November 21, 2001
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing; Proposed Rule
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 17:37 Nov 20, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\21NOP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 21NOP3
58610 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Triangle Park, North Carolina, beginning TTN’s policy and guidance page for
AGENCY at 10 a.m., or at an alternate site nearby. newly proposed or promulgated rules
Docket. Docket No. A–95–32 contains http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN
40 CFR Part 63 supporting information used in provides information and technology
developing the proposed standards. The exchange in various areas of air
[FRL–7101–7] docket is located at the U.S. EPA, 401 pollution control. If more information
RIN 2060–AG66 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460 in regarding the TTN is needed, call the
room M–1500, Waterside Mall (ground TTN HELP line at (919) 541–5384.
National Emission Standards for floor), and may be inspected from 7:30 Public Hearing. Persons interested in
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Asphalt a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through presenting oral testimony or inquiring
Processing and Asphalt Roofing Friday, excluding legal holidays. as to whether a hearing is to be held
Manufacturing FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick should contact Dorothy Apple, Policy,
Colyer, Policy, Planning, and Standards Planning, and Standards Group,
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Group, Emission Standards Division Emission Standards Division (MD–13),
Agency (EPA). U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North
(MD–13), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle
ACTION: Proposed rule. Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)
number (919) 541–5262, e-mail address: 541–4487, at least 2 days in advance of
SUMMARY: This action proposes national
email@example.com. the public hearing. Persons interested in
emission standards for hazardous air
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: attending the public hearing must also
pollutants (NESHAP) for existing and
Comments. Comments and data may call Dorothy Apple to verify the time,
new asphalt processing and asphalt
be submitted by e-mail to: a-and-r- date, and location of the hearing. The
roofing manufacturing facilities. The
firstname.lastname@example.org. Electronic comments public hearing will provide interested
EPA has identified asphalt processing
must be submitted as an ASCII file to parties the opportunity to present data,
and asphalt roofing manufacturing
avoid the use of special characters and views, or arguments concerning these
facilities as major sources of hazardous
encryption problems and will also be proposed emission standards.
air pollutants (HAP) such as
formaldehyde, hexane, hydrogen accepted on disks in WordPerfect’’ Docket. The docket reflects the full
chloride (HCl), phenol, polycyclic version 5.1, 6.1 or Corel 8 file format. administrative record for this action and
organic matter (POM), and toluene. All comments and data submitted in includes all the information relied upon
These proposed standards would electronic form must note the docket by EPA in development of this proposed
implement section 112(d) of the Clean number: A–95–32. No confidential rule. The docket is a dynamic file
Air Act (CAA) by requiring all major business information (CBI) should be because material is added throughout
sources to meet HAP emission standards submitted by e-mail. Electronic the rulemaking process. The docketing
reflecting the application of the comments may be filed online at many system is intended to allow members of
maximum achievable control Federal depository libraries. the public and industries involved to
technology (MACT). The total HAP Commenters wishing to submit readily identify and locate documents
reduction is expected to be 8.87 proprietary information for so that they can effectively participate
megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (9.78 tons consideration must clearly distinguish in the rulemaking process. Along with
per year (tpy)). such information from other comments the proposed and promulgated
and clearly label it as CBI. Send standards and their preambles, the
DATES: Comments. Submit comments on contents of the docket will serve as the
submissions containing such
or before January 22, 2002. proprietary information directly to the record in the case of judicial review.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the following address, and not to the public (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the CAA.)
EPA requesting to speak at a public docket, to ensure that proprietary The regulatory text and other materials
hearing by December 11, 2001, a public information is not inadvertently placed related to this rulemaking are available
hearing will be held on December 21, in the docket: Attention: Rick Colyer, for review in the docket or copies may
2001. U.S. EPA, c/o OAQPS Document be mailed on request from the Air
ADDRESSES: Comments. By U.S. Postal Control Officer, 411 W. Chapel Hill Docket by calling (202) 260–7548. A
Service, send comments (in duplicate if Street, Room 740B, Durham NC 27701. reasonable fee may be charged for
possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket The EPA will disclose information copying docket materials.
and Information Center (6102), identified as CBI only to the extent Regulated Entities. Categories and
Attention Docket Number A–95–32, allowed by the procedures set forth in entities potentially regulated by this
U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of action are shown in Table 1. This table
NW, Washington DC 20460. In person or confidentiality accompanies a is not intended to be exhaustive, but
by courier, deliver comments (in submission when it is received by the rather provides a guide for readers
duplicate if possible) to: Air and EPA, the information may be made regarding entities likely to be regulated
Radiation Docket and Information available to the public without further by this action. To determine whether
Center (6102), Attention Docket Number notice to the commenter. your facility is regulated by this action,
A–95–32, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, World Wide Web (WWW). In addition you should examine the applicability
Washington DC 20460. The EPA to being available in the docket, an criteria in §§ 63.8681 and 63.8682 of the
requests a separate copy also be sent to electronic copy of this proposed rule proposed rule. If you have any questions
the contact person listed below. will also be available on the WWW regarding the applicability of this action
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is through the Technology Transfer to a particular entity, consult the person
held, it will be held at the EPA Office Network (TTN). Following signature, a listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
of Administration Auditorium, Research copy of the rule will be posted on the INFORMATION CONTACT section.
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 17:37 Nov 20, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21NOP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 21NOP3
Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules 58611
TABLE 1.—REGULATED CATEGORIES AND ENTITIES
NAICS a SIC b
Code Description Code Description
Manufacturing ................................................ 324122 Asphalt shingle and coating materials man- 2952 Asphalt felts and coatings.
Manufacturing ................................................ 32411 Petroleum refineries ...................................... 2911 Petroleum refining.
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 A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory HAP from both existing and new major
information in this preamble is Planning and Review sources, based upon the criteria set out
organized as follows: B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism in section 112(d). The CAA requires the
C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation
I. Background and Coordination with Indian Tribal
NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree
A. What is the statutory authority for the Governments of reduction in emissions of HAP that is
proposed NESHAP? D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of achievable, taking into consideration the
B. What criteria are used in the Children from Environmental Health cost of achieving the emission
development of NESHAP? Risks and Safety Risks reduction, any non-air quality health
C. What operations constitute asphalt E. Executive Order 13211, Actions and environmental impacts, and energy
processing and asphalt roofing Concerning Regulations that requirements. This level of control is
manufacture? Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
D. What are the emissions and emission
commonly referred to as the MACT.
Distribution or Use
sources? F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 The minimum control level allowed
E. What are the health effects associated G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as for NESHAP (the minimum level of
with the asphalt processing and asphalt amended by the Small Business stringency for MACT) is the so-called
roofing manufacturing source categories? Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act ‘‘MACT floor,’’ as defined under section
II. Summary of the Proposed Standards (SBREFA) of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. 112(d)(3) of the CAA. The MACT floor
A. Do these proposed NESHAP apply to H. Paperwork Reduction Act for existing sources is the emission
me? I. National Technology Transfer and
B. What are the affected sources? Advancement Act limitation achieved by the average of the
C. What pollutants are regulated by the best performing 12 percent of existing
proposed NESHAP? I. Background sources for categories and subcategories
D. What emission limits must I meet? A. What Is the Statutory Authority for with 30 or more sources, or the average
E. When must I comply? the Proposed NESHAP? of the best performing 5 sources for
F. What are the testing and initial categories or subcategories with fewer
compliance requirements? Section 112 of the CAA requires us to than 30 sources. For new sources, the
G. What are the continuous compliance list categories and subcategories of MACT floor cannot be less stringent
provisions? major sources and area sources of HAP
H. What are the notification, recordkeeping
than the emission control achieved in
and to establish NESHAP for the listed practice by the best controlled similar
and reporting requirements? source categories and subcategories. A
III. Summary of Environmental, Energy and source.
major source of HAP is any stationary
Economic Impacts In developing the NESHAP, we also
A. What are the air quality impacts? source or group of stationary sources
consider control options that are more
B. What are the cost impacts? within a contiguous area under common
stringent than the MACT floor (so-called
C. What are the economic impacts? control that emits or has the potential to
emit, considering controls, in the beyond-the-floor control options), taking
D. What are the non-air health,
environmental and energy impacts? aggregate, 9.1 Mg/yr (10 tpy) or more of into consideration (as noted previously)
IV. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed any single HAP, or 22.7 Mg/yr (25 tpy) the cost of achieving the emission
Standards or more of any combination of HAP. reductions, and any non-air quality
A. How did we select the source categories Based on the emissions data collected environmental impacts, and energy
for this rulemaking, asphalt processing requirements. In this rule, EPA is
B. How did we select the affected sources? proposing standards for both existing
C. How did we select the pollutants to and asphalt roofing manufacturing
facilities have the potential to be major and new sources based on the MACT.
D. How did we determine the basis and sources of HAP. C. What Operations Constitute Asphalt
level of the proposed standards for The asphalt processing and asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing
existing and new sources? roofing manufacturing categories of Manufacture?
E. How did we select the format of the major sources were listed as separate
standards? source categories on July 16, 1992 (57 The proposed NESHAP would
F. How did we select the emission limits? FR 31576). However, because these regulate both asphalt processing and
G. How did we select the testing and initial processes are closely related and are asphalt roofing manufacturing
compliance requirements? often collocated, we are proposing to operations. Asphalt processing and
H. How did we select the continuous asphalt roofing manufacturing
regulate emissions from both source
categories under a single NESHAP. operations can be stand-alone or
I. How did we select the notification,
recordkeeping and reporting
integrated with each other or related
B. What Criteria Are Used in the operations such as wet-formed fiberglass
requirements? Development of NESHAP?
J. What is the relationship of this subpart mat manufacturing. Additionally, some
to other standards? Section 112(c)(2) of the CAA requires asphalt processing is performed at
V. Administrative Requirements that we establish NESHAP for control of petroleum refineries.
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 17:37 Nov 20, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21NOP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 21NOP3
58612 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules
Processed asphalt is produced using substrate is cut into the desired size. and toluene. The remaining 2 percent of
asphalt flux as the raw material. Asphalt Multiple single-ply shingles can be the total HAP emissions is a
flux is a product that is obtained in the glued together (typically using oxidized combination of several different organic
last stages of fractional distillation of or modified asphalt as an adhesive) to HAP, each contributing less than 0.5
crude oil. Asphalt is processed to produce laminated or dimensional percent to the total HAP emissions.
change its physical properties for use shingles. When asphalt roofing The HAP emitted from these source
primarily in the roofing industry. In manufacturing lines are collocated with categories (controlled under this
asphalt processing, heated asphalt flux asphalt processing operations, the two proposed rule) are associated with a
is taken from storage and charged to a operations typically share storage and variety of adverse health effects. These
heated blowing still where air is process tanks. adverse health effects include both
bubbled up through the flux. This chronic health disorders (e.g., irritation
D. What Are the Emissions and of the lung, skin, and mucous
process raises the softening temperature
Emission Sources? membranes; effects on the central
of the asphalt. The blowing process also
decreases the penetration rate of the Asphalt is essentially the material that nervous system; and damage to the
asphalt when applied to the roofing remains after fractional distillation of blood and liver) and acute health
substrate. Some processing operations crude oil. Consequently, asphalt disorders (e.g., respiratory irritation and
use a catalyst (e.g., ferric chloride, consists primarily of heavy organic central nervous system effects such as
phosphoric acid) in the blowing still. A compounds with low boiling points. drowsiness, headache, and nausea). The
catalyst is used to promote the oxidation Hazardous air pollutants are volatilized EPA has classified two of the HAP
of asphalt in the blowing still. The need from asphalt as it is heated and agitated (formaldehyde and POM) as probable
to use catalyst is primarily driven by the during processing and roofing human carcinogens.
type of feedstock used. Certain manufacturing operations. Hazardous The adverse health effects associated
feedstocks require catalyst to be used to air pollutants are also volatilized during with the exposure to specific HAP are
attain desired product specifications. asphalt processing as a result of the further described below. In general,
In asphalt roofing manufacturing, oxidation reactions that occur in the these findings have only been shown
processed or modified asphalt (also blowing still. with concentrations higher than those
called modified bitumen) is applied to Because the HAP volatilized from typically in the ambient air.
a fibrous substrate (typically made of asphalt generally have low boiling Formaldehyde. Both acute (short-
fiberglass or organic felt) to produce the points, they can be present in both term) and chronic (long-term) exposure
following types of roofing products: condensed particulate matter (PM) and to formaldehyde irritates the eyes, nose,
shingles, laminated shingles, smooth- gaseous forms, depending on the and throat, and may cause coughing,
surfaced roll roofing, mineral-surfaced temperature of the vent or exhaust gas. chest pains, and bronchitis.
roll roofing, and saturated felt roll When the temperature of the vent gas is Reproductive effects such as menstrual
roofing. Modified asphalt is asphalt that below the boiling point of a HAP, the disorders and pregnancy problems have
is mixed with plastic modifiers (which HAP will condense into particulate form been reported in female workers
add strength and durability to the (i.e., a cooler vent gas will have more exposed to formaldehyde. Limited
asphalt) and is typically used to HAP in the form of condensed PM, human studies have reported an
produce roll roofing products. A roofing whereas a hotter vent stream will association between formaldehyde
manufacturing line is a largely contain mostly gaseous HAP). exposure and lung and nasopharyngeal
continuous operation, with line The following types of equipment are cancer. Animal inhalation studies have
stoppages occurring primarily due to sources of PM and gaseous HAP reported an increased incidence of nasal
breaks in the substrate. emissions: asphalt storage and process squamous cell cancer. The EPA
In asphalt roofing manufacturing, tanks, asphalt blowing stills, oxidized considers formaldehyde a probable
asphalt is typically mixed with filler asphalt loading racks, saturators, wet human carcinogen (Group B2).
materials before application to the loopers, coating mixers, coaters, sealant Hexane. Acute inhalation exposure of
substrate. If a fiberglass substrate is applicators, and adhesive applicators. humans to high levels of hexane causes
used, coating asphalt is applied by a Most blowing stills are controlled by a mild central nervous system effects,
coater. If an organic substrate is used, a thermal oxidizer to comply with the including dizziness, giddiness, slight
saturator and wet looper are typically Standards of Performance for Asphalt nausea, and headache. Chronic
used prior to the coater to provide Processing and Asphalt Roofing exposure to hexane in air causes
additional time for the asphalt to Manufacture (40 CFR part 60, subpart numbness in the extremities, muscular
impregnate the substrate. The type of UU, hereafter referred to as the asphalt weakness, blurred vision, headache, and
final product being manufactured NSPS) or State regulations. If a fatigue. One study reported testicular
determines the process steps that follow chlorinated catalyst is used in the damage in rats exposed to hexane
the coating or impregnation steps. blowing still, HCl is emitted from the through inhalation. No information is
For shingles and mineral-surfaced roll blowing still thermal oxidizer outlet. available on the carcinogenic effects of
roofing, granules are applied to the hot hexane in humans or animals. The EPA
surface of the coated substrate. This step E. What Are the Health Effects has classified hexane in Group D, not
is omitted in manufacture of smooth- Associated With the Asphalt Processing classifiable as to human carcinogenicity.
surfaced and saturated felt roll roofing. and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Hydrogen Chloride. Hydrogen
In shingle manufacture, a strip of Source Categories? chloride, also called hydrochloric acid,
sealant (typically oxidized or modified A variety of HAP are emitted from is corrosive to the eyes, skin, and
asphalt) is applied to the back of the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing mucous membranes. Acute inhalation
product after it has cooled. This sealant manufacturing source categories. The exposure may cause eye, nose, and
strip, which is heated by the sun after following HAP account for the majority respiratory tract irritation and
the roofing product is installed, (approximately 98 percent) of the total inflammation and pulmonary edema in
provides some adhesion and sealing HAP emissions: formaldehyde, hexane, humans. Chronic occupational exposure
between layers of roofing product. In HCl (at asphalt processing facilities that to hydrochloric acid has been reported
shingle manufacture, the coated use chlorinated catalysts), phenol, POM, to cause gastritis, bronchitis, and
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 17:37 Nov 20, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21NOP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 21NOP3
Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules 58613
dermatitis in workers. Prolonged levels of toluene. Symptoms include roofing manufacture, must be
exposure to low concentrations may tremors, decreased brain size, considered in determining major source
also cause dental discoloration and involuntary eye movements, and status. If your facility is determined to
erosion. No information is available on impaired speech, hearing, and vision. be an area source (i.e., not a major
the reproductive or developmental Chronic (long-term) inhalation exposure source), you would not be subject to
effects of hydrochloric acid in humans. of humans to lower levels of toluene these proposed NESHAP.
In rats exposed to hydrochloric acid by also causes irritation of the upper This proposed rule would not regulate
inhalation, altered estrus cycles have respiratory tract, eye irritation, sore emissions from the wet-formed
been reported in females and increased throat, nausea, dizziness, headaches, fiberglass mat production industry, even
fetal mortality and decreased fetal and difficulty with sleep. Studies of though a wet-formed fiberglass mat is
weight have been reported in offspring. children whose mothers were exposed produced at both stand-alone facilities
The EPA has not classified hydrochloric to toluene by inhalation or mixed and those collocated with asphalt
acid for carcinogenicity. solvents during pregnancy have processing and roofing facilities.
Phenol. Acute inhalation and dermal reported central nervous system Emissions from wet-formed fiberglass
exposure to phenol is highly irritating to problems, facial and limb abnormalities, mat manufacturing processes are being
the skin, eyes, and mucous membranes and delayed development. However, regulated by the Wet-Formed Fiberglass
in humans. Oral exposure to small these effects may not be attributable to Mat NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart
amounts of phenol may cause irregular toluene alone. The EPA has classified HHHH).
breathing, muscular weakness and toluene in Group D, not classifiable as
tremors, coma, and respiratory arrest at B. What Are the Affected Sources?
to human carcinogenicity.
lethal concentrations. Anorexia, This proposed rule would also protect An affected source is the process
progressive weight loss, diarrhea, air quality and the public health by equipment that is regulated by the
vertigo, salivation, and a dark coloration reducing emissions of volatile organic NESHAP. For these proposed NESHAP,
of the urine have been reported in compounds (VOC) and PM from asphalt there would be two affected sources:
chronically exposed humans. processing and asphalt roofing each asphalt processing facility and
Gastrointestinal irritation and blood and manufacturing. each asphalt roofing manufacturing line.
liver effects have also been reported. No Volatile Organic Compounds. An asphalt processing facility is any
studies of developmental or Emissions of VOC have been associated facility that prepares asphalt at asphalt
reproductive effects of phenol in with a variety of health and welfare processing plants, petroleum refineries,
humans are available, but animal impacts. Volatile organic compound and asphalt roofing plants. An asphalt
studies have reported reduced fetal emissions, together with nitrogen roofing manufacturing line is the
body weights, growth retardation, and oxides, are precursors to the formation collection of equipment used to
abnormal development in the offspring of tropospheric ozone. Exposure to manufacture asphalt roofing products
of animals exposed to phenol by the oral ambient ozone is responsible for a through a series of sequential process
route. The EPA has classified phenol in number of public health impacts, such steps.
Group D, not classifiable as to human as alterations in lung capacity; eye,
carcinogenicity. C. What Pollutants Are Regulated by the
nose, and throat irritation; nausea; and Proposed NESHAP?
POM. The term polycyclic organic aggravation of existing respiratory
matter defines a broad class of disease. Ozone exposure can also These proposed NESHAP would
compounds that includes the polycyclic damage forests and crops. establish emission limits for PM and
aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) Particulate Matter. Particulate matter total hydrocarbons (THC) as surrogates
compounds, of which benzo[a]pyrene is can accumulate in the respiratory for total organic HAP which includes
a member. Dermal exposures to system and is associated with numerous the following compounds:
mixtures of PAH cause skin disorders in adverse health effects. Exposure to formaldehyde, hexane, phenol, POM,
humans and animals. No information is coarse particles is primarily associated and toluene.
available on the reproductive or Although HCl is emitted from some
with the aggravation of respiratory
developmental effects of POM in conditions, such as asthma. Fine
asphalt processing facilities (those that
humans. Human studies have reported use chlorinated catalysts in the blowing
particles are most closely associated
an increase in lung cancer in humans still), we are proposing not to regulate
with such health effects as increased
exposed to POM-bearing mixtures HCl emissions since we can identify no
hospital admissions and emergency
including coke oven emissions, roofing duplicable or otherwise available means
room visits for heart and lung disease,
tar emissions, and cigarette smoke. The of controlling HCl as a floor standard,
increased respiratory symptoms and
EPA has classified seven PAH and beyond the floor controls are not
disease, decreased lung function, and
compounds (benzo[a]pyrene, warranted after considering the factors
even premature death.
benz[a]anthracene, chrysene, set out in section 112(d)(2) of the Act.
benzo[b]fluoranthene, II. Summary of the Proposed Standards A more detailed discussion of the basis
benzo[k]fluoranthene, for this decision is provided in section
dibenz[a,h]anthracene, and A. Do These Proposed NESHAP Apply
IV.C of this preamble.
indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene) as Group B2, to Me?
probable human carcinogens. This proposed rule would apply to D. What Emission Limits Must I Meet?
