### ·- 60758 ··Federal Register 

## I VoL 44, 

### No.· 205 

## I 'Monday, October 2Z, 1979 

## I Proposed Rules

included as

**.app~dices** 

### to the transcript of

### that conference. · FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:' 

### David.F. 

### Stover, General Couusel. (202) 254-3830 " DavldF.Hards. .!!, : Secretary. (I'llDoc..:rii-SUtO Fllecl10-19-7111 8>15 am) BlWJfa CODE 7715-01

...
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEcrJON AGENCY
40 CFR 

## Part 52 [FRI. 1344-1] 

### CaDfomla Plan Revision; SIP Chapter 4-Callfomla 

### A1r Quality 

### Control Strategies AGENCY: 

### Environmental Prptection

. Agency (EPA).

ACTION: 

### Notice ofProposed Rulemaking. SUMMARY: On

**May~** 1819, 

### the

. . · California Air

### Resources Board (ARB) 

### • submitted to the 

### BPA a revision to

**tl!~** 

### State Implementation Plan (SIP), 

### ThJs revision consists ofCluipter

### 4. · California AirQuality Control Slmtegies, 

### which ontlines 

### the control measures currently 

## beiDs implemented in CaUfomia as 

### weU as those measures which the ARB proposes to adopt as part ofthe nonattainment already adopted by

### local 

### districts. tended effects ofthis 

### revision are to address 

### •certaiJi requirementi 

### of

### the Clean Air

. 

### Act as amended (CAA), and 40 CPR Part &1, 

### to update the SJP. 

### and to infcnm the 

### public on these matters. The BPA invites public comments on this 

### revision. · especially as to its consfstelicy with the CAA. DATES: 

### Comments may be 

### submitted on or before December 21.1919. · . ADDRESSES:.

### Comments may be 

### sent to: Resfonal Administrator, Attn: Air Be 

### Hazardous Materi'als Dlvislon, Air ·• 

### Teohnical Branch, Reg$tory Section (A-4-2), Enviromnental

**Ptotectio~** Agency, 

### Region 

### IX. 21S 

### Fremont Street. San Francisco CA 94105. :

Copies ofthe J:evision and the 

### evaluation report 

### are aVIillable for public inspection during 

### normal business hours at the BPA Region IX Office

**a~** 

### the above address and atthe 

### following locations:

. . · CaltformeAir Reaow:ces Board, 1102 "Q!' '

. Street, P.O. BoxZ815, Sacramento. CA. 9!i814. • Envlrolmientsl Protection Agency, Loa

AnplnContact Office. 800 North Loa Anaeln Street, Loa ADaeles CA. 90012. PubUc ID.fonnatlon Refereuce U.olt, Room·



### Z92Z (SPA Library). 401 "M" Stieet. S.W,. ·

· WasbJnstOD. D.C. 

## Z04U0: · FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACI': 

### addiUonal 

## Jesall1 enforceable RACT



### .Douglas Grano,. 

### Chief, Regulatory regulations on 

### an annual basts, 

### for those Section Air

### Technical Branch, Air 

## a CTG's that have beq,pubUshed by

- Hazardous Materials Division, 

### January ofthe preceding year.

Environmental Protection·Agency.. The CAA also geoerelly requires· that
•Region :tJC1'(4l5) 556-i93B.

. 

### NAP's mclude RACT 

### for ataUonnry,



### SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

### a'ources ofnitrogen 

### oxides.

**~ulfur** 

### B.... 

### t..-uud

. dioxide, and particulate mattttr 

### fn areas 

# ...,...v which are In 

### a nooattnJnmenlatatus for The CAA was enacted by Ccmgress in 

### those pollutants..... · 1963 

### and &mended 

### sev"eral ti.fnes In

### addition, plandornonaltainment thereafter. 

### Under the 

### CAA. the EPA

. areas mU.t

### require pJilmifs for the 

### establisbed National Ambient Air 

### construction and opera'Uon ofnetv or

. Quality Standards (NAAQS) for certain modlfted statiCJI1817 sources In pollutants. Bach State was

