[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 225 (Wednesday, November 21, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58610-58642]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-28192]
[[Page 58609]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 21, 2001 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 58610]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[FRL-7101-7]
RIN 2060-AG66
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP) for existing and new asphalt processing and
asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities. The EPA has identified
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities as
major sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) such as formaldehyde,
hexane, hydrogen chloride (HCl), phenol, polycyclic organic matter
(POM), and toluene. These proposed standards would implement section
112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) by requiring all major sources to
meet HAP emission standards reflecting the application of the maximum
achievable control technology (MACT). The total HAP reduction is
expected to be 8.87 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (9.78 tons per year
(tpy)).
DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before January 22, 2002.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing by December 11, 2001, a public hearing will be held on
December 21, 2001.
ADDRESSES: Comments. By U.S. Postal Service, send comments (in
duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center (6102), Attention Docket Number A-95-32, U.S. EPA, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20460. In person or by courier,
deliver comments (in duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention Docket Number A-95-32,
U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington DC 20460. The EPA requests a
separate copy also be sent to the contact person listed below.
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at the
EPA Office of Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, beginning at 10 a.m., or at an alternate site nearby.
Docket. Docket No. A-95-32 contains supporting information used in
developing the proposed standards. The docket is located at the U.S.
EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460 in room M-1500, Waterside
Mall (ground floor), and may be inspected from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Colyer, Policy, Planning, and
Standards Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. EPA,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)
541-5262, e-mail address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments. Comments and data may be submitted by e-mail to: [email protected]. Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file
to avoid the use of special characters and encryption problems and will
also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect'' version 5.1, 6.1 or Corel 8
file format. All comments and data submitted in electronic form must
note the docket number: A-95-32. No confidential business information
(CBI) should be submitted by e-mail. Electronic comments may be filed
online at many Federal depository libraries.
Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for
consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other
comments and clearly label it as CBI. Send submissions containing such
proprietary information directly to the following address, and not to
the public docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not
inadvertently placed in the docket: Attention: Rick Colyer, U.S. EPA,
c/o OAQPS Document Control Officer, 411 W. Chapel Hill Street, Room
740B, Durham NC 27701. The EPA will disclose information identified as
CBI only to the extent allowed by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR
part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies a submission when it
is received by the EPA, the information may be made available to the
public without further notice to the commenter.
World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of this proposed rule will also be available on the
WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature,
a copy of the rule will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page
for newly proposed or promulgated rules http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg.
The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas
of air pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN is
needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
Public Hearing. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or
inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Dorothy
Apple, Policy, Planning, and Standards Group, Emission Standards
Division (MD-13), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-4487, at least 2 days in advance of
the public hearing. Persons interested in attending the public hearing
must also call Dorothy Apple to verify the time, date, and location of
the hearing. The public hearing will provide interested parties the
opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning these
proposed emission standards.
Docket. The docket reflects the full administrative record for this
action and includes all the information relied upon by EPA in
development of this proposed rule. The docket is a dynamic file because
material is added throughout the rulemaking process. The docketing
system is intended to allow members of the public and industries
involved to readily identify and locate documents so that they can
effectively participate in the rulemaking process. Along with the
proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles, the contents of
the docket will serve as the record in the case of judicial review.
(See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the CAA.) The regulatory text and other
materials related to this rulemaking are available for review in the
docket or copies may be mailed on request from the Air Docket by
calling (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying
docket materials.
Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action are shown in Table 1. This table is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities
likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether your
facility is regulated by this action, you should examine the
applicability criteria in Secs. 63.8681 and 63.8682 of the proposed
rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
[[Page 58611]]
Table 1.--Regulated Categories and Entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS a SIC b
Category -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Code Description Code Description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturing................... 324122 Asphalt shingle and 2952 Asphalt felts and coatings.
coating materials
manufacturing.
Manufacturing................... 32411 Petroleum 2911 Petroleum refining.
refineries.
Federal Government.............. Not affected
Not affected
State/Local/Tribal Government... Not affected
Not affected
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Standard Industrial Classification Code.
b North American Information Classification System.
Organization of this Document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for the proposed NESHAP?
B. What criteria are used in the development of NESHAP?
C. What operations constitute asphalt processing and asphalt
roofing manufacture?
D. What are the emissions and emission sources?
E. What are the health effects associated with the asphalt
processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing source categories?
II. Summary of the Proposed Standards
A. Do these proposed NESHAP apply to me?
B. What are the affected sources?
C. What pollutants are regulated by the proposed NESHAP?
D. What emission limits must I meet?
E. When must I comply?
F. What are the testing and initial compliance requirements?
G. What are the continuous compliance provisions?
H. What are the notification, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements?
III. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts
A. What are the air quality impacts?
B. What are the cost impacts?
C. What are the economic impacts?
D. What are the non-air health, environmental and energy
impacts?
IV. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards
A. How did we select the source categories to regulate?
B. How did we select the affected sources?
C. How did we select the pollutants to regulate?
D. How did we determine the basis and level of the proposed
standards for existing and new sources?
E. How did we select the format of the standards?
F. How did we select the emission limits?
G. How did we select the testing and initial compliance
requirements?
H. How did we select the continuous compliance requirements?
I. How did we select the notification, recordkeeping and
reporting requirements?
J. What is the relationship of this subpart to other standards?
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
I. Background
A. What Is the Statutory Authority for the Proposed NESHAP?
Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and
subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP and to establish
NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. A major
source of HAP is any stationary source or group of stationary sources
within a contiguous area under common control that emits or has the
potential to emit, considering controls, in the aggregate, 9.1 Mg/yr
(10 tpy) or more of any single HAP, or 22.7 Mg/yr (25 tpy) or more of
any combination of HAP. Based on the emissions data collected for this
rulemaking, asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing
facilities have the potential to be major sources of HAP.
The asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing categories
of major sources were listed as separate source categories on July 16,
1992 (57 FR 31576). However, because these processes are closely
related and are often collocated, we are proposing to regulate
emissions from both source categories under a single NESHAP.
B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?
Section 112(c)(2) of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for
control of HAP from both existing and new major sources, based upon the
criteria set out in section 112(d). The CAA requires the NESHAP to
reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP that is
achievable, taking into consideration the cost of achieving the
emission reduction, any non-air quality health and environmental
impacts, and energy requirements. This level of control is commonly
referred to as the MACT.
The minimum control level allowed for NESHAP (the minimum level of
stringency for MACT) is the so-called ``MACT floor,'' as defined under
section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. The MACT floor for existing sources is
the emission limitation achieved by the average of the best performing
12 percent of existing sources for categories and subcategories with 30
or more sources, or the average of the best performing 5 sources for
categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources. For new
sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission
control achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source.
In developing the NESHAP, we also consider control options that are
more stringent than the MACT floor (so-called beyond-the-floor control
options), taking into consideration (as noted previously) the cost of
achieving the emission reductions, and any non-air quality
environmental impacts, and energy requirements. In this rule, EPA is
proposing standards for both existing and new sources based on the
MACT.
C. What Operations Constitute Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacture?
The proposed NESHAP would regulate both asphalt processing and
asphalt roofing manufacturing operations. Asphalt processing and
asphalt roofing manufacturing operations can be stand-alone or
integrated with each other or related operations such as wet-formed
fiberglass mat manufacturing. Additionally, some asphalt processing is
performed at petroleum refineries.
[[Page 58612]]
Processed asphalt is produced using asphalt flux as the raw
material. Asphalt flux is a product that is obtained in the last stages
of fractional distillation of crude oil. Asphalt is processed to change
its physical properties for use primarily in the roofing industry. In
asphalt processing, heated asphalt flux is taken from storage and
charged to a heated blowing still where air is bubbled up through the
flux. This process raises the softening temperature of the asphalt. The
blowing process also decreases the penetration rate of the asphalt when
applied to the roofing substrate. Some processing operations use a
catalyst (e.g., ferric chloride, phosphoric acid) in the blowing still.
A catalyst is used to promote the oxidation of asphalt in the blowing
still. The need to use catalyst is primarily driven by the type of
feedstock used. Certain feedstocks require catalyst to be used to
attain desired product specifications.
In asphalt roofing manufacturing, processed or modified asphalt
(also called modified bitumen) is applied to a fibrous substrate
(typically made of fiberglass or organic felt) to produce the following
types of roofing products: shingles, laminated shingles, smooth-
surfaced roll roofing, mineral-surfaced roll roofing, and saturated
felt roll roofing. Modified asphalt is asphalt that is mixed with
plastic modifiers (which add strength and durability to the asphalt)
and is typically used to produce roll roofing products. A roofing
manufacturing line is a largely continuous operation, with line
stoppages occurring primarily due to breaks in the substrate.
In asphalt roofing manufacturing, asphalt is typically mixed with
filler materials before application to the substrate. If a fiberglass
substrate is used, coating asphalt is applied by a coater. If an
organic substrate is used, a saturator and wet looper are typically
used prior to the coater to provide additional time for the asphalt to
impregnate the substrate. The type of final product being manufactured
determines the process steps that follow the coating or impregnation
steps.
For shingles and mineral-surfaced roll roofing, granules are
applied to the hot surface of the coated substrate. This step is
omitted in manufacture of smooth-surfaced and saturated felt roll
roofing. In shingle manufacture, a strip of sealant (typically oxidized
or modified asphalt) is applied to the back of the product after it has
cooled. This sealant strip, which is heated by the sun after the
roofing product is installed, provides some adhesion and sealing
between layers of roofing product. In shingle manufacture, the coated
substrate is cut into the desired size. Multiple single-ply shingles
can be glued together (typically using oxidized or modified asphalt as
an adhesive) to produce laminated or dimensional shingles. When asphalt
roofing manufacturing lines are collocated with asphalt processing
operations, the two operations typically share storage and process
tanks.
D. What Are the Emissions and Emission Sources?
Asphalt is essentially the material that remains after fractional
distillation of crude oil. Consequently, asphalt consists primarily of
heavy organic compounds with low boiling points. Hazardous air
pollutants are volatilized from asphalt as it is heated and agitated
during processing and roofing manufacturing operations. Hazardous air
pollutants are also volatilized during asphalt processing as a result
of the oxidation reactions that occur in the blowing still.
Because the HAP volatilized from asphalt generally have low boiling
points, they can be present in both condensed particulate matter (PM)
and gaseous forms, depending on the temperature of the vent or exhaust
gas. When the temperature of the vent gas is below the boiling point of
a HAP, the HAP will condense into particulate form (i.e., a cooler vent
gas will have more HAP in the form of condensed PM, whereas a hotter
vent stream will contain mostly gaseous HAP).
The following types of equipment are sources of PM and gaseous HAP
emissions: asphalt storage and process tanks, asphalt blowing stills,
oxidized asphalt loading racks, saturators, wet loopers, coating
mixers, coaters, sealant applicators, and adhesive applicators. Most
blowing stills are controlled by a thermal oxidizer to comply with the
Standards of Performance for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacture (40 CFR part 60, subpart UU, hereafter referred to as the
asphalt NSPS) or State regulations. If a chlorinated catalyst is used
in the blowing still, HCl is emitted from the blowing still thermal
oxidizer outlet.
E. What Are the Health Effects Associated With the Asphalt Processing
and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories?
A variety of HAP are emitted from asphalt processing and asphalt
roofing manufacturing source categories. The following HAP account for
the majority (approximately 98 percent) of the total HAP emissions:
formaldehyde, hexane, HCl (at asphalt processing facilities that use
chlorinated catalysts), phenol, POM, and toluene. The remaining 2
percent of the total HAP emissions is a combination of several
different organic HAP, each contributing less than 0.5 percent to the
total HAP emissions.
The HAP emitted from these source categories (controlled under this
proposed rule) are associated with a variety of adverse health effects.
These adverse health effects include both chronic health disorders
(e.g., irritation of the lung, skin, and mucous membranes; effects on
the central nervous system; and damage to the blood and liver) and
acute health disorders (e.g., respiratory irritation and central
nervous system effects such as drowsiness, headache, and nausea). The
EPA has classified two of the HAP (formaldehyde and POM) as probable
human carcinogens.
The adverse health effects associated with the exposure to specific
HAP are further described below. In general, these findings have only
been shown with concentrations higher than those typically in the
ambient air.
Formaldehyde. Both acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term)
exposure to formaldehyde irritates the eyes, nose, and throat, and may
cause coughing, chest pains, and bronchitis. Reproductive effects such
as menstrual disorders and pregnancy problems have been reported in
female workers exposed to formaldehyde. Limited human studies have
reported an association between formaldehyde exposure and lung and
nasopharyngeal cancer. Animal inhalation studies have reported an
increased incidence of nasal squamous cell cancer. The EPA considers
formaldehyde a probable human carcinogen (Group B2).
Hexane. Acute inhalation exposure of humans to high levels of
hexane causes mild central nervous system effects, including dizziness,
giddiness, slight nausea, and headache. Chronic exposure to hexane in
air causes numbness in the extremities, muscular weakness, blurred
vision, headache, and fatigue. One study reported testicular damage in
rats exposed to hexane through inhalation. No information is available
on the carcinogenic effects of hexane in humans or animals. The EPA has
classified hexane in Group D, not classifiable as to human
carcinogenicity.
Hydrogen Chloride. Hydrogen chloride, also called hydrochloric
acid, is corrosive to the eyes, skin, and mucous membranes. Acute
inhalation exposure may cause eye, nose, and respiratory tract
irritation and inflammation and pulmonary edema in humans. Chronic
occupational exposure to hydrochloric acid has been reported to cause
gastritis, bronchitis, and
[[Page 58613]]
dermatitis in workers. Prolonged exposure to low concentrations may
also cause dental discoloration and erosion. No information is
available on the reproductive or developmental effects of hydrochloric
acid in humans. In rats exposed to hydrochloric acid by inhalation,
altered estrus cycles have been reported in females and increased fetal
mortality and decreased fetal weight have been reported in offspring.
The EPA has not classified hydrochloric acid for carcinogenicity.
Phenol. Acute inhalation and dermal exposure to phenol is highly
irritating to the skin, eyes, and mucous membranes in humans. Oral
exposure to small amounts of phenol may cause irregular breathing,
muscular weakness and tremors, coma, and respiratory arrest at lethal
concentrations. Anorexia, progressive weight loss, diarrhea, vertigo,
salivation, and a dark coloration of the urine have been reported in
chronically exposed humans. Gastrointestinal irritation and blood and
liver effects have also been reported. No studies of developmental or
reproductive effects of phenol in humans are available, but animal
studies have reported reduced fetal body weights, growth retardation,
and abnormal development in the offspring of animals exposed to phenol
by the oral route. The EPA has classified phenol in Group D, not
classifiable as to human carcinogenicity.
POM. The term polycyclic organic matter defines a broad class of
compounds that includes the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH)
compounds, of which benzo[a]pyrene is a member. Dermal exposures to
mixtures of PAH cause skin disorders in humans and animals. No
information is available on the reproductive or developmental effects
of POM in humans. Human studies have reported an increase in lung
cancer in humans exposed to POM-bearing mixtures including coke oven
emissions, roofing tar emissions, and cigarette smoke. The EPA has
classified seven PAH compounds (benzo[a]pyrene, benz[a]anthracene,
chrysene, benzo[b]fluoranthene, benzo[k]fluoranthene,
dibenz[a,h]anthracene, and indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene) as Group B2,
probable human carcinogens.
Toluene. Acute inhalation of toluene by humans may cause effects to
the central nervous system, such as fatigue, sleepiness, headache, and
nausea, as well as irregular heartbeat. Adverse central nervous system
effects have been reported in chronic abusers (those that inhale
toluene or other toluene-containing substances) exposed to high levels
of toluene. Symptoms include tremors, decreased brain size, involuntary
eye movements, and impaired speech, hearing, and vision. Chronic (long-
term) inhalation exposure of humans to lower levels of toluene also
causes irritation of the upper respiratory tract, eye irritation, sore
throat, nausea, dizziness, headaches, and difficulty with sleep.
Studies of children whose mothers were exposed to toluene by inhalation
or mixed solvents during pregnancy have reported central nervous system
problems, facial and limb abnormalities, and delayed development.
However, these effects may not be attributable to toluene alone. The
EPA has classified toluene in Group D, not classifiable as to human
carcinogenicity.
This proposed rule would also protect air quality and the public
health by reducing emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and PM
from asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing.
Volatile Organic Compounds. Emissions of VOC have been associated
with a variety of health and welfare impacts. Volatile organic compound
emissions, together with nitrogen oxides, are precursors to the
formation of tropospheric ozone. Exposure to ambient ozone is
responsible for a number of public health impacts, such as alterations
in lung capacity; eye, nose, and throat irritation; nausea; and
aggravation of existing respiratory disease. Ozone exposure can also
damage forests and crops.
Particulate Matter. Particulate matter can accumulate in the
respiratory system and is associated with numerous adverse health
effects. Exposure to coarse particles is primarily associated with the
aggravation of respiratory conditions, such as asthma. Fine particles
are most closely associated with such health effects as increased
hospital admissions and emergency room visits for heart and lung
disease, increased respiratory symptoms and disease, decreased lung
function, and even premature death.
II. Summary of the Proposed Standards
A. Do These Proposed NESHAP Apply to Me?
This proposed rule would apply to you if you process asphalt or
manufacture asphalt roofing products at a facility that is a major
source of HAP emissions. Major sources of HAP are those that emit or
have the potential to emit at least 10 tpy of any one HAP or 25 tpy of
any combination of HAP. All emission sources at a facility, not just
those related to asphalt processing or roofing manufacture, must be
considered in determining major source status. If your facility is
determined to be an area source (i.e., not a major source), you would
not be subject to these proposed NESHAP.
This proposed rule would not regulate emissions from the wet-formed
fiberglass mat production industry, even though a wet-formed fiberglass
mat is produced at both stand-alone facilities and those collocated
with asphalt processing and roofing facilities. Emissions from wet-
formed fiberglass mat manufacturing processes are being regulated by
the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH).
B. What Are the Affected Sources?
An affected source is the process equipment that is regulated by
the NESHAP. For these proposed NESHAP, there would be two affected
sources: each asphalt processing facility and each asphalt roofing
manufacturing line. An asphalt processing facility is any facility that
prepares asphalt at asphalt processing plants, petroleum refineries,
and asphalt roofing plants. An asphalt roofing manufacturing line is
the collection of equipment used to manufacture asphalt roofing
products through a series of sequential process steps.
C. What Pollutants Are Regulated by the Proposed NESHAP?
These proposed NESHAP would establish emission limits for PM and
total hydrocarbons (THC) as surrogates for total organic HAP which
includes the following compounds: formaldehyde, hexane, phenol, POM,
and toluene.