Toluene. Acute inhalation of toluene you if you process asphalt or We are proposing that you meet the
by humans may cause effects to the manufacture asphalt roofing products at emission limits that are summarized in
central nervous system, such as fatigue, a facility that is a major source of HAP Table 2. The emission limits are
sleepiness, headache, and nausea, as emissions. Major sources of HAP are expressed in appropriate formats for the
well as irregular heartbeat. Adverse those that emit or have the potential to various process equipment being
central nervous system effects have been emit at least 10 tpy of any one HAP or regulated. Depending on the piece of
reported in chronic abusers (those that 25 tpy of any combination of HAP. All process equipment, you have the option
inhale toluene or other toluene- emission sources at a facility, not just of complying with any of several
containing substances) exposed to high those related to asphalt processing or formats. These formats include a PM
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 17:37 Nov 20, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21NOP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 21NOP3
58614 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules
emission limit, expressed in terms of (e.g., blowing stills) for which testing of also provides the option for coating
kilograms of PM per megagram (kg/Mg) the control device inlet is impractical. mixers, saturators (including wet
of product manufactured, a THC percent Additionally, saturators (including loopers and coaters), sealant applicators,
reduction standard, or a combustion wet loopers and coaters) at existing and adhesive applicators at existing
efficiency standard. asphalt roofing manufacturing lines asphalt roofing manufacturing lines to
The combustion efficiency standard is would have to meet an opacity limit, comply with either the THC or the
provided as an alternative to the THC and the emission capture system for the combustion efficiency standards instead
percent reduction standard. This option saturator (including the wet looper and of the PM and opacity standards.
is provided in the proposed rule coater) would have to meet a visible
because there are some emission sources emission standard. The proposed rule
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 capacity of 1.93 Mg (2.13 tons) or Reduce THC mass emissions by 95 percent; or
greater of asphalt, blowing still, and loading rack at existing new, and Route the emissions to a thermal oxidizer achieving a combustion effi-
reconstructed asphalt processing facilities. ciency of 99.6 percent.
Each coating mixer, saturator (including wet looper and coater), sealant Reduce THC mass emissions by 95 percent; or
applicator, and adhesive applicator at new and reconstructed asphalt Route the emissions to a thermal oxidizer achieving a combustion effi-
roofing manufacturing lines. ciency of 99.6 percent.
The total emissions from the coating mixer, saturator (including wet Limit PM emissions to 0.04 kg/Mg (0.08 pounds per ton) of asphalt
looper and coater), sealant applicator, and adhesive applicator at shingle or mineral-surfaced roll roofing produced, or 0.4 kg/Mg (0.8
each existing asphalt roofing manufacturing line.. pounds per ton) of saturated felt or smooth-surfaced roll roofing pro-
Each saturator (including wet looper and coater) at an existing or new Limit exhaust gases to 20 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? F. What Are the Testing and Initial demonstrate compliance. You would
Compliance Requirements? use EPA method 10 to measure CO
We are proposing that existing emissions and EPA method 3A to
sources would have to comply with the You would have to conduct a
measure CO2 emissions. You would
NESHAP no later than [DATE 3 YEARS performance test to demonstrate initial
demonstrate compliance with the PM
AFTER THE DATE THE FINAL RULE IS compliance with the NESHAP emission
emission limit, THC percent reduction
PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register]. limits. As specified in § 63.7(e) of the
standard, and the combustion efficiency
The 3-year period is necessary to allow NESHAP general provisions (40 CFR
standard using the instructions and
owners and operators sufficient time to part 63, subpart A), performance tests
equations in the performance test
design, purchase, and install emission would have to be conducted under
requirement section of these proposed
capture systems and air pollution normal operating conditions. To ensure
control equipment. New or that compliance can be achieved over
the entire range of operating conditions, The proposed NESHAP also contain
reconstructed sources would have to opacity and visible emission standards
comply with the NESHAP at startup or the performance tests should be
conducted under the operating for saturators at an existing asphalt
[DATE THE FINAL RULE IS roofing manufacturing line. Opacity and
PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register], conditions that reflect the highest rate of
asphalt processing or roofing production visible emission compliance
whichever is later. determinations would be made using
reasonably expected to be achieved by
If your asphalt processing facility or the facility. For example, performance EPA methods 9 and 22, respectively, in
asphalt roofing manufacturing line is tests of roofing manufacturing line appendix A of 40 CFR part 60.
located at a facility that is an area source equipment should be conducted while You would have to install, calibrate,
which increases its emissions or its manufacturing the roofing product with maintain, and operate a continuous
potential to emit such that it becomes a the greatest asphalt content. monitoring system (CMS) to monitor the
major source of HAP after [DATE THE The proposed NESHAP contain PM control device parameters. During the
FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE emission limits, a THC percent performance test, you would
Federal Register], then any portion of reduction standard, and a combustion continuously monitor and record
the existing facility that is a new efficiency standard. For these standards, control device parameters and establish
affected source or a reconstructed you would have to conduct a minimum the monitoring parameter value(s) that
affected source would have to either be of three 1-hour test runs to measure constitute compliance with the emission
in compliance with this subpart upon emissions. Compliance is determined limits. If you use a thermal oxidizer to
startup after becoming a major source or based on the average of the three test comply with the standards, you would
by [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER THE DATE runs. To measure PM, use EPA test record the average operating
THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN method 5A; for THC emissions, use EPA temperature. The temperature
THE Federal Register], whichever is test method 25A. The EPA reference monitoring device would be installed at
later. All other parts of any facility to methods are contained in appendix A of the exit of the combustion zone or in the
which this proposed rule would apply 40 CFR part 60. For the combustion ductwork immediately downstream of
would have to be in compliance with efficiency standard, you would measure the combustion zone, before any
this subpart by 3 years after becoming emissions of THC, carbon monoxide substantial heat loss occurs. If you use
a major source. (CO), and carbon dioxide (CO2) to a PM control device, you would record
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 17:37 Nov 20, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21NOP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 21NOP3
Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules 58615
the device inlet gas temperature and H. What Are the Notification, The NESHAP general provisions
pressure drop across the device. Recordkeeping and Reporting (§ 63.10(b)) require that records be
For thermal oxidizers and PM control Requirements? maintained for at least 5 years from the
devices, the parameters would have to You would have to comply with the date of each record. You would have to
be monitored and values recorded in 15- notification, recordkeeping, and retain the records onsite for at least 2
minute blocks during each of three 1- reporting requirements in 40 CFR part years. You may retain records for the
hour test runs from which you would 63, subpart A general provisions, as remaining 3 years at an offsite location.
compute the 3-hour average parameter specified in Table 7 of the proposed The records must be readily available
values. If you use a control device other rule. The notification, recordkeeping, and in a form suitable for efficient
than a thermal oxidizer or PM control and reporting requirements include, but inspection and review. The files may be
device to comply with the NESHAP, are not limited to: (1) Initial notification retained on paper, microfilm,
you would propose to the Administrator of applicability of the rule, notification microfiche, a computer, computer disks,
the appropriate monitoring parameters, of the dates for conducting the or magnetic tape. Reports may be made
monitoring frequencies, and averaging performance test, and notification of on paper or on a labeled computer disk
periods. All monitoring parameters for compliance status; (2) reports of any using commonly available and
startup, shutdown, and malfunction compatible computer software.
control devices not specified in the
proposed rule would have to be events that occur; and (3) semiannual III. Summary of Environmental, Energy
approved by the Administrator as reports of excess emissions (i.e., and Economic Impacts
specified in § 63.8(f) of the NESHAP deviations from monitoring parameter Although MACT floors must be based
general provisions. limits). When no deviations occur, you exclusively on the emission limitation
During the performance test, you would submit semiannual reports achieved by the best performing sources
would also monitor and record the indicating that no deviations have (or, for new sources, the best performing
average hourly roofing line production occurred during the period. For a source), EPA has compiled information
rate or the asphalt processing rate, as thermal oxidizer, a deviation would be on air quality impacts, costs, non-air
applicable. If you are complying with any time (excluding periods of startup, quality impacts, and energy impacts in
the PM emission limit, you would also shutdown and malfunction) that the compliance with Executive Orders. We
determine the asphalt content of the operating temperature falls below the estimate the proposed NESHAP would
product manufactured during the limit established during the initial affect a total of 18 existing facilities (ten
performance test. performance test. For a PM control asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
device, a deviation would be any time facilities and eight petroleum
G. What Are the Continuous (excluding periods of startup, shutdown refineries). We estimated the number of
Compliance Provisions? and malfunction) that the temperature major sources by estimating emissions
of the gas at the inlet to the control using emission factors and available
After the performance test, you would
device or the pressure drop across the production data and extrapolating
have to demonstrate continuous
control device are above their respective potential emissions from actual
compliance with the emission limits by
limits established during the initial emissions. We identified major facilities
monitoring either control device or
performance test. for the purposes of estimating
process operating parameters. The You would have to maintain records
parameters would have to remain emissions, emission reductions, control
of the following, as applicable: (1) costs, and monitoring, recordkeeping,
within the limits established during the Thermal oxidizer operating temperature;
initial performance test. and reporting costs only. It should be
(2) PM control device inlet gas noted that facilities may not necessarily
If you use a thermal oxidizer or PM temperature and pressure drop; (3) be major sources for the purposes of
control device to achieve compliance approved parameters for sources that determining applicability of these
with the emission limits, you would comply with the emission limits using proposed NESHAP because they were
have to monitor the following operating a control device other than a thermal identified as major by our estimates.
parameters, determining and recording oxidizer or PM control device; and (4) Likewise, facilities would not be
the parameter values in 15-minute and the date and time a deviation relieved from complying with these
3-hour block averages: commenced if a monitoring parameter proposed NESHAP because they were
• The operating temperature for deviation occurs, the date and time not identified as major sources in our
thermal oxidizers, corrective actions were initiated and estimates.
completed, a description of the cause of
• The inlet gas temperature and A. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
the deviation, and a description of the
pressure drop across the device for PM
corrective actions taken. You would also Baseline HAP emissions from the
prepare a startup, shutdown, and asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
If you use a control device other than malfunction plan and maintain records manufacturing facilities that would be
a thermal oxidizer or PM control device of actions taken during these events, as subject to the proposed NESHAP are
to achieve compliance with the required by § 63.6(e)(3) of the NESHAP estimated to be 192 Mg/yr (212 tpy).
emission limits, you would have to general provisions. The proposed rule Baseline THC emissions are estimated to
monitor the parameters that were also includes a requirement to develop be 173 Mg/yr (191 tpy). The baseline
established during the initial and make available for inspection by the emission estimates were developed
performance test and approved by the permitting authority, upon request, a using equipment, control device, and
Administrator. To change the value of site-specific monitoring plan that production rate data reported in a 1995
any monitored parameter, you would specifies how the continuous parameter industry survey. The proposed NESHAP
have to conduct a performance test and monitoring system will be installed, would reduce HAP emissions by 8.87
submit a request to the Administrator operated, and maintained, as well as the Mg/yr (9.78 tpy) and THC by 135 Mg/
for approval using the procedures data quality assurance procedures and yr (149 tpy). The proposed NESHAP
specified in § 63.8(f) of the NESHAP ongoing recordkeeping and reporting would also reduce PM emissions from
general provisions. procedures. asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 17:37 Nov 20, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21NOP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 21NOP3
58616 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules
manufacturing facilities. However, we is estimated to be $2.16 million. The market impacts described above, the
do not have sufficient data to estimate capital costs arise from the purchase of proposed rule created both gainers and
baseline emissions or emission emission capture systems and control losers within the asphalt roofing and
reductions for PM. The HAP reductions devices. The total annualized cost is processing industry. The majority of
that would be achieved by these estimated to be $758,000. The facilities, almost 76 percent, are
proposed NESHAP are limited because annualized costs for the industry expected to experience profit increases
most of the emission sources in the include the annualized capital cost of with the proposed rule; however, there
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing emission capture systems and control are some facilities projected to lose
manufacturing industry are currently devices and operation, maintenance, profits (about 8 percent). Furthermore,
controlled, and because these proposed supervisory labor, maintenance the economic impact analysis indicates
NESHAP would not require control of materials, utilities, administrative that of the 123 existing asphalt roofing
HCl emissions. charges, taxes, and insurance. It is and processing facilities, none are at
The baseline emissions and emission estimated that the industry will spend risk of closure because of the proposed
reductions do not include contributions an additional industrywide average of standards. Therefore, none of the
from area sources because they would $250,000 per year for monitoring, companies that own asphalt roofing and
not be subject to the proposed NESHAP. recordkeeping, and reporting to comply processing facilities are projected to
The estimates also do not include with the proposed NESHAP. This close due to this proposed rule.
contributions from petroleum refineries results in a total annualized cost of Based on the market analysis, the
because we did not have sufficient data $1.01 million. annual social costs of the proposed rule
(production rates for blowing stills or The total capital and annualized costs is projected to be about $1.01 million.
population sizes or control devices for cited above do not include the control The estimated social costs differ from
storage tanks and loading racks) to costs for asphalt processing facilities the projected engineering costs by less
estimate baseline emissions or emission that would be subject to the proposed than 0.01 percent for this proposed rule.
reductions from those sources. We NESHAP that are located at petroleum These two costs differ because social
believe, based on limited information, refineries. For petroleum refineries, we costs account for producer and
most if not all asphalt processing did not have data on actual production consumer behavior. These social costs
facilities at petroleum refineries are well rates for blowing stills or the are distributed across the many
controlled using thermal oxidizers. populations, capacities, and types of consumers and producers of asphalt
Therefore, little additional emission control devices used for storage tanks roofing and processing products. For
reduction would occur. However, we and loading racks. The capital and this proposed rule, the producers of
are specifically requesting comment on annualized costs are anticipated to be asphalt roofing and processing products,
the current level of control of asphalt significantly less for petroleum in aggregate, are expected to incur about
processing facilities located at refineries than asphalt processing and $0.46 million annually in costs, while
petroleum refineries. asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities the consumers of asphalt roofing and
The proposed NESHAP would also because most of the blowing stills at processing products are expected to
likely cause an increase in emissions of these sources are already controlled. incur $0.55 million annually across the
nitrogen oxides (NOX), CO, and sulfur Additionally, refineries typically have product markets.
dioxide (SO2) due to increased use of existing combustion sources (flares, The economic analysis also addressed
thermal oxidizers as control devices. process heaters, and boilers) that can be potential changes in new asphalt roofing
The estimated secondary impacts of used as control devices. The only cost and processing facility construction for
NOX, CO, and SO2 are approximately anticipated for petroleum refineries will the year following promulgation of this
32.0, 53.8, and 0.385 Mg/yr (35.3, 59.3, be for emission capture systems. rule. This was done by estimating the
and 0.424 tpy), respectively. These total annualized costs for new facilities
C. What Are the Economic Impacts? and projecting changes in equilibrium
estimates are based on the amount of
exhaust and auxiliary fuel that will be The Agency conducted a detailed output due to the proposed rule. The
burned at the ten asphalt processing and economic impact analysis to determine economic impact analysis estimated a
asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities the market- and industry-level impacts very small reduction in the growth of
that are estimated to be major sources. associated with the proposed rule. The the asphalt industry represented by a
compliance costs of today’s proposed small reduction in equilibrium output of
B. What Are the Cost Impacts? rule are expected to increase the prices asphalt products in the year following
The cost impacts for the proposed of asphalt roofing and processing promulgation. However, the reduction
NESHAP for asphalt processing and products by less than 0.1 percent across in equilibrium output was only a small
asphalt roofing manufacturing were the directly affected product markets, fraction of estimated new plant
developed using site-specific and domestic production and capacity. Thus, the control costs are not
information, obtained by an industry consumption of the affected products expected to influence the decision to
information survey distributed by the are expected to decrease by less than 0.1 enter the market for asphalt products.
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers percent also. For more information, consult the
Association (ARMA), and the In terms of industry impacts, the Economic Impact Analysis report
procedures contained in the Office of asphalt roofing and processing supporting this proposed rule.
Air Quality Planning and Standards manufacturers are projected to
(OAQPS) Control Cost Manual. For experience a decrease in operating D. What Are the Non-Air Health,
some facilities where site-specific data profits of about 0.1 percent, which Environmental and Energy Impacts?
necessary for estimating costs (e.g., a reflects the compliance costs associated Spent filter media from certain types
vent flow rate) were not available, with the production of asphalt roofing of PM control devices (e.g., high-
average factors developed from the and processing products and the efficiency air filters) is periodically
industry data were used. resulting reductions in revenues due to replaced and disposed of as solid waste.
The total capital cost for the industry the increase in the prices of the directly Although many of the emission sources
to achieve compliance with the affected product markets and reduced subject to the proposed NESHAP are
proposed NESHAP for existing facilities quantities purchased. Through the already controlled by PM devices, an
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 17:37 Nov 20, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21NOP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 21NOP3
Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules 58617
increase in the generation of spent filter coater, coating mixers, sealant C. How Did We Select the Pollutants To
media is expected as a result of the applicators, adhesive applicators, and Regulate?
proposed NESHAP. However, we do not associated storage tanks. The available emission data show that
have sufficient data to quantify this Asphalt storage tanks at asphalt HAP are emitted from asphalt
anticipated increase in solid waste processing and asphalt roofing processing and asphalt roofing
generation. manufacturing facilities that are manufacturing facilities. As discussed
No water impacts are anticipated due collocated may be shared by the two previously in section I.D of this
to the proposed NESHAP since none of operations. If the asphalt roofing preamble, HAP emitted from the sources
the control devices expected to be used manufacturing line is collocated with an that would be regulated by these
to comply with the proposed NESHAP asphalt processing facility, the storage proposed NESHAP can be present in
require the use of water or generate tanks that receive asphalt directly from both gaseous and condensed PM forms,
wastewater streams. the on-site blowing stills would be depending on the temperature of the
Increased energy usage is expected defined as part of the asphalt processing vent or exhaust gas.
due to the proposed NESHAP. affected source. For the purposes of this proposed
Electricity is required to power fans for A facility that manufactures asphalt rule, the HAP emitted from asphalt
emission capture systems, and new roofing may have more than one processing and asphalt roofing
thermal oxidizers will require manufacturing line. At these facilities, manufacturing facilities have been
supplemental fuel (e.g., natural gas) to asphalt storage tanks and sealant and divided into three categories: Total
efficiently combust the HAP vent adhesive applicators may be shared by gaseous organic HAP, total particulate
streams. The estimated annual increase roofing manufacturing lines. A shared organic HAP, and HCl.
in electricity consumption is 0.787 storage tank would be considered part of Total Gaseous Organic HAP. We are
million kilowatt hours. The the asphalt roofing manufacturing line proposing to regulate gaseous HAP
approximate increase in natural gas to which the tank supplies the greatest emissions using THC as a surrogate.
consumption is 12.0 million standard amount of asphalt, on an annual basis. Total hydrocarbons are an appropriate
cubic feet per year. These estimates are A sealant or adhesive applicator that is surrogate for total HAP, since organic
for the ten facilities considered to be shared by two or more asphalt roofing HAP constitute a significant portion of
major sources. manufacturing lines would be the THC. Controlling THC would result
IV. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed considered part of the line that provides in a proportionate amount of organic
Standards the greatest throughput to the HAP control.
applicator, on an annual basis. Total Particulate Organic HAP.