### required to accordance with secUon 173 

### oflhe CAA adopt a plan (the SIP) to attain and (relating to perndtrequirements), maintain the 

### NAAQS throushont the

- In 

### an effort

### to ensure that the NAP'ti State.

. for CaUfomia meet the foregofns

The 

### State ofCaUfornla adopted an SlP requirements, the 

### ARB bas been 

### and submitted it

### to the BPA in19'1%. 

### engaged In the Statewide development That

### plan was pln'tly approved and 

### ofimifcnm rules. known as model rules, part]y disapproved. Since 19'/2, 

### the SIP for the 

### control of

### emissions from certain has 

### been amended Inpart many times. 

### stationary aouroes. These rules ore

..

.becomiDg somewhatfragmented in the Intended 

### tO represll)t RACT 

### and 

### to process. For this 

### reason, the ARB Is in 

### encourage as Jlluah 

### uniformity among air the process of

### revising pdupdatfDs

### its pollution control 

### distrlct (APCD) 

### rules overall plan. The 

### chapternow beJng · • 

### as fa 

### practicable. considered In



### ~ 

### notice Is

### part of

### ihat The model rules contained In 

### ·task. · ·



### Appendbt'~B ha've been submitted to

Under 

### section 101[d) 

### ofthe CAA the the 

### EPA

**for~infol'DJational** 

### purposes. and State of

### CaUfornla submitted 

### io the BPA are not now legallv enfon:eable onDecember

### 2. 19?1 

### a list of the " 

### NAAQS attainment status of

# an areas in regulations. 

### Th8samodel rules may be the 

### state. The 

### listwa•fpubUshed 1n 

### the

.



## :::=~~~t **!jt~.;**

# ::0In Federal 

### ResJsler on March 3, 19'18 ( 

### 43 FR. 

### rules In relation to the respective CTG 8962). Afterrevilny of

### public comments, 

### for each +une ofemls81on •ource Tho 

## inclw:Una qbanges recommendedby

### the , .,r ' 

### b State, a reVised list was published as

. CTG s provide fnlormation OJ]. 

### nvaJJa le final rnlemsldns 

### on March 1

### 9,1919 (f4 air

### pollution control tec1mlques and FR. 18388). 

### Additional changes have contain reCOJDfDendations of

### wha! the been requested by

### the State and are EPA calls the 'presumptive norm for nowbelngconslderedhytheBPA. · RAcr.



### The CAA requires the submission ofa · DesGdpdan ' revisedSIP'fornonattainmentareaB.In -.._ ._4 

## •'•---Califi'-' • ·--n

hich fth
....;" •QS · 10IWIP•.a

**ou~** 

### unua a

**~vuruu** 

### w one Ot:

### more 0 

### e l-..nn 

### are contiolstrategy, inclu-'1•

...

### control 

### exceeded. Thase nonattainment area

. -.uo 

### plans

**[NAP's~** 

### must denionstrate measnres b.elng bnplamented 

### at b,9th the · 

### b state and local levels. attainment 0 

### NAAQS Y 1962 or. Part I, 

### "Vehicular Souroes", discusses



## unc,~r::~~'Af:.b:r!':"~d vehicnlarcontrol measures in two · · by local and regional agencies and · categorlas. technical control measures submitted to'the 