Although HCl is emitted from some asphalt processing facilities
(those that use chlorinated catalysts in the blowing still), we are
proposing not to regulate HCl emissions since we can identify no
duplicable or otherwise available means of controlling HCl as a floor
standard, and beyond the floor controls are not warranted after
considering the factors set out in section 112(d)(2) of the Act. A more
detailed discussion of the basis for this decision is provided in
section IV.C of this preamble.
D. What Emission Limits Must I Meet?
We are proposing that you meet the emission limits that are
summarized in Table 2. The emission limits are expressed in appropriate
formats for the various process equipment being regulated. Depending on
the piece of process equipment, you have the option of complying with
any of several formats. These formats include a PM
[[Page 58614]]
emission limit, expressed in terms of kilograms of PM per megagram (kg/
Mg) of product manufactured, a THC percent reduction standard, or a
combustion efficiency standard.
The combustion efficiency standard is provided as an alternative to
the THC percent reduction standard. This option is provided in the
proposed rule because there are some emission sources (e.g., blowing
stills) for which testing of the control device inlet is impractical.
Additionally, saturators (including wet loopers and coaters) at
existing asphalt roofing manufacturing lines would have to meet an
opacity limit, and the emission capture system for the saturator
(including the wet looper and coater) would have to meet a visible
emission standard. The proposed rule also provides the option for
coating mixers, saturators (including wet loopers and coaters), sealant
applicators, and adhesive applicators at existing asphalt roofing
manufacturing lines to comply with either the THC or the combustion
efficiency standards instead of the PM and opacity standards.
Table 2.--Summary of Proposed Emission Limits for Existing and New
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For * * * You must * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each asphalt storage tank with a Reduce THC mass emissions by 95
capacity of 1.93 Mg (2.13 tons) or percent; or
greater of asphalt, blowing still, and Route the emissions to a
loading rack at existing new, and thermal oxidizer achieving a
reconstructed asphalt processing combustion efficiency of 99.6
facilities. percent.
Each coating mixer, saturator Reduce THC mass emissions by 95
(including wet looper and coater), percent; or
sealant applicator, and adhesive Route the emissions to a
applicator at new and reconstructed thermal oxidizer achieving a
asphalt roofing manufacturing lines. combustion efficiency of 99.6
percent.
The total emissions from the coating Limit PM emissions to 0.04 kg/
mixer, saturator (including wet looper Mg (0.08 pounds per ton) of
and coater), sealant applicator, and asphalt shingle or mineral-
adhesive applicator at each existing surfaced roll roofing
asphalt roofing manufacturing line.. produced, or 0.4 kg/Mg (0.8
pounds per ton) of saturated
felt or smooth-surfaced roll
roofing produced.
Each saturator (including wet looper Limit exhaust gases to 20
and coater) at an existing or new percent opacity; and
asphalt roofing manufacturing line. Limit visible emissions from
the emission capture system to
20 percent of any period of
consecutive valid observations
totaling 60 minutes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. When Must I Comply?
We are proposing that existing sources would have to comply with
the NESHAP no later than [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER THE DATE THE FINAL RULE IS
PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register]. The 3-year period is necessary to
allow owners and operators sufficient time to design, purchase, and
install emission capture systems and air pollution control equipment.
New or reconstructed sources would have to comply with the NESHAP at
startup or [DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register],
whichever is later.
If your asphalt processing facility or asphalt roofing
manufacturing line is located at a facility that is an area source
which increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it
becomes a major source of HAP after [DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED
IN THE Federal Register], then any portion of the existing facility
that is a new affected source or a reconstructed affected source would
have to either be in compliance with this subpart upon startup after
becoming a major source or by [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER THE DATE THE FINAL
RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register], whichever is later. All
other parts of any facility to which this proposed rule would apply
would have to be in compliance with this subpart by 3 years after
becoming a major source.
F. What Are the Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements?
You would have to conduct a performance test to demonstrate initial
compliance with the NESHAP emission limits. As specified in
Sec. 63.7(e) of the NESHAP general provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart
A), performance tests would have to be conducted under normal operating
conditions. To ensure that compliance can be achieved over the entire
range of operating conditions, the performance tests should be
conducted under the operating conditions that reflect the highest rate
of asphalt processing or roofing production reasonably expected to be
achieved by the facility. For example, performance tests of roofing
manufacturing line equipment should be conducted while manufacturing
the roofing product with the greatest asphalt content.
The proposed NESHAP contain PM emission limits, a THC percent
reduction standard, and a combustion efficiency standard. For these
standards, you would have to conduct a minimum of three 1-hour test
runs to measure emissions. Compliance is determined based on the
average of the three test runs. To measure PM, use EPA test method 5A;
for THC emissions, use EPA test method 25A. The EPA reference methods
are contained in appendix A of 40 CFR part 60. For the combustion
efficiency standard, you would measure emissions of THC, carbon
monoxide (CO), and carbon dioxide (CO2) to demonstrate
compliance. You would use EPA method 10 to measure CO emissions and EPA
method 3A to measure CO2 emissions. You would demonstrate
compliance with the PM emission limit, THC percent reduction standard,
and the combustion efficiency standard using the instructions and
equations in the performance test requirement section of these proposed
NESHAP.
The proposed NESHAP also contain opacity and visible emission
standards for saturators at an existing asphalt roofing manufacturing
line. Opacity and visible emission compliance determinations would be
made using EPA methods 9 and 22, respectively, in appendix A of 40 CFR
part 60.
You would have to install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a
continuous monitoring system (CMS) to monitor the control device
parameters. During the performance test, you would continuously monitor
and record control device parameters and establish the monitoring
parameter value(s) that constitute compliance with the emission limits.
If you use a thermal oxidizer to comply with the standards, you would
record the average operating temperature. The temperature monitoring
device would be installed at the exit of the combustion zone or in the
ductwork immediately downstream of the combustion zone, before any
substantial heat loss occurs. If you use a PM control device, you would
record
[[Page 58615]]
the device inlet gas temperature and pressure drop across the device.
For thermal oxidizers and PM control devices, the parameters would
have to be monitored and values recorded in 15-minute blocks during
each of three 1-hour test runs from which you would compute the 3-hour
average parameter values. If you use a control device other than a
thermal oxidizer or PM control device to comply with the NESHAP, you
would propose to the Administrator the appropriate monitoring
parameters, monitoring frequencies, and averaging periods. All
monitoring parameters for control devices not specified in the proposed
rule would have to be approved by the Administrator as specified in
Sec. 63.8(f) of the NESHAP general provisions.
During the performance test, you would also monitor and record the
average hourly roofing line production rate or the asphalt processing
rate, as applicable. If you are complying with the PM emission limit,
you would also determine the asphalt content of the product
manufactured during the performance test.
G. What Are the Continuous Compliance Provisions?
After the performance test, you would have to demonstrate
continuous compliance with the emission limits by monitoring either
control device or process operating parameters. The parameters would
have to remain within the limits established during the initial
performance test.
If you use a thermal oxidizer or PM control device to achieve
compliance with the emission limits, you would have to monitor the
following operating parameters, determining and recording the parameter
values in 15-minute and 3-hour block averages:
The operating temperature for thermal oxidizers,
The inlet gas temperature and pressure drop across the
device for PM control devices.
If you use a control device other than a thermal oxidizer or PM
control device to achieve compliance with the emission limits, you
would have to monitor the parameters that were established during the
initial performance test and approved by the Administrator. To change
the value of any monitored parameter, you would have to conduct a
performance test and submit a request to the Administrator for approval
using the procedures specified in Sec. 63.8(f) of the NESHAP general
provisions.
H. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements?
You would have to comply with the notification, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A general provisions,
as specified in Table 7 of the proposed rule. The notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements include, but are not limited
to: (1) Initial notification of applicability of the rule, notification
of the dates for conducting the performance test, and notification of
compliance status; (2) reports of any startup, shutdown, and
malfunction events that occur; and (3) semiannual reports of excess
emissions (i.e., deviations from monitoring parameter limits). When no
deviations occur, you would submit semiannual reports indicating that
no deviations have occurred during the period. For a thermal oxidizer,
a deviation would be any time (excluding periods of startup, shutdown
and malfunction) that the operating temperature falls below the limit
established during the initial performance test. For a PM control
device, a deviation would be any time (excluding periods of startup,
shutdown and malfunction) that the temperature of the gas at the inlet
to the control device or the pressure drop across the control device
are above their respective limits established during the initial
performance test.
You would have to maintain records of the following, as applicable:
(1) Thermal oxidizer operating temperature; (2) PM control device inlet
gas temperature and pressure drop; (3) approved parameters for sources
that comply with the emission limits using a control device other than
a thermal oxidizer or PM control device; and (4) the date and time a
deviation commenced if a monitoring parameter deviation occurs, the
date and time corrective actions were initiated and completed, a
description of the cause of the deviation, and a description of the
corrective actions taken. You would also prepare a startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plan and maintain records of actions taken during these
events, as required by Sec. 63.6(e)(3) of the NESHAP general
provisions. The proposed rule also includes a requirement to develop
and make available for inspection by the permitting authority, upon
request, a site-specific monitoring plan that specifies how the
continuous parameter monitoring system will be installed, operated, and
maintained, as well as the data quality assurance procedures and
ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures.
The NESHAP general provisions (Sec. 63.10(b)) require that records
be maintained for at least 5 years from the date of each record. You
would have to retain the records onsite for at least 2 years. You may
retain records for the remaining 3 years at an offsite location. The
records must be readily available and in a form suitable for efficient
inspection and review. The files may be retained on paper, microfilm,
microfiche, a computer, computer disks, or magnetic tape. Reports may
be made on paper or on a labeled computer disk using commonly available
and compatible computer software.
III. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts
Although MACT floors must be based exclusively on the emission
limitation achieved by the best performing sources (or, for new
sources, the best performing source), EPA has compiled information on
air quality impacts, costs, non-air quality impacts, and energy impacts
in compliance with Executive Orders. We estimate the proposed NESHAP
would affect a total of 18 existing facilities (ten asphalt processing
and asphalt roofing facilities and eight petroleum refineries). We
estimated the number of major sources by estimating emissions using
emission factors and available production data and extrapolating
potential emissions from actual emissions. We identified major
facilities for the purposes of estimating emissions, emission
reductions, control costs, and monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
costs only. It should be noted that facilities may not necessarily be
major sources for the purposes of determining applicability of these
proposed NESHAP because they were identified as major by our estimates.
Likewise, facilities would not be relieved from complying with these
proposed NESHAP because they were not identified as major sources in
our estimates.
A. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
Baseline HAP emissions from the asphalt processing and asphalt
roofing manufacturing facilities that would be subject to the proposed
NESHAP are estimated to be 192 Mg/yr (212 tpy). Baseline THC emissions
are estimated to be 173 Mg/yr (191 tpy). The baseline emission
estimates were developed using equipment, control device, and
production rate data reported in a 1995 industry survey. The proposed
NESHAP would reduce HAP emissions by 8.87 Mg/yr (9.78 tpy) and THC by
135 Mg/yr (149 tpy). The proposed NESHAP would also reduce PM emissions
from asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
[[Page 58616]]
manufacturing facilities. However, we do not have sufficient data to
estimate baseline emissions or emission reductions for PM. The HAP
reductions that would be achieved by these proposed NESHAP are limited
because most of the emission sources in the asphalt processing and
asphalt roofing manufacturing industry are currently controlled, and
because these proposed NESHAP would not require control of HCl
emissions.
The baseline emissions and emission reductions do not include
contributions from area sources because they would not be subject to
the proposed NESHAP. The estimates also do not include contributions
from petroleum refineries because we did not have sufficient data
(production rates for blowing stills or population sizes or control
devices for storage tanks and loading racks) to estimate baseline
emissions or emission reductions from those sources. We believe, based
on limited information, most if not all asphalt processing facilities
at petroleum refineries are well controlled using thermal oxidizers.
Therefore, little additional emission reduction would occur. However,
we are specifically requesting comment on the current level of control
of asphalt processing facilities located at petroleum refineries.
The proposed NESHAP would also likely cause an increase in
emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX), CO, and sulfur dioxide
(SO2) due to increased use of thermal oxidizers as control
devices. The estimated secondary impacts of NOX, CO, and
SO2 are approximately 32.0, 53.8, and 0.385 Mg/yr (35.3,
59.3, and 0.424 tpy), respectively. These estimates are based on the
amount of exhaust and auxiliary fuel that will be burned at the ten
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities that
are estimated to be major sources.
B. What Are the Cost Impacts?
The cost impacts for the proposed NESHAP for asphalt processing and
asphalt roofing manufacturing were developed using site-specific
information, obtained by an industry information survey distributed by
the Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association (ARMA), and the
procedures contained in the Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS) Control Cost Manual. For some facilities where site-
specific data necessary for estimating costs (e.g., a vent flow rate)
were not available, average factors developed from the industry data
were used.
The total capital cost for the industry to achieve compliance with
the proposed NESHAP for existing facilities is estimated to be $2.16
million. The capital costs arise from the purchase of emission capture
systems and control devices. The total annualized cost is estimated to
be $758,000. The annualized costs for the industry include the
annualized capital cost of emission capture systems and control devices
and operation, maintenance, supervisory labor, maintenance materials,
utilities, administrative charges, taxes, and insurance. It is
estimated that the industry will spend an additional industrywide
average of $250,000 per year for monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting to comply with the proposed NESHAP. This results in a total
annualized cost of $1.01 million.
The total capital and annualized costs cited above do not include
the control costs for asphalt processing facilities that would be
subject to the proposed NESHAP that are located at petroleum
refineries. For petroleum refineries, we did not have data on actual
production rates for blowing stills or the populations, capacities, and
types of control devices used for storage tanks and loading racks. The
capital and annualized costs are anticipated to be significantly less
for petroleum refineries than asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
manufacturing facilities because most of the blowing stills at these
sources are already controlled. Additionally, refineries typically have
existing combustion sources (flares, process heaters, and boilers) that
can be used as control devices. The only cost anticipated for petroleum
refineries will be for emission capture systems.
C. What Are the Economic Impacts?
The Agency conducted a detailed economic impact analysis to
determine the market- and industry-level impacts associated with the
proposed rule. The compliance costs of today's proposed rule are
expected to increase the prices of asphalt roofing and processing
products by less than 0.1 percent across the directly affected product
markets, and domestic production and consumption of the affected
products are expected to decrease by less than 0.1 percent also.
In terms of industry impacts, the asphalt roofing and processing
manufacturers are projected to experience a decrease in operating
profits of about 0.1 percent, which reflects the compliance costs
associated with the production of asphalt roofing and processing
products and the resulting reductions in revenues due to the increase
in the prices of the directly affected product markets and reduced
quantities purchased. Through the market impacts described above, the
proposed rule created both gainers and losers within the asphalt
roofing and processing industry. The majority of facilities, almost 76
percent, are expected to experience profit increases with the proposed
rule; however, there are some facilities projected to lose profits
(about 8 percent). Furthermore, the economic impact analysis indicates
that of the 123 existing asphalt roofing and processing facilities,
none are at risk of closure because of the proposed standards.
Therefore, none of the companies that own asphalt roofing and
processing facilities are projected to close due to this proposed rule.
Based on the market analysis, the annual social costs of the
proposed rule is projected to be about $1.01 million. The estimated
social costs differ from the projected engineering costs by less than
0.01 percent for this proposed rule. These two costs differ because
social costs account for producer and consumer behavior. These social
costs are distributed across the many consumers and producers of
asphalt roofing and processing products. For this proposed rule, the
producers of asphalt roofing and processing products, in aggregate, are
expected to incur about $0.46 million annually in costs, while the
consumers of asphalt roofing and processing products are expected to
incur $0.55 million annually across the product markets.
The economic analysis also addressed potential changes in new
asphalt roofing and processing facility construction for the year
following promulgation of this rule. This was done by estimating the
total annualized costs for new facilities and projecting changes in
equilibrium output due to the proposed rule. The economic impact
analysis estimated a very small reduction in the growth of the asphalt
industry represented by a small reduction in equilibrium output of
asphalt products in the year following promulgation. However, the
reduction in equilibrium output was only a small fraction of estimated
new plant capacity. Thus, the control costs are not expected to
influence the decision to enter the market for asphalt products. For
more information, consult the Economic Impact Analysis report
supporting this proposed rule.
D. What Are the Non-Air Health, Environmental and Energy Impacts?
Spent filter media from certain types of PM control devices (e.g.,
high-efficiency air filters) is periodically replaced and disposed of
as solid waste. Although many of the emission sources subject to the
proposed NESHAP are already controlled by PM devices, an
[[Page 58617]]
increase in the generation of spent filter media is expected as a
result of the proposed NESHAP. However, we do not have sufficient data
to quantify this anticipated increase in solid waste generation.
No water impacts are anticipated due to the proposed NESHAP since
none of the control devices expected to be used to comply with the
proposed NESHAP require the use of water or generate wastewater
streams.
Increased energy usage is expected due to the proposed NESHAP.
Electricity is required to power fans for emission capture systems, and
new thermal oxidizers will require supplemental fuel (e.g., natural
gas) to efficiently combust the HAP vent streams. The estimated annual
increase in electricity consumption is 0.787 million kilowatt hours.
The approximate increase in natural gas consumption is 12.0 million
standard cubic feet per year. These estimates are for the ten
facilities considered to be major sources.
IV. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards
A. How Did We Select the Source Categories To Regulate?
In section 112(c)(2), the CAA requires that we regulate each
category of major sources of HAP. An initial list of source categories
was published on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576) and, pursuant to section
112(c)(1) of the CAA, we have revised the list on four occasions in
response to public comment or new information. Asphalt processing and
asphalt roofing manufacture are on the list of source categories
because these processes can be major sources of HAP or located at major
sources of HAP. Hazardous air pollutants are any of the 188 chemicals
listed under section 112(b) of the CAA. The proposed NESHAP do not
apply to processes that are located at area sources.
B. How Did We Select the Affected Sources?
The affected sources are the pieces of process equipment that are
subject to the NESHAP emission limits. The two affected sources in this
proposal are defined as each asphalt processing facility and each
asphalt roofing manufacturing line. An asphalt processing facility
includes the following process equipment: Blowing stills, asphalt flux
storage tanks, oxidized asphalt storage tanks, and oxidized asphalt
loading racks. An asphalt roofing manufacturing line includes the
following process equipment: A saturator, a wet looper, a coater,
coating mixers, sealant applicators, adhesive applicators, and
associated storage tanks.
