·-

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'll Doc..: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 of Proposed 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 of Cluipter 4. · California Air Quality 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 of the nonattainment already adopted by local districts. tended 

effects of this 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 of the 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 at the 

following locations: . . · Caltforme Air Reaow:ces Board, 1102 "Q!' ' 

. Street, P.O. Box Z815, Sacramento. CA. 

9!i814. • 

Envlrolmientsl Protection Agency, Loa 

Anpln Contact 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 of the 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 of nitrogen 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, plandor nonaltainment 

thereafter. Under the CAA. the EPA . areas mU.t require pJilmifs for the 

establisbed National Ambient Air construction and opera'Uon of netv or . Quality Standards (NAAQS) for certain modlfted statiCJI1817 sources In 

pollutants. Bach State was required to accordance with secUon 173 of lhe CAA 

adopt a plan (the SIP) to attain and (relating to perndt requirements), 

maintain the NAAQS throushont the - In an effort to ensure that the NAP'ti 

State. . for CaUfomia meet the foregofns The State of CaUfornla adopted an SlP requirements, the ARB bas been 

and submitted it to the BPA in 19'1%. engaged In the Statewide development 

That plan was pln'tly approved and of imifcnm rules. known as model rules, 

part]y disapproved. Since 19'/2, the SIP for the control of emissions from certain 

has been amended In part many times. stationary aouroes. These rules ore .. . becomiDg somewhat fragmented 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 chapter now 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) of the CAA the the EPA for~infol'DJational purposes. and 

State of CaUfornla submitted io the BPA are not now legallv enfon:eable 

on December 2. 19?1 a list of the " 

NAAQS attainment status of an areas in regulations. Th8sa model rules may be 

the state. The listwa•fpubUshed 1n the . :::=~~~t !jt~.; ::0 In 

Federal ResJsler on March 3, 19'18 (

43 FR. rules In relation to the respective CTG 

8962). After revilny of public comments, for each +une of emls81on •ource Tho inclw:Una qbanges recommended by the , ., r ' b 

State, a reVised list was published as . CTG s provide fnlormation OJ]. nvaJJa le 

final rnlemsldns on March 19,1919 (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 of a · 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, 

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

to the BPA gsa revision to the SJP. Source) Controls", describes and lists 

• The CM gfm.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 of Part 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.r VOC sources c:o~d by CTG*a are also indicated. 

issued after January 19'18, NAP's must Appendix ~A is a lfst·of the 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 of the California required to a&prove or disapprove catalyst regenerators. 

Admioistrative Code. revisions to a SIP submitted by the DATE: Comments must be received by Appendix 4-B. "Category I Model State. The Regional Administrator December 21,1919. Rules for Stationary Sources .. , contains hereby issues this notice setting forth model ADDRESS: Send comments to: Central rules developed by the ARB and 

considered by the above described revision as Docket Section (A-130). U.S. 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 of Performance 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 Environmental Protection 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 of the CAA and 40 CFR Mr. Robert Ajax, 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 of State 

·10. Paper and Fabric Coating Operations Background Implementation Plans. 

11. Storage of Qrsanic Liquids Under Executive Ordert2044the EPA New Source Performance Standards 12. Valves and Flanges at OJ! Refmerles is required to judge whether a regulation 13. Electric Utility BolleN (NSPS) for petroleum refineries were · 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 of particulate :17. Oil Field Steam Generators (I<em Co.) The EPA labels these other regulations matter and carbon monoxide, and the 18. Coke Ovens "specialized". The EPA has reviewed opacity of Due 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 of Executive also regulate the emission of sulfur optlfne of the control strategies currently Order 1.2044. 

being implemented in California as well Authority: SecUons 110 and 301(a) of the 

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 or modi6cation alter June 

· 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 should be performance for new stationary sources 

noted that final rules similar to these 40 CFR Part 60 at least every 4 years [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 of the . rules to fulfill EPA reqoirements for 