### ARB

..Th8 ARB may and transportation 

### control measures. take 

### steps 

### to correct

**~** 

### deffclencte• 

### a 

### Bxistfns and

### future control measures are NAP may 

### have. If

### and When 

### approved described In each category, bythe 

### ARB. a NAP would be Wbmltted Part D, "Non-vehicular (Stat,fonary to the 

### BPA gsarevision to the SJP. 

### Source) Controls", describes and lists
• The 

### CMgfm.erally 

### requires that regulations now in

### effect which are ozone NAP'alnclnde regulations

. appUcable to 1tationary sources In 

### each retlectlng reasonably available control air

### ppllution control dfstricL The second technology (RACI') 

### lor maJor stationari baH ofPart

## n deacr.lbps model rules and sources (and. in

### nrban areas with the process by 

### which they are attatmnant dates beyond 1882, minor 

### developed. as 

### well ae tbe ARB's stationary sources) of

### volatile orpnic SchedUle for Adoption of

### Rules, either ·compounds (VOC) for

### which the BPA · by

### the districts or by 

### the 

### ARB for the has i8sned 

### a Control Techniques 

### districts. Anticipated dates 

### tor ARB Guideline-(CTG) by

### January 1918. development of

### addidonal model rules

Po.rVOC sources

**c:o~d** by

### CTG*a are also indicated. issued afterJanuary 19'18, 

### NAP's 

### must Appendix

**~A** 

### is a lfst·ofthe air include 

### schedules to adgpt and 

### submit pollution control d1atrJcts in California,

HeinOnline --44 Fed. Reg. 60758 1979

### Federal Register 

## f Vol. 44, No. 205" 

## I Monday October 22. 

### 1979 

## I Proposed Rules 60759

with their addresses and telephone Public Comments EPA's intent to iindertake the numbers. Under Section 110 or the CAA. 

### and 40 development or a revised standard

Appendices 4-C, 

### 4-D, 4-B. and 4-F are CFR Part 51, the Administrator is which would 

### limit SOa emissions from portions ofthe California required to a&prove or disapprove catalyst regenerators. Admioistrative Code. revisions to a SIP submitted by the DATE: 

### Comments must bereceived by

Appendix 

### 4-B. "Category I Model State. The Regional Administrator December21,1919. Rules for Stationary Sources

.., contains hereby issues this notice setting forth ADDRESS: 

### Send comments to: Central model rules developed by the ARB and the above described revision as Docket Section (A-130). U.S. considered by the

### ARB to be proposed rulemaking and 

### advises the "reasonably available" for adoption by public that interested persons may Environmental Protection Agency. 401 

### M air pollution control districts which have participate by 

### submitting wrillen Street. S.W., Washington, D.C.**~SO.** 

## ·. applicable sources. "Category 

## r· is comments to the Region IX OUice during Attention: Docket A-79--09. defined in Chapter 4 as those rules "to the specified comment period. The document

..A Review of be adopted by local air pollution control Comments received will be available for Standards ofPerformance for New district before 5/31/79, or by ARB for public Inspection at the EPA Region IX Stationary Sources-Petroleum district before 6/30/79, if 

### necessary.'' Office, the EPA Public Information Refineries" (EPA-450/3-19-008} is M:odel 

### rules included in Appendix 4-B Reference Unit. and the ARB Office in available upon request from Mr. 

### Robert are as follows: · Sacramento. Ajax lMD-13), Emission Standards and 1. New Source Review 

### The Administrator's decision to Engineering Division, U.S. 2. Architectural Coatings 

### approve-or disapprove the proposed EnvironmentalProtection Agency, 3. Automotive AssemblyUne Coatings 

### revision will be based on llie comments Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 4. Can and Con Coatings 

### received and on a determination 27711.

. 5. Dry Cleaning (Petroleum) 

### whether the revision meets the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 6. Soh'!mt Metal Cleaning (Degreasing) 