Asphalt storage tanks at asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
manufacturing facilities that are collocated may be shared by the two
operations. If the asphalt roofing manufacturing line is collocated
with an asphalt processing facility, the storage tanks that receive
asphalt directly from the on-site blowing stills would be defined as
part of the asphalt processing affected source.
A facility that manufactures asphalt roofing may have more than one
manufacturing line. At these facilities, asphalt storage tanks and
sealant and adhesive applicators may be shared by roofing manufacturing
lines. A shared storage tank would be considered part of the asphalt
roofing manufacturing line to which the tank supplies the greatest
amount of asphalt, on an annual basis. A sealant or adhesive applicator
that is shared by two or more asphalt roofing manufacturing lines would
be considered part of the line that provides the greatest throughput to
the applicator, on an annual basis.
This definition of affected source would also be used to determine
if new source standards apply when subject equipment is ``constructed''
or ``reconstructed,'' as defined in the NESHAP general provisions
(Sec. 63.2). We defined the affected source as the asphalt processing
facility or asphalt roofing manufacturing line rather than on a narrow
equipment-piece basis because we believe that it is inappropriate for
small changes (e.g., the addition of a sealant applicator to a
manufacturing line) to trigger the new source emission limits for only
part of the manufacturing line. For asphalt processing facilities, this
is not a concern since the existing and new source standards are the
same. However, the existing and new source standards are substantially
different for asphalt roofing manufacturing lines.
For asphalt roofing manufacturing lines, the new source emission
limits would be triggered only when an entire new line is added or when
an existing line is reconstructed. This is appropriate because the
manufacture of roofing products is a continuous process, with the
equipment for the different process steps arranged in sequence.
Consequently, an increase in production cannot be achieved simply by
adding a single piece of process equipment (e.g., a coater). To
increase production capacity, the entire line would have to be modified
or a new line would need to be constructed.
C. How Did We Select the Pollutants To Regulate?
The available emission data show that HAP are emitted from asphalt
processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities. As discussed
previously in section I.D of this preamble, HAP emitted from the
sources that would be regulated by these proposed NESHAP can be present
in both gaseous and condensed PM forms, depending on the temperature of
the vent or exhaust gas.
For the purposes of this proposed rule, the HAP emitted from
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities have
been divided into three categories: Total gaseous organic HAP, total
particulate organic HAP, and HCl.
Total Gaseous Organic HAP. We are proposing to regulate gaseous HAP
emissions using THC as a surrogate. Total hydrocarbons are an
appropriate surrogate for total HAP, since organic HAP constitute a
significant portion of the THC. Controlling THC would result in a
proportionate amount of organic HAP control.
Total Particulate Organic HAP. Particulate matter emitted from
blowing stills consists of condensed organic hydrocarbons. For organic
HAP that are present in condensed PM form, we are proposing to use PM
as a surrogate. Similarly to the THC surrogate for gaseous HAP, PM is
an appropriate surrogate because it would include the HAP that would be
emitted as condensed PM. Controlling PM would result in a proportionate
amount of condensed particulate organic HAP control.
Hydrogen Chloride. We are proposing not to regulate HCl emissions
associated with blowing stills that use chlorinated catalysts. The
reasons are discussed in section IV.D of this preamble.
D. How Did We Determine the Basis and Level of the Proposed Standards
for Existing and New Sources?
How did we determine the MACT floor? The majority of data used for
the MACT floor analysis were obtained from responses to a survey
distributed by ARMA in 1995. We reviewed the survey information and
obtained clarifications and additional information in subsequent
meetings with representatives of the asphalt processing and asphalt
roofing manufacturing industry.
Approximately half of the asphalt processing and roofing
manufacturing facilities in the industry responded to the survey.
Because the survey was not targeted at a specific subset of the
[[Page 58618]]
industry (for example, large facilities or well-controlled facilities),
we believe the collected data provide a generally representative sample
of the industry, but may in fact be slightly biased to larger, well-
controlled facilities that had the resources to respond to the survey.
The survey requested information on the types of products
manufactured, process equipment, and control devices used in asphalt
processing and roofing manufacturing operations. Data were provided on
the following types of equipment which have been identified as sources
of HAP emissions: blowing stills, loading racks, storage tanks,
coaters, saturators, wet loopers, coating mixers, sealant applicators
and adhesive applicators. Data characterizing the performance of
control devices were not collected by the survey. Data for blowing
stills at petroleum refineries (which were gathered to support
development of the petroleum refineries NESHAP but were not covered by
those NESHAP) were included in the MACT floor analysis for blowing
stills.
To establish the MACT floor, we considered two approaches:
determine the MACT floor across the affected source as a whole, and
determine the MACT floor for each type of process equipment. To
determine the MACT floor using the first approach, a mass emission
limit or a mass emission reduction percentage across the affected
source as a whole must be established. For the definition of affected
source in this proposal, this approach would require determination of
the best performing 12 percent of the asphalt processing facilities and
asphalt roofing manufacturing lines. However, the data currently
available are not sufficient to establish either a mass emission limit
or a percent reduction for entire affected sources. The variety of
equipment configurations used in the asphalt processing and asphalt
roofing manufacturing industries makes it difficult to compare mass
emissions or overall levels of control from various affected sources.
For example, not all processing facilities, especially those collocated
with roofing manufacturing facilities, have loading racks.
Additionally, adequate test data for estimating uncontrolled emissions
and the emission reductions associated with the variety of control
devices used are not available.
Consequently, we have decided to establish the existing and new
source MACT floors for each type of process equipment used in asphalt
processing facilities and in asphalt roofing manufacturing lines. We
believe that this approach is the most appropriate use of the available
data. Additionally, this approach provides assurance that the resulting
MACT floors for each piece of equipment, when combined, would not be
less stringent than the MACT floor for the affected source as a whole.
Section 112(d)(3)(A) of the CAA requires that standards be no less
stringent than ``the average emission limitation achieved by the best
performing 12 percent of existing sources * * * for categories and
subcategories with 30 or more sources.'' We have interpreted this
language to mean that EPA first determines the emission limitations
achieved by sources within the best performing 12 percent and then
averages those limitations. In this proposal, we interpret the term
``average'' to mean the mean, median, or mode, or some other measure of
central tendency. In most cases, ``average'' is interpreted to be the
arithmetic mean or the median. The choice between using the median
value or mean value depends on which value best represents the central
tendency of the data. For asphalt processing and roofing sources, we
have determined that the median best represents the central tendency.
For most pieces of equipment, the control devices used by the best
performing 12 percent are limited to two types (thermal oxidizers and
PM control devices). A mean destruction efficiency would result in a
floor that does not correspond to any actual control device in use. The
median of the best performing 12 percent of sources was identified to
determine the MACT floor for blowing stills, loading racks, storage
tanks, coaters, coating mixers, and sealant and adhesive applicators.
For saturators and wet loopers, we have data for less than 30
pieces of equipment. Section 112(d)(3)(B) of the CAA requires that
standards be no less stringent than ``the average emission limitation
achieved by the best performing five sources * * * for categories or
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources.'' Therefore, the MACT floor
for saturators and wet loopers is based on the average emission
limitation achieved by the best performing five sources, rather than
the best performing 12 percent of sources. As with other equipment, the
median of the five best performing sources was determined to best
represent the central tendency of the data.
To identify the best performing sources and the median level of
emission reduction, we determined the level of control for each piece
of process equipment based on the type of control device installed and
the operating characteristics of the control device. For each equipment
type, the equipment pieces were ranked in order of level of control.
The categories of control, in descending order of HAP emission
reduction, are as follows: thermal oxidizers operating at or above 1200
degrees Fahrenheit ( deg.F); thermal oxidizers operating below
1200 deg.F; PM control devices (e.g., high-velocity air filters (HVAF),
electrostatic precipitators (ESP); fiberbed filters) used to comply
with the asphalt new source performance standard (NSPS) (40 CFR 60,
subpart UU); PM control devices not used to comply with the asphalt
NSPS; and no control device.
We ranked thermal oxidizers over PM control devices because thermal
oxidizers reduce both gaseous HAP and condensed HAP. Particulate matter
control devices control only the HAP that have condensed into PM at the
operating temperature of the control device.
Thermal oxidizers operating at or above 1200 deg.F were considered
to achieve a greater emission reduction than those operating below
1200 deg.F. This conclusion was based on a study of thermal oxidizers
that found that most hydrocarbons are destroyed at a temperature of
1200 deg.F or above. Although operating temperatures for thermal
oxidizers reported in the survey range up to 1600 deg.F, thermal
oxidizers operating at or above 1200 deg.F were not further subdivided.
The EPA/ARMA test program showed no consistent increase in emission
reduction with increased temperatures above 1200 deg.F. For example,
the THC destruction efficiencies for some test runs of a thermal
oxidizer operating at 1400 deg.F were less than the destruction
efficiencies achieved at 1250 deg.F, while other runs were greater than
the efficiencies achieved at 1600 deg.F.
Particulate matter control devices used to comply with the emission
limits of the asphalt NSPS were assumed to be better performing than
those that were not. This assumption was based on the fact that a
performance test is required to demonstrate compliance with the asphalt
NSPS PM emission limits. After the performance test, continuous
compliance with the emission limits is demonstrated by monitoring the
inlet gas temperature. We ranked the PM control devices above no
control because PM emissions contain condensed HAP and, in controlling
PM, some HAP control is achieved.
Blowing Stills. All blowing stills emit organic HAP. However,
blowing stills in which a chlorinated catalyst is used to promote the
oxidation reaction also produce emissions of chlorinated compounds.
When these compounds are combusted in the thermal oxidizer
[[Page 58619]]
typically used to control blowing still emissions, HCl emissions are
produced. Because different methods are used to control organic HAP and
HCl, separate analyses were conducted to identify the MACT floor for
organic HAP and HCl from blowing stills.
We have control device information for 91 blowing stills. Organic
HAP emissions from all of these blowing stills are controlled using a
thermal oxidizer. All of the best performing 12 percent of blowing
stills are controlled with a thermal oxidizer operating at or above
1200 deg.F. Therefore, a thermal oxidizer operating at or above
1200 deg.F is the basis for the floor for control of organic HAP from
blowing stills at existing, new, and reconstructed affected sources.
Of the 91 blowing stills for which we have data, 37 use a chloride-
based catalyst. In considering a potential floor for HCl emissions from
these sources, we considered both at-the-stack controls and prohibiting
chlorinated catalyst use as a potential basis for a standard. None of
these facilities use a control device to reduce HCl emissions generated
by the thermal oxidizer. Therefore, an add-on control device (i.e., a
further control in addition to the thermal oxidizer, which is itself an
add-on control device) cannot be the basis for a floor standard for HCl
emissions.
The only other potential MACT floor for HCl emissions that we
considered (and the only potential means available) was the pollution
prevention option of not allowing use of a chlorinated catalyst. This
would eliminate HCl emissions from the thermal oxidizer. Well over 12
percent of blowing stills do not use a catalyst. However, the need to
use catalyst is driven by the type of asphalt feedstocks used.
The asphalt flux used in the production of asphalt roofing
materials is a by-product of the petroleum refining process. Because
the characteristics of crude oil are highly variable, the quality of
the asphalt flux that remains after the refinery distillation processes
also varies. Also, the degree of refining has an effect on the
suitability of the asphalt flux for use in manufacturing asphalt
roofing products. Because the demand for high-quality asphalt flux can
sometimes be greater than the supply and because high-quality
feedstocks might not be available in a particular region, some roofing
manufacturers must accept lower quality feedstock. Catalysts must be
used to attain the desired roofing product specifications if certain
low-quality asphalt flux feedstocks (e.g., the flux derived from crude
oils that have been extensively refined) are used. These sources must
use a catalyst in the asphalt flux blowing operation or an acceptable
asphalt product for roofing materials cannot be produced. Thus, for
these sources, use of a catalyst (with consequent HCl emissions when
other organic emissions are controlled with a thermal oxidizer control
device) is a necessity unless asphalt production is discontinued. This,
of course, is not an intended result from application of MACT. See H.
Rep. No. 490, 101st Cong. 2d sess. 328 (``However, MACT is not intended
* * * to drive sources to the brink of shutdown'').
Consequently, control of HCl emissions through substitution of
higher quality asphalt flux is not an achievable means of control,
because such higher quality flux is not consistently or reliably
available, i.e., there is generally not enough higher quality flux
available at any one time for the demand. Since this potential means of
control is not duplicable (i.e., not consistently or reliably available
to all sources), standards based on this means of control would not be
achievable, as required by section 112(d)(2) of the Act. EPA
consequently is not proposing a floor standard based on the unavailable
means of process substitution.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The situation might also be conceptualized in terms of
subcategories: plants that produce asphalt using higher quality
flux, and those without access to higher quality flux producing
asphalt using catalysts. The higher quality flux process subcategory
controls HCl emissions through its process (in essence, there are no
such emissions); the catalyst subcategory does not control HCl
emissions at the floor level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because there are no control devices in use to control HCl from
blowing still thermal oxidizers and disallowing the use of catalyst is
not a technically achievable option for all sources, the MACT floor for
HCl emissions at existing, new, and reconstructed affected sources is
based on no emission reduction.
We do not believe this proposal is inconsistent with the holding in
National Lime v. EPA, 233 F. 3d 625 (D.C. Cir. 2000). That case
remanded MACT standards of no control for consideration of whether
various types of process substitution could establish a MACT floor. 233
F. 3d at 634. There was no showing, however, that such means of control
were unavailable (so that plant closure was the only alternative should
standards based on process substitution be adopted). Nor was National
Lime a situation where emission of one HAP resulted from application of
control technology for other HAPs.
Loading Racks. We have control device information for 52 loading
racks. All of the best performing 12 percent of loading racks are
controlled with a thermal oxidizer operating at or above 1200 deg.F.
Therefore, a thermal oxidizer operating at or above 1200 deg.F is the
basis for the MACT floor for loading racks at existing, new, and
reconstructed affected sources.
Coaters. We have control device information for 73 coaters. Of the
nine best performing coaters (the best performing 12 percent of
sources), four are controlled with a thermal oxidizer operating at or
above 1200 deg.F, and five with a PM control device that is subject to
the asphalt NSPS limits. The median, or fifth, source is controlled
with a PM control device that is subject to the asphalt NSPS limits.
Therefore, the floor level of control for coaters at existing affected
sources is based on a PM control device that achieves the asphalt NSPS
limits. The floor for coaters at new and reconstructed affected sources
is based on a thermal oxidizer operating at or above 1200 deg.F.
Coating Mixers. We have data for 60 coating mixers. Of the eight
coating mixers that represent the best performing 12 percent, three are
controlled with a thermal oxidizer operating at or above 1200 deg.F,
three are controlled with a PM control device that is subject to the
asphalt NSPS limits, and two are controlled with a PM control device
that is not used to comply with the asphalt NSPS. The fourth and fifth
coating mixers, representing the median, are controlled with a PM
control device that is subject to the asphalt NSPS limits. Therefore,
the MACT floor for coating mixers at existing affected sources is based
on a PM control device that achieves the asphalt NSPS limits. The floor
for coating mixers at new and reconstructed affected sources is based
on a thermal oxidizer operating at or above 1200 deg.F.
Saturators and Wet Loopers. We have data for less than 30
saturators and less than 30 wet loopers, therefore the floor for these
types of equipment is based on the ``average'' emission limit achieved
by the five best performing sources. Of the five best performing
saturators, one is controlled with a thermal oxidizer operating at or
above 1200 deg.F, one is controlled by a thermal oxidizer operating
below 1200 deg.F, and the remaining saturators, including the median
source, are controlled with a PM control device that is subject to the
asphalt NSPS limits. A PM control device that achieves the asphalt NSPS
limits is therefore the basis for the floor for saturators at existing
affected sources. A thermal oxidizer operating at or above 1200 deg.F
is the basis for the floor
[[Page 58620]]
for saturators at new and reconstructed affected sources.
All of the five best performing wet loopers are controlled with a
PM control device that is subject to the asphalt NSPS limits.
Therefore, the floor for wet loopers at existing, new, and
reconstructed affected sources is based on a PM control device that
achieves the asphalt NSPS limits.
Asphalt Storage Tanks. As discussed previously, storage tanks may
be associated with either asphalt processing or asphalt roofing
manufacturing or shared between the two source categories at collocated
facilities. To address the possibility that the floor for asphalt
storage tanks would be different for asphalt processing and asphalt
roofing manufacturing facilities, we performed the floor analysis for
five different groupings of facilities: facilities that only process
asphalt, facilities that only manufacture roofing products, facilities
that both process asphalt and manufacture roofing products, facilities
that process asphalt (including stand-alone and collocated asphalt
processing facilities), and all facilities.
In addition, storage tanks can vary in function based on the
material stored. Large bulk storage tanks are used to store asphalt
flux and oxidized asphalt; modified bitumen tanks are used to mix
asphalt flux and plastic modifiers; and relatively small process tanks,
such as sealant and adhesive tanks, supply asphalt directly to the
roofing line. To address the possibility that the level of emission
reduction is related to the function of a tank, we grouped the tanks by
the type of material stored, as an indication of the tank's function.
The material groupings included: asphalt flux, oxidized asphalt,
modified bitumen, and sealant and adhesive.
We found that, regardless of the facility or material grouping, a
thermal oxidizer operating at or above 1200 deg.F is the basis for the
MACT floor for storage tanks at existing, new, and reconstructed
affected sources.
Through the MACT floor analysis, we determined, based on available
data, that no sources are using a thermal oxidizer to control emissions
from storage tanks with a capacity less than 1.93 megagrams (2.13 tons)
of asphalt. Therefore, the MACT floor level of control does not include
controlling tanks with capacities less than 1.93 megagrams.
Sealant and Adhesive Applicators. There are 60 applicators for
which we have data. Therefore, the eight best performing applicators
represent the top 12 percent of sources. Of these, four applicators are
controlled with a thermal oxidizer operating at or above 1200 deg.F and
four applicators are controlled with a PM control device subject to the
asphalt NSPS limits. Because there are an even number of control
devices in the top 12 percent, there is no clear median control.
However, as stated previously, the database of applicators includes
only those of companies that responded to the survey, which may be
biased toward the better-controlled facilities (those with more
available resources to respond). In light of this uncertainty, and the
fact that there is no clear median source, we have assumed that some
bias may exist toward reporting of better-controlled facilities. The
lesser-controlled nonrespondents, if included in the floor
determination, would then produce an identifiable median of PM control
at the NSPS level. This would thus cause us to identify a more
stringent MACT floor than if we have information on all applicators.