A. How Did We Select the Source This definition of affected source Particulate matter emitted from blowing
Categories To Regulate? would also be used to determine if new stills consists of condensed organic
In section 112(c)(2), the CAA requires source standards apply when subject hydrocarbons. For organic HAP that are
that we regulate each category of major equipment is ‘‘constructed’’ or present in condensed PM form, we are
sources of HAP. An initial list of source ‘‘reconstructed,’’ as defined in the proposing to use PM as a surrogate.
categories was published on July 16, NESHAP general provisions (§ 63.2). We Similarly to the THC surrogate for
1992 (57 FR 31576) and, pursuant to defined the affected source as the gaseous HAP, PM is an appropriate
section 112(c)(1) of the CAA, we have asphalt processing facility or asphalt surrogate because it would include the
revised the list on four occasions in roofing manufacturing line rather than HAP that would be emitted as
response to public comment or new on a narrow equipment-piece basis condensed PM. Controlling PM would
information. Asphalt processing and because we believe that it is result in a proportionate amount of
asphalt roofing manufacture are on the inappropriate for small changes (e.g., condensed particulate organic HAP
list of source categories because these the addition of a sealant applicator to a control.
processes can be major sources of HAP manufacturing line) to trigger the new Hydrogen Chloride. We are proposing
or located at major sources of HAP. source emission limits for only part of not to regulate HCl emissions associated
Hazardous air pollutants are any of the the manufacturing line. For asphalt with blowing stills that use chlorinated
188 chemicals listed under section processing facilities, this is not a catalysts. The reasons are discussed in
112(b) of the CAA. The proposed concern since the existing and new section IV.D of this preamble.
NESHAP do not apply to processes that source standards are the same. However,
the existing and new source standards D. How Did We Determine the Basis and
are located at area sources.
are substantially different for asphalt Level of the Proposed Standards for
B. How Did We Select the Affected roofing manufacturing lines. Existing and New Sources?
Sources? For asphalt roofing manufacturing How did we determine the MACT
The affected sources are the pieces of lines, the new source emission limits floor? The majority of data used for the
process equipment that are subject to would be triggered only when an entire MACT floor analysis were obtained
the NESHAP emission limits. The two new line is added or when an existing from responses to a survey distributed
affected sources in this proposal are line is reconstructed. This is appropriate by ARMA in 1995. We reviewed the
defined as each asphalt processing because the manufacture of roofing survey information and obtained
facility and each asphalt roofing products is a continuous process, with clarifications and additional
manufacturing line. An asphalt the equipment for the different process information in subsequent meetings
processing facility includes the steps arranged in sequence. with representatives of the asphalt
following process equipment: Blowing Consequently, an increase in production processing and asphalt roofing
stills, asphalt flux storage tanks, cannot be achieved simply by adding a manufacturing industry.
oxidized asphalt storage tanks, and single piece of process equipment (e.g., Approximately half of the asphalt
oxidized asphalt loading racks. An a coater). To increase production processing and roofing manufacturing
asphalt roofing manufacturing line capacity, the entire line would have to facilities in the industry responded to
includes the following process be modified or a new line would need the survey. Because the survey was not
equipment: A saturator, a wet looper, a to be constructed. targeted at a specific subset of the
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 17:37 Nov 20, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21NOP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 21NOP3
58618 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules
industry (for example, large facilities or this approach provides assurance that pieces were ranked in order of level of
well-controlled facilities), we believe the resulting MACT floors for each piece control. The categories of control, in
the collected data provide a generally of equipment, when combined, would descending order of HAP emission
representative sample of the industry, not be less stringent than the MACT reduction, are as follows: thermal
but may in fact be slightly biased to floor for the affected source as a whole. oxidizers operating at or above 1200
larger, well-controlled facilities that had Section 112(d)(3)(A) of the CAA degrees Fahrenheit (°F); thermal
the resources to respond to the survey. requires that standards be no less oxidizers operating below 1200°F; PM
The survey requested information on stringent than ‘‘the average emission control devices (e.g., high-velocity air
the types of products manufactured, limitation achieved by the best filters (HVAF), electrostatic
process equipment, and control devices performing 12 percent of existing precipitators (ESP); fiberbed filters) used
used in asphalt processing and roofing sources * * * for categories and to comply with the asphalt new source
manufacturing operations. Data were subcategories with 30 or more sources.’’ performance standard (NSPS) (40 CFR
provided on the following types of We have interpreted this language to 60, subpart UU); PM control devices not
equipment which have been identified mean that EPA first determines the used to comply with the asphalt NSPS;
as sources of HAP emissions: blowing emission limitations achieved by and no control device.
stills, loading racks, storage tanks, sources within the best performing 12 We ranked thermal oxidizers over PM
coaters, saturators, wet loopers, coating percent and then averages those control devices because thermal
mixers, sealant applicators and adhesive limitations. In this proposal, we oxidizers reduce both gaseous HAP and
applicators. Data characterizing the interpret the term ‘‘average’’ to mean the condensed HAP. Particulate matter
performance of control devices were not mean, median, or mode, or some other control devices control only the HAP
collected by the survey. Data for measure of central tendency. In most that have condensed into PM at the
blowing stills at petroleum refineries cases, ‘‘average’’ is interpreted to be the operating temperature of the control
(which were gathered to support arithmetic mean or the median. The device.
development of the petroleum refineries choice between using the median value Thermal oxidizers operating at or
NESHAP but were not covered by those or mean value depends on which value above 1200°F were considered to
NESHAP) were included in the MACT best represents the central tendency of achieve a greater emission reduction
floor analysis for blowing stills. the data. For asphalt processing and than those operating below 1200°F. This
To establish the MACT floor, we roofing sources, we have determined conclusion was based on a study of
considered two approaches: determine that the median best represents the thermal oxidizers that found that most
the MACT floor across the affected central tendency. For most pieces of hydrocarbons are destroyed at a
source as a whole, and determine the equipment, the control devices used by temperature of 1200°F or above.
MACT floor for each type of process the best performing 12 percent are Although operating temperatures for
equipment. To determine the MACT limited to two types (thermal oxidizers thermal oxidizers reported in the survey
floor using the first approach, a mass and PM control devices). A mean range up to 1600°F, thermal oxidizers
emission limit or a mass emission destruction efficiency would result in a operating at or above 1200°F were not
reduction percentage across the affected floor that does not correspond to any further subdivided. The EPA/ARMA test
source as a whole must be established. actual control device in use. The program showed no consistent increase
For the definition of affected source in median of the best performing 12 in emission reduction with increased
this proposal, this approach would percent of sources was identified to temperatures above 1200°F. For
require determination of the best determine the MACT floor for blowing example, the THC destruction
performing 12 percent of the asphalt stills, loading racks, storage tanks, efficiencies for some test runs of a
processing facilities and asphalt roofing coaters, coating mixers, and sealant and thermal oxidizer operating at 1400°F
manufacturing lines. However, the data adhesive applicators. were less than the destruction
currently available are not sufficient to For saturators and wet loopers, we efficiencies achieved at 1250°F, while
establish either a mass emission limit or have data for less than 30 pieces of other runs were greater than the
a percent reduction for entire affected equipment. Section 112(d)(3)(B) of the efficiencies achieved at 1600°F.
sources. The variety of equipment CAA requires that standards be no less Particulate matter control devices
configurations used in the asphalt stringent than ‘‘the average emission used to comply with the emission limits
processing and asphalt roofing limitation achieved by the best of the asphalt NSPS were assumed to be
manufacturing industries makes it performing five sources * * * for better performing than those that were
difficult to compare mass emissions or categories or subcategories with fewer not. This assumption was based on the
overall levels of control from various than 30 sources.’’ Therefore, the MACT fact that a performance test is required
affected sources. For example, not all floor for saturators and wet loopers is to demonstrate compliance with the
processing facilities, especially those based on the average emission asphalt NSPS PM emission limits. After
collocated with roofing manufacturing limitation achieved by the best the performance test, continuous
facilities, have loading racks. performing five sources, rather than the compliance with the emission limits is
Additionally, adequate test data for best performing 12 percent of sources. demonstrated by monitoring the inlet
estimating uncontrolled emissions and As with other equipment, the median of gas temperature. We ranked the PM
the emission reductions associated with the five best performing sources was control devices above no control
the variety of control devices used are determined to best represent the central because PM emissions contain
not available. tendency of the data. condensed HAP and, in controlling PM,
Consequently, we have decided to To identify the best performing some HAP control is achieved.
establish the existing and new source sources and the median level of Blowing Stills. All blowing stills emit
MACT floors for each type of process emission reduction, we determined the organic HAP. However, blowing stills in
equipment used in asphalt processing level of control for each piece of process which a chlorinated catalyst is used to
facilities and in asphalt roofing equipment based on the type of control promote the oxidation reaction also
manufacturing lines. We believe that device installed and the operating produce emissions of chlorinated
this approach is the most appropriate characteristics of the control device. For compounds. When these compounds are
use of the available data. Additionally, each equipment type, the equipment combusted in the thermal oxidizer
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 17:37 Nov 20, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21NOP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 21NOP3
Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules 58619
typically used to control blowing still use a catalyst in the asphalt flux All of the best performing 12 percent of
emissions, HCl emissions are produced. blowing operation or an acceptable loading racks are controlled with a
Because different methods are used to asphalt product for roofing materials thermal oxidizer operating at or above
control organic HAP and HCl, separate cannot be produced. Thus, for these 1200°F. Therefore, a thermal oxidizer
analyses were conducted to identify the sources, use of a catalyst (with operating at or above 1200°F is the basis
MACT floor for organic HAP and HCl consequent HCl emissions when other for the MACT floor for loading racks at
from blowing stills. organic emissions are controlled with a existing, new, and reconstructed
We have control device information thermal oxidizer control device) is a affected sources.
for 91 blowing stills. Organic HAP necessity unless asphalt production is Coaters. We have control device
emissions from all of these blowing discontinued. This, of course, is not an information for 73 coaters. Of the nine
stills are controlled using a thermal intended result from application of best performing coaters (the best
oxidizer. All of the best performing 12 MACT. See H. Rep. No. 490, 101st Cong. performing 12 percent of sources), four
percent of blowing stills are controlled 2d sess. 328 (‘‘However, MACT is not are controlled with a thermal oxidizer
with a thermal oxidizer operating at or intended * * * to drive sources to the operating at or above 1200°F, and five
above 1200°F. Therefore, a thermal brink of shutdown’’). with a PM control device that is subject
oxidizer operating at or above 1200°F is Consequently, control of HCl to the asphalt NSPS limits. The median,
the basis for the floor for control of emissions through substitution of higher or fifth, source is controlled with a PM
organic HAP from blowing stills at quality asphalt flux is not an achievable control device that is subject to the
existing, new, and reconstructed means of control, because such higher asphalt NSPS limits. Therefore, the floor
affected sources. quality flux is not consistently or level of control for coaters at existing
Of the 91 blowing stills for which we reliably available, i.e., there is generally affected sources is based on a PM
have data, 37 use a chloride-based not enough higher quality flux available control device that achieves the asphalt
catalyst. In considering a potential floor at any one time for the demand. Since NSPS limits. The floor for coaters at
for HCl emissions from these sources, this potential means of control is not new and reconstructed affected sources
we considered both at-the-stack controls duplicable (i.e., not consistently or is based on a thermal oxidizer operating
and prohibiting chlorinated catalyst use reliably available to all sources), at or above 1200°F.
as a potential basis for a standard. None standards based on this means of Coating Mixers. We have data for 60
of these facilities use a control device to control would not be achievable, as
reduce HCl emissions generated by the coating mixers. Of the eight coating
required by section 112(d)(2) of the Act. mixers that represent the best
thermal oxidizer. Therefore, an add-on EPA consequently is not proposing a
control device (i.e., a further control in performing 12 percent, three are
floor standard based on the unavailable controlled with a thermal oxidizer
addition to the thermal oxidizer, which means of process substitution.1
is itself an add-on control device) operating at or above 1200°F, three are
Because there are no control devices controlled with a PM control device that
cannot be the basis for a floor standard in use to control HCl from blowing still
for HCl emissions. is subject to the asphalt NSPS limits,
thermal oxidizers and disallowing the and two are controlled with a PM
The only other potential MACT floor
use of catalyst is not a technically control device that is not used to
for HCl emissions that we considered
achievable option for all sources, the comply with the asphalt NSPS. The
(and the only potential means available)
MACT floor for HCl emissions at fourth and fifth coating mixers,
was the pollution prevention option of
existing, new, and reconstructed representing the median, are controlled
not allowing use of a chlorinated
affected sources is based on no emission with a PM control device that is subject
catalyst. This would eliminate HCl
reduction. to the asphalt NSPS limits. Therefore,
emissions from the thermal oxidizer.
We do not believe this proposal is the MACT floor for coating mixers at
Well over 12 percent of blowing stills do
inconsistent with the holding in existing affected sources is based on a
not use a catalyst. However, the need to
National Lime v. EPA, 233 F. 3d 625 PM control device that achieves the
use catalyst is driven by the type of
(D.C. Cir. 2000). That case remanded asphalt NSPS limits. The floor for
asphalt feedstocks used.
The asphalt flux used in the MACT standards of no control for coating mixers at new and reconstructed
production of asphalt roofing materials consideration of whether various types affected sources is based on a thermal
is a by-product of the petroleum refining of process substitution could establish a oxidizer operating at or above 1200°F.
process. Because the characteristics of MACT floor. 233 F. 3d at 634. There was Saturators and Wet Loopers. We have
crude oil are highly variable, the quality no showing, however, that such means data for less than 30 saturators and less
of the asphalt flux that remains after the of control were unavailable (so that than 30 wet loopers, therefore the floor
refinery distillation processes also plant closure was the only alternative for these types of equipment is based on
varies. Also, the degree of refining has should standards based on process the ‘‘average’’ emission limit achieved
an effect on the suitability of the asphalt substitution be adopted). Nor was by the five best performing sources. Of
flux for use in manufacturing asphalt National Lime a situation where the five best performing saturators, one
roofing products. Because the demand emission of one HAP resulted from is controlled with a thermal oxidizer
for high-quality asphalt flux can application of control technology for operating at or above 1200°F, one is
sometimes be greater than the supply other HAPs. controlled by a thermal oxidizer
and because high-quality feedstocks Loading Racks. We have control operating below 1200°F, and the
might not be available in a particular device information for 52 loading racks. remaining saturators, including the
region, some roofing manufacturers 1 The situation might also be conceptualized in
median source, are controlled with a PM
must accept lower quality feedstock. terms of subcategories: plants that produce asphalt
control device that is subject to the
Catalysts must be used to attain the using higher quality flux, and those without access asphalt NSPS limits. A PM control
desired roofing product specifications if to higher quality flux producing asphalt using device that achieves the asphalt NSPS
certain low-quality asphalt flux catalysts. The higher quality flux process limits is therefore the basis for the floor
subcategory controls HCl emissions through its
feedstocks (e.g., the flux derived from process (in essence, there are no such emissions);
for saturators at existing affected
crude oils that have been extensively the catalyst subcategory does not control HCl sources. A thermal oxidizer operating at
refined) are used. These sources must emissions at the floor level. or above 1200°F is the basis for the floor
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 17:37 Nov 20, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21NOP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 21NOP3
58620 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules
for saturators at new and reconstructed 1200°F and four applicators are reconstructed affected sources, the
affected sources. controlled with a PM control device MACT floor is based on a PM control
All of the five best performing wet subject to the asphalt NSPS limits. device complying with the asphalt
loopers are controlled with a PM control Because there are an even number of NSPS. For storage vessels with a
device that is subject to the asphalt control devices in the top 12 percent, capacity of 1.93 megagrams or greater at
NSPS limits. Therefore, the floor for wet there is no clear median control. existing, new, and reconstructed asphalt
loopers at existing, new, and However, as stated previously, the roofing manufacturing lines, the MACT
reconstructed affected sources is based database of applicators includes only floor is based on a thermal oxidizer
on a PM control device that achieves the those of companies that responded to operating at or above 1200°F.
asphalt NSPS limits. the survey, which may be biased toward How did we consider beyond-the-floor
Asphalt Storage Tanks. As discussed the better-controlled facilities (those options? There are three groups of
previously, storage tanks may be with more available resources to equipment for which we identified
associated with either asphalt respond). In light of this uncertainty, potential options for achieving emission
processing or asphalt roofing and the fact that there is no clear reductions more stringent than the floor
manufacturing or shared between the median source, we have assumed that (beyond-the-floor options): saturators,
two source categories at collocated some bias may exist toward reporting of wet loopers, coaters, coating mixers, and
facilities. To address the possibility that better-controlled facilities. The lesser- sealant and adhesive applicators at
the floor for asphalt storage tanks would controlled nonrespondents, if included existing sources; blowing stills that use
be different for asphalt processing and in the floor determination, would then a chlorinated catalyst at existing, new,
asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities, produce an identifiable median of PM and reconstructed sources; and wet
we performed the floor analysis for five control at the NSPS level. This would loopers at new and reconstructed
different groupings of facilities: facilities thus cause us to identify a more sources.
that only process asphalt, facilities that stringent MACT floor than if we have For all other equipment (blowing
only manufacture roofing products, information on all applicators. stills, loading racks, and storage tanks at
facilities that both process asphalt and Consequently, to allow for any bias that existing, new, and reconstructed
manufacture roofing products, facilities may exist in the database due to this sources; and for saturators, coaters,
that process asphalt (including stand- marginal uncertainty, we have coating mixers, and sealant and
alone and collocated asphalt processing determined that the average emission adhesive applicators at new and
facilities), and all facilities. limitation achieved by the best reconstructed sources), the MACT floor
In addition, storage tanks can vary in is based on a thermal oxidizer operating
performing 12 percent is more
function based on the material stored. with a minimum operating temperature
appropriately represented by the
Large bulk storage tanks are used to of 1200°F. There are no known
emission reduction achieved for the
store asphalt flux and oxidized asphalt; technologies in use at asphalt
fifth-ranked applicator, which is
modified bitumen tanks are used to mix processing or roofing manufacturing
controlled with a PM control device
asphalt flux and plastic modifiers; and facilities or similar sources that would
relatively small process tanks, such as subject to the asphalt NSPS limits. The
be capable of achieving a greater
sealant and adhesive tanks, supply MACT floor of applicators at existing
emission reduction than these thermal
asphalt directly to the roofing line. To affected sources is based on a PM
oxidizers and, thus, no beyond-the-floor
address the possibility that the level of control device achieving the asphalt
options were considered.
emission reduction is related to the NSPS limits, and the MACT floor for We also considered whether facilities
function of a tank, we grouped the tanks applicators at new and reconstructed could use ‘‘cleaner’’ or lower-emitting
by the type of material stored, as an sources is based on a thermal oxidizer asphalt feedstocks when processing
indication of the tank’s function. The operating at or above 1200°F. asphalt or manufacturing roofing
material groupings included: asphalt In summary, the MACT floor for the products as a beyond-the-floor option
flux, oxidized asphalt, modified equipment at existing, new, and for all equipment at existing, new, and
bitumen, and sealant and adhesive. reconstructed asphalt processing reconstructed affected sources. We do
We found that, regardless of the facilities (blowing stills, loading racks, not have data to determine the
facility or material grouping, a thermal and storage tanks with capacity of 1.93 relationship between HAP emissions
oxidizer operating at or above 1200°F is megagrams or greater) is based on a and various types of feedstocks.
the basis for the MACT floor for storage thermal oxidizer operating at or above Additionally, we do not have sufficient
tanks at existing, new, and 1200°F for control of organic HAP. With data to determine definitively whether
reconstructed affected sources. the exception of asphalt storage tanks, this is a viable option, although we
Through the MACT floor analysis, we the MACT floor for equipment at believe that it is not feasible because a
determined, based on available data, existing asphalt roofing manufacturing facility’s choice of feedstocks is dictated
that no sources are using a thermal lines (coaters, saturators, wet loopers, primarily by its location. For example,
oxidizer to control emissions from coating mixers and sealant and adhesive it would be impractical for an asphalt
storage tanks with a capacity less than applicators) is based on a PM control processing facility on the East coast to
1.93 megagrams (2.13 tons) of asphalt. device complying with the asphalt obtain asphalt feedstock from a
Therefore, the MACT floor level of NSPS. Compliance with the asphalt petroleum refinery on the West coast.
control does not include controlling NSPS includes limiting PM emissions to Consequently, we have determined that
tanks with capacities less than 1.93 a process weight-based limit and restricting the type of feedstock used is
megagrams. complying with opacity and visible not technically achievable for all
Sealant and Adhesive Applicators. emission limits. For the coaters, sources, and, therefore, cannot be
There are 60 applicators for which we saturators, wet loopers, coating mixers, considered as a beyond-the-floor option.
