2676 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 14 / Thursday, January 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60 

[AO-FRL 1907-8] 

Standards of Performance for New 

Stationary Sources; Rubber Tire 

Manufacturing Industry 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of 

public hearing. 

SUMMARY: The proposed standards 

would limit volatile organic compound 

(VOC) emissions from new, modified, 

and reconstructed facilities within 

rubber tire manufacturing plants. The 

proposed standards implement Section 

111 of the Clean Air Act and are based 

on the Administrator's determination 

that emissions from rubber tire 

manufacturing plants cause, or 

contribute significantly to, air pollution 

which may reasonably be anticipated to 

endanger public health or welfare. The 

intent is to require new, modified, and 

reconstructed facilities at rubber tire 

manufacturing plants to control 

emissions to the levels achievable 

through use of the best demonstrated 

systems of continuous emission 

reduction, considering costs, nonair 

quality health, and environmental and 

energy impacts. 

A public hearing will be held to 

provide interested persons an 

opportunity for oral presentation of 

data, views, or arguments concerning 

the proposed standards. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before April 1,1983. 

Public Hearing. A public hearing will 

be held on March 3,1983 beginning at 9 

a.m. 

Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons 

wishing to present oral testimony must 

contact EPA by February 9.1983. 

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments 

should be submitted (in duplicate if 

possible) to: Central Docket Section (A130), Attention: Docket Number A-80-9, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 

20460. 

Public Hearing. The public hearing 

will be held at the Office of 

Administration Auditorium, Research 

Triangle Park, N.C. Persons wishing to 

present oral testimony should notify 

Mrs. Naomi Durkee, Standards 

Development Branch, Emission 

Standards and Engineering Division 

(MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 

541-5578. 

Background Information document. 

The Background Information Document 

(BID) for the proposed standards may be 

obtained from the U.S. EPA Library 

(MD-35), Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 

541-2777. Please refer to "Rubber Tire 

Manufacturing Industry—Background 

Information for Proposed Standards," 

EPA 45O/3-81-O08a. 

Docket.- Docket No. A-80-9, 

containing supporting information used 

in developing the proposed standards, is 

available for public inspection and 

copying between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.. 

Monday through Friday, at EPA's 

Central Docket Section, West Tower 

Lobby, Gallery 1, Waterside Mall. 401 M 

Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20480. A 

reasonable fee may be charged for 

copying. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Ms. Susan R. Wyatt, Standards 

Development Branch, Emission 

Standards and Engineering Division 

(MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 

541-5578. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Proposed Standards 

Standards of performance for new 

sources established under Section 111 of 

the Clean Air Act reflect: 

" * * Application of the best technological 

system of continuous emission reduction 

which (taking into consideration the cost of 

achieving such emission reduction, any 

nonair quality health and environmental 

impact and energy requirements) the 

Administrator determines has been 

adequately demonstrated (Section 111(a)(1)). 

The proposed standards would limit 

VOC emissions from new, modified, and 

reconstructed facilities. The affected 

facilities would be each undertread 

cementing operation, each sidewall 

cementing operation, each tread end 

cementing operation, each bead 

cementing operation, each inside green 

tire spraying operation, each outside 

green tire spraying operation, each 

Michelin-A operation, each Michelin-B 

operation, and each Michelin-Cautomatic operation. 

Facilities affected by the proposed 

standards would be those where 

components for agricultural, airplane, 

Industrial, mobile home, light-duty truck 

or passenger vehicle tires which have a 

bead diameter up to and including 0.5 

meter (m) [19.7 inches (in)] and cross 

section dimension up to and including 

0.325 m (12.8 In) are mass produced In 

assembly-line fashion. 

VOC emissions from the rubber tire 

industry are caused by solvent 

application to different components of a 

tire during the manufacturing process. 

To meet the proposed standards for 

each undertread cementing and sidewall 

cementing operation, an owner or 

operator would have the option of using 

less solvent and maintaining emissions 

at or below 25 grams per tire (a level 

currently achieved at some plants) 

without the use of an emission reduction 

system, or installing a 75 percent 

efficient emission reduction system if 

solvent use exceeds 25 g/tire. Using less 

solvent has the advantages of no cost 

(other than possibly developmental 

cost), no energy usage, and solvent 

conservation. The proposed standards 

for four affected facilities are based on 

the use of less solvent and would 

require that emissions be limited to 10 

grams per tire (g/tire) for each tread end 

cementing and each bead cementing 

operation, 1.2 g/tire for each inside 

green tire spraying operation, and 9.3 g/ 

tire for each outside green tire spraying 

operation. Thus, the proposed standards 

are structured so they could be met 

through solvent use reductions without 

employment of a control device. 

The proposed standards would 

require 75 percent emission reduction 

for each Michelin-B operation and 65 

percent emission reduction for each 

Michelin-A and Michelin-C-automatic 

operation. 

Separate testing, monitoring, and 

recordkeeping requirements are 

proposed for each combination of 

standard format (g/tire or percent 

emission reduction), control technique 

(low solvent use or emission reduction 

system), and compliance method 

(performance tests or equipment 

specifications). Initial performance tests 

would be required for each affected 

facility, unless the owner or operator 

chooses to demonstrate compliance with 

the recommended standards by meeting 

the equipment specifications. An 

exemption has been provided for 

facilities that meet the equipment 

specifications. The proposed standards 

would require tin: owner or operator to 

report the results of all initial 

performance tests. 

Monthly performance tests would be 

required to determine compliance with 

each of the g/tire limits. Whether or not 

monthly performance tests would be 

required to determine compliance with 

the percent emission reduction 

standards depends primarily on the type 

of control device used, and then on the 

method of demonstrating compliance. 

The proposed standards would not 
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 14 / Thursday. January 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules 2677 

require an owner or operator to report 

results of monthly performance tests. 

The proposed standards would 

require continuous monitoring and 

recording of thermal incinerator 

combustion temperature and the 

temperature before and after the 

catalyst for catalytic incinerators. The 

requirement for a continuous monitor on 

a solvent recovery system is not 

applicable until performance 

specifications for the monitor have been 

proposed and promulgated. The 

proposed standards would require that 

the owner or operator maintain at the 

source for a period of at least two years 

records of all data and calculations used 

to determine VOC emissions for each 

affected facility. 

Reference Method 24 would be used 

to determine the VOC content of 

cements and green tire spray materials. 

Reference Method 25 would be used to 

determine the concentration of VOC in 

exhaust gas streams. 

Summary of Environmental, Energy, and 

Economic Impacts 

The incremental impacts' of the 

proposed standards in the Background 

Information Document were determined 

using the levels of emission reduction 

recommended in the control technique 

guidelines (CTG) document, "Control of 

Volatile Organic Compound Emissions 

from Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber 

Tires" (EPA-450/2-78-030), as the 

regulatory baseline. This assumes that 

in the absence of standards of 

performance, all new, modified, and 

reconstructed facilities would be 

required to limit volatile organic 

compound emissions to the levels 

recommended in the CTG. The CTG 

recommends an average overall 

emission reduction of about 70 percent 

from undertread cementing, tread end 

cementing, bead cementing, and inside 

and outside green tire spraying 

operations. This reduction would be 

achieved by using emission reduction 

systems at each of these affected 

facilities. Water-based sprays could also 

be used at inside and outside green tire 

spraying operations. 

State Implementation Plans (SIPs) are 

currently being revised, and the level of 

control which would actually be 

required for a particular rubber tire 

plant in the absence of these proposed 

standards of performance is uncertain. 

Some States may adopt regulations that 

require different levels of emission 

reduction than the regulatory baseline or 

that allow the use of emission reduction 

strategies different from those assumed . 

for the regulatory baseline. Some States 

may not Include regulations limiting 

VOC emissions from rubber tire 

manufacturing plants tn their SIPs.-

Therefore, basing the impacts of the 

proposed standards on the assumption 

that all plants would be controlled to the 

level recommended in the CTG tends to 

underestimate the emission reductions 

and costs of the proposed standards. 

Therefore, in this summary, the Impacts 

of the proposed standards are presented 

two ways: (1) As the difference between 

uncontrolled levels and the proposed 

standards, and (21 as the difference 

between the regulatory baseline and the 

proposed standards. The actual impacts 

of the proposed standards will depend 

on the mix of control levels required by 

States and the location of newly 

constructed, modified, and 

reconstructed facilities, and will be 

between the two sets of numbers 

presented here. 

Compared to the regulatory baseline, 

the proposed standards would reduce 

nationwide emissions from newly 

constructed, modified, and 

reconstructed facilities by 1,430 Mg 

(1,570 tons) in the fifth year after 

proposal. This represents a 48 percent 

reduction in emissions beyond the CTG 

baseline. For a single medium-sized 

plant, the emission reduction compared 

to the baseline, would be 375 Mg (415 

tons). 