Consequently, to allow for any bias that may exist in the database due
to this marginal uncertainty, we have determined that the average
emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent is more
appropriately represented by the emission reduction achieved for the
fifth-ranked applicator, which is controlled with a PM control device
subject to the asphalt NSPS limits. The MACT floor of applicators at
existing affected sources is based on a PM control device achieving the
asphalt NSPS limits, and the MACT floor for applicators at new and
reconstructed sources is based on a thermal oxidizer operating at or
above 1200 deg.F.
In summary, the MACT floor for the equipment at existing, new, and
reconstructed asphalt processing facilities (blowing stills, loading
racks, and storage tanks with capacity of 1.93 megagrams or greater) is
based on a thermal oxidizer operating at or above 1200 deg.F for
control of organic HAP. With the exception of asphalt storage tanks,
the MACT floor for equipment at existing asphalt roofing manufacturing
lines (coaters, saturators, wet loopers, coating mixers and sealant and
adhesive applicators) is based on a PM control device complying with
the asphalt NSPS. Compliance with the asphalt NSPS includes limiting PM
emissions to a process weight-based limit and complying with opacity
and visible emission limits. For the coaters, saturators, wet loopers,
coating mixers, and sealant and adhesive applicators at new and
reconstructed affected sources, the MACT floor is based on a thermal
oxidizer operating at or above 1200 deg.F. For wet loopers at new and
reconstructed affected sources, the MACT floor is based on a PM control
device complying with the asphalt NSPS. For storage vessels with a
capacity of 1.93 megagrams or greater at existing, new, and
reconstructed asphalt roofing manufacturing lines, the MACT floor is
based on a thermal oxidizer operating at or above 1200 deg.F.
How did we consider beyond-the-floor options? There are three
groups of equipment for which we identified potential options for
achieving emission reductions more stringent than the floor (beyond-
the-floor options): saturators, wet loopers, coaters, coating mixers,
and sealant and adhesive applicators at existing sources; blowing
stills that use a chlorinated catalyst at existing, new, and
reconstructed sources; and wet loopers at new and reconstructed
sources.
For all other equipment (blowing stills, loading racks, and storage
tanks at existing, new, and reconstructed sources; and for saturators,
coaters, coating mixers, and sealant and adhesive applicators at new
and reconstructed sources), the MACT floor is based on a thermal
oxidizer operating with a minimum operating temperature of 1200 deg.F.
There are no known technologies in use at asphalt processing or roofing
manufacturing facilities or similar sources that would be capable of
achieving a greater emission reduction than these thermal oxidizers
and, thus, no beyond-the-floor options were considered.
We also considered whether facilities could use ``cleaner'' or
lower-emitting asphalt feedstocks when processing asphalt or
manufacturing roofing products as a beyond-the-floor option for all
equipment at existing, new, and reconstructed affected sources. We do
not have data to determine the relationship between HAP emissions and
various types of feedstocks. Additionally, we do not have sufficient
data to determine definitively whether this is a viable option,
although we believe that it is not feasible because a facility's choice
of feedstocks is dictated primarily by its location. For example, it
would be impractical for an asphalt processing facility on the East
coast to obtain asphalt feedstock from a petroleum refinery on the West
coast. Consequently, we have determined that restricting the type of
feedstock used is not technically achievable for all sources, and,
therefore, cannot be considered as a beyond-the-floor option.
Saturators, Wet Loopers, Coaters, Coating Mixers, and Sealant and
Adhesive Applicators at Existing Sources. For saturators, wet loopers,
coating mixers, coaters, and sealant and
[[Page 58621]]
adhesive applicators at existing affected sources, the floor is based
on a PM control device used to comply with the asphalt NSPS limits. The
level of control achieved by a thermal oxidizer with a minimum
operating temperature of 1200 deg.F was identified as the only beyond-
the-floor option. It is estimated that requiring a thermal oxidizer for
these pieces of equipment would result in an total annualized cost
(capital amortization plus operating costs) to industry of $3.3
million. The additional emission reduction associated with this option
is estimated to be 5.36 megagrams of HAP per year, resulting in a cost
per megagram of HAP reduced of $616,000 per megagram ($559,000 per ton
of HAP.) Additionally, the option would result in significant increases
in emissions of criteria pollutants due to the combustion of the
exhaust gas and supplemental fuel.
Due to the cost per megagram of HAP reduction and the increase in
criteria pollutant emissions, requiring the level of control achieved
by a thermal oxidizer for saturators, wet loopers, coaters, coating
mixers, and sealant and adhesive applicators at existing sources is not
a justifiable option at this time without further evaluation of the
associated risks. Therefore, the MACT for saturators, wet loopers,
coating mixers, coaters, and sealant and adhesive applicators at
existing sources is determined to be the floor level of control, which
is based a PM control device meeting the asphalt NSPS limits.
Blowing stills that use a chlorinated catalyst. Blowing stills that
use a chlorinated catalyst produce a vent stream that contains
chlorinated organic compounds. When this vent stream is sent to a
thermal oxidizer, the chlorinated organic compounds are oxidized to HCl
which is a HAP. Typical HCl emission from a blowing still using
catalyst are 0.117 kilograms per megagram of asphalt processed.
As discussed earlier, we considered prohibiting catalyst as a
potential MACT floor option for existing, new, and reconstructed
blowing stills but this option was rejected because it was determined
not to be available because the substitute, high quality flux, is not
consistently or reliably available to all sources. This option was also
considered as a beyond-the-floor option but was rejected for the same
reasons. Also, we considered the option of requiring the addition of a
scrubber to control HCl emissions.
Emissions of HCl can be reduced by a gas scrubber using caustic
scrubbing media. Gas scrubbers typically achieve 95 percent reduction
of HCl emissions in other applications in other industries. However,
there are currently no asphalt processing facilities using gas
scrubbers to control HCl emissions. Additionally, catalyst is not added
continuously to the blowing still, but at the beginning of the blowing
cycle, resulting in variable HCl emissions over the cycle. This
variability makes it difficult to assess the expected reduction
efficiency of a given scrubber.
Based on the information collected by the ARMA survey, ten asphalt
processing facilities in the roofing industry that are major sources
use a chlorinated catalyst. The total capital cost for gas scrubbers
for the six facilities is estimated to be $1,220,000; the total
annualized cost (capital amortization plus operating costs) of the ten
gas scrubbers is estimated to be $4,020,000. These costs are based on
typical scrubbers used in other industries for similar flow rates and
do not take into consideration the variable HCl emissions in asphalt
processing, and thus may be understated. Using these costs and
estimated HCl emission reductions of 168.1 Mg/yr (185.4 tpy) (this
reduction is based on 95 percent reduction, but the actual overall
reduction could be less due to the variability of HCl emissions over
the blowing cycle) yields a cost per megagram of HAP removal value of
$23,900 per megagram ($21,700 per ton) of HCl removed. The use of gas
scrubbers would also result in increases in electricity usage (needed
to run scrubber pumps) and generation of solid and liquid waste streams
due to disposal of spent scrubber media.
Because it is not available to sources using catalyst, prohibiting
the use of catalyst is not considered a feasible beyond-the-floor
option. Because scrubbing has not been demonstrated as an effective
technology for controlling HCl emissions from asphalt processing and
due to the potentially high cost per megagram of HCl reduced, we do not
believe the additional cost of going beyond-the-floor is warranted at
this time without a further evaluation of risk. Therefore, because
there are no feasible pollution prevention practices or demonstrated
add-on control devices options for controlling HCl from blowing stills,
MACT for blowing stills using catalyst is based on no emission
reduction.
Wet Loopers at New and Reconstructed Sources. The floor for wet
loopers at new and reconstructed affected sources is based on a PM
control device that is achieving the asphalt NSPS limits. Therefore,
controlling a wet looper to achieve the level of control of a thermal
oxidizer operating at a minimum of 1200 deg.F was considered as a
beyond-the-floor option.
Because new affected sources will be required to control all
blowing stills, storage tanks with a capacity of 1.93 megagrams (2.13
tons) or greater, loading racks, saturators, coating mixers, coaters,
and sealant and adhesive applicators to the level of control achieved
by a thermal oxidizer, we expect a source to tie its wet looper exhaust
stream into the other exhaust streams going to the thermal oxidizer. We
anticipate that the addition of wet looper exhaust to the other exhaust
streams that would have to be controlled will add little, if any, cost
to the cost of a new thermal oxidizer. Additionally, because wet
loopers are adjacent to or are part of an associated saturator,
controlling the wet looper along with the saturator would not require
additional costs for the emission capture system. Because of this, the
cost of adding a separate thermal oxidizer to control a wet looper at a
new source was not estimated.
This option would result in negligible increases in emissions of
criteria pollutants due to the combustion of the exhaust gas and
supplemental fuel. Because controlling wet loopers at new affected
sources is expected to add minimal if any cost to the total control
cost, MACT for wet loopers at new or reconstructed affected sources is
based on a thermal oxidizer operating at a minimum of 1200 deg.F.
The MACT floor for blowing stills, loading racks, and storage tanks
at existing, new, and reconstructed sources, and for saturators, wet
loopers, coating mixers, coaters, and sealant and adhesive applicators
at new and reconstructed sources is based on a thermal oxidizer
operating with a minimum operating temperature of 1200 deg.F. There are
no known technologies in use at asphalt processing or asphalt roofing
manufacturing facilities or similar sources that would be capable of
achieving a greater emission reduction, therefore, the MACT for these
types of equipment is the same as the MACT floor.
E. How Did We Select the Format of the Standards?
The EPA and ARMA conducted a joint test program to characterize the
HAP emissions from the facilities using the MACT. Six facilities using
the MACT were tested under the test program (four collocated processing
and roofing facilities, one stand-alone roofing facility, and one
modified bitumen facility). In general, the data collected from the
test program were not
[[Page 58622]]
sufficient to develop performance standards based on HAP emissions per
unit of production. First, different products were manufactured during
the tests at the various facilities. Therefore, the emissions from the
different facilities cannot be related on a common basis. Second,
technical problems with the HAP data collected, due to calibration
errors of the instrument, introduced a degree of uncertainty into the
test results. However, based in part on the test program and on other
information, we were able to select the format of the standard for
process equipment using thermal oxidizers and PM control devices.
Total Hydrocarbon Emissions. The basis for MACT for HAP emissions
from blowing stills, loading racks and asphalt storage tanks (with a
capacity of 1.93 megagrams (2.13 tons) or greater) at existing and new
asphalt processing facilities and for equipment at new asphalt roofing
manufacturing lines is use of a thermal oxidizer. Unfortunately, the
majority of the speciated HAP data collected from the test program were
not valid due to calibration errors during testing. However, emissions
data for THC did not contain the calibration errors. Therefore, we were
able to evaluate the performance of thermal oxidizers using THC data as
a surrogate for total HAP. Total hydrocarbons are an appropriate
surrogate for total HAP since all of the HAP that are present as
gaseous and condensible PM are organic compounds.
Because of the lack of a common product manufactured during the
emission tests, we could not evaluate the performance of the thermal
oxidizers based on emissions per unit of production. Therefore, we
evaluated the thermal oxidizer performance on a THC percent reduction
basis.
Most facilities that would be subject to the proposed THC emission
limit are expected to comply using a thermal oxidizer; in fact, we are
not aware of any other type of control device used at asphalt
processing facilities to control both gaseous and particulate THC.
However, testing of the thermal oxidizer inlet, which is necessary to
demonstrate compliance with a percent reduction standard, may not be
feasible when the thermal oxidizer is used to control emissions from
certain emission sources, such as blowing stills. Due to the nature of
the organic compounds in the exhaust gas and the high concentrations at
the thermal oxidizer inlet, fouling of the testing equipment can occur.
To address this problem, we also evaluated the performance of thermal
oxidizers on a combustion efficiency basis which only requires outlet
testing. The combustion efficiency standard defines how well the
organic compounds in the process vent streams and the supplemental fuel
are converted to CO2 by the thermal oxidizer.
Particulate Matter Emissions. The MACT for equipment at existing
asphalt roofing manufacturing lines (except for asphalt storage tanks)
is based on a PM control device installed to comply with the asphalt
NSPS. However, we did not have sufficient data to evaluate the
performance of PM control devices based on HAP or THC emissions per
unit of production or based on percent reduction. Therefore, the format
of the standard for PM control devices is expressed as the asphalt NSPS
limits for PM, opacity, and visible emissions. The use of PM, opacity,
and visible emissions as surrogates for HAP in this case is appropriate
since a portion of the HAP is in the form of condensed PM.
F. How Did We Select the Emission Limits?
As discussed in the previous section, the HAP data collected from
the test program were not sufficient to develop emission limits based
on HAP emissions per unit of production. However, for gaseous matter
control devices, we were able to establish a THC percent reduction
standard and a combustion efficiency based on thermal oxidizer test
data. Particulate matter standards were established for PM control
devices based on the limits specified in the asphalt NSPS.
Total Hydrocarbon Limits. The thermal oxidizers tested represent
the basis of MACT for blowing stills, loading racks, and storage tanks
at existing, new, and reconstructed sources, and for saturators, wet
loopers, coating mixers, coaters, and sealant and adhesive applicators
at new and reconstructed sources. The inlet and outlet THC
concentration data collected from the test program were used to
calculate the THC percent reduction achieved by each of the thermal
oxidizers tested. Although there were variations in the calculated THC
percent reductions, there was not a consistent trend of increasing THC
reduction with increasing operating temperature, as long as the
operating temperature was 1200 deg.F or greater. We believe that this
variability reflects normal operation of the control devices.
Therefore, we averaged together the THC destruction efficiencies of the
tested thermal oxidizers to determine the emission limits for gaseous
matter control devices.
Specifically, we calculated the average THC reduction efficiency
achieved by each thermal oxidizer tested by averaging the THC
destruction efficiency of the individual test runs performed. We then
calculated an overall average THC destruction efficiency of 95.9
percent reduction for all five of the thermal oxidizers tested. To
account for variability in the performance of thermal oxidizers and
ensure achievability, the standard deviation (0.99) of the individual
thermal oxidizer averages was subtracted from the overall average. This
resulted in an emission limit for reduction of THC emissions of 95
percent.
An alternative expression of the standard for thermal oxidizers is
the combustion efficiency standard. To establish the combustion
efficiency that represents MACT, we used the outlet THC, CO, and
CO2 concentration data from the same thermal oxidizers that
were used to develop the percent reduction emission limit and the same
statistical approach (i.e., determined overall combustion efficiency
average and added one standard deviation). Using this approach, we
established an average combustion efficiency of 99.6 percent.
Particulate Matter Limits. Since MACT for equipment at existing
asphalt roofing manufacturing lines (with the exception of asphalt
storage tanks) is based on a PM control device installed to comply with
the asphalt NSPS, we selected the following current PM, opacity, and
visible emission standards of the asphalt NSPS as the emission limits
that represent MACT:
Limit PM emissions to 0.04 kg/Mg of asphalt shingle or
mineral-surfaced roll roofing produced, or 0.4 kg/Mg of saturated felt
or smooth-surfaced roll roofing;
Limit opacity emissions from the control device exhaust to
less than 20 percent; and
Limit visible emissions from the emission capture system
to 20 percent. (It should be noted that this limit also applies when
the saturator is controlled with a thermal oxidizer.)
No additional data were available to provide a basis for selecting more
stringent limits.
G. How Did We Select the Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements?
Under these proposed NESHAP, a performance test would be required
to demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits. With the
exception of PM, opacity, and visible emissions, we selected the EPA
reference test methods that were used in the EPA/ARMA test program to
collect the original data. For PM, opacity, and visible emissions, we
[[Page 58623]]
selected the EPA reference test methods that are specified in the
asphalt NSPS. However, you may use any alternative method that has been
approved by the Administrator under Sec. 63.7(f) of the NESHAP general
provisions.
To demonstrate compliance with the THC percent reduction standard,
you would measure the THC emissions at the inlet and outlet of the
control device using EPA method 25A in appendix A of 40 CFR part 60.
For the combustion efficiency compliance option, you would measure the
CO, CO2, and THC concentrations at the thermal oxidizer
outlet using EPA reference methods 10, 3A, and 25A in appendix A of 40
CFR part 60, respectively. To determine compliance with the PM emission
limit, you would measure the PM emissions at the control device outlet
using EPA method 5A in appendix A of 40 CFR part 60. The production
rate would also be determined during the performance test for PM. The
EPA methods 9 and 22 in appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 would be used to
determine the opacity and visible emissions, respectively.
H. How Did We Select the Continuous Compliance Requirements?
We considered two options for monitoring compliance with the
emission limits of this proposed rule: (1) The use of continuous
emission monitoring systems (CEMS), and (2) continuous monitoring of
control device operating parameters. Continuous emission monitoring
systems provide a direct measurement of pollutant emissions. Parameter
monitoring provides a measure of the control device's operation.
If CEMS were used to demonstrate continuous compliance with the THC
percent reduction standard, a CEMS and flow monitors would be needed at
both the inlet and outlet of each control device to determine percent
reduction. For the combustion efficiency option, a CEMS would be needed
to monitor the concentrations of THC, CO and CO2 at the
thermal oxidizer outlet. For the PM emission limits, a CEMS would be
needed at the control device outlet, as well as a system for
continuously monitoring production rates. A continuous opacity monitor
system (COMS) at the control device outlet would be needed to
demonstrate continuous compliance with the opacity limit.
The capital cost of installing and calibrating a CEMS ranges from
$29,000 to $118,000 with annualized costs of operating and maintaining
the CEMS ranging from $11,000 to $42,000. The total capital and
annualized costs for COMS are approximately $29,000 and $11,000,
respectively. The capital cost estimates include the purchased
equipment cost and other ancillary capital costs, such as planning,
providing support facilities, installation, calibrating the CEMS,
certification tests, and preparing a quality assurance/quality control
(QA/QC) plan. The annualized cost estimates include operation and
maintenance, indirect costs, and ancillary costs, such as annual
relative accuracy test audits, quarterly cylinder gas audits,
recordkeeping, reporting, and annual reviews and updates.
Although we considered requiring the use of CEMS, we believe that
compliance with the proposed THC, PM and combustion efficiency
standards can be achieved by monitoring of control device parameters to
determine continuous compliance with the operating limits.
Consequently, CEMS are not justified and the additional costs of
requiring the use of a CEMS would be unreasonable. Additionally, the
test methods for determining opacity and visible emissions are based on
visual observations and compliance can be determined at any time. Based
on this, and the fact that the proposed rule contains an opacity limit
for only one type of process equipment, we determined COMS to be
unreasonable in this situation. However, we are specifically requesting
comment on including a provision in the NESHAP to allow facilities to
use CEMS and COMS as options to parametric monitoring.
