[Federal Register: April 29, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 82)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 22975-23007]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr29ap03-24]
[[Page 22975]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing; Final Rule
[[Page 22976]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[OAR-2002-0035; FRL-7461-8]
RIN 2060-AG66
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for existing and new asphalt
processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities. The EPA has
identified asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing
facilities as major sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) such as
formaldehyde, hexane, hydrogen chloride (HCl), phenol, polycyclic
organic matter (POM), and toluene. The final standards will implement
section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) by requiring all major
sources to meet HAP emission standards reflecting the application of
the maximum achievable control technology (MACT). The total HAP
reduction resulting from compliance with the rule is expected to be 86
megagrams per year (Mg/yr).
A variety of HAP are emitted from asphalt processing and asphalt
roofing manufacturing source categories. The following HAP account for
the majority (approximately 98 percent, based on the emission factors
developed for the final rule) of the total HAP emissions: Formaldehyde,
hexane, HCl (at asphalt processing facilities that use chlorinated
catalysts), phenol, and toluene. The remaining two percent of the total
HAP emissions is a combination of several different organic HAP, each
contributing less than 0.5 percent to the total HAP emissions.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 29, 2003.
ADDRESSES: The official public docket is the collection of materials
that is available for public viewing at the Office of Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center (Air Docket) in the EPA Docket Center,
(EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning
applicability and rule determinations, contact your State or local
representative or appropriate EPA Regional Office representative. For
information concerning rule development, contact Rick Colyer, Minerals
and Inorganic Chemicals Group, Emission Standards Division (C504-05),
U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone
number (919) 541-5262, electronic mail address, colyer.rick@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. Categories and entities
potentially regulated by this action:
Table 1.--Regulated Categories and Entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS a SIC b
Category --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Code Description Code Description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturing.................. 324122 Asphalt shingle and 2952 Asphalt felts and coating.
coating materials
manufacturing.
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.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action,
you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec. Sec. 63.8681 and
63.8682 of the final rule. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, contact the person
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Docket. The EPA has established an official public docket for this
action under Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0035. The official public docket
consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any
public comments received, and other information related to this action.
Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not
include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket
is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at
the Office of Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (Air
Docket) in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading
Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is
(202) 566-1742. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket
materials.
Electronic Docket Access. You may access the final rule
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may
use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to view public comments,
access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket,
and to access those documents in the public docket that are available
electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available
electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available
docket materials through the docket facility in the above paragraph
entitled ``Docket.'' Once in the system, select ``search,'' then key in
the appropriate docket identification number.
Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets.
Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public
docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic
public docket. The EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not
be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only
in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent
feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in
EPA's electronic public docket. When a
[[Page 22977]]
document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system
will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's
electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be
available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly
available docket materials through the docket facility previously
identified.
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of the final rule is also available on the WWW
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a
copy of the final rule will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance
page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following address:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more
information regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at
(919) 541-5384.
Judicial Review. The NESHAP for asphalt processing and asphalt
roofing manufacturing was proposed on November 21, 2001 (66 FR 58610).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of the NESHAP is
available by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit by June 30, 2003. Only those
objections to the rule that were raised with reasonable specificity
during the period for public comment may be raised during judicial
review. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements that are
the subject of today's final rule may not be challenged later in civil
or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.
Background Information Document. The EPA proposed the NESHAP for
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing on November 21,
2001 (66 FR 58610) and received 21 comment letters on the proposal. In
response to the public comments, EPA adjusted the final NESHAP where
appropriate. A background information document (BID) (``National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Asphalt Processing and
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing, Summary of Public Comments and
Responses,'' February 2003, EPA-453/R-03-005) containing EPA's
responses to each public comment is available in Docket No. OAR-2002-
0035.
Outline. The information presented in the preamble is organized as
follows:
I. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for the final NESHAP?
B. What criteria were used in the development of NESHAP?
C. What operations constitute asphalt processing and asphalt
roofing manufacture?
D. What are the HAP emissions and HAP emission sources?
E. What are the health effects associated with the HAP emitted
from the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing source
categories?
F. What was the basis for the proposed standards?
II. Summary of the Final Standards
A. Does the final NESHAP apply to me?
B. What are the affected sources?
C. What pollutants are regulated by the final NESHAP?
D. What emission limits must I meet?
E. When must I comply?
F. What are the testing and initial compliance requirements?
G. What are the continuous compliance provisions?
H. What are the notification, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements?
III. What are the responses to the significant comments?
A. Rule Applicability
B. Asphalt Storage Tank and Loading Rack Vapor Pressure Control
Cutoff
C. Level of the Standards
D. Compliance Options
E. Performance Tests
F. Monitoring Requirements
G. Overlap with Other Rules
IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts
A. What are the air quality impacts?
B. What are the cost impacts?
C. What are the economic impacts?
D. What are the non-air health, environmental and energy
impacts?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
J. Congressional Review Act
I. Background
A. What Is the Statutory Authority for the Final NESHAP?
Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and
subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP emissions and to
establish NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. A
major source of HAP is any stationary source or group of stationary
sources within a contiguous area under common control that emits or has
the potential to emit, considering controls, in the aggregate, 9.1 Mg/
yr (10 tons per year (tpy)) or more of any single HAP or 22.7 Mg/yr (25
tpy) or more of any combination of HAP. Based on the emissions data
collected for this rulemaking, asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
manufacturing facilities have the potential to be major sources of HAP.
The EPA listed asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing
categories of major sources as separate source categories on July 16,
1992 (57 FR 31576). However, because these processes are closely
related and are often collocated, we are regulating emissions from both
source categories under a single NESHAP.
B. What Criteria Were Used in the Development of NESHAP?
Section 112(c)(2) of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for
control of HAP from both existing and new major sources, based upon the
criteria set out in section 112(d). The CAA requires the NESHAP to
reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP that is
achievable, taking into consideration the cost of achieving the
emission reduction, any non-air quality health and environmental
impacts, and energy requirements. This level of control is commonly
referred to as the MACT.
The minimum control level allowed for NESHAP (the minimum level of
stringency for MACT) is the so-called ``MACT floor,'' as defined under
section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. The MACT floor for existing sources is
the emission limitation achieved by the average of the best-performing
12 percent of existing sources for categories and subcategories with 30
or more sources, or the average of the best-performing five sources for
categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources. For new
sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission
control achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source.
In developing the final NESHAP, we considered control options that
are more stringent than the MACT floor (so-called beyond-the-floor
control options), taking into consideration the cost of achieving the
emission reductions, and any non-air quality health and environmental
impacts, and energy requirements.
In the final rule, the EPA is promulgating standards for both
existing and new sources consistent with these statutory requirements.
[[Page 22978]]
C. What Operations Constitute Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacture?
The final rule regulates both asphalt processing and asphalt
roofing manufacturing operations. Asphalt processing and asphalt
roofing manufacturing operations can be stand-alone or integrated with
each other, or with related operations such as wet-formed fiberglass
mat manufacturing. In addition, asphalt is processed at some petroleum
refineries.
Processed asphalt is produced using asphalt flux as the raw
material. Asphalt flux is a product that is obtained in the last stages
of fractional distillation of crude oil. Asphalt is processed to change
its physical properties for use in various end products (e.g., paving
applications, roofing products). In asphalt processing, heated asphalt
flux is taken from storage and charged to a heated blowing still where
air is bubbled up through the flux. This process raises the softening
temperature of the asphalt. The blowing process also decreases the
penetration rate of the asphalt when applied to the roofing substrate.
Some processing operations use a catalyst (e.g., ferric chloride,
phosphoric acid) in the blowing still to promote the oxidation of
asphalt. The need to use catalyst is primarily driven by the type of
feedstock used. Certain low-quality feedstocks (which are used,
however, by necessity because substitute feedstocks are not available,
see 66 FR 58619) require catalyst to be used to attain desired product
specifications.
In asphalt roofing manufacturing, processed or modified asphalt
(also called modified bitumen) is applied to a fibrous substrate
(typically made of fiberglass or organic felt) to produce the following
types of roofing products: Shingles, laminated shingles, smooth-
surfaced roll roofing, mineral-surfaced roll roofing, and saturated
felt roll roofing. Modified asphalt is asphalt that is mixed with
polymer modifiers (which add strength and durability to the asphalt)
and is typically used to produce roll roofing products. A roofing
manufacturing line is a largely continuous operation, with line
stoppages occurring primarily due to breaks in the substrate.
In asphalt roofing manufacturing, asphalt is typically mixed with
filler materials before application to the substrate. If a fiberglass
substrate is used, coating asphalt is applied by a coater. If an
organic substrate is used, a saturator and wet looper are typically
used prior to the coater to provide additional time for the asphalt to
impregnate the substrate. The type of final product being manufactured
determines the process steps that follow the coating or impregnation
steps.
For shingles and mineral-surfaced roll roofing, granules are
applied to the hot surface of the coated substrate. This step is
omitted in manufacture of smooth-surfaced and saturated felt roll
roofing. In shingle manufacturing, a strip of sealant (typically
oxidized or modified asphalt) is applied to the back of the product
after it has cooled. This sealant strip, which is heated by the sun
after the roofing product is installed, provides some adhesion and
sealing between layers of roofing product. In shingle manufacture, the
coated substrate is cut into the desired size. Multiple single-ply
shingles can be glued together (typically using oxidized or modified
asphalt as an adhesive) to produce laminated or dimensional shingles.
When asphalt roofing manufacturing lines are collocated with asphalt
processing operations, the two operations typically share storage and
process tanks.
D. What Are the HAP Emissions and HAP Emission Sources?
Asphalt is essentially the material that remains after fractional
distillation of crude oil, with petroleum coke being the only other
fraction available for recovery. Consequently, asphalt consists
primarily of heavy organic compounds with low boiling points. Hazardous
air pollutants are volatilized from asphalt as it is heated and
agitated during processing and roofing manufacturing operations.
Hazardous air pollutants are also volatilized during asphalt processing
as a result of the oxidation reactions that occur in the blowing still.
Because the HAP volatilized from asphalt generally have low boiling
points, they can be present in both condensed particulate matter (PM)
and gaseous forms, depending on the temperature of the vent or exhaust
gas. When the temperature of the vent gas is below the boiling point of
a HAP, the HAP will condense into particulate form (i.e., a cooler vent
gas will have more HAP in the form of condensed PM, whereas a hotter
vent stream will contain mostly gaseous HAP).
The following types of equipment are sources of PM HAP and gaseous
HAP emissions: Asphalt storage and process tanks, asphalt blowing
stills, asphalt loading racks, saturators, wet loopers, coating mixers,
coaters, sealant applicators, and adhesive applicators. The majority of
uncontrolled HAP emissions from an asphalt processing and asphalt
roofing manufacturing facility (approximately 50 percent, based on the
emission factors developed for this rulemaking) are contributed by the
blowing stills, followed by the process equipment used to apply asphalt
to the roofing substrate (e.g., coating mixers, saturators, wet
loopers, and coaters). Asphalt processing operations can also be
sources of HCl, if a chlorinated catalyst is introduced into the
blowing still during processing. Since most blowing still emissions are
controlled by a combustion device, chlorine compounds present in the
blowing still exhaust are oxidized and emitted as HCl from the blowing
still combustion device outlet.
E. What Are the Health Effects Associated With the HAP Emitted From the
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Source Categories?
A variety of HAP are emitted from asphalt processing and asphalt
roofing manufacturing source categories. The following HAP account for
the majority (approximately 98 percent, based on the emission factors
developed for this rulemaking) of the total HAP emissions:
Formaldehyde, hexane, HCl (at asphalt processing facilities that use
chlorinated catalysts), phenol, and toluene. The remaining two percent
of the total HAP emissions is a combination of several different
organic HAP, each contributing less than 0.5 percent to the total HAP
emissions.
The HAP emitted from these source categories (controlled under the
final rule) are associated with a variety of adverse health effects.
These adverse health effects include both chronic health disorders
(e.g., irritation of the lung, skin, and mucous membranes, effects on
the central nervous system, and damage to the blood and liver) and
acute health disorders (e.g., respiratory irritation and central
nervous system effects such as drowsiness, headache, and nausea). The
EPA has classified two of the HAP (formaldehyde and POM) as probable
human carcinogens.
The EPA does not have the type of current detailed data on each of
the facilities and the people living around the facilities covered by
today's rule for this source category that would be necessary to
conduct an analysis to determine the actual population exposures to the
HAP emitted from these facilities and the potential for resultant
health effects. Therefore, EPA does not know the extent to which the
adverse health effects described above occur in the populations
surrounding these facilities. However, to the extent the adverse
effects do occur, and this rule reduces emissions, subsequent exposures
would be reduced.
[[Page 22979]]
F. What Was the Basis for the Proposed Standards?
The EPA proposed standards for the HAP-emitting equipment at the
two affected sources: Each asphalt processing facility (blowing stills,
asphalt flux storage tanks, oxidized asphalt storage tanks, and asphalt
loading racks) and each asphalt roofing manufacturing line (saturator,
a wet looper, a coater, coating mixers, sealant applicators, adhesive
applicators, and associated storage tanks).
The EPA determined the MACT floors for existing and new sources for
each type of process equipment used in asphalt processing facilities
and in asphalt roofing manufacturing lines. For each equipment type,
the equipment pieces were ranked in order of level of control.
Combustion devices were ranked over PM control devices because
combustion devices reduce both gaseous HAP and condensed HAP.
At proposal, a combustion device operating at or above 1200 [deg]F
was the basis for the MACT floor for blowing stills, asphalt storage
tanks with a capacity of 1.93 megagrams or greater, and loading racks
at existing, new, and reconstructed affected sources. Blowing stills
that use a chlorinated catalyst produce a vent stream that contains
chlorinated organic compounds. When this vent stream is sent to a
combustion device, the chlorinated organic compounds are oxidized to
HCl which is a HAP. Because requiring facilities to use non-chlorinated
catalysts is not feasible due to the need to produce oxidized asphalt
of a given quality (see generally 66 FR 58618), and because no
facilities control HCl emissions, the proposed MACT floor for HCl
emissions from blowing stills using catalyst was based on no control of
those emissions.
With the exception of asphalt storage tanks, the MACT floor for
equipment at existing asphalt roofing manufacturing lines (coaters,
saturators, wet loopers, coating mixers and sealant and adhesive
applicators) was based on a PM control device complying with the new
source performance standards (NSPS) for asphalt processing and roofing
manufacture (asphalt NSPS) (40 CFR part 60, subpart UU) PM emission
limits. The floor for saturators, coaters, and coating mixers at new
and reconstructed affected sources was based on a combustion device
operating at or above 1200 [deg]F. For wet loopers at existing, new,
and reconstructed affected sources, the MACT floor was based on a PM
control device that achieves the asphalt NSPS PM emission limits. For
storage tanks with capacity of 1.93 megagrams or greater at existing,
new, and reconstructed asphalt roofing manufacturing lines, the MACT
floor was based on a combustion device operating at or above 1200
[deg]F.
The EPA evaluated potential options for achieving emission
reductions more stringent than the floor (beyond-the-floor options) for
three groups of equipment: (1) Saturators, wet loopers, coaters,
coating mixers, and sealant and adhesive applicators at existing
sources; (2) blowing stills that use a chlorinated catalyst at
existing, new, and reconstructed sources; and (3) wet loopers at new
and reconstructed sources. For all other equipment (blowing stills,
loading racks, and storage tanks at existing, new, and reconstructed
sources; and for saturators, coaters, coating mixers, and sealant and
adhesive applicators at new and reconstructed sources), there are no
known technologies in use at asphalt processing or roofing
manufacturing facilities or similar sources that would be capable of
achieving a greater emission reduction than a combustion device
operating with a minimum operating temperature of 1200 [deg]F. Thus,
EPA did not consider beyond-the-floor options for these types of
equipment.
For saturators, wet loopers, coating mixers, coaters, and sealant
and adhesive applicators at existing affected sources, the level of
control achieved by a combustion device with a minimum operating
temperature of 1200 [deg]F was identified as the only beyond-the-floor
option. However, due to the cost per megagram of HAP reduction
($616,000) and the increase in criteria pollutant emissions, requiring
the level of control achieved by a combustion device for saturators,
wet loopers, coaters, coating mixers, and sealant and adhesive
applicators at existing sources was not a justifiable option.
For blowing stills that use chlorinated catalysts, emissions of HCl
can be reduced by a gas scrubber using caustic scrubbing media.
However, since gas scrubbing has not been demonstrated as an effective
technology for controlling HCl emissions from asphalt processing and
due to the potentially high cost per megagram of HCl reduced ($23,900),
the additional cost of going beyond-the-floor was not warranted. Nor is
process substitution a viable option for controlling HCl emissions, as
noted above. Therefore, the MACT for HCl emissions from blowing stills
using catalyst was based on no emission reduction. For wet loopers, EPA
considered the level of control of a combustion device operating at a
minimum of 1200 [deg]F as a beyond-the-floor option. Because
controlling wet loopers at new affected sources was expected to add
minimal if any cost to the total control cost, the MACT for wet loopers
at new or reconstructed affected sources was based on a combustion
device operating at a minimum of 1200 [deg]F. See generally 66 FR
58618-621 and the memorandum ``Documentation of Existing and New Source
Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floors for the National
Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Asphalt
Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing'' (Docket No. OAR-2002-
0035).
With the exception of standards for certain tanks and loading
racks, EPA is adopting all of these standards (and analysis) in the
final rule.
II. Summary of the Final Standards
A. Does the Final NESHAP Apply to Me?
The final rule applies to you if you process asphalt (at stand-
alone facilities or collocated with asphalt roofing manufacturing
facilities or petroleum refineries) or manufacture asphalt roofing
products at a facility that is a major source of HAP emissions. Major
sources of HAP are those that emit or have the potential to emit at
least 10 tpy of any one HAP or 25 tpy of any combination of HAP. All
HAP emission sources at a facility, not just those related to asphalt
processing or roofing manufacture, must be considered in determining
major source status. Put another way, the final rule may apply to you
even if the HAP emissions from your asphalt roofing products
manufacturing and asphalt processing operations do not themselves
exceed the major source threshold levels given above. If your facility
is determined to be an area source (i.e., not a major source), you
would not be subject to the final rule.