### requirements ofthe CAA and 40 CFR 

### Mr. RobertAjax, Telephone: (919) 641- '1. Gasoline Vapor Recovery 8. Manufactured Metal Parts and Product$ Part

### 51 (especially 

### U 51.12, 

### 51.13. and 5211.

Coalinp 

### 51.14), Requirements for Preparation.**SUPP~ENTAhYINFORMATION:** 9. Marine Lightering Operations 

### Adoption, and Submittal ofState Background ·10. Paper andFabric Coating Operations 

### Implementation Plans. 11. Storage ofQrsanic Liquids 

### Under Executive Ordert2044theEPA New Source Performance Standards 12. Valves and Flanges at OJ! Refmerles 

### is required to judge whether a regulation (NSPS) for petroleum refineries were 13. Electric Utility BolleN · 

### is "significant" and therefore subject to 14. Gas-fired. Fan-type Cenlral Furnaces 

### the procedural requirements or

### the promuJsated by the Environmental 15. Coke Calcining (SCAQMD only) 

### PfOtecUon Agency on March 8.1974. 

### (40 16. Marine Lightering Operations {SOx) (see 

### Order or whether it

### may follow other CFR 60.100. Subpart 

### D· These standards

#9) 

### specialized development procedures. regulate the emission ofparticulate :17. Oil Field Steam Generators (I<em Co.) 

### The EPA labels these otherregulations matter and carbon monoxide, and the 18. Coke Ovens 

### "specialized". The EPA has reviewed opacity ofDue gases from fluid catalytic Discussioq 

### the revision being acted upon in this 

### cracking unit 

### (FCCU) catalyst notice and determined that it 

### rs a As 

### a revision to the S1P, this chapter • specialized revision not subject to the regenerators and FCCU regenerator incinerator-waste heat boilers. They appeers to be approvable. It

### provides an procedural requirements ofExecutive also regulate the emission ofsulfur optlfne ofthe control strategies currently Order 1.2044. being implemented in California as well Authority: SecUons 110 and 301(a) ofthe 

### dioxide from fuel gas combustion

as the direction in which the ARB and Clean Air Act. as amended (4! U.S.C. §§7410 

### de\ices. These regulations apply to any local agencies are moving to develop and 7601(a)]. 

### affected facillty which commenced and implement future 

### control measures. Dated: October 11, 1979, 

### construction ormodi6cation alterJune

· Th&EPA pfOposes to approve this Paul 

## De Falco. Jr. 11.1973.



### ,chapter and incorporate it

### into the S1P Regional Adminlstrotor. 

### The Clean Air

### Act Amendments of las an Informational document. 1971 require that .Jbe Adminfsbator of consistent with 40 CFR Part51.**11'1t0oc.~118FI!ni~IU$=J** 

### the EPA review and. if

### appropriate.

With respect lo 

### the model rules BIWNG CODE fHO-Ot-M 

### revise established standards or described in Appendix_4-B, it 

### shouldbe performance for new stationary sources noted that final rules similar to these 40 CFR Part 60 

### atleast every 4years [Section

·model rules may be submitted to the tt1(b)(1)[B)]. Thia notice announces that EPA in the future 

### as legally enforceable [FRL 1295-1] 

### EPA has completed a review ofthe

. rules to fulfill 

### EPA reqoirements for Standards of Performance for New standard ofperformance for petroleum

·nonattalnmant area plans pursuant to refineries and invites comment on the Part 

### D ofthe CAA. · Stationary Sources: Petroleum results ofthis review.

In 

### the event that such a rule is Refineries Review of

### Standards F'mdings submitted in legally enforceable form. • AGENCY: 

### Environmental ProtecUon the EPA will

### proJ!.ose action on the Agency (EPA). On the basis ofa review of specific rule for a specific District. In ACTION: 

### Review ofStandards. compliance data available inEPA's this notice and in any 

### future notice of Regional Offices and a review of proposed rulemaking on this 

### subject. the SUMMARY: 

### EPA has reviewed its 

### literature describing recent control EPA invites comment as to whether the standard ofperformance for petroleum technology applicable to catalyst ARB's gener81 control strategy is refineries (40 CFR 60.100, Subpart 