To demonstrate continuous compliance, the proposed NESHAP requires
continuous monitoring of control device operating parameters. The
monitoring parameter values would have to be established during the
initial performance test. Additionally, you would have to be able to
demonstrate compliance with the opacity and visible emission standards
at any time. We believe that the monitoring requirements will provide
sufficient information needed to determine continuous compliance with
the operating limits. At the same time, the provisions are not labor
intensive, do not require expensive or complex equipment, and do not
require burdensome recordkeeping.
For PM devices (e.g., HVAF, ESP) used to demonstrate compliance
with the PM standard for existing asphalt roofing manufacturing line
equipment, we selected inlet gas temperature and pressure drop across
the device as the monitoring parameters. For ESP, no additional
monitoring parameters (e.g., ESP voltage) were required since the ESP
used in the asphalt processing and roofing industries are typically
low-voltage, modular designs. The PM removal performance of these
devices is adequately characterized by inlet gas temperature and
pressure drop. For all PM control devices, the inlet gas temperature
would have to be at or below the temperature at which the performance
test was conducted to ensure that a sufficient amount of PM has
condensed from the vent gas prior to entering the PM control device.
The control device pressure drop would have to be at or below the value
established during the performance test to ensure that the control
device is providing sufficient removal of PM and that the removal
mechanism (e.g., filter media) does not become plugged or fouled.
Although monitoring of pressure drop is not required by the asphalt
NSPS, monitoring of inlet gas temperature for PM control devices is the
same as the monitoring requirements of the asphalt NSPS. This minimizes
the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting burden on facilities.
For thermal oxidizers used to achieve compliance with the THC or
combustion efficiency standards, we selected combustion zone
temperature for monitoring. The performance of thermal oxidizers is
dictated by the turbulence and residence time of the gases in the
combustion zone and by the combustion zone temperature. For a given
flow rate, the turbulence and residence time are fixed properties.
Therefore, the remaining parameter necessary for determining the
operation of the thermal oxidizer is combustion zone temperature.
Additionally, most thermal oxidizers are already equipped with systems
for monitoring and recording operating temperature. The combustion zone
temperature would have to be at or above the temperature at which the
performance test was conducted. Monitoring of combustion zone
temperature is also the same as the monitoring requirements of the
asphalt NSPS. For each monitoring parameter, you would determine 3-hour
average values. We selected this averaging period to reflect operating
conditions during the performance test used to demonstrate initial
compliance.
I. How Did We Select the Notification, Recordkeeping and Reporting
Requirements?
We evaluated the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements of the NESHAP general provisions and selected those
requirements determined to be the minimum necessary to determine
continuous compliance with the proposed NESHAP. The requirements
[[Page 58624]]
for notification, recordkeeping and reporting that were selected have
been used by previous NESHAP with similar emission limit formats.
The NESHAP general provisions notification requirements (Sec. 63.9)
include: Initial notifications, notification of performance test,
notification of compliance status, and additional notifications
required for affected sources with continuous monitoring systems.
Semiannual compliance reports and reports of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction events that occur are also required.
We also determined that the proposed requirement to prepare a
written, site-specific monitoring plan is necessary to ensure that the
continuous parameter monitoring systems are installed, operated, and
maintained properly. Because the monitoring plan does not require
Administrator approval, we do not believe that it imposes an undue
burden on the industry.
J. What Is the Relationship of This Subpart to Other Standards?
Existing standards may apply to facilities subject to these
proposed NESHAP because they apply to facilities at which asphalt
roofing manufacturing or asphalt processing facilities are located. In
most cases, although other standards may apply at the same facility,
the specific requirements of the standards are not likely to apply to
the same pieces of equipment as these proposed NESHAP. The petroleum
refineries NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart CC); the petroleum liquids
and volatile organic liquid (VOL) storage vessel NSPS (40 CFR part 60,
subparts K, Ka, and Kb); and the petroleum refineries NSPS (40 CFR part
60, subpart J) apply to petroleum refineries, which may also have
asphalt blowing stills, storage tanks, and loading racks. However,
those standards apply to different pieces of equipment than these
proposed NESHAP. Similarly, the wet-formed fiberglass mat manufacturing
NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) apply to fiberglass manufacturing
facilities, some of which are collocated with asphalt roofing
manufacturing facilities (fiberglass mat is used as a substrate in
roofing manufacturing.) The wet-formed fiberglass mat manufacturing
NESHAP do not apply to the same pieces of equipment as these proposed
NESHAP. The asphalt NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart UU) apply to both the
same facilities and some of the same equipment as these proposed
NESHAP.
Standards That Apply to Petroleum Refineries. These proposed NESHAP
would apply to asphalt blowing stills, asphalt storage tanks, and
asphalt loading racks. These pieces of equipment can also be located at
petroleum refineries which are subject to the petroleum refineries
NESHAP, the petroleum liquids and VOL storage vessel NSPS, and the
petroleum refinery NSPS.
The petroleum refineries NESHAP include requirements for process
units, storage tanks, and loading racks. However, limited definitions
and applicability cut-offs make it unlikely that the petroleum
refineries NESHAP would apply to the same pieces of equipment subject
to these proposed NESHAP. For the petroleum refineries NESHAP,
``asphalt'' was intentionally not added to the list of products
produced by petroleum refining process units because asphalt processing
was listed as a separate source category. The asphalt storage tanks
found at petroleum refineries store oxidized asphalt and asphalt flux.
The petroleum refineries NESHAP control requirements do not apply to
storage vessels storing liquids with a maximum true vapor pressure less
than 10.4 kilopascals (kPa) at existing sources and 3.4 kPa at new
sources. Based on limited vapor pressure data and average operating
temperatures for asphalt tanks, it is unlikely that the vapor pressure
of asphalt would trigger the petroleum refinery NESHAP control
requirements. It is estimated that the vapor pressure of asphalt at
typical storage temperatures is an order of magnitude (in the range of
0.4 kPa) less than the lower applicability cutoff. Loading rack
provisions of the petroleum refineries NESHAP are limited to gasoline
loading racks. There are no requirements in the petroleum refineries
NESHAP for asphalt loading racks.
Similarly to the petroleum refineries NESHAP, the petroleum storage
vessel NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subparts K, Ka, and Kb) apply to storage
vessels at petroleum refineries, but control requirement applicability
is limited based on the vapor pressure of the stored liquid. In the
three NSPS, the lowest vapor pressure cutoff for recordkeeping
requirement applicability is 3.5 kPa (subpart Kb), and the lowest vapor
pressure cutoff for control applicability is 5.2 kPa (subpart Kb). As
discussed previously, the vapor pressure of asphalt flux and oxidized
asphalt would not be high enough to trigger control requirements.
The petroleum refineries NSPS apply to fluid catalytic cracking
unit catalyst regenerators, fuel gas combustion devices, and Claus
sulfur recovery plants with a capacity greater than 20 long tons per
day. None of these sources would be subject to requirements of these
proposed NESHAP.
Wet-formed Fiberglass Mat Manufacturing NESHAP. Wet-formed
fiberglass mat is used as a substrate for roofing products. A small
number of asphalt processing and roofing facilities also manufacture
fiberglass mat. These proposed NESHAP and the wet-formed fiberglass mat
manufacturing NESHAP would cover different pieces of equipment.
Therefore, while some facilities may be subject to both rules,
individual pieces of equipment will be subject to one or the other
rule, but not both.
Standards of Performance for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacture. Both the asphalt NSPS and these proposed NESHAP regulate
emissions from the following process equipment: Asphalt storage and
process tanks, blowing stills, saturators, coaters, and wet loopers.
Mineral handling and storage facilities are covered by the asphalt NSPS
but are not covered by these proposed NESHAP because these facilities
are not sources of HAP emissions. Asphalt loading racks, coating
mixers, sealant applicators, and adhesive applicators are covered by
these proposed NESHAP but not by the asphalt NSPS.
With one exception, these proposed NESHAP have different emission
limits than the asphalt NSPS. For most equipment, these proposed NESHAP
specify THC emission limits while the asphalt NSPS specify PM and
opacity or visible emission limits. Therefore, the testing, monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the two rules are
different. The exception is for saturators, wet loopers, and coaters
constructed after November 18, 1980 (the asphalt NSPS applicability
date) but on or before November 21, 2001. These pieces of equipment
would be considered a ``new'' source with respect to the asphalt NSPS
but would be considered an ``existing'' source for these proposed
NESHAP. The emission limits and, consequently, the procedures for
testing and demonstrating continuous compliance are the same for the
most part.
Saturators, wet loopers, and coaters that are part of an affected
source that was constructed or reconstructed after November 21, 2001
would be subject to both the asphalt NSPS PM emission limits and the
proposed NESHAP emission limits for THC. For these pieces of equipment,
we are proposing that compliance with the NESHAP would constitute
compliance with the asphalt NSPS. Support for this finding is provided
by data collected for the Background Information Document
[[Page 58625]]
(BID) for the asphalt NSPS and information collected by the ARMA
industry survey. The BID presents test data for PM emissions from
saturators controlled by an ESP, thermal oxidizer (operating at
1200 deg. F), and a HVAF. The data show that a thermal oxidizer can
achieve a PM emission limit of 0.02 kg/Mg or less, which is below the
asphalt NSPS emission limits. Further support for equating NESHAP
compliance with asphalt NSPS compliance is provided by the fact that,
according to the ARMA survey data, four facilities are complying with
the asphalt NSPS emission limits for saturators using a thermal
oxidizer.
For blowing stills and asphalt storage and process tanks,
compliance with these proposed NESHAP would also constitute compliance
with the asphalt NSPS. This finding is based on the fact that the
thermal oxidizers which provide the basis for the MACT floor are also
controlling emissions from blowing stills and asphalt storage tanks
that are subject to the asphalt NSPS.
Both these proposed NESHAP and the asphalt NSPS require inlet gas
and operating temperature monitoring for PM control devices and thermal
oxidizers, respectively, and specify the same data reduction
procedures. This proposed rule includes the additional requirement to
monitor the PM control device pressure drop in addition to the inlet
gas temperature.
The notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the
proposed NESHAP are more stringent than those required by the asphalt
NSPS. For example, the asphalt NSPS does not require subject facilities
to develop site-specific performance test plans or startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plans. The notifications, recordkeeping, and reporting
required by the proposed NESHAP can be used to satisfy the asphalt NSPS
requirements, except for the requirements associated with mineral
handling and storage.
As discussed previously, mineral handling and storage facilities
are covered by the asphalt NSPS but are not covered by these proposed
NESHAP. Compliance with these proposed NESHAP would not constitute
compliance with the asphalt NSPS provisions for mineral handling and
storage facilities.
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant,'' and
therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and
the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory
action.''
B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the affected facilities
under this proposed rule are owned or operated by State or local
governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
proposed rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule
from State and local officials.
C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. No
affected facilities are owned or operated by Indian tribal governments.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule.
D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies
to any rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by EPA.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has
the potential to influence the regulation. This proposed rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology
performance and not on health and safety risks.
[[Page 58626]]
E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it
is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, or tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, or tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
The EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any 1 year. In the Economic Impact Assessment (EIA)
for this proposed rule, EPA estimates that the total nationwide capital
cost for the proposed standard is $2.16 million. The total nationwide
annual cost for the proposed standards is $1.01 million. In addition,
EPA has determined that this proposed rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments because it contains no requirements that apply to such
governments or impose obligations upon them. Therefore, this proposed
rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the
UMRA.
G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the Agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small business, small organizations, and small
government jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business
according to Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards by
NAICS code (in this case, ranging from 100 to 500 employees or $5
million in annual sales); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is
a government of a city, county, town, school district or special
district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
In accordance with the RFA, EPA conducted an assessment of the
proposed standards on small businesses within the asphalt roofing and
processing industry. Based on SBA NAICS-based size definitions and
reported sales and employment data, EPA identified 26 of the 40
companies that own potentially affected asphalt roofing and processing
facilities as small. For four of the small companies, sales and
employment data were not available; therefore, they were assumed to be
small businesses. Although small businesses represent 65 percent of the
companies within the source category, they are expected to incur less
than 40 percent of the total industry compliance costs of about $1.01
million. There are no companies with compliance costs equal to or
greater than 1 percent of their sales. No firms are expected to close
rather than incur the costs of compliance with the proposed rule.
Furthermore, firms are not projected to shut down their facilities due
to these proposed NESHAP. For further information, consult the
``Economic Impact Analysis for the Proposed Asphalt Roofing and
Processing NESHAP,'' in docket A-95-32.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I hereby certify that this proposed rule, if
promulgated, will not have a significant impact on a substantial number
of small entities.
Although this proposed rule will not have any significant economic
impacts on a substantial number of small entities, we continue to be
interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small
entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements of this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information Collection Request (ICR) document
has been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 2029.01) and a copy may be obtained
from Sandy Farmer by mail at Collection Strategies Division, U.S. EPA
(2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001, by e-
mail at [email protected] or by calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may
also be downloaded off the internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr.
The information would be used by the EPA to ensure that the asphalt
processing and roofing NESHAP requirements are implemented properly and
are complied with on a continuous basis. Records and reports are
necessary to identify asphalt processing and asphalt roofing facilities
that might not be in compliance with the NESHAP. Based on reported
information, the implementing agency will decide which asphalt
processing and asphalt roofing facilities should be inspected and what
records or processes should be inspected. Records that owners and
operators of asphalt processing and asphalt roofing facilities maintain
indicate whether personnel are operating and maintaining control
equipment properly.
These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically
authorized by section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information
submitted to the
[[Page 58627]]
EPA for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded
according to EPA policies in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, Confidentiality
of Business Information.
We estimate the proposed NESHAP would affect a total of 18 existing
facilities (10 asphalt processing and asphalt roofing facilities and 8
petroleum refineries). We estimated the number of major sources by
estimating emissions using emission factors and available production
data and extrapolating potential emission from actual emissions. We
identified major facilities for the purposes of estimating emissions,
emission reductions, control costs, and monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting costs only. Facilities would not necessarily be major sources
for the purposes of determining applicability of these proposed NESHAP
because they were identified as major by our estimates. Likewise,
facilities would not be relieved from complying with these proposed
NESHAP because they were not identified as major sources in our
estimates. We expect that existing facilities will begin complying 3
years after promulgation of this proposed rule but will perform related
activities (e.g., reading and understanding the rule, conducting
performance tests) before they are in compliance. We project that one
new asphalt processing and asphalt roofing facility will become subject
to the proposed NESHAP during each of the first 3 years.
The estimated average annual burden for industry for the first 3
years after implementation of the final rule would be 1,894 person-
hours annually. There will be no capital costs for monitoring or
recordkeeping during the first 3 years. The total average annual
reporting and recordkeeping burden (including industry and EPA) for
this collection is estimated at 2,678 labor hours per year at an
average annual cost of $341,000.
Burden means total time, effort, or financial resources expended by
persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information
to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review
instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and
systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and
providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to
be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or
otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information,
the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested
methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the
Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. EPA (2822), 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; and to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
725 17th St., NW, Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk
Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any correspondence. Since
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60
days after November 21, 2001, a comment to OMB is best assured of
having its full effect if OMB receives it by December 21, 2001. The
final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995, Public Law No. 104-113, Sec. 12(d), (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in their
regulatory and procurement activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted by one or more voluntary
consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through
annual reports to OMB, with explanations when an agency does not use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. The EPA
proposes in this rule to use EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G,
3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5A, 9, 10, 22, and 25A. Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA
conducted searches to identify voluntary consensus standards in
addition to these EPA methods. No applicable voluntary consensus
standards were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G, 5A, 9,
and 22.
The search for emissions measurement procedures identified 16
voluntary consensus standards potentially applicable to this proposed
rule. Three of the voluntary consensus standards were not available at
the time this review was conducted. For the remaining 13 standards
identified for measuring emissions of the HAP or surrogates subject to
emission standards in this proposed rule, we determined that they were
impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of this
proposed rule. Therefore, the EPA does not intend to adopt these
standards. The search and review results of the voluntary methods can
be found in docket A-95-32 (see ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
The EPA takes comment on the compliance demonstration requirements
in this proposed rulemaking and specifically invites the public to
identify potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards.
Commenters should also explain why this regulation should adopt these
voluntary consensus standards in lieu of or in addition to EPA's
standards. Emission test methods submitted for evaluation should be
accompanied by a basis for the recommendation, including method
validation data and the procedure used to validate the candidate method
(if a method other than Method 301, 40 CFR part 63, appendix A was
used).
Section 63.8687 of the proposed standards lists the EPA testing
methods included in the proposed rule. Under Sec. 63.7(f) of subpart A
of the General Provisions, a source may apply to EPA for approval to
use an alternative test method in place of any of the EPA testing
methods.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Asphalt processing, Asphalt roofing
manufacturing, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: November 1, 2001.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
63 of the Code of the Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as
follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
[[Page 58628]]
2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart LLLLL to read as follows:
Sec.
Subpart LLLLL--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing
What This Subpart Covers
63.8680 What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.8681 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.8682 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
63.8683 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
Emission Limitations
63.8684 What emission limitations must I meet?
General Compliance Requirements
63.8685 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements
63.8686 By what date must I conduct performance tests or other
initial compliance demonstrations?
63.8687 What performance tests, design evaluations, and other
procedures must I use?
63.8688 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?
63.8689 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission
limitations?
Continuous Compliance Requirements
63.8690 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate
continuous compliance?
63.8691 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
operating limits?
Notifications, Reports, and Records
63.8692 What notifications must I submit and when?
63.8693 What reports must I submit and when?
63.8694 What records must I keep?
63.8695 In what form and how long must I keep my records?
Other Requirements and Information
63.8696 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
63.8697 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.8698 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Tables
Table 1 to Subpart LLLLL--Emission Limitations
Table 2 to Subpart LLLLL--Operating Limits
Table 3 to Subpart LLLLL--Requirements for Performance Tests
Table 4 to Subpart LLLLL--Initial Compliance With Emission
Limitations
Table 5 to Subpart LLLLL--Continuous Compliance with Operating
Limits
Table 6 to Subpart LLLLL--Requirements for Reports
Table 7 to Subpart LLLLL--Applicability of General Provisions to
Subpart LLLLL
Subpart LLLLL--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing
What This Subpart Covers
Sec. 63.8680 What is the purpose of this subpart?
This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants for existing and new asphalt processing and asphalt
roofing manufacturing facilities. This subpart also establishes
requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the
emission limitations.
Sec. 63.8681 Am I subject to this subpart?
(a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an
asphalt processing facility or an asphalt roofing manufacturing
facility that is, is located at, or is part of a major source of
hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions.