For the storage tanks at asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
manufacturing facilities regulated by the final NESHAP, the potential
exists for these tanks to already be subject to an existing emission
standard: The petroleum refinery NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart CC),
or standards of performance for volatile organic liquid storage vessels
(40 CFR part 60, subparts K, Ka, and Kb). Storage tanks that are
subject to those standards are not subject to the requirements of the
asphalt rule since the control requirements specified by those
standards for fixed roof storage tanks (used in the asphalt processing
and asphalt roofing manufacturing industry) are as stringent as the
standards specified in the asphalt rule, and so regulation of these
tanks under the
[[Page 22980]]
asphalt rule would be duplicative, imposing costs without any
environmental benefit.
The EPA also recognizes that asphalt storage tanks, blowing stills,
saturators, wet loopers, and coaters at asphalt processing and asphalt
roofing manufacturing facilities could be subject to both the final
NESHAP and the asphalt NSPS. In cases where the requirements of the
rules overlap, the final rule specifies that facilities are required to
comply only with the asphalt NESHAP. However, any storage tank with a
capacity less than 1.93 megagrams that is subject to the asphalt NSPS
but not regulated under the asphalt NESHAP must comply with the asphalt
NSPS.
Another instance where we are excluding equipment involved in
asphalt roofing manufacturing from the final rule, due to regulatory
overlap involves, wet-formed fiberglass mat production. Although wet-
formed fiberglass mat is produced at both stand-alone facilities and
those collocated with asphalt processing and roofing facilities, HAP
emissions from wet-formed fiberglass mat manufacturing processes are
regulated by another NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH).
The final rule does not regulate asphalt processing and asphalt
roofing manufacturing equipment that is used solely for research and
development activities.
B. What Are the Affected Sources?
The two affected sources are defined as each asphalt processing
facility and each asphalt roofing manufacturing line. An asphalt
processing facility consists of one or more asphalt flux blowing
stills, asphalt flux storage tanks storing asphalt flux intended for
processing in the blowing stills, oxidized asphalt storage tanks, and
oxidized asphalt loading racks. An asphalt roofing manufacturing line
consists of a saturator (including wet looper) and/or a coater and
their associated coating mixers, sealant applicators, adhesive
applicators, and asphalt storage and process tanks.
To reduce repetition in the final NESHAP, we have separated asphalt
storage tanks into two groups. Group 1 asphalt storage tanks: Have a
capacity of 177 cubic meters (47,000 gallons) of asphalt or greater and
either store asphalt at a maximum temperature of 260 [deg]C (500
[deg]F) or greater, or have a maximum true vapor pressure of 10.4
kiloPascals (kPa) (1.5 pounds per square inch absolute, psia) or
greater. Group 2 asphalt storage tanks are those tanks with a capacity
of 1.93 Mg of asphalt or greater that are not Group 1 asphalt storage
tanks.
Asphalt storage tanks at asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
manufacturing facilities that are collocated may be shared by the two
operations. If the asphalt roofing manufacturing line is collocated
with an asphalt processing facility, the storage tanks that receive
asphalt directly from the on-site blowing stills are defined as part of
the asphalt processing affected source.
A facility that manufactures asphalt roofing may have more than one
manufacturing line. At these facilities, asphalt storage tanks and
sealant and adhesive applicators may be shared by roofing manufacturing
lines. A shared storage tank is considered part of the asphalt roofing
manufacturing line to which the tank supplies the greatest amount of
asphalt on an annual basis. Similarly, a sealant or adhesive applicator
that is shared by two or more asphalt roofing manufacturing lines is
considered part of the line that provides the greatest throughput to
the applicator on an annual basis. Recordkeeping provisions documenting
these equipment allocations are found in Sec. 63.8694(d) of the final
rule.
This definition of affected source is also used to determine if new
source standards apply when subject equipment is ``constructed'' or
``reconstructed,'' as defined in the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR
63.2). We defined the affected source as the asphalt processing
facility or asphalt roofing manufacturing line, rather than on a narrow
equipment-piece basis, because we believe that it is inappropriate for
small changes (e.g., the addition of a sealant applicator to a
manufacturing line) to trigger the new source emission limits for only
part of the manufacturing line. For asphalt processing facilities, this
is not a concern since the existing and new source standards are the
same. However, the existing and new source standards are different for
asphalt roofing manufacturing lines.
For asphalt roofing manufacturing lines, the new source emission
limits would be triggered only when an entire new line is added or when
an existing line is reconstructed. This is appropriate because the
manufacture of roofing products is a continuous process, with the
equipment for the different process steps arranged in sequence.
Consequently, an increase in production cannot be achieved simply by
adding a single piece of process equipment (e.g., a coater). To
increase production capacity, significant parts of the line would have
to be modified or a new line would need to be constructed.
C. What Pollutants Are Regulated by the Final NESHAP?
The final rule establishes emission limits for two pollutants,
total hydrocarbons (THC) and PM, each of which serves as a surrogate
for HAP emitted by the process equipment.
Total Hydrocarbons
We are regulating total gaseous organic HAP emissions using THC as
a surrogate. Total hydrocarbons are an appropriate surrogate for total
HAP since organic HAP constitutes a significant portion of the THC, and
because combustion controls are equally effective at reducing emissions
of a wide range of organic compounds (including organic HAP emitted by
asphalt processing and roofing manufacturing facilities and THC). Thus,
reduction of organic HAP and THC from these sources is proportionate.
Particulate Matter
Particulate matter emitted from blowing stills consists of
condensed organic hydrocarbons. For organic HAP that is present in
condensed PM form, we are using PM as a surrogate. Similar to the THC
surrogate for gaseous HAP, PM is an appropriate surrogate because it
includes the HAP that are emitted as condensed PM. Because the
reductions achieved by PM control devices are not pollutant-specific
(i.e., one type of PM is not preferentially reduced over another type
of PM), controlling PM will result in a generally proportionate amount
of condensed particulate organic HAP control.
D. What Emission Limits Must I Meet?
You must meet the emission limits that are summarized in Table 1 to
the final rule. The emission limits are expressed in appropriate
formats for the various process equipment being regulated. Depending on
the piece of process equipment, you may have the option of complying
with any of several formats. These formats include a PM emission limit
(expressed in terms of kilograms of PM per Mg product manufactured), a
THC percent reduction standard, a THC outlet concentration, a THC
destruction efficiency standard (only for combustion devices that do
not use auxiliary fuel), or a combustion efficiency standard.
The THC destruction efficiency and combustion efficiency standards
are provided as an alternative to the THC percent reduction standard in
the final rule because there are some emission sources (e.g., blowing
stills) for which
[[Page 22981]]
testing of the control device inlet is impractical.
Saturators (including wet loopers) and coaters at existing roofing
manufacturing lines must meet PM emission limits based on the type of
substrate used in manufacturing. At existing, reconstructed, and new
asphalt roofing manufacturing lines, saturators (including wet loopers)
and coaters must meet an opacity limit, and the emission capture system
for these equipment must meet a visible emissions standard. The final
rule also provides the option for Group 2 asphalt storage tanks,
saturators (including wet loopers), and coaters at existing and new
asphalt roofing manufacturing lines and coating mixers, sealant
applicators, and adhesive applicators at existing asphalt roofing
manufacturing lines to comply with either the THC or the combustion
efficiency standards instead of the PM and opacity standards.
E. When Must I Comply?
Existing sources must comply with the final rule no later than May
1, 2006. The 3-year period is necessary to allow owners and operators
sufficient time to design, purchase, and install emissions capture
systems and air pollution control equipment. New or reconstructed
sources must comply with the final rule at startup or April 29, 2003,
whichever is later.
If your asphalt processing facility or asphalt roofing
manufacturing line is located at a facility that is an area source that
increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a
major source of HAP after April 29, 2003, then any portion of the
existing facility that is a new affected source or a reconstructed
affected source must comply with all requirements of the final rule
applicable to new sources upon startup after the facility becomes a
major source or by April 29, 2003, whichever is later. All other parts
of any facility to which the final rule applies must be in compliance
with this subpart by 3 years after becoming a major source.
F. What Are the Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements?
You must conduct a performance test to demonstrate initial
compliance with the final rule emission limits unless you are using the
results from an acceptable previously-conducted emission test to
demonstrate compliance with the emission limitations in the final rule,
or you are using a control device that the EPA has already determined
achieves the required HAP destruction efficiency.
If you choose to use the results from a previously-conducted
emissions test, you must demonstrate to the Administrator's (or
delegated authority) satisfaction that no changes have been made to the
process since the time of the emissions test, the operating conditions
and test methods used during testing conform to the requirements of the
final rule, and the control device and process parameter values
established during the previously-conducted emission test are used to
demonstrate continuous compliance with the final rule.
An initial performance test is not required for boilers or process
heaters with a design heat input capacity of 44 megawatts (MW) or
greater or where the emissions are introduced into the flame zone of
the boiler or process heater. Performance testing is also not required
for flares that meet the design and operating requirements of 40 CFR
63.11(b). An initial performance test is not required for boilers and
process heaters larger than 44 MW because they operate at high
temperatures and residence times. When vent streams are introduced into
the flame zone of these boilers and process heaters, over 98 percent
reduction or an outlet concentration of 20 parts per million per volume
(ppmv) is achieved. Therefore, a performance test is not necessary. We
are not requiring performance testing of flares because percent
reduction and outlet concentration cannot feasibly be measured at
flares. The operating conditions in Sec. 63.11 assure that the flare
will be operated properly and achieve the requisite degree of
destruction of organic HAP.
As specified in 40 CFR 63.7(e), performance tests must be conducted
within the range of normal operating conditions. To ensure that
compliance can be achieved over the entire range of operating
conditions, the performance tests must be conducted under the operating
conditions that reflect the highest rate of asphalt processing or
roofing production reasonably expected to be achieved by the facility.
For example, performance tests of roofing manufacturing line equipment
must be conducted while operating under normal conditions and while
manufacturing the roofing product that is expected to result in the
greatest amount of HAP emissions.
For each performance test, you must conduct a minimum of three 1-
hour test runs. Compliance is determined based on the average of the
three test runs. To measure PM, you must use EPA test method 5A; for
THC emissions, you must use EPA test method 25A.
For the THC destruction efficiency and combustion efficiency
standards, you must measure emissions of THC, carbon monoxide
(CO2), and carbon dioxide (CO2) to demonstrate
compliance. For the THC outlet concentration you must measure emissions
of THC to demonstrate compliance. You must use EPA test method 10 to
measure CO emissions and EPA test method 3A to measure CO2
emissions. The EPA test methods are contained in appendix A of 40 CFR
part 60. You must demonstrate compliance with the PM emission limit,
THC percent reduction standard, THC outlet concentration standard, THC
destruction efficiency standard, and the combustion efficiency standard
using the instructions and equations in the performance test
requirement section of the final rule.
The final rule also contains opacity and visible emission standards
for saturators (including wet loopers) and coaters and their emissions
capture systems at existing, new, and reconstructed asphalt roofing
manufacturing lines and an opacity standard for certain asphalt storage
tanks at existing, new, and reconstructed asphalt processing facilities
and roofing manufacturing lines. Opacity and visible emission
compliance determinations must be made using EPA test methods 9 and 22
in appendix A of 40 CFR part 60, respectively.
The final rule allows you to demonstrate continuous compliance with
the emission standards by monitoring control device operating
parameters or by using continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) to
directly measure emissions. Although the final rule does not require
continuous monitoring of opacity, you can use continuous opacity
monitoring systems (COMS) if you choose to do so since the opacity
standard applies at all times.
If you choose to conduct parameter monitoring, you must install,
calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous parameter monitoring
system (CPMS) to monitor the control device parameters. During the
performance test, you must continuously monitor and record control
device parameters and establish the monitoring parameter value(s) that
constitute compliance with the emission limits if you plan to use
parameter monitoring to demonstrate compliance following the initial
performance test. If you use a combustion device to comply with the
standards, you must record the average operating temperature. The
temperature monitoring device must be installed at the exit of the
combustion zone or in the ductwork immediately downstream of the
combustion zone, before any substantial heat loss occurs.
[[Page 22982]]
If you use a control device to comply with the PM standards, you must
record the device inlet gas temperature and pressure drop across the
device. If you use electrostatic precipitators (ESP) to achieve
compliance with the PM standard, you may record the voltage of the ESP
as an alternative to the pressure drop across the ESP.
For combustion devices and PM control devices, the parameters must
be monitored and values recorded in 15-minute blocks during each of
three 1-hour test runs. If you use a control device other than a
combustion device or PM control device to comply with the final rule,
you must propose the appropriate monitoring parameters, monitoring
frequencies, and averaging periods. All monitoring parameters for
control devices not specified in the final rule must be approved by the
Administrator as specified in 40 CFR 63.8(f).
If you choose to demonstrate continuous compliance by directly
measuring emissions, you must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate
a CEMS and record the emissions during the performance test according
to the procedures specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A.
For all monitoring approaches (CPMS and CEMS (and COMS, if used)),
you must also monitor and record the average hourly roofing line
production rate or the asphalt processing rate, as applicable, during
the performance test. If you are complying with the PM emission limit,
you must also determine the asphalt content of the product manufactured
during the performance test.
G. What Are the Continuous Compliance Provisions?
After the performance test, you must demonstrate continuous
compliance with the emission limits by monitoring either control device
or process operating parameters or by monitoring emissions. The
parameters or emissions must remain within the limits established
during the initial performance test.
If you choose to use parametric monitoring to demonstrate
continuous compliance with the standards, the final rule specifies the
parameters that are to be monitored. For combustion devices (other than
boilers, process heaters, and flares that meet specified design and
operating requirements), you must monitor the operating temperature.
For control devices used to meet the PM standards, you must monitor the
inlet gas temperature and pressure drop across the device. If you use
an ESP to achieve compliance with the PM standard, you may monitor the
voltage of the ESP as an alternative to pressure drop.
For parametric monitoring, you must determine and record 15-minute
and 3-hour block averages of the specified parameters. However, the
final rule allows the option of determining continuous compliance based
on any 15-minute period (i.e., you are not required to calculate 3-hour
block averages). If you choose this alternative, a monitoring parameter
deviation would occur if the monitoring parameter value(s) is outside
the approved range during any 15-minute period.
If you use a control device other than a combustion device or PM
control device to achieve compliance with the emission limits, the
monitoring parameters must be approved by the Administrator and
established during the initial performance test. To change the value of
any monitored parameter, you must conduct a performance test and submit
a request to the Administrator for approval using the procedures
specified in 40 CFR 63.8(f).
H. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements?
You must comply with the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, as specified in Tables 6 and
7 to the final rule. The notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements include, but are not limited to: Initial notification of
applicability of the rule, notification of the dates for conducting the
performance test and notification of compliance status; reports of any
startup, shutdown, and malfunction events that occur; and semiannual
reports of excess emissions or deviations from monitoring parameter
limits. When no deviations occur, you must submit semiannual reports
indicating that no deviations have occurred during the period. For a
combustion device, a deviation would be any time (excluding periods of
startup, shutdown and malfunction which would be a separate report)
that the operating temperature falls below the limit established during
the initial performance test. For a control device used to meet the PM
standards, a deviation would be any time (excluding periods of startup,
shutdown and malfunction) that the temperature of the gas at the inlet
to the control device or the pressure drop across the control device
(or ESP voltage) are outside their respective limits established during
the initial performance test.
You must maintain records of the following, as applicable: (1)
Combustion device operating temperature; (2) PM control device inlet
gas temperature and pressure drop (or voltage for ESP); (3) approved
parameters for sources that comply with the emission limits using a
control device other than a combustion device or PM control device; (4)
CEMS; and (5) the date and time a deviation commenced if a monitoring
parameter or emission deviation occurs, the date and time corrective
actions were initiated and completed, a description of the cause of the
deviation, and a description of the corrective actions taken. You must
also prepare a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan and maintain
records of actions taken during these events, as required by 40 CFR
63.6(e)(3).
The final rule also includes a requirement to develop and make
available for inspection by the permitting authority, upon request, a
site-specific monitoring plan that specifies how the continuous
parameter monitoring system will be installed, operated, and maintained
as well as the data quality assurance procedures and ongoing
recordkeeping and reporting procedures.
The NESHAP General Provisions (Sec. 63.10(b)) require that records
be maintained for at least 5 years from the date of each record. You
must retain the records onsite for at least 2 years. You may retain
records for the remaining 3 years at an offsite location. The records
must be readily available and in a form suitable for efficient
inspection and review. The files may be retained on paper, microfilm,
microfiche, a computer, computer disks, or magnetic tape. Reports may
also be made on paper or on a labeled computer disk using commonly
available and compatible computer software.
III. What Are the Responses to the Significant Comments?
Significant public comments on the proposed rule along with our
responses to these comments are summarized in this section of the
preamble. For detailed responses to all the comments, see the
Background Information Document (BID) (``National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing, Summary of Public Comments and Responses,'' February
2003, EPA-453/R-03-005) (Docket No. OAR-2002-0035).
A. Rule Applicability
Comment: Several commenters noted that it was not clear if the
proposed rule applied to facilities that process asphalt
[[Page 22983]]
intended for non-roofing products. The commenters suggested that
confusion regarding applicability was caused by addressing both the
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing source categories
together under one NESHAP. Confusion may have also been caused by the
proposed definition of asphalt flux, which read: ``asphalt flux means
the residual material from distillation of crude oil used to
manufacture asphalt roofing products.''
Response: On June 21, 2002, the EPA sent letters to the commenters
to clarify two aspects of the proposed rule:
[sbull] The proposed rule was intended to cover all asphalt
processing regardless of the asphalt's end use; and
[sbull] Requirements for storage vessels at asphalt roofing
manufacturing facilities, inadvertently left out of the proposed
rule, are the same as those for storage vessels at asphalt
processing facilities.