have data. Therefore, the eight best and sealant and adhesive applicators at Saturators, Wet Loopers, Coaters,
performing applicators represent the top new and reconstructed affected sources, Coating Mixers, and Sealant and
12 percent of sources. Of these, four the MACT floor is based on a thermal Adhesive Applicators at Existing
applicators are controlled with a oxidizer operating at or above 1200°F. Sources. For saturators, wet loopers,
thermal oxidizer operating at or above For wet loopers at new and coating mixers, coaters, and sealant and
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 17:37 Nov 20, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21NOP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 21NOP3
Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules 58621
adhesive applicators at existing affected However, there are currently no asphalt operating at a minimum of 1200°F was
sources, the floor is based on a PM processing facilities using gas scrubbers considered as a beyond-the-floor option.
control device used to comply with the to control HCl emissions. Additionally, Because new affected sources will be
asphalt NSPS limits. The level of catalyst is not added continuously to the required to control all blowing stills,
control achieved by a thermal oxidizer blowing still, but at the beginning of the storage tanks with a capacity of 1.93
with a minimum operating temperature blowing cycle, resulting in variable HCl megagrams (2.13 tons) or greater,
of 1200°F was identified as the only emissions over the cycle. This loading racks, saturators, coating
beyond-the-floor option. It is estimated variability makes it difficult to assess mixers, coaters, and sealant and
that requiring a thermal oxidizer for the expected reduction efficiency of a adhesive applicators to the level of
these pieces of equipment would result given scrubber. control achieved by a thermal oxidizer,
in an total annualized cost (capital Based on the information collected by we expect a source to tie its wet looper
amortization plus operating costs) to the ARMA survey, ten asphalt exhaust stream into the other exhaust
industry of $3.3 million. The additional processing facilities in the roofing streams going to the thermal oxidizer.
emission reduction associated with this industry that are major sources use a We anticipate that the addition of wet
option is estimated to be 5.36 chlorinated catalyst. The total capital looper exhaust to the other exhaust
megagrams of HAP per year, resulting in cost for gas scrubbers for the six streams that would have to be
a cost per megagram of HAP reduced of facilities is estimated to be $1,220,000; controlled will add little, if any, cost to
$616,000 per megagram ($559,000 per the total annualized cost (capital the cost of a new thermal oxidizer.
ton of HAP.) Additionally, the option amortization plus operating costs) of the Additionally, because wet loopers are
would result in significant increases in ten gas scrubbers is estimated to be adjacent to or are part of an associated
emissions of criteria pollutants due to $4,020,000. These costs are based on saturator, controlling the wet looper
the combustion of the exhaust gas and typical scrubbers used in other along with the saturator would not
supplemental fuel. industries for similar flow rates and do require additional costs for the emission
Due to the cost per megagram of HAP not take into consideration the variable capture system. Because of this, the cost
reduction and the increase in criteria HCl emissions in asphalt processing, of adding a separate thermal oxidizer to
pollutant emissions, requiring the level and thus may be understated. Using control a wet looper at a new source was
of control achieved by a thermal these costs and estimated HCl emission not estimated.
oxidizer for saturators, wet loopers, This option would result in negligible
reductions of 168.1 Mg/yr (185.4 tpy)
coaters, coating mixers, and sealant and increases in emissions of criteria
(this reduction is based on 95 percent
adhesive applicators at existing sources pollutants due to the combustion of the
reduction, but the actual overall
is not a justifiable option at this time exhaust gas and supplemental fuel.
reduction could be less due to the
without further evaluation of the Because controlling wet loopers at new
variability of HCl emissions over the
associated risks. Therefore, the MACT affected sources is expected to add
blowing cycle) yields a cost per
for saturators, wet loopers, coating minimal if any cost to the total control
megagram of HAP removal value of cost, MACT for wet loopers at new or
mixers, coaters, and sealant and
$23,900 per megagram ($21,700 per ton) reconstructed affected sources is based
adhesive applicators at existing sources
of HCl removed. The use of gas on a thermal oxidizer operating at a
is determined to be the floor level of
scrubbers would also result in increases minimum of 1200°F.
control, which is based a PM control
in electricity usage (needed to run The MACT floor for blowing stills,
device meeting the asphalt NSPS limits.
Blowing stills that use a chlorinated scrubber pumps) and generation of solid loading racks, and storage tanks at
catalyst. Blowing stills that use a and liquid waste streams due to existing, new, and reconstructed
chlorinated catalyst produce a vent disposal of spent scrubber media. sources, and for saturators, wet loopers,
stream that contains chlorinated organic Because it is not available to sources coating mixers, coaters, and sealant and
compounds. When this vent stream is using catalyst, prohibiting the use of adhesive applicators at new and
sent to a thermal oxidizer, the catalyst is not considered a feasible reconstructed sources is based on a
chlorinated organic compounds are beyond-the-floor option. Because thermal oxidizer operating with a
oxidized to HCl which is a HAP. scrubbing has not been demonstrated as minimum operating temperature of
Typical HCl emission from a blowing an effective technology for controlling 1200°F. There are no known
still using catalyst are 0.117 kilograms HCl emissions from asphalt processing technologies in use at asphalt
per megagram of asphalt processed. and due to the potentially high cost per processing or asphalt roofing
As discussed earlier, we considered megagram of HCl reduced, we do not manufacturing facilities or similar
prohibiting catalyst as a potential MACT believe the additional cost of going sources that would be capable of
floor option for existing, new, and beyond-the-floor is warranted at this achieving a greater emission reduction,
reconstructed blowing stills but this time without a further evaluation of therefore, the MACT for these types of
option was rejected because it was risk. Therefore, because there are no equipment is the same as the MACT
determined not to be available because feasible pollution prevention practices floor.
the substitute, high quality flux, is not or demonstrated add-on control devices
consistently or reliably available to all options for controlling HCl from E. How Did We Select the Format of the
sources. This option was also blowing stills, MACT for blowing stills Standards?
considered as a beyond-the-floor option using catalyst is based on no emission The EPA and ARMA conducted a
but was rejected for the same reasons. reduction. joint test program to characterize the
Also, we considered the option of Wet Loopers at New and HAP emissions from the facilities using
requiring the addition of a scrubber to Reconstructed Sources. The floor for the MACT. Six facilities using the
control HCl emissions. wet loopers at new and reconstructed MACT were tested under the test
Emissions of HCl can be reduced by affected sources is based on a PM program (four collocated processing and
a gas scrubber using caustic scrubbing control device that is achieving the roofing facilities, one stand-alone
media. Gas scrubbers typically achieve asphalt NSPS limits. Therefore, roofing facility, and one modified
95 percent reduction of HCl emissions controlling a wet looper to achieve the bitumen facility). In general, the data
in other applications in other industries. level of control of a thermal oxidizer collected from the test program were not
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 17:37 Nov 20, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21NOP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 21NOP3
58622 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules
sufficient to develop performance outlet testing. The combustion achieved by each thermal oxidizer
standards based on HAP emissions per efficiency standard defines how well the tested by averaging the THC destruction
unit of production. First, different organic compounds in the process vent efficiency of the individual test runs
products were manufactured during the streams and the supplemental fuel are performed. We then calculated an
tests at the various facilities. Therefore, converted to CO2 by the thermal overall average THC destruction
the emissions from the different oxidizer. efficiency of 95.9 percent reduction for
facilities cannot be related on a common Particulate Matter Emissions. The all five of the thermal oxidizers tested.
basis. Second, technical problems with MACT for equipment at existing asphalt To account for variability in the
the HAP data collected, due to roofing manufacturing lines (except for performance of thermal oxidizers and
calibration errors of the instrument, asphalt storage tanks) is based on a PM ensure achievability, the standard
introduced a degree of uncertainty into control device installed to comply with deviation (0.99) of the individual
the test results. However, based in part the asphalt NSPS. However, we did not thermal oxidizer averages was
on the test program and on other have sufficient data to evaluate the subtracted from the overall average.
information, we were able to select the performance of PM control devices This resulted in an emission limit for
format of the standard for process based on HAP or THC emissions per reduction of THC emissions of 95
equipment using thermal oxidizers and unit of production or based on percent percent.
PM control devices. reduction. Therefore, the format of the An alternative expression of the
Total Hydrocarbon Emissions. The standard for PM control devices is standard for thermal oxidizers is the
basis for MACT for HAP emissions from expressed as the asphalt NSPS limits for combustion efficiency standard. To
blowing stills, loading racks and asphalt PM, opacity, and visible emissions. The establish the combustion efficiency that
storage tanks (with a capacity of 1.93 use of PM, opacity, and visible represents MACT, we used the outlet
megagrams (2.13 tons) or greater) at emissions as surrogates for HAP in this THC, CO, and CO2 concentration data
existing and new asphalt processing case is appropriate since a portion of the from the same thermal oxidizers that
facilities and for equipment at new HAP is in the form of condensed PM. were used to develop the percent
asphalt roofing manufacturing lines is reduction emission limit and the same
F. How Did We Select the Emission
use of a thermal oxidizer. Unfortunately, statistical approach (i.e., determined
the majority of the speciated HAP data overall combustion efficiency average
collected from the test program were not As discussed in the previous section, and added one standard deviation).
valid due to calibration errors during the HAP data collected from the test Using this approach, we established an
testing. However, emissions data for program were not sufficient to develop average combustion efficiency of 99.6
THC did not contain the calibration emission limits based on HAP emissions percent.
errors. Therefore, we were able to per unit of production. However, for Particulate Matter Limits. Since
evaluate the performance of thermal gaseous matter control devices, we were MACT for equipment at existing asphalt
oxidizers using THC data as a surrogate able to establish a THC percent roofing manufacturing lines (with the
for total HAP. Total hydrocarbons are an reduction standard and a combustion exception of asphalt storage tanks) is
appropriate surrogate for total HAP efficiency based on thermal oxidizer test based on a PM control device installed
since all of the HAP that are present as data. Particulate matter standards were to comply with the asphalt NSPS, we
gaseous and condensible PM are organic established for PM control devices selected the following current PM,
compounds. based on the limits specified in the opacity, and visible emission standards
Because of the lack of a common asphalt NSPS. of the asphalt NSPS as the emission
product manufactured during the Total Hydrocarbon Limits. The limits that represent MACT:
emission tests, we could not evaluate thermal oxidizers tested represent the • Limit PM emissions to 0.04 kg/Mg
the performance of the thermal basis of MACT for blowing stills, of asphalt shingle or mineral-surfaced
oxidizers based on emissions per unit of loading racks, and storage tanks at roll roofing produced, or 0.4 kg/Mg of
production. Therefore, we evaluated the existing, new, and reconstructed saturated felt or smooth-surfaced roll
thermal oxidizer performance on a THC sources, and for saturators, wet loopers, roofing;
percent reduction basis. coating mixers, coaters, and sealant and • Limit opacity emissions from the
Most facilities that would be subject adhesive applicators at new and control device exhaust to less than 20
to the proposed THC emission limit are reconstructed sources. The inlet and percent; and
expected to comply using a thermal outlet THC concentration data collected • Limit visible emissions from the
oxidizer; in fact, we are not aware of any from the test program were used to emission capture system to 20 percent.
other type of control device used at calculate the THC percent reduction (It should be noted that this limit also
asphalt processing facilities to control achieved by each of the thermal applies when the saturator is controlled
both gaseous and particulate THC. oxidizers tested. Although there were with a thermal oxidizer.)
However, testing of the thermal oxidizer variations in the calculated THC percent No additional data were available to
inlet, which is necessary to demonstrate reductions, there was not a consistent provide a basis for selecting more
compliance with a percent reduction trend of increasing THC reduction with stringent limits.
standard, may not be feasible when the increasing operating temperature, as
thermal oxidizer is used to control long as the operating temperature was G. How Did We Select the Testing and
emissions from certain emission 1200°F or greater. We believe that this Initial Compliance Requirements?
sources, such as blowing stills. Due to variability reflects normal operation of Under these proposed NESHAP, a
the nature of the organic compounds in the control devices. Therefore, we performance test would be required to
the exhaust gas and the high averaged together the THC destruction demonstrate initial compliance with the
concentrations at the thermal oxidizer efficiencies of the tested thermal emission limits. With the exception of
inlet, fouling of the testing equipment oxidizers to determine the emission PM, opacity, and visible emissions, we
can occur. To address this problem, we limits for gaseous matter control selected the EPA reference test methods
also evaluated the performance of devices. that were used in the EPA/ARMA test
thermal oxidizers on a combustion Specifically, we calculated the program to collect the original data. For
efficiency basis which only requires average THC reduction efficiency PM, opacity, and visible emissions, we
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 17:37 Nov 20, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21NOP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 21NOP3
Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules 58623
selected the EPA reference test methods $11,000, respectively. The capital cost voltage, modular designs. The PM
that are specified in the asphalt NSPS. estimates include the purchased removal performance of these devices is
However, you may use any alternative equipment cost and other ancillary adequately characterized by inlet gas
method that has been approved by the capital costs, such as planning, temperature and pressure drop. For all
Administrator under § 63.7(f) of the providing support facilities, installation, PM control devices, the inlet gas
NESHAP general provisions. calibrating the CEMS, certification tests, temperature would have to be at or
To demonstrate compliance with the and preparing a quality assurance/ below the temperature at which the
THC percent reduction standard, you quality control (QA/QC) plan. The performance test was conducted to
would measure the THC emissions at annualized cost estimates include ensure that a sufficient amount of PM
the inlet and outlet of the control device operation and maintenance, indirect has condensed from the vent gas prior
using EPA method 25A in appendix A costs, and ancillary costs, such as to entering the PM control device. The
of 40 CFR part 60. For the combustion annual relative accuracy test audits, control device pressure drop would
efficiency compliance option, you quarterly cylinder gas audits, have to be at or below the value
would measure the CO, CO2, and THC recordkeeping, reporting, and annual established during the performance test
concentrations at the thermal oxidizer reviews and updates. to ensure that the control device is
outlet using EPA reference methods 10, Although we considered requiring the providing sufficient removal of PM and
3A, and 25A in appendix A of 40 CFR use of CEMS, we believe that that the removal mechanism (e.g., filter
part 60, respectively. To determine compliance with the proposed THC, PM media) does not become plugged or
compliance with the PM emission limit, and combustion efficiency standards fouled. Although monitoring of pressure
you would measure the PM emissions at can be achieved by monitoring of drop is not required by the asphalt
the control device outlet using EPA control device parameters to determine NSPS, monitoring of inlet gas
method 5A in appendix A of 40 CFR continuous compliance with the temperature for PM control devices is
part 60. The production rate would also operating limits. Consequently, CEMS the same as the monitoring
be determined during the performance are not justified and the additional costs requirements of the asphalt NSPS. This
test for PM. The EPA methods 9 and 22 of requiring the use of a CEMS would minimizes the monitoring,
in appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 would be unreasonable. Additionally, the test recordkeeping, and reporting burden on
be used to determine the opacity and methods for determining opacity and facilities.
visible emissions, respectively. visible emissions are based on visual For thermal oxidizers used to achieve
observations and compliance can be compliance with the THC or
H. How Did We Select the Continuous
determined at any time. Based on this, combustion efficiency standards, we
and the fact that the proposed rule selected combustion zone temperature
We considered two options for contains an opacity limit for only one for monitoring. The performance of
monitoring compliance with the type of process equipment, we thermal oxidizers is dictated by the
emission limits of this proposed rule: (1) determined COMS to be unreasonable in turbulence and residence time of the
The use of continuous emission this situation. However, we are gases in the combustion zone and by the
monitoring systems (CEMS), and (2) specifically requesting comment on combustion zone temperature. For a
continuous monitoring of control device including a provision in the NESHAP to given flow rate, the turbulence and
operating parameters. Continuous allow facilities to use CEMS and COMS residence time are fixed properties.
emission monitoring systems provide a as options to parametric monitoring. Therefore, the remaining parameter
direct measurement of pollutant To demonstrate continuous necessary for determining the operation
emissions. Parameter monitoring compliance, the proposed NESHAP of the thermal oxidizer is combustion
provides a measure of the control requires continuous monitoring of zone temperature. Additionally, most
device’s operation. control device operating parameters. thermal oxidizers are already equipped
If CEMS were used to demonstrate The monitoring parameter values would with systems for monitoring and
continuous compliance with the THC have to be established during the initial recording operating temperature. The
percent reduction standard, a CEMS and performance test. Additionally, you combustion zone temperature would
flow monitors would be needed at both would have to be able to demonstrate have to be at or above the temperature
the inlet and outlet of each control compliance with the opacity and visible at which the performance test was
device to determine percent reduction. emission standards at any time. We conducted. Monitoring of combustion
For the combustion efficiency option, a believe that the monitoring zone temperature is also the same as the
CEMS would be needed to monitor the requirements will provide sufficient monitoring requirements of the asphalt
concentrations of THC, CO and CO2 at information needed to determine NSPS. For each monitoring parameter,
the thermal oxidizer outlet. For the PM continuous compliance with the you would determine 3-hour average
emission limits, a CEMS would be operating limits. At the same time, the values. We selected this averaging
needed at the control device outlet, as provisions are not labor intensive, do period to reflect operating conditions
well as a system for continuously not require expensive or complex during the performance test used to
monitoring production rates. A equipment, and do not require demonstrate initial compliance.
continuous opacity monitor system burdensome recordkeeping.
(COMS) at the control device outlet For PM devices (e.g., HVAF, ESP) I. How Did We Select the Notification,
would be needed to demonstrate used to demonstrate compliance with Recordkeeping and Reporting
continuous compliance with the opacity the PM standard for existing asphalt Requirements?
limit. roofing manufacturing line equipment, We evaluated the notification,
The capital cost of installing and we selected inlet gas temperature and recordkeeping, and reporting
calibrating a CEMS ranges from $29,000 pressure drop across the device as the requirements of the NESHAP general
to $118,000 with annualized costs of monitoring parameters. For ESP, no provisions and selected those
operating and maintaining the CEMS additional monitoring parameters (e.g., requirements determined to be the
ranging from $11,000 to $42,000. The ESP voltage) were required since the minimum necessary to determine
total capital and annualized costs for ESP used in the asphalt processing and continuous compliance with the
COMS are approximately $29,000 and roofing industries are typically low- proposed NESHAP. The requirements
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 17:37 Nov 20, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21NOP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 21NOP3
58624 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules
for notification, recordkeeping and asphalt storage tanks, and asphalt would be subject to requirements of
reporting that were selected have been loading racks. These pieces of these proposed NESHAP.
used by previous NESHAP with similar equipment can also be located at Wet-formed Fiberglass Mat
emission limit formats. petroleum refineries which are subject Manufacturing NESHAP. Wet-formed
The NESHAP general provisions to the petroleum refineries NESHAP, the fiberglass mat is used as a substrate for
notification requirements (§ 63.9) petroleum liquids and VOL storage roofing products. A small number of
include: Initial notifications, vessel NSPS, and the petroleum refinery asphalt processing and roofing facilities
notification of performance test, NSPS. also manufacture fiberglass mat. These
notification of compliance status, and The petroleum refineries NESHAP proposed NESHAP and the wet-formed
additional notifications required for include requirements for process units, fiberglass mat manufacturing NESHAP
affected sources with continuous storage tanks, and loading racks. would cover different pieces of
monitoring systems. Semiannual However, limited definitions and equipment. Therefore, while some
compliance reports and reports of applicability cut-offs make it unlikely facilities may be subject to both rules,
startup, shutdown, and malfunction that the petroleum refineries NESHAP individual pieces of equipment will be
events that occur are also required. would apply to the same pieces of subject to one or the other rule, but not
We also determined that the proposed equipment subject to these proposed both.
requirement to prepare a written, site- NESHAP. For the petroleum refineries Standards of Performance for Asphalt
specific monitoring plan is necessary to NESHAP, ‘‘asphalt’’ was intentionally Processing and Asphalt Roofing
ensure that the continuous parameter not added to the list of products Manufacture. Both the asphalt NSPS
monitoring systems are installed, produced by petroleum refining process and these proposed NESHAP regulate
operated, and maintained properly. units because asphalt processing was emissions from the following process
Because the monitoring plan does not listed as a separate source category. The equipment: Asphalt storage and process
require Administrator approval, we do asphalt storage tanks found at petroleum tanks, blowing stills, saturators, coaters,
not believe that it imposes an undue refineries store oxidized asphalt and and wet loopers. Mineral handling and
burden on the industry. asphalt flux. The petroleum refineries storage facilities are covered by the
NESHAP control requirements do not asphalt NSPS but are not covered by
J. What Is the Relationship of This
apply to storage vessels storing liquids these proposed NESHAP because these
Subpart to Other Standards?