(1) An asphalt processing facility includes any facility engaged in
preparing asphalt at asphalt processing plants, petroleum refineries,
or asphalt roofing plants. Asphalt preparation, called ``blowing,'' is
the oxidation of asphalt flux by bubbling air through the heated
asphalt. An asphalt processing facility includes the following
processes: asphalt heating, blowing stills, asphalt flux storage tanks,
oxidized asphalt storage tanks, and oxidized asphalt loading racks.
(2) An asphalt roofing manufacturing facility includes any facility
engaged in manufacturing asphalt roofing products such as asphalt-
saturated felt roll roofing, roll roofing with mineral granules on the
surface, smooth roll roofing and fiberglass shingles. An asphalt
roofing manufacturing facility includes the following processes:
asphalt storage, felt saturation, coating, and sealant and adhesive
application.
(b) After [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER THE DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], blowing stills, storage tanks, and saturators
that are also subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart UU, are required to
comply only with provisions of this subpart.
(c) A major source of HAP emissions is any stationary source or
group of stationary sources within a contiguous area under common
control that emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP at a
rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 tons) or more per year or any combination of
HAP at a rate of 22.68 megagrams (25 tons) or more per year.
Sec. 63.8682 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
(a) This subpart applies to each new, reconstructed, or existing
affected source at asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing
facilities.
(b) The affected source is:
(1) Each asphalt processing facility as defined in Sec. 63.8698;
and
(2) Each asphalt roofing manufacturing line as defined in
Sec. 63.8698.
(i) If the asphalt roofing manufacturing line is collocated with an
asphalt processing facility, the storage tanks that receive asphalt
directly from the on-site blowing stills are part of the asphalt
processing facility.
(ii) If an asphalt storage tank is shared by two or more lines at
an asphalt roofing manufacturing facility, the shared storage tank is
considered part of the line to which the tank supplies the greatest
amount of asphalt, on an annual basis.
(iii) If a sealant or adhesive applicator is shared by two or more
asphalt roofing manufacturing lines, the shared applicator is
considered part of the line that provides the greatest throughput to
the applicator, on an annual basis.
(c) An affected source is a new affected source if you commenced
construction of the affected source after November 21, 2001 and you met
the applicability criteria at the time you commenced construction.
(d) An affected source is reconstructed if you meet the criteria as
defined in Sec. 63.2.
(e) An affected source is existing if it is not new or
reconstructed.
Sec. 63.8683 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
(a) If you have a new or reconstructed affected source, you must
comply with the following:
(1) If you startup your new or reconstructed affected source on or
before [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER],
then you must comply with the requirements for new and reconstructed
sources in this subpart no later than [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
(2) If you startup your new or reconstructed affected source after
[DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], then
you must comply with the requirements for new and reconstructed sources
in this subpart upon startup.
(b) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with
the requirements for existing sources no
[[Page 58629]]
later than [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER].
(c) If you have an area source that increases its emissions or its
potential to emit such that it becomes a (or part of a) major source of
HAP, then the following requirements apply:
(1) Any portion of the existing facility that becomes a new or
reconstructed affected source must be in compliance with this subpart
upon startup or no later than [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER], whichever is later.
(2) All other parts of the source to which this subpart applies
must be in compliance with this subpart by 3 years after the date the
source becomes a major source.
(d) You must meet the notification requirements in Sec. 63.8692
according to the schedule in Sec. 63.8692 and in Sec. 63.9. Some of the
notifications must be submitted before you are required to comply with
the emission limitations in this subpart.
Emission Limitations
Sec. 63.8684 What emission limitations must I meet?
(a) You must meet each emission limitation in Table 1 of this
subpart that applies to you.
(b) You must meet each operating limit in Table 2 of this subpart
that applies to you.
General Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.8685 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
(a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations
(including operating limits) in this subpart at all times, except
during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(b) You must always operate and maintain your affected source,
including air pollution control and monitoring equipment, according to
the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i).
(c) You must develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan (SSMP) according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(3).
(d) You must develop and implement a written site-specific
monitoring plan according to the provisions in Sec. 63.8688.
Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.8686 By what date must I conduct performance tests or other
initial compliance demonstrations?
(a) For existing affected sources, you must conduct performance
tests no later than 60 days prior to the compliance date that is
specified for your source in Sec. 63.8683 and according to the
provisions in Sec. 63.7(a)(2).
(b) If you commenced construction or reconstruction between
November 20, 2001 and [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register], you must demonstrate initial compliance with either
the proposed requirements or the promulgated requirements no later than
180 calendar days after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register] or within 180 calendar days after startup of the
source, whichever is later, according to Sec. 63.7(a)(2)(ix).
(c) If you commenced construction or reconstruction between
November 21, 2001 and [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register], and you chose to comply with the proposed
requirements when demonstrating initial compliance, you must conduct a
second compliance demonstration for the promulgated requirements within
3 years and 180 calendar days after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal Register] or after startup of the source, whichever
is later, according to Sec. 63.7(a)(2)(ix).
Sec. 63.8687 What performance tests, design evaluations, and other
procedures must I use?
(a) You must conduct each performance test in Table 3 of this
subpart that applies to you.
(b) Each performance test must be conducted according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.7(e)(1) and under the conditions specified in
Table 3 of this subpart.
(c) You may not conduct performance tests during periods of
startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as specified in Sec. 63.7(e)(1).
(d) Except for opacity and visible emission observations, you must
conduct three separate test runs for each performance test required in
this section, as specified in Sec. 63.7(e)(3). Each test run must last
at least 1 hour.
(e) You must use the following equations to determine compliance
with the emission limitations.
(1) To determine compliance with the particulate matter mass
emission rate, you must use equations 1 and 2 of this section as
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21NO01.000
Where:
E = Particulate matter emission rate, kilograms (pounds) of particulate
matter per megagram (ton) of roofing product manufactured.
MPM = Particulate matter mass emission rate, kilograms
(pounds) per hour, determined using Equation 2.
P = The asphalt roofing product manufacturing rate during the emissions
sampling period, including any material trimmed from the final product,
megagram (tons) per hour.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21NO01.001
Where:
MPM = Particulate matter mass emission rate, kilograms
(pounds) per hour.
C = Concentration of particulate matter on a dry basis, grams per dry
standard cubic meter (g/dscm), as measured by the test method specified
in Table 3 of this subpart.
Q = Vent gas stream flow rate (dry standard cubic meters per minute) at
a temperature of 20 deg.C as measured by the test method specified in
Table 3 of this subpart.
K = Unit conversion constant (0.06 minute-kilogram/hour-gram.
(2) To determine compliance with the total hydrocarbon percent
reduction standard, you must use equations 3 and 4 of this section as
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21NO01.002
Where:
RE = Emission reduction efficiency, percent.
MTHCi = Mass flow rate of total hydrocarbons entering the
control device, kilograms (pounds) per hour, determined using Equation
4.
MTHCo = Mass flow rate of total hydrocarbons exiting the
control device, kilograms (pounds) per hour, determined using Equation
4.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21NO01.003
Where:
MTHC = Total hydrocarbon emission rate, kilograms (pounds)
per hour.
C = Concentration of total hydrocarbons on a dry basis, parts per
million by volume (ppmv), as measured by the test method specified in
Table 3 of this subpart.
[[Page 58630]]
Q = Vent gas stream flow rate (dscmm) at a temperature of 20 deg.C as
measured by the test method specified in Table 3 of this subpart.
K = Unit conversion constant (3.00E-05) (ppmv)-1 (gram-mole/
standard cubic meter) (kilogram/gram) (minutes/hour)), where standard
temperature for gram-mole/standard cubic meter is 20 deg.C.
(3) To determine compliance with the combustion efficiency
standard, you must use equation 5 of this section as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21NO01.004
Where:
CE = Combustion efficiency, percent.
CO = Carbon monoxide concentration at the thermal oxidizer outlet,
parts per million by volume (dry), as measured by the test method
specified in Table 3 of this subpart.
CO2 = Carbon dioxide concentration at the thermal oxidizer
outlet, parts per million by volume (dry), as measured by the test
method specified in Table 3 of this subpart.
THC = Total hydrocarbon concentration at the thermal oxidizer outlet,
parts per million by volume (dry), as measured by the test method
specified in Table 3 of this subpart.
Sec. 63.8688 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?
(a) You must install, operate, and maintain each continuous
parameter monitoring system (CPMS) according to the following:
(1) The CPMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for
each successive 15-minute period. You must have a minimum of four
successive cycles of operation to have a valid hour of data.
(2) Have valid data from at least three of four equally spaced data
values for that hour from a CPMS that is not out-of-control according
to your site-specific monitoring plan.
(3) Determine the 3-hour average of all recorded readings for each
operating day, except as stated in Sec. 63.8690(c). You must have at
least two of the three hourly averages for that period using only
hourly average values that are based on valid data (i.e., not from out-
of-control periods).
(4) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and
validation check.
(b) For each temperature monitoring device, you must meet the
requirements in paragraph (a) of this section and the following:
(1) Locate the temperature sensor in a position that provides a
representative temperature.
(2) For a noncryogenic temperature range, use a temperature sensor
with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 2.2 deg. C or 0.75 percent of
the temperature value, whichever is larger.
(3) Shield the temperature sensor system from electromagnetic
interference and chemical contaminants.
(4) If a chart recorder is used, it must have a sensitivity in the
minor division of at least 20 deg. F.
(5) Perform an electronic calibration at least semiannually
according to the procedures in the manufacturer's documentation.
Following the electronic calibration, you must conduct a temperature
sensor validation check in which a second or redundant temperature
sensor placed nearby the process temperature sensor must yield a
reading within 16.7 deg. C of the process temperature sensor's reading.
(6) Conduct calibration and validation checks any time the sensor
exceeds the manufacturer's specified maximum operating temperature
range or install a new temperature sensor.
(7) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity and all
electrical connections for continuity, oxidation, and galvanic
corrosion.
(c) For each pressure measurement device, you must meet the
requirements in paragraph (a) of this section and the following:
(1) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in, or as close as possible to, a
position that provides a representative measurement of the pressure.
(2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, and
internal and external corrosion.
(3) Use a gauge with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 0.5 inch
of water or a transducer with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 1
percent of the pressure range.
(4) Check pressure tap pluggage daily.
(5) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and
transducer calibration monthly.
(6) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor exceeds the
manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range or install a
new pressure sensor.
(7) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections
for leakage.
(d) For monitoring parameters other than temperature and pressure
drop, you must install and operate a CPMS to provide representative
measurements of the monitored parameters.
(e) For each monitoring system required in this section, you must
develop and make available for inspection by the permitting authority,
upon request, a site-specific monitoring plan that addresses the
following:
(1) Installation of the CPMS sampling probe or other interface at a
measurement location relative to each affected process unit such that
the measurement is representative of control of the exhaust emissions
(e.g., on or downstream of the last control device);
(2) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample
interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer,
and the data collection and reduction system; and
(3) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria
(e.g., calibrations).
(f) In your site-specific monitoring plan, you must also address
the following:
(1) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec. 63.8(c)(1), (c)(3), (c)(4)(ii),
(c)(7), and (c)(8);
(2) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec. 63.8(d); and
(3) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance
with the general requirements of Sec. 63.10(c) and Sec. 63.10(e)(1) and
(e)(2)(i).
(g) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CPMS in
accordance with your site-specific monitoring plan.
(h) You must operate and maintain the CPMS in continuous operation
according to the site-specific monitoring plan.
Sec. 63.8689 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission
limitations?
(a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission
limitation that applies to you according to Table 4 of this subpart.
(b) You must establish each site-specific operating limit in Table
2 of
[[Page 58631]]
this subpart that applies to you according to the requirements in
Sec. 63.8687 and Table 3 of this subpart.
(c) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status
containing the results of the initial compliance demonstration
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.8692(e).
Continuous Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.8690 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate
continuous compliance?
(a) You must monitor and collect data according to this section.
(b) Except for monitor malfunctions, associated repairs, and
required quality assurance or control activities (including, as
applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments),
you must monitor continuously (or collect data at all required
intervals) at all times that the affected source is operating. This
includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction when the
affected source is operating.
(c) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions,
associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control
activities in data averages and calculations used to report emission or
operating levels, nor may such data be used in fulfilling a minimum
data availability requirement, if applicable. You must use all the data
collected during all other periods in assessing the operation of the
control device and associated control system.
Sec. 63.8691 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
operating limits?
(a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each operating
limit in Table 2 of this subpart that applies to you according to
methods specified in Table 5 of this subpart.
(b) You must report each instance in which you did not meet each
operating limit in Table 5 of this subpart that applies to you. This
includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. These instances
are deviations from the emission limitations in this subpart. These
deviations must be reported according to the requirements in
Sec. 63.8693.
(c) During periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, you must
operate in accordance with the SSMP.
(d) Consistent with Secs. 63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations that
occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not
violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that
you were operating in accordance with the SSMP. The Administrator will
determine whether deviations that occur during a period of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction are violations, according to the provisions in
Sec. 63.6(e).
Notifications, Reports, and Records
Sec. 63.8692 What notifications must I submit and when?
(a) You must submit all of the notifications in Secs. 63.6(h)(4)
and (5), 63.7(b) and (c), 63.8(f), and 63.9(b) through (f) and (h) that
apply to you by the dates specified.
(b) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(2), if you start up your affected
source before [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal
Register], you must submit an Initial Notification not later than 120
calendar days after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register].
(c) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(3), if you start up your new or
reconstructed affected source on or after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE
FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must submit an Initial
Notification not later than 120 calendar days after you become subject
to this subpart.
(d) If you are required to conduct a performance test, you must
submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance test at least
60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin, as
required in Sec. 63.7(b)(1).
(e) If you are required to conduct a performance test, design
evaluation, opacity observation, visible emission observation, or other
initial compliance demonstration as specified in Table 3 or 4 of this
subpart, you must submit a Notification of Compliance Status according
to Sec. 63.9(h)(2)(ii). You must submit the Notification of Compliance
Status, including the performance test results, before the close of
business on the 60th calendar day following the completion of the
performance test according to Sec. 63.10(d)(2).
Sec. 63.8693 What reports must I submit and when?
(a) You must submit each report in Table 6 of this subpart that
applies to you.
(b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for
submission of reports under Sec. 63.10(a), you must submit each report
by the date in Table 6 of this subpart and according to the following
dates:
(1) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on
the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in
Sec. 63.8683 and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever date is
the first date following the end of the first calendar half after the
compliance date that is specified for your source in Sec. 63.8683.
(2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no
later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date follows the end of the
first calendar half after the compliance date that is specified for
your affected source in Sec. 63.8683.
(3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual
reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual
reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
(4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is the
first date following the end of the semiannual reporting period.
(5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, and if the
permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual
reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the first and subsequent compliance
reports according to the dates the permitting authority has established
instead of the dates in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
(c) The compliance report must contain the following information:
(1) Company name and address.
(2) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name,
title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness
of the content of the report.
(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting
period.
(4) If you had a startup, shutdown or malfunction during the
reporting period and you took actions consistent with your SSMP, the
compliance report must include the information in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i).
(5) If there are no deviations from any emission limitations
(emission limit, operating limit, opacity limit, and visible emission
limit) that apply to you, a statement that there were no deviations
from the emission limitations during the reporting period.
(6) If there were no periods during which the CPMS was out-of-
control as specified in Sec. 63.8(c)(7), a statement that there were no
periods during the which the CPMS was out-of-control during the
reporting period.
(d) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit,
operating limit, opacity limit, and visible emission limit), you must
include the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this
section, and the
[[Page 58632]]
information in paragraphs (d)(1) through (12) of this section. This
includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(1) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
(2) The date and time that each CPMS was inoperative, except for
zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(3) The date, time and duration that each CPMS was out-of-control,
including the information in Sec. 63.8(c)(8).
(4) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and
whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown,
or malfunction or during another period.
(5) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the
reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the total
source operating time during that reporting period.
(6) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control
equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other
unknown causes.
(7) A summary of the total duration of CPMS downtime during the
reporting period and the total duration of CPMS downtime as a percent
of the total source operating time during that reporting period.
(8) An identification of each air pollutant that was monitored at
the affected source.
(9) A brief description of the process units.
(10) A brief description of the CPMS.
(11) The date of the latest CPMS certification or audit.
(12) A description of any changes in CPMS, processes, or controls
since the last reporting period.
(e) Each affected source that has obtained a title V operating
permit pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71 must report all
deviations as defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring
report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If an affected source submits a compliance report
pursuant to Table 6 of this subpart along with, or as part of, the
semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or
40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the compliance report includes all
required information concerning deviations from any emission limitation
(including any operating limit), submission of the compliance report
shall be deemed to satisfy any obligation to report the same deviations
in the semiannual monitoring report. However, submission of a
compliance report shall not otherwise affect any obligation the
affected source may have to report deviations from permit requirements
to the permit authority.
(f) If acceptable to both the Administrator and you, you may submit
reports and notifications electronically.
Sec. 63.8694 What records must I keep?
(a) You must keep the following records:
(1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to
comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any
Initial Notification or Notification of Compliance Status that you
submitted, according to the requirements in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
(2) The records in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(3) Records of performance tests, performance evaluations, and
opacity and visible emission observations as required in
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(viii).
(b) You must keep the records in Sec. 63.6(h)(6) for visible
emission observations.
(c) You must keep the records required in Table 5 of this subpart
to show continuous compliance with each operating limit that applies to
you.
Sec. 63.8695 In what form and how long must I keep my records?
(a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available
for expeditious review, according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1).
(b) As specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record for
5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement,
maintenance, corrective action, report, or record.
(c) You must keep each record on site for at least 2 years after
the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective
action, report, or record, according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1). You can keep
the records offsite for the remaining 3 years.
Other Requirements and Information
Sec. 63.8696 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
Table 7 of this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions
in Secs. 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you.
Sec. 63.8697 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the U.S.
EPA, or a delegated authority such as your State, local, or tribal
agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your
State, local, or tribal agency, then that agency, in addition to the
U.S. EPA, has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You
should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if
implementation and enforcement of this subpart is delegated.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart E, the following authorities are retained by the Administrator
of U.S. EPA:
(1) Approval of alternatives to the requirements in Secs. 63.8681,
63.8682, 63.8683, 63.8684(a) through (c), 63.8686, 63.8687, 63.8688,
63.8689, 63.8690, and 63.8691.
(2) Approval of major changes to test methods under
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(3) Approval of major changes to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f) and
as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(4) Approval of major changes to recordkeeping and reporting under
Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
Sec. 63.8698 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in 40
CFR 63.2, the General Provisions of this part, and in this section as
follows:
Adhesive applicator means the equipment used to apply adhesive to
single-ply roofing shingles for producing laminated or dimensional
roofing shingles.