Subsequent comments on the notice letters disagreed with EPA's
interpretation of the proposed rule's applicability and contended that
the EPA should address this clarification in a supplemental proposal.
The EPA does not believe that a supplemental proposal is needed to
clarify the applicability of the final rule. It has long been held that
actual notice constitutes adequate notice and opportunity for comment
for purposes of section 307 of the CAA. (See Small Lead Refiner Phase
Down Task Force v. EPA, 705 F. 2d 507, 548 (D.C. Cir. 1983).) The
extensive comments received in response to the June 21, 2002 letters
demonstrates that the commenters had adequate notice and availed
themselves of it. There is no credible claim that further comments
could have been submitted had there been more notice or that the time
for response was inadequate. Under these circumstances, EPA believes
that it afforded all letter recipients adequate notice and opportunity
for comment and a supplemental notice to clarify the applicability of
the rule is not necessary.
The final NESHAP includes both asphalt processing and asphalt
roofing manufacturing because many facilities both process asphalt and
manufacture roofing products (asphalt roofing and other roofing
products).
With respect to the issue of whether asphalt processing should
include operations that process asphalt for non-roofing uses, EPA
believes that it should. The HAP emissions from asphalt processing (and
the means of controlling such emissions) are identical, whether or not
asphalt is produced for roofing or for other uses. Nor did EPA ever
intend to distinguish among asphalt uses in setting out the rule's
scope. The source category definition (``Documentation for Developing
the Initial Source Category List,'' EPA-450/3-91-030, July 1992) of
``asphalt processing'' reads as follows:
``The Asphalt Processing source category includes any facility
engaged in the preparation of asphalt at asphalt processing plants,
petroleum refineries, and asphalt roofing plants. Asphalt
preparation, called `blowing,' involves the oxidation of asphalt
flux by bubbling air through the liquid asphalt flux at 260[deg]C
for 1 to 4.5 hours, depending upon the desired characteristics of
the asphalt. The category includes, but is not limited to, the
following process: asphalt heating, blowing still, and asphalt
storage tanks'' (emphasis added).
This definition is not limited to asphalt that is processed for
roofing manufacturing, and in fact, is not limited in any respect by
the ultimate use to which processed asphalt is put. Consistent with the
source category definition, it was not EPA's intent to limit the
applicability of the final rule to the processing of roofing asphalt or
any other end use.
To clarify the final rule applicability, EPA has written the
definition of asphalt processing in the final rule to read as follows:
``Asphalt processing facility means any facility engaged in the
preparation of asphalt flux at stand-alone asphalt processing
facilities, petroleum refineries, and asphalt roofing facilities.
Asphalt preparation, called `blowing,' is the oxidation of asphalt
flux, achieved by bubbling air through the heated asphalt, to
increase the softening point and reduce the penetration of the
oxidized asphalt.
An asphalt processing facility includes one or more asphalt flux
blowing stills and their associated asphalt flux storage tanks,
oxidized asphalt storage tanks and oxidized asphalt loading racks.''
The EPA has also modified the definition of ``asphalt flux'' as
proposed to remove any suggestion that the rule's scope is limited by
the intended use of the processed asphalt.
B. Asphalt Storage Tank and Loading Rack Vapor Pressure Control Cutoff
Comment: Several commenters supported using a vapor pressure
cutoff, such as those found in the petroleum refinery NESHAP (40 CFR
part 63, subpart CC) and the new source performance standards for
storage vessels (40 CFR part 60, subparts K, Ka, and Kb) for asphalt
storage tanks and loading racks. The commenters contended that
equipment with vapor pressures below those thresholds would emit only
minimal amounts of HAP and therefore should not be subject to control
requirements. The commenters also alleged that EPA was being
inconsistent among different MACT standards in developing standards
applicable to similar types of equipment. For example, one commenter
asserted that EPA should not declare emissions from low HAP, low vapor
pressure stocks as de minimis sources under the petroleum refineries
NESHAP and then propose to regulate those same emissions under the
asphalt NESHAP. One commenter contended that it would be reasonable for
EPA to use an approach similar to the petroleum refinery NESHAP because
asphalt flux feedstocks and finished asphalt products are produced
directly by refineries and because many refineries will be subject to
the asphalt NESHAP.
Response: The proposed MACT for all asphalt storage tanks with a
capacity of 1.93 Mg or greater at existing, new, and reconstructed
affected sources was based on the fact that greater than 12 percent of
the asphalt storage tanks were controlled with a combustion device
operating at or above 1200 [deg]F. Also, the available data showed that
no sources were using a combustion device to control emissions from
storage tanks with a capacity less than 1.93 Mg of asphalt. Therefore,
the proposed MACT did not require control of tanks with capacities less
than 1.93 Mg (66 FR 58620).
The EPA now believes that the prevalence of combustion devices on
tanks storing asphalt at low vapor pressure is misleading. We believe
that combustion devices in this industry are used to control emissions
from tanks storing high- and low-vapor asphalt that are generally part
of an ``integrated system,'' an integrated group of process equipment
including higher-emitting equipment such as a blowing still, so that
what really is being controlled by combustion are the emissions from
the high-emitting equipment, with emissions from other system
components being ``along for the ride.''
An integrated system is one in which process components (e.g.,
blowing stills, coaters, and tanks storing high- and low-vapor pressure
asphalt) are utilized largely together and are generally located in
close proximity. In an integrated system, emissions from process
equipment that are subject to less stringent emission standards (e.g.,
tanks storing low-vapor pressure asphalt) generally are routed to the
control device (e.g., combustion device) that is used to control
emissions from the equipment (e.g., blowing stills, coaters) that are
subject to more stringent emission standards. In other words, it is
more cost effective to ``over control'' emissions from lower-emitting
[[Page 22984]]
storage tanks that are nearby, using a combustion device that is
selected and designed to control emissions from the entire system
(e.g., blowing stills, coaters, and asphalt storage tanks), than it is
to install a separate control device to reduce emissions from the
storage tanks to a lesser degree.
In the absence of an integrated system configuration, we do not
believe that combustion controls represent the MACT floor (or otherwise
represent MACT) for tanks that store low-vapor pressure asphalt since
facilities that do not use a combustion device to reduce emissions from
higher-emitting process equipment are unlikely to use a combustion
device to reduce emissions from tanks that store low-vapor pressure
asphalt (and we in fact know of no instance when a tanks storing low-
vapor pressure asphalt in this industry are controlled by a combustion
device when the tank is a stand-alone unit). Therefore, for tanks
storing asphalt with a low vapor pressure, the MACT floor largely
depends on whether or not the tank is part of an integrated system.
Based on the above discussion, it would seem logical to develop one
set of standards for integrated systems (including tanks) and another
for nonintegrated systems (where tanks would have different standards).
However, we do not have sufficient data to characterize the control
level of integrated versus nonintegrated systems or even to devise
workable definitions of these systems. The significance of the
existence of integrated systems, therefore, relates to calculation of
floor standards for tanks.
Based on the existence of integrated systems, we do not believe
that we have to include all tanks storing high- and low-vapor pressure
asphalt together in making a floor determination for storage tanks. We
do believe that it is reasonable to assume that facilities would use
combustion devices for tanks storing high-vapor pressure asphalt
because of the greater potential for emissions from these tanks and the
appropriateness of controlling volatile emissions using combustion
devices. We, thus, included all such tanks as a single group in
determining floor standards and determined that the best-performing 12
percent of tanks used to store high-vapor pressure asphalt use
combustion to control the emissions. (We did not, however, include
tanks used to store low-vapor pressure asphalt in this calculus and are
not compelled to for the reasons explained above relating to integrated
systems.) Therefore, for tanks storing asphalt with a high vapor
pressure at existing and new sources, we believe that the MACT floor is
a combustion device regardless of whether or not it is located in an
integrated system.
For tanks storing low-vapor pressure asphalt, a separate
determination must be made to establish the MACT floor for existing and
new sources. For these storage tanks, the MACT floor depends mainly on
whether or not the tank is part of an integrated system. However, as
noted above, we are unable to devise a workable definition of the
integrated system. Among other problems, we have no information
regarding tank vapor pressure or facility configurations to determine
the relative proximity of low-vapor pressure asphalt storage tanks to
combustion devices. Although we are unable to develop a separate
standard for integrated systems, the MACT floor for any storage tank
cannot be less stringent than the opacity limits for controlling PM
specified in the asphalt NSPS, since over 12 percent of existing
storage tanks in the industry are already subject to those standards.
In fact, approximately 27 percent of the storage tanks in the database
use particulate controls (such as fiber-bed filters, mist eliminators,
condensers) to meet the asphalt NSPS. This control of PM will
necessarily control HAP emissions since a portion of the PM is
condensed HAP. Therefore, the MACT floor for tanks storing asphalt with
low vapor pressures at existing and new sources is the opacity limit
specified in the asphalt NSPS.
We recognize that this floor for tanks storing low-vapor pressure
asphalt actually applies to some tanks that are part of integrated
systems. Nevertheless, we expect that tanks that are part of an
integrated system are controlled by the same control device used to
control the entire system, rather than being controlled separately.
Therefore, using the opacity limit specified in the asphalt NSPS as a
floor for tanks storing asphalt with low vapor pressures should not
discourage facilities from using combustion devices to control
emissions from storage tanks that are part of integrated systems. Nor
is it likely to lead to removal of any existing controls on integrated
systems since the combined system was already adopted by those
facilities and removal would entail retrofit costs.
With regard to establishing the vapor pressure cutoff value that
would be used to assign tanks into high- and low-vapor pressure groups
(Groups 1 and 2, respectively), EPA does not have survey data for the
vapor pressure of stored asphalt that could be used to establish this
value. In the absence of vapor pressure data, we based the vapor
pressure cutoff value on the MACT floor for existing storage tanks at
petroleum refineries. Asphalt tanks are similar because asphalt is a
petroleum refinery product, and asphalt processing facilities are
located at some petroleum refineries. Therefore, EPA believes that it
is reasonable for the vapor pressure cutoff in the final rule to be
consistent with the maximum true vapor pressure cutoff (10.4 kPa) for
existing storage tanks in the petroleum refinery NESHAP. Thus, under
the final rule, tanks storing asphalt with a maximum true vapor
pressure of 10.4 kPa or greater are considered ``high-vapor pressure''
tanks (i.e., Group 1 tanks) while tanks storing asphalt with a maximum
true vapor pressure less than 10.4 kPa are considered ``low-vapor
pressure'' tanks (i.e., Group 2 tanks).
The petroleum refinery NESHAP also contains an annual average true
vapor pressure cutoff (8.3 kPa) and an annual HAP liquid concentration
cutoff (4 percent, by weight of total organic HAP) for determining
storage tank applicability. Because the storage temperature of asphalt
at asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities is
expected to be maintained over a narrow range throughout the year,
providing an annual average for storage temperature in the asphalt
NESHAP is unnecessary. The concentration cutoff was included in the
petroleum refinery NESHAP to address the fact that some liquids at
petroleum refineries have very low HAP concentrations and high vapor
pressures due to the volatility of non-HAP compounds in the material.
However, because asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing
facilities do not typically store products other than asphalt, the EPA
believes that including an annual HAP liquid concentration cutoff in
the asphalt NESHAP is unnecessary.
With regard to the proposed tank capacity cutoff of 1.93 Mg, EPA
believes that the analysis used to establish the proposed capacity
cutoff for combustion control was flawed since the cutoff value was
based on the smallest tank controlled by a combustion device. Since we
now consider the seeming prevalence of combustion devices on tanks
storing low-vapor pressure asphalt to actually reflect controls on
integrated systems (driven by the need to control the greatest emission
source of the integrated system), we do not believe that the proposed
capacity cutoff value for combustion control is valid because it was
premised on the assumption that stand-alone (i.e., non-integrated) low-
vapor pressure asphalt storage tanks were controlled by means of
combustion devices. Consequently, we are
[[Page 22985]]
establishing the capacity cutoff value for combustion control to be
consistent with the capacity cutoff for existing tanks at petroleum
refineries (again consistent with comments urging that the petroleum
and asphalt NESHAP be consistent insofar as they apply to similar types
of emission sources).
Therefore, the floor for asphalt storage tanks with a capacity of
177 cubic meters or greater and storing asphalt with a maximum vapor
pressure of 10.4 kPa or greater (i.e., Group 1 asphalt storage tanks)
at existing and new sources is combustion control. The floor for
asphalt storage tanks with a capacity of 177 cubic meters or greater
storing asphalt with a maximum vapor pressure less than 10.4 kPa (i.e.,
Group 2 asphalt storage tanks) at existing and new sources is the
opacity limit specified in the asphalt NSPS. As at proposal, however,
we are not determining a floor level of control for tanks less than a
capacity of 1.93 Mg. Based on the tank capacity data from the Asphalt
Roofing Manufacturers Association survey, less than 2 percent of the
tanks have capacities less than 1.93 Mg, and only one of those tanks is
vented to a PM control device.
The EPA is also applying much this same reasoning in determining a
MACT floor for asphalt loading racks. The proposed MACT for asphalt
loading racks at existing, new, and reconstructed affected sources was
based on the fact that greater than 12 percent of the loading racks
were controlled with a combustion device operating at or above 1200
[deg]F. Although we do not have vapor pressure data for loading racks,
we believe (as with storage tanks) that it is reasonable to assume that
facilities are using combustion devices to control emissions from
loading racks that are used to transfer high-vapor pressure asphalt
because of the greater potential for emissions from this asphalt and
the appropriateness of controlling volatile emissions using combustion
devices. Consequently, the EPA believes that the MACT floor for loading
racks transferring high-vapor pressure asphalt at existing and new
sources is a combustion device regardless of whether or not it is part
of an integrated system. In the absence of vapor pressure data, and to
be consistent with the approach used for high-vapor pressure (Group 1)
asphalt storage tanks, we based the vapor pressure cutoff for loading
asphalt racks on the maximum true vapor pressure cutoff (10.4 kPa) for
existing storage tanks in the petroleum refinery NESHAP.
For loading racks used to transfer low-vapor pressure asphalt at
existing and new sources, as with low-vapor pressure (Group 2) asphalt
storage tanks, we are unable to develop a separate standard for
integrated systems. However, unlike the asphalt NSPS for storage tanks,
an existing regulation does not exist for asphalt loading racks that
would establish a minimum level of the MACT floor. Therefore, a MACT
floor for loading racks transferring asphalt with a maximum vapor
pressure less than 10.4 kPa at existing and new sources could not be
established.
In summary, the MACT floor for tanks with an asphalt storage
capacity of 177 cubic meters or greater and storing asphalt with a
maximum vapor pressure of 10.4 kPa or greater at existing and new
sources is based on a combustion device operating at or above 1200
[deg]F. For tanks with asphalt storage capacities of 177 cubic meters
or greater or storing asphalt with a maximum vapor pressure less than
10.4 kPa, the MACT floor for existing and new sources is represented by
the opacity limit in the asphalt NSPS. The opacity limit of the asphalt
NSPS also represents the MACT floor for asphalt storage tanks with
capacities less than 177 cubic meters but greater than or equal to 1.84
cubic meters at existing and new sources. For loading racks used to
transfer asphalt with a maximum vapor pressure of 10.4 kPa or greater
at existing and new sources, the MACT floor is a combustion device
operating at or above 1200 [deg]F. The MACT floor for loading racks
used to transfer asphalt with a maximum vapor pressure less than 10.4
kPa at existing and new sources is no additional control.
Also, as explained in detail in the preamble to the proposal (66 FR
58620-21), we continue to believe that controls beyond the MACT floor
for high-vapor pressure asphalt storage tanks and loading racks (where
the floors have not changed between the proposed and final rule) are
not technically or economically feasible (i.e., there are no known
controls that would reduce HAP emissions more than combustion control),
so that MACT for the high-vapor pressure asphalt storage tanks and
loading racks is represented by their respective MACT floors.
For the low-vapor pressure asphalt storage tanks (for which we have
made a different floor determination), the only control option beyond
the MACT floor is control with a combustion device. However, given the
relatively low HAP emissions from this equipment, the incremental cost-
effectiveness (greater than $3,000,000 per megagram of HAP reduced) of
increasing the level of HAP reduction achieved by a PM control device
(93.3 percent) (the device we anticipate would be used to achieve the
opacity standard which is the MACT floor) to that achieved by a
combustion device (95 percent) is not a justifiable option. (Additional
energy use likewise would be required to achieve this modest
incremental HAP reduction as well.) Therefore, MACT for low-vapor
pressure asphalt storage tanks is represented by the MACT floor.
For low-vapor pressure asphalt loading racks, the control options
beyond the MACT floor are a PM control device and a combustion device.
However, as with low-vapor pressure asphalt storage tanks, the high
costs per megagram of HAP reduction (greater than $500,000 per megagram
of HAP reduced) achieved by controlling low-vapor pressure asphalt
loading rack emissions with either a PM control device or combustion
device make the beyond the MACT floor options economically infeasible.
Therefore, MACT for low-vapor pressure asphalt loading racks is
represented by the MACT floor.
Because we are specifying vapor pressure as a cutoff for different
groups of tanks, it is necessary to identify how such a determination
would be made if a facility were required to do so. Following proposal,
the EPA met with industry representatives to identify an appropriate
test method for determining the vapor pressure of stored asphalt, if
EPA were to promulgate such a cutoff. According to the industry and EPA
representatives, a standardized or consensus test method for measuring
the vapor pressure of stored asphalt has not been established. (See the
summary of the September 17, 2002 meeting with petroleum refinery
representatives in Docket No. OAR-2002-0035.) Currently, the industry
uses nomographs or other relationships depicting the vapor pressure of
petroleum liquids as a function of storage temperature vapor pressure
and asphalt composition (e.g., flux versus oxidized) to determine the
vapor pressure of stored asphalt.