Standards of Performance for New 

standard of performance for petroleum 

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

Part D of the CAA. · Stationary Sources: Petroleum results of this 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 of a review of 

specific rule for a specific District. In ACTION: Review of Standards. compliance data available in EPA'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 of performance 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 of 40 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 1979 
60760 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 on particulate matter· acbieva.ble.Jf such data beaome · adopted. However, at that 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 had not ealGbJished 

concluded that no revision shonld be · , · attaining imd 'lD8intainlng tlie national performance speclflcatioiia for such 

made to the parlicnlate stenaard. NeW .ambient air quality 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 could be adopted. Since ~::da:Sic:r :=~ or,ts ave those required liy the standards or the adoption of the standard. EPA hns 

uncontrolled particulate matler emitted. performance for new sources. pursued .a progrem to develop and 

th At the time thntandard was' the ..r f u C! 

standard 

However, 

for e calculating 

method-established~ the.allowaole the_ 

· ~missions 

estabBShed, 

shonld 

EPA conclnaed 

be continuously 

that co b-...1' ::,rmls';~~C: .... _., ...... spe ... "'cations thm = .. _now emissions effectively corrects for the a. __ ...1.. ttnw................. ~ ...... reduction due 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 of proposed 

While it is concluded that' the the standard. This requirement Is rulemskfng In 1979 setting lorth tho 

particulate matter standard should not applibable to all catalyst regenerators spectffcations which have been 

be revised. a question has been raised. subject ·to the standaril.liowever, the · developed and which w.lll b8 assessed 

as .to the: validity of Reference Method 5 effective date of the 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 ew o s a • .., an condensibl~ sulfur compountt:- ~ . ..- CO monitmin8 system& EPA has found ambiguity was fdentifed 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 of tZ«rC and, as development and evaluation.' It ls heat boners. To c:larlfy this, an .... such, is capable of co~cting • • planned to issue an advanced notice of amendment was prepared whJch was condensible matter which .eXISts m . proposed nilemaldng 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 of such . developed and which will be asietlsed dear that fuelsas fired :In wuate-heat 

condensible material exist which 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 a facility Sulfur Dioxide catalytic crackfng unit (FCCU} catalyst 

employing such systems conld be found Tha present.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 of data avallable · combustion ofluelgas. The catalyst scrubber technology Js avaJlab1e and . when the standard was established . regenerator is also a Stgnmcant source being used to ·control steam senerator 

in!ficated this Mil! not.a problem at that 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 that retabls 

EPA Is currently stud~ this AVailable complianca test data sulfur oxides and retums them to the 

question., Depending on tlie 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 of fuel gas is being met and, required, the sulfur will be removed by 

Carbon Monoxide in some cases, exceeded by a wide amine stripping or hydrotreating and 

margin. Sbc1ests showed an average of eventually recovered in a su!ful 

The present standard lor carbon 

monoxide em!asions was established at a level which would permit regenerator _ 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 it is not · • practical to control CO emiasiona to less 

than 500 ppm by fn sltn regeneration - and, therefore, no revision fn the 

standard .is planned af.thJa time.- --

However, it should be noted that the 

recent advent and increasedllSe-of CO 

oxJdation catalysts and additives may 

101 mg H.S/ dscm and a range of 7 to 229 recovery tmft. Pilot tests Indicate that 

mg HaS/ dscm. Whlle these data indicate the new catalyst Is capable of reducfng 

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 

consistent With the control device confirm these data. t . 

· performance documented at jhe time the The potential uncontrolled eminions 

standard was -established. ·On the basis from new, modified, or reconstructed 

of this.·~ with the increaaed sulfur • catalyst regenerators are slpfflcant. 

content of feedstock expectad with Uncontrolled emission rates from 

increased imporiB and the v!lrlable catalyst regenerators are typically S to 

crude-oil supply-conditions now 10 MS/day and range up·to 100 Ms/day 

~-it Is .concluded that the fuel g8s · from. the ~est units. The arowlh rate 

sulfur limitation is appwprtate.and that fn terms of new catalyst regenerators !s no :revision i&needed. · · · uncertain due to the present uncettninl)' 

A deficiencyin the cur.rent standard of petroleum suppUea and demand. 