with a maximum true vapor pressure facilities are not sources of HAP
Existing standards may apply to less than 10.4 kilopascals (kPa) at emissions. Asphalt loading racks,
facilities subject to these proposed existing sources and 3.4 kPa at new coating mixers, sealant applicators, and
NESHAP because they apply to facilities sources. Based on limited vapor adhesive applicators are covered by
at which asphalt roofing manufacturing pressure data and average operating these proposed NESHAP but not by the
or asphalt processing facilities are temperatures for asphalt tanks, it is asphalt NSPS.
located. In most cases, although other unlikely that the vapor pressure of With one exception, these proposed
standards may apply at the same asphalt would trigger the petroleum NESHAP have different emission limits
facility, the specific requirements of the refinery NESHAP control requirements. than the asphalt NSPS. For most
standards are not likely to apply to the It is estimated that the vapor pressure of equipment, these proposed NESHAP
same pieces of equipment as these asphalt at typical storage temperatures specify THC emission limits while the
proposed NESHAP. The petroleum is an order of magnitude (in the range asphalt NSPS specify PM and opacity or
refineries NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, of 0.4 kPa) less than the lower visible emission limits. Therefore, the
subpart CC); the petroleum liquids and applicability cutoff. Loading rack testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and
volatile organic liquid (VOL) storage provisions of the petroleum refineries reporting requirements of the two rules
vessel NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subparts NESHAP are limited to gasoline loading are different. The exception is for
K, Ka, and Kb); and the petroleum racks. There are no requirements in the saturators, wet loopers, and coaters
refineries NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart petroleum refineries NESHAP for constructed after November 18, 1980
J) apply to petroleum refineries, which asphalt loading racks. (the asphalt NSPS applicability date)
may also have asphalt blowing stills, Similarly to the petroleum refineries but on or before November 21, 2001.
storage tanks, and loading racks. NESHAP, the petroleum storage vessel These pieces of equipment would be
However, those standards apply to NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subparts K, Ka, considered a ‘‘new’’ source with respect
different pieces of equipment than these and Kb) apply to storage vessels at to the asphalt NSPS but would be
proposed NESHAP. Similarly, the wet- petroleum refineries, but control considered an ‘‘existing’’ source for
formed fiberglass mat manufacturing requirement applicability is limited these proposed NESHAP. The emission
NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart based on the vapor pressure of the limits and, consequently, the
HHHH) apply to fiberglass stored liquid. In the three NSPS, the procedures for testing and
manufacturing facilities, some of which lowest vapor pressure cutoff for demonstrating continuous compliance
are collocated with asphalt roofing recordkeeping requirement applicability are the same for the most part.
manufacturing facilities (fiberglass mat is 3.5 kPa (subpart Kb), and the lowest Saturators, wet loopers, and coaters
is used as a substrate in roofing vapor pressure cutoff for control that are part of an affected source that
manufacturing.) The wet-formed applicability is 5.2 kPa (subpart Kb). As was constructed or reconstructed after
fiberglass mat manufacturing NESHAP discussed previously, the vapor November 21, 2001 would be subject to
do not apply to the same pieces of pressure of asphalt flux and oxidized both the asphalt NSPS PM emission
equipment as these proposed NESHAP. asphalt would not be high enough to limits and the proposed NESHAP
The asphalt NSPS (40 CFR part 60, trigger control requirements. emission limits for THC. For these
subpart UU) apply to both the same The petroleum refineries NSPS apply pieces of equipment, we are proposing
facilities and some of the same to fluid catalytic cracking unit catalyst that compliance with the NESHAP
equipment as these proposed NESHAP. regenerators, fuel gas combustion would constitute compliance with the
Standards That Apply to Petroleum devices, and Claus sulfur recovery asphalt NSPS. Support for this finding
Refineries. These proposed NESHAP plants with a capacity greater than 20 is provided by data collected for the
would apply to asphalt blowing stills, long tons per day. None of these sources Background Information Document
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 17:37 Nov 20, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21NOP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 21NOP3
Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules 58625
(BID) for the asphalt NSPS and Office of Management and Budget C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation
information collected by the ARMA (OMB) review and the requirements of and Coordination With Indian Tribal
industry survey. The BID presents test the Executive Order. The Executive Governments
data for PM emissions from saturators Order defines ‘‘significant regulatory
controlled by an ESP, thermal oxidizer action’’ as one that is likely to result in Executive Order 13175, entitled
(operating at 1200° F), and a HVAF. The a rule that may: ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
data show that a thermal oxidizer can (1) Have an annual effect on the Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR
achieve a PM emission limit of 0.02 kg/ economy of $100 million or more, or 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA
Mg or less, which is below the asphalt adversely affect in a material way the to develop an accountable process to
NSPS emission limits. Further support economy, a sector of the economy, ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
for equating NESHAP compliance with productivity, competition, jobs, the tribal officials in the development of
asphalt NSPS compliance is provided environment, public health or safety, or regulatory policies that have tribal
by the fact that, according to the ARMA State, local, or tribal governments or implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal
survey data, four facilities are communities; implications’’ is defined in the
complying with the asphalt NSPS (2) create a serious inconsistency or Executive Order to include regulations
emission limits for saturators using a otherwise interfere with an action taken that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on
thermal oxidizer. or planned by another agency; one or more Indian tribes, on the
For blowing stills and asphalt storage (3) materially alter the budgetary relationship between the Federal
and process tanks, compliance with impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, government and the Indian tribes, or on
these proposed NESHAP would also or loan programs, or the rights and the distribution of power and
constitute compliance with the asphalt obligations of recipients thereof; or responsibilities between the Federal
NSPS. This finding is based on the fact (4) raise novel legal or policy issues government and Indian tribes.’’
that the thermal oxidizers which arising out of legal mandates, the This proposed rule does not have
provide the basis for the MACT floor are President’s priorities, or the principles tribal implications. It will not have
also controlling emissions from blowing set forth in the Executive Order. substantial direct effects on tribal
stills and asphalt storage tanks that are Pursuant to the terms of Executive governments, on the relationship
subject to the asphalt NSPS. Order 12866, it has been determined between the Federal government and
Both these proposed NESHAP and the that this proposed rule is not a Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
asphalt NSPS require inlet gas and ‘‘significant regulatory action.’’ power and responsibilities between the
operating temperature monitoring for Federal government and Indian tribes,
PM control devices and thermal B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
as specified in Executive Order 13175.
oxidizers, respectively, and specify the Executive Order 13132, entitled No affected facilities are owned or
same data reduction procedures. This ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, operated by Indian tribal governments.
proposed rule includes the additional 1999), requires EPA to develop an Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
requirement to monitor the PM control accountable process to ensure apply to this proposed rule.
device pressure drop in addition to the ‘‘meaningful and timely input by State
inlet gas temperature. and local officials in the development of D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of
The notification, recordkeeping, and regulatory policies that have federalism Children From Environmental Health
reporting requirements of the proposed implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have Risks and Safety Risks
NESHAP are more stringent than those federalism implications’’ is defined in
required by the asphalt NSPS. For Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of
the Executive Order to include
example, the asphalt NSPS does not Children from Environmental Health
regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct
require subject facilities to develop site- Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
effects on the States, on the relationship
specific performance test plans or between the national government and April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that:
startup, shutdown, and malfunction the States, or on the distribution of (1) is determined to be ‘‘economically
plans. The notifications, recordkeeping, power and responsibilities among the significant’’ as defined under Executive
and reporting required by the proposed various levels of government.’’ Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
NESHAP can be used to satisfy the This proposed rule does not have environmental health or safety risk that
asphalt NSPS requirements, except for federalism implications. It will not have EPA has reason to believe may have a
the requirements associated with substantial direct effects on the States, disproportionate effect on children. If
mineral handling and storage. on the relationship between the national the regulatory action meets both criteria,
As discussed previously, mineral government and the States, or on the EPA must evaluate the environmental
handling and storage facilities are distribution of power and health or safety effects of the planned
covered by the asphalt NSPS but are not responsibilities among the various rule on children, and explain why the
covered by these proposed NESHAP. levels of government, as specified in planned regulation is preferable to other
Compliance with these proposed Executive Order 13132. None of the potentially effective and reasonably
NESHAP would not constitute affected facilities under this proposed feasible alternatives considered by EPA.
compliance with the asphalt NSPS rule are owned or operated by State or The EPA interprets Executive Order
provisions for mineral handling and local governments. Thus, Executive 13045 as applying only to those
storage facilities. Order 13132 does not apply to this regulatory actions that are based on
V. Administrative Requirements proposed rule. health or safety risks, such that the
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 analysis required under section 5–501 of
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory and consistent with EPA policy to the Executive Order has the potential to
Planning and Review promote communications between EPA influence the regulation. This proposed
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR and State and local governments, EPA rule is not subject to Executive Order
51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA must specifically solicits comment on this 13045 because it is based on technology
determine whether the regulatory action proposed rule from State and local performance and not on health and
is ‘‘significant,’’ and therefore subject to officials. safety risks.
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 17:37 Nov 20, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21NOP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 21NOP3
58626 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules
E. Executive Order 13211, Actions for State, local, or tribal governments, in costs of about $1.01 million. There are
Concerning Regulations That the aggregate, or the private sector in no companies with compliance costs
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, any 1 year. In the Economic Impact equal to or greater than 1 percent of
Distribution or Use Assessment (EIA) for this proposed rule, their sales. No firms are expected to
This proposed rule is not subject to EPA estimates that the total nationwide close rather than incur the costs of
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions capital cost for the proposed standard is compliance with the proposed rule.
Concerning Regulations That $2.16 million. The total nationwide Furthermore, firms are not projected to
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, annual cost for the proposed standards shut down their facilities due to these
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May is $1.01 million. In addition, EPA has proposed NESHAP. For further
determined that this proposed rule information, consult the ‘‘Economic
22, 2001)) because it is not a significant
contains no regulatory requirements that Impact Analysis for the Proposed
regulatory action under Executive Order
might significantly or uniquely affect Asphalt Roofing and Processing
small governments because it contains NESHAP,’’ in docket A–95–32.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of no requirements that apply to such After considering the economic
1995 governments or impose obligations impacts of today’s proposed rule on
upon them. Therefore, this proposed small entities, I hereby certify that this
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
rule is not subject to the requirements proposed rule, if promulgated, will not
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. have a significant impact on a
Law 104–4, establishes requirements for
substantial number of small entities.
Federal agencies to assess the effects of G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as Although this proposed rule will not
their regulatory actions on State, local, Amended by the Small Business have any significant economic impacts
or tribal governments and the private Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of on a substantial number of small
sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 1996 (SBREFA) 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. entities, we continue to be interested in
EPA generally must prepare a written The RFA generally requires an agency the potential impacts of the proposed
statement, including a cost-benefit to prepare a regulatory flexibility rule on small entities and welcome
analysis, for proposed and final rules analysis of any rule subject to notice comments on issues related to such
with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may and comment rulemaking requirements impacts.
result in expenditures to State, local, or under the Administrative Procedure Act
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or H. Paperwork Reduction Act
or any other statute unless the Agency
to the private sector, of $100 million or certifies that the rule will not have a The information collection
more in any 1 year. Before promulgating significant economic impact on a requirements of this proposed rule have
an EPA rule for which a written substantial number of small entities. been submitted for approval to OMB
statement is needed, section 205 of the Small entities include small business, under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
UMRA generally requires EPA to small organizations, and small U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information
identify and consider a reasonable government jurisdictions. Collection Request (ICR) document has
number of regulatory alternatives and For purposes of assessing the impacts been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 2029.01)
adopt the least costly, most cost- of today’s proposed rule on small and a copy may be obtained from Sandy
effective, or least burdensome entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) Farmer by mail at Collection Strategies
alternative that achieves the objectives A small business according to Small Division, U.S. EPA (2822), 1200
of the rule. The provisions of section Business Administration (SBA) size Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington,
205 do not apply when they are standards by NAICS code (in this case, DC 20460–0001, by e-mail at
inconsistent with applicable law. ranging from 100 to 500 employees or email@example.com or by calling
Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to $5 million in annual sales); (2) a small (202) 260–2740. A copy may also be
adopt an alternative other than the least governmental jurisdiction that is a downloaded off the internet at http://
costly, most cost-effective, or least government of a city, county, town, www.epa.gov/icr.
burdensome alternative if the school district or special district with a The information would be used by the
Administrator publishes with the final population of less than 50,000; and (3) EPA to ensure that the asphalt
rule an explanation why that alternative a small organization that is any not-for- processing and roofing NESHAP
was not adopted. Before EPA establishes profit enterprise which is independently requirements are implemented properly
any regulatory requirements that may owned and operated and is not and are complied with on a continuous
significantly or uniquely affect small dominant in its field. basis. Records and reports are necessary
governments, including tribal In accordance with the RFA, EPA to identify asphalt processing and
governments, it must have developed conducted an assessment of the asphalt roofing facilities that might not
under section 203 of the UMRA a small proposed standards on small businesses be in compliance with the NESHAP.
government agency plan. The plan must within the asphalt roofing and Based on reported information, the
provide for notifying potentially processing industry. Based on SBA implementing agency will decide which
affected small governments, enabling NAICS-based size definitions and asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
officials of affected small governments reported sales and employment data, facilities should be inspected and what
to have meaningful and timely input in EPA identified 26 of the 40 companies records or processes should be
the development of EPA regulatory that own potentially affected asphalt inspected. Records that owners and
proposals with significant Federal roofing and processing facilities as operators of asphalt processing and
intergovernmental mandates, and small. For four of the small companies, asphalt roofing facilities maintain
informing, educating, and advising sales and employment data were not indicate whether personnel are
small governments on compliance with available; therefore, they were assumed operating and maintaining control
the regulatory requirements. to be small businesses. Although small equipment properly.
The EPA has determined that this businesses represent 65 percent of the These recordkeeping and reporting
proposed rule does not contain a companies within the source category, requirements are specifically authorized
Federal mandate that may result in they are expected to incur less than 40 by section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C.
expenditures of $100 million or more percent of the total industry compliance 7414). All information submitted to the
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 17:37 Nov 20, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21NOP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 21NOP3
Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules 58627
EPA for which a claim of confidentiality information; and transmit or otherwise Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G, 5A, 9, and
is made will be safeguarded according disclose the information. 22.
to EPA policies in 40 CFR part 2, An agency may not conduct or The search for emissions
subpart B, Confidentiality of Business sponsor, and a person is not required to measurement procedures identified 16
Information. respond to a collection of information voluntary consensus standards
We estimate the proposed NESHAP unless it displays a currently valid OMB potentially applicable to this proposed
would affect a total of 18 existing control number. The OMB control rule. Three of the voluntary consensus
facilities (10 asphalt processing and numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed standards were not available at the time
asphalt roofing facilities and 8 in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. this review was conducted. For the
petroleum refineries). We estimated the Comments are requested on the remaining 13 standards identified for
number of major sources by estimating Agency’s need for this information, the measuring emissions of the HAP or
emissions using emission factors and accuracy of the provided burden surrogates subject to emission standards
available production data and estimates, and any suggested methods in this proposed rule, we determined
extrapolating potential emission from for minimizing respondent burden, that they were impractical alternatives
actual emissions. We identified major including through the use of automated to EPA test methods for the purposes of
facilities for the purposes of estimating collection techniques. Send comments this proposed rule. Therefore, the EPA
emissions, emission reductions, control on the ICR to the Director, Collection does not intend to adopt these
costs, and monitoring, recordkeeping, Strategies Division, U.S. EPA (2822), standards. The search and review
and reporting costs only. Facilities 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, results of the voluntary methods can be
would not necessarily be major sources Washington, DC 20460–0001; and to the found in docket A–95–32 (see
for the purposes of determining Office of Information and Regulatory ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
applicability of these proposed NESHAP Affairs, Office of Management and The EPA takes comment on the
because they were identified as major by Budget, 725 17th St., NW, Washington, compliance demonstration requirements
our estimates. Likewise, facilities would DC 20503, marked ‘‘Attention: Desk in this proposed rulemaking and
not be relieved from complying with Officer for EPA.’’ Include the ICR specifically invites the public to identify
these proposed NESHAP because they number in any correspondence. Since potentially applicable voluntary
were not identified as major sources in OMB is required to make a decision consensus standards. Commenters
our estimates. We expect that existing concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 should also explain why this regulation
facilities will begin complying 3 years days after November 21, 2001, a should adopt these voluntary consensus
after promulgation of this proposed rule comment to OMB is best assured of standards in lieu of or in addition to
but will perform related activities (e.g., having its full effect if OMB receives it EPA’s standards. Emission test methods
reading and understanding the rule, by December 21, 2001. The final rule submitted for evaluation should be
conducting performance tests) before will respond to any OMB or public accompanied by a basis for the
they are in compliance. We project that comments on the information collection recommendation, including method
one new asphalt processing and asphalt requirements contained in this proposal. validation data and the procedure used
roofing facility will become subject to to validate the candidate method (if a
the proposed NESHAP during each of I. National Technology Transfer and method other than Method 301, 40 CFR
the first 3 years. Advancement Act part 63, appendix A was used).
The estimated average annual burden Section 12(d) of the National Section 63.8687 of the proposed
for industry for the first 3 years after Technology Transfer and Advancement standards lists the EPA testing methods
implementation of the final rule would Act (NTTAA) of 1995, Public Law No. included in the proposed rule. Under
be 1,894 person-hours annually. There 104–113, § 12(d), (15 U.S.C. 272 note) § 63.7(f) of subpart A of the General
will be no capital costs for monitoring directs EPA to use voluntary consensus Provisions, a source may apply to EPA
or recordkeeping during the first 3 standards in their regulatory and for approval to use an alternative test
years. The total average annual procurement activities unless to do so method in place of any of the EPA
reporting and recordkeeping burden would be inconsistent with applicable testing methods.
(including industry and EPA) for this law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
collection is estimated at 2,678 labor consensus standards are technical
hours per year at an average annual cost standards (e.g., materials specifications, Environmental protection,
of $341,000. test methods, sampling procedures, and Administrative practice and procedure,
Burden means total time, effort, or business practices) that are developed or Air pollution control, Asphalt
financial resources expended by persons adopted by one or more voluntary processing, Asphalt roofing
to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs manufacturing, Hazardous substances,
provide information to or for a Federal EPA to provide Congress, through Intergovernmental relations, Reporting
agency. This includes the time needed annual reports to OMB, with and recordkeeping requirements.
to review instructions; develop, acquire, explanations when an agency does not Dated: November 1, 2001.
install, and utilize technology and use available and applicable voluntary Christine Todd Whitman,
systems for the purposes of collecting, consensus standards. Administrator.
validating, and verifying information, This proposed rulemaking involves For the reasons stated in the
processing and maintaining technical standards. The EPA proposes preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of
information, and disclosing and in this rule to use EPA Methods 1, 1A, the Code of the Federal Regulations is
providing information; adjust the 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5A, proposed to be amended as follows:
existing ways to comply with any 9, 10, 22, and 25A. Consistent with the
previously applicable instructions and NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to PART 63—[AMENDED]
requirements; train personnel to be able identify voluntary consensus standards
to respond to a collection of in addition to these EPA methods. No 1. The authority citation for part 63
information; search data sources; applicable voluntary consensus continues to read as follows:
complete and review the collection of standards were identified for EPA Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 17:37 Nov 20, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21NOP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 21NOP3
58628 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules
2. Part 63 is amended by adding Subpart LLLLL—National Emission § 63.8682 What parts of my plant does this
subpart LLLLL to read as follows: Standards for Hazardous Air subpart cover?
Sec. Pollutants: Asphalt Processing and (a) This subpart applies to each new,
Subpart LLLLL—National Emission Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing reconstructed, or existing affected
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: source at asphalt processing and asphalt
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing What This Subpart Covers roofing manufacturing facilities.