### D· The regenerators and fUel gas combustion consistent with the requirements of40 review is 

### reqoired under the Clean Air 

### devices, EPA has made the following CFR §§ 

### 51.1.2. 5L13. and 51.14, dealing Act. 

### as amended August 1971. The conclusions regarding the need to revise with control sbategy. purpose or

### Ibis notice is to announce the existing standard.

HeinOnline --44 Fed. Reg. 60759 197960760 

### Federal Register ./ Vol. 44, 

### No. 2b5 /"'}.4onday, October 22, 1979 

## I Proposed Rules

Particulate Matter · • provide data showing that

._ ' 

### EPA recosnfied the need for continuous

The available data fndieate 'that the · concentrations lower 

### than 500 

### ppm are ·monitoring at the time the standard was current limitation onparticulate matter· acbieva.ble.Jfsuch data beaome · adopted. However, atthat time, no emissions accurately raflects the ·available, the Agency 

### will consider· monitoring systems had been performance capability ofbest.avallable revision ofthe standard: It

### should be demonstrated lobe adequate 

### for tbJs control systems. 

### It Is, the'refOre, further no_tedihatlor the purpose 

### of purpose and

### EPA hadnot ealGbJished concluded that no revision shonld be · , · attaining imd'lD8intainlng tlie national performance speclflcatioiia for such made to the parlicnlate stenaard.NeW .ambient airquality 

### standards. Stele system& Conseguendy, application of echn 

### I gl ch 1.1..1. 

### 16 • Implementation Planuew·sourca the monitor.b:ls requirement was l 0 0 es 

### au 88

...... 8 ciency reviews 

### mav, in some cases, re

....:.... deferred until p-'ormance separators, ·high 

### temperature

. "**"~...... ~~~.t~•**  --"' tal h greater CO emission reiluctions than specifications couldbe adopted. Since

### ~::da:Sic:r**:=~** or,ts ave those required liy the standards

# or the adoption ofthe standard. 

### EPA 

### hns uncontrolled particulate matler emitted. performance for

### new sources. 

### pursued .aprogrem 

### to develop and th At the time thntandard

### was' the ..r f u C! 

### However, e

### method-established~ the_ estabBShed, 

### EPA conclnaed that

# co**::,rmls';~~C:** 

# thm

# =

standard for calculating the.allowaole ·**~missions** shonld be continuously 

## b-...1'

...._.,...... spe

..."'cations

.._now emissions effectively corrects for the 

# a.

__ ...1.. ttnw.................**~** ...... reductiondue to 

### changes 1n catalysts monitore A reguilement for IJIWU eiDg 

### daveloped.lt is planned 

### .to lsaue and operating procadures.

. •.

. monitoring

### was, therefore. fnchtded in an 

### advancad notica ofproposed

While itis concluded 

### that'the the standard. 

### This requirement Is rulemskfng 

### In 1979 setting

### lorth tho particulatematterstandard shouldnot applibable to all catalystregenerators spectffcations whichhavebeen be

### revised. a questionhas beenraised. subject·to the standaril.liowever, the · developed 

### and which w.lll 

### b8 assessed 

### as .to the:validity of

### Reference Method 5 effective date 

### ofthe monitoring fn field 

### studlee.

.

hen 1.:ft1. requirement 

### was deferred until

### EPA n....t

.... the ev1 f the tand -a w

......**concentra~ons** of develops performanCe specl&cations for

.........'6 r ewo s a•.., an

### condensibl~ sulfur compountt:-

### ~ . ..- COmonitmin8 system& 

### EPA has found ambiguity wasfdentifed In the 

### oummt present This test method.. which 18 used. no basis

### tor revising 

### ihJa monitoring •

## !::!~.?~~~ppU~atltyga:r this to me!JSUfe**com~ce** mth.the requirement and_performance**""~"'"16** particnlate standard. operates at a specl&catiotis 111'8 'CUlTently under limitation 

### to fuelsas burned In wastenominal temperature oftZ«rC and, as development and evaluation.' Itls heat boners. To c:larlfy this, an