Since there is no standardized test method for measuring the vapor
pressure of stored asphalt, the EPA believes that the final rule should
specify a temperature that equates to a vapor pressure of 10 kPa,
instead of requiring facilities to physically measure asphalt vapor
pressure. According to industry representatives, asphalt flux reaches
10.4 kPa at approximately 500 to 550 [deg]F (oxidized asphalt would
require higher temperatures to reach 10.4 kPa). The temperature
estimate cited by the industry representatives was confirmed on a
theoretical level using a regression equation for asphalt vapor
pressure as a
[[Page 22986]]
function of temperature, developed by the Owens Corning Company using a
modified version of the American Society of Testing and Materials
(ASTM) method D2879 (Standard Test Method for Vapor Pressure-
Temperature Relationship and Initial Decomposition Temperature of
Liquids by Isoteniscope). According to the regression equation, asphalt
flux reaches a vapor pressure of 10.4 kPa at approximately 450 [deg]F.
Since the regression equation, which under-predicts the temperature
at which asphalt flux reaches a given vapor pressure (according to
industry and EPA representatives), tends to corroborate the storage
temperature cited by the industry representatives, the EPA believes
that a storage temperature of 500 [deg]F appropriately represents a
vapor pressure of 10.4 kPa. Consequently, the final rule specifies that
tanks storing (and loading racks transferring) asphalt at a maximum
vapor pressure of 10.4 kPa or greater, or at a maximum temperature of
500 [deg]F or greater, must be controlled with a combustion device.
Also, the final rule allows the use of standard industry nomographs and
other relationships to determine the vapor pressure of asphalt. The
docket for this NESHAP (Docket No. OAR-2002-0035) contains a memorandum
from the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) that
presents several manual methods that are currently used in the
petroleum industry for estimating the vapor pressure of asphalt.
C. Level of the Standards
Comment: One commenter questioned the derivation of the THC
destruction and combustion efficiency standards (95 and 99.6 percent,
respectively). The commenter contended that the statistical analysis
used to derive the standards from test data was incorrect.
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that the available data
set is too small for a rigorous statistical analysis. Therefore, at
proposal, we chose to account for the variability in the data by
subtracting one standard deviation from the mean, rather than
performing a more formal statistical analysis to derive the proposed
emission limit. Despite the small size of the data set, since proposal,
the EPA has calculated the 95 percent confidence interval about the
mean of the test data for THC destruction efficiency. The lower limit
of the 95-confidence interval is 94.85 percent THC destruction
efficiency. (See section 2.3.10.2 of the BID for a more detailed
discussion of this analysis.) In other words, there is only a 5 percent
chance that the true population mean of THC destruction efficiency will
be below 94.85 percent. In addition, all four of the facilities with
THC destruction efficiency data would meet the standards. This
calculation supports that a THC destruction efficiency of 95 percent is
achievable. The 95 percent destruction efficiency has thus been
included in the final rule.
Since proposal, the EPA has calculated the 95 percent confidence
interval about the mean of the test data used to establish the proposed
combustion efficiency. The lower limit of the 95 percent confidence
interval is 99.49 percent combustion efficiency. Since this value is
lower than the proposed combustion efficiency limit of 99.6 percent,
the EPA has decided to establish the combustion efficiency limit in the
final rule at 99.5 percent. (Note that this change does not affect
EPA's determination, made originally at proposal, that beyond-the-floor
controls remain inappropriate here, largely because EPA knows of no
means of control more efficient than combustion control.)
Comments: Comments were also received on the proposed rule
regarding the use of electric regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTO). One
commenter explained that EPA's proposed method for calculating
combustion efficiency penalizes control technologies that do not burn
auxiliary fuel and, consequently, have a relatively low CO2
concentration at their outlets. The commenters stated that the proposed
method for calculating combustion efficiency understates the combustion
efficiency achieved by an RTO since the only relevant source of
CO2 in RTO exhaust comes from the destruction of
hydrocarbons. The commenters submitted test data and proposed a
separate equation for calculating the destruction efficiency for RTO.
Response: The EPA reviewed the test data submitted by the
commenters (see section of the 2.3.10.6 of the BID) and agrees that,
because RTO do not use auxiliary fuel, the outlet CO2
concentrations are much less than those of conventional thermal
oxidizers without compromising THC destruction efficiency.
Consequently, the final rule contains an option that allows combustion
devices that do not use auxiliary fuel to use an outlet-only THC
destruction efficiency equation. To determine the level of the standard
for RTO, the same approach as was taken for the derivation of the THC
destruction efficiency and combustion efficiency standards was used
(i.e., one standard deviation was subtracted from the average THC
destruction efficiencies calculated from the test data submitted by the
commenters). The resulting calculations (see section 2.3.10.6 of the
BID) yield a THC destruction efficiency standard for RTO of 95.8
percent.
D. Compliance Options
Comment: One commenter noted that the control devices used at
refineries to control blowing stills are flares, boilers, and process
heaters and that refineries do not typically have thermal oxidizers.
The commenter urged the EPA to allow the use of combustion devices
other than thermal oxidizers to control blowing still emissions.
Response: The proposed rule did not prohibit the use of process
heaters, boilers, and flares because we consider these units to be
types of thermal oxidizers. However, since the term ``thermal
oxidizer'' was not defined in the proposed rule, the proposed rule
could be interpreted differently. In the final rule, we use the term
``combustion device'' instead of ``thermal oxidizer'' and have defined
combustion device to include process heaters, boilers, flares, and
incinerators; all devices which achieve the same high degree of HAP
destruction provided they operate using efficient combustion.
Consistent with other rules, a performance test and continuous
parameter monitoring are not required for boilers or process heaters if
the vent streams to be controlled are introduced into the flame zone,
or if the unit has a design input heat capacity of 44 MW or greater
since the residence time and operating temperature of these devices is
great enough to ensure reduction of HAP emissions. Flares are required
to meet the design and operating requirements of 40 CFR 63.11 in lieu
of conducting performance tests, as explained earlier in this preamble.
E. Performance Tests
Comment: One commenter expressed concern with the requirement to
conduct performance testing before the compliance date. The commenter
stated that the NESHAP General Provisions and nearly all previously-
issued MACT standards allow the test to be conducted within 180 days of
the compliance date (existing sources) or at startup (new sources). The
commenter pointed out that the testing date for existing sources is 8
months earlier than what is provided in the General Provisions and
listed several problems that it would create.
Response: The EPA agrees that it is not necessary to require
performance tests to be completed 60 days prior to the rule compliance
date since this would effectively require that facilities be in
compliance before the compliance
[[Page 22987]]
date specified in the final rule. Consequently, the final rule (Sec.
63.8686(a)) has been written to be consistent with the NESHAP General
Provisions (performance tests must be conducted within 180 days after
the compliance date).
F. Monitoring Requirements
Comment: Comments were received on a variety of monitoring
requirements. The changes made to the proposed monitoring requirements
are discussed in the following paragraphs.
Response: Many facilities in the asphalt processing and asphalt
roofing manufacturing industry use analog chart recorders to display
and record monitored parameters. However, when these devices are used,
the value of the monitored parameters is generally not recorded
electronically. Parameter values therefore cannot be automatically
averaged and compared to the established range to determine if there
has been an parameter deviation. Such a determination would have to be
made through manual calculations. One commenter suggested that chart
recorders could more easily be used for monitoring if manual
calculations of 3-hour averages were not required and deviations were
based on 15-minute exceedances of limits. Because the commenter's
suggestion is more stringent than the requirements in the proposed
rule, the EPA has decided that this is an acceptable alternative for
determining continuous compliance. Therefore, the final rule was
written to allow facilities the option of demonstrating continuous
compliance using either a 15-minute or 3-hour averaging period.
For example, if a facility uses an analog chart recorder that
provides a continuous record of the combustion device operating
temperature on a strip chart, the facility would be allowed to
determine compliance with the NESHAP by comparing the minimum
temperature reading for each 15-minute period to the minimum 15-minute
value established during the initial performance test (i.e., the
facility would not be required to manually average the readings on the
strip chart over a 3-hour period to determine compliance with the
standards).
Comment: One commenter asserted that facilities should be allowed
to use CEMS and COMS to demonstrate continuous compliance with the
standards.
Response: The proposed rule did not preclude facilities from using
CEMS and COMS, and it was not EPA's intent to discourage facilities
from using CEMS and COMS where feasible and beneficial to them.
However, continuous monitoring is not required for the opacity
standard, even though the opacity standard applies at all times (i.e.,
EPA test method 9 could be used at any time by the regulating agency to
determine compliance with the opacity standard). To allow you to use
continuous monitors without first obtaining the approval from the
Administrator to use an alternative monitoring procedure, the list of
acceptable monitoring systems in the final rule has been written to
include CEMS (and COMS) and their applicable performance specifications
from 40 CFR part 60 Appendix B.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the EPA modify the proposed
rule so that a facility using an ESP as a PM control device could
select which parameters are appropriate for demonstrating compliance
and have those parameters approved by the EPA in the same manner as
``other'' control devices.
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that ESP operate
differently from filter-type PM control devices, and that parameters
other than pressure drop could be used to show proper ESP operation.
For these reasons, an alternative has been provided in the final rule
to allow facilities using an ESP to monitor the voltage going to the
ESP instead of the pressure drop across the device. The voltage going
to the ESP is a direct measure of the strength of the corona field
responsible for ionizing PM as it passes through the ESP. The value or
range of ESP voltage must be determined during the performance test.
G. Overlap With Other Rules
Comment: One commenter stated that the rule should be clarified so
that asphalt flux and oxidized asphalt storage tanks already regulated
under another MACT rule (for example, the petroleum refinery NESHAP)
are not further regulated under the asphalt NESHAP.
Response: The EPA recognizes that asphalt storage vessels subject
to the asphalt NESHAP could also be subject to other regulations, such
as the petroleum refinery NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart CC) and the
storage vessel NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart K, Ka, or Kb).
Consequently, EPA is providing in the final rule that the NESHAP does
not apply to any equipment that is subject to the petroleum refinery
NESHAP or to subpart K, Ka, or Kb of part 60 since the requirements
specified in those rules for the types of storage tanks used in this
industry (fixed roof tanks) are as stringent as the standards in the
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing NESHAP.
The EPA also recognizes that storage tanks (and blowing stills,
saturators, wet loopers, and coaters) at asphalt processing and asphalt
roofing manufacturing facilities could be subject to both the asphalt
NESHAP and the asphalt NSPS. In cases where the rule requirements
overlap, the asphalt rule specifies that facilities are required to
comply only with the asphalt NESHAP. However, any storage tank with a
capacity less than 1.93 mg that is subject to the asphalt NSPS but not
regulated under the asphalt NESHAP must comply with the asphalt NSPS.
IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts
Although MACT floors must be based exclusively on the emission
limitation achieved by the requisite percentage of best-performing
similar sources (or, for new sources, the best-performing source), the
EPA has compiled information on air quality impacts, costs, non-air
quality impacts, and energy impacts in compliance with Executive
Orders. We estimate the final rule will affect a total of 19 existing
facilities (ten asphalt processing and asphalt roofing facilities and
nine petroleum refineries). We estimated the number of major sources by
estimating potential emissions using emission factors and available
production data. We identified major facilities only for the purposes
of estimating potential emissions, emission reductions, control costs,
and monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs. It should be noted
that facilities may not necessarily be major sources for the purposes
of determining applicability of the final rule because they were
identified as major by our estimates. Likewise, facilities would not be
relieved from complying with the final rule because they were not
identified as major sources in our estimates.
A. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
Baseline HAP emissions from the asphalt processing and asphalt
roofing manufacturing facilities that are projected to be subject to
the final rule are estimated to be 295 Mg/yr (325 tpy). Baseline THC
emissions are estimated to be 550 Mg/yr (605 tpy). The baseline
emission estimates were developed using equipment, control device, and
production rate data reported in a 1995 industry survey. The final rule
is projected to reduce HAP emissions by 86 Mg/yr (95 tpy) and THC
emissions by 465 Mg/yr (512 tpy). The final rule will also reduce PM
emissions from asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
[[Page 22988]]
manufacturing facilities. However, we do not have sufficient data to
estimate baseline emissions or emission reductions for PM. The baseline
emissions and emission reductions do not include contributions from
area sources because they are not subject to the final rule.
The final rule will also likely cause an increase in emissions of
nitrogen oxides (NOX), CO, sulfur dioxide (SO2),
PM, and volatile organic compounds (VOC) due to the increased use of
thermal oxidizers as control devices. The estimated increases of
NOX, CO, and SO2 are approximately, 476, 799, and
6 Mg/yr (524, 880, and 6 tpy), respectively. These estimates are based
on the amount of exhaust and auxiliary fuel that will be burned at the
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities that
are estimated to be major sources.
B. What Are the Cost Impacts?
The total capital cost for the industry to achieve compliance with
the final rule for existing facilities is estimated to be $2.71
million. The capital costs arise from the purchase of emission capture
systems and control devices. The total annualized cost is estimated to
be $1.41 million. The total annualized costs for the industry include
the annualized capital cost of emission capture systems and control
devices and operation, maintenance, supervisory labor, maintenance
materials, utilities, administrative charges, taxes, and insurance. It
is estimated that the industry will spend an additional industrywide
average of $320,000 per year for monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting to comply with the final rule. This results in a total
annualized cost of $1.73 million.
C. What Are the Economic Impacts?
The Agency conducted an economic impact analysis to determine the
market- and industry-level impacts associated with the final rule. The
compliance costs of the final rule are expected to increase the prices
of asphalt processing and roofing products by 0.02 percent or less
across the directly affected product markets, and domestic production
and consumption of the affected products are expected to decrease by
less than 0.01 percent also.
In terms of industry impacts, the asphalt processors and asphalt
roofing manufacturers are projected to experience a decrease in
operating profits of about 0.08 percent, which reflects the compliance
costs associated with the production of asphalt processing and roofing
products and the resulting reductions in revenues due to the increase
in the prices of the directly affected product markets and reduced
quantities purchased. Through the market impacts described above, the
final rule created both gainers and losers within the asphalt
processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing industry. The majority of
facilities, almost 92 percent, are expected to experience profit
increases with the final rule; however, there are some facilities
projected to lose profits (about 8 percent of affected facilities).
Furthermore, the economic impact analysis indicates that of the 123
existing asphalt roofing and processing facilities, none are at risk of
closure because of the final rule. Therefore, none of the companies
that own asphalt processing and roofing manufacturing facilities are
projected to close due to the final rule.
Based on the market analysis, the annual social costs of the final
rule are projected to be about $1.73 million. The estimated social
costs differ slightly from the projected engineering costs of the final
rule. These two costs differ because social costs account for producer
and consumer behavior. These social costs are distributed across the
many consumers and producers of asphalt processing and roofing
products. For the final rule, the producers of asphalt roofing and
processing products, in aggregate, are expected to incur about $1.32
million annually in costs, while the consumers of asphalt roofing and
processing products are expected to incur approximately $410 thousand
annually across the product markets.
The economic analysis also addressed potential changes in new
asphalt processing and roofing facility construction for the year
following promulgation of the final rule. This was done by estimating
the total annualized costs for new facilities and projecting changes in
equilibrium output due to the final rule. The economic impact analysis
estimated a very small reduction in the growth of the asphalt industry
represented by a small reduction in equilibrium output of asphalt
products in the year following promulgation. However, the reduction in
equilibrium output was only a small fraction of estimated new plant
capacity. Thus, the control costs are not expected to influence the
decision to enter the market for asphalt products. For more
information, consult the Economic Impact Analysis report supporting the
final rule in the docket.
D. What Are the Non-air Health, Environmental and Energy Impacts?
Spent filter media from certain types of PM control devices (e.g.,
high-efficiency air filters (HEAF)) are periodically replaced and
disposed of as solid waste. Although many of the emission sources
subject to the final rule are already controlled by PM devices, an
increase in the generation of spent filter media is expected as a
result of the final rule. However, we do not have sufficient data to
quantify this anticipated increase in solid waste generation.
No water impacts are anticipated due to the final rule. None of the
control devices expected to be used to comply with the final rule
require the use of water nor do they generate wastewater streams.
Increased energy usage is expected due to the final rule.
Electricity is required to power fans for emission capture systems, and
new thermal oxidizers will require supplemental fuel (e.g., natural
gas) to efficiently combust the HAP vent streams. The estimated annual
increase in electricity consumption is 5.58 million kilowatt hours. The
approximate increase in natural gas consumption is 186 million standard
cubic feet per year. These estimates are for the 19 facilities
considered to be major sources.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant,'' and
therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and
the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that the final rule is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' because it is not
[[Page 22989]]
expected to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or
more, or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of
the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements of the final rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information Collection Request (ICR) document
has been prepared by the EPA (ICR No. 2029.01) and a copy may be
obtained from Susan Auby by mail at U.S. EPA, Office of Environmental
Information, Collection Strategies Division, (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001, by e-mail at auby.susan@epa.gov
or by calling (202) 566-1672. A copy may also be downloaded off the
internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr.
The information will be used by the EPA to ensure that the
requirements of the asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
manufacturing NESHAP are implemented properly and are complied with on
a continuous basis. Records and reports are necessary to identify
asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities that
might not be in compliance with the final rule. Based on reported
information, the implementing agency will decide which asphalt
processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities should be
inspected and what records or processes should be inspected. Records
that owners and operators of asphalt processing and asphalt roofing
manufacturing facilities maintain indicate whether personnel are
operating and maintaining control equipment properly.
These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically
authorized by section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information
submitted to the EPA for which a claim of confidentiality is made will
be safeguarded according to the EPA policies in 40 CFR part 2, subpart
B, Confidentiality of Business Information.