Manufacturing § 63.8680 What is the purpose of this
(b) The affected source is:
subpart? (1) Each asphalt processing facility as
What This Subpart Covers
defined in § 63.8698; and
63.8680 What is the purpose of this This subpart establishes national (2) Each asphalt roofing
subpart? emission standards for hazardous air
63.8681 Am I subject to this subpart?
manufacturing line as defined in
63.8682 What parts of my plant does this pollutants for existing and new asphalt § 63.8698.
subpart cover? processing and asphalt roofing (i) If the asphalt roofing
63.8683 When do I have to comply with manufacturing facilities. This subpart manufacturing line is collocated with an
this subpart? also establishes requirements to asphalt processing facility, the storage
demonstrate initial and continuous tanks that receive asphalt directly from
compliance with the emission the on-site blowing stills are part of the
63.8684 What emission limitations must I
limitations. asphalt processing facility.
(ii) If an asphalt storage tank is shared
General Compliance Requirements § 63.8681 Am I subject to this subpart? by two or more lines at an asphalt
63.8685 What are my general requirements (a) You are subject to this subpart if roofing manufacturing facility, the
for complying with this subpart? you own or operate an asphalt shared storage tank is considered part of
Testing and Initial Compliance processing facility or an asphalt roofing the line to which the tank supplies the
Requirements manufacturing facility that is, is located greatest amount of asphalt, on an annual
63.8686 By what date must I conduct at, or is part of a major source of basis.
performance tests or other initial hazardous air pollutant (HAP) (iii) If a sealant or adhesive applicator
compliance demonstrations? emissions. is shared by two or more asphalt roofing
63.8687 What performance tests, design manufacturing lines, the shared
(1) An asphalt processing facility
evaluations, and other procedures must applicator is considered part of the line
I use? includes any facility engaged in
that provides the greatest throughput to
63.8688 What are my monitoring preparing asphalt at asphalt processing
the applicator, on an annual basis.
installation, operation, and maintenance plants, petroleum refineries, or asphalt (c) An affected source is a new
requirements? roofing plants. Asphalt preparation, affected source if you commenced
63.8689 How do I demonstrate initial called ‘‘blowing,’’ is the oxidation of
compliance with the emission construction of the affected source after
asphalt flux by bubbling air through the November 21, 2001 and you met the
heated asphalt. An asphalt processing applicability criteria at the time you
Continuous Compliance Requirements facility includes the following commenced construction.
63.8690 How do I monitor and collect data processes: asphalt heating, blowing (d) An affected source is
to demonstrate continuous compliance? stills, asphalt flux storage tanks, reconstructed if you meet the criteria as
63.8691 How do I demonstrate continuous oxidized asphalt storage tanks, and
compliance with the operating limits? defined in § 63.2.
oxidized asphalt loading racks. (e) An affected source is existing if it
Notifications, Reports, and Records (2) An asphalt roofing manufacturing is not new or reconstructed.
63.8692 What notifications must I submit facility includes any facility engaged in
and when? manufacturing asphalt roofing products § 63.8683 When do I have to comply with
63.8693 What reports must I submit and this subpart?
such as asphalt-saturated felt roll
when? roofing, roll roofing with mineral (a) If you have a new or reconstructed
63.8694 What records must I keep? affected source, you must comply with
granules on the surface, smooth roll
63.8695 In what form and how long must I the following:
keep my records? roofing and fiberglass shingles. An
asphalt roofing manufacturing facility (1) If you startup your new or
Other Requirements and Information includes the following processes: reconstructed affected source on or
63.8696 What parts of the General asphalt storage, felt saturation, coating, before [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF
Provisions apply to me? and sealant and adhesive application. THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
63.8697 Who implements and enforces this REGISTER], then you must comply
subpart? (b) After [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER THE with the requirements for new and
63.8698 What definitions apply to this DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED reconstructed sources in this subpart no
subpart? IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], blowing later than [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF
stills, storage tanks, and saturators that THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
are also subject to 40 CFR part 60, REGISTER].
Table 1 to Subpart LLLLL—Emission subpart UU, are required to comply only
Limitations (2) If you startup your new or
Table 2 to Subpart LLLLL—Operating Limits
with provisions of this subpart. reconstructed affected source after
Table 3 to Subpart LLLLL—Requirements for (c) A major source of HAP emissions [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE
Performance Tests is any stationary source or group of FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
Table 4 to Subpart LLLLL—Initial stationary sources within a contiguous REGISTER], then you must comply
Compliance With Emission Limitations area under common control that emits with the requirements for new and
Table 5 to Subpart LLLLL—Continuous
Compliance with Operating Limits
or has the potential to emit any single reconstructed sources in this subpart
Table 6 to Subpart LLLLL—Requirements for HAP at a rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 upon startup.
Reports tons) or more per year or any (b) If you have an existing affected
Table 7 to Subpart LLLLL—Applicability of combination of HAP at a rate of 22.68 source, you must comply with the
General Provisions to Subpart LLLLL megagrams (25 tons) or more per year. requirements for existing sources no
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 17:37 Nov 20, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21NOP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 21NOP3
Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules 58629
later than [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER (d) You must develop and implement (c) You may not conduct performance
DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED a written site-specific monitoring plan tests during periods of startup,
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. according to the provisions in § 63.8688. shutdown, or malfunction, as specified
(c) If you have an area source that in § 63.7(e)(1).
increases its emissions or its potential to Testing and Initial Compliance
(d) Except for opacity and visible
emit such that it becomes a (or part of Requirements
emission observations, you must
a) major source of HAP, then the § 63.8686 By what date must I conduct conduct three separate test runs for each
following requirements apply: performance tests or other initial performance test required in this
(1) Any portion of the existing facility compliance demonstrations? section, as specified in § 63.7(e)(3). Each
that becomes a new or reconstructed test run must last at least 1 hour.
(a) For existing affected sources, you
affected source must be in compliance (e) You must use the following
must conduct performance tests no later
with this subpart upon startup or no equations to determine compliance with
than 60 days prior to the compliance
later than [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF the emission limitations.
date that is specified for your source in
THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL (1) To determine compliance with the
§ 63.8683 and according to the
REGISTER], whichever is later. particulate matter mass emission rate,
(2) All other parts of the source to provisions in § 63.7(a)(2).
(b) If you commenced construction or you must use equations 1 and 2 of this
which this subpart applies must be in
reconstruction between November 20, section as follows:
compliance with this subpart by 3 years
2001 and [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF
after the date the source becomes a
THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal
E = M PM / P (Eq. 1)
(d) You must meet the notification Register], you must demonstrate initial Where:
requirements in § 63.8692 according to compliance with either the proposed E = Particulate matter emission rate,
the schedule in § 63.8692 and in § 63.9. requirements or the promulgated kilograms (pounds) of particulate
Some of the notifications must be requirements no later than 180 calendar matter per megagram (ton) of
submitted before you are required to days after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF roofing product manufactured.
comply with the emission limitations in THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal MPM = Particulate matter mass emission
this subpart. Register] or within 180 calendar days rate, kilograms (pounds) per hour,
after startup of the source, whichever is determined using Equation 2.
Emission Limitations later, according to § 63.7(a)(2)(ix). P = The asphalt roofing product
§ 63.8684 What emission limitations must I (c) If you commenced construction or manufacturing rate during the
meet? reconstruction between November 21, emissions sampling period,
(a) You must meet each emission 2001 and [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF including any material trimmed
limitation in Table 1 of this subpart that THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal from the final product, megagram
applies to you. Register], and you chose to comply with (tons) per hour.
(b) You must meet each operating the proposed requirements when
limit in Table 2 of this subpart that demonstrating initial compliance, you M PM = C Q K (Eq. 2)
applies to you. must conduct a second compliance Where:
demonstration for the promulgated
General Compliance Requirements MPM = Particulate matter mass emission
requirements within 3 years and 180
calendar days after [DATE OF rate, kilograms (pounds) per hour.
§ 63.8685 What are my general
requirements for complying with this PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE C = Concentration of particulate matter
subpart? IN THE Federal Register] or after on a dry basis, grams per dry
(a) You must be in compliance with startup of the source, whichever is later, standard cubic meter (g/dscm), as
the emission limitations (including according to § 63.7(a)(2)(ix). measured by the test method
operating limits) in this subpart at all specified in Table 3 of this subpart.
times, except during periods of startup, § 63.8687 What performance tests, design Q = Vent gas stream flow rate (dry
evaluations, and other procedures must I standard cubic meters per minute)
shutdown, and malfunction.
(b) You must always operate and
use? at a temperature of 20 °C as
maintain your affected source, including (a) You must conduct each measured by the test method
air pollution control and monitoring performance test in Table 3 of this specified in Table 3 of this subpart.
equipment, according to the provisions subpart that applies to you. K = Unit conversion constant (0.06
in § 63.6(e)(1)(i). (b) Each performance test must be minute-kilogram/hour-gram.
(c) You must develop and implement conducted according to the (2) To determine compliance with the
a written startup, shutdown, and requirements in § 63.7(e)(1) and under total hydrocarbon percent reduction
malfunction plan (SSMP) according to the conditions specified in Table 3 of standard, you must use equations 3 and
the provisions in § 63.6(e)(3). this subpart. 4 of this section as follows:
RE = (M THCi − M THCo ) (M THCi ) ∗ (100)] (Eq. 3)
Where: MTHCo = Mass flow rate of total MTHC = Total hydrocarbon emission
RE = Emission reduction efficiency, hydrocarbons exiting the control rate, kilograms (pounds) per hour.
percent. device, kilograms (pounds) per C = Concentration of total hydrocarbons
hour, determined using Equation 4. on a dry basis, parts per million by
MTHCi = Mass flow rate of total
hydrocarbons entering the control M THC = C Q K (Eq. 4) volume (ppmv), as measured by the
device, kilograms (pounds) per test method specified in Table 3 of
hour, determined using Equation 4. Where: this subpart.
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 17:37 Nov 20, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21NOP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 21NOP3
58630 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules
Q = Vent gas stream flow rate (dscmm) cubic meter) (kilogram/gram) (3) To determine compliance with the
at a temperature of 20 °C as (minutes/hour)), where standard combustion efficiency standard, you
measured by the test method temperature for gram-mole/standard must use equation 5 of this section as
specified in Table 3 of this subpart. cubic meter is 20 °C. follows:
K = Unit conversion constant (3.00E–05)
CE = 1 − (CO/CO 2 ) − (THC /CO 2 ) ] (Eq. 5)
Where: 2.2° C or 0.75 percent of the temperature (d) For monitoring parameters other
CE = Combustion efficiency, percent. value, whichever is larger. than temperature and pressure drop,
CO = Carbon monoxide concentration at (3) Shield the temperature sensor you must install and operate a CPMS to
the thermal oxidizer outlet, parts system from electromagnetic provide representative measurements of
per million by volume (dry), as interference and chemical the monitored parameters.
measured by the test method contaminants. (e) For each monitoring system
specified in Table 3 of this subpart. (4) If a chart recorder is used, it must required in this section, you must
CO2 = Carbon dioxide concentration at have a sensitivity in the minor division develop and make available for
the thermal oxidizer outlet, parts of at least 20° F. inspection by the permitting authority,
(5) Perform an electronic calibration upon request, a site-specific monitoring
per million by volume (dry), as
at least semiannually according to the plan that addresses the following:
measured by the test method
procedures in the manufacturer’s (1) Installation of the CPMS sampling
specified in Table 3 of this subpart.
documentation. Following the probe or other interface at a
THC = Total hydrocarbon concentration
electronic calibration, you must conduct measurement location relative to each
at the thermal oxidizer outlet, parts
a temperature sensor validation check in affected process unit such that the
per million by volume (dry), as
which a second or redundant measurement is representative of
measured by the test method
temperature sensor placed nearby the control of the exhaust emissions (e.g.,
specified in Table 3 of this subpart.
process temperature sensor must yield a on or downstream of the last control
§ 63.8688 What are my monitoring reading within 16.7° C of the process device);
installation, operation, and maintenance temperature sensor’s reading. (2) Performance and equipment
requirements? (6) Conduct calibration and validation specifications for the sample interface,
(a) You must install, operate, and checks any time the sensor exceeds the the pollutant concentration or
maintain each continuous parameter manufacturer’s specified maximum parametric signal analyzer, and the data
monitoring system (CPMS) according to operating temperature range or install a collection and reduction system; and
the following: new temperature sensor. (3) Performance evaluation
(1) The CPMS must complete a (7) At least monthly, inspect all procedures and acceptance criteria (e.g.,
minimum of one cycle of operation for components for integrity and all calibrations).
each successive 15-minute period. You electrical connections for continuity, (f) In your site-specific monitoring
must have a minimum of four oxidation, and galvanic corrosion. plan, you must also address the
successive cycles of operation to have a (c) For each pressure measurement following:
valid hour of data. device, you must meet the requirements (1) Ongoing operation and
(2) Have valid data from at least three in paragraph (a) of this section and the maintenance procedures in accordance
of four equally spaced data values for following: with the general requirements of
(1) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in, or § 63.8(c)(1), (c)(3), (c)(4)(ii), (c)(7), and
that hour from a CPMS that is not out-
as close as possible to, a position that (c)(8);
of-control according to your site-specific
provides a representative measurement (2) Ongoing data quality assurance
of the pressure. procedures in accordance with the
(3) Determine the 3-hour average of all (2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating
recorded readings for each operating general requirements of § 63.8(d); and
pressure, vibration, and internal and (3) Ongoing recordkeeping and
day, except as stated in § 63.8690(c). external corrosion.
You must have at least two of the three reporting procedures in accordance with
(3) Use a gauge with a minimum the general requirements of § 63.10(c)
hourly averages for that period using measurement sensitivity of 0.5 inch of
only hourly average values that are and § 63.10(e)(1) and (e)(2)(i).
water or a transducer with a minimum (g) You must conduct a performance
based on valid data (i.e., not from out- measurement sensitivity of 1 percent of evaluation of each CPMS in accordance
of-control periods). the pressure range. with your site-specific monitoring plan.
(4) Record the results of each (4) Check pressure tap pluggage daily. (h) You must operate and maintain
inspection, calibration, and validation (5) Using a manometer, check gauge the CPMS in continuous operation
check. calibration quarterly and transducer according to the site-specific monitoring
(b) For each temperature monitoring calibration monthly. plan.
device, you must meet the requirements (6) Conduct calibration checks any
in paragraph (a) of this section and the time the sensor exceeds the § 63.8689 How do I demonstrate initial
following: manufacturer’s specified maximum compliance with the emission limitations?
(1) Locate the temperature sensor in a operating pressure range or install a new (a) You must demonstrate initial
position that provides a representative pressure sensor. compliance with each emission
temperature. (7) At least monthly, inspect all limitation that applies to you according
(2) For a noncryogenic temperature components for integrity, all electrical to Table 4 of this subpart.
range, use a temperature sensor with a connections for continuity, and all (b) You must establish each site-
minimum measurement sensitivity of mechanical connections for leakage. specific operating limit in Table 2 of
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 17:37 Nov 20, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21NOP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 21NOP3
Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules 58631
this subpart that applies to you deviations that occur during a period of half after the compliance date that is
according to the requirements in startup, shutdown, or malfunction are specified for your source in § 63.8683.
§ 63.8687 and Table 3 of this subpart. violations, according to the provisions (2) The first compliance report must
(c) You must submit the Notification in § 63.6(e). be postmarked or delivered no later than
of Compliance Status containing the July 31 or January 31, whichever date
Notifications, Reports, and Records
results of the initial compliance follows the end of the first calendar half
demonstration according to the § 63.8692 What notifications must I submit after the compliance date that is
requirements in § 63.8692(e). and when? specified for your affected source in
(a) You must submit all of the § 63.8683.
Continuous Compliance Requirements (3) Each subsequent compliance
notifications in §§ 63.6(h)(4) and (5),
§ 63.8690 How do I monitor and collect 63.7(b) and (c), 63.8(f), and 63.9(b) report must cover the semiannual
data to demonstrate continuous through (f) and (h) that apply to you by reporting period from January 1 through
compliance? the dates specified. June 30 or the semiannual reporting
(a) You must monitor and collect data (b) As specified in § 63.9(b)(2), if you period from July 1 through December
according to this section. start up your affected source before 31.
(b) Except for monitor malfunctions, [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE (4) Each subsequent compliance
associated repairs, and required quality FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], report must be postmarked or delivered
assurance or control activities you must submit an Initial Notification no later than July 31 or January 31,
(including, as applicable, calibration not later than 120 calendar days after whichever date is the first date
checks and required zero and span [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE following the end of the semiannual
adjustments), you must monitor FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. reporting period.
continuously (or collect data at all (c) As specified in § 63.9(b)(3), if you (5) For each affected source that is
required intervals) at all times that the start up your new or reconstructed subject to permitting regulations
affected source is operating. This affected source on or after [DATE OF pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR
includes periods of startup, shutdown, PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE part 71, and if the permitting authority
and malfunction when the affected IN THE Federal Register], you must has established dates for submitting
source is operating. submit an Initial Notification not later semiannual reports pursuant to 40 CFR
(c) You may not use data recorded than 120 calendar days after you 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR
during monitoring malfunctions, become subject to this subpart. 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the
associated repairs, and required quality (d) If you are required to conduct a first and subsequent compliance reports
assurance or control activities in data performance test, you must submit a according to the dates the permitting
averages and calculations used to report notification of intent to conduct a authority has established instead of the
emission or operating levels, nor may performance test at least 60 calendar dates in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of
such data be used in fulfilling a days before the performance test is this section.
minimum data availability requirement, scheduled to begin, as required in (c) The compliance report must
if applicable. You must use all the data § 63.7(b)(1). contain the following information:
collected during all other periods in (e) If you are required to conduct a (1) Company name and address.
assessing the operation of the control performance test, design evaluation, (2) Statement by a responsible official
device and associated control system. opacity observation, visible emission with that official’s name, title, and
observation, or other initial compliance signature, certifying the truth, accuracy,
§ 63.8691 How do I demonstrate demonstration as specified in Table 3 or and completeness of the content of the
continuous compliance with the operating report.
4 of this subpart, you must submit a
limits? (3) Date of report and beginning and
Notification of Compliance Status
(a) You must demonstrate continuous according to § 63.9(h)(2)(ii). You must ending dates of the reporting period.
compliance with each operating limit in submit the Notification of Compliance (4) If you had a startup, shutdown or
Table 2 of this subpart that applies to Status, including the performance test malfunction during the reporting period
you according to methods specified in results, before the close of business on and you took actions consistent with
Table 5 of this subpart. the 60th calendar day following the your SSMP, the compliance report must
(b) You must report each instance in completion of the performance test include the information in
which you did not meet each operating according to § 63.10(d)(2). § 63.10(d)(5)(i).
limit in Table 5 of this subpart that (5) If there are no deviations from any
applies to you. This includes periods of § 63.8693 What reports must I submit and emission limitations (emission limit,
startup, shutdown, and malfunction. when? operating limit, opacity limit, and
These instances are deviations from the (a) You must submit each report in visible emission limit) that apply to you,
emission limitations in this subpart. Table 6 of this subpart that applies to a statement that there were no
These deviations must be reported you. deviations from the emission limitations
according to the requirements in (b) Unless the Administrator has during the reporting period.