.... such, is capable of**co~cting •**  • planned to issue an advancednotice of amendment was prepared 

### whJch was condensible matter

### which .eXISts m

. proposednilemaldng fn 

### 1979 setling pubUshed in the 

### Fede.ral Regl.slor on gaseous form 

### at stack

### temperature. If forth the specifications which have been 

### March U. 1979. 

### Tbia amendment makes sisniflcant quantili_es 

### ofsuch

. developed and which will be asietlsed dearthat fuelsas 

### fired :In wuate-heat condensible material existwhich are not fn field studies. boilers is not exempt from the standard. controllable by the best systems of Sulfur dioxide emissions from**fluJ~** emission reduction, then afacility 

### SulfurDioxide catalytic crackfng unit (FCCU} catalyst employing such systems conld befound Thapresent.s1andard. curiently.limits regenerators are not reanlated. by the 

### to be fn non·compliatlce with the · .**s~** emissfonnesultlngfrom the standard. However, sulfur dioxide standard. An analysis ofdata avallable · combustion ofluelgas. The catalyst scrubber technology Js avaJlab1e and

. when the standardwas established

. regenerator

## is also

### a 

### Stgnmcant source being used to ·control steam senerator

in!ficated this 

### Mil! not.a problem atthat 

### of

## sea emissions but Is**no~** subject to emissions and a.Umited number of time. However, 

### mth high sulfur content· the standard. The review considered • PCCU regenerators. Also, 

### Amoco Oil 'c feed, there is evideilce that condensible both the need to revise the current Company has developed a new 

### cracldiig sulfur ·oxides may exist at · limitation and the need to include · • process which reduces sul.fu.r oxide concentrations sufficient to affect limitations on**S~** emissions from the eJDiasJons from FCCU regenerators. 

### The compUance.

. .catalyst regenerator.. process uses a new catalyst thatretabls



### EPA Is currently**stud~** this AVailable complianca 

### test data sulfur oxides andretums them 

### to the question.,Depending ontlie resnlts of

.indicate that the ctirrent 

### s.tandatd reactpr where they 

### are removed with the this study, 

### EPA may revise the**stan~** limiting sulfur to 

### 230 mg

### FLS/dscm from product 

### stream. If

### a low snlfur

### product fa pr the test**me~od.** . . combustion 

### offuel gas is being met and, required, the sulfur 

### will be

### removed by Carbon

### Monoxide in some cases, 

### exceeded by 

### a wide 

### amine stripping orhydrotreating 

### and margin. Sbc1ests showed an average of eventuallyrecovered 

### in a 

### su!ful The present standard

### lor carbon monoxide em!asions 

### was established at a level which would permitregenerator

_ fn sitn combustion. 

### This method of controllfns carbon monoxide emissions offers production and.energv efficiencies but Is recognized to be less e{fective than a carbon monoxide boner. No new data were obtained during this review to alter the original finding that itis not · • practical 

### to control CO emiasiona 

### to less

than 500 ppm by fn sltnregeneration

- and, therefore, norevision fn the standard.is planned af.thJa time.-

-- However, it should be noted thatthe recent advent andincreasedllSe-ofCO oxJdation catalysts andadditives may 101 mg

## H.S/dscm and a range 

### of7 to 229 recovery tmft. Pilot 

### tests Indicate that mg

### HaS/dscm. Whlle 

### these data indicate the new catalyst Is capable ofreducfng that a reduction fn the present limitation ' snlfur 

### oxide emissions BO to 90 percent Is possible, the range exhibited-is and commercial, tests are planned to consistentWith the control device confirm these data. t

. · performance documented atjhe time the Thepotential uncontrolled eminions

standard was-established.·On the basis from new, modified, orreconstructed of**this.·~** with the increaaed sulfur • catalyst regenerators are slpfflcant. content offeedstock expectad with Uncontrolled emission rates 

### from increased imporiB and the v!lrlable catalyst regenerators 

### are typically Sto crude-oil supply-conditions now 10MS/day and range up·to 100Ms/day**~-** itIs.concluded that the fuel 

### g8s · from.the**~est** units. The arowlh rate sulfurlimitation is appwprtate.and that fn 

### terms ofnew catalystregenerators !s no :revision i&needed. · · · uncertain due to the presentuncettninl)'

A deficiencyin the cur.rent standard ofpetroleum suppUea and demand. limiting sulfur Infuel ganelates to 1he However. 