We estimate the final rule will affect a total of 19 existing
facilities (ten asphalt processing and asphalt roofing facilities and
nine petroleum refineries). We estimated the number of major sources by
estimating emissions using emission factors and available production
data and extrapolating potential emission from actual emissions. We
identified major facilities for the purposes of estimating emissions,
emission reductions, control costs, and monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting costs only. Facilities would not necessarily be major sources
for the purposes of determining applicability of the asphalt NESHAP
because they were identified as major by our estimates. Likewise,
facilities are not relieved from complying with the asphalt NESHAP
because they were not identified as major sources in our estimates. We
expect that existing facilities will be in compliance 3 years after
promulgation of the final rule, but will perform related activities
(e.g., reading and understanding the rule, conducting performance
tests) before they are in compliance. We project that one new asphalt
processing and asphalt roofing facility will become subject to the
final rule during each of the first 3 years.
The estimated average annual burden for industry for the first 3
years after implementation of the rule is approximately 1,962 person-
hours annually. There will be no capital costs for monitoring or
recordkeeping during the first 3 years. The total average annual
reporting and recordkeeping burden (including industry and the EPA) for
this collection is estimated at approximately 2,780 labor hours per
year at an average annual cost of approximately $356,000.
Burden means total time, effort, or financial resources expended by
persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information
to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review
instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and
systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and
providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to
be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or
otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the Agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small business, small organizations, and small
government jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business according
to Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards by NAICS code (in
this case, less than 750 employees for affected businesses classified
in NAICS code 324122, Asphalt Shingles and Coating Materials
Manufacturing and less than 1,500 employees for businesses in NAICS
code 324110, Petroleum Refineries); (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school
district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and
(3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise that is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
In accordance with the RFA, the EPA conducted an assessment of the
standards on small businesses within the asphalt roofing and processing
industry. Based on SBA NAICS-based size definitions and reported
employment data, the EPA identified 26 of the 40 companies that own
potentially affected asphalt roofing and processing facilities and
petroleum refineries as small businesses. Although small businesses
represent 65 percent of the companies within the source category, they
are expected to incur approximately 5 percent of the total industry
compliance costs of about $1.73 million annually. There are no
companies with compliance costs greater than 0.04 percent of their
sales. No firms are expected to close rather than incur the costs of
compliance with the rule.
After considering the economic impacts of today's rule on small
entities, the EPA certifies that the final rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, or tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the
EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that may
result in
[[Page 22990]]
expenditures to State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 year. Before
promulgating a rule for which a written statement is needed, section
205 of the UMRA generally requires the EPA to identify and consider a
reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows the EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of the EPA regulatory proposals with
significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing,
educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the
regulatory requirements.
The EPA has determined that the final rule does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any 1 year. In the Economic Impact Assessment (EIA)
for the final rule, the EPA estimates that the total nationwide capital
cost for the standards is $2.71 million. The total nationwide annual
cost for the standards is $1.73 million. In addition, the EPA has
determined that the final rule contains no regulatory requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it
contains no requirements that apply to such governments or impose
obligations upon them. Therefore, the final rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
The final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the affected facilities
under the final rule are owned or operated by State or local
governments. Thus Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the final
rule.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that
have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and
the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal government and Indian tribes.''
The final rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. No
affected facilities are owned or operated by Indian tribal governments.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the final rule.
G. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that the EPA has reason to believe
may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory
action meets both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the environmental
health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain
why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the EPA.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has
the potential to influence the regulation. The final rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology
performance and not on health and safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001), provides that agencies shall prepare and submit
to the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects
for certain actions identified as ``significant energy actions.''
Section 4(b) of Executive Order 13211 defines ``significant energy
actions'' as ``any action by an agency (normally published in the
Federal Register) that promulgates or is expected to lead to the
promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including notices of
inquiry, advance notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices of
proposed rulemaking: (1)(i) That is a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is likely
to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or
use of energy; or (2) that is designated by the Administrator of the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy
action.'' The final rule is not a ``significant regulatory action''
because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
We have estimated that the rule will result in an additional 5.58
million kilowatt hours of electricity usage and 186 million standard
cubic feet of natural gas consumption. This represents an insignificant
fraction of the over 3 trillion kilowatt hours and 21,000 trillion
cubic feet of natural gas consumed in the United States (Energy
[[Page 22991]]
Information Administration, Department of Energy, www.eia.gov).
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995, Public Law 104-113, section 12(d), (15 U.S.C. 272
note), directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in their
regulatory and procurement activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted by one or more voluntary
consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress,
through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when an agency does
not use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
The final rulemaking involves technical standards including EPA
test methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5A, 9, 10, 22,
and 25A. Consistent with the NTTAA, the EPA conducted searches to
identify voluntary consensus standards in addition to these EPA test
methods. No applicable voluntary consensus standards were identified
for EPA test methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G, 5A, 9, and 22.
The search for emissions measurement procedures identified 16
voluntary consensus standards potentially applicable to the final rule.
Three of the voluntary consensus standards were not available at the
time this review was conducted. For the remaining 13 standards
identified for measuring emissions of the HAP or surrogates subject to
emission standards in the final rule, we determined that they were
impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of the
final rule. Therefore, the EPA does not intend to adopt these
standards. The search and review methods can be found in docket A-95-32
(see ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
J. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing the final rule
and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not
a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The final rule will be
effective on April 29, 2003.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: February 28, 2003.
Christie Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
0
For the reasons cited in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority : 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
0
2. Part 63 is amended by adding a new subpart LLLLL to read as follows:
Subpart LLLLL--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing
Sec.
What This Subpart Covers
63.8680 What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.8681 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.8682 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
63.8683 When must I comply with this subpart?
Emission Limitations
63.8684 What emission limitations must I meet?
General Compliance Requirements
63.8685 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements
63.8686 By what date must I conduct performance tests or other
initial compliance demonstrations?
63.8687 What performance tests, design evaluations, and other
procedures must I use?
63.8688 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?
63.8689 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission
limitations?
Continuous Compliance Requirements
63.8690 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous
compliance?
63.8691 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
operating limits?
Notifications, Reports, and Records
63.8692 What notifications must I submit and when?
63.8693 What reports must I submit and when?
63.8694 What records must I keep?
63.8695 In what form and how long must I keep my records?
Other Requirements and Information
63.8696 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
63.8697 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.8698 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Tables to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63
Table 1 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63--Emission Limitations
Table 2 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63--Operating Limits
Table 3 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63--Requirements for Performance
Tests
Table 4 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63--Initial Compliance With
Emission Limitations
Table 5 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63--Continuous Compliance with
Operating Limits
Table 6 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
Table 7 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart LLLLL
Subpart LLLLL--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing
What This Subpart Covers
Sec. 63.8680 What is the purpose of this subpart?
This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP) for existing and new asphalt processing and
asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities. This subpart also establishes
requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the
emission limitations.
Sec. 63.8681 Am I subject to this subpart?
(a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an
asphalt processing facility or an asphalt roofing manufacturing
facility, as defined in Sec. 63.8698, that is a major source of
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions, or is located at, or is part
of a major source of HAP emissions.
(b) After the applicable compliance date specified in Sec.
63.8683, blowing stills, asphalt storage tanks, saturators, wet
loopers, and coaters subject to the provisions of this subpart that are
also
[[Page 22992]]
subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart UU, are required to comply only with
provisions of this subpart.
(c) This subpart does not apply to any equipment that is subject to
subpart CC of this part or to subpart K, Ka, or Kb of 40 CFR part 60.
(d) This subpart does not apply to asphalt processing and asphalt
roofing manufacturing equipment used for research and development, as
defined in Sec. 63.8698.
(e) A major source of HAP emissions is any stationary source or
group of stationary sources within a contiguous area under common
control that emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP at a
rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 tons) or more per year or any combination of
HAP at a rate of 22.68 megagrams (25 tons) or more per year.
Sec. 63.8682 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
(a) This subpart applies to each new, reconstructed, or existing
affected source at asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing
facilities.
(b) The affected source is:
(1) Each asphalt processing facility as defined in Sec. 63.8698;
or
(2) Each asphalt roofing manufacturing line as defined in Sec.
63.8698.
(i) If the asphalt roofing manufacturing line is collocated with an
asphalt processing facility, the storage tanks that store asphalt flux
intended for oxidation in the blowing stills and those tanks that
receive asphalt directly from the on-site blowing stills are part of
the asphalt processing facility. The remaining asphalt storage tanks
are considered to be part of the asphalt roofing facility.
(ii) If an asphalt storage tank is shared by two or more lines at
an asphalt roofing manufacturing facility, the shared storage tank is
considered part of the line to which the tank supplies the greatest
amount of asphalt, on an annual basis.
(iii) If a sealant or adhesive applicator is shared by two or more
asphalt roofing manufacturing lines, the shared applicator is
considered part of the line that provides the greatest throughput to
the applicator, on an annual basis.
(c) An affected source is a new affected source if you commenced
construction of the affected source after November 21, 2001, and you
met the applicability criteria at the time you commenced construction.
(d) An affected source is reconstructed if you meet the criteria in
the reconstruction definition in Sec. 63.2.
(e) An affected source is existing if it is not new or
reconstructed.
Sec. 63.8683 When must I comply with this subpart?
(a) If you have a new or reconstructed affected source and start
up:
(1) On or before April 29, 2003, then you must comply with the
requirements for new and reconstructed sources in this subpart no later
than April 29, 2003.
(2) After April 29, 2003, then you must comply with the
requirements for new and reconstructed sources in this subpart upon
startup.
(b) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with
the requirements for existing sources no later than May 1, 2006.
(c) If you have an area source that increases its emissions or its
potential to emit such that it becomes a (or part of a) major source of
HAP, then the following requirements apply:
(1) Any portion of the existing facility that becomes a new or
reconstructed affected source must be in compliance with this subpart
upon startup or by April 29, 2003, whichever is later.
(2) All other parts of the source to which this subpart applies
must be in compliance with this subpart by 3 years after the date the
source becomes a major source.
(d) You must meet the notification requirements in Sec. 63.8692
according to the schedules in Sec. Sec. 63.8692 and 63.9. Some of the
notifications must be submitted before you are required to comply with
the emission limitations in this subpart.
Emission Limitations
Sec. 63.8684 What emission limitations must I meet?
(a) You must meet each emission limitation in Table 1 to this
subpart that applies to you.
(b) You must meet each operating limit in Table 2 to this subpart
that applies to you.
General Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.8685 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
(a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations
(including operating limits) in this subpart at all times, except
during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(b) You must always operate and maintain your affected source,
including air pollution control and monitoring equipment, according to
the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i).
(c) You must develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan (SSMP) according to the provisions in Sec.
63.6(e)(3).
(d) You must develop and implement a written site-specific
monitoring plan according to the provisions in Sec. 63.8688(g) and
(h).
Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.8686 By what date must I conduct performance tests or other
initial compliance demonstrations?
(a) For existing affected sources, you must conduct performance
tests no later than 180 days after the compliance date that is
specified for your source in Sec. 63.8683 and according to the
provisions in Sec. 63.7(a)(2).
(b) As an alternative to the requirement specified in paragraph (a)
of this section, you may use the results of a previously-conducted
emission test to demonstrate compliance with the emission limitations
in this subpart if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction
that:
(1) No changes have been made to the process since the time of the
emission test; and
(2) The operating conditions and test methods used during testing
conform to the requirements of this subpart; and
(3) The control device and process parameter values established
during the previously-conducted emission test are used to demonstrate
continuous compliance with this subpart.
(c) For new sources, you must demonstrate initial compliance no
later than 180 calendar days after April 29, 2003 or within 180
calendar days after startup of the source, whichever is later.
Sec. 63.8687 What performance tests, design evaluations, and other
procedures must I use?
(a) You must conduct each performance test in Table 3 to this
subpart that applies to you.
(b) Each performance test must be conducted under normal operating
conditions and under the conditions specified in Table 3 to this
subpart.
(c) You may not conduct performance tests during periods of
startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as specified in Sec. 63.7(e)(1).
(d) Except for opacity and visible emission observations, you must
conduct three separate test runs for each performance test required in
this section, as specified in Sec. 63.7(e)(3). Each test run must last
at least 1 hour.
(e) You must use the following equations to determine compliance
with the emission limitations.
(1) To determine compliance with the particulate matter mass
emission rate, you must use Equations 1 and 2 of this section as
follows:
[[Page 22993]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29AP03.000
Where:
E = Particulate matter emission rate, kilograms (pounds) of particulate
matter per megagram (ton) of roofing product manufactured.
MPM = Particulate matter mass emission rate, kilograms
(pounds) per hour, determined using Equation 2.
P = The asphalt roofing product manufacturing rate during the emissions
sampling period, including any material trimmed from the final product,
megagram (tons) per hour.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29AP03.001
Where:
MPM = Particulate matter mass emission rate, kilograms
(pounds) per hour.
C = Concentration of particulate matter on a dry basis, grams per dry
standard cubic meter (g/dscm), as measured by the test method specified
in Table 3 to this subpart.
Q = Vent gas stream flow rate (dry standard cubic meters per minute) at
a temperature of 20[deg]C as measured by the test method specified in
Table 3 to this subpart.
K = Unit conversion constant (0.06 minute-kilogram/hour-gram.
(2) To determine compliance with the total hydrocarbon percent
reduction standard, you must use Equations 3 and 4 of this section as
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29AP03.002
Where:
RE = Emission reduction efficiency, percent.
MTHCi = Mass flow rate of total hydrocarbons entering the
control device, kilograms (pounds) per hour, determined using Equation
4.
MTHCo = Mass flow rate of total hydrocarbons exiting the
control device, kilograms (pounds) per hour, determined using Equation
4.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29AP03.003
Where:
MTHC = Total hydrocarbon emission rate, kilograms (pounds)
per hour.
C = Concentration of total hydrocarbons on a dry basis, parts per
million by volume (ppmv), as measured by the test method specified in
Table 3 to this subpart.
Q = Vent gas stream flow rate (dscmm) at a temperature of 20 [deg]C as
measured by the test method specified in Table 3 to this subpart.
K = Unit conversion constant (3.00E-05) (ppmv)-1 (gram-mole/
standard cubic meter) (kilogram/gram) (minutes/hour)), where standard
temperature for gram-mole/standard cubic meter is 20 [deg]C.
(3) To determine compliance with the combustion efficiency
standard, you must use Equation 5 of this section as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29AP03.004
Where:
CE = Combustion efficiency, percent.
CO = Carbon monoxide concentration at the combustion device outlet,
parts per million by volume (dry), as measured by the test method
specified in Table 3 to this subpart.
CO2 = Carbon dioxide concentration at the combustion device
outlet, parts per million by volume (dry), as measured by the test
method specified in Table 3 to this subpart.
THC = Total hydrocarbon concentration at the combustion device outlet,
parts per million by volume (dry), as measured by the test method
specified in Table 3 to this subpart.
(4) To determine compliance with the total hydrocarbon destruction
efficiency standard for a combustion device that does not use auxiliary
fuel, you must use Equation 6 of this section as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29AP03.005
Where:
THC DE = THC destruction efficiency, percent.
CO = Carbon monoxide concentration at the combustion device outlet,
parts per million by volume (dry), as measured by the test method
specified in Table 3 to this subpart.
CO2 = Carbon dioxide concentration at the combustion device
outlet, parts per million by volume (dry), as measured by the test
method specified in Table 3 to this subpart.
THC = Total hydrocarbon concentration at the combustion device outlet,
parts per million by volume (dry), as measured by the test method
specified in Table 3 to this subpart.
Sec. 63.8688 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?
(a) You must install, operate, and maintain each continuous
parameter monitoring system (CPMS) according to the following:
(1) The CPMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for
each successive 15-minute period.
(2) To determine the 3-hour average, you must:
(i) Have a minimum of four successive cycles of operation to have a
valid hour of data.
(ii) Have valid data from at least three of four equally spaced
data values for that hour from a CPMS that is not out-of-control
according to your site-specific monitoring plan.
(iii) Determine the 3-hour average of all recorded readings for
each operating day, except as stated in Sec. 63.8690(c). You must have
at least two of the three hourly averages for that period using only
hourly average values that are based on valid data (i.e., not from out-
of-control periods).
(3) You must record the results of each inspection, calibration,
and validation check.
(b) For each temperature monitoring device, you must meet the
requirements in paragraph (a) of this section and the following:
(1) Locate the temperature sensor in a position that provides a
representative temperature.
(2) For a noncryogenic temperature range, use a temperature sensor
with a
[[Page 22994]]
minimum measurement sensitivity of 2.8 [deg]C or 1.0 percent of the
temperature value, whichever is larger.
(3) If a chart recorder is used, it must have a sensitivity in the
minor division of at least 20 [deg]F.
(4) Perform an accuracy check at least semiannually or following an
operating parameter deviation:
(i) According to the procedures in the manufacturer's
documentation; or
(ii) By comparing the sensor output to redundant sensor output; or
(iii) By comparing the sensor output to the output from a
calibrated temperature measurement device; or
(iv) By comparing the sensor output to the output from a
temperature simulator.
(5) Conduct accuracy checks any time the sensor exceeds the
manufacturer's specified maximum operating temperature range or install
a new temperature sensor.
(6) At least quarterly or following an operating parameter
deviation, perform visual inspections of components if redundant
sensors are not used.
(c) For each pressure measurement device, you must meet the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this section and the following:
(1) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in, or as close as possible, to a
position that provides a representative measurement of the pressure.
(2) Use a gauge with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 0.12
kiloPascals or a transducer with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 5
percent of the pressure range.
(3) Check pressure tap pluggage daily. Perform an accuracy check at
least quarterly or following an operating parameter deviation:
(i) According to the procedures in the manufacturer's
documentation; or
(ii) By comparing the sensor output to redundant sensor output.
(4) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor exceeds the
manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range or install a
new pressure sensor.
(5) At least monthly or following an operating parameter deviation,
perform a leak check of all components for integrity, all electrical
connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections for leakage.
(6) At least quarterly or following an operating parameter
deviation, perform visible inspections on all components if redundant
sensors are not used.