§ 63.8693. approved a different schedule for (6) If there were no periods during
(c) During periods of startup, submission of reports under § 63.10(a), which the CPMS was out-of-control as
shutdown, and malfunction, you must you must submit each report by the date specified in § 63.8(c)(7), a statement that
operate in accordance with the SSMP. in Table 6 of this subpart and according there were no periods during the which
(d) Consistent with §§ 63.6(e) and to the following dates: the CPMS was out-of-control during the
63.7(e)(1), deviations that occur during (1) The first compliance report must reporting period.
a period of startup, shutdown, or cover the period beginning on the (d) For each deviation from an
malfunction are not violations if you compliance date that is specified for emission limitation (emission limit,
demonstrate to the Administrator’s your affected source in § 63.8683 and operating limit, opacity limit, and
satisfaction that you were operating in ending on June 30 or December 31, visible emission limit), you must
accordance with the SSMP. The whichever date is the first date include the information in paragraphs
Administrator will determine whether following the end of the first calendar (c)(1) through (6) of this section, and the
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 17:37 Nov 20, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21NOP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 21NOP3
58632 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules
information in paragraphs (d)(1) through otherwise affect any obligation the has the authority to implement and
(12) of this section. This includes affected source may have to report enforce this subpart. You should contact
periods of startup, shutdown, and deviations from permit requirements to your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find
malfunction. the permit authority. out if implementation and enforcement
(1) The date and time that each (f) If acceptable to both the of this subpart is delegated.
malfunction started and stopped. Administrator and you, you may submit (b) In delegating implementation and
(2) The date and time that each CPMS reports and notifications electronically. enforcement authority of this subpart to
was inoperative, except for zero (low- a State, local, or tribal agency under 40
level) and high-level checks. § 63.8694 What records must I keep? CFR part 63, subpart E, the following
(3) The date, time and duration that (a) You must keep the following authorities are retained by the
each CPMS was out-of-control, records: Administrator of U.S. EPA:
including the information in (1) A copy of each notification and (1) Approval of alternatives to the
§ 63.8(c)(8). report that you submitted to comply requirements in §§ 63.8681, 63.8682,
(4) The date and time that each with this subpart, including all 63.8683, 63.8684(a) through (c),
deviation started and stopped, and documentation supporting any Initial 63.8686, 63.8687, 63.8688, 63.8689,
whether each deviation occurred during Notification or Notification of 63.8690, and 63.8691.
a period of startup, shutdown, or Compliance Status that you submitted, (2) Approval of major changes to test
malfunction or during another period. according to the requirements in methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f)
(5) A summary of the total duration of § 63.10(b)(2)(xiv). and as defined in § 63.90.
the deviation during the reporting (2) The records in § 63.6(e)(3)(iii) (3) Approval of major changes to
period and the total duration as a through (v) related to startup, shutdown, monitoring under § 63.8(f) and as
percent of the total source operating and malfunction. defined in § 63.90.
time during that reporting period. (3) Records of performance tests, (4) Approval of major changes to
(6) A breakdown of the total duration performance evaluations, and opacity recordkeeping and reporting under
of the deviations during the reporting and visible emission observations as § 63.10(f) and as defined in § 63.90.
period into those that are due to startup, required in § 63.10(b)(2)(viii).
shutdown, control equipment problems, (b) You must keep the records in § 63.8698 What definitions apply to this
process problems, other known causes, subpart?
§ 63.6(h)(6) for visible emission
and other unknown causes. observations. Terms used in this subpart are
(7) A summary of the total duration of (c) You must keep the records defined in the Clean Air Act, in 40 CFR
CPMS downtime during the reporting required in Table 5 of this subpart to 63.2, the General Provisions of this part,
period and the total duration of CPMS show continuous compliance with each and in this section as follows:
downtime as a percent of the total operating limit that applies to you. Adhesive applicator means the
source operating time during that equipment used to apply adhesive to
reporting period. § 63.8695 In what form and how long must single-ply roofing shingles for
(8) An identification of each air I keep my records? producing laminated or dimensional
pollutant that was monitored at the (a) Your records must be in a form roofing shingles.
affected source. suitable and readily available for Asphalt flux means the residual
(9) A brief description of the process expeditious review, according to material from distillation of crude oil
units. § 63.10(b)(1). used to manufacture asphalt roofing
(10) A brief description of the CPMS. (b) As specified in § 63.10(b)(1), you products.
(11) The date of the latest CPMS must keep each record for 5 years Asphalt loading rack means the
certification or audit. following the date of each occurrence, equipment used to transfer asphalt from
(12) A description of any changes in measurement, maintenance, corrective a storage tank into a tank truck, rail car,
CPMS, processes, or controls since the action, report, or record. or barge.
last reporting period. (c) You must keep each record on site Asphalt processing facility means any
(e) Each affected source that has for at least 2 years after the date of each facility engaged in the preparation of
obtained a title V operating permit occurrence, measurement, maintenance, asphalt at asphalt processing plants,
pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR corrective action, report, or record, petroleum refineries, and asphalt
part 71 must report all deviations as according to § 63.10(b)(1). You can keep roofing plants. Asphalt preparation,
defined in this subpart in the the records offsite for the remaining 3 called ‘‘blowing,’’ is the oxidation of
semiannual monitoring report required years. asphalt flux by bubbling air through the
by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR heated asphalt. An asphalt processing
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If an affected source Other Requirements and Information facility includes the following
submits a compliance report pursuant to § 63.8696 What parts of the General processes: asphalt heating, blowing
Table 6 of this subpart along with, or as Provisions apply to me? stills, asphalt flux storage tanks,
part of, the semiannual monitoring Table 7 of this subpart shows which oxidized asphalt storage tanks, and
report required by 40 CFR parts of the General Provisions in oxidized asphalt loading racks.
70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR §§ 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you. Asphalt roofing manufacturing line
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the compliance means the collection of equipment used
report includes all required information § 63.8697 Who implements and enforces to manufacture asphalt roofing products
concerning deviations from any this subpart? through a series of sequential process
emission limitation (including any (a) This subpart can be implemented steps. An asphalt roofing manufacturing
operating limit), submission of the and enforced by us, the U.S. EPA, or a line includes the following equipment:
compliance report shall be deemed to delegated authority such as your State, a saturator (including wet looper and
satisfy any obligation to report the same local, or tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA coater), a coating mixer, a sealant
deviations in the semiannual Administrator has delegated authority to applicator, an adhesive applicator, and
monitoring report. However, submission your State, local, or tribal agency, then associated storage and process tanks.
of a compliance report shall not that agency, in addition to the U.S. EPA, The number of asphalt roofing
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 17:37 Nov 20, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21NOP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 21NOP3
Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules 58633
manufacturing lines at a particular stabilized coating asphalt to the Modified asphalt means asphalt that
facility is determined by the number of substrate. has been mixed with plastic modifiers.
saturators (or coaters) used. For Deviation means any instance in Oxidized asphalt means asphalt that
example, an asphalt roofing which an affected source subject to this
has been prepared by passing air
manufacturing facility with two subpart, or an owner or operator of such
a source: through liquid asphalt flux in a blowing
saturators would be considered to have
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or still.
two separate roofing manufacturing
lines. obligation established by this subpart, Responsible official means
Asphalt storage tank means any tank including but not limited to any responsible official as defined in 40 CFR
used to store asphalt, including asphalt emission limitation (including any 70.2.
flux, oxidized asphalt, and modified operating limit), or work practice Saturator means the equipment in
asphalt, at asphalt roofing standard;
which asphalt is applied to a substrate
manufacturing plants, petroleum (2) Fails to meet any term or condition
that is adopted to implement an to make asphalt roofing products. The
refineries, and asphalt processing
applicable requirement in this subpart term saturator includes the saturator,
plants. Storage tanks containing cutback
asphalts (asphalts diluted with solvents and that is included in the operating wet looper, and coater.
to reduce viscosity for low temperature permit for any affected source required Sealant applicator means the
applications) and emulsified asphalts to obtain such a permit; or equipment used to apply a sealant strip
(asphalts dispersed in water with an (3) Fails to meet any emission to a roofing product. The sealant strip is
emulsifying agent are not subject to this limitation (including any operating used to seal overlapping pieces of
subpart. limit) or work practice standard in this roofing product after they have been
Blowing still means the equipment in subpart during startup, shutdown, or applied.
which air is blown through asphalt flux malfunction, regardless of whether or
to change the softening point and not such failure is permitted by this Work practice standard means any
penetration rate. subpart. design, equipment, work practice, or
Coating mixer means the equipment Emission limitation means any operational standard, or combination
used to mix coating asphalt and a emission limit, opacity limit, operating thereof, that is promulgated pursuant to
mineral stabilizer, prior to applying the limit, or visible emission limit. section 112(h) of the Clean Air Act.
As stated in § 63.8684(a), you must meet each emission limitation in the following table that applies to you:
TABLE 1 TO SUBPART LLLLL—EMISSION LIMITATIONS
For . . . You must meet the following emission limitation . . .
1. Each blowing still, load- a. Reduce total hydrocarbon mass emissions by 95 percent; or
ing rack, and asphalt b. Route the emissions to a thermal oxidizer achieving a combustion efficiency of 99.6 percent.
storage tank with a ca-
pacity of 1.93
megagrams (2.13 tons) of
asphalt or greater at ex-
isting, new, and recon-
structed asphalt proc-
2. Each coating mixer, satu- a. Reduce total hydrocarbon mass emissions by 95 percent or
rator (including wet b. Route the emissions to a thermal oxidizer achieving, a combustion efficiency of 99.6 percent.
looper and coater), seal-
ant applicator, and adhe-
sive applicator at new
and reconstructed asphalt
3. The total emmissions a. Limit particulate matter emissions to 0.04 kilograms per megagram (0.08 pounds per ton) of asphalt shingle or
from the coating mixer, mineral-surfaced roll roofing produced; or
saturator (including wet b. Limit particulate matter emmissions to 0.4 kilgrams per megagram (0.8. pounds per ton) of saturated felt or
looper and coater), seal- smooth-surfaced roll roofing produced.
ant applicator, and adhe-
sive applicator at each
existing asphalt roofing
manufacturing line a
4. Each saturator (including a. Limit exhaust gases to 20 percent opacity; and saturator (including wet looper and coater) at an existing or new
wet looper and coater) at asphalt roofing manufacturing line.a
an existing or new as- b. Limit visible emissions from the emission capture system to 20 percent of any period of consecutive valid obser-
phalt roofing manufac- vations totaling 60 minutes.
turing line a
a As an option to meeting the particulate matter and opacity limits, these emission sources may comply with the total hydrocarbon (THC) per-
cent reduction or combustion efficiency standards.
As stated in § 63.8684(b), you must meet each operating limit in the following table that applies to you:
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 17:37 Nov 20, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4706 E:\FR\FM\21NOP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 21NOP3
58634 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules
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 oxidizers or particulate matter Maintain the approved monitoring parameters within the operating lim-
control devices. its established during the performance test.
As stated in § 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 following require-
For . . . You must . . . Using . . . ments
1. All particulate matter, total hy- a. Select sampling port’s location i. Method 1 or 1A in appendix A A. For demonstrating compliance
drocarbon, carbon monoxide, and the number of traverse to part 60 of this chapter. with the total hydrocarbon per-
and carbon dioxide emission points. cent reduction standard, the
tests. 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 ef-
ficiency standards, the sampling
sites must be located at the
outlet of the control device and
prior to any releases to the at-
2. All particulate matter and total Determine velocity and volumetric Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, OR
hydrocarbon tests. flow rate. 2G, as appropriate, in appendix
A to part 60 of this chapter.
3. All particulate matter and total Determine the gas molecular Method 3, 3A, 3B, as appropriate,
hydrocarbon tests. weight used for flow rate deter- in appendix A to part 60 of this
4. All particulate matter, total hy- Measure moisture content of the Method 4 in appendix A to part 60
drocarbon, carbon monoxide, stack gas. of this chapter.
and carbon dioxide emission
5. All particulate matter, total hy- Measure the asphalt processing
drocarbon, carbon monoxide, rate or the asphalt roofing man-
and carbon dioxide emission ufacturing rate and the asphalt
tests. content of the product manufac-
tured, as appropriate
6. Each control device used to a. Measure the concentration of i. Method 5A in appendix A to A. If the final product is shingle or
comply with the particulate mat- particulate matter. part 60 of this chapter. mineral-surfaced roll roofing,
ter mass emission rate standard. 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 roof-
ing, the tests must be con-
ducted 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 con-
ducted while a nominal 100 kg
(220 lb) shingle is being pro-
7. Each saturated outlet at each a. Conduct opacity observations Method 9 in appendix A to part 60 For at least 3 hours and obtain
existing asphalt roofing manu- of the saturator outlet. of this chapter. 30, 6-minute averages.
b. Conduct visible emission ob- Method 22 in appendix A to part Modify Method 22 such that read-
servations of the saturator 60 of this chapter. ings are recorded every 15 sec-
emissions capture system. onds for a period of consecu-
tive observations totaling 60
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 17:37 Nov 20, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21NOP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 21NOP3
Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules 58635
TABLE 3 TO SUBPART LLLLL—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS—Continued
According to the following require-
For . . . You must . . . Using . . . ments
8. Each thermal oxidizer used to a. Measure the concentration of Method 3A in appendix A to part
comply with the combustion effi- carbon dioxide. 60 of this chapter.
b. Measure the concentration of Method 10 in appendix A to part
carbon monoxide. 60 of this chapter.
c. Measure the concentration of Method 25A in appendix A to part
total hydrocarbons. 60 of this chapter.
9. Each control device used to Measure the concentration of total Method 25A in appendix A to part
comply with the THC reduction hydrocarbons. 60 of this chapter.
10. Each thermal oxidizer .............. Establish a site-specific combus- Data from the CPMS and the ap- You must collect combustion zone
tion zone temperature limit. plicable performance test meth- temperature data every 15 min-
od(s). utes 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-specific inlet Data from the CPMS and the ap- You must collect the inlet gas
device. gas temperature limit; and. plicable performance test meth- temperature and pressure drop
b. Establish a site-specific limit for od(s). data every 15 minutes during
the pressure drop across the the entire period of the initial 3-
device. hour performance test, and de-
termine 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 Establish site-specific monitoring Process data and data from the You must collect monitoring pa-
a thermal oxidizer or particulate parameters. CPMS and the applicable per- rameter data every 15 minutes
matter control device used to formance test method(s). during the entire period of the
comply with the THC percent re- initial 3-hour performance test,
duction or PM emission limits. 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 § 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
You have demonstrated initial compliance if . .
For . . . For the following emission limitation . . . .
1. Each asphalt storage tank with a capacity of a. Reduce total hydrocarbon mass emissions i. The total hydrocarbon emissions, deter-
1.93 megagrams (2.13 tons) of asphalt or by 95 percent. mined using the equations in § 63.8687 and
greater, blowing still, and loading rack at ex- the test methods and procedures in Table 3
isting, new, and reconstructed asphalt proc- of this subpart, over the period of the per-
essing facilities; and. formance test are reduced by at least 95
percent by weight; and
2. Each coating mixer, saturator (including wet a. Reduce total hydrocarbon mass emissions ii. You have a record of the average control
looper and coater), sealant applicator, and by 95 percent. device operating parameters over the per-
adhesive applicator at new and reconstructed formance test during which emissions were
asphalt roofing manufacturing lines. reduced by at least 95 percent.
3. Each asphalt storage tank with a capacity of a. Route the emissions to a thermal oxidizer See 1.a.i. and ii. of this table.
1.93 megagrams (2.13 tons) of asphalt or achieving a combustion efficiency of 99.6
greater, blowing still, and loading rack at ex- percent.
isting, new, and reconstructed asphalt proc-
essing facilities; and.
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 17:37 Nov 20, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21NOP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 21NOP3
58636 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 4 TO SUBPART LLLLL—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS—Continued
You have demonstrated initial compliance if . .
For . . . For the following emission limitation . . . .
4. Each coating mixer, saturator (including wet a. Route the emissions to a thermal oxidizer i. The combustion efficiency of the thermal ox-
looper and coater), sealant applicator, and achieving a combustion efficiency of 99.6 idizer, determined using the equations in
adhesive applicator at new and reconstructed percent. § 63.8687 and the test methods and proce-
asphalt roofing manufacturing lines. dures 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 combus-
tion zone temperature and carbon mon-
oxide, carbon dioxide, and total hydro-
carbon outlet concentrations over the per-
formance 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 the coating mixer, a. Limit particulate matter emissions to 0.04 i. The particulate matter emissions, deter-
saturator (including wet looper and coater), kilograms per megagram (0.08 pounds per mined using the equations in § 63.8687 and
sealant applicator, and adhesive applicator at ton) of asphalt shingle or mineral-surfaced the test methods and procedures in Table 3
each existing asphalt roofing manufacturing roll roofing produced. of this subpart, over the period of the per-
line.. formance test are no greater than the appli-
cable emission limitation; and
ii. You have a record of the average control
device or process parameters over the per-
formance test during which the particulate
matter emissions were no greater than the
applicable emission limitation.
b. Limit particulate matter emissions to 0.4 See 5.a.i. and ii. of this table.
kilograms per megagram (0.8 pounds per
ton) of saturated felt or smooth-surfaced roll
6. Each saturator (including wet looper and Limit opacity emissions to 20 percent ............. The opacity, measured using Method 9, for
coater) at an existing or new asphalt roofing each of the first 30 6-minute averages dur-
manufacturing line. ing the initial compliance period described
in § 63.8686(b) does not exceed 20 per-
7. Each saturator (including wet looper and Limit visible emissions from the emission cap- The visible emissions, measured using Meth-
center) at an existing or new asphalt roofing ture system to 20 percent of any period of od 22, for any period of consecutive valid
manufacturing line. consecutive valid observations totaling 60 observations totaling 60 minutes during the
minutes. initial compliance period described in
§ 63.8686(b) do not exceed 20 percent.
As stated in § 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 continuous compliance
For * * * For the following operating limit * * * by * * *
1. Each thermal oxidizer .................................... a. Maintain the 3-hour average combustion i. Passing the emissions through the control
zone temperature at or above the operating device; and
limit established during the performance ii. Collecting the combustion zone tempera-
test. ture data according to § 63.8688(b); and
iii. Reducing combustion zone temperature
data to 3-hour averages according to cal-
culations in Table 3 of this subpart; and
iv. Maintaining the 3-hour average combustion
zone temperature within the level estab-
lished during the performance test.
2. Particulate matter control devices .................. a. Maintain the 3-hour average inlet gas tem- i. Passing the emissions through the control
perature and pressure drop across device device; and
at or below the operating limits established ii. collecting the inlet gas temperature and
during the performance test. pressure drop data according to
§ 63.8688(b) and (c); and
iii. reducing inlet gas temperature and pres-
sure drop data to 3-hour averages accord-
ing to calculations in Table 3 of this sub-
iv. Maintaining the 3-hour average inlet gas
temperature and pressure drop within the
level established during the performance
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 17:37 Nov 20, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21NOP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 21NOP3
Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules 58637
TABLE 5 TO SUBPART LLLLL—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH OPERATING LIMITS—Continued
You must demonstrate continuous compliance
For * * * For the following operating limit * * * by * * *
3. Control device other than a thermal oxidizer a. Maintain the monitoring parameters within i. Passing the emissions through the control
or particulate matter control device. the operating limits established during the device; and
performance test. ii. Collecting the monitoring parameter data
according to § 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 per-
As stated in § 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
You must submit a(n) The report must contain . . . You must submit the report . . .
1. A compliance report ....................................... a. A statement that there were no deviations Semiannually according to the requirements
from the emission limitations during the re- in § 63.8693(b).
porting period, if there are no deviations
from any emission limitations (emission
limit, operating limit, opacity limit, and visi-
ble emission limit) that apply to you.
b. If there were no periods during which the Semiannually according to the requirements
CPMS was out-of-control as specified in in § 63.8693(b).
§ 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 deviation from any emission Semiannually according to the requirements
limitation (emission limit, operating limit, in § 63.8693(b).
opacity limit, and visible emission limit), the
report must contain the information in
§ 63.8693(c). If there were periods during
which the CPMS was out-of-control, as
specified in § 63.8(c)(7), the report must
contain the information in § 63.8693(d).
d. If you had a startup, shutdown or malfunc- Semiannually according to the requirements
tion during the reporting period and you in § 63.8693(b).
took actions consistent with your startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan, the compli-
ance report must include the information in
2. An immediate startup, shutdown, and mal- The information in § 63.10(d)(5)(ii) .................. By fax or telephone within 2 working days
function report if you have a startup, shut- after starting actions inconsistent with the
down, or malfunction during the reporting pe- plan followed by a letter within 7 working
riod and actions taken were not consistent days after the end of the event unless you
with your startup, shutdown, and malfunction have made alternative arrangements with
plan. the permitting authority.
As stated in § 63.8696(a), you must comply with the General Provisions (GP) in §§ 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
Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart LLLLL
§ 63.1 .............................. Applicability ......................... Initial Applicability Determination; Applicability After Yes.
Standard Established; Permit Requirements; Exten-
§ 63.2 .............................. Definitions ........................... Definitions for part 63 standards ...................................... Yes.
§ 63.3 .............................. Units and Abbreviations ...... Units and abbreviations for part 63 standards ................ Yes.
§ 63.4 .............................. Prohibited Activities ............ Prohibited Activities; Compliance date; Circumvention, Yes.
§ 63.5 .............................. Construction/Reconstruction Applicability; Applications; Approvals ............................... Yes.
§ 63.6(a) ......................... Applicability ......................... GP apply unless compliance extension GP apply to Yes.
area sources that become major.
§ 63.6(b) (1)–(4) ............. Compliance Dates for New Standards apply at effective date; 3 years after effective Yes.
and Reconstructed date; upon startup; 10 years after construction or re-
sources. construction commences for section 112(f).