Asphalt flux means the residual material from distillation of crude
oil used to manufacture asphalt roofing products.
Asphalt loading rack means the equipment used to transfer asphalt
from a storage tank into a tank truck, rail car, or barge.
Asphalt processing facility means any facility engaged in the
preparation of asphalt at asphalt processing plants, petroleum
refineries, and asphalt roofing plants. Asphalt preparation, called
``blowing,'' is the oxidation of asphalt flux by bubbling air through
the heated asphalt. An asphalt processing facility includes the
following processes: asphalt heating, blowing stills, asphalt flux
storage tanks, oxidized asphalt storage tanks, and oxidized asphalt
loading racks.
Asphalt roofing manufacturing line means the collection of
equipment used to manufacture asphalt roofing products through a series
of sequential process steps. An asphalt roofing manufacturing line
includes the following equipment: a saturator (including wet looper and
coater), a coating mixer, a sealant applicator, an adhesive applicator,
and associated storage and process tanks. The number of asphalt roofing
[[Page 58633]]
manufacturing lines at a particular facility is determined by the
number of saturators (or coaters) used. For example, an asphalt roofing
manufacturing facility with two saturators would be considered to have
two separate roofing manufacturing lines.
Asphalt storage tank means any tank used to store asphalt,
including asphalt flux, oxidized asphalt, and modified asphalt, at
asphalt roofing manufacturing plants, petroleum refineries, and asphalt
processing plants. 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 subpart.
Blowing still means the equipment in which air is blown through
asphalt flux to change the softening point and penetration rate.
Coating mixer means the equipment used to mix coating asphalt and a
mineral stabilizer, prior to applying the stabilized coating asphalt to
the substrate.
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart, including but not limited to any emission limitation
(including any operating limit), or work practice standard;
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit; or
(3) Fails to meet any emission limitation (including any operating
limit) or work practice standard in this subpart during startup,
shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is
permitted by this subpart.
Emission limitation means any emission limit, opacity limit,
operating limit, or visible emission limit.
Modified asphalt means asphalt that has been mixed with plastic
modifiers.
Oxidized asphalt means asphalt that has been prepared by passing
air through liquid asphalt flux in a blowing still.
Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40
CFR 70.2.
Saturator means the equipment in which asphalt is applied to a
substrate to make asphalt roofing products. The term saturator includes
the saturator, wet looper, and coater.
Sealant applicator means the equipment used to apply a sealant
strip to a roofing product. The sealant strip is used to seal
overlapping pieces of roofing product after they have been applied.
Work practice standard means any design, equipment, work practice,
or operational standard, or combination thereof, that is promulgated
pursuant to section 112(h) of the Clean Air Act.
As stated in Sec. 63.8684(a), you must meet each emission
limitation in the following table that applies to you:
Table 1 to Subpart LLLLL--Emission Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must meet the following
For . . . emission limitation . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each blowing still, loading rack, and a. Reduce total hydrocarbon
asphalt storage tank with a capacity of mass emissions by 95
1.93 megagrams (2.13 tons) of asphalt or percent; or
greater at existing, new, and b. Route the emissions to a
reconstructed asphalt processing thermal oxidizer achieving
facilities a combustion efficiency of
99.6 percent.
2. Each coating mixer, saturator a. Reduce total hydrocarbon
(including wet looper and coater), mass emissions by 95
sealant applicator, and adhesive percent or
applicator at new and reconstructed b. Route the emissions to a
asphalt roofing manufacturing lines thermal oxidizer achieving,
a combustion efficiency of
99.6 percent.
3. The total emmissions from the coating a. Limit particulate matter
mixer, saturator (including wet looper emissions to 0.04 kilograms
and coater), sealant applicator, and per megagram (0.08 pounds
adhesive applicator at each existing per ton) of asphalt shingle
asphalt roofing manufacturing line a or mineral-surfaced roll
roofing produced; or
b. Limit particulate matter
emmissions to 0.4 kilgrams
per megagram (0.8. pounds
per ton) of saturated felt
or smooth-surfaced roll
roofing produced.
4. Each saturator (including wet looper a. Limit exhaust gases to 20
and coater) at an existing or new asphalt percent opacity; and
roofing manufacturing line a saturator (including wet
looper and coater) at an
existing or new asphalt
roofing manufacturing
line.a
b. Limit visible emissions
from the emission capture
system to 20 percent of any
period of consecutive valid
observations totaling 60
minutes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a As an option to meeting the particulate matter and opacity limits,
these emission sources may comply with the total hydrocarbon (THC)
percent reduction or combustion efficiency standards.
As stated in Sec. 63.8684(b), you must meet each operating limit in
the following table that applies to you:
[[Page 58634]]
Table 2 to Subpart LLLLL--Operating Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For . . . You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Thermal oxidizers................... Maintain the 3-hour average
combustion zone temperature at
or above the operating limit
established during the
performance test.
2. Particulate matter control device... a. Maintain the 3-hour average
inlet gas temperature at or
below the operating limit
established during the matter
perforance test; and
b. Maintain the 3-hour average
pressure drop across device at
or below the operating limit
established during the
performance test.
3. Control devices other than thermal Maintain the approved
oxidizers or particulate matter monitoring parameters within
control devices. the operating limits
established during the
performance test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in Sec. 63.8687(a), you must conduct each performance
test in the following table that applies to you:
Table 3 to Subpart LLLLL--Requirements for Performance Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the
For . . . You must . . . Using . . . following requirements
. . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. All particulate matter, total a. Select sampling i. Method 1 or 1A in A. For demonstrating
hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide, and port's location and appendix A to part 60 compliance with the
carbon dioxide emission tests. the number of traverse of this chapter. total hydrocarbon
points. percent reduction
standard, the sampling
sites must be located
at the inlet and
outlet of the control
device and prior to
any releases to the
atmosphere.
B. For demonstrating
compliance with the
particulate matter
mass emission rate or
combustion efficiency
standards, the
sampling sites must be
located at the outlet
of the control device
and prior to any
releases to the
atmosphere.
2. All particulate matter and total Determine velocity and Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D,
hydrocarbon tests. volumetric flow rate. 2F, OR 2G, as
appropriate, in
appendix A to part 60
of this chapter.
3. All particulate matter and total Determine the gas Method 3, 3A, 3B, as
hydrocarbon tests. molecular weight used appropriate, in
for flow rate appendix A to part 60
determination. of this chapter.
4. All particulate matter, total Measure moisture Method 4 in appendix A
hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide, and content of the stack to part 60 of this
carbon dioxide emission tests. gas. chapter.
5. All particulate matter, total Measure the asphalt
hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide, and processing rate or the
carbon dioxide emission tests. asphalt roofing
manufacturing rate and
the asphalt content of
the product
manufactured, as
appropriate
6. Each control device used to comply a. Measure the i. Method 5A in A. If the final product
with the particulate matter mass concentration of appendix A to part 60 is shingle or mineral-
emission rate standard. particulate matter. of this chapter. surfaced roll roofing,
tests must be
conducted while a
nominal 106.6 kg (235
lb) shingle is being
produced; or
B. If the final product
is saturated felt or
smooth-surfaced roll
roofing, the tests
must be conducted
while a nominal 6.8 kg
(15 lb) felt is being
produced; or
C. If the final product
is fiberglass shingle,
the test must be
conducted while a
nominal 100 kg (220
lb) shingle is being
produced.
7. Each saturated outlet at each a. Conduct opacity Method 9 in appendix A For at least 3 hours
existing asphalt roofing observations of the to part 60 of this and obtain 30, 6-
manufacturing line. saturator outlet. chapter. minute averages.
b. Conduct visible Method 22 in appendix A Modify Method 22 such
emission observations to part 60 of this that readings are
of the saturator chapter. recorded every 15
emissions capture seconds for a period
system. of consecutive
observations totaling
60 minutes.
[[Page 58635]]
8. Each thermal oxidizer used to a. Measure the Method 3A in appendix A
comply with the combustion concentration of to part 60 of this
efficiency standard. carbon dioxide. chapter.
b. Measure the Method 10 in appendix A
concentration of to part 60 of this
carbon monoxide. chapter.
c. Measure the Method 25A in appendix
concentration of total A to part 60 of this
hydrocarbons. chapter.
9. Each control device used to comply Measure the Method 25A in appendix
with the THC reduction efficiency concentration of total A to part 60 of this
standard. hydrocarbons. chapter.
10. Each thermal oxidizer............ Establish a site- Data from the CPMS and You must collect
specific combustion the applicable combustion zone
zone temperature limit. performance test temperature data every
method(s). 15 minutes during the
entire period of the
initial 3-hour
performance test, and
determine the average
combustion zone
temperature over the 3-
hour performance test
by computing the
average of all of the
15-minute readings.
11. Each particulate matter control a. Establish a site- Data from the CPMS and You must collect the
device. specific inlet gas the applicable inlet gas temperature
temperature limit; and. performance test and pressure drop data
b. Establish a site- method(s). every 15 minutes
specific limit for the during the entire
pressure drop across period of the initial
the device. 3-hour performance
test, and determine
the average inlet gas
temperature and
pressure drop over the
3-hour performance
test by computing the
average of all of the
15-minute readings.
12. Each control device other than a Establish site-specific Process data and data You must collect
thermal oxidizer or particulate monitoring parameters. from the CPMS and the monitoring parameter
matter control device used to comply applicable performance data every 15 minutes
with the THC percent reduction or PM test method(s). during the entire
emission limits. period of the initial
3-hour performance
test, and determine
the average monitoring
parameter values over
the 3-hour performance
test by computing the
average of all of the
15-minute readings.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in Sec. 63.8689(a), you must demonstrate initial
compliance with each emission limitation in the following table that
applies to you:
Table 4 to Subpart LLLLL--Initial Compliance With Emission Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the following You have
For . . . emission limitation demonstrated initial
. . . compliance if . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each asphalt storage tank a. Reduce total i. The total
with a capacity of 1.93 hydrocarbon mass hydrocarbon
megagrams (2.13 tons) of emissions by 95 emissions,
asphalt or greater, blowing percent. determined using
still, and loading rack at the equations in
existing, new, and Sec. 63.8687 and
reconstructed asphalt the test methods
processing facilities; and. and procedures in
Table 3 of this
subpart, over the
period of the
performance test
are reduced by at
least 95 percent by
weight; and
2. Each coating mixer, a. Reduce total ii. You have a
saturator (including wet hydrocarbon mass record of the
looper and coater), sealant emissions by 95 average control
applicator, and adhesive percent. device operating
applicator at new and parameters over the
reconstructed asphalt performance test
roofing manufacturing lines. during which
emissions were
reduced by at least
95 percent.
3. Each asphalt storage tank a. Route the See 1.a.i. and ii.
with a capacity of 1.93 emissions to a of this table.
megagrams (2.13 tons) of thermal oxidizer
asphalt or greater, blowing achieving a
still, and loading rack at combustion
existing, new, and efficiency of 99.6
reconstructed asphalt percent.
processing facilities; and.
[[Page 58636]]
4. Each coating mixer, a. Route the i. The combustion
saturator (including wet emissions to a efficiency of the
looper and coater), sealant thermal oxidizer thermal oxidizer,
applicator, and adhesive achieving a determined using
applicator at new and combustion the equations in
reconstructed asphalt efficiency of 99.6 Sec. 63.8687 and
roofing manufacturing lines. percent. the test methods
and procedures in
Table 3 of this
subpart, over the
period of the
performance test is
at least 99.6
percent; and
ii. You have a
record of the
average combustion
zone temperature
and carbon
monoxide, carbon
dioxide, and total
hydrocarbon outlet
concentrations over
the performance
test during which
the combustion
efficiency was at
least 99.6 percent.
See 3.a.i. and ii.
of this table.
5. The total emissions from a. Limit particulate i. The particulate
the coating mixer, matter emissions to matter emissions,
saturator (including wet 0.04 kilograms per determined using
looper and coater), sealant megagram (0.08 the equations in
applicator, and adhesive pounds per ton) of Sec. 63.8687 and
applicator at each existing asphalt shingle or the test methods
asphalt roofing mineral-surfaced and procedures in
manufacturing line.. roll roofing Table 3 of this
produced. subpart, over the
period of the
performance test
are no greater than
the applicable
emission
limitation; and
ii. You have a
record of the
average control
device or process
parameters over the
performance test
during which the
particulate matter
emissions were no
greater than the
applicable emission
limitation.
b. Limit particulate See 5.a.i. and ii.
matter emissions to of this table.
0.4 kilograms per
megagram (0.8
pounds per ton) of
saturated felt or
smooth-surfaced
roll roofing
produced11.
6. Each saturator (including Limit opacity The opacity,
wet looper and coater) at emissions to 20 measured using
an existing or new asphalt percent. Method 9, for each
roofing manufacturing line. of the first 30 6-
minute averages
during the initial
compliance period
described in Sec.
63.8686(b) does not
exceed 20 percent.
7. Each saturator (including Limit visible The visible
wet looper and center) at emissions from the emissions, measured
an existing or new asphalt emission capture using Method 22,
roofing manufacturing line. system to 20 for any period of
percent of any consecutive valid
period of observations
consecutive valid totaling 60 minutes
observations during the initial
totaling 60 minutes. compliance period
described in Sec.
63.8686(b) do not
exceed 20 percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in Sec. 63.8691(a), you must demonstrate continuous
compliance with each operating limit in the following table that
applies to you:
Table 5 to Subpart LLLLL--Continuous Compliance With Operating Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must demonstrate
For * * * For the following continuous
operating limit * * compliance by * * *
----------------------------------------*-------------------------------
1. Each thermal oxidizer.... a. Maintain the 3- i. Passing the
hour average emissions through
combustion zone the control device;
temperature at or and
above the operating ii. Collecting the
limit established combustion zone
during the temperature data
performance test. according to Sec.
63.8688(b); and
iii. Reducing
combustion zone
temperature data to
3-hour averages
according to
calculations in
Table 3 of this
subpart; and
iv. Maintaining the
3-hour average
combustion zone
temperature within
the level
established during
the performance
test.
2. Particulate matter a. Maintain the 3- i. Passing the
control devices. hour average inlet emissions through
gas temperature and the control device;
pressure drop and
across device at or ii. collecting the
below the operating inlet gas
limits established temperature and
during the pressure drop data
performance test. according to Sec.
63.8688(b) and (c);
and
iii. reducing inlet
gas temperature and
pressure drop data
to 3-hour averages
according to
calculations in
Table 3 of this
subpart; and
iv. Maintaining the
3-hour average
inlet gas
temperature and
pressure drop
within the level
established during
the performance
test.
[[Page 58637]]
3. Control device other than a. Maintain the i. Passing the
a thermal oxidizer or monitoring emissions through
particulate matter control parameters within the control device;
device. the operating and
limits established ii. Collecting the
during the monitoring
performance test. parameter data
according to Sec.
63,8688(dd); and
iii. Reducing the
monitoring
parameter data to 3-
hour averages
according to
calculations in
Table 3 of this
subpart; and
iv. Maintaining the
monitoring
parameters within
the level
established during
the performance
test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in Sec. 63.8693(a), you must submit each report that
applies to you according to the following table:
Table 6 to Subpart LLLLL--Requirements for Reports
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The report must You must submit the
You must submit a(n) contain . . . report . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A compliance report...... a. A statement that Semiannually
there were no according to the
deviations from the requirements in
emission Sec. 63.8693(b).
limitations during
the reporting
period, if there
are no deviations
from any emission
limitations
(emission limit,
operating limit,
opacity limit, and
visible emission
limit) that apply
to you.
b. If there were no Semiannually
periods during according to the
which the CPMS was requirements in
out-of-control as Sec. 63.8693(b).
specified in Sec.
63.8(c)(7), a
statement that
there were no
periods during
which the CPMS was
out-of-control
during the
reporting period.
c. If you have a Semiannually
deviation from any according to the
emission limitation requirements in
(emission limit, Sec. 63.8693(b).
operating limit,
opacity limit, and
visible emission
limit), the report
must contain the
information in Sec.
63.8693(c). If
there were periods
during which the
CPMS was out-of-
control, as
specified in Sec.
63.8(c)(7), the
report must contain
the information in
Sec. 63.8693(d).
d. If you had a Semiannually
startup, shutdown according to the
or malfunction requirements in
during the Sec. 63.8693(b).
reporting period
and you took
actions consistent
with your startup,
shutdown, and
malfunction plan,
the compliance
report must include
the information in
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i
).
2. An immediate startup, The information in By fax or telephone
shutdown, and malfunction Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i within 2 working
report if you have a i). days after starting
startup, shutdown, or actions
malfunction during the inconsistent with
reporting period and the plan followed
actions taken were not by a letter within
consistent with your 7 working days
startup, shutdown, and after the end of
malfunction plan. the event unless
you have made
alternative
arrangements with
the permitting
authority.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in Sec. 63.8696(a), you must comply with the General
Provisions (GP) in Secs. 63.1 through 63.13 that apply to you according
to the following table:
Table 7 to Subpart LLLLL--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart LLLLL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to subpart
Citation Subject Brief description LLLLL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1.......................... Applicability......... Initial Applicability Yes.
Determination;
Applicability After
Standard Established;
Permit Requirements;
Extensions, Notifications.
Sec. 63.2.......................... Definitions........... Definitions for part 63 Yes.
standards.
Sec. 63.3.......................... Units and Units and abbreviations for Yes.
Abbreviations. part 63 standards.
Sec. 63.4.......................... Prohibited Activities. Prohibited Activities; Yes.
Compliance date;
Circumvention,
Severability.
Sec. 63.5.......................... Construction/ Applicability; Yes.
Reconstruction. Applications; Approvals.
Sec. 63.6(a)....................... Applicability......... GP apply unless compliance Yes.
extension GP apply to area
sources that become major.
Sec. 63.6(b) (1)-(4)............... Compliance Dates for Standards apply at Yes.
New and Reconstructed effective date; 3 years
sources. after effective date; upon
startup; 10 years after
construction or
reconstruction commences
for section 112(f).
[[Page 58638]]
Sec. 63.6(b)(5).................... Notification.......... You must notify if Yes.
commenced construction or
reconstruction after
proposal.
Sec. 63.6(b)(6).................... [Reserved]
Sec. 63.6(b)(7).................... Compliance Dates for Area sources that become Yes.
New and Reconstructed major must comply with
Area Sources That major source standards
Become Major. immediately upon becoming
major, regardless of
whether required to comply
when they were an area
source.
Sec. 63.6(c) (1)-(2)............... Compliance Dates for 1. Comply according to date Yes.
Existing Sources. in subpart, which must be
no later than 3 years
after effective date.