(d) For monitoring parameters other than temperature and pressure
drop, you must install and operate a CPMS to provide representative
measurements of the monitored parameters.
(e) For each flare, you must install a device (including but not
limited to a thermocouple, an ultraviolet beam sensor, or an infrared
sensor) capable of continuously detecting the presence of a pilot
flame.
(f) As an option to installing the CPMS specified in paragraph (a)
of this section, you may install a continuous emissions monitoring
system (CEMS) or a continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) that
meets the requirements specified in Sec. 63.8 and the applicable
performance specifications of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B.
(g) For each monitoring system required in this section, you must
develop and make available for inspection by the permitting authority,
upon request, a site-specific monitoring plan that addresses the
following:
(1) Installation of the CPMS, CEMS, or COMS sampling probe or other
interface at a measurement location relative to each affected process
unit such that the measurement is representative of control of the
exhaust emissions (e.g., on or downstream of the last control device);
(2) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample
interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer,
and the data collection and reduction system; and
(3) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria
(e.g., calibrations).
(h) In your site-specific monitoring plan, you must also address
the following:
(1) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec. 63.8(c)(1), (c)(3), (c)(4)(ii),
(c)(7), and (c)(8);
(2) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec. 63.8(d); and
(3) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance
with the general requirements of Sec. 63.10(c), (e)(1), and (e)(2)(i).
(i) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CPMS, CEMS,
or COMS in accordance with your site-specific monitoring plan.
(j) You must operate and maintain the CPMS, CEMS, or COMS in
continuous operation according to the site-specific monitoring plan.
Sec. 63.8689 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limitations?
(a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission
limitation that applies to you according to Table 4 to this subpart.
(b) You must establish each site-specific operating limit in Table
2 to this subpart that applies to you according to the requirements in
Sec. 63.8687 and Table 3 to this subpart.
(c) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status
containing the results of the initial compliance demonstration
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.8692(e).
Continuous Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.8690 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate
continuous compliance?
(a) You must monitor and collect data according to this section.
(b) Except for monitor malfunctions, associated repairs, and
required quality assurance or control activities (including, as
applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments),
you must monitor continuously (or collect data at all required
intervals) at all times that the affected source is operating. This
includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction when the
affected source is operating.
(c) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions,
associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control
activities in data averages and calculations used to report emission or
operating levels, nor may such data be used in fulfilling a minimum
data availability requirement, if applicable. You must use all the data
collected during all other periods in assessing the operation of the
control device and associated control system.
Sec. 63.8691 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
operating limits?
(a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each operating
limit in Table 2 to this subpart that applies to you according to test
methods specified in Table 5 to this subpart.
(b) You must report each instance in which you did not meet each
operating limit in Table 5 to this subpart that applies to you. This
includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. These instances
are deviations from the emission limitations in this subpart. These
deviations must be reported according to the requirements in Sec.
63.8693.
(c) During periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, you must
operate in accordance with the SSMP.
(d) Consistent with Sec. Sec. 63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations
that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not
violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that
you were operating in accordance with the SSMP. The Administrator will
determine whether
[[Page 22995]]
deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction are violations, according to the provisions in Sec.
63.6(e).
Notifications, Reports, and Records
Sec. 63.8692 What notifications must I submit and when?
(a) You must submit all of the notifications in Sec. Sec.
63.6(h)(4) and (5), 63.7(b) and (c), 63.8(f), and 63.9(b) through (f)
and (h) that apply to you by the dates specified.
(b) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(2), if you start up your affected
source before April 29, 2003, you must submit an Initial Notification
not later than 120 calendar days after April 29, 2003.
(c) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(3), if you start up your new or
reconstructed affected source on or after April 29, 2003, you must
submit an Initial Notification not later than 120 calendar days after
you become subject to this subpart.
(d) If you are required to conduct a performance test, you must
submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance test at least
60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin, as
required in Sec. 63.7(b)(1).
(e) If you are required to conduct a performance test, design
evaluation, opacity observation, visible emission observation, or other
initial compliance demonstration as specified in Table 3 or 4 to this
subpart, you must submit a Notification of Compliance Status according
to Sec. 63.9(h)(2)(ii). You must submit the Notification of Compliance
Status, including the performance test results, before the close of
business on the 60th calendar day following the completion of the
performance test according to Sec. 63.10(d)(2).
(f) If you are using data from a previously-conducted emission test
to serve as documentation of conformance with the emission standards
and operating limits of this subpart, you must submit the test data in
lieu of the initial performance test results with the Notification of
Compliance Status required under paragraph (e) of this section.
Sec. 63.8693 What reports must I submit and when?
(a) You must submit each report in Table 6 to this subpart that
applies to you.
(b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for
submission of reports under Sec. 63.10(a), you must submit each report
by the date in Table 6 to this subpart and according to the following
dates:
(1) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on
the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in Sec.
63.8683 and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever date is the
first date following the end of the first calendar half after the
compliance date that is specified for your source in Sec. 63.8683.
(2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no
later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date follows the end of the
first calendar half after the compliance date that is specified for
your affected source in Sec. 63.8683.
(3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual
reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual
reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
(4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is the
first date following the end of the semiannual reporting period.
(5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, and if the
permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual
reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the first and subsequent compliance
reports according to the dates the permitting authority has established
instead of the dates in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
(c) The compliance report must contain the following information:
(1) Company name and address.
(2) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name,
title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness
of the content of the report.
(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting
period.
(4) If you had a startup, shutdown or malfunction during the
reporting period and you took actions consistent with your SSMP, the
compliance report must include the information in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i).
(5) If there are no deviations from any emission limitations
(emission limit, operating limit, opacity limit, and visible emission
limit) that apply to you, a statement that there were no deviations
from the emission limitations during the reporting period.
(6) If there were no periods during which the CPMS, CEMS, or COMS
was out-of-control as specified in Sec. 63.8(c)(7), a statement that
there were no periods during which the CPMS, CEMS, or COMS was out-of-
control during the reporting period.
(d) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit,
operating limit, opacity limit, and visible emission limit), you must
include the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this
section, and the information in paragraphs (d)(1) through (12) of this
section. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(1) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
(2) The date and time that each CPMS, CEMS, or COMS was
inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(3) The date, time and duration that each CPMS, CEMS, or COMS was
out-of-control, including the information in Sec. 63.8(c)(8).
(4) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and
whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown,
or malfunction or during another period.
(5) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the
reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the total
source operating time during that reporting period.
(6) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control
equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other
unknown causes.
(7) A summary of the total duration of CPMS, CEMS, or COMS downtime
during the reporting period and the total duration of CPMS, CEMS, or
COMS downtime as a percent of the total source operating time during
that reporting period.
(8) An identification of each air pollutant that was monitored at
the affected source.
(9) A brief description of the process units.
(10) A brief description of the CPMS, CEMS, or COMS.
(11) The date of the latest CPMS, CEMS, or COMS certification or
audit.
(12) A description of any changes in CPMS, CEMS, or COMS,
processes, or controls since the last reporting period.
(e) Each affected source that has obtained a title V operating
permit pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71 must report all
deviations as defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring
report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If an affected source submits a compliance report
pursuant to Table 6 to this subpart along with, or as part of, the
semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR
[[Page 22996]]
70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the compliance
report includes all required information concerning deviations from any
emission limitation (including any operating limit), submission of the
compliance report shall be deemed to satisfy any obligation to report
the same deviations in the semiannual monitoring report. However,
submission of a compliance report shall not otherwise affect any
obligation the affected source may have to report deviations from
permit requirements to the permit authority.
(f) If acceptable to both the Administrator and you, you may submit
reports and notifications electronically.
Sec. 63.8694 What records must I keep?
(a) You must keep the following records:
(1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to
comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any
Initial Notification or Notification of Compliance Status that you
submitted, according to the requirements in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
(2) The records in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(3) Records of performance tests, performance evaluations, and
opacity and visible emission observations as required in Sec.
63.10(b)(2)(viii).
(b) You must keep the records in Sec. 63.6(h)(6) for visible
emission observations.
(c) You must keep the records required in Table 5 to this subpart
to show continuous compliance with each operating limit that applies to
you.
(d) Records of any shared equipment determinations as specified in
Sec. 63.8682(b).
Sec. 63.8695 In what form and how long must I keep my records?
(a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available
for expeditious review, according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1).
(b) As specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record
for 5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement,
maintenance, corrective action, report, or record.
(c) You must keep each record on site for at least 2 years after
the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective
action, report, or record, according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1). You can keep
the records offsite for the remaining 3 years.
Other Requirements and Information
Sec. 63.8696 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
Table 7 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions
in Sec. Sec. 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you.
Sec. 63.8697 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), or a delegated authority
such as your State, local, or tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA
Administrator has delegated authority to your State, local, or tribal
agency, then that agency, in addition to the U.S. EPA, has the
authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You should contact
your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if implementation and
enforcement of this subpart is delegated.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart E, the following authorities are retained by the Administrator
of U.S. EPA:
(1) Approval of alternatives to the requirements in Sec. Sec.
63.8681, 63.8682, 63.8683, 63.8684(a) through (c), 63.8686, 63.8687,
63.8688, 63.8689, 63.8690, and 63.8691.
(2) Approval of major changes to test methods under Sec.
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(3) Approval of major changes to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f) and
as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(4) Approval of major changes to recordkeeping and reporting under
Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
Sec. 63.8698 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in 40
CFR 63.2, the General Provisions of this part, and in this section as
follows:
Adhesive applicator means the equipment used to apply adhesive to
roofing shingles for producing laminated or dimensional roofing
shingles.
Asphalt flux means the organic residual material from distillation
of crude oil that is generally used in asphalt roofing manufacturing
and paving and non-paving asphalt products.
Asphalt loading rack means the equipment at an asphalt processing
facility used to transfer oxidized asphalt from a storage tank into a
tank truck, rail car, or barge.
Asphalt processing facility means any facility engaged in the
preparation of asphalt flux at stand-alone asphalt processing
facilities, petroleum refineries, and asphalt roofing facilities.
Asphalt preparation, called ``blowing,'' is the oxidation of asphalt
flux, achieved by bubbling air through the heated asphalt, to raise the
softening point and to reduce penetration of the oxidized asphalt. An
asphalt processing facility includes one or more asphalt flux blowing
stills, asphalt flux storage tanks storing asphalt flux intended for
processing in the blowing stills, oxidized asphalt storage tanks, and
oxidized asphalt loading racks.
Asphalt roofing manufacturing facility means a facility consisting
of one or more asphalt roofing manufacturing lines.
Asphalt roofing manufacturing line means the collection of
equipment used to manufacture asphalt roofing products through a series
of sequential process steps. The equipment that comprises an asphalt
roofing manufacturing line varies depending on the type of substrate
used (i.e., organic or inorganic) and the final product manufactured
(e.g., roll roofing, laminated shingles). For example, an asphalt
roofing manufacturing line that uses fiberglass mat as a substrate
typically would not include a saturator/wet looper (or the saturator/
wet looper could be bypassed if the line manufacturers multiple types
of products). An asphalt roofing manufacturing line can include a
saturator (including wet looper), coater, coating mixers, sealant
applicators, adhesive applicators, and asphalt storage and process
tanks. The number of asphalt roofing manufacturing lines at a
particular facility is determined by the number of saturators (or
coaters) operated in parallel. For example, an asphalt roofing
manufacturing facility with two saturators (or coaters) operating in
parallel would be considered to have two separate roofing manufacturing
lines.
Asphalt storage tank means any tank used to store asphalt flux,
oxidized asphalt, and modified asphalt, at asphalt roofing
manufacturing facilities, petroleum refineries, and asphalt processing
facilities. Storage tanks containing cutback asphalts (asphalts diluted
with solvents to reduce viscosity for low temperature applications) and
emulsified asphalts (asphalts dispersed in water with an emulsifying
agent) are not subject to this subpart.
Blowing still means the equipment in which air is blown through
asphalt flux to change the softening point and penetration rate of the
asphalt flux, creating oxidized asphalt.
Boiler means any enclosed combustion device that extracts useful
[[Page 22997]]
energy in the form of steam and is not an incinerator.
Coater means the equipment used to apply amended (filled or
modified) asphalt to the top and bottom of the substrate (typically
fiberglass mat) used to manufacture shingles and rolled roofing
products.
Coating mixer means the equipment used to mix coating asphalt and a
mineral stabilizer, prior to applying the stabilized coating asphalt to
the substrate.
Combustion device means an individual unit of equipment such as a
flare, incinerator, process heater, or boiler used for the combustion
of organic hazardous air pollutant vapors.
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart including, but not limited to, any emission limitation
(including any operating limit), or work practice standard;
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart, and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit; or
(3) Fails to meet any emission limitation (including any operating
limit) or work practice standard in this subpart during startup,
shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is
permitted by this subpart.
Emission limitation means any emission limit, opacity limit,
operating limit, or visible emission limit.
Group 1 asphalt loading rack means an asphalt loading rack loading
asphalt with a maximum temperature of 260 [deg]C (500 [deg]F) or
greater or with a maximum true vapor pressure of 10.4 kiloPascals (kPa)
(1.5 pounds per square inch absolute (psia)) or greater.
Group 2 asphalt loading rack means an asphalt loading rack loading
asphalt with a maximum temperature less than 260 [deg]C (500 [deg]F) or
with a maximum true vapor pressure less than 10.4 kPa, 1.5 psia.
Group 1 asphalt storage tank means an asphalt storage tank that
meets both of the following two criteria:
(1) Has a capacity of 177 cubic meters (47,000 gallons) of asphalt
or greater; and
(2) Stores asphalt at a maximum temperature of 260 [deg]C (500
[deg]F) or greater, or has a maximum true vapor pressure of 10.4 kPa,
(1.5, psia) or greater.
Group 2 asphalt storage tank means any asphalt storage tank with a
capacity of 1.93 megagrams (Mg) of asphalt or greater that is not a
Group 1 asphalt storage tank.
Incinerator means an enclosed combustion device that is used for
destroying organic compounds. Auxiliary fuel may be used to heat waste
gas to combustion temperatures. Any energy recovery section present is
not physically formed into one manufactured or assembled unit with the
combustion section; rather, the energy recovery section is a separate
section following the combustion section and the two are joined by
ducts or connections carrying flue gas.
Maximum true vapor pressure means the equilibrium partial pressure
exerted by the stored asphalt at its maximum storage temperature.
Modified asphalt means asphalt that has been mixed with polymer
modifiers.
Oxidized asphalt means asphalt that has been prepared by passing
air through liquid asphalt flux in a blowing still.
Process heater means an enclosed combustion device that primarily
transfers heat liberated by burning fuel directly to process streams or
to heat transfer liquids other than water.
Research and development equipment means any equipment whose
primary purpose is to conduct research and development to develop new
processes and products, where such equipment is operated under the
close supervision of technically trained personnel and is not engaged
in the manufacture of products for commercial sale in commerce, except
in a de minimis manner.
Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40
CFR 70.2.
Saturator means the equipment in which substrate (predominantly
organic felt) is filled with asphalt. Saturators are predominantly used
for the manufacture of saturated felt products. The term saturator
includes the saturator and wet looper.
Sealant applicator means the equipment used to apply a sealant
strip to a roofing product. The sealant strip is used to seal
overlapping pieces of roofing product after they have been applied.
Work practice standard means any design, equipment, work practice,
or operational standard, or combination thereof, that is promulgated
pursuant to section 112(h) of the Clean Air Act.
Tables to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63
Table 1 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63.--Emission Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must meet the following
For-- emission limitation--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each blowing still, Group 1 a. Reduce total hydrocarbon mass
asphalt loading rack, and Group 1 emissions by 95 still, or to a
asphalt storage tank at existing, concentration of 20 ppmv, on a dry
new, and reconstructed asphalt basis corrected to 3 percent
processing facilities; and each oxygen;
Group 1 asphalt storage tank at b. Route the emissions to a
existing, new, and reconstructed combustion device achieving a
roofing manufacturing lines; and combustion efficiency of 99.5
each coating mixer, saturator percent;
(including wet looper), coater, c. Route the emissions to a
sealant applicator, adhesive combustion device that does use
applicator, and Group 1 asphalt auxiliary fuel achieving a total
storage tank at new and hydrocarbon (THC) destruction
reconstructed asphalt roofing efficiency of 95.8 percent;
manufacturing lines. d. Route the emissions to a boiler
or process heater with a design
heat input capacity of 44
megawatts (MW) or greater;
e. Introduce the emissions into the
flame zone of a boiler or process
heater; or
f. Route emissions to a flare
meeting the requirements of Sec.
63.11(b).
2. The total emissions from the a. Limit particulate matter
coating mixer, saturator emissions to 0.04 kilograms
(including wet looper), coater, emissions per megagram (kg/Mg)
sealant applicator, and adhesive (0.08 pounds per ton, lb/ton) of
applicator at each existing asphalt shingle or mineral-
asphalt roofing manufacturing surfaced roll roofing produced; or
line.a b. Limit particulate matter
emissions to 0.4 kg/Mg (0.8 lb/
ton) of saturated felt or smooth-
surfaced roll roofing produced.
[[Page 22998]]
3. Each saturator (including wet a. Limit exhaust gases to 20
looper) and coater at existing, percent opacity; and
new, and reconstructed asphalt b. Limit visible emissions from the
roofing manufacturing lines.a emission capture system to 20
percent of any period of
consecutive valid observations
totaling 60 minutes.
4. Each Group 2 asphalt storage Limit exhaust gases to 0 percent
tank at existing, new, and opacity.b
reconstructed asphalt processing
facility and asphalt roofing
manufacturing lines.a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a As an alternative to meeting the particulate matter and opacity
limits, these emission sources may comply with the THC percent
reduction or combustion efficiency standards.
b The opacity limit can be exceeded for on consecutive 15-minute period
in any 24-hour period when the storage tank transfer lines are being
cleared. During this 15-minute period, the control device must not be
bypassed. If the emissions from the asphalt storage tank are ducted to
the saturator control device, the combined emissions from the
saturator and storage tank must meet the 20 percent opacity limit
(specified in 4.a of table 1) during this 15-minute period. At any
other time, the opacity limit applies to Group 2 asphalt storage
tanks.