### for perspective a 

### srowth rate· 

### lack ofa**~.monitoring**.method: of0.5 percent In capacity from 1979

L

HeinOnline

-- 44 Fed. Reg. 60760 1979 I

### Federal Register 

## I Vol. 44, No. 205 

## I Monday October 22, 

### 1979 

## I Proposed Rules 60761.
through 1985 would result in additional review Is required Wlder the Clean Air emissions from unconttollednew • Act. as amended August 1971.1he sO'IIl'Ces of28 Mg perdayin 1986: a purpose of

### thla notice Is to annOWlce growth rate of0.70 percent would result 

### that. based on an asaessment ofthe in additional 1JJlcontroUed emlasions of industry, appUcable 

### control tecbnology, 58 Mg SOJday. Emissions 

### from. andresults 

### Ofperformance tests modified orreconstructed sources would conducted pursuant 

### to the standard. add to 

### thla total. EPA has determined that no revision 

### to

Based on the existence ofthese SO, the particulate emlselonllmltationis control tecbn.ologiee, EPAplans to needed but that the standard should be initiate a program later this year to revised to require continuous opacity assess the applicability, cost, monitoring. performance; and non-air environmeiital DATES: Comments mustbereceived by impacts oftb,ese technologies. If December 21, 1979. supported by the findings ofthis ADDRESS: Comments should be program EPA willpropose_a limit on submitted to the Central Docket Section 

### FCCU SO, emissions.

. (A-130), 

### U.S. Environmental Protection 

### Volatile Organic Compounds Agency, 

### 401 MStreet, S.W., Wasbfngton. D.C. 20460, Attention: .The emission ofvolaHie oiganfc Docket No. A-19-19. compounds (VOC) from FCC unit Tlfe document, "A Review of regenerators is not limited in the present Standards ofPerformance for New NSPS. These 

## are. however, ofconcern. 

## s ti 

## s p *'--dC t both because oftheir role as oxidant ta onary ource....., orww emen IDdusl:ry'' (EPA-450/3-79-012), is precursors and as potentially hazardous available upon request .&om Mr. Robert compounds. otparticular 

### concem are Ajax (MD-13), Emission Standards and the polynuclear aromatic compounds "'.,,.;,. · Dlvi f Envlro tal (PNA) because oftheir potential

....T"'eermg 8 on. nmen • • effec•- The most b d t Protection Agency, Research Triangle carcmogema •

.... a un**~** Park. 

### North Carolina 

### 27111. PNA measured m regenerator Due gas 1S, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTAcr: henzo-a-pyrene (,BAPJ with a b r. ) concentration ofD.21S kgBAP/1,000 · 

### Mr. Robert Ajax, telep one: l919 541- barrels offeed. The concentration of 5271. BAP can effectively bereduced in a SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: carbon monoxide boiler to 1.41 X to-a Background kg BAP /1,000 barrels offeed. However, On 

### A"cn••t 17, 1971, the Environmental there 

### are no data indicating the

-- concentration ofBAPin the Due gas Protection Agency proposed a standard from high temperature (in situ) Wlder Section 111 ofthe Clean AirAct .regeneration nor .&om regenerators using 

### to control particulate matter emissions**-r~.•-** from portliUld 

### cement plants. 'l'be CO oxidation promoting catalyst. .uuo. standard. promulgated onDecember 28, therefore. has been identified as an 