Compared to the uncontrolled levels, 

the proposed standards would reduce 

nationwide emissions by 8,285 Mg (9,130 

tons). This represents an 83 percent 

reduction from uncontrolled levels. For a 

single medium-sized plant, the emission 

reduction compared to uncontrolled 

levels would be 1,775 Mg (1,960 tons) per 

year. 

Compared to the regulatory baseline, 

the proposed standards would not result 

in an increase from baseline levels of 

water pollution and solid waste or 

energy consumption. Since baseline 

levels of water pollution, solid waste, 

and energy consumption shffw no 

significant increase Over uncontrolled 

levels, the proposed standards also 

show no significant increase over 

uncontrolled levels. 

Control costs calculated for the 

regulatory baseline assume that each 

affected facility would use a VOC 

emission reduction system to control 

emissions except for inside and outside 

green tire spraying operations, where 

water-based sprays were assumed to be 

used. Since the proposed standards are 

partially based on process 

modifications, both the capital and 

annualized costs to comply with the 

proposed standards are smaller than the 

costs projected to comply with the 

baseline levels. The total nationwide 

capital cost for VOC emission reduction 

from uncontrolled levels to the level of 

the proposed standards would be about 

$10.8 million during the first five"years. 

The total nationwide annualized cost in 

the fifth year would be about $1.5 

million, with solvent recovery credits. 

(Without solvent recovery credits, the 

nationwide annualized cost would be 

about $3.4 million: recovery credits are 

anticipated.) For a single medium-sized 

plant controlling all affected facilities to 

the level of the proposed standards, the 

annualized cost would be approximately 

$110,000 if credit is given for solvent 

recovery or $403,000 without solvent 

recovery credit. 

Price increases and reductions in 

return on investment (ROI) are projected 

to be zero compared to those projected 

for the baseline control level. Assuming 

all costs are passed through to 

consumers, the average increase in the. 

retail price of a tire from uncontrolled 

levels would be about 0.20 percent in the 

worst case. Upon full cost absorption, 

using no control as a base of 

comparison, the return on investment 

(ROI) of new radial tire manufacturing 

plants may decline from an assumed 

rate of 5.17 percent to 5.04 percent in the 

worst case. Worst case conditions in 

both situations are represented by the 

use of a separate capture system and 

carbon adsorber control device at each 

affected facility where control 

equipment is used to achieve emission 

reductions. These impacts are not 

expected to inhibit industry growth. 

Standards of performance have other 

benefits in addition to achieving 

reductions in emissions beyond those 

required by a typical SIP. They establish 

a degree of national uniformity, which 

precludes situations in which some 

States may attract new industries as a 

result of having less stringent air 

pollution standards relative to other 

States. Further, standards of 

performance provide documentation 

which reduces uncertainty in case-bycase determinations of best available 

technology (BACT) for facilities located 

in attainment areas, and lowest 

achievable emission rates (LAER) for 

facilities located in nonattainment 

areas. This documentation includes 

identification and comprehensive 

analysis of alternative emission control 

technologies. The costs are provided for 

an economic analysis that reveals the 

affordability of controls in an unbiased 

study of the economic impact of controls 

on an Industry. 

The rulemaking process that 

implements a performance standard 

assures adequate technical review and 

promotes participation of 

representatives of the industry being 

considered for regulation, government. 
2678 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 14 / Thursday, January 20. 1983 / Proposed Rules 

and the public affected by that 

Industry's emissions. The resultant 

regulation represents a balance In which 

government resources are applied in a 

well publicized national forum to reach 

a decision on a pollution emission level 

that allows for a dynamic economy and 

a healthful environment. 

Rationale 

Selection Source 

The EPA Priority List (40 CFR Part 60, 

S 60.16, 44 FR 49222, August 21,1979) 

reflects the Administrator's 

determination that emissions from the 

listed source categories contribute 

significantly to air pollution, which may 

reasonably be anticipated to endanger 

public health or welfare. The Priority 

List identifies major sources of 

emissions on a nationwide basis in 

order of priority for regulation based on 

three factors: (1) quantities of emissions 

from source categories, (2) the mobility 

and competitive nature of each source 

category, and (3) the extent to which 

each pollutant endangers health or 

welfare. Tire manufacturing is Included 

on the Priority List as a subcategory 

under Synthetic Rubber, which is ranked 

number 20 out of a total of 59 source 

categories. Rubber tire manufacturing 

industry VOC emissions for 1979 were 

estimated to be about 59,000 Mg (65,000 

tons). 

About 140,000 tires per day will be 

produced by new, modified and 

reconstructed facilities in operation by 

1985. In the absence of additional 

regulation, new, modified, and 

reconstructed facilities would emit 

about 3,120 Mg of VOC per year (3,430 

tons/yr). 

Emission reduction systems composed 

of a capture system and control device 

are available to the industry for 

reducing VOC emissions. Water-based 

green tire sprays with low VOC content 

are in use at many plants. Techniques 

which minimize solvent use can reduce 

emissions from tread end cementing and 

bead cementing operatings. The 

predicted growth of this industry with 

its attendant Increase in emissions and 

the availability of control technology 

further support the development of 

standards of performance for this 

Industry. 

Selection of Pollutants and Affected 

Facilities 

At a rubber tire manufacturing plant, 

raw rubber and chemicals are first 

mixed In proportions determined by 

specifications for the tire component in 

which the rubber will be used. The 

rubber Is then transported to different 

part* of the plant for processing into 

various components, such as treads, 

sidewalls, beads, plies, and belts. In 

some of these processes rubber is 

combined with fabric, steel, or 

fiberglass. Manufactured components 

are brought together and assembled at a 

tire building area. The assembled green 

tire is sprayed with a green tire spray, 

which acts as a mold release agent and 

lubricant, and placed in a press where, 

with a specific combination of time, 

temperature, and pressure, the tire is 

molded to its final form and the rubber 

is cured. Tires are then inspected for 

quality and appearance, or "finished." 

VOC is used at several points in the 

tire manufacturing process. Organic 

solvents or organic solvent-based 

cements are aplied to components 

during production or during tire building 

to facilitate adhesion. Organic solvents 

are used in many green tire sprays to 

facilitate application of mold release 

and lubricating agents and at finishing, 

where minor cosmetic repairs are made. 

The processes used to manufacture 

components and to assemble tires vary 

among companies and among plants 

owned by the same company. Whether 

any VOC is used in a process and in 

what amounts also vary among 

companies and plants owned by the 

same company. Each company 

considers some or all of its production 

precesses to be proprietary. In 

developing the proposed standards, EPA 

was requested to maintain the 

confidentiality of much of the process 

and solvent use data submitted by 

industry. At the same time EPA sought 

to develop regulations which reflect use 

of best systems of continuous emission 

reduction and which apply equitably to 

each manufacturer. Futher, EPA sought 

to avoid proposing any requirement 

which would adversely affect tire safety 

and performa/ice. 

Volatile organic compounds (VOC) 

are the principal pollutants emitted to 

the atmosphere from rubber tire 

manufacturing plants. The VOC emitted 

from all but one company's plants is 

predominantly white gasoline and 

petroleum naphtha. Heptane is the 

major solvent used at one company's 

plants. Toluene, xylene, ketones, and 

esters are also used throughout the 

industry, but in smaller amounts. 

About 98 percent of the VOC emitted 

from an average uncontrolled existing 

plant results from solvent application in 

seven solvent-using processes. These 

processes and their average contribution 

to overall plant VOC emissions, as 

calculated from solvent use and tire 

production data, provided by industry, 

are shown below: 

Undertread cementtng „ . 

Sidewall cementing — „.. 

Tread end cementing 

Bead cementing , 

Tre building _ „ 

Inside green tire iprayinQ (roganic •orvembased) . - _ 

Outside green tire spraying (organic sorverv 

Finishing 

Hon solvent-using (acuities ..... 

Total 

Emission 

contribution 

(percent) 

20.5 

13 3 

4 9 

2.7 

10.7 

28.9 

16 

1.6 

Industry-supplied data show wide 

variations in solvent usage rates among 

companies and among plants owned by 

the same company. These differences 

occur for a variety of reasons, including 

differences in specifications for how 

tires are to be produced, and the types 

of tires produced. 

Emissions are significant at 

undertread cementing, sidewall 

cementing, tread end cementing, bead 

cementing, inside green tire spraying, 

and outside green tire spraying 

operations. Further, emission reduction 

technology is available and is 

technically and economically feasible 

for use at each of these types of 

operations. Therefore, these operations 

were selected for control by the 

proposed standards. 