limiting sulfur In fuel ganelates to 1he However. for perspective a srowth rate· 

lack of a ~.monitoring .method: of 0.5 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 unconttolled new • Act. as amended August 1971.1he 

sO'IIl'Ces of 28 Mg per day in 1986: a purpose of thla notice Is to annOWlce 

growth rate of 0.70 percent would result that. based on an asaessment of the 

in additional 1JJlcontroUed emlasions of industry, appUcable control tecbnology, 

58 Mg SOJday. Emissions from. and results Of performance tests 

modified or reconstructed sources would conducted pursuant to the standard. 

add to thla total. EPA has determined that no revision to 

Based on the existence of these SO, the particulate emlselonllmltation is 

control tecbn.ologiee, EPA plans 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 must be received by impacts of tb,ese technologies. If December 21, 1979. 

supported by the findings of this ADDRESS: Comments should be 

program EPA will propose_a limit on submitted to the Central Docket Section 

FCCU SO, emissions. . (A-130), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Volatile Organic Compounds Agency, 401 M Street, 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 of Performance for New 

NSPS. These are. however, of concern. s ti s p *'--d C t 

both because of their 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. ot particular concem are Ajax (MD-13), Emission Standards and 

the polynuclear aromatic compounds "'.,,.;,. · Dlvi f Envlro tal (PNA) because of their 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 of D.21S kg BAP/1,

000 · Mr. Robert Ajax, telep one: l919 541-

barrels of feed. The concentration of 5271. 

BAP can effectively be reduced in a SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

carbon monoxide boiler to 1.41 X to-a Background 

kg BAP /1,000 barrels of feed. However, On A"cn••t 17, 1971, the Environmental 

there are no data indicating the -- concentration ofBAP in the Due gas Protection Agency proposed a standard 

from high temperature (in situ) Wlder Section 111 of the Clean Air Act 

.regeneration nor .&om regenerators using to control particulate matter emissions -r~.•- from portliUld cement plants. 'l'be CO oxidation promoting catalyst. .uuo. standard. promulgated on December 28, 

therefore. has been identified as an area 1971, appUes to any faciUty constructed 

for future study by EPA's Office of or modified after Ausust 11, 1971, which 

Research and Development. manufactures portland cement by either 

Public Participation the wet or dry process. SpeciDc affected 

All interested 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, raw material 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 of Standards. 

SUMMARY: EPA h~ reViewed the 

standards of perfonnance for portland 

cement plants (40 CFR 60.60). The 

1. Contain particulate matter in excess 

• of 0.15 kg/Mg (0.30 lb/ton) feed to the 

·kiln, or . 2. Exhibit sreater than 20 percent opacity. 

The standard prohibita the dischlllge 

into the atmosphere from any clinker 

cooler any gases which: 

1. Contain particulate matter in excess 

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 any gases which exhibit 10 

percent opacity, or pater. 

'l'he Clean Air Act Amendments of 

1971 require that the Administrator of 

the EPA review and. if appropriate. 

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 of the 

standard of performance for portland 

cement plants. As a result of this review, 

EPA bas concluded that the present 

particulate em.ieslon Um.itfs appropriate, 

and does not need revision. However, a 

provision to require opacity monitoring 

should be added. In addition. EPA is. 

lJowever, plan.niJig to Wlderlake a 

program, In its O.llice ofResearch and 

DevelopmenL to investigate and 

demonstrate methods such as 

combustion modifications which could 

reduce NOa emissions from combustion 

used in process sources such as cement 

plants. Positive results from this 

program would form the basis for a 

possible revision to the standard 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 cement plants throughout 

the U.S. wltb single plant capacity 

ranging .&om 50.000 Mg to 2.161,000 Mg 

per year. 'l'he induslry also includes 8 

plants with only clinker grinding 

faciUties which use either an imported 

or domestic clinker as feed material. 

Cement plants are fOWld In nearly every 

Slate becauae of the high cost af 

transportation. The actual clinker 

capacity of these plants fs also 

distributed throughout the U.S.. althOllgh 

some regions have Uttle capacity due to 

a Jack of demand; and although many 

areas of the CoWl try are presently 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 of the cost of 

cemenL Accordingly. significant 

emphasis in the industcy is on increasing 

energy e.lliclency. For flUs reason. 

almost aU new and planned construction 

will use the dry process which can be 

twice as energy efficient as the wet 

process. Additional savings can be