2. For section 112(f) Yes.
standards, comply within
90 days of effective date
unless compliance
extension has been granted.
Sec. 63.6(c) (3)-(4)............... [Reserved]
Sec. 63.6(c)(5).................... Compliance Dates for Area sources that become Yes.
Existing Area Sources major must comply with
That Become Major. major source standards by
date indicated in subpart
or by equivalent time
period (for example, 3
years).
Sec. 63.6(d)....................... [Reserved]
Sec. 63.6(e) (1)-(2)............... Operation & 1. Operate to minimize Yes.
Maintenance. emissions at all times.
2. Correct malfunctions as Yes.
soon as practicable.
3. Operation and Yes.
maintenance requirements
independently enforceable;
information Administrator
will use to determine if
operation and maintenance
requirements were met.
Sec. 63.6(e)(3).................... Startup, Shutdown, and 1. Requirement for SSM and Yes.
Malfunction (SSM) startup, shutdown,
Plan (SSMP). malfunction plan.
2. Content of SSMP......... Yes.
Sec. 63.6(f)(1).................... Compliance Except You must comply with Yes.
During SSM. emission standards at all
times except during SSM.
Sec. 63.6(f) (2)-(3)............... Methods for Compliance based on Yes.
Determining performance test,
Compliance. operation and maintenance
plans, records, inspection.
Sec. 63.6(g) (1)-(3)............... Alternative Nonopacity Procedures for getting an Yes.
Standard. alternative nonopacity
standard.
Sec. 63.6(h)....................... Opacity/Visible Requirements for opacity Yes.
Emission (VE) and VE limits.
Standards.
Sec. 63.6(h)(1).................... Compliance with You must comply with Yes.
Opacity/VE Standards. opacity/VE emission
limitations at all times
except during SSM.
Sec. 63.6(h)(2)(i)................. Determining Compliance If standard does not state No. The test methods
with Opacity/VE test method, use Method 9 for opacity and
Standards. for opacity and Method 22 visible emissions
for VE. are specified in
Sec. 63.8686.
Sec. 63.6(h)(2)(ii)................ [Reserved]
Sec. 63.6(h)(2)(iii)............... Using Previous Tests Criteria for when previous Yes.
to Demonstrate opacity/VE testing can be
Compliance with used to show compliance
Opacity/VE Standards. with this rule.
Sec. 63.6(h)(3).................... [Reserved]
Sec. 63.6(h)(4).................... Notification of You must notify Yes.
Opacity/VE Administrator of
Observation Date. anticipated date of
observation.
Sec. 63.6(h)(5)(i), (iii)-(v)...... Conducting Opacity/VE Dates and schedule for Yes.
Observations. conducting opacity/VE
observations.
Sec. 63.6(h)(5)(ii)................ Opacity Test Duration You must have at least 3 Yes.
and Averaging Times. hours of observation with
thirty 6-minute averages.
Sec. 63.6(h)(6).................... Records of Conditions You must keep records Yes.
During Opacity/VE available and allow
Observations. Administrator to inspect.
Sec. 63.6(h)(7)(i)................. Report Continuous You must submit COMS data No. Subpart LLLLL
Opacity Monitoring with other performance does not require
System (COMS) Data test data. COMS.
from Performance Test.
Sec. 63.6(h)(7)(ii)................ Using COMS instead of Can submit COMS data No. Subpart LLLLL
Method 9. instead of Method 9 does not require
results even if rule COMS.
requires Method 9, but
must notify Administrator
before performance test.
Sec. 63.6(h)(7)(iii)............... Averaging time for To determine compliance, No. Subpart LLLLL
COMS during must reduce COMS data to 6- does not require
performance test. minute averages. COMS.
Sec. 63.6(h)(7)(iv)................ COMS requirements..... Owner/operator must No. Subpart LLLLL
demonstrate that COMS does not require
performance evaluations COMS.
are conducted according to
Sec. 63.8(e), COMS are
properly maintained and
operated according to Sec.
63.8(c) and data quality
as Sec. 63.8(d)..
[[Page 58639]]
Sec. 63.6(h)(7)(v)................. Determining Compliance COMS is probative but not No. Subpart LLLLL
with Opacity/VE conclusive evidence of does not require
Standards. compliance with opacity COMS.
standard, even if Method 9
observation shows
otherwise. Requirements
for COMS to be probative
evidence, proper
maintenance, meeting PS 1,
and data have not been
altered.
Sec. 63.6(h)(8).................... Determining Compliance Administrator will use all Yes.
with Opacity/VE COMS, Method 9, and Method
Standards. 22 results, as well as
information about
operation and maintenance
to determine compliance.
Sec. 63.6(h)(9).................... Adjusted Opacity Procedures for Yes.
Standard. Administrator to adjust an
opacity standard.
Sec. 63.6(i)....................... Compliance Extension.. Procedures and criteria for Yes.
Administrator to grant
compliance extension.
Sec. 63.6(j)....................... Presidential President may exempt source Yes.
Compliance Exemption. category from requirement
to comply with rule.
Sec. 63.7(a)(1)-(2)................ Performance Test Dates Dates for conducting No. Section 63.8686
initial performance specifies the
testing and other performance test
compliance demonstrations. dates.
You must conduct 180 days
after first subject to
rule.
Sec. 63.7(a)(3).................... Section 114 Authority. Administrator may require a Yes.
performance test under CAA
section 114 at any time.
Sec. 63.7(b)(1).................... Notification of You must notify Yes.
Performance Test. Administrator 60 days
before the test..
Sec. 63.7(b)(2).................... Notification of If rescheduling a Yes.
Rescheduling. performance test is
necessary, must notify
Administrator 5 days
before scheduled date of
rescheduled date.
Sec. 63.7(c)....................... Quality Assurance/Test 1. Requirement to submit Yes.
Plan. site-specific test plan 60
days before the test or on
date Administrator agrees
with.
2. Test plan approval Yes.
procedures.
3. Performance audit Yes.
requirements.
4. Internal and External QA Yes.
procedures for testing.
Sec. 63.7(d)....................... Testing Facilities.... Requirements for testing Yes.
facilities.
Sec. 63.7(e)(1).................... Conditions for 1. Performance tests must Yes.
Conducting be conducted under
Performance Tests. representative conditions.
Cannot conduct performance
tests during SSM.
2. Not a violation to Yes.
exceed standard during SSM.
Sec. 63.7(e)(2).................... Conditions for You must conduct according Yes.
Conducting to rule and EPA test
Performance Tests. methods unless
Administrator approves
alternative.
Sec. 63.7(e)(3).................... Test Run Duration..... 1. You must have three test Yes.
runs of at least 1 hour
each.
2. Compliance is based on Yes.
arithmetic mean of three
runs.
3. Conditions when data Yes.
from an additional test
run can be used.
Sec. 63.7(f)....................... Alternative Test Procedures by which Yes.
Method. Administrator can grant
approval to use an
alternative test method.
Sec. 63.7(g)....................... Performance Test Data 1. Include raw data in Yes.
Analysis. performance test report.
2. Submit performance test Yes.
data 60 days after end of
test with the Notification
of Compliance Status.
3. Keep data for 5 years... Yes.
Sec. 63.7(h)....................... Waiver of Tests....... Procedures for Yes.
Administrator to waive
performance test.
Sec. 63.8(a)(1).................... Applicability of Subject to all monitoring Yes.
Monitoring requirements in standard.
Requirements.
Sec. 63.8(a)(2).................... Performance Performance Specifications No. Subpart LLLLL
Specifications. in appendix B of 40 CFR does not require the
part 60 apply. use of continuous
emission monitoring
systems (CEMS).
Sec. 63.8(a)(3).................... [Reserved]............
Sec. 63.8(a)(4).................... Monitoring with Flares Unless rule says otherwise, Yes.
the requirements for
flares in Sec. 63.11
apply.
Sec. 63.8(b)(1).................... Monitoring............ You must conduct monitoring Yes.
according to standard
unless Administrator
approves alternative.
Sec. 63.8(b)(2)-(3)................ Multiple Effluents and 1. Specific requirements Yes.
Multiple Monitoring for installing monitoring
Systems. systems.
2. Install on each effluent Yes.
before it is combined and
before it is released to
the atmosphere unless
Administrator approves
otherwise.
3. If more than one Yes.
monitoring system on an
emission point, must
report all monitoring
system results, unless one
monitoring system is a
backup.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1).................... Monitoring System Maintain monitoring system Yes.
Operation and in a manner consistent
Maintenance (O&M). with good air pollution
control practices.
[[Page 58640]]
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(i)................. Routine and 1. Follow the SSM plan for Yes.
Predictable SSM. routine repairs.
2. Keep parts for routine Yes.
repairs readily available.
3. Reporting requirements Yes.
for SSM when action is
described in SSM plan.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii)................ SSM not in SSP plan... Reporting requirements for Yes.
SSM when action is not
described in SSM plan.
Sec. 63.8 (c)(1)(iii).............. Compliance with 1. How Administrator Yes.
Operation and determines if source
Maintenance complying with operation
Requirements. and Maintenance
requirements.
2. Review of source O&M Yes.
procedures, records,
manufacturer's
instructions,
recommendations, and
inspection of monitoring
system.
Sec. 63.8(c)(2)-(3)................ Monitoring System 1. You must install to get Yes.
Installation. representative emission
and parameter measurements.
2. You must verify Yes.
operational status before
or at performance test.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4).................... Continuous Monitoring CMS must be operating No. Section 63.8690
System (CMS) except during breakdown, specifies the CMS
Requirements. out-of-control, repair, requirements.
maintenance, and high-
level calibration drifts.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)(i)-(ii)............ CMS Requirements...... 1. COMS must have a minimum No. Subpart LLLLL
of one cycle of sampling does not require the
and analysis for each use of COMS.
successive 10-second
period and one cycle of
data recording for each
successive 6-minute period.
2. CEMS must have a minimum No. Subpart LLLLL
of one cycle of operation does not require the
for each successive 15- use of CEMS.
minute period.
Sec. 63.8(c)(5).................... COMS Minimum COMS minimum procedures.... No. Subpart LLLLL
Procedures. does not require the
use of COMS.
Sec. 63.8(c)(6).................... CMS Requirements...... Zero and High level No. Section 63.8690
calibration check specifies the CMS
requirements. requirements.
Sec. 63.8(c)(7)-(8)................ CMS Requirements...... Out-of-control periods, Yes.
including reporting.
Sec. 63.8(d)....................... CMS Quality Control... 1. Requirements for CMS No. Section 63.8690
quality control, including specifies the CMS
calibration, etc. requirements.
2. Must keep quality No. Section 63.8690
control plan on record for specifies the CMS
the life of the affected requirements.
source.
3. Keep old versions for 5 No. Section 63.8690
years after revisions. specifies the CMS
requirements.
Sec. 63.8(e)....................... CMS Performance Notification, performance No. Section 63.8690
Evaluation. evaluation test plan, specifies the CMS
reports. requirements.
Sec. 63.8(f)(1)-(5)................ Alternative Monitoring Procedures for Yes.
Method. Administrator to approve
alternative monitoring.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6).................... Alternative to Procedures for No. Subpart LLLLL
Relative Accuracy Administrator to approve does not require the
Test. alternative relative use of CEMS.
accuracy tests for CEMS.
Sec. 63.8(g) (1)-(4)............... Data Reduction........ 1. COMS 6-minute averages No. Subpart LLLLL
calculated over at least does not require the
36 evenly spaced data use of COMS
points.
2. CEMS 1-hour averages No. Subpart LLLLL
computed over at least 4 does not require the
equally spaced data points. use of CEMS.
Sec. 63.8(g)....................... Data Reduction........ Data that cannot be used in No. Section 63.8690
computing averages for specifies the CMS
CEMS and COMS.. requirements.
Sec. 63.9(a)....................... Notification Applicability and State Yes.
Requirements. Delegation.
Sec. 63.9(b) (1)-(5)............... Initial Notifications. 1. Submit notification 120 Yes.
days after effective date.
2. Notification of intent Yes.
to construct/reconstruct;
notification of
commencement of construct/
reconstruct; notification
of startup.
3. Contents of each........ Yes.
Sec. 63.9(c)....................... Request for Compliance Can request if cannot Yes.
Extension. comply by date or if
installed Best Available
Control Technology/Lowest
Achievable Emission Rate.
Sec. 63.9(d)....................... Notification of For sources that commence Yes.
Special Compliance construction between
Requirements for New proposal and promulgation
Source. and want to comply 3 years
after effective date.
[[Page 58641]]
Sec. 63.9(e)....................... Notification of Notify Administrator 60 Yes.
Performance Test. days prior.
Sec. 63.9(f)....................... Notification of VE/ Notify Administrator 30 Yes.
Opacity Test. days prior.
Sec. 63.9(g)....................... Additional 1. Notification of No. Section 63.8690
Notifications When performance evaluation. specifies the CMS
Using CMS. requirements.
2. Notification using COMS No. Section 63.8690
data. specifies the CMS
requirements.
3. Notification that the No. Section 63.8690
criterion for use of specifies the CMS
alternative to relative requirements.
accuracy testing was
exceeded.
Sec. 63.9(h) (1)-(6)............... Notification of 1. Contents................ Yes.
Compliance Status.
2. Due 60 days after end of Yes.
performance test or other
compliance demonstration,
except for opacity/VE,
which are due 30 days
after.
3. When to submit to Yes.
Federal vs. State
authority.
Sec. 63.9(i)....................... Adjustment of Procedures for Yes.
Submittal Deadlines. Administrator to approve
change in dates when
notifications must be
submitted.
Sec. 63.9(j)....................... Change in Previous You must submit within 15 Yes.
Information. days after the change.
Sec. 63.10(a)...................... Recordkeeping/ 1. Applies to all, unless Yes.
Reporting. compliance extension.
2. When to submit to Yes.
Federal vs. State
authority.
3. Procedures for owners of Yes.
more than one source.
Sec. 63.10(b)(1)................... Recordkeeping/ 1. General requirements.... Yes.
Reporting.
2. Keep all records readily Yes.
available.
3. Keep for 5 years........ Yes.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i)-(v)............ Records related to 1. Occurrence of each Yes.
Startup, Shutdown, malfunction of operation
and Malfunction. (process equipment).
2. Occurrence of each Yes.
malfunction of air
pollution equipment.
3. Maintenance on air Yes.
pollution control
equipment.
4. Actions during startup, Yes.
shutdown, and malfunction.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi) and (x)-(xi).. CMS Records........... 1. Malfunctions, Yes.
inoperative, out-of-
control.
2. Calibration checks...... Yes.
3. Adjustments, maintenance Yes.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vii)-(ix)......... Records............... 1. Measurements to Yes.
demonstrate compliance
with emission limitations.
2. Performance test, Yes.
performance evaluation,
and visible emission
observation results.
3. Measurements to Yes.
determine conditions of
performance tests and
performance evaluations.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xii).............. Records............... Records when under waiver.. Yes.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiii)............. Records............... Records when using No. Subpart LLLLL
alternative to relative does not require the
accuracy test. use of CEMS.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv).............. Records............... All documentation Yes.
supporting Initial
Notification and
Notification of Compliance
Status.
Sec. 63.10(b)(3)................... Records............... Applicability Yes.
Determinations.
Sec. 63.10(c) (1)-(6), (9)-(15).... Records............... Additional Records for CMS. No. Section 63.8694
specifies the CMS
recordkeeping
requirements.
Sec. 63.10(c) (7)-(8).............. Records............... Records of excess emissions No. Section 63.8694
and parameter monitoring specifies the CMS
exceedances for CMS. recordkeeping
requirements
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)................... General Reporting Requirement to report...... Yes.
Requirements.
Sec. 63.10(d)(2)................... Report of Performance When to submit to Federal Yes.
Test Results. or State authority.
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)................... Reporting Opacity or What to report and when.... Yes.
VE Observations.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4)................... Progress Reports...... You must submit progress Yes.
reports on schedule if
under compliance
extension..
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)................... Startup, Shutdown, and Contents and submission.... Yes.
Malfunction Reports.
Sec. 63.10(e)(1)(2)................ Additional CMS Reports 1. Must report results for No. Subpart LLLLL
each CEM on a unit. does not require the
use of CEMS or COMS.
[[Page 58642]]
2. Written copy of No. Subpart LLLLL
performance evaluation. does not require the
use of CEMS or COMS.
3. 3 copies of COMS No. Subpart LLLLL
performance evaluation. does not require the
use of CEMS or COMS.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)................... Reports............... Excess Emission Reports.... No. Section 63.8693
specifies the
reporting
requirements.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(1)-(iii).......... Reports............... Schedule for reporting No. Section 63.8693
excess emissions and specifies the
parameter monitor reporting
exceedances (not defined requirements.
as deviations).
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(iv)-(v)........... Excess Emissions 1. Requirement to revert to No. Section 63.8693
Reports. quarterly submission if specifies the
there is an excess reporting
emissions and parameter requirements.
monitor exceedances (now
defined as deviations).
2. Provision to request No. Section 63.8693
semiannual reporting after specifies the
compliance for 1 year. reporting
requirements.
3. Submit report by 30th No. Section 63.8693
day following end of specifies the
quarter or calendar half. reporting
requirements.
4. If there has not been an No. Section 63.8693
exceedance or excess specifies the
emission (now defined as reporting
deviations), report requirements.
content is a statement
that there have been no
deviations.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(iv)-(v)........... Excess Emissions You must submit report No. Section 63.8693
Reports. containing all of the specifies the
information in No. Section reporting
all of the information in requirements.
Secs. 63.10(c)(5)-(13)
and 63.8(c)(7)-(8).
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(vi)-(viii)........ Excess Emissions 1. Requirements for No. Section 63.8693
Report and Summary reporting excess emissions specifies the
Report. for CMS (not called reporting
deviations). requirements.
2. Requires all of the
information in Secs.
63.10(c)(5)-(13) and
63.8(c)(7)-(8).
Sec. 63.10(e)(4)................... Reporting COMS data... You must submit COMS data No. Subpart LLLLL
with performance test does not require
data.. that use of COMS.
Sec. 63.10(f)...................... Waiver for Procedures for Yes.
Recordkeeping/ Administrator to waive.
Reporting.
Sec. 63.11......................... Flares................ Requirements for flares.... Yes.
Sec. 63.12......................... Delegation............ State authority to enforce Yes.
standards.
Sec. 63.13......................... Addresses............. Addresses where reports, Yes.
notifications, and
requests are sent.
Sec. 63.14......................... Incorporation by Test methods incorporated Yes.
Reference. by reference.
Sec. 63.15......................... Availability of Public and confidential Yes.
Information. information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 01-28192 Filed 11-20-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P