Table 2 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63.--Operating Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For-- You must a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Non-flare combustion devices Maintain the 3-hour average b
with a design heat input capacity combustion zone temperature at or
less than 44 MW or where the above the operating limit
emissions are not introduced into established during the performance
the flame zone. test.
2. Flares.......................... Meet the operating requirements
specified in Sec. 63.11(b).
3. Control devices used to comply a. Maintain the 3-hour average b
with the particulate matter inlet gas temperature at or below
standards. the operating limit established
during the performance test; and
b. Maintain the 3-hour average b
pressure drop across the device c
at or below the operating limit
established during the performance
test.
4. Control devices other than Maintain the approved monitoring
combustion devices or devices used parameters within the operating
to comply with the particulate limits established during the
matter emission standards. performance test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The operating limits specified in Table 2 are applicable if you are
monitoring control device operating parameters to demonstrate
continuous compliance. If you are using a CEMS or COMS, you must
maintain emissions below the value established during the initial
performance test.
b A 15-minute averaging period can be used as an alternative to the 3-
hour averaging period for this parameter.
c As an alternative to monitoring the pressure drop across the control
device, owners or operators using an ESP to achieve compliance with
the emission limits specified in Table 1 of this subpart can monitor
the voltage to the ESP. If this option is selected, the ESP voltage
must be maintained at or above the operating limit established during
the performance test.
Table 3 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63.--Requirements for Performance Tests a b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the following
For-- You must-- Using-- requirements--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. All particulate matter, total a. Select sampling i. EPA test method 1 A. For demonstrating
hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide, and port's location and or 1A in appendix A compliance with the total
carbon dioxide emission tests. the number of to part 60 of this hydrocarbon percent
traverse points. chapter. reduction standard, the
sampling sites must be
located at the inlet and
outlet of the control
device and prior to any
releases to the
atmosphere.
B. For demonstrating
compliance with the
particulate matter mass
emission rate, THC
destruction efficiency,
THC outlet concentration,
or combustion efficiency
standards, the sampling
sites must be located at
the outlet of the control
device and prior to any
releases to the
atmosphere.
2. All particulate matter and total Determine velocity and EPA test method 2, 2A,
hydrocarbon tests. volumetric flow rate. 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G, as
appropriate, in
appendix A to part 60
of this chapter.
3. All particulate matter and total Determine the gas EPA test method 3, 3A,
hydrocarbon tests. molecular weight used 3B, as appropriate,
for flow rate in appendix A to part
determination. 60 of this chapter.
4. All particulate matter, total Measure moisture EPA test 4 in appendix
hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide, and content of the stack A to part 60 of this
carbon dioxide emission tests. gas. chapter.
5. All particulate matter emission Measure the asphalt
tests. processing rate or
the asphalt roofing
manufacturing rate
and the asphalt
content of the
product manufactured,
as appropriate.
[[Page 22999]]
6. Each control device used to Measure the EPA test method 5A in For demonstrating
comply with the particulate matter concentration of appendix A to part 60 compliance with the
emission standards. particulate matter. of this chapter. particulate matter
standard, the performance
tests must be conducted
under normal operating
conditions and while
manufacturing the roofing
product that is expected
to result in the greatest
amount of hazardous air
pollutant emissions.
7. All opacity tests............... Conduct opacity EPA test method 9 in Conduct opacity
observations. appendix A to part 60 observations for at least
of this chapter. 3 hours and obtain 30, 6-
minute averages.
8. All visible emission tests...... Conduct visible EPA test method 22 in Modify EPA test method 22
emission observations. appendix A to part 60 such that readings are
of this chapter. recorded every 15 seconds
for a period of
consecutive observations
totaling 60 minutes.
9. Each combustion device used to a. Measure the EPA test method 3A in ...........................
comply with the combustion concentration of appendix A to part 60
efficiency or THC standards. carbon dioxide. of this chapter.
b. Measure the EPA test method 10 in
concentration of appendix A to part 60
carbon monoxide. of this chapter.
c. Measure the EPA test method 25A in ...........................
concentration of appendix A to part 60
total hydrocarbons. of this chapter.
10. Each control device used to Measure the EPA test method 25A in ...........................
comply with the THC reduction concentration of appendix A to part 60
efficiency or outlet concentration total hydrocarbons. of this chapter.
standards.
11. Each combustion device......... Establish a site- Data from the CPMS and You must collect combustion
specific combustion the applicable zone temperature data
zone temperature performance test every 15 minutes during
limit. method(s). 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.
12. Each control device used to Establish a site- Data from the CPMS and You must collect the inlet
comply with the particulate matter specific inlet gas the applicable gas temperature and
emission standards. temperature limit; performance test pressure drop b data every
and establish a site- method(s). 15 minutes during the
specific limit for entire period of the
the pressure drop initial 3-hour performance
across the device. test, and determine the
average inlet gas
temperature and pressure
drop c over the 3-hour
performance test by
computing the average of
all of the 15-minute
readings.
13. Each control device other than Establish site- Process data and data You must collect monitoring
a combustion device or device used specific monitoring from the CPMS and the parameter data every 15
to comply with the particulate parameters. applicable minutes during the entire
matter emission standards. performance test period of the initial 3-
method(s). hour performance test, and
determine the average
monitoring parameter
values over the 3-hour
performance test by
computing the average of
all of the 15-minute
readings.
14. Each flare used to comply with Assure that the flare The requirements of
the THC percent reduction or PM is operated and Sec. 63.11(b).
emission limits. maintained in
conformance with its
design.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a As specified in Sec. 63.8687(e), you may request that data from a previously-conducted emission test serve
as documentation of conformance with the emission standards and operating limits of this subpart.
b Performance tests are not required if: (1) The emissions are routed to a boiler or process heater with a
design heat input capacity of 44 MW or greater; or (2) the emissions are introduced into the flame zone of a
boiler or process heater.
c As an alternative to monitoring the pressure drop across the control device, owners or operators using an ESP
to achieve compliance with the emission limits specified in Table 1 of this subpart can monitor the voltage to
the ESP.
[[Page 23000]]
Table 4 to Subpart LLLLL to Part 63.--Initial Compliance With Emission
Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the following
emission You have demonstrated
For-- limitation-- initial compliance
if--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each blowing still, Group 1 a. Reduce total i. The total
asphalt loading rack, and hydrocarbon mass hydrocarbon
Group 1 asphalt storage tank, emissions by 95 emissions,
at existing, new, and percent or to a determined using the
reconstructed asphalt concentration of equations in Sec.
processing facilities;. 20 ppmv, on a 63.8687 and the test
dry basis methods and
corrected to 3 procedures in Table
percent oxygen. 3 to this subpart,
over the period of
the performance test
are reduced by at
least 95 percent by
weight or to a
concentration of 20
ppmv, on a dry basis
corrected to 3
percent oxygen; and
ii. You have a record
of the average
control device
operating parameters
\a\ over the
performance test
during which
emissions were
reduced according to
1.a.i. of this
table.
b. Route the i. The combustion
emissions to a efficiency of the
combustion combustion device,
device achieving determined using the
a combustion equations in Sec.
efficiency of 63.8687 and the test
99.5 percent. methods and
procedures in Table
3 to this subpart,
over the period of
the performance test
is at least 99.5
percent; and
ii. You have a record
of the average
combustion zone
temperature \a\ and
carbon monoxide,
carbon dioxide, and
total hydrocarbon
outlet
concentrations over
the performance test
during which the
combustion
efficiency was at
least 99.5 percent.
c. Route the i. The THC
emissions to a destruction
combustion efficiency of the
device that does combustion device,
not use determined using the
auxiliary fuel equations in Sec.
achieving a THC 63.8687 and the test
destruction methods and
efficiency of procedures in Table
95.8 percent. 3 to this subpart,
over the period of
the performance test
is at least 95.8
percent; and
ii. You have a record
of the average
combustion zone
temperature \a\ and
carbon monoxide,
carbon dioxide, and
total hydrocarbon
outlet
concentrations over
the performance test
during which the THC
destruction
efficiency was at
least 95.8 percent.
d. Route You have a record of
emissions to a the boiler or
boiler or process heater
process heater design heat
with a design capacity.
heat input
capacity of 44
MW or greater.
e. Introduce the You have a record
emissions into that shows the
the flame zone emissions are being
of a boiler or introduced into the
process heater. boiler or process
heater flame zone.
f. Route You have a record of
emissions to a the flare design and
flare meeting operating
the requirements requirements.
of Sec.
63.11(b).
2. Each coating mixer, a. Reduce total See 1.a.i. and ii. of
saturator (including wet hydrocarbon mass this table.
looper), coater, sealant emissions by 95
applicator, adhesive percent or to a
applicator, and Group 1 concentration of
asphalt storage tank at new 20 ppmv, on a
and reconstructed asphalt dry basis
roofing manufacturing lines. corrected to 3
percent oxygen.
b. Route the See 1.b.i. and ii. of
emissions to a this table.
combustion
device achieving
a combustion
efficiency of
99.5 percent.
c. Route the See 1.c.i. and ii. of
emissions to a this table.
combustion
device that does
not use
auxiliary fuel
achieving a THC
destruction
efficiency of
95.8 percent.
d. Route See 1.d. of this
emissions to a table.
boiler or
process heater
with a design
heat input
capacity of 44
MW or greater.
e. Introduce the See 1.e. of this
emissions into table.
the flame zone
of a boiler or
process heater.
f. Route See 1.f. of this
emissions to a table.
flare meeting
the requirements
of Sec.
63.11(b).
3. The total emissions from a. Limit PM i. The PM emissions,
the coating mixer, saturator emissions to determined using the
(including wet looper), 0.04 kg/Mg (0.08 equations in Sec.
coater, sealant applicator, lb/ton) of 63.8687 and the test
and adhesive applicator at asphalt shingle methods and
each existing asphalt roofing or mineral- procedures in Table
manufacturing line. surfaced roll 3 to this subpart,
roofing produced. over the period of
the performance test
are no greater than
the applicable
emission limitation;
and
ii. You have a record
of the average
control device a or
process parameters
over the performance
test during which
the particulate
matter emissions
were no greater than
the applicable
emission limitation.
[[Page 23001]]
b. Limit PM See 3.a.i. and ii. of
emissions to 0.4 this table.
kg/Mg (0.8 lb/
ton) of
saturated felt
or smooth-
surfaced roll
roofing produced.
4. Each saturator (including a. Limit visible The visible
wet looper) and coater at an emissions from emissions, measured
existing, new, or the emissions using EPA test
reconstructed asphalt roofing capture system method 22, for any
manufacturing line. to 20 percent of period of
any period of consecutive valid
consecutive observations
valid totaling 60 minutes
observations during the initial
totaling 60 compliance period
minutes. described in Sec.
63.8686(b) do not
exceed 20 percent.
b. Limit opacity The opacity, measured
emissions to 20 using EPA test
percent. method 9, for each
of the first 30 6-
minute averages
during the initial
compliance period
described in Sec.
63.8686(b) does not
exceed 20 percent.
5. Each Group 2 asphalt Limit exhaust The opacity, measured
storage tank at existing, gases to 0 using EPA test
new, and reconstructed percent opacity. method 9, for each
asphalt processing facilities of the first 30 6-
and asphalt roofing minute averages
manufacturing lines. during the initial
compliance period
described in Sec.
63.8686(b) does not
exceed 0 percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a If you use a CEMS or COMS to demonstrate compliance with the emission
limits, you are not required to record control device operating
parameters.
Table 5 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63.--Continuous Compliance With
Operating Limits a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the following You must demonstrate
For-- operating limit-- continuous compliance
by--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each non-flare combustion a. Maintain the 3- i. Passing the
device.a hour c average emissions through
combustion zone the control device;
temperature at and
or above the ii. Collecting the
operating limit combustion zone
establishing temperature data
during the according to Sec.
performance test. 63.8688(b); and
iii. Reducing
combustion zone
temperature data to
3-hour c averages
according to
calculations in
Table 3 to this
subpart; and
iv. Maintaining the 3-
hour c average
combustion zone
temperature within
the level
established during
the performance
test.
2. Each flare................. Meet the The flare pilot light
operating must be present at
requirements all times and the
specified in flare must be
Sec. 63.11(b).. operating at all
times that emissions
may be vented to it.
3. Control devices used to a. Maintain the 3- i. Passing the
comply with the particulate hour c average emissions through
matter emission standards. inlet gas the control device;
temperature and and
pressure drop ii. Collecting the
across device d inlet gas
at or below the temperature and
operating limits pressure drop d data
established according to Sec.
during the 63.8688 (b) and (c);
performance test. and
iii. Reducing inlet
gas temperature and
pressure drop d data
to 3-hour c averages
according to
calculations in
Table 3 to this
subpart; and
iv. Maintaining the 3-
hour c average inlet
gas temperature and
pressure drop d
within the level
established during
the performance
test.
4. Control devices other than a. Maintain the i. Passing the
combustion devices or devices monitoring emissions through
used to comply with the parameters the devices;
particulate matter emission. within the ii. Collecting the
operating limits monitoring parameter
established data according to
during the Sec. 63.8688(d);
performance test. and
iii. Reducing the
monitoring parameter
data to 3-hour c
averages according
to calculations in
Table 3 to this
subpart; and
iv. Maintaining the
monitoring
parameters within
the level
established during
the performance
test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The operating limits specified in Table 2 and the requirements
specified in Table 5 are applicable if you are monitoring control
device operating parameters to demonstrate continuous compliance. If
you use a CEMS or COMS to demonstrate compliance with the emission
limits, you are not required to record control device operating
parameters. However, you must maintain emissions below the value
established during the initial performance test. Data from the CEMS
and COMS must be reduced as specified in Sec. 63.9(g).
b Continuous parameter monitoring is not required if (1) the emissions
are routed to a boiler or process heater with a with a design heat
input capacity of 44 MW or greater; or (2) the emissions are
introduced into the flame zone of a boiler or process heater.
c A 15-minute averaging period can be used as an alternative to the 3-
hour averaging period for this parameter.
d As an alternative to monitoring the pressure drop across the control
device, owners or operators using an ESP to achieve compliance with
the emission limits specified in Table 1 of this subpart can monitor
the voltage to the ESP. If this option is selected, the ESP voltage
must be maintained at or above the operating limit established during
the performance test.
Table 6 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must submit-- The report must contain-- You must submit the report--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. An initial notification............ The information in Sec. 63.9(b)....... According to the requirements
in Sec. 63.9(b).
2. A notification of performance test. A written notification of the intent to At least 60 calendar days
conduct a performance test. before the performance test
is scheduled to begin, as
required in Sec. 63.9(e).
3. A notification of opacity and A written notification of the intent to According to the requirements
visible emission observations. conduct opacity and visible emission in Sec. 63.9(f).
observations.
[[Page 23002]]
4. Notification of compliance status.. The information in Sec. 63.9(h)(2) According to the requirements
through (5), as applicable. in Sec. 63.9(h)(2) through
(5), as applicable.
5. A compliance report................ a. A statement that there were no Semiannually according to the
deviations from the emission requirements in Sec.
limitations during the reporting 63.8693(b).
period, if there are no deviations from
any emmission limitations (emission
limit, operating limit, opacity limit,
and visible emission limit) that apply
to you.
b. If there were no periods during which Semiannually according to the
the CPMS, CEMS, or COMS was out-of- requirements in Sec.
control as specified in Sec. 63.8693(b).
63.8(c)(7), a statement that there were
no periods during which the CPMS, CEMS,
or COMS was out-of-control during the
reporting period.
c. If you have a deviation from any Semiannually according to the
emission limitation (emission limit, requirements in Sec.
operating limit, opacity limit, and 63.8693(b).
visible emission limit), the report
must contain the information in Sec.
63.8693(c). If there were periods
during which the CPMS, CEMS, or COMS
was out-of-control, as specified in
Sec. 63.8(c)(7), the report must
contain the information in Sec.
63.8693(d).
d. If you had a startup, shutdown or Semiannually according to the
malfunction during the reporting period requirements in Sec.
and you took actions consistent with 63.8693(b).
your startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plan, the compliance report must
include the information in Sec.
63.10(d)(5)(i).
6. An immediate startup, shutdown, and The information in Sec. By fax or telephone within 2
malfunction report if you have a 63.10(d)(5)(ii). working days after starting
startup, shutdown, or malfunction actions inconsistent with the
during the reporting period and plan followed by a letter
actions taken were not consistent within 7 working days after
with your startup, shutdown, and the end of the event unless
malfunction plan. you have made alternative
arrangements with the
permitting authority.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 7 to Subpart LLLLL of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart LLLLL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to subpart
Citation Subject Brief description LLLLL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1................. Applicability............... Initial Applicability Yes.
Determination;
Applicability After
Standard Established;
Permit Requirements;
Extensions, Notifications.
Sec. 63.2................. Definitions................. Definitions for part 63 Yes.
standards.
Sec. 63.3................. Units and Abbreviations..... Units and abbreviations for Yes.
part 63 standards.
Sec. 63.4................. Prohibited Activities....... Prohibited Activities; Yes.
Compliance date;
Circumvention, Severability.
Sec. 63.5................. Construction/Reconstruction. Applicability; applications; Yes.
approvals.
Sec. 63.6(a).............. Applicability............... GP apply unless compliance Yes.
extension GP apply to area
sources that become major.
Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(4)....... Compliance Dates for New and Standards apply at effective Yes.
Reconstructed sources. date; 3 years after
effective date; upon
startup; 10 years after
construction or
reconstruction commences
for section 112(f).
Sec. 63.6(b)(5)........... Notification................ Must notify if commenced Yes.
construction or
reconstruction after
proposal.
Sec. 63.6(b)(6)........... [Reserved]..................