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 17:37 Nov 20, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21NOP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 21NOP3
58638 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 7 TO SUBPART LLLLL—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART LLLLL—Continued
Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart LLLLL
§ 63.6(b)(5) ..................... Notification .......................... You must notify if commenced construction or recon- Yes.
struction after proposal.
§ 63.6(b)(6) ..................... [Reserved]
§ 63.6(b)(7) ..................... Compliance Dates for New Area sources that become major must comply with Yes.
and Reconstructed Area major source standards immediately upon becoming
Sources That Become major, regardless of whether required to comply when
Major. they were an area source.
§ 63.6(c) (1)–(2) .............. Compliance Dates for Exist- 1. Comply according to date in subpart, which must be Yes.
ing Sources. no later than 3 years after effective date.
2. For section 112(f) standards, comply within 90 days Yes.
of effective date unless compliance extension has
§ 63.6(c) (3)–(4) .............. [Reserved]
§ 63.6(c)(5) ..................... Compliance Dates for Exist- Area sources that become major must comply with Yes.
ing Area Sources That major source standards by date indicated in subpart
Become Major. or by equivalent time period (for example, 3 years).
§ 63.6(d) ......................... [Reserved]
§ 63.6(e) (1)–(2) ............. Operation & Maintenance ... 1. Operate to minimize emissions at all times ................. Yes.
2. Correct malfunctions as soon as practicable .............. Yes.
3. Operation and maintenance requirements independ- Yes.
ently enforceable; information Administrator will use to
determine if operation and maintenance requirements
§ 63.6(e)(3) ..................... Startup, Shutdown, and 1. Requirement for SSM and startup, shutdown, mal- Yes.
Malfunction (SSM) Plan function plan.
2. Content of SSMP ......................................................... Yes.
§ 63.6(f)(1) ...................... Compliance Except During You must comply with emission standards at all times Yes.
SSM. except during SSM.
§ 63.6(f) (2)–(3) .............. Methods for Determining Compliance based on performance test, operation and Yes.
Compliance. maintenance plans, records, inspection.
§ 63.6(g) (1)–(3) ............. Alternative Nonopacity Procedures for getting an alternative nonopacity stand- Yes.
§ 63.6(h) ......................... Opacity/Visible Emission Requirements for opacity and VE limits .......................... Yes.
§ 63.6(h)(1) ..................... Compliance with Opacity/ You must comply with opacity/VE emission limitations at Yes.
VE Standards. all times except during SSM.
§ 63.6(h)(2)(i) .................. Determining Compliance If standard does not state test method, use Method 9 No. The test methods for
with Opacity/VE Stand- for opacity and Method 22 for VE. opacity and visible emis-
ards. sions are specified in
§ 63.6(h)(2)(ii) ................. [Reserved]
§ 63.6(h)(2)(iii) ................ Using Previous Tests to Criteria for when previous opacity/VE testing can be Yes.
Demonstrate Compliance used to show compliance with this rule.
with Opacity/VE Stand-
§ 63.6(h)(3) ..................... [Reserved]
§ 63.6(h)(4) ..................... Notification of Opacity/VE You must notify Administrator of anticipated date of ob- Yes.
Observation Date. servation.
§ 63.6(h)(5)(i), (iii)–(v) ..... Conducting Opacity/VE Ob- Dates and schedule for conducting opacity/VE observa- Yes.
§ 63.6(h)(5)(ii) ................. Opacity Test Duration and You must have at least 3 hours of observation with thir- Yes.
Averaging Times. ty 6-minute averages.
§ 63.6(h)(6) ..................... Records of Conditions Dur- You must keep records available and allow Adminis- Yes.
ing Opacity/VE Observa- trator to inspect.
§ 63.6(h)(7)(i) .................. Report Continuous Opacity You must submit COMS data with other performance No. Subpart LLLLL does
Monitoring System test data. not require COMS.
(COMS) Data from Per-
§ 63.6(h)(7)(ii) ................. Using COMS instead of Can submit COMS data instead of Method 9 results No. Subpart LLLLL does
Method 9. even if rule requires Method 9, but must notify Admin- not require COMS.
istrator before performance test.
§ 63.6(h)(7)(iii) ................ Averaging time for COMS To determine compliance, must reduce COMS data to No. Subpart LLLLL does
during performance test. 6-minute averages. not require COMS.
§ 63.6(h)(7)(iv) ................ COMS requirements ........... Owner/operator must demonstrate that COMS perform- No. Subpart LLLLL does
ance evaluations are conducted according to not require COMS.
§ 63.8(e), COMS are properly maintained and oper-
ated according to § 63.8(c) and data quality as
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 17:37 Nov 20, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21NOP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 21NOP3
Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules 58639
TABLE 7 TO SUBPART LLLLL—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART LLLLL—Continued
Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart LLLLL
§ 63.6(h)(7)(v) ................. Determining Compliance COMS is probative but not conclusive evidence of com- No. Subpart LLLLL does
with Opacity/VE Stand- pliance with opacity standard, even if Method 9 ob- not require COMS.
ards. servation shows otherwise. Requirements for COMS
to be probative evidence, proper maintenance, meet-
ing PS 1, and data have not been altered.
§ 63.6(h)(8) ..................... Determining Compliance Administrator will use all COMS, Method 9, and Method Yes.
with Opacity/VE Stand- 22 results, as well as information about operation and
ards. maintenance to determine compliance.
§ 63.6(h)(9) ..................... Adjusted Opacity Standard Procedures for Administrator to adjust an opacity stand- Yes.
§ 63.6(i) ........................... Compliance Extension ........ Procedures and criteria for Administrator to grant com- Yes.
§ 63.6(j) ........................... Presidential Compliance Ex- President may exempt source category from require- Yes.
emption. ment to comply with rule.
§ 63.7(a)(1)–(2) ............... Performance Test Dates ..... Dates for conducting initial performance testing and No. Section 63.8686 speci-
other compliance demonstrations. You must conduct fies the performance test
180 days after first subject to rule. dates.
§ 63.7(a)(3) ..................... Section 114 Authority ......... Administrator may require a performance test under Yes.
CAA section 114 at any time.
§ 63.7(b)(1) ..................... Notification of Performance You must notify Administrator 60 days before the test. .. Yes.
§ 63.7(b)(2) ..................... Notification of Rescheduling If rescheduling a performance test is necessary, must Yes.
notify Administrator 5 days before scheduled date of
§ 63.7(c) .......................... Quality Assurance/Test 1. Requirement to submit site-specific test plan 60 days Yes.
Plan. before the test or on date Administrator agrees with.
2. Test plan approval procedures .................................... Yes.
3. Performance audit requirements ................................. Yes.
4. Internal and External QA procedures for testing ......... Yes.
§ 63.7(d) ......................... Testing Facilities ................. Requirements for testing facilities .................................... Yes.
§ 63.7(e)(1) ..................... Conditions for Conducting 1. Performance tests must be conducted under rep- Yes.
Performance Tests. resentative conditions. Cannot conduct performance
tests during SSM.
2. Not a violation to exceed standard during SSM .......... Yes.
§ 63.7(e)(2) ..................... Conditions for Conducting You must conduct according to rule and EPA test meth- Yes.
Performance Tests. ods unless Administrator approves alternative.
§ 63.7(e)(3) ..................... Test Run Duration .............. 1. You must have three test runs of at least 1 hour each Yes.
2. Compliance is based on arithmetic mean of three Yes.
3. Conditions when data from an additional test run can Yes.
§ 63.7(f) .......................... Alternative Test Method ...... Procedures by which Administrator can grant approval Yes.
to use an alternative test method.
§ 63.7(g) ......................... Performance Test Data 1. Include raw data in performance test report ............... Yes.
2. Submit performance test data 60 days after end of Yes.
test with the Notification of Compliance Status.
3. Keep data for 5 years .................................................. Yes.
§ 63.7(h) ......................... Waiver of Tests ................... Procedures for Administrator to waive performance test Yes.
§ 63.8(a)(1) ..................... Applicability of Monitoring Subject to all monitoring requirements in standard ......... Yes.
§ 63.8(a)(2) ..................... Performance Specifications Performance Specifications in appendix B of 40 CFR No. Subpart LLLLL does
part 60 apply. not require the use of
§ 63.8(a)(3) ..................... [Reserved].
§ 63.8(a)(4) ..................... Monitoring with Flares ........ Unless rule says otherwise, the requirements for flares Yes.
in § 63.11 apply.
§ 63.8(b)(1) ..................... Monitoring ........................... You must conduct monitoring according to standard un- Yes.
less Administrator approves alternative.
§ 63.8(b)(2)–(3) ............... Multiple Effluents and Mul- 1. Specific requirements for installing monitoring sys- Yes.
tiple Monitoring Systems. tems.
2. Install on each effluent before it is combined and be- Yes.
fore it is released to the atmosphere unless Adminis-
trator approves otherwise.
3. If more than one monitoring system on an emission Yes.
point, must report all monitoring system results, un-
less one monitoring system is a backup.
§ 63.8(c)(1) ..................... Monitoring System Oper- Maintain monitoring system in a manner consistent with Yes.
ation and Maintenance good air pollution control practices.
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 17:37 Nov 20, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21NOP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 21NOP3
58640 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 7 TO SUBPART LLLLL—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART LLLLL—Continued
Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart LLLLL
§ 63.8(c)(1)(i) .................. Routine and Predictable 1. Follow the SSM plan for routine repairs ...................... Yes.
2. Keep parts for routine repairs readily available ........... Yes.
3. Reporting requirements for SSM when action is de- Yes.
scribed in SSM plan.
§ 63.8(c)(1)(ii) ................. SSM not in SSP plan .......... Reporting requirements for SSM when action is not de- Yes.
scribed in SSM plan.
§ 63.8 (c)(1)(iii) ............... Compliance with Operation 1. How Administrator determines if source complying Yes.
and Maintenance Re- with operation and Maintenance requirements.
2. Review of source O&M procedures, records, manu- Yes.
facturer’s instructions, recommendations, and inspec-
tion of monitoring system.
§ 63.8(c)(2)–(3) ............... Monitoring System Installa- 1. You must install to get representative emission and Yes.
tion. parameter measurements.
2. You must verify operational status before or at per- Yes.
§ 63.8(c)(4) ..................... Continuous Monitoring Sys- CMS must be operating except during breakdown, out- No. Section 63.8690 speci-
tem (CMS) Requirements. of-control, repair, maintenance, and high-level calibra- fies the CMS require-
tion drifts. ments.
§ 63.8(c)(4)(i)–(ii) ............ CMS Requirements ............ 1. COMS must have a minimum of one cycle of sam- No. Subpart LLLLL does
pling and analysis for each successive 10-second pe- not require the use of
riod and one cycle of data recording for each succes- COMS.
sive 6-minute period.
2. CEMS must have a minimum of one cycle of oper- No. Subpart LLLLL does
ation for each successive 15-minute period. not require the use of
§ 63.8(c)(5) ..................... COMS Minimum Proce- COMS minimum procedures ............................................ No. Subpart LLLLL does
dures. not require the use of
§ 63.8(c)(6) ..................... CMS Requirements ............ Zero and High level calibration check requirements ....... No. Section 63.8690 speci-
fies the CMS require-
§ 63.8(c)(7)–(8) ............... CMS Requirements ............ Out-of-control periods, including reporting ....................... Yes.
§ 63.8(d) ......................... CMS Quality Control ........... 1. Requirements for CMS quality control, including cali- No. Section 63.8690 speci-
bration, etc. fies the CMS require-
2. Must keep quality control plan on record for the life of No. Section 63.8690 speci-
the affected source. fies the CMS require-
3. Keep old versions for 5 years after revisions .............. No. Section 63.8690 speci-
fies the CMS require-
§ 63.8(e) ......................... CMS Performance Evalua- Notification, performance evaluation test plan, reports ... No. Section 63.8690 speci-
tion. fies the CMS require-
§ 63.8(f)(1)–(5) ................ Alternative Monitoring Meth- Procedures for Administrator to approve alternative Yes.
§ 63.8(f)(6) ...................... Alternative to Relative Ac- Procedures for Administrator to approve alternative rel- No. Subpart LLLLL does
curacy Test. ative accuracy tests for CEMS. not require the use of
§ 63.8(g) (1)–(4) ............. Data Reduction. .................. 1. COMS 6-minute averages calculated over at least 36 No. Subpart LLLLL does
evenly spaced data points. not require the use of
2. CEMS 1-hour averages computed over at least 4 No. Subpart LLLLL does
equally spaced data points. not require the use of
§ 63.8(g) ......................... Data Reduction ................... Data that cannot be used in computing averages for No. Section 63.8690 speci-
CEMS and COMS.. fies the CMS require-
§ 63.9(a) ......................... Notification Requirements ... Applicability and State Delegation ................................... Yes.
§ 63.9(b) (1)–(5) ............. Initial Notifications ............... 1. Submit notification 120 days after effective date ........ Yes.
2. Notification of intent to construct/reconstruct; notifica- Yes.
tion of commencement of construct/reconstruct; notifi-
cation of startup.
3. Contents of each .......................................................... Yes.
§ 63.9(c) .......................... Request for Compliance Ex- Can request if cannot comply by date or if installed Best Yes.
tension. Available Control Technology/Lowest Achievable
§ 63.9(d) ......................... Notification of Special Com- For sources that commence construction between pro- Yes.
pliance Requirements for posal and promulgation and want to comply 3 years
New Source. after effective date.
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 18:47 Nov 20, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21NOP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 21NOP3
Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules 58641
TABLE 7 TO SUBPART LLLLL—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART LLLLL—Continued
Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart LLLLL
§ 63.9(e) ......................... Notification of Performance Notify Administrator 60 days prior ................................... Yes.
§ 63.9(f) .......................... Notification of VE/Opacity Notify Administrator 30 days prior ................................... Yes.
§ 63.9(g) ......................... Additional Notifications 1. Notification of performance evaluation ........................ No. Section 63.8690 speci-
When Using CMS. fies the CMS require-
2. Notification using COMS data ..................................... No. Section 63.8690 speci-
fies the CMS require-
3. Notification that the criterion for use of alternative to No. Section 63.8690 speci-
relative accuracy testing was exceeded. fies the CMS require-
§ 63.9(h) (1)–(6) ............. Notification of Compliance 1. Contents ....................................................................... Yes.
2. Due 60 days after end of performance test or other Yes.
compliance demonstration, except for opacity/VE,
which are due 30 days after.
3. When to submit to Federal vs. State authority ............ Yes.
§ 63.9(i) ........................... Adjustment of Submittal Procedures for Administrator to approve change in Yes.
Deadlines. dates when notifications must be submitted.
§ 63.9(j) ........................... Change in Previous Infor- You must submit within 15 days after the change .......... Yes.
§ 63.10(a) ....................... Recordkeeping/ Reporting .. 1. Applies to all, unless compliance extension ................ Yes.
2. When to submit to Federal vs. State authority ............ Yes.
3. Procedures for owners of more than one source ........ Yes.
§ 63.10(b)(1) ................... Recordkeeping/Reporting ... 1. General requirements .................................................. Yes.
2. Keep all records readily available ................................ Yes.
3. Keep for 5 years. ......................................................... Yes.
§ 63.10(b)(2)(i)-(v) .......... Records related to Startup, 1. Occurrence of each malfunction of operation (process Yes.
Shutdown, and Malfunc- equipment).
2. Occurrence of each malfunction of air pollution equip- Yes.
3. Maintenance on air pollution control equipment .......... Yes.
4. Actions during startup, shutdown, and malfunction ..... Yes.
§ 63.10(b)(2)(vi) and (x)- CMS Records ..................... 1. Malfunctions, inoperative, out-of-control ...................... Yes.
2. Calibration checks ........................................................ Yes.
3. Adjustments, maintenance ........................................... Yes.
§ 63.10(b)(2)(vii)-(ix) ....... Records ............................... 1. Measurements to demonstrate compliance with emis- Yes.
2. Performance test, performance evaluation, and visi- Yes.
ble emission observation results.
3. Measurements to determine conditions of perform- Yes.
ance tests and performance evaluations.
§ 63.10(b)(2)(xii) ............. Records ............................... Records when under waiver ............................................ Yes.
§ 63.10(b)(2)(xiii) ............ Records ............................... Records when using alternative to relative accuracy test No. Subpart LLLLL does
not require the use of
§ 63.10(b)(2)(xiv) ............ Records ............................... All documentation supporting Initial Notification and No- Yes.
tification of Compliance Status.
§ 63.10(b)(3) ................... Records ............................... Applicability Determinations ............................................. Yes.
§ 63.10(c) (1)-(6), (9)- Records ............................... Additional Records for CMS ............................................ No. Section 63.8694 speci-
(15). fies the CMS record-
§ 63.10(c) (7)-(8) ............ Records ............................... Records of excess emissions and parameter monitoring No. Section 63.8694 speci-
exceedances for CMS. fies the CMS record-
§ 63.10(d)(1) ................... General Reporting Require- Requirement to report ...................................................... Yes.
§ 63.10(d)(2) ................... Report of Performance Test When to submit to Federal or State authority ................. Yes.
§ 63.10(d)(3) ................... Reporting Opacity or VE What to report and when ................................................. Yes.
§ 63.10(d)(4) ................... Progress Reports ................ You must submit progress reports on schedule if under Yes.
§ 63.10(d)(5) ................... Startup, Shutdown, and Contents and submission ................................................. Yes.
§ 63.10(e)(1)(2) ............... Additional CMS Reports ..... 1. Must report results for each CEM on a unit ................ No. Subpart LLLLL does
not require the use of
CEMS or COMS.
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 17:37 Nov 20, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21NOP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 21NOP3
58642 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 7 TO SUBPART LLLLL—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART LLLLL—Continued
Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart LLLLL
2. Written copy of performance evaluation ...................... No. Subpart LLLLL does
not require the use of
CEMS or COMS.
3. 3 copies of COMS performance evaluation ................ No. Subpart LLLLL does
not require the use of
CEMS or COMS.
§ 63.10(e)(3) ................... Reports ............................... Excess Emission Reports ................................................ No. Section 63.8693 speci-
fies the reporting require-
§ 63.10(e)(3)(1)–(iii) ........ Reports ............................... Schedule for reporting excess emissions and parameter No. Section 63.8693 speci-
monitor exceedances (not defined as deviations). fies the reporting require-
§ 63.10(e)(3)(iv)–(v) ........ Excess Emissions Reports 1. Requirement to revert to quarterly submission if there No. Section 63.8693 speci-
is an excess emissions and parameter monitor fies the reporting require-
exceedances (now defined as deviations). ments.
2. Provision to request semiannual reporting after com- No. Section 63.8693 speci-
pliance for 1 year. fies the reporting require-
3. Submit report by 30th day following end of quarter or No. Section 63.8693 speci-
calendar half. fies the reporting require-
4. If there has not been an exceedance or excess emis- No. Section 63.8693 speci-
sion (now defined as deviations), report content is a fies the reporting require-
statement that there have been no deviations. ments.
§ 63.10(e)(3)(iv)–(v) ........ Excess Emissions Reports You must submit report containing all of the information No. Section 63.8693 speci-
in No. Section all of the information in §§ 63.10(c)(5)– fies the reporting require-
(13) and 63.8(c)(7)–(8). ments.
§ 63.10(e)(3)(vi)–(viii) ..... Excess Emissions Report 1. Requirements for reporting excess emissions for No. Section 63.8693 speci-
and Summary Report. CMS (not called deviations). fies the reporting require-
2. Requires all of the information in §§ 63.10(c)(5)–(13) ments.
§ 63.10(e)(4) ................... Reporting COMS data ........ You must submit COMS data with performance test No. Subpart LLLLL does
data.. not require that use of
§ 63.10(f) ........................ Waiver for Recordkeeping/ Procedures for Administrator to waive ............................. Yes.
§ 63.11 ............................ Flares .................................. Requirements for flares .................................................... Yes.
§ 63.12 ............................ Delegation ........................... State authority to enforce standards ................................ Yes.
§ 63.13 ............................ Addresses ........................... Addresses where reports, notifications, and requests Yes.
§ 63.14 ............................ Incorporation by Reference Test methods incorporated by reference ......................... Yes.
§ 63.15 ............................ Availability of Information .... Public and confidential information .................................. Yes.
[FR Doc. 01–28192 Filed 11–20–01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate 11<MAY>2000 17:37 Nov 20, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21NOP3.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 21NOP3