### area 1971, appUes to any faciUty constructed for future studybyEPA's Office of or modified after Ausust 11, 1971, which Research and Development. manufactures portland 

### cementby either Public Participation the wetor dryprocess. SpeciDc affected

Allinterested persons are invited to faciUties are the: 

### kiln, cliDker cooler, comment on this review, the raw mill system. finish mill system. raw conclusions, and EPA's planned action. mill dryer, rawmaterial storage, clinker storage, finiahed product sl01'8ge, Douglas M. Costle. conveyor transfer points, bagging, and AdminitJtrator. bulk loading and unloading and

Dated: October 15, 1919. unloading systems. IFRDoc.7N1.567filedSO-lii-19;1WamJ The standard prohibita the di&chlllge BlUING COOE &S&o-cn-u into the atmosphere from any 

### kiln any gases which: 40 CFR Part 60 Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources: Portland Cement Plants; Review Of Standards



# . AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA}. ACTION: Review ofStandards.
SUMMARY: EPA**h~** reViewed the standards ofperfonnance for portland cement plants (40 CFR 60.60). The 1. Contain particulate matter in excess •of0.15 kg/Mg (0.30 lb/ton) feed to the 

### ·kiln, or

. 2. Exhibit sreater than 20percent opacity.

The standard prohibita the dischlllge into the atmosphere from any clinker cooler any gases which:

1. Contain particulate matter inexcess of

## o.oso kg/Mg (0.10 U/ton) feed (dry basis) to the lUID, or

.

2. Exhibit 10 percent opacity or sreater. '\

HeinOnline --44 Fed. Reg. 60761 1979 'l'be standard prohibits the dlrcharge Into the atmosphere 

### from any aiiected faclllty other than the 

### kiln and 

### clinke:r cooler anygases which exhibit 10 percent opacity, orpater.

'l'he Clean AirAct Amendments of 1971 require that the Administrator of the EPA review and. 

### ifappropriate. revise eslabUshed standards of performance for new stationary sources 

### at least evezy 4 years [Section 111(b)[1)(,B)]. 

### Tliis notice announces that EPA has Wldertaken 

### a review ofthe standard ofperformance forportland cementplants. As a result ofthis review, EPA bas concluded that thepresent particulate em.ieslon Um.itfs appropriate, and does not need revision. However, a provision to require opacity monitoring should be added. Inaddition. EPA is. lJowever, plan.niJig 

### to Wlderlake a program, In its O.llice ofResearch and DevelopmenL to investigate and demonstrate methods such as combustionmodifications which could reduce NOa emissions from combustion used in process sources such as cement plants. Positive results from this program would form thebasis for a possible revision to the standard fn 1982 or1883. Comments on these findings and plans 

### are invited. 

### F'mdings Industry Stalus

Capacity. There are currently 53 cement companies producing portland cement in the U.S. The 53 companies operate 158 cementplants throughout the 

### U.S. wltb single plant capacity ranging .&om 50.000 Mg to 2.161,000 Mg peryear. 'l'he induslry also includes 8 plants with only clinkergrinding faciUties which use either 

### animported or domestic clinker as feedmaterial. Cement plants 

### are fOWld Innearly every Slate becauae 

### ofthe high cost af transportation. The actual clinker capacity ofthese plants fs also distributed throughout the 

### U.S.. althOllgh some regions have Uttle capacity due to a Jack ofdemand; and although many 

### areas ofthe CoWltry 

### arepresently 6Xperiencing cement shortages and delays, announced capacity increases**~** these areas are sHII small.

.

Energy Considerations. The portland cement industry is ve.ry enBigY intensive with energy costs accounting for approximately 40 percent ofthe cost of cemenL Accordingly. significant emphasis in the industcy 

### is on increasing energy e.lliclency. ForflUs reason. almost aU new and planned construction will use the dry process which canbe twice as energy efficient as the wet process. Additional savings canbe