Sec. 63.6(b)(7)........... Compliance Dates for New and Area sources that become Yes.
Reconstructed Area Sources major must comply with
That Become Major. major source standards
immediately upon becoming
major, regardless of
whether required to comply
when they were an area
source.
Sec. 63.6(c)(1)-(2)....... Compliance Dates for 1. Comply according to date Yes.
Existing Sources. in subpart, which must be
no later than 3 years after
effective date.
2. For section 112(f)
standards, comply within 90
days of effective date
unless compliance extension
has been granted.
Sec. 63.6(c)(3)-(4)....... [Reserved]..................
Sec. 63.6(c)(5)........... Compliance Dates for Area sources that become Yes.
Existing Area Sources That major must comply with
Become Major. major source standards by
date indicated in subpart
or by equivalent time
period (for example, 3
years).
[[Page 23003]]
Sec. 63.6(d).............. [Reserved]..................
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)........... Operation & Maintenance..... 1. Operate to minimize Yes.
emissions at all times.
2. Correct malfunctions as
soon as practicable.
3. Operation and maintenance
requirements independently
enforceable; information
Administrator will use to
determine if operation and
maintenance requirements
were met.
Sec. 63.6(e)(2)........... [Reserved]..................
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)........... Startup, Shutdown, and 1. Requirement for SSM and Yes.
Malfunction (SSM) Plan startup, shutdown,
(SSMP). malfunction plan.
2. Content of SSMP..........
Sec. 63.6(f)(1)........... Compliance Except During SSM You must comply with Yes.
emission standards at all
times except during SSM.
Sec. 63.6(f)(2)-(3)....... Methods for Determining Compliance based on Yes.
Compliance. performance test, operation
and maintenance plans,
records, inspection.
Sec. 63.6(g)(1)-(3)....... Alternative Nonopacity Procedures for getting an Yes.
Standard. alternative nonopacity
standard.
Sec. 63.6(h).............. Opacity/Visible Emission Requirements for opacity and Yes.
(VE) Standards. VE limits.
Sec. 63.6(h)(1)........... Compliance with Opacity/VE You must comply with opacity/ Yes.
Standards. VE emission limitations at
all times except during SSM.
Sec. 63.6(h)(2)(i)........ Determining Compliance with If standard does not state No. The test methods
Opacity/VE Standards. test method, use EPA test for opacity and
method 9, 40 CFR 60, visible emissions are
appendix A for opacity and specified in Sec.
EPA test method 22, 40 CFR 63.8687.
60, appendix A for VE.
Sec. 63.6(h)(2)(ii)....... [Reserved]..................
Sec. 63.6(h)(2)(iii)...... Using Previous Tests to Criteria for when previous Yes.
Demonstrate Compliance with opacity/VE testing can be
Opacity/VE Standards. used to show compliance
with this rule.
Sec. 63.6(h)(3)........... [Reserved]..................
Sec. 63.6(h)(4)........... Notification of Opacity/VE Must notify Administrator of Yes.
Observation Date. anticipated date of
observation.
Sec. 63.6(h)(5)(i), (iii)- Conducting Opacity/VE Dates and Schedule for Yes.
(v). Observations. conducting opacity/VE
observations.
Sec. 63.6(h)(5)(ii)....... Opacity Test Duration and Must have at least 3 hours Yes.
Averaging Times. of observation with thirty
6-minute averages.
Sec. 63.6(h)(6)........... Records of Conditions During Must keep records available Yes.
Opacity/VE Observations. and allow Administrator to
inspect.
Sec. 63.6(h)(7)(i)........ Report COMS Monitoring Data Must submit COMS data with Yes, if COMS used.
from Performance Test. other performance test data.
Sec. 63.6(h)(7)(ii)....... Using COMS instead of EPA Can submit COMS data instead Yes, if COMS used.
test method 9, 40 CFR 60, of EPA test method 9, 40
appendix A. CFR 60, appendix A results
even if rule requires EPA
test method 9, 40 CFR 60,
appendix A, but must notify
Administrator before
performance test.
Sec. 63.6(h)(7)(iii)...... Averaging time for COMS To determine compliance, Yes, if COMS used.
during performance test. must reduce COMS data to 6-
minute averages.
Sec. 63.6(h)(7)(iv)....... COMS requirements........... Owner/operator must Yes, if COMS used.
demonstrate that COMS
performance evaluations are
conducted according to Sec.
63.8(e), COMS are
properly maintained and
operated according to Sec.
63.8(c) and data quality
as Sec. 63.8(d).
Sec. 63.6(h)(7)(v)........ Determining Compliance with COMS is probative but not Yes, if COMS used.
Opacity/VE Standards. conclusive evidence of
compliance with opacity
standard, even if EPA test
method 9, 40 CFR 60,
appendix A observation
shows otherwise.
Requirements for COMS to be
probative evidence, proper
maintenance, meeting PS 1,
and data have not been
altered.
Sec. 63.6(h)(8)........... Determining Compliance with Administrator will use all Yes.
Opacity/VE Standards. COMS, EPA test method 9, 40
CFR 60, appendix A, and EPA
test method 22, 40 CFR 60,
appendix A results, as well
as information about
operation and maintenance
to determine compliance.
Sec. 63.6(h)(9)........... Adjusted Opacity Standard... Procedures for Administrator Yes.
to adjust an opacity
standard.
Sec. 63.6(i).............. Compliance Extension........ Procedures and criteria for Yes.
Administrator to grant
compliance extension.
Sec. 63.6(j).............. Presidential Compliance President may exempt source Yes.
Exemption. category from requirement
to comply with rule.
[[Page 23004]]
Sec. 63.7(a)(1)-(2)....... Performance Test Dates...... Dates for conducting initial Yes.
performance testing and
other compliance
demonstrations. Must
conduct 180 days after
first subject to rule.
Sec. 63.7(a)(3)........... Section 114 Authority....... Administrator may require a Yes.
performance test under CAA
section 114 at any time.
Sec. 63.7(b)(1)........... Notification of Performance Must notify Administrator 60 Yes.
Test. days before the test.
Sec. 63.7(b)(2)........... Notification of Rescheduling If rescheduling a Yes.
performance test is
necessary, must notify
Administrator 5 days before
scheduled date of
rescheduled date.
Sec. 63.7(c).............. Quality Assurance/Test Plan. 1. Requirement to submit Yes.
site-specific test plan 60
days before the test or on
date Administrator agrees
with:
2. Test plan approval
procedures.
3. Performance audit
requirements.
4. Internal and external QA
procedures for testing.
Sec. 63.7(d).............. Testing Facilities.......... Requirements for testing Yes.
facilities
Sec. 63.7(e)(1)........... Conditions for Conducting 1. Performance tests must be Yes.
Performance Tests. conducted under
representative conditions.
Cannot conduct performance
tests during SSM.
2. Not a violation to exceed
standard during SSM.
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)........... Conditions for Conducting Must conduct according to Yes.
Performance Tests. rule and EPA test methods
unless Administrator
approves alternative.
Sec. 63.7(e)(3)........... Test Run Duration........... 1. Must have three test runs Yes.
of at least 1 hour each.
2. Compliance is based on
arithmetic mean of three
runs.
3. Conditions when data from
an additional test run can
be used.
Sec. 63.7(f).............. Alternative Test Method..... Procedures by which Yes.
Administrator can grant
approval to use an
alternative test method.
Sec. 63.7(g).............. Performance Test Data 1. Must include raw data in Yes.
Analysis. performance test report.
2. Must submit performance
test data 60 days after end
of test with the
Notification of Compliance
Status.
3. Keep data for 5 years....
Sec. 63.7(h).............. Waiver of Tests............. Procedures for Administrator Yes.
to waive performance test.
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)........... Applicability of Monitoring Subject to all monitoring Yes.
Requirements. requirements in standard.
Sec. 63.8(a)(2)........... Performance Specifications.. Performance Specifications Yes, if CEMS used.
in appendix B of part 60
apply.
Sec. 63.8(a)(3)........... [Reserved]
Sec. 63.8(a)(4)........... Monitoring with Flares...... Unless your rule says Yes.
otherwise, the requirements
for flares in Sec. 63.11
apply.
Sec. 63.8(b)(1)........... Monitoring.................. Must conduct monitoring Yes.
according to standard
unless Administrator
approves alternative.
Sec. 63.8(b) (2)-(3)...... Multiple Effluents and 1. Specific requirements for Yes.
Multiple Monitoring Systems. installing monitoring
systems.
2. Must install on each
effluent before it is
combined and before it is
released to the atmosphere
unless Administrator
approves otherwise.
3. If more than one
monitoring system on an
emission point, must report
all monitoring system
results, unless one
monitoring system is a
backup.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)........... Monitoring System Operation Maintain monitoring system Yes.
and Maintenance. in a manner consistent with
good air pollution control
practices.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(i)........ Routine and Predictable CMS 1. Follow the SSM plan for Yes.
malfunction. routine repairs.
2. Keep parts for routine
repairs readily available.
3. Reporting requirements
for CMS malfunction when
action is described in SSM
plan.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii)....... CMS malfunction not in SSP Reporting requirements for Yes.
plan. CMS malfunction when action
is not described in SSM
plan.
[[Page 23005]]
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(iii)...... Compliance with Operation 1. How Administrator Yes.
and Maintenance determines if source
Requirements. complying with operation
and maintenance
requirements.
2. Review of source O&M
procedures, records,
manufacturer's
instructions,
recommendations, and
inspection of monitoring
system.
Sec. 63.8(c)(2)-(3)....... Monitoring System 1. Must install to get Yes.
Installation. representative emission and
parameter measurements.
2. Must verify operational
status before or at
performance test.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)........... CMS Requirements............ CMS must be operating except No; Sec. 63.8690
during breakdown, out-of- specifies the CMS
control, repair, requirements.
maintenance, and high-level
calibration drifts.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)(i)-(ii)... CMS Requirements............ 1. COMS must have a minimum Yes, if COMS used.
of one cycle of sampling
and analysis for each
successive 10-second period
and one cycle of data
recording for each
successive 6-minute period.
2. CEMS must have a minimum
of one cycle of operation
for each successive 15-
minute period.
Sec. 63.8(c)(5)........... COMS Minimum Procedures..... COMS minimum procedures Yes.
Sec. 63.8(c)(6)........... CMS Requirements............ Zero and High level No; Sec. 63.8688
calibration check specifies the CMS
requirements. requirements.
Sec. 63.8(c)(7)-(8)....... CMS Requirements............ Out-of-control periods, Yes.
including reporting.
Sec. 63.8(d).............. CMS Quality Control......... 1. Requirements for CMS No; Sec. 63.8688
quality control, including specifies the CMS
calibration, etc. requirements.
2. Must keep quality control
plan on record for the life
of the affected source.
3. Keep old versions for 5
years after revisions.
Sec. 63.8(e).............. CMS Performance Evaluation.. Notification, performance No; Sec. 63.8688
evaluation test plan, specifies the CMS
reports. requirements.
Sec. 63.8(f)(1)-(5)....... Alternative Monitoring Procedures for Administrator Yes.
Method. to approve alternative
monitoring.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6)........... Alternative to Relative Procedures for Administrator Yes, if CEMS used.
Accuracy Test. to approve alternative
relative accuracy tests for
CEMS.
Sec. 63.8(g)(1)-(4)....... Data Reduction.............. 1. COMS 6-minute averages Yes, if CEMS or COMS
calculated over at least 36 used.
evenly spaced data points.
2. CEMS 1-hour averages
computed over at least 4
equally spaced data points.
Sec. 63.8(g)(5)........... Data Reduction.............. Data that cannot be used in No; Sec. 63.8690
computing averages for CMS. specifies the CMS
requirements.
Sec. 63.9(a).............. Notification Requirements... Applicability and State Yes.
Delegation
Sec. 63.9(b)(1)-(5)....... Initial Notifications....... 1. Submit notification 120 Yes.
days after effective date.
2. Notification of intent to
construct/reconstruct;
notification of
commencement of construct/
reconstruct; notification
of startup.
3. Contents of each.........
Sec. 63.9(c).............. Request for Compliance Can request if cannot comply Yes.
Extension. by date or if installed
Best Achievable Control
Technology (BACT)/Lowest
Achievable Emission Rate
(LAER).
Sec. 63.9(d).............. Notification of Special For sources that commence Yes.
Compliance Requirements for construction between
New Source. proposal and promulgation
and want to comply 3 years
after effective date.
Sec. 63.9(e).............. Notification of Performance Notify Administrator 60 days Yes.
Test. prior
Sec. 63.9(f).............. Notification of VE/Opacity Notify Administrator 30 days Yes.
Test. prior
Sec. 63.9(g).............. Additional Notifications 1. Notification of No; Sec. 63.8692
When Using CMS. performance evaluation. specifies the CMS
2. Notification using COMS notification
data. requirements.
3. Notification that the
criterion for use of
alternative to relative
accuracy testing was
exceeded.
Sec. 63.9(h)(1)-(6)....... Notification of Compliance 1. Contents. Yes.
Status. 2. Due 60 days after end of
performance test or other
compliance demonstration,
except for opacity/VE,
which are due 30 days after.
3. When to submit to Federal
vs. State authority.
[[Page 23006]]
Sec. 63.9(i).............. Adjustment of Submittal Procedures for Administrator Yes.
Deadlines. to approve change in dates
when notifications must be
submitted.
Sec. 63.9(j).............. Change in Previous Must submit within 15 days Yes.
Information. after the change.
Sec. 63.10(a)............. Recordkeeping/Reporting..... 1. Applies to all, unless Yes.
compliance extension.
2. When to submit to Federal
vs. State authority.
3. Procedures for owners of
more than 1 source.
Sec. 63.10(b)(1).......... Recordkeeping/Reporting..... 1. General Requirements..... Yes.
2. Keep all records readily
available..
3. Keep for 5 years.........
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i)-(v)... Records related to Startup, 1. Occurrence of each of Yes.
Shutdown, and Malfunction. operation (process
equipment).
2. Occurrence of each
malfunction of air
pollution equipment.
3. Maintenance on air
pollution control equipment.
4. Actions during startup,
shutdown, and malfunction.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi) and CMS Records................. 1. Malfunctions, Yes.
(x-xi). inoperative, out-of-control.
2. Calibration checks.......
3. Adjustments, maintenance.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2) (vii)- Records..................... 1. Measurements to Yes.
(ix). demonstrate compliance with
emission limitations.
2. Performance test,
performance evaluation, and
visible emission
observation results.
3. Measurements to determine
conditions of performance
tests and performance
evaluations.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xii)..... Records..................... Records when under waiver... Yes
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiii).... Records..................... Records when using Yes.
alternative to relative
accuracy test.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv)..... Records..................... All documentation supporting Yes.
Initial Notification and
Notification of Compliance
Status.
Sec. 63.10(b)(3).......... Records..................... Applicability determinations Yes.
Sec. 63.10(c)(1)-(6), (9)- Records..................... Additional records for CMS.. No; Sec. 63.8694
(15). specifies the CMS
recordkeeping
requirements.
Sec. 63.10(c)(7)-(8)...... Records..................... Records of excess emissions No; Sec. 63.8694
and parameter monitoring specifies the CMS
exceeedances for CMS. recordkeeping
requirements.
Sec. 63.10(d)(1).......... General Reporting Requirement to report....... Yes.
Requirements.
Sec. 63.10(d)(2).......... Report of Performance Test When to submit to Federal or Yes.
Results. State authority.
Sec. 63.10(d)(3).......... Reporting Opacity or VE What to report and when..... Yes.
Observations.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4).......... Progress Reports............ Must submit progress reports Yes.
on schedule if under
compliance extension.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5).......... Startup, Shutdown, and Contents and submission..... Yes.
Malfunction Reports.
Sec. 63.10(e)(1), (2)..... Additional CMS Reports...... 1. Must report results for Yes.
each CEM on a unit.
2. Written copy of
performance evaluation.
3. Three copies of COMS
performance evaluation.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3).......... Reports..................... Excess emission reports..... No; Sec. 63.8693
specifies the
reporting
requirements.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(i)-(iii). Reports..................... Schedule for reporting No; Sec. 63.8693
excess emissions and specifies the
parameter monitor reporting
exceedances (now defined as requirements.
deviations).
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(iv)-(v).. Excess Emissions Reports.... 1. Requirement to revert to No; Sec. 63.8693
the frequency specified in specifies the
the relevant standard if reporting
there is an excess requirements.
emissions and parameter
monitor exceedances (now
defined as deviations).
2. Provision to request
semiannual reporting after
compliance for one year.
3. Submit report by 30th day
following end of quarter or
calendar half.
4. If there has not been an
exceedance or excess
emission (now defined as
deviations), report content
is a statement that there
have been no deviations.
[[Page 23007]]
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(iv)-(v).. Excess Emissions Reports.... Must submit report No; Sec. 63.8693
containing all of the specifies the
information in Sec. reporting
63.10(c)(5)(13), Sec. requirements.
63.8(c)(7)-(8).
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(vi)- Excess Emissions Report and 1. Requirements for No; Sec. 63.8693
(viii). Summary Report. reporting excess emissions specifies the
for CMS (now called reporting
deviations). requirements.
2. Requires all of the
information in Sec.
63.10(c)(5)(13), Sec.
63.8(c)(7)-(8).
Sec. 63.10(e)(4).......... Reporting COMS data......... Must submit COMS data with Yes, if COMS used.
performance test data.
Sec. 63.10(f)............. Waiver for Recordkeeping/ Procedures for Administrator Yes.
Reporting. to waive.
Sec. 63.11................ Flares...................... Requirements for flares..... Yes.
Sec. 63.12................ Delegation.................. State authority to enforce Yes.
standards.
Sec. 63.13................ Addresses................... Addresses where reports, Yes.
notifications, and requests
are sent.
Sec. 63.14................ Incorporation by Reference.. Test methods incorporated by Yes.
reference.
Sec. 63.15................ Availability of Information. Public and confidential Yes.
information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 03-5624 Filed 4-28-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U