Tire building, while contributing about 

11 percent of total plant emissions, is 

characterized by low VOC 

concentrations emanating from 50 or 

more individual machines within each 

plant. The need for liberal worker 

access dictates that machines be open, 

and, as a result, high ventilation rates 

would be needed to remove organic 

vapors to a control device. Technically, 

control systems could be constructed to 

reduce VOC emissions from tire 

building. The air in the tire building 

room could be ducted to a control device 

such as an incinerator or carbon 

adsorber. However, exhaust stream 

VOC concentrations in existing tire 

building areas where general dilution 

ventilation is employed are very low, 

ranging from 0.01 to 0.32 g/m* (0.8 x 10"* 

to 20.0 x 10"' lb/ri-1. The cost of such a 

system would range from $68,000 per Mg 

of VOC removed ($62,000/ton) to. 

$306,000 per Mg of VOC removed 

($280.000/ton). The Administrator 

concluded that these costs are 

exorbitant for the emission reduction 

achieved and has not included tire 

building in the proposed standards. 

Finishing contributes about 2 percent 

of total plant emissions. Organic solvent 

is used in protective coatings for 

whitewalls and in coating used for 

cosmetic purposes. Both uses, while 
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 14 / Thursday, January 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules 2679 

performed in separate areas, are part of 

the finishing process. Solvent 

application is intermittent and is 

performed at worker discretion. For 

these reasons, finishing has not been 

included in the proposed standards. 

Compounding, milling, extrusion, 

calendering, and curing, where no 

organic solvent is used, together account 

for less than 2 percent of total plant 

VOC emissions, and have not been 

included in the proposed standards. 

Michelin Tire Corporation uses three 

operations, referred to in this preamble 

and in the regulation as "Michelin-A," 

"Michelin-B," and "Michelin-C," for 

which they have claimed confidentiality. 

EPA is currently treating the specific 

information provided by Michelin on 

these operations as confidential and has 

Initiated a confidentiality determination 

in accordance with 40 CFR Part 2. Since 

Michelin-A, Michelin-B, and Michelin-C 

are operations believed unique to the 

Michelin Tire Corporation, emissions 

from these operations were not included 

in the above list. VOC emissions from 

each of these operations are significant, 

and collectively account for a 

substantial portion of total uncontrolled 

emissions from each Michelin plant. 

Emission reduction technology which 

is technically and economically feasible 

is available for use at Michelin-A and 

Michelin-B operations. Therefore, 

Michelin-A and Michelin-B operations 

were selected for control by the 

proposed standards. 

The Michelin-C operation is 

performed with either manual or 

automatic cement application depending 

on the type of tire being made. Emission 

reduction technology, which is 

technically and economically feasible, is 

available for use at automatic MichelinC operations. Therefore, Mlchelin-Cautomatic operations were selected for 

control by the proposed standards. VOC 

concentrations In the exhaust streams 

from manual Michelin-C operations are 

reportedly very low, ranging from 0.10 to 

0.30 g/ms. The cost of operating an 

emission reduction system at a manual 

Michelin-C operation would be similar 

to that previously stated for tire 

building. The Administrator has 

concluded that these costs are 

exorbitant for the emission reduction 

achieved and has not included manual 

Mlchelln-C operations in the proposed 

standards. Not all tires manufactured by 

Michelin Tire Corporation can be made 

using the Michelin-C-automatic 

operation. Therefore, the proposed 

standards do not preclude the use of 

manual Mlchelln-C operations. 

Affected Facilities 

The choice of the affected facility(les) 

for this standard is based on the 

Agency's interpretation of Section 111 of 

the Act and judicial construction of its 

meaning. Under Section 111, the NSPS 

must apply to "new sources;" "source" 

is defined as "any building, structure, 

facility, or installation which emits or 

may emit any air pollutant" [Section 

111(a)(3)). Most industrial plants, 

however, consist of numerous pieces or 

groups of equipment which emit air 

pollutants, and which might be viewed 

as "sources." EPA therefore uses the 

term "affected facility" to designate the 

equipment, within a particular kind of 

plant, which is chosen as the "source" 

covered by a given standard. 

In choosing the affected facility, EPA 

must decide which pieces or groups of 

equipment are the appropriate units for 

separate emission standards. The 

Agency must do this in light of the terms 

and purpose of Section 111. One major 

consideration is that the use of a 

narrower definition results in bringing 

replacement equipment under the NSPS 

sooner. For example, if an entire plant 

were designated as the affected facility, 

no part of an existing plant would be 

subject to the standard unless the plant 

as a whole were "modified." If on the 

other hand, each piece of equipment 

were designated as an affected facility, 

then as each piece was replaced, the 

replacement piece would be a new 

source subject to the standard. Since the 

purpose of Section 111 is to minimize 

emissions by the application of the best 

demonstrated control technology 

(considering cost, other health and 

environmental effects, and energy 

requirements) at all new and modified 

sources, there is a presumption that a 

narrower designation of the affected 

facility is proper. This ensures that new 

emission sources would be subject to 

the standards as they are installed. This 

presumption can be overcome, however, 

if the Agency concludes that relevant 

statutory factors (technical feasibiltiy, 

cost, energy, and ther environmental 

impacts) point to a broader definition. 

In a rubber tire plant, the narrowest 

designation of affected facility for which 

standards of performance might be 

appropriate is each individual operation. 

The rubber tire industry maintains that 

much of the anticipated growth in the 

industry by 1985 will result from nonroutine replacement of existing 

operations with new operations. New 

individual operations would qualify as 

new sources subject to standards of 

performance under this narrowest 

definition of affected facility. As a 

result, control costs were calculated 

assuming each operation would be 

controlled separately. In practice, 

however, a single control device could 

be used to control emissions from 

several operations. Examination of these 

costs showed that control is 

economically feasible (i.e., the costs 

would not inhibit growth or 

replacement) in all cases where a 

separate emission reduction system 

would be used at an individual 

operation. Defining an affected facility 

as each separate operation is supported 

by technical, cost, and economic 

considerations. The Agency requests 

comments from interested parties about 

this definition of an affected facility. 

With each operation defined as an 

affected facility, any change which 

qualified as a modification or 

reconstruction would cause only that 

changed operation to become subject to 

standards of performance. Further, if a 

new operation were constructed at an 

existing plant where other operations 

were not subject to standards of 

performance, only the new operation 

would be subject to standards of 

performance. 

Undertread cementing and tread end 

cementing are usually performed at 

different points on the same tread line. 

At an undertread cementing operation, 

cement is applied to a continuous strip 

of tread rubber or to a combined tread/ 

sidewall component The tread rubber is 

usually transported from the extruder to 

the undertread cementing operation by a 

conveyor. After cement is applied, the 

tread rubber strip passes along a 

conveyor where it air dries and then 

usually through a water bath for cooling. 

At undertread cementing operations, 

VOC Is emitted from cement storage and 

application equipment and from 

cemented rubber as VOC evaporates 

after application. Therefore, an 

undertread cementing operation consists 

of a cement application station and all 

other equipment, such as the cement 

supply system, and feed and takeaway 

conveyors, which are necessary to apply 

cement to tread or combined tread/ 

sidewall • nmponents and to allow 

evaporation of solvent from tread or 

combined tread/sidewall components. 

Each undertread cementing operation is 

an affected facility. 

After the water bath and forced-air 

drying, the continuous strip is cut to 

specified lengths and then is usually 

conveyed to a tread end cementing 

operation. At a tread end cementing 

operation, cement is applied to one or 

both tread ends. Cement Is usually 

applied to tread ends either by spraying 

with an electronically-triggered 

automatic spray arm or manually by a 
[VOL 

2680 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 14 / Thursday, January 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules 

worker equipped with a pot of cement 

and an applicator. VOC is also emitted 

from cement storage and application 

equipment and from cemented treads as 

VOC evaporates after application. 

Therefore, a tread end cementing 

operation consists of a cement 

application station and all other 

equipment, such as the cement supply 

system, and feed and takeaway 

conveyors, which is necessary to apply 

cement to tread end components and to 

allow evaporation of solvent from tread 

ends. Each tread end cementing 

operation is an affected facility. 

Although undertread cementing and 

tread end cementing operations are 

usually performed on the same tread 

line, they are separate emission points 

and each can be controlled separately. 

This supports designating each tread 

end cementing operation as an affected 

facility separate from each undertread 

cementing operation. 

For some types of tires, sidewalls may 

be extruded as part of the tread. Cement 

application for this tread/sidewall 

component usually occurs at an 

undertread cementing operation, and 

VOC emissions are counted as part of 

those from undertread cementing. When 

sidewall cementing is performed as a 

separate operation, the extrusion, 

conveying, cementing, and cooling 

equipment is usually similar to but 

smaller than that used for undertread 

cementing. Instead of being cut to 

specific lengths, however, the 

continuous sidewall strip is rolled in a 

non-stick fabric and stored until needed. 

VOC is emitted from cement storage and 

application equipment and from 

cemented rubber as VOC evaporates 

after application. Therefore, a sidewall 

cementing operation consists of a 

cement application station and all other 

equipment: such as the cement supply 

system, and feed and takeaway 

conveyors, which is necessary to apply 

cement to sidewall components and to 

allow evaporation of solvent from 

sidewall components. Each sidewall 

cementing operation is an affected 

facility. 

Bead cementing may occur before or 

after the rubber-coated wire is 

fashioned into a bead. If cement is 

applied before bead fashioning, the 

cement application apparatus is usually 

a swab or roller suspended in a trough 

of cement attached to the bead 

fashioning equipment. Cement is applied 

as the rubber-coated wire passes over 

the trough. If cement Is applied after 

beads are fashioned, it is usually 

accomplished by spraying or by dipping 

the beads into a vat of cement. Spraying 

or dipping equipment is separate from 

bead fashioning equipment. A bead 

cementing operation consists of a 

cement application station, such as a dip 

tank, spray booth and nozzles, cement 

trough, and roller or swab applicator; 

and all other equipment necessary to 

apply cement to beads or bead 

components and to allow the 

evaporation of solvent from cemented 

beads. Each bead cementing operation 

is an affected facility. 

Green tire sprays are usually applied 

inside and outside with automatic spray 

nozzles. Whether water-based or 

organic solvent-based inside and 

outside green tire sprays are used, 

outside sprays usually contain more 

VOC than inside sprays. Inside and 

outside sprays are usually applied using 

different nozzles in the same booth. 

However, different booths may be 

employed at some plants. The spray 

booth is designed to contain overspray 

and vent it to a dust collector or 

uncontrolled to the atomosphere. .Inside 

green tire spraying and outside green 

tire spraying are separate operations 

and are separate affected facilities. An 

inside green tire spraying operation 

consists of the inside spray application 

station and related equipment, such as 

the lubricant supply system, the booth 

where spraying is performed, and 

associated fans and ductwork. Each 

inside green tire spraying operation is 

an affected facility. An outside green 

tire spraying operation consists of the 

outside spray application station and 

related equipment, such as the lubricant 

supply system, the booth where spraying 

is performed, and associated fans and 

ductwork. Each outside green tire 

spraying operation is an affected 

facility. 

Cement is applied to tire components 

at Michelin-A, Michelin-B, and MichelinC-automatic operations. Each of these 

operations is distinct and has VOC 

emissions which can be accounted for 

and controlled independently. Each 

operation consists of cement storage 

and application equipment, and other 

equipment necessary for the application 

of cement to and the evaporation of 

VOC from tire components processed at 

the operation. Each Michelin-A, 

Michelin-B, and Michelln-C-automatic 

operation is an affected facility. 

Selection of Basis of Proposed Standard 

Three general methods of emission 

reduction technology are available to 

the rubber tire manufacturing industry: 

(1) emission reduction systems (capture 

and control); (2) low solvent use 

techniques; and (3) low VOC content 

materials. 

Emission Reduction Systems 

Current use of emission reduction 

systems is limited in the rubber tire 

industry. Only two such systems are 

present in this industry, both employing 

carbon adsorbers as the control device. 

One of these systems is part of the 

original design of the undertread 

cementing process at a new plant. This 

plant has not yet operated at full 

production capacity, and emission 

control data on the new system are not 

yet available. The other system is the 

only emission reduction system in full 

use in the industry. It consists of a 

capture system and carbon adsorber 

installed on an undertread cementing 

line in 1973 and has been shown by 

materials balance calculations to have 

an average solvent recovery efficiency 

of about 63 percent The carbon 

adsorber has been tested separately and 

shown to be about 90 percent efficient, 

thus the capture system averages about 

70 percent efficiency. The company 

operating this system has submitted 

information concerning factors which 

limit system performance. Factors which 

according to the company limit system 

efficiency include: 

(1) About 8_percent of VOC applied to 

a rubber component is absorbed by the 

rubber and is not immediately available 

for capture (emissions from cemented 

rubber account for about 30 percent of 

total VOC emissions from this line, thus 

about 2.4 percent of VOC used is 

absorbed); 

(2) Enclosure system access doors are 

open for a finite period for periodic 

threading of new tread sizes; 

(3) Length of the drying area conveyor 

is iimited by the configuration of 

existing extrusion equipment; 

(4) The switching damper installed for 

enclosure emergency situations is not 

equipped with vapor loss seals; „ 

(5) Operating practices do not provide 

for containment of VOC emissions 

during weekend shutdown, either by 

draining cement tanks or by equipping 

tanks with tight fitting covers; 

(6) Operating practices do not provide 

for air drying and cooling of the 

desorbed cm bon bed prior to the next 

adsorption cycle; and 

(7) The company does not account for 

vapor losaes from cement mixing churns, 

recirculating cement distribution system 

storage tanks, recovered solvent storage 

tanks, pumping, and venting from 

decanter. 

In EPA's judgment, this type of 

emission reduction system could be 

improved to achieve an overall 

efficiency of 75 percent or better. VOC 

loss during periods of worker access 
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 14 / Thnrsday, January 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules 2681 

could be minimized by restricting access 

opening size and by maintaining 

sufficient ventilation to contain VOC. 

Where cemented rubber components are 

allowed to dry on a conveyor after 

cement is applied, enclosed conveyors 

could be employed to contain VOC 

emitted from cemented rubber. The 

length of conveyor enclosed would 

depend upon conveyor speed and the 

time required to contain VOC emitted. 

Analysis of evaporation rates has 

shown that about 90 percent of VOC 

applied to rubber components is emitted 

within 30 seconds after application. 

Other design features to minimize VOC 

loss, such as vapor loss seals attached 

to a switching damper, could also 

improve'overall system efficiency. 

Cement tanks could be covered during 

periods of non-use. Desorbed carbon 

beds could be air dried and cooled 

between cycles. These improvements in 

operating practices would improve 

overall system efficiency. VOC loss due 

to absorption is the only area in which 

improvements in design and operating 

practices would have little or no effect. 

Several sources of information were 

used to establish the level of control that 

could be achieved by emission reduction 

systems in the rubber tire industry. 

Information was obtained from: (1) 

Available technical literature 

concerning emission reduction systems 

applicable for the control of VOC 

emissions in the rubber industry; (2) 

hood and enclosure design parameters 

from Industrial Ventilation! A Manual 

of Recommended Practice; (3) VOC use 

and process information supplied by the 

rubber tire industry; (4) visits to rubber 

tire manufacturing plants; (5) results of 

emission measurements and materials 

balance tests conducted by EPA; and (6) 

results of tests of VOC absorption by 

rubber conducted by industry. 

Thermal and catalytic Incinerators are 

effective VOC emission control devices 

for the types of solvents used in rubber 

tire manufacturing operations. A 

thermal incinerator operating at 870*C 

(1600"F) with 3/4 second residence time 

will typically achieve 98 percent VOC 

reduction efficiency or 20 parts per 

million on a continuous basis. A 

catalytic incinerator can be designed to 

achieve a 98 percent emission reduction 

efficiency on a continuous basis. In bath 

cases, primary heat recovery should be 

employed to reduce operating costs. 

Carbon absorbers have been 

demonstrated in the rubber processing 

industry, the pressure sensitive tape and 

label Industry, and in other industries to 

achieve better than 96 percent removal 

of VOC emissions on a continuous basis 

when applied to exhaust gas streams 

similar to those generated in the rubber 

tire industry. Steam is usually employed 

for carbon bed regeneration, although 

any hot, non-reactive gas may be used. 

The overall degree of continuous 

emission reduction achieved is not only 

a function of control device efficiency, 

but also of capture efficiency. A capture 

system contains VOC vapors at the 

emission source and directs them to the 

control device. VOCemissions from 

rubber tire plant operations result 

primarily from two activities: (1) 

application of cement or spray to rubber 

components; and (2) evaporation of 

VOC from cement or spray applied to a 

rubber component. Effective capture of 

VOC must account for both of these 

sources of VOC emissions. 

Industry-supplied data show that at 

an undertread cementing operation 

about 70 percent of total emission is 

attributable to evaporation of VOC from 

application equipment, and about 30 

percent is attributable to evaporation of 

VOC from rubber component surfaces. 

Similar data for tread end cementing 

and green tire spraying show that about 

80 percent of total emissions is 

attributable to evaporation of VOC from 

application equipment, and about 20 

percent is attributable to evaporation of 

VOC from rubber component surfaces. 

No such data are available to show a 

ratio for sidewall cementing or bead 

cementing. However, since sidewall 

cementing is a process very similar to 

undertread cementing, the ratios for 

these processes should be similar. Both 

tread end cementing and bead 

cementing involve the application of 

cement to relatively small surface'areas. 

Therefore, EPA estimates that the ratio 

for bead cementing resembles the 80:20 

ratio for tread end cementing. 

To approach total vapor collection, a 

completely sealed enclosure of the 

emission source would be necessary. 

However, completely sealed enclosures 

are not practical in the rubber tire 

industry. Some affected facilities require 

intermittent worker access, usually for 

startup, maintenance, and repair 

purposes, while other facilities, such as 

manual tread end cementing, require 

continual worker access to the tire 

component 

Capture systems for cement 

application areas that require only 

Intermittent access to the equipment 

such as automatic tread end cementing, 

undertread cementing, sidewall 

cementing, and roller bead cementing, 

could consist of enclosures containing 

access ports equipped with self-closing 

doors. The capture system currently toi 

use at one undertread cementing 

operation which was discoasexl earlier 

could be adapted for use at other 

undertread cementing operations as well 

as at automatic tread end cementing and 

sidewall cementing. Capture efficiencies 

of at least 80 percent could be achieved 

on a continuous basis. 

Capture systems for cement 

application areas that require constant 

worker access could be similar to those 

used on portable chipping and grinding 

tables or soldering tables in other 

industries. These enclosures provide 

worker access and conveyor movement 

through side openings and are designed 

to minimize pressure losses through the 

openings. Associated with these cement 

application areas are conveyors that , 

transport the cemented component 

Solvent evaporates from the component 

while it is on the conveyor. To achieve 

maximum capture efficiency, the 

conveyors must be enclosed to allow for 

capture of the evaporated solvent. 

Conveyor enclosures such as those used 

for straight-line automatic buffing would 

be appropriate. These enclosures consist 

of hoods, with hinged access doors, that 

surround Ihe top, sides, and underside of 

the conveyor. Each end of the hood is 

partially covered by flaps to minimize 

the opening size. Capture efficiencies of 

such enclosures are related to the 

percentage of total solvent that 

evaporates off the component while it is 

inside the enclosed area; however, 

efficiencies of at least 80 percent could 

be achieved on a continuous basis. The 

length of the enclosure would depend on 

the conveyor speed and the rate of 

evaporation of the solvent 

Dip bead cementing and inside and 

outside green tire spraying operations 

usually consist only of a cement or 

spray application area. For dip bead 

cementing, the beads are lowered into a 

tank which can be enclosed and the 

enclosure equipped with access ports. 

Beads could be placed in the enclosure 

through access ports which would 

remain open only until the beads were 

Inside. The beads could be dipped into 

the cement then raised, and would 

remain in the enclosure for enough time 

to allow maximum pvnporation of 

solvent. For inside and outside green tire 

spraying, spray booths are usually used 

for application. Tires could remain 

inside the booths for a sufficient time 

after cement application to allow for 

maximum evaporation. Capture 

efficiencies of at least 80 percent could 

be achieved on a continuous basis. 

The most effective capture systems 

applicable at reasonable cost to 

Michelin-B operations are similar to 

those described above for undertread 

and sidewall cementing operations and 

can achieve at least 80 percent capture 
2682 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 14 / Thursday. January 20. 1983 / Proposed Rules 

efficiency. Capture systems for 

Michelin-A and Michelin-C-automatic 

operations must allow for continual 

intrusion of mechanical devices, 

frequent worker access, and 

introduction of additional tire 

components into both the cement 

application and drying areas. These 

features limit capture efficiency at these 

operations. EPA has determined that the 

most effective capture system applicable 

at reasonable cost to Michelin-A and 

Michelin-C-automatic operations is 

capable of achieving 70 percent capture 

efficiency. 

Technology exists for new and retrofit 

systems to achieve emission reductions 

of/5 percent at undertread cementing, 

sidewall cementing, tread end 

cementing, bead cementing, inside and 

outside green tire spraying, and 

Michelin-B operations, and of 85 percent 

at Michelin-A and Michelin-C-automatic 

operations. Control devices 

demonstrated in other industries, which 

achieve an average removal or 

destruction efficiency of at least 95 

percent, are available and can be used 

in conjunction with capture systems 

similar to those described above to 

achieve these levels of overall emission 

reduction. 

Low Solvent Use Techniques 

Emission reduction in the rubber tire 

industry can also be achieved by 

reducing cement usage. For tread end 

cementing and for bead cementing 

operations, each company reporting 

solvent use data has demonstrated that 

it can achieve an emission rate of 10 g/ 

tire without the use of an emission 

reduction system. Solvent use rates as 

low as 2 g/tire have been reported for 

some plants. 

Most of the low solvent use rates 

reported for tread end cementing 

operations were for those where cement 

is applied manually. However, low 

solvent use rates were also reported for 

operations where cement is applied by 

automatic spray arms. Most low solvent 

use rates for bead cementing operations 

were for facilities that use rollers to 

apply the cement. However, low solvent 

use rates were also reported for 

facilities that use a bead dipping 

method. EPA identified the following 

good work practices as helping to 

achieve low solvent use rates: 

minimizing the surface area for openings 

on cement pots at manual tread end 

cementing stations, covering cement 

•tanks used for bead dipping, and 

minimizing overspray at automatic tread 

end cementing stations. In EPA's 

judgment any new, modified, or 

reconstructed tread end or bead 

cementing operation can'use 10 g/tire or 

less of VOC. 

Substitution of Low VOC Content 

Materials 

Green tire spraying represents another 

affected facility where significant 

emission reduction can be achieved 

without the use of emission reduction 

systems. Water-based sprays have been 

substituted for organic solvent-based 

sprays at inside and outside green tire 

spraying operations In a number of 

plants. Uncontrolled emission rates 

calculated for water-based inside tire 

sprays ranged from zero to 1.2 g/tire: 

uncontrolled emission rates calculated 

for water-based outside sprays ranged 

from zero to 9.3 g/tire. Product quality 

considerations have been cited by 

industry as the reason for retaining a 

small amount of VOC in some waterbased sprays. Emissions from waterbased green tire sprays are at least 90 

percent less than average uncontrolled 

emissions from solvent-based sprays. 

Water-based sprays have been widely 

used under conditions representative of 

the industry and are available to all 

companies. 

Selection of the Regulatory Alternatives 

The regulatory alternatives 

considered in developing the standards 

of performance are based on the 

methods available to control the VOC 

emissions from the rubber tire industry. 

The three control methods considered 

were emission reduction systems 

(capture and control technology), low 

solvent use techniques, and low VOC 

content materials were considered. 

Impacts calculated for the regulatory 

alternatives were based on the use of 

carbon adsorber control devices where 

emission reduction systems are used. 

The proposed standards would allow 

the use of other types of control devices. 

Regulatory Alternative I represents 

the regulatory baseline. State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) regulations 

for control of VOC emissions from 

rubber tire manufacturing plants are 

expected to be based on Information 

presented In the control techniques 

guideline (CTG) document "Control of 

Volatile Organic Emissions from 

Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber 

Tires" (EPA-450/ 2-78-030). Therefore. 

Regulatory Alternative I has been set at 

the level of control recommended in the 

CTG. Under Regulatory Alternative 1, 

VOC emissions from undertread 

cementing, tread end cementing, bead 

cementing, and inside and outside green 

tire spraying operations would be 

reduced by an average of about 70 

percent. Sidewall cementing operations 

and Michelin-A, Michelln-B, and 

Michelin-C-automatic operations were 

not addressed in the CTG; therefore','. 

Regulatory Alternative I does not limit 

VOC emissions from these affected 

facilities. 

Emission reduction systems could be 

used for all affected facilities under 

Regulatory Alternative I to achieve a 70 

percent emission reduction efficiency. 

Water-based sprays could be used at 

inside and outside green tire spraying 

facilities to meet or exceed a 70 percent 

emission reduction for Regulatory 

Alternative I. 

Regulatory Alternative II is based 

upon the use of 75 percent efficient 

emission reduction systems for 

undertread cementing, sidewall 

cementing, tread end cementing-, and 

bead cementing facilities, and upon the 

use of water-based sprays (90 percent 

emission reduction) for inside and 

outside green tire spraying facilities. 

Since Michelin-A, Michelin-B, and 

Michelin-C-automatic operations are 

believed unique to Michelin Tire 

Corporation, they were not included in 

Regulatory Alternative II. Regulation of 

these operations was considered 

separately and is discussed under the 

section on "Best System of Continuous 

Emission Reduction." 

Emission reductions achievable with 

water-based green tire sprays are 

significantly greater than the reductions 

achievable where organic solvent-based 

spray VOC emissions are reduced with 

the use of an emission reduction system. 

Water-based inside and outside green 

tire sprays have been adequately 

demonstrated in the industry and are 

available to all companies. 

En vironmental Impacts 

Under Regulatory Alternative I (the 

regulatory baseline), emissions in the 

fifth year from new, modified, and 

reconstructed affected facilities would 

be about 3,120 Mg/year (3,430 tons/yr). 

The fifth year air quality impact of 

Regulatory Alternative II would be a 

reduction of about 1,700 Mg/yr (1,870 

tons/yr) from baseline emissions. This is 

a reduction of r>r. »vrccnt from the 

baseline. 

Under each of the regulatory 

alternatives there could be effluent from 

steam regeneration of carbon adsorption 

beds and from overspray of inside and 

outside water-based green tire sprays. 

The VOC used in tire manufacturing Is 

virtually insoluble In water. Therefore, 

most adsorbed VOC which escapes 

decanting and most VOC contained in 

overspray from inside and outside 

water-based green tire sprays will 

volatilize rather than remain in the 

water. Wastewater flow in 1985 under 
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 14 / Thursday. January 20. 1983 / Proposed Rules 2683 

Regulatory Alternative I would be about 

4.8 million m'/yr (1.3 billion gal/yr). 

Regulatory Alternative II would not 

increase the wastewater flow beyond 

the baseline. 

Under Regulatory Alternative I, solid 

waste generated in 1985 would be about 

238,000 Mg/yr (263,000 tons/yr). 

Regulatory Alternative II would not 

increase the quantity of solid waste 

generated. Solid waste could result from 

disposal of spent carbon from carbon 

adsorbers. Spent carbon can be recycled 

for other industrial uses, incinerated or 

disposed of by landfilling. 

Energy Impacts 

Energy use for pollution control 

equipment is based on the use of carbon 

adsorbers as the control technique for 

bolh regulatory alternatives. Under 

Regulatory Alternative I, facilities that 

are built, modified, or reconstructed by 

1985 would use a total of about 2.5 x 10" 

joules/yr of electricity for process, nonprocess, and pollution control purposes. 

Emission reduction to the level of 

Regulatory Alternative II would not 

increase the fifth-year energy usage. 

Economic Impacts 

A detailed analysis of the economic 

impact of the regulatory alternatives on 

the rubber tire manufacturing industry 

has beeo developed. Price increases or 

alternative decreases in return on 

investment (ROI) were determined to be 

reasonable for both regulatory 

alternatives, even under worst case 

conditions. In no case do capital costs of 

control exceed 1 percent of total 

investment requirements. 

Regulatory Alternative I (baseline) 

fifth-year cumulative capital control 

costs would be about $16.3 million. 

Fifth-year annualized control costs 

without solvent recovery credits would 

be about $4.9 million; with solvent 

recovery credits, annualized control 

costs would be about $3.3 million. 

Regulatory Alternative II fifth-year 

cumulative capital control costs would 

be about $7.9 million above the baseline. 

Fifth-year annualized costs without 

solvent recovery credits would Increase 

above the baseline figure by about $2.3 

million. The increase above the baseline 

in fiflh-year annualized costs with 

solvent recovery credits would be about 

$1.5 million. Under full cost pricing, the 

product price would Increase by about 

0.14 percent under worst case 

conditions. Under full cost absorption, 

the ROI of new radial tire manufacturing 

plants may decline from an assumed 

rate of 5 percent to 4.93 percent in the 

worst case. In either situation the worst 

case is represented by the use of a 

separate.caplure system and a carbon 

adsorber control device at each affected 

facility where control equipment is used 

to reduce emissions. Neither impact 

would inhibit industry growth or 

replacement. 

Best Systems of Continuous Emission 

Reduction • 

Regulatory Alternative II is 

technically and economically feasible 

for ell affected facilities, would achieve 

greater emission, reduction than 

Regulatory Alternative I, and would • 

cause no adverse water, solid waste, or 

energy impacts. Capture and control 

technology is available to meet 

Regulatory Alternative II emission 

reductions for undertread cementing, 

side wall cementing, tread end 

cementing, and bead cementing. Waterbased inside and outside green tire 

sprays are available to all rubber tire 

manufacturers and are already is use by 

most companies at one or more plants. 

Water-based sprays can meet or exceed 

Regulatory Alternative II emission 

reductions. Alternative II would 

decrease overall VOC emissions from 

the affected facilities by about 55 

percent below the baseline. Annualized 

costs without recovery credits would 

increase by about 47 percent; with 

recovery credits the increase would also 

be about 47 percent The increase is due 

primarily to addition of sidewall 

cementing as an affected facility. Based 

on consideration of these factors. 

Regulatory Alternative II was judged 

superior to Regulatory Alternative I, and 

Regulatory Alternative II was used as 

the basis for selecting the best system of 

continuous emission reduction. 

Data on existing plants Indicate that 

there is a wide variation in solvent use 

rates (and a corresponding wide range 

in uncontrolled emission rates) from 

each type of affected facility. At some 

low solvent use rate, the cost of 

employing an emission rduction system 

could be unreasonably high for the 

amount of emission reduction achieved. 

Since the cost per unit of emission 

reduction achieved Is an important 

factor in determining the reasonableness 

of control at facilities with low 

uncontrolled emissions, the Agency 

considered requiring less efficient 

emission reduction at facilities with low 

solvent use ratea and/or establishing 

solvent use cutoffs, below which no 

level of control would be required. 

These choltics would be considered if, 

indeed, there was a solvent use rate at 

which the control costs were judged to 

be unreasonably high when compared to 

the emmlssion reduction. 

As a first step in the Agency's 

determination, annualized costs of 

applying a 75 percent efficient emission 

reduction system were calculated for the 

range of solvent use rates (numbers 

equal to the uncontrolled emission rates) 

at undertread cementing, sidewall 

cementing, tread end cementing, and 

bead cementing facilities. Annualized 

costs per megagram of VOC emission 

reduction were then plotted across the 

range of solvent use rates. (See Figures 

8-1 and 8-2 in the BID.) It was assumed 

that a separate capture system and 

control device would be used for each 

operation and that flow rates and 

capital costs for each operation are 

constant over the entire range of solvent 

use rates. These costs do not represent 

the actual amounts of money spent for 

any particular plant. Rather, the costs 

are estimates which represent 

additional lines and plants likely to be 

built. The costs of VOC emission 

reduction systems will vary according to 

production rate, production equipment 

plant layout geographic location, and 

company preferences and policies. 

As was expected, the annualized cost 

per megagram of emission reduction 

increases as the solvent use rate 

decreases. For solvent use rates above 

50 grams per tire (g/tire), the total 

annualized costs for a carbon adsorber, 

assuming recovery credits, would be 

about $400 per megagram of VOC 

emissions reduced. As the solvent use 

rate decreases, through changes in 

process and manufacturing techniques, 

from 50 to 25 g/tire, the costs gradually 

increase to about $1250 per megagram. 

From 25 to 15 g/tire costs begin rising at 

a more rapid rate. However, there is no 

point on the curve at which a sharp 

upward swing is distinguishable. In the 

25 to 15 g/tire range, costs begin to 

exceed $2,000 per megagram. Based on 

VOC emission control costs in other 

industries regulated by standards of 

performance, costs above $2,000 per 

megagram are generally considered to 

be unreasonably high (although. In 

some instances, there may be overriding 

considerations that affect the 

determination of reasonable cost). 

To reduce thr* rnst per megagram of 

pollutant removed for facilities within 

the 25 to 15 g/tire range, the Agency 

considered less effective and less costly 

emission reduction systems for those 

facilities. However, systems which are 

less than 75 percent efficient are not 

significantly lower in cost than 75 

percent efficient systems. Consequently, 

requiring a level of control less than 75 

percent efficient for facilities between 25 

and 15 g/tire would not bring the cost 

per megagram significantly below the 

level generally considered unreasonably 

high. 
VOL 

2884 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 14 / Thursday. January 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules 

To Identify a cutoff point betwen 25 

and 15 g/tire, the Agency considered 

other cpst-related factors in selecting the 

exact cutoff. Specifically, the Agency 

considered the additional cost savings 

that would be achieved by establishing 

a cutoff at 25 g/tire rather than 15 g/tire. 

These cost savings are associated with: 

conservation of energy required to 

operate these systems, conservation of 

resources required for their operatf^n 

and maintenance, and the 

encouragement of solvent conservation 

at facilities that can, or may develop 

methods to, reduce solvent usage to 

meet the cutoff limits rather than install 

capture and control systems. In light of 

these benefits and the general view that 

the Agency should set standards that 

encourage development of inherently 

low-emitting processes, and in the 

absence of a clearly Identified VOC use 

rate at which the control costs per 

megagram reduction are clearly 

unreasonable, the Administrator is 

proposing 25 g/tire as the cutoff solvent 

use rate for undertread cementing and 

sidewall cementing facilities. While 

solvent use rates average about 63 g/tire 

for existing undertread cementing and 

41 g/tire for existing sidewall cementing 

facilities, solvent use rates below 25 g/ 

tire have been reported for each of these 

operations. The costs to reduce 

emissions by 75 percent at solvent use 

rates above 25 g/tire are considered 

reasonable, and 25 g/tire is an 

appropriate cutoff point considering 

both the benefits which accrue and the 

rapidly Increasing cost per megagram 

associated with control at solvent use 

rates below 25 g/tire. Therefore, the best 

system of continuous emission reduction 

for undertread and sidewall cementing 

operations is an emission reduction 

system that achieves 75 percent overall 

control for facilities that use more than 

25 g/tire, and low solvent techniques for 

facilities that use 25 g/ttre or less. The 

75 percent efficient emission reduction 

system was based on an 80 percent 

efficient capture system and a 95 

percent efficient carbon adsorber 

control device. The proposed standards 

would also allow use of other types of 

control devices, and any combination of 

capture and control efficiencies that 

result in at least a 75 percent overall 

emission reduction. 

A similar analysis was done for tread 

end cementing and bead cementing, and 

cutoffs of 25 and 20 g/tire respectively 

were selected. (See Figures 8-3 to 8-5 in 

BID.) These cutoffs were higher than 

VOC use rates for most existing tread 

end cementing and bead cementing 

facilities. No new tread end or bead 

cementing operations are expected to 

use more than the 25 or 20 g/tire cutoffs. 

Therefore, requiring those tread end 

cementing or bead cementing operations 

that use more than the cutoff amounts of 

VOC to reduce emissions by 75 percent 

would achieve no emission reduction. 

However, alternativ e means of 

minimizing emissions has been 

adequately demonstrated to achieve 

effective control at tread end cementing 

and bead cementing facilities. Industrysupplied solvent use data show that 

each company has at least one plant 

that uses 10 g/tire or less at each of 

these operations. Further, many existing 

plants already use substantially less 

than 10 g/tire. Emission rates of 10 g/ 

tire, or less, could be achieved without 

the use of emission reduction systems. A 

10 g/tire emission limit for all tread end 

cementing and bead cementing 

operations would result in a greater 

nationwide emission reduction than 

would be achieved by requiring 

installation of a 75 percent efficient 

emission reduction system for those 

facilities that use more than the cutoff 

amounts of VOC. Since no emission 

reduction systems would be used, 

capital and operating costs, and water, 

solid waste and energy impacts would 

be reduced. For the above reasons, the 

best system of continuous emission 

reduction for tread end and bead 

cementing operations is low-solvent 

techniques that use less than 10 g/tire. 

The best system of continuous 

emission reduction for inside green tire 

spraying and outside green tire spraying 

operations is water-based green tire 

sprays. Water-based green tire sprays 

result in lower emissions than when 

solvent-based sprays are used in 

conjunction with emission reduction 

systems. 

Choosing low solvent use techniques 

as the best system of continuous 

emission reduction for tread cementing 

and bead cementing operations, and 

setting 25 g/tire cutoffs for undertread 

cementing and sidewall cementing 

operations result in the impacts of the 

proposed standards being different from 

the impacts of Regulatory Alternative II. 

Under the proposed standards, baseline 

emissions from undertread cementing, 

sidewall cementing, tread end 

cementing, bead cementing. Inside green 

tire spraying, and outside green tire 

spraying would be reduced by about 

1,430 Mg (1,570 tons) in the fifth year, a 

48 percent reduction. This emission 

reduction would be about 9 percent less 

than the emission reduction estimated 

for these affected facilities under 

Regulatory Alternative II. The amounts 

of energy used, and water pollution and 

solid waste generated under the 

proposed standards would be less than 

under Regulatory Alternative II. 

Because the proposed standards 

would not in most cases require the use 

of emission reduction systems for 

affected facilities other than undertread 

cementing and sidewall cementing, 

capital and annualized costs would be 

less than those for Regulatory 

Alternatives I and II. Fifth-year 

cumulative capital costs would be about 

$10.8 millipn above uncontrolled levels, 

about 34 percent less than the baseline 

and about 55 percent less than 

Regulatory Alternative II. Annualized 

costs in the fifth year without recovery 

credits would be about $3.4 million 

above uncontrolled levels; with recovery 

credits the fifth-year annualized cost 

would be about $1.5 million above 

uncontrolled levels. These annualized 

costs represent reductions from the 

baseline of about 31 percent and 54 

percent, respectively; they represent 

cost reductions from Regulatory 

Alternative II of about 53 percent and 69 

percent, respectively. The average 

product price would rise about 0.26 

percent above uncontrolled levels in the 

worst case. The product price is not 

expected to increase above baseline 

levels. Under full cost absorption, using 

uncontrolled levels as a base 

comparison, the ROI would decrease 

from an assumed rate of 5.17 percent to 

about 5.04 percent under worst case 

conditions. The ROI is not expected to 

decrease below baseline levels. 

Based on EPA's analysis of 

information submitted by Michelin Tire 

Corporation, the Agency has determined 

the best technological system of 

continuous emission reduction for the 

Michelin-B operation to be a VOC 

capture system and carbon adsorber 

control device that will achieve a 75 

percent overall emission reduction. For -

Michelin-A and Michelin C-automatic 

operations, EPA has determined the best 

technological system of emission 

reduction to be a VOC capture system 

and carbon adsorber control device that 

will achieve a 65 percent overall 

emission reduction. EPA has determined 

that these > .stems are available at 

reasonable cost and do not impose 

unreasonable adverse water, solid 

waste, or energy Impacts. The proposed 

standards would also allow the use of 

control devices other than carbon 

adsorbers. 

Selection of Format of Proposed 

Standard 

Concentration, mass units, and 

efficiency were considered as formats 

for the proposed standards. A 

concentration format for the proposed 
Federal Register / Vol.' 48, No. 14 / Thursday, January 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules 2685 

standards would limit trie amount of 

VOC per unit volume of exhaust gas 

discharged into the atmosphere but not 

the total mass of VOC discharged. The 

advantage of the concentration format is 

that the test method would not require 

measurement of gas flow or composition 

of the solvent. The primary. 

disadvantage of using a concentration 

format is that solvent application rates ' 

(hence emissions) are variable, and, as a 

result, vapor concentrations also vary 

widely. A further complication is the 

assertion by some industry 

representatives that air flow rates affect 

product quality, and companies may 

therefore differ in their ventilation 

specifications. For these reasons, 

concentration units were rejected as a 

format for the proposed standards. 

A second option is to express the 

proposed standards in terms that limit 

VOC emissions to a maximum 

allowable mass per unit of production. 

A mass standard for this industry could 

be expressed in grams of VOC emitted 

per tire processed (g/tire). A g/tire 

standard is suitable where low solvent 

use techniques are employed to 

minimize VOC emissions at tread end 

cementing and bead cementing facilities, 

and where water-based sprays are 

employed to minimize VOC emissions at 

inside and outside green tire spraying 

facilities. As a result, the proposed 

standards for tread end cementing, bead 

cementing, and green tire spraying 

facilities ore expressed as grams of VOC 

emitted per tire processed (g/tire). 

Gram per tire emission limits were not 

considered to be appropriate where the 

best system of continuous emission 

reduction is an emission reduction 

system. Establishing g/tire emission 

limits based on reduction from the 

highest uncontrolled emission rates 

would ensure achievability of the 

standards but would require Installation 

of the best system of continuous 

emission reduction only on the few 

facilities with the highest emission rates. 

Facilities with lower uncontrolled rates 

could achieve the standards without 

using best control technology. Gram per 

tire emission limits based on reduction 

from less than the highest (e.g., the 

average) uncontrolled emission rates 

could result In limits that may not be 

achievable by all facilities, especially 

those with the highest uncontrolled 

emissions. Further, some industry 

representatives expressed concern at 

the December 2,1980, meeting of the 

National Air Pollution Control 

Techniques Advisory Committee that 

gram per tire emission limits based on a 

reduction from even the highest reported 

emission rate may not be achievable. 

This concern was based on the 

possibility that a new facilty could have 

an uncontrolled emission rate higher 

than those reported for existing 

facilities. These problems could be 

overcome by choosing an efficiency 

format, which would reflect the use of 

capture and control systems irrespective 

of the uncontrolled emission rate at the 

facility. Therefore, an efficiency format 

was chosen for the standards for 

undertread and sidewall cementing 

operations that use more than 25 g/tire 

and for Michelin-A, Michelin-B, and 

Michelin-C-automatic operations. To 

ensure that all aspects of the issue have 

been considered adequately, the Agency 

requests comments from interested 

parties about the recommended percent 

reduction format. 

Selection of Numerical Emission Limits 

Based on the best systems of 

continuous emission reduction, the 

proposed standards consist of the 

following numerical emission limits. 

Each undertread cementing operation 

and each sidewall cementing operation 

where more than 25 grams of VOC are 

used per tire would be required to 

reduce emissions by at least 75 percent 

Undertread cementing and sidewall 

cementing operations that use less than 

25 g/tire would not be required to Install 

emission reduction systems. Each tread 

end and bead cementing facility would 

be required to limit emissions to no 

more than 10 g/tire. Each inside green 

tire spray operation would be required 

to limit emissions to no more than 1.2 g/ 

tire, and each outside green tire spray 

operation would be required to limit 

emissions to no more than 9.3 g/tire. 

Each Michelin-B operation would be 

required to reduce emissions by at least 

75 percent. Each Michelin-A operation 

and each Michelin-C-automatic 

operation would be required to reduce 

emissions by at least 65 percent As 

stated above, these emission limits 

reflect application of the best 

demonstrated system of emission 

reduction at each affected facility in a 

rubber tire manufacturing plant 

Rubber tire industry representatives 

have requested EPA to consider adding 

a provision to the proposed standards 

which would allow a. plant owner or 

operator the option of meeting an 

emission limit calculated for a group of 

individual affected facilities rather than 

individual limits for each affected 

facility. The emission limit for the group 

would be calculated by combining 

prescribed emission limits for individual 

affected facilities and, for purposes of 

the following discussion, is termed an 

NSPS compliance bubble, i.e., a tradeoff 

of emissions among affected facilities 

for compliance purposes. 

EPA believes a compliance tradeoff 

for rubber tire manufacturing' may be 

appropriate and may be consistent with 

Section 111 of the Clean Air Act and is 

considering incorporating such a 

tradeoff in the standards before 

promulgation. Standards currently 

proposed or promulgated under Section 

111 of the Act do not contain such a 

provision. EPA is in the early stages of 

evaluating a general policy for Section 

111 standards which, if adopted, would 

provide for compliance tradeoffs where 

determined appropriate for plants 

containing multiple affected facilities. 

Until EPA establishes a policy for 

Section 111 standards in general, the 

Agency is not prepared to propose such 

a policy in the rubber tire standard. . 

However, EPA will make a decision on 

this policy before the rubber tire 

standard is promulgated. Therefore, EPA 

is requesting comments on the use of a 

compliance tradeoff as a part of this 

package. It is anticipated that any 

compliance tradeoff incorporated into 

the rubber tire standard would allow 

aggregation of individual emission limits 

only for those facilities within a plant 

which are subject to the standards 

(newly constructed, modified, or 

reconstructed) and which are present in 

that specific plant 

Modification/Reconstruction 

Considerations 

Modification, as defined in § 60.14 of 

Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR), may occur when any 

physical or operational change to an 

existing facility results in an increase in 

emission rate to the atmosphere of any 

pollutant to which a standard applies. 

However, there are several changes that 

result in Increased emission rates which 

are exempt from the modification 

provision. Once such provision is for a 

production rate increase that is 

accomplished without a "capital 

expenditure" as defined in 160.2. 

The production rate of a rubber tire 

manufacturing plnnt is usually directly 

related to the capacities of the tire 

building or curing press operations, 

which are not subject to the proposed 

standards. Other operations, including 

operations selected as affected facilities, 

normally run at less than full capacity, 

and their production rates can usually 

be increased up to full capacity without 

a capital expenditure. Most changes 

expected to occur would be of this 

nature. As a result few, if any, 

modifications are expected. 

Reconstruction, as defined in { 60.15 

of Chapter I Title 40 of the CFR. occurs 
VOL 

2688 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 14 / Thursday, January 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules 

when the fixed capital cost of 

replacement components of an existing 

facility exceeds 50 percent of the fixed 

capital cost that would be required to 

construct a comparable entirely new 

facility and compliance is technically 

and economically feasible. Upon 

replacement of components, the 

Administrator will determine, on a caseby-case basis, whether a reconstruction 

has taken place and whether the 

existing facility becomes an affected 

facility under the NSPS. 

Investigation of the rubber tire 

manufacturing industry has indicated 

that repair or rebuilding of an existing 

facility where costs would exceed 50 

percent of the cost of replacing the 

facility is unusual. 

Selection of Performance Test Methods 

The proposed standards would 

require two types of performance tests, 

initial performance tests and monthly 

performance tests. Initial performance 

tests would be required for all affected 

facilities except those facilities that 

demonstrate compliance with the 

percent emission reduction requirements 

by meeting certain equipment 

specifications. These facilities would 

conduct an initial performance test on 

the control device but not on the capture 

system. However, the owner or operator 

would be required to state in the initial 

compliance report whether or not each 

capture system specification has been 

met. Monthly performance tests would 

be required for most, but not all, 

affected facilities. 

Monthly performance tests were 

chosen, where practical, to ensure 

continual compliance. Requiring only an 

initial performance test would 

somewhat reduce the monitoring 

workload on the owner or operator, but 

would not be as useful to either the 

owner or operator or to the Agency for 

ensuring continual compliance. In 

addition, most of the data required for 

monthly performance tests are routinely 

collected and maintained by the source 

as part of production and Inventory 

records. Performance tests that consist 

' of costly stack testing are not required 

on a monthly basis In order for EPA to 

ensure that compliance costs are 

maintained at a reasonable level. 

Monthly performance tests would be 

required to determine compliance with 

each of the g/tlre limits. Whether or not 

monthly performance tests would be 

required to determine compliance with 

the percent emission reduction 

standards depends primarily on the type 

of control device used, and then on the 

method of demonstrating compliance. If 

the control device recovers VOC and 

compliance is demonstrated by 

achieving a 75 percent emission 

reduction, monthly performance tests 

would be required. If the control device 

recovers VOC but compliance is 

demonstrated by meeting the equipment 

specifications, monthly performance 

tests would not be required. If the 

control device destroys VOC, monthly 

performance tests would not be 

required, regardless of the method used 

to demonstrate compliance. 

Performance test procedures for each 

type of affected facility vdry depending 

on the format of the standard (g/tire or 

percent emission reduction) and the type 

of emission control device, if any, that is 

used. The performance test procedures 

are outlined below. 

For each affected facility that 

complies with a g/tire limit, the mass of 

VOC emitted per tire processed for a 

calendar month would be determined 

during the initial performance test. This 

determination would necessitate a 

materials balance calculation if 

compliance is achieved by reducing 

solvent usage or by using a control 

device that recovers VOC. If a control 

device that destroys VOC is used, the 

determination would require a stack 

test. 

Monthly performance tests for 

facilities that comply with g/tire limits 

would be the same as the initial 

performance test except for those 

affected facilities where a control device 

that destroys VOC is used. For these 

affected facilities, the overall emission 

reduction efficiency determined in the 

initial performance test could be used 

for monthly performance tests until the 

Administrator requests that the 

efficiency be redetermined, or the 

operating conditions of the system are 

changed. The rationale for this provision 

is that a requirement for an owner or 

operator to conduct monthly stack tests 

could result In unreasonable costs. 

For each affected facility for which 

the owner or operator choose to use an 

emission reduction system with a 

control device that recovers VOC to 

meet a percent reduction requirement, 

the overall efficiency of the emission 

reduction system for a calendar month 

would be determined during the initial 

performance test. This would be done 

by comparing the mass of VOC 

recovered by the emission reduction 

system to the mass of VOC used at the 

affected facility. No stack testing would 

be required. Monthly performance tests 

would be the same as the initial 

performance test. 

For each affected facility for whioh 

the owner or operator chooses to use an 

emission reduction system that destroys 

VOC to meet a percent reduction 

requirement, the overall efficiency of the 

emission system would be determined 

by a stack test performed during the 

initial performance test. No monthly 

performance test would be required. The 

emission reduction system efficiency 

would be redetermined by a stack test 

when requested by the Administrator or 

when the operating conditions of the 

system are changed. 

Data necessary to calculate the VOC 

content of cement or spray material 

would be obtained from formulation 

data supplied by the manufacturer of the 

spray, or through the analysis of each 

cement or spray material by Reference 

Method 24 "Determination of Volatile 

Organic Compound Content of Paint, , 

Varnish, Lacquer, or Related Products" 

or an alternative or equivalent method 

acceptable to the Administrator. 

Reference Method 24 would serve as the 

reference method for the calculation of 

the VOC content of the cement or spray 

materials in case of dispute. 

Alternative Compliance Method 

As an alternative method for 

demonstrating compliance with the 

proposed standards for undertread 

cementing, sidwall cementing, or 

Michelin-B operations, the owner or 

operator may elect to meet equipment 

specifications for capture systems used 

in conjunction with a 95 percent efficient 

control device. These specifications 

include enclosure of cement application 

and drying areas, maintenance of 100 

feet per minute face velocity through 

each permanent opening to an 

enclosure, and an upper limit on the 

area of permanent openings to an 

enclosure. The Administrator has 

determined that meeting these 

specifications in conjunction with 

operating a 95 percent efficient control 

device is an acceptable means of 

demonstrating compliance. