings have been
determined to be the most widely
applicable control techniques for all
segments of the industry. Based on the
use of these control techniques, the
following five regulatory alternatives
were considered. These alternatives
IV-TT-6
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 3981 / Proposed Rules
differ from those in the BID and are
based on new data submitted by the
industry at the National Air Pollution
control Techniques Advisory Committee
(NAPCTAC) meeting.
Regulatory Alternatives
Regulatory Alternative I is no NSPS
for prime coat and finish coat operations
in the coil coating industry (no NSPS).
Under this alternative, VOC emissions
from the coating process would be
controlled through existing and revised
SIPs.
Regulatory Alternative II is an overall
VOC emission reduction of 85 percent,
or an emission limit equivalent to an 85
percent overall reduction in the
emissions from the average coating
formulation used by the industry. Based
on data obtained from coil coalers and
from coating manufacturers, the average
coating formulation is estimated to
consist of 40 percent solids and 60
percent VOCs by volume. Regulatory
Alternative II (85 percent) is based on
the use of an incinerator with up to a 95
percent destruction efficiency and a
capture efficiency of at least SO percent.
Regulatory Alternative III is different
from that described in the BID and is
similar to Regulatory Alternative II, with
the addition of a separate emission limit
for users of low-VOC content coatings.
This alternative is an overall VOC
emission reduction of 85 percent, or an
emission limit equivalent to an 85
percent overall reduction in the
emissions from the average industry
coating formulation when higher VOC
content coatings are used in conjunction
with an emission control device. When
low VOC content coatings are used
without an emission control device, this
alternative would require that emissions
be limited to the equivalent of an 80
percent reduction in the emissions from
the average industry coating
formulation.
Regulatory Alternative IV is similar to
Regulatory Alternative III in the BID but
has a slightly less stringent capture
requirement. This alternative is an
overall VOC emission reduction of 90
percent, or an emission limit equivalent
to a 90 percent overall reduction in the
emissions from the average coating
formulation used by the industry.
Regulatory Alternative IV (90 percent) is
based on the use of an incinerator with
up to a 95 percent destruction efficiency
and a capture efficiency of 95 percent of
VOC emissions.
Regulatory Alternative V is similar to
Regulatory Alternative IV, with the
addition of a separate emission limit for
users of low-VOC content coatings. This
alternative is an overall VOC emission
reduction of 90 percent, or an emission
limit equivalent to a SO percent overall
reduction in the emissions from the
average industry coating formulation
when higher VOC content coatings are
used in conjunction with an emission
control device. When low-VOC content
coatings are used without an emission
control device, this alternative would
require that emissions be limited to the
equivalent of an 80 percent reduction in
the emissions from the average industry
coating formulation.
Environmental, Energy, and Economic
Impacts
The environmental impact of each
regulatory alternative was computed as
the VOC emission reduction that could
be achieved relative to the emissions
allowable under existing and projected
State regulations. A study of the
geographic distribution of existing coil
coating plants revealed that 70 percent
of the plants are located in States that
impose numerical limits on VOC
emissions. On the average, these States
require that VOC emissions be reduced
by 85 percent prior to their discharge to
the atmosphere, except for plants that
use waterborne or other low-VOC
content coatings. The remaining 30 .
percent of existing plants are located in
States that use a permit system to
control VOC emissions.
States are currently revising their SIPs
for nonattainment areas. To evaluate the
impacts of the regulatory alternatives, a
baseline level of control must be
established from which the impacts can
be calculated. Because of the revisions
that are being made in the SIPs, a choice
had to be made between the use of the
existing SIP requirements and the
revised SIP requirements as the baseline
level of control. Because many of the
coil coating plants are located in
nonattainment areas, it is expected that
many States that now use the permit •
system will adopt the emission limits
recommended by the CTG on coil
coating operations even though the CTG
document does not legally bind the
States. This recommended limit is 0.31
kg VOC/1 of coating minus water (0.48
kg/1 of coating solids) and is equivalent
to a 64 percent reduction in the
emissions from the average industry
coating formulation. It is further
anticipated that those States that
already have numerical limits in their
SIPs will continue to impose those
limits. Therefore, tnese two baselines—
an 85 percent reduction for 70 percent of
the plants and the CTG-recommended
limits for 30 percent of the plants—were
used to estimate the environmental
impact of the regulatory alternatives for
the proposed NSPS. Inherent in the
estimates are the assumptions that
plants that become subject to the
proposed NSPS will have the same
geographic distribution as existing
plants and that all plants now covered
by a permit system will be subject to the
CGT-recommended limits.
Regulatory Alternative I. no NSPS.
would have no impact on VOC
emissions from coil coating operations.
A total of 70 percent of existing plants
would continue to reduce emissions by
85 percent prior to their discharge or use
low-VOC content coatings, while the
remaining 30 percent would be subject
to revised SIP regulations based on the
CTG-recommended limits. The current
or baseline level of VOC emissions from
existing plants would be maintained.
Total VOC emissions from new and
existing plants located in States
imposing numerical limits are estimated
to be about 8,500 Mg in the fifth year, a
58 percent increase from current levels
of 4,100 Mg. VOC emissions from plants
located in States subject to revised SIP
regulations based on the CTG-
recommended limitations would also
increase approximately 58 percent from
the current emission level of 3,800 Mg
per year to 8,000 Mg per year. Total
nationwide emissions in the fifth year
are expected to be about 12,500 Mg.
Regulatory Alternative D would have
no effect relative to Alternative I on the
VOC emissions from new and modified
plants that locate in States that now
impose numerical limits and use higher
VOC content coatings and incineration.
In the absence of any additional
standards, some plants would use
currently available low-VOC content
coatings. It is unlikely that these plants
would be able to meet the emission limit
of Regulatory Alternative II by using
these coatings alone. If it is assumed
that these plants would switch to higher
VOC-content coatings and incineration,
their VOC emissions would be reduced
by about 70 MG (75 tons).
Alternative II would result in an
average reduction of 30 percent from
new and modified plants that locate in
States that adopt the CTG-
recommended limits. Emission
reductions from plants that use higher
VOC content coatings and incineration
would amount to 1,800 Mg (2,000 tons),
and emission reductions from plants
that use low-VOC content coatings
would amount to about 25 Mg (30 tons)
if they switched from low-VOC content
coatings to higher VOC content coatings
and incineration. The fifth year impact
on overall emissions would amount to a
reduction of 1,800 Mg (2,100 tons)
relative to the baseline levels. In this
case, total emissions in the fifth year
would decrease to 10,600 Mg (11,700
IV-TT-7
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 2 / Monday. January 5. 1981 / Proposed Rules
tons) from the baseline level of 12,500
Mg (13.800 tons).
Regulatory Alternative III would have
no impact on the VOC emissions from
plants in areas that now impose
numerical limits but would lead to a
reduction of 1,600 Mg (2.000 tons)
relative to the baseline from plants in
areas that adopt the CTG-recommended
limits. Total emissions in the fifth year
would decrease to 10.700 Mg (11,800
tons) from the baseline level of 12,500
Mg (13,800 tons).
An NSPS based on Regulatory
Alternative IV would result in an
average 33 percent reduction relative to
the baseline in the emissions from new
and modified plants that locate in States
that now impose numerical limits and an
average 72 percent reduction from new
and modified plants that locate in States
that adopt the CTG-recommended
limits. The effect of these reductions on
overall emissions in the fifth year would
amount to a decrease of approximately
3,600 Mg (4.000 tons). Emissions in the
fifth year would decrease from 12,500
Mg (13.800 tons) to 8,900 Mg (9,800 tons).
An NSPS based on Regulatory
Alternative V would reduce emissions
the same as Regulatory Alternative IV
for plants that use higher VOC content
coatings and incineration but would
result in an increase in emissions,
relative to Regulatory Alternative IV, of
approximately 400 Mg (400 tons) in the
fifth year from plants that use
walerborne coatings. The overall
emission reduction in the fifth year
would amount to 3,200 Mg (3,500 tons).
Emissions in the fifth year would
decrease from the baseline level of
12.500 Mg (13,800 tons) to 9,300 Mg
(12,300 tons).
Each of the regulatory alternatives is
based on the use of incineration as the
primary means of VOC emission control.
Incinerators do not generate either solid
or liquid wastes, and, consequently, no
impact on water .pollution and solid
waste disposal is expected to occur from
either of the regulatory alternatives '
when incineration is used. If compliance
is achieved by the use of low-VOC
content coatings, no changes in liquid or
solid waste discharge would be
expected.
Energy Impacts
To estimate the energy impacts of the
regulatory alternatives, specific control
systems were defined that could be used
to achieve compliance with existing
regulations and with% the regulatory
alternatives. The equipment identified
as being capable of meeting the CTG-
recommended limits is an energy
efficient system that consists of a series
of incinerators inside the ovens that
recycles the hot exhaust gases back to
the oven. This system is not widely used
at present without an external
afterburner. The control technology
identified as capable of achieving
compliance with the numerical limits of
existing SIPs and to achieve the
numerical limits of the regulatory
alternatives when higher VOC content
coatings are used is incineration with a
VOC destruction efficiency of 95 percent
used in conjunction with up to a 95
percent capture efficiency. The control
technology identified as being capable
of achieving the numerical limits
established for low-VOC content
coatings is the use of waterborne
coatings.
Regulatory Alternative I would have
no impact on energy consumption
compared to current levels. New plants
that locate in States requiring an 85
percent reduction would continue to
consume in the range of 27 TJ/yr for
small plants to 170 TJ/yr for large
plants. Plants that locate in States
subject to revised SIP limitations would
continue to consume from 17 TJ/yr in
small plants to 120 TJ/yr in large plants.
In the fifth year, total energy
consumption by the industry is
estimated to increase by about 3,500 T]
over current levels.
Regulatory Alternative II would have
very little effect on fuel consumption for
plants that locate in States that now
impose numerical limits; fuel and
electrical energy consumption would
remain at about the current level of 27 to
170 T] per year for small and large
plants, respectively. For plants that
locate in States imposing the CTG-
recommended limits, fuel consumption
could increase in a range from 42
percent for a large plant to 60 percent
for a small plant. In a small plant,
annual natural gas consumption would
increase from a current usage of 13.6
million fts to 21.2 million ft3. For a large
plant, annual natural gas consumption
would increase from a current usage of
96 million ft8 to 136 million ft3. The
increase in electrical energy
consumption could range from 38
percent for a large plant to 58 percent
for a small plant. For a small plant,
annual electrical energy consumption
would increase from 760,000 to 1.2
million kilowatt-hours (hWh). For a
large plant, annual consumption would
increase from 5.2 to 7.2 million kWh.
•The overall impact on national energy
consumption is estimated to be the
equivalent of 40,000 barrels of crude oil
per year, or 1 percent relative to the
baseline case. The fifth-year impact
would be an increase equivalent to
200,000 barrels of crude oil per year or 5
percent relative to the baseline.
The energy impacts of Regulatory
Alternative III would be the same as
those of Regulatory Alternative II for
individual plants, but fewer plants
would be affected because more plants
could comply with the standard by using
low-VOC content coatings for which
there is no energy impact. The overall
energy impacts of the two alternatives
are about the same because no more
than 15 percent of the plants would have
a change in their energy impact as a
result of this alternative.
Regulatory Alternative IV would have
very little effect on fuel consumption for
plants that locate in States that now
impose numerical limits. There could be
up to a 5 percent decrease in fuel
consumption as a result of the assumed
improvement in the capture efficiency of
VOC emissions. No increase in
electrical energy consumption is
estimated for the plants in numerical
limit areas. For plants that locate in
States that adopt the CTG-
recommended limits, the effect of
Regulatory Alternative IV on fuel
consumption could range from a 34
percent increase for a large plant to a 50
percent increase for a small plant. In a
small plant, annual natural gas
consumption would increase from the
current usage rate of 13.6 million fts to
20.0 million ft3, for a large plant, annual
natural gas consumption would increase
from a current usage of 96 million ft3 to
128 million ft3. The effect on electrical
energy consumption for plants in areas
that adopt the CTG-recommended limit
would be an increase in the range of 38
percent for a large plant to 58 percent
for a small plant. For a small plant,
annual electrical energy consumption
would increase from 760,000 to 1,200,000
kWh. For a large plant, annual
consumption would increase from 5.2 to
7.2 million kWh. The overall impact on
national energy consumption is
estimated to be the equivalent of 40,000
barrels of crude oil per year, or 1 percent
relative .to the baseline case. The fifth
year impact would be an increase
equivalent to 200,000 barrels of crude oil
per year, or 5 percent relative to the
baseline.
The energy impacts of Regulatory
Alternative V would be the same as
those for Regulatroy Alternative IV for
individual plants, but fewer plants
would be affected because more would
be able to meet the standards by using
low-VOC content coatings. The overall
energy impact would be about the same
for both alternatives.
IV-TT-8
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 2 / Monday. January 5. 1981 / Proposed Rules
Economic Impacts
A discounted cash flow approach was
used to analyze the model plant costs
and to determine the price impacts of
each of the regulatory alternatives. The
analysis was based on data consisting
of the capital, installation, operating,
and maintenance costs of the control
equipment that could be used to achieve
compliance with each of the baseline
levels of control and with each of the
regulatory alternatives. The cost data
were obtained from coil coaters and
from the vendors of coating equipment
and emission control equipment for the
coil coating industry.
Regulatory Alternative I, no NSPS,
would have no economic or price
impacts on plants located in States
imposing numerical limits or on plants
subject to revised SIP limitations based
on the CTG-recommended limits.
Current total installed capital costs for a
new plant located in a State imposing
numerical emission limits are estimated
as $7.6 million for a small plant and
$14.7 million for a large plant. Total
annualized costs range from $4.2 million
for a small plant to $11.0 million for a
large plant. For a plant located in an
area subject to revised SIP regulations
based on the CTG-recommended limits,
total installed costs range from $7.5
million for a small plant to $13.9 million
for a large plant, and total annualized
costs range from $4.2 million to $11.8
million for small and large plants,
respectively.
Regulatory Alternatives II and III
would have no impact on product price
for plants that locate in States that
currently impose numerical limits on
VOC emissions. For plants that locate in
States that adopt the CTG-
recommended limits, the estimated price
increase under Regulatory Alternatives
II and III ranges from 1.0 to 3.9 percent
for small and large plants, respectively,
if the plants use higher VOC content
coatings and incineration. This price
impact represents increased installed
capital costs in the range of $70,000
(about 1 percent) for a small plant to
$780,000 (about 5 percent) for a large
plant and increased total annualized
costs in the range of $32,000 (about 1
percent) for a small plant to $380,000
(about 4 percent) for a large plant.
Alternatively, if prices are held
constant, the return on investment (ROI)
of a typical plant would decrease from
the baseline level of 12 percent by an
amount ranging from 0.38 percentage
point for small plants to 2.70 percentage
points for large plants that locate in
areas that adopt the CTG-recommended
limits. There could be no impact for
plants in numerical limit areas. The 12
percent baseline ROI is the after-tax,
weighted average cost of capital from
equity, debt, and preferred stock.
Financial data from 29 individual firms
for 1978 were used to calculate this
value. (For a full discussion of the
derivation of this figure, see chapter 8 of
the BID.)
The difference in the economic
impacts between Regulatory
Alternatives II and III occurs because
fewer plants incur a cost under
Regulatory Alternative III than under
Alternative II. If a plant were forced to
switch from the use of low-VOC content
coatings to higher VOC content coatings
and incineration to meet the
requirements of Regulatory Alternative
•II, the economic impact would be the
same as those described above. The
number of such plants is indeterminate
but would be no more than 15 percent of
all new, modified, and reconstructed
plants. Under Regulatory Alternative III,
it is assumed that no plants would
switch from waterborne coatings.
The economic impact of Regulatory
Alternatives IV and V would be the
same on plants that use higher VOC
content coatings and incineration and
would be relatively small for plants that
locate in States that now impose
numerical limits on VOC emissions. The
price increase for these plants in
estimated to range from 0.2 percent for a
large plant to 0.8 percent for a small
plant. The increase in the total installed
capital costs of these plants ranges from
$110,000 (about 1 percent) for a small
plant to $140,000 (about 1 percent) for a
large plant, and the increase in total
annualized costs would be in the range
of $11,000 (less than 1 percent) for a
small plant to $23,000 (less than 1
percent) for a large plant. For plants that
locate in areas that adopt the CTG-
recommended limits, the impact of an
NSPS based on Regulatory Alternatives
IV or V would be a price increase in the
range of 1.9 percent for a small plant to
4.2 percent for a large plant if the plants
use higher VOC content coatings and
incineration. The increase in the total
installed cost of a new plant locating in
these areas would be in the range of
$180,000 (about 2 percent) for a small
plant to $920,000 (about 6 percent) for a
large plant. The increase in total
annualized costs would be in the range
of $55,000 (about 1 percent) for a small
plant to $390,000 (about 4 percent) for a
large plant.
If prices are held constant, the ROI of
a typical plant would decrease from the
baseline level of 12 percent by an
amount ranging from 0.7 percentage
point for a small plant to 2.4 percentage
points for large plants that locate in
areas that adopt the CTG-recommended
limits and by an amount ranging from
0.1 to 0.3 percentage point for large and
small plants, respectively, that locate in
numerical limit areas.
Nationally, the average price increase
of coil coated metal could be expected
to increase by about 3.1 percent if an
NSPS were promulgated based on
Regulatory Alternative IV and by 2.6
percent if an NSPS were based on
Regulatory Alternative V. The price
increase for Regulatory Alternative IV is
based on the assumption that plants
would not be able to meet the emission
limits by using low-VOC content
coatings but, instead, would switch to
higher VOC content coatings and
incineration. The price increase for
Regulatory Alternative V is based on the
assumption that 15 percent of the new
and modified plants would use low-
VOC content coatings.
As can be seen from the above
discussion, the price impacts, relative to
the baseline, of Regulatory Alternatives
II through V are relatively small for
plants that locate in States that already
impose numerical limits on VOC
emissions. The impacts are higher for
plants that locate in States that adopt
the CTG-recommended limits, but the
estimated impacts are probably an
overstatement of the actual impacts
because a number of plants already
operate incinerators and coating rooms
for reasons other than emission
regulations.. Costs in these situations
would not be attributable to the
proposed standards. The differences
between the impacts of Alternatives II,
III, IV, and V are small. The impacts of
each alternative are concluded to be
reasonable.
Selection of Best System of Continuous
Emission Reduction
Regulatory Alternatives IV and V are
estimated to reduce emissions in the
fifth year by 3,900 and 3,200 Mg,
respectively, relative to the emissions
under Regulatory Alternative I. This
amount is 1,400 to 2,100 Mg greater than
the reduction that would be achieved by
Regulatory Alternative II or III. There
are no adverse environmental impacts
from any of the regulatory alternatives,
which leads to a conclusion that
Regulatory Alternatives IV and V are
the most reasonable from an
environmental standpoint.
The energy impacts of Regulatory
Alternatives II through V on plants that
locate in States that adopt the CTG-
recommended limits might be
considered large (up to a 58 percent
increase relative to Alternative I);
however, a low-cost, energy-efficient
system of control was used as the
IV-TT-9
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 1961 / Proposed Rules
baseline from which the impacts are
estimated. Numerous contacts with the
coil coating industry revealed that few
such systems are in use in existing
plants. The energy impact on plants that
locate in areas that impose numerical
limits on VOC emissions is quite small
and may even be positive. The energy
impact of Alternative IV or V relative to
Alternative II or III may be positive,
which makes Alternatives IV and V
appear to be the more reasonable
choices in view of the greater reduction
in VOC emissions that they achieve.
The greater emission reduction
associated with Regulatory Alternatives
IV and V relative to Alternatives II and
III is achieved with only a small
increase in the economic impact
compared to Alternative II or III. The
differential increase in the total installed
capital costs and total annualized cost
for Regulatory Alternative IV or V (1 to
6 percent increase) over these costs for
Regulatory Alternative II or III (0 to 5
percent increase) are relatively small.
Price increases attributed to Regulatory
Alternatives IV and V are in the range
of 0.2 to 4.1 percent, while the
corresponding increases attributed to
Regulatory Alternatives II and III range
from 0.0 to 3.9 percent. This is a
differential price increase of 0-2 percent
over the range of plant sizes studied.
These additional impacts appear
reasonable relative to the additional
reduction in emissions that is achieved,
which again makes Regulatory
Alternatives IV and V appear to be the
best candidates for the best system of
continuous emission reduction.
A comparison of Regulatory
Alternatives IV and V shows that
Alternative IV produces an additional
emission reduction of 700 Mg (or 22
percent) in the fifth year relative to
Alternative V, which makes Alternative
IV the better choice for environmental
considerations. The energy and
economic impacts of both alternatives
are the same for individual plants, but
Alternative V is estimated to affect
about 15 percent fewer plants than
Alternative IV, which makes Alternative
V the more attractive choice from
energy and economic considerations.
Data submitted by coating
manufacturers indicate that many of the
waterborne coatings used by the coil
coating industry would not meet the
emission limit in Alternative IV, which
could force new, modified, and
reconstructed plants to abandon the use
of low-VOC content coatings. However,
coating data indicate that most
commonly used waterborne coatings
could meet a higher emission limit than
would be allowed for these coatings
under Regulatory Alternative V, which
implies that no shifts away from low-
VOC content coatings are likely under
this alternative. There are some
advantages to the use of low-VOC
content coatings over the use of
incineration systems. The overall energy
requirement for low-VOC content
coatings is lower than that for higher
VOC content coatings and incineration
because of the lower volume of oven
ventilation required for low-VOC
content coatings. Additionally, EPA has
for a number of years encouraged the
development and use of low-VOC
content coatings as a means of reducing
VOC emissions and EPA does not wish
to preclude the use and further
development of these coatings by setting
an emission limit that cannot be met by
their use. These considerations make
Regulatory Alternative V more
reasonable than Regulatory Alternative
IV.
In view of the above assessment of
the environmental, energy, and
economic impacts, the large emission
reductions that would be achieved, and
the reasonable energy and economic
impacts relative to these reductions,
Regulatory Alternative V appears to be
the most reasonable choice as the best
system of continuous emission
reduction. Regulatory Alternative V has
therefore been selected as the basis for
the proposed new source standards of
performance. This alternative has been
determined to be affordable, and the
environmental, energy, and economic
impacts have been determined to be
reasonable.
Selection of Format for the Proposed
Standards
A number of different formats were
considered for the proposed standards.
The format selected must be compatible
with all of the control methods or
systems that would be used to comply
with the proposed standards, such as
the use of low-VOC content coatings or
the use of higher VOC content coatings
coupled with an incinerator. The
formats considered were emission limits
expressed in terms of the VOC •>
concentration in exhaust gases, mass of
emissions per unit of production, mass
of emissions per unit of coating solids
applied, and an overall percentage
emission reduction.
Typically, concentration standards
are preferred over mass standards
because mass standards require more
measurements and conversion
calculations. Exhaust gas flow rates and
raw material or product flow rates have
to be measured, and concentration
measurements have to be converted to
mass measurements. Where incineration
is used as a control technique, there is a
potential for air dilution. Excess air is
used in incinerators to ensure complete
combustion, and the quantity of excess
air used can vary. Due to the potential
for air dilution, correction factors are
necessary to ensure that measurements
of emissions from all control devices are
referenced to the same basis and that
the quantity of VOCs emitted is the
same no matter how much excess air is
used. If incinerators are used, correction
factors referencing all calculations to a
specific oxygen concentration level in
the exhaust gases are a solution to the
problem of using varying quantities of
excess air. These factors, however, do
not compensate for indirect air dilution
resulting from combustion of more fuel
and air than is necessary. In any event,
a concentration standard would require
a measurement of exhaust oxygen
concentration. For these reasons, this
format was not selected for the
proposed standards.
For an emission limit expressed in
terms of mass of VOCs per unit of
production, compliance is relatively
simple to demonstrate when low-VOC
content coatings are used but is more
difficult with the use of emission control
devices. For low-VOC content coatings,
the VOC content of the coatings used
would be determined and multiplied by
the volume of coatings used over a given
time period. This value would then be
divided by the production during that
same time period to give the VOC
emissions per unit of production. When
emission control devices are used, stack
tests would be necessary in addition to
the determination of the VOC content of
the coating to determine VOC
emissions. The emissions over a period
of time could then be divided by the
production over the same period of time
to yield the VOC emissions per unit of
production. This format would not be
very flexible in accommodating th2 large
variations that exist in the VOC and
solids content of the coatings used by
the industry and the range of coating
thicknesses that are used to meet the
requirements of the many end products
for which coil coated metal is used. This
format could also penalize those coaters
who, for reasons of product
performance, must use a coating with a
high VOC content or must use an above-
average coating thickness. Therefore, an
emission limit expressed in terms of
mass of VOCs per unit of production
was rejected as the format for the
proposed standards.
An emission limit expressed in terms
of VOC emissions per volume of coating
solids applied overcomes the problems
associated with the first two formats.
IV-TT-10
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 1981 / Proposed Rules
Because roller coating is Ihe method of
application, transfer efficiency is nearly
100 percent, which eliminates the need
to consider this parameter explicitly in
the compliance procedures. Stack
testing would not be required unless
emission control devices were used, and
this format is compatible with all of the
control methods that might be used. The
difficulty with this format lies with the
selection of the level of the emission
limit, because the range of VOC content
varies widely in the many different
coating formulations used by the
industry. To allow the use of coatings
with varying VOC contents, a level
would have to be selected that would
permit compliance when coatings are
used with the higher levels of VOC
content. Such a limit may not achieve
optimum VOC emissions control for
coalers that use coatings with average
or lower VOC content.
A format requiring an overall
percentage reduction overcomes the
problem with varying VOC content of
the coatings but is not as compatible
with compliance by the use of low-VOC
content coatings as is the format of VOC
content per unit of coating solids
applied. However, the combination of
this format with an emission limit
expressed in terms of mass of emissions
per unit of coating solids applied would
allow the plant owner or operator to
decide which method of compliance is
most compatible with the VOC content
of the coatings applied in his plant.
Therefore, this combh.ed format was
selected for the proposed standards.
This format has all of the advantages
associated with the third format (mass
of emissions per unit of coating solids
applied] and does not penalize those
coalers who must use coatings with a
high VOC content because they are
allowed to demonstrate the required
percentage reduction in overall
emissions.
Selection of Emission Limits
Section lll(a)(l) requires the emission
limits to reflect "application of the best
technological system of continuous
emission reduction which (taking into
consideration the cost of achieving such
emission reduction, and nonair quality.
health and environmental impact and
energy requirements] the Administrator
determines has been adequately
demonstrated." Section lll(a)(l). The
"best technological system" defined by
Section lll(a)(l) is one that is not
"exorbitantly costly." Essex Chemical
Corp. v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 427. 433
(D.C. Cir. 1973).
Application of the "best technological
system" results in a three-step standard:
for coatings with VOC contents of 1.4 or
more kg/I of coating solids, the standard
is 90 percent reduction in VOC
emissions. For coatings with VOC
contents of .28 to 1.4 kg/1 of coating
solids, the standard is .14 kg VOC/1 of
coating solids. For coatings with VOC
contents below .28 kg/1 of coating solids,
the standard is .28 kg/1.
As discussed earlier, VOC reductions
of 90 percent are achievable by systems
of capture and control. However, the
cost and energy requirements of
achieving VOC emission reductions
varies according to the VOC content of
the coating being controlled. The lower
the VOC content of the coating, the
higher are the cost and energy
requirements of achieving a given
reduction in emissions. This is for two
reasons. First, control of lower VOC
coatings generally requires capture and
control systems of the same size and
cost as control of higher-VOC coatings,
but it achieves less emission reduction
because there is less VOC to be
controlled. Second, the cost and energy
requirements of controlling lower-VOC
coatings in incinerators are further
increased by the need to use additional
supplemental fuel to operate the
incinerator.
In the Administrator's judgment, the
cost and energy requirements of a
capture and control system that
achieves a 30 percent reduction are
reasonable on coatings with VOC
contents of 1.4 or more kg/1 of coating
solids. Such a control system is
therefore the "best technological
system" and the standard for such
coatings is 90 percent reduction.
For coatings with VOC contents
between .28 and 1.4 kg/1 of coating
solids, .the standard is .14 kg VOC/1 of
coating solids. In the Administrator's
judgment, the cost and energy
requirements of achieving significantly
greater emission reduction on these
coatings would be exorbitant. Therefore,
the "best technological system" for
these coatings is one that can achieve
.14 kg VOC/1 of coating solids.
For coatings with VOC contents
below .28 kg/1 of coating solids, the
standard is .28 kg VOC/I of coating
solids. That is, no capture and control
system is required on these coatings.
This emission limitation reflects the
Administrator's judgment that the cost
and energy requirement's of using any
add-on control and capture system to
control such coatings would be
exorbitant.
Modification Considerations
The history of steady growth by the
coil coating industry has lead many
owners and operators of coil coating
lines to look for ways of increasing their
production capacity. Because the lead
time to construct a new coil coating line
is often as long as 2 years, more
expedient means of increasing
production capacity were developed.
Many coalers have found that the design
speed of existing coil coating lines can
be increased by replacing or modifying
the drive motors, electrical controls, or
both. This increased speed is often
achievable without modifications to the
ovens because of improvements that
occur in coating technology. This
method of increasing production has
played an important part in the growth
of the coil coating industry to date and
is expected to continue to play an
important part in future industry growth.
When accompanied by a capital
expenditure, such changes to increase
the design speed of coil coating lines
would subject an existing coil coating
line to the proposed standards if VOC
emissions increase. There are no
technological reasons why one of the
control techniques on which the
proposed standards are based—
incineration with heat recovery and
low-VOC content coatings—cannot be
applied to existing coil coating lines that
undergo a modification or
reconstruction. The use of incineration
with heat recovery as a retrofit on
existing lines is well documented in the
literature. To exclude these lines from
the requirements of the proposed
standards would be to exclude a large
portion of projected industry growth.
This fact, when considered with the
feasibility of retrofitting, leads to the
conclusion that it is reasonable to apply
the proposed standards to all capital
expenditure modifications for increasing
the design speed of a coil coating line
'that results in an increased VOC
emission rate. The impacts of the
proposed standards are reasonable as
applied to modified and reconstructed
facilities.
Method of Determining Compliance
The two most likely methods of
compliance with the proposed standards
are the installation of emission control
devices or the use of low-VOC content
coatings. Because of the variations that
exist in emission control systems and in
the physical configurations of coil
coating lines, the exact procedure used
in determining compliance may vary
from plant to plant. Generally, each
owner or operator of a new, modified, or
reconstructed coil coating plant must
begin conducting performance tests
within the first 6 months of operation.
Following is a summary of the major
requirements for determining
compliance with the proposed
standards:
IV-TT-11
-------
Rogiete / Vol. 46, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 1981 / Proposed Rules
(1) Where low-VOC content coatings
are used to achieve compliance with the
proposed numerical emission limit (0.28
kg/1 of coating solids applied), the plant
owner or operator must conduct
monthly performance tests that consist
of a calculation of a weighted average of
the VOC content (including dilution
oolvents) per liter of coating solids for
each prime coat and for each finish coat
operation for each calendar month of
operation. Equations are provided for
calculating the weighted average. The
data necessary to calculate the average
VOC content of the coatings may be
obtained from formulation data supplied
by the manufacturer of the coatings or,
in cases where the validity of the
formulation data is in doubt, through a
coating analysis performed with
Reference Method 24.
(2) Where higher VOC content
coatings are used with an emission
control device to meet the proposed
numerical emission limit (0.14 kg/1 of
coating solids applied), the owner or
operator must coifduct monthly
performance tests that consist of a
calculation of a weighted average of the
VOC content {including dilution
solvents) of the coatings applied for
each prime coat and each finish coat
operation for each calendar month
according to the equations provided.
The o«vner or operator must also
calculate the overall VOC removal
efficiency required to meet the emission
limit and, during the first monthly
performance test, must measure the
actual overall VOC destruction rate
achieved. If incineration is used, the
latter value is determined by measuring
the concentration of VOCs in the
effluent gases in and out of the control
device and to the atmosphere and by
then calculating the overall control
efficiency with the equations provided
in the proposed standards. If carbon
adsorption is used, the actual overall
VOC removal efficiency is determined
by a material balance performed with
the equations provided in the proposed
standards. Compliance is demonstrated
where the measured value of the overall
VOC removal rate is greater than or
equal to the required overall VOC
removal rate. If incineration is used, the
operating temperature of the control
device must be measured and recorded
during the measurement of incinerator
efficiency. Subsequent to the first
monthly performance test, compliance is
demonstrated if the computed overall
VOC destruction rate required is less
than or equal to the overall VOC
destruction rate measured during the
most recent measurement of incinerator
efficiency. The measurement of the VOC
destruction rate of the incinerator must
be repeated when directed by the
Administrator or when the owner or
operator elects to operate the control
device at conditions that are different
from those during the most recent
measurement.
(3) Where compliance is achieved
through the demonstration of a 80
percent overall emission reduction, the
owner or operator must conduct the first
monthly performance test with the
equations provided in the proposed
standards and Reference Method 25 to
determine the overall percent reduction
of the control device. Compliance is
demonstrated where the overall percent
reduction is equal to or greater than 80
percent. The operating temperature of
the control device must be measured
during the test. In subsequent months, if
the operating temperature of the control
device is maintained within specified
intervals of the temperature measured
during the most recent measurement of
incinerator efficiency, compliance is
demonstrated. The test of the efficiency
of the control device must be repeated
when directed by the Administrator or
when the owner or operator elects to
operate the control device at conditions
that are different from those during the
most recent measurement.
(4) During the first monthly
performance test for a capture system
and incinerator one must be able to
measure all of the potential emissions,
both fugitive emissions and those ducted
to the incinerator. To do this, all fugitive
emissions from the coating application
area must be captured and vented
through stacks suitable for testing. Prior
to the performance test for incineration-
controlled affected facilities, the owner
or operator will be required to construct
a temporary total enclosure around the
coating application station for the
purpose of capturing fugitive VOC
emissions. A total enclosure is defined
as any structure or building around the
coating applicator and flashoff area or
the entire coating line for the purpose of
confining and totally capturing fugitive
VOC emissions. If a permanent total
enclosure exists on the line prior to the
performance test, and the enforcing
agency is satisfied that the enclosure is
totally capturing fugitive emissions, the
construction of a temporary enclosure is
not required.
Two types of violations may occur at
a source that achieves compliance
through the use of incineration in
conjunction with higher VOC content
coatings. The first is an increase in the
average VOC content of the coatings.
The second type of violation would
involve improper operation and
maintenance of the control device.
These two types of violations are
discussed below.
When incineration is used to achieve
compliance with the numerical limits of
the proposed standards, the first
monthly performace test consists of
determining the weighted average VOC
content of all coating formulations
applied for a calendar month and of
measuring the overall VOC destruction
rate of the incinerator. The overall VOC
destruction rate measured during that
test will determine the maximum
allowable average VOC content of
coatings that can be used by the source.
The VOC content must not exceed a
value that, when reduced by the
measured overall VOC destruction rate
of the incinerator, is less than or equal
to the numerical emission limit. If,
during any subsequent monthly
performance test, the average VOC
content exceeds the allowable level (as
determined by the most recent
measurement), the source would be
considered in violation. If an owner or
operator wishes to increase the VOC
content above the allowable level (as
determined by the most recent
measurement), he must demonstrate, by
conducting another measurement that
the overall VOC destruction rate of the
incinerator is sufficient to meet the
proposed standards with the higher
VOC content coatings.
The second type of violation would
involve a recurring pattern of
temperature fluctuations lasting for 3
hours or more during the coating
process. Although the proposed
standards would require the owner or
operator to report each such occurrence
and its duration, the temperature drop in
itself would not necessarily be
considered a violation; however,
repeated incidents may indicate
improper operation and maintenance of
control equipment, a violation of 40 CFR
60.11(d). If a source's continuous
monitor shows repeated drops in
temperature, the Administrator may
require that a test of the overall VOC
destruction rate of the incinerator be
conducted at the lower temperature. If
the test shows a violation of the
standard, the plant may be cited for
improper operation and maintenance of
the control device and would be
required to increase the operating
temperature to that at which compliance
was demonstrated.
A source that achieves compliance
with the proposed standards through the
use of Low-VOC content coatings
without the use of emission control
devices must determine a weighted
average of the VOC content of the
IV-TT-12
-------
Fsdes-al Regnstar / Vol.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 1981 / Proposed Rules
Miscellaneous
As prescribed by Section 111.
establishment of standards of
performance for Metal Coil Surface
Coating was preceded by the
Administrator's determination (40 CFR
60.16. 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 this proposal was preceded by
consultation with 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 test
methods.
Comments are specifically requested
on the definition of the affected facility
that is contained in the proposed
standards. Any comments submitted to
the Administrator on the definition of
the affected facility should contain
specific information and data pertinent
to an evaluation of the magnitude and
severity of the impact of the current
proposal and suggested alternative
courses of action that would avoid this
impact.
It should be noted that standards of
performance for new sources
established under Section 111 of the
Clean Air Act reflect
' ' * application of the best technological
s> stem of continuous emission reduction
which (taking into consideration the cost of
achieving such emission reduction, any
nonair quality health and environmental
impact and energy requirements) the
Administrator determines has been
adequately demonstrated [Section lll(a)(l)].
Although there may be emission
control technology available that can
reduce emissions below those levels
required to comply with standards of
performance, this technology might not
be selected as the basis of standards of
performance due to costs associated
with its use. Accordingly, standards of
performance should not be viewed as
the ultimate in achievable emission
control. In fact, the Act requires (or has
the potential for requiring) the
imposition of a more stringent emission
standard in several situations.
For example, applicable costs do not
necessarily play as prominent a role in
determining the "lowest achievable
emission rate" for new or modified
sources locating in nonattainment 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 new
or modified sources constructed in an
area v\here ambient pollutant
concentrations exceed the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) must reduce emissions to the
level that reflects the "lowest
achievable emission rate" (LAF.RJ, as
defined in Section 171(3) for such
category of source. The statute, defines
I.AER as that rate of emissions based on
the following, whichever is more
stringent:-
(A) the most stringent emission limitation
which is contained in the implementation
plan of any State for such class or category of
source, unless the owner or operator of the
proposed source demonstrates that such
limitations are not achievable, or
(B) the most stringent emission limitation
which is achieved in practice by such class or
category of source.
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.
BACT must be determined on a case-by-
case basts, taking energy,
environmental, and economic impacts
and other costs into account. In no event
may the application of BACT result in
emissions of any pollutants that 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.
Finally, 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 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 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 lll(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.
The economic impact assessment is
included in the Background Information
Documents.
Dated: December 18.19UO.
Douglas M. Costle,
Administrator.
It is proposed that 40 CFR Part 60 be
amended by adding a new Subpart TT
as follows:
PART 60—STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
STATIONARY SOURCES
Subpart TT—Standards of Performance for
Metal Coil Surface Coating
SPC.
60.460 Applicability and designation of
affected facility.
60.461 Definitions.
60.462 Standards for volatile organic
compounds.
60.463 Performance test and compliance
provisions.
60.464 Monitoring of emissions and
operations.
60.465 Reporting and recordkneping
requirements.
60.466 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 Coil Surface
Coating
§ 60.460 Applicability and designation of
affected facility.
(a) The provisions of this subpart
apply to the following affected facilities
in a metal coil surface coating line: each
prime coat operation, each finish coat
operation, and each prime and finish
IV-TT-14
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 2 / Monday. January 5. 1981 / Proposed Rules
coat operation combined when the
finish coat is applied wet on wet over
the prime coat and both coalings are
cured simultaneously.
(b) This subpart applies to any facility
identified in paragraph (a) of this section
that commences construction,
modification, or reconstruction after
(date of publication in
Federal Register).
§ 60.461 Definitions.
(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 for decorative or protective
purposes.
"Coating application station" means
that portion of the metal coil surface
coating operation where the coating is
applied to the surface of the metal coil.
Included as 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 or 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 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 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 that quantity,
in kilograms per liter of coating solids,
of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in
a coating as applied to metal coil.
(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.
CH - the VOC concentration in each effluent
gas stream leaving the control device and
entering the atmosphere, in parts per
million by volume.
Ct= the VOC concentration in each effluent
gas stream entering the control device, in
pails per million by volume.
C, = the VOC concentration in each effluent
gas emitted directly to the atmosphere, in
parts per million by volume.
Dei = density of each coating as applied, in
kilograms per liter.
E = the overall VOC destruction rate of the
capture system and control device.
ER = the required overall VOC destruction
rate.
G = the monthly average VOC content per
unit of coating solids applied, in
kilograms per liter.
k = the number of coating formulations
applied.
L,i = the volume of each coating applied, in
liters.
Ls=volume of solids in coatings applied, in
liters.
N = weighted average of mass of VOCs per
volume of solids, after the control device.
kg VOCs .
liter of solids
1 = the number of effluent gas streams
entering the control device from one
affected facility.
n = the number of effluent gas streams leaving
the control device and entering the
atmosphere.
m = the total number of effluent gas streams
entering the control device.
Mu= total mass of VOCs consumed in a
calendar month, in kilograms.
M, = total mass of VOCs recovered from a
affected facility during a calendar month,
in kilograms.
p = the number of effluent gas streams
emitted directly to the atmosphere from
one affected facility.
Q, = the volumetric flow rate of each
effluent gas stream leaving the control
device and entering the atmosphere, in
dry standard cubic meters per second.
Qb = the volumetric flow rale of each
effluent gas stream entering the control
device, in dry standard cubic meters per
second.
Q( = the volumetric flow rate of each effluent
gas stream emitted directly to the
atmosphere, in dry standard cubic meters
per second.
VM = the proportion of solids in each coating
as applied, by volume.
W0) = the proportion of VOCs in each
coating HS applied, by weight.
§ 60.462 Standards lor volatile organic
compounds.
(a) On and after the date on which the
initial performance test required by
§ 60.8 has been 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//) of coating solids applied for
each calendar month for each prime
coat or finish coat operation without the
use of emission control device(s): or
(2) 0.14 kg VOC// of coating solids
applied for each calendar month for
each prime coat or finish coat operation
by using emission control device(s)
operated at the most recently
demonstrated overall efficiency: or
(3) 10 percent of the VOCs applied for
each calendar month for each prime
coat or finish coat operation (90 percent
emission reduction).
§ 60.463 Performance test and compliance
provisions.
(a) Paragraphs 60.8(d) and (f) do not
apply to the performance test
procedures required by this subpart.
(b) Each owner or operator of an
affected facility shall conduct a
performance test for each calendar
month for each affected facility
according to the procedures in this
section.
(c) Where compliance with the
numerical limit specified in
§ 60.462(a](l) or (2) is achieved through
the use of low-VOC content coatings
without an emission control device or
through the use of higher VOC content
coatings in conjunction with an emission
control device, the owner or operator
shall compute and record a weighted
average of the VOC content per volume
of coating solids applied for each
calendar month. The owner or operator
shall obtain the data necessary to
compute the weighted average through
information provided by the formula tor
of the coating material or, if there is any
doubt as to the validity of the
formulation data, through the analysis of
each coating, as applied, with Reference
Method 24. Coating and solvent usage
data may be obtained from company
records. The owner or operator shall
compute'the average VOC content of
coatings applied by the following
equations:
(1) The total mass of VOCs consumed
shall be computed with the following
equation:
k
I
1=1
WoiDciLci
(2) The total volume of solids
consumed shall be computed with the
following equation:
IV-TT-15
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 2 / Monday, January 5. 1981 / Proposed Rules
Ls =
k
Z
1=1
Vs1Lci
(3) The average VOC content shall be
computed with the following equation:
(d) Where compliance with the
numerical limit specified in .
§ 60.462(a)(l) is
achieved through the use of low-VOC
content coatings without emission
control devices, compliance is achieved
where the value of the VOC content per
unit of coating solids applied (G) is less
than or equal to 0.28 kg// for each
affected facility.
(e) Where compliance with the
numerical limit specified in
E =
=l (Cbi
bi)
(i) The owner or operator of the
affected facility shall construct the
overall VOC emission reduction system
so that all volumetric flow rates and
total VOC emissions can be accurately
determined by the applicable test
methods and procedures specified in
5 60.466(a)(2).
(ii) The owner or operator of an
affected facility shall construct a
temporary total enclosure around the
coating applicator and flashoff area
during the performance test for the
purpose cf capturing fugitive VOC
emissions. If a permanent total
enclosure exists in the affected facility
prior to the performance test and the
Administrator is satisfied that the
enclosure is totally capturing fugitive
VOC emissions, then no additional total
enclosure will be required for the
performance test.
(3) Where compliance with the
numerical limit specified in § 60.462(a)
(2) is achieved through the use of higher
§ 60.462(a)(2) is achieved through the
use of higher VOC content coatings in .
conjunction with an emission control
device that destroys VOCs, the owner or
operator shall determine and record, in
addition to the average VOC content per
volume of coating solids applied, the
required overall VOC destruction rate
and, during the first monthly test, the
actual overall VOC destruction rate of
the control device according to the
following procedures.
(1) The required overall VOC
destruction rate is calculated with the
following equation:
(2) The actual overall VOC
destruction rate is calculated with
measured values of the VOC
concentration and volumetric flow rate
of each gas stream entering and leaving
the control device and of each gas
stream emitted directly to the
atmosphere by the following equation:
=l (Cbi
^bi) - i=l
VOC content coatings in conjunction
with an emission control device that
destroys VOCs, compliance is achieved
when the value of the overall VOC
destruction rate (E) is greater than or
equal to the required overall VOC
destruction rate (ER).
(f) Where compliance with
§ 60.462(a)(3) is achieved through the
demonstration of a 90 percent overall
reduction in VOC emissions, the owner
or operator shall determine and record
the actual overall VOC destruction rate
using the equations provided in
paragraph (e) of this section.
Compliance with § 60.462(c) is achieved
when the value of the overall reduction
in emissions (E) is equal to or greater
than 0.90.
(g) An owner or operator shall use the
following procedure for each calendar
month for each affected facility that
uses a capture system and a control
device that recovers VOCs (e.g., carbon
adsorber) to comply with the applicable
emission limit specified under
§00.462(a)(2):
(1) Calculate the weighted average of
mass of VOCs per volume of solids
emitted after the control device with the
following equation:
M
N =
o -
M
the weighted average of mass of
VOCs per volume of solids emitted after
the control device (N) is less than or
equal to the applicable emission limit
specified under § 60.462(a)(2). the
affected facility is in compliance. Each
monthly calculation is a performance
test for the purposes of this subpart.
§ 60.464 Monitoring of emissions and
operations.
(a) Where compliance with the
numerical limit specified in
§ 60.462(a)(l) is achieved through the
use of low-VOC content coatings
without the use of emission control
devices, the owner or operator shall
compute and record the average VOC
content per volume of coating solids
applied during each calendar month for
each affected facility, according to the
equations provided in § 60.463(c).
(b) Where compliance with the
numerical limit specified in
§ 60.462(a)(2) is achieved through the
use of higher VOC content coatings in
combination with the use of an emission
control device that destroys VOCs, the
owner or operator shall compute and
record for each affected facility the
average VOC content per volume of
coating solids applied during each
calendar month, according to the
equations provided in § 60.463(c).
(c) If thermal incineration is used,
each owner or operator subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall install,
calibrate, operate, and maintain a
device that continuously records the
combustion temperature of any effluent
gases incinerated to achieve compliance
with § 60.462(a)(2) or (3). This device
shall have an accuracy of ±2.5" C or
±0.75 percent of the temperature being
measured expressed in degrees Celsius,
whichever is greater. Each owner or
operator shall also record all periods
(during actual coating operations) in
excess of 3 hours during which the
average temperature in any thermal
IV-TT-16
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 2 / Monday. January 5. 1981 / Proposed Rules
incinerator used to control emissions
Tom an affected facility remains more
'than 28" C (50° F) below the temperature
at which compliance with 8 60.462(a)(2)
or (3) was demonstrated during the most
recent measurement of incinerator
efficiency required by § 60.8. The report
required by 8 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
continuously monitor and record the gas
temperature both upstream and
downstream of the incinerator catalyst
bed. This device shall have an accuracy
of ±2.5° C or ±0.75 percent of the
temperature being measured expressed
in degrees Celsius, whichever is greater.
The owner or operator shall record all
periods during the coating operation in
excess of 3 hours where the average
difference between the temperature
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 § 60.462(a) (2) or (3)
was demonstrated during the most
recent measurement of incinerator
fficiency required by § 60.8. The report
quired by § 60.7 shall identify each
such occurrence and its duration.
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42
U.S.C. 7414)
0
5 60.46S Reporting and recordkeeplng
requirements.
(a) Where compliance with the
numerical limit specified in
8 60.462(a)(l) or (2) is achieved through
the use of low-VOC content coatings
without emission control devices or
through the use of higher VOC content
coatings in conjunction with emission
control devices that destroy VOCs, each
owner or operator subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall inelude
in the initial compliance report required
by § 60.7 the weighted average of the
VOC content of coating solids applied
during a period of one calendar month
for each affected facility.
(b) Where compliance with § 60.462(a)
(2) or (3) is achieved through the use of
an emission control device that destroys
VOCs, each owner or operator subject
to the provisions of this subpart shall
include the following data in the initial
compliance report required by § 60.7:
(1) The actual overall VOC
destruction rate, and required overall
VOC destruction rate used to attain
compliance with § 60.462(a) (2) or (3);
and
(2) The combustion temperature of the
thermal incinerator or the gas
temperature, both upstream and
downstream of the incinerator catalyst
bed, used to attain compliance with
§ 60.462(a) (2) or (3).
(c) Where compliance with
8 60.462(a)(l) is achieved through the
use of low-VOC content coatings
without the use of an emission control
device, each owner or operator shall
report for each affected facility each
month where the average VOC content
of coatings applied exceeds the limits
specified in 8 60.462(a)(l). These reports
must be submitted within 10 days after
the end of each such month.
(d) Where compliance with
8 60.462(a)(2) is achieved through the
use of higher VOC content coatings and
an emission control device that destroys
VOCs, each owner or operator shall
report for each affected facility each
month for which the average VOC
content of the coatings applied, when
reduced by the destruction efficiency of
the control device (as determined by the
most recent measurement), exceeds the
numerical limit specified in
8 60.462(a)(2). These reports must be
submitted within 10 days after the end
of each such month.
(e) Where compliance with 8 60.462(a)
(2) or (3) is achieved by the use of a
thermal incinerator, each owner or
operator must report quarterly all
periods in excess of 3 hours during
which the average combustion
temperature of the incinerator, as
measured by the continuous monitor,
remained more than 28° C (50° F) below
the temperature at which compliance
was demonstrated during the most
recent measurement of incinerator
efficiency. Where compliance is
achieved with a catalytic incinerator,
the owner or operator must report
quarterly all periods in excess of 3 hours
during which the average difference
between the temperature upstream and
downstream of the catalyst bed remains
below 80 percent of the temperature
difference at which compliance was
demonstrated during the most recent
measurement of incinerator efficiency
and must report all periods in excess of
3 hours during which the average
temperature upstream of the catalyst
bed remains more than 28° C (50° F)
below the temperature at which
compliance was demonstrated during
the most recent measurement of
incinerator efficiency.
(f) Where compliance is achieved
through the use of a solvent recovery
system, the owner or operator shall
record daily the amount of solvent
recovered by the system for each
affected facility. The owner or operator
shall report each month where the
amount of solvent recovered by the
system falls below that necessary for
compliance. These reports must be
submitted within 10 days after the end
of each such month. '
(g) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall
maintain at the source, for a period of at
least 2 years, records of all data and
calculations used 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 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.
§ 60.466 Test methods and procedures.
(a) The Reference Methods in
Appendix A to this part except as
provided under 8 60.8(b) shall be used to
determine compliance with § 60.462 as
follows:
(1) Reference Method 24, or data
provided by the formulator of the
coating for determining the VOC content
of each coating as applied to the surface
of the metal coil. In the event of a
dispute, Reference Method 24 shall be
the reference method;
(2) Reference Method 25 for the
measurement of the VOC concentration
in the effluent gas stream entering and
leaving the incinerator for each stack
equipped with an emission control
device, and for the measurement of the
VOC concentration in each effluent gas
stream emitted directly to the
atmosphere;
(3) Method 1 for sample and velocity
traverses;
(4) Method 2 for velocity and
volumetric flow rate;
(5) Method 3 for gas analysis; and
(6) Method 4 for stack gas moisture.
(b) For Method 24 the coating sample
must be a 1-liter sample taken at a point
where the sample will be representative
IV-TT-17
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 1981 / Proposed Rules
of the coating as applied to the surface
of the metal coil.
(c) For Method 25. the sampling time
for each of three runs 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-case basis if the owner or
operator can demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Administrator that
lusting of representative stacks yields
results comparable to those that would
be. obtained by testing all stacks.
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42
U.S.C. 7414))
|i K Our.. Bl-flr Fili-(l 1-2-Bl: H:41 .im|
BILLING CODE 6560-2S-M
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 29 / Thursday, February 12. 1981 / Proposed 3hiles
40 CFR Part 60
[AD-FRL-1752-6J
Standards of Performance for New
Statutory Sources; Metal Coll Surface
Coating; Extension of Comment Period
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of
comment period.
SUMMARY: This action provides for a 30-
day extension of the comment period Jor
the proposed standards of performance
for metal coil surface coating. These
standards were proposed in the Federal
Register on January 5,1981 (46 FR 1102).
This action responds to a request from
the National Coil Coalers Association
for an extension of the comment period.
This extension will allow-additional
time for the industry to futher evaluate
the proposed standards and submit
additional information and data.
DATES: Comments must be postmarked
no later than April 6,1981. Also, written
comments responding to, supplementing,
or rebutting written or oral comments
received at the public hearing on
February-4,1681, musl "be postmarked no
la ter than April 6,1981.
ADDRESS: Comments should be
submitted (in duplicate if possible) to:
Central Docket Section (A-130J.
Attention: Docket Number A-60-5, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20460.
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 number (919)
541-5421.
Dated: February 6.1981.
Paul Stolpman.
Acting Assistant A&ninisiratorfnrAir, Noise,
and Radiation.
(FR Doc-JH-4DR2 Filed 2-11-61: &45«m)
•ILUNGfOOE fttO-M-M
IV-TT-18
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR
NEW STATIONARY
SOURCES
ASPHALT PROCESSING
AND ASPHALT ROOFING
MANUFACTURE
SUBPART UU
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 18, 1980 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[AD-FRL-1505-7]
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources; Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacture
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of
public hearing.
SUMMARY: The proposed standards
would limit atmospheric emissions of
particulate matter from new, modified,
and reconstructed asphalt blowing stills,
asphalt saturators. asphalt storage
tanks, and mineral handling and storage
operations in the asphalt processing and
roofing manufacturing industry. In
addition, the proposed standards will
limit the opacity of emissions from
asphalt blowing stills, asphalt
s.iturators, asphalt storage tanks, and
mineral handlings and storage
operations and fugitive emissions from
asphalt saturator hooding. Two EPA
reference methods are also being
proposed along with the standards.
The standards implement Section 111
of the clean Air Act and are based on
the Administrator's determination that
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
manufacturing facilities contribute
significantly to air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health or welfare. The intended
effect is to require new, modified, and
reconstructed affected facilities in
asphalt roofing manufacturing plants, oil
refineries, and asphalt processing plants
to use the best demonstrated system of
continuous emission reduction.
considering costs, non-air quality health
and environmental impacts, and energy
impacts.
If requested, a public hearing will be
held to provide interested persons an
opportunity for oral presentation of
data, views, or arguments concerning
the proposed standards.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be
received on or before January 19,1981.
Public Hearing. A public hearing will
be held, if requested. Persons wishing to
request a public hearing must contact
EPA by December 2.1980. If a hearing is
requested, an announcement of the date
and place will appear in a separate
Federal Register notice.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments
should be submitted (in duplicate if
possible) to: Central Docket Section (A-
130). Attention: Docket No. OAQPS A-
79-39. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,
D.C. 20460.
Public Hearing. Persons wishing to
request a public hearing should notify
Ms. Deanna B. Tilley, Emission
Standards and Engineering Division
(MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone (919) 451-
5477.
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 (919) 541-
2777. Please refer to "Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing Industry, Background
Information for Proposed Standards,"
EPA-450/3-80-O21a.
Docket. A docket, number OAQPS A-
79-39, containing information used by
EPA in development of the proposed
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, Waterside
Mall, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington.
D.C. 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Ms. Susan R. Wyatt, Emission Standards
and Engineering Division (MD-13),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone (919) 541-5477.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Proposed Standards
The proposed standards would limit
particulate emissions from the following
new, modified, or reconstructed affected
facilities in asphalt roofing
manufacturing plants, oil refineries, and
asphalt processing plants: Blowing stills;
saturators, wet loopers, and coalers;
asphalt storage tanks; and mineral
handling and storage areas. The
saturator, wet looper, and coaler are
considered to be one facility and are
designated as the saturator.
Particulate emission limitations are
proposed for blowing stills and
saturators. Blowing still particulate
emissions would be limited to 0.60 kg/
Mg (1.28 Ib/ton) of asphalt charged
during conventional blowing and 0.67
kg/Mg (1.34 Ib/ton) of asphalt charged
during catalytic blowing. When No. 6
fuel oil is used to fire the afterburner,
the particulate emissions from blowing
stills would be limited to 0.64 kg/Mg
(1.28 Ib/ton) of asphalt charged for
conventional blowing and 0.71 kg/Mg
(1.42 Ib/ton) of asphalt charged for
catalytic blowing. Saturator particulate
emissions would be limited to 0.04 kg/
Mg (0.08 Ib/ton) of shingle and mineral-
surfaced roll roofing produced or to 0.4
kg/Mg (0.8 Ib/ton) of saturated felt and
smooth-surfaced roll roofing produced,
depending on the product.
An opacity standard is proposed for
each affected facility as follows: 0
percent for blowing stills, 20 percent for
saturators, 0 percent for asphalt storage
tanks, and 1 percent for mineral -
handling and storage areas. A fugitive
emission standard of no visible
emissions 80 percent of the time is
proposed for saturator capture systems.
Continuous monitoring of the
operating temperature of the control
devices used to meet the proposed
standards would be required to ensure
proper operation and maintenance.
The performance test methods for
determining compliance with the
proposed standards would be Reference
Method 26 for particulate emissions,
Reference Method 9 for opacity, and
Reference Method 22 for fugitive
emissions. Methods 22 and 26 are being
proposed along with the proposed
standards.
Summary of Environmental, Energy, and
Economic Impacts
It is projected thai the equivalent of
three new medium-size asphalt
processing and roofing plants will be
constructed within 5 years from the
proposal date of the standards. The
proposed standards would reduce
particulate emissions from asphalt
processing and asphalt roofing plants by
about 490 megagrams per year (540 tons
per year) in the fifth year after the
standards are proposed. This represents
a reduction in particulate emissions of
65 percent from State Implementation
Plan (SIP) levels.
The proposed standards would
increase wastewater from a typical
asphalt roofing plant by approximately
1.0 percent. There would be no change
in the quality of the wastewater as a
result of the proposed standards. The
impact of the proposed standards on
solid waste disposal would be
negligible. There would be no impact on
noise.
The proposed standards would
increase the total'energy consumption of
a typical asphalt roofing plant by about
3.2 percent. This would increase the
nationwide energy usage by the
equivalent of approximately 600 cubic
meters (3,800 barrels) of oil per year in
the fifth year after the standards go into
effect.
Capital costs for industry compliance
with the proposed standards over the
first 5 years would be $0.30 million.
Fifth-year annualized costs would be
$0.09 million. As a result of the proposed
IV-UU-2
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 224 / Tuesday. Novembver 18. 1980 / Proposed Rules
standards, the product wholesale price
:ould increase about 0.15 percent, or
$0.02/square (80 shingles), which could
increase the price for a roof on a typical
three-bedroom house by about S3. If the
price of shingles cannot be increased
and the industry must absorb all of the
costs of compliance with the proposed
standards, the resulting drop in net
profit after taxes would be about 0.4
percent. The costs of emission controls
required by the proposed standards is
not expected to have any impact on
expansion or construction in the asphalt
roofing manufacturing industry.
Rationale
Selection of Source for Control
The asphalt processing and asphalt
roofing industry is a significant
contributor to nationwide emissions of
particulate matter. EPA's priority list, 44
FR 49222 of August 21,1979, identifies
source categories chosen for
development of new source performance
standards (NSPS). During development
of the list, consideration was given to
the quantity of emissions from each
source category, the extent to which
each pollutant endangers health and
welfare, and the mobility and
competitive nature of each source
ategory. The asphalt roofing
anufacturing industry is number 45 out
'of the 59 source categories chosen for
NSPS.
The asphalt roofing industry
encompasses not only asphalt roofing
plants but certain production units at oil
refineries and asphalt processing plants
which were not included on the Priority
List promulgated on August 21,1979. At
asphalt roofing plants, paper and
fiberglass felts are saturated with
asphalt and sold as saturated felt or
saturated and coated with asphalt and
surfaced with selected mineral
aggregates to produce roll roofing or
shingles. The asphalt used for saturants
and coatings is prepared by blowing air
through hot asphalt flux. Asphalt is
blown at 17 oil refineries, at 2 asphalt
processing plants, and at about 70
percent of the 118 asphalt roofing plants.
An amendment which would add
asphalt processing units at oil refineries
and asphalt processing plants to the
EPA priority list for development of
standards of performance is being
proposed today in a separate Federal
Register notice.
The asphalt roofing industry supplies
over 80 percent of the domestic demand
for roofing materials. Although a 34
rcent increase in asphalt roofing
Tices since 1974 has caused some
corporation in the search for
substitutes, asphalt roofing continues to
dominate the market.
The construction of new houses and
the renovation of existing structures are
the primary determinants of the demand
for asphalt roofing products. Declines in
construction of new homes have
generally been offset by increasing
strength in the replacement roofing
market; thus, there has been a stable
demand for asphalt roofing products.
For the past 10 years, the industry has
grown 2.0 percent annually; projections
for the next 5 years show an expected
annual growth of 1.5 to 2.0 percent.
Asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
plants are located in urban areas where
future growth is also expected to take
place.
For these reasons, the asphalt
processing and asphalt roofing industry
has been selected for the developent of
new source performance standards.
Selection of Pollutants
The asphalt processing and roofing
industry is a source of hydrocarbon
particulate, polycyclic organic matter
(POM), aldehyde, and sulfur dioxide
(SOa) emissions.
The emissions from the asphalt
processing and roofing industry are
aerosols containing particulate
hydrocarbons. The particulate
hydrocarbons comprise 75 percent of all
pollutants emitted from an average
asphalt roofing plant controlled to
typical SIP levels. It is expected that by
1985, annual nationwide particulate
emissions from this industry will
increase by 770 Mg (850 tons) if
emissions are controlled to the level of a
typical SIP regulation. These emissions
can be significantly reduced by
available control technology that has
been demonstrated.
Test data indicate that aldehyde and
SO2 emissions from asphalt processing
and asphalt roofing manufacture are
relatively low compared to particulate
emissions. By 1985 the increase in
emissions would be only 4.5 Mg/yr (5.0
tons/yr) for aldehyde and 13.5 Mg/yr
(15.0 tons/yr) for SOS. Therefore. SO2
and aldehyde were not selected for
regulation at this time.
By 1985 the annual nationwide
increase in POM emissions from new,
modified,-or reconstructed asphalt
processing and asphalt roofing
manufacturing plants would be 4.6 Mg
(5.1 tons). Control devices generally
used to control particulate emissions
from asphalt processing roofing
manufacture are capable of reducing
POM emissions by about 90 percent
from uncontrolled levels. Since.
particulate control devices also control
POM, a separate standard for this
pollutant is not being proposed at this
time.
For the reasons stated in the
preceding paragraphs, particulate is the
only pollutant selected for regulation by
standards of performance at this time.
This decision does not preclude the
future regulation of aldehyde or POM
emissions from asphalt roofing and
asphalt processing plants if the
Administrator finds that either of these
two pollutants endangers health or
welfare.
Selection of Facilities To Be Considered
for Regulation
The major sources of particulate
emissions are asphalt blowing stills:
saturators; asphalt storage tanks; and
mineral handling and storage facilities.
which consist of the unloading area,
conveyor transfer points, and storage
bins. All of these sources are found in
asphalt roofing plants. The asphalt
blowing stills and asphalt storage tanks
may also be located at oil refineries and
asphalt processing plants. The blowing
stills and asphalt storage tanks at oil
refineries and asphalt processing plants
were also considered for regulation by
standards of performance because the
emissions, processes, and applicable
controls are the same as those in asphalt
roofing plants.
Typical baseline (SIP) emissions from
each facility in a medium size plant are:
Blowing still: 43 kg/h (95 Ib/h);
Saturator: 18 kg/h (40 Ib/h);
Asphalt storage tanks: 1.8 kg/h (4.0 Ib/h): anj
Mineral handling and storage area: 1.0 kg/h
(2.2 Ib/h).
Coaler-mixers and mineral surfacing.
two relatively insignificant sources of '
particulate emissions, are located at
asphalt roofing plants. Coater-mixers
are usually enclosed, and no emissions
escape to the atmosphere. Emissions
from mineral surfacing are contained
within the building. Therefore, these two
emission sources were excluded from
further consideraton for regulation by
standards of performance.
Particulate emission control technolgy
exists in the asphalt processing and
asphalt roofing industry for all
significant sources of particulate
emissions. The minerals, the transfer
and storage equipment, and the control
technology used in the asphalt roofing
industry for mineral handling and
storage operations are the same as those
used in the nonmetalic minerals
industries. Therefore, it is appropriate to
transfer the control technolgy from these
industries to the asphalt roofing
manufacturing industry. Blowing stills,
saturators, asphalt storage tanks, and
mineral handling and storage areas
IV-UU-3
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 224 / Tuesday. November 18. 1980 / Proposed Rules
were selected as facilities to consider
for regulation because they are
significant sources of particulate
emissions for which control technology
is available.
Selection of Basis of Proposed
Standards
Tests at four asphalt roofing plants
have demonstrated that particulate
emissions from saturators and asphalt
storage tanks may be effectively
controlled to essentially the same
emission level by any one of three
pollution control devices: Afterburner
(A/B), high velocity air filter (HVAF), or
electrostatic precipitator (ESP). These
three devices are commonly used to
meet State Implementation Plans:
however, the SIP Limits do not
necessarily require that the devices
achieve the best level of control. To
achieve the best level of control, each of
the control devices must be operated at
the proper temperature.¥Afterburner
effectiveness generally increases with
increasing combustion temperature.
Exhaust gases entering the HVAF and
ESP must be cooled to condense the
hydrocarbons and allow their capture.
A survey of asphalt roofing
manufacturers and State, regional and
local agencies was conducted to find
well-controlled asphalt roofing plants.
As a result of this survey, 27 asphalt
roofing plants were visited to select the
best plants for emissions testing. During
the plant visits, opacity readings were
taken at control device outlets, the
control devices were visually inspected.
engineering drawings were examined,
and emission reports, when available,
were studied. The information collected
during the plant inspections was
evaluated, and the best-controlled
plants were selected for emissions
testing.
Tests indicated that an afterburner
controlling emissions from a saturator
and operating at a temperature above
649'C (1200T) could achieve about a 93
percent emission reduction. Tests also
indicated that an ESP or HVAF could
achieve about a 93 percent particulate
emission reduction if the saturator
exhaust gases are cooled below 60°C
(HOT).
An afterburner was the only device
tested for control of emissions from
blowing stills. The effectiveness of an
afterburner in controlling emissions
varies with the temperature in the
combustion zone. Test data show that
an afterburner operating over a
temperature range of 760°C to 870°C
(1400"F to 1660°F) reduced emissions
from the blowing still by 95 percent. The
exact relationship between degree of
control and operating temperature
varies with the concentration of
combustible gases in the inlet gas and
the size of the control equipment.
The test data show that the emissions
from asphalt storage tanks can be
effectively controlled by venting the
emissions through either a mist
eliminator or a particulate control
device on the saturator. It is general
industry practice for asphalt storage
tanks to be vented to the saturator
control device when the saturator is
operating and to a mist eliminator when
the saturator is not operating. However,
emissions from the asphalt storage tanks
can also be continuously controlled by a
mist eliminator or other control device.
Fabric filters are used to control the
emissions from the minerals handling
and storage operations at some plants in
the asphalt roofing industry; however,
thjey have not been tested. These filters
have been shown to be effective
(through observations of opacity) in
reducing particulate emissions from
minerals handling and storage
operations in the non-metallic minerals
industries. Since the minerals handled
and the handling and storage operations
for the minerals are the same for the two
industries, fabric filters are selected as
representative of the best technological
system for continuous emission
reduction from mineral handling and
storage operations at asphalt roofing
plants.
The proposed standards are based on
the pollution control devices that were
tested. Other pollution control devices
are available that may achieve the level
of contol required by the proposed
standards. Any control technique that
achieves the emission limit outlined in
the proposed standards could be used to
comply with the standards.
Selection of Regulatory Alternatives
The impacts that varying amounts of
emission control would have on the
industry, the consumer, and the
environment were considered during
development of the emission standards.
For saturators, each of the three control
devices tested demonstrated essentially
equal levels of control. For the other
facilities, only one type of control device
could be tested. Since only one level of
control was demonstrated for each
respective facility, regulatory
alternatives that require control of
different combinations of the facilities
were defined so that varying impacts
could be considered. No new source
performance standard (NSPS) would be
promulgated under Alternative 1. The
facilities would be controlled by existing
State regulations. Alternative 2 would
require NSPS control for saturators and
asphalt storage tanks: Alternative 3
would require NSPS control for
saturators, asphalt storage tanks, and
asphalt blowing stills; Alternative 4
would require NSPS control for
saturators, asphalt storage tanks, and
mineral handling and stortage areas;
and Alternative 5 would require NSPS
control for all affected facilities.
The projected five-year industry
growth after proposal of the standards is
equal to three medium-size asphalt
roofing plants with blowing stills. The
environmental and energy impacts of
one medium-size plant are one-third the
values given below and are based on an
HVAF and ESP controlling a saturator,
an afterburner controlling a blowing
still, a fabric filter controlling mineral
handling and storage facilities, and a
mist eliminator controlling asphalt
storage tanks.
Environmental Impacts
Regulatory Alternative 1, the baseline
condition, represents the typical SIP
level of control. The actual emissions
from individual plants may vary from
the emissions allowed by the typical SIP
due to differences in State regulations
and control methodologies. However, it
was judged reasonable to select the
typical SIP level of control as the
baseline condition for the purposes of
comparing environmental impacts. The
uncontrolled emissions in the fifth year
would be about 2.800 Mg/yr (3,100 tons/
yr). The fifth-year environmental impact,
if no NSPS is established, would be an
increase in nationwide particulate
emissions of 770 Mg/yr (850 tons/yr).
The fifth-year reduction in emissions
beyond SIP control would be 230 Mg/yr
(250 tons/yr) for Regulatory Alternative
2; 480 Mg/yr (530 tons/yr) for
Alternative 3; 240 Mg/yr (260 tons/yr)
for Alternative 4; and 490 Mg/yr (540
tons/yr) for Alternative 5. This would be
a reduction of 30 percent for Alternative
2, 62 percent for Alternative 3, 31
percent for Alternative 4, and 64 percent
for Alternative 5.
The water pollution impact resulting
from adoption of any one of Regulatory
Alternatives 2 through 5 would be
minimal. Water sprays used to cool inlet
fumes of a saturator control device
would increase the amount of
wastewater to be treated in the fifth
year by 30 to 40 mtyr (8,000 to 10,500
gal/yr).
Adoption of any of the Regulatory
Alternatives 2 through 5 would result in .
only a small increase in solid waste. The
only solid waste generated by the
control devices used in the asphalt
roofing industry is the saturated filter
media from the HVAF.
Dispersion modeling was used to
assess the air quality impact of
IV-UU-4
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 224 / Tuesday, Novembver 18. 1980 / Proposed Rules
particulate emissions from asphalt
processing and asphalt roofing
manufacturing plants under worst-case
meteorological conditions. The
dispersion analysis used 1964
climatological data for Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, and Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma. Both data sets are
reasonably consistent with
meteorological conditions representing
maximum impact for short stacks. The
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) 24-hour maximum primary
standard is 260 pg/m3, and the 24-hour
maximum secondary standard is 150 pg/
m3. The dispersion analysis for a
medium-size asphalt processing and
asphalt roofing plant indicated that the
primary standard would not be
exceeded by a plant controlled under
any of the regulatory alternatives but
that the secondary standard could be
exceeded under Regulatory Alternatives
1, 2, and 4. Adoption of either
Regulatory Alternative 3 or Regulatory
Alternative 5 would result in a
concentration of particulate emissions
from an asphalt processing or asphalt
roofing plant considerably below the
NAAQS 24-hour maximum secondary
standard.
Energy Impacts
The construction of three new
medium-size asphalt roofing plants
controlled by SIP's (Regulatory
Alternative 1) would result in an energy
usage of 19,100 mtyr (120.000 bbl/yr) of
oil for all plant operations in the fifth
year. The fifth-year increase in energy
over Regulatory Alternative 1 would be
20 m'tyr (140 bbl/yr) of oil for Regulatory
Alternative 2; 590 m'tyr (3,700 bbl/yr) of
oil for Alternative 3; 30 m3/yr (200 bbl/
yr) of oil for Alternative 4; 600 ma/yr
(3,800 bbl/yr) of oil for Alternative 5.
This is an increase from Regulatory
Alternative 1 of 0.1 percent for
Alternative 2, 3.1 percent for Alternative
3, 0.2 percent for Alternative 4, and 3.2
percent for Aternative 5.
Economic Impacts
The fifth-year capital and annualized
costs for the controls typically being
installed by asphalt roofing plants to
comply with SIP's would be $1.800,000
and $600,000 respectively. The increase
in the fifth-year capital and annualized
costs and the increase in the product
price if.the asphalt roofing
manufacturing industry passes through
the compliance costs associated with
the proposed standards are summarized
in the following paragraphs for
Regulatory Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5.
Regulatory Alternative 2 would result
n an increased capital cost of $215,000
'and an increased annualized cost of
$20.000. This increase in annualized
costs could result in a 0.03 percent
product price increase for asphalt
shingles.
Regulatory Alternative 3 would
increase capital costs by $215,000,
annualized costs by $59,000, and the
product price of asphalt shingles by 0.08
percent.
Regulatory Alternative 4 would
increase capital costs by $305,000,
annualized costs by $53,000, and the
product price of asphalt shingles by 0.07
percent.
Regulatory Alternative 5 would
increase capital costs by $305,000,
annualized costs by $92,000, and the
product price of asphalt shingles by 0.12
percent.
It is reasonable to expect that the
industry could pass through these costs
for any of the regulatory alternatives.
However, if the industry must absorb all
the costs for compliance with the
proposed standards, the reduction in
profit would be 0.4 percent.
A detailed analysis of the economic
impact of the alternatives on the asphalt
processing and asphalt roofing industry
was developed for asphalt roofing
plants, where the majority of the asphalt
processing and asphalt roofing
manufacture occurs. Oil refineries and
asphalt processing plants contain only
blowing stills and asphalt storage tanks.
The regulatory alternatives would
require the same controls for blowing
stills and asphalt storage tanks at oil
refineries, asphalt processing plants,
and asphalt roofing plants. Therefore,
the costs of meeting the alternatives
would be no greater for oil refineries
and asphalt processing plants than for
asphalt roofing plants. For these
reasons, product price increases for
Alternatives 2 through 5 should be no
greater for products produced at oil
refineries than for those produced at
asphalt roofing plants.
Historically, oil refineries have
demonstrated the ability to pass through
cost adjustments on the price of their
products. If they have to absorb the
costs of compliance with the proposed
standards, the reduction in profit would
be less than .01 percent. Therefore, there
should be no adverse economic impact
on oil refineries.
Regulatory Alternatives 2 through 5
are not expected to have an adverse
impact on asphalt processing plants. No
growth is anticipated in this industry. In
fact, the number of asphalt processing
plants has been declining in recent
years. If new plants are constructed,
they are expected to be able to pass
through control costs.
Selection of the Alternative for thr
Standards
Regulatory Alternative 5 would result
in the greatest reduction in emissions.
Operation of the controls required to
comply with Alternative 5 would
increase the energy used in all plan I
operations by only 3.2 percent, and tin;
adverse environmental impacts would
be negligible. As discussed previously.
the increased control costs would be the
same for oil refineries, asphalt
processing plants, and asphalt roofing
plants. It is expected that all of the costs
of compliance with the proposed
standards would be passed through. If
so, the wholesale product cost would
increase by 0.12 percent. The cost to Ihe
consumer for a new roof on an average
three-bedroom house would be
increased by $3. However, if all of the
compliance costs were absorbed, the
reduction in profit would be 0.4 percent.
Because Regulatory Alternative 5 would
result in the greatest emission reduction
and because, in the Administrator's
judgment, the environmental, energy,
and economic impacts associated with
this emission reduction are reasonable.
the Administrator selected Alternative1 5
as the basis for the proposed standards.
Consideration of Growth Projections
Made by the Industry
Industry representatives commented
at the meeting of the National Air
Pollution Control Techniques Advisory
Committee (December 12.1979) that
EPA had underestimated the growth rate
in the industry. They later projected that
growth in the industry during the 5 years
after proposal of the standards would
be: 5 new medium-size plants; 5 new
medium-size plants to replace 5 small-
size obsolete plants; 5 plants with
reconstructed saturators to replace
saturators destroyed by fire; and 20
plants each modified to increase
production from the saturator by 20
percent. (1, 2} The environmental,
energy, and economic impacts of the
growth projected by the industry have
been considered to determine how the
industry's growth projections could
affect the selection of a regulatory
alternative.
The environmental impacts of the
growth projected by industry are as
follows. The uncontrolled emissions in
the fifth year would increase by 7,000
Mg/yr (7.700 tons/yr). If no NSPS is
established, the nationwide particulate
emissions would increase in the fifth
year by 3,200 Mg/yr (3,500 tons/yr). The
fifth-year reduction in emissions beyond
the SIP level of control would be 960
Mg/yr (1,600 tons/yr) for Regulatory
Alternative 2: 2,000 Mg/yr (2,200 tons/
IV-UU-5
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 224 / Tuesday. November 18. 1980 / Proposed Rules
yr) for Alternative 3; 1.000 Mg/yr (1.100
tons/yr) for Alternative 4: and 2.040 Mg/
yr (2.250 tons/yr) for Alternative 5. The
percent emission reductions for each
alternative would be the same as those
projected for the EPA growth estimates.
The growth projections made by the
industry would increase the amount of
wastewater to be treated in the fifth
year by 200 to 235 mVyr (56.000 to 62.000
g'ul/yr). Water pollution impact would
be minimal.
The energy impacts resulting from the
growth projections made by industry for
the SIP level of control (Regulatory
Alternative 1) would result in an energy
usage of 48,000 m=tyr (300.000 bbl/yr) of
oil for all plant operations in the fifth
year. The fifth year increase in energy
over Regulatory Alternative 1 would be
78 nvfyr (490 bbl/yr) of oil for Regulatory
Alternative 2; 1.500 mtyr (9,400 bbl/yr)
of oil for Alternative 3:100 m3/yr (650
bbl/yr) of oil for Alternative 4; and 1,530
m3
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 224 / Tuesday. Novembver 18. 1980 / Proposed Rules
vented to the saturator control devices
has been set at 0.04 kg/Mg (0.08 Ib/ton).
a level which can be achieved by the
HVAF. ESP, or afterburner. This
emission limit is based on data collected
during production of 106.6-kg (235-lb)
shingles. The proposed standard for a
saturator producing shingles or mineral
surfaced roll roofing requires that the
performance tests be conducted while
the saturator line is producing a 106.6-kg
(235-lb) shingle in order to be consistent
with the procedure used during the
emissions tests.
A second emission limit for saturators
in mass per unit of production is
necessary because some asphalt roofing
plants produce only saturated felt and
roll roofing which are lighter than the
shingles that were being produced
during the emissions testing program.
The uncontrolled mass of particulate
emissions per unit time is the same from
a saturator producing shingles as from a
saturator producing saturated felt if the
felt feed rate and asphalt temperature
are the same. For saturators operating at
the same felt feed rates, the weight of
asphalt shingle produced is about 10
times greater than the weight of
saturated felt produced. The particulate
emissions rate for a saturator producing
106.6-kg (235-lb) shingles was divided by
the production rate of a roofing line
producing a 6.8-kg (15-lb) saturated felt
to derive the proposed emission limit of
0.4 kg/Mg (0.8 Ib/ton) for saturators
producing a 6.8-kg (15-lb) saturated felt
and smooth-surfaced roll roofing.
There was only one blowing still
considered to be well controlled and
suitable for emissions testing. Two
performance tests, each consisting of
three runs, were conducted at the
afterburner controlling emissions from
the blowing still at Plant E. The emission
rate for the three saturant blows
averaged 0.24 kg/Mg (0.48 Ib/ton) of
asphalt charged to the still. The
emission rate for the three coating blows
averaged 0.44 kg/Mg (0.88 Ib/ton) with a
high individual reading of 0.55 kg/Mg
(1.1 Ib/ton) of asphalt charged to the
still. To allow for possible variations
since only one blowing still was tested,
the Administrator determined that the
emission limit for blowing stills would
be set above the highest individual
reading observed during the two
performance tests. Therefore, the
emission limit for the blowing still has
been set at 0.60 kg/Mg (1.2 Ib/ton) of
asphalt charged during conventional
blowing, a level which can be achieved
by an afterburner during either a coating
or a saturant blow. The emission limit
provides a 35 percent margin above the
average of the individual test runs.
Industry representatives commented
that three conditions may influence
emissions and the achievability of the
proposed emission standards for
blowing stills and questioned whether
the test results at Plant E are
representative of the entire industry.(/)
These conditions are:
1. The use of ferric chloride as a
catalyst in the blowing stills,
2. The use of asphalt flux from
different crudes, and
3. The use of No. 2 or No. 6 fuel oil in
the afterburner. EPA has considered
each of these conditions as discussed in
the following paragraphs.
Industry representatives stated that
by 1985 the use of a catalyst in the air
blowing of asphalt may be widespread.
They questioned whether the proposed
emission limit, which is based on
conventional blowing, would be
achievable if catalytic blowing is used.
A catalyst is added during air blowing
to increase reaction rates and to achieve
the desired properties of the coating
asphalt. There are no data to quantify
the emissions from catalytic blowing of
asphalt or from an afterburner
controlling the emissions from catalytic
blowing. No well-controlled catalytic
blowing stills that are suitable for
testing are known to exist. However,
available information on the operating
characteristics of blowing stills and
afterburners can be used to assess the
achievability of the proposed emission
limit when catalytic blowing is used.
In catalytic blowing, a ferric chloride
catalyst is added to the still in amounts
ranging from 0.2 to 0.5 percent by weight
of asphalt charged to the still.(4) For
ferric chloride to be emitted from the
still, it would have to be contained in
the liquid asphalt droplets that may be
entrained in the gases leaving the still.
Liquid drops in the fume that result from
condensation of vaporized hydrocarbon
material would not contain any ferric
chloride. All blowing stills include
knock-out boxes or cyclones to remoYe
some of the liquid drops from the fume
before incineration. The liquid captured
by the knock-out box generally has a
viscosity similar to a fuel oil. This
indicates that the majority of particulate
emissions result from the condensation
of light compounds in the asphalt flux
and not from entrained liquid droplets. If
large amounts of entrained asphalt flux
were present, the material captured
would have a higher viscosity.
Therefore, if tests were done, EPA
expects that very little, if any, ferric
chloride would be measured in the
emissions from the afterburner. Since
test data are not available and since
afterburners, the control device on
which the standard is based, would not
control ferric chloride, the Administrator
has decided to allow an increment in the
standard for catalytic blowing.
In the unlikely event that all of the
uncontrolled emissions during the
emissions test at Plant E resulted from
en trainmen! of liquid asphalt droplets
and if these asphalt droplets contained
0.5 percent (the maximum amount used
by industry) by weight of ferric chloride.
the ferric chloride emissions would be
0.07 kg/Mg (0.14 Ib/ton) of asphalt.
It is possible that ferric chloride will
be converted to ferric oxide in the
afterburner. If this happens, the mass of
emissions would not change because the
molecular weights of these compounds
are equal. If the proposed emission limit
for blowing stills were increased by 0.0?
kg/Mg (0.14 Ib/ton), the allowable "
emissions from a blowing still of a
medium-size plant would increase from
25.4 to 26.8 Mg/yr (28 to 29.5 tons/yr).
The amount by which controlled
emissions would be reduced below the
baseline level would be 97.5 Mg/yr
(107.5 tons/yr) instead of 99 Mg/yr (109
tons/yr). These changes in the benefits
of the proposed standard would be
relatively small. After considering these
factors, the Administrator concluded
that an increment for catalytic blowing
based on worst-case conditions and the
emission test data from Plant E would
be reasonable. The uncontrolled
emissions at another plant could be
higher than those at Plant E. However.
after considering the small probability of
finding ferric chloride in the emissions
at a plant using catalytic blowing, the
Administrator concluded that basing the
increment on the emissions at Plant E is
sufficient to ensure the achievability of
the proposed emission limit. Therefore.
the proposed emission limit for catalytic
blowing is 0.67 kg/Mg (1.34 Ib/ton) of
asphalt charged to the still.
Industry representatives also*
expressed concern that catalytic
blowing would change the
characteristics of the particulate
emissions and, therefore, affect the
achievability of the proposed emission
limit. (J, 2) EPA has considered the
impacts of these possible changes in the
emission characteristics on the
achievability of the proposed emission
standard as discussed in the following
paragraphs.
Information gathered from the
industry indicates that during catalytic
blowing, the total mass of volatile
organic emissions per unit of asphalt
production and the flow rate of the
blowing air will be the same as during
blowing without a catalyst. (4) The
blowing time may be reduced by as
much as two-thirds. (4) Therefore, in the
worst case, the mass per unit time and
IV-UU-7
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 18, 1980 / Proposed Rules
the concentration of combustible
participate in the fume may be
approximately three times higher than
those measured when no catalyst is
used. Even though the particulate
emissions per unit time could triple, the
total mass of particulate emissions per
unit of production would remain the
same. Therefore, the afterburner
efficiency required to meet the proposed
emission limit, which is in mass of
emissions per unit of production, would
be the same as that required if no
catalyst were used. A well-designed
afterburner could easily achieve the
proposed emission limit under the
worst-case conditions for catalytic
blowing.
The fuel and the capital costs for the
afterburner controlling catalytic blowing
would differ from the costs reported for
the model plants. The fuel costs reported
for the model plant include enough fuel
to raise the temperature of the fume to
760°C (1400T) without taking any credit
for the heating value of the particulate in
the fume. For the plant tested, the fume
provided approximately one-third of the
total energy consumed. This method of
estimating fuel costs was used to assure
that the model plant fuel costs would
represent worst-case conditions where
the concentration of particulate in the
fume is very small. Since the
concentration of particulate in the fume
from catalytic blowing could be as much
as three times higher than the
concentration in a fume from
conventional blowing, the heating value
of the catalytic blowing fume alone
should be sufficient to maintain the
afterburner at 760°C (1400°?). Therefore,
if the combustible particulate in the
fume triples, the fuel cost for the
afterburner on a catalytic blowing still
would be considerably less than the fuel
cost for the afterburner at the model
plant.
The capacity of an afterburner
controlling catalytic blowing will have
to be larger than the capacity of an
afterburner controlling non-catalytic
blowing. In the worst case, catalytic
blowing reduces the blowing time by
two-thirds and triples the rate of
emissions. In this case, and assuming an
uncontrolled emission rate equal to that
at Plant E, the required afterburner
capacity might be triple the capacity of
the afterburner required for the losses
from the still at Plant E or double the
capacity of the model plant afterburner.
(The model plant afterburner was 1.5
times the size needed for conditions at
Plant E.) Doubling the afterburner
capacity would be necessary to handle
the mass of material just to meet the
baseline condition (Regulatory
Alternative 1) which is based on typical
SIP's. The SIP's limit the mass rate of
emissions to a specified level, e.g., 46
Ibs/h for a medium-size plant. Doubling
the capacity of the model plant
afterburner at a medium-size plant
would increase the capital cost of the
afterburner from $121,000 to $172,000.(3)
The capital charges resulting from the
increased investment would increase
baseline production costs from $13.480
to $13.484 per square of roofing shingle.
The production cost for achieving the
proposed emission limit (Regulatory
Alternative 5) would increase from
$13.500 to $13.504 per square of roofing
shingle. These costs are reasonable and
would not alter the selection of
Regulatory Alternative 5 as the basis for
the proposed standards. The
incremental costs in achieving the
proposed emission limit over baseline
emission levels would not be increased.
Since the proposed emission limit has
been adjusted to allow for emissions of
an inorganic catalyst and since the
adjusted limit can be achieved'at a
reasonable cost, the Administrator has
determined that no additional
adjustment in the proposed emission
limit is needed for catalytic blowing.
Industry representatives stated that
blowing asphalt fluxes from different
crude oils may result in different
emission rates. They questioned the
achievability of the proposed emission
limit when asphalt fluxes different from
those used in the emissions testing
program are blown. EPA has considered
the impact of blowing asphalt fluxes
from various crude oils on the
achievability of the proposed emission
limit as discussed in the following
paragraphs.
Data from industry show that losses
of material (measured at the outlet of
the still) from blowing asphalt fluxes •
from different crude oils range from 1.0
to 3.9 percent of the asphalt charged to
the still.(4) The flux used during the
emissions test at Plant E was labeled a
2.0 percent volatility crude. The
uncontrolled emissions during the test
were measured at the outlet of the
cyclone and equaled 1.3 percent of the
asphalt charged to the still. In the worst
case, without a cyclone, when
uncontrolled emissions are 3.9 percent
of the asphalt charged, an afterburner
capable of destroying 98.5 percent of the
particulate emissions would be required
to achieve the proposed emission limit.
The worst case (losses of 3.9-percent of
asphalt flux) is not likely to occur. For a
medium-size plant, a 3.9 percent loss of
asphalt from the still would cost about
$480,000 per year at current asphalt
prices. Therefore, there is a strong
incentive to use low-cost cyclones or
knock-out boxes to recover the material
that is lost from the still. Even if these
devices were only 25 percent efficient,
the afterburner efficiency required to
achieve the emission limit would be
reduced to 98 percent. Studies on
afterburners show that a well-designed
afterburner can achieve efficiencies in
excess of 98.5 percent.(5) In fact,'
efficiencies approaching 100 percent can
be achieved.(5) If the emission rates are
tripled, the concentration of combustible
particulates in the fume will also triple,
making it easier to achieve higher
afterburner efficiencies than those
achieved during the test at Plant E.
The cost of achieving the proposed
emission limit might increase above the
costs reported for the model plants if the
uncontrolled emissions are greater than
those tested at Plant E. In the worst case
(assuming no cyclone) the uncontrolled
emissions would be triple those tested
at Plant E. The fuel costs reported for
the model plant would not increase
because the model plant costs include
enough fuel to maintain the afterburner
at 760°C (1,400°F) without assuming any
credit for the heating value of the fume.
Any increase in the temperature
required for a higher efficiency could
come from the heating value of the fume,
which would be sufficient to raise the
combustion temperature from 760° to
930°C (1.400° to 1,700°F) without
increasing the fuel consumption. Studies
show that such an increase in
temperature alone may be sufficient to
achieve a 98.5 percent efficiency in a
well-designated afterburner.(5)
The capital costs would increase
above the costs reported for the model
plant because a larger afterburner
would be required to achieve a higher
capacity and because a longer residence
time may be needed to achieve the
required efficiency. For the new
capacity, the afterburner size may be
triple the size needed for the test
condition at Plant E or double the size of
the model plant afterburner. (The model
plant afterburner is 1.5 times the size
needed for Plant E.) The afterburner cost
for a medium-size model plant would
increase from $121,000 to $172,000 if the
size of the afterburner is doubled.
The higher afterburner capacity would
be necessary to meet the baseline
condition (typical SIP's) because the
SIP's limit the mass rate of emissions.
The increase in capital charges for the
larger afterburner would increase the
production costs associated with
achieving the baseline emission levels
(Regulatory Alternative 1) from $13.460
to $13.484 per square of roofing shingle.
The production costs associated with
IV-UU-8
-------
Federal Kegistsr / Vol. 45, No. 224 / Tuesday, Novembver 18, 1980 / Proposed Rules
achieving the proposed emissions
standard would increase the 1,13.500 to
Si3.504 per square of roofing shingle. A
further increase in capital cost may
result if it is necessary to increase the
afterburner efficiency. For example, if
emissions per unit of asphalt charged
are tripled, the afterburner efficiency
would need to increase to meet either
the SIP level of control or the proposed
standard. Since the SIP emission limits
are lower than the proposed standard,
the increased efficiency required to meet
the SIP level of control might be
achievable without increasing the size of
the afterburner (e.g., by temperature
adjustment). However, the increased
efficiency needed to meet the proposed
standard might require increasing the
residence time in the afterburner.
Therefore, to assure a worst-case cost
analysis, the capital cost for a larger
afterburner to achieve the increased
residence time is charged to the
incremental cost of achieving the
proposed emission limit over the
baseline. The model plant afterburner is
designed for a residence time of 0.5
second. Control efficiencies generally
increase with residence time up to 1.0
second.(7) In the worst case, the fume
residence time in the model plant
afterburner might need to be doubled to
provide a 98.5 percent control efficiency.
This would raise the capital cost from
§172,000 to $244,000.(3) The increase in
capital charges, resulting from the higher
investment cost for compliance with the
proposed emission limit, would increase
production costs in a medium-size plant
from $13.504 to $13.510 per square of
roofing shingle. These costs for
compliance could result in a product
price increase of 0.19 percent or, if all
costs are absorbed, a reduction in profit
of 0.6 percent. These economic impacts
would not reduce growth in the industry
and are judged by the Administrator to
be reasonable.
Catalytic blowing of a high-loss flux,
the "extreme" worst-case situation
could require an afterburner with 8
times the capacity of the medium-size
model plant or 3 times the capacity of an
afterburner for a high-loss flux. It is not
likely that new plants will be designed
that would allow the high losses
because of the value of the material that
could be recovered. Even if this
"extreme" worst case existed, the
afterburner fuel cost would decrease
and the afterburner capital costs would
increase. The increase in capital costs
for an afterburner controlling emissions
from a medium-size model plant would
be $176,000. Because the need for this
increase is uncertain and because it was
analyzed only for an "extreme" worst-
case condition, the increase in cost has
been charged to the cost of achieving
the standard. This increase in capital
charges for the larger afterburner would
increase the production costs associated
with achieving the proposed standard
(Regulatory Alternative 5) from $13.50 to
$13.513 per square of roofing shingle.
These costs for compliance could result
in a product price increase of 0.24
percent, or, if all costs are absorbed, a
reduction in profit of 0.8 percent. These
economic impacts would not reduce
growth in the industry and are judged by
the Administrator to be reasonable.
Because well-designed control
equipment could achieve the proposed
emission limit without adverse
economic impacts, the Administrator
has determined that the proposed
emission limit would apply to blowing
stills processing asphalt fluxes from any
crude oil.
Industry representatives have stated
that the use of No. 6 and No. 2 fuel oil in
an afterburner will affect controlled
emissions because of the ash content of
fuel oil and have questioned the
achievability of the proposed standard
when fuel oil is used. The afterburner
controlling the emissions from the
blowing still during the tests at Plant E
was fired with natural gas.
The American Pstrolsum Institute •
(API) specifications for No. 6 fuel oil
show that the ash content ranges from
0.01 to 0.05 percent.(0) The fuel
consumption rate of the model plant
afterburner (a conservative estimate
because the heating value of fume was
not considered in the calculation) was
used to calculate the increased
participate resulting from the ash
content of No. 8 fuel oil. The increased
participate would range from 0.0007 to
0.038 kg/Mg (0.0014 to 0.072 Ib/ton) of
asphalt charged to the still.(3) The
worst-case conditions occur when No. 8
fuel oil with a 0.5 percent ash content is
fired in the afterburner at the model
plant fuel consumption rate. The
Administrator has decided to add an
increment to the proposed blowing still
emission limits to allow for the worst-
case conditions. Therefore, the proposed
blowing still emission limits when No. 6
fuel oil is used are 0.84 kg/Mg (1.28 lb/
ton) for conventional blowing and 0.71
kg/Mg (1.42 Ib/ton) for catalytic
blowing.
The API specifications show that No.
2 fuel oil has an ash content of <0.01
percent.(fl) Based on the fuel
consumption rate of the model plant
afterburner, the contribution of ash from
No. 2 fuel oil will be < 0.0008 kg/Mg
(<0.0012 Ib/ton) of asphalt charged to
the still.(3) This increase in particulate is
negligible: therefore, no increment is
added to the proposed blowing still
emission limits when No. 2 fuel oil is
fired in the afterburner.
Selection of Visible Emission Limits
An opacity standard is proposed for
all the affected facilities to help ensure
proper operation and maintenance of
control systems on a day-to-day basis.
EPA Reference Method 9 was used to
take opacity readings for saturators and
blowing stills at plants A, B, C. D. and E
during particulate emission tests.
Opacity readings for storage tanks were
taken only at plant F. The 6-minute
average opacity readings of the
emissions from the saturators ranged
from 0 to 16 percent. All the opacity
readings for the emissions from the
blowing still were 0 percent. All of the 6-
minute average opacity readings for the
emissions from the asphalt storage tanks
were 0 percent.
In a study of the non-metallic minerals
industry, EPA Reference Method 9 was
used to take opacity readings at the
outlet of fabric filters controlling
emissions from handling and storage of
materials (sand, talc, mineral stabilizer,
and granules) similar to those used in
the asphalt roofing industry. The opacity
emission data from the "Draft
Background Information Document for
Non-Metallic Mineral Processing Plants"
were used to establish the proposed
opacity emission limit for mineral
handling and storage facilities in the
asphalt roofing industry. Ninety-two
percent of the 6-minute averages
showed zero percent opacity. The
remaining 6-minute averages were
greater than zero but less than or equal
to 1 percent opacity.
The proposed opacity standards are
set at or above the upper limit of tho
opacity data collected during the
emissions testing program. The
proposed standards are 0 percent
opacity for blowing stills. 20 percent
opacity for saturators, 0 percent opacity
for asphalt storage tanks, and 1 percent
opacity for minerals handling and
storage.
A fugitive emission standard is
proposed to ensure good capture of
fugitive emissions from the saturator.
During the emission testing program,
several canopy hoods and one total
enclosure hood were observed. Only the
total enclosure hood achieved good
capture of fugitive emissions. Total
enclosure hoods can be used for new.
modified, or reconstructed facilities.
Therefore, total enclosure hoods were
selected to represent the best
technological system for continuous
capture of fugitive emissions from
saturators.
IV-UU-9
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 18, 1980 / Proposed Rules
Only the total enclosure hood at plant
B was available for testing at the time
the emissions testing program was
conducted. Observations of visible
emissions at this plant form the basis of
the proposed emission standard. During
the emission testing program at plant B.
the consecutive periods of observations
taken while the saturator was operating
under representative conditions (when
the line speed was >80 percent of usual
daily line speed] totaled 5.5 hours.
Fugitive emissions were visible for not
more than 16.7 percent of the time
during any period of consecutive
observations totaling 60 minutes, 12
percent of the time during any period of
consecutive observations totaling 120
minutes, and 8 percent of the time
during the full 5.5 hours of observations.
A period of consecutive observations,
taken during representative operating
conditions, totaling 60 minutes.was
chosen as a sufficient period of time to
assess the performance of the capture
system. During the test the highest
average reading for such a 60-minute
period was 16.7 percent. The proposed
emission limit allows visible emissions
from saturators for 20 percent of any
period of consecutive observations,
during representative operating
condition, totaling 60 minutes.
Modification/Reconstruction
Considerations
The proposed standards of
performance would apply to saturators,
blowing stills, asphalt storage tanks, and
mineral handling and storage facilities.
Any physical or operational change that
increases the emissions to the
atmosphere in kilograms per hour from
any one of these facilities could be
considered a modification according to
Section 60.14 of Title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) and if so
would subject that facility to the
standards of performance. There are
several physical and operational
changes that may increase emissions to
the atmosphere but are exempt from the
modification provision. One such
exemption is for a production rate
increase that is accomplished without a
capital expenditure. Asphalt roofing
production lines are designed to operate
at maximum line speeds (e.g., 600 feet
per minute). Initial startup and operation
of the production line is at a lower
speed that the design capacity.
Typically, the line speed is gradually
increased, sometimes over a period of
years, to approach the designed line
speed. Because the line was originally
designed for a maximum attainable line
speed, there is no capital expediture, as
defined in Section 60.14 Title 40 CFR,
associated with any increases in line
speed up to the designed capacity.
These production rate increases are not
considered to be modifications.
Other physical and operational
changes which are exempted from the
modification provision are maintenance,
repair, and replacement determined to
be routine; an increase in the hours of
operation; and the addition or use of an
air pollution control device that is
environmentally beneficial. The use of
alternative fuel or raw material, such as
a different asphalt flux, is not a
modification if the facility was designed
to accommodate that alternative use.
Physical and operational changes which
do not increase the emission rate to the
atmosphere would not be considered as
modifications and therefore would not
be covered by the standards.
"Reconstruction" means the
replacement of components of an
existing facility to such an extent that
the fixed capital cost of the new
components exceeds 50 percent of the
fixed capital cost that would be required
to construct a comparable entirely new
facility and that it is technologically and
economically feasible to meet the
applicable standard set forth in Part 60.
Reconstruction as defined in § 60.15(b)
of title 40 CFR Part 60 would apply to
each affected facility individually. For
example, if a saturator is changed to the
extent that it is considered
reconstructed and is, therefore, required
to conform to the proposed standards,
this woud not cause the other facilities
of an asphalt roofing plant to be subject
to the provisions of the proposed
standards.
It is technologically feasible and
economically reasonable to install the
same particulate control devices on
modified or reconstructed facilities as
would be installed on newly constructed
facilities. Therefore, no special
exemptions for modified and
reconstructed facilities are included in
the proposed standards of performance.
Selection of Performance Test Methods
Reference Method 5. "Determination
of Particulate Emissions from Stationary
Sources," was examined to determine
its applicability to the asphalt
processing and asphalt roofing industry.
It was decided that this method was not
suitable for determining particulate
emissions from asphalt processing and
asphalt roofing plants. Therefore, a
program was initiated to develop a test
method for particulate emissions from
sources in these plants. The test method
developed was Reference Method 26,
"Determination of Particulate Emissions
from the Asphalt Processing and
Asphalt Roofing Industry." Emission
measurements were conducted at seven
asphalt roofing plants using this method.
In summary, problems associated with
the use of Method 5 for asphalt
processing and asphalt roofing plants
were: (1) The filtration temperature was
too high; (2) there was no precollector
filter to reduce oil droplet loading; (3)
the cleanup reagent did not effectively
dissolve baked-on oil and asphalt: (4)
sample loss occurred during analytical
procedures; and (5) there was
inadequate recovery of samples from
condensed water collected in the
cyclone collection flask. The following
paragraphs explain how Method 26
alleviates the problems associated with
Method 5.
At the collection temperature
specified in Method 5,121°C (250°F), a
portion of the liquid particulate from
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
plants vaporizes and passes through the
particulate sampling device as a gas.
The change of filtration temperature to
52°C (126°F) in Method 26 reduces this
problem and provides a consistent basis
for evaluating different control systems
and the emissions from different plants.
The data used in setting the emission
limits proposed for saturators were
collected at or below the 52°C (126°F)
filtration temperature.
In Method 26 a precollector filter is
used to reduce the oil droplet loading on
the primary filter, which prevents oil
from seeping through the glass fiber
filter mat during periods of high droplet
concentrations.
The cleanup reagent specified in
Method 26 is 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCE).
The acetone used in Method 5 does not
remove all baked-on oil and tar from the
sampling apparatus. TCE is effective in
dissolving the baked-on oil and asphalt.
The analytical procedure developed
for Method 26 minimizes sample loss
through evaporation. Experimental
results showed that the weight loss from
the evaporation process was minimal:
Collection and analytical procedures
for condensed water were developed for
Method 26. When Method 5 was used,
condensation occurred in the filtration
section of the sample train when the
moisture content of the stack gases was
above 10 percent. These conditions
occurred during blowing still tests but
not during saturator tests.
Method 26 is an effective test
procedure for sampling emissions from
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
plants and is being proposed with the
proposed standards as the performance
test method for particulate emissions
from asphalt processing and asphalt
roofing plants.
Reference Method 26, "Determination
of Particulate Emissions from the
IV-UU-10
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 224 / Tuesday, Novembver 18, 1980 / Proposed Rules
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Industry." specifies: (1) Measurement
system design criteria: (2) measurement
system performance specifications and
performance test procedures; and (3)
procedures for emission sampling. Two
hours per run is proposed as the
sampling time for emission testing
because this is sufficient time to collect
a representative sample from asphalt
processing and asphalt roofing plants.
Each performance test would consist of
three runs. Method 26 is sufficiently
similar to Method 5 that test personnel
experienced with Method 5 should have
no difficulty obtaining reliable data.
Reference Method 22, "Visual
Determination of Fugitive Emissions
From Material Processing Sources," is
being proposed as a performance test
method to determine compliance with
standards of performance limiting
fugitive emissions from asphalt
saturator capture systems. Reference
Method 22 was developed because
fugitive emissions from saturator
capture systems may occur within
asphalt roofing plant buildings where
lighting and background conditions
needed for opacity readings are not
attainable.
Reference Method 9, "Visual
Determination of the Opacity of
Emissions from Stationary Sources," is
selected as a test method to determine
compliance with standards of
performance limiting particulate
emissions from asphalt processing and
asphalt roofing plants. Reference
Method 9 is used to read opacity of
emissions from exhaust stacks of control
devices which are outside the plant.
Opacity readings can be used to
indicate whether a control device is
being properly operated and maintained.
Selection of Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring requirements can provide
a convenient means for enforcement
personnel to ensure that emission
control systems are properly operated
and maintained. For blowing stills and
saturators, the most straightforward
means of ensuring proper operation and
maintenance of the control device would
be to monitor particulate emissions.
However, no continuous particulate
monitors are available for this industry.
Resolution of the sampling problems and
development of performance standards
for continuous particulate monitors
would entail a major development
program. For these reasons, continuous
monitoring of particulate emissions from
the asphalt processing and asphalt
roofing industry is not required by the
proposed standards.
Opacity can be used as an indication
of poor operation of the control device.
If the opacity from the control device
exceeds the proposed limit, it is an
indication that a control device is not
operating properly and may not be
meeting the particulate emission limit.
However, the absence of opacity does
not always indicate that the emission
limit is being met.
The only instrument for continuous
measurement of opacity is the
Iransmissometer which is not ideally
suited to the measurement of opacity in
the effluent gas streams at asphalt
processing and asphalt roofing plants.
The particulate emissions from these
plants are liquid hydrocarbon mixtures
that are converted to gases by the
temperatures that are present in th
effluent gas streams. The gaseous
emissions would not be detected by the
transmissometer, but will recondense
and be visible in the atmosphere. For
these reasons, continuous monitoring of
opacity is not required.
The proposed standards would
require continuous recording of the
operating temperature which is critical
to the effectiveness of the control
devices upon which the proposed
standards are based. This requirement
would apply to the temperature in the
combustion zone of an afterburner and
to the inlet temperature for a high
velocity air filter (HVAF) or an
electrostatic precipitator (ESP). If the
average temperature over any 6-hour
period of operation was below that
measured during the performance test
for afterburners or above that measured
for HVAF's or ESP's, by definition
excess emissions would have occurred.
The plant owner or operator would have-
to report the occurrence of excess
emissions in a quarterly report. A 6-hour
averaging time for temperature was
selected because this corresponds to the
period of time required for a
performance test. Other parameters to
be monitored may be specified by the
Administrator if the temperature of a
control device used to meet the
standards is not critical to the
performance of the device.
Comments were received from the
industry contending that if a
performance test on a saturator control
device (HVAF or ESP) were run during
cold weather, the operating temperature
measured may be lower than if the
performance test were run in warm
weather. The temperature value that is
measured during a performance test in
which the numerical emission limit is
met would be the temperature value
used to determine excess emissions that
must be reported. If the performance test
were run in cold weather, the extra
cooling by the ambient air might cause
the established temperature to be lower
than is actually necessary to meet the
proposed emission limit. Further, this
temperature value might be impossible
to maintain in warm weather. Therefore.
a temperature value established in a
cold weather performance test may
actually be lower than the temperature
at which the inlet gases should be
maintained to meet the emission limit.
The temperature attainable during warm
weather may indicate excess emissions
when in fact the emission levels are not
in excess of the numerical emission
limit. For this reason, the proposed
standards allow plant owners and
operators the option of repeating the
performance test to establish a new
value for the temperature which
indicates the occurrence of excess
emissions.
Records of temperature measurements
would have to be retained for at least 2
years following the date of the
measurements by owners and operators
subject to this subpart. This requirement
is included under § 60.7(d) of the
General Provisions of 40 CFR par! 60.
Impacts of Reporting Requirements
The proposed standards would
require asphalt processing and asphalt
roofing plants to submit reports to the
Administrator so that he can ensure
compliance with the regulation. The
proposed standards would require four
types of reports. First, there are
notification reports required under the
General Provisions that would enable
the Agency to keep abreast of facilities
subject to the standards of performance.
Second, there are reports of
performance test results. Third, there
are performance evaluations of the
temperature monitoring and recording
system. Fourth, there are quarterly
reports of excess emissions which
would permit the Agency to determine
whether the emission control system
installed to comply with the standards is
being properly operated and maintained.
Section 60.7(b) of Part 60 Subpart A of
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
requires an owner or operator of a planl
to maintain records of all startups,
shutdowns, or malfunctions of an
affected facility. Section 60.7(c) requires
submittal of quarterly reports of excess
emissions and identification of any
periods of excess emissions from any
affected facility when startups,
shutdowns, and malfunctions occurred.
A primary purpose of maintaining
records of startups, shutdowns, and
malfunctions at a plant is for later use in
the quarterly reports identifying the
occurrence and duration of excess
emissions.
IV-UU-11
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 224 / Tuesday. November 18, 1980 / Proposed Rules
Clarification of what constitutes
startup, shutdown, and malfunction as
opposed to normal operation in asphalt
roofing and asphalt processing plants is
necessary to avoid unnecessary and
burdensome recordkeeping.
Air blowing of asphalt is usually a
batch operation. Saturant and coating
asphalts are produced by blowing air
through hot asphalt flux in a blowing
still. A minimum of four batches will be
blown each operating day at a typical
asphalt roofing plant. The beginning and
ending of a batch is considered to be
normal operation and excess emissions
are not expected to occur during these
times. Therefore, it is not necessary to
record the beginning and ending of each
batch as startup and shutdown.
The production of saturated felt, roll
roofing and shingles is a continuous
process. Saturated felt is produced by
applying hot saturant asphalt to a felt
made of paper. Coating asphalt is then
applied to the saturated felt to produce
roll roofing. Roll roofing is further
processed by adding talc to one side of
the felt and mineral aggregate to the
other side to produce asphalt shingles.
The typical asphalt roofing production
line operates 16 hours per day, 5 to 6
days per week, and 50 weeks per year.
Breaks in the felt may cause temporary
halts in production several times during
each operating day. However, the
emission control equipment would
operate continuously with no increase of
emissions to the atmosphere. Since
temporary halts in the production line to
repair breaks in the felt are considered
to be normal operation and would not
by themselves result in excess
emissions, they do not need to be
recorded as startup, shotdown, or
malfunction.
The resources needed by the industry
to maintain records, to collect data, and
to prepare the reports through the first 5
years would be about 3,200 man-hours.
These figures are based on the
assumption that the proposed standards
would cover three new, modified, or
reconstructed asphalt roofing
manufacturing plants, with blowing
stills, through the first 5 years.
Using the growth projections made by
industry representatives, the resources
needed by the industry to maintain
records, to collect data, and to prepare
the reports through the first 5 years
would be about 30,000 man-hours.
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 this 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 to the Central Docket Section
address given in the Addresses section
of this 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
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 (2) to serve as
the record in case of judicial review.
Miscellaneous
As prescribed by Section 111,
establishment of standards of
performance for affected facilities in
asphalt roofing plants, asphalt blowing
stills and asphalt storage tanks in oil
refineries and asphalt processing plants
was preceded by the Administrator'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 endanger public health or
welfare. In accordance with Section 117
of the Act, publication of this proposal
was preceded by consultation with
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.
Comments are specifically invited on
the effects of different crude oils and the
catalytic blowing of asphalt on
paniculate emissions. Any comments
submitted to the Administrator on the
effects of different crude oils and
catalytic blowing of asphalt on
particulate emissions should contain
emission test data pertinent to an
evaluation of the magnitude and
severity of its impact and suggested
alternative courses of action that would
avoid this impact.
It should be noted that 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
nonair quality health and environmental
impact and energy requirements) the
Administrator determines has been
adequately demonstrated (Section lll(a)(l)).
Although there may be emission
control technology available that can
reduce emissions below those levels
required to comply with standards of
performance, this technology might not
be selected as the basis of standards of
performance due to costs associated
with its use. Accordingly, standards of
performance should not be viewed as
the ultimate in achievable emission
control. In fact, the Act requires (or has
the potential for requiring) the
imposition of a more stringent emission
standard in several situations.
For example, applicable costs do not
necessarily play as prominent a role in
determining the "lowest achievable
emission rate" for new or modified
sources located in nonattainment 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 new
or modified sources constructed in an
area which exceeds the National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
must reduce emissions to the level
which reflects the "lowest achievable
emission rate" (LAER), as defined in
Section 171(3). The statute defines LAER
as that rate of emissions based on the
following, whichever is more stringent:
1. The most stringent emission limitation
which is contained in the implementation
plan of any State for such class or category of
source, unless the owner or operator of the
proposed source demonstrates that such
limitations are not achievable, or
2. The most stringent emission limitation
which is achieved in practice by such class or
category of source.
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 BACT result in emissions of any
IV-UU-12
-------
if / Vol. 45. No. 224 / Tuesday. Novembver 18. 1980 / Proposed Rules
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 (SIP'a) 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, SIP's 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. 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 performance
under Section lll(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. The economic impact
assessment is included in the
background information document.
Dated: November 10, 1880.
Douglas M. Castle,
Administrator.
contribution of catalysts and the use of
different asphalt fluxes in blowing stills to
the economic and environmental impacts. A-
79-39. II-B-048.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 224 / Tuesday. November 18. 1980 / Proposed Rules
(A) 0.04 kilograms of particulate per
megagram of asphalt shingle or mineral-
surfaced roll roofing produced, or
(B) 0.4 kilograms per megagram of
saturated felt or smooth-surfaced roll
roofing produced;
(2) Exhaust gases with opacity greater
than 20 percent; and
(3) Any visible emissions from a
saturator capture system for more than
20 percent of any period of consecutive
valid observations totaling 60 minutes.
(b) On or after the date on which the
performance test required to be
conducted by § 60.8 is completed, no
owner or operator subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall cause to
be discharged into the atmosphere from
any blowing still:
(1) Particulate matter in excess of 0.67
kilograms of particulate per megagram
of asphalt charged to the still when a
catalyst is added to the still; and
(2) Particulate matter in excess of 0.71
kilograms of particulate per megagram
of asphalt charged to the still when a
catalyst is added to the still and when
No. 6 fuel oil is fired in the afterburner;
and
(3) Particulate matter in excess of 0.60
kilograms of particulate per megagram
of asphalt charged to the still during
blowing without a catalyst: and
(4) Particulate matter in excess of 0.64
kilograms of particulate per megagram
of asphalt charged to the still during
blowing without a catalyst and when
No. 6 fuel oil is fired in the afterburner;
and
(5) Exhaust gases with an opacity
greater than 0 percent.
(c) On or after the date on which the
performance test required to be
conducted by § 60.8 is completed, no
owner or operator subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall cause to
be discharged into the atmosphere from
any asphalt storage tank exhaust gases
with opacity greater than 0 percent. If,
however, the emissions from any
asphalt storage tank(s) are ducted to a
control device for a saturator, the
combined emissions shall meet the
emission limit contained in paragraph
(a) of this section during the time the
suturator control device is operating.,At
any other time the asphalt storage
tank(s) must meet the 0 percent opacity
limit.
(d) On or after the date on which the
performance test required to be
conducted by § 60.8 is completed, no
owner or operator subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall cause to
be discharged into the atmosphere from
.my mineral handling and storage
facility emissions with opacity greater
than 1 percent.
§60.473 Monitoring of optratlon*.
(a) The owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart, and using
either an electrostatic precipitator or a
high velocity air filter to meet the
emission limit in { 60.472(a)(l) and/or
(b)(l) shall continuously monitor and
record the temperature of the gas at the
inlet of the control device. The
temperature monitoring instrument shall
have an accuracy of ±S°C over its
range.
(b) The owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart and using
an afterburner to meet the emission limit
in § 60.472(a)(l) and/or (b)(l) shall
continuously monitor and record the
temperature in the combustion zone of
the afterburner. The monitoring
instrument shall have an accuracy of
±10°C over its range.
(c) An owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart and using
a control device not mentioned in
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section
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 of
the device. The Administrator may
require continuous monitoring and will
determine the process parameters to be
monitored.
(d) For the purpose of reports required
under i 60.7(c). periods of excess
emissions that shall be reported are
defined as any 6-hour period during
which the average temperature
measured in accordance with paragraph
(a) of this section is above the
temperature measured in accordance
with 5 60.474 (h) or (i) at a time when
the emission limits in § 61.472 (a) or (b)
were met, or the average temperature
measured in accordance with paragraph
(b) of this section falls below the
temperature measured in accordance
with i 60.474 (h) or (i) at a time when
the emission limits in 5 61.472 (a) or (b)
were met. Each excess emission report
shall include the value identified for the
temperature specified under } 60.474 (h)
or (i) and the monitored temperature
value.
(Sec. 114, Clean Air Act as amended (42
U.S.C. 7414))
§ 60.474 Test methods and procedures.
(a) Reference methods in Apendix A
of this part, except as provided in
§ 60.8(b), shall be used to determine
compliance with the standards
prescribed in § 60.472 as follows:
(1) Method 26 for the concentration of
particulate matter;
(2) Method 1 for sample and velocity
traverses;
(3) Method 2 for velocity and
volumetric flow rate;
(4) Method 3 for gas analysis; and
(5) The Administrator will determine
compliance with the standards
prescribed in J 60.472(a)(3) by using
Method 22. During the test run, readings
are to be recorded every 15 seconds for
a period of consecutive observations
during representative conditions (uv
accordance with § 60.8(c) of the General
Provisions) totaling 60 minutes. A
performance test shall consist of one
run.
(b) For Method 28 the sampling time
for each run on a saturator shall be at
least 120 minutes, and the sampling
volume shall be at least 3 dscm. Method
26 shall be used to measure the
emissions from the saturator while the
asphalt roofing plant is making 106.6-kg
(235-lb) asphalt shingle if the final
product is shingle or mineral-surfaced
roll roofing or while the asphalt roofing
plant is making 6.8-kg (15-lb) saturated
felt if the final product is saturated felt
or smooth-surfaced roll roofing. Method
26 shall be used to measure emissions
from the blowing still for at least 90
minutes or for the duration of the
coating blow whichever is greater. If the
blowing still is not used to blow coating
asphalt. Method 26 shall be used to
measure emissions from the blowing
still for at least 90 minutes or for the
duration of the saturant blow.
whichever is greater.
(c) The particulate emission rate, E.
shall be computed as follows:
E=Q«,xC.
(1) E is the particulate emission rate
(kg/h);
(2) Q.d is the average volumetric flow
rate (dscm/h] as determined by Method
2; and
(3) C, is the average concentration
(kg/dscm) of particulate matter as
determined by Method 28.
(d) The asphalt roofing production
rate. P (Mg/h), shall be determined by
dividing the weight in megagrams (Mg)
of roofing produced on the shingle or
saturated felt process lines during the
performance test by the number of hours
required to conduct the performance
test. The roofing production shall be
obtained by direct measurement.
(e) The production rate of asphalt
from the blowing still, P. (Mg/h). shall
be determined by dividing the weight of
asphalt charged to the still by the time
required for the performance test during
a coating asphalt blow. The weight of
asphalt charged to the still shall be
determined at the starting temperature
of the coating blow. The weight of
asphalt shall be converted from the
volume measurement as follows:
IV-UU-14
-------
Federal RegUter / Vol. 45, No. 224 / Tuesday, Novembver 18, 1980 / Proposed Rules
M=Vd/c
M=weight of asphalt in megagram
V = volume of asphalt in cubic meters
d = density of asphalt in kilograms per cubic:
meter
c=conversion factor 1.000 kilograms per
megagram
The density of asphalt at any
measured temperature is calculated by
using the following equation:
d = 1056.1-O.B176x°C
The method of measurement shall
have an accuracy of ±10 percent.
(f) The saturator emission rate shall
be computed as follows:
R=E/P
(gl The blowing still emission rate
shall be computed as follows:
R>=E/P.
where:
(1) R is the saturator emission rule (kg/Mg):
(2) R, is the blowing still emission rate (kg/
Mg):
(3) E is the participate emission rate (kg/hr)
from paragraph (c) of this section:
(4) P is the asphalt roofing production rate
(Mg/h): and
(5) P, is the asphalt charging rate (Mg/h).
(h) Temperature shall be measured
and continuously recorded with the
monitor required under § 60.473 (a) or (b)
during the measurement of particulate
by Method 26.
(i) If at a later date the owner or
operator believes the emission limits in
S 60.472 (a) and (b) are being met even
though the temperature measured in
accordance with 8 60.473 paragraphs (a)
or (b) is exceeding that measured during
the performance test, he may submit a
written request to the Administrator to
repeat the performance test and
procedure outlined in paragraph (h) of
this section.
(Sec. 114. Clean Air Act as amended (42
U.S.C. 7414))
2. By adding Method 26 and Method
22 to Appendix A as follows:
Appendix A—Reference Methods
Method 26—-Determination of Particulate
Emissions From the Asphalt Processing and
Asphalt Roofing Industry
1. Applicability and Principle.
1.1 Applicability. This method applies to
the determination of particulate emissions
from asphalt roofing industry process
saturators, blowing stills, and other sources
as specified in the regulations.
1.2 Principle. Particulate matter is
withdrawn isokinetically from the source and
collected on a glass fiber filter maintained at
a temperature no greater than 52* C (126* F).
The particulate mass, which includes any
material that condenses at or above the
filtration temperature, is determined
gravimetrically after removal of uncombined
water.
2. Apparatus.
2.1 Sampling Train. The sampling train
configuration is the same as shown in Figure
5-1 of Method 5. except a precolleclor
cyclone is added between the probe and the
heated filter and is located in the heated
section of the train. The sampling train
consists of the following components:
2.1.1 Probe Nozzle. Pilot Tube.
Differential Pressure Gauge. Filter Holder.
Condenser. Metering System. Barometer, and
Cos Density Determination Equipment. Same
as Method 5. Sections 2.1.1. 2.1.3 to 2.1.5. and
2.1.7 to 2.1.10, respectively.
2.1.2 Probe Liner. Same as in Reference
Method 5. Section 2.1.2, with the note that H|
high stack gas temperatures (greater than
250 C (480' FJJ, water-cooled probes may be
required to control the probe exit temperature
to no greater than about 52' C (126" F).
2.1.3 Precollector Cyclone. Borosilicate
glass following the construction details
shown in APTD-0581.
Note.— The tester shall use the cyclone
when the stack gas moisture is greater than
10 percent or when the stack gas oil
concentration is high enough to cause oil to
seep through the glass mat filter. The tester
need not use the precollector cyclone or glass
wool under other, less severe test conditions.
2.1.4 Filter Heating System. Any heating
(or cooling) system capable of maintaining a
sample gas temperature at the exit end of the
filter holder during sampling of no greater
than 52° C (126' F). Install a temperature
gauge capable of measuring temperature to
within 3° C (5.4* F) at the exit end of the filler
holder so that the sample gas temperature
can be regulated and monitored during
sampling. The tester may use systems other
than the one shown in APTD-0581.
2.2 Sample Recovery: The equipment
required for sample recovery is as follows:
2.2.1 Probe-Liner and Probe-Nozzle
Brushes. Graduated Cylinder and/or
Balance. Plastic Storage Containers, and
Funnel and Rubber Policeman. Same as
Method 5. Sections 2.2.1. 2.2.5. 2.2.6. and 2.2.7.
respectively.
2.2.2 Wash Bottles. Glass.
2.2.3 Sample Storage Containers.
Chemically resistant, borosilicate glass
.bottles, with rubber-backed Teflon screw cap
liners or caps that are constructed so as to be
leak-free and resistant to chemical attack by
1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCE), 500-ml or 1000-ml.
(Narrow mouth glass bottles have been found
to be less prone to leakage.)
2.2.4 Petri Dishes. Glass, unless otherwise
specified by the Administrator.
2.2.5 Funnel. Glass.
2.3 Analysis. For analysis, the following
equipment is needed:
2.3.1 Gloss Weighing Dishes. Desiccator.
Analytical Balance. Balance. Hygrometer,
and Temperature Gauge. Same as Method 5.
Sections 2.3.1 to 2.3.4. 2.3.6, and 2.3.7.
respectively.
2.3.2 Beakers. Glass, 250-ml and 500-ml.
2.3.3 Separatory Funnel. 100-ml or greater.
3. Reagents.
3.1 Sampling. The reagents used in
sampling are as follows:
3.1.1 Filters. Silica Gel. and Crushed Ice.
Same as Method 5, Sections 3.1.1. 3.1.2. and
3.1.4. respectively.
3.1.2 Precollnctor Glass Wool. No. 7220.
Pyrex brand or equivalent.
3.1.3 Stopcock Grease. TCE-insoluble.
heat-stable grease (if available). This is not
necessary if screw-on connectors with Teflon
sleeves, or similar, are used.
3.2. Sample Recovery. Reagent grade
1.1.1-trichloroethane (TCE), S0.001 percent
residue, and stored in glass bottles is
required. Run TCE blanks prior to field use
and use only TCE with low blank values
( = 0.001 percent). The tester shall in no case
subtract a blank value of greater than 0.001
percent of the weight of TCE used from the
sample weight.
3.3 Analysis. Two reagents are required
for the analysis:
3.3.1 TCE. Same as 3.2.
3.3.2 Desii:cni;t. Same as Method 5.
Section 3.3.2.
4. Procnt/iim.
4.1 Sampling Train Opi'nilinii. Thr
complexity of this method is such that, in
order to obtain reliable results, testers should
be trained and experienced with Method 5
test procedures.
4.1.1 Pretest Preparation. Maintain and
calibrate all the components according to thf
procedure described in APTI)-057b. unless
otherwise specified herein.
Prepare probe liners and sampling nuzxles
as needed for use. Thoroughly clean each
component with soup and water, followed by
a minimum of three TCE rinses. Use the
probe and nozzle brushes during ill least one
of the TCE rinses (refer to Section -1.2 for
rinsing techniques). Cap or se.il thf open
ends of the probe liners and nozzles to
prevent contamination during shipping.
Prepare silica gel portions and glass filters
as specified in Method 5, Section 4.1.1.
Prepare cyclone precolleclor systems foi
use as follows: Desiccate or oven-dry plugs of
glass wool as needed and weigh Ihnse to u
constant weight (use techniques similar to
those described above for glass fiber filters).
Place each tared glass wool plug in a labeled
petri dish. Next, thoroughly clean equal
numbers dT glass cyclones and 1i!5-ml
Erlenmeyer flasks, using soup and watei.
followed by several TCE rinses. Pair each
cyclone with a flask and identify (mark or
label) each piece of glassware. Determine the
tare weight of each glass cyclone to the
nearest 0.1 mg. Seal the open ends of each
flask and cyclone to prevent contamination
during transport.
4.1.2 Preliminary Determinations. Select
the sampling site, probe nozzle, and probe
length as specified in Method 5. Section 4.1.2.
Select a total sampling time greater than or
equal to the minimum total sampling lime
specified in the test procedures section of the
applicable regulation. Follow the guidelines
outlined in Method 5. Section 4.1.2. for
sampling time per point and total sample
volume collected.
4.1.3 Preparation of Collection Train.
Prepare the collection train as specified in
Method 5, Section 4.1.3 with the addition of
the following.
If a precollector cyclone is lo be used with
a tared glass wool plug (see note in Section
2.1.2), prepare this by placing the glass wool
plug into the inlet section of the cyclone near
the top. Loosely pack the glass wool so as to
IV-UU-15
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 224 / Tuesday, November 18, 1980 / Proposed Rules
avoid high pressure drops In the sampling
train. See Figure 26-1. Connect the cyclone to
the correpsonding 125-ml Erlenmeyer flask.
Set up the sampling train as shown in
Figure 5-1 of Method S with the addition of
the precollector cyclone, if used, between the
probe and filter holder. Use no stopcock
grease on ground glass joints unless the
grease is insoluble in TCE.
4.1.4 Leak Check Procedures. Follow the
procedures given in Method 5, Sections 4.1.4.1
(Pretest Leak Check). 4.1.4.2 (Leak Check
During Sample Run), and 4.1.4.3 (Post-Test
Leak Check).
MUINQ COOt «54»2«-ll
CYCLONE EXHAUST
GLASS WOOL
CONNECTION FOR 125 ml FLASK
Figure 26-1. Precollector cyclone with glass wool plug.
MLLMQ CODE «MO-M-C
IV-UU-16
-------
/ Vol. 45. No. 224 / Tuesday. November 18. 1980 / Proposed Rules
4.1.5 Paniculate Train Operation.
Operate the sampling train as described in
Method S, Section 4.1.5. except maintain the
gas temperature exiting the Miter at no
greater than 52°C (126'F).
4.1.6 Calculation of Percent Isokinetic.
Same as in Method 5, Section 4.1.8.
4.2 Sample Recovery. Begin proper
cleanup procedure as soon as the probe is
removed from the stack at the end of the
sampling period. Allow the probe to cool.
When the probe can be safely handled, wipe
off all external particulate matter near the tip
of the probe nozzle and place a cap over it to
prevent losing or gaining particulate matter.
Do not cap off the probe tip tightly while the
sampling train is cooling as this would create
a vacuum in the filter holder, thus drawing
water from the impingers into the filter
holder.
Before moving the sampling train to the
cleanup site, remove the probe from the
sampling train, wipe off the stopcock grease,
and cap the open outlet of the probe. Be
careful not to lose any condensate that might
be present. Wipe off the stopcock grease from
the filter inlet where the probe was fastened
and cap it. Remove the umbilical cord from
the last impinger and cap the impinger. If a
flexible line is used between the first
impinger or condenser and the filter holder,
disconnect the line at the filter holder and let
any condensed water or liquid drain into the
impingers or condenser. After wiping off the
stopcock grease, cap off the filter holder
outlet and impinger inlet. The tester may use
either ground-glass stoppers, plastic caps, or
senim caps to close these openings.
Transfer the probe and filter-impinger
assembly to a cleanup area which is clean
and protected from the wind so that the
chances of contaminating or losing the
sample will be minimized.
Inspect the train prior to and during
disassembly and note any abnormal
conditions. Treat the samples as follows:
4.2.1. Container No. 1 (Filter}. Carefully
remove the filter from the filter holder and
place it in its identified petri dish container.
Use a pair of tweezers and/or clean
disposable surgical gloves to handle the filter.
If it is necessary to fold the filter, do so such
that the film of oil is inside the fold. Carefully
transfer to the petri dish any particulate
matter and/or filter fibers which adhere to
the filter holder gasket, by using a dry nylon
bristle brush and/or a sharp-edged blade.
Seal the container.
4.2.2 Container No. 2 (Cyclone}. Remove
the Erlenmeyer flask from the cyclone. Using
glass or other nonreactive caps, seal the ends
»t the cyclone and store for shipment to the
laboratory. Do not remove the glass wool
plug from the cyclone.
4.2.3 Container No. 3 (Probe to Filter
Huldcr). Taking care to see that material on
the outside of the probe or other exterior
surfaces does not get into the sample.
quuntitatively recover particulate matter or
riny condensate from the probe nozzle, probe
fitting, probe liner, cyclone collector flask,
:md front half of the filter holder by washing
these components with TCE and placing the
wash in a glass container. Carefully measure
the total amount of TCE used in the rinses.
Perform the TCE rinses ao follows:
Carefully remove the probe nozzle and
rinse the inside surface with TCE from a
wash bottle. Brush with a nylon bristle brush
and rinse until the TCE rinse shows no
visible particles or discoloration, after which,
make a final rinse of the inside surface.
Brush and rinse the inside parts of the
Swagelok fitting with TCE in a similar way
until no visible particles remain.
Rinse the probe liner with TCE. While
squirting TCE into the upper end of the probe,
tilt and rotate the probe so that all inside
surfaces will be wetted. Let the TCE drain
from the lower end into the sample container.
The tester may use a glass funnel to aid in
transferring the liquid washes to the
container. Follow the TCE rinse with a probe
brush. Hold the probe in an inclined position,
squirt TCE into the upper end as the probe
brush is being pushed with a twisting action
through the probe, hold the sample container
underneath the lower end of the probe, and
catch any TCE and particulate matter which
is brushed from the probe. Run the brush
through the probe three times or more until
no visible particulate matter is carried out or
until no discoloration is observed in the TCE.
With stainles steel or other metal probes, run
the brush through in the above prescribed
manner at least six times, since metal probes
have small crevices in which particulate
matter can be entrapped. Rinse the brush
with TCE and quantitatively collect these
washings in the sample container. After the
brushing, make a final TCE rinse of the probe
as described above.
It is recommended that two people clean
the probe to minimize sample losses.
Between sampling runs, keep brushes clean
and protected from contamination.
Brush and rinse the inside of the cyclone
collection flask and the front half of the filter
holder. Brush and rinse each surface three
times or more, if necessary, to remove visible
particulate. Make a final rinse of the brush
and filter holder. After all TCE washings and
particulate matter have been collected in the
sample container, tighten the lid on the
sample container so that TCE will not leak
out when it is shipped to the laboratory. Mark
the height of the fluid level to determine later
whether or not leakage occurred during
transport. Label the container to clearly
identify its contents. Whenever possible.
containers should be shipped in such a way
that they remain upright at all times.
4.2.4. Container No. 4 (Silica Gel). Note
the color of the indicating silica gel to
determine if it has been completely spent and
make a notation of its condition. Transfer the
silica gel from the fourth impinger to its
original container and seal. The tester may
use as aids a funnel to pour the silica gel
without spilling and a rubber policeman to
remove the silica gel from the impinger. It is
not necessary to remove the small amount of
dust particles that may adhere to the
impinger wall and are difficult to remove.
Since the gain in weight is to be used for
moisture calculations, do not use any water
or other liquids to transfer the silica gel. If a
balance is available in the field, follow the
procedure for Container No. 4 in Section 4.3.4.
4.2.5 Impinger Water. Treat the impingers
as follows: Make a notation of any color or
film in the liquid catch. Measure the liquid
volume in the first three impingers to within
±1 ml by using a graduated cylinder or weigh
the liquid to within ±0.5 g by using a
balance. Record the volume or weight of
liquid present, then discard the liquid. (This
volume or weight information is required to
calculate the moisture content of the effluent
4.2.6 Blank. Save a portion of the TCE
used for cleanup as a blank. Take 200 ml of
this TCE directly from the wash bottle being
used and place it in a glass sample container
labeled "TCE blank."
4.3 Analysis. Record the data required on
a sheet such as the one shown in Figure 26-2.
Handle each sample container as follows:
BILLING COOS SMO-53-a
IV-UU-17
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 224 / Tuesday. November 18.1980 / Proposed Rules
PUnt:.
Date:
Run No.:.
Filter No.:.
Amount liquid lost during transport:
TCE blank volume, ml:
TCE wash volume, ml:
TCE blank concentration, mg/mg (equation 4):
TCE wash blank, mg (equation 5):
CONTAINER
NUMBER
1
2
3
Total
WEIGHT OF PARTICULATE COLLECTED, mg
FINAL WEIGHT
^x^
TARE WEIGHT
ZxCI
Less TCE blank
Weight of paniculate matter
WEIGHT GAIN
FINAL"
INITIAL
LIQUID COLLECTED
TOTAL VOLUME COLLECTED
VOLUME OF LIQUID
WATER COLLECTED
IMPINGER
VOLUME.
ml
SILICA GEL
WEIGHT.
9
g» ml
•CONVERT WEIGHT OF WATER TO VOLUME BY DIVIDING TOTAL
WEIGHT INCREASE BY DENSITY OF WATER (1g/ml).
INCREASE, g
1g/ml
VOLUME WATER, ml
Figure 26-2. Analytical data.
BILLING CODE 65CO-26-C
IV-UU-18
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 224 / Tuesday, November 18. 1980 / Proposed Rules
4.3.1 Container No. 1 (Filter). Transfer the
filter from (he sample container to a tared
glass weighing dish and desiccate for 24
hours in a desiccator containing anhydrous
calcium sulfate. Rinse Container No. 1 with a
measured amount of TCE and analyze this
rinse with the contents of Container No. 3.
Weigh the filter to a constant weight. For the
purpose of Section 4.3, the term "constant
weight" means a difference of no more than
10 percent or 2 mg (whichever is greater)
between two consecutive weighings made 24
hours apart. Report the "final weight" to the
nearest 0.1 mg as the average of these two
values.
4.3.2 Container No. 2 (Cyclone). Clean the
outside of the cyclone, remove the caps, and
desiccate for 24 hours or until any condensed
water has evaporated. Weigh the cyclone
plus contents (glass wool plug and oil).
Determine the weight of the oil by subtracting
out the combined tare weight of the cyclone
plus glass wool. Transfer the glass wool and
cyclone catch into a tared weighing dish; use
TCP. to aid in the transfer process. Desiccate
the cleaned cyclone for 24 hours and reweigh
the cyclone. If the final weight of the clean
cyclone is within 10 mg of its initial tare
weight, report the calculated oil weight.
However, if the weight difference is greater,
extract the oil from the glass wool (use
measured amount of TCE) and analyze this
oil solution with Container No. 3. Be careful
not to include any of the glass wool fibers.
4.3.3 Container No. 3 (Probe to Filter
Holder). Before adding either the rinse from
Container No. 1 or the TCE-oil mixture from
the glass wool extraction to Container No. 3,
note the level of liquid in the container and
confirm on analysis sheet whether or not
leakage occurred during transport. If
noticeable leakage occurred, either void the
sample or take steps, subject to the approval
of the Administrator, to correct the final
results.
Measure the liquid in this container either
volumetrically to ± ml or gravimetrically to
±0.5 g. Check to see if there is any
appreciable quantity or condensed water
present in the TCE rinse (look for a boundary
layer or phase sepa ration). If the volume of
condensed wa'er appears larger than 5 ml,
separate Ihe oil-TCE fraction from the wuter
fraction using a separatory funnel. Measure
the volume of ihe water phase to the nearest
ml,- adjust the stack gas moisture content, if
necessary (see Suctions 6.4 and 6.5). Next,
extract I'hr water phase with several 25-ml
portion* >A TCE until, by visual observalion.
the TCE dc.r.s not remove any additional
organic material. Evaporate the remaining
water fraction to dryness at 93"C (200'F),
desiccate for 24 hours, and weigh to ihe
nearest 0.1 mg.
Treat the total TCE fraction (including TCE
from filter container rinse, water phase
t:xtra< 'ions, and glass wool extraction, if
applicable) as follows: Transfer the TCE and
oil to a tared beaker and evaporate at
ambient temperature and pressure. The
evaporation of TCP. from the solution may
lake several days. Do not desiccate the
sample until the solution reaches an apparent
constant volume or until the odor of TCE is
nut delected. When it appears that the TCE
h.is evaporated, dpsiccate the sample and
weigh it at 24 hour intervals to obtain a
"constant weight" (as defined for Container
No. 1 above). The "total weight" for
Container No. 3 is the sum of the evaporated
particulate weight of the TCE-oil and water
phase fractions. Report the results to the
nearest 0.1 mg.
4.3.4 Container No. 4 (Silica Gel). This
step may be conducted in the field. Weigh the
spent silica gel (or silica gel plus impinger) to
the nearest O.S using a balance.
4.3.5 "TCEBlank" Container. Measure
TCE in this container either volumetrically or
gravimetrically. Transfer the TCE to a tared
250-ml beaker and evaporate to dryness at
ambient temperature and pressure. Desiccate
for 24 hours and weigh to a constant weight.
Report the results to the nearest 0.1 mg.
5. Calibration.
Calibrate the sampling train components
according to the indicated sections of Method
5: Probe Nozzle (5.1), Pilot Tube Assembly
(5.2), Metering System (5.3), Probe Heater
(5.4), Temperature Gauges (5.5). Leak Check
of Metering System (5.6), and Barometer (5.7).
6. Calculations.
6.1 Nomenclature. Same as in Reference
Method 5, Section 6.1, with the following
additions:
Ci=TCE blank residue concentration, mg/g.
M,=Mass of residue of TCE after
evaporation, mg.
VK= Volume of water collected in
precollector, ml
V,=Volume of TCE blank, ml.
V,»=Volume of TCE used in wash, ml.
W,=Weight of residue in TCE wash, mg.
P,=Density of TCE, mg/ml (see label on
bottle).
6.2 Dry Gas Meter Temperature and
Orifice Pressure Drop. Using the data
obtained in this test, calculate the average
dry gas meter temperature and average
orifice pressure drop (see Figure 5-2 of
Method 5).
6.3 Dry Gas Volume. Using the data from
this test, calculate Vm(,u) by using Equation
5-1 of Method 5. If necessary, adjust the
volume for leakages.
6.4 Volume of Water Vapor.
V^M)=K, (V* + Vpc) Eq. 26-1
Where:
K,=0.00133 m'/ml for metric units.
=0.04707 ft3/ml for English units.
6.5 Moisture Content.
Bw.= Vw,,ut,;Vm(.ld,+V^d) Eq. 26-2
Note.—In saturated or water droplet-laden
gas streams, two calculations of the moisture
content of the stack gas shall be made, one
from the impinger and precollector analysis
(Equations 26-1 and 26-2) and a second from
the assumption of saturated conditions. The
lower of the two values of moisture content
shall be considered correct. The procedure
for determining the moisture content based
upon assumption of saturated conditions is
given in the note of Section 1.2 of Reference
Method 4. For the purpose of this method, the
average stack gas temperature fiom Figure 2
may be used to make this determination,
provided that the accuracy of the in-stack
temperature sensor is within ±1'C (2"F).
6.6 TCE Blank Concentmtion.
c, =M,/V,P, Eq. 26-3
6.7 TCE Wash Blank.
W,=(CO(V«.)(PJ Eq.26-».
6.8 Total Patlculate Weight. Determine
the total particulate catch from the sum of the
weights obtained from Containers 1, 2, and 3
less the TCE blank.
6.9 Particulate Concentration.
C.=KJvIn/Vn(rt<1) Eq.26-5
Where:
K,=0.001 g/mg.
6.10 Isokinetic Variation and Acceptable
Results. Method 5, Sections 6.11 and 6.12,
respectively.
7. Bibliography.
The bibliography for Reference Method 26
is the same as for Method 5, Section 7.
Method 22—Visual Determination of Fugitive
Emissions From Material Processing Source*
1. Introduction.
This method involves the visual
determination of fugitive emissions; i.e.,
emissions not emitted directly from a process
stack or duct. Fugitive emissions inlcude
emissions that: (1) Escape capture by process
equipment exhaust hoods; (2) are emitted
during material transfer (3) are emitted from
buildings housing material processing or
handling equipment; (4) are emitted directly
from process equipment.
This method determines the amount of time
that any visible emissions occur during the
observation period; i.e., the accumulated
emission time. This method does not require
that the opacity of emissions be determined.
Since this procedure requires only the
determination of whether a visible emission
occurs and does not require the
determination of opacity levels, observer
certification according to the procedures of
Reference Test Method 9 are not required.
However, it is necessary that the observer is
educated on the general procedures for
determining the level of visible emissions. As
a minimum the observer should be trained
regarding the effects on the visibility of
emissions caused by background contrast,
ambient lighting, observer position relative to
lighting, wind, and the presence of
uncombined water (condensing water vapor).
2. Applicability and Principle.
2.1 Applicability. This method applies to
the determination of the frequency of fugitive
emissions from stationary sources (located
indoors or outdoors) when specified as the
test method for determining compliance with
new source performance standards.
2.2 Principle. Fugitive emissions produced
during material processing, handling, and
transfer operations are visibly determined by
an observer without the aid of instruments.
3. Definitions.
3.1 Emission Frequency. Percentage of
time that emissions are visible during the
observation period.
3.2 Emission Time. Accumulated amount
of time that emissions are visible during the
observation period.
3.3 Fugitive Emission. Pollutant generated
by an affected facility which is not collected
by a capture system and is released to the
atmosphere.
3.4 Observation Period. Accumulated
time period during which observations are
conducted, not to be less than 6 minutes.
4. Equipment.
IV-UU-19
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 224 / Tuesday. Novembvcr 18. 1980 / Proposed Rules
4.1 Stopwatches. Accumulative type, with
a sweep second hand and unit divisions of at
least 0.5 second; two required.
4.2 Light Meter. Light meter capable of
measuring illuminance in the 50- to 200-lux
range; required for indoor observations only.
5. Procedure.
5.1 Position. Survey the affected facility
or building or structure housing the process
unit to be observed and determine the
locations of potential emissions. If the
affected facility is located inside a building.
determine an observation location that is
consistent with the requirements'of the
applicable regulation (i.e., outside
observation of emissions escaping the
building/structure or inside observation of
emissions directly emitted from the affected
facility process unit).
Then select a position that enables a clear
view of the potential emission point(s) of the
affected facility or of the building or structure
housing the affected facility, as appropriate
for the applicable subpart. A position of at
least 15 feet but not more than 0.25 mile from
the emission source is recommended. For
outdoor locations, the observer should be
positioned so that the sun is not directly in
the observer's eyes.
5.2 Field Records..
5.2.1 Outdoor Location. Record the
following information on the field data sheet
(Figure 22-1): company name, industry,
process unit, observer's name, observer's
affiliation, and date. Record also the
estimated wind speed, wind direction, and
sky condition. Sketch the process unit being
observed and note observer location relative
to the source and the sun. Indicate the
potential and actual fugitive emission points
on the sketch.
BILLING CODE MM-M-M
IV-UU-20
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 18,1980 / Proposed Rules
FUGITIVE EMISSION INSPECTION
OUTDOOR LOCATION
Company
Location
Company representative
Sky conditions
Precipitation
Industry .
Observer _
Affiliation
Date
Wind direction .
Wind speed
Process unit.
Sketch process unit; indicate observer position relative to source and sun; indicate potential
emission points and/or actual emission points.
OBSERVATIONS
Begin observation
Clock
time
Observation
period
duration,
m in: sec
Accumulated
emission
time,
mln:sec
E.'.d orjv.'r\dti
Figure 22 1
BILLING CODE 6560 -26-C
IV-UU-21
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 18,1980 / Proposed Rules
FUGITIVE EMISSION INSPECTION
INDOOR LOCATION
Company
Location
Company representative
Industry.
Observer .
Affiliaton.
Date
Process unit
Light type (floutescent, incandescent, natural) _
Light location (overhead, behind observer, etc.).
Illuminance (lux or footcandles)
Sketch process unit; indicate observer position relative to source; incicate potential emission
points and/or actual emission points.
OBSERVATIONS
B'.gin observation
Clock
time
Observation
period
duration,
min:sec
Accumulated
time.
min:r.ec
End obvirvation
Figure 22-2
BILLING CODE 6S6O-26-C
IV-UU-22
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 224 / Tuesday, Novembver 18. 1980 / Proposed Rules
5.2.2 Indoor Location. Record the
following information on the field data sheet
(Figure 22-2): company name, induslry.
process unit, observer's name, observer's
affiliation, and date. Record, as appropriate.
the type, location, and intensity of lighting un
the data sheet. Sketch the process unit being
observed and note observer location relative
to the source. Indicate the potential and
actual fugitive emission points on the sketch.
5.3 Indoor Lighting Requirements. For
indoor locations, use a light meter to mensure
the level of illumination at a locution UK close
to the emission source(s) as is feasible. An
illumination of greater than 100 lux (10 fool
candles) is considered necessary for propel
application of this method.
5.4 Observations. Record the cluck time
when observations begin. Use one stopwatch
to monitor the duration of the observation
period: start this stopwatch when the
observation period begins. If the observation
priiod is divided into two or more segments
by process shutdowns or observer resl
breaks, stop the stopwatch when a break
begins and restart it without resetting when
the bieak ends. Slop the stopwatch at the end
of the observation period. The accumulated
time indicated by this stopwatch is the
duration of the observation period. When the
observation period is completed, record thr
clock time.
BILLING CODE 6560-26-M
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 100 / Tuesday, May 26. 1981 / Proposed Rules
40 CFR Part 60
IAD-FRL 1803-2]
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources; Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacture
AOENCV: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; amendment and
clarification.
SUMMARY: On November 18,1980,
"Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources: Asphalt Processing
and Asphalt Roofing Manufacture" were
proposed in the Federal Register (45 FR
IV-UU-23
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 100 / Tuesday. May 26. 1981 / Proposed Rules
76404). During the public comment
period, clarification was requested
regarding the applicability of the
standards to asphalt processing
facilities that prepare blown asphalts
used for nonroofing purposes. The
amendments are being published to
clarify the applicability of the proposed
standards and to provide an opportunity
for comments from processors of
nonroofing asphalts who may be subject
to the amended proposed standards.
This notice also pertains to the
Amendment to the Priority List (45 FR
76427). It clarifies that asphalt
processing refers to blowing stills and
storage tanks for roofing and/or
nonroofing asphalts that are located at
asphalt processing plants, petroleum
refineries, and asphalt roofing plants.
DATES: Comments: Comments on this
amendment must be received by July 10,
1981.
PUBLIC HEARING: A public hearing will
be held, if requested. Persons wishing to
request a public hearing must contact
EPA by June 9,1981. If a hearing is
requested, an announcement of the date
and place will appear in a separate
Federal Register notice.
ADDRESSES: Comments: Comments
relating to this amendment only should
be submitted (with one duplicate copy)
to: Central Docket Section (A-130),
Attention: Docket No. OAQPS A-79-39.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401M Street SW., Washington. D.C.
20460.
Public Hearing. Persons wishing to
request a public hearing on the
amendment should notify Ms. Naomi
Durkee, Emission Standards and
Engineering Division (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone (919) 541-5631.
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 (919) 541-
2777. Please refer to "Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing Industry, Background
Information for Proposed Standards,"
EPA-450/3-#M)21a.
Docket. A docket, number OAQPS A-
79-39, containing information used by
EPA in development of the proposed
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, Waterside
Mall, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,
D.C. 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Susan R. Wyatt, Emission Standards
and Engineering Division (MD-13).
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone (919) 541-6578.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:'
Amendments to Proposed Standards
"Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources: Asphalt Processing
and Asphalt Roofing Manufacture" were
proposed in the November 18,1980,
Federal Register (45 FR 76404). These
proposed standards limit particulate
emissions from asphalt roofing facilities
and from two asphalt processing
facilities: blowing stills and storage
tanks. The definition of asphalt *
processing in the proposed regulations
referred to the storage and blowing of
asphalt "for use in the manufacture of
asphalt roofing products." Blowing stills
were defined as equipment "in which air
is blown through hot asphalt flux to
produce different grades of asphalt for
the manufacture of asphalt roofing." The
asphalt storage tank was defined as a
tank storing hot asphalt "for roofing
manufacture or asphalt processing."
When considered together, these
definitions restrict the applicability of
the proposed standards to equipment
used to produce or store roofing
asphalts.
Half of the blown asphalts currently
being produced is used m the roofing
industry.(J-<9) The other half includes
predominantly those asphalts used for
paving out also includes asphalts used
for pipe wrapping, pond liners, and
mopping grade asphalts. EPA and
industry growth projections indicated
the necessity for three to seven stills
and 21 to about 50 storage tanks
respectively, by 1985 to supply the
demand for roofing asphalts. However,
the market for blown nonroofing
asphalts is not expected to grow in the
next five years.(3) Therefore,
construction of new stills and storage
tanks subject to the proposed standards
of performance is expected to take place
only to meet the demand for roofing
asphalts.
Comments received after proposal
have indicated that even though growth
will occur only due to the increased
demand for roofing asphalts, the
applicability of the proposed standards
should include blowing stills and
storage tanks that process or store any
type of asphalt. The same still and
storage tank may be used for nonroofing
as well as roofing asphalts. If the
applicability of the standards depended
on the eventual use of the product, a still
or storage tank could be subject to the
regulation on one day (while blowing or
storing roofing asphalt) but not subject
to the regulation on another day (while
blowing or storing nonroofing asphalt).
Even if the same still or storage tank
were not used for more than one type of
asphalt, there could be one unit devoted
to roofing asphalts and subject to the
regulation while another identical unit
devoted to nonroofing asphalts would
not be subject to the regulation.
Furthermore, to meet the increased
demand for roofing asphalt, a
manufacturer could increase capacity by
constructing new stills or storage tanks,
but then limit the use of the new
facilities to nonroofing asphalts while
devoting a larger number of existing
facilities to roofing asphalts.
The fluxes from which nonroofing
blown asphalts are prepared may very
in physical characteristics, such as
volatility, but such variation also exists
with roofing asphalt fluxes. Industry
supplied information on the range of
volatility found among asphalt fluxes
that are air blown. It was determined
that the standard was achievable for aH
fluxes within this range asjioted in the
November 18,1980 Federal Register
notice (45 FR 76410). The size and
operating parameters (such as
temperature and residence time) of a
control device required to achieve the
emission limits for the highest volatility
fluxes were determined, and costs uese
calculated accordingly. These costs
have been determined to be reasonable
for asphalt processing plants, petroleum
refineries, and asphalt roofing plants,
the same plants that could have blowing
stills used for nonroofing blown
asphalts. An asphalt storage tank
containing asphalt to be used in roofing
manufacture is no different from a
storage tank containing asphalt that will
be used for some other purpose. The
number of new stills and storage tanks
constructed in the asphalt processing
and asphalt roofing industries remains
the same as was projected in the
proposed regulations since such
construction will be due to growth in the
asphalt roofing market. Therefore, the
environmental, energy, and economic
impacts of the proposed standards are
not changed as a result of these
amendments.
In summary, the same blowing stills
and storage tanks are, or may be, used
to process or store either nonroofing or
roofing asphalts, and the emission limits
remain achievable independent of the
type of asphalt blown. The costs and the
economic, energy, and environmental
impacts projected in the November 18.
1980 Federal Register (45 FR 76404)
apply to all asphalt blowing stills and
storage tanks regardless of how the
asphalts will be used. These costs and
IV-UU-24
-------
KogisSor / Vol. 40, No. 103 / Tuesday. May 20, 1S81 / Proposed Raleo
impacts were determined to bs
reasonable. EPA has determined that!
the proposed emission luadto foe blowing
stills and storage tanks used for roofing
asphalts should apply to blowing stills
and storage tanks for any type of
asphalt except asphalt mixtures referred
to as cutback and emulsified asphalts
which are not included in thin
regulation. These proposed amendments
would change the definitions of "asphalt
processing." "asphalt storage tanks,"
and "blowing still" to include asphalts
used for any purpose. The amendments
would also add definitions for "asphalt
processing plant" and "asphalt roofing
plant" to be consistent with the
proposed regulation. The regulation
refers to the plants where process
operations occur rather than to the
processes themselves.
Because there may be some asphalt
processing plants or petroleum refineries
blowing and/or storing asphalts used for
purposes other than roofing, which were
not included in the proposed standards
but which may be inlcuded in the
amended proposed standards, the date
used to determine if facilities at these
locations are subject to the standards is
the proposal date of this amendment
rather than the proposal date of the
standard. A paragraph has been added
to the proposed standards to indicate
this.
Minor amendments were made to the
performance test procedures to clarify
the duration of the tests when stills are
being used to process •fonroofing
asphalts.
Clarification of the Amendment to the
Priority List. The Priority List was
amended (45 FR 76427) to add "asphalt
processing" to the source category
previously listed as "asphalt roofing."
The amendment was necessary because
the processing of asphalt for roofing
manufacture takes place at petroleum
refineries and asphalt processing plants
as well as at roofing plants, and the
process is essentially the same at any of
the locations. Since "asphalt
orocessing" has been added to the
''riority List, no additional changes to
.he list or to the amendment are
iccessary; however, the new, broader
lefinition of asphalt processing applies
o the Priority List source category.
Applicability of Proposed Standards
o Storage Tanks. During the public
iomment period that followed
mblication of the proposed standards in
he Federal Register (45 FR 76404),
everal comments were received
egarcling the applicability of the
roposed standards to asphalt storage
inks which may exist at petroleum
efineries that do not process asphalt
.e.. that do not have blowing stills).
These tonka ore covered by tha
proposed otandards. The revised
definitions mafae this cleans. They aJso
expand tbs applicability to include
storage tanks that otore asphalt to ba
used for any purpose, not only roofing
products. Cutback asphalts (asphalts
diluted with solvents to reduce viscosity
so that asphalts can be used at lower
temperatures) and emulsified asphalts
(asphalto dispersed in water with an
emulsifying agent) are not included in
the proposed standards. If asphalt is
stored at relatively low temperatures
and tanks exhibit zero percent opacity
without controls, they would meet the
proposed standards. Otherwise, controls
are available for meeting the proposed
standards.
Environmental Energy, and Economic
Impacts. The environmental, energy,
and economic impacts discussed in the
November 1& 1980 Federal Register
notice (45 FR 76404) for the proposed
standards are not projected to change as
a result of these amendments. These
impacts were based on the construction
of three to seven new stills and 21 to
about 50 new storage tanks to meet the
growth in the asphalt roofing market.
Since there is no growth projected for
the use of other blown asphalt products,
the number of affected facilities remains
the same. Changes to existing stills and
storage tanks that would qualify as a
modification or reconstruction would be
very rare. Any increases in capacity
would be met by the addition of a new
unit or by replacing a small still or
storage tank with a new, larger one.
Stillo and storage tanks used for
nonroofing asphalt may be the same
ones used for roofing asphalt or they
may be additional units. Either way,
they will be located at the same
locations (asphalt processing plants,
petroleum refineries, and asphalt roofing
plants) and will require the same control
devices. Since the economic impacts
were based on conditions which are
applicable to blowing or storing
nonroofing asphalts as well as roofing
asphalts, these impacts remain
unchanged.
"MajorRule"Determination. Under
Executive Order 12291, EPA is required
to judge whether a regulation is a
"major rule" and therefore subject to
certain requirements of the Order. The
Agency has determined that this
regulation, bo In as proposed and as
amended, 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-yeai? annualized costs of the
proposed standard would be $450,000.
Tha product wholesale price could
increase about 0.5 percent, which could
increase the price for a roof on a typical
3-bedroom house by about $3.00. If the
costs were absorbed the resulting drop
in net profit after taxes could be about
0.4 percent. The Agsncy has also
concluded that this rule is not "major"
under either of the other criteria
established in tha Executive Order. The
proposed amendment does not change
the economic impacts of the standard.
This regulation was submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget for
review as required by Executive Order
12291.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Certification. Pursuant to the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify that
the attached amendments to the
proposed rule will not, if promulgated.
have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The
amendments will not affect any sm;ill
entities since additional stills and
storage tanks used for nonroofing
asphalts would not exist at these
locations.
Dated: May 19. 1981.
Walter C. Barber.
Acting Administrator.
References
' (1) Background Information for Proposed
Standards—Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing
Industry. EPA 450/3-80-021a. June 1980. p. 8-
28.
(i>] Memo to Docket A-79-39, Calculations
for Amount of Asphalt Blown for Roofing.
Paving and All Other Uses. Docket No. A-79-
39-IV-B-001.
(3) Letter from V. P. Puzinauskas. the
Asphalt Institute to R. C. Cooper. MRL
January 1981. Blown asphalt products. Docket
No. A-79-39-IV-E-004.
It is proposed to amend 40 CFR Part
60 by amending §§ 60.470, 60.471, and
60.474 to read as follows.
1. Section 60.470 (a) and (b) is revised
to read as follows:
§ 60.470 Applicability ana designation of
affected facttities.
(a) The affected facilities to which this
subpart applies are saturators and
mineral handling and storage facilities
at asphalt roofing plants; and asphalt
storage tanks and blowing stills at
asphalt processing plants, petroleum
refineries, and asphalt roofing plants.
(b) Any saturate? or mineral handling
and storage facility under paragraph (a)
of this section that commences
construction or modification on or after
November 18,198ft is subject to the
requirements of this oubpart. Any
asphalt storage tank or blowing still
located at an asphalt processing plant,
petroleum refinery, or asphalt roofing
plant that processed and/or stores
IV-UU-25
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 100 / Tuesday. May 26, 1981 / Proposed Rules
asphalt used for roofing only or for
roofing and other purposes, and that
commences construction or modification
on or after November 18,1980, is subject
to the requirements of this subpart. Any
asphalt storage tank or blowing still
located at an asphalt processing plant,
petroleum refinery, or asphalt roofing
plant that processes and/or stores only
nonroofing asphalts and that
commences construction or modification
on or after May 26,1981 is subject to the
requirements of this subpart.
*****
2. Section 60.471 is revised by
changing the definitions of "asphalt
processing," "aspahlt storage tank," and
"blowing still" and by adding the
definitions of "asphalt processing plant"
and "asphalt roofing plant":
§60.741 Definitions.
*****
"Asphalt processing" means the
storage and blowing of asphalt.
"Asphalt processing plant" means a
plant which blows asphalt for use in the
manufacture of asphalt products.
*****
"Asphalt roofing plant" means a plant
which produces asphalt roofing products
(shingles, roll roofing, siding, or
saturated felt).
"Asphalt storage tank" means any
tan}- used to store asphalt at an asphalt
roofing plant, a petroleum refinery, and
an asphalt processing plant. Storage
tanks containing cutback asphalts
(asphalts diluted with solvents to reduce
viscosity for low temperature
applications) and emulsified asphalts
(asphalts dispersed in water with an
emulsifying agent) are not subject to this
regulation.
"Blowing still" means the equipment
in which air is blown through asphalt
flux to produce different grades of
asphalt.
*****
3. Section 60.474 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b) and (e) to read
as follows:
{ 60.474 Test methods and procedures.
*****
(b) For Method 26 the sampling time
for each run on a saturator shall be at
least 120 minutes, and the sampling
volume shall be at least 3 dscm. Method
26 shall be used to measure the
emissions from each saturator while the
asphalt roofing plant is making 106.6-kg
(125-lb) asphalt shingle if the final
product is shingle or mineral-surfaced
roll roofing or while the asphalt roofing
plant is making 0.8-kg (15-lb) saturated
felt if the final product is saturated felt
or smooth-surfaced roll roofing. Method
26 shall be used to measure emissions
from the blowing still for at least 90
minutes or for the duration of the
coating blow, whichever is greater. If the
blowing still is not used to blow coating
asphalt. Method 26 shall be used to
measure emissions from the blowing
still for at least 90 minutes or for the
duration of the blow, whichever is
greater.
*****
(e) The production rate of asphalt
from the blowing still, P. (Mg/h), shall
be determined by dividing the weight of
asphalt charged to the still by the time
required for the performance test during
a blow. The weight of asphalt charged to
the still shall be determined at the
starting temperature of the blow. The
weight of asphalt shall be converted
from the volume measurement as
follows:
M=Vd/c
M=weight of asphalt in megagrams
V=volume of asphalt in cubic meters
d —density of asphalt in kilograms per cubic
meter
c=conversion factor 1,000 kilograms per
megagram
The density of asphalt at any
measured temperature is calculated by
using the following equation:
d=1056.1- 0.6176 X°C
The method of measurement shall
have an accuracy of ±10 percent.
*****
IFK Doc. 81-15513 Filed 5-22-81:8:45 am)
BILLING CODE 6MO-M-M
IV-UU-26
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR
NEW STATIONARY
SOURCES
VOC FUGITIVE EMISSION
SOURCES;
SYNTHETIC ORGANIC
CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING
INDUSTRY
SUBPART VV
-------
teg / Vol. 48. No. 2 / Monday. January 5.1881 / Proposed Rules
[ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
00 CFR Part 60
[AD-FRL 1635-S]
Standards of Performance tor Nero
Stationary Sources; VOC Fugitive
Emission Sources; Synthetic Organic
©hemicals Manufacturing Industry
A@ENCV: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of
public hearing.
: The proposed standards
would limit emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOC) from fugitive
en-.'^sion sources in the synthetic
organic chemicals manufacturing
industry (SOCMI). SOCMI is a portion
of the organic chemical industry which
produces the group of chemicals listed
in Appendix E. These proposed
standards would (1) require a leak
detection and repair program to reduce
VOC emissions from valves and (2)
specify the use of certain equipment to
reduce VOC emissions from pumps,
compressors, sampling connections, and
open-ended lines, the proposed
standards would also prohibit leaks
from safety/relief valves during normal
operations. The standards would apply
only to equipment that contains 10
percent or more VOC. Reference Method
21 and Appendix E are being proposed
with the standards.
The proposed standards implement
the Clean Air Act and are based on the
Administrator's determination that
fugitive emission sources of VOC in
SOCMI contribute significantly to air
pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare. As required by Section 111 of
the Clean Air Act, the proposed
standards are intended to require new,
modified, and reconstructed sources in
SOCMI to use the best demonstrated
system of continuous emission
reduction, considering costs, nonair
quality health and environmental
impacts, and energy requirements.
A public hearing will be held to
provide interested persons an
opportunity for oral presentation of
data, views, or arguments concerning
the proposed standards.
(3>ATE§: Comments, comments must be
received by April JB, 1981.
Public Hearing. A public hearing will
be held on March 3, 1981, beginning at 9
a.m.
Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons
wishing to present oral testimony should
contact EPA by March 24. 1981.
A09BESSES: Comments. Comments
should be submitted (in duplicate if
possible) to: Central Docket Section (A-
130), Attention: Docket No. A-79-32.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street S.W., Washington, D.C.
20460.
Public Hearing. The public hearing
will be held at the EPA Administration
Bldg. Auditorium Research Triangle
Park North Carolina.
Persons wishing to present oral
testimony should notify Ms. Naomi
Durkee, Emissions Standards &
Engineering Branch (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,-
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5271.
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)
541-2777. Please refer to VOC Fugitive
Emissions in the Synthetic Organic
Chemicals Manufacturing Industry—
Background Information For Proposed
Standards, EPA-450/3-80-033a.
Docket. Docket No. A-79-32,
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.
FOB FURTHER ONFOHK1ATION COMPACT:
Ms. Susan Wyatt, Emission Standards
and Engineering Division (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, .
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5477.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Proposed Standards
The proposed standards of
performance would apply to fugitive
emission sources within process units
operated to produce one or more of the •
organic chemicals listed in proposed
Appendix E. Certain equipment
processing VOC liquids and gases
would be covered by the standards.
Implementation of the proposed
standards would reduce fugitive
emissions of VOC from pumps,
compressors, valves, sampling
connections, safety/relief valves, and
open-ended valves in VOC service. The
proposed standards would require: (1)«
leak detection and repair program for in-
line valves in gas and light liquid VOC
service; (2) certain equipment for certain
fugitive emission sources in VOC.
oervice; and (3) no detectable VOC
emissions from safety/reliefvalvos in
VOC service during normal operation.
VOC service means that a fugitive
emission source contains or contacts a
process fluid composed of equal to or
greater than 10 percent VOC by weight.
In Lddition, the proposed standards
would provide a procedure for
determining the equivalency of
alternative control measures.
The proposed standards include a
leak detection and repair program that
would require monthly monitoring for
valves in gas and light liquid service.
Valves found not to leak for two
successive months could be monitored
quarterly. Monitoring would be
conducted in accordance with Reference
Method 21 which is being proposed with
these proposed standards. The proposed
standards would require repair of
.leaking valves within 15 days after
detection of the leak unless repair would
require a process unit shutdown. A Leak
is defined as a detectable VOC
concentration equal to or greater than
10,000 parts per million by volume
(ppmv). An initial attempt at repairing
these valves would be required within 5
days after detection of a leak.
Two alternative standards have been
provided for valves in gas and light
liquid service. A plant owner or operator
might elect to comply with one of the
alternative standards which would be
based on data gathered during one
year's monthly monitoring in his
affected facility. The first alternative
standard would provide an allowable
percentage of valves leaking. The
second alternative standard would
provide for the use of a different leak
detection and repair program which
.would achieve the same level of control
as the program designed by EPA.
The proposed standards would
require pumps in light liquid service to
be equipped with dual mechanical seal
systems that include a barrier fluid
system. The barrier fluid would be
required to be something other than a
light liquid or gaseous VOC. Light
liquids are defined as VOC liquids with
vapor pressures greater than 0.3 kPa at
20°C. Each barrier fluid system would be
equipped with a sensor so that failure of
the inner and outer seals could be
detected. In addition, each barrier fluid
system would be operated at a pressure
greater than the seal area pressure or
would be equipped with a barrier fluid
degassing reservoir. The degassing
reservoir would be connected, by a
closed vent system, to a control device
having a VOC control efficiency of at
least 95 percent. The proposed
standards would also require weekly
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 2 / Monday. January 5.1981 / Notices
visual inspections of the seals on light
liquid pumps in order to identify failure
of the outer seal. Repair of the pump
would be required within 15 days after a
seal failure or leak was detected unless
repair would require a process unit
shutdown. The first attempt at repairing
the pump would be required within 5
days after detection of the leak. If a
pump could not be equipped with dual
mechanical seals and a barrier fluid
system, a closed vent system would be
required to transport leakage to a
control device having a VOC control
efficiency of at least 95 percent.
The proposed standards would
require compressors to be equipped with
seals having a barrier fluid system that
prevents leakage of the process fluid to
the atmosphere. The barrier fluid would
be required to be something other than a
light liquid or gaseous VOC. These
standards would also require each
barrier fluid system either to operate at
a pressure greater than the compressor
seal area pressure or to be equipped
with a barrier fluid degassing reservoir.
The degassing reservoir would be
connected by a closed vent system to a
control device having a VOC control
efficiency of at least 95 percent. The
proposed standards would require each
barrier fluid system to be equipped with
a sensor so that seal failures may be
detected. When seal failure is detected.
repair would be required within 15 days
unless repair would require a process
unit shutdown. An initial attempt at
repair would be required within 5 days.
If a compressor could not be equipped
with a barrier fluid system, a closed
vent system would be required to
transport leakage from the seal to an
enclosed combustion source or vapor
recovery system having a VOC control
efficiency of at least 95 percent.
The proposed standards would
require that VOC's purged from
sampling connections be recycled to the
process by a closed sampling loop.
Alternatively these VOC's could be
collected in a closed collection system
for recycle or disposal without VOC
emissions to atmosphere In-situ
sampling systems would be exempt from
these requirements.
The proposed standards would
require that safety/relief valves have
"no detectable emissions" of VOC
except in cases of pressure relief. "No
detectable emissions" of VOC in this
case means 200 ppm or less above the
background level as measured by
Reference Method 21. After each
overpressure relief, the proposed
standards would require the safety/
relief valves to be returned to a state of
no detectable emissions within 5 days.
Open-ended lines would be required
to be sealed with a second valve, cap,
blind flange or plug except when the
open-ended line is in use. If a second
valve is used, the valve on the process
side would be required to be closed first
to avoid trapping VOC between the
valves.
Cooling towers, agitator seals,' and
equipment not in VOC service would -
not be covered by the proposed
standards. Flanges, safety/relief valves
in liquid service, equipment operating at
subatmospheric pressures and all
equipment components in "heavy
liquid" VOC service, would be excluded
from the routine monitoring
requirements of the proposed standards.
Heavy liquids are defined as VOC
liquids with vapor pressure less than 0.3
kPa at 20°C. However, the proposed
standards would require VOC leaks
which were visually or otherwise
detected from these sources in VOC
service to be repaired within 15 days
after the leak is confirmed using
Reference Method 21.
Compliance with the proposed leak
detection and repair program and
equipment requirements would be
assessed through review of records and
reports and by inspection. Each owner/
operator would report quarterly the
number of leaks found and repaired
during the quarter. Each owner/operator
would also submit quarterly a signed
report stating that all monitoring had
been performed in accordance with the
standards, all specified equipment had
been installed and operated in
accordance with the standards, and all
emission limits had been met.
Under the proposed standards, any
owner or operator of a facility subject to
the standards could request that the
Administrator determine the
equivalence of any alternative means of
emission limitation to the equipment,
design, operational, and work practice
requirements of the proposed standards.
Upon receiving a request for
determination of equivalence, the
Administrator would provide an .
opportunity for public hearing. After
such a hearing, the Administrator would
make a decision and publish the
decision in the Federal Register.
Summary of Environmental, Energy, and
Economic Impacts
The proposed standards of
performance would reduce fugitive
emissions of VOC from new and
modified process units in SOCMI by
approximately 87 percent in comparison
to those emissions that would result in
the absence of the proposed standards.
In the fifth year after implementation the
proposed standards would reduce the
total uncontrolled fugitive emissions
from new, reconstructed and modified
process units from approximately 200 to
26 gigagrams (Gg).
The proposed standards of
performance would not increase the
energy usage of SOCMI process units. In
general, the-controls required by the
standards do not require much energy.
Furthermore, the effect of the standards
would be to increase efficiency of raw
material usage, so that a net positive
energy impact would result.
Implementation of the proposed
standards could result in a minor
negative contribution to solid waste.
However, the standards would also
cause a positive impact on water quality
by containment of potential liquid leaks.
The economic impact of the proposed
standards would be reasonable. The
proposed standards would require of the
producers of SOCMI chemicals a capital
investment ranging from $41 million in
1981 to $52 million in 1985. The total
industry-wide capital investment over
the five-year period would be
approximately $232 million. The
industry-wide net annualized cost would
range from about $2 million in 1981 to
about $11 million in 1985. This net
annualized cost includes a credit
resulting from "recovered" fugitive
emissions. The costs would be
distributed among 830 facilities affected
during the five year period. Industry-
wide price increases are not expected to
result from implementation of these
standards.
Rationale
Selection of Sources and Pollutants
The synthetic organic chemical
manufacturing industry (SOCMI) source
category ranked first on the Priority List,
40 CFR 60.16 (44 FR 49222, August 21,
1979), of 59 major source categories for
which standards of performance are to
be promulgated by 1982. The Priority
List consists of categories of air
pollution sources that, in the judgment
of the Administrator, cause or contribute
significantly to air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health or welfare.
The segment of the organic chemical
industry covered by the proposed
standards should be a readily
identifiable portion or subgroup of the
organic chemical industry. EPA has
identified a list of organic chemicals
produced in a segment of this industry.
The products of this industry segment
are derived from about ten basic
petrochemical feedstocks and are used
as feedstocks in a number of synthetic
products industries. Organic chemicals
such as acetone, methyl methacrylate,
IV-W-3
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 2 / Monday. January 5.1961 / Proposed Rules
toluene, and glycine are produced in this
segment of SOCMI. Large quantities of
SOCMI products are used in the
production of plastics, fibers,
surfactants, Pharmaceuticals, synthetic
rubber, dyes, pesticides, and specialty
organics. They are typically
intermediates, although they may be
used as final products. Many of these
products are high volume chemicals. The
Administrator is proposing the list of
organic chemicals in Appendix E as the'
segment of SOCMI covered by the
proposed standards.
The total VOC emissions from SOCMI
were estimated to be about 1,000
Gigagrams/year (Gg/yr) in 1976 or about
5 percent of the 19,000 Gg total annual
VOC emissions from stationary sources
in this country. Fugitive emissions of
VOC are a significant portion of the
total VOC emissions from SOCMI.
Fugitive emissions of VOC from smaller
SOCMI process units are about 70 Mg/
yr and larger SOCMI process units are
about 800 Mg/yr. It is estimated that
approximately 400 Gg/yr of the total
emissions of VOC from SOCMI are
currently attributable to fugitive
emission sources. Fugitive emissions are
unintentional emissions caused by leaks
in processing equipment. Fugitive
emission sources include pumps, valves,
compressors, flanges, and agitators.
Other potential sources of VOC
emissions in this industry include
process sources, storage and handling
equipment sources, and secondary
emission sources. Standards are
currently under development for some of
these VOC emission sources. Other
pollutants emitted from SOCMI include
participate matter, carbon monoxide
(CO], nitrogen oxides (NO,), sulfur
oxides (SOX), sulfuric acid (HaSO«) and
hydrochloric acid (HC1) as well as other
chemicals. Most particulate matter, NO,
and (SO,) emissions from this industry
are regulated under combustion and
process standards that have been
developed or are under development.
VOC emissions from SOCMI
contribute to the production of ozone
which is one of the criteria pollutants for
which an ambient air quality standard
exists under Section 109 of the Clean Air
Act. Because fugitive emissions of VOC
are a significant portion of the total
SOCMI emissions of VOC, the
Administrator is proposing standards of
performance that are intended to reduce
fugitive emissions of VOC from SOCMI.
These proposed standards would reduce
emissions of VOC by about 175 Gg/yr in
1985. The VOC that would be regulated
by the proposed fugitive emissions
standards are compounds which
participate In atmospheric
photochemical reactions or can be
measured by Reference Method 21
which is being proposed with the
standards. In addition to reducing
fugitive emissions of VOC from SOCMI,
the proposed standards would reduce
emissions of organic chemicals that are
toxic and in some cases potentially
carcinogenic. However, specific VOC
which the Administrator lists as
hazardous air pollutants would be
regulated under Section 112 of the Clean
Air Act rather than under this
regulation.
Selection of Regulatory Approach and
Affected Facilities
Two general regulatory approaches
could be used in developing standards
for SOCMI. The first approach involves
the development of standards applicable
to each specific chemical process; this
approach has historically been the most
commonly used approach in developing
standards of performance for new
stationary sources. Following this
approach would involve establishing
standards for each specific chemical
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.
SOCMI plants contain similar fugitive
emission sources. In general, a few
fugitive emission sources within SOCMI
process plants contribute the greatest
proportion of fugitive emissions. Leaks
from fugitive emission sources generally
occur randomly and are not related to
process variables. These similarities in
the behavior of fugitive emission
sources in SOCMI allow the same
control techniques to be applied to all of
the processes. Therefore, because the
control techniques can be applied to the
entire industry group and because
regulating the entire group would be
more resource efficient, a single
regulation is being proposed for
controlling fugitive emissions from
SOCMI.
An affected facility for standards of
performance is an emission source or
group of emission sources to which the
standard applies. Affected facilities for
fugitive emissions standards could be
defined as individual emission sources
(equipment components), groups of
equipment components that are
operated in conjunction with each other
(process units), or groups of process
units at one location (plant sites). The
selection of one of these definitions for
affected facilities is influenced by the
fact that the provisions of the proposed
standards would apply to new, modified
or reconstructed facilities.
An existing facility, as defined in 40
CFR 60.2, is a facility that was
constructed or modified before the
proposal date of the applicable
standards of performance. However, an
existing facility that is modified or
reconstructed after the date of proposal
of the standards becomes an affected
facility and then is subject to applicable
standards of performance.
Modification is defined in 40 CFR
60.14(a) as any physical or operational
change of an existing facility which
increases the emission rate of any
pollutant to which a standard applies.
Exemptions to this definition include an
increase in production rate, if such an
increase can be made without capital
expenditure; an increase in the hours of
operation; the use of an alternative fuel
or raw material if the facility was
designed to accommodate the alternate
fuel or raw material prior to the
standards; the addition of air pollution
control equipment; routine maintenance,
repair, and replacement; and relocation
or change in ownership.
Reconstruction is defined in 40 CFR
60.15 as any replacement of components
in an existing facility where the fixed
capital cost of the new components
exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital
cost that would be required to construct
a comparable entirely new facility.
Under such conditions, the
Administrator would determine whether
an existing facility would become an
affected facility. Fixed capital cost
means the capital needed to provide all
depreciable components of the facility.
The three different alternatives for
defining affected facilities and the
implications of each one were
considered in selecting the definition. If
the affected facilities covered by the
proposed standards were defined on the
basis of individual equipment
components, any replacement of an
equipment component (pump, valve,
etc.) would be considered a new source
and would be subject to the new source
standards. Under this definition
situations would result in which
replaced equipment components in
existing process units would be subject
to new source standards, while adjacent
components would not be subject to the
standards. Determining which
components were subject to
requirements of the standards could be
difficult for the owner/operator and for
EPA.
Designating affected facilities on the
basis of process units would combine
individual fugitive emission sources
IV-W-4
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 2 / Monday. January 5. 1981 / Proposed Rules
within the process unit into a unified
group. Any like-for-like replacement of
fugitive emission sources within an
existing unit would not increase the
overall emission rate, and would be a
small capital expenditure compared to
the cost of tiie entire unit. Therefore, the
unit would not be subject to the
standards due to modification or
reconstruction considerations. Defining
an affected facility as a process unit
would reflect industry construction
practices. Almost all new construction
in SOCMI is by process unit.
Furthermore, most reconstruction and
modification occurs by process units.
Affected facilities could also be
defined as plant sites, i.e., all process
units at each plant site. If affected
facilities were defined as plant sites,
construction of new process units at
existing sites could make the entire site
subject to the standards. This broad
coverage would be an unreasonable
burden for owner/operators that have
existing plant sites that may consist of
many process units. The burden could
be so severe that expansion might be
limited at existing sites. If an entire
process unit were replaced within an
existing plant site, no emission increase
would result, and, therefore, the unit and
site would not be subject to the
:mdards under modification
nsiderations. If the plant site
nsisted of many process units, the
replacement of one unit would probably
not exceed 50 percent of the
replacement cost of the affected facility
(all process units at the site), and
therefore the unit and site would not be
subject to the standards.
After carefully considering each of the
above alternatives, the Administrator
selected process units as the basis for
defining affected facilities. This
definition allows for routine equipment
replacement and minor changes or
expansions in existing facilities without
subjecting either single emission sources
or entire plant sites to requirements of
the proposed standards while also
providing for full coverage for all new
process units.
A disadvantage of implementing a
decision to designate the process unit as
the affected facility is that some small,
routine changes and additions in an
existing SOCMI unit could result in the
unit's being modified and, therefore,
subject to the standards of performance.
These changes and additions may
increase the number of fugitive emission
sources within an existing facility.
thereby increasing the fugitive emissions
by a small amount. In most cases it
kwould be feasible to control fugitive
'missions from some other fugitive
emission sources within the existing
facility to keep fugitive emissions to
their original level. In cases where
existing facilities are already operating
with a good fugitive emission control
program, however, it might not be
possible to control fugitive emissions
from another fugitive emission source.
Standards of performance for new
SOCMI sources are not intended to
cover existing plants making routine and
minor additions. There are two
exceptions to the modifications
provisions in the General Provisions of
40 CFR Part 60 which may exclude some
.plants making such additions.
Exemptions are made for routine
replacement and for additions made to
increase production rate if they can be
accomplished without capital
expenditures. There are many specific
reasons for routine additions and
changes made in a SOCMI unit. 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 plant safety,
and to correct minor design flaws. While
the two reasons for exemptions included
in the General Provisions might be
interpreted to cover these types of
changes, there may be different
interpretations. To clarify the intent that
existing SOCMI units making routine
changes and additions would not be
covered, the proposed standards would
exempt additions made for process
improvements if they are made without
incurring a "capital expenditure" as
defined in the General Provisions.
The General Provisions define
"capital expenditure" as an expenditure
for a physical or operational change to
an existing facility which exceeds the
product of the applicable "annual asset
guideline repair allowance percentage"
specified in the latest edition of Internal
Revenue Service Publication 534 and the
existing facility's basis, as defined by
Section 1012 of the Internal Revenue
Code. However, the total expenditure
for a physical or operational change to
an existing facility must not be reduced
by any "excluded addition" as defined
in IRS Publication 534, as would be done
for tax purposes.
Using the process unit as the basis for
an affected facility, an affected facility
would be a group of all fugitive emission
sources within a process unit. In this
way, the process unit is used as the
basis for defining an affected facility,
but coverage is restricted to fugitive
emission sources. A process unit is
specifically defined as equipment
assembled to produce one or more of the
chemicals listed in proposed Appendix
E which can operate independently if
supplied with sufficient feed or raw
materials and sufficient storage facilities
for the final product. A process unit
includes intermediate storage or surge
tanks and all fluid transport equipment
connecting the reaction, separation and
purification devices. All equipment
within the battery limits is included.
However, offsite fluid transport and
storage facilities are excluded. Under
this definition, if a number of SOCMI
process units were integrated into a
continuous operation, each would be
considered a separate process unit. For
example, if chemical A was produced as
a feedstock for the production of
chemical B and chemical B, in turn, was
used as a feedstock to produce chemical
C, the whole continuous operation
would consist of three process units. If
A, B, and C were SOCMI chemicals,
there would be three affected facilities.
Selection of Regulatory Alternatives
Fugitive emissions of VOC can be
reduced by two types of control
techniques: (1) leak detection and repair
programs and (2) equipment, design, and
operational specifications. Four
regulatory alternatives which would
achieve different levels of emission
reduction using various combinations of
leak detection and repair programs and
equipment, design, and operational
requirements were considered.
Control Techniques. The leak -
detection and repair programs included
in the various regulatory alternatives
consist of two phases. The initial phase
involves monitoring potential fugitive
emission sources within a process unit
to detect fugitive emissions of VOC.
After detection of the leak, the second
phase involves repair or replacement of
the fugitive emission source.
Several leak detection methods were
considered in the development of the
regulatory alternatives. Methods
considered included the use of VOC
detection instruments and soap bubble
solutions to locate individual leaking
sources. Different modes of monitoring
were also considered. Included were
periodic monitoring for fugitive emission
leaking sources on an individual
component or an area basis and
continuous automatic instrument
monitoring of ambient air at multiple
sites within a facility. As detailed in the
Selection of Test Methods section of this
preamble, the individual component
survey using a portable VOC detection
instrument has been selected as the leak
detection method for the proposed
standards. This method requires that the
VOC concentration at the surface of
each fugitive emission source would be
IV-W-5
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 1981 / Proposed Rules
monitored with a portable VOC
detection instrument.
The effectiveness of an individual
source leak detection program would
depend not only on the detection
method, but also on the frequency of the
monitoring schedule. More frequent
monitoring would allow leaks to be
detected earlier and thus allow more
frequent maintenance and a
corresponding reduction in fugitive
emissions.
The second phase of a leak detection
and repair program consists of repair or
replacement of leaking fugitive emission
sources. Repair or replacement of a
fugitive emission source would be
required within a specified period of
time after the detection of a VOC
concentration equal to or in excess of a
predetermined level. These repair and
replacement procedures would vary for
each fugitive emission source. Fugitive
emissions from packed seals on a pump
or compressor, for example, could be
reduced by tightening the packing gland.
However, the packing could deteriorate
to a point where further tightening
would no longer reduce, but instead,
would increase the emission rate. At
this point, the packing would have to be
replaced. Mechanical seals on pumps
and compressors would need to be
removed for repair. Replacement of
these seals would be included in their
repair, if necessary.
Many valve leaks can be repaired
while the equipment is in service. Most
process valves have a packing gland
which could be tightened while the
valve is in service. Tightening of the
packing gland would normally reduce
fugitive emissions from a leaking valve,
but the emission rate could increase if
the packing is old and brittle or if the
packing were overly tightened. When
this orrurs, the packing would have to
be replaced. Plug valves might be
repaired by addition of grease.
Some valves could not be repaired
while in service. These valves include
control valves, which may be excluded
from in-service repair by operating or
safety considerations, and block valves,
whose removal for repair or replacement
might require a process shutdown. Other
valves, such as control valves with a
manual bypass loop, could be isolated
for repair or removal. The repair of a
leaking safety/relief valve normally
requires that it be removed from service.
Leaks from flanges could often be
reduced by tightening of the flange bolts.
Most flanges could not be isolated from
the process to permit replacement of the
gasket.
Fugitive emissions of VOC also could
be reduced by installing certain
equipment. Requiring installation of
certain equipment was considered for
the following fugitive emission sources
in the development of the regulatory
alternatives: pumps, compressors,
pressure relief devices, open-ended
lines, sampling connections, and valves.
Fugitive emissions from pumps occur
primarily at the pump seal. These
emissions could be reduced by
installation of the following equipment:
sealless pumps, pumps with improved
seals (e.g., dual mechanical seals), or
closed vent systems for collection and
control of emissions.
Because of process condition
limitations, sealless pumps are not
suitable for all pump applications but
would reduce emissions whenever
applicable. Enclosing the seal area and
venting the captured emissions to a
control device is an alternative control
technique for pumps; however, it is not
generally used because such a system is
costly.
Dual mechanical seals are currently
used in many SOCMI process
applications. These seals
characteristically include a barrier fluid
between the seals. If the pressure in the
barrier fluid system is higher than that
in the pump seal area, VOC would not
leak from the seal. If, however, the
pressure in the pump seal area is higher,
VOC could leak into the barrier fluid
and later be emitted to the atmosphere
through degassing vents on the barrier
fluid reservoir. Connecting the degassing
vents to a control device (enclosed
combustion or vapor recovery system)
could effectively control fugitive
emissions originating from the double
mechanical seals. The control efficiency
would vary with the condition of the
mechanical seals and the type of control
device used, but control efficiencies
approaching 100 percent can be
achieved. Consequently, a system
combining dual mechanical seal systems
equipped with controlled degassing
vents were considered as the equipment
for pumps.
Emissions from compressors also
occur primarily at the seal. An enclosed
seal area or replacement of the seal with
an improved seal (mechanical) could be
specified to reduce emissions from
compressors. Enclosing the seal area
and venting the captured emissions to a
control device is an alternative control
technique for compressors; however, it
is not generally used because it is too
costly. The use of mechanical seals on
compressors and connection of the
barrier fluid reservoir to a control device
(enclosed combustion or vapor recovery
system) with a closed vent system could
provide control efficiencies approaching
100 percent. If the barrier fluid pressure
is higher than the compressor seal area
pressure, there would be no VOC
emissions to atmosphere. However, if
the pressure in the barrier fluid system
is lower than that in the compressor seal
area, the degassing vents on the barrier
fluid reservoir should be connected to a
control device to effectively control
fugitive emissions. Therefore, a system
combining mechanical seals and
controlled degassing vents was
considered as the equipment for
compressors.
Safety/relief valves may emit fugitive
VOC due to defects in valve seating
surfaces, improper reseating after
relieving, or process operation near the
•relief valve set point. Equipment
considered for controlling fugitive VOC
emissions from relief valves include
closed vent systems connected to a
control device or rupture disks upstream
of safety /relief valves.
A closed vent system can be used to
transport'the relief valve discharge (and
fugitive emissions) to a control device
such as a flare. These types of systems
are currently used in SOCMI process
units; however, under certain
applications, such as flaring halogenated
compounds, these systems could result
in undersirable emissions. The control
efficiency of a closed vent and control
device system is mostly dependent on
the effectiveness of the control device.
For example, a closed vent system is
about 100 percent effective in VOC
capture, and a typical flare process is
about 60 to 99 percent effective for VOC
destruction; thus, the overall efficiency
would be about 60 to 99 percent,
depending on the turn-down capability
of the flare.
Rupture disks can be installed
upstream of safety-relief valves to
prevent the emission of VOC through
the valve seat during normal processing
conditions. The use of a rupture disk
upstream of a safety/relief valve results
in no emissions of VOC from the valve.
Rupture disks would provide more
control than systems vented to a control
device because the control device could
not achieve 100 percent VOC emissions
reduction, whereas rupture disks could.
Consequently, rupture disks were
considered as the equipment for safety/
relief valves.
When process samples are taken for
analysis, obtaining a representative
stream sample requires purging some
process fluid through the sample
connection. This sample purge could be
vented to the atmosphere if the fluid
were gaseous, and liquid sample purges
could be drained onto the ground or into
open collection systems where
evaporative emissions could result.
There is no leakage from in-site
sampling systems but they may not be
IV-W-6
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 2 /• Monday. January 5,1981 / Proposed Rules
applicable in all situations. Fugitive
emissions from other sampling
connections can be reduced by using a
closed-loop sampling system that .
eliminates atmospheric purging of
process material.
Fugitive emissions of VOC from open-
ended lines can be controlled by
installing a cap, plug, blind flange, or
second valve on the open end of the
line. Capping of open-ended lines and
closed-loop sampling are common
industrial practices applied in SOCMI
which exhibit control efficiencies for
fugitive emissions of VOC of
approximately ioo percent. The actual
control efficiencies will depend on site- '
specific factors. Because the equipment
is readily available, commonly used,
and inexpensive, caps, plugs, blinds, or
valves were considered for open-ended
lines, and closed-loop sampling was
considered for sampling connections.
Fugitive emissions from valves occur
at the stem or gland area of the valve
body. These emissions can be controlled
by using valves which have actuating
mechanisms isolated from the process
fluid such as diaphragm or bellows
valves. Although the control
effectiveness of diaphragm or bellows
seal valves is about 100 percent, their
use is limited. Because the application of
these valves would be limited to certain
services, they were not considered and,
therefore, no equipment was considered
for valves in the regulatory alternatives.
Regulatory Alternatives. Four
regulatory alternatives, which represent
different levels of emission reduction
achievable by combining various leak
detection and repair programs,
operational and design requirements
and equipment specifications, were
considered in the development of the
proposed standards. Regulatory
Alternative I is the baseline alternative
and represents the level of control that
would exist in the absence of any
standards of performance. Under
Regulatory Alternative I SOCMI
facilities located in areas attaining the
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
for ozone would not be subject to any
VOC fugitive emission regulations;
however, facilities in nonattainment
areas would be subject to applicable SIP
regulations. Only a few states have
developed or are -considering near-term
development of these specific
regulations. Under Regulatory
Alternative I fugitive emissions of VOC
could also be controlled to some extent
by OSHA health standards or controls
based on provisions of insurance policy
for fire and/or explosion protection.
Estimates of emissions from fugitive
emission sources have been developed
based on existing levels of fugitive
emission control. Thus, Regulatory
Alternative I was based on current
levels of control, considering possible
new regulatory controls, and represents
the level of control that would exist in
the absence of any standards of
performance.
Regulatory Alternative II includes the
same monitoring requirements and
equipment specifications included in the
petroleum refinery Control Techniques
Guidelines (CTC) document (EPA-450/
2-78-036). These requirements and
specifications are:
1. Quarterly monitoring of all in-line
valves, open-ended valves and safety/
relief valves in gas service (relief valves
would also be monitored after
overpressure relief to check for proper
reseating);
2. Annual monitoring of all in-line
valves and open-ended valves in light
liquid service;
3. Quarterly monitoring of compressor
seals;
4. Annual monitoring of light liquid
service pumps (such pumps would also
be inspected visually for liquid leaks
each week; immediate instrument
monitoring of visually leaking pumps
would be required); and
5. Installation of caps, blinds, plugs, or
second valves to seal all open-ended
lines.
Regulatory Alternative III specifies a
more frequent equipment monitoring
schedule than Regulatory Alternative n,
thereby providing for more stringent
control of fugitive emissions of VOC.
For instance, Regulatory Alternative HI
would require monthly, rather than
quarterly or annual monitoring. Monthly
monitoring would result in a reduction
of emissions from residual leaking
sources, i.e., those sources which are
found to be leaking and are repaired but
begin to leak again before the next
inspection and those previously non-
leaking sources that begin leaking
between inspections. Regulatory
Alternative III would also require the
use of caps, plugs, or second valves on
open-ended lines.
Of the four alternatives. Regulatory
Alternative IV would provide the
greatest level of control for fugitive
emissions of VOC through the use of
equipment specifications for some
fugitive emission sources. The
implementation of equipment
specifications for the various potential
fugitive emission sources would lessen
the need for periodic monitoring. The
monitoring and equipment specifications
requirements of Regulatory Alternative
IV are:
1. Monthly monitoring of all in-line
valves and open-ended valves in gas
and light liquid service;
2. Installation of rupture disks
upstream of as service safety/relief
valves that vent to the atmosphere (the
disk would be replaced if disk failure
were detected);
3. Installation of closed vents and
control devices for compressor seal
areas and/or degassing vents from
compressor barrier fluid reservoirs;
4. Installation of dual mechanical
seals on pumps in light liquid service
and installation of closed vent control
devices for degassing vents from barrier
fluid reservoirs of all pumps in light
liquid service (weekly visual inspections
of pumps in light liquid service would
also be required, with subsequent
instrument monitoring required for those
pumps with visible liquid leaks);
5. Installation of closed loop sampling
systems; and
6. Installation of caps, blinds, plugs, or
second valves to seal all open-ended
lines.
Selection of Basis for the Proposed
Standard
The Clean Air Act requires that
standards for performance be based on
the best system of continuous emissions
reduction, considering costs, energy
usage, and environmental impact.
Selection of a regulatory alternative as
the basis for the proposed standards
was made after considering estimated
fugitive emission reductions, energy
savings or usage, and cost and economic
impacts of the regulatory alternatives.
SOCMI, with approximately 1,680
operating process units in the United
States in 1980, is projected to grow at an
annual rate of 5.9 percent. Based on this
growth rate, approximately 2,240
process units will be in operation in
1985. Approximately 830 of these
facilities would be subject to the
proposed standards in 1985 due to new
construction. Of this total, about 560
facilities would be newly constructed
and subject to the standards on this
basis. The remaining 270 facilities would
result from replaced facilities which
would be subject to the standards.
To examine the environmental
impacts of the regulatory alternatives,
estimates of fugitive emissions of VOC
are required. To make these estimates
for SOCMI, fugitive emissions data
developed in petroleum refineries have
been used. Transferring data in this way
is justified because the fugitive emission
sources and the substances processed in
the two industries are similar. Both
industries use the same types of pumps,
compressors, valves, flanges and other
chemical processing equipment.
IV-W-7
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 2 / Monday. January 5. 1981 / Proposed Rules
Furthermore, both industries process
VOC. Leak rates of VOC from similar
fugitive emission sources are similar,
leak frequencies in the two industries
are similar. Available EPA data as
presented in the Background
Information Document shows this to be
true. To further verify this similarity,
EPA is currently gathering more data in
SOCM1 units for comparison to the
refinery data. These data will be in the
docket before the end of the comment
period. These data and comments on
this data will be fully considered before
promulgation of these standards.
Regulatory Alternative II would
reduce fugitive emissions of VOC from
the 830 affected facilities in 1985 from an
uncontrolled level of 200 Gg/yr to
approximately 73 Gg/yr, or by 63
percent. The total energy associated
with a VOC being processed is made up
of the energy value of the compound and
the energy expended to process
(condense, pump, vaporize, etc.) the
compound. The total energy associated
with the VOC would be lost if the VOC
were to leak to the atmosphere. This
energy loss could be reduced if the VOC
were combusted in an enclosed
combustion system because some of the
energy released during combustion
could be recovered. If the VOC could be
kept within the process and sold as
product, the energy loss would be
eliminated. Regulatory Alternative n
reduces the energy loss that would
result in the absence of any standards.
During the first five years after
implementation of Regulatory
Alternative II, SOCMI's cumulative
capital costs would be $21 million. In the
firth year, Regulatory Alternative II
would result in an annualized net credit
of $29 million due to the value of the
recovered product. Implementation of
Regulatory Alternative II would tend to
hold individual price increases down
because it would result in a net
annualized credit. Implementation of
Regulatory Alternative II could have a
slight positive impact on wastewater
from SOCMI facilities because leak
detection would result in the
identification and repair of liquid VOC
leaks, and therefore, reduction of VOC's
in wastewater from SOCMI facilities.
Regulatory Alternative II would have no
impact on any solid wastes associated
with SOCMI.
Regulatory Alternative III would
result in a fugitive emission rate of
approximately 62 Gg/yr from the 830
affected facilities in 1985; this represents
a 69 percent reduction over the baseline,
or Regulatory Alternative I level.
Regulatory Alternative III, like
Regulatory Alternative II, reduces the
energy loss thai would result from
SOCMI in the absence of any standards.
SOCMI would incur cumulative capital
costs of $21 million during the first five
years after implementation of this
alternative. However, due to the
increased cost of implementing a more
frequent monitoring schedule.
Regulatory Alternative III would result
in a smaller annualized net credit than
Regulatory Alternative II.
Implementation of Regulatory
Alternative III would result in an
annualized net credit of $21 million in
1985. As with Regulatory Alternative II,
an annualized net credit would tend to
hold individual price increases down.
Regulatory Alternative III would have
the same potential positive impact on
wastewater from SOCMI facilities as
Regulatory Alternative II, and no impact
on solid waste.
Regulatory Alternative IV would
reduce fugitive emissions of VOC from
the 830 affected facilities in 1985 to 26
Gg/yr; this represents an 87 percent
reduction from the Regulatory
Alternative I level. Regulatory
Alternative FV would minimize the
energy loss that would result from
SOCMI in the absence of any standards.
For Regulatory Alternative IV the
cumulative capital costs would be about
$232 million after the first five years of
implementation. The net annualized cost
for this regulatory alternative would be
$11 million in 1985. These costs should
not significantly increase the prices of
SOCMI products because net
annualized costs of control are
extremely small (less than 0.03 percent)
relative to the value of total industry
output. Implementation of Regulatory
Alternative IV could have a slight
positive impact on wastewater for the
same reasons as Regulatory
Alternatives II and HI. A wastewater
containing suspended solids and some
solid waste could result from the use of
various control processes such as
carbon adsorption units with the
equipment specifications implemented
under this alternative. However, the
impact of these waste streams would be
slight. Solid waste impact would also be
minimal.
The Administrator selects a regulatory
alternative as the basis for the proposed
standards of performance after
considering emission reductions, energy
requirements, and cost and economic
impacts of the regulatory alternative.
This selection is based on choosing the
best system of continuous emission
reduction considering costs, energy and
environmental impacts. Regulatory
Alternative IV would reduce fugitive
emissions of VOC by 170 Gg/yr in 1985.
Of all the regulatory alternatives,
Regulatory Alternative IV would
achieve the greatest reduction of VOC
fugitive emissions. The costs and
economic impacts of Regulatory
Alternative IV, as presented above, are
reasonable. Energy requirements and
nonair quality impacts of Regulatory
Alternative IV would be similar to those
of the other regulatory alternatives.
Therefore, Regulatory Alternative IV
represents the best system of emission
reduction considering cost, energy
requirements, and environmental impact
and the Administrator selected
Regulatory Alternative IV as the basis
for the proposed standards.
Selection of Format for the Proposed
Standards
Several formats could be used to
implement Regulatory Alternative IV.
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act requires
that standards of performance be
prescribed unless, in the judgement of
the Adminsitrator, it is not feasible to
prescribe or enforce such standards.
Section lll(h) defines two conditions
under which it is not feasible to
prescribe or enforce a performance
standard. These conditions are (1) if the
application of measurement
methodology to a particular class of
sources is not practicable due to
technological or economic limitations, or
(2) if the pollutants cannot be emitted
through a conveyance device. If a
standard of performance is not feasible
to prescribe or enforce, then the
Administrator may instead promulgate a
design, equipment, work practice, or
operational standard, or combination
thereof as provided in Section lll(h).
For most SOCMI fugutive emission
sources, it is not feasible to prescribe a
performance standard. Except in those
cases in which standard can be set at
"no detectable emissions", the only way
to measure emissions from such SOCMI
fugitive emission sources as pumps,
pipeline valves, and compressors would
be to use a bagging technique for each of
the pipeline sources in a process unit.
The great number of such sources and
their dispersion over large areas would
make such a requirement economically
impracticable. Therefore, the
Administrator has not selected this
format in prescribing the proposed
standards.
Another approach to prescribing a
standard would be to specify a number
or percent of fugitive emission sources
that would be allowed to leak. This
approach would be qualitative. It differs
from the performance standard appoach
which is based on quantitive emissions
measurements (e.g. bagging). However,
it would have some of the same benefits
IV-W-8
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 2 / Monday, January 5. 5681 / Proposed Rules
of flexibility provided by performance
standards. The only fugitive emission
source for which a leak frequency limit
would be applicable is valves. However,
the variability in the percentage of
valves leaking among process units
limits the setting of an allowable
percentage of valves leaking which
could be achieved by all process units
within SOCMI. This variability is
observed even among units in which
leak detection and repair programs are
being implemented. Even so,
establishing an allowable percentage of
valves leaking based on data collected
for that unit, may be feasible for each
individual process unit. This approach is
discussed in more depth in Alternative
Standards for Valves in the next section
of this preamble as one which would
add desirable flexibility to the proposed
standard.
Another possible regulatory format is
an equipment standard. For those
sources for which performance
standards cannot feasibly be prescribed.
work practices, design standards,
operational standards, or equipment
standards may be prescribed. Each of
these formats has its own advantages
and disadvantages. Equipment
standards provide well-documented
reductions. Compliance monitoring
would require only an initial check to
insure that the equipment had been
installed properly and periodic checks to
insure that equipment was continuing to
operate properly. However, an inherent
disadvantage associated with this type
of format is that less site-specific
flexibility is provided than with a
performance standard and innovation
may be stymied. Design and operational
standards have similar advantages and
disadvantages as those for equipment
standards.
Another format is work practices. An
example of this format would be a
program for detecting and repairing
leaks. Inspection methods, inspection
time intervals, and time allowed for
repair would be defined in detailing the
work practices. Compliance with a work
practice standard would be determined
by judging success in implementing the
work practices. Some recordkeeping and
reporting would be needed to serve as
the basis for judging this success.
The proposed standards could
incorporate all of the potential
regulatory formats. Different formats are
required for different fugitive emission
sources because characteristics of the
emission sources, the available emission
control options, and the applicability of
proposed Reference Method 21 differ
among the sources. In the next section
;he rationale for selecting a particular
format is explained for each type of
fugitive emission source. For each
fugitive emission source, the feasibility
of prescribing or enforcing a
performance standard is discussed. If a
performance standard is not feasible,
the rational for selecting another format
is presented.
Selection of Emission Limit. Equipment,
Work Practice, Design and Operational
Standards
Safety relief valves. Section lll(h) of
the Clean Air Act requires that a
standared of performance be
promulgated unless it is not feasible to
prescribe or enforce. Thus, control
techniques included in Regulatory
Alternative IV were first evaluated to
determine if a performance standard
could be proposed. The conclusion of
this evaluation is that the only fugitive
emission sources for which it would be
feasible to prescribe and enforce a
performance standard are safety/relief
valves, and in certain cases, fugitive
emission sources which are designed
not to leak.
Rupture disks were evaluated as the
equipment specification for gas service
service safety /relief valves under ~
Regulatory Alternative IV. When the
integrity of rupture disks is maintained,
fugitive emissions through the relief
valve are eliminated. Rupture disks
maintain their integrity unless an
overpressure occurs. After an
overpressure, replacement of the rupture
disk once again eliminates fugitive
emissions through the safety relief
valve.
For control techniques the eliminate
fugitive emissions, and emission limit
measurement for "no detectable
emissions" is feasible by the proposed
Reference Method 21. Measurement
methods for determing the quantitative
emission rate from safety /relief valves
are not feasible because they would
require bagging each piece of equipment.
However, Method 21, while it does not
allow quantitative measurement of
emissions, does allow the detection of
leaks of fugitive VOC emissions from
safety /relief valves. Therefore, the
proposed standard for safety/relief
valves in gas service is "no detectable
emissions." The "no detectable
emission" limit would not apply to
discharges through the safety/relief
valve during pressure relief because the
function of relief valves is to discharge
process fluid, thereby reducing
dangerous high pressures within the
equipment. The Standard would specify,
however, that the relief valve be
returned to a state of no detectable
emissions within 5 days after such a
discharge. It would further require an
annual test to verify the "no detectable
emissions" status of the safety relief
valves. Also, a test would be required
when the Administrator makes such a
request.
A test to determine if a fugitive
emission source is complying with a "no
detectable emissions" requirement is a
performance test. Performance tests
require three separate runs, unless
otherwise specified in an applicable
subpart, as required in 40 CFR 60.8(f). A
test to determine if a fugitive emission
source is complying with a "no
detectable emissions" requirement does
not require three runs. Thus, tests to
determine "no detectable emissions"
would be exempted from 40 CFR 60.8(f)
in the proposed standards.
In addition to three runs, performance
test requirements include a notification
to the Administrator 30 days before
each performance test. For fugitive
emission sources, tests to determine "no
detectable emissions" may occur
throughout a year and at least, after
each over pressure relief. Requiring an
owner or operator to notify the
Administrator, as required in 40 CFR
60.8(d), is not considered reasonable for
these standards. Thus, to reduce the
reporting burden on industry, owners or
operators of affected facilities are
exempted from 40 CFR 60.8(d) in the
proposed standards.
Pumps. It is not feasible to prescribe a
performance standard for pumps
because application of measurement
technology to pumps is technologically
and economically impractical. First,
even though pump seals can be designed
to release emissions into a conveyance
mechanism, measurement of these
emissions is not practicable. Dilution of
the fugitive emissions in a conveyance
mechanism limits the economical and
technological application of
measurement methods. Second,
determining emission levels from each
pump would require the time-consuming.
expensive and impractical method of
bagging each pump as described in the
Selection of Test Method section of this
preamble. Furthermore, a "no detectable
emission" limit is not feasible because
dual mechanical pump seals leak on
occasion.
After determining that a performance
standard for pumps would not be
practicable because of technological and
economic limitations, equipment
standards were evaluated. Equipment
specifications evaluated for pumps were
dual mechanical seals with closed vents
for the barrier fluid degassing reservoirs,
closed vents for the pump seal areas,
and sealless pumps. After evaluation,,
dual mechanical seal systems that
include barrier fluid systems and
IV-W-9
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 2 / Monday. January 5.1961 / Proposed Rules
sensors to detect failure of either seal or
barrier fluid system were selected as the
basis for the equipment specifications
for pumps in Regulatory Alternative IV.
They are frequently used in SOCMI
pump applications. If the barrier fluid
system is maintained at a pressure
greater than the stuffing box pressure,
no VOC leakage would occur because
all leaks would be inward into the
process fluid. If the stuffing box pressure
is greater than the barrier fluid pressure,
the barrier fluid between'the two seals
collects leakage from the inner seal, and
the VOC collected by the barrier fluid is
controlled by connecting the barrier
fluid reservoir to a control device
(enclosed combustion or vapor
recovery) with a closed vent system or
by leturning it to the process. The dual
mechanical seals with controlled
degassing vents system is the most
universally applicable of the three
options evaluated. Thus, because they
provide the best control efficiency
(dependent upon the efficiency of the
control device) considering costs, the
equipment requirement for pumps is the
use of dual mechanical seals with closed
barrier fluid degassing vents connected
to a control device or designed to return
the VOC to the process.
Section lll[h) of the Clean Air Act
requires that when equipment standards
are established, requirements must also
be established to insure the proper
operation and maintenance of the
equipment. Such provisions have been
made in the proposed regulation. An
indicator on the barrier fluid system
would reveal any catastrophic failure of
the inner or outer seal or barrier fluid
system. The failure indication criterion
would be determined, for each piece of
equipment. Leakage through the outer
seal could be detected by weekly visual
inspections and would be limited by the
barrier fluid. Although the intent of the
standards would best be preserved by
inspections as frequent as possible,
weekly inspections were specified to
keep the requirement from being
burdensome. Detection of any leaks
should be followed by repair within 15
days.-
The barrier fluid would be either a
non-VOC fluid or a heavy-liquid VOC.
The use of light liquid VOC as a barrier
fluid could result in emissions of VOC of
the same magnitude as those which
would occur if product VOC were
allowed to leak past the seals. Leakage
of process fluid through the inner seal
would be captured and controlled by the
barrier fluid/closed vent system.
Sealless pumps, such as diaphragm or
canned pumps, do not have a potential
leak area, and therefore should achieve
approximately 100 percent control.
However, sealless pumps may not be
suitable for use in some SOCMI process
applications due to throughput, pressure,
or fluid composition constraints.
Sealless pumps were not selected under
Regulatory Alternative IV and,
therefore, were not selected as required
equipment for the proposed standards.
Sealless pumps are at least equivalent
to dual mechanical seals with barrier
fluid degassing vents connected to
' control devices in controlling fugitive
emissions. Therefore, the proposed
standards allow them for owners/
operators who wish to use them.
Seallesss pumps would be required to
operate under a "no detectable
emission" limit as discussed in Leakless
Equipment in this section.
The seal area of a pump could be
completely enclosed, and this enclosed
area could be connected to a control
device (enclosed combustion or vapor
recovery) with a closed vent system.
The control efficiency of this
arrangement is dependent on the control
efficiency of the vapor recovery system
or enclosed combustion device. The
closed vent system could require a flow
inducing device to transport emissions
from the seal area to the control device.
Because of safety or operating
limitations, enclosure of the pump seal
area may not be feasible in all cases.
There may be isolated and unusual
pump applications which require pumps
which cannot be equipped with
mechanical seals. For example, if a
reciprocating pump is required,
mechanical seals may not be possible.
The enclosed seal area would be the
best control option for such pumps.
Therefore, enclosed seal areas
connected to a control device with a
closed vent system would be allowed
for pumps that cannot be equipped with
dual mechanical seal systems. Although
enclosing seal areas would be as
effective in reducing emissions as other
effective techniques, this option would
most likely be used on a limited basis.
Compressors. As in the case for
pumps, a performance standard for
compressors is not feasible. Even though
compressor seals can be designed to
release fugitive emissions into a
conveyance mechanism, measurement
of these emissions would be limited by
technological and economical factors.
Measuring emissions from each
compressor would require bagging each
seal area. This method is time-
consuming and expensive and is
therefore, impracticable. An emission
limit of "no detectable emissions" using
proposed Reference Method 21 as the
measurement method, is not feasible
because mechanical contact seals leak
on occasion.
Because performance standards
cannot feasibly be prescribed for
compressors, the several alternative
formats were considered and equipment
standards found to be most appropriate.
Equipment specifications evaluated for
compressors were sealless compressors,
mechanical contact seals equipped with
barrier fluid system with the barrier
fluid degassing reservoirs vented to
control devices, and closed vents for the
compressor seal area vented to a control
device. Dual seal systems that include
barrier fluid systems and sensors to
detect failure of either seal or barrier
fluid system were selected as the basis
for Alternative IV. Some compressors in
current SOCMI applications have a seal
system with a circulating barrier fluid
system. This barrier fluid system is
similar to the system described for
pumps with dual mechanical seals,
although the compressor seals may be
mechanical contact, oil film, or another
type of seal. If the barrier fluid system is
maintained at a pressure greater than
the stuffing box pressure, no VOC
leakage would occur because all leaks
would be towards process fluid. If the
stuffing box pressure is greater than the
barrier fluid pressure, the barrier fluid
between the two seals collects leakage
from the inner seal. Leakage through the
seal results in the presence of VOC in
the barrier fluid which would be a non-
VOC fluid or gas or a heavy VOC. The
use of a light liquid VOC or VOC gas a
barrier fluid could result in emissions of
VOC of the same magnitude as those
•which would occur if product VOC were
allowed to leak past the seals. VOC
trapped in the barrier fluid would be
emitted from the barrier fluid reservoir.
However, this VOC could be collected
and directed to a control device
(enclosed combustion or vapor recovery
system) or returned to the process
(probably the suctions of the
compressor) by a closed vent system
that is connected to the barrier fluid
reservoir. A seal system which uses a
barrier fluid system provides a high
control efficiency and is the most
applicable effective control technique
for compressors.
Section lll(h) of the Clean Air Act
requires that proper maintenance and
operation of equipment specified in a
regulation be insured. To provide this
insurance the proposed standard
requires visual inspection and
-monitoring of the barrier fluid system to
detect seal failure or barrier fluid system
failure and the use of non-VOC or heavy
VOC liquids for the barrier fluid. The
IV-W-10
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 2 / Monday, January 5,1981 / Proposed Rules
failure indication criterion would be
determined for each piece of equipment.
Although sealless compressors would
achieve approximately 100 control,
•ealless compressors are not readily
available in capacities large enough for
most SOCMI process applications, and
therefore, have limited use in SOCMI.
Consequently, sealless compressors
were not considered under Regulatory
Alternative IV and were not selected as
equipment specifications for the
proposed standards.
However, sealless compressors are at
least equivalent to compressors
equipped with barrier fluid systems and
degassing vents connected to control
devices because VOC emissions are
eliminated and, therefore, can be used
as an alternative. Leakless compressors
would be required to operate under a
"no detectable emissions" limit as
discussed in the Leakless Equipment
section.
There are some cases in which seals
with barrier fluid systems cannot be
utilized. A barrier fluid system cannot
be used under all process conditions due
to pressure limitations. For those cases,
enclosure of the seal area would be the
best option. The enclosed area would be
connected to a control device (enclosed
combustion or vapor recovery) with a
closed vent system. Therefore, enclosed
seal areas connected to a control device
with a closed vent system would be
allowed for compressors that cannot
utilize a barrier fluid system. Although
enclosing seal areas would be as
effective in reducing emissions as other
effective techniques, this option would
most likely be used on a limited basis.
Open-ended valves. The equipment
• chosen for open-ended valves as the
basis for Regulatory Alternative IV was
equipment which would effect enclosure
of the open end. Because performance
standards cannot feasibly be prescribed
for open-ended valves, the several
alternative formats were considered and
equipment standards found to be most
appropriate. An emission limit is not
feasible because open-ended valves are
generally not designed to emit fugitive
emissions into a conveyance mechanism
and because they would require
bagging, which is economically
impracticable, as previously explained
in the Selection of Formats section. A
"no detectable emissions" level could
not be selected as the basis for the
proposed standard because VOC's could
leak through the valve seat and become
trapped in the line between the valve
and enclosure. These trapped VOC's
would be emitted when the enclosure
was removed for operation of the valves
end open-ended valve.
After consideration and rejection of
the possibilities for performance
standards for open-ended valves,
equipment standard options were
considered. Equipment specifications
considered included improved valve
seat technology and enclosure of the
open end. Improved valve seat
technology was not selected because the
effectiveness of such technology could
be nullified by operating variables such
as incomplete closure of the valve by
operating personnel.
Specific equipment which would be
required to close the open end would be
a cap, plug, blind flange, or a second
valve. The control efficiency associated
with these techniques is approximately
100 percent.
To insure the proper operation of the
equipment, open-ended lines are also
covered by operational standards. If a
second valve is used to close the open
end, the proposed standards would
require the upstream valve to be closed
first. After the upstream valve is
completely closed, the downstream
valve would be closed. This operational
requirement is necessary in order to
prevent trapping process fluid between
the two valves, which could result in a
situation equivalent to the uncontrolled
open-ended line.
Sampling connections. Closed loop
sampling was considered as the
equipment specification for sampling
connections. Closed loop sampling
systems eliminate emissions due to
purging by either returning the purge
material directly to the process or by
collecting the purge in a collection
system which is not open to the
atmosphere for recycle or disposal. An
emission limit was not specified because
measuring mass emissions from each
sampling system would require bagging
each system, a measurement method
which is time-consuming, costly, and
impractical. A "no detectable
emissions" limit is not feasible because
although the VOC control efficiency of a
closed loop sampling system is
approximately 100 percent, some VOC
could be emitted during its transfer to a
closed collection device or during its
ultimate disposal.
Because performance standards
cannot feasibly be prescribed for
sampling connections, the several
alternative formats were considered and
equipment standards found to be most
appropriate. The equipment standards in
the proposed standards require the use
of closed loop sampling equipment. In
addition to closed loop sampling
systems any system that collects all the
VOC purged in the sampling and either
recycles or disposes of this VOC
without emissions to atmosphere is
allowed. In situ sampling systems are
exempted from these requirements.
Valves. Work practices consisting of
periodic leak detection and repair
programs were considered for valves in
Regulatory Alternative IV.
A performance standard for valves
was considered and found infeasible.
Valves are not designed to release
fugitive emissions into a conveyance
mechanism. Furthermore, determining
mass emissions from each valve would
require bagging each valve. This
measurement method would be time-
consuming and prohibitively expensive,
especially considering the number of
valves in a SOCMI process unit. A "no
detectable emissions" limit is not
feasible for valves because some
percent of the valves are expected to
lead.
Since performance standards were
found to be infeasible for valves,
equipment standards were considered.
Equipment specifications considered for
valves were diaphragm valves and
bellows-sealed valves. These equipment
specifications would not be suitable for
all SOCMI process applications, and
therefore, were not selected as part of
Regulatory Alternative IV. However, use
of these valves would be at least
equivalent because they eliminate
leakage of VOC. The use of such valves
is allowed as an alternative. These
valves would be required to operate
with "no detectable emissions" as
described in Leakless Equipment in this
section.
Work practices were selected as the
format for control of fugitive VOC
emissions from valves. Several factors
influence the level of emission reduction
that can be achieved by a leak detection
and repair program. The three main
factors are the monitoring interval, leak
definition, and repair interval. Training
and diligence of personnel conducting
the program, repair methods attempted,
and other site-specific factors may also
influence the level of emission reduction
achievable; however, these factors are
less quantifiable than the three main
factors.
The monitoring interval is the
frequency at which individual
component monitoring is conducted. The
length of time between inspections
should be determined by the rate at
which new leaks occur* and the rate at
which repaired leaks recur. More
frequent inspections could then be
required for souces which tend to leak
more often. Available data with which
to quantify the frequency of occurrence
and recurrence of leaks from valves are
limited. However, more frequent
monitoring would result in greater
emissions reduction because more
IV-W-11
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 2 / Monday. January 5.1961 / Proposed Rules
frequent monitoring would allow leaks
to be detected earlier and thus allow
more immediate repair.
Monthly monitoring was considered
for Regulatory Alternative IV. Test data
indicate that leaks would be found with
monthly inspections. More frequent
intervals were not considered because
the large number of valves in certain
SOCMI process units limits the practical
minimum for the monitoring intervals.
For example, a typical large process
unit, Model Unit C (defined in the
Background Information Document),
includes 2800 valves (in gas and light
liquid service) requiring periodic
monitoring. Each leak detection and
repair survey for a single process unit
would require approximately 95 man
hours for monitoring and 16 man hours
for repair. If the monitoring were
performed by a two man team more
than one week would be required to
complete the monitoring. A week would
clearly be too short a time interval to
select for monitoring. Since some time
would be required to schedule repair
after a leak is detected, monitoring
intervals shorter than one month could
result in a situation where a detected
leak could not be repaired before the
next monitoring was required. One
month was selected as the required
monitoring interval because it would
provide the greatest emission reduction
potential without imposing difficulties in
implementing the leak detection and
repair program.
Industry representatives argued at the
National Air Pollution Control
Techniques Advisory Committee
meeting (a public meeting held during
the development of standards of
performance) that monitoring all valves
monthly would be an inefficient expense
of time and manpower for valves that
leak infrequently or less often than other
valves. The analysis in the BID assumed
that about half the valves found leaking
at any given time are valves which have
been repaired and which have begun
leaking again. This assumption
emphasizes the importance of valve leak
recurrence. If this assumption is correct,
more monitoring effort should be
expended on valves found leaking and
less on those found leaking infrequently.
Therefore, the proposed standard would
require monthly monitoring of valves
unless they are not found leaking for
two successive months. If a valve were
not found leaking for two successive
months, an owner or operator would
have the option to. exclude that valve
from monitoring until the first month of
the next quarterly period. Thereafter,
the valve could be monitored once every
quarter until a leak was detected. If a
valve leak were detected, monthly
monitoring of that valve would be
required until it had been shown leak
free for two successive months.
EPA wants to make clear that this
proposed standard is based on the
assumption that recurrence is an
important factor in predicting valve
leaks. This assumption was used to
develop a monitoring program, which
would result in a level of fugitive
emission control comparable to that
which would result from monthly
monitoring. It is not EPA's intent in this
action to propose a monitoring plan
which would be comparable in effect to
quarterly monitoring. This would be the
case under the proposed standard if
occurrence rather than recurrence is the
more important factor.
EPA is currently collecting data
concerning the importance of valve leak
recurrence. The data being collected will
be available before promulgation. If the
data shows that recurrence is not a
significant contributor to the total
number of leaks, the proposed program
will be reassessed and consideration
will be given to returning to monthly
monitoring.
The leak definition is the VOC
concentration observed during
monitoring that defines leaking sources
that require repair. Two primary factors
affect the selection of the leak
definition. These factors are: (1) the
percent of total mass emissions which
can potentially be controlled by the leak
detection/repair program, and (2) the
ability to repair the leaking components.
As the leak definition decreases, the
maximum potential emission reduction
increases due to the increasing number
of sources that have VOC
concentrations that are greater than the
decreasing leak definitions. The overall
emission reduction of a leak detection
and repair program depends on several
factors as noted above. Each of these
factors limits the effectiveness of the
program. If each of the factors
considered in selecting the leak
detection and repair program is 90
percent effective, then the overall
effectiveness would be about 73 percent.
Each factor is a limiting factor to the
overall effectiveness. Thus, the most
restrictive definition that is reasonable
for each factor should be selected. In
order to maximize control effectiveness
of the leak detection and repair
program, the lowest leak definition
which is feasible in terms of monitoring
and controlling effectively without being
unreasonably burdensome should be
selected.
The leak definition selected for leak
detection monitoring was 10,000 ppm.
Preliminary data show that attempting
on-line repair of valves at or above a
leak definition of 10,000 ppm could
result in a few cases where the
attempted repair would increase the
emission rate from the valve, but these
cases do not offset emission reductions
achieved by repair of other valves.
When repair does not reduce the VOC
concentration to less than 10,000 ppm.
the valve would require a more
extensive repair effort than tightening or
regressing the packing. Replacement of
the valve may be necessary. Preliminary
data also'show that attempting the
repair of valves in the 1,000-10.000 ppm
range (low level) could result in more
cases in which individual valve
emission rates increase after repair
when compared to the number of such
cases which would result from
attempting to repair valves in the over
10,000 ppm range. If such increases were
to occur, the attempted repair of "low
level" leaks could result in a lower
overall emission reduction at a leak
definition of 1,000 ppm .than at 10,000
ppm. Because the 10,000 ppm action
level may provide a higher overall
emission reduction than the 1,000 ppm
action level, 10,000 ppm was selected as
the leak definition for leak detection
monitoring.
The repair interval is defined as the
length of time allowed between the
detection of a leak and repair of the
leak. In order to provide the maximum
effectiveness of the leak detection and
repair program, the repair interval
should require expeditious reduction of
the fugitive emission but should also
allow the owner/operator to maintain a
reasonable degree of flexibility in
overall maintenance scheduling.
The length of the repair interval would
affect emission reductions achievable
by the leak detection and repair
programs because leaking sources
would be allowed to continue to leak for
a given length of time. Repair intervals
of 1,5,10,15, 30 and 45 days were
evaluated. The effect on the maximum
emission reduction potential is
proportional to the number of days the
source is allowed to leak between
detection and repair. Estimates of
emission reduction efficiency as a
function of repair interval are presented
in the Background Information
Document
The repair interval selected for the
leak repair program was 15 days. A
repair interval of one day would cause
problems in coordinating activities of
personnel involved in leak detection and
leak repair and in certain circumstances,
would not be technically feasible. A one
day repair interval would essentially
IV-W-12
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 2 / Monday, January 5.1981 / Proposed Rules
require repair of each component as
soon as the leak was discovered.
Some valves may not be repairable by
simple field maintenance. These valves
may require spare parts or removal from
the process for repair. Repair intervals
of 5 and 10 days could cause problems
in obtaining acceptable repair for these
valves. However, a 15-day interval
provides the owner/operator with
sufficient time for flexibility in repair
scheduling, and provides time for better
determination of methods for isolating
pieces of leaking equipment for repair.
In general, a 15 day repair interval
allows more efficient handling of repair
tasks while maintaining an effective
reduction in fugitive emissions and was,
therefore selected as the repair interval.
A repair interval of 30 or 45 days was
not selected because a 15 day repair
interval provides the most effective
emission reduction without being
burdensome.
However, the first attempt at repair of
a leaking source would be required as
soon as practicable after detection of
the leak, and no later than 5 days after
discovery. Most repairs can be done
quickly, and 5 days should provide
sufficient time to schedule maintenance
and repair a leaking source. Attempting
to repair the leak within 5 days will help
to identify the leaks that cannot be
repaired within the 15 day repair
interval. Delay of repair beyond 15 days
would be allowed for leaks which could
not be repaired without a process unit
shutdown.
Alternative Standards. In an effort to
provide as much flexibility as possible,
two alternative standards are being
proposed for valves in gas and light
liquid service. Owners or operators of
affected facilities could identify and
elect to comply with either of the
alternative standards which allow
tailoring of fugitive emissions control
programs to their own operations. This
would be accomplished by carrying out
a monthly monitoring program for at
least one year. Then, a plant owner or
operator could elect to comply with one
of the alternative standards which
would be based on information gathered
during the one year's implementation of
monthly monitoring.
The first alternative standard would
provide an allowable percentage of
valves leaking. This type of standard
would provide the flexibility of a
performance standard by setting a limit
which could be achieved by the most
efficient and practical methods for a
particular operation. As previously
pointed out in the Selection of Format
for the Proposed Standards section of
this preamble, an industry-wide
allowable leak percentage was not
possible for valves because of the
variability in valve leak frequency
among plants within the industry.
However, the alternative standard
would allow each affected facility to
comply with an allowable percentage of
valves leaking which is determined by
their individual performance based on
monthly monitoring in the leak detection
and repair program.
The allowable percentage of leakers
would be determined by averaging the
percentage of valves found leaking in
each month of the last six months of
monitoring, excluding those which could
not be repaired without a process unit
shutdown. To this average would be
added the additional percentage of leaks
which would occur if valves found
leaking were monitored monthly and
those found not leaking for two
successive months were monitored
quarterly. The resulting sum would be
the performance standard for the
percentage of valves leaking which
would be allowed at any time. If an
owner or operator elected to comply
with an allowable percentage of valves
leaking, he would be required to meet
this standard at any point in time, even
though his allowable percentage would
be based on his average performance of
a leak detection and repair program.
Choosing this alternative standard
would allow for the possibility of
different monitoring and maintenance
programs and substitution of
engineering controls at the discretion of
the owner or operator. It would also
eliminate a large part of the
recordkeeping and reporting associated
with the proposed standard for valves.
This alternative would require a
minimum of one performance test per
year. Additional performance tests
could be requested by EPA. If the results
of a performance test showed a
percentage of valves leaking higher than
the allowable limit, the process unit
would be in violation. Reporting would
consist of submitting performance test
results to the Administrator; quarterly
reporting would be eliminated for
valves.
The second alternative standard
would provide for the use of different
work practices which would achieve the
same level of control as the standard for
valves described in proposed S 60.482(f).
After performing monthly monitoring for
at least a year, the data collected would
be used to devise work practices which
would achieve the same control as the
work practices specified in the proposed
standards. Using this approach an
owner or operator could optimize labor
and capital costs to achieve the required
level of control by varying monitoring
intervals or installing valves with lower
probabilities of leaking. Quarterly
reporting would be required under this
alternative as it is under the proposed
standard in S 60.482(f).
An owner or operator would request
approval from EPA to use either of the
alternative standards for valves. A
request for approval would be
accompanied by a description of the
standard being selected for compliance
and data and calculations supporting
the basis for the alternative standard. '
The Administrator would either approve
or disapprove the request for the use of
the alternative standard within ninety
days after the request is submitted. A
denial from the Administrator would be
accompanied by his reasoning for
denial. Until the alternative is approved,
an owner or operator would be required
to comply with the work practice
standard propsoed for valves.
The approach of providing optional
standards would be reassessed before
promulgation of the proposed standards
and if promulgated would be reviewed
at the fourth year review. At that time,
changing, eliminating, or continuing the
alternative standards would be
considered.
Control device. Control devices would
be used to dispose of VOC captured in
closed vent systems from barrier fluid
degassing systems and enclosed pump
and compressor seal areas. In all cases,
these control devices would receive
streams with low and intermittent flow
rates. These control devices would in
some cases be designed to dispose of
organic streams from other sources in
the plant, so that the VOC streams may
contribute a very small percentage of
the total loading on the control device.
Because it would be technologically and
economically impracticable to measure
very low-flow streams and differentiate
these streams from others, an emission
standard was not proposed for these
control devices.
Design requirements for control
devices were considered to insure that
appropriate emission reductions would
be achieved from control devices used
in conjunction with closed vent systems.
Enclosed combustion sources and vapor
recovery systems were considered as
control devices for the closed vent
syetem. Enclosed combustion was
specified because open flares may only
be 60 percent efficient for VOC
destruction of these low flow
intermittent streams. The design
requirements specified in the proposed
standard for enclosed combustion are
the attainment of a minimum
temperature of 816°C for 0.75 seconds.
Under these conditions, at least 95
percent VOC destruction is achieved.
IV-W-13
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 2 /• Monday. January 5,1981 / Proposed Rules
Vapor recovery systems were also
evaluated as control devices for VOC
from closed vent systems used with
pumps and compressors. A control
efficiency of at least 95 percent was
chosen as the design requirement
because it is the highest reasonable
control efficiency practically achievable
for vapor recovery systems such as
carbon adsorption or condensation units
used for fugitive emission sources. The
design requirement selected for control
devices was at least 05 percent VOC
emission reduction. This control
efficiency can be achieved by boiler
furnaces, incinerators, process heaters,
and carbon adsorption units.
Leakless equipment. As discussed in
the previous sections, leakless
equipment was considered for several of
the fugitive emission sources to which
these proposed standards apply. Sealed-
bellows and diaphragm valves, canned
and diaphragm pumps, and sealless
compressors were considered for
equipment standards. Although use of
this equipment achieves excellent
control (100 percent) of fugitive VOC
emissions, its specification in the
proposed standards was rejected
because it is not widely applicable to
SOCMI processes. However, use of
leakless equipment is clearly equivalent
if not better than the proposed
standards for pumps, compressors, and
valves and the proposed standards
would allow the use of such equipment
as an alternative to the required
practices.
Leakless equipment would be required
to operate with "no detectable
emissions" at all times when it is in
service. "No detectable emissions" of
VOC means 200 ppm or less above
background. The 200 ppm limit resulted
from the measurement method of
proposed Reference Method 21 as
discussed in the Selection of Test
Methods section of this preamble.
Because leaks are not expected to occur
in leakless equipment, the proposed
standards require that its leakless status
need only be verified annually using
Method 21.
Exclusions. Flanges in all services,
relief valves in light liquid service, and
all components in "heavy liquid" (VOC
fluids with vapor pressures less than 0.3
kPa at 20°C) VOC service were excluded
from the routine monitoring and
inspection requirements. However, if
leaks are detected from these 'sources,
the same allowable repair interval.
which applies to pumps, valves, and
compressors would apply. These
sources would be excluded from routine
monitoring on the basis of data from
EPA testing in petroleum refineries.
Flanges in refineries have very low
emission rates, and although they
represent 61 percent of the total sources
in refineries, their total contribution to
overall emissions is about 2.2 percent. In
EPA testing of fugitive emission sources
in refineries, safety/relief valves in
liquid VOC service also exhibited very
low emission rates. These valves
contribute only 0.2 percent of all
emissions from refineries. Components
in "heavy liquid" VOC service have
emission rates that are much lower than
"light liquid" or gas service components.
Since all three of these types of sources
contribute a very small portion of
overall emission, including them in the
monitoring and equipment requirements
was not considered reasonable.
Also excluded would be equipment
operating under a vacuum because leaks
to atmosphere would not occur while
the equipment operated at
subatmospheric internal pressures.
Selection of Recordkeeping and
Reporting Requirements
Recordkeeping and reporting would
be required by the proposed standards
to provide documentation for the
assessment of compliance with (1) work
practice standards, (2) equipment
standards, (3) designs standards, (4)
emission standards, and (5) operational
standards. Review of records and
reports would provide information for
enforcement personnel to assess
implementation of the proposed
standards.
Compliance with the proposed
standards would be determined by
inspection and review of records. The
General Provisions of 40 CFR Part 60
state that compliance with standards of
performance, other than opacity
standards, shall be determined only by
performance tests. However, the
proposed standards are, in general, not
standards of performance and
performance-tests are not applicable.
Therefore, an amendment to 40 CFR
60.11 is being proposed which would
add a provision that allows compliance
to be determined by review of records
and inspection. The proposed standards
then specify that compliance with the
standards other than those for safety/
relief devices will be determined by
review of records and inspection.
Recordkeeping. Three recordkeeping
alternatives were considered in
evaluating the amount of recorded
information needed to assess
compliance with the proposed
standards. These alternatives represent
varying levels of the amount of
information which could be recorded
during activities associated with
complying with the standards.
Consequently, these alternatives
represent varying levels of resource
requirements for industry.
The first alternative would be to
require no formal recordkeeping other
than the recordkeeping required by the
General Provisions of 40 CFR 60.7 for
notification of construction or
modification; reconstruction; and start-
up, and shutdown or malfunction.
Failure to require recorded
documentation of the proposed work
practice, equipment, design, and
operational standards would not
provide a mechanism for checking the
thoroughness of the implementation of
the proposed standards and, therefore,
would not ensure fugitive emission
reduction. Because the effectiveness of
the proposed standards is dependent
upon the thoroughness of industry's
efforts, this alternative was not chosen
as the basis of the recordkeeping
requirements.
The second alternative would require
recordkeeping to document results of the
leak detection and repair program and
information relating to equipment,
design, and operation requirements.
Information would be recorded in
sufficient detail to enable owners/
operators to demonstrate compliance
with the standards and therefore
provide reasonable assurance of
adequate reduction of fugitive
emissions. This alternative would
require the maintenance of quantitative
records of repaired and unrepaired
leaking fugitive emission sources. This
alternative would require only the
minimum amount of records on the
equipment, design, emission, and
operational standards and the work
practice leak detection and repair
program necessary to ensure the
effective implementation of the
proposed standards.
The third alternative would require
recordkeeping of all the information
generated by the proposed standards
e.g., the number of fugitive emission
sources detected at a concentration less
than 10,000 ppmv. Much of this
information would not be necessary to
insure the implementation of the
proposed standards. The level of
recordkeeping in the third alternative is
more appropriate for requirements to
establish equivalent methods for
emission limitation.
The second alternative was selected
as the basis for the recordkeeping
requirements of the proposed standards.
This alternative would require the
minimum industry resources to provide
the necessary records to ensure effective
implementation of the proposed
standards. This alternative would also
provide a basis for efficient reporting.
IV-W-14
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No.- 2 / Monday, January 5, 1881 / Proposed Rules
The proposed standards would
require recording of specific information
pertaining to the monthly monitoring for
the work practice standards. Also
information pertaining to repair of
leaking pumps and compressors would
be recorded. Each leaking fugitive
emission source would be identified
with readily visible weatherproof
identification bearing the I.D. number of
the fugitive emission source. The
identification could be a tag or any other
marking which allows ready location of
the equipment. It could be removed after
the fugitive emission source was
repaired and verified non-leaking in two
successive months. A log would be
maintained for information pertaining to
the leaking sources. The log would
contain the instrument and operator
identification numbers for valve
monitoring, the leaking source
identification number, the date of
detection of the leak, the date of each
attempt to repair the leak, and the
maximum screening value after each
attempt. The log would be kept for 2
years following the survey.
The proposed standards would
require that "repair delayed" be
recorded in the log for that particular
fugitive emission source if repair were
delayed beyond 15 calendar days after
the date of detection. The reasons for
unsuccessful repair, date of detection,
repair methods attempted and the
expected date of repair of the leak and
the maximum screening value observed
after repair would be recorded in the
log. These records would be needed to
establish a data base to provide the
information necessary to allow
enforcement personnel to assess
compliance with the work practice
standards.
The proposed standards would
require no records for valves which
were found not to leak. Similarly, no
records would need to be maintained of
the weekly pump inspections if no leaks
were observed visually.
For the design standards, the
proposed standards would require
records to be maintained of the location
of materials documenting control device
design criteria, such as design
specifications for a vapor recovery
system or an incinerator. When the
control equipment was modified or
replaced, the date of replacement and
new design criteria would be recorded.
A record of the source identification
numbers for those fugitive emission
sources operating under "no detectable
emissions" limits would be required.
Fugitive emission sources included in
this category would be all safety relief
valves and leakless equipment which
has been designated for operation under
"no detectable emissions" such as
diaphragm valves or sealless pumps.
Records of each measurement made to
verify "no detectable emissions" would
be required. The dates of the verification
tests, ambient background VOC
concentration measured, and the
maximum VOC concentration measured
at the source would be recorded.
The proposed standards contain very
specific requirements concerning
recordkeeping. These requirements are
in addition to the requirements set forth
in the General Provisions (40 CFR 60.7).
Some of the requirements in § 60.7 are
duplicated in the proposed standards.
Also § 60.7 requires some records that
may be unnecessary to determining •
compliance with the proposed
standards. To eliminate redundancy and
unnecessary recordkeeping, the
proposed standards state that §§ 60.7 (b)
and (d) would not be applicable to
owners or operators affected by the
proposed standards. A revision to the
General Provisions is also being
proposed to provide a mechanism to
exclude the coverage of §§ 60.7 (b) and
(d),
Reporting. Three reporting
alternatives were considered in
evaluating the amount of reported
information needed to assess
compliance with the proposed
standards. These alternatives represent
varying levels of enforcement
monitoring of the proposed standards.
They also represent varying levels of
resources required for industry and
enforcement personnel. Enforcement
personnel would review the reports
submitted by industry personnel on the
status of implementing the proposed
standards. This review procedure
reduces the need .for in-plant
inspections.
The first alternative would require
minimum reporting of information which
was recorded to monitor compliance
with the proposed standards. Recorded
information would be available at the
plant to enforcement personnel, but the
owner/operator would be required only
to supply a report testifying that all
equipment, design, emission, and
operational standards had been met,
that all components had been monitored
and that those with leaks had been
repaired. The more detailed recorded
information would then be available
upon specific request or plant visit by
enforcement personnel. This alternative
would not provide a mechanism for
checking the thoroughness of the
industry's efforts to reduce VOC fugitive
emissions without a visit to the plant
site. Thus, assessment of compliance
with the standards would be
intermittent and somewhat random
since it would mainly be determined
through in-plant inspections rather than
through submittal of information to
enforcement agencies.
The second reporting alternative
would require the submittal of
information in sufficient detail to insure
compliance with the proposed work
practice, equipment, design, emission,
and operational standards. Included in
the reports would be summarized data
concerning leaks detected during the
reporting period. This requirement
would provide enforcement personnel
with an overview of the repair of leaks.
A report signed by the plant owner/
operator attesting 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 standards. This report
would also attest to the proper
application, operation, and maintenance
of the equipment required by the
proposed equipment, design, emission,
and operational standards. These
requirements would not necessarily
include all records kept by industry.
Only information that would be
necessary to assess the implementation
of the equipment standards would be
required.
The third reporting alternative would
require the submittal of all the
information obtained while conducting
leak detection and repair programs. 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. The
extensiveness of the reported
information would require the SOCM1 to
report data that would be more
appropriate for demonstrating
equivalency of alternate methods of
emission control than for establishing
compliance with proposed standards.
The second alternative was selected
as the reporting requirement for the
proposed standards. This alternative
provides sufficient information to
review compliance without requiring
excessive resources from industry. The
first alternative was not selected
because the compliance with work
practice standards and the
implementation of equipment design.
emission, and operational standards
could not be adequately assessed by
enforcement personnel to insure that
reductions in fugitive emissions were
achieved. The third reporting alternative
IV-W-15
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 2 / Monday, January 5,1981 / Proposed Rules
was not selected because the additional
resources expended by industry would
not facilitate assessment of compliance
and implementation of work practice,
equipment, design, emission and
operational standards.
Under the proposed standards
quarterly reports would be submitted.
The reports would contain summary
data of the number of leaks found and
repaired within the reporting period. The
number of leaks not repaired within 15
days, reasons for their non-repair, and
anticipated dates of repair would also
be required, The owner or operator
would be required to sign the report
stating whether or not the process unit
was operated in full compliance with all
work practice, design and operational,
and equipment provisions of the
standard. If the owner or operator had
more than one affected facility, he could
submit one statement of compliance for
all of them. Example report formats are
shown in Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the
proposed standards. These are .
examples only. The required information
could be submitted in any other useful
form.
As stated previously in the Safety/
Relief Valves section of this preamble,
performance tests generally require
three runs and notification of the
Administrator 30 days before the test.
However, this prenotification is not
reasonable for the proposed standards
because tests to determine no detectable
emissions must occur within five days
after an overpressure relief. Because of
this conflict in reporting requirements,
affected facilities have been exempted
from 40 CFR 60.8(d).
Impacts of reporting requirements. In
addition to requirements of the General
Provisions of Subpart A of 40 CFR Part
60, the proposed standards would
require quarterly reports including
information pertaining to the required
work practices. Estimates of the efforts
associated with the reporting
requirements indicate that the industry
would incur manpower expenditures of
approximately 53 manyears in 1985 to
fulfill the requirement which would
apply to about 830 affected facilities. No
overlapping data requirements with
other government agencies are
anticipated.
•Equivalence of Alternative Means of
Emission Limitation
Under the provisions of Section lll(h)
of the Clean Air Act, if the
-Administrator establishes work
practices, equipment, design or
operational standards, then the
Administrator must allow the use of
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 data
would be required to show equivalency
and a public hearing would be required.
Individual owners/operators in
SOCMI could request alternatives
beyond those now provided for specific
requirements such as the proposed
equipment and the proposed leak
detection and repair program. Sufficient
information would have to be collected
by a facility to demonstrate that the
alternative control techniques would be
equivalent to the control techniques
required by the proposed standards.
This information would then be
submitted to EPA in a request for a
determination of equivalence. A public
hearing notice would be published in the
Federal Register.
The data submitted in a request for
equivalency of alternative control
measures would take the form of test
data to substantiate equivalency. To
obtain permission to use alternate types
of equipment, VOC emissions test data
would be supplied for comparison to
emissions data from the specified
equipment. Application for equivalence
of work practices would require
submission of twelve months' data for
the leak detection and repair program
specified in the standards and data for
the alternate system.
After public notice and opportunity
for public hearing, the Administrator
would determine the equivalence of an
alternative means of emission limitation
and would publish his determination in
the Federal Register.
Selection of Test Methods
Several fugitive emission
measurement and monitoring methods
were identified and analyzed in the
development of the proposed standards.
Evaluation of these alternative methods
was based upon results of emission
testing conducted at petroleum
refineries and synthetic organic
chemical manufacturing plants.
One method of emission measurement
is the direct measurement of mass per
unit time, e.g. kg/hr, from each source.
For the wide variety of sources subject
to this standard, direct measurement
would require "bagging" techniques for
the measurement of mass emissions.
"Bagging" means to enclose a fugitive
emission source with a shroud in order
to capture all of the emissions from the
source. The shroud must be attached
securely to the source in order to insure
complete capture of emissions, and a
flow measurement device is needed to
measure the volumetric emission rate.
After an appropriate equilibration time,
which depends on the shroud and the
leak rate (5-30 minutes), a sample of the
effluent from the shroud is taken to
determine the VOC concentration. The
VOC mass emission rate is then
calculated based on the low volumetric
flow rate and VOC concentration.
Because of the large numbers of sources
in an affected facility as well as the
different physical configurations and
diverse locations, direct measurements
of leak rates would be costly, time-
consuming, and impractical for routine
testing. Therefore, direct measurement
of leak rates was not selected as the
emission measurement method for the
proposed standard.
Indirect emission measurement
methods or monitoring methods that
•would yield qualitative indications of
leaks were reviewed. These monitoring
methods are: (1) a periodic individual
component survey that would monitor
all fugitive emission sources using
portable VOC detectors; (2) a periodic
area, or walkthrough survey that would
monitor ambient concentrations of VOC
using portable VOC detectors; and (3) a
continuous fixed-point monitoring
system that would consist of stationary
sensing devices with a remotely located
central readout or a central analyzer
system (gas chromatograph) with remote
sample collection.
Individual component surveys using
portable VOC detectors would be the
most efficient method for detecting all
leaks. The periodic individual
component survey could be done in a
reasonable amount of time by
monitoring personnel and could be
accomplished with relative ease. The
cost of leak detection equipment for an
individual component survey would be
reasonable.
Two individual component survey
methods were identified: (1) leak
detection by spraying each component
with a soap solution and observing
bubble formation; and (2) leak detection
by measuring VOC concentration with a
portable VOC detector. The magnitude
of leak rates based on bubble formation
is difficult to assess. In addition, soap
bubble formation does not distinguish
VOC emissions from other leaking gases
or vapors, and bubble formation is
subject to component temperature and
component configuration restraints.
Therefore, measurement of VOC
concentration with a portable VOC
detector was selected as the method for
monitoring individual components.
A periodic area, or walkthrough
survey of ambient VOC concentrations
with a portable VOC detector and
recorder would be a less effective
method for detecting specific leaks than
an individual component survey.
Interference due to local meteorological
IV-W-16
-------
Fodsra! Kogistsir / Vol. 48, No. 2 / Monday. January S. 1881 / Proposed Rules
conditions and leaks from adjacent units
would probably prevent the detection of
all leaks within a process unit. In fact,
previous studies have indicated that the
area survey is suitable 6nly for locating
large leaks. In order to have a
walkthrough method that is as sensitive
to leaks as an individual .component
survey, the "action level" indicating the
need to do a complete survey of
equipment within a specific area would
necessarily need to be very low. It
would also probably need to be unit and
meteorology specific (different action
levels for different wind speeds). With
an action level this low the background
level of VOC could cause considerable
interference and leaks would
undoubtedly be indicated almost
everywhere in the unit. An individual
component survey would in many cases
be necessary to locate the actual leak.
Therefore, since it is not possible to
provide an industry-wide action level
indicative of leaks for a given process
unit, and, since any action level that
was determined could give so many
false indications of leaks that an
essentially complete individual
component survey would be necessary
to detect the actual leaks, walkthrough
testing was not judged to be a
reasonable approach for leak detection.
Implementation of a continuous fixed-
point monitoring system would require a
portable VOC detector to locate specific
leaking components in addition to
multiple stationary monitors or sample
collectors. This system may be less
efficient than the other methods for
detecting VOC emissions. Possible
meteorological interference and
problems with measuring VOC
concentrations of remotely collected
samples would limit the efficiency of
leak detection by a fixed-point system.
Except for possible monitoring
equipment calibration problems, the
fixed-point system would be operated
with relative ease by monitoring
personnel, who would still be required
to use portable VOC detection
equipment to find the individual leaking
components indicated by the fixed-point
monitoring system. Implementation of a
continuous fixed-point monitoring
system would be capital-intensive,
although leak detection labor costs
would probably be the least of the three
monitoring methods.
Some characteristics of the three
indirect emission measurement methods
are similar, including safety
considerations and ease of operation for
monitoring personnel. Some aspects of
the three methods are different. Capital
and operating costs vary, as do the
'efficiencies of the methods in detecting
VOC leaks. The individual component
method is characterized by a superior
leak detection efficiency and reasonable
costs. Considering these factors, the
individual component method was
selected as the monitoring method for
the proposed standards.
Selected Test Procedure. The
proposed test method. Method 21, would
incorporate the use of a portable VOC
detector to measure the concentration of
VOC at a source to yield a qualitative or
semiquaniitative indication of the VOC
emission rate from the source. The
general approach of this technique
assumes that if a VOC leak exists, there
is an increased VOC concentration in
the vicinity of the leak. Tests in
petroleum refineries have established
general concentration versus mass
emission relationships for various
fugitive emission sources. Also, tests
have indicated that local conditions
cause variations in concentration
readings at points removed from the
surface of the interface on the
component where leaking occurs.
Therefore, the proposed method requires
the concentration to be measured at the
leak interface.
As discussed in the Selectioruof
Emission Limit, Equipment. Work
Practice, Design, and Operational
Standards section in this preamble, a
definition of a leak for valves was
selected to be 10,000 ppm. This
concentration level is measured at the
leak interface and qualitatively relates
to emission rates. Also discussed in that
section is the definition of no detectable
emissions. A concentration for no
detectable emissions needs to be
defined such that when emissions occur
they can be detected and when
emissions are not occuring they are not
mistakenly detected. Based on
considerations of the calibration
procedures and monitor variability at
low meter deflections, two percent of
the definition of a leak was selected as
the definition of no detectable
emissions. Thus, in this case, no
detectable emissions means a VOC
concentration of less than 200 ppm
above background concentration at the
leak interface.
The portable VOC detector used in
the proposed monitoring program would
be required to conform to several
specifications to insure consistent
industry-wide monitoring, effective VOC
emission reduction efforts, and safe leak
detection programs. Equipment
specifications are proposed in Method
21 as follows: (1) The instrument should
respond to total hydrocarbons or
combustible gases. Detector types which
may meet this requirement include
catalytic oxidation, flame ionization,
infrared absorption, and
photoionization; (2) the instrument
should be safe for operation in explosive
atmospheres; (3) the instrument should
incorporate an appropriate range or
dilution option so that concentration
levels of 10,000 ppmv can be measured;
(4} the instrument should be equipped
with a pump so that a continuous
sample can be provided to the detector.
The nominal sample flow rate should be
1-3 liters per minute; (5) the scale of the
instrument readout meter should be
readable to ±5 percent at 10,000 ppmv.
The proposed standards would
require that the monitoring instrument
be calibrated before each monitoring
survey. The proposed standards would
require that the monitoring instrument
be calibrated with methane. The
required calibration gases would be a
zero gas (air, 3 ppmv VOC) and a
methane-air mixture of approximately
10,000 ppmv methane. If cylinder -
calibration gas mixtures would be used,
they would have to be analyzed and
certified by the manufacturer to within
±2 percent accuracy as required in
proposed Method 21. Calibration gases
prepared by the user according to an
accepted gaseous standards preparation
procedure would also have to be
accurate within ±2 percent, as required
in proposed Method 21.
Proposed Method 21 requires that the
monitoring instrument would be
subjected to other performance
requirements prior to being placed in
service for the first time. The instrument
would be subjected to these
performance criteria every six months
and after any modification or
replacement of the instrument detector.
Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held to
discuss these 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 this preamble. Oral
presentations will be limited to 15
minutes each. Any member of the public
may file a written statement with EPA
before, during, or within 30 days after
the hearing. Written statements should
be addressed to the Central Docket
Section address given in the
ADDRESSES section of this 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).
IV-W-17
-------
rederal Register / Vol. 46, No. 2 / Monday, January 5.1981 / Proposed Rules
Docket
The docket is an organized and
complete file of all the information
submitted to or otherwise considered by
EPA 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 (2) to serve as
the record in case of judicial review.
Miscellaneous
As prescribed by Section 111,
establishment of standards of
performance for the synthetic organic
chemical manufacturing industry was
preceded by the Administrator's
determination (40 CFR 60.16, 44 FR
49222, dated August 21,1979) that
sources within this industry contribute
significantly to air pollution which may
reasonably 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
committees, independent experts, and
Federal departments and agencies. The
Administrator will welcome comments
on all aspects of the proposed
standards, including economic and
technological issues, and on the
proposed Appendix E and Method 21.
It should be noted that 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
nonair quality health and environmental
impact and energy requirements) the
Administrator determines has been
adequately demonstrated [Section lll(a)(l)].
Although there may be emission
control technology available that can
reduce emissions below those levels
required to comply with standards of
performance, this technology might not
be selected as the basis of standards of
performance because of costs
associated with its use Accordingly,
standards of performance should not be
viewed as the ultimate in achievable
emission control. In fact, the Act
requires (or has the potential for
requiring) the imposition of a more
stringent emission standard in several
situations.
For example, applicable costs do not
necessarily play as prominent a role in
determining the "lowest achievable
emission rate" for new or modified
sources locating in nonattainment areas,
i.e., those areas where statutorialy
mandated health and welfare standards
are being violated. In this respect,
Section 173 of the Act requires that new
or modified sources constructed, in an
area where ambient pollutant
concentrations are above 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 as that rate of emissions based on
the following, whichever is more
stringent:
(A) The most stringent emission limitation
which is contained in the implementation
plant of any State for such class or category
of source, unless the owner or operator of the
proposed source demonstrates that such
limitations are not achievable, or
(B) The most stringent emission limitation
which is achieved in practice by such class or
category of source.
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 BACT result in emissions of any
pollutants which will exceed the
emissions allowed by an applicable
standard established pursuant to
Section 111 (or 112) of the Act.
In all cases, State Implementation
Plans (SIP's) approved or promulgated
under Section 110 of the Act must provid
for the attainment and maintenance of
NAAQS designed to protect public
health and welfare. For this purpose,
SIP's must in some cases require greater
emission reduction than those required
by standards of performance for new
sources.
Finally, States are free under Section
116 of the Act to establish even more
stringent emission limits than those
established under Section 111 of 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, and
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 lll(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.
The economic impact assessment is
included in the Background Information
Document.
Dated: December 18.1980.
Douglas M. Costle,
Administrator.
It is proposed to amend 40 CFR Part
60 as follows:
1. By adding paragraph (f) to § 60.7 to
Subpart A—General Provisions as
follows:
§ 60.7 Notification and recordfceeping.
* * * * *
(f) Individual subparts of this part
may include specific provisions which
clarify or make inapplicable the
provisions set forth in this section.
(Sec. Ill, 114, 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 7411, 7414, 7601(a)))
2. By adding paragraph (f) to § 60.11 to
Subpart A—General Provisions as
follows:
§ 60.11 Compliance with standards and
maintenance requirements.
*****
(f) Special provisions set forth under
an applicable subpart of this part shall
supersede any conflicting provisions of
this section.
(Sec. Ill, 301(a) of the Clean Air Act. as
amended (42 U.S.C. 7411, 7601(ajJ)
3. By adding Subpart VV as follows:
Subpart VV—Standards of Performance (or
Fugitive Emission Sources-in the Synthetic
Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry
Sec.
60.480 Applicability and designation of
affected facility.
IV-W-18
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 2 / Monday. January 5.1981 / Proposed Rules
Sec.
60.461 Definitions.
60.482 Standards.
60.483 Alternative Standards.
60.484 Equivalence of alternative means of
emission limitation.
60.485 Test methods and procedures.
60.486 Recordkeeping requirements.
60.487 Reporting requirements.
Authority: Sec. Ill, 301(a) of the Clean Air
Act as amended |42 U.S.C. 7411. 7601(a)J. and
additional authority as noted below.
Subpart VV—Standards of
Performance for Fugitive Emission
Sources in the Synthetic Organic
Chemicals Manufacturing Industry
§ 60.460 Aplicability and designation of
affected facility.
(a) The provisions of this subpart
apply to affected facilities within the
synthetic organic chemicals
manufacturing industry. An affected
facility is the group of all fugitive
emission sources within a process unit.
(b) Any facility under paragraph (a) of
this section that commences
construction or modification after
January 5,1981 would be subject to the
requirements of this subpart.
(c) Addition or replacement of fugitive
emission sources for the purpose of
process improvement which is
accomplished without a capital
expenditure shall not by itself be
considered a modification under this
subpart.
§ 60.481 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.
"Closed Vent System" means a
system which is not open to the
atmosphere and which is composed of
piping, connections, and, if necessary,
flow inducing devices that transport gas
or vapor from a fugitive emission source
to an enclosed combustion device or
vapor recovery system.
"Enclosed Combustion Device" means
any combustion device which is not
oj^n to the atmosphere such as a
process heater or furnace, but not a
flare.
"First Attempt at Repair" means to
take rapid action for the purpose of
stopping or reducing leakage of organic
material to atmosphere using best
modern practices.
"Fugitive Emission Source" means
each pump, valve, safety/relief valve,
open-ended valve, flange or other
connector, compressor, or sampling
system.
"In Gas/Vapor Service" means that
the fugitive emission source contains
process fluid that is in the gaseous state
at operating conditions.
"In Light Liquid Service" means that
the fugitive emission source contains a
liquid that meets the conditions
specified in § 60.485(c).
"Open-Ended Valve" means any
valve, except safety/relief valves, with
one side of the valve seat in contact
with process fluid and one side that is
open to the atmosphere, either directly
or through open piping.
"Process 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 requirements, or for
environmental control.
"Process Unit" means equipment
assembled to produce, as intermediates
or final products, one or more of the
chemicals listed in Appendix E of this
part. A process unit can operate
independently if supplied with sufficient
feed or raw materials and sufficient
storage facilities for the final product.
"Quarter" means a three month
period. The first quarter concludes at the
end of the last full month during the 180
days following initial startup.
"Repaired" means that a fugitive
emissions source is adjusted or
otherwise altered in order to reduce
fugitive emissions below the level that
indicates the necessity for repair as
required in § 60.482.
"Synthetic Organic Chemicals
Manufacturing Industry" means the
industry that produces, as intermediates
or final products, one or more of the
chemicals listed in Appendix E of this
part.
"In Vacuum Service" means that a
fugitive emission source is operating at
an internal pressure which is
continuously less than 100 kPa.
"Vapor Recovery System" means any
type of control device capable of
removing VOC vapor from a gas stream,
such as carbon adsorprlon^vapor
compression, and vapor refrigeration
-systems.
"Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)"
means any organic compound, which
participates in atmospheric
photochemical reactions or is measured
by the applicable test methods
described in Reference Method 21.
"In VOC Service" means that a
fugitive emission source contains or
contacts a process fluid that is at least
10 percent VOC by weight as
determined according to the provisions
of § 60.485(d).
§60.482 Standards.
Each owner or operator subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall comply
with the following requirements for
'fugitive emission sources in VOC
service, except those in vacuum service.
(a) Pumps in light liquid service.
(1) Each pump shall be equipped with
a dual mechanical seal system that
includes a barrier fluid system except as
provided in § 60.482[a)(7), § 60.482(a)(8),
or § 60.482(j).
(2] Each fluid system as required in
§ 60.482(a)(l) shall be equipped with a
sensor that will detect failure of the seal
system, the barrier fluid system, or both.
The barrier fluid shall not be a light
liquid or gaseous VOC.
(3) Each dual mechanical seal system
as required in § 60.482(a)(l) shall be—
(i) Operated with the barrier fluid at a
pressure that is at all times greater than
the pump stuffing box pressure;
(ii) Equipped with a barrier fluid
degassing reservoir that is connected by
a closed vent system to an enclosed
combustion device designed for a
minimum VOC residence time of 0.75
seconds at 816°C or to a vapor recovery
system designed for a minimum of 95
percent capture of VOC input to the
vapor recovery system; or
(iii) Equipped with a system to purge
the barrier fluid into a process stream,
with no VOC emission to atmosphere.
(4) Each pump shall be checked by
visual inspection, each calendar week,
' for indications of liquids dripping from
the pump seal. If indications of liquids
dripping from the pump seal are seen,
then a leak is detected.
(5) Each sensor as required in
§ 60.482(a)(2) shall be checked daily or
shall be equipped with an audible alarm.
Based on design considerations and
operating experience, a criterion that
indicates failure of the seal system or
the barrier fluid system, or both shall be
determined for each dual mechanical
seal system. If this criterion is registered
by the sensor, a leak is detected.
(6) When a leak is detected, it shall be
repaired as coon as practicable, but not
later than 15 calendar days after it is
detected except as provided in
§ 60.482(h). A first attempt at repair
shall be made no later than 5 calendar
days after each leak is detected.
(7) Any pump that is not equipped as
required in § 60.482(a)(l) shall be
equipped with a closed vent system
capable of transporting any leakage
from the seal to an enclosed combustion
device designed for a minimum VOC
residence time of 0.75 seconds at 816°C
or to a vapor recovery system designed
for a minimum of 95 percent capture of
the VOC input to the system. Closed
vent systems, enclosed combustion
IV-W-19
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 2 / Monday. January S. 1981 / Proposed Rules
devices and vapor recovery systems
used to comply with this requirement
shall be operated at all times when VOC
emissions could occur.
(8) Any pump that is designated as
required in S 60.486(d)(l) for emissions
having a concentration of less than 200
ppm above background, as determined
by the methods specified in J 60.485(b),
is exempt from the requirements of
8§ 60.482(a)(lH7) if the pump—
(i) Has no externally actuated shaft
penetrating the pump housing,
(ii) Is operated with emissions less
than 200 ppmv above background as
measured by the methods specified in
{ 60.485(b), and
(iii) Is tested for compliance with
§ 60.482(a)(8)(ii) annually and at the
request of the Administrator.
(9) Closed vent systems, enclosed
combustion devices, and vapor recovery
systems used to comply with
S § 60.48a(3) (ii) and (iii) shall be
operated at all times when VOC
emissions may occur.
(b) Compressors.
(1) Each compressor shall be equipped
with a seal system that includes a
barrier fluid system and that prevents
leakage of process fluid to the
atmosphere, except as provided in
{ 60.482(b)(6), { 60.482(b](7), or
S 60.482(j)
(2) Each barrier fluid system as
required in 5 60.482(b)(l) shall be
equipped with a sensor that will detect
failure of the seal system. The barrier
fluid shall not be a light liquid or
gaseous VOC.
(3) Each seal system as required in
S 60.482[b)(l) shall be—
(i) Operated with the barrier fluid at a
pressure that is greater than the
compressor stuffing box pressure;
(ii) Equipped with a barrier fluid
system that is connected by a closed
vent system to an enclosed combustion
device designed for a minimum VOC
residence time of 0.75 seconds at 816°C
or to a vapor recovery system designed
for a minimum of 05 percent capture of
VOC input to the system; or
(iii) Equipped with a system to purge,
with no VOC emission to atmosphere,
the barrier fluid into a process stream.
(4) Each sensor as required in
§ 60.482(b)(2) shall be checked daily or
shall be equipped with an audible alarm.
Based on design considerations and
operating experience, a criterion that
indicates failure of the seal system, the
barrier fluid system or both shall be
determined for each dual mechanical
seal system. If this criterion is attained
and is registered by the sensor, a leak is
detected.
(5) When a leak in detected it shall be
repaired as soon as practicable, but npt •
later than 15 calendar days after it is
detected except as provided in
S 60.482(h). A first attempt at repair
shall be made no later than 5 calendar
days after each leak is detected.
(6) Any compressor that is not
equipped as required in § 60.482(b)(l)
shall be equipped with a closed vent
system capable of transporting any
leakage from the seal to an enclosed
combustion device designed for a
minimum VOC residence time of 0.75
seconds at 816°C or to a vapor recovery
system designed for a minimum of 95
percent capture of VOC input to the
vapor recovery system. Closed vent
systems, enclosed combustion devices
and vapor recovery systems used to
comply with this requirement shall be
operated at all times.
(7) Each compressor that is designated
as required in S 60.488(d)(l) for
concentrations of emissions less than
200 ppm above background, as
determined by the methods specified in
S 60.485(b), is exempt from the
requirements of §§ 60.482(b)(lH6) if it is
operated with emissions having
concentrations of less than 200 ppmv
above background, as measured by the
methods specified in { 60.485(b) and if it
is tested for compliance annually.
(8) Closed vent systems, enclosed
combustion devices, and vapor recovery
systems used to comply with
9§ 60.482(b)(3) (ii) and (iii) shall be
operated at all times when VOC
emissions may occur. •
(c) Safety/relief valves in gas/vapor •
service.
(1) Each safety/relief valve in gas/
vapor service shall be operated at a
state of emissions having a
concentration of less than 200 ppm
above background, as determined by the
methods specified in { 80.485(b), except
during pressure releases.
(2} Each safety/relief valve shall be
returned to a state of emissions having a
concentration of less than 200 ppm
above background after each emergency
pressure release as soon as practicable,
but no later than 5 calendar days, after
each episode of pressure release.
(d) Sampling systems.
(1) Each sampling system shall be
equipped with a closed purge system.
(2) Each closed purge system as
required by § 60.482(d)(l) shall return
the purged process fluid directly to the
process line, or shall collect the purged
process fluid for recycle or disposal
without VOC emissions to the
atmosphere.
(3) In-situ sampling systems are
exempt for §§ 60.482(d)(l) and (2).
(e) Open-ended valves.
(1) Each open-ended valve shall be
equipped with a cap, blind flange, plug,
or a second closed valve which is
attached to seal the open end at all
times except during operations requiring
process fluid flow through the open-
ended line. '
(2) Each open-ended valve equipped
with a second valve attached to the
open end of the process valve, as
required in S 60.482(e)(l), shall be
operated such that the process side
valve is closed first, after operations
requiring flow through the open-ended
valve.
(f) Valves in gas/vapor service and
valves in light liquid service.
(1) Each valve shall be monitored
monthly to detect leaks by the methods
specified in § 60.485(a).
(2) If a VOC concentration of 10,000
ppm or greater is measured, a leak is
detected.
(3) Any valve for which a leak is not
detected for two successive months may
be monitored the first month of every
quarter beginning with the next quarter
by the methods specified in S 60.485(a)
until a leak is detected. If a leak is
detected, the valve shall be monitored
monthly until a leak is not detected for
two successive months.
(4) When a leak is detected it shall be
repaired as soon as practicable, but no
later than 15 calendar days after it is
detected except as provided in
S 60.482(h). A first attempt at repair
shall be made no later than 5 calendar
days after each leak is detected.
(5) First attempts at repair include, but
are not limited to, the following best
modern practices if practicable:
(i) Tightening of bonnet bolts.
(ii) Replacement of bonnet bolts.
(iii) Tightening of packing gland nuts.
(ivj Injection of lubricant into
lubricated packing.
(6) Any valve that is designated as
required in S 60.486(d)(l) for emissions
having a concentration of less than 200
ppm above background as determined
by the methods specified in § 60.485(b)
is exempt from the requirements of
{§ 60.482(0(1} and (3) if the valve—
(i) Has no external actuating
mechanism in contact with the process9
fluid;
(ii) Is operated with emissions having
a concentration of less than 200 ppm
above background as determined by the
method specified in § 60.485(b); and
(iii) Is tested for compliance with
§ 60.482(f)(6)(ii) annually and at the
request of the Administrator.
(g) Pumps and valves in heavy liquid
service, safety/relief valves in light
liquid and heavy liquid service, and
flanges and other connectors shall be
monitored within 5 days by the method
specified in § 60.485(a) if evidence of a
potential leak is found by visual,
IV-W-20
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 2 / Monday. January 5.1981 / Proposed Rules
audible, olfactory, or any other
detection method, as follows:
• (1) If a VOC concentration of 10,000
ppm or greater is measured, a leak is
detected.
(2) When a leak is detected, it shall be
repaired as soon as practicable, but not
later than 15 calendar days after it is
detected. The first attempt at repair
shall be made no later than 5 calendar
days after each leak is detected.
(h) Delay of repair of fugitive emission
sources for which leaks have been
detected will be allowed only if the
repair is technically infeasible without a
complete or partial process unit
shutdown. Delay of repair will not be
allowed beyond a process unit
shutdown.
(i) Compliance with §§ 60.482 (a), (b),
(c). (d), (e), (f), and (h) in this subpart
shall be determined by review of
records and inspection. Compliance
with §§ 60.482 (a)(8). (b)(7), (c), and (f)(6)
shall be determined by the methods
specified in § 60.485(b). Compliance
shall be achieved within 180 days of
initial startup.
(j) A determination of equivalence of
alternative means of emission limitation
to the requirements of § § 60.482 (a), (b),
(d), (e), (f), or (g) maybe requested as
provided in § 60.484. If the
Administrator determines that an
alternative means of emission limitation
is at least equivalent to the requirements
of §§ 60.482 (a), (b), (d), (e), (f), or (g), the
requirements of that determination shall
apply.
§ 60.483 Alternative standards.
(a) Valves in gas/vapor and valves in
light liquid service—allowable
percentage of valves leaking.
(1) After performing a monthly leak
detection and repair program in
accordance with §§ 60.482(f) (1), (2), (4),
and (5) for at least twelve months, an
owner or operator may request approval
from the Administrator to comply with
an allowable percentage of valves
leaking in gas/vapor and light liquid
service.
(2) The following requirements shall
be met if an owner or operator wishes to
comply with an allowable percentage of
valves leaking.
(i) An owner or operator must request
approval of the Administrator to comply
with an allowable percentage of valves
leaking.
(ii) An owner or operator must have
performed a monthly leak detection and
repair program in accordance with
§§ 60.482 (f). (1). (2). (4), and (5) for at
least twelve months before a request for
approval is submitted.
(iii) A request of approval of an
allowable percentage of valves leaking
must be accompanied by data and
calculations which describe the
methodology used for determining the
allowable percentage of valves leaking.
(iv) A performance test as specified in
S 60.483(a)(4) shall,be conducted
annually and at the request of the
Administrator. A written report of the
results of the performance test shall be
submitted to the Administrator within a
time interval specified by the
Administrator.
(v) If a valve leak is detected, an
attempt must be made to repair it.
(3) The allowable percentage of leaks
shall be determined by adding the
monthly baseline percentage of leaks
demonstrated during the last six months
under monthly monitoring and the
monthly incremental percentage of leaks
which would have occured if the
provisions of § 60.482(f)(3) had been
followed.
(i) The monthly baseline percentage of
leaks shall be determined by obtaining a
monthly average of the percentage of
leaks found in an affected facility during
the last six months of operation under
monthly monitoring.
(ii) The monthly incremental
percentage of leaks shall be determined
by averaging the percentage of valves
for which leaks had been detected in the
second and third months of the last two
quarters but which had not been
detected during the first months of the
last two quarters.
(iii) A percentage of leaks shall be
determined by dividing the total number
of leaks by the total number of valves in
an affected facility, excluding those
leaks for which repair has been delayed
because a process unit shutdown would
be required as provided in S 60.482(h)
and excluding those valves which are
complying with the provisions of
S 60.482(f)(6).
(4) Performance tests shall be
conducted in the following manner.
(i) All valves within the affected
facility shall be monitored by the
methods specified in § 60.485(a).
(ii) If a VOC concentration of 10,000
ppm or greater is measured, a leak is ,
detected.
(iii) The leak percentage shall be
determined by dividing the number of
valves for which leaks are detected by
the number of valves within the affected
facility, excluding valves for which
repair has been delayed because a
process unit shutdown would be
required, and excluding those which are
complying with the provisions of
§ 60.482(0(6).
(iv) For those valves for which repair
has been delayed because a process unit
shutdown would be required, records of
attempted repair must be provided at
the request of the Administrator.
Records of attempted repair for those
valves for which repair has been
delayed shall be kept for two years.
(5)(i) The Administrator will either
approve or disapprove the request for
the use of the alternative standard
within ninety days after the request is
submitted.
(ii) If the Administrator denies the use
of this alternative, the owner or operator
will be notified of the reasons for the
denial.
(iii) If the Administrator is reviewing a
request for the use of this alternative as
specified in §§ 60.483(a) (1) and (2),
additional information may be
requested of the owner or operator
seeking approval of this option.
(iv) Until this alternative is approved,
the owner or operator shall be subject to
the requirements of § 60.482(0.
(6) The reporting provisions of
S! 60.487(b). (2), (3), (4), (5), (6) and (9)
would not apply to owners or operators
complying with an allowable percentage
of valves leaking.
(b) Valves in gas/vapor and valves in
light liquid service—alternative work
practices.
(1) After performing a monthly leak
detection and repair program in
accordance with §§60.482(0, (1). (2). (4)
and (5) for at least twelve months, an
owner or operator may request approval
of the administrator to comply with an
alternative work practice for valves in
gas/vapor and valves in light liquid
service which differs from the work
practice required in §§60.482(0 (1) and
(3).
(2) The following requirements shall
be met if an owner or operator wishes to
comply with an optional work practice.
(i) An owner or operator must request
approval of the Administrator to comply
with an optional work practice
standard.
(ii) An owner or operator must have
performed a monthly leak detection and
repair program in accordance with
§§ 60.482(0 (l), (2). (4) and (5) for twelve
months before a request for approval is
submitted.
(iii) A request for approval of an
optional work practice standard must be
accomplished by data and calculations
showing that the optional work practice
complies with the requirements of
§ 60.487(b)(3).
(3) The optional work practice
program shall be designed to accomplish
the emission reduction associated with
the required program in §§ 60.482(l](f),
(2), (3), (4) and (5). To demonstrate this
reduction, an owner or operator shall
determine the leak occurrence and
recurrence for each program. These data
shall be used to show that the expected
IV-W-21
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 2 / Monday. January 5.1981 / Proposed Rules
percentage of valves leaking in the
affected facility under the optional
program is equal to or less than the
expected percentage of valves leaking
under the required program.
(4) (i) The Administrator may deny the
use of this option for any owner or
operator within 90 days of the request
for approval. If disapproval is not given
within 90 days of the request for
approval, the request is approved.
(ii) If the Administrator denies the use
of this option, the owner or operator will
be notified of the reasons for the denial.
(iii) If the Administrator is reviewing a
request for the use of this alternative as
specified in 5§ 60.483(a) (1) and (2),
additional information may be
requested of the owner or operator
seeking approval of this alternative.
(iv) Until this alternative is approved,
the owner or operator shall be subject to
the requirements of $ 60.482(f).
§ 60.484 Equivalence of sltenwrtlv* means
of emission limitation.
(a) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart may apply
to the Administrator for determination
of equivalence for any alternative
means of emission limitation that
achieves a reduction in emissions of
VOC at least equivalent to the reduction
in emissions of VOC achieved by the
controls required in § § 60.482 (a), (b),
(d). (e), (f), and (g).
(b) Determination of equivalence to
the equipment requirements of $ S 60.482
(a), (b), (d), and (e) will be evaluated by
the following guidelines:
(1) Each owner or operator applying
for an equivalence determination shall
be responsible for collecting and
verifying test data to demonstrate
equivalence of any alternative means of
emission limitation to the requirements
of|§60.482(a},(b),(d),or(e).
(2) The Administrator will compare
test data for the alternative means of
emission limitation to test data for the
equipment requirements of §5 60.482 (a),
(b).(d),or(e).
(3) The Administrator may condition
the approval of equivalence on
requirements that may be necessary to
assure operation and maintenance to
achieve the same emission reduction as
the requirements of §§ 60.482 (a), (b),
(d), or (e).
(c) Determination of equivalence to
the work practices required in 5 60.482(f)
, will be evaluated by the following
guidelines:
(1) Each owner or operator applying
for a determination of equivalence shall
be responsible for collecting and
verifying test data to demonstrate
equivalence of an alternative means of
emission limitation to the requirements
of § 60.4B2(f).
(2) For each affected facility for which
a determination of equivalence is
requested, the emission reduction
achieved by the requirements of
S 60.482(f) shall be demonstrated for a
minimum period of 12 months. A
quantitative performance level shall be
determined that describes the emission
reduction achieved by the requirements
of § 60.482(f).
(3) For each affected facility, the
emission reduction achieved by any
alternative means of emission limitation
shall be demonstrated.
(4) Each owner or operator applying
for a determination of equivalence shall
commit to compliance with a
performance that provides for emission
reductions equal to or greater than the
emission reductions achievable by the
requirements of $ 60.482(f).
(5) The Administrator will compare
the demonstrated emission reduction for
the alternative means of emission
limitation to the demonstrated emission
reduction for the work practices
required in $ 60.482(f) and will consider
the commitment in § 60.484(c)(4).
(6) The Administrator may condition
the approval of equivalence on
requirements that may be necessary to
assure operation and maintenance to
achieve the same emission reduction as
the requirements of § 60.482(f).
(d) After a request for determination
of equivalence is received, the
Administrator will publish a notice in
the Federal Register and provide the
opportunity for public hearing. After
notice and opportunity for public
hearing, the Administrator will
determine the equivalence of an
alternative means of emission limitation
and will publish the determination in the
Federal Register.
§ 60.485 Test methods and procedures.
Each owner or operator subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall comply
with the following test method and
procedure requirements:
(a) Fugitive emission monitoring as
required in $ 60.482(f) shall comply with
the following requirements.
(1) Monitoring shall comply with
Reference Method 21.
(2) The VOC detection instrument
shall meet the performance criteria of
Reference Method 21.
(3) The instrument shall be calibrated
before use on the day of its use by the
methods specified in Method 21.
(4) Calibration gases shall be:
(i) Zero air (less than 3 ppm of VOC in
air); and
(ii) A mixture of methane and air at a
concentration of approximately 10,000
ppmv methane.
(5) The instrument probe shall be
traversed around all potential leak
interfaces as close to the interface as
possible as described in Reference
Method 21.
(b) When fugitive emission sources
are tested for emissions having a
concentration of less than 200 ppm
above background as required in
§5 60.482 (a), (b), (c), and (f). the testing
shall comply with the following
requirements:
(1) The requirements of J§ 60.485(a)
(1), (2). and (3) shall apply.
(2) The background level shall be
determined, as set forth in Reference
Method 21.
(3) The instrument probe shall be
traversed around all potential leak
interfaces as close to the interface as
possible as described in Reference
Method 21.
(4) The provisions of $ 60.8(f) do not
apply to affected facilities subject to the
provisions of this subpart.
(c) A fugitive emission source is in
light liquid service if the following
conditions apply:
(1) The vapor pressure of one or more
of the components is greater than 0.3
kPa at 20°C. Vapor pressures may be
obtained from standard reference texts
or may be determined by ASTM Method
D-2879.
(2) The total concentration of the pure
components having a vapor pressure
greater than 0.3 kPa at 20°C is equal to
or greater than 10 percent by weight;
and
(3) The fluid is a liquid at operating
conditions.
(d) For purposes of determining the
percent VOC in the process fluid within
a fugutive emission source, procedures
that conform to the general methods
described in ASTM methods E-260, E-
168, and E-169 shall be used.
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42
U.S.C. 7414))
§ 60.48$ Recordkeeplng requirements.
Each owner or operator subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall comply
with the following recordkeeping
requirements.
(a) When each leak is detected as
specified in §§ 60.482 (a), (b), (f). and (g);
the following recordkeeping
requirements apply:
(1) Weatherproof and readily visible
identification, marked with the source
identification number, shall be attached
to the leaking source.
(i) The identification may be removed
if the fugitive emission source has been
monitored for two successive months as
IV-W-22
-------
Federal Kegistei? / Vol. 48. No. 2 / Monday. January 8, SSHH / Imposed Kules
specified in § 60.482(f)(3) and no leak
has been detected during those two
months.
(b) When each leak is detected as
specified in §§60.482 (a), (b), (f), and (g),
the following information shall be
recorded in a log and shall be kept for
two years in a readily accessible
location:
(1) The instrument and operator
identification numbers and the fugutive
emission source identification number.
(2) The date 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
VOC concentrations measured by the
methods specified in § 60.485(a) after
each repair attempt is greater than
10,000 ppm.
(5) "Repair delayed" if a leak is not
repaired within 15 calendar days after
discovery of the leak.
(6) The signature of the owner/
operator 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.
(c) The following information
pertaining to the design requirements for
closed vent systems, enclosed
combustion devices, and vapor recovery
systems required in §§ 60.482 (a) and (b)
shall be recorded and kept in a readily
accessible location:
(1) Detailed schematics, design
specifications, and piping and
instrumentation diagrams.
(2) The dates and descriptions of any
changes in the design specifications.
(3) Periods when the enclosed
combustion devices and vapor recovery
systems required in §§ 60.482 (a) and (b)
are not functioning as designed and
dates of startups and shutdowns.
(d) The following information
pertaining to all fugitive emission
sources subject to the requirements in
g§ 60.482 (a), (b). (c), and (f) shall be
recorded in a log that is kept in a readily
accessible location:
(1) A list of identification numbers for
fugutive emission sources that are
designated for emissions having a
concentration of less than 200 ppm
above background under the provisions
of i§ 60.482 (a)(8). (b)(7), a'nd (f)(7). The
designation of these sources as subject
to the requirements of §8 60.482 (a)(8),
(b)(7), or (f](6) shall be signed by the
owner or operator.
(2) A list of source identification
numbers for safety/relief valves
required by § 60.«82(c) to meet no
detectable emissions.
(3) The dates of each verification test
for "no detectable emissions" status as
determined by the methods specified in
i 60.485(b).
(4) The background level measured
during each verification test as required
in § 60.485(b).
(5) The maximum VOC concentration
measured at the source during each
verification test as required in
B 60.485(b).
(e) The following information shall be
recorded in a log that is kept in a readily
accessible location: (1) the design
criterion required in § 60.482(a)(5) and
§ 60.482(b)(4), and (2) any changes to
this criterion and the reasons for this
change.
(f) The provisions of §§ 60.7(b) and (d)
do not apply to affected facilities subject
to the provisions of this subpart.
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42
U.S.C. 7414))
§ 80.487 Reporting requlromento.
Each owner or operator subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall comply
with the following reporting
requirements.
(a) A summary of the information
recorded as required in § 60.486(b) shall
be reported quarterly to the
Administrator.
(b) Quarterly reports as required in
g 60.487(a) shall be similar to the forms
as shown in Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4 and
shall include the following information:
(1) Process unit identification.
(2) Number of valves in the process
unit excluding those designated for
emissions having a concentration of less
than 200 ppm above background under
the provisions of § 60.482(0(5).
(3) Number of valves for which leaks
were detected by the monitoring method
specified in g 60.485(a) during each
month of the reporting quarter.
(4) Number of valves repaired.
(5) Number of valves not repaired
within 15 days as required in
g 60.482(f)(4).
(6) Reasons for non-repair of valves
within 15 days as required in
g 60.482(f)(4).
(7) Number of pumps for which leaks
were detected during the reporting
quarter as specified in §§ 60.482(a)(4)
and (a)(5).
(8) Number of compressors for which
leaks were detected during the reporting
quarter as specified in g 60.482(b)(4).
(9) Statement signed by the owner or
operator stating whether all provisions
of 40 CFR 60 Subpart VV had been
fulfilled during the reporting quarter.
(c) The provisions of g 60.8(d) do not
apply to affected facilities subject to the
provisions of this subpart.
(d) In the first report submitted as
required in g§ 60.487(a). the report shall
include a reporting schedule stating the
months that quarterly reports shall be
submitted. Subsequent reports shall be
submitted according to that schedule
unless a revised schedule has been
submitted in a previous quarterly report.
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42
U.S.C. 7414))
OILLIMQ COKE 0620-JS-H
IV-W-23
-------
H
<
Figure 1
QUARTERLY REPORT FOR PROCESS UNIT
FUGITIVE EMISSION SOURCES OPERATING UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart VV, §60.484(b)
Date
Company Name.
Plant Location (City, State).
Mailing Address_
7O7
Telephone Number
Reporting Per1od
(Process Unit Name)
(Chemical product(sT)
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Figure 2
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR LEAK DETECTION
AND REPAIR REQUIREMENTS
OF 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart VV, §60.484(b)
1. Process Unit Name rr—r-
(one report required for each affected facility)
Number of valves covered under the If
and repair program.
Number of valves found leaking
reporting period.
Number of leaking valves
during the reporting perl
Number of pumps found
reporting period.
Number of conpresso'
the reporting period.
ng the
caking during
p
I
s
f
ta
I
s
s.
I
-------
H
I
I
NJ
Ul
1.
2.
3.
4,
Figure 3
INFORMATION REQUIRED BY 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart VV. §60.484(b)(6)
. FOR LEAKING VALVES NOT REPAIRED WITHIN 15 DAYS
Process Unit Name
\. C
/X
Total number of valves not
Number of valves not
(a) New parts
(b) Off-line repair
In-service
(c) Other (I
Date of next
wn 15
days
o) lotting reasons.
Critical,
Impossible.
for non-repair)
urn-around or shutdown
Signature of Plant Manager
or Manager Designate
Figure 4
CERTIFICATION
AS REQUIRED IN §60.484(b)(10)
I hereby certify that process
by
(company name)
owned (operated)
(city, state)
In compliance with the
60 which contains Standards of
In the Synthetic Organic Chemical
(has been/has not been
requirements of Subpart
Performance for New
Manufacturing I
All required eWWtfn* and control devices have been operated and
maintained InXcVnpllange with the standards. All required worti practices
have beerbi IOM.V. 'Monitoring has been done as specified 1n Method 21.
All raQvb recds have been made and are kept In
(location in plant)
for review by EPA.
sgnature of owner or operator
(title)
(date)
s?
r
0)
s
i
1
5"
I
o
n
o.
I
s
BILLING CODE 6MO-M-C
-------
m I Vol. 48, No. 2 / Monday. January 5.1981 / Proposed Ruleo
4. By adding Reference Method 21 to
Appendix A as follows:
Appendix A—Reference methods
Method 21. Determination of Volatile Organic
Compound Leaks
1. Applicability and Principle
1.1 Applicability. This method applies to
the determination of volatile organic
compound (VOC) leaks from organic process
equipment. These sources include, but are not
limited to, valves, flanges and other
connections, pumps and compressors,
pressure relief devices, process drains, open-
ended valves, pump and compressor seal
system degassing vents, accumulator vessel
vents, and access door seals.
1.2 Principle. A portable instrument is
used to delect VOC leaks from individual
sources. The instrument detector is not
specified, but it must meet the specifications
and performance criteria contained in
paragraph 2.1;
2. Apparatus
2.1 Monitoring Instrument. The
monitoring instrument shall be as follows:
2.1.1 Specifications.
a. The VOC instrument detector shall
respond to the organic compounds being
processed. Detectors which may meet this
requirement include, but are not limited to,
catalytic oxidation, flame ionization, infrared
absorption, and photoionization.
b. The instrument shall be intrinsically safe
for operation in explosive atmospheres as
defined by the applicable U.S.A Standards
(e.g.. National Electrical Code by the National
Fire Prevention Association).
c. The instrument shall be able to measure
the leak definition concentration specified in
the regulation.
d. The instrument shall be equipped with a
pump so that a continuous sample is provided
to the detector. The nominal sample flow rate
shall be 1-3 liters per minute.
e. The scale of the instrument meter shall
be readable to ±5 percent of the specified
leak definition concentration.
2.1.2 Performance Criteria. The
instrument must meet the following
performance criteria. The definitions and
evaluation procedures for each parameter are
given in Section 4.
2.1.2.1 The instrument response time must
be 30 seconds or less. The response time must
be determined for the instrument system
configuration to be used during testing,
including dilution equipment. The use of a
system with a shorter response time than that
specified will reduce the time required for
field component surveys.
2.1.2.2 Calibration Precision: The
calibration precision must be less than or
equal to 10 percent of the calibration gas
value.
2.1.2.3 Quality Assurance. The instrument
shall be subjected to response time and
calibration precision tests prior to being
placed in service. The calibration precision
test shall be repeated every 6 months
thereafter. If any modification or replacement
of the instrument detector is required, the
instrument shall be retested and a new 6
month quality assurance test schedule will
apply. The response time test shall be
repeated if any modifications to the sample
pumping system or flow configuration is
made that would change the response time.
2.3 Calibration Cases. The monitoring
instrument is calibrated in terms of parts per
million by volume (ppmv) of the compound
specified in the applicable regulation. The
calibration gases required for monitoring and
instrument performance evaluation are a zero
gas (air, 3 ppmv VOC) and a calibration gas
in air mixture approximately equal to the
leak definition specified in the regulation. If
cylinder calibration gas mixtures are used,
they must be analyzed and certified by the
manfacturer to be within ±2 percent
accuracy. Calibration gases may be prepared
by the user according to any accepted
gaseous standards preparation procedure
that will yield a mixture accurate to within
±2 percent. Alternative calibration gas
species may be used in place of the
calibration compound if a relative response
factor for each instrument is determined so
that calibrations with the alternative species
may be expressed as calibration compound
equivalents on the meter readout
3. Procedures
3.1 Calibration. Assemble and start up the
VOC analyzer and recorder according to the
manufacturer's instructions. After the
appropriate warmup period and zero or
internal calibration procedure, introduce the
calibration gas into the instrument sample
probe. Adjust the instrument meter readout to
correspond to the calibration gas value.
If a dilution apparatus is used, calibration
must include the instrument and dilution
apparatua assembly. The nominal dilution
factor may be used to establish a scale factor
for converting to an undiluted basis. For
example, if a nominal 10:1 dilution apparatus
is used, the meter reading for a 10,000 ppm
calibration would be set at 1.000. During field
surveys, the scale factor of 10 would be used
to convert measurements to an undiluted
basis.
3.2 Individual Source Surveys.
3.2.1 Case I—Leak Definition Based on
Concentration Value. Place the probe inlet at
the surface of the'component interface where
leakage could occur. Move the probe along
the interface periphery while observing the
instrument readout. If an increased meter
reading is observed,'slowly probe the
interface where leakage is indicated until the
maximum meter reading is obtained. Leave
the probe inlet at this maximum reading
locations for approximately two times the
instrument response time. If the maximum
observed meter reading is greater that the
leak definition in the applicable regulation,
record and report the result as specified in
the regulation reporting requirements.
Examples of the application of this general
technique to specific equipment types are:
a. Valves—The most common source of
leaks from valves is at the seal between the
stem and housing. Place the probe at the
interface where the stem exists the packing
gland and sample the stem circumference.
Also, place the probe at the interface of the
packing gland take-up flange seat and sample
the periphery. In addition, survey valve
housings of multipart assembly at the surface
of all interfaces where leaks can occur.
b. Flanges and Other Connections—For
welded flanges, places the probe at the outer
edge of the flange-gasket interface and
sample around the circumference of the
flange. Sample other types of nonpermanent
joints (such as threaded connections] with a
similar traverse.
c. Pumps and Compressors—Conduct a
circumferential traverse at the outer surface
of the pump or compressor shaft and seal
interface. If the source is a rotating shaft,
position the probe inlet within one centimeter
of the shaft-seal interface for the survey. If
the housing configuration prevents a
complete traverse of the shaft periphery.
sample all accessible portions. Sample all
other joints on the pump or compressor
housing where leakage can occur.
d. Pressure Relief Devices—The
configuration of most pressure relief devices
prevents sampling at the sealing seat
interface. For those devices equipped with an
enclosed extension, or horn, place the probe
inlet at approximately the center of the
exhaust area to the atmosphere for sampling.
e. Process Drains—For open drains, place
the probe inlet at approximately the center of
the area open to the atmosphere for sampling.
For covered drains, place the probe at the
surface of the cover interface and conduct a
peripheral traverse.
f. Open-Ended Lines or Valves—Place the
probe inlet at approximately the center of the
opening to the atmosphere for sampling.
g. Seal System Degassing Vents and
Accumulator Vents—Place the probe inlet at
approximately the center of the opening to
the atmosphere for sampling.
h. Assess Door Seals—Place the probe inlet
at the surface of the door seal interface and
conduct a peripheral traverse.
3.Z2. Case II-Leak Devinition Based on
"NO Detactable Emission".
a. Determine the local ambient
concentration around the source by moving
the probe inlet randomly upwind and
downwind at distance of one to two meters
from the source. If an interference exists with
this determination due to a nearby emission
or leak, the local ambient concentration may
be determined at distances closer to the
source, but in no case shall the distance be
less than 25 centimeters. Note the ambient
concentration and then move the probe inlet
to the surface of the source and conduct a
survey as described in 3.2.1. If a
concentration increase greater than 2 percent
of the concentration-based leak definition is
obtained, record and report the results as
specified by the regulation.
b. For those cases where the regulation
requires a specific device installation, or that
specified vents be ducted or piped to a
control device, the existence of these
conditions shall be visually confirmed. When
the regulation also requires that no
detectable emissions exist, visual
observations and sampling surveys are
required. Examples of this technique are:
i. Pump or Compressor Seals—If
applicable, determine the type of shaft seal.
Perform a survey of the local area ambient
VOC concentration and determine if
detectable emissions exist as described in
3.2.2.a.
ii. Seal system degassing vents,
accumulator vessel vents, pressure relief
IV-W-26
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 2 / Monday. January 5. 1981 / Proposed Rules
devices — If applicable, observe whether or
not the applicable ducting or piping exists.
Also, determine if any sources exist in the
ducting or piping where emissions could
occur prior to the control device. If the
required ducting or piping exists and there
are no sources of where the emissions could
be vented to the atmosphere prior to the
control device, then it is presumed that no
detectable emissions are present.
4. Instrument Performance Evaluation
Procedures
4.1 Definitions.
4.1.1 Calibration Precision. The difference
between the average VOC concentration
indicated by the meter readout for
consecutive repetitions and the know
concentration of a test gas mixture.
4.1.2 Response time. The time interval
from a step change in VOC concentration at
the input of the sampling system to the time
at which 90 percent of the corresponding final
value is reached as displayed on the
instrument readout meter.
4.2 Evaluation Procedures. At the
beginning of the instrument performance
evaluation test, assemble and start up the
instrument according to the manufacturer's
instructions for recommended warmup period
and preliminary adjustments. If a dilution
apparatus is used during field surveys, the
evaluation procedure must be performed on
the instrument-dilution system combination.
4.2.1. Calibration Precision Test. Make a
total of nine measurements by alternately
using zero gas and the specified calibration
gas. Record the meter readings (example data
sheet shown in Figure 21-1).
4.2.2 Response time Test Procedure.
Introduce zero gas into the instrument sample
probe. When the meter reading has
stabilized, switch quickly to the specified
calibration gas. Measure the time from
concentration switching to 95 percent of final
stable reading. Perform this test sequence
three times and record the results (example
data sheet given in Figure 21-2).
4.3 Calculations. All results are expressed
as mean values, calculated by:
l "
« ' » *<
Where:
X, = VALUE OF THE MESUREMENTS.
2 = Sum of the individual values.
'± «= Mean value.
n = Number of data points.
SILLING CODE 8560-26-M
IV-W-27
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 2 / Monday, January 5.1981 / Proposed Rules
Instrument ID
Calibration Gas Data
Calibration - ppmv
Run Instrument Meter Difference^ '
No. Reading, ppm ppm
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Mean Difference
(2}
Calibration Error = Mean Differencev ' 100
Calibration Gas Concentration
* 'Calibration Gas Concentration - Instrument Reading
Figure 21-1. Calibration Error Determination
iv-w-28
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 2 / Monday. January 5.1981 / Proposed Rules
Instrument ID
Calibration Gas Concentration
90% Response Time:
1. Seconds
2. Seconds
3. Seconds
Mean Response Time Seconds
Figure 21-2. Response Time Determination
BILLING CODE «MO-1t-C
IV-W-29
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 2 / Monday. January 5, 1981 / Proposed Rules
5. By adding Appendix E as follows:
Appendix E—Synthetic Organic
Chemicals Manufacturing Industry
OCPOBHo.'
Chemical
20 Acetal.
30 acetaktehyde.
40 AcatakM.
50 Aceuirtde.
65 Acetaritde.
70 Acetic acid.
80 Acetic anhydride.
90 Acetone.
too Acetone cyanohydrin
110 Acetonrtnte
120 Acetophenone.
125 Acetyt chloride.
130 Acetylene.
140 AcroWn.
150 Acrylamide.
160 Acrylic acid and esters.
170 Acrylonitrile.
180 Adipfcacid.
185 Adiponitrile.
190 Alkyl naphthalenes.
200 Allyl alcohol.
210 Allyl chloride.
220 Aminobenzoic acid.
230 Aminoethylelnanolarnne.
235 p-Anwophonol.
240 Amy! acetates.
250 Amyl alcohols.
260 Amyl amine.
270 - Amyl chloride.
260 Amyl mercaptans.
290 Amyl phenol.
300 Aniline.
310 Aniline hydrochkxida.
320 Anisidine.
330 Arwote.
340 AnthranrSc acid.
350 Anthraquinone.
360 Benzaktehyde.
370 Benzamide.
380 Benzene.
390 BenzenedrauHonic acid.
400 Benzenesultonic add.
410 Benzil.
420 BenzHfc acid.
430 Benzoic acid.
440 Benzoia
450 Benzonrtnle.
460 Benzophenone.
460 Benzotrichloride.
490 Benzoyl chloride.
500 Benzyl alcohol.
510 Benzyl amine.
520 Benzyl benzoate.
530 Benzyl chloride.
540 Benzyl dichloride.
550 Biphenyl.
560 Blsphenol A.
570 Brontobonzofw.
580 BromonaphtMalene.
590 Butadiene.
592 1-butene.
600 n-butyl acetate.
630 n-butyl acrylate.
640 n-butyl alcohol.
650 s-butyl alcohol.
660 t-butyl alcohol.
670..... n-bufylamine.
680 s-butylamine.
690 t-butylamine.
700 p-tert-butyl benzole acid.
710 1.3-butylene glyool.
750 n-butyraldehyde.
760 Butyric acid.
770 Butyric anhydride.
780 Butyronitrile.
785 Caprotactam.
790 Carbon draurftde.
800 Carbon tetrabromide.
810 Cartoon tBtrschtond^.
620 Cellulose acetate.
640 Chtoroacetic acid.
650 m-cNoroaniline.
860 c-chtoroaniline.
870 p-cntoroan*ne.
880 CWoroberuakJehyde.
890 Chtorobenzene.
900 Chkxobenzoic acid.
90S CMmuhemutiehkiride.
OCPOBNo.*
ChOfWCMf
910 Chlorobenzoyl chloride.
920 Chkxodifluoroemane.
921 Chlorodmuoromethane.
930 Chloroform.
940 Chkxonapthatene.
950 o-chloiofNlJubenzene.
951 p-chkxonitrobenzene.
960 Chlorophenols.
964 Chkxoprene.
965 CnlorosuHonic acid.
970 m-chkxotoluene.
980 o-chkxotoluene.
990 p-chkxotoluene.
992 Chkxotrtfluoromelhane.
1000 m-cresol.
1010 o-cresol.
1020 p-cresol.
1021 Mixed cresols.
1030 CresyNc acid.
1040 Crotonaldehyde.
1050 Crotoric acid.
1080 Cumene.
1070 Cumene hydroperonde.
1080 Cyanoacetic acid.
1090 Cyanogen chloride.
1100 Cyanuric acid.
1110 Cyanuric chloride.
1120 Cydohexane.
1130 Cydohexanol.
1140 Cydohexanone.
1150..:. Cydohexene.
1160 Cydohexylamine.
1170 Cydooctadnne.
1180 Decanol.
1190 Diacetone alcohol.
1200 Diarrinobenzoic acid.
1210 Dichloroar*ne.
1215 m-dichlorobenzene.
1216 o-dlchlorobenzene.
1220 p-dfchkxobenzene.
1221 Dictum mtnuoromethane.
1240 Ochtoroetnyl ettter.
1244 1.2-dtehloroethane(EDC).
1250: DtchJofotiydrin.
1270 Dichloropropene.
1260 Oicydohaxylamine.
1290 Diethytamine.
1300 ttetnytene glycol.
1304 Oethytene glyool dfethyl ether.
1305 Oiethylene gtycol dimethyl ether.
1310 Dkrtnylene glycol monobutyl ether.
1320 Oielhylene glycol monobutyl ether acetate.
1330 Oiethylene glycol monoethyl ether.
1340 Dietnylene glycol monoethyl ether acetate.
1380 Oielhylene glycol monomethyl ether.
1420 OMhyl sultata.
1430 anuoroethane.
1440 Oosobutytene.
1442 Dfeodecyl phthalate.
1444 DSsooctyl phthalate.
1450 Diketene.
1460 Oimethylamine. •
1470 N.N-dimethylanitine.
1480 N.N-dimethyl ether.
1490 N.N-dknetnyHormamida.
1495 Dimethylhydrazine.
1500 Dimethyl sulfate.
1510 Dimethyl surflde.
1520 Dimethyl sutfoxkla.
1530 Dimethyl teraphlhalate.
1540 3,5-dintrobenzoic acid.
154S Dmarophenol.
1550 OimtrotokMne.
1560 Oioxane.
1570 Oioxolane.
1560 Oiphenylamine.
1590 D^)honyl oxkw.
1600 Diphenyl thiourea.
1610 Dipropylene glycol.
1620 Oodecene.
1630 Dodecytanitna.
1640 Dodecylphenol.
1650 Epichlorohydrin.
1660 Ethanol.
1661 Ethanolamines.
1670 EdV acetate.
1680 Ethyl aceatoacetate.
1690 Ethyl acn/late.
1700 Ethylamine.
1710 Ethyfeenzene.
1720 Ethyl bromide.
1730 EthytceiMoM.
1740 Ethyl chloride.
1750 Ethyl chtoroacetate.
OCPOBNo."
Chemical
1760 Ethyteyanoacetate.
1770 Ethytene.
1780 Ethytene carbonate.
1790 Ethytene chtorohydrin.
1800 Ethytenediamine.
1810 Ethylene dfcromida.
1830 Ethylene glycol.
1840 Ethytene glycol diacetate.
1870 Ethylene glycol dnwthyl ether.
1890 Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether.
1900 Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether acetate.
1910 Ethylene glycol monoethyl ether.
1920 Ethylene glycol monoethyl ether acetate.
1930 Ethylene gtycol monomethyl ether.
1940 Ethylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate.
1960 Ethylene glycol monophenyl ether.
1970 Ethylene glycol monopropyl ether.
1980 Ethylene oxide.
1990 Ethyl ether.
2000 2-ethylhexanol.
2010 Ethyl orthotormate.
2020 Ethyl oxalate.
2030 Ethyl sodium oxalacetate.
2040 Formaldehyde.
2050 Formamide.
2060 Formic add.
2070 Fumaric acid.
2073 Furfural.
2090 Qlycerol (Synthetic).
2091 Glycerol dehkxohydrin.
2100 Glycerol triether.
2110 Glycine.
2120 QryoxaL
2145 Hexachlorobenzene.
2150 HexadHoroelhane.
2160 Hexadecyl alcohol.
2165 Hexamethylenedamine.
2170 Heiamethylene glyool.
2180 Hexamethylenetetramine.
2190 Hydrogen cyanide.
2200 Hydnxiuinm.
2210 p-hydroxybenzolc acid.
2240 Isoamylene.
2250 Isobutanol.
2260 Isotautyl acetate.
2261 Isobutytena.
2270 laobulynkWiyda.
2260 Isobutyric acid.
2300 Isodecanol.
2320 Isooctyl wcohoL
2321
2330
2340 Isophtnalic acid.
2350 Isoprene.
2360 _ Isopropanol.
2370 Isopropyl acetate.
2380 Isopropylarnine.
2390 Isopropyl chloride.
2400 Isopropylprienol.
2410 Ketene.
2414 Linear alkyl sulfonate.
2417 Linear alkyrloenzene.
2420 MaMc acid.
2430 Mate* anhydride.
2440 Malic acid.
2450 Mesltyl oxide.
2455 MetanWc acid.
2460 Methacrytic acid.
2490 Methalryl chloride.
2500 Methanot
2510 Methyl acetate.
2520 Methyl acetoacetate.
2530 Methylamine.
2540 rvmethytarutina.
2545 Methyl bromide.
2550 Methyl butynol.
2560 Methyl chloride.
2570 Methyl cyclohexane.
2590 Methyl Cydohexanone.
2820 Methytene chloride.
2630 Methylene dtoniane.
2635 Methylene dfehenyt doocyanata.
2640 Methyl ethyl ketone.
2645 Methyl formate.
2650 Methyl isobutyl carbine*
2660 Methyl nobutyl ketone.
2665 Methyl methacrylata.
2670 Methyl pentynol.
2690 a-methylstyrene.
2700 MorphoBne.
2710 a-naphthalene suHonic acid.
2720 0-naphlhaIene suMonic acid.
2730 a-naphthol.
2740 fl-naphthol.
IV-W-30
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 1981 / Proposed Rules
OCPOB No •
2750
2756
2757
2760
2762
2770
2780
2790
2791
2792
2795
2800
2810
2820
2830
2840
2850
2851
2855
2860
2882
2890
2900
2910
2920
2930
2940
2950
2960
2970
2973
2976
3000
3010
3025
3063
3066
3070
3075
3080
3090
3100
3110
3111
3120
3130
3140
3150
3160
3170
3180
3181
3190
3191
3200
3210
3220
3230
3240
3250
3251
3260
3270
3280
3290 and
3291
3300
3310
3320
3330
3335
3340
3341
3349
3350
3354
3355
3360
3370
3380
3381
3390. 3391.
and 3393
3395
3400
3410
3411
3420
3430
3450
3460
3470
3480
3490
Chemical
Neopentanotc acid.
o-nitroanilme.
p-mtroaniline.
o-nitroanisole
p-mtroanisole.
Nitrobenzene.
Nitrobenzotc acid (o.ffl, Bnd p).
Nitroelhane.
Nitromethane.
Nitrophenol.
Nitropropane.
Nitrotoluene.
Nonene
Nonyl phenol.
Oclyl phenol
Paraldehyde.
Penlaerythntol.'
n-pentane.
i-pentene.
Perchloroelhylene
Perchloromethyt mercaplan.
o-phenetidine.
p-phenetidine.
Phenol.
Phenyl anthrantlic acid.
Phenyienediamme.
Phosgene
Phthalic anhydride
Phthaiimide.
U-picoline.
Piperazine
Polybulenes
Polyethylene gtycol.
Polypropylene glycol.
Propionaldehyde.
Propiomc acid
n-propyl alcohol.
Propylamine
Propyl chloride
Propylene.
Propylene chlorohydrm.
Propylene dichlonde
Propylene glycol.
Propylene oxide.
Pyndine.
Ouinone.
Resorcinol.
Resorcylic acid.
Salicylic acid.
Sodium acetate.
Sodium benzoate.
Sodium carbo: -methyl cellulose.
Sodium chioraceiate.
Sodium tormate
Sodium phenate.
Sorbic acid.
Styrene.
Succmic acid.
Succinonitnle.
Sullaniiic acid.
Sullolane.
Tannic acid.
Tetrachloroethanes
Tetrachlorophthalic anhydride.
Tetraethyllead
Tetrahydronapthalene
Telrahydrophthalic anhydride.
Tetramethyilead
Tetramethylenediamme.
Tetramelhylethylenediamine.
Toluene
Toluene-2.4-dramme.
Toluene-2.4-diisocyanale.
Toluene dusocyanates (mixture).
Toluene sultonamide
Toluene sulfonic acids.
Toluene sullonyl chloride.
Tolutdines.
Tnchlorobenzenes.
1.1.1-mchloroethane
1.1,2-trtchloroelhane.
Tnchloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
1 .2.3-trichloropropane.
1 . 1 .2-tnchioro- 1 ,2.2-tritluoroethane.
Triethylamme
Triethyleno glycol.
Trielhylene glycol dimethyl ether
Tmsobutylene.
Tnmethylamine
OCPOB No. • Cnemcal
3500 . Urea
3510 Vinyl acetate
3520 Vinyl chloride
3530 '.. vinylidene chloride.
3540 Vinyl toluene
3541 Xylenes (mixed)
3560 o-syiene
3570 p-»ylene.
3580 Xylenol.
3590 Xylidme
ft /-u-
The OCPDB Numbers are reference indices assigned to
the various chemicals in the Organic Chemical Producers
Data Base developed by EPA
|FR Dor. 81-TO Filed 1-2-41: 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6S«O-2*-M
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 71
Tuesday. April 14, 1961 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[AO-FRL 1804-3]
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources; VOC Fugitive
Emission Sources; Synthetic Organic
Chemical Manufacturing Industry;
Extension of Comment Period
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of
availability of reports and comment
period extension.
SUMMARY: The comment period for the
proposed standards of performance for
volatile organic compound (VOC)
fugitive emission sources in the
Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) has
been extended. This extension will
allow industry adequate time for
commenting on certain reports originally
planned and will allow them adequate
time for commenting on additional
reports and data which should be
completed shortly.
DATES: Comments. Comments on the
proposed standards must be received by
July 31. 1981.
Documents. Requests for the reports
referenced in this notice must be
received before May 15. 1961. so that the
requests can be filled during June, 1981.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments on
the proposed standards of performance
should be submitted (in duplicate if
possible) to: Central Docket Section (A-
130), Attention: Docket No. A-79-32,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
401 M Street. SW.. Washington, D.C.
20460.
•IV-W-31
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 1981 / Proposed Rules
•Documents. The reports referenced in
this notice should be available in June,
1081. These reports may be obtained by
requesting in writing a copy from:
Standards Development Branch (MD-
13), Attention: SOCMI Reports, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,-
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711. Please specify the report or
reports requested by the report number
referenced in this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Susan Wyatt, Emission Standards
and Engineering Division (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5578.
Do not call this telephone number to
request reports.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Standards of performance for fugitive
emission sources of VOC within new,
modified, or reconstructed process units
within SOCMI were proposed on
January 5,1981 (46 FR1136). As
discussed in the preamble to the
proposed standards (46 FR 1142), EPA
was gathering additional data on
fugitive emission sources that would be
available to the public before the end of
the comment period. EPA welcomed
comments concerning the proposed rule
in light of that data. These data were
made available in two reports released
before the public hearing which was
held on March 3,1981. The reports are
titled: Evaluation of Maintenance for
Fugitive VOC Emissions Control (Report
1) and Frequency of Leak Occurrence
for Fittings in Synthetic Organic
Chemical Plant Process Units (Report 2).
Industry representatives have
requested additional time to consider
the data presented in these two reports.
They have expressed the belief that
more time would enable them to prepare
more complete comments. These
comments would, in turn, better serve
the rulemaking. The extension in
comment time was also requested to
allow industry to comment on additional
reports and data which industry
believes may be relevant and which
should be available soon. The additional
reports are described briefly in the
numbered items below.
1. Correlation of various line and
process parameters with leak frequency
(Report 3). This report will contain an
analysis of data to determine process
parameters which may indicate a high
leak potential for fugitive emission
sources.
2. Response factors for SOCMI
chemicals at a concentration of 10.000
ppm (Report 4). The results of this study
will show how portable VOC monitors
respond to different chemicals.
3. Response factors for mixtures of
SOCMI chemicals with known
concentrations (Report 5). The response
of portable VOC monitors to known
mixtures of SOCMI chemicals will be
investigated.
4. Emission factor calculations (Report
6). Emission factors for SOCMI fugitive
emission sources will be calculated for
those pieces of equipment for which
sufficient data exist. These emission
factors may then be used to evaluate the
emission estimates made for new
SOCMI process units.
5. Response factor impact on leak
frequency (Report 7). This study is
designed to investigate the impact of
response factors on the number of
valves which would be defined as
leakers in a new SOCMI process unit.
6. An analysis of fugitive emissions
data from a high density polyethylene
unit (Report 8). Leak frequency,
emission factors, occurrence rates,
recurrence rates, and repair
effectiveness will be determined as the
data allow. Although polyethylene is not
a SOCMI chemical, industry
representatives have requested that they
be allowed to comment on this data.
7. Development of a methodology for
measuring control efficiencies of flares
(Report 9). Industry has requested that
the data from this study be examined to
determine combustion efficiencies for
flares. It should be noted, however, that
the data being generated in this study
cannot be considered representative of
field conditions. Flare types and gas
mixtures chosen for this study were
chosen for research purposes and are, in
fact, atypical of field conditions. This
measurement methodology study
precedes a planned study of flare
efficiency which is not scheduled to be
completed until 1983.
All of the reports listed should be
available in June. In view of the fact that
industry representatives want the
opportunity to comment on these reports
and on data gathered by industry as
they relate to the rulemaking, it is
reasonable to provide the public an
opportunity to review the reports and
comment on them. Therefore, the
comment period has been extended to
close on July 31,1981 instead of April 6,
1981.
This extension will allow industry
adequate time for commenting on the
two reports originally planned and will
allow them adequate time for
commenting on additional reports and
data which should be completed shortly.
The extension until July 31,1981 should
allow at least 30 days for reviewing and
commenting on these reports.
Dated: April 8,1981.
Edward F. Tuerk,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air. Noise,
and Radiation.
|FR Doc. 81-11294 Piled 4-13-81:8:45 am|
BILLING CODE M4O-M-M
IV-W-32
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR
NEW STATIONARY
SOURCES
BEVERAGE CAN
SURFACE
COATING INDUSTRY
SUBPART WW
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 26, 1980 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[ADFRL-1534-1]
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources; Beverage Can
Surface Coating Industry
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of
public hearing.
SUMMARY: The proposed standards
would limit emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOC) from new, modified,
and reconstructed beverage can surface
coating operations. The proposed
standards would limit VOC emissions
from beverage can surface coating to
those resulting from the use of
waterborne coatings.
The standards implement Section 111
of the Clean Air Act and are based on
the Administrator's determination that
surface coating operations within
beverage can manufacturing plants
contribute significantly to air pollution
that may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare. The
intent is to require new, modified, and
reconstructed beverage can surface
coating operations to use the best
demonstrated system of continuous
emission reduction, considering costs.
nonair quality health, and
environmental and energy impacts.
DATE: Comments: Comments must be
received on or before February 5,1981.
Public Hearing: A public Rearing will
be held on January 6,1981 beginning at
9:00 a.m.
Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons
wishing to present oral testimony must
contact EPA by December 30,1980.
ADDRESSES: Comments: Comments
should be submitted (in duplicate if
possible) to Central Docket Section (A-
130). Attention: Docket Number A-80-4.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street, SW., Washington. D.C.
20460.
Public Hearing: The public hearing
will be held at EPA Environmental
Research Center Auditoruim (ERC),
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Persons wishing to present oral
testimony should notify Ms. Deanna
Tilley, Standards Development Branch
(MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)
541-5477.
Background Information Document.
The background Information Document
(DID) for the proposed standards may be
obtained from the U.S. EPA Library
(MD-35), Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)
541-2777. Please refer to Beverage Can
Surface Coating Operations,
Background Information for Proposed
Standards, EPA-450/3-80-036a.
Docket. Docket No. A-80-4, which
contains 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, SW., Washington, D.C. 20460. A
reasonable fee may be charged for
coping.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Gene Smith, Standards
Development Branch, Emission
Standards and Engineering Division
(MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)
541-5477.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Proposed Standards
The proposed standards would apply
to all new, modified, and reconstructed
beverage can surface coating
operations. The proposed standards
define a beverage can as any two-piece
steel or aluminum container or any
three-piece steel container in which soft
drinks or beer (including malt liquors)
are packaged. Containers in which fruit
or vegetable juices are packaged are
excluded. Existing facilities would not
be subject to the standards unless they
undergo a modification or reconstruction
as defined in 40 CFR 60.14 or 60.15. The
standards would limit VOC emissions
from the surface coating of two-piece
beverage cans to 0.29 kilogram of VOC
per litre of coating solids from each
exterior base coating operation except
clear base coating, 0.46 kg of VOC per
litre of coating solids from each
overvarnish coating operation and each
clear base coating operation, and 0.89 kg
of VOC per litre of coating solids from
each inside spray coating operation.
VOC emissions from the surface coating
of three-piece cans would be limited to
0.50 kg of VOC per litre of coating solids
from each exterior base coat operation,
0.50 kg of VOC per litre of coating solids
from each interior base coat operation,
0.46 kg of VOC per litre of coating solids
from each overvarnish coating
operation, and 0.64 kb of VOC per litre
of coating solids from each inside spray-
coating operation. VOC emissions from
the surface coating of metal sheets for
steel or aluminum ends would be limited
to 0.50 kg of VOC per litre of coating
solids from each interior coating
operation and 0.50 kg of VOC per litre of
coating solids from each exterior coating
operation. Each affected facility would
consist of a coating application station,
flashoff area, and curing oven.
The proposed emission limits are
bajed on the emission levels obtainable
through the use of best available
waterborne coatings. The standards
could also be achieved through the use
of solvent-borne coatings in
combination with an emission control
system.
The performance test specified in the
proposed standards requires the
calculation of a volume-weighted
average of the mass of VOC per volume
of coating solids used each calendar
month for each affected facility.
Procedures for making these
calculations are included in the
proposed standards. Data on VOC and
coating solids content, density, and
volume of each of the coatings used, and
volume and density of each diluent VOC
used for each affected facility during
each calendar month are necessary in
conducting the monthly performance
tests. Information provided by coating
manufacturers, or analysis performed
using Reference Method 24, is the source
of coating formulation data. Coating and
diluent VOC consumption data are
obtained from the owner's or operator's
records. Reference Method 25 would be
used to determine the percentage
reduction of VOC emissions achieved
through the use of an emission control
device. Both reference methods are
promulgated in the Federal Register of
October 3,1980 (45 FR 65956).
The performance test and compliance
provisions include procedures for
conducting the performance test when
only coatings with VOC content equal to
or less than the proposed emission
limiktations are used, when some
coatings with VOC content greater than
proposed emission limitations are used,
and when a capture system and a
control device are required for
compliance.
An affected facility is in compliance
when the volume-weighted average
mass of VOC per volume of coating
solids applied, calculated on a calendar
month basis, is equal to or less than the
proposed emission limitations.
The proposed standards would
specify monitoring requirements only
when a capture system and emission
control device are used to comply with
the proposed standards. For incineration
systems the proposed standards require
continuous monitoring of incinerator
temperatures.
The proposed standards would
require that the owner or operator
IV-WW-2
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 230 / Wednesday, November 26. 1980 / Proposed Rules
maintain at the source for a period of at
least two years records of all data,
calculations, and test results necessary
to support the calculations of.volume-
weighted average of the total mass of
VOC per volume of coating solids used
in each calendar month for each
affected facility.
The proposed standards would
require reporting the results of the initial
performance test and thereafter
reporting each month in which an
affected facility is not in compliance, by
the tenth day of the following month.
Affected facilities using a capture
system and an incinerator would be
required to report, quarterly, all periods
during which the average temperature,
while can are being processed, is
significantly below the average
temperature of the device during the
most recent performance test.
Summary of Environmental, Energy, and
Economic Impacts
Environmental, energy, and economic
impacts of standards of performance are
normally expressed as incremental
differences between the impacts from a
facility complying with the proposed
standard and the impacts for a facility
complying with a typical State
Implementation Plan (SIP) emission
standard. In beverage can surface
coating operations, the incremental
differences will depend, in some cases,
on the control levels required by revised
SIPs. Revision to most SIPs are currently
in progress.
Many existing beverage can surface
coating operations are located in areas
that are considered nonattainment areas
for purposes of achieving the National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
for ozone. New facilities are expected to
locate in similar areas. In revising their
SIPs, most States are expected to use
the Control Technique Guideline (CTG)
document, Control of Volatile Organic
Emissions from Existing Stationary
Sources, Volume II: Surface Coating of
Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics,
Automobiles, and Light-Duty Trucks
(EPA-450/2-77-088 (CTGJ). Therefore,
the incremental impacts are measured
from the CTG-recommended emission
levels.
The environmental, energy, and
economic impacts of the proposed
standards are based on the anticipated
growth of the industry discussed in
Chapter 7 of the Background
Information Document. Other
projections exist that would change the
impact assessments. For example, some
industry sources project the demise of
the three-piece beverage can over the
next five years. Others indicate that
while use of three-piece beverage cans
will drop, they will still represent a
significant share of the market. The
latter projection was used in assessing
the impact of the proposed standards.
In addition to achieving reductions in
emissions beyond that required by a
typical SIP, standards of performance
have other benefits. They establish a
degree of national uniformity to avoid
situations in which some States may
attract industries by having less
stringent air pollution standards relative
to other States. Standards of
performance also improve the efficiency
of case-by-case determinations of best
available control technology (BACT) for
new facilities locating in attainment
areas and of lowest achievable emission
rates (LAER) for new facilities locating
in nonattainment areas, by providing a
starting point for the basis of these
determinations. This results from the
process for developing standards of
performance, which involves a
comprehensive analysis of alternative
emission control methods. Detailed cost
and economic analyses of various
regulatory alternatives are presented in
the supporting documents.
The proposed standards would reduce
VOC emissions by approximately 32
percent from the CTG baseline emission
level. For plants coating two-piece
beverage cans, the proposed standard
would result in a 47-percent reduction in
VOC emission from the exterior base
coat operation, a 15 percent emission
reduction from the overvarnish coating
operation, and a 26-percent emission
reduction from the inside spray coating
operation. For plants coating three-piece
beverage cans, VOC emissions from the
exterior base coat operation would be
reduced by 8 percent. Emissions from
the interior base coat operation,
overvarnish coating operation, and
inside spray coating operation would be
reduced by 5,13, and 82 percent,
respectively. VOC emissions from the
exterior and interior coating operation
for steel or aluminum end sheets would
be reduced by 2 and 60 percent,
respectively. Annual nationwide VOC
emissions would be reduced by about
4,800 Mg (5,280 tons) by 1986.
Little or no incremental water
pollution impact from new, modified, or
reconstructed beverage can surface
coating operations would result from
implementation of the proposed
standards. In addition, those plants
discharging toxic pollutants listed under
Section 307 of the Water Act could be
subject to pretreatment requirements
also under development.
The proposed standards would also
have little or no incremental solid waste
impact.
Based on industry growth projections.
application of the proposed standards
would result in a net energy reduction of
about 36,000 gigajoules in 1985. The not
energy reductions result from the use of
less coating per can because of higher
solids content of the waterborne
coatings upon which the standards are
based.
The proposed standards are expected
to have little economic impact on the
beverage can industry. The proposed
standards contain at least one control
option for each affected facility whose
cost is equal to or less than the cost of
compliance with the baseline level of
control.
Rationale
Selection of Source
Industrial coating operations are a
significant source of VOC emissions,
accounting for about 2 million Mg of
VOC each year. Beverage can surface
coating operations are among the largest
individual operations producing VOC
emissions in the industrial coating
category, contributing an estimated
77,000 Mg of VOC emissions in 1977.
This represents about 4 percent of total
VOC emissions from all industrial
surface coating operations.
Studies have been conducted to
investigate the effect standards of
performance would have on nationwide
VOC emissions from stationary sources.
Can surface coating operations are
ranked second on a list of 59 sources
considered for control, published August
21.1979 (44 FR 49222). Beverage cans
represent over half of the can production
in the United States today and are the
fastest growing segment of the can
industry, with a projected annual growth
of 5.5 percent. Food cans have shown a
slight decline in shipments between 1976
and 1979. Projected annual growth
through 1990 is estimated to be less than
1 percent. Little, if any, modification or
reconstruction of food can plants is
expected during this period. Food cans
are predominately three-piece. As the
two-piece can captures a greater share
of the beverage market, three-piece
capacity now used for beverage cans
will become available for the
manufacture of food cans. This
increased availability should reduce the
requirements for upgrading food can
lines and the number of facilities that
would be subject to the modification
and reconstruction provisions of 40 CFR
60. Consequently, food cans are not
included in the proposed standards.
Should the situation change,
consideration will be given to the
development of standards for food cans.
IV-WW-3
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 230 / Wednesday. November 26. 1980 / Proposed Rules
VOC are the major air pollutants
emitted from beverage can surface
coating operations and result primarily
from the use of organic solvents.
Particulate matter generated from this
surface coating process is minimal.
Technology is currently available to
reduce VOC emissions from beverage
can surface coating operations. The use
of waterborne coatings, the use of
solvent-borne coatings coupled with an
add-on emission control device, or the
use of other control options would
reduce VOC emissions by
approximately 32 percent from all new.
modified and reconstructed sources.
Consequently, beverage can surface
coating operations have been selected
for the development of a new source
standard of performance.
Selection of Pollutant
Volatile organic compounds are the
primary air pollutants emitted from
beverage'can surace coating operations.
Although some can coating operations
may emit particulate matter, the
quantity generated is not significant.
VOC are defined as any organic
compound which participates in
atmospheric photochemical reactions, or
which is measured by a reference
method, or which is determined by
procedures specified under any subpart.
Photochemical oxidants result in a
variety of adverse impacts on health
and welfare, including impaired
respiratory function, eye irritation,
necrosis of plant tissue, and
deterioration of some synthetic
materials. Further information of these
effects can be found in the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
document entitled Air Quality Criteria
for Ozone and Other Photochemical
Oxidants (EPA-600/8-78-004).
Therefore, only VOC were selected for
inclusion in the proposed standards.
Sources of VOC Emissions at Beverage
Can Plants
In beverage can surface coating
operations, VOC emissions result from
the use of coatings containing organic
solvents that evaporate during the
drying process. For the purpose of
establishing standards and determining
compliance, all VOC contained in a
coating are assumed to evapoate during
the coating process. Industry estimates
that well over 90 percent of the VOC
consistently evaporates during the
coating process. Therefore, this
assumption is considered to be valid.
VOC content of coatings are generally
specified by the coating supplier and
calculated by a material balance of the
coating ingredients. Manufacturers of
beverage cans employ a wide variety of
coatings to protect the contents of the
can and to protect the beverage can
from the environment. Typical coatings
applied to beverage cans include
expoxies, epoxy-acrylics, acrylics, and
polyester enamels. These coatings
generally contain organic solvents such
as ketones, esters, ethers, and
aroma tics.
Surface coatings are applied to
• beverage cans in a series of operations.
depending on the type can to be
manufactured. In the manufacture of
two-piece cans, surface coatings are
usually applied to beverage can bodies
in three steps: (1) application of an
exterior base coat, (2) application of an
overvarnish coating, and (3) application
of an inside spray coating. Each coating
operation is followed by an oven cure.
except where radiation-curable
overvarnish coatings are applied. A
coating may be applied to the exterior
bottom of the can either as part of the
overvarnish coating or inside spray
coating operation. Two coats- of inside
spray are usually applied to steel two-
piece cans, while aluminum two-piece
cans usually require only one inside
spray coat. The two inside spray coats
for steel two-piece cans may be applied
wet-on-wet or with an intervening oven
cure. Aluminum ends for two-piece cans
are formed from precoated metal coils
or sheets. When made from precoated
coals, the only operation resulting in
VOC emission at the beverage can line
is the application of end-sealing
compound. In the production of three-
piece cans, coating operations include
the sequential application of an interior
base coat, an exterior base coat, and an
overvarnish coating to the steel sheets
from which beverage can bodies are
formed. After formation of the can body,
the seam is protected by an inside and
outside seam coating. The formed can is
then coated with an inside spray.
Interior and exterior coatings are also
applied to the stock from which the steel
ends used in the manufacture of three-
piece cans are formed and from which
aluminum ends used with three-piece
and two-piece cans are formed. End-
sealing compound is applied to the
formed ends.
Except for inside spray operations for
two-piece and jhree-piece beverage
cans, transfer efficiencies approaching
100 percent are achieved. For inside
spray operations transfer efficiencies of
at least 90 percent are consistently
achieved. Transfer efficiency is defined
as the ratio of the amount of coating
solids adhering to the coated surface to
the amount of coating solids consumed.
Because of the high and consistent
transfer efficiencies experienced in
beverage can surface coating
operations, it was not deemed necessary
to explicitly consider this parameter in
the compliance procedures. However 90
percent transfer efficiencies were used
in estimating emissions from inside
spray.
Data provided by the Can
Manufacturers Institute (CMI) indicate
that VOC emissions from 1976 coating
operations for both two-piece and three-
piece cans were distributed in the
following manner. Base coating
operations accounted for 39 percent of
total VOC emissions: overvarnish
coating operations for 4 percent, inside
spray operations for 38 percent, and
end-sealing operations for 10 percent of
total VOC emissions. The application of
side seam coatings to three-pice cans
accounted for 4 percent of total VOC
emissions from surface coating
operations. Analysis of the CMI data
indicates that VOC emissions from
miscellaneous sources, such as cleanup
operations and the storage or handling
of coatings and solvents, accounted for
approximately 5 percent total VOC
emissions.
Based on information contained in the
permit application for a newly
constructed two-piece beverage can
plant using waterborne coating,
distribution of'emissions is estimated to
be 10 percent from exterior base coat
operations, 19 percent from lithography/
overvarnish application, 1 percent from
bottom-end coating, 55 percent from
inside spray operations and 15 percent
from the application of end-sealing
compound to aluminum ends.
Data for a three-piece beverage can
facility applying solvent-borne coatings
without add-on controls indicate that
the experior and interior base coat
operation account for 48 percent (24
percent for each operation) of total plant
VOC emissions. Another 15 nercent is
attributed to the overvarnisn coating
operation, and 15 percent is also
generated from the inside spray coating
operation. End-sealing operations
account for 20 percent of total VOC
emissions from the plant. The
application of side-seam coatings
account for only 2 percent of VOC
emissions. '
Analysis of each emission source
resulted in the exclusion from the
proposed standards of side-seam
coating operations for three-piece cans,
bottom-coating operations for two-piece
cans, misscellaneous VOC emission
source (cleanup operations and storage
or handling of coatings and solvents)
and end sealing operations. VOC
emissions from side-seaming operations
for three-piece cans account for 2 to 4
percent of total plant emissions.
IV-WW-4
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 2fi, 1980 / Proposed Rules
Emissions from bottom-coating
operations for two-piece cans are
estimated to be about 1 percent of all
VOC emissions from two-piece can
lines. While emissions from cleanup
operations are potentially significant
where solvent-borne coatings are used,
their significance has decreased and will
continue to decrease as waterborne
coating; replace solvent-borne coatings.
Emissions from the storage and handling
of coatings and solvents are considered
negligible because of the wide use of
sealed containers or closed coating
circulation systems. While low-solvent
end-sealing compounds that meet or
exceed the CTG requirements are being
tested, requisite qualification testing has
not been accomplished. For this reason,
emissions from the application of end-
sealing compounds are excluded from
the standards at this time.
Selection of Affected Facilities
The choice of the affected facility for
this standard is based on the Agency's
interpretation of Section 111 the Act,
and judicial construction of its
meaning.1 Under Section 111, the NSPS
must apply to "new sources;" "source"
is defnied as "any building, structure,
facility, or installation which emits or
may emit any air pollutant" [Section
I1l(a)(3)]. Most industrial plants.
' iowever, consist or 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 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 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 resulls
in bringing replacement equipment
under the 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
replaced, 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
'The most important case is ASARCO, Inc. v.
F£/M. 578 F.2J 319 (D.C. Cir. 1973).
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
relevant statutory factors {technical
feasibility, cost, energy, and other
environmental impacts) point to a
broader definition. The application of
these factors is discussed below.
Four alternatives for the designation
of an affected facility were considered
in the development of the proposed
standards. These alternatives include (1)
designation of specific equipment such
as the coating application station,
flashoff area, and curing oven as
separate affected facilities; (2)
designation of each coating operation as
an affected facility; (3) designation of an
entire surface coating line as an affected
facility; and (4) designation of the entire
plant as the affected facility.
If each emission point (specific
coating equipment) were designated as
a separate affected facility, separate
emission limits would have to be
prescribed for each piece of equipment.
However, each component of a coating
operation is so closely linked, both
physically and operationally, that
separate emission limits for each piece
of equipment would present technical
and economic burdens on the plant
owner or operator. In the manufacture of
beverage cans, a coater and associated
flashoff area and curing oven may be
used to apply different types of coatings,
each having a different allowable
emission level, e.g., clear and pigmented
base coat for two-piece cans or three-
piece steel sheets. Designation of the
emission points as the affected facility
would require that the standards be
based on either the highest VOC content
coating that could be used or on an
industry average of VOC content. This
would penalize coalers that, for reasons
of product performance, must use a
coating with an above-average VOC
content. In addition enforcement would
be difficult because of the measurement
problems associated with isolating the
VOC emissions from each piece of
equipment.
Treating an entire can line or an entire
plant—multiple can lines—as an
affected facility has the advantage of
providing flexibility in approaches to
compliance and ease of enforcement. It
has the disadvantage of permitting
compliance by the elimination of one or
more coating steps and associated
emissions without requiring the
remaining operations to employ the besl
system of continuous emission
reduction. Also, designation of an entire
plant or line as an affected facility
would require a much higher capital
expenditure to trigger reconstruction
considerations. A modification or
reconstruction to any part of an existing
line or plant could subject the en:ire
surface coating operation (or the entire
line or plant) to the provisions of the
proposed standard.
Designating each coating operation as
an affected facility would simplify
enforcement and recordkeeping
requirements. Although the equipment
comprising each coating operation is
closely associated, VOC emissions from
coatings used in each operation can be
readily separated for the purposes of
enforcement and recordkeeping. In
addition, the impact of modification and
reconstruction provisions is considered
more reasonable, as compared to the
designation of the entire line or plant as
the affected facility. A modification or
reconstruction to an individual existing
coating operation would not subject all
other coating operations on the line or in
the plant to the provisions of the
proposed standprds. Defining each
coating operation as including all VOC
emissions generated from the
application of the coating through the
curing process would ensure that the
best system of continous emission
reduction will be applied to all coating
operations. Designation of a cowling
operation, e.g.. equipment and roahra.
would accommodate siruaiions in which
the same equipment is used to apply
different types of coatings, each having
a different allowable emission level.
While such a designation would result
in additional affected facilities. ,;r>
specific enforcement problems would
result because coating usdge and
production data at the plant level are
maintained from each type of coating.
The following coating operclions have
been selected es the affected facilities
for control by the proposed standards.
because these coating operat'ons
arcoun! for the bulk of VOC emissions
from the beverage can surface coating
process, and because control techniques
exist for reducing VOC emissions frnm
these operations.
For the manufacture of two-piece
beverage cans, the affected facilities an;
each exterior base coat operation,
overvarr.ish coating operation, and
inside spray-coating operation. For th?
manufacture of three-piace beverage
cans, the affected faci'itits would
include ench exterior base coat
IV-WW-5
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 26, 1980 / Proposed Rules
operation, interior base coat operation,
overvarnish coating operation, inside
spray coating operation, and each
interior and exterior coating operation
for steel ends. For the manufacture of
two- or three-piece beverage cans, each
interior and exterior aluminum-end
sheet coating operation would also be
designated as affected facilities.
Selection of Basis of Proposed
Standards
Emission control techniques
Two general emission control
techniques have been identified as
demonstrated emission reduction
systems for beverage can surface
coating operations: (1) low VOC content
coatings, and (2) solvent-borne coating
systems with emissions capture and
control devices.
Elimination of the exterior base coat
was also considered; however, this
approach was rejected because it is not
applicable to all beverage can surface
coating operations. Numerous
exceptions would be required,
especially for merchant can plants, with
each plant requiring a separate analysis.
In some instances, base coats are
required to provide corrosion resistance,
especially where the packaged product
is shipped by water transportation or
stored in high-temperature, high-
humidity areas. Elimination of a coating.
however, is not precluded as a means of
compliance with the proposed emission
limitations if the owner or operator can
use this option to meet the proposed
emission limit for that operation.
Low VOC content coatings. Low VOC
content coatings applicable to the can
industry include waterborne materials,
no-varnish ink, and UV-curable
overvarish. Waterborne coatings have
been demonstrated in the beverage can
industry for all coating operations with
the exception of end-sealing compounds.
Research and development on water-
based end sealants is being actively
pursued. Discussions with vendors and
canmakers indicate that acceptable
water-based end-sealants will be
available and demonstrated within two
years.
VOC emissions from waterborne
coatings (or other type coatings) are
dependent on the solvent-to-solids ratio
of ihe coating, thickness of film applied.
u.-.its produced per hour, and the surface
urea of each unit. A variety of
waierborne coatings is available. VOC
content of waterborne coatings obtained
from coating and beverage can
manufacturers are summarized in
Chapter 4 and Appendix C of the BID.
For comparative purposes, equivalent
VOC contents expressed as kg per litre
of coating less water are also included
in the BID. Discussions with the industry
and examination of the literature
indicate that the trend in beverage can
surface coating is toward the use of
waterborne coatings. With few
exceptions, beverage can manufacturers
either have converted or are in the
process of converting from solvent-
borne coatings to waterborne because of
ease of control and cost considerations.
All major canmakers, both merchant
and capture, have reported plans to
convert existing solvent-borne lines to
waterborne, and indicate that all future
facilities will use waterborne coatings.
No-varnish inks are specially
formulated inks which cure with gloss
and scuff resistance properties that, in
some cases, eliminate the need for an
overvarnish coating. The elimination of
a coating step results in a decrease in
solvent emissions from that operation to
zero. However, cans made with no-
varnish inks may not provide the
corrosion resistance required when the
filled cans are stored in high-humidity,
high-temperature environments, or
shipped by water transportation. Also,
the use of no-varnish inks may not
provide the mobility required in some
existing filling lines. In these cases,
beverage-can surface coalers may
choose to apply an over-varnish coating.
During the past year the use of no-
varnish inks has dropped dramatically.
One merchant canmaker reports a drop
from 80 percent in 1979 to 5 percent in
early 1980.
The use of ultraviolet (UV) curing has
received a great deal of attention in
recent years. UV curing is a radiation-
initiated polymerization process for
curing industrial finishes and printing
inks. This technology has been used for
"drying" inks applied in the can and
packaging industries, and for curing
fillers and coatings in the plywood and
particle-board industry. In the bevera'ge
can industry, UV curing is used with
specially prepared inks and to a lesser
extent with overvarnishes for both two-
piece and three-piece cans. UV-curable
materials essentially contain no VOC.
Emissions are relatively insignificant
and result only from polymerization that
occurs during the curing process.
However, the use of UV curing is not
applicable to all beverage can surface
coating operations and. in fact, the trend
is away from their use.
While high-solids coatings
(approximately 80-percent solids),
powder coatings, and coatings that can
be applied by electrodeposition are in
use for some industrial surface coating
operations, their use in the beverage can
industry is still in the experimental
stage.
Emission control systems. Although
carbon adsorption has been used to
control VOC emissions from some
industrial processes, its effectiveness on
beverage can surface coating operations
has not been demonstrated. The opinion
of the beverage can industry is that
carbon adsorption could be used to
control VOC emissions, but that it
would be prohibitively expensive
because of the high temperatures of the
gas stream to be controlled. The gas
streams would have to be cooled several
hundred degrees prior to entering the
adsorption unit. This would necessitate
an elaborate and energy-intensive
cooling system. However, should the use
of carbon adsorption become applicable
to the industry in coming years, its use
would not be precluded and provisions
for determining compliance are included
in the proposed standards.
The only emission control system that
has been demonstrated as effectively
controlling VOC emissions from
beverage can surface coating operations
is incineration. Both thermal and
catalytic incinerators have been used
successfully with solvent-borne coatings
on both two-piece and three-piece
beverage can lines. Thermal incinerators
can achieve at least a 90 percent
reduction in VOC emissions when
operated at a temperature of about 750°
C (1,400° F). However, large amounts of
supplemental fuel may be required to
raise the exhaust gases to incineration
temperature. If heat recovery units are
installed with the incinerator, the energy
consumption may be reduced. Where
control is required, the increasing cost of
natural gas is driving the industry
towards the use of waterborne coatings.
Catalytic incinerators are also
capable of achieving VOC emission
reductions in excess of 90 percent. Their
use requires substantially less energy
than the thermal incinerator because of
the lower incineration temperature. If
heat recovery is used in conjunction
with the catalytic units, they become
more attractive economically. However,
there are restrictions on the applicability
of catalytic incinerators because many
of the coatings used in beverage can
industry contain components that may
foul or mask the catalyst. This may
greatly reduce the active catalyst life.
resulting in higher incinerator operating
costs. Consequently, the use of catalytic
incinerators is normally limited to those
plants that use only a few different
coating formulations with ingredients
that do not have an adverse effect on
the catalyst.
IV-WW-6
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 26, 1980 / Proposed Rules
Regulatory alternatives
Based on the analysis of beverage can
surface coating emission sources and
pollutants, and with consideration of the
environmental, energy, and economic
impacts resulting from application of the
control technology discussed above,
three regulatory alternatives were
selected for consideration. While the use
of solvent-borne coating and
appropriate emission control systems is
an available control option, the trend in
the industry is toward the use of
waterborne coatings. With few
exceptions, can plants constructed in
the past five years use waterborne
coatings. One canmaker who
constructed solvent-borne lines within
the past five years has recently
announced plans to convert to
waterborne coatings because of
increasing energy costs. In addition,
practically all major beverage can
makers have either converted existing
solvent-borne lines to waterborne or are
in the process of doing so. Because of
the industry trend to waterborne
coatings, primarily because of energy
considerations, the regulatory
alternatives emphasize the use of best
available waterborne coatings.
However, for those operations where
waterborne coatings may not provide
the desired coating finish, some
manufacturers may choose to use
solvent-borne coatings in combination
with thermal or catalytic incineration.
This option is not precluded under the
regulatory alternatives as long as
equivalent emissions are equal to or less
than those attainable from the use of
waterborne coatings.
Regulatory Alternative I is to forego
development of a New Source
Performance Standard (NSPS) for
beverage can surface coating
operations. Under this alternative,
emissions from beverage can plants
would be controlled by State
Implementation Plans (SIPs). Existing
beverage can plants located in ozone
nonattainment areas woud be subject to
emission limitations based on
recommendations in the control
technique guideline (CTG) document for
beverage can surface coating
operations. New plants located in ozone
nonattainment areas would be required
to limit emissions to the lowest
achievable emission rate (LAER) and
new plants in attainment areas to best
available control technology (BACT).
The emission limits recommended in the
CTG were based on the use of the best
waterborne coatings available at that
time. Since publication of the CTG.
waterborne coatings with lower VOC
content have been developed and
commercialized.
Regulatory Alternative II is based on
emission levels that would result from
the use of best available waterborne
coatings for all coating operations and
water-based materials for end-sealing
operations.
Regulatory Alternative III is identical
to Regulatory Alternative II with the
exception that no-varnish inks or UV-
curable overvarnishes would be
required in lieu of waterborne coatings
for overvarnish coating operations.
Environmental impact
The environmental impact of each
regulatory alternative was computed as
the VOC emission reduction that would
be achieved relative to the emissions
allowed under State regulations based
on the recommended CTG limits.
Regulatory Alternative I (no NSPS) is
the baseline. The current level of VOC
emissions from existing plants would be
maintained, and new plants would be
required to meet the same emission
limits.
The implementation of Regulatory
Alternative II (waterborne coatings)
would result in an overall VOC emission
reduction of about 4,800 Mg per year in
the fifth year of applicability of the
proposed standard, a 32 percent
reduction from Regulatory Alternative I
for new facilities. Specifically, VOC
emissions from- two-piece beverage can
surface coating operations (exterior
base coat, overvarnish coating and
inside spray coating) would be reduced
by 4,100 Mg in the fifth year, a 32
percent decrease from the baseline level
of emissions. VOC emissions from three-
piece beverage can sheet coating
operations (interior base coat, exterior
base coat, and overvarnish coatings)
would be reduced by 54 Mg, an 8
percent reduction from the baseline
emissions. VOC emissions from inside
spray operations for three-piece cans
would be reduced by 310 Mg in the fifth
year, a reduction of 52 percent from the
baseline. Emissions from the interior
and exterior coatings applied to the
sheets from which aluminum or steel
ends are formed would be reduced by
333 Mg, a 52 percent decrease from the
baseline.
The application of Regulatory
Alternative III (waterborne coatings in
combination with no-varnish inks or
UV-curable overvarnish coatings) would
result in a VOC emission reduction of
about 6,200 Mg per year in the fifth year,
as compared to the baseline. VOC
emissions from two-piece can-coating
operations would be reduced by 5,400
Mg in the fifth year, a 42 percent
reduction from baseline. VOC emissions
from three-piece can sheet-coating
operations (interior, exterior, and
overvarnish coatings) would be reduced
by 150 Mg in the fifth year, a 23 percent
rnduction from the baseline. Emissions
from the inside spray coating operation
would be reduced by 311 Mg, the same
reduction that would be achieved by
Regulatory Alternative 11. VOC
emissions from the coating of steel or
aluminum sheet stock for ends reduced
by 333 Mg., the same reduction that
would be achieved by Regulatory
Alternative II.
No impact on water pollution, solid
waste disposal, or noise pollution as
compared to baseline levels is expected
to occur from either Regulatory
Alternative II or III.
Energy impact
The application of can coatings
requires energy in the form of electricity.
natural gas and, in some instances, other
fossil fuels. Electricity is used to power
coating equipment, sheet and can
conveyors, ventilating blowers at the
coaler and flashoff areas, oven
circulating and exhaust blowers, and
incineration system blowers. Natural
gas is used as fuel for drying and curing
ovens.
Regulatory Alternative II (waterborne
coatings) would result in an annual
overall decrease in energy requirements
of about 36,000 gigajoules in the fifth
year. This net energy reduction results
from the use of less coating per can
because of higher solids content of the
waterborne coatings upon which
Regulatory Alternative II is based. The
use of less coating reduces the amount
of VOC and water that must be
evaporated in the curing oven and
therefore reduces energy requirements.
The fifth-year impact would be a
decrease in energy consumption
equivalent to 34 million cubic feet of
natural gas per year. Energy
requirements for two-piece can coating
operations would be reduced by 27,000
GJ by 1985, a 2 percent reduction from
the baseline. Energy requirements for
three-piece can sheet-coating operations
(interior base coat, exterior base coat,
and overvarnish coating) would be
reduced by 4,500 GJ. a 5 percent
reduction from the baseline. Energy
requirements for the inside spray
coating operation would be reduced by
1,000 GJ, a 2 percent reduction. Energy
requirements for the coating of sheet
stock for aluminum or steel ends would
be reduced by 4,200 GJ by the fifth year,
a 2 percent reduction. If solvent-borne
coatings and incineration are used to
attain the proposed standards, energy
requirements for a two-piece can line
would be increased by 160 percent over
the base case and for a three-piece can
IV-WW-7
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 26, 1980 / Proposed Rules
line by 140 percent. These percentages
represent increases of energy
requirements for the coating operations.
not the entire can line.
The application of Regulatory'
Alternative III (waterborne coatings and
no-varnish inks or UV-curable
overvarnish coatings) would result in an
annual decrease in energy requirements
of about 920,000 gigajoules in the fifth
year. The greatest part of the net energy
reduction under this regulatory
alternative results from the use of no-
varnish inks or UV-curable overvarnish
coatings. Two-piece can coating energy
requirements would be reduced by
680.000 GJ, a 35 percent decrease from
the baseline requirements. Energy
requirements for three-piece can sheet-
coating operations and forming
operations (inside spray coating) would
be reduced by 32.000 GJ and 1,000 GJ.
respectively, a 36 and 2 percent
decrease, respectively. Energy
requirements for end coating operations
would be reduced by 4.200 GJ in the fifth
year, a 2 percent reduction, the same
reduction as would be achieved by
Alternative II. If solvent-borne coatings
and incineration are used to attain the
proposed standard, energy requirement
for a two-piece can line would be
increased by 73 percent over the base
case and for a three-piece can line by
120 percent.
Economic impact
A discounted cash flow approach was
used to analyze the economic impact of
each regulatory alternative. Impacts are
estimated for four types of beverage can
production facilities: (1) three-piece
sheet-coating operations, (2) three-piece
can-forming (inside spray) operations,
(3) steel and aluminum end coating
operations, and (4) two-piece aluminum
or steel can fabrication operations.
Because the costs of applying end-
sealing compound to steel or aluminum
ends are essentially the same for
solvent- and water-based materials, no
economic impact analysis was
considered necessary.
The regulatory alternatives assume
current levels of capital requirements.
annualized costs, and product prices
(i.e., current return on investment [ROI])
would be maintained.
No economic impacts on the beverage
can industry are expected to occur
under Regulatory Alternative II or III.
Among the control options considered
for each production facility, there is at
least one whose cost is equal to or less
than the cost of complying with the
baseline level of control. The use of low-
solvent coatings upon which Regulatory
Alternatives II and III are based does
not require any capital expenditures
over the base case and also requires less
energy to evaporate VOC and water in
the curing oven. If no standards were
developed (Regulatory Alternative I).
economic analysis shows that firms
buiding new production facilities have
an economic incentive to achieve a
greater level of control than is currently
required by the SIP's. However, if an
owner or operator chooses to use
solvent-borne coatings with add-on
controls, an economic impact would
result. This impact is discussed below.
The use of incineration would have an
effect on product price or return on
investment (ROI), and would require an
additional capital outlay by three-piece
can makers. Under Regulatory
Alternative II, firms building new
facilities involved in the production of
three-piece cans (sheet coating
operations, can forming operations, and
end coating operations) would have to
increase the output price by 1 percent, or
absorb the additional costs and accept a
cut in the rate of return from 1 to 10
percentage points. Under Regulatory
Alternative III, output prices would
increase about 1 percent If the
additional costs were passed along to
the customer. The ROI impacts would be
roughly similar to those occurring under
Regulatory Alternative II. Under both
alternatives, adopting the incineration
options would increase the capital
requirements by approximately 10
percent for each of the three types of
production facilities.
The use of incineration would also
have an economic impact on two-piece
canmakers. For either Regulatory
Alternative II or III, if the additional
costs were absorbed, ROI would decline
from 2 to 6 percentage points, depending
on plant size. Additional capital outlays
would amount to between 2 and 5
percent of the capital required to meet
the SIP level of control.
Some canmakers may elect to use
solvent-borne coatings and incineration
because of customer specifications or
other reasons. In these cases, capital
and operating costs would be higher
than in the base case. While some
negative economic impacts would result,
they are considered acceptable and
would not adversely affect the industry.
Selection of Best System of Continuous
Emission Reduction
Although Regulatory Alternative III
would result in greater reductions in
VOC emissions and energy
requirements than Regulatory
Alternative II, implementation of
Regulatory Alternative III would require
the use of UV-curable coatings or no--
varnish inks for overvarnish coating
operations. However, UV-curable
coatings and no-varnish inks cannot
provide surface qualities and corrosion
resistance necessary to meet all
customer usages, and industry data
indicate a trend away from the use of
these coating. Furthermore, analysis of
the industry indicates the infeasibility of
segmenting the industry into discrete
units that can or cannot use no-varnish
inks or UV-curable overvarnishes. -
Because these coatings are not
applicable to all segments of the
industry, this alternative was not
selected as the basis of the proposed
standards.
Under Regulatory Alternative II, the
use of waterborne coatings for all
surface coating operations would reduce
VOC emissions by about 4,800'Mg per
year in the fifth year of applicability, a
32 percent reduction from the baseline
represented by Regulatory Alternative I.
No other adverse environmental impacts
would result from implementation of this
. alternative. Energy requirements would
be reduced by about 36,000 GJ/yr in the
fifth year, a 2 percent reduction from the
baseline. No adverse economic impact
would result from application of
Regulatory Alternative II unless the
plant owner or operator chose to
incinerate VOC emissions to achieve the
proposed emission limits based on the
use of waterborne coatings. Increased
capital and operating costs associated
with incineration are considered
acceptable. Based on the assessment of
environmental, energy, and economic
impacts, Regulatory Alternative II was
selected as the best system of continous
emission reduction for the basis of the
proposed standard.
Selection of Format for the Proposed
Standards .
A number of formats could be used to
limit VOC emissions from beverage can
surface coating operations. The format
must be compatible with any of the •
compliance techniques that may be used
in the industry and with any new
techniques that might be developed in
coming years. Standards for the control
of VOC emissions could be expressed in
terms of (1) the concentration of VOC in
exhaust gases, (2) the mass of emissions
per unit of-production, (3) the mass of
emissions per volume of coating applied.
less water, (4) the mass of emissions per
volume of coating solids applied, or (5)
an overall percentage reduction.
One advantage of standards
expressed in terms of the concentration
of VOC in the exhaust gases would be
that only a single sample would be
needed to determine compliance.
However, the concentration format
would have several disadvantages.
Emission testing would be necessary.
IV-WW-8
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 26, 1980 / Proposed Rules
regardless of the compliance technique;
emission tests would be required for
every stack that exhausts gases to the
atmosphere. Although the general
provisions of 40 CFR 60 prohibit the
addition of dilution air to exhaust gases,
the presence of dilution air would be
difficult to detect with certainty. Also,
there are no currently available test
methods to directly measure VOC
concentrations in exhaust streams.
With a standard expressed in terms of
mass of VOC per unit of production,
compliance would be relatively simple
to demonstrate when waterborne
coatings are used, but would be more
difficult with the use of a capture system
and emission control device. For
waterborne coatings a weighted
averaged of the VOC content of each
coating used would be determined and
multiplied by the volume used over a
given time period. This value would be
divided by the production during that
same time period to give the VOC
emissions per unit of production. When
emission control devices are used, the
VOC emissions could be determined by
stack test and the emissions could again
be divided by the production to yield the
VOC emissions per unit of production.
However, a standard expressed in terms
of production would require extensive
cordkeeping provisions for production
iata. This format would not be very
iexible in accommodating the range of
coating thicknesses that are used by the
industry to meet the requirements of the
many types of beverage cans produced
by the industry, especially in the case of
merchant can plants. This format would
penalize those coalers that, for reasons
of product performance, must use an
above-average coating thickness.
Standards expressed in terms of mass
of VOC emissions per volume of coating,
less water, have the advantage of being
compatible with the format used in the
CTG and are currently being adopted by
most States. Furthermore, they have
been accepted by both canmakers and
coating suppliers.
Standards expressed in terms of the
mass of VOC emissions per volume of
coating solids overcome the problems
associated with the first two formats.
Stack testing would not be required
unless add-on controls were used.
Furthermore, it is applicable in those
cases where a coater may choose to
eliminate a coating step, substitute no-
varnish inks, or use a radiation-curable
coating.
A format requiring an overall
percentage reduction is not compatible
with compliance by the use of
aterborne coatings because it would
iot directly give credit to those facilities
which u;e coatings with low-solvent
content.
For these reasons, the format selected
for the proposed standard is expressed
in terms of the mass of VOC per volume
of coating solids.
Selection of Numerical Emission Limits
The numerical limits selected for the
proposed standards are based on the
use of waterborne coatings for all
surface coating operations. Waterborne
coatings are available and in use for all
beverage can surface coating
operations. In selecting numerical
emission limits, the range of VOC
contents of currently available coatings
either in use or under qualification, the
extent of such use, and the applicability
to all beverage can surface coating
requirements were considered.
Numerical emission limits are not based
on the lowest VOC-content coating
identified but rather on the coating
considered to the applicable for all
requirements within each coating
process. Emission limits and rationale
for these selections are presented below.
Lower VOC-content waterborne
coatings for the exterior base coat, other
than clear base coats, for two-piece
steel or aluminum cans range from 0.23
kilogram to 0.36 kilogram per litre of
coating solids. One widely used coating
has a VOC content of 0.29 kilogram per
litre of solids. This coating is considered
typical and therefore 0.29 kilograms
VOC per litre of solids was selected as
the proposed emission limitation for
two-piece can exterior base coating
operations. Clear base coats for two-
piece beverage cans are similar to
overvarnish and are therefore subject to
the same emission limits as for the
overvarnish coating operation.
Lower VOC-content overvamishes for
two-piece cans, three-piece steel sheets
and clear base coats for two-piece steel
and aluminum cans range from 0.26 to
0.50 kilogram VOC per litre of coating
solids. Overvamishes and clear base
coatings must be compatible with a
wide range of inks that are used to give
beverage cans the distinctive
appearance required for product
recognition. In order to provide
flexibility and compatibility with a wide
range of inks, the proposed emission
limitation for overvarnish and clear
base coat operations was based on a
commercially available coating with a
VOC content of 0.46 kilograms per litre
of solids.
Waterborne inside sprays currently in
use or under qualification for two-piece
beverage cans contain from 0.83 to 0.95
kilograms of VOC per litre of coating
solids. One coating, which has a VOC
content of 0.89 kilograms per litre of
solids, accounts for 75 percent of the
waterborne usage. Therefore this
coating was used as the basis of the
proposed emission limitation for two-
piece inside spray—0.89 kilograms VOC
per litre of coating solids.
For three-piece can inside spray, a
lower VOC-content material can be
used because a lance-type spray device
applies the coating to the inside of the
body shell before the bottom is
attached. One three-piece can inside
spray containing 0.64 kilogram VOC per
litre of coating solids was identified as
under qualification by a major beverage
can manufacturer. Two lower VOC-
content coatings, 0.58 and 0.61 kilograms
per liter of coating solids were also
identified as under consideration for
qualification, but were not selected as
the basis of the standards because of
their status.
Materials with low solvent-borne
content used for three-piece can sheet
interior base coating commercially
available or under qualification have a
VOC content of 0.50 to 0.53 kilogram per
litre of coating solids. The 0.50 coating is
commercially available and is being
used by at least one beverage can
maker. Consequently, 0.50 kilograms
VOC per litre of solids was selected as
the proposed emission limitation for
interior base coating of steel sheets for
three-piece cans.
Two materials, both with 0.50
kilograms VOC per litre of coating
solids, are commercially available for
exterior base coating of steel sheets for
three-piece cans. These coatings were
selected as the basis for sheet exterior
base coating. The proposed emission
limitation was established at 0.50
kilograms VOC per litre of coating
solids.
For both exterior and interior coating
of steel or aluminum end sheets,
coatings with VOC content of 0.48 to
0.52 kilograms per litre of coating solids
were identified as being in use or under
qualification. A coating with a VOC
content of 0.50 was identified as being in
commercial use for the exterior coating
operation. Consequently, the proposed
emission limitation for exterior coating
of end stock was based on the coating in
commercial use and set at 0.50 kilogram
VOC per litre of coating solids. The
average 0.50 kilogram per litre of coating
solid of the coating being qualified for
interior coating of end sheet stock was
selected as the proposed emission
limitation.
Although the majority of end-sealing
compounds currently in use throughout
the industry is solvent-based, many
States have adapted regulations which
require beverage can surface coating
lines to meet the emission limitations
IV-WW-9
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 26, 1980 / Proposed Rules
recommended in the CTG. New higher
solids solvent-based compounds that
meet the CTG emission limitations are
being evaluated by the beverage can
surface coating industry for both soft
drinks and beer. Water-based end-
sealing compounds with even lower
emissions are at about the same stage of
development. These compounds use
water as the carrier, with the only VOC
content in the form of pH adjusters or
oils. The few problems experienced
have been attributed to lack of
experience in application of the water-
based material and in storage and
handling of the ends after application of
the end-sealing compound.
The Administrator believes that these
end-sealing compounds will be fully
tested and applicable for use on
beverage cans within two years because
the new end-sealing compounds require
a qualification period of 12 to 18 months.
Consequently, to allow for the
completion of these qualification
studies, no standard will be proposed
for the application of end-sealing
compounds at this time. A standard will
be proposed after the higher solids
solvent-based or the water-based end-
sealing compounds have been qualified
for use in the beverage can industry. It is
anticipated that this will occur by 1982.
This action is consistent with the
qualification testing schedules currently
underway as part of the CTG programs.
Modification/Reconstruction
Cons idem tions
The history of steady growth by the
beverage can industry has led many
owners and operators to look for ways
to increase production capacity.
Increased production capacity is usually
accomplished by increasing line speed,
adding a new line, or building a new
plant. Many manufacturers have found
that the design speed of existing
beverage can coating operations could
be increased by replacing or modifying
the drive motors, electrical controls, or
both. All such changes that result in a
capital expenditure, as defined in 40
Cre 60.14. would subject the existing
facility to the provisions of the proposed
standards, if the modification causes
increased emissions. However, the .
control techniques on which the
proposed standards are based can be
applied to existing beverage can coating
operations that undergo a modification.
A conversion would require only minor
changes in the coating equipment. The
use of this control technique as a retrofit
on existing coating operations is well
documented in the literature.
Existing beverage can surface coating
operations undergoing a reconstruction,
as defined in 40 CFR 60.15, would also
be subject to the proposed standards. As
previously discussed, the conversion to
waterborne coating could be
accomplished with only minor changes
in coating equipment.
Selection of Monitoring Requirements
Although there are no monitoring
requirements for affected facilities that
use waterborne coatings, monthly
performance tests are required as
specified in the following section. For
affected facilities that use a capture
system and control device, monitoring
requirements are specified in addition to
monthly performance testing.
Monitoring requirements are included
in standards of performance to provide
a means for ensuring proper operation
and maintenance of emission control
systems and to provide plant and
enforcement personnel with sufficient
data to determine compliance with the
proposed standards. In the case of the
beverage can surface coating industry,
monitoring is required only when a
capture system and incineration are
used to comply with the standards. Two
types of emission control systems can
be used, incineration and carbon
adsorption. Monitoring is required only
for incineration systems.
The proposed standards would
require the plant owner or operator to
measure the incinerator operating
temperature during each test of
incinerator efficiency. Monitoring would
then consist of recording the
temperature parameters on a continuous
basis. For those facilities using catalytic
incineration, the plant owner or operator
would be required to continuously
monitor the gas temperature, both
upstream and downstream of the
catalyst bed, as a decline in the
temperature difference between the inlet
and exhaust or a decline in the
temperature before the catalyst would •
be indicative of a reduction in a catalyst
activity.
Selection of Performance Test Methods
The selection of a format for the
proposed standards in terms of mass of
VOC per volume of coating solids limits
the choice of performance test methods
to a mass balance of all coatings and
diluent VOC-solvent used during the test
period. Where a capture and emission
control system are used,'capture and
destruction or removal efficiencies are
required for the mass balance to
determine VOC discharged to the
atmosphere. Choice does exist, however,
in the manner of obtaining the input
data for the mass balance and the
frequency of testing.
The performance test may be done on
a one time basis upon startup or it can
be done on a recurring basis. Requiring
only an initial performance test on
startup reduces the workload on the
owner or operator but is not as effective
for ensuring continual compliance as
periodic performance testing. On the
other hand, periodic performance testing
imposes additional recordkeeping
requiements. However, the data
required for periodic performance •
testing are collected and maintained by
the source as part of production and .
inventory records. Periodic performance
testing provides a better enforcement
tool and the additional effort is
considered reasonable. Because most
can makers maintain the coating data on
a calendar month basis, requiring
periodic performance testing on a
monthly basis is considered reasonable.
The data required for a mass balance
performance test include mass or
volume and density of each coating and
diluent solvent used, volume percent
solids in each coating used, and weight
percent VOC in each coating used. Mass
or volume of each coating and diluent
solvent used is obtainable from
company records; density and weight
percent VOC from analyis using
Reference Method 24, or from data
provided by the coating supplier.
Volume percent solids must be obtained
from coating suppliers.
The use of coating supplier data
results in the minimum cost to the owner
or operator because the data are
generally available in the form of a
coating specification sheet. However,
the procedures used in determining the
weight and volume percent composition
can vary. Some suppliers base their
coating specifications on a theoretical
method, e.g., use of ASTM 2369 to
determine weight fraction volatile
matter and solids and theoretical weight
fraction of water to determine weight
fraction of VOC. Volume fraction of
solids is determined by calculations
using the theoretical density of either
VOC or solids.
The use of Reference Method 24 to
provide data required in determining the
VOC content of a coating has the
advantage of using the same procedures
for all coating suppliers, thereby
providing a common basis for
comparison. However, volume fraction
solids cannot be directly determined
using Reference Method 24, coating
supplier data being specified for this
parameter.
Consequently, the use of data
provided by the coating supplier is
specified as the source of coating
information required for the
performance test. However, Reference
Method 24 "Determination of Volatile
Matter, Water Content Density. Volume
IV-WW-10
-------
Register / Vol. 45, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 26, 1980 / Proposed Rules
Solids, and Weight Solids of Surface
Coatings" would serve as the primary
source of data from which the VOC
content of the coatings would be
determined for the purposes of
enforcement.
Industry data indicate the major can
manufacturers would probably achieve
compliance with the proposed standards
through the use of waterborne coatings.
With few exceptions, beverage can
coating facilities constructed during the
past 5 years were designed for the use of
waterborne coatings. In addition, all
major manufacturers have converted or
are in the process of converting to
waterborne coatings. However, a small
number of owners or operators may
elect to achieve compliance with the
proposed emission limits through the use
of a capture ststem and emission control
device to reduce VOC emissions from
solvent-borne coatings. The use of an
emission control system necessitates a
test method to determine he destruction
efficiency and the concentration of VOC
in the exhaust gases in and out of the
incinerator. Data obtained by Reference
Method 25, "Determination of Total
Gaseous Nonmethane Organic Emission
as Carbon," would be used to calculate
the destruction efficiency of
incinerators. Reference Method 1 would
be used for sample and velocity
transverse, Reference Method 2 for
velocity and volumetric flow rate,
Reference Method 3 for gas analyses,
and Reference Method 4 stack gas
moisture.
^.-^Distribution of VOC Emissions
Coating operation
Emission
distribution
Coaler/
flashofl
Cunng
oven
2-piace atuminum or steal cans:
Exterior base coat operation
Overvomish coating operation
Inside spray coating operation
3-prece steel cons:
Exterior base coat operation
OvervcmHh coating operation
Inside spray coating operation
Steel ends:
0.75
.75
80
.10
10
.10
.80
10
10
0.25
.25
.20
.80
.80
.SO
.20
80
60
No standard method exists to
determine the capture efficiency of an
emission control system. The owner or
operator would be required to use a
procedure acceptable to the
Administrator, which may include the
use of the emission distributions
between the coater and oven specified
in the standards.
Limited information is available on
the distribution of emissions between
flhe cure oven and coater/flashoff. The
owner or operator of an affected facility
may use the emission distributions
shown in Table 1 or may use other
values acceptable to the Administrator.
The values shown in Table 1 are based
on information presented in the CTG,
Control of Volatile Organic Emissions
from Existing Stationary Sources,
Volume II: Surface Coating of Cans.
Coils, Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, and
Light-Duty Trucks; data from tests
conducted by EPA and State agencies:
and discussions with industry. Industry
representatives agree that the values in
Table 1 are representative of the
industry. Comments on the emission
distributions shown in Table 1 are
invited. These values can be used to
simplify the determination of control
system capture efficiency.
A reports impact analysis for the
beverage can surface coating industry
was prepared in response to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
guidelines for implementing Executive
Order 12044 (44 FR 30988, May 29,1979).
The purpose of the analysis is to
estimate the economic impact of the
reporting and recordkeeping
requirements that would be imposed by
the proposed standards and by those
appearing in the General Provisions of
40 CFR Part 60. Included in the analysis
are the rationale for the selection of the
proposed requirements, an evaluation of
the major alternatives considered prior
to the selection of tko proposed
requirements, and a description of the
information required by the General
Provisions and by the proposed
standards. A copy of the reports impact
analysis is included in Subcategory II-I
of the beverage can docket (EPA Docket
No. OAQPS A-80-4).
Based on the reports impact analysis,
a total of 12 industry person-years
would be required to comply with the
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements through the first five years
of applicability.
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 this 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 to the Central Docket Section
address given in the Addresses section
of this 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
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 (2) to serve as
the record in case of judicial review.
Miscellaneous
As prescribed by Section 111,
establishment of standards of
performance for beverage can surface
coating operations was preceded by the
Administrator'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 endanger
public health or welfare. In accordance
with Section 117 of the Act, publication
of this proposal was preceded by
consultation with 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 test methods.
Comments are invited on the
designation of individual coating
operations as the affected facilities.
Comments are also invited on the use or
development of high-solids or water-
based end-sealing compounds and on
the emission distribution shown in
Table 1. Any comments submitted to the
Administrator on these issues, however,
should contain specific information and
data pertinent to an evaluation of the
magnitude and severity of its impact
and suggested alternative courses of
action that would reduce or eliminate
this impact.
It should be noted that 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, any
nonair quality health and environmental
impact and energy requirements) the
Administrator determines has been
adequately demonstrated [Section 111 (a)(l)j.
Although there may be emission
control technology available that can
IV-WW-11
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 26. 1980 / Proposed Rules
reduce emissions below those levels
required to comply with standard of
performance, this technology might not
be selected as the basis of standards of
performance due to costs associated
with its use. Accordingly, standards of
performance should not be viewed as
the ultimate in achievable emission
control. In fact, the Act required (or has
the potential for requiring) the
imposition of a more stringent emission
standard in several situations.
For example, applicable costs do not
necessarily play as prominent a role in
determining the "lowest achievable
emission rate" for new or modified
sources locating in nonattainment 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 new
or modified sources constructed in an
urea 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 as that rate of
emissions based on the following,
whichever is more stringent:
(A) The most stringent emission limitation
which is contained in the implementation
plan of any state for such class or category of
source, unless the owner or operator of the
proposed source demonstrates that such
limitations are not achievable, or
(B) The most stringent emission limitation
which is achieved in practice by such class or
category of source.
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 DACT result in emissions of any
pollutants which will exceed the
emissions allowed by an applicable
standard established pursuant to
Section 111 (or 112) of the Act.
In all events, State Implementation
Plans (SIP's) 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, SIP's must in some cases
require greater emission reduction than
those required by standards of
performance for new sources.
Finally 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 performance
promulgated under Section lll(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.
The economic impact assessment is
included in the Background Information
Document.
Dated: November 19, 1980.
Douglas M. Costle.
Administrator.
PART 60—STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
STATIONARY SOURCES
It is proposed that 40 CFR Part 60 be
amended by adding a new Subpart WW
as follows:
Subpart WW—Standards of Performance
for the Beverage Can Surface Coating
Industry
Sec.
60.490 Applicability and designation of
affected facility.
60.491 Definitions.
60.492 Standards for volatile organic
compounds.
Sec.
60.493 Performance test and compliance
provisions.
60.494 Monitoring of emissions and
operations.
60.495 Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
60.496 Test methods and procedures.
Authority.—Sections 111 and 301(a) of the
Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7411
and 7601(a)|, and additional authority, as
noted below.
Subpart WW—Standards of
Performance for the Beverage Can
Surface Coating Industry
§ 60.490 Applicability and designation of
affected facility.
(a) The provisions of this subpart
apply to the following affected facilities
in beverage can surface coating,
beverage can sheet coating, and
beverage can end coating lines: each
interior base coat operation, over-
varnish coating operation, inside spray
coating operation, aluminum- or steel-
end interior coating operation, and
aluminum- or steel-end exterior coating
operation.
(b) The provisions of this subpart
apply to any affected facility which is
identified in paragraph (a) of this section
and commences construction,
modification, or reconstruction after
November 26.1980.
§ 60.491 Definitions.
(a) All terms which are used in this
subpart and are not defined below are
given the same meaning as in the Act
and in Subpart A of this part.
"Aluminum end" means the aluminum
top end for three- and two-piece
beverage cans.
"Beverage can" means any two-piece
steel or aluminum container or three-
piece steel container in which soft
drinks or beer, including malt liquor, are
packaged. The definition does not
include containers in which fruit or
vegetable juices are packaged.
"End interior coating operation"
means the system on each beverage can
surface coating or sheet coating line
used to apply a coating, which isolates
the contents of the beverage can, to the
steel or aluminum sheets from which
ends for two-piece and three-piece
beverage can are manufactured. The end
interior coating operation consists of the
coating application station, flashoff -
area, und curing oven.
"End exterior coating operation"
means the system on each beverage can
surface coating or sheet coating line
used to apply a protective coating to the
aluminum or steel sheets from which the
ends for two-piece and three-piece
beverage cans are manufactured. The
end exterior coating operation consists
.IV-WW-12
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 26. 1980 / Proposed Rules
of the coating application station.
flashoff area, and curing oven.
"Exterior base operation" means the
system on each beverage can surface
coating or sheet coating line used to
apply a coating to the exterior of a two-
piece beverage can body or to the steel
sheets from which three-piece beverage
can bodies are made. The exterior base
coat provides corrosion resistance and a
background for lithography or printing
operations. The exterior base coat
operation consists of the coating
application station, flashoff area, and
curing oven. The exterior base coat may
be pigmented or clear (unpigmented).
"Interior base coat operation" means
the system on each beverage can
surface coating or sheet coating line
used to apply a coating to the steel
sheets from which three-piece beverage
can bodies are formed. The interior base
coat is the first layer of the protective
coating which isolates the contents of a
three-piece beverage can from the metal
can body. The interior basecoat
operation consists of the coating
application station, flashoff area, and
curing oven,
"Inside spray coating operation"
means the system on each beverage can
surface coating line used to apply a
coating to the interior of a two- or three-
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 an
inside spray coating are considered to
be a single coating operation.
"Overvarnish coating operation"
means the system on each beverage can
surface coating or sheet coating line
used to apply a coating over ink that
reduces friction for automated beverage
can filling equipment, provides gloss,
and protects the finished beverage can
body from abrasion and corrosion. The
overvarnish coating is applied to the
steel sheets from which three-piece
beverage can bodies are made and to
two-piece beverage can bodies. The
coating operation consists of the coating
application station, flashoff area, and
curing oven.
"Steel end" means the beverage can
ends which are formed from surface
coate.d steel sheets for three-piece cans.
"Three-piece can" means any
beverage can which consists of a
surface coated steel body, a bottom, and
a top. The three-piece can is
manufactured from a surface coated
rectangular sheet that is rolled into a
tubular body and soldered, welded, or
cement sealed at the seam to form a
beverage can body. One end is attached
to the can body by roll seaming during
the manufacturing process, and the
other end is attached during the filling
process.
'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.
"VOC content" means all volatile
organic compounds (VOC) that are in a
coating. VOC are expressed in terms of
kilograms of VOC per litre of coating
solids.
(b) Notations used under § 60.493 of
this subpart are defined below:
C.=concentration in gas stream in vents
after control device (parts per million as
carbon)
Cb=concen(ration in gas stream in vents
before control device (parts per million
as carbon)
De=coatings density (kilograms per litre)
Dd=diluent VOC-solvents density (kilograms
per litre)
D,=density of VOC solvent recovered by an
emission control device (kilograms per
litre)
E=emission control device efficiency, inlet
versus outlet (fraction)
F=capture efficiency, captured and routed to
one control device versus total emissions
(fraction)
G = volume-weighted average of VOC content
of coatings consumed in a calendar
month (kilograms per litre of coating
solids)
H. = fraction of VOC emitted at the coaler
and flashoff areas captured by a
collection system
Hh = fraction of VOC emitted at the cure oven
captured by a collection system
LC=volume of coating, as received (litres)
1*=volume of diluent VOC-solvent added to
coating (litres)
L,=volume of VOC-solvent recovered by an
emission control device (litre)
L,=volume of coating solids (litres)
M,, = mass of diluent VOC-solvent (kilograms)
M,,=mass of VOC-solvent in coating, as
received (kilograms)
Mr = mass of VOC-solvent recovered by
emission control device (kilograms)
N=volume-weighted average of VOC
emission to atmosphere in a calendar
month (kilograms per litre of coating
solids)
Q.=volumetric flow rate in vents after
control device (dry standard cubic
meters per hour)
Qb=volumetric flow rate in vents before'
control device (dry standard cubic
meters per hour)
R = overall reduction efficiency from all
control systems for an affected facility
(fraction)
S,=fraction of VOC in coating and diluent
VOC-solvent emitted at the coaler and
flashoff area for a coating operation
Sh = fraction of VOC in coating and diluent
solvent emitted at the cure oven for a
coating operation
V,=volume fraction of solids in coatings, as
received
W0=weight fraction of VOC-solvent in
coatings, as received.
§ 60.492 Standards for volatile organic
compounds.
On or after the date on which the
initial performance test required by
§ 60.8(a) is completed, no owner or
operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart shall discharge or cause the
discharge of VOC emissions to the
atmosphere 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 coat operation, except
clear base coat;
(b) 0.46 kilogram of VOC per litre of
coating solids from each two-piece can
clear base coat operation and from each
overvarnish coating operation;
(c) 0.50 kilogram of VOC per litre of
coating solids from each three-piece can
sheet base coating operation and each
aluminum- or steel-end sheet coating
operation;
(d) 0.89 kilogram of VOC per litre of
coating solids from each two-piece can
inside spray coating operation; and
(e) 0.64 kilogram of VOC per litre of
coating solids from each three-piece can
inside spray coating operationn.
§ 60.493 Performance test and compliance
provisions.
(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 test as required under
Section 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 VOC in kilograms per litre
of coating solids.
(1) An owner or operator shall use the
following procedures for any affected
facility which does not use a capture
system and a control device to comply
with the emission limit specified under
§ 60.492.
(i) Calculate the volume-weighted
average of the total mass of VOC per
volume of coating solids used during
each calendar month for each affected
facility, except as provided under
§ 60.493(c)(l)(D). Each monthly
calculation is considered a performance
test. 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.
IV-WW-13
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 230 / Wednesday, November 26, 1980 / Proposed Rules
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
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 230 / Wednesday. November 26. 1980 / Proposed Rules
specified under § 60.492, the affected
facility is in compliance. Each monthly
calculation is a performance test.
Table {.—Distribution of VOC Emissions
Emission distribution
Coating operation
2-piece atuminum or steel cans:
Exterior base coat operation
Overvamtsh coating operation
Inside spray coating operation
3-ptecs steel cans:
Exterior base coat operation
Interior base coat operation
Overvamish coating operation
Inside spray coating operation
Steel ends:
Exterior coating operation..
Interior coating operation
Coatei/
tiashorl
(S.)
0.75
.75
80
.10
10
.10
.80
.10
.10
Curino
oven (£»)
025
.25
.20
90
.90
.90
.20
.90
.90
(3) An owner or operator shall use the
following procedure for any affected
facility which uses a capture system and
a control device that recovers the VOC
(e.g., carbon adsorber) to comply with
the applicable emission limit specified
under § 60.492.
(i) Calculate the volume-weighted
average of the total mass of VOC per
volume of coating solids (C) used during
each calendar month for each affected
facility as described under
§ 60.493(c)(l)(i).
(ii) Calculate the total mass of VOC
recovered (Mr) during each calendar
month using the following equation:
M, = L,Dr
(iii) Calculate overall reduction
efficiency of the control device (R) for
each calendar month for each affected
facility using the following equation:
R *
M
(iv) Calculate the volume-weighted
average mass of VOC emitted to the
atmosphere (N) for each calendar month
for each affected facility using the
following equation:
N=G(l-R)
(v) If the weighted average of VOC
emitted to the atmosphere for each
calendar month (N) is less than or equal
to the applicable emission limit
specified under § 60.492, the affected
facility is in compliance. Each monthly
calculation is a performance test.
§ 60.494 Monitoring of emission and
operations.
The owner or operator of an affected
facility that uses a capture system and
an incinerator to comply with the
emission limits specified under § 60.492
shall install, calibrate, maintain, and
operate temperature measurement
devices as prescribed below:
(a) 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.
(b) Each temperature measurement
device shall be installed, calibrated, and
maintained according to the
manufacturer's specifications. The
device shall have an accuracy the
greater of ±0.75 percent of the
temperature being measured expressed
in °C or ±2.5-' C.
- (c) Each temperature measurement
device shall be equipped with a
recording device so that a permanent
continuous record is produced.
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42
U.S.C. 7414))
§ 60.495 Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
(a) Each owner or operator of an
affected facility shall include the
following data in the initial compliance
report required under § 60.8(a):
(1) Where only coatings which
individually have a VOC content equal
to or less than the limits specified under
§ 60.492 are used, and no VOC is added
to the coating during the application or
distribution process, the owner or
operator shall provide a list of the
coatings used for each affected facility
and the VOC content of each coating
calculated from formulation data
determined using Reference Method 24
or supplied by the manufacturers of the
coatings.
(2) Where one or more coatings which
individually have a VOC content greater
than the limits specified under § 60.492
are used or where VOC are added or
used in the coating process, the owner
or operator shall report for each affected
facility the volume-weighted average of
the total mass of VOC per volume of
coating solids.
(3) Where compliance is achieved
through the use of incineration, the
owner or operator shall include in the
initial performance test required under
§ 60.8(a) or subsequent performance
tests at which destruction efficiency is
determined the combustion temperature
(or the gas temperature upstream and
downstream of the catalyst bed), the
total mass of VOC per volume of coating
solids before and after the incinerator.
capture efficiency, and the destruction
efficiency of the incinerator used to
attain compliance with the applicable
emission limit specified under § 60.492.
The owner or operator shall also include
a description of the method used to
establish the amount of VOC captured
by the capture system and sent to the
control device.
(b) Following the initial compliance
report, each owner or operator of an
affected facility shall report, within ten
calendar days, each instance in which
the volume-weighted average of the
total mass of VOC per volume of coating
solids, after the control device if a
capture device and control system are
used, is greater than the limit specified
under § 60.492.
(c) Where compliance with § 60.492 is
achieved through the use of incineration.
the owner or operator shall continuously
record the incinerator combustion
temperature during coating operations
for theremal incineration or the gas
temperature upstream and downstream
of the incinerator catalyst bed during
coating operations for catalytic
incineration. For thermal incinerators
the owner or operator shall report
quarterly all 3-hour periods during
which the average temperature (when
cans are being processed) of the device
was more than 28° C below the average
temperature of the device during the
most recent performance test at which
destruction efficiency was determined
as specified under § 60.493. For catalytic
incineratois, the owner or operator shall
report quarterly all 3-hour periods
during which the average temperature of
the device immediately before the
catalyst bed, when cans are being
processed, is more than 28' C below the
average temperature of the device
during the most recent performance test
at which destruction efficiency was
determined as specified under § 60.493.
and all 3-hour periods during which the
average temperature difference across
the catalyst bed, when cans are being
processed, is less than 80 percent of the
average temperature difference of the
device during the most recent
performance test at which destruction
efficiency was determined as specified
under § 60.493. Negative reports are
required. The owner or operator shall
submit negative reports, quarterly, if
there were no periods of reportable
temperature differences.
(d) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall
IV-WW-15
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 230 / Wednesday. November 26, 1980 / Proposed Rules
maintain at the source, for a period of at
least 2 years, records of all data and
calculations used 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 each
affected facility.
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42
U.S.C. 7414))
§ 60.496 Reference methods and
procedures.
(a) The reference methods in
Appendix A to this part, except as
provided in § 60.8, shall be used to
conduct performance tests.
(1) Reference Method 24 or an
equivalent or alternative method
upproved by the Administrator for the
determination of formulation data from
which the VOC content of the coatings
used for each affected facility can be
calculated. In the event of dispute.
Reference Method 24 shall be the
reference method.
(2) Reference Method 25 or an
equivalent or alternative method for the
determination of the VOC concentration
in the effluent gas entering and leaving
the incinerator for each stack equipped
with an emission control device. The
owner or operator shall notify the
Administrator 30 days in advance 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 2 for velocity and
volumetric flow rate,
(iii) Method 3 for gas analysis, and
(iv) Method for stack gas moisture.
(b) For Reference Method 24, the
coating sample must be.a 1-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 would
be obtained by testing all stacks.
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42
U.S.C. 7414))
|KR Doc. 80-36085 Filed 11-25-80; 8 45 am)
BILLING CODE 6560-26-M
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No.'39 / Friday. February 27. 1981
Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTI.ON
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[AD-FRL-1762-5]
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources; Beverage Can
Surface Coating Industry; Reopening
of Comment Period
AQENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening
comment period.
SUMMARY: This action provides for a
reopening of the comment period for the
proposed standards of performance for
the beverage can surface coating
industry for a 30-day period beginning
February 27,1981. These standards were
proposed in the Federal Register on
November 26,1980 [45 FR 78980). This
action responds to requests from the
Can Manufacturers Institute and the
Adolph Coors Company for an
extension of the comment period. This
extension will allow additional time for
the industry to further evaluate the
proposed standards and submit
additional information and data.
DATES: Comments must be postmarked
no later than March 30,1981. Also,
written comments responding to,
supplementing, or rebutting written or
oral comments received at the public
hearing on January 6,1981, must be
postmarked no later than March 30,
1981.
ADDRESS: Comments should be
submitted (in duplicate if possible) to:
Central Docket Section (A-130),
Attention: Docket Number A-80-4. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401M
Street. SW., Washington, D.C. 20460.
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 number (919)
541-5421.
Dated: February 20.1981.
Edward F. Tuerk,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise,
and Radiation,
|FR Doc. 81-3771 Filed 2-28-81: 8:45 am)
BILLING CODE 6MO-M-M
IV-WW-16
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR
NEW STATIONARY
SOURCES
BULK GASOLINE
TERMINALS
SUBPART XX
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 17,1980 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 30
IAD-FRL-1634-4]
Standards of Performance ffoir Ctew
Stationary Sources; Unit: Gasoline
Tsrminals
AGENCV: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed Rule and Notice of
Public Hearing.
V: The proposed standards
would limit emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOC) from new, modified,
and reconstructed gasoline tank truck
loading racks at bulk gasoline terminals.
The proposed standards implement
Secion 111 of the Clean Air Act and are
based on the Administrator's
determination that bulk gasoline
terminal!) contribute significantly to air
pollution that may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare. The intent is to require new,
modified, and reconstructed bulk
gasoline terminals to use the best
technological system of continuous
emission reduction, considering costs,
non-air quality health, and
environmental and energy impacts
which has been adequately
demonstrated.
A public hearing will be held to
provide interested persons an
opportunity for oral presentation of
data, views, or arguments concerning
the proposed standards.
O&TES: Comments. Comments must be
received on or before February 17, 1981.
• Public Hearing. A public hearing will
be held on January 21, 1981 (about 30
days after proposal) beginning at 9 a.m.
Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons
wishing to present oral testimony must
contact EPA by January 14, 1981 (1 week
before hearing).
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments
should be submitted (in duplicate if
possible) to: Central Docket Section (A-
130), Attention: Docket Number A-79-
52. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, SW. WashinRlon,
D.C. 20460.
Public Hearing. The public hearing
will be held ut E.R.C. Auditorium, R.T.P.,
North Carolina 27711. Persons wishing
to present oral testimony should notify
Mrs. Naomi Dur Kee, Emission
Standards and Engineering Division
(MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)
541-5271.
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 (919) 541-
2777. Please refer to "Bulk Gasoline
Terminals—Background Information for
Proposed Standards," EPA-450/3-80-
038a.
Docket. Docket No. A-79-52,
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, SW, Washington, D.C. 20460. A
reasonable fee may be charged for
copying.
FOB FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Susan R. Wyatt, Emission Standards
and Engineering Division (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5477.
SUPGtEKlEMTARV INFORMATION: A
Background Information Document has
been prepared that contains information
on tank truck loading operations at bulk
gasoline terminals; the available control
technologies for VOC emissions; and
analysis of the environmental, energy,
economic, and inflationary impacts of
regulatory alternatives. The information
contained in this document is
summarized in this preamble. All
references used for the information
contained in the preamble can be found
in this document.
Proposed Standards
The proposed standards would limit
volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions from new, modified, and
reconstructed gasoline tank truck
loading racks at bulk gasoline terminals.
Specifically, the proposed standards
would require the installation of vapor
collection equipment at the terminal for
the purpose of collecting the VOC
emissions displaced during loading of
liquid product into gasoline (rank trucks,
and would limit these emissions from
the collection system to 35 milligrams of
VOCs per liter of gasoline loaded.
Additionally, a terminal owner or
operator would be required to restrict
gasoline tank truck loadings to those
tank trucks which had passed an annual
vapor-tight test. Written documentation
in the form of tank truck test results
would be kopt on file at the bulk
gasolinn tormina! in a permanent form
available for inspection.
Five new Reference Methods are
proposed with these standards to
measure vapor processor outlet VOC
mass emissions, and to test gasoline
delivery tanks for vapor tightness.
Methods 2A and 2B measure gas flow
rates in pipes and small ducts, and in
vapor incinerator exhausts, respectively.
Methods 25A and 25B measure VOC
concentration by two detection
methods. Method 27 is a pressure/
vacuum (vapor-tight) test for gasoline
delivery tanks. Terminal vapor handling
equipment would be monitored for leaks
prior to each performance test using
Method 21, which has been proposed
with Standards of Performance for VOC
Fugitive Emission Sources in the
Synthetic Organic Chemicals
Manufacturing Industry.
Summary of Environmental, Energy, and
Economic Impacts
The proposed standards would reduce
the projected nationwide 1985 VOC
emissions from affected facilities by
about 6,600 megagrams per year, or 70
percent.
Emissions of carbon monoxide and
oxides of nitrogen from thermal
oxidation systems would total up to 10
Mg/yr and 4 Mg/yr, respectively, in the
fifth year of the standards. This
represents a relatively small air
pollution impact.
Water is not used as a direct control
medium by any of the available control
techniques. Existing separation and
handling systems could accommodate
the small amount of wastewater
discharged by some types of control
processors. The proposed standards
would have a negligible impact on water
quality.
Because all of the VOC emissions are
incinerated or returned to storage as
liquid product, there would be no direct
solid waste impacts under the proposed
standards. Some solid waste would be
generated indirectly due to disposal of
activated carbon from carbon
adsorption units after the useful life of
the carbon had expired. Even the worst
case situation would produce minimal
impacts on solid waste.
The proposed standards would have
negligible impacts on noise, space
requirements, and availability of
resources.
Because all of the available vapor
processors, except the thermal oxidizer,
recover energy in the form of gasoline,
the proposed standards would result in
a net energy savings equivalent to
approximately 9 million liters (2.4
million gallons) of gasoline per year in
the fifth year of the standards.
The proposed standards would result
in a total nationwide capital cost for
VOC control during the first five years
after the effective date of the standards
IV-XX-2
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 17. 1980 / Proposed Rules
of about S25.3 million. The proposed
standards would also result in a total
nationwide annualized cost in the fifth
year of about $4.3 million.
Under the worst case situation, the
maximum increase in the retail price of
gasoline resulting from the proposed
standards would be less than 0.6 percent
due to bulk terminals and less than 0.7
percent due to the independent tank
truck industry.
Rationale
Selection of Source
The EPA Priority List (40 CFR 60.16, 44
FR 49222, August 21,1979) lists, in order
of priority for standards development,
various source categories in terms of
quantities of nationwide pollutant
emissions, the mobility and competitive
nature of each source category, and the
extent to which each pollutant
endangers health and welfare. The
Priority List reflects the Administrator's
determination that emissions from the
listed source categories contribute
significantly to air pollution that may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health or welfare, and is intended
to identify major source categories for
which standards of performance are to
be promulgated. Petroleum
Transportation and Marketing is
included as Number 23 on the Priority
List.
Bulk gasoline terminals are an
important part of the gasoline delivery
chain and are usually the first link
between the refinery and the ultimate
end-user. There are presently an
estimated 1,511 bulk terminals handling
gasoline in the U.S. terminals typically
receive gasoline from the refinery by
pipeline, ship, or barge, store the
gasoline in large aboveground tanks,
and redistribute the gasoline to smaller
facilities in the marketing chain (i.e.,
bulk plants and service stations).
Gasoline is loaded into delivery tank
trucks at the terminal loading racks and
is transported to the next link in the
delivery chain. A typical bulk gasoline
terminal has a gasoline throughput of
950,000 liters (250,000 gallons) per day,
three loading rack positions for gasoline,
and four aboveground tanks for gasoline
with a combined storage capacity of
24.000 m* (150,000 bbl). Bulk gasoline
terminals are normally found in or
around urban areas since the demand
for gasoline is higher in these locations.
It is estimated that ten new terminals
will be built in the next ten years. This
relatively small growth rate is a
reflection of the small increase in
gasoline consumption projected for the
iext ten years. Current industry trends
re toward consolidation of existing
terminals rather than the construction of
new terminals. Estimates, based upon
an industry survey, indicate that there
may be as many as 100 modified and
reconstructed sources in the next ten
years.
Gasoline loading racks at terminals
currently contribute approximately
300,000 megagrams per year (Mg/year)
of VOC emissions, which is
approximately 2 percent of the total
nationwide VOC emissions. After full
implementation of proposed State
regulations on bulk gasoline terminals,
expected by 1982, total VOC emissions
from loading racks are expected to be
reduced to about 140,000 Mg/year.
Selection of Pollutants and Affected
Facilities
VOC is the only pollutant which is
emitted during the loading of liquid
product into tank trucks at bulk gasoline
terminals. Consequently, the proposed
standards would regulate only VOC
emissions from the loading operations at
terminals.'
Volatile organic compounds are any
of the organic compounds that
participate in atmospheric
photochemcial reactions. Ozone,
produced in these reactions, results in a
variety of adverse impacts on health
and welfare, including impaired
respiratory function, eye irritation,
necrosis of plant tissue, and
deterioration of certain materials, such
as rubber. Further information on these
effects can be found in the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
document entitled "Air Quality Criteria
for Ozone and Other Photochemical
Oxidants" (EPA-600/8-78-004).
The two major sources of VOC
emissions at terminals are the storage
tanks and the tank truck loading racks.
Storage tanks are currently regulated
under Federal standards (40 CFR 60,
Subpart Ka—Standards of Performance
for Storage Vessels for Petroleum
Liquids). Those standards cover storage
tank emissions caused by atmospheric
changes (breathing losses) and
emissions due to filling and emptying
the storage tank (working losses).
Therefore, storage tanks would not be
regulated by these proposed standards.
Loading racks consist of the piping.
pumps, meters, and loading arms that
are necessary to transfer liquid
petroleum products from storage tanks
to delivery tank trucks. Emissions from
the loading racks are generated during
the loading of liquid product into
delivery tank trucks when the liquid
product being loaded displaces VOC
vapors contained in the delivery tanks.
These vapors consist of evaporated
gasoline components which fill the air
space above the liquid product. VOC
emissions from the loading operation
can vary due to the loading method
(splash loading causes more emissions
than submerged loading) and due to the
VOC concentration of the vapors in the
delivery tank truck prior to loading. This
VOC concentration can vary
significantly depending upon the type of
product carried, temperature, pressure,
vapor tightness of the delivery tank, and
whether vapors were transferred back
to the delivery tank when the last load
of liquid product was unloaded (vapor
balanced).
Loading rack facilities in the bulk
terminal industry can vary widely in the
types and quantities of products
handled. In addition to gasoline, large
quantities of fuel oil, diesel, and jet fuel
may be handled by a gasoline terminal.
The amount of each product handled is
due to the different demands for each
product in the vicinity of the terminal.
VOC emisisons from fuel oil, diesel, and
jet fuel are very small compared to those
from gasoline. Consequently, only VOC
emissions from gasoline would be
covered by the proposed standards.
At many terminals, "switch loading"
of delivery tank trucks is practiced.
Switch loading involves the transport, in
a single tank compartment on
successive deliveries, of various
products in addition to gasoline.
Gasoline vapors can be displaced either
by incoming gasoline or by any other
liquid product when a previous load of
gasoline left vapors in the delivery tank.
As an example, fuel oil loaded into a
tank compartment which had carried
gasoline on the previous load would
displace gasoline vapors, and thus
produce VOC emissions. For the
purposes of the proposed standards, the
delivery vehicle in both cases is referred
to as a "gasoline tank truck."
Because gasoline vapors can be
emitted from a tank truck loading a
product other than gasoline, switch
loading was taken into account in
designating ihe affected facility to be
regulated under the proposed standards.
Consequently, the proposed standards
would affect both the loading of gasoline
into delivery tanks and the loading of
any liquid product into delivery tanks
which contain gasoline vapors. Any
delivery tank carrying gasoline on the
immediately previous load is assumed to
contain gasoline vapors. The costs of
controlling switch loading facilities
(loading racks) are not significantly
greater than the costs to control only
gasoline loading racks. Since the same
vapor processor is used to control all of
the loading racks, the primary additional
cost would be for the vapor piping
IV-XX-3
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 17, 1980 / Proposed Rules
connecting each loading rack to the
main vapor line to the processor. In
some cases, a larger, more expensive
processor might be specified in order to
handle increased vapor flow, but the
additional cost would amount to a small
percentage of the total cost. Many bulk
terminals are already controlling all
loading racks which have the potential
to displace gasoline vapors.
Since only small quantities of gasoline
(less than 2 percent) are delivered by
rail cars, vapor controls on these
loadings were not investigated, and the
proposed standards would apply only to
the loading of liquid product into
gasoline tank trucks.
For the purposes of the proposed
standards, gasoline is defined as any
petroleum distillate or petroleum
distillate/alcohol blend with a Reid
vapor pressure of 27.6 kilopascals (4
pounds per square inch) or greater
which is used as a fuel for internal
combustion engines. The addition of the
distinction for petroleum distillate/
alcohol blend in the definition is to
include gasohol fuels which have
experienced increased consumption in
recent months.
Because vapor leakage from the tank
trucks being loaded can represent a
significant proportion of the total bulk
terminal VOC emissions occurring
during liquid product loading, the
proposed standard has been written to
control such vapor leakage as well as
emissions from the loading racks. EPS
believes that Section 111 would
authorize this regulation to take any one
of the three alternative forms described
below; the Agency solicits comments on
all issues associated with each
approach.
Under the first approach, the
standards would apply only to the bulk
terminal. The terminal owner or
operator would be required to use vapor
collection equipment on loading racks
servicing gasoline tank trucks, and to
restrict loadings to vapor-tight tank
trucks. The affected facility under this
Approach would include only the loading
racks servicing gasoline tank trucks.
Operators of gasoline tank trucks
wishing to load at the teminal would
need compatible loading and vapor
recovery equipment, and vapor-tight
delivery tanks. This approach would
consolidate responsibility for controlling
emissions without resulting in an
excessive burden for the terminal owner
or operator.
Under the second approach, standards
would apply directly to both the
terminal and the tank trucks. The
standards would require the terminal
owner or operator to install vapor
collection equipment and the tank truck
operator to have compatible equipment
and vapor-tight tank trucks. Under this
appproach, the affected facility would
consist of the combination of the loading
rack and the truck-mounted tank, with a
single standard covering the hybrid
loading rack/tank facility. The second
approach could result in several owners
or operators (of the terminal and of the
'tank trucks] at the same terminal being
regulated under a single standard. This
could create enforcement difficulties
and problems in determining liability.
The third approach would involve
designating two affected facilities, one
consisting of the loading racks servicing
gasoline tank trucks and the Other
consisting of the truck-mounted tanks,
and applying a separate standard to
each facility. It would not be practical to
directly regulate gasoline tank trucks
under a separate standard because the
VOC emissions being regulated occur
only during product loading at the
terminal, and a situation of two
standards regulating the same source of
emissions would result. Furthermore, in
the case of new tank trucks loading at
an existing uncontrolled bulk terminal,
only the tank trucks would be regulated,
and VOC emissions would be displaced
to the atmosphere uncontrolled since the
terminal would have no vapor collection
or control equipment to process the
vapors. Thus, separate standards would
not be effective in these circumstances.
After considering the issues involved
with each of these approaches to
designating the affected facility, the
Administrator selected the first
approach as the most practical
designation. This places direct
responsibility under the proposed
standards on the owner or operator of
the bulk terminal only, eliminates the
potential for enforcement problems
associated with an impermanent
affected facility under the second
approach, and eliminates the situation
of regulating the same operation with
two standards under the third approach.
The selected approach, which
considers only the bulk terminal loading
racks as the affected facility
designation, presents several
possibilities. Two potential affected
facility designations considered under
this approach were (1) each individual
loading rack, and (2) the combination of
all the loading racks at the terminal
which service gasoline tank trucks.
In choosing the affected facility, EPA
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 the NSPS
sooner. If, for example, an entire plant is
designated as the affected facility, no
part of the plant would be covered by
the standard unless the plant as a whole
is "modified" or "reconstructed." 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
new and modified sources (considering
cost, other health and evnironmental
effects, 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 the Agency
concludes either that a) a broader
designation of the affected facility
would result in greater emissions
reduction than would a narrow
designation; or b) the other relevant
statutory factors (technical feasibility,
cost, energy, and other environmental
impacts) point to a broader designation.
The application of these factors is
discussed below.
While selection of a narrower
designation of affected facility generally
results in greater emissions reduction by
earlier coverage of replacement
equipment, it appears that a broader
designation would result in greater
emissions reduction in the bulk gasoline
terminal industry. Replacement of
existing racks in not expected to occur
to any great extent, because properly
maintained racks do not generally
require replacement. In other words, the
isolated replacement of a single rack
due to deterioration of that rack is
expected to occur rarely. Rather, EPA
projects that terminals will concentrate
on additions of new racks to sets of
existing racks rather than replacement
of existing racks. EPA further projects
that if replacement does occur, it will
involve a major change in the rack
system (such as conversion from top to
bottom loading) and will involve most or
all of the racks at the terminal rather
than just one rack. The reasons that a
total racks affected facility designation
is expected to result in greater emission
reduction than a single rack affected
facility designation, in the situations
described above, are explained in the
following paragraphs.
IV-XX-4
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 244 / Wednesday. December 17. 1980 / Proposed Rules
A modification, under 40 CFR 60.14, is
any physical or operational change to an
existing facility which produces a net
increase in the emission rate from that
facility. If a new rack were added to a
terminal it would be an affected facility
under a single rack designation, and
only that rack would be covered. Under
a total racks designation, the addition of
a single new rack could result in a
modification, in which case all of the
racks would become an affected facility,
resulting in greater emission reduction
under this designation, Even if the
addition of the new rack did not result
in a modification because there was no
increase in emissions (due to partial
control, for example), the total racks
designation would still result in less
emissions. This is because the single
rack designation would still result in a
small incremental emissions increase
even if the rack were controlled.
In addition to modification, an
existing facility could become
reconstructed, under 40 CFR 60.15. if the
fixed capital cost of replacing
components at that facility exceeded 50
percent of the cost of a comparable
entirely new facility. Under a single rack
designation, this cost figure could be
attained sooner for a given rack than it
would under a total racks designation,
since total replacement cost for parts for
a single rack would be less than for all
the racks, and 50 percent of the cost for
a single new rack would be less than 50
percent of the total cost for all new
racks. However, under a total racks
designation, all the racks at a terminal
could become affected facilities if the
conversion cost exceeded 50 percent of
the cost needed to build al! new racks;
although more racks would have to be
converted to attain this cost, more racks
could eventually be covered sooner than
they would be under a single rack
designation. Multiplerack conversion
projects of this type are the most likely
type of replacement at bulk terminals.
Whether the total racks designation
would actually result in more emission
reduction than the single rack
designation is somewhat uncertain. The
designation which would result in the
most emission reduction depends on
decisions made by a terminal owner'or
operator when replacing racks or adding
new racks to the terminal. It is difficult
to accurately forecast what these
decisions will be. For example, under
the single rack designation, even if only
one rack had to be controlled, the
terminal owner or operator may elect to
control all racks instead of one rack,
since it is common industry practice to
control all racks with one control
device. If this occurred, the single rack
designation could result in control of all
racks just as would the total racks
designation.
In summary, considering that the
addition of new racks and the multiple
replacement of racks are expected to be
more likely occurrences in this industry
than single rack replacement, and the
fact that more racks would come under
the standards under the total racks
designation than under the single rack
designation in these cases, it is
projected that the total racks
designation would result in the greatest
emission reduction. However, as stated
previously, this depends on decisions
made by a terminal owner or operator at
the time of construction.
After projecting that the total racks
designation would result in the greatest
emission reduction, the reasonableness
of the cost of this designation was then
evaluated. For terminals which .do not
already have control devices (most new
and existing terminals in attainment
areas), examination of the cost data has
indicated that the affected facility
designation of each individual rack
would generally result in lower capital
costs than the designation of all the
loading racks. However, the net
annualized cost would be lower for the
total racks approach, assuming that the
terminal elected to use a control system
other than thermal oxidation, because of
the greater liquid recovery cost credits
associated with controlling all of the
loading racks. For example, at an
affected terminal the capital cost to
install controls on one loading rack
(assuming 380,000 liters/day throughput)
would be about $295,000. This cost
includes the vapor processing system,
installation, and piping. Under a total
racks designation, the capital cost to
install controls on all loading racks
(assuming 1,900,000 liters/day
throughput) would be about $345,000.
Annualized costs, which include capital
charges, labor, maintenance, utilities,
and liquid recovery credits, indicate as
much as an $80,000 per year difference
in favor of the total racks controls (a net
annualized cost of about $40,000 for a
single rack designation, and a net
annualized cost savings of $40,000 for a
total racks designation). The major
reason for this favorable annualized
cost, as stated earlier, is the greater
recovery cost credits associated with
the controls on all of the racks. Based on
this analysis, it was concluded that for
terminals in attainment areas the costs
which would result from a total racks
designation would be reasonable, and
would in fact be less expensive on an
annualized basis provided that the
control system used recovered gasoline
from the collected vapors. Systems
which recover gasoline are expected to
comprise the majority of the systems
which would be installed under the
NSPS.
Another consideration regarding costs
for terminals in attainment areas is that
most tank trucks serving bulk terminals
in attainment areas would not be
equipped for vapor recovery under State
regulations. In order to load at a
controlled loading rack, a tank truck
would have to be equipped with a vapor
collection system to route gasoline
vapors to the terminal's control system.
Besides having to retrofit vapor recovery
equipment, some tank trucks would also
have to convert to bottom loading from
top loading, if the terminal switched to
bottom loading in the course of
installing vapor control equipment. In
addition, a vapor tightness requirement
could be in effect for tank trucks loading
at such a rack. However, under a single
rack designation, a terminal could end
up with a mix of controlled racks and
uncontrolled racks. In this case, tank
trucks would probably load at the
uncontrolled racks so that the cosj of
retrofitting could be avoided. Thus, a
terminal owner or operator considering
a conversion of one or more racks,
which would result in those racks
becoming affected facilities, likely
would either be deterred from making
any changes or would convert all of the
racks and all of his tank trucks in order
to prevent this situation from occurring.
The result of this conversion would be
the same as under a total racks
designation.
For terminals which already have
control devices (the majority being
existing terminals in non-attainment
areas), capital and annualized costs
could both be lower for a total racks
designation of the affected facility. For
example, the case of an existing
terminal which is modified by adding a
loading rack and increasing emissions
was analyzed. If the limits of the
standard were more stringent than those
under which the existing control device
was operating, then depending on
whether the device could meet the more
stringent limit, the terminal owner or
operator might have to make an
expenditure in order to comply with the
new limits. Under a one rack
designation for the affected facility, only
the new rack would be required to meet
the limits of the standard. If a separate
control system was installed for the new
rack, capital costs could be about
$295,000 and annualized costs could be
about $70,000 per year. Under the total
racks designation of the affected facility,
both the existing racks and the new rack
IV-XX-5
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 17, 1980 / Proposed Rules
might be required to meet the limits of
the standard under the modification
provisions. One option would be to
install an add-on system to the existing
control device if that control device
could not meet the limits of the
standard. The capital cost for this
approach could be about $100,000 and
• the net annualized cost could be about
$20.000 per year more than the
annualized cost of operating the original
system: Another option would be to
replace the existing control device- with
a new device which could meet the
limits of the standard. The capital cost
for this could be about $200,000 and the
incremental net annualized cost could
amount to $50,000 per year. A third
option for terminal operators whose
control device could be altered to
achieve a lower emission limit would be
to upgrade the existing device through
design or operational changes. While the
cost for this approach would vary in
individual cases, it would be
considerably less than the cost for either
of the first two options. Finally, any
presently installed control device which
was capable of complying with the
limits of a more stringent standard
would not have to be altered. The
operator's decision to select any of these
options would depend on such factors
as the terminal's financial position and
the type, age. condition, and control
efficiency of the existing control device.
Based on this analysis, it was concluded
that for terminals in non-attainment
areas, regardless of which option the
terminal operator selected, the costs
incurred under a total racks designation
would be reasonable, and in fact any of
the options discussed would be less
expensive than the costs under a one
rack designation.
In addition to the emission reduction
and cost considerations discussed
above, the single rack designation has
technical complications. Performance
testing of this affected facility would be
difficult at terminals which already have
some means of vapor control installed
(estimated to include about 70 percent of
the existing terminals). If one rack were
newly installed or altered in such a way
as to become an affected facility under
modification or reconstruction
provisions (40 CFR 60.14 and 60.15) and
were required to meet a more stringent
emission limit, the new rack could
require controls different from the
remainder of the loading equipment.
Since the emissions from all of the racks
are typically routed to the single vapor
processor, it would be impossible to
distinguish the vapor processor outlet
emissions originating from only the new
loading rack. If an existing control
device were unable to meet a more
stringent emission limit, a bulk terminal
operator could either install a separate
vapor collection system and processor
for the new rack, or replace or upgrade
the existing control device. The latter
approach is identical to what a total
racks designation of the affected facility
would accomplish.
-The foregoing discussion indicates
that, based on the assumptions made,
the total racks designation would result
in the greatest emission reduction.
Furthermore, the total racks designation
would be the most consistent with the
industry practice of using one control
device for all racks at a terminal. The
total racks designation, by causing all
collected vapors to be routed to a single
vapor processor, would result in the less
expensive approach to achieving the
requirements of the proposed standards,
and the costs would be reasonable.
Performance testing of this type of
affected facility would be
straightforward because all loading
racks would be subject to the same
standards. Consequently, after
considering the emission reduction,
technical, and cost impacts associated
with each possible designation, the
Administrator selected the combination
of all the loading racks as the affected
facility.
Comments are specifically invited
concerning the selection of the affected
facility. In particular, comments are
requested on the question of whether
selection of the total racks designation
would in fact result in greater emissions
reduction than would selection of the
one rack designation, and the economic
impact of this selection on existing
terminals. Comments are requested on
the factors considered and also on any
additional factors which should be
considered. Any comments submitted to
the Administrator on this issue should
contain specific information and data
pertinent to an evaluation of the
magnitude and severity of its impact
and suggested alternative courses of
action that would avoid this impact.
Selection of Basis of Proposed
Standards
Control Technology. Control systems
currently being used at terminals consist
of two main elements, the vapor
collection system and the vapor
processing system (or vapor processor).
All of the vapor collection systems used
at terminals are somewhat similar. The
air-vapor mixture displaced during the
loading of the delivery tank is contained
and routed through vapor piping on the
tank truck to the terminal vapor
collection piping. The terminal vapor
collection system, in turn, routes the air-
vapor mixture through piping to the
vapor processing equipment. Knock-out
tanks are commonly utilized between
the loading racks and the vapor
processor to remove liquid from the
transfer lines before it reaches the vapor
processor. Liquid can enter the line due
to overfilling the delivery tank,
entrainment of liquid droplets from the
loading operation, or condensation of
vapor into liquid. Vapor holding tanks
are also used in some vapor collection
systems. Vapor holding tanks are used
to store a designated volume of air-
vapor mixture and then release it to the
processor to process the vapors on a
batch basis. Fluctuations in VOC
concentration and air-vapor mixture
flow rate are minimized by using vapor
holders.
Several vapor processing techniques
were evaluated by EPA. These control
techniques included carbon absorption
(CA), thermal oxidation, (TO),
refrigeration (REF), compression-
refrigeration-adsorption (CRA),
compression-refrigeration-condensation
(CRC), and lean oil absorption (LOA).
These six techniques represent all of the
control methodologies commonly
employed at bulk terminals. At least one
system utilizing each of these control
technologies was tested in an EPA-
sponsored test program conducted
between 1973 and 1978. The test
procedure used was the procedure
outlined in the draft bulk gasoline
terminal Control Techniques Guideline
(CTG) document, "Control of
Hydrocarbons from Tank Truck
Gasoline Loading Terminals," dated
May 15,1977. This test procedure is
similar to the procedures in the
proposed standards and in Reference
Methods 2A. 2B, 25A, and 25B. Although
the emission measurement methods
were the same as the proposed
Reference Methods 2A, 2B. 25A, and
25B, the test procedure varied slightly, in
that the test period was longer than the
period required in the proposed
standards. This difference is discussed
in Appendix D of the Background
Information Document, and would not
affect the achievability of the standard.
The test data considered in evaluating
(he six control technologies mentioned
earlier represent terminals ranging in
gasoline throughput from 190,000 liters
per day (50,000 gal/day) to 5,700.000
liters per day (1,500,000 gal/day).
Twenty-two tests were performed,
totaling 61 days of testing. In addition,
several tests performed by others using
the same procedures were considered in
evaluating the control technologies.
Thus, these data are considered
representative of the conditions at a
IV-XX-6
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 17. 1980 / Proposed Rules
wide range of terminal sizes and are an
adequate basis for an evaluation of the
best systems of continuous emission
reduction.
Tank trucks have been demonstrated
to be major sources of vapor leakage
during product loading operations at
bulk terminals. Vapor leakage can vary
significantly from one tank to another.
The larger the tank truck leakage, the
smaller the volume of air-vapor mixture
that enters the vapor collection system.
To evaluate the results of the vapor
control system tests, the results from all
of the tests were calculated on a
comparable no-leak basis. Mass
emissions, in the form of milligrams of
VOC per liter of gasoline loaded, were
used to compare the test results on a
common basis. These units were used to
he consistent with the units utilized in
the test reports.
Carbon adsorption systems use beds
of activated carbon to adsorb gasoline
vapors from the air-vapor mixture. CA
systems at terminals typically consist of
two carbon beds. One bed actively
adsorbs the vapors while the other bed
is being regenerated. After a set period
of time, the active bed is regenerated,
with the air-vapor flow re-routed to the
opposite bed.
Three EPA tests, consisting of nine
days of testing, were performed on two
carbon adsorption systems which
incorporated vacuum regeneration
assisted by warm air purge. The daily
average emissions from these systems
ranged from 1.8 milligrams of VOC per
liter of gasoline loaded (mg/liter) to 11.0
nig/liter. Two days of testing were not
included in evaluating the system
because of unit maladjustment and
testing irregularities. On one test day,
the bed switching timer was set
incorrectly. leading to excessive loading
on one carbon bed. On one day of
another test, two tank trucks were
purposely loaded simultaneously,
causing vapor loading to exceed the
design capacity of the CA system. This
was done in order to determine the
performance limit of the system. Further
details are contained in Appendix C of
the Background Information Document.
Control unit efficiencies on the
rtmaining seven days ranged from 98.6
percent to 99.6 percent. One of the
systems tested included a vapor holder
in its design.
One test was performed in 1979 by the
California Air Resources Board on a
c:;irbon adsorption system using vacuum
regeneration. Mass emissions measured
HI the system exhaust were not specified
nxiicily, but were reported to be less
Ihiin 12 mg/liter.
Thermal oxidizer systems do not
recover any product. Instead, the
gasoline vapors are oxidized in a burner
chamber. Many TO systems use vapor
holders to store air-vapor mixture from
the loading racks so that the system can
process VOC vapors at a relatively
constant concentration and flow.
Tests were performed on four thermal
oxidizer control systems. Two of the
control systems incorporated vapor
holders, while two systems operated on
an on-demand basis. Emissions from the
thermal oxidizer systems ranged from
1.4 mg/liter to 107 mg/liter over the four
systems tested. Control efficiencies
varied from 86.6 percent to 99.8 percent.
Even though there was a wide •
variability in the test results, all systems
tested appeared to be operating
properly. The two thermal oxidizer
systems incorporating a vapor holder
achieved an average VOC emission rate
of 13.3 mg/liter, while the two systems
without vapor holders averaged 46.4
mg/liter.
Refrigeration systems, as with the
remainder of the systems to be
discussed, recover gasoline vapors from
the loading operation in the form of a
liquid product. In the REF system, air-
vapor mixture from the loading racks is
routed to a condensation chamber and
passed over a series of cooling coils.
Temperatures in the condensation
section can be as low as —115°F. The
gasoline vapors condense, with some
water vapor in the air, and are
separated in a gasoline/water separator.
Six refrigeration type vapor
processing systems were tested in the
EPA program, totaling 17 days of testing.
The emissions in one test were
unusually high compared to those from
other REF tests. Problems with the test
equipment and with the refrigeration
system itself led to the high emissions in
this test. Since these test results were
not considered representative of the
system's performance, data from this
test were not included in the analysis of
the REF system. In another test, serious
leakage in the vapor collection system
prevented almost half of the air-vapor
mixture displaced from tank trucks from
reaching the refrigeration system. Data
from this test were also not included in
the REF system performance evaluation.
Appendix C of the Background
Information Document cpntains further
details on these tests. The daily average
results from the four remaining tests
rangin! from 31.1 mg/liter to 103 mg/
liter, and indicated a control efficiency
ranging from 77.1 percent to 94.6
percent. During two of these four tests,
the refrigeration system was not cooling
the vapors to the temperature for which
the sytem was designed. Cooling section
temperatures were approximately 40°F
warmer than the design temperature —-
60°F instead of -100°F). Emission rales
adjusted for system leakage from these
two tests averaged approximately 52
mg/liter. It is not known how much
lower the emission rate would have
been if the design temperature of the
cooling sections had been maintained.
but improved emission rates are
expected for these systems if design
temperatures are maintained. Most of
the EPA testing performed since 1974 on
REF systems involved systems which
use chilled methylene chloride "brine"
to cool the condenser section. Many
newer systems use direct expansion of
refrigerant for cooling, and recent tests
indicate that the new systems may be
capable of improved performance and
reliability when compared to the older
systems. Three tests performed in 1978
and 1979 by the California Air
Resources Board on the latest model
refrigeration systems measured outlet
VOC mass emission rates of 48 mg/liter.
36 mg/liter, and 5 mg/liter.
In compression-refrigeration-
absorption systems, the air-vapor
mixture from the loading racks is first
saturated to bring the concentration of
the gasoline vapors above the explosive
range and is then stored in a vapor
holding tank. When the volume limit is
achieved, the air-vapor mixture is routed
to the CRA processing unit. The air-
vapor mixture is first compressed and
then passed to a cooler-condenser
section where some liquid is condensed
and recovered. The remaining mixture is
sent to an absorption section where the
gasoline vapors are absorbed in chilled
gasoline.
Six CRA-.type vapor processing
systems were tested by EPA, totaling 16
days of testing. All of the systems tested
incorporated vapor holders in the
systeifi design. Average daily processor
outlet emission rates ranged from 41.5
mg/liter to 91.0 mg/liter. Processor
efficiences ranged from 61.4 percent to
94.8 percent.
Compression-refrigeration-
condensation systems are similar in
operation to the CRC systems. The air-
vapor mixture is saturated and then
stored in a vapor holding tank. The air-
vapor mixture is compressed and any
condensed liquid is collected. The
remaining mixture then passes through a
series of refrigerated condenser sections
before exiting to the atmosphere.
Two CRC vapor processing systems
were tested, totaling five days of testing.
One system tested had serious leakage
problems from the vapor holder. No
method was available to estimate the
leakage so the outlet emissions could
not be adjusted for comparison to the
other tests. Processor efficiency was
IV-XX-7
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 17, 1980 / Proposed Rules
also not calculated because the vapor
leakage took place after the inlet
sampling location. The two test days
with complete results indicated emission
rates of 48.4 mg/liter and 55.9 mg/liter,
and processor efficiencies of 89.0
percent and 91.5 percent.
The final system evaluated was the
lean oil absorption system. The LOA
system is basically an absorption
system where the gasoline vapors,
which are predominantly lighter
molecular weight hydrocarbons, are
absorbed in a "lean oil," which is lean in
light ends. The air-vapor mixture is
introduced into the bottom of the
absorption column and passes
counter-current to lean oil, generated on
site, which is sprayed from the top of the
tower. The recovered liquid is returned
to storage.
One lean oil absorber processing
system was tested, consisting of three
days of testing. The daily average
emission rate ranged from 73.0 mg/liter
to 130.0 mg/liter with processing
efficiency ranging from 74.1 percent to
85.9 percent.
Most of the systems evaluated were
designed and installed to meet an 80
mg/liter (or about 90 percent efficiency)
standard as required in many SIPs. The
test data, however, reflect the potential
of most of the systems to achieve a
higher control efficiency.
As mentioned earlier, vapor leakage
from tank trucks can be a major source
of VOC emissions during terminal
loading operations. As the gasoline or
other liquid product is being loaded,
most of the displaced vapors are
collected and 'contained in the vapor
collection system. However, some
vapors may leak out of the hatch covers,
pressure-vacuum (P-V) vents, and other
vapor containment components on the
tank truck to the atmosphere
uncontrolled. Since, in this case, only
part of the displaced vapor volume is
collected and controlled, the overall
efficiency of the vapor control system is
reduced. Vapor tightness requirements
on the delivery tank would reduce the
fugitive emissions problem at the
loading racks. No vapor tightness
requirements were in effect at any of the
terminals tested in the EPA control
system test program. Vapor leakage for
individual loadings varied from 0 to 100
percent. The average vapor leakage was
approximately 30 percent.
To control these emissions, a
maintenance program would be
necessary. Such a program would
consist of inspecting gaskets and seals
for wear or crackling, hatch covers for
warpage, and P-V vents to ensure that
they seat properly. The maintenance
program would involve repairing or
replacing any items in the tank truck
vapor containment equipment that might
allow vapors to escape. The ability of
the delivery tank to maintain vapor
tightness is dependent upon the loading
method, maintenance program, and the
type of service to which the tank is
exposed. In separate EPA-sponsored
program (EPA Report No. EPA-450/3-
79-018), delivery tank trucks were tested
in an area where a vapor tightness
program was implemented, in this area,
delivery tank trucks were required to
pass an annual certification test which
verified the vapor tightness of the tank.
In this program, the annual average
vapor leakage from the tested delivery
tank trucks was reduced to about 10
percent.
Emissions through leaking tank trucks
can be increased by improperly
designed loading rack vapor collection
systems. For example, if two trucks are
loading simultaneously, vapor collected
from one truck may pass through the
vapor piping to another rack and escape
through a non-vapor-tight truck. The
leaking tank represents the path of least
resistance to the atmosphere for the
vapors in the loading rack collection
system. This has been observed in
several terminal tests. This problem can
be eliminated by the installation of
check valves or similar devices in the
vapor collection system which would
not allow vapors to pass from one
loading rack to another. This design has
been used at several terminals.
Regulatory Alternatives. Regulatory
alternatives were developed which
represent technically feasible levels of
control for reducing VOC emissions
from bulk gasoline terminals. The units
of milligrams per liter (mg/liter) were
used to compare the vapor processing
systems tested and were, therefore, used
to distinguish between emission
reductions achiveable by each of the
alternatives.
Based on review of the technical
support data, four regulatory
alternatives were selected. Under
Alternative I no standards would be
developed. Instead, the State
Implementation Plans (SIP's) would be
relied upon to control VOC emissions
from bulk gasoline terminals. SIP
regulations for VOC generally require
controls only in the areas which do not
meet National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for ozone (non-attainment
areas). However, 17 States are expected
to require SIP controls statewide by
1982. A typical SIP regulation for
gasoline loading at bulk terminals would
require the routing of vapors to a vapor
processing system and would limit the
emission rate from the processor outlet
to 80 mg/liter. The emission rate of 80
mg/liter is roughly equivalent to 90
percent control efficiency. The typical
SIP would also contain a requirement
for gasoline delivery tanks to pass an
annual vapor-tight test to minimize
fugitive vapor losses at the loading
terminal. It was estimated that SIP
regulations on tank truck loadings and
vapor tightness would affect
approximately 70 percent of new and
existing terminals by 1982.
The remaining three alternatives
reflect two basic levels of control for
vapor processing equipment installed at
terminals, but represent three levels of
overall emission reduction. Each of
these three alternatives would require
that affected facilities be equipped with
vapor collection equipment. Emission
limits would be met using vapor
processing equipment similar to the
systems tested by EPA. Emission test
results indicate that most of the vapor
processing systems which are now being
installed to meet existing emission limits
could, in fact, meet a more stringent
standard.
Alternative II would require the SIP
emission limit of 80 mg/liter and would
also require that liquid product loadings
Into gasoline tank trucks be restricted to
trucks which were vapor-tight. Emission
reductions from the baseline would be
experienced under Alternative II since
all new, modified, or reconstructed
terminals not covered by the SIPs would
be regulated by Alternative II. These
terminals would include those in
attainment areas not regulated by SIPs.
The test data indicate that the carbon
absorption, thermal oxidation,
refrigeration, CRA, and CRC vapor
processing systems could meet the
emission limits of Alternative II.
Alternative III would set a VOC
emission limit based on 35 mg/liter as
determined from the available test data.
This alternative would have no specific
tank truck vapor-tight requirements and
would rely on the SIPs to control tank
truck fugitive emissions in non-
attainment areas. Tank truck fugitive
emissions in attainment areas would
remain uncontrolled under Alternative
III. Inspection of the test data revealed
that the carbon adsorption system and
thermal oxidation system with vapor
holder were roughly equivalent, giving
the most consistent results in reducing
VOC emissions. Emission rates from
carbon adsorption systems ranged from
1.8 to 11.0 mg/liter, averaging 5.9 mg/
liter. Thermal oxidizer systems using a
vapor holder produced emissions
ranging from 1.4 to 29.4 mg/liter, for an
average of 13.3 mg/liter. Although
average emissions from carbon
IV-XX-8
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 244 / Wednesday, December 17, 1980 / Proposed Rules
adsorption systems were slightly lower.
the cost analysis indicated that the
thermal oxidation system using a vapor
holder is the most cost-effective system
fur small terminals.
This is important since about half of
the affected facilities are expected to be
in the smallest model plant size.
The highest adjusted daily emission
rate from the applicable tests on carbon
adsorption and thermal oxidizer with
vapor holder systems was
approximately 29 mg/liter. This adjusted
emission rate represents the calculated
rate which would have occurred in a
vapor-tight collection system, based on
actual measured emissions and an
adjustment factor based on
measurements of tank truck vapor
leakage during testing. In order to allow
a small margin above the highest
adjusted emission rate from the tested
systems, a level of 35 mg/liter was
selected as the emission limit for the
regulatory alternative. It appears that
refrigeration, as well as carbon
adsorption and thermal oxidation, has
the capability to achieve this limit,
although some operational or design
modifications might be required for
specific systems.
Alternative IV is similar to
Alternative III in that it would limit the
vapor collection system emissions to 35
mg/liter. This emission limit is based on
the same control technologies as in
Alternative III. In addition, Alternative
IV would require that liquid product
loadings into gasoline tank trucks be
restricted to vapor-tight trucks.
Model plants were developed for new.
modified, and reconstructed terminals in
order to analyze and compare the
environmental, energy, and economic
impacts of each regulatory alternative.
Four model plants were selected to
represent the cross-section of daily
gasoline throughputs found in the bulk
gasoline terminal industry. Gasoline
throughputs selected for comparison and
analysis were 380,000 liters/day (100,000
gallons/day), 950,000 liters/day (250.000
gallons/day), 1,900,000 liters/day
(500,000 gallons/day), and 3,800,000
liters/day (1,000,000 gallons/day). New
terminals are best represented by the
three larger model plant sizes while
existing terminals are best represented
by the three smaller model plant sizes.
Impacts of Regulatory Alternatives.
Under Alternative I, in the absence of
additional standards of performance,
there would be no VOC emission
reduction beyond the reductions due to
the SIPs, which will result in a 1982
baseline VOC emission level of 140,000
megagrams per year (Mg/year).
Under Alternative II, the 1982 baseline
level would be reduced by 5,750 Mg/
year by 1985. This represents a
reduction of about 60 percent, from 9.150
Mg/year to 3.410 Mg/year, in the VOC
emissions from all new, modified, and
reconstructed terminals.
Under Alternative III, nationwide
VOC emissions would be reduced by
4.510 Mg/year by 1985. Emissions from
affected terminals would be reduced by
about 50 percent, from 9,150 Mg/year to
4,650 Mg/year by 1885. The lower
emission reduction of Alternative III
when compared to Alternative II
illustrates the significance of tank truck
vapor leakage. Even though processor
outlet emissions under Alternative III
would be reduced from 80 mg/liter to 35
mg/liter, the absence of a requirement
that terminals restrict loadings of
gasoline tank trucks to vapor-tight
trucks more than offsets the additional
VOC reduction.
Under Alternative IV, nationwide
VOC emissions by 1985 would decrease
by 6,620 Mg/year. The reduction in VOC
emissions from affected terminals during
this period would be about 70 percent.
from 9,150 Mg/year to 2,540 Mg/year.
The regulatory alternatives would
apply to all new, modified, or
reconstructed terminals but would affect
terminals in non-attainment areas
differently than terminals in attainment
areas. New and existing terminals in
non-attainment areas would be
regulated by SIP requirements and
would therefore have some type of
vapor control system already installed.
Most terminals in attainment areas
would not be controlled by SIPs and
would experience the greatest effects of
the regulatory alternatives. Terminals in
attainment areas would experience
different effects depending upon the
type of loading currently used at
existing terminals or that which would
have been used by a new terminal in the
absence of additional standards. There
are two basic methods by which
delivery tanks can be loaded at bulk
terminals, top loaded through the
hatchways on top of the tanks, or
bottom loaded through adapters at the
bottom of the tanks. Top splash loading
involves inserting a nozzle into the
hatchway and splashing the incoming
product onto the surface of the product
in the tank. Attaching a fixed or
extensible downspout to the loading arm
allows product to be introduced below
the liquid surface (submerged loading).
Bottom loading can also be considered a
form of submerged loading. Generally,
top splash loading results in greater
VOC emissions than submerged loading.
Thus, greater emission reductions would
be achieved under any of the regulatory
alternatives when controlling top splash
loading terminals compared to terminals
using submerged loading.
VOC emissions for model plants
would vary for each alternative. Under
Alternative II, new, modified, or
reconstructed terminals in non-
attainment areas would experience no
VOC emissions reduction. The emission
limits for existing terminals in non-
attainment areas under SIP regulations
are identical to the limits under
Alternative II. In an attainment area,
under Alternative II, a terminal with a
gasoline throughput of 950,000 liters per
day which previously used submerged
loading would experience a VOC
emission reduction of 137 Mg/year (from
194 Mg/yr to 57 Mg/yr). For the same
throughput terminal which previously
used top splash loading, a VOC
emission reduction of 408 Mg/yr (from
465 Mg/yr to 57 Mg/yr) would be
experienced under Alternative II.
Under Alternative III, a 950,000 liter/
day terminal in a non-attainment area
would experience an VOC emission
reduction of 19 Mg/yr (from 57 Mg/yr to
38 Mg/yr). For a submerged loading
terminal in an attainment area, a VOC
emission reduction of 87 Mg/yr (from
194 Mg/yr to 107 Mg/yr) would be
experienced. If splash loading were used
prior to control, this same terminal
would experience a VOC emission
reduction of 358 Mg/yr (from 465 Mg/yr
to 107 Mg/yr) under Alternative III.
For a 950,000 liter/day terminal in a
non-attainment area, emission
reductions under Alternative IV would
be the same as the emission reduction
achieved under Alternative III, 19 Mg/yr
(from 57 Mg/yr to 38 Mg/yr). For a
950,000 liter/day terminal in an
attainment area, emission reductions
achieved under Alternative IV would be
156 Mg/yr (from 194 Mg/yr to 38 Mg/yr)
for a terminal which used submerged
loading and 427 Mg/yr (from 465 Mg/yr
to 38 Mg/yr) for a terminal which
previously used splash loading.
Thermal oxidation systems emit
carbon monoxide (CO) and oxides of
nitrogen (NO,) during the combustion of
VOC vapors. A thermal oxidation
system at a 950,000 liter/day terminal
would emit approximately 0.8 Mg/yr of
CO and 0.3 Mg/yr of NO,. A worst case
situation would be one in which 25
percent of the 50 modified or
reconstructed terminals by 1985 were to
install thermal oxidation systems, and
all of these facilities had gasoline
throughputs of about 950,000 liters per
day. In this case, nationwide CO
emissions would increase by 10 Mg/yr
and nationwide NO, emissions would
increase by 4 Mg/yr. For both of these
pollutants, the emission increases
-IV-XX-9
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 17, 1980 / Proposed Rules
represent a small adverse nationwide
air pollution impact.
Impacts on water pollution from any
of the alternatives considered would be
negligible, since none of the control
systems considered uses water as a
collection medium. Carbon adsorption
systems using steam in the regeneration
mode would have the greatest impact on
water pollution. All of the steam would
be condensed and any gasoline present
in the condensed liquid would be
separated in the terminal's gasoline/
water separator. However, there are no
steam-regenerated carbon adsorption
systems currently installed at bulk
terminals, and the vacuum-regenerated
systems currently in use will represent
the primary carbon adsorption
technology at bulk terminals into the
foreseeable future. All other systems
which chill or condense the air-vapor
mixture use a gasoline/water separator
integrated into their design, and
discharge a small amount of condensed
water vapor. The impacts on water
pollution are the same for each of the
regulatory alternatives because
essentially the same control equipment
is being assumed for each alternative.
Because all of the VOC emissions are
incinerated or returned to storage as
liquid product, there would be no direct
solid waste impacts under the regulatory
alternatives. Some solid waste could be
generated indirectly due to disposal of
activated carbon from carbon
adsorption units after the useful life of
the carbon had expired. The worst case
for solid waste impact would occur if all
affected facilities were to use carbon
adsorption units for control and had to
dispose of the activated carbon every 10
years. This would result in only about
50.000 kilograms (55 tons] of solid waste
annually. Even in this worst case, the
impact of the alternatives on solid waste
would be negligible. In practice, not all
affected facilities are expected to
choose carbon adsorption for control,
and in many cases the carbon may last
longer than 10 years or may be
transported off-site for regeneration and
reuse.
The energy impacts were derived by
assuming that all VOC emissions
reduction was recovered as liquid
product, and that one liter of this liquid
product was equivalent to one liter of
gasoline. It is assumed for a vapor-tight
vupor collection system, that no part of
the recovered product is lost to the
atmosphere on the way to the storage
tank. In addition, although the VOC
liquid may not have the exact
composition of gasoline, the liquid is
returned to the storage tank where each
liter becomes absorbed and is available
for loading into tank trucks as gasoline.
The energy required to operate the
vapor processing equipment was
subtracted to determine the nat energy
impact of each alternative.
A net energy savings would result
from each of the regulatory alternatives.
A net energy savings for each
alternative is projected even though it is
assumed that as many as half of the
small new, modified, or reconstructed
terminals may install thermal oxidizer
systems, which do not recover energy
and have a small net energy loss.
Alternative II would accomplish a net
fuel savings of 8 million liters (2.1
million gallons) of gasoline per year in
the fifth year of the standard.
Alternative III would recover 8 million
liters (1.6 million gallons) of gasoline per
year in the fifth year.
Because it results in the greatest
recovery of VOC, Alternative IV would
result in the greatest net energy savings.
Alternative IV would recover 9 million
liters (2.4 million gallons) of gasoline per
year in the fifth year of the standard.
A net energy savings would result
from each of the model plant sizes for
any of the vapor control systems except
thermal oxidizer systems. Energy
savings would range from'an average of
144,000 liters per year (38,000 gallons per
year) of gasoline for the smallest model
plant (gasoline throughput 380,000 liters/
day) to an average of 1,540,000 liters per
year (407,000 gallons per year) of
gasoline for the largest model plant
(gasoline throughput 3,800,000 liters/
day). A net energy loss ranging from
2,600 liters of gasoline per year for the
small model plants to 22,000 liters of
gasoline per year for the largest mode!
plants would result through the use of
thermal oxidizer systems.
The total capital and annualized costs
to the bulk gasoline terminal industry
were determined for each regulatory
alternative. Capital costs include the
purchase and installation of vapor
collection and processing systems,
retrofit of tank trucks to bottom loading
and vapor recovery configurations, and
conversion of top loading racks to
bottom loading. Annualized costs
include capital charges, utilities,
maintenance and repairs, and routine
operating labor. Alternatives II and IV
would require an additional cost to
perform an annual vapor-tight test and
subsequent repairs on tank trucks.
In addition to the incremental costs
incurred by bulk terminals under the
regulatory alternatives, there would be a
cost impact on owners of the "for-hire"
tank trucks operating at terminals. For-
hire tank trucks are those trucks owned
by independent companies, which
transport products from bulk terminals
to other distribution points. For-hire
trucks are estimated to constitute about
70 percent of the tank trucks at bulk
terminals. Companies operating for-hire
tank trucks would have to install
compatible loading and vapor recovery
equipment on their tank trucks which
serve affected bulk terminals. Since
several configurations of adapters are
possible, the regulation would require
compatible equipment to ensure that
tank truck and terminal vapor collection
systems could be connected during
product loading. All trucks not already
having bottom loading and vapor
recovery provisions would be retrofitted
with this equipment, and thus there
would be a cost impact on these
companies as a result of the proposed
standards. It is estimated that 390, or 2
percent, of the estimated 18,000 for-hire
tank trucks would be affected in the first
five years. Approximately 85 of these
would have to convert to botton loading
and incorporate vapor recovery
provisions, at $8,400 per tank truck, and
305 would have to add vapor recovery
provisions only, at $2,400 per tank truck.
Annualized costs to the for-hire tank
truck industry would include the cost of
maintaining the vapor recovery
equipment and, under Alternatives II
and IV, the cost of performing an annual
vapor-tight test on each gasoline tank
truck.
The total capital cost to the bulk
gasoline terminal industry for the
installed vapor control equipment
necessary to meet Alternative II on the
55 new, modified, or reconstructed
terminals expected through the first five
years of the standard would be
approximately $23.0 million. The
terminal industry annualized cost in
1985 would be $3.3 million. The total
capital cost to the for-hire tank truck
industry through the first five years
would be approximately $1.3 million.
Annualized cost to the tank truck
industry in 1985 would total
approximately $0.7 million, due to
incremental maintenance and testing
requirements. The overall annualized
cost-effectiveness in 1985 expected
under Alternative II would be $696/Mg
($632/ton) of VOC controlled.
Under Alternative III. the total capital
cost for vapor control equipment
necessary through the first five years
would be approximately S24.0 million.
The industry annualized cost in 1985
would be $4.1 million. The total capital
cost to the for-hire tank truck industry
through 1985 would be about $1.3
million, and the annualized cost in 1985
would total about $0.6 million. The
industry annualized cost-effectiveness
in 1985 expected under Alternative III
IV-XX-10
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 244 / Wednesday, Decembor 17. 1980 / Proposed Rules
would be S1.042/Mg ($946/ton) of VOC
controlled.
Under Alternative IV, the total capita]
cost to the terminal industry for vapor
control equipment necessary through the
first five years of the standard would be
approximately $24.0 million. The
terminal industry annualized cost in
1985 would be $3.6 million. As in
Alternative II, the total capital cost to
the for-hire tank truck industry through
1985 would be about $1.3 million, and
the annualized cost in 1985 would total
about $0.7 million. The overall
annualized cost-effectiveness in 1985
expected under Alternative IV would be
$650/Mg (590/ton) of VOC controlled.
A mix of current control technologies
being installed to achieve 80 mg/liter
was used to establish the capital cost
figures for Alternative II. Three of the
four technologies used could, in fact,
meet an emission limit of 35 mg/liter.
These three technologies were then used
to establish the capital costs for
Alternatives III and IV. Because the
costs of all the control technologies
considered are similar and because
much the same equipment was used to
establish the capital costs for each
alternative, the resultant capital costs
for Alternatives II, III, and IV are similar
To meet the emission limits of any of the
alternatives, the vapors from tank trucks
would have to be collected and routed
to the terminal collection system.
Therefore, the costs for tank truck
retrofitting would be the same for each
alternative. The differences in net
annualized cost among the alternatives
result from differing product recovery
cost credits at affected terminals, and
the inclusion of tank truck vapor-tight
requirements under Alternatives II and
IV.
For Alternative II, cost assessments
were performed on the carbon
adsorption, thermal oxidizer,
refrigeration and compression-
refrigeration-absorption vapor
processing systems for each model plant
size. Operating costs for the
compression-refrigeration-condensation
system are considered comparable to
the CRA system. The lean oil absorption
system was not included in the analysis
because the test data indicated that the
system tested would not be able to meet
the requirements of Alternative II. For
Alternatives III and IV, COF(
assessments were performed on the
carbon adsorption, thermal oxidation.
and refrigeration vapor processing
systems only. The test data indicated
the inability of the CRA or CRC systems
to meet a 35 mg/liter limit. For all of the
alternatives, the thermal oxidizer system
would be competitive with the other
units only at the smaller model plant
sizes. All other systems evaluated are
comparable when considering
annualized costs.
A secondary, or add-on, vapor
processor could be chosnn by the owner
or operator of an existing SIP-controlled
facility which became an affected
facility under the proposed standards.
Add-on systems, primarily carbon
adsorption and thermal oxidation, have
been used at bulk terminals to increase
the control efficiency of existing
processing systems. Selecting an add-on
system to process part of the vapors
would be an option to replacing the
existing system with a more efficient
system designed to handle the entire
load. The add-on option would require
operating and maintaining two
processors, whereas the option of
replacing the system entirely means that
expenses would be incurred for just one
processor. The incremental net
annualized cost for the add-on option is
virtually independent of terminal size,
amounting to approximately $20.000 per
year for an add-on carbon adsorption
system, and $45,000 per year for an add-
on thermal oxidizer system. The
incremental net annualized cost of a
replacement carbon adsorption system
would average approximately $37,400
for any terminal size. Due to the loss of
gasoline recovery cost credits, a thermal
oxidizer system replacing a vapor
recovery system would cost from $43,000
per year to $300,000 per year more than
the costs incurred due to the original
system. As a result, add-on or
replacement thermal oxidizer systems
are likely to be selected for use only at
the smallest bulk terminals.
An economic analysis performed on
each of the regulatory alternatives
investigated impacts for new terminals
and for modified or reconstructed
terminals. New terminals constructed in
previously regulated (non-attainment)
areas will incur no additional costs as a
result of any of the regulatory
alternatives because the collection and
processing systems being installed to
meet SIP requirements are essentially
identical to those systems which would
be considered under the regulatory
alternatives. New terminals in
attainment areas would incur varying
control costs depending on their size
and type of loading. Control costs would
not vary significantly among the
regulatory alternatives, although the
improved product recovery cost credits
under Alternative IV lead to the lowest
net annualized cost of any alternative.
Industry information indicates that no
new 380,000 liter/day bulk terminals are
planned in the first five years of the
proposed standards, because the
potential rate of return on smaller
terminals is not sufficient to encourage
their growth. Terminals in the 950,000
liter/day size category are considered
marginally profitable, even without
additional control costs. Therefore, only
one new terminal of this size is expected
to be constructed in an attainment area
in the first five years of standards. The
two largest model plant sizes, 1,900,000
and 3,800.000 liters/day, are considered
attractive investment possibilities, and
one new 1,900.000 liter/day terminal is
expected to be constructed in an
attainment area in the first five years.
The construction of these two terminals
should not be hindered under any of the
alternatives. The 950.000 liter/day
terminal would have to pass through
most of the control costs to remain a
reasonable investment. The necessary
degree of cost pass-through appears
possible.
Approximately 50 existing bulk
terminals are expected to be.modified or
reconstructed in the five year period
covered by this assessment, with 30 of
these being in attainment areas. The
affected terminals in attainment areas
would be likely to experience the impact
of installing a complete new vapor
collection and processing system where
none existed previously. The remaining
30 affected terminals in non-attainment
areas would experience a lesser impact
because a system to satisfy SIP
requirements would probably already be
in place. Such a system would satisfy
the requirements of Alternative II, but
may require upgrading or partial
replacement under Alternative III or IV.
Existing terminals of the smallest
model plant size (380,000 liters/day)
would have to pass through essentially
all of the control costs in order to
maintain an acceptable rate of return
under any regulatory alternative.
Existing top loaded 950,000 liter/day
terminals in attainment areas would be
in a similar situation because they
would experience the full impact of
converting the loading racks to bottom
loading and installing vapor collection
and processing systems. It is estimated
that 25 of the former case and two of the
latter case will occur in the first five
years of the proposed standards. In
general, full cost pass-through would be
unlikely due to competition from other
existing terminals and from consumer
pressure as indicated by current
conservation patterns. However, it is
likely that most of the control costs will
be able to be passed through, allowing
most of the 50 modified or reconstructed
terminals to experience acceptable post-
control returns on investment. Capital
IV-XX-11
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 244 / Wednesday, December 17, 1980 / Proposed Rules
availability would not be adversely
affected by any of the regulatory
alternatives. The larger terminals should
not encounter any difficulty in meeting
the control costs resulting from
modifications or reconstructions under
any alternative. Terminals in non-
attainment areas which replace,
upgrade, or add onto an existing control
system should also be able to maintain
an acceptable return on investment. It
should be noted that the control costs
under any regulatory alternative are
similar to those being borne by a large
number of terminals as a result of State
VOC regulations.
The current trend toward the
consolidation of existing facilities of
marginal profitability can be expected to
continue under the proposed standards,
but the analysis does not indicate any
additional closures. The cost pass-
through analyses for both new and
existing terminals indicate that
maximum price increases of less than
0.6 percent would result from any
regulatory alternative. It should be
noted that this increase would not affect
nationwide gasoline prices, but
represents a worst case situation within
the bulk terminal industry due to
complete cost pass-through.
The regulatory alternatives would
affect the independent tank truck
industry with minor impacts. The
profitability of the firms in the industry
would not be impacted significantly
since regulatory cost absorption would
be minimal. Most of the regulatory costs
would be passed through to the
consumer, causing a maximum increase
in retail gasoline prices of less than 0.07
percent for any of the alternatives. It
should be noted that this increase would
not affect nationwide gasoline prices,
but represents a worst case situation
within the independent tank truck
industry due to complete cost pass-
through. Additionally, no closures or
dislocations of tank truck firms are
expected to result from any of the
regulatory alternatives.
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act
requires that standards of performance
be based on the degree of emission
reduction which the Administrator
judges to be achievable through
application of the best technological
system of continuous emission
reduction, considering costs, non-air
quality health and environmental
impacts, and energy requirements.
which has been adequately
demonstrated. Therefore, in selecting
the basis of the proposed standards, the
Administrator first examined
Alternative IV, which would achieve the
greatest reduction in VOC emissions.
This alternative would result in a net
energy savings of approximately 9
million liters (2.4 million gallons) of
gasoline in the fifth year of the standard,
which is more than any other
alternative. Water and solid waste
impacts are essentially negligible under
this alternative. Both total capital and
net annualized costs to the bulk terminal
and for-hire tank truck industries are not
excessive under Alternative IV. Small
bulk terminals, which would bear the
greatest economic impact, would be
likely to be able to pass through most of
the control costs in order to remain
viable. Even the product price increases
on the order of 1 percent which could
occur if full cost pass-through were
possible for terminals are considered
reasonable. The price increases due to
costs incurred by for-hire tank truck
firms would be the same for any
alternative. Finally, test data indicate
that systems have been demonstrated
that can achieve the emission limitation
required by this alternative. After
consideration of these factors, the
Administrator selected Alternative IV as
the basis for the proposed standards. It
is noted that Alternative IV would'
achieve a greater VOC emission
reduction at less annualized cost than
Alternative III.
Selection of Format of Proposed
Standards
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act
requires the promulgation of standards
of performance, establishing allowable
emission limitations for a category of
stationary sources, whenever it is
feasible to promulgate and enforce
standards in such terms. Standards of
performance are considered not feasible
to promulgate or enforce when either (1)
a pollutant or pollutants cannot be
emitted through a conveyance designed
and constructed to emit or capture such
pollutant, or (2) the application of
measurement methodology to a
particular class of sources is not
practicable due to technological or
economic limitations. If the
Administrator judges that it is not
feasible to prescribe or enforce a
standard of performance, Section lll(h)
allows the promulgation of a design,
equipment, work practice, or operational
standard, or combination of these,
which reflects the best technological
system of continuous emission reduction
(taking into consideration the cost of
achieving such emission reduction, and
any non-air quality health and
environmental impact and energy
requirements) which has been
adequately demonstrated.
As discussed earlier, VOC emissions
at tank truck loading racks are
generated when the incoming product
displaces air-vapor mixture from the
truck-mounted tanks. At an uncontrolled
loading rack, the entire quantity of
mixture is emitted directly to the
atmosphere through open hatch covers
or vents. The vapor control systems
currently being used at bulk gasoline
terminals collect the air-vapor mixture
displaced from tank trucks and route the
mixture to a vapor processing system.
The mixture is conveyed to the
processor through vapor collection
systems installed on the tank trucks and
on the bulk terminal's loading rack
system. Even in controlled systems,
VOC emissions may occur from the
loading operation due to vapor leakage
from closed gasoline tank trucks during
product loading. These VOC leakage
emissions originate at various points on
the tank, such as leaking pressure-
vacuum vents and defective hatch
covers and seals. Due to the fugitive
nature of these emissions, it is not
feasible to collect the escaping vapors
and route them through a conveyance.
Since tank leakage measurements at the
loading racks do not provide a
quantitative measurement of total VOC
concentration, flow rate, or mass
emissions, an enclosure around a
loading tank truck would be necessary
in order to trap emissions for
measurement. An enclosure and
conveyance to accomplish this is not
technologically or economically
practicable. Due to these considerations,
the Administrator determined that a
standard of performance, in the form of
a numerical emission limit, could not be
set, and that a work practice standard
would be appropriate for controlling
tank truck vapor leakage emissions.
Two methods of defining tank truck
vapor tightness and regulating leakage
emissions under a work practice
standard were considered. The first
method would require the use of a
portable combustible gas detector
during product loading to detect leaks.
Any measurement in excess of a
specified limit would define a leaking
tank. However, the terminal owner or
operator may not have control over the
maintenance of all trucks loading at his
terminal. Also, many terminals use
automated billing equipment which
allows the tank truck driver to load the
tank without any interaction with
terminal personnel. At these terminals, a
requirement that each loading be
monitored would represent an excessive
burden. For these reasons, the
regulatory format requiring leak
monitoring of each gasoline tank truck
during product loading was not selected
by the Administrator.
IV-XX-12
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 17. 1980 / Proposed Rules
The second method would require the
terminal owner or operator to restrict
loadings of gasoline tank trucks to those
which had passed an annual vapor-tight
test. This test would be a pressure test
of the delivery tank itself and would
yield a quantitative measure of tank
leakage. Test data show that annual
testing and subsequent leakage repair
can reduce the average annual tank
truck emissions from 30 percent before
repair to 10 percent of the vapors
displaced during product loading. This
work practice standard format would
consist of a requirement that the owner
or operator of an affected facility
restrict product loadings of gasoline
tank trucks to those for which he
possessed documentation that the tank
had passed the vapor-tight test within
the 12 preceding months. This format
would provide some control over
leakage emissions and would not
impose an excessive burden on bulk
terminal owners or operators. No direct
requirements would be placed on
operators of for-hire tank trucks which
load at affected loading racks. Because
this format is the most practical means
of controlling emissions from tank
trucks, it was selected by the
Administrator as the format for the work
practice standard.
As discussed previously, in order to
set a numerical emission limit for the
loading operation at regulated loading
racks, the total VOC emissions would
have to be measurable, so that a
comparison with this emission limit
could be made. Since the small portion
of the displaced vapors which may leak
from the tank trucks cannot be
quantitatively measured, accurate
measurements of total VOC emissions
from tank truck loading are not possible.
However, the major portion of the
displaced vapors can be measured after
the vapors are collected at the loading
rack. Vapor collection systems typically
include the equipment at the loading
rack used to contain and route
emissions, and generally consist of
hoses or arms, manifolding, piping, and
check valves. This type of system is
consistent with the current state-of-the-
art collection systems in use at many
existing bulk terminals. Because of its
demonstrated control effectiveness, and
because it is not possible to set a
standard of performance for the total
emissions from the loading operation, an
equipment standard requiring a vapor
collection system at each loading rack
was selected by the Administrator as
the format for controlling VOC
emissions at the loading racks.
If there were leaks in the terminal's
vapor collection system, some or all of
the displaced vapors would not reach
the vapor processor and would escape
to the atmosphere uncontrolled. Leak
sources can include flanges and other
connections, valves, and pressure relief
devices (such as those used in vapor
holders). Leakage in excess of 80
percent of the displaced vapors has
been found in some EPA tests at bulk
terminals. In order for control measures
to be effective, leakage from the vapor
collection and processing equipment
must be minimized. Section lll(h)(l) of
the Clean Air Act directs the
Administrator to include as part of any
equipment standards promulgated under
§ lll(h) "such requirements as will
assure the proper maintenance of any
such ... equipment." Periodic visual
monitoring of the equipment required by
these proposed standards and repair of
observed leaks would minimize VOC
leakage without imposing an
unreasonable burden on terminal
owners and operators. Therefore, the
proposed standards include such an
inspection-and-repair requirement
aimed at enhancing the effectiveness of
the proposed standards.
Because emissions from the vapor
collection system can be measured,
standards of performance in the form of
a numerical emission limit can be
applied to the vapor collection system.
Several formats for these standards of
performance are possible. Three formats
considered for limiting emissions from
the vapor collection system include a
concentration standard, a control
efficiency standard, and a mass
emissions standard. It is assumed that a
vapor processing system would be used
under any of these formats to achieve
the required emission limit.
A format expressed in terms of
concentration would limit the VOC
concentration in the exhaust from the
vapor processing system. The advantage
of the concentration format is that a test
method to determine VOC concentration
does not require flow measurements.
These data are required to convert
concentration measurements to mass
emission measurements. There are,
however, several disadvantages to a
concentration format. The test data
indicate a variation in exhaust gas flow
rates and concentrations among the
various systems. Flow rates are high
through the thermal oxidizer system,
which uses large amounts of combustion
air, and are low through the refrigeration
and CRA systems, which use no outside
air in their operation. In addition, the
vacuum regenerated carbon adsorption
system uses warm purge air to enhance
the desorption. These variations in
amount of dilution air would require
adjustments to compare the systems on
an equal basis. The outlet
concentrations also vary from system to
system and between similar systems
manufactured by different companies.
Separate concentration limits might be
required for each type of control sytstem
at each affected terminal if a
concentration format were,selected.
Information from the manufacturers
and results from the testing program
indicate that the control efficiencies of
the processing systems are dependent
on the inlet concentration to the
processor. The test data further indicate
that concentrations at the inlet of the
processor vary considerably from
terminal to terminal. This variation is
caused by many factors which can
include temperature, pressure, vapor
tightness of tank trucks, loading method.
and whether vapor balancing of tank
trucks is used. Vapor balancing consists
of routing the vapors, displaced during
loading of the customer tank, back to the
delivery tank truck. Because of the many
factors which may affect the vapor
processor inlet concentration,
adjustment calculations to compare all
terminals on an equal inlet
concentration would be very difficult.
Two forms of a mass standard format
were considered. The first of these mass
formats was an adjusted mass emission
limit. An adjusted limit method
estimates the volume of vapor loss due
to tank truck leakage and assumes that
this vapor loss is controlled by the vapor
processor at the same efficiency as that
measured during the source test. These
estimated "processed" truck leakage
emissions are then added to the
emissions actually measured at the
vapor processor outlet to arrive at the
adjusted emission rate. This adjustment
method, therefore, calculates the
emissions from the tank truck loading
operation assuming there is no vapor
leakage in the vapor collection system.
The adjusted emissions method was
used to normalize the test results from
all the terminals tested so that all
control systems could be compared on
an equivalent leak-free basis.
The disadvantages of the adjusted
mass emission format include: (1) a
complex and expensive test procedure,
and (2) the mathematical adjustment of
an accurately measured value (actual
VOC mass emissions from the processor
outlet) to obtain the emission limit. The
test procedure required to determine the
adjusted limits would be identical to the
procedure used in the EPA emission
testing program. The test procedure
requires three days of testing and
requires measurements to be taken at
the processor outlet, at the vapor
IV-XX-13
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 17, 1980 / Proposed Rules
collection system inlet at the loading
rack, and at the tank truck hatches for
detection of leaks. This test would
typically cost $15,000 to conduct.
The second of the mass formats, a
mass standard based upon the vapor
processor outlet emissions, would
involve a simpler, less expensive, and
more straightforward test procedure.
The vapor processor outlet test would
require measurement of the VOC mass
emissions at the processor outley only.
The emission test procedure, therefore,
would not require any mathematical
adjustments of the measured VOC mass
emissions. The test procedure would be
further simplified by requiring only one
day of testing. It is estimated that this
type of test would cost from $5,000 to
$10,000, depending on the type of
processor being tested.
The difference between the processor
outlet mass emission format and the
adjusted mass emission format is that
the variable of fugitive tank truck
emissions due to leakage is not taken
into account under the outlet mass
emissions format. However, since
neither approach would actually control
the fugitive emissions, additional testing
complexity and cost are considered to
be unwarranted. Due to these
considerations, a mass emission format,
based on measurements at the outlet of
the vapor processor only, was selected.
Selection of Numerical Emission Limits
As discussed previously in the section
entitled "Regulatory Alternatives," the
numerical limit for Regulatory
Alternative IV, which was selected to
represent the performance of the best
systems tested by EPA at bulk
terminals. Although measured emissions
from all types of processing systems are
highly variable, two of the control
technologies achieved consistently low
emissions. Three tests on carbon
adsorption systems, and two tests on
thermal oxidation systems using a vapor
holder to release accumulated vapors to
the processor on a batch basis.
indicated that these two types of
systems represented the best control
technology for this application. These
two types of control systems were
selected to represent the best
technological system of continuous
emission reduction, as required by
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act.
The highest adjusted daily emission
rate of 29 mg/liter for these two types of
systems led to the selection of 35 mg/
liter as the emission limit for the
proposed standards. It should be noted •
that any system capable of achieving
this limit would be acceptable. Some of
the test data and comments from
manufacturers of vapor processors
indicate that several types of systems
could be designed to achieve an
emission limit of 35 mg/liter. Design
variables could include equipment
sizing, increased utilities consumption,
and improved system reliability.
The vapor processors designed for
VOC control at bulk gasoline terminals
require regular maintenance attention in
order to consistently achieve the
emission limit for which they are
designed. Proper maintenance for these
units generally includes frequent (at
least daily) visual inspections in order to
monitor competent operation, fluid
levels, warning lights, pressures,
temperatures, presence of leaks, and
other miscellaneous items.
Manufacturers frequently supply
inspection checklists to facilitate these
routine checks, and some terminals have
developed individual lists for their own
use. Most terminals incorporate such
inspections into the normal duties of
their maintenance personnel, which
include routine checks of loading racks,
storage tanks, pumps, and other terminal
equipment. Of course, the inspections
themselves do not maintain the proper
operation of vapor processors, but any
necessary repairs indicated through
atypical readings, sounds, etc., can be
implemented rapidly to minimize
downtime.
Each type of vapor processor has
different maintenance requirements due
to varying system size and complexity,
types of components, and operating time
and sequencing. Refrigeration systems
require daily checks of several
subsystems and components. Defrost
system pump pressure, as well as fluid
levels and temperatures, should be
checked regularly. Oil levels, pressures,
and temperatures in the precooler and
refrigeration systems require regular
inspection. Liquid recovery meters and
condenser coil temperature records on
some units indicate the level of
performance of the units. Maintenance
on carbon adsorption systems includes
checks of cycle timing and bed vacuum
and temperatures. Elapsed system
operation time meters on some systems
provide an indication of proper system
operation and can indicate maintenance
intervals. Maintenance of thermal
oxidation systems may include daily
observation of the activation sequence
and inspection of pilots and burners.
Sight ports are generally provided so
that the condition of the flame can be
observed. Vapor holders in these
systems should be frequently inspected
for leaks, and the high and low level
switches checked for proper operation.
All vapor processors are provided with
indicator panels to warn of
malfunctions, and most have automatic
shutdown or interlock systems. These
systems provide automatic indication
that maintenance attention may be
required. The annual costs to maintain
vapor processing systems, including
routine inspections and the expected
typical repair costs, have been
considered in determining the cost
impact on affected terminals.
The vapor-tight test for gasoline tank
trucks, Reference Method 27. would
require applying a pressure of 4,500
pascals (450 millimeters of water) to the
delivery tank and require that the tank
sustain a pressure loss of not more than
750 pascals (75 millimeters of water) in 5
minutes from the initial pressure level.
The applied pressure value of 4,500
pascals represents the pressure at which
tank P-V vents begin to open to relieve
tank pressure. Thus, this value was
selected for the test limit used to
determine tank vapor tightness. This test
has been used successfully in California
since 1977. Note that only the pressure
test, and not the vacuum test, of
Reference Method 27 would be
applicable under the proposed
standards. Only the pressure test is
required because tank truck vapor
leakage during product loading occurs
only when the delivery tank is under
positive pressure (product displacing
vapors out of the tank). These limits for
the tank truck vapor-tight test represent
a vapor containment efficiency of 99
percent after testing. However, the tanks
do not remain vapor-tight all year. Leaks
can occur in the vapor containment
equipment due to wear and tear during
loading, lodging of foreign material on
valve seats, or equipment shock during
over-the-road travel. Tests show that the
average annual containment efficiency
of leak-tested tanks decreases to about
90 percent.
Back pressure from the vapor
collection and processing equipment
should not exceed the pressure limit of
the tank truck vapor-tight test. If the
back pressure exceeds this pressure
limit, leaks may occur even from tanks
which have passed the vapor-tight test.
Therefore, to eliminate the problem of
system back pressure causing leaks in
the delivery tanks during loading, the
vapor collection and processing systems
must be designed so that the system
back pressure, measured at the loading
rack, will always be less than the
pressure limit of the tank truck pressure
test. This is accomplished in practice by
specifying the proper piping diameter
and length, minimizing the number of
flow control components such as check
valves, and selecting a vapor processor
which is properly sized to match the
IV-XX-14
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, N'o. 244 / Wednesday, December 17, 1980 / Proposed Rules
activities at the terminal.
Therefore, the proposed standards
would require that the terminal's
collection and loading systems be
designed so that the test pressure limil
of 4.500 pascals (450 mm of water) will
not be exceeded in the delivery tank
during product loading.
The pressure-vacuum (P-V) vents
commonly used in bulk terminal vapor
collection systems are designed to open
to relieve any system pressure which
exceeds a predetermined value. These
vents should not open at any pressure
value which may occur in a normally
operating system. Since system back
pressure may reach the pressure limit of
the tank truck pressure test, the P-V
vents must not begin to open at any
pressure less than this pressure limit.
Vents opening at a lower pressure could
unnecessarily allow uncontrolled VOC
emissions to escape to the atmosphere.
Therefore, the proposed regulation
would require that these vents have the
capacity to.-contain the vapors in the
system under the operating pressure
range of the system.
Modification/Reconstruction
Considerations
Modification, as defined in § 60.14 of
Chapter I, Title 40, of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR), occurs when
any physical or operational change to an
existing facility results in an increase in
the emission rate to the atmosphere of
any pollutant to which a standard
applies.
Investigation of the bulk gasoline
terminal industry indicated that there
are several changes at a bulk terminal
which could constitute a modification
under § 60.14. The criteria for
determination of modification would be
applied to the entire affected facility,
which i;-, designated as the total of all
the loading racks which service gasoline
tank trucks. For example, any loading
rack conversion resulting in a net
increase in the emission rate to the
atmosphere from an existing facility
could be considered a modification, and
the existing facility would become an
affected facility. A second example
would be a physical change to an
existing facility which resulted in
increased product throughput. However,
according to § 60.14(e)(2), such a change
would not be considered a modification
unless it required a capital expenditure,
as defined in § 60.2. For example, the
addition of a new loading position,
which would require a capital
expenditure, to an existing facility with
a resulting increase in throughput and in
net emission rate would be considered a
modification.
Reconstruction, as defined in § 60.15
of Chapter 1, Title 40 of the CFR, occurs
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 it is shown that it is
technically and economically feasible to
Meet !hi! applicable standards. The 50
percent capital cost figure for
reconstruction is a cumulative value of
the replacement components for the
existing facility. Upon replacement of
components, the Administrator would
determine, on a case-by-case basis,
whether a reconstruction had taken
place and whether the existing facility
would become an affected facility under
the standards.
As in the case of modification, the
determination as to whether
reconstruction had taken place would be
made by applying the criteria to the
entire affected facility, which is
designated as the total of all the loading
racks which service gasoline tank
trucks. Again, investigation of the bulk
gasoline terminal industry has indicated
certain component repairs and
replacements which would be
considered under the reconstruction
provisions. Top to bottom loading
conversions of the loading racks, for
example, usually exceed the 50 percent
fixed capital cost criterion. If so, these
conversions would be reviewed under
the reconstruction provisions. The
Administrator reviews these
conversions on a case-by-case basis
and, as specified in § 60.15(f), his
decision is based upon the following: (1)
the fixed capital costs of the
replacement components, (2) the
estimated life of the facility, (3) the
extent to which the components being
replaced cause or contribute to the
emissions from the facility, and (4) any
economic or technical limitations on
compliance with applicable standards of
performance which are inherent in the
proposed replacements. Considering the
above items, the Administrator would
then determine if the top to bottom
loading conversion would constitute a
reconstruction.
Replacement or unscheduled major
repairs of such items as loading arms,
pumps, or meters may not by themselves
exceed the 50 percent replacement cost
of a new facility. However, since the 50
percent replacement cost is a cumulative
figure, these unscheduled major repairs
and replacements would be included in
reaching the 50 percent criterion.
Normal maintenance items are not
included in this determination of the 50
percent replacement cost. Normal
scheduled maintenance items include
pump seals, meter calibrations, gaskets
and swivels in loading arms, coupler
gaskets, and overfill sensor repairs.
Items which typically require
replacement under a normal
maintenance program include vapor
hoses and grounding cables at the
loading rack.
Selsction^of Performance Test Melhnits
The VOC concentrations in the vapor
processor exhaust would be determined
using either EPA Reference Method 25A
or 25B. Method 25A, "Determination of
Total Gaseous Organic Concentration
Using a Flame lonization Analyzer,"
applies to the measurement of total
gaseous organic concentration of vapors
consisting of alkanes, alkenes, and/or
arenes (aromatic hydrocarbons). The
concentration is expressed in terms of
propane (or other appropriate organic
compound) or in terms of organic
carbon.
A sample is extracted from the source
through a heated sample line and glass
fiber filter and routed to a flame
ionization analyzer (FIA). Results are
reported as concentration equivalents of
the calibration gas organic constituent.
carbon, or other organic compound.
Method 25B, "Determination of Total
Caseous Organic Concentration Using a
Nondispersive Infrared Analyzer," is
similar to Method 25A and applies to the
measurement of total gaseous organic
concentration of vapor consisting
primarily of alkanes. The concentration
is expressed in terms of propane or in
terms of organic carbon. The sample is
extracted as described in Method 25A
and is analyzed with a nondispersive
infrared analyzer (NDIR). Results are
reported as propane equivalents or as
carbon equivalents.
Volumetric flow rate of the exit gases
from the vapor processor outlet would
be measured using EPA Reference
Method 2A or 2B. Method 2A, "Direct
Measurement of Gas Volume Through
Pipes and Small Ducts," 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 to 50°C. A gas
volume meter is used to directly
measure gas flow. Temperature and
pressure measurements are made to
correct the volume to standard
conditions.
Method 2B, "Determination of Exhaust
Gas Volume Flow Rate from Gasoline
Vapor Incinerators," applies to the
measurement of exhaust volume flow
rate from incinerators that process
gasoline vapors consisting generally of
alkanes, alkenes, and/or arenes
(aromatic hydrocarbons). It is assumed
IV-XX-15
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 17. 1980 f Proposed Rules
that the amount of auxiliary fuel is
negligible. The incinerator exhause flow
rale is determined by carbon balance.
Organic carbon concentration and
volume flow rate are measured at the
incinerator inlet. Organic carbon, carbon
dioxide, and carbon monoxide
concentrations are measured at the
outlet. The ratio of total carbon at the
incinerator inlet and outlet is multiplied
by the inlet volume flow rate to
determine the exhaust flow rate.
Methods 2A, 2B, 25A, and 25B are
essentially the same methods used on
existing bulk gasoline terminals to
establish the majority of the data base
used in the development of the proposed
standards. The tests conducted to
establish the data base used three 8-
hour test repetitions to average out
environmental effects on the vapor-to-
liquid volume (V/L) measurements,
because temperature and pressure
variations in the vapor collection system
can affect the vapor volume measured at
the inlet to the processor. These V/L
values were used to adjust the measured
mass emissions to account for leakage.
The proposed test procedures would
measure the processor .outlet only and
do not require any adjustments.
However, the owner or operator may
adjust the emission results to exclude
methane and ethane, which are
consiJered negligibly photochemically
reactive and do not appreciably
contribute to the formation of ozone, a
policy announced in EPA's
"Recommended Policy on the Control of
Volatile Organic Compounds," 42 FR
35314 (July 8,1977). No reference
methods have been promulgated by EPA
for specific measurement of methane
and ethane. However, these compounds
can be measured by gas
chromatographic analysis, or any other
method approved by the administrator.
Since no V/L measurements are require
for adjustment, the proposed test
procedures incorporate one 6-hour
averaging period. The test period is
considered to represent the performance
of the vapor processing systems. A
minimum of 300.000 liters of gasoline
would have to be loaded in order for the
test period to be valid. This volume of
gasoline represents 7 to 10 truck
loadings, which is considered to be the
minimum number required to allow
system performance to be adequately
evaluated. Conducting a performance
test using these procedures would cost a
facility between $5.000 and $10.000,
depending on the type of processor
being tested.
At many terminals, switch loading is
practiced, as discussed in the section
entitled "Selection of Pollutants and
Affected Facilities." There are two
major types of switch loading of concern
with regard to the testing of VOC
emissions generated during tank truck
loading. First, gasoline may be loaded
into a tank which has carred a non-
volatile product, such as diesel fuel, on
the previous load. This tank would
contain essentially no VOC vapors, so
the VOC emissions during loading
would be negligible. Second, a product
such as diesel fuel may be loaded into a
tank which has carried gasoline on the
previous load. The VOC vapors from the
previous load of gasoline would be
displaced by the incoming product.
At a particular terminal the tank truck
population is static over the short term,
and each tank truck operates at just that
one terminal. Therefore, the frequency
of each of the two types of switch
loading discussed above would be about
equal, and the quantity of VOC
emissions could be accounted for by
considering only the volume of gasoline
dispensed during a given time period.
This approach to determining emissions
at a terminal would simplify the test
procedure, tf the liquid volume of all
products dispensed into gasoline tank
trucks during the performance test were
considered, then the liquid volume not
displacing gasoline vapors would have
to be subtracted form the total volume
loaded in order to correlate the VOC
mass emitted with the corresponding
liquid volume. This procedure would
require that each driver be asked which
product was carried on the previous
load. Based on the information obtained,
only the loadings displacing gasoline
vapors would be added to obtain the
total volume to be used in the
calculations. However, since the
accuracy of this information would
depend on the knowledge of several
individuals who may not know the facts.
and because it may require extra test
personnel to question the drivers, this
procedure is not considered to be the
most practical method of conducting the
performance test.
The procedure which considers only
the volume of gasoline loaded during the
test relies on a known quantity which
can be obtained directly from dispensing
meters, instead of relying on uncertain
data. The two cases of switch loading
essentially cancel each other in terms of
their effects on the test results.
Therefore, the proposed standards
would require emissions to be
calculated in terms of the total volume
of gasoline dispensed during the
performance test. Since excessive
practice of switch loading has the
potential to affect the test results by
increasing the apparent emission level.
especially if there were extra
unbalanced instances of nonvolatile
product loadings into tanks containing
gasoline vapors, it is recommended that
switch loading be minimized during the
performance test.
If there are leaks in the vapor
collection system, part of the displaced
vapors will escape to the atmosphere
and not be controlled by the vapor
processor. In order for the emission
limitation from the collection system to
be effective, any leakage in the system
should be repaired as soon as possible.
For this reason, the proposed standards
would require that the vapor collection
and processing systems, as well as the
affected loading racks, be visually
inspected for liquid or vapor leaks on a
monthly basis. The costs presented for
the proposed standards include costs for
inspection of the control equipment to
ensure proper operation and
maintenance. Visual inspections for
leaks would be part of these inspections
and would impose no costs in addition
to those already reported. Such
inspections would require perhaps one
hour to accomplish, and would not
impose an unreasonable burden on a
terminal owner or operator. In fact such
inspections are already a routine
practice at many bulk terminals. Under
the proposed regulation, a summary of
the findings during the inspections
would be required as part of the
quarterly written report of excess
emissions required by the General
Provisions, § 60.7(c). The repair interval.
i.e., the length of time allowed between
the detection of a leak and repair of the
leak, selected for the leak inspection
requirement is 15 days. This repair
interval would allow effective VOC
emission reduction to be maintained.
while not being burdensome to the
terminal operator.
In addition to the monthly inspection,
potential sources of vapor leaks would
be monitored immediately prior to a
system performance test using EPA
Reference Method 21, which applies to
determination of VOC leaks from
organic liquid and vapor processing
equipment. A portable instrument is
used to detect VOC leaks from
individual sources. All leaks would have
to be repaired before the test was
conducted. This ensures that the vapor
processing system is processing the total
flow of air-vapor mixture while the
performance of the system is being
evaluated.
The terminal operator should accept
vapor tightness test documentation only
for gasoline delivery tank truck testing
conducted according to EPA Reference
Method 27. "Determination of Vapor
IV-XX-16
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 17, 1980 / Proposed Rules
Tightness of Gasoline Delivery Tanks
Using Pressure-Vacuum Test." This
method is applicable for the
determination of vapor tightness of a
gasoline delivery tank which is
equipped with vapor collection
equipment. The cost to perform this
annual test would be about $100, plus an
average additional repair cost of $50.
Variations on this test method are
acceptable only with the approval of the
Administrator.
Selection of Monitoring Requirements
There are presently no demonstrated
continuous monitoring systems
commercially available which monitor
vapor processor exhaust VOC emissions
in the1 units of the proposed standard
(mg/liter). This monitoring would
require measuring not only VOC
exhaust concentration, but also exhaust
gas volume flow rate, volume of product
dispensed, temperature, and pressure.
Therefore, continuous monitoring in
units of the standard would not be
required at this time.
Monitoring equipment is available to
monitor the operational variables
associated with vapor processing
system operation. Monitoring of
operations indicates whether tlie vapor
processing system is being properly
operated and maintained, and whether
the processor is continuously reducing
VOC emissions to an acceptable level.
The variable which would yield the best
indication of system operation is VOC
concentration at the processor outlet.
Extremely accurate measurements
would not be required since the purpose
of the monitoring would not be to
determine the exact outlet emissions but
rulher to indicate operational and
maintenance practices regarding the
vapor processor. Monitors for this type
of continuous VOC measurement
typically cost about $6,000. To achieve
representative VOC concentration
measurements at the processor outlet,
the concentration monitoring device
should be installed in the exhaust vent
at least two equivalent stack diameters
from the exit point, and protected from
any interferences due to wind, weather,
or other processes.
For some vapor processing systems,
monitoring of a process parameter may
yield as accurate an indication of
system operation as the exhaust VOC
concentration. For example, temperature
monitoring in the case of thermal
oxidation or refrigeration systems may
indicate proper operation and
maintenance of these systems.
Parameter monitoring equipment would
typically cost about $3,000. Because
control system design is constantly
changing and being upgraded in this
industry, all acceptable process
parameters for all systems cannot be
specified. In general, the regulation
allows for substituting the monitoring of
vapor processing system process
parameters for monitoring of exhaust
VOC concentration if it can be
demonstrated to the Administator's
satisfaction that the value of the process
parameter is indicative of proper
operation of the processing system and
is related to the exhaust VOC content.
Monitoring of these parameters would
be approved by the Administrator on a
case-by-case basis. Continuous
monitoring systems which are a part of a
vapor processor's design may substitute
for the requirement to install a separate
system, with the approval of the
Administrator.
For any system installed to monitor
operations, a recording device must also
be installed so that a permanent time
record of the measured parameter is
produced.
EPA has not yet developed
performance specifications for these
monitors, but a program is underway to
develop these specifications.
Consequently, until EPA proposed and
promulgated monitor performance
specifications, owners and operators
subject to the requirement to install a
vapor processor continuous monitoring
system will not be required to do so.
For purposes of excess emissions
reports required under § 60.7(c), the
period of time selected as the averaging
time is a 6-hour clock period. This time
interval was selected to coincide with
the time interval specified in the
performance test. The VOC
concentration or parameter limit for the
excess emissions report would be
determined during the performance test.
After EPA establishes and promulgates
monitor performance specifications, the
monitoring equipment must be operating
during the performance test to establish
the average VOC concentration or
process parameter value. This average
value from the monitoring device
becomes the limit for the excess
emissions report. The quarterly excess
emissions report would indicate the
amount of time during periods of vapor
processing system operation that the
average value of the VOC concentration
or process parameter value exceeded
the average value of the parameter
established during the performance test.
It is possible that each installation may
have a different monitoring limit.
Impacts of Reporting Requirements
The proposed standards for bulk
gasoline terminals would require the
terminal operator to keep on file
documentation that all gasoline delivery
tunk trucks loading at the terminal had
passed an annual vapor-tight test
performed according to Method 27. The
documentation would include the name
of the tester, the test location and dale,
and the test results. These records
would be kept on file at the terminal in a
permanent form available for inspection,
and would be updated at least once per
year to reflect current information. The
other type of report required under the
proposed standards would be a
summary report reflecting the findings
on the monthly leak inspection. The
preparation and filing of this report
would represent only a modest increase
in a bulk terminal's reporting
requirements. These reports would be
submitted quarterly with each report of
excess emissions required under the
General Provisions.
The General Provisions require three
additional types of reports. First, then-
are notification requirements which
would enable the Agency to keep
abreast of facilities subject to the
standards of performance. Second, there
would be reporting of performance test
results which would show that a fadlity
is meeting the standards initially. Third.
there would be quarterly reports of
excess emissions which would be
quarterly reports of excess emissions
which would permit the Agency to
determine whether the emission control
system installed to comply with the
standards is being properly operated
and maintained.
The resources needed by the industry
to maintain records and to collect,
prepare, and use the reporting through
the first five years after proposal of the
standard would be about 26 man-years.
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 this 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 to the Central Docket Section
address given in the ADDRESSES
section of this 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).
IV-XX-17
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 17, 1980 / Proposed Rules
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 (2) to serve as
the record in case of judicial review.
Miscellaneous
As prescribed by Section 111.
establishment of standards of
performance for bulk gasoline terminals
was preceded by the Administrator'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
unticipated 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 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, monitoring
requirements, and proposed test
methods.
It should be noted that 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 lll(a)(l)].
Although there may be emission
^control technology available that can
reduce emissions below those levels
required to comply with standards of
performance, this technology might not
be selected as the basis of standards or
performance due to costs associated
with its use. Accordingly, standards of
performance should not be viewed as
the ultimate in achievable emission
control. In fact, the^ct requires (or has
the potential for acquiring) the
imposition of a more stringent emission
standard in.several situations.
For example, applicable costs do not
necessarily play as prominent a role in
determining the "lowest achievable
emission rate" for new or modified
sources locating in non-attainment
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 new
or modified sources constructed in an
area where ambient pollutant
concentrations exceed the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(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 as that rate of emissions based on
whichever of the following is more
stringent:
(A) the most stringent emission
limitation which is contained in the
implementation plan of any State for
such class of category of source, unless
the owner or operator of the proposed
source deomonstates that such
limitations are not achievable, or
(B) the most stringent emission
limitation which is achieved in practice
by such class or category of source.
In no event may the emission rate
exceed any applicable new source
performance standard [Section 171(3)J.
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 BACT result in emissions of any
pollutants which 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 may in some cases
require gre&ter emission reductions than
those required by standards of
performance for new sources.
Finally, Stales 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 performance
promulgated under Section lll(b) of the
Act. An economic impact assessment
was prepared for the proposed
regulations and for other regulatory
alternatives. All aspects of the i
assessment were considered in me
formulation of the proposed standards
to ensure that the proposed standards
would represent the best system of
emission reduction considering costs.
The economic impact assessment is
included in the Background Information
Document.
Dated: December 8,1980.
Douglas M. Costle,
Administrator.
It is proposed that 40 CFR Part 60 be
amended as follows:
1. By adding a new subpart as follows:
Subpart XX—Standards of Performance for
Bulk Gasoline Terminals
SKC.
60.500 Applicability and designation of
affected facility.
60.501 Defintions.
00.502 Standards for volatile organic
compound emissions from bulk gasoline
terminals.
60.503 Test methods and procedures.
60.504 Monitoring of operations.
60.505 Recordkeeping.
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 XX—Standards of
Performance for Bulk Gasoline
Terminals
§ 60.500 Applicability and designation of
affected facility.
(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 that commences
construction or modification after
(date of publication in Federal Register
IV-XX-18
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 17, 1980 / Proposed Rules
is subject ID the provisions of this
subpHrt.
(c) The provisions of § 60.504 will not
apply until EPA has established and
promulgated performance specifications
for the monitoring devices. After the
promulgation of performance
specifications, these provisions will
apply to each affected facility under
paragraph (b) of this section.
$ 60.501 Definitions.
The terms used in this subpart art;
defined in the Clean Air Act. in § 60.2 of
this part, or in this section as follows:
"Bulk gasoline terminal" means any
wholesale gasoline outlet which
receives gasoline by pipeline, ship, or
barge.
"Continuous vapor processing
system" means a VOC vapor processing
system that treats VOC vapors collected
from gasoline tank trucks on a demand
basis without intermediate
accumulation in a vapor holder.
"Gasoline" means any petroleum
distillate or petroleum distillate/alcohol
blend having a Reid vapor pressure of
27.6 kilnpascals or greater which is used
as a fuel for internal combustion
engines.
"Gasoline lank 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 VOC vapor processing
system that employs an intermediate
vapor holder to accumulate the collected
vapors from gasoline tank trucks, and
treats the accumulated vapors only
during automatically controlled cycles.
"Loading rack" means the loading
arms, pumps, meters, shutoff valves,
relief valves, check valves, electrical
grounding, and lighting necessary to fill
delivery tank trucks.
"Vapor collection system" means any
equipment used for containing VOC
vapors displaced during the loading of
gasoline tank trucks.
"Vapor processing system" means any
equipment used for recovering or
oxidizing VOC vapors.
"Vapor-tight gasoline tank truck"
means a gasoline tank truck which has
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.
"Volatile organic compound (VOC)"
means any organic compound which
participates in atmospheric
photochemical reactions; or which is
measured by Reference Methods 25A,
25B. and 21.
§ 60.502 Standard for Volatile Organic
Compound (VOC) emissions from bulk
gasoline terminate.
On and after the date on which tho
performance test required under by
§ 60.8 is completed, the owner or
operator of a bulk gasoline terminal
containing an affected facility shall
comply with the requirements of this
section.
(a) Each loading rack which loads
gasoline tank trucks shall be equipped
with a vapor collection system designed
to collect the VOC vapors displaced
from tank truck vapor collection systems
during loading.
(b) The bulk gasoline terminal's vapor
collection system shall be designed to
prevent any VOC vapors collected at
one loading rack from passing to
another loading rack.
(c) The emissions to the atmosphere
from the bulk gasoline terminal's vapor
collection system due to the loading of
liquid product into gasoline tank trucks
are not to exceed 35 milligrams of VOC
per liter of gasoline loaded.
(d) Loadings of liquid product into
gasoline tank trucks shall be restricted
to vapor-tight gasoline tank trucks only.
(e) Loadings of liquid product into
gasoline tank trucks shall be restricted
to those equipped with vapor recovery
equipment that is compatible with the
bulk gasoline terminal's vapor collection
system.
|f) The bulk gasoline terminal's and
the tank truck's vapor collection
systems shall be connected during each
landing of a gasoline tank truck.
(g) The vapor collection and liquid
loading equipment shall be designed and
operated to prevent gauge pressure in
the delivery tank from exceeding 4,500
pascals (450 mm of water). This level is
not to be exceeded when measured by
the procedures specified in § 60.503(b).
(h) No pressure-vacuum vent in the
bulk gasoline terminal's vapor collection
system shall begin to open at a system
pressure less than 4,500 pascals (450 mm
of water).
(i) Each calendar month, the vapor
collection system, the vapor processing
system, and each loading rack handling
gasoline shall be visually inspected
during the loading of gasoline tank
trucks for liquid or vapor VOC leaks.
Each detection of a leak shall be
recorded and the source of the leak
repaired within 15 calendar days after it
is detected. A summary of each set of
three consecutive inspection records
shall be submitted with the next
quarterly report required under § 60.7(c).
§ 60.503 Test methods and procedures.
(a) For the performance tests. § 60.8(1")
does not apply.
(b) For the purpose of determining
compliance with the pressure regulation
of § 60.502(g), the following procedures
shall be used:
(1) Calibrate and install a liquid
manometer, or equivalent, capable of
measuring up to 500 mm of walor «mi;>
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 244 / Wednesday. December 17, 1980 / Proposed Rules
already in the vapor holder until the
lower automatic cutoff is reached. This
should be done immediately prior to the
beginning of testing.
(4) An emission testing interval during
the performance test shall consist of
each 5 minute period or increment
thereof, while the vapor processing
system is operating; and each 15 minute
period or increment thereof, while the
Viipor processing system is not
operating.
(5) For each testing interval:
(i) The reading from each
measurement instrument shall bn
recorded, and
(ii) The volume exhausted and the
average VOC concentration in the
exhaust vent, as specified in the
appropriate test method, shall be
determined.
(6) The volume of gasoline dispensed
during the performance test period at all
loading racks whose vapor emissions
arc controlled by the processing system
being tested shall be determined. This
may be determined from terminal
records or from gasoline dispensing
meters at each loading rack.
(7) The mass emitted for each testing
interval shall be calculated as follows:
M,.--in t;K VMC,
where:
M,. - mass of VOC emitted at the
exhaust vent, mg.
V,, - volume of air-vapor mixture
exhausted. mjat standard
conditions.
C,. --- VOC concentration (as measured)
at the exhaust vent. ppmv.
K - density of calibration gas. mg/m". at
standard conditions
- 1.83 < 10s for propane
--2.41 -106 for butane.
s - standard conditions. 20°C and 760
mm Hg.
(H| The VOC omissions shall be
calculated as follows:
.
ei
when;:
K .- m;iss of VOC emitted per volume of
gasoline loaded, mg/l.
I. • total volume of gasoline loaded, I.
M,., -mass of VOC emitted for each
testing interval i, mg.
n number of testing intervals.
(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 (42
U.S.C. 7414))
§ 60.504 Monitoring of oparations.
(a) The owner or operator of each
affected facility shall install, calibrate.
operate, and maintain a monitoring
system to continuously measure the
VOC concentration of the exhaust vent
stream of the vapor processing system
to determine the proper operation of
each system.
(b) Upon application to the
Administrator, monitoring of a vapor
processing system process parameter
may be substituted for the measurement
of the exhaust vent VOC content, if it
can be demonstrated to the
Administrator's satisfaction that the
value of the process parameter is
indicative of proper operation of the
system and is related to the exhaust
vent VOC content. Monitoring of
process parameters must be approved
on a case-by-case basis by the
Administrator.
(c) Each monitoring device shall be
installed, calibrated, operated, and
maintained according to accepted
practices and the manufacturer's
specifications.
(d) The VOC concentration monitoring
device shall be installed in a location
that is representative of the VOC
concentration in the exhaust vent, at
least two equivalent stack diameters
from the exhaust point, and protected
from any interferences due to wind.
weather, or other processes.
(e) Each monitoring device shall be
equipped with a recording device so that
a permanent time record of the
measured process parameter is
produced.
(f) The exhaust vent VOC
concentration or approved process
parameter shall be continuously
measured and recorded during the
performance test required under § 60.8.
(g) For the purposes of reports
required under § 60.7(c). periods of
excess emissions are defined as any 6-
hour clock periods during which the
average value of the exhaust vent VOC
concentration or measured process-
parameter, during periods of vapor
processing system operation, differs
from the average value measured during
the performance test required under
§60.8.
(h| The owner or operator of each
affected facility shall install and operate
all monitoring equipment before
conducting the performance test
required under § 60.8.
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act HS amended (42
U.S.C. 7414J)
§ 60.505 RecordkMplng.
(a) The owner or operator of each
bulk gasoline terminal containing an
affected facility shall keep on file
documentation that each gasoline-tank
truck loading at that terminal is a vapor-
tight gasoline tank truck. This
documentation shall be kept on file at
the terminal in a permanent form
available for inspection.
(b) 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 Short Title: Gasoline Delivery
Tank Pressure Test—EPA Test Method
27.
(2) Tank Owner and Address.
(3) Tank ID Number.
(4) Testing Location.
(5) Date of Test.
(6) Tester Name and Signature.
(7) Witnessing Inspector, if any:
Name, Signature, and Affiliation.
(8) Test Results: Actual Pressure
Change in 5 minutes, mm of water
(average for 2 runs).
(c) The owner or operator of each bulk
gasoline terminal containing an affected
facility shall keep on file at the terminal
a record of each monthly leak inspection
required under § 60.502(i). 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).
(3) Corrective Action (date each leak
repaired; reasons for any repair interval
in excess of 15 days).
(4) Inspector Name and Signature.
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Art as amended [42
U.S.C. 74141)
2. By adding five new Reference
Methods (Method 2A. Method 2B.
Method 25A. Method 25B. and Method
27) to Appendix A as follows:
Appendix A—Reference Methods
Method 2A. Direct Measurement of Gas
Volume Through Pipes and Small Ducts
1. Applicability ami Principle
t.l Applicability. This method applies to
the measurement of (jus flow rales in pipes
and small ducts, either in-line or at exhaust
positions, within the temperature range of 0
to 50'C.
\.i Principle. A gas volume meter is used
to directly measure gas volume. Temperature
IV-XX-20
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 244 / Wednesday. December 17, 1980 / Proposed Rules
und pressure measurements are made to
correct the volume to standard conditions.
2. Apparatus
Specifiuitions 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.
2.1 Gas Volume Meter. A positive
displacement meter, turbine meter, or other
direct volume measuring device capable of
measuring volume to within 2 percent, the
meter shall be equipped with a temperature
gauge (±2 percent of the minimum absolute
temperature) and a pressure gauge (±2.5 mm
Ilg). The manufacturer's recommended
capacity of the meter shall be sufficient for
the expected maximum and minimum flow
rales at the sampling conditions.
Temperature, pressure, corrosive
characteristics, and pipe size are factors
necessary to consider in choosing a suitable
Ras muter.
2.2 Barometer. A mercury, aneroid, or
other barometer capable of measuring
atmospheric pressure to within 2.5 mm Hg. In
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 30-meter elevation increase, or vice-versa
for elevation decrease.
2.3 Stopwatch. Capable of measurement
to within 1 second.
3. Procedure
3.1 Installation. As there are numerous
types of pipes and small ducts that may be
subject to volume measurement, it would be
difficult to describe all possible installation
schemes. In general, flange fittings should be
used for .ill connections wherever possible.
Gaskets 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 factors that
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
using a liquid leak detector solution
containing a surfactant. Apply a small
amount of the solution to the connections. If a
leak exists, bubbles will form, and the Irak
must be corrected.
A volume meter installed at a location
under negative pressure is very difficult to
test for leaks without blocking flow at the
inlet of the line und 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 rates, 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 so that average
values can be determined. At the end of the
test, stop the timer and record the elapsed
time, the final volume reading, meter
temperature(s). and pressure. Record the
barometric pressure at the beginning and end
of the test run. Record the data on a table
similar to Figure 2A-1.
3.3.2 For sources with noncontinuous.
non-steady emission flow rates, use the
procedure in 3.3.1 with the addition of the
following. Record all the meter parameters
and the start and stop times corresponding to
each process cyclical or noncontiguous event.
4. Calibration
4.1 Volume Meier. The volume meter is
calibrated against a standard reference meter
prior to its initial use in the field. The
reference meter is a spirometer or liquid
displacement meter with a capacity
consistent with that of the test meter.
Alternative references may be used upon
approval of the Administrator.
Set up the test meter in a configuration
similar to that used in the field installation
(i.e.. in relation to the flow moving device).
Connect the temperature and pressure gauges
as they are to be used in the field. Connect
the reference meter at the inlet of the flow
line, if appropriate for the meter, and begin
gas flow through the system to condition the
meters. During this conditioning operation.
check the system for leaks.
BILLING CODE 8S60-28-M
IV-XX-21
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 244 / Wednesday, December 17,1980 / Proposed Rules
3 - ..*
r i CLu
Date
Run Number
Sample Location
Barometric Pressure mm Kg
Operators
Start
Finish
Meter Number
Meter Calibration Coefficient
Last Date Calibrated
Time
Run/clock
Volume
Meter
reading
Average
Static
pressure
tisn Hg
Temperature
°C *K
Figure 2A-1. Volume flow rate measurement data.
BILUNC CODE «SW-N-C
IV-XX-22
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 244 / Wednesday, December 17, 1980 / Proposed Rules
The calibration shall be run over at least
three different flow rates. The calibration
How rates shall be about 0.3. 0.6. and 0.9
nrnes the meter's rated maximum flow rate.
For each calibration run. the data to be
collected include: reference meter initial and
final volume readings, the test meter initial
(Vrf - VH)(tr * 273)
m
Where:
Ym = Test volume meter calibration
coefficient, dimensionless.
Vr = Reference meter volume reading, m3.
Vm=rTcst meter volume reading, m1.
i, = Reference meter average temperature. 'C.
tm = Test meter average temperature, °C.
\\ = Barometric pressure, mm Hg.
P, = Test meter average static pressure, mm
Hg.
f = Final reading for run.
i = Initial reading for run.
Compare the three Yro values at each of the
flow rates tested and determine the
maximum and minimum values. 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 test meter is 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 for an average meter calibration
coefficient, Ym.
The procedure above shall be performed at
least once for each volume meter. Therefore,
an abbreviated calibration check shall be
completed after 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 metei o>er the full range of flow as
described above. Note: If the volume meter
calibration coefficient values obtained before
5.2 Volume.
and final volume reading, meter average
temperature and pressure, barometric
pressure, and run time. Repeal the runs at
each flow rate at least three times.
Calculate the test meter calibration
coefficient, YB. for each run as follows:
Eq. 2A-1
and after a test series differ by more than 5
percent, the test series shall 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
scries, check the temperature gauge at
ambient temperature. Use an 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
temperature 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 calculation.
5.1 Nomenclature.
Pb = Barometric pressure, mm Hg.
P, = Average static pressure in volume meter,
mm Hg.
Q,-Gas flow rate, m'/mm. standard
conditions.
Tm = Average absolute meter temperature, CK.
Vm = Meter volume reading, m".
"Ym = Meier calibration coefficient,
dimensionless.
f-= Final reading for run.
i = Initial reading for run.
s = Standard conditions, 20° C and 760 mm
"g-
6 — Elapsed run time, min.
6. References
6.1 United Slates Environmental
Protection Agency. Standards of Performance-
for New Stationary Sources, Revisions to
Methods 1-8. Title 40, paH 60 Washington.
D.C. Federal Register Vol. 42. No. 160. August
18. 1977.
6.2 Rom, Jerome J. Maintenance.
Calibration, and Operation of Isokinelii:
Source Sampling Equipment. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Research
Triangle Park. N.C. Publication No. AITU-
0576. March 1972.
6.3 Wortrnan, Martin. R. Vollaro. and P. K.
Westlin. Dry Gas Volume Meter Calibrations.
Source Evaluation Society Newsletter. Vol. 2.
No. 2. May 1977.
6.4 Westlin. P. R. and R. T. Shigehjr.-i.
Procedure for Calibrating and Using Dry Ciiis
Volume Meters as Calibration Standards.
Source Evaluation Society Newsletter. Vol. 3.
No. 1. February 1978.
Method 2B—Determination of Exhaust Gas
Volume Flow Rate From Gasoline Vapor
Incinerators
1. Applicability and Principle
1.1 Applicability. This method applies to
the measurement of exhaust volunvj flow ratfi
from incinerators that process gasoline-
vapors consisting of generally non-methane
alkanes, alkenes, and/or arenes (aromatic
hydrocarbons). It is assumed that the amount
of auxiliary fuel is negligible.
1.2 Principle. The incinerator exhaust
flow rate is determined by carbon balance.
Organic carbon concentration and volume
flow rate are measured at the incinerator
inlet. Organic carbon, carbon dioxide (COi).
and carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations
are measured at the outlet. Then the ratio uf
total carbon at the incenerator inlet and
outlet is multiplied by the inlet volume to
determine the exhaust volume and volume
flow rate.
2. Apparatus
2.1 Volume Meter. Equipment described
in Method 2A.
Eq. 2A-2
5.3 Gas Flow Rate.
Eq. 2A-3
IV-XX-23
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 17. I960 / Proposed Rules
2.2 Organic Analyzers (2). Equipment
described in Method 25A or 25B.
2.3 CO Analyzer. Equipment described in
Method 10.
2.4 CO3 Analyzer. A nondispersive
infrared (NUIR) CO3 analyzer and supporting
equipment described in Method 10.
3. Procedure
3.1 Inlet Installation. Install a volume
meter in the vapor line to incinerator inlet
according to Ihe procedure in Method 2A. At
the volume meter inlet, install a sample probe
as described in Method 25A. Alternatively, a
single opening probe may be used so that a
gas sample is collected from the centrally
located 10 percent area of the vapor line
cross-section. Connect to the probe a leak-
tight, heated (if necessary to prevent
condensation) sample line (stainless steel or
equivalent) and an organic analyzer system
as described in Method 25A or 25B.
3.2 F.xhaust Installation. Three analyzers
are required for Ihe incinerator exhaust—
CO2. CO. and organic. A sample manifold
i\ith a single sample probe may be used.
Ins!.iII a sample probe as described Method
25A or. alternatively, a single opening probe
positioned so that a gas sample is collected
fiom Ihe centrally located 10 percent area of
the slack cross-section. Connect a leak-tight
heated sample line to the sample probe. Heal
ihe sample line sufficiently to prevent any
condensation.
n..'i Ri-< -ording Requirements. '1 he output
of each analyzer must be permanently
recorded on an analog strip chart, digital
iecnrder, or olher recording device. The chart
speed or number of readings per time unit
must be similar for all analyzers so thai data
can lie correlated. The minimum data
lecording requirement for each analyzer is
one measurement value per minute during the
incinerator test period.
3.4 Preparation. Prepaie and calibrate all
equipment and analyzers according to the
procedures in the respective methods. All
calibration gases must be introduced at Ihe
connection between the probe and the
sample line. If a manifold system is used for
Ihe exhaust analyzers, 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 gas.
J.5 Sampling. At the beginning of Ihe lest
period, record the initial parameters for the
inlet volume meter according to Ihe
procedures in Method 2\ and mark all of the
recorder strip charts to indicate the start of
the lest. Continue: refolding inlet organic and
exhaust COj. CO. and organic concentrations
throughout the li.sl. During periods of process
interruption and halting of gas flow, stop the
timer arid mark the recorder .strip charts so
that d.it.i from this interruption are not
im.luded in ihe tah.ulalions. At the er,—Exhaust gas volume flow rate. m3/min.
Qu—Inlet gas volume flow rate, nv'/ruin.
t)—Sample run time, min.
s—Standard Conditions: 20"C. 760 mm Hg.
300—Estimated concentration of ambient
COj. ppmv. (COi concentration in the
ambient air may be measured during the
test period using an NDIR and the mean
value substituted into the equation.)
4.2 Concentrations. Determine mean
concentialions of inlet organics. outlet COj.
CO. and outlet organics according to Ihe
procedures in the respective methods and the
analyzers' calibration curves, and for the
time intervals specified in the applicable
regulations. Concentrations should be
determined on a parts per million by voliene
(pprnv) basis.
4.3 Fxhaust Gas Volume. Calculate the
exhaust gas volume as follows:
es
Vis
- 3CO
Eq. 2B-1
4.4 Exhaust Gas Volume Flow Rate. Calculate the exhaust
gas volume flow rate as follows:
Q = -Si
es e
5. ftcfercncTS
5.1 Measurement of Volatile Organic
Compounds. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. Research Triangle Park. N.C.
27711. Publication No. KPA-450/2-7B-041.
October 1978. p. 55.
5.2 Method 10—Determination of Carbon
Monoxide Emissions from Stationary
Sources. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Code of Federal Regulations. Title
40. Chapter 1. part BO. Appendix A.
Washington, D.C. Office of the Federal
Register. March H 1974.
5..1 Melhod 2A—Determination ufCas
Flow R.ite in Pipes and Small Duels.
Trulaliie Melhod. U.S. Environmental
Eq. 28-2
Protection Agency. Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards. Research Triangle
Park, N.C. 27711. March 1980.
5.4 25A—Determination of Total Gaseous
Organic Compounds Using a Flame
lonization Analyzer. Tentative Method. t'.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards.
Research Triangle Park. N.C. 27711. March
1980.
5.5 Method 25B—Determination of Total
Gaseous Organic Compounds Using a
Nondispersive Infrared Analyzer. Tentative
Method. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. Research Triangle Park. N.C.
27^11 March 1980.
IV-XX-24
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 244 / Wednesday. December 17. I960 / Proposed Rules
e
*
Method 25A—Determination of Total
Gaseous Organic Concentration Using a
Flame lunization Analyzer
1. Applicability ami Principle
1.1 Applicability. This method applies to
the measurement of lol.il gaseous organic
concentration of vapors consisting of
nonmethane alkancs. alkenes. and/or arenes
(aromatic hydrocarbons]. The concentration
is expressed in tL-rnis of propane (or other
appropriate organic compound) or in terms of
organic carbon.
1.2 Principle. A pas sampli; is extracted
from the source, through a heated sample
line, if necessary, and glass fiber filter to a
flame iorization analyzer (F1A). Results are
reported as concentration equivalents of the
calibration gas organic constituent, carbon, or
nlher organic compound.
2. Ui-finition.-s
2.1 Measurement System. The total
equipment required for the determination of
the gas concentration. The system consists of
the following major subystems:
2.1.1 Sample Interface. That portion of the
s> stem that is used for one or more of the
following: sample acquisition, sample
transportation, sample conditioning, or
protection of the analyzer from the effects of
the slack effluent.
2.1.2 Organic Analyzer. That portion of
the system thai senses organic concentration
and generates an output proportional to the
gas concentration.
2.2 Span Value. The upper limit of a gas
uncentration measurement range that is
ipecified for affected source categories in the
applicable part of the regulations. For
convenience, the span value should
correspond to 100 percent of the recorder
scale.
2.3 Calibration Gas. A known
c.onccntration of a gas in an appropriate
diluent gas.
2.4 Zero Drift. The difference in the
measurement system output readings before
and after a staled period of operation during
which no unscheduled maintenance, repair,
or adjustment took place and the input
concentration at the time of the
measurements were zero.
2.5 Calibration Drift. The difference in the
measurement system output readings before
and after a stated period of operation during
which no unscheduled maintenance, repair,
oi' adjustment took place and the input
concentration at the time of the
measurements was a mid-level value.
3. Apparatus
A schematic of an acceptable measurement
system is known in Figure 25A-1. The
essential components of the measurement
system are described below:
3.1 Organic Concentration Analyzer. A
flame ionization analyzer (FIA) capable of
meeting or exceeding the specifications in
this method.
3.2 Sample Probe. Stainless steel, or
equivalent, three-hole rake type. Sample
holes shall be 4 mm in diameter or smaller
nd located at 16.7, 50, and 83.3 percent of the
iquivulent stack diametnr.
3.3 Sample Line. Stainless steel or Teflon '
tubing to transport the sample gas to the
analyzers. The sample line should be healed.
if necessary, to prevent condensation in the
line.
3.4 Calibration Valve Assembly. A three-
way valve assembly to direct the zero and
calibration gases lo the analyzers is
recommended. Other methods, such as quick-
connect lines, to route calibration gas to the
analyzers are applicable.
3.5 Particulate Filler. An in-slack or an
out-of-stack glass fiber filter is recommended
if exhaust gas particulate loading is
significant. An oul-of-stack filter should lie
heated to prevent any condensation.
3.6 Recorder. A strip-chart recorder.
analog computer, or digital recorder for
recording measurement data. The minimum
data recording requirement is one
measurement value per minute.-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 Cases
Gases used for calibrations, fuel, ar.d
combustion air (if required) are contained in
compressed gas cylinders of stainless steel or
aluminum. Preparation of calibration gases
shall be done according to the procedure in
Protocol No. 1, listed in Reference 9.2. The
pressure in the gas cylinders is limited by the
critical pressure of the subject organic
component. As a safety factor, the maximum
pressure in the cylinder should be no more
than half the critical pressure. Additionally.
the manufacturer of the cylinder should
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.
Calibration gas usually consists of propane
in air or nitrogen and is determined in terms
of the span value. 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 provided,
use a span value equivalent to 1.5 to 2.5 times
the highest expected concentration. Organic
compounds other than propane can be used
following the above guidelines and making
the appropriate corrections for carbon
number.
4.1 Fuel. A 40 percent H3/60 percent He or
40 percent Hi/60 percent Na gas mixture is
recommended to avoid un oxygen synergism
effect that reportedly occurs when oxygen
concentration varies significantly from a
mean value.
4.2 Zero Gas. High purity air with less
than 0,1 parts per million by volume of
organic material (propane or carbon
equivalent).
4.3 Low-level Calibration Gas. An organic
calibration gas with a concentration
equivalent to 25 to 35 percent of the
applicable span value.
4.4 Mid-level Calibration Gas. An organic
calibration gas with a concentration
equivalent to 45 to 55 percent of the
applicable span value.
'Mention of trade names un specific: products
does not constitute endorsement l>y thu
Environmental Protection Agnncy.
4.5 High-level Calibration Gas. An
organic calibration gas with a concentration
equivalent to 80 to 90 percent of the
applicable span value.
5. Measurement System Pcrformonrn
Specifications
5.1 Zero Drift. Less than ± 1 percent of
the span value.
5.2 Calibration Drift. Less than ± 1
percent of the span value.
6. Pretest Preparations
6.1 Selection of Sampling Site. The
loca'ion of the sampling site is generally
specified by the applicable regulation or
purpose of the test; i.e., exhaust stack, inlet
line. etc. The sample port shall not be located
within 1.5 meters or 2 equivalent diameters
(whichever is less) of the gas discharge lo the
atmosphere.
6.2 Location of Sample Probe. Inslall the
sample probe so that the probe is (entrallj
located in the slack, pipe, or duct and is
sealed tightly at the stack port connection
6.3 Measurement System Preparation.
Prior to the emission test, assemble the
measurement system following the
manufacturer's written instructions in
preparing the sample interface and Ibe
organic analyzer. Make the system operablu.
FIA equipment can be calibrated for almost
any range of total organics concentrations.
For high concentrations of organics (>1.0
percent by volume as propane) modifications
lo mast commonly available analyzers are
necessary. One accepted method of
equipment modification is to decrease the
size of the sample to the analyzer through th»p
use of a smaller diameter sample capillary
Direct and continuous measurement of
organic concentration is a necessary
consideration when determining any
modification design.
6.4 Calibration. Immediately prior to the
test series, introduce zero gas and high-level
calibration gas at the calibration v,)!vt>
assembly. Adjust the analyzer output to the
appropriate levels, if necessary. Then
introduce low-level and mid-level calibration
gases successively to the measurement
system. Record the analyzer responses for all
four gases and develop a permanent record of
the calibration curve. This curve shall be
used in performing the post-test drift checks
and in reducing all measurement data during
the test series. No adjustments to the
measurement system shall be conducted after
the calibration and before the drift check
(Section 7.3). If adjustments are necessary
before the completion of the test scries.
perform the drift checks prior to the required
adjustments and repeal the calibration
following the- adjustments. If multiple
electronic ranges are to be used, each
additional range must be checked with a miJ-
levcl calibration gas to verify the
multiplication factor.
7. Emission Measurement Test Prot.tuhirc
7.1 Organic Measurement. Begin sampling
at the start of the test period, recording time
notations and any required process
information as appropriate. In particular, noli!
on the recording chart periods of process
interruption or cyclic operation.
7.2 Drift Determination. Immediately
following the completion of the test period, or
IV-XX-25
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 17, 1980 / Proposed Rules
if adjustments are necessary For the
measurement system during the test.
leinlroduce the zero and mid-level calibration
gases, one at a time, to the measurement
system at the calibration valve assembly.
(Make no adjustments to the measurement
system until after the drift checks are made.)
Record the analyzer response. If the drift
values exceed the specified limits, invalidate
the test run preceding the check and repeat
the lost run following corrections to the
measurement system. Alternatively.
recalibrate the test measurement system as in
St'ction 6.4 and report the results using the
calibration data that yield the highest
corrected emission concentration.
8. Organic Concentration Calculations
Determine the average organic
concentration in terms of ppmv as propane or
other calibration gas. The average shall be
determined by the integration of the output
recording over the period specified in the
applicable regulation.
If results are required in terms of ppmv as
carbon, adjust measured concentrations using
Equation 25A-1.
Cr - K C „,,„ Eq. 25A-1
Where:
Cr - Organic concentration as carbon, ppmv.
C.m.is = Organic concentration as measured.
ppmv.
K = Carbon equivalent correction factor.
K --• 2 lor ethane.
K - 3 for propane.
K - 4 for butane.
9. Hefarencus
9.1 Measurement of Volatile Organic
Compounds—Guideline Series. U.S.
Rnvironmental Protection Agency Research
Triangle Park. N.C. Publication No. EPA-450/
2--7U-041. June 1978. p. 4C-54.
9.2 Traceability Protocol for Establishing
True Concentrations of Cases Used for
Calibration and Audits of Continuous Source
Emission Monitors (Protocol No. 1). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Environmental Monitoring and Support
Laboratory. Research Triangle Park. N.C.
June 197H. 10 pgs.
9.:t Gasoline Vapor Emission Laboratory
Evaluation—Part 2. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards. Research Triangle
Park. N.C. Report No. 75-CAS-fi. August
lH7.ri. 32 pgs.
BILLING CODE 6560-26-M
IV-XX-26
-------
X
PROBE
HEATED
SAMPLE
LINE
CALIBRATION
VALVE
PARTICULATE
FILTER
I
re
sl
X
4
s
CD
ORGANIC
ANALYZER
AND
RECORDER
SAMPLE
PUMP
STACK
2
p
•
CD
CL
03
a
CB
n
o
o-
re
CO
g
Figure 25A-1. Organic Concentration Measurement System.
BILLING CODE 6S60-M-C
X)
o
ce
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 244 / Wednesday. December 17, 1980 / Proposed Rules
Method 258— Determination of Total
Gaseous Organic Concentration Using a
Nondispersive Infrared Analyzer
t . Applicability and Principle
1.1 Applicability. This method applies to
the measurement of Total gaseous organic
concentration of vapors consisting primarily
of nonmethane alkanes. (Other organic
materials may be measured using the general
procedure in this method, the appropriate
calibration gas. and an analyzer set to the
appropriate absorption band.) The
concentration is expressed in terms of
propane (or other calibration pas) or in terms
of oruanic carbon.
1.2 Principle. A gas sample is extracted
from the source, through a heated sample line
,mA. Section 6.2.
ti.l Measurement System Preparation
I'rior to the emission test, assemble the
measurement system following the
manufacturer's written instructions in
jiri'parins the sample interface and the
or'j'inic analyzer. Make the system operable.
,- ;:-..\. Section 8.
H. Hi-frrt'i!<:t:.i
I he references are the same as in Method
-~i.-\. Section 9.
Method 27—Determination of Vapor
Tightness of Gasoline Delivery Tank Using
Pressure-Vacuum Test
1. Applicability and Principle
1.1 Applicability. This method is
applicable for the determination of vapor
tightness of a gasoline delivery tank which is
equipped with vapor collection equipment.
1.2 Principle. Pressure and vacuum are
applied alternately to the compartments of a
gasoline delivery tank and the change in
pressure or vacuum is recorded after a
specified period of time.
2. Definitions and Nomenclature
2.1 ' Gasoline. Any petroleum distillate or
petroleum distillate/alcohol blend having a
Reid Vapor pressure of 27.6 kilopascals or
greater which is used us a fuel for internal
combustion engines.
2.2 Delivery tank. Any container.
including associated pipes and fittings, that is
attached to or forms a part of any truck or
railcar used for the transport of gasoline.
2.3 Compartment. A liquid-tight division
of a delivery tank.
2.4 Delivery tank vapor collection
equipment. Any piping, hoses, and devices on
the delivery tank used to collect and route
gasoline vapors either from the tank to a bulk
terminal vapor control system or from a bulk
plant or service station into the tank.
2.5 Time period of the pressure or vacuum
test (t). The time period of the test, as
specified in the appropriate regulation, during
which the change in pressure of vacuum is
monitored, in minutes.
2.6 Initial pressure (PJ. The pressure
applied to the delivery tank at the beginning
of the static pressure test, as specified in the
appropriate regulation, in mm HiO.
2.7 Initial vacuum (V,). The vacuum
applied to the delivery tank at the beginning
of the static vacuum test, as specified in the
appropriate regulation, in mm H2O.
2.8 Allowable pressure change (Ap). The
allowable amount of decrease in pressure
during the static pressure test, within the time
period t. as specified in the appropriate
regulation, in mm H2O.
2.9 Allowable vacuum change (Av). The
allowable amount of increase in vacuum
during the static vacuum test, within the time
period t. as specified in the appropriate
regulation, in mm H2O.
3. Apparatus
3.1 Pressure source. Pump or compressed
gas cylinder of air or inert gas sufficient to
pressurize the delivery tank to 500 mm MjO
above atmospheric pressure.
3.2 Regulator. Low pressure regulator for
controlling pressurization of the delivery
tank.
3.3 Vacuum source. Vacuum pump
capable of evacuating the delivery tank to
250 mm H,O below atmospheric pressure.
3.4 Pressure-vacuum supply hose.
3.5 Manometer. Liquid manometer, or
equivalent instrument, capable of measuring
up to 500 mm HiO gauge pressure with i2.5
mm H,O precision.
3.6 Pressure-vacuum relief valves. The
test apparatus shall be equipped with an In-
line pressure-vacuum relief valve set to
activate at 675 mm H»O above atmospheric
pressure or 250 mm H,O below atmospheric
pressure, with a capacity equal to the
pressurizing or evacuating pumps.
3.7 Test cap for vapor recover}' hose. This
cap shall have a tap for manometer
connection and a fitting with shut-off valve
fur connection to the pressure-vacuum supply
hose.
3.8 Caps for liquid delivery hoses.
4. Pretest Preparations
4.1 Emptying of tank. The delivery tank
shall be emptied of all liquid.
4.2 Purging of vapor. The delivery tank
shall be purged of all volatile vapors by any
safe, acceptable method. One method is to
carry a load of non-volatile liquid fuel, such
as diesel or heating oil, immediately prior to
the test, thus flushing out all the volatile
gasoline vapors. A second method is to
remove the volatile vapors by blowing
ambient air into each tank campartment for
at least 20 minutes. This second method is
usually not as effective and often causes
stabilization problems, requiring a much
longer time for stabilization during the
testing.
4.3 Location of test site. The delivery tank
shall be tested where it will he protected
from direct sunlight.
5. Test Procedure
5.1 Preparations.
5.1.1 Open and close each dome cover.
5.1.2 Connect static electrical ground
connections to tank. Attach the liquid
delivery and vapor return hoses, remove the
liquid delivery elbows, and plug the liquid
delivery fittings.
5.1.3 Attach the test cap to the end of the
vapor recovery hose.
5.1.4 Connect the pressure-vacuum supply
hose and the pressure-vacuum relief valve to
the shut-off valve. Attach a manometer to the
pressure tap.
5.1.5 Connect compartments of the tank
internally to each other if possible. If not
possible, each compartment must be tested
separately, as if it were an individual
delivery tank.
5.2 Pressure Test.
5.21 Connect the pressure source to the
pressure-vacuum supply hose.
5.2.2 Open the shut-off valve in the vapor
recovery hose cap. Applying air pressure
slowly, pressurize the tank to P,. the initial
pressure specified in the regulation.
5.23 Close the shut-off valve and allow
the pressure in the tank to stabilize, adjusting
the pressure if necessary to maintain
pressure of P,. When the pressure stabilizes.
record the time and initial pressure.
5.24 At the end of t minutes, record the
time and final pressure.
5.25 Repeat steps 5.2.2 through 5.2.4 until
the change in pressure for two consecutive
runs agrees with ±10mm H,O. Calculate the
arithmetic average of the two results.
5.2.6 Compare the average measured
change in pressure to the allowable pressure
change. Ap. as specified in the regulation. If
Ihe delivery tank does not satisfy the vapor
lightness criterion specified in the regulation.
repair the sources of leakage, and repeat the
pressure lest until the criterion is met.
5.2.7 Disconnect Ihe pressure source from
the pressure-vacuum supply hose, and slowly
IV-XX-28
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 244 / Wednesday. December 17. 1980 / Proposed Rules
open tin; shut-off valve to bring the tank to
atmospheric pressure.
5.3 Vacuum Test.
5.3.1 Connect the vacuum source to the
pressure-vacuum supply hose.
5.3.2 Open the shut-off valve in the vapor
recovery hose c;ip. Slowly evacuate the tank
In V,. the initial vacuum specified in the
regulation.
5.3.3 Close the shut-off \ alvc and allow
the pressure in the tank to stabilize;, adjusting
the pressure if necessary to maintain a
vacuum of V,. When the pressure stabilizes.
record the time and initial vacuum.
5.3.4 At the end of I minutes, record the
time and final vacuum.
5.3.5 Repeat steps 5.3.2 through 5.3.4 until
the change in vacuum for two consecutive
runs agrees within ± 10 mm H,O. Calculate
the arithmetic average of the two results.
5.3.6 Compare the average measured
change in vacuum to the allowable vacuum
change. Av, as specified in the regulation. If
the delivery tank does not satisfy the vapor
tightness criterion specified in the regulation.
repair the sources of leakage, and repeat the
vacuum test until the criterion is met.
5.3.7 Oinconnect the vacuum source from
the pressure-vacuum supply hose, and slowly
open the shut-off valve to bring the tank to
atmospheric pressure.
5.4 Post-test clean-up. Disconnect all test
equipment and return the delivery tank to its
pretest condition.
6. Alternative Procedures
Techniques other than specified above may
be used for purging and pressurizing a
delivery tank, if prior approval is obtained
from the Administrator. Such approval will
be based upon demonstrated equivalency
with the above method.
|FR Doc. 8O-389M Kited 12-16-80; 8:45 .iro|
BILLING CODE e560-26-M
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 17 / Tuesday. January 22» 1981
Proposed Rules
40 CFR Part 60
IAD-FRL 1738-8 Docket No. OAQPS A-79-
52]
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources; Bulk Gasoline
Terminals; Extension of Public Hearing
and End of Comment Period
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Additional public hearing and
extension of comment period.
SUMMARY: This notice announces that
the public hearing which will be held on
January 21,1981, on the proposed new
source performance standards for bulk
gasoline terminals will be continued on
January 28,1981. This second public
hearing day has been scheduled to
•provide interested persons who are
unable to attend the January 21,1981,
hearing an opportunity for oral
presentation of data, views and
arguments concerning the proposed
standard. The end of the comment
period on the proposed standard has
been extended until March 20,1981.
DATES: The second public hearing will
be held on January 28,1981, beginning at
1:00 P.M. Written comments to be
included in the record on the proposed
standard and written comments
responding to, supplementing, or
rebutting written or oral comments
received at the public hearing must be
postmarked no later than March 20,
1981.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed
standards should be submitted (in
duplicate if possible) to Central Docket
Section (A-130), Attention: Docket
Number A-79-52, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW..
Washington. D.C. 20460.
Public Hearing. The January 21 public
hearing will be held at E.R.C.
Auditorium, R.T.P., North Carolina
27711. The January 28 public hearing
will be held at the Office of
Administration Auditorium. R.T.P.,
North Carolina 27711. Persons wishing
to present oral testimony at the January
28 hearing should, if possible, notify
Mrs. Naomi Durkee, Emission Standards
and Engineering Division (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina
27711, telephone (919) 541-5271.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Susan R. Wyatt, Standards Development
Branch (MD-13), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone
number (919) 541-5477.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
December 17,1980, EPA proposed a
standard of performance for new
stationary sources; bulk gasoline
terminals (FR Vol. 45, No. 244, p. 83126).
It was also announced that a public
hearing will be held on January 21,1981,
to receive oral comments on this
proposal and that the end of the
comment period would be February 17,
1981.
Subsequently EPA received a request
from the National Tank Truck Carriers
(NTTC) to postpone the hearing. NTTC
represents for-hire tank truck owners
who would potentially be affected by
the standard, and requested the
postponement to provide additional time
to survey their members. NTTC has
indicated that a one week delay will
provide sufficient additional time.
EPA agrees with this request.
However, this request was not received
in time to give sufficient notice to
persons planning to attend the January
21,1981, hearing. Therefore, the January
21,1981. hearing will be held as
scheduled. However, a continuation
session of the hearing will be held on
January 28.1981, at 1:00 P.M. to hear
NTTC comments and comments from
any other persons who are unable to
attend the January 21,1981, hearing.
Requests for a 60-day delay of the
public hearing and a 60-day delay of the
end of the comment period were
received from the American Petroleum
Institute. This request expressed the
need for additional time to review the
technical information in the proposal.
As a result of this request, the end of the
comment period has been extended to
March 20,1981.
Dated: January 15,1981.
David Hawkins,
Assistant Administrator for Air. Noise, and
Radiation.
|FR Doc. B1-ZM>1 Kilcd 1-26-81: 8:45 urn)
IV-XX-29
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4. 1981 / Proposed Rules
40 CFR Part 60
[AD-FRL-1634-4]
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources; Bulk Gasoline
Terminals
Correction
In FR Doc. 80-38932, appearing at
page 83126, in the issue of Wednesday,
December 17.1980, please make the
following changes:
(1) On page 83127. first column, first
"full paragraph, fifth line. "0.7" should be
corrected to read "0.07".
(2) On page 83127, first column, thin]
full paragraph, seventh line, "terminals
should read 'Terminals".
(3) On page 83128, first column, third
full paragraph, eighth line, "EPS" should
read "EPA".
(4) On page 83129, first column.
second paragraph, third line from .the
end, "Multiplerack" should read as two.
words, "Multiple rack".
(5) On page 83130. third column, first
full paragraph, third line, "absorption"
should read "adsorption" and again on-
the sixth line, "absorption" should read
"adsorption".
(6) On page 83131, third column, third
paragraph, third line, "CRC" should read
"CRA".
(7) On page 83132, second column.
eighth line. "In separate" should read
"In a separate".
(8) On page 83132. "in this area"
should read "In this area".
(9) On page 83132, second column.
second full paragraph, "achiveable"
should read "achievable".
(10) On page 83132, third column,
second full paragraph, fourteenth line,
"absorption" should read "adsorption".
(11) On page 83135, first column, first
.full paragraph, last line, "$650/Mg(590/
ton)" should read "$vS50/Mg ($S90/ton)".
(12) On page 83138, first column, first
full paragraph, eighth line, "outley"
should read "outlet".
(13) On page 83138, first column, third
full paragraph, fourth line, "as the basis
for the proposed standards, was
selected" should be inserted in between
"selected" and "to".
(14) On page 83138. second column,
first full paragraph, ninth line,
"competent" should read "component"
(15) On page 83140, second column.
first full paragraph, eighteenth line,
"form" should be corrected to read
"from".
(16) On page 83141, second column.
second full paragraph, fifth line,
"proposed" should read "proposes".
(17) On page 83141, second column,
second full paragraph, sixth line,
"promulgated" should read
"promulgates".
(18) On page 83141, third column, first
full paragraph, eleventh line, "which
would be quarterly reports of excess —
emissions" should be removed from the
sentence beginning with the word
"Third".
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3. 1981 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[AD-FRL-1634-4]
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources; Bulk Gasoline
Terminals
Correction
In FR Doc. 80-38932, published at page
83126, on Wedneday, December 17,1980.
on page 83142, in the third column, the
last line, "(date of publication in Federal
Register" should be corrected to read
"December 17,1980".
eiLLING CODE 1MS-01-M
IV-XX-30
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR
NEW STATIONARY
SOURCES
REFERENCE METHODS
APPENDIX A
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 16 / Monday. January 26,1981 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[AD-FRL 1625-7]
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources; Proposed
Revisions to General Provisions and
Additions to Appendix A, and
Reproposal of Revisions to Appendix
B
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed Rule and Notice of
Public Hearing.
SUMMARY: This proposed rule (1) revises
the monitoring requirements (§ 60.13) of
the General Provisions, (2) adds
Methods 6A and 6B to Appendix A, and
(3) reproposes revisions to Performance
Specifications 2 and 3 to Appendix B of
40 CFR Part 60. The proposed revisions
to § 60.13 are being made to make this
section consistent with the proposed
revisions to Appendix B. Methods 6A
and 6B are being proposed because they
simplify the determination of the SO?
emission rates in terms of ng/J.
Performance Specifications 2 and 3
revisions are being reproposed because
the changes that have been made to the
performance specifications as a result of
comments received on the original
proposal of October 10,1979 (44 FR
58602) are substantial and involve an
entirely new concept.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be
received on or before March 27,1981.
Public Hearing. A public hearing will
be held on February 19,1981 beginning
at 9 a.m.
Request to Speak at Hearings.
Persons wishing to present oral
testimony must contact EPA by
February 12,1981 (1 week before
hearing). ,
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments
should be submitted (in duplicate if
possible) to: Central Docket Section (A-
130). Attention: Docket Number
OAQPS-79-4, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401M Street, SW..
Washington, D.C. 20460.
Public Hearing. The public hearing
will be held at Emission Measurement
Labatory, R.TJP. North Carolina. Persons
wishing to present oral testimony should
notify Ms. Vivian Phares, Emission
Measurement Branch (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5423.
Docket. Docket Number OAQPS-79-4
(Performance Specifications 2 and 3)
and Docket Number A-80-30 (Methods
BA and 6B), containing supporting
information used in developing the
proposed rulemaking are located in the
U.S. Enviromental Protection Agency,
Central Docket Section, West Tower
Lobby. Gallery 1, Waterside Mall, 401M
Street, S.W.. Washington. D.C. 20460.
The docket may be inspected between 8
a.m. and 4 p.m. on weekdays, and a
reasonable fee may be charged for
copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Roger T. Shigehara (MD-19). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-2237.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
discussion in this section has been
divided into three separate parts. Part A
discusses proposed changes to the
General Provisions of 40 CPU Part 60,
Part B discusses the addition of
proposed Methods 6A and 6B to
Appendix A, and Part C discusses
reproposal of revisions to Performance
Specifications 2 and 3 to Appendix B.
Part A
The proposed revisions to § 60.13 of
the General Provisions are being made
to make this section consistent with the
proposed revisions to Appendix B. Since
the reproposal to Appendix B uses the
concept of evaluating the continuous
emission monitors as a system, based on
relative accuracy test results, the use of
certified cylinder gases, optical filters, or
gas cells is not necessary. The
requirement for quantification of the
zero and span drifts is not a change, but
a clarification of what is required under
the existing performance specifications.
PartB
Two reference metnods (Methods 6A
and 6B) are proposed. Method 6A,
"Determination of Sulfur Dioxide,
Moisture, and Carbon Dioxide
Emissions from Fossil Fuel Combustion
Sources," combines the sampling and
analysis of SOi and COi. The SO, is
collected in a hydrogen peroxide
solution and analyzed by the barium-
thorin titration procedure described in
Method 6. The COS Is collected by a
solid absorbent and analyzed
gravimetrically. The sample gas volume
is measured to allow determination of
SOi concentration, CO* concentration,
moisture, and emission rate from
combustion sources in ng/J. If the only
measurement needed is in terms of
emission rate or if the CO» and moisture
concentrations are not needed, e.g., to
convert NO. concentration to ng/J, the
volume meter is not required. It is
Intended that Method 6A be used as an
alternative to Methods 6 and 3 for the
purpose of determining SO> emission
rates in ng/J.
Method 6B, "Determination of Sulfur
Dioxide and Carbon Dioxide Daily
Average Emissions from Fossil Fuel
Combustion Sources," employs the same
sampling train and analysis procedures
as Method 6A, but the operation of the
train is controlled on an intermittent
basis by a timer or on a continuous
basis by using a low, constant flow-rate
pump. This allows an extended
sampling time period and the
determination of an average value for
that time period of SO> concentration,
COt concentration, and emission rate
from combustion sources in ng/J.
Method 6B is proposed as an acceptable
procedure for compliance with § 60.47a
(fj of 40 CFR Part 60. Subpart Da. This
paragraph (f) requires that in the event
of CEMS breakdown, emission data will
be obtained by using other monitoring
systems or reference methods approved
by the Administrator.
PartC
Revisions to Performance
Specifications 2 and 3 for the initial
evaluation of continuous emission
monitoring systems (CEMS) for SO2,
NO,, and diluent gases were proposed
on October 10,1979 (44 FR 58602).
Comments received as a result of this
proposal led to reevaluation of the
provisions and a change in the overall
approach to the performance
specifications. The reproposed
performance specifications deemphasize
instrument equipment specifications and
add emphasis to the evaluation of the
CEMS and its location as a system. The
specification requirements are limited to
calibration drift tests and relative
accuracy tests. The acceptability limits
for relative accuracy remain the same as
in the previously proposed revisions to
the performance specifications.
CEMS guidelines will also be
published in a separate document at the
time of proposal to provide vendors,
purchasers, and operators of CEMS with
supplementary equipment and
performance specifications. The
guidelines will contain additional
procedures and specifications that may
provide further evaluation of the CEMS
beyond that required by Performance
Specifications 2 and 3, e.g., response
time, 2-hour zero and calibration drifts,
sampling locations, and calibration
value analyses.
Applicability
The proposed revisions would apply
to all CEMS currently subject to
Performance Specifications 2 and 3.
These include sources subject to
standards of performance that have
IV-APPENDIX A-2
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 16 / Monday. January 26. 1981 /Proposed Rules
already been promulgated and sources
subject to Appendix P to 40 CFR Part 51.
Since the requirements of the
reproposed performance specification
revisions are limited to daily calibration
drift tests and relative accuracy tests,
existing GEMS that met the
specifications of the current
Performance Specifications 2 and 3 also
meet the requirements of these revised
specifications and, therefore, do not
require retesting.
This reproposal has retained the
definition of a "continuous emission
monitoring system" and includes the
diluent monitor, if applicable. This
definition requires the relative accuracy
of the GEMS to be determined in terms
of the emission standard, e.g., mass per
unit calorific value for fossil fuel-fired
steam generators. Several commenters
felt that the limits of relative accuracy
should be relaxed from the present 20
percent because of the addition of the
diluent analyzer output. Others added
that errors with the manual reference
methods could increase the possibility
of poor relative accuracy determinations
now that an additional measurement is
required. The Administrator has
reviewed a number of relative accuracy
tests and has concluded that the
variations in the manual reference
method determinations are not the
major cause of failure, but that the
difference between the mean of the
reference method and the GEMS values
is the most probable cause. This
situation is correctable.
Comments on Proposal
Numerous commenters noted that the
proposed revisions go far beyond
clarification and considered them as
significant changes. A large part of this
concern was because they felt that
many existing GEMS were not installed
according to the proposed installation
specifications. In addition, many
commenters felt the need for greater
flexibility in selecting alternative GEMS
measurement locations. Several
commenters desired the inclusion of test
procedures to evaluate single-pass, in
situ GEMS. Others objected to the length
and cost of testing. Opposing views
were presented on the need for
stratification checks. Many commenters
dealt with specific parts of the proposal
and a few raised issues beyond the
scope of the revisions. Because the
Administrator has changed the overall
approach to performance specifications
as mentioned in the beginning of Part C,
many of these comments no longer
apply and many of the objections have
been resolved.
The quality assurance requirements
for GEMS and associated issues were
raised by many commentera. Most
commenters stated that there was a
need for EPA to issue guidelines or
requirements for quality assurance. EPA
is developing such procedures, and they
will be published later this year or early
next year as Appendix E to 40 CFR Part
60. Some commenters erroneously
assumed that the quality assurance
procedures were an integral part of the
specifications. Although related, this
specification should be evaluated on the
basis of its adequacy in evaluating a
GEMS after their initial installation.
The reproposed performance
specifications include a provision that
the relative accuracy of a GEMS must be
within ±20 percent of the mean
reference value or ±10 percent of the
applicable standard, whichever is
greater. Several commenters endorsed
this change, while one felt the change to
allow an accuracy of ±10 percent of the
applicable standard is too lenient at low
emission rates. The Administrator feels
that it is restrictive to require a high
degree of relative accuracy when the
actual emission levels are equivalent to
50 percent or less of the applicable
emission standard.
Request for Comments on Other Views
A number of suggestions were
received which were not incorporated in
these revisions. Because they represent
differing views, EPA requests comments
on them to determine what course of
action should be taken in the final rule
making. .The suggestions are as follows:
1. Section 60.13(b) was revised to
exclude the mandatory 7-day
conditioning period used to verify the
GEMS operational status. Once
commenter feels that the mandatory
conditioning period should not only be
retained, but should be made longer
depending on how the GEMS is used
(i.e., for operation and maintenance
requirements or for compliance/
enforcement purposes) as follows:
a. The presently required 7-day
conditioning period should be retained
for GEMS used for operation and
maintenance requirements.
b. If the GEMS is used for compliance/
enforcement purposes, a 30-day
conditioning period should be required
and that the relative accuracy tests
should be spread over 3 days instead of
one.
c. All GEMS, whether for operation
and maintenace requirements or for
compliance/enforcement purposes,
should be installed and operational for
60 or 90 days prior to the initial NSPS
test.
If the above are done, the commenter
feels that (1) the owner/operator/agency
would be aware of the progress made by
the control system in complying with the
emission standards, (2) there would be a
greater chance of the GEMS passing the
performance specification test and of
the facility complying with the
regulations within the time requirements
of S 60.8, and (3) the operator/vendor/
tester/agency would minimize loss of
valuable resources and time.
2. Once commenter feels that
8 60.13(c) should require all GEMS
Performance Specification Tests to be
done concurrent with NSPS tests under
S 60.8. This would streamline the
process and save resources for owners
and agencies alike.
3. Section 60.13(d) was revised to
delete the requirements listed under
(d](l) and (d)(2) because EPA felt that
the relative accuracy test would validate
the GEMS system which includes the
calibration gases or devices. One
commenter, however, feels that the
requirement to introduce zero and span
gas mixtures into the measurement
system at the probe at the, stack wall
should be retained and conducted in
such a way that the entire system
including the sample interface is
checked. This requirement would
provide a means to check the GEMS on
a daily basis. In addition, the commenter
feels that the requirement for checking
the calibration gases at 6-month
intervals may be deleted provided that
the values used for replacement gas
cylinders, calibration gas cells or optical
filters are approved by the control
agency.
4. One commenter feels that the
following specifications should be
added in Section 4 of Performance
Specification 2:
a. The GEMS relative accuracy should
be relaxed by using a sliding function of
the allowable emission standard and/or
the reference method tests for very low
emission limits, e.g., 0.10 pounds per 10*
Btu emission limit under PSD permits.
b. Each new compliance/enforcement
GEMS installed after 1983 must have an
external means of checking the
calibration of the instrument using
separate calibration/audit materials.
c. A minimum data recovery
specification of at least 18 hours in at
least 22 out of 30 days (or similar)
should be included. This would mean
that a performance specification test
would not be officially completed until
after the 30 days.
5. One commenter feels that EPA
should consider using Section 7.1 of
Performance Specification 2 to specify
that during the GEMS performance
specification test all data be recorded
both in separate units of measurements
(ppm and percent COt or O>) as well as
combined units of the standard.
IV-APPENDIX A-3
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 16 / Monday. January 26. 1981 / Proposed Rules
8. In Performance Specification 2. the
definition of "Relative Accuracy" is
incorrect Instead of a degree of
correctness, it is actually a measure of
"relative error." One commenter feels
that "relative accuracy" should be
changed to "relative error."
7. In Section 7.3 of Performance
Specification 2, the tester is allowed to
reject up to three samples provided that
the total number of test results used to
determine the relative accuracy is
greater than or equal to nine. EPA had
considered using statistical techniques
to reject outliers, but found that these
techniques were too restrictive. One
commenter feels that statistical
techniques should be used. At a
minimum, the commenter feels that the
control agencies should be consulted
before any data is rejected.
Miscellaneous
Authority: This proposed rule making is
issued under the authority of sectio -,« ill,
114. and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act . i
amended (42 U.S.C. 7411.7414, and Tl(a)).
Dated: January 13,1981.
Douglas MCtwtle.
Administrator.
It is proposed that 58 60.13.60.46, and
60.47a, Appendix A, and Appendix B of
40 CFR Part 60 be amended as follows:
1. By revising 5 60.13(b), 60.13(c)(2)(ii),
and 60.13(d), by removing
subparagraphs (1), (2), and (3) of
S 60.13(b), and by removing
subparagraphs (1), (2), and (3) of
S 60.13(d) as follows:
§ 60.13 Monitoring requirement*.
*****
(b) All continuous monitoring systems
and monitoring devices shall be
installed and operational prior to
conducting performance tests under
S 60.8. Verification of operational status
shall, as a minimum, include completion
of the manufacturer's written
requirements or recommendations for
installation, operation, and calibration
of the device.
(c) • • •
(2)
(ii) Continuous monitoring systems for
measurement of nitrogen oxides or
sulfur dioxide shall be capable of
measuring emission levels within ±20
percent with a confidence level of 95
percent Hie performance tests and
calculation procedures set forth in
Performance Specification 2 of
Appendix B shall be used for .
demonstrating compliance with this
specification.
(d) Owners and operators of all
continuous emission monitoring systems
installed in accordance with the
provisions of this part shall check the
zero and span drift at least once daily in
accordance with the method prescribed
by the manufacturer of such systems
unless the manufacturer recommends
adjustments at shorter intervals in
which case such recommendations shall
be followed. The zero and span shall, as
a minimum, be adjusted whenever the
24-hour zero drift of 24-hour span drift
limits of the applicable performance
specifications in Appendix B are
exceeded. The amount of excess zero
and span drift measured at the 24-hour
interval checks shall be quantified and
recorded. For continuous monitoring
systems measuring opacity of emissions,
the optical surfaces exposed to the
effluent gases shall be cleaned prior to
performing the zero and span drift
adjustments except that for systems
using automatic zero adjustments, the
optical surfaces shall be cleaned when
the cumulative automatic zero
compensation exceeds 4 percent
opacity. Unless otherwise approved by
the Administrator, the following
procedures shall be followed for
continuous monitoring systems
measuring opacity of emissions.
Minimum procedures shall include a
method for producing a simulated zero
opacity condition and an upscale(span)
opacity condition using a certified
neutral density filter or other related
technique to produce a known
obscuration of the light beam. Such
procedures shall provide a system check
of the analyzer internal optical surfaces
and all electronic circuitry including the
lamp and jhotodetector assembly.
2. By revising J 60.46(a)(4] as follows:
§ 60.49 Test method* and procedures.
(a)' • •
(4) Method 6 for concentration of SO*
Method 6A may be used whenever
Methods 0 and 3 data are used to
determine the SO, emission rate in ng/J,
and
*****
3. By revising S 60.47a(h)(l) as follows:
{60.47a EmlMlon monitoring.
(h)' ••
(1) Reference Methods 3,6, and 7 as
applicable, are used. Method 6B may be
used whenever Methods 6 and 3 data
are used to determine the SO* emission
rate in ng/J. The sampling location(s)
are the same as those used for the
continuous monitoring system.
4. By adding to Appendix A of 40 CFR
Part 60 two new methods, Methods 6A
and Method 6B, to read as follows:
Appendix A—Reference Test Methods
Method 6A—Determination of Sulfur
Dioxide, Moisture, and Carbon Dioxide
Emissions from Fossil Fuel Combustion
Sources
1. Applicability and Principle
1.1 Applicability. This method applies to
the determination of sulfur dioxide (SOi)
emissions from fossil fuel combustion sources
In terms of concentration (mg/m*) and in
terms of emission rate (ng/J) and to the
determination of carbon dioxide (CJ>)
concentration (percent). Moisture, if desired,
may also be determined by this method.
The minimum detectable limit, the upper
limit, and the interferences of the method for
the measurement of SOi are the same as for
Method B. For a 20-liter sample, the method
has a precision of 0.5 percent Cd for
concentrations between 2.S and 25 percent
CO, and 1.0 percent moisture for moisture
concentrations greater than 5 percent.
1.2 Principle. The principle of sample
collection is the same as for Method 6 except
that moisture and COi are collected in
addition to SO, in the same sampling train.
Moisture and CO, fractions are determined
gravimetrically.
2. Apparatus
2.1 Sampling. The sampling train is
shown in Figure 6A-1; the equipment
required is the same as for Method d, except
as specified below:
2.1.1 Midget Impingers. Two 30-ml midget
impingers with a 1-mm restricted tip.
2.1.2 Midget Bubbler. One 30-ml midget
bubbler with an unrestricted tip.
2.1.3 CO. Absorber. One 250-ml
Erlenmeyer bubbler with an unrestricted tip,
or equivalent.
2.2 Sample Recovey and Analysis. The
equipment needed for sample recovery and
analysis is the same as required for Method
6. In addition, a balance to measure within
0.05 g is needed for analysis.
3. Reagents
Unless otherwise indicated, all reagents
must conform to the specifications
established by the Committee on Analytical
Reagents of the American Chemical Society.
Where such specifications are not available,
use the best available grade.
3.1 Sampling. The reagents required for
sampling are the same as specified in Method
8, except that 80 percent isopropanol and 10
percent potassium iodide solutions are not
required. In addition, the following reagents
are required:
BILLING CODE SSSO-2S-M
IV-APPENDIX A-4
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 16 / Monday. January 26,1981 / Proposed Rules
PROBE (END PACKED
WITH QUARTZ OR
PYREX WOOL)
THERMOMETER
STACK WALL
MIDGET BUBBLERS
MIDGET IMPINGERS
ICE BATH
THERMOMETER
RATE METER NEEDLE VALVE
Figure 6 A -1. Sampling train.
SURGE TANK
PUMP
BILLING CODE «S«0-»-C
IV-APPENDIX A-5
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 16 / Monday. January 26, 1981 / Proposed Rule*
3.1.1 Drier/to. * Anhydrous calcium sulfate
(CaSO.) desiccant, 8 mesh.
3.1.2. Ascarite. Sodium hydroxide coated
asbestos for absorption of COt, 8 to 20 mesh.
3.2 . Sample Recovery and Analysis. The
reagents needed for sample recovery and
analysis are the same as for Method 6,
Sections 3.2 and 3.3, respectively.
4. Procedure
4.1 Sampling
4.1.1 Preparation of Collection Train.
Measure IS ml of 3 percent hydrogen
peroxide into each of the first two midget
impingera. Into the midget bubbler, place
about 25 g of drierite. Clean the outsides of
the impingers and the drterite bubbler and
weigh (at room temperature, — 20* C) to the
nearest 0.1 g. Weigh the three vessels
simultaneously and record this initial mass.
Place a small amount of glass wool in the
Erlenmeyer bubbler. The glass wool should
cover the entire bottom of the flask and be
about 1-cm thick. Place about 100 g of
ascarite on top of the glass wool and
carefully insert the bubbler top. Plug the
bubbler exhaust leg and invert the bubbler to
remove any ascarite fom the bubbler tube. A
wire may be useful in assuring that no
ascarite remains in the tube. With the plug
removed and the outside of the bubbler
cleaned, weigh (at room temperature (at room
temperature, — 20* C), to the nearest 0.1 g.
Record this initial mass.
Assemble the train as shown in Figure 6A-
1. Adjust the probe heater to a temperature
sufficient to prevent water condensation.
Place crushed ice and water around the
impingers and bubblers.
Note.—For stack gas streams with high
particulate loadings, an in-stack or heated
out-of-stack glass fiber mat filter may be used
in place of the glass wool plug in the probe.
4.1.2 Leak-Check Procedure and Sample
Collection. The leak-check procedure and
sample collection procedure are the same as
specified in Method 0, Sections 4.1.2 and
4.1.3, respectively.
4.2 Sample Recovery.
4.2.1 Moisture Measurement. Disconnect
the peroxide impingers and the drierite
bubbler from the sample train. Allow time
(about 10 minutes) for them to reach room
temperature, clean the outsides and then
weigh them simultaneously in the same
manner as in Section 4.1.1. Record this final
mass.
4.2.2 Peroxide Solution. Pour the contents
of the midget Impingers into a leak-free
polyethylene bottle for shipping. Rinse the
two midget impingers and connecting tubes
with deionized distilled water, and add the
washings to the same storage container.
'Mention of trade names or specific product!
does not constitute endorsement by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
4.2.3 COt Absorber. Allow the Erlenmeyer
bubbler to warm to room temperature (about
10 minutes), clean the outside, and weigh to
the nearest 0.1 g in the same manner as in
Section 4.1.1. Record this final mass and
discard the used ascarite.
4.3 Sample Analysis. The sample analysis
procedure for SO, is the same as specified in
Method 6. Section 4J.
5. Calibration
The calibrations and checks are the same
as required in Method 6, Section S.
6. Calculation*
Carry out calculations, retaining at least 1 •
extra decimal figure beyond that of the
acquired data. Round off figures after final
calculation. The calculation nomenclature
and procedure are the same as specified in
Method 6 with the addition of the following:
-3
6.1 Nomenclature.
CHHO = Concentration of moisture, percent
COM = Concentration of CO* dry basis,
percent.
m«=Initial mass of peroxide impingers and
drierite bubbler, g.
m,rt = Final mass of peroxide impingers and
drierite bubbler, g.
m,, = Initial mass Of ascarite bubbler, g.
mlf=Final mass of ascarite bubbler, g.
Vco"<«=Standard equivalent volume of
COa collected, dry basis, m*.
8.2 COi volume collected, corrected to
standard conditions. •
(m--m.) (Eq. 6A-1)
6.3 Moisture volume collected, corrected
to standard conditions.
Vw(std)-1.336xlO-(mwf -
(Eq. 6A-2)
6.4 SOg concentration.
CSQ » 32.03 v
iUg V,
sojn,
a
m(std' * VC02(std)
(Eq. 6A-3)
6.5 CO. concentration.
VC02(std)
S " Vm(std) * H
x 100
(Eq. 6A-4)
6.6 Moisture concentration.
YH0(std)
CH Q * \? + v ru (Eq. 6A-5)
H2° Vm(std) * \0(std) * VCO-(sW)
7. Emission Rate Procedure
If the only emission measurement desired
is in terms of emission rate of SOi (ng/1). an
abbreviated procedure may be used. The
differences between Method 6A and the
abbreviated procedure are described below.
7.1 Sample Train. The sample traip is the
same as shown in Figure 6A-1 and as
described in Section 4. except that the dry
gas meter is not needed.
7.2 Preparation of the collection train.
Follow the same procedure as in Section
4.1.1, except that the peroxide impingers and
drierite bubbler need not be weighed before
or after the test run.
7.3 Sampling. Operate the train as
described in Section 4.1.3, except that dry gas
IV-APPENDIX A-6
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 16 / Monday. January 26. 1981 / Proposed Rules
meter readings, barometric pressure, and dry 7.5 Sample Analysis. Analysis of the
gas meter temperatures need not be recorded, peroxide solution is the same as described in
7.4 Sample Recovery. Follow the Section 4.3.
procedure in Section 4.2. except that the 7.8 Calculations.
peroxide impingers and drierite bubbler need 7.8.1 SO, mass collected.
not be weighed.
32'03
(Eq. 6A-7)
Where:
« Mass of S02 collected, mg.
7.6.2 Sulfur dioxide emission rate.
E$0 » Fc (1.829 x 109)
"af ' ma1}
(Eq. 6A-8)
Where:
Eso/" Emission rate of SO., ng/J.
Fe«= Carbon F factor for the fuel burned,
m'/I. from Method 19.
8. Bibliography
8.1 Same as for Method 8, citations 1
through 8, with the addition of the following:
8.2 Stanley, Ion and P.R. Westlin. An
Alternate Method for Stack Gas Moisture
Determination. Source Evaluation Society
Newsletter. Volume 3, Number 4. November
1978.
8.3 Whittle. Richard N. and P.R. Westlin.
Air Pollution Test Report: Development and
Evaluation of an Intermittent Integrated
SOt/COi Emission Sampling Procedure.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Emission Standard and Engineering
Division, Emission Measurement
Branch. Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. December 1979.14 pages.
Method 8B—Determination of Sulfur Dioxide
and Carbon Dioxide Daily A verage
Emissions From Fossil Fuel Combustion
Sources
1. Applicability and Principle
1.1 Applicability. This method applies to
the determination of sulfur dioxide (SO,)
emissions form combustion sources in terms
of concentration (mg/M*) and emission rate
(is/I)* a"0" for the determination of carbon
dioxide (CO,) concentration (percent) on a
daily (24 hours) basis.
The minimum detectable limit, upper limit,
and the interferences for SO, measurements
are the same as for Method 6. For a 20-liter
sample, the method has a precision of 0.5
percent CO, for concentrations between 2.5
and 25 percent CO,.
1.2 Principle. A gas sample is extracted
from the sampling point in the stack
intermittently over a 24-hour or other
specified time period. Sampling may also be
conducted continuously if the apparatus and
procedure are modified (see the note in
Section 4.1.1). The SO, and CO. are separated
and collected in the sampling train. The SO,
fraction is measured by the barium-thorin
tftration method and CO. is determined
gravimetrically.
2. Apparatus
The equipment required for this method is
the same as specified for Method 6A, Section
2, with the addition of an industrial timer-
switch designed to operate in the "on"
position from 3 to 5 continuous minutes and
"off' the remaining period over a repeating,
2-hour cycle.
'3. Reagents
All reagents for sampling and analysis are
the same as described in Method 6A, Section
3.
4. Procedure
4.1 Sampling
4.1.1 Preparation of Collection Train.
Preparation of the sample train is the same as
described in Method 6A, Section 4.1.4 with
the addition of the following:
Assemble the train as shown in Figure 6B-
1. The probe must be heated to a temperature
sufficient to prevent water condensation and
must include a filter (either in-stack, out-of-
stack, or both] to prevent paniculate
entrainment in the perioxide impingers. The
electric supply for the probe heat should be
continuous and separate from the timed
operation of the sample pump.
Adjust the timer-switch to operate in the
"on" position form 2 to 4 minutes on a 2-hour
repeating cycle. Other timer sequences may
be used provided there are at least 12 equal,
evenly spaced periods of operation over 24
hours and the total sample volume is
between 20 and 40 liters for the amounts of
sampling reagents prescribed in this method.
Add cold water to the tank until the
impingers and bubblers are covered at least
two-thirds of their length. The impingers and
bubbler tank must be covered and protected
from intense heat and direct sunlight. If
freezing conditions exist, the impinger
solution and the water bath must be
protected.
WLLIMG COOC (MO-46-M
IV-APPENDIX A-7
-------
THERMOMETER
M
a
o
H
X
oo
PROBE (END PACKED'
WITH QUARTZ OR
PYREX WOOL)
STACK WALL MIDGET BUBBLERS
MIDGET IMPINGERS
ICE BATH
THERMOMETER
RATE METER NEEDLE VALVE
Figure 6B-1. Sampling train.
SURGE TANK
§.
!
&
$
p
to*
O>
a.
K
2
BILLING CODE CS60-2»-C
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 1981 / Proposed Rules
Note.—Sampling may be conducted
continuously if a low flow-rate sample pump
(>24ml/min) is used. Then the timer-switch
is not necessary. In addition, if the sample
pump is designed for constant rate sampling,
the rate meter may be deleted. The total gas
volume collected should be between 20 and
40 liters for the amounts of sampling reagents
prescribed in this method.
4.1.2 Leak-Check Procedure. The leak-
. check procedure is the same as describedf in
Method 6, Section 4.1.2.
4.1.3 Sample Collection. Record the initial
dry gas meter reading. To begin sampling.
position the tip of the probe at the sampling
point, connect the probe to the first impinger
(or filter), and start the timer and the sample
pump. Adjust the sample flow to a constant
rate of approximately 1.0 liter/min as
indicated by the rotameter. Assure that the
timer is operating as intended, i.e., in the "on"
position 3 to 5 minutes at 2-hour intervals, or
other time interval specified.
During the 24-hour sampling period, record
the dry gas meter temperature between 9:00
a.m. and 11:00 a.m., and the barometric
pressure.
At the conclusion of the run, turn off the
timer and the sample pump, remove the probe
from the stack, and record the final gas meter
volume reading. Conduct a leak check as
described in Section 4.1.2. If a leak is found,
void the test run or use procedures
acceptable to the Administrator to adjust the
sample volume for leakage. Repeat the steps
in this Section (4.1.3) for successive runs.
4.2 Sample Recovery. The procedures for
sample recovery (moisture measurement,
peroxide solution, and ascarite bubbler) are
the same as in Method 6A, Section 4.2.
4.3 Sample Analysis. Analysis of the
peroxide impinger solutions is the same as in
Method 6, Section 4.3.
5. Calibration
5.1 Metering System.
5.1.1 Initial Calibration. The initial
calibration for the volume metering system is
the same as for Method 6, Section 5.1.1.
5.1.2 Periodic Calibration Check. After 30
days of operation of the test train conduct a
calibration check as in Section 5.1.1 above,
except for the following variations: (1) The
leak check is not be conducted, (2) three or
more revolutions of the dry gas meter may be
used, and (3) only two independent runs need
be made. If the calibration factor does not
deviate by more than 5 percent from the
initial calibration factor determined in
Section 5.1.1, then the dry gas meter volumes
obtained during the test series are acceptable
and use of the train can continue. If the
calibration factor deviates by more than 5
percent, recalibrate the metering system as in
Section 5.1.1; and for the calculations for the
preceding 30 days of data, use the calibration
factor (initial or recalibration) that yields the
lower gas volume for each test run. Use the
latest calibration factor for succeeding tests.
5.2 Thermometers. Calibrate against
mercury-in-glass thermometers initially and
at 30-day intervals.
5.3 Rotameter. The rotameter need not be
calibrated, but should be cleaned and
maintained according to the manufacturer's
instruction.
5.4 Barometer. Calibrate against a
mercury barometer Initially and at 30-day
intervals.
5.5 Barium Perchlorate Solution.
Standardize the barium perchlerate solution
against 25 ml of standard sulfuric acid to
which 100 ml of 100 percent isopropanal has
been added.
6. Calculations
The nomenclature and calculation
procedures are the same as in Method 6A
with the following exceptions:
Pta=Initial barometric pressure for the test
period, mm Hg.
Tm=Absolute meter temperature for the
test period. *K.
7. Emission Rate Procedure
The emission rate procedure is the same as
described in Method 6A, Section 7, except
that the timer is needed and is operated as
described in this method.
8. Bibliography
The bibliography is the same as described
in Method 6A, Section 8.
IV-APP-ENDIX A-9
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 117 / Thursday, June 18, 1981 / Proposed Rules
40 CFR Part 60
[AO-FRL 1718-5]
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources; Appendix A—
Reference Methods
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The purpose of this action is
to propose a test method for determining
total reduced sulfur from kraft pulp mills
to be added to Appendix A of 40 CFR
Part 60/On February 23,1978, the
Environmental Protection Agency
promulgated Method 16 for total reduced
sulfur compounds. Method 16 utilizes
costly and complex sampling and
analytical equipment. Method 16A,
"Determination of Total Reduced Sulfur
Emissions from Stationary Sources
(Impinger Technique)," is being
proposed because the procedure is •
simple, much cheaper to operate than
Method 16, and involves fewer and less
complicated components that reduces
chances of measurement error. An
amendment to § 60.285 of Subpart BB
referencing Method 16A is also being
proposed.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be
received on or before August 17,1981.
Public Hearing. A public hearing will
be held, if requested. Persons wishing to
request a public hearing must contact
EPA by August 31,1981. If a hearing is
requested, an announcement of the date
and place will appear in a separate
Federal Register notice.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments
should be submitted (in duplicate if
possible) to: Central Docket Section (A-
130), Attention: Docket Number A-80-
38, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, S.W..
Washington, D.C. 20460.
Public Hearing. Persons wishing to
present oral testimony should notify'
Mrs. Naomi Durkee, Office of the
Director, Emission Standards and
Engineering Division (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5571.
Docket. Docket Number A-80-38,
containing materials relevant to this
rulemaking, 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:
Mr. Roger Shigehara, Emission
Measurement Branch (MD-19), Emission
Standards and Engineering Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone (919) 541-2237.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
proposed method for kraft pulp mills
utilizes the impinger collection method
and barium-thorin titration producer
outlined in Method 6 of Appendix A. In
the sample, SO. is first removed by a
scrubber system; then the reduced sulfur
compounds are oxidized to SOS which is
subsequently collected and analyzed by
Method 6. This procedure offers the
following advantages over Method 16:
1. Needed testing equipment is much
cheaper.
2. The method is simpler. The Method
6 collection and titration eliminates the
need of instrumentation. No gas dilution
system is needed.
3. Sampling can be performed on the
stack.
4. Samples need not be analyzed in
the field.
5. The method has few interferences.
These advantages, plus satisfactory
performance during laboratory and field
testing, have prompted the proposal of
the procedure as an alternative method.
This means that this method may be
used at the discretion of the owner or
operator of the affected facility to
determine compliance with the
standards. The owner or operator,
however, should understand that
Method 16A measures all reduced sulfur
in contrast to the four reduced sulfur
compounds specified in Method 16.
Therefore. Method 16A may give higher
results than Method 16. EPA, however,
feels that any difference is expected to
be insignificant.
When the kraft pulp mill standard
was developed and originally adopted,
the intent was to include all reduced
sulfur compounds. But, during the
emission testing program, EPA found
that the four compounds—hydrogen
sulfide. methyl mercaptan. dimethyl
sulfide. and dimethyl disulfide—were
the only significant compounds being
emitted. Comments from the industry
confirmed this finding. Therefore, as a
practical matter, Method 16 was written
to require that only the four major
reduced sulfur compounds be measured.
If EPA determines that other compounds
are now being emitted as a result, for
example, of different process conditions,
EPA would consider this as an
indication of the need to investigate and
possibly revise the standard.
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 not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The
rulemaking would not impose any new
requirements: on the contrary, it would
reduce the cost of demonstrating
compliance with the NSPS. The
Administrator has considered Executive
Order 12291 and concluded that since
Method 16A allows industry a less
expensive alternative to the existing
reference method, the costs of
implementing this method do not
outweigh the benefits obtained.
(Sections 114 and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act
as amended (42 U.S.C. 7414, and 7601(a)|)
Dated: June 12,1981.
Anne M. Gorsuch.
Administrator.
It is proposed that in 40 CFR Part 60,
§ 60.285 and Appendix A be amended as
follows:
IV-APPENDIX A-10
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 117 / Thursday, June 18, 1981 / Proposed Rules
1. By revising paragraph (d)(l) of
§ 60.285 to read as follows:
§ 60.285 Test methods and procedures.
*****
(d) * * *
(1) Method 16 or, at the discretion of
the owner.or operator, Method 16A for
the concentration of TRS,
* * * , * *
2. By amending Appendix A by adding
a new method as follows:
Appendix A—Reference Methods
Method 16A. Determination of Total Reduced
Sulfur Emissions From Stationary Sources
(Impir.ger Technique)
1. Applicability and Principle—1.1
Applicability. This is an alternative method
to Method 16 for determining total reduced
sulfur (TRS) compounds from recovery
furnaces, lime kilns, and smelt dissolving
tanks at kraft pulp mills. The TRS compounds
include hydrogen sulfide. methyl mercaptun,
dimethyl sulfide, dimethyl disulfide. and
other reduced sulfur compounds (e.g..
cabonyl sulfide. if present). Therefore.
Method 16A might yield higher TRS
concentrations than Method 16.
The minimum detectable limit of the
method has been determined to be 0.04 ppm
TRS (compounds with single sulfur atom)
when sampling at 2 liters/min for 60 minutes.
For an analytical accuracy of at least ±5
percent, a minimum sulfur dioxide (SO~) mass
of 500 jig should be collected. The upper
concentration limit of the method generally
exceeds all encountered TRS levels from
kraft pulp mills.
1.2 Principle. A g.is sample is extracted
from the sampling point in the stack. SO? is
selectively removed from the sample using a
citrate buffer solution. Then reduced sulfur
compounds are oxidized and analyzed as SO,
using the barium-thorin titration procedure of
Method 6.
2. Apparatus—2.1 Sampling. The sampling
train is shown in Figure 16A-1. The apparatus
is the same as listed in Method 6, except as
listed below. Other designs are acceptable
provided that the sampling system meets the
performance check of Section 5.
2.1.1 SOj Scrubber. Two midget impingers
in series packed with glass wool to eliminate
entrained mist and charged with potassium
citrate-citric acid buffer.
2.1.2 Combustion Tube. Quartz glass with
an expanded combustion chamber of 22 to 25
mm and at least 305 cm long. The tube ends
shall have an outside diameter of about 6 mm
to accept Teflon tubing or Swageiok fittings.
2.1.3 Combustion Tube Furnace. A
furnace of sufficient size to enclose the
combustion chamber of the combustion tube
with a temperature regulator capable of
maintaining the temperature at 815 ±15°C.
2.1.4 Rate Meters. Rotamelers, or
equivalent, capable of measuring flow rate to
within 2 percent of the selected flow rate.
2.1.5 Probe Brush. Nylon bristle brush
with stainless steel wire handle. The brush
shall be properly sized and shaped and of
sufficient length to brush out the entire length
of the probe.
2.2 Sample Recovery. Same as in Method
6. Section 2.2.
2.3 Analysis. Same as in Method 6.
Section 2.3, except a 10-m! buret with 0.1-ml
graduations is required and the
spectrophotometer is not needed.
3. Reagents—Unless otherwise indicated.
all reagents must conform to the
specifications established by the Committee
on Analytical Reagents of the American
Chemical Society. Where such specifications
are not available, use the best available
grade.
3.1 Sampling. The following reagents are
needed:
3.1.1 Water. Same as Method 6. Section
3.1.1.
3.1.2 Hydrogen Peroxide, 3 percent. Same
as Method 6, Section 3.1.3 (40 Ml is needed
per sample).
3.1.3 Citrate Buffer. Dissolve 300 g of
potassium citrate (or 284 g of sodium citrate)
and 41 g of anhydrou citric acid in 1 liter of
deionized distilled water.
3.1.4 Calibration Gas. Hydrogen sulfide in
nitrogen (30 to 50 ppm) stored in aluminum
cylinders. Verify the concentration by
Method 11.
3.1.5 Combustion Gas. Air or oxygen
containing'less than 50 ppb total sulfur
compounds and less than 10 ppm total
hydrocarbons.
3.2 Sample Recovery and Analysis.
Deionized distilled water (as in 3.1.1) and the
tame reagents as in Method 6, Section 3.3,
are required.
4. Procedure—-4.1 Sampling.
4.1.1 Preparation of Collection Train. For
the SO2 scrubber, measure 20 ml citrate
buffer solution into each of two midget
impingers with glass wool packed in top. For
the Method 6 part of the train, measure 20 ml
of 3 percent hydrogen peroxide into each of
the first two midget impingers. Leave the final
midget impinger dry. Assemble the train as
shown in figure 16A-1. Place the SOa
scrubber as close to the stack wall as
practical. Adjust the probe heater to a
temperature sufficient to prevent water
condensation. Maintain the oxidation furnace
at 815°C. Place crushed ice and water around
the impingers.
BILUNC CODE S560-26-M
IV-APPENDIX A-ll
-------
THERMOMETER
H
<
2
D
H
X
I
I-'
NJ
HEATED PROBE |
S02SCRUBBER
OXIDATION
TUBE
TUBE FURNACE J
SILICA GEL
DRYING TUBE
E.
»
oo'
3
o
j?
CO
O.
c
(D
i->
00
•o
o
n
a.
PUMP
Figure 16A-1. Sampling train
BILLING; CODE eeeo-26-c
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 117 / Thursday, June 18. 1981 / Proposed Rules
4.1.2 Leak-Check Procedure. Same as
Method 6, Section 4.1.2.
4.1.3 Sample Collection. Same as Method
6. Section 4.1.3. except for the following:
Adjust the sample flow to a constant rale of
approximately 2.0 liters/min (±10 percent) as
indicated by the rotameter. Other constant
flow rates may also be used provided its
acceptability is checked as in Section 5.
Collect the sample for 60 minutes. The 15-
minute purge of the train following collection
need not be performed.
In Method 16, a sample run is composed of
16 individual analyses (injects) performed
over a period of .not less than 3 hours or more
than 6 hours. For Method 16A to be
consistent with Method 16. the following may
be used to obtain a sample run: (1) collect
three 60-minute samples or (2) collect one 3-
hour sample with a total gas sample volume
of 120 liters either intermittently (equal
samples, equally spaced) or continuously
over 3 hours.
After collecting the sample, disconnect the
probe and tubing from the SO: scrubber and
allow to cool. Before conducting the next run,
do the following. Clean the inside surface of
the probe using a nylon brush and deionized
distilled water from a wash bottle until the
rinse shows no visible particles. Replace the
probe filter. Thoroughly rinse the sample line
connecting the probe to the scrubber until all
visible particles are removed.
4.2 Sample Recovery. Disconnect the
impingers. Replace the SOa scrubber contents
and the glass wool if saturated with solution
for subsequent runs. Pour the contents of the
midget impingers of the Method 6 part of the
train into a leak-free polyethylene bottle for
shipment. Rinse the three midget impingers,
the connecting tubes, and the sample line
between the furnace and the first impinger
with deionized distilled water, and add the
washings to the same storage container.
Mark the fluid level. Seal and identify the
sample container.
4.3 Sample Analysis. Note level of liquid
in container, and confirm whether any
sample was lost during shipment; note this on
analytical data sheet. If a noticeable amount
of leakage has occurred, either void the
sample or use methods, subject to the
approval of the Administrator, to correct the
final results.
Transfer the contents of the storage
container to a 100-ml graduated cylinder.
Rinse the container with deionized distilled
water and add to the cylinder. Measure the
volume, and pour into a 250-ml Erlenmeyer
flask. Using the cylinder, add sufficient 100
percent isopropanol to give a final sample
concentration of 80 percent (v/v) isopropanol.
Add four to six drops of thorin indicator and
titrate to a pink end point using 0.0100N
barium perchlorate. Run a blank with each
series of samples.
Note.—Protect the 0.0100 N barium
perchlorate solution from evaporation at all
times.
5. Calibration—5.1 Metering System,
Thermometers. Rotameters, Barometer, and
Barium Perchlorate Solution. Follow the same
calibration procedure as in Method 6,
Sections S.I to 5.S, respectively.
5.2 System Performance Check. Using H2S
cylinder gas and combustion gas (as specified
in Sections 3.1.4 and 3.1.5), generate a series
of samples in the suspected concentration
range of TRS in the stack. Using the set-np
shown in Figure 16A-2, take at least two 30-
minute samples to determine system
performance efficiency. Use the cylinder
regulator to set the combustion gas rotameter
flow rate to the desired level. Adjust the H,S
regulator to a slightly higher than desired
flow rate to ensure excess gas for the system.
With the pump valve completely closed, turn
on the pump and open the valve slowly until
a 2 liter/min flow rate (or other selected flow
rate) is obtained. Observe the pressure
control vessel while opening the valve and
during the sampling run to maintain an
excess flow. The samples must be
transported through the entire sampling
system in the normal manner. Compare the
resulting measured concentration to the
known concentration by subtracting the
corrected volume of combustion gas from the
corrected total sample volume and treating as
in Section 6.3. The sampling system is
considered acceptable when two consecutive
samples of calibration gas produce results
which do not vary by more than ±5 percent
from their mean, and this mean value is
within ±15 percent of the known value.
BILLING CODE 6S60-M-M
IV-AP.PENDIX A-13
-------
a
n
x
I
M
*.
PRESSURE
CONTROL
VESSEL
e.
S
S
o
¥
a.
CD
PUMP.
Figure 16A-2. Calibration System
1 PERCENT HiOz
I
s
WUJNa CODE «MO-2*-C
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 117 / Thursday. June 18. 1981 / Proposed Rules
Conduct this performance check before the
test to validate the test procedure, sampling
system and tester. In addition, field
validation samples shall be taken to monitor
losses in the probe due to absorption by stack
components. Perform this test by collecting a
known H>S sample (in the applicable
concentration range) after each third field
sample and before cleaning the probe.
Introduce the gas into the probe and collect
in the usual manner. The obtained
concentration shall be within ±15 percent of
the known value. Otherwise, void the
previous three samples or make corrections
by dividing the sample concentration by the
fraction of recovery if the losses are between
0-20 percent. Substitute a field audit sample
for one known sample during the collection
period if available. Such audit samples are
usually available from the Quality Assurance
Division, Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711.
6. Calculations—Carry out calculations,
retaining at least one extra decimal figure
beyond that of the acquired data. Round off
figures after final calculation.
6.1 Standard Dry Sample Gas Volume.
Using Equation 6-1 of Method 6, calculate the
dry sample gas volume V^,,.,,,) at standard
conditions.
6.2 TRS Concentration as SO,. Calculate
the TRS concentration in ppm as SO? by
using Equation 6-2 of Method 6, except use
KSOh = 12.020n/meq.
7. Bibliography—-7.1 Curtis. F. and G.D.
McAlister. Development and Evaluation of an
Oxidation/Method 6 TRS Emission Sampling
Procedure. Emission Measurement Branch,
Emission Standards and Engineering
Division, OAQPS, Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711. February 1980.
7.2 Blosser, R.O.. H.S. Oglesby. and A.K.
Jain. A Study of Alternate SOi Scrubber
Designs Used for TRS Monitoring. A Special
Report by the National Council of the Paper
Industry for Air and Stream Improvement.
Inc., New York, N.Y. July 1977.
7.3 Cellma, I. A Laboratory and Field
Study of Reduced Sulfur Sampling and
Monitoring Systems. Atmospheric Quality
Improvement Technical Bulletin No. 81.
National Council of the Paper Industry for Air
and Stream Improvement, Inc.. New York,
N.Y. October 197o.
7.4 Annual Book of ASTM Standards.
Part 31; Wuter. Atmospheric Analysis.
American Society for Testing and Materials.
Philadelphia. Pennsylvania, 1974. pp. 40-42.
|FR Doc. 81-18086 Filed 6-17-81:8:45 «Bl|
MLUNO CODE N60-M-N
IV-APPENDIX A-15
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR
NEW STATIONARY
SOURCES
CONTINUOUS MONITORING
PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS
APPENDIX B
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 10, 1979 / Proposed Rules
40 CFR Part 60
[FRL 1276-4]
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources; Continuous
Monitoring Performance
Specifications
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed Revisions.
SUMMARY: On October 6,1975 (40 FR
46250). the EPA promulgated revisions to
40 CFR Part 60, Standards of
Performance for New Stationary
Sources, to establish specific
requirements pertaining to continuous
emission monitoring. An appendix to the
regulation contained Performance
Specifications 1 through 3, which
detailed the continuous monitoring
instrument performance and equipment
specifications, installation requirements,
and test and data computation
procedures for evaluating the
acceptability of continuous monitoring
systems. Since the promulgation of these
performance specifications, the need for
a number of changes which would
clarify the specification test procedures,
equipment specifications, and
monitoring system installation
requirements has become apparent. The
purpose of the revisions is to
incorporate these changes into
Performance Specifications 1 through 3.
The proposed revisions would apply
to all monitoring systems currently
subject to performance specifications 1,
2. or 3. including source's subject to
Appendix P to 40 CFR Part 51.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before December 10,1979.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments
should be submitted (in duplicate if
possible) to the Central Docket Section
(A-130), Attn: Docket No. OAQPS-79-4,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street, S.W.. Washington, D.C.
20460.
Docket. Docket No. OAQPS-79-4.
containing material relevant to this
rulemaking, is located in the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Central Docket Section, Room 2903B, 401
M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. The
docket may be inspected between 8
A.M. and 4 P.M. on weekdays, and a
reasonable fee may be charged for
copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Don R. Goodwin, Director, Emission
Standards and Engineering Division
(MD-13), Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)
541-5271.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Changes
common to all three of the performance
specifications are the clarification of the
procedures and equipment
specifications, especially the
requirement for intalling the continuous
monitoring sample interface and of the
calculation procedure for relative
accuracy. Specific changes to the
specifications are as follows:
Performance Specification
1. The optical design specification for
mean and peak spectral responses and
for the angle of view and projection
have been changed from "500 to 600 nm"
range to "515 to 585 nm" range and from
"5°" to "3*". respectively.
2. The following equipment
specifications have been added:
a. Optical alignment sight indicator
for readily checking alignment.
b. For instruments having automatic
compensation for dirt accumulation on
exposed optical surfaces, a
compensation indicator at the control
panel so that the permissible maximum
4 percent compensation can be
determined.
c. Easy access to exposed optical
surfaces for cleaning and maintenance.
d. A system for checking zero and
upscale calibration (previously required
in paragraph 60.13).
e. For systems with slotted tubes, a
slotted portion greater than 90 percent of
effluent pathlength (shorter slots are
permitted if shown to be equivalent).
f. An equipment specification for the
monitoring system data recorder
resolution of <5 percent of full scale.
3. A procedure for determining the
acceptability of the optical alignment
sight has been specified; the optical
alignment sight must be capable of
indicating that the instrument is
misaligned when an error of ±2 percent
opacity is caused by misalignment of the
instrument at a pathlength of 8 meters.
4. Procedures for calibrating the
attenuators used during instrument
calibrations have been added; these
procedures require the use of a
laboratory spectrophotometer operating
in the 400-700 nm range with a detector
angle view of <10 degrees and an
accuracy of 1 percent.
5. The following changes have been
made to the procedures for the
operational test period:
a. The requirement for an analog strip
chart recorder during the performance
tests has been deleted; all data are
collected on the monitoring system data
recorder.
b. Adjustment of the zero and span at
24-hour intervals during the drift tests is
optional; adjustments are required only
when the accumulated drift exceeds the
24-hour drift specification.
c. The amount of automatic zero
compensation for dirt accumulation
must be determined during the 24-hour
zero check so that the actual zero drift
can be quantified. The automatic zero
compensation system must be operated
during the. performance test.
d. The requirement for offsetting the
data recorder zero during the
operational test period has been deleted.
e. Off the stack "zero alignment" of
the instrument prior to installation is
permitted.
Performance Specification 2
1. "Continuous monitoring system"
has been redefined to include the
diluent monitor, if applicable. The
change requires that the relative
accuracy of the system be determined in
terms of the emission standard, e.g.,
mass per unit calorific value for fossil-
fuel fired steam generators.
2. The applicability of the test
procedures excludes single-pass, in-situ
continuous monitoring systems. The
procedures for determining the
acceptability of these systems are
evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
3. For extractive systems with diluent
monitors, the pollutant and diluent
monitors are required to use the same
sample interface.
4. The procedure for determining the
acceptability of the calibration gases
has been revised, and the 20 percent
(with 95 percent confidence interval)
criterion has been changed to 5 percent
of mean value with no single value being
over 10 percent from the mean.
5. For low concentrations, a 10 percent
of the applicable standard limitation fur
the relative accuracy has been added.
6. An equipment specification for the
system data recorder requiring that the
chart scale be readable to within <0.50
percent of full-scale has been added.
7. Instead of spanning the instrument
at 90 percent of full-scale, a mid-level
span is required.
8. The response time test procedure
has been revised and the difference
limitation between the up-scale and
down-scale time has been deleted.
9. The relative accuracy test
procedure has been revised to allow
different tests (e.g., pollutant, diluent.
moisture) during a 1-hour period to be
correlated.
10. A low-level drift may be
substituted for the zero drift test.
IV-APPENDIX B-2
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 10, 1979 / Proposed Rules
Performance Specification 3
1. The applicability of the test
procedures has been limited to those-
monitors that introduce calibration
gases directly into the analyzer and are
used as diluent monitors. Alternative
procedures for other types of monitors
are evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
2. Other changes were made to be
consistent with the revisions under
Performance Specification 2.
The proposed revised performance
specifications would apply to all sources
subject to Performance Specifications 1,
2, or 3. These include sources subject to
standards of performance that have
already been promulgated and sources
subject to Appendix P to 40 CFR Part 51.
Since the purpose of these revisions is to
clarify the performance specifications
which were promulgated on October 6,
1975, not to establish more stringent
requirements, it is reasonable to
conclude that most continuous
monitoring instruments which met and
can continue to meet the October 6,
1975, specifications can also meet the
revised specifications.
Under Executive Order 12044, the
Environmental Protection Agency 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.
Dated: October 1.1979.
Douglas M. Costle,
Administrator.
It is proposed to revise Appendix B,
Part 60 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations as follows:
Appendix B—Performance
Specifications
Performance Specification 1—
Specifications and Test Procedures For
Opacity Continuous Monitoring Systems
in Stationary Sources
1. Applicability and Principle
1.1 Applicability. This Specification
contains instrument design,
performance, and installation
requirements, and test and data
computation procedures for evaluating
the acceptability of continuous
monitoring systems for opacity. Certain
design requirements and test procedures
established in the Specification may not
be applicable to all instrument designs:
equivalent systems and test procedures
may be used with prior approval by the
Administrator.
1.2 Principle. The opacity of
particulate matter in stack emissions is
continuously monitored by a
measurement system based upon the
principle of transmissometry. Light
having specific spectral characteristics
is projected from a lamp through the
effluent in the stack or duct and the
intensity of the projected light is
measured by a sensor. The projected
light is attenuated due to absorption and
scatter by the particulate matter in the
effluent; the percentage of visible light
attenuated is defined as the opacity of
the emission. Transparent stack
emissions that do not attenuate light will
have a transmittance of 100 percent or
an opacity of zero percent. Opaque
stack emissions that attenuate all of the
visible light will have a transmittance of
zero percent or an opacity of 100
percent.
This specification establishes specific
design criteria for the transmissometer
system. Any opacity continuous
monitoring system that is expected to
meet this specification is first checked to
verify that the design specifications are
met. Then, the opacity continuous
monitoring system is calibrated,
installed, an operated for a specified
length of time. During this specified time
period, the system is evaluated to
determine confomance with the
established performance specifications.
2. Definitions
2.1 Continuous Monitoring System.
The total equipment required for the
determination of opacity. The system
consists of the following major
subsystems:
2.1.1 Sample Interface. That portion
of the system that protects the analyzer
from the effects of the stack effluent and
aids in keeping the optical surfaces
clean.
2.1.2 Analyzer. That portion of the
system that senses the pollutant and
generates a signal output that is a
function of the opacity.
2.1.3 Data Recorder. That portion of
the system that processes the analyzer
output and provides a permanent record
of the output signal in terms of opacity.
The data recorder may include
automatic data reduction capabilities.
2.2 Transmissometer. That portion of
the system that includes the sample
interface and the analyzer.
2.3 Transmittance. The fraction of
incident light that is transmitted through
an optical medium.
2.4 Opacity. The fraction of incident-
light that is attenuated by an optical
medium. Opacity (Op) and
transmittar.ee (Tr) are related by:
Op = l-Tr.
2.5 Optical Density. A logarithmic
measure of the amount of incident light
attenuated. Optical density (D) is
related to the transmittance and opacity
as follows:
D= -log,, Tr= -log.o (1 - Op).
2.6 Peak Spectral Response. The
wavelength of maximum sensitivity of
the transmissometer.
2.7 Mean Spectral Response. The
wavelength which bisects the total area
under the effective spectral response
curve of the transmissometer.
2.8 Angle of View. The angle that
contains all of the radiation detected by
the photodetector assembly of the
analyzer at a level greater than 2.5
percent of the peak detector response.
2.9 Angle of Projection. The angle
that contains all of the radiation
projected from the lamp assembly of the
analyzer at a level of greater than 2.5
percent of the peak illuminace.
2.10 Span Value. The opacity value
at which the continuous monitoring
system is set to produce the maximum
data display output as specified in the
applicable subpart.
2.11 Upscale Calibration Value. The
opacity value at which a calibration
check of the monitoring system is
performed by simulating an upscale
opacity condition as viewed by the
receiver.
2.12 Calibration Error. The
difference between the opacity values
indicated by the continuous monitoring
system and the known values "of a series
of calibration attenuators (filters or
screens).
2.13 Zero Drift. The difference in
continuous monitoring system output
readings before and after a stated period
of normal continuous operation during
which no unscheduled maintenance,
-repair, or adjustment took place and
when the opacity (simulated) at the time
of the measurements was zero.
2.14 Calibration Drift. The difference
in the continuous monitoring system
output readings before and after a stated
period of normal continuous operation
during which no unscheduled
maintenance, repair, or adjustment took
place and when the opacity (simulated)
at the time-of the measurements was the
same known upscale calibration value.
2.15 Response Time. The amount of
time it takes the continuous monitoring
system to display on the data recorder
95 percent of a step change in opacity.
2.16 Conditioning Period. A period of
time (168 hours minimum) during which
the continuous monitoring system is
operated without unscheduled
maintenance, repair, or adjustment prior
to initiation of the operational test
period.
-IV-APPENDIX B-3
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 197 / Wednesday. October 10. 1979 / Proposed Rules
2.17 Operational Test Period. A
period of time (168 hours) during which
the continuous monitoring system is
expected to operate within the
established performance specifications
without any unscheduled maintenance,
repair, or adjustment.
2.18 Pathlength. The depth of
effluent in the light beam between the
receiver and the transmitter of a single-
pass trar.smissometer, or the depth of
effluent between the transceiver and
reflector of a double-pass
transmissometer. Two pathlengths are
referenced by this Specification as
follows:
2.18.1 Monitor Pathlength. The
pathlength at the installed location of
the continuous monitoring system.
2.18.2 Emission Outlet Pathlength.
The pathlength at the location where
emissions are released to the
atmosphere.
3. Apparatus
3.1 Continuous Monitoring System.
Use any continuous monitoring system
for opacity which is expected to meet
the design specifications in Section 5
and the performance specifications in
Section 7. The data recorder may be an
analog strip chart recorder type or other
suitable device with an input signal
range compatible with the analyzer
output.
3.2 Calibration Attenuators. Use
optical filters with neutral spectral
characteristics or screens known to
produce specified optical densities to
visible light. The attenuators must be of
sufficient size to attenuate the entire
light beam of the transmissometer.
Select and calibrate a minimum of three
attenuators according to the procedures
in Sections 8.1.2. and 8.1.3.
3.3 Upscale Calibration Value
Attenuator. Use an optical filter with
neutral spectral characteristics, a
screen, or other device that produces an
opacity value (corrected for pathlength,
if necessary] that is greater than the sum
of the applicable opacity standard and
one-fourth of the difference between the
opacity standard and the instrument
span value, but less than the sum of the
opacity standard and one-half of the
difference between the opacity standard
and the instrument span value.
3.4 Calibration Spectrophotometer.
To calibrate the calibration attenuators
use a laboratory Spectrophotometer
meeting the following minimum design
specification:
Parameter
Specification
Wavelength range
Detector angle of view..
Accuracy
...... 400-700 nffl
& 10°
S 0.5 pet. Iransmittanc*
4. Installation Specifications
Install the continuous monitoring
system where the opacity measurements
are representative of the total emissions
from the affected facility. Use a
measurement path that represents the
average opacity over the cross section.
Those requirements can be met as
follows:
4.1 Measurement Location. Select a
measurement location that is (a)
downstream from all particulate control
equipment; (b) where condensed water
vapor is not present; (c) accessible in
order to permit routine maintenance;'
and (d) free of interference from
ambient light (applicable only if
transmissometer is responsive to
ambient light).
4.2 Measurement Path. Select a
measurement path that passes through
the centroid of the cross section.
Additional requirements or
modifications must be met for certain
locations as follows:
4.2.1 If the location is'in a straight
vertical section of stack or duct and is
less than 4 equivalent diameters
downstream or 1 equivalent diameter
upstream from a bend, use a path that is
in the plane defined by the bend.
4.2.2 If the location is in a vertical
section of stack or duct and is less than
4 diameters downstream and 1 diameter
upstream from a bend, use a path in the
plane defined by the bend upstream of
the transmissometer.
4.2.3 If the location is in a horizontal
section of duct and is at least 4
diameters downstream from a vertical
bend, use a path in the horizontal plane
that is one-third the distance up the
vertical axis from the bottom of the duct.
4.2.4 If the location is in a horizontal
section of duct and is less than 4
diameters downstream from a vertical
bend, use a path in the horizontal plane
that is two-thirds the distance up the
vertical axis from the bottom of the duct
for upward flow in the vertical section,
and one-third the distance up the
vertical axis from the bottom of the duct
for downward flow.
4.3 Alternate Locations and
Measurement Paths. Other locations and
measurement paths may be selected by
demonstrating to the Administrator that
the average opacity measured at the
alternate location or path is equivalent
(± 10 percent) to the opacity as
measured at a location meeting the
criteria of Sections 4.1 and 4.2. To
conduct this demonstration, measure the
opacities at the two locations or paths
for a minimum period of two hours. The
opacities of the two locations or paths
may be measured at different times, but
must be measured at the same process
operating conditions.
5. Design Specifications
Continuous monitoring systems for
opacity must comply with the following
design specifications:
R.I Optics.
5.1.1 Spectral Response. The peak
and mean spectral responses will occur
between 515 nm and 585 nm. The
response at any wavelength below 400
nm or above 700 nm will be less than 10
percent of the peak spectral response.
5.1.2 Angle of View. The total angle
of view will be no greater than 4
degrees.
5.1.3 Angle of Projection. The total
angle of projection will be no greater
than 4 degrees.
5.2 Optical Alignment sight. Each
analyzer will provide some method for
visually determining that the instrument
is optically aligned. The system
provided will be capable of indicating
that the unit is misaligned when an error
of ± 2 percent opacity occurs due to
misalignment at a monitor pathlength of
eight (8) meters.
5.3 Simulated Zero and Upscale
Calibration System. Each analyzer will
include a system for simulating a zero.
opacity and an upscale opacity value for
the purpose of performing periodic
checks of the transmissometer
calibration while on an operating stack
or duct. This calibration system will
provide, as a minimum, a system check
of the analyzer internal optics and all
electronic circuitry including the lamp
and photodetector assembly.
5.4 Access to External Optics. Each
analyzer will provide a means of access
to the optical surfaces exposed to the
effluent stream in order to permit the
surfaces to be cleaned.without requiring
removal of the unit from the source
mounting or without requiring optical
realignment of the unit.
5.5 Automatic Zero Compensation
Indicator. If the monitoring system has a
feature which provides automatic zero
compensation for dirt accumulation on
exposed optical surfaces, the system
will also provide some means of
indicating that a compensation of
4 ± 0.5 percent opacity has beer,
exceeded; this indicator shall be at r.
location accessible to the operatw fe.?,.
the data output terminal). During the
operational test period, the system must
provide some means for determining the
actual amount of zero compensation at
the specified 24-hour intervals so that
the actual 24-hour zero drift can be
determined (see Section 8.4.1).
5.6 Slotted Tube. For
transmissometers that use slotted tubes,
the length of the slotted portion(s) must
IV-APPENDIX B-4
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 197 / Wednesday, October 10, 1979 / .Proposed Rules
be equal to or greater than 90 percent of
the monitor pathlength, and the slotted
tube must be of sufficient size and
orientation so as not to interfere with
the free flow of effluent through the
entire optical volume of the
transmissometer photodetector. The
manufacturer must also show that the
transmissometer uses appropriate
methods to minimize light reflections: as
a minimum, this demonstration shall
consist of laboratory operation of the
transmissometer both with and without
the slotted tube in position. Should the
operator desire to use a slotted tube
design with a slotted portion equal to
less than 90 percent of the monitor
pathlength, the operator must
demonstrate to the Administrator that
acceptable results can be obtained. As a
minimum demonstration, the effluent
opacity shall be measured using both
the slotted tube instrument and another
instrument meeting the requirement of
this specification but not of the slotted
tube design. The measurements must be
made at the same location and at the
same process operating conditions for a
minimum period of two hours with each
instrument. The shorter slotted tube may
be used if the average opacity measured
is equivalent (± 10 percent) to the
opacity measured by trie non-slotted
tube design.
6. Optical Design Specifications
Verifciation Procedure.
These procedures will not be
applicable to all designs and will require
modification in some cases; all
modifications are subject to the
approval of the Administrator.
Test each analyzer for conformance
with the design specifications of
Sections 5.1 and 5.2 or obtain a
certificate of conformance from the
analyzer manufacturer as follows:
6.1 Spectral Response. Obtain
detector response, lamp emissivity and
filter transmittance data for the
components used in the measurement
system from their respective
manufacturers.
6.2 Angle of View. Set up the
receiver as specified by the
manufacturer's written instructions.
Draw an arc with radius of 3 meters in
the horizontal direction. Using a small
(less than 3 centimeters) non-directional
light source, measure the receiver
response at 4-centimeter intervals on the
arc for 24 centimeters on either side of
the detector centerline. Repeat the test
in the vertical direction.
6.3 Angle of Projection. Set up the
projector as specified by the
manufacturer's written instructions.
Draw an arc with radius of 3 meters in
the horizontal direction. Using a small
(less than 3 centimeters) photoelectric
light detector, measure the light
intensity at 4-centimeter intervals on the
arc for 24 centimeters on either side of
the light source centerline of projection.
Repeat the test in the vertical direction.
6.4 Optical Alignment Sight. In the
laboratory set up the instrument as
specified by the manufacturers written
instructions for a monitor pathlength of
8 meters. Assure that the instrument has
been properly aligned and that a proper
zero and span have been obtained.
Insert an attenuator of 10 percent
(nominal) opacity into the instrument
pathlength. Slowly misalign the
projector unit until a positive or negative
shift of two percent opacity is obtained
by the data recorder. Then, following
the manufacturer's written instructions,
check the alignment and assure that the
alignment procedure does in fact
indicate that the instrument is
misaligned. Realign the instrument and
follow the same procedure for checking
misalignment of the receiver or
retroreflector unit'.
6.5 Manufacturer's Certificate of
Conformance (Alternative to above).
Obtain from the manufacturer a
certificate of conformance which
certifies that the first analyzer randomly
sampled from each month's production
was tested according to Sections 6.1
through 6.3 and satisfactorily met all
requirements of Section 5 of this
Specification. If any of the requirements
were not met, the certificate must state
that the entire month's analyzer
production was resampled according to
the military standard 105D sampling
procedure (MIL-STD-105D) inspection
level II; was retested for each of the
applicable requirements under Section 5
of this Specification; and was
determined to be acceptable under MIL-
STD-105D procedures, acceptable
quality level 1.0. The certificate of
conformance must include the results of
each test performed for the analyzer(s)
sampled during the month the analyzer
being installed was produced.
7. Performance Specifications
The opacity continuous monitoring
system performance specifications are
listed in Table 1-1.
Table 1-1.—Performance specifications
TibU 1-1.—Performance specifications—Continued
Parameter
Specifications
Parameter
Specifications
6. Calibration drift (24-hour) •
7. Data recorder resolution...
. S 2 pet opacity.
. £ 0.50 pet ot lull scale
span value.
1. Calibration error* £ 3 pet opacity.
2. Response lime s 10 seconds.
3 Conditioning period * S 168 hours.
4 Operational test period • S 168 nours.
5 Zero dnfl (24-hour) • S 2 pet opacity.
• Expressed as turn of absolute mean and the 95 percent
confidence interval.
•During the conditioning and operational lest periods, the
continuous monitoring system shall not require any corrective
maintenance, repair, replacement, or adjustment other than
that clearly specified as routine and required in the operation
and maintenance manuals.
8. Performance Specification
Verification Procedure
Test each continuous monitoring
system that conforms to the design
specifications (Section 5) using the
following procedures to determine
conformance with the performance
specifications of Section 7.
8.1 Preliminary Adjustments and
Tests. Prior to installation of the system
on the stack, perform these steps or tests
at the affected facility or in the
manufacturer's laboratory.
8.1.1 Equipment Preparation. Set up
and calibrate the monitoring system for
the monitor pathlength to be used in the
installation as specified by the
manufacturer's written instructions. If
the monitoring system has automatic
pathlength adjustment, follow the
manufacturer's instructions to adjust the
signal output from the analyzer to
equivalent values based on the emission
outlet pathlength. Set the span at the
value specified in the applicable
subpart. At this time perform the zero
alignment by balancing the response of
the continuous monitoring system so
that the simulated zero check coincides
with the actual zero check performed
across the simulated monitor pathlength.
Then, assure that the upscale calibration
value is within the required opacity
range (Section 3.3).
8.1.2 Calibrated Attenuator
Selection. Based on the span value
specified in the applicable subpart,
select a minimum of three calibrated
attenuators (low, mid, and high range)
using Table 1-2. If the system is
operating with automatic pathlength
compensation, calculates the attenuator
values required to obtain a system
response equivalent to the applicable
values shown in Table 1-2; use equation
1-1 for the conversion. A series of filters
with nominal optical density (opacity)
values of 0.1(20). 0.2(37), 0.3(50), 0.4(60).
0.5(68). 0.6(75), 0.7(80). 0.8(84), 0.9(88).
and 1.0(90) are commercially available.
Within this limitation of filter
availability, select the calibrated
IV-APPENDIX B-5
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 197 / Wednesday, October 10, 1979 / Proposed Rules
attenuators having the values given in
Table 1-2 or having values closest to
those calculated by Equation 1-1.
Table 1-2.—Required Calibrated Attenuator Values
(Nominal)
Span value
(percent opacity)
Calibrated attenuator
optical density
(equivalent opacity
m parenthesis)
Low-range D, Mid-range High-range
50
60
70
BO
90
100
D, = D, (L,/U)
Where:
0.1 (20)
.1 (20)
1 BO)
« (20)
1 (20)
.1 (20)
0.2 (37) 0.3 (50)
.2 (37) .3 (50)
.3 (50) .4 (60)
.3 (50) .6 (75)
.4 (60) .7 (SO)
.4 (60) .9 (B7>i)
Equation 1-1
Di = Nominal optical density value of
required mid. low. or high range
calibration attenuators.
Di = Desired attenuator optical density
output value from Table 1-2 at the span
required by the applicable subpart.
L, = Monitor pathlength.
La = Emission outlet pathlength.
6.1.3 Attenuator Calibration.
Calibrate the required filters or screens
using a laboratory spectrophotometer
meeting the specifications of Section 3.4
to measure the transmittance in the 400
to 700 nm wavelength range; make
measurements at wavelength intervals
of 20 nm or less. As an alternate
procedure use an instrument meeting the
specifications of Section 3.4 to measure
the C.I.E. Daylightc Luminous
Transmittance of the attenuators. During
the calibration procedure assure that a
minimum of 75 percent of the total area
of the attenuator is checked. The
attenuator manufacturer must specify
the period of time over which the
attenuator values can be considered
stable, as well as any special handling
and storing procedures required to
enhance attenuator stability. To assure
stability, attenuator values must be
rechecked at intervals less than or equal
to the period of stability guaranteed by
the manufacturer. However, values must
be rechecked at least every 3 months. If
desired, tV'stability checks may be
performed on an instrument other than
that initially used for the attenuator
calibration (Section 3.4). However, if a
different instrument is used, the
instrument shall be a high quality
laboratory transmissometer or
spectrophotometer and the same
instrument shall always be used for the
stability checks. If a secondary
instrument is to be used for stability
checks, the value of the calibrated
attenuator shall be measured on this
secondary instrument immediately
following calibration and prior to being
used. If over a period time an attenuator
value changes by more than ±2 percent
opacity, it shall be recalibrated or
replaced by a new attenuator.
If this procedure is conducted by the
filter or screen manufacturer or
independent laboratory, obtain a
statement certifying the values and that
the specified procedure, or equivalent,
was used.
8.1.4 Calibration Error Test. Insert
the calibrated attenuators (low, mid, and
high range) in the transmissometer path
at or as near to the midpoint as feasible.
The attenuator must be placed in the
measurement path at a point where the
effluent will be measured; i.e., do not
place the calibrated attenuator in the
instrument housing. While inserting the
attenuator, assure that the entire
projected beam will pass through the
attenuator and that the attenuator is
inserted in a manner which minimizes
interference from reflected light. Make a
total of five nonconsecutive readings for
each filter. Record the monitoring
system output readings in percent
opacity (see example Figure 1-1).
8.1.5 System Response Test. Insert
the high-range calibrated attenuator in
the transmissometer path five times and
record the time required for the system
to respond to 95 percent of final zero
and high-range filter values (see
example Figure 1-2).
8.2 Preliminary Field Adjustments.
Install the continuous monitoring system
on the affected facility according to the
manufacturer's written instructions and
perform the following preliminary
adjustments;
8.2.1 Optical and Zero Alignment.
When the facility is not in operation,
conduct the optical alignment by
aligning the light beam from the
transmissometer upon the optical .
surface located across the duct or stack
(i.e., the retroflector or photodetector, as
applicable) in accordance with the
manufacturer's instructions. Under clear
stack conditions, verify the zero
alignment (performed in Section 8.1.1)
by assuring that the monitoring system
response for the simulated zero check
coincides with the actual zero measured
by the transmissometer across the clear
stack. Adjust the zero alignment, if
necessary. Then, after the affected
facility has been started up and the
effluent stream reaches normal
operating temperature, recheck the
optical alignment. If the optical
alignment has shifted realign the optics.
8.2.2 Optical and Zero Alignment
(Alternative Procedure). If the facility is
already on line and a zero stack
condition cannot practicably be
obtained, use the zero alignment
obtained during the preliminary
adjustments (Section 8.1.1) prior to
installation of the transmissometer on
the stack. After completing all the
preliminary adjustments and tests
required in Section 8.1, install the
system at the source and align the
optics, i.e., align the light beam from the
transmissometer upon the optical
surface located across the duct or stack
in accordance with the manufacturer's
instruction. The zero alignment
conducted in this manner shall be
verified and adjusted, if necessary, the
first time the facility is not in operation
after the operational test period has
been completed.
8.3 Conditioning Period. After
completing the preliminary field
adjustments (Section 8.2), operate the
system according to the manufacturer's
instructions for an initial conditioning
period of not less than 168 hours while
the source is operating. Except during
times of instrument zero and upscale
calibration checks, the continuous
monitoring system will analyze the
effluent gas for opacity and produce a
permanent record of the continuous
monitoring system output. During this
conditioning period there shall be no
unscheduled maintenance, repair, or
adjustment. Conduct daily zero
calibration and upscale calibration
checks, and, when accumulated drift
exceeds the daily operating limits, make
adjustments and/or clean the expo'sed
optical surfaces. The data recorder shall
reflect these checks and adjustments. At
the end of the operational test period,
verify that the instrument optical
alignment is correct. If the conditioning
period is interrupted because of source
breakdown (record the dates and times
of process shutdown), continue the 168-
hour period following resumption of
source operation. If the conditioning
period is interrupted because of monitor
failure, restart the 168-hour conditioning
period when the monitor becomes
operational.
8.4 Operational Test Period. After
completing the conditioning period
operate the system for an additional
168-hour period. It is not necessary that
the 168-hour operational test period
immediately follow the 168-hour
conditioning period. Except during times
of instrument zero and upscale
calibration checks, the continuous
monitoring system will analyze the
effluent gas for opacity and will produce
a permanent record of the continuous
monitoring system output. During this
period, there will be no unscheduled
maintenance, repair, or adjustment. Zero
and calibration adjustments, optical
surface cleaning, and optical
realignment may be performed
(optional) only at 24-hour intervals or at
IV-APPENDIX B-6
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 197 / Wednesday. October 10. 1979 / Proposed Rules
such shorter intervals as the
manufacturer's written instructions
specify. Automatic zero and calibration
adjustments made by the monitoring
system without operator intervention or
initiation are followable at any time. If
the operational test period is interrupted
because of source breakdown, continue
the 168-hour period following
resumption of source operation. If the
test period is interrupted because of
monitor failure, restart the 168-hour
period when the monitor becomes
operational. During the operational test
period, perform the following test
procedures:
8.4.1 Zero Drift Test. At the outset of
the 168-hour operational test period,
record the initial simulated zero and
upscale opacity readings (see example
Figure 1-3). After each 24-hour interval
check and record the final zero reading
before any optional or required cleaning
and adjustment. Zero and upscale
calibration adjustments, optical surface
cleaning, and optical realignment may
be performed only at 24-hour intervals
(or at such shorter intervals as the
manufacturer's written instructions
specify) but are optional. However,
adjustments and/or cleaning must be
performed when the accumulated zero
calibration or upscale calibration drift
exceeds the 24-hour drift specifications
(±2 percent opacity). If no adjustments
are made after the zero check the final
zero reading is recorded as the initial
reading for the next 24-hour period. If
adjustments are made, the zero value
after adjustment is recorded as the
initial zero value for the next 24-hour
period. If the instrument has an
automatic zero compensation feature for
dirt accumulation on exposed lens, and
the zero value cannot be measured
before compensation is entered then
record the amount of automatic zero
compensation for the final zero reading
of each 24-hour period. (List the
indicated zero values of the monitoring
system in parenthesis.)
8.4.2 Upscale Drift Test. At each 24-
hour interval, after the zero calibration
value has been checked and any
optional or required adjustments have
been made, check and record the
simulated upscale calibration value. If
no further adjustments are made to the
calibration system at this time, the final
upscale calibration value is recorded as
the initial upscale value for the next 24-
hour period. If an instrument span
adjustment is made, the upscale value
after adjustment is recorded as the
initial upscale for the next 24-hour
period.
During the operational test period
record all adjustments, realignments and
lens cleanings.
9. Calculation. Data Analysis, and
Reporting
9.1 Arithmetic Mean. Calculate the
mean of a set of data as follows:
Equation 2-'
Where:
"x = mean value.
n = number of data points.
2x, = algebraic sum of the individual
measurements, x,
9.2 Confidence Interval. Calculate
the 95 percent confidence interval (two-
sided) as follows:
Equation 2-?
Where:
C.1.M = 95 percent confidence interval
estimate of the average mean value.
'.975 = '(1— a/2).
Table 1-3— '.975 Values
-.975
'.975
2
3
4
s
6
12.706
4.303
3182
2776
2.571
7
e
9
10
11
2.447
2.385
2.306
2.262
2.228
12
13
14
15
16
2.201
2.179
2.160
2.145
: 2.131
The values in this table are already
corrected for n-1 degrees of Freedom.
Use n equal to the number of data
points.
9.3 Conversion of Opacity Values
from Monitor Pathlength to Emission
Outlet Pathlength. When the monitor
pathlength is different than the emisson
outlet pathlength. use either of the
following equations to convert from one
basis to the other (this conversion may
be automatically calculated by the
monitoring system):
logfl-OpO = (Lj/Li) Log (l-Op.) Equation 1-4
Da = (La/L,) Equation 1-5
Where:
Opi = opacity of the effluent based upon Li
Op, = opacity of the effluent based upon L>
Li = monitor pathlength
Li = emission outlet pathlength
Di = optical density of the effluent based
upon Li
D, = optical density of the effleunt based
upon U
9.4 Spectral Response. Using the
spectral data obtained in Section 6.1,
develop the effective spectral response
curve of the transmissometer. Then
determine and report the peak spectral
response wavelength, the mean spectral
response wavelength, and the maximum
response at any wavelength below 400
nm and above 700 nm expressed as a
percentage of the peak response.
9.5 Angle of View. For the horizontal
and vertical directions, using the data
obtained in Section 6.2, calculate the
response of the receiver as a function of
viewing angle (21 centimeters of arc
with a radius of 3 meters equal 4
degrees), report relative angle of view
curves, and determine and report the
angle of view.
9.6 Angle of Projection. For the
horizontal and vertical directions, using
the data obtained in Section 6.3,
calculate the response of the
photoelectric detector as a function of
projection angle, report relative angle of •
projection curves, and determine and
report the angle of projection.
9.7 Calibration Error. See Figure 1-1.
If the pathlength is not adjusted by the
measurement system, subtract the
actual calibrated attenuator value from
the value indicated by the measurement
system recorder for each of the 15
readings obtained pursuant to Section
8.1.4. If the pathlength is adjusted by the
measurement system subtract the "path
adjusted" calibrated attenuator values
from the values indecated by the
measurement system recorder the "path
adjusted" calibrated attenuator values
are calculated using equation 1-4 or 1-
5). Calculate the arithmetic mean
difference and the 95 percent confidence
interval of the five tests at each
attenuator value using Equations 1-2
and 1-3. Calculate the sum of the
absolute value of the mean difference
and the 95 percent confidence interval
for each of the three test attenuators;
report these three values as the
calibration error.
9.8 Zero and Upscale Calibration
Drifts. Using the data obtained in
Sections 8.4.1 and 8.4.2 calculate the
zero and upscale calibration drifts. Then
calculate the arithmetic means and the
95 percent confidence intervals using
Equations 1-2 and 1-3. Calculate the
sum of the absolute value of the mean
and the 95 percent confidence interval
and report these values as the 24-hour
zero drift and the 24-hour calibration
drift.
9.9 Response Time. Using the data
collected in Section 8.1.5, calculate the
mean time of the 10 upscale and
downscale tests and report this value as
the system response time.
9.10 Reporting. Report the following
(summarize in tabular form where
appropriate).
9.10.1 General Information.
a. Instrument Manufacturer.
b. Instrument Model Number.
c. Instrument Serial Number.
IV-APPENDIX B-7
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 10, 1979 / Proposed Rulet;
d. Person(s) responsible for
operational and conditioning test
periods and affiliation.
e. Facility being monitored.
f. Schematic of monitoring system
measurement path location.
g. Monitor pathlength, meters.
h. Emission outlet pathlength, meters.
i. System span value, percent opacity.
j. Upscale calibration value, percent
opacity.
k. Calibrated Attenuator values (low,
mid, and high range), percent opacity.
9.10.2 Design Specification Test
Results
a. Peak spectral response, nm.
b. Mean spectral response, nm.
c. Response above 700 nm, percent of
peak.
d. Response below 400 nm, percent of
peak.
e. Total angle of view, degrees.
f. Total angle of projection, degrees.
9.10.3 Operational Test Period
Results.
a. Calibration error, high-range,
percent opacity.
b. Calibration error, mid-range,
percent opacity.
c. Calibration error, low-range,
percent opacity.
d. Response time, seconds.
e. 24-hour zero drift, percent opacity.
f. 24-hour calibration drift, percent
opacity.
g. Lens cleaning, clock time.
h. Optical alignment adjustment, clock
time.
9.10.4 Statements. Provide a
statement that the conditioning and
operational test periods were completed
according to the requirements of
Sections 8.3 and 8.4. In this statement,
include the time periods during which
the conditioning and operational test
periods were conducted.
9.10.5 Appendix. Provide the data
tabulations and calculations for the
above tabulated results.
9.11 Retest. If the continuous
monitoring system operates within the
specified performance parameters of
Table 1-1, the operational test period
will be successfully concluded. If the
continuous monitoring system fails to
meet any of the specified performance
parameters, repeat the operational test
period with a system that meets the
design specifications and is expected to
meet the performance specifications.
10. Bibliograpny.
10.1 "Experimental Statistics,"
Department of Commerce, National
Bureau of Standards Handbook 91,1963,
pp. 3-31, paragraphs 3-3.1.4.
10.2 "Performance Specifications for
Stationary-Source Monitoring Systems
for Gases and Visible Emissions,"
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, N. C., EPA-650/
2-74-013, January 1974. '
IV-APPENDIX B-8
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 197 / Wednesday, October 10,1979 / Proposed Rules
Person Con
Affiliation
DatP
Monitor Pa
Monitoring
Calibrated 1
Actual C
Lov
Mid
Hig
Run
Number
1 — Low
2 -Mid
3 - High
4 - Low
5 -Mid
6 - High
7 - Low
8 -Mid
9 - High
10- Low
11-Mid
12-High
13- Low
14-Mid
15-High
Morlfl/Sprial No
System Output Pathlength Corrected? Yes No
Meutral Density Filter Values
)ptical Density (Opacity): Path Adjusted Optical Density (opacity)
L/ Range ( _) low Range..- ( )
Rangp ( ) M\d Rangfi— ., - ( )
T Range ( , _) High Range. . , ( )
Calibration Filter
Value
(Path Adjusted Percent Opacity)
Instrument Reading
(Percent Opacity)
Arithmetic Mean (Equation 1 - 2): A
Confidence Interval (Equation 1 - 3): B
Calibration Error JAJ + JBJ
Arithmetic Difference
(% Opacity)
Low
—
—
— '
—
—
—
—
-
—
-
X
Mid
—
—
—
—
—
-
-
—
—
—
X
High
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
X
Figure 1-1. Calibration error determination
IV-APPENDIX B-9
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 10,1979 / Proposed Rules
Person Conducting Test Analyzer Manufacturer .
Affiliation Model/Serial No
Date Location
High Range Calibration Filter Value: Actual Optical Density (Opacity).
Path Adjusted Optical Density (Opacity).
Upscale Response Value ( 0.95 x filter value) percent opacity
Downscale Response Value (0.05 x filter value) percent opacity
Upscale 1 seconds
2 seconds
3 seconds
4 seconds
5 : seconds
Downscale 1 seconds
2 seconds
3 seconds
4 seconds
5 seconds
Average response seconds
Figure 1-2. Response Time Determination
IV-APPENDIX B-10
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 197 / Wednesday. October 10.1979 / Proposed Rules
Person
Affilia
Date
Conducting Tes
tinn
t Ap
Mn
1 ni
alyzer Man
del/ Serial
jfflrturpr
Mn
Monitor Pathlength, L
Monitoring System Ou
Upscale Calibration Va
Date
Time
Begin
End
f
c
tput Pathlength Corrected
lue : Actual Optical Den
Path Adjusted Opti
mission Ou
:? Yes
sity (Opac
cal Density
tlet Pathlei
t>
(Opacity)
TfTth 1 n ......
Jo
( )
( )
Percent Opacity
Zero Reading*
Initial
A
Arithmetic Mean (Eq. 1—2)
Final
B
Confidence Interval (Eq. 1-3)
Zero Drift
Zero
Drift
C = B-A
zero adjusted?
Upscale Calibration
Reading
Initial
D
Final
E
Upscale
Drift
F = E-D
Calibration Drift
Cali-
bration
Drift
G = F-C"
span adjusted?
lens cleaned?
Align-
ment
checked?
adjusted?
'without automatic zero compensation
•*if zero was adjusted (manually or automatically)
prior to upscale check, then use c = 0 .
Figure 1 • 3. Zero Calibration Drift Determination
IV-APPENDIX B-ll
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 10, 1979 / Proposed Rules
Performance Specification 2—
Specifications and Test Procedures for
SO, and NO, Continuous Monitoring
Systems in Stationary Sources
1. Applicability and Principle
1.1 Applicability. This Specification
contains (a) installation requirements,
(b) instrument performance and
equipment specifications, and (c) test
procedures and data reduction
procedures for evaluating the
acceptability of SOa and NO, continuous
monitoring systems, which may include,
for certain stationary sources, diluent
monitors. The test procedures in item
(c], above, are not applicable to single-
pass, in-situ continuous monitoring
systems; these systems will be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis upon
written request to the Administrator and
alternative test procedures will be
issued separately.
1.2 Principle. Any SO, or NO,
continuous monitoring system that is
expected to meet this Specification is
installed, calibrated, and operated for a
specified length of time. During this
specified time period, the continuous
monitoring system is evaluated to
determine conformance with the
Specification.
2. Definitions
2.1 Continuous Moni.toring System.
The total equipment required for the
determination of a gas concentration or
a gas emission rate. The system consists
of the following major sub-systems:
2.1.1 Sample Interface. That portion
of a system that is used for one or more
of the following: sample acquisition,
sample transportation, sample
conditioning, or protection of the
monitor from the effects of the stack
effluent.
2.1.2. Pollutant Analyzer. That
portion of the system that senses the
pollutant gas and generates an output'
that is proportional to the gas
concentration.
2.1.3. Diluent Analyzer (if
applicable). That portion of the system
that senses the diluent gas (e.g., CO, or
Oz) and generates an output that is
proportional to the gas concentration.
2.1.4 Data Recorder. That portion of
the monitoring system that provides a
permanent record of the analyzer
output. The data recorder may include
automatic data reduction capabilities.
2.2 Types of Monitors. Continuous
monitors are categorized as "extractive"
or "in-situ," which are further
categorized as "point," "multipoint,"
"limited-path," and "path" type
monitors or as "single-pass" or "double-
pass" type monitors.
2.2.1 Extractive Monitor. One that
withdraws a gas sample from the stack
and transports the sample to the
analyzer.
2.2.2 In-situ Monitor. One that
senses the gas concentration in the
stack environment and does not extract
a sample for analysis.
2.2.3 Point Monitor. One that
measures the gas concentration either at
a single point or along a path which is
less than 10 percent of the length of a
specified measurement line.
2.2.4 Multipoint Monitor. One that
measures the gas concentration at 2 or
more points.
2.2.5 Limited-Path Monitor. One that
measures the gas concentration along a
.path, which is 10 to 90 percent of the
length of a specified measurement line.
2.2.6 Path Monitor. One that
measures the gas concentration along a
path, which is greater than 90 percent of
the length of a specified measurement
line.
2.2.7 Single-Pass Monitor. One that
has the transmitter and the detector on
opposite sides of the stack or duct.
2.2.8 Double-Pass Monitor. One that
has the transmitter and the detector on
the same side of the stack or duct.
2.3 Span Value. The upper limit of a
gas concentration measurement range
which is specified for affected source
categories in the applicable subpart of
the regulations.
2.4 Calibration Gases. A known
concentration of a gas in an appropriate
diluent gas.
2.5 Calibration Gas Cells or Filters.
A device which, when inserted between
the transmitter and detector of the
analyzer, produces the desired output
level on the data recorder.
2.6 Relative Accuracy. The degree of
correctness including analytical
variations of the gas concentration or
emission rate determined by the
continuous monitoring system, relative
to the value determined by the reference
method(s).
2.7 Calibration Error. The difference
between the gas concentration indicated
by the continuous monitoring system
and the known concentration of the
calibration gas, gas cell, or filter.
2.8 Zero Drift. The difference in the
continuous monitoring system output
readings before and after a stated period
of operation during which no
unscheduled maintenance, repair, or
adjustment took place and when the
pollutant concentration at the time of
the measurements was zero (i.e., zero
gas, or zero gas cell or filter).
2.9 Calibration Drift. The difference
in the continuous monitoring system
output readings before and after a stated
period of operation during which no
unscheduled maintenance, repair or
adjustment took place and when the
pollutant concentration at the time of
the measurements was a high-level
value (i.e., calibration gas, gas cell or
filter).
. 2.10 Response Time. The amount of
time it takes the continuous monitoring
system to display on the data recorder
95 percent of a step change in pollutant
concentration.
2.11 Conditioning Period. A
minimum period of time over which the
continuous monitoring system is
expected to operate with no
unscheduled maintenance, repair, or
adjustments prior to initiation of the
operational test period.
2.12 Operational Test Period. A
minimum period of time over which the
continuous monitoring system is
expected to operate within the
established performance specifications
with no unscheduled maintenance,
repair or adjustment.
3. Installation Specifications
Install the continuous monitoring
system at a location where the pollutant
concentration measurements are
representative of the total emissions
from the affected facility and are
representative of the concentration over
the cross section. Both requirements can
be met as follows:
3.1 Measurement Location. Select an
accessible measurement location in the
stack or ductwork that is at least 2
equivalent diameters downstream from
the nearest control device or other point
at which a change in the pollutant
concentration may occur and at least 0.5
equivalent diameters upstream from the
effluent exhaust. Individual subparts of
the regulations may contain additional
requirements. For example, for steam
generating facilities, the location must
be downstream of the air preheater.
3.2 Measurement Points or Paths.
There are two alternatives. The tester
may choose either (a) to conduct the
stratification check procedure given in
Section 3.3 to select the point, points, or
path of average gas concentration, or (b)
to use the options listed below without a
stratification check.
Note.—For the purpose of this section, the
"centroidal area" is defined as a concentric
area that is geometrically similar to the stack
cross section and is no greater than 1 percent
of the stack cross-sectional area.
3,2.1 SO, and NO, Path Monitoring
Systems. The tester may choose to
centrally locate the sample interface
(path) of the monitoring system on a
measurement line that passes through
the "centroidal area" of the cross
section.
IV-APPENDIX B-12
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 197 / Wednesday, October 10, 1979 / Proposed Rules
3.2.2 SOt and NO. Multipoint
Monitoring Systems. The tester may
choose to space 3 measurement points
along a measurement line that passes
through the "centroidal area" of the
stack cross section, at distances of 16.7,
50.0. and 83.3 percent of the way across
it (see Figure 2-1).
"CENTROIDAL
AREA"
POINT
NO.
DISTANCE
(%OF L)
1
2
3
16.7
50.0
833
"CENTROIDAL
AREA" ^^
Figure 21. Location of an example measurement line (L) and measurement points.
IV-APPENDIX B-13
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 197 / Wednesday, October 10, 1979 / Proposed Rules
The following sampling strategies, or
equivalent, for measuring the
concentrations at the 3 points are
acceptable: (a) The use of a 3-probe or a
3-hole single probe arrangment,
provided that the sampling rate in each
of the 3 probes or holes is maintained
within 10 percent of their average rate
(This option requires a procedure,
subject to the approval of the
Administrator, to demonstrate that the
proper sampling rate is-maintained); or
(b) the use of a traversing probe
arrangement, provided that a
measurement at each point is made at
least once every 15 minutes and all 3
points are traversed and sampled for
equal lengths of time within 15 minutes.
3.2.3 SO, Single-Point and Limited-
Path Monitoring Systems. Provided that
(a) no "dissimilar" gas streams (i.e.,
having greater than 10 percent
difference in pollutant concentration
from the average) are combined
upstream of the measurement location,
and (b) for steam generating facilities, a
CO] or Os cotinuous monitor is installed
in addition to the SOa monitor,
according to the guidelines given in
Section 3.1 or 3.2 of Performance
Specification 3, the'tester may choose to
monitor SO> at a single point or over a
limited path. Locate the point in or
centrally locate the limited path over the
"centroidal area." Any other location
within the inner 50 percent of the stack
cross-sectional area that has been
demonstrated (see Section 3.4) to have a
"••mcentration within 5 percent of the
Concentration at a point within the
"rentroidal area" may be used.
3.2.4 NO, Single-Point and Limited-
Path Monitoring Systems. For NO,
monitors, the tester may choose the
single-point or limited-path option
described in Section 3.2.3 only in coal-
burning steam generators (does not
include oil and gas-fired units) and nitric
acid plants, which have no dissimilar
gas streams combining upstream of the
measurement location.
3.3 Stratification Check Procedure.
Unless specifically approved in Section
3.2., conduct a stratification check and
select the measurement point, points, or
path as follows:
3.3.1 Locate 9 sample points, as
shown in Figure 2-2, a or b. The tester
may choose to use more than 9 points,
provided that the sample points are
located in a similar fashion as in Fgure
2-2.
3.3.2 Measure at least twice the
pollutant and, if applicable (as in the
case of steam generators), CO* or O«
'concentrations at each of the sample
points. Moisture need not be determined
for this step. The following methods are
acceptable for the measurements: (a)
Reference Methods 3 (grab-sample), 6 or
7 of this part; (b) appropriate
instrumental methods which give .
relative responses to the pollutant (i.e.,
the methods need not be absolutely
correct), subject to the approval of the
Administrator; or (c) alternative
methods subject to the approval of the
Administrator, Express all •
measurements, if applicable, in the units
of the applicable standard.
3.3.3 Calculate the mean value and
select a point, points, limited-path, or
path which gives an equivalent value to
the mean. The point or points must be
within, and the limited-path or path
must pass through, the inner 50 percent
of the stack cross-sectional area. All
other locations must be approved by the
Administrator.
IV-APPENDIX'B-14
-------
POINT
NO.
1.9
2.8
C
3.7
4.6
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 197 / Wednesday. October 10,1979 / Proposed Rules
DISTANCE
(%OF 0)
10.0
30.0
50.0
70.0
90.0
•
4
c a 9
(a)
•
2
•
5
(b)
Figure 22. Location of 9 sampling points for stratification check.
IV-APPENDIX B-15
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 10, 1979 / Proposed Rules
3.4 Acceptability of Single Point or
Limited Path Alternative Location. Any
of the applicable measurement methods
mentioned in Section 3.3.2, above, may
be used. Measure the pollutant and, if
applicable. CO, or O, concentrations at
both the centroidal area and the
alternative locations. Moisture need not
be measured for this test. Collect a 21-
minute integrated sample or 3 grab-
samples, either at evenly spaced (7 ± 2
min.) intervals over 21 minutes or all
within 3 minutes, at each location. Run
the comparative tests either
concurrently or within 10 minutes of
each other. Average the results of the 3
grab-samples.
Repeat the measurements until a
minimum of 3 paired measurements
spanning a minimum of 1 hour of
process operation are obtained.
Determine the average pollutant
concentrations at the centroidal area
and the alternative locations. If
applicable, convert the data in terms of
the standard for each paired set before
taking the average. The alternative
sampling location is acceptable if each
alternative location value is within ± 10
percent of the corresponding centroidal
area value and if the average at the
alternative location is within 5 percent
of the average of the centroidal area.
4. Performance and Equipment
Specifications
The continuous monitoring system
performance and equipment
specifications are listed in Table 2-1. To
be considered acceptable, the
continuous monitoring system must
demonstrate compliance with these
specifications using the test procedures
of Section 6.
5. Apparatus
5.1 Continuous Monitoring System.
Use any continuous monitoring system
of SO3 or NO, which is expected to meet
the specifications in Table 2-1. For
sources which are required to convert
the pollutant concentrations to other
emission units using diluent gas
measurements, the diluent gas
continuous monitor, as described in
Performance Specification 3 of this
Appendix, is considered part of the
continuous monitoring system. The data
recorder may be an analog strip chart
recorder type or other suitable device
with an input signal range compatible
with the analyzer output.
5.2 Calibration Gases. For
continuous monitoring systems that
allow the introduction of calibration
gases to the analyzer, the calibration
gases may be SO, in air or N,, NO in N,,
and NOa in air or N,. Two or more
calibration gases may be combined in
the same gas cylinder, except do not
combine the NO and air. For NOE
monitoring systems that oxidize NO to
NOa, the calibration gases must be in the
form of NO. Use three calibration gas
mixtures as specified below:
5.2.1 High-Level Gas. A gas
concentration that is equivalent to 80 to
90 percent of the span value.
Table 2-1.—Continuous Monitoring System
Performance and Equipment Specifications
Parameter
Specification
1. Conditioning
penod'.
2. Operational test
penoO*.
3. Calibration emx •.
4. Response time
S. Zero drift (2-
hour) •••.
6 Zero drift (24-
hour) ••'.
7. Calibration dntl
(2 = hour)'.
8. Calibration drift
(24-hour)«.
A. Relative
accuracy *
10 Calibration gas
cells or filters
11. Data recorder
chart resolution
12 Extractive
systems with diluent
monitors
3168 hours.
9168 hours.
« 5 pet of each mid-level and high-
level calibration value.
615 minutes (5 minutes for 3-potnt
traversing probe arrangement).
e 2 pet of span value.
C 2 pet of span value.
C 2 pet of span value.
« 2.5 pet of span value.
C 20 pet of the mean value of
reference method(s) test data in
terms of emission standard or 10
percent _f the applicable i
standard, whichever is greater.
Must provide a check of an analyzer
internal mirrors and lenses and all
electronic circuitry including the
radiation source and detector
assembly which are normally use
in sampling and analysis.
Chart scales must be readable to
within SO SO pet of full-scale.
Must use the same sample interface
to sample both the pollutant and
diluent gases Place in series
(diluent after pollutant analyzer) or
use a "T. "'Ounng the
conditioning and operational test
periods, the continuous monitoring
system shall not require any
corrective maintenance, repair.
replacement, or adjustment other
than that clearly specified as
routine and required in the
operation and maintenance
manuals. * Expressed as the sum
of the absolute mean value plus
the 95 percent confidence interval
of a series of tests divided by a
reference value.' A low-level (5-
15 percent of span value) drift test
may be substituted tor the zero
Dntt tests.
5.2.2 Mid-Level Gas. A gas
concentration that is equivalent to 45 to
55 percent of the span value.
5.2.3 Zero Gas. A gas concentration'
of less than 0.25 percent of the span
value. Ambient air may be used for the
zero gas.
5.3 Calibration Gas Cells or Filters.
For continuous monitoring systems
which use calibration gas cells or filters,
use three certified calibration gas cells
or filters as specified below:
5.3.1 High-Level Gas Cell or Filter.
One that produces an output equivalent
to 80 to 90 percent of the span value.
5.3.2 Mid-Level Gas Cell or Filter.
One that produces an output equivalent
to 45 to 55 percent of the span value.
5.3.3 Zero Gas Cell or Filter. One
that produces an output equivalent to
zero. Alternatively, an analyzer may
produce a zero value check by
mechanical means, such as a movable
mirror.
5.4 Calibration Gas—Gas Cell or
Filter Combination. Combinations of the
above may be used.
6. Performance Specification Test
Procedures.
6.1 Pretest Preparation.
6.1.1 Calibration Gas Certification.
The tester may select one of the
following alternatives: (a) The tester
may use calibration gases prepared
according to the protocol defined in
Citation 10.5, i.e. These gases may be
used as received without reference
method analysis (obtain a statement
from the gas cylinder supplier certifying
that the calibration gases have been
prepared according to the protocol); or
(b) the tester may use calibration gases
not prepared according to the protocol.
In case (b). he must perform triplicate
analyses of each calibration gas (mid-
level and high-level, only) within 2
weeks prior to the operational test
period using the appropriate reference
methods. Acceptable procedures are
described in Citations 10.6 and 10.7.
Record the results on a data sheet
(example is shown in Figure 2-3). Each
of the individual analytical results must
be within 10 percent (or 15 ppm,
whichever is greater) of the average:
otherwise, discard the entire set and
repeat ihe triplicate analyses. If the
average of the triplicate reference
method test results is within 5 percent of
the calibration gas manufacturer's tag
value, use the tag value: otherwise,
conduct at least 3 additional reference
method test analyses until the results of
6 individual runs (the 3 original plus 3
additional) agree within 10 percent or 15
ppm, whichever is greater, of the
average. Then use this average for the
cylinder value.
IV-APPENDIX B-16
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 197 / Wednesday. October 10. 1979 / Proposed Rules
Date
Figure 2-3. Analysis of Calibration Gases*
(Must be within 2 weeks prior to the
operational test period)
Reference Method Used
Sample Run
1
2
3
Werage
1ax1mum % Deviation
M1d-levelb
ppm
High-level0
ppm
Not necessary 1f the protocol In Citation 10.5 1s used
to prepare the gas cylinders.
Average must be 45 to 55 percent of span value.
0 Average must be 80 to 90 percent of span value.
Must be 5 + 10 percent of applicable average or 15 ppm,
whichever Ts greater.
6.1.2 Calibration Gas Cell or Filter
Certification. Obtain (a) a statement
from the manufacturer certifying that the
calibration gas cells or filters (zero, mid-
level, and high-level) will produce the
stated instrument responses for the
continuous monitoring system, and (b) a
description of the test procedure and
equipment used to calibrate the cells or
filters. At a minimum, the manufacturer
must have calibrated the gas cells or
filters against a simulated source of
known concentration.
6.2 Conditioning Period. Prepare the
monitoring system for operation
according to the manufacturer's written
instructions. At the outset of the
conditioning period, zero and span the
system. Use the mid-level calibration
gas (or gas cell or filter) to set the span
at 50 percent of recorder full-scale. If
necessary to determine negative zero
drift, offset the scale by 10 percent. (Do
not forget to account for this when using
the calibration curve.) If a zero offset is
not possible or is impractical, a low-
level drift mav be substituted for the
zero drift, by using a low-level (5 to 15
percent of span value) calibration gas
(or gas cell or filter). This low-level
calibration gas (or gas cell or filter) need
not be certified. Operate the continuous
monitoring system for an initial 168-hour
period in the manner specified by the
manufacturer. Except during times of
instrument zero, calibration checks, and
system backpurges, the continuous
monitoring system shall collect and
condition the effluent gas sample (if
applicable), analyze the sample for the
appropriate gas constituents,-and
produce a permanent record of the
system output. Conduct daily zero and
mid-level calibration checks and, when
drift exceeds the daily operating limits,
make adjustments. The data recorder
shall reflect these checks and
adjustments. Keep a record of any
instrument failure during this time. If the
conditioning period is interrupted
because of source breakdown (record
the dates and times of process
shutdown), continue the 168-hour period
following resumption of source
operation. If the conditioning period is
interrupted because of monitor failure,
restart the 168-hour conditioning period
when the monitor becomes functional.
6.3 Operational Test Period. Operate
the continuous monitoring system for an
additional 168-hour period. The
continuous monitoring system shall
monitor the effluent, except during
periods when the system calibration and
response time are checked or during
system backpurges; however, the system
shall p Huce a permanent record of all
operations. .Record any system failure
during this time on the data recorder
output sheet.
It is not necessary that the 168-hour
operational test period immediately
follow the 168-hour conditioning ;• nod.
During the operational test period,
perform the following test procedures:
6.3.1 Calibration Error
Determination. Make a total of 15
nonconsecutive zero, mid-level, and
high-level measurements (e.g.. zero, mid-
level, zero, high-level, mid-range, etc.).
IV-APPENDIX B-17
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 10, 1979 / Proposed Rules
This will result in a set of 5 each of zero,
mid-level, and high-level measurements.
Convert the data output to concentration
units, if necessary, and record the
results on a data sheet (example is
shown in Figure 2-4). Calculate the
differences between the reference
calibration gas concentrations and the
measurement system reading. Then
calculate the mean, confidence interval,
and calibration errors separately for the
mid-level and high-level concentrations
using Equations 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3. In
Equation 2-3, use each respective
calibration gas concentration for R.V.
Figure 2-4. Calibration Error Determination
Run
no.
! 1
.__
"V
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Calibration gas
concentration9
ppm
A
Measurement system
reading
ppm
B
•
Arithmetic Mean (Eq. 2-1) s
Confidence Interval (Eq. 2-2) ~
Calibration Error (Eq. 2-3)b "
Arithmetic
differences
£P.m
A-B
Mid
High
a Calibration Data from Section 6.1.1 or 6.1.2
Mid-level: C = ppm
High-level: D = ppm
b Use C or D as R.V. 1n Eq. 2-3
Date
Figure 2-5. Response Time
High-level
ppm
System Response Time (slower of A and B)
min.
IV-APPENDIX B-18
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 197 / Wednesday. October 10. 1979 / Proposed Rules 58621
6.3.2 Response Time Test Procedure.
At a minimum, each response time test
shall provide a check of the entire
sample transport line (if applicable), any
sample conditioning equipment (if
applicable), the pollutant analyzer, and
the data recorder. For in-situ systems,
perform the response time check by
introducing the calibration gases at the
sample interface (if applicable), or by
introducing the calibration gas cells or .
filters at an appropriate location in the
pollutant analyzer. For extractive
monitors, introduce the calibration gas
at the sample probe inlet in the stack or
at the point of connection between the
rigid sample probe and the sample
transport line. If an extractive analyzer
is used to monitor the effluent from more
than one source, perform the response
time test for each sample interface.
To begin the response time test,
introduce zero gas (or zero cell or filter)
into the continuous monitor. When the
system output has stabilized, switch to
monitor the stack effluent and wait until
a "stable value" has been reached.
Record the upscale response time. Then,
introduce the high-level calibration gas
(or gas cell or filter). Once the system
has stabilized at the high-level
concentration, switch to monitor the
stack effluent and wait until a "stable
value" is reached. Record the downscale
response time. A "stable value" is
equivalent to a change of less than 1
percent of span value for 30 seconds or 5
percent of measured average
concentration for 2 minutes. Repeat the
entire procedure three times. Record the
results of each test on a data sheet
(example is shown in Figure 2-5).
Determine the means of the upscale and
downscale response times using
Equation 2-1. Report the slower time as
the system response time.
6.3.3 Field Test for Zero Drift and
Calibration Drift. Perform the zero and
calibration drift tests for each pollutant
analyzer and data recorder in the
continuous monitoring system.
6.3.3.1 Two-hour Drift. Introduce
consecutively zero gas (or zero cell or
filter) and high-level calibration gas (or
gas cell or filter) at 2-hour intervals until
15 sets (before and after) of data are
obtained. Do not make any zero or
calibration adjustments during this time
unless otherwise prescribed by the
manufacturer. Determine and record the
amount that the output had drifted from
the recorder zero and high-level value
on a data sheet (example is shown in
Figure 2-6). The 2-hour periods over
which the measurements are conducted
need not be consecutive, but must not
overlap. Calculate the zero and
calibration drifts for each set. Then
calculate the mean, confidence interval.
and zero and calibration drifts (2-hour)
using Equations 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3. In
Equation 2-3, use the span value for R.V.
6.3.3.2 Twenty-Four Hour Drift. In
addition to the 2-hour drift tests, perform
a series of seven 24-hour drift tests as
follows: At the beginning of each 24-
hour period, calibrate the monitor, using
mid-level value. Then introduce the
high-level calibration gas (or gas cell or
filter) to obtain the initial reference
value. At the end of the 24-hour period,
introduce consecutively zero gas (or gas
cell or filter) and high-level calibration
gas (or gas cell or filter); do not make
any adjustments at this time. Determine
and record the amount of drift from the
recorder zero and high-level value on a
data sheet (example is shown in Figure
2-7). Calculate the zero and calibration
drifts for each set. Then calculate the
mean, confidence interval, and zero and
calibration drifts (24-hour) using
Equations 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3. In Equation
2-3, use the span value for R.V.
IV-APPENDIX B-19
-------
21
O
H
X
ta
i
NJ
O
Data
set
no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Date
Time
Begin
End
Zero Rdg
Init. F1n.
A
B
Arithmetic Mean (Eq. 2-1)
Confidence Interval (Eq. 2-2)
Zero Drift3
Zero
drift
C=B-A
H1 -level
Rdg
Init. Fin.
D
E
Span
drift
F=E-D
Calibration-
drift
Calib.
drift
G=F-C
Data
set
no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Date
Tim
Begin
>
End
Zero
Init
A
Rdq
Fin.
B
Arithmetic' Mean (Eq. 2-1)
Confidence Interval (Eq. 2-2)
Zero drift
Zero
drift
C=B-A
Hi-level
Rdg
Init. F1n.
D
E
Span
drift
F=E-D
Calibration
H»-
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 10, 1979 / Proposed Rules
Note.—Automatic zero and calibration
adjustments made by the monitoring system
without operator intervention or initiation are
allowable at any time. Manual adjustments.
however, are allowable only at 24-hour
intervals, unless a shorter time is specified by
the manufacturer.
6.4 System Relative Accuracy.
Unless otherwise specified in an
applicable subpart of the regulations,
the reference methods for SOj, NO,,
diluent (Oj or CO,), and moisture are
Reference Methods 6, 7, 3, and 4,
respectively. Moisture may be
determined along with SOZ using
Method 6. See Citation 10.8. Reference
Method 4 is necessary only if moisture
content is needed to enable comparison
between the Reference Method and
monitor values. Perform the accuracy
test using the following guidelines:
6.4.1 Location of Pollutant Reference
Method Sample Points. The following
specifies the location of the Reference
Method sample points which are on the
same cross-sectional plane as the
monitor's. However, any cross-sectional
plane within 2 equivalent diameter of
straight runs may be used, by using the
projected image of the monitor on the
selected plane in the following criteria.
6.4.1.1 For point monitors, locate the
Reference Method sample point no
further than 30 cm [or 5 percent of the
equivalent diameter of the cross section,
whichever is less) from the pollutant
monitor sample point.
6.4.1.2 For multipoint monitors,
locate each Reference Method sample
traverse point no further than 30 cm (or
5 percent of the equivalent diameter of
the cross section, whichever is less]
from each corresponding pollutant
monitor sample point.
6.4.1.3 For limited-path and path
monitors, locate 3 sample points on a
line parallel to the monitor path and no
further than 30 cm (or 5 percent of the
equivalent diameter of the cross section.
whichever is less) from the centerline of
the monitor path. The three points of the
Reference Method shall correspond to
points in the monitor path at 16.7, 50.0,
and 83.3 percent of the effective length
of the monitor path.
6.4.2 Location of Diluent and
Moisture Reference Method Sample
Points.
6.4.2.1 For sources which require
diluent monitors in addition to pollutant
monitors, locale each of the sample
points for the diluent Reference Method
measurements within 3 cm of the
corresponding pollutant Reference
Method sample point as defined in
Sections 6.4.1.1, 6.4.1.2. or 6.4.1.3. In
addition, locate each pair of diluent and
pollutant Reference Method sample
points no further than 30 cm (or 5
percent of the equivalent diameter of the
cross section, whichever is less] from
both the diluent and pollutant
continuous monitor sample points or
paths.
6.4.2.2 If it is necessary to convert
pollutant and/or diluent monitor
concentrations to a dry basis for
comparison with the Reference data,
locate each moisture Reference Method
sample point within 3 cm of the
corresponding pollutant or diluent
Reference Method sample point as
defined in Sections 6.4.1.1. 6.4.1.2, 6.4.1.3,
or 6.4.2.1.
6.4.3 Number of Reference Method
Tests.
6.4.3.1 For NO, monitors, make a
minimum of 27 NO, Reference Method
measurements, divided into 9 sets.
6.4.3.2 For SOa monitors, make a
minimum of 9 SO2 Reference Method
tests.
6.4.3.3 For diluent monitors, perform
one diluent Reference Method test for
each SOj and/or NO, Reference Method
test(s).
6.4.3.4 For moisture determinations,
perform one moisture Reference Method
test for each or each set of pollutant(s)
end diluent (if applicable) Reference
Method tests.
Note.—The tester may choose to perform
more than 9 sets of NO, measurements or
more than 9 SO, reference method diluent, or
moisture tests. If this option is chosen, the
tester may, at his discretion, reject up to 3 of
the set or test results, so long as the total
number of set or test results used to
determine the relative accuracy is greater
than or equal to 9. Report all data including
rejected data.
6.4.4 Sampling Strategy for
Reference Method Tests. Schedule the
Reference Method tests so that they will
not be in progress when zero drift,
calibration drift, and response time data
are being taken. Within any 1-hour
period, conduct the following tests: (a] '
one set, consisting of 3 individual
measurements, of NO, and/or one SO2;
(b) one diluent, if applicable; and (c) one
moisture (if needed). Whenever two or
more reference tests (pollutant, diluent,
and moisture) are conducted, the tester
may choose to run all these reference
tests within a 1-hour period. However, it
is recommended that the tests be run
concurrently or consecutively within a
4-minute interval if two reference tests
employ grab sampling techniques. Also
whenever an integrated reference test is
run together with grab sample reference
tests, it is recommended that the
integrated sample be started one-sixth
the test period before the first grab
sample is collected.
In order to properly correlate the
continuous monitoring system and
Reference Method data, mark the
beginning and end of each Reference
Method test period (including the exact
time of day) on the pollutant and diluent
(if applicable) chart recordings. Use one
of the following strategies for the
Reference Method tests:
6.4.4.1 Single Point Monitors. For
single point sampling, the tester may: (a)
take a 21-minute integrated sample (e.g.
Method 6, Method 4, or the integrated
bag sample technique of Method 3): (b)
take 3 grab samples (e.g. Method 7 or
the grab sample technique of Method 3],
equally spaced at 7-minute (±2 min)
intervals (or one-third the test period):
or (c) take 3 grab samples over a 3-
minute test period.
6.4.4.2 Multipoint or Path Monitors.
For multipoint sampling, the tester may
either: (a) make a 21-minute integrated
sample traverse, sampling for 7 minutes
(±2 min) (or one-third the test period) at
each point; or (b) take grab samples at
each traverse point, scheduling the grab
samples to that they are an equal
interval (7 ±2 minutes) of time apart (or
one-third the test period).
Note.—If the number of sample points is
greater than 3, make appropriate adjustments
to the individual sampling time intervals. At
times NSPS performance test data may be
used as part of the data base of the
continuous monitoring relative accuracy
tests. In these cases, other test periods as
specified in the applicable subparts of the
regulations may be used.
6.4.5 Correlation of Reference
Method and Continuous Monitoring
System Data. Correlate the continuous
monitoring system data with the
Reference Method test data, as to the
time and duration of the Reference
Method tests. To'accomplish this, first
determine from the continuous
monitoring system chart recordings, the
integrated average pollutant and diluent
(if applicable) concentration(s) for each
Reference Method test period. Be sure to
consider system response time. Then,
compare each integrated average
concentration against the corresponding
average concentration obtained by the
Reference Method; use the following
guidelines to make these comparisons:
6.4.5.1 If the Reference Method is an
integrated sampling technique (e.g.,
Method 6), make a direct comparison of
the Reference Method results and the
continuous monitoring system integrated
average concentration.
6.4.5.2 If the Reference Method is a
grab-sampling technique (e.g., Method
7), first average the results from all grab-
samples taken during the test period,
and then compare this average value
against the integrated value obtained
from the continuous monitoring system
chart recording.
IV-APPENDIX B-21
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 197 / Wednesday. October 10. 1979 / Proposed Rules
6.5 Data Summary for Relative
Accuracy Tests. Summarize the results
on a data sheet; example is shown in
figure 2-8. Calculate the arithmetic
differences between the reference
method and the continuous monitoring
output sets. Then calculate the mean,
confidence interval, and system relative
accuracy, using Equation 2-1,2-2, and
2-3. In Equation 2-3, use the average of
the reference method test results for
R.V.
7. Equations
7.1 Arithmetic Mean. Calculate the
mean of a data set as follows:
- i "
x • ;j I x, Equation 1-2
Where:
x=arithmetic mean.
n = number of data points.
2x,=algebraic sum of the individual
values, x,.
When the mean of the differences of
pairs of data is calculated, be sure to
correct the data for moisture.
7.2 Confidence Interval. Calculate
the 95 percent confidence interval (two-
sided) as follows:
C.!.,. « -^ Jnt*.2 - (Ex.)2 Equation 1-3
95 v ' '
Where:
C.I...=95 percent confidence interval
estimate of mean value.
t.m=td-./i) (see Table 2-2)
BILLING CODE 6MO-01-N
Table 2-t.-t= Values
tf '.975 n* '.975 n- '.»75
2
3
4
5
6
12.706
4.303
3.1B2
2.776
2.571
7
e
•
10
11
2.447
2.365
2.306
2.262
2.226
12
13
14
15
18
2.201
2.178
2.160
2.145
2.131
• The values in mis table are already corrected lor n-1 de-
grees o) freedom. Use n equal to the number ol individual
values.
IV-APPENDIX B-22
-------
W
3
O
H
X
w
I
M
oo
Run
no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Date and
time
Average
S°2_
RM~T~M
niff
_... ppm°
Confidence Interval
Accuracyc
N0xb
RM 1 M .'niff
PPm
C02 or 02a
RM [ M
% %
RM
so2a
r|M
niff
mass/GCV
<
RM
M
niff
mass/GCV
3.
90
p
(0
§•
(B
OD
D-
O
o
f^
§•
fa —• •—••. ^» II Ull, . ••! i I • II •• • !• Ill ,1 I-- III., i I I ^^•^»
a For steam generators Average of 3 samples c Use average of reference method test results for R.V.
Make sure that RM and M data are on a consistent basis, either wet or dry
Figure 2-8. Relative accuracy determination
"O
o
at
(0
Q.
to
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 197 / Wednesday. October 10. 1979 / Proposed Rules
7.3 Relative Accuracy. Calculate the relative accuracy of a set of data as
follows:
R.A. • B-&~~^~ * -100 Ration 2-3
Where: R. A. • relative accuracy
|x| • absolute valuej>f the arithmetic mean
(from Equation 2-1).
K.I.gcl « absolute value of the 95 percent confi-
dence Interval (from Equation 2-2).
R.V. « reference value, as defined in Sections
6.3.1, 6.3.3.1, 6.3.3.2. and 6.5.
8. Reporting,
At a minimum (check with regional
offices for additional requirements, if
any) summarize the following results in
tabular form: calibration error for mid-
level and high-level concentrations, the
slower of the upscale and downscale
response times, the 2-hour and 24-hour
zero and calibration drifts, and the
system relative accuracy. In addition.
provide, for the conditioning and
operational test periods, a statement to
the effect that the continuous monitoring
system operated continuously fgr a
minimum of 168 hours each, except
during times of instrument zero,
calibration checks, system backpurges.
and source breakdown, and that no
corrective maintenance, repair,
replacement, or adjustment other than
that clearly specified as routine and
required in the operation and
maintenance manuals were made. Also
include the manufacturer's certification
statement (if applicable) for the
calibration gas, gas cells, or filters.
Include all data sheets and calculations
and charts (data outputs), which are
necessary to substantiate that the
system met the performance
specifications.
9. Retest
If the continuous monitoring system
operates within the specified
performance parameters of Table 2-1.
the operational test period will be
successfully concluded. If the
continuous monitoring system fails to
meet any of the specifications, repeat
that portion of the testing which is
related to the failed specification.
10. Bibliography
10.1 "Monitoring Instrumentation for
the Measurement of Sulfur Dioxide in
Stationary Source Emissions,"
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, N.C.. February
1973.
10.2 "Instrumentation for the
Determination of Nitrogen Oxides
Content of Stationary Source
Emissions." Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C.,
Volume 1, APTD-0847, October 1971;
Volume 2. APTD-0942, January 1972.
10.3 "Experimental Statistics,"
Department of Commerce, Handbook 91,
1963, pp. 3-31, paragraphs 3-3.1.4.
10.4 "Performance Specifications for
Stationary-Source Monitoring Systems
for Gases and Visible Emissions,"
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, N.C., EPA--650/
2-74-013, January 1974.
10.5 Traceability Protocol for
Establishing True Concentrations of
Cases Used for Calibration and Audits
of Continuous Source Emission Monitors
{Protocol No. 1). June 15,1978.
Environmental Monitoring and Support
Laboratory; Office of Research and
Development, U.S. EPA, Research
Triangle Park. N.C. 27711.
10.6 Westlin, P. R. and J. W. Brown.
Methods for Collecting and Analyzing
Gas Cylinder Samples. Emission
Measurement Branch, Emission
Standards and Engineering Division,
Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. U.S. EPA. Research Triangle
Park. N.C., July 1978.
10.7 Curtis, Foston. A Method for
Analyzing NOX Cylinder Gases-
Specific Ion Electrode Procedure.
Emission Measurement Branch.
Emission Standards and Engineering
Division. Office of Air Quality and
Standards. U.S. EPA, Research Triangle
Park, N.C.. October 1978.
10.8 Stanley. Jon and P. R. Westlin.
An Alternative Method for Stack Gas
Moisture Determination. Emission
Measurement Branch, Emission
Standards and Engineering Division,
Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle
Park, N.C., August 1978.
Performance Specification 3—
Specifications and Test Procedures for
COt and Oi Continuous Monitors in
Stationary Sources
1. Applicability and Principle
1.1 Applicability. This Specification
contains (a) installation requirements.
(b) instrument performance and
equipment specifications, and (c) test
procedures and data reduction
procedures for evaluating the
acceptability of continuous CO2 and O2
monitors that are used as diluent
monitors. The test procedures are
primarily designed for systems that
introduce calibration gases directly into
the analyzer: other types of monitors
(e.g.. single-pass monitors, as described
in Section 2.2.7 of Performance
Specification 2 of this Appendix) will be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis upon
written request to the Administrator,
and alternative procedures will be
issued separately.
1.2 Principle. Any CO» or O2
continuous monitor, which is expected
to meet this Specification, is operated
for a specified length of time. During this
specified time period, the continuous
monitor is evaluated to determine
conformance with the Specification.
2. Definitions
The definitions are the same as those
listed in Section 2 of Performance
Specification 2.
3. Installation Specifications
3.1 Measurement Location and
Measurement Points or Paths. Select and
install the continuous monitor at the
same sampling location used for the
pollutant monitor(s). Locate the
measurement points or paths as shown
in Figure 3-1 or 3-2.
3.2 Alternative Measurement
Location and Measurement Points or
Paths. The diluent monitor may be
IV-APPENDIX B-24
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 10, 1979 / Proposed Rules
installed at a different location from that
of the pollutant monitor, provided that
the diluent gas concentrations at both
locations differ by no more than 5
percent from that of the pollutant
monitor location for COa or the quantity,
20.9-percent Oj, for Oi. See Section 3.4
of Performance Specification 2 for the
demonstration procedure.
4. Continuous Monitor Performance and
Equipment Specifications
The continuous monitor performance
and equipment specifications are listed
in Table 3-1. To be considered
acceptable, the continuous monitor must
demonstrate compliance with these
specifications, using the test procedures
in Section 6.
5. Apparatus
5.1 COj or Oj Continuous Monitor.
Use any continuous monitor, which is
expected to meet this Specification. The
data recorder may either be an analog
strip-chart recorder or other suitable
device having an input voltage range
compatible with the analyzer output.
5.2 Calibration Gases. Diluent gases
shall be air or Na for COi mixtures, and
shall be Na for O2 mixtures. Use three
calibration gases as specified below:
GEOMETRICALLY
SIMILAR
AREA
(<1%OF STACK
CROSS-SECTION)
(a)
GEOMETRICALLY
SIMILAR
AREA
( O%OF STACK
CROSS-SECTION)
(b)
Figure 31. Relative locations of pollutant (P) and diluent (D) measurement points in (a) circular
and (b) rectangular ducts. P is located at the centroid of the geometrically similar
area. Note: The geometrically similar area need not be concentric.
IV-APPENDIX B-25
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 197 / Wednesday. October 10,1979 / Proposed Rules
PARALLEL
MEASUREMENT
LINES
GEOMETRICALLY
SIMILAR
AREAS
( <1% OF STACK
CROSS-SECTION)
(a)
PARALLEL
MEASUREMENT
LINES
GEOMETRICALLY
SIMILAR
AREAS
( <1%OF STACK
CROSS-SECTION)
(b)
Figure 3-2. Relative locations of pollutant (P) and diluent (D) measurement paths for (a) circular
and (b) rectangular ducts. P is located at the centroid of both the geometrically simi
lar areas and the pollutant monitor path cross-sectional areas. D is located at the cen
troid of the diluent monitor path cross-sectional area.
TV-APPENDIX B-26
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 197 / Wednesday. October 10. 1979 / Proposed Rules
Table 3-1.—Performance and Equipment
Specifications
Parameter
Specification
1. Conditioning
period V
2. Operational lest
period v
3. Calibration error'..
4. Reponsetirne
6. Zero drift 12-
hour) '•'.
6. Zero drift (24-
hour) ••'.
7. Calibration dm 12-
hour)'.
8. Calibration drift
(24-hour)'.
9. Data recorder chart
resolution.
10. Extractive monitors
» 166 hours.
& 168 hours.
« 5 pet of each (mid-range and
high-range, only) calibration gas
value.
fi 15 minutes.
S 0.4 pel CO, or Cv
« 10.S pet CO, or O,
< 0.4 pet CO, or O.
« 0.5 pet CO, or Cv
Chart scales must be readable to
within « 0.50 pet. of tutl-scale.
Must use the same interface as the
pollutant monitor Place in a series
(cttuem after pollutant analyzer) or
use a "T."
• During the conditioning and operational test periods, the
continuous monitor shall not require any corrective mainte-
nance, repair, replacement, or adjustment other than that
etearty specified as routine and required in the operation and
maintenance manuals.
' Expressed as the sum of the absolute mean value plus
the 95 percent confidence interval of a series of tests.
' A low-level (5-)5 percent of span value) drift tests may be
substituted for the zero drift tests.
5.2.1 High-Level Gas. A CO, or O,
concentration of 20.0 to 22.5 percent. For
Os analyzers, ambient air (20.9 percent
Oi) may be used as the high-range
calibration gas; lower high-level O.
concentration may be used, subject to
the approval of the Administrator.
5.2.2 Mid-Level Gas. A CO, or O,
concentration of 11.0 to 14.0 percent; for
Ot analyzers, concentrations in the
operational range may be used.
5.2.3 Zero Gas. A CO, or O,
concentration of less than 0.05 percent.
For CO, monitors, ambient air (0.03
percent CO,} may be used as the zero
gas.
6. Performance Specification Test
Procedures.
6.1 Calibration Gas Certification.
Follow the procedure as outlined in
Section 6.1.2 of Performance
Specification 2, except use 0.5 percent
CO, or O, instead of the 15 ppm. Figure
3-3 is provided as an example data
sheet.
6.2 Conditioning Period. Follow the
same procedure outlined in Section 6.2
of Performance Specification 2.
6.3 Operational Test Period. Follow
the same procedures outlined in Section
6.3 of Performance Specification 2. to
evaluate the calibration error, response
time, and the 2-hour and 24-hour zero
and calibration drifts. See example data
sheets (Figures 3-4 through 3-7).
6.4 System Relative Accuracy. (Note:
The relative accuracy is not determined
separately for the diluent monitor, but is
determined for the pollutant-diluent
system.) Unless otherwise specified in"
an applicable subpart of the regulations,
the Reference Methods for the diluent
concentration determination shall be
Reference Method 3 for CO, or O,. For
this test. Fyrite analyses may be used
for CO, and O, determinations. Perform
the measurements using the guidelines
below (an example data sheet is shown
in Figure 2-8 of Performance
Specification 2):
6.4.1 Location of Reference Method 3
Sampling Points. Locate the diluent
Reference Method sampling points
according to the guidelines given in
Section 6.4.2.1 of Performance
Specification 2.
6.4.2 Number of Reference Method
Tests. Perform one Reference Method 3
test according to the guideline in
Performance Specification 2.
6.4.3 Sampling Strategy for
Reference Method Tests. Use the basic
Reference Method sampling strategy
outlined in Section 6.4.4 (and related
sub-sections) of Performance
Specification 2.
6.4.4 Correlation of Reference
Method and Continuous Monitor Data.
Use the guidelines given in Section 6.4.5
of Performance Specification 2.
7. Equations, Reporting, Retest, and
Bibliography. The procedure and
citations are the same as in Sections 7
through 10 of Performance Specification
2.
|FR Doc. 79-31033 Filed 10-9-79: 8:45 am|
IV-APPENDIX B-27
-------
Date
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 197 / Wednesday. October 10.1979 / Proposed Rules
Figure 3-3. Analysis of Calibration Gases
k- (Must be within 2 weeks prior to the opera-
tional test period)
Reference Method Used
Sample run
Average
Maximum %
deviation*
Mid-range0
ppm
High-range
ppm
a Not necessary 1f the protocol in Citation 10.5 of Perfor-
mance Specification 2 is used to prepare the gas cylinders.
c Average must be 11.0 to 14.0 percent; for 09, see Section
5.2.2. *
Average must be 20.0 to 22.5 percent; for 09, see Section
5.2.1. '
e Must be £ + 10 percent of applicable average or 0.5 percent,
whichever Ts greater.
IV-APPENDIX B-28
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 197 / Wednesday. October 10.1979 / Proposed Rules
Figure 3-4. Calibration Error Determination
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Calibration Gas
Concentration8
ppm
A
Measurement System
Reading
ppm
B
Arithmetic Mean (Eq. 2-1 )b =
Confidence Interval (Eq. 2-2)b =
Calibration Error (Eq. 2-3)b>c =
Arithmetic
01 f ferences
ppm
A-B
Mid
High
aCa!1brat1on Data from Section 6.1
Mid-level: C = ppm
High-level: D = ppm
See Performance Specification 2
C Use C or D as R. V.
IV-APPENDIX B-29
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 197 / Wednesday. October 10.1979 / Proposed Rules
Figure 3-5. -Response Time
Date
High-Range
ppm
Test Run
1
2
3
Average
Upscale
min
A =
Downscale
min
B =
System Response Time (slower of A and B) =
min.
IV-APPENDIX B-30
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 197 / Wednesday. October 10,1979 / Proposed Rules
Data
set
no
Date
Time
Begin
End
Zero Rd.
Init.
A
Fin.
B
Arithmetic Mean (Eq. 2-l)a
Confidence Interval (Eq. 2-2)a
Zero drift5
Zero
drift
OB-A
Hi-Range
Rdq.
Init.
D
Fin.
E
Span
drift
F=E-D
Calibration driftb
Calib.
drift
G=F-C
From Performance Specification 2.
Use Equation 2-3 of Performance Specification 2 and 1.0 for R. V.
Figure 3-6. Zero and Calibration Drift (2 hour)
IV-APPENDIX B-31
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 197 / Wednesday. October 10.1979 / Proposed Rules
Data
set
no.
Date
Time
Begin
s
End
Zero Rdg
Init.
A
Fin.
B
Arithmetic Mean (Eq. 2-l)a
Confidence Interval (Eq. 2-2)a
Zero drift b
Zero
drift
C=B-A
Hi -Range
Rdg
Init.
D
Fin.
E
Span
drift
F=E-D
Calibration drift b
Calib.
drift
G=F-C
From Performance Specification 2.
Use Equation 2-3 of Performance Specification 2, with 1.0 for R. V.
Figure 3-7. Zero and Calibration Drift (24-hour)
IV-APPENDIX B-32
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 246 / Thursday. December 20. 1979 / Proposed Rules
40 CFR Part 60
[FRL 1378-3]
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources Continuous
Monitoring Performance
Specifications; Extension of Comment
Period
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Extension of Comment Period.
SUMMARY: The deadline for submittal of
comment on the proposed revisions to
the continuous monitoring performance
specifications, which were proposed on
October 10,1S79 (44 FR 58G02), is being
extended from December 10,1979, to
February 11,1900.
DATES: Written comments and
information must be received on or
before February 11,1980.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Written
comments and information should be
submitted (in duplicate, if possible) to:
Central Docket Section (A-130).
Attention: Docket Number OAQPS-79-
4, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20400.
Docket. Docket Number OAQPS-79-4.
containing material relevant to this
rulemaking, is located in the U.S.
Environmental Protect;on Agency
Central Docket Section, Room 2903B, 401
M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
The docket may be inspected betxveen
8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on weekdays,
and a reasonable fee may be charged for
copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Don R. Goodwin (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711;
telephone (919) 541-5271.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
October 10,1979 (44 FR 58602), the
Environmental Protection Agency
proposed revisions to the Continuous
Monitoring Performance Specifications.
1, 2, and 3. The notice of proposal
requested public comments on the
standards by December 10,1979. Due to
delay in the shipping of copies of the
performance specifications publication,
a sufficient number of copies have been
unavailable for distribution to all
interested parties in time to allow their
meaningful review and comment by
December 10,1979. An extension of this
period is justified as this delay has
resulted in about a 5-week delay in
processing requests for the document.
Dated: December 12,1979.
Edward f. Tuerk,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise,
and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 79-39002 Filed 12-19-79; 8:45 am]
IV-APPENDIX B-33
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 20, 1980 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
(FRL 1389-2]
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources Continuous
Monitoring Performance
Specifications
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed
rulemaking.
SUMMARY: This notice sets forth draft
Performance Specification 4—
Specifications and Test Procedures for
Carbon Monoxide Continuous
Monitoring Systems in Stationary
Sources, which EPA is considering to
propose as an addition to Appendix B of
40 CFR Part 60. The intent of this
advance notice is to solicit comments on
the specifications and testing
procedures EPA is considering.
This advance notice of proposed
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 7601(a)).
DATES: Written comments and
information should be post-marked on
or before May 20,1980.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Written
comments and information should be
submitted (in duplicate, if possible) to:
Central Docket Section (A-130),
Attention: Docket Number A-79-03, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20460.
Docket. Docket Number A-79-03.
containing material relevant to this
rulemaking, is located in the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
Central Docket Section, Room 2903B, 401
M Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20460.
The docket may be inspected between
8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on weekdays.
and a reasonable fee may be charged for"
copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Don Goodwin (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711.
telephone (919) 541-5271.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA
promulgated standards of performance
for new stationary sources pursuant to
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, as
amended, on March 8,1974 (39 FR 9308).
for petroleum refineries and six other
stationary sources. New or modified
sources in these categories are required
to demonstrate compliance with the
standards of performance by means of
performance tests that are conducted at
the time a new source commences
operation orshortly thereafter. To
ensure that these sources are properly
operated and maintained so as to
remain in compliance, provisions were
included in the standards that require
sources to install and operate a
continuous emission monitoring system.
One such requirement was for carbon
monoxide (CO) from petroleum
refineries.
When the standards were initially
proposed, EPA had limited knowledge
about the operation of continuous
monitors on such sources; thus, the
continuous emission monitoring
requirements were specified in general
terms. Additional guidance on the
selection and use of such instruments
was to be provided at a later date.
On October 6,1975 (40 FR 46259), the
Environmental Protection Agency
amended Part 60 of the regulations by
adding Appendix B—Performance
Specifications 1, 2, and 3 for continuous
monitoring of (1) opacity, (2) sulfur
dioxide and nitrogen oxide, and (3)
oxygen or carbon dioxide, respectively.
Performance specifications for CO
monitors were not published at that
time.
EPA has conducted short-term
evaluations of the applicability of
several continuous monitoring
instruments and has published the
results in the following documents:
Guidelines for Development of a Quality
Assurance program: Volume VIII—
Determination of CO Emissions from
Stationary Sources by NDIR
Spectrometry. EPA-650/4-74-005-h
(February 1975); and Evaluation of
Continuous Monitors for Carbon
Monoxide in Stationary Sources, EPA-
600/2-77-063) March 1977). Both are
available through the National
Technical Information Service,
Springfield, Virginia 22161.
Based on the above documents,
specifications and test procedures were
drafted for continuous CO monitoring
instruments, the format of the draft
Performance Specification 4 follows
closely that of the most recent proposed
revisions to Performance Specification 2
(44 FR 58602 dated Oct. 10,1979).
Several references are made in
Performance Specification 4 to specific
sections of the Performance
Specification 2 revisions.
The Environmental Monitoring and
Support Laboratory of EPA is adso
presently conducting a laboratory and
long-term field study of CO continuous
monitoring systems. Results of this
study will provide essential background
and technical information in support of
or improvement to Performance
Specification 4. The completion date is
scheduled for mid-1981. For this reason.
Performance Specification 4 for CO is
published as an advance notice.
Specific Requests
EPA is requesting comments on the
attached draft Performance
Specification 4—Specifications and Test
Procedures for CO Monitoring Systems
in Stationary Sources. EPA is interested
in comments on alternatives to the
performance specifications and is
particularly interested in information
that could lead to the development of
improved or alternative procedures. SPA
is also interested in comments on the
following aspects of CO continuous
monitoring and Performance
Specification 4: (1) Estimates of
installation and operation costs
including equipment costs, manpower
requirements, data reduction options,
and maintenance costs, (2) procedures
applicable for the evaluation of single-
pass, in-situ monitoring system; (3)
laboratory testing procedures that are
necessary for determining monitoring
system performance acceptability and
those laboratory tests that can be
recommended as indications of the
quality of equipment operation; (4) the
specifications and limits set forth in
Section 4; (5) the applicability of
Reference Method 10 or other methods
for determining relative accuracy of
continuous CO monitoring systems.
Dated: February 12. I960.
Barbara Blum.
Acting Administrator.
Performance Specification 4—
Specifications and Test Procedures for
Carbon Monoxide Continuous
Monitoring Systems in Stationary
Sources
1. Applicability and Principle
1.1 Applicability. This specification
contains (a) installation requirements.
(b) instrument performance and
equipment specifications, and (c) test
procedures and data reduction
procedures for evaluating the
acceptability of carbon monoxide (CO)
continuous monitoring systems. The test
procedures are not applicable to single-
pass, in-situ monitoring systems; these
systems will be evaluated on a case-by-
case basis upon application to the
Administrator, and alternative
procedures will be issued separately.
1.2 Principle. A CO continuous
monitoring system that is expected to
meet this specification is installed,
calibrated, and operated for a specified
length of time. During the specified time
period, the continuous monitoring
IV-APPENDIX B-34
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 35 / Wednesday, February 20,. 1980 / Proposed Rules
system is evaluated to determine
conformance with the specification.
2. Definitions
The definitions are the same as those
listed in Section 2 of Performance
Specification 2.
3. Installation Specifications
Install the continuous monitoring
system at a location where the pollutant
concentration-measurements are
representative of the total emissions
from the affected facility. Use a point,
points, or a path that represents the
average concentration over the cross
section. Both requirements can be met
as follows:
3.1 Measurement Location. Select an
accessible measurement location in the
stack or ductwork that is at least two (2)
equivalent diameters downstream from
the nearest CO control device or other
point at which a change in the pollutant
concentration may occur and at least 0.5
equivalent diameter upstream from the
exhaust. Individual subparts of the
regulations may contain additional
requirements.
3.2 Measurement Point»or Paths.
The tester may choose to use the
following measurement point, points, or
path without a stratification check or he
may choose to conduct the stratification
check procedure given in Section 3.3 of
Performance Specification 2 to select the
point, points, or path of average gas
concentration.
3.2.1 CO Path Monitoring Systems.
Same as in Performance Specification 2,
Section 3.2.2.
3.2.3 Single-Point and Limited-Path
Monitoring Systems. Same as in
Performance Specification 2, Section
3.2.3.
4. Performance and Equipment
Specifications
The continuous monitoring system
performance and equipment
specifications are listed in Table 4-1. To
be considered acceptable, the
continuous monitoring system must
demonstrate compliance with these
specifications using the test procedures
of Section 6.
5. Apparatus
5.1 Continuous Monitoring System.
Use any continuous monitoring system
for CO, which is expected to meet the
specifications in Table 4-1. The data
recorder may be an analog strip-chart
recorder or other suitable device with an
input signal range compatible with the
analyzer output.
Table 4-].—Continuous Monitoring System
Performance and Equipment Specifications
Parameter
Specification
1. Conditioning period •...
2. Operational test
period*.
3. Calibration error*
4. Response time
5. Zero drift. 2 hours.......
6. Zero drift, 24 hours'...
7. Calibration drift. 2
hours'.
8. Calibration drift, 24
hours'.
9. Relative accuracy*
10. Calibration gas cells
or filters.
11. Data recorder chart
resolution.
> 168 hours.
£168 hours.
< 5 percent of each mid-level and
high-level calibration value.
< 10 minutes.
^ 1 percent of span value.
< 2 percent of span value.
<_ 2 percent of span value.
£ 2.5 percent of span value.
< 10 percent of Mean Ref. value.
Must provide a check of all ana-
lyzer internal mirrors and lenses,
and all electronic circuitry in-
cluding the radiation source and
detector assembly, which are
normally used in sampling and
analysis.
Chan scales must be readable to
within ± O.S percent of tuff-
scale.
• During the conditioning and operational test periods, the
continuous monitoring system shall not require any corrective
maintenance, replacement, or adjustment other than that
clearly specified as routine and required in the operation and
maintenance manuals
* Expressed as sum of absolute mean value plus 95'per-
cent confidence interval of a series tests divided by a refer-
ence value.
5.2 Calibration Cases. For
continuous monitoring systems that
allow the introduction of calibration
gases to the analyzer, the calibration
gases must be CO in N». Use three
calibration gas mixtures as specified
below;
5.2.1 High-Level Gas. A gas
concentration that is equivalent to 80 to
90 percent of the span value.
5.2.2 Mid-Level Gas. A gas
concentration that is equivalent to 45 to
55 percent of the span value.
5.2.3 Zero Gas. A gas concentration
of less than 0.25 percent of the span
value. Prepurified nitrogen should be
used.
5.3 Calibration Gas Cells or Filters.
For continuous monitoring systems
which use calibration gas cells or filters,
use three certified calibration gas cells
or filters as specified below:
5.3.1 High-Level Gas Cell or Filter.
One that produces an output equivalent
to 80 to 90 percent of the span value.
5.3.2 Mid-Level Gas Cell or Filter.
One that produces an output equivalent
to 45 to 55 percent of the span value.
5.3.3 Zero Gas Cell or Filter. One
that produces an output equivalent to
zero. Alternatively, an analyser may
produce a zero value check by
mechanical means, such as a movable
mirror.
6. Performance Specification Test
Procedures
6.1 Pretest Preparation.
6.1.1 Calibration Gas Analyses. Use
calibration gas prepared according to
the protocol defined in Reference 10.2.
6.1.2 Calibration Gas Cell or Filter
Certification. Obtain from the
manufacturer a statement certifying that
the calibration gas cells or filters (zero,
mid-level, and high-level) will produce
the stated instrument response for the
continuous monitoring system, and a
description delineating the test
procedure and equipment used to
calibrate the cells or filters. At a
minimum, the manufacturer must have
calibrated the gas cells or filters against
a simulated source of known
concentration.
6.2 Continuous Monitoring System •
Preparation.
6.2.1 Installation. Install the
continuous monitoring system according
to the measurement location procedures
outlined in Section 3 of this
specification. Prepare the system for
operation according to the
manufacturer's written instructions.
6.2.2 Conditioning Period. Follow the
procedure in Performance specification
2, Section 6.2.
6.3 Operational Test Period. Follow
the procedure in Performance
Specification 2, Section 6.3 and the
following subsections:
6.3.1 Calibration Error
Determination. Follow the procedures in
Performance Specification 2, Section
6.3.1.
6.3.2 Response Time Test Procedure.
Follow the procedures in Performance
Specification 2, Section 6.3.2.
6.3.3 Field Test for Zero Drift and
Calibration Drift. Follow the procedures
in Performance specification 2, Section
6.3.3.
6.4 System Relative Accuracy.
Follow the procedures in Performance
Specification 2, Section 6.4 and all the
accompanying subsections. The
reference method is Reference Method
10.
6.5 Data Summary for Relative
Accuracy Tests. Follow the procedures
in Performance Specification 2, Section
6.5.
7. Equations and Reporting
Follow the procedures in Performance
Specification 2, Section 7 and all the
accompanying subsections.
8. Reporting
Follow the procedures in Performance
Specification 2, Section 8.
9. Retest
Follow the procedures in Performance
Specification 2, Section 9.
IV-APPENDIX B-35
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 35 / Wednesday. February 20.1980 / Proposed Rules
10. Bibliography
10.1 Repp, Mark. Evaluation of
Continuous Monitors for Carbon
Monoxide in Stationary Sources. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle park, NC. Publication
No. EPA-600/2-77-063. March 1977.
10.2 Traceability Protocol for
Establishing True Concentrations of
Gases Used for Calibration and Audits
of Continuous Source Emission Monitors
(Protocol No. 1). June 15,1978.
Environmental Monitoring and Support
Laboratory, Office of Research
Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711.
10.3 Department of Commerce.
Experimental Statistics. Handbook 91.
Library of Congress No. 63-60072. U.S.
Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC.
|FR Doc. SO-S289 Filed 2-19-BO; 8:45 im|
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 16
Monday. January 26. 1981
Proposed Rules
NOTE: The preamble to the
proposed revisions to Per-
formance Specifications 2
and 3 is included in the
proposed revisions to Ap-
pendix A, Methods 6A and
6B.
5. By revising Performance 2 and
Performance 3 of Appendix B of 40 CFR
Part 60 to read as follows:
Appendix B—Performance Specifications
Performance Specification 2—Specifications
and Test Procedures for SOt and NOt
Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems in
Stationary Sources
1. Applicability and Principle
1.1 Applicability. This specification is to
be used for evaluating the acceptability of
SO, and NO, continuous emission monitoring
systems (GEMS) after the initial installation
and whenever specified in an applicable
subpart of the regulations. The GEMS may
include, for certain stationary sources,
diluent (Ot or Cd) monitors.
1.2 Principle. Installation and
measurement location specifications,
performance and equipment specifications,
test procedures, and data reduction
procedures are included in this specification.
Reference method (RM) tests and calibration
drift tests are conducted to determine
conformance of the CEMS with the
specification.
2. Definitions
2.1 Continuous Emission Monitoring
System (OEMS). The total equipment
required for the determination of a gas
concentration or emission rate. The system
consists of the following major subsystems:
2.1.1 Sample Interface. That portion of the
CEMS that U used for one or more of the
following: Sample acquisition, sample
transportation, and sample conditioning, or
protection of the monitor from the effects of
the stack effluent.
2.1.2 Pollutant Analyzer. That portion of
the CEMS that senses the pollutant gas and
generates an output that is proportional to the
gas concentration.
2.1.3 Diluent Analyzer (if applicable}.
That portion of the CEMS that senses the
diluent gas (e.g.r COf or Oi) and generates an
output that IB proportional to the gas
concentration.
2.1.4 Data Recorder. That portion of the
CEMS that provides a permanent record of
the analyzer output. The data recorder may
include automatic data reduction capabilities.
2.2 Point CEMS. A CEMS that measures
the gas concentration either at a single point
or along a path that is equal to or less than 10
percent of the equivalent diameter of the
stack or duct cross section.
2.3 Path CEMS. A CEMS that mesures the
gas concentration along a path that is greater
than 10 percent of the equivalent diameter of
the stack or duct cross section.
2.4 Span Value. The upper limit of a gas
concentration measurement range that is
specified for affected source categories in the
applicable subpart of the regulations.
2.5 Relative Accuracy. (RA). The absolute
mean difference between the gas
concentration or emission rate determined by
the CEMS and the value determined by the
reference method(s) plus the 2.5 percent error
confidence coefficient of a series of tests
divided by the mean of the reference method
(RM) tests or the applicable emission limit.
2.6 Calibration Drift (CD). The difference
in the CEMS output readings from the
established reference value after a stated
period of operation during which no
unscheduled maintenance, repair, or
adjustment took place.
2.7 Centroidal Area. A concentric area
that is geometrically similar to the stack pr
duct cross section and is no greater than 1
percent of the stack or duct cross-sectional
area.
2.8 Representative Results. As defined by
the RM test procedure outlined in this
specification.
3. Installation and Measurement Location
Specifications
3.1 CEMS Installation and Measurement
Location. Install the CEMS at an accessible
location where the pollutant concentration or
emission rate measurements are directly
representative or can be corrected so as to be
representative of the total emissions from the
affected facility. Then select representative
measurement points or paths for monitoring
such that the CEMS will pass the relative
accuracy (RAJ test (see Section 7). If the
cause of failure to meet the RA test is
determined to be the measurement location,
the CEMS may be required to be relocated.
Suggested measurement locations and
points or paths are listed below, other
locations and points or paths may be less
likely to provide data that will meet the RA
requirements.
3.1.1 CEMS Location. It is suggested that
the measurement location be at least two
equivalent diameters downstream from the
nearest control device or other point at which
a change in the pollutant concentration or
emission rate may occur and at least a half
equivalent diameter upstream from the
effluent exhaust.
3.1.2 Point CEMS. It is suggested that the
measurement point.be (1) no less than 1.0
meter from the stack or duct wall, or (2)
within or centrally located over the
centroidal area of the stack or duct cross
section.
IV-APPENDIX B-36
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 16 / Monday. January 26, 1981 / Proposed Rules
3.1.3 Path CEMS. It is suggested that the
effective measurement path (1) be totally
within the inner area bounded by a line 1.0
meter from the stack or duct wall, or (2) have
at least 70 percent of the path within the
inner 50 percent of the stack or duct cross-
sectional area, or (3) be centrally located
over any part of the centroidal area.
3.2 RAf Measurement Location and
Traverse Points. Select an RM measurement
point that is accessible and at least two
equivalent diameters downstream from the
nearest control device or other point at which
a change in the pollutant concentration or
emission rate may occur and at least a half
equivalent diameter upstream from the
effluent exhaust. The CEMS and RM
locations need not be the same.
Then select traverse points that assure
acquisition of representative samples over
the stack or duct cross section. The minimum
requirements are as follows: Establish a
"measurement line" that passes through the
centroidal area. If this line interferes with the
CEMS measurements, displace the line up to
30 cm (or 5 percent of the equivalent diameter
of the cross section, whichever is less) from
the centroidal area. Locate three traverse
points at 16.7, 50.0, and 83.3 percent of the
measurement line. If the measurement line is
longer than 2.4 meters, the three traverse
points may be located on the line at 0.4,1.2,
and 2.0 meters from the stack or duct wall.
The tester may select other traverse points,
provided that they can be shown to the
satisfaction of the Administrator to provide a
representative sample over the stack or duct
cross section. Conduct all necessary RM tests
within 3 cm (but no less than 3 cm from the
stack or duct wall) of the traverse points.
4. Performance and Equipment
Specifications
4.1 Instrument Zero and Span. The CEMS
recorder span must be set at 90 to 100 percent
of recorder full-scale using a span level of 90
to 100 percent of the span value (the
Administrator may approve other span
levels). The CEMS design must also allow the
determination of calibration drift at the zero
and span level points on the calibration
curve. If this is not possible or is impractical,
the design must allow these determinations
to be conducted at a low-level (0 to 50
percent of span value) point and at a high-
level (80 to 100 percent of span value) point
In special cases, if not already approved, the
Administrator may approve a single-point
calibration-drift determination.
4.2 Calibration Drift The CEMS
calibration must not drift or deviate from the
reference value of the gas cylinder, gas cell,
or optical filter by more than 2.5 percent of
the span value. If the CEMS includes
pollutant and diluent monitors, the
calibration drift must be determined
separately for each in terms of concentrations
(see Performance Specification 3 for the
diluent specifications).
4.3 CEMS Relative Accuracy. The RA of
the CEMS must be no greater than 20 percent
of the mean value of the RM test data in
terms of the units of the emission standard or
10 percent of the applicable standard.
whichever is greater.
5. Performance Specification Test
Procedure
5.1 Pretest Preparation. Install the CEMS
and prepare the RM test site according to the
specifications in Section 3, and prepare the
CEMS for operation according to the
manufacturer's written instructions.
5.2 Calibration Drift Test Period. While
the affected facility is operating at more than
50 percent capacity, or as specified in an
applicable subpart, determine the magnitude
of the calibration drift (CD) once each day (at
24-hour intervals) for 7 consecutive days
according to the procedure given in Section 6.
To meet the requirement of Section 4.2, none
of the CD's must exceed the specification.
5.3 RA Test Period. Only after the CEMS
passes the CO test, conduct the RA test
according to the procedure given in Section 7
while the affected facility is operating at
more than 50 percent capacity, or as specified
in an applicable subpart To meet the
specifications, the RA must be equal to or
less than 20 percent or 10 percent of the
applicable standard, whichever is greater.
For Instruments that use common
components to measure more than one
effluent gas constituent, all channels must
simultaneously pass' the RA requirement,
unless it can be demonstrated that any
adjustments made to one channel did not
affect the others.
6. CEMS Calibration Drift Test Procedure
The CD measurement is to verify the ability
of the CEMS to conform to the established
CEMS calibration used for determining the
emission concentration or emission rate.
. Therefore, if periodic automatic or manual
adjustments are made to the CEMS zero and/
or calibration settings, conduct the CD test
immediately before these adjustments.
Conduct the CD test at the two points
specified in Section 4.1. Introduce to the
CEMS the reference gases, gas cells, or
optical filters (these need not be certified).
Record the CEMS response and subtract this
value from the reference value (see example
data sheet in Figure 2-1).
If an increment addition procedure Is used
to calibrate the CEMS, a single-point CD test
may be used as follows: Use an increment
cell or calibration gas ith a value that will .
provide-a total CEMS response (i.e., stack
plus cell concentrations) between 80 and 95
percent of the span value. Compare the
difference between the measured CEMS
response and the expected CEMS response
with the increment value to establish the CD.
BILLING CODE *S60-3t-M
IV-APPENDIX B-37
-------
Federal Register f Vol. 46, No. 16 f Monday. January 26.1981 / Proposed Robs
Day
Date and
time
Calibration
value
Monitor
value
Difference
V
k
0)
•ILLIMC COM «MO-2t-C
Figure 2-1. Calibration drift determination.
IV-APPENDIX B-38
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 16 / Monday. January 26, 1981 / Proposed Rules
Relative Accuracy Test Procedure
7.1 Sampling Strategy for RM Tests.
Conduct the RM testa such that they will
yield results representative of the emissions
from the source and can be correlated to the
CEMS data. Although it is preferable to
conduct the diluent (if applicable), moisture
(if needed), and pollutant measurements
simultaneously, the diluent and moisture
measurements that are taken within a 30- to
60-minute period, which includes the
pollutant measurements, may be used to
calculate dry pollutant concentration and
emission rate.
In order to correlate the CEMS and RM
data properly, mark the beginning and end of
each RM test period of each run (including
the exact time of the day) on the CEMS chart
recordings or other permanent record of
output. Use the following strategies for the
RM tests:
7.1.1 For integrated samples, e.g.. Method
6 and Method 4, make a sample traverse of at
least 21 minutes, sampling for 7 minutes at
each traverse point.
7.1.2 For grab samples, e.g., Method 7,
take one sample at each traverse point,
scheduling the grab samples so that they are
taken simultaneously (within a 3-minute
period^or are an equal interval of time apart
over a 21-minute (or less) period.
Note.—At times, CEMS RA tests are
conducted during NSPS performance tests. In
these cases, RM results obtained during
CEMS RA tests may be used to determine
compliance as long as the source and test
conditions are consistent with the applicable
regulations.
7.2 Correlation ofRM and CEMS Data.
Correlate the CEMS and the RM test data as
to the time and duration by first determining
from the CEMS final output (the one used for
reporting) the integrated average pollutant
concentration or emission rate for each
pollutant RM test period. Consider system
response time, if important, and confirm that
the pair of results are on a consistent
moisture, temperature, and diluent
concentration basis. Then, compare each
n
i
1-1
integrated CEMS value against the
corresponding average RM value. Use the
following guidelines to make these
comparisons.
7.2.1 If the RM has an Integrated sampling
technique, make a direct comparison of the
RM results and CEMS integrated average
value.
7.2.2 If the RM has a grab sampling
technique, first average the results from all
grab samples taken during the test run and
then compare this average vJue against the
Integrated value obtained from the CEMS
chart recording during the run.
7.3 Number ofRM Tests. Conduct a
minimum of nine sets of all necessary RM
tests. For grab samples, e.g., Method 7, a set
Is made up of at least three separate
measurements. Conduct each set within a
period of 30 to 60 minutes.
Note.—The tester may choose to perform
more than nine sets of RM tests. If this option
is chosen, the tester may, at his descretion,
reject a maximum of three sets of the test
results so long as the total number of test
results used to determine the relative
accuracy is greater than or equal to nine, but
he must report all data including the rejected
data.
7.4 Reference Methods. Unless otherwise
specified in an applicable subpart of the
regulations, Methods 6, 7,3, and 4, or their
approved alternatives, are the reference
methods for SOt, NO,, diluent (Oi or CO,).
and moisture, respectively.
7.5 Calculations. Summarize the results
on a data sheet; an example is shown in
Figure 2-2. Calculate the mean of the RM
values. Calculate the arithmetic differences
between the RM and the CEMS output sets.
Then calculate the mean of the difference, .
standard deviation, confidence coefficient,
and CEMS RA, using Equations 2-1. 2-2. 2-3,
and 2-4.
8. Equations
8.1 Arithmetic Mean. Calculate the
arithmetic mean of the difference, d, of a data
set as follows:
(Eq. 2-1)
Where:
n-
Number of data points.
S d. « Algebraic sum of the Individual differences, d.
1-1 1 1
When the mean of the differences of pain
of data is calculated, be sure to correct the
data for moisture, if applicable.
MUMQ CODE MtO-M-M
IV-APPENDIX B-39
-------
M
2!
d
H
X
W
I
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Date and
time
Average
so2
RM
M iDlff
ppmc
Confidence Interval
*
Accuracy0 J
<
RM
M IDlff
ppmc
C02 or 02a
RM
M
*d »d
so/
RM
M
Diff
mass/GCV
NO/
RM| M
Diff
mass/GCV
I
s
2
o
a.
09
"oT
B
aFor steam generators; Average of three samples; c Make sure that RM and M data are on a consistent basis,
either wet or dry.
Figure 2-2. Relative accuracy determination.
70
n"
00
BILLIMO COOC MtO-N-C
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 16 / Monday. January 26.1981 / Proposed Rules
8.2 Standard Deviation. Calculate the
standard deviation Sj as follows:
Where:
•0.975
t-values (see Table 2-1)
Table 2-1. t-VALUES
11.975
•0.975
•0.875
(Eq. 2-2)
8.3 Confidence Coefficient. Calculate the
2.5 percent error confidence coefficient (one-
tailed) CC as follows:
2
3
4.._
5...
6...
12 706
m, 4.303
3.182
_ 2.776
2.571
7
6
9
10
11
2447
Z386
2.306
2.262
2.228
12
13
14
IS
16
2501
2.179
2.160
2.145
2.131
CC • *0.975
.IT
(Eq. 2-3)
•The value* in thii table era already corrected for D-1
degrees of freedom. Use n equal to the* number of individu-
al values.
8.4 Relative Accuracy. Calculate the RA
of a set of data as follows:
RA
icci
X 100
Where:
|CC|
RM
= Absolute value of the mean of differences
(from Equation 2-1).
3 Absolute value of the confidence coefficient
(from Equation 2-3).
* Average RM value or applicable standard.
Where:
d=Absolute value of the mean of
differences (from Equation 2-1).
CC=Absolute value of the confidence
coefficient (front-Equation 2-3).
RM=Average RM value or applicable
standard.
9. Reporting
At a minimum (check with the appropriate
regional office, or State or local agency for
additional requirements, if any) summarize in
tabular form the calibration drift tests and
the RA tests. Include all data sheets,
calculations, and charts (record of data
outputs) that are necessary to substantiate
that the performance GEMS met the
performance specification.
10. Bibliography
10.1 "Experimental Statistics,"
Department of Commerce, Handbook 91,
1963, pp. 3-31, paragraphs 3-3.1.4.
Performance Specification 3—Specifications
and Test Procedures for O, and COt
Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems in
Stationary Sources
1. Applicability and Principle
• 1.1 Applicability. This specification is to
be used for evaluating the acceptability of Oi
and COi continuous emission monitoring
systems (GEMS) after initial installation and
whenever specified in an applicable subpart
of the regulations. The specification applies
to Oi and CO, monitors that are not included
under Performance Specification 2.
The definitions, installation measurement
location specifications, test procedures, data
reduction procedures, reporting requirements,
and bibliography are the same as in
Performance Specification 2, Sections 2, 3, 5,
0, 8,9, and 10, and also apply to O, and CO.
CEMS under this specification. The
performance and equipment specifications
and the relative accuracy (RA) test
(Eq. 2-4) procedures for d and COi CEMS differ from
Sd and NO, CEMS, unless otherwise noted.
and are therefore included here.
1.2 Principle. Reference method (RM)
tests and calibration drift tests are conducted
to determine conformance of the CEMS with
the specification.
2. Performance and Equipment
Specifications
2.1 Instrument Zero and Span. This
specification is the same as Section 4.1 of
Performance Specification 2.
2.2 Calibration Drift. The CEMS
calibration must not drift by more than 0.5
percent O» or CO, from the reference value of
the gas, gas cell, or optical filter.
2.3 CEMS Relative Accuracy. The RA of
the CEMS must be no greater than 20 percent
of the mean value of the RM test data or 1.0
percent Oi or CO,, whichever is greater.
3. Relative Accuracy Test Procedure
3.1 Sampling Strategy for RM Tests,
correlation ofRM and CEMS data, Number
ofRM Tests, and Calculations. This is the
same as Performance Specification 2,
Sections 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, and 7.5, respectively.
3.2 Reference Method. Unless otherwise
specified in an applicable subpart of the
regulations, Method 3 of Appendix A or any
approved alternative is the reference method
for Oj or CO,.
(Sec. 114. Clean Air Act, as amended (42
U.S.C. 7414))
[FR Doc. 81-2637 Filed 1-23-81: 8:45 am]
MtUNO CODE 65SO-28-M
IV-APPENDIX B-41
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 138 / Monday, July 20. 1981 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[AD-FRL 1715-Y]
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources: Continuous
Monitoring Performance
Specifications; Proposed Revisions to
General Provisions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of
public hearing.
SUMMARY: On February 23,1978 (43 FR
7568) the Environmental Protection
Agency promulgated standards of
performance for new or modified kraft
pulp mills pursuant to Sectton 111 of the
Clean Air Act as amended. The
standards require a continuous emission
monitoring system (GEMS) to monitor
total reduced sulfur (TRS) for operation
and maintenance purposes. However, at
the time the standards were
promulgated performance specifications
for the monitors had not been completed
and monitoring requirements were not
to be effective until their completion.
The specifications proposed herein
complete the performance
specifications. In addition, changes to
the general monitoring requirements of
Section 60.13 are proposed.
A public hearing will be held, if
requested, to provide interested persons
an opportunity for oral presentation of
data, views or arguments concerning the
proposed performance specification and
changes to Section 60.13.
DATES:
Comments. Comments must be received
on or before September 18,1981.
Public Hearing. If requested, a public
hearing will be held. Persons wishing
to present oral testimony must contact
EPA by August 10,1981. If a hearing is
requested, an announcement of the
date and place will appear in a
separate Federal Register notice.
ADDRESS:
Comments. Comments should be
submitted (in duplicate if possible) to:
Central Docket Section (A-130),
Attention: Docket Number A-80-57,
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
Public Hearing. Persons wishing to
present oral testimony should notify
Mrs. Naomi Durkee, Office of the
Director, Emission Standards and
Engineering Division (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number
(919) 541-5571.
Docket. Docket No. A-80-57, containing
material relevant to this rulemaking, 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:
Mr. Roger Shigehara, Emission
Measurement Branch, Emission
Standards and Engineering Division
(MD-19), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)
541-2237.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
February 23,1978 (43 FR 7568), the
Environmental Protection Agency
promulgated standards of performance
for new or modified kraft pulp mills
pursuant to Section 111 of the Clean Air
Act as amended. The regulation requires
new kraft pulp mills to demonstrate
compliance with the standards of
performance by means of performance
tests at the time the new source
commences operation or shortly
thereafter. To insure that these sources,
including associated air pollution
control equipment, would be properly
operated and maintained (to insure the
intent of the standards to reduce air
pollution), provisions were included that
require several monitoring systems to
continuously monitor emission levels.
One of those monitoring systems was
for total reduced sulfur (TRS).
At the time the standards, which
included these monitoring requirements,
were initially proposed, EPA and the
kraft pulp mill industry were engaged in
developing performance specifications
for TRS monitoring systems. The
performance specifications were not
completed by the time the standards of
performance were promulgated;
therefore, the monitoring requirements
were not to be effective until a joint
EPA-industry effort to develop
performance specifications was
completed.
In October of 1977, the National
Council of the Pulp and Paper Industry
for Air and Stream Improvement
submitted a technical assessment study
to EPA. The results of a month-long
evaluation of the performance of
existing TRS monitors and a comparison
with Method 16 data were included in
this study. This study serves as the
technical background for the
performance specification proposed
today.
The specification requires that
jnonitors used to measure TRS be
installed and ensured to operate
properly. Calibration drift and relative
accuracy tests are to be conducted to
determine conformance of the
continuous emission monitoring systems
(CEMS) with the specification.
Candidate monitors include the
coulometric titrator, flame photometric
and photoionization detectors, and
others, fitted with appropriate sample
extraction and conditioning equipment.
A document has been prepared to
provide vendors and operators with
guidelines for performance and
equipment specifications and suggested
test and data reduction procedures for
evaluating the CEMS. This guideline
document is available from Mr. Foston
Curtis, Mail Drop 19, Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711, (919) 541-
2237. During the development of the TRS
performance specification, a question
arose concerning the possibility that the
CEMS might be the same as Reference
Method 16. The question concerns
whether such systems should be
exempted from the relative accuracy
test because it would involve comparing
a reference method against an
automated reference method. Comments
are requested on this question.
As discussed in the preamble to the
final rule which established the
standards of performance for kraft pulp
mills (43 FR 7571], installation of
continuous monitoring systems is not
needed until promulgation of applicable
performance specifications. Sections
60.13(a) of Title 40 indicates that
continuous monitoring systems must
comply with the monitoring
requirements upon promulgation unless
otherwise specified in an applicable
subpart or by the Administrator.
When Performance Specification 5 is
promulgated, the Administrator could
decide if any delay in complying with
the monitoring requirements after
promulgation is warranted for kraft pulp
mills which are already affected by the
standards. However, notice of these
requirements is being given with today's
proposal. The time between proposal
and promulgation is usually about one
year. The time before promulgation
should allow kraft pulp mills to initiate
purchasing and installig a continuous
monitoring system. A delay beyond
promulgation similar to the 180 days
allowed for performance tests (40 CFR
60.8) is considered reasonable.
However, in certain cases, additional
time may be required for kraft pulp mills
IV-APPENDIX B-42
-------
Federal Regjstair / Vol. 46. No. 138 / Monday. July 20. 1981 / Proposed Rules
which are already affected by the
standards. The Administrator plans to
specify additional delays as set forth in
40 CFR 60.13(a) based on the expected
time a source already affected by the
standards would need to review
available monitors, to purchase a
monitor, to install the monitor, and to
place the monitor into operation.
Comments concerning the 180-day delay
and additional delays are specifically
requested.
The costs asociated with continuous
monitoring are difficult to asess because
costs will vary from source-to-source
depending on the variations in the
requirements for each installation, e.g.,
procurement, shipping, site preparation,
and physical installation of the
instrument system. However, for TRS
monitoring systems, the normal costs of
procurement are in the range of $15,000
to $30,000. The installation and testing
costs required by Performance
Specification 5 are approximately $3600
(30 man-days at $15 per hour).
During preparation of this
performance specification, consistency
with the existing monitoring
requirements of 40 CFR 60.13 was
checked. These existing monitoring
requirements provide a general basis for
continuous monitoring requirements
found in standards of performance for
pew sources, such as the standards for
kraft pulp mills. One minor
inconsistency was found in paragraph
60.13(e). Because TRS was not
mentioned in this paragraph, a revision
to the paragraph is being proposed to
make the paragraph apply to TRS and
other emissions. In addition to this
minor inconsistency, several paragraphs
which are no longer applicable were
found. These paragraphs were effective
only until September 11,1979. Therefore,
to update and reduce the complexity of
40 CFR 60.13, it is proposed that the
parts of paragraphs 60.13(a), 60.13(c),
and 60.13(e) which are no longer
applicable be removed from 40 CFR
60.13.
• Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C
Section 605(b), I hereby certify that the
attached rule will not, if promulgated,
have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
About two-thrids of the businesses
owning kraft pulp mills are also engaged
in other activities, such as chemical
manufacture, detergent production, land
development and can production. In
addition, businesses owning kraft pulp
mills but not engaged™ these activities
are almost always engaged in the
production of timber or paperboard.
Because most businesses owning kraft
pulp mills are engaged in activities other
than kraft pulping, very few small
entities, as defined in 13 CFR Part 121,
could be impacted by this rule. Thus, the
attached rule will not, if promulgated,
have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
I have reviewed this proposed rule to
determine if it is a major rule as defined
in Executive Order 12291 (48 FR18193).
The costs of procurement and
installation, as indicated above, do not
indicate that this rule would result in an
annual effect of $100 million or more, a
major increase in costs or prices, or
other significant adverse effects. Thus, I
have determined that this rule is not a
major rule.
This regulation was submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget for
review as required by Executive Order
12291.
This notice of proposed 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
7601 (a)).
Dated: July 6,1981.
Anne M. Gomich,
Administrator.
It is proposed that § 60.13 and
Appendix B of 40 CFR Part 60 be
amended as follows:
1. By revising § 60.13(a), 60.13(c), and
60.13(e); by removing subparagraphs (1)
and (2) of § 60.13(a); by removing
subparagraphs (1), (2), and (3), of
§ 60.13(c); and by removing
subparagraph (3) of i 60.13(e) as
follows:
written repo. I of the resulto of such
tests. These continuous monitoring
system performance evaluations shall
be conducted in accordance with the
requirements and procedures contained
in the applicable performance
specification of Appendix B.
6 O ft ft °
(e) Except for system breakdowns,
repairs, calibration checks, and zero and
span adjustments required under
paragraph (d) of this section, all
continuous monitoring systems shall bs
in continuous operation and shall meet
minimum frequency of operation
requirements as follows:
(1) All continuous monitoring systemo
referenced by paragraph (c) of this
section for measuring opacity of
emissions shall complete a minimum of
one cycle of sampling and analyzing for
each successive 10-second period and
one cycle of data recording for each
successive 6-minute period.
(2) All continuous monitoring systems
referenced by paragraph (c) of this
section for measuring emissions, except
opacity, shall complete a minimum of
one cycle of operation (sampling,
analyzing, and data recording) for each
successive 15-minute period.
ft ft O ft «
2. By adding Performance
Specification 5 to Appendix B of 40 CFR
Part 60 as follows:
Appendix IE!—Performance
§ 60.13 Monitoring ro^ulrorosnto.
* * « « ft
(a) For the purposes of this section, all
caontinuous monitoring systems
required under applicable subparts shall
be subject to the provisions of this
section upon promulgation of
performance specifications for
continuous monitoring systems under
Appendix B to this part, unless
otherwise specified in an applicable
subpart or by the Administrator.
* * * * *
(c) During any performance tests
required under § 60.8 or within 30 days
thereafter and at such other times as
may be required by the Administrator
under Section 114 of the Act, the owner
or operator of any affected facility shall
conduct continuous monitoring system
performance evaluations and furnish the
Administrator within 60 days thereof
two or, upon request, more copies of a
Performance Specification S—SpacificatioBO
and Test Procedures for TRS Continuous
Emission Monitoring Systems in Stationary
Sources
1. Applicability and Principle
1.1 Applicability. This specification is to
be used for evaluating the acceptability of
total reduced sulfur (TRS) continuous
emission monitoring systems (CEMS) after
initial installation and whenever specified in
an applicable subpart of the regulations. The
CEMS may include O» monitors.
The definitions, installation specifications,
test procedures, data reduction procedures
for determining calibration drifts and relative
accuracy, and reporting of Performance
Specification 2,' Sections 2, 3,4, 5,6, 8, and 9
also apply to this specification and must be
consulted. The performance and equipment
specifications do not differ from Performance
Specification 2 except as listed below and are
Included in this specification.
1.2 Principle. Calibration drift and
relative accuracy tests are conducted to
1 All references to Performance Specification 2
are to the one proposed on January 28,1831 (46 FR
8352).
IV-APPENDIX B-43
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 138 / Monday. July 20. 1981 / Proposed Rules
determine conformance of the CEMS with the
specification.
2. Performance and Equipment
Specifications
2.1 Instrument Zero and Span. The CEMS
recorder span must be set at 90 to 100 percent
of recorder full-scale using a span level of 90
to 100 percent of the span value (other span
levels may be used with the approval of the
Administrator). The CEMS design shall also
•Uow the determination of calibration at the
zero and span level points of the calibration
curve. If this is not possible or is impractical.
these determinations may be conducted at a
low level (up to 20 percent of span value)
point and at a high level (80 to 100 percent of
•pan value) point. The components of an
acceptable permeation tube system are listed
on pages 87-44 of Citation 2 of the
bibliography.
2.2 Calibration Drift. The CEMS
calibration must not drift or deviate from the
reference value of the calibration gas by
more than 3 percent of the established span
value of 30 ppm. If the CEMS includes
pollutant and diluent monitors, the
calibration drift must be determined
separately for each in terms of concentrations
(see Performance Specification 3 for the
diluent specifications).
2.3 CEMS Relative Accuracy (RA). The
RA of the CEMS shall be no greater than 20
percent of the mean value of the reference
method (RM) test data In terms of the units of
the emission standard or 10 percent of the
applicable standard, whichever is greater.
3. Relative Accuracy Test Procedure
3.1 Sampling Strategy for RM Tests,
Correlation of RM and CEMS Data, Number
of RM Tests, and Calculations. This is the
same as Performance Specification 2,
Sections, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, and 7.5, respectively.
3.2 Reference Methods. Unless otherwise
specified in an applicable subpart of the
regulations, Method 16, Method 16A, or other
approved alternative, shall be the reference
method for TRS. Note: For Method IB, a set is
made up of at least three separate injects
equally spaced over time.
4. Bibliography
4.1 "Experimental Statistics," Department
of Commerce, Handbook 91,1963 pp. 3-31,
paragraphs 3-3.1.4.
4.2 "A Guide to the Design, Maintenance
and Operation of TRS Monitoring Systems."
National Council for Air and Stream
Improvement Technical Bulletin No. 69,
September 1977.
4.3 "Observation of Field Performance of
TRS Monitors on a Kraft Recovery Furnace,"
National Council for Air and Stream
Improvement Technical Bulletin No. 91,
January 1978.
|FR Doc. 81-21084 Filed 7-17-61; 8:45 am)
MUMO CODE 6S60-M-M
IV-APPENDIX B-44
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
EPA-340/l-82-005b
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Standards of Performance for New Stationary
Sources - A Compilation as of May 1, 1982
Volume 2: Proposed Amendments
. REPORT DATE
June 1982
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
PN 3660-1-42
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
PEDCo Environmental, Incorporated
11499 Chester Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45246
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-01-6310
Task No. 42
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Stationary Source Compliance Division
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Compilation to May 1982
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
DSSE Project Officer:
Kirk Foster, MD-7, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711; (919) 541-4571
16. ABSTRACT
This .document is a compilation of the New Source Performance Standards promulgated ,
under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, represented in full as amended. The infor-
mation contained herein supersedes all compilations published by the Enviornmental
Protection Agency prior to 1982. Volume 1 contains Sections I through III including:
Introduction, Summary Table, and Regulations as amended. Volume 2 contains Section
IV, Proposed Regulations, and Volume 3 contains Section V, the full text of all regu-
lations promulgated since 1971.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
COSATI Field/Group
<\ir pollution control
Regulations; Enforcement
New Source Performance
Standards
13B
14B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
?O. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (t-73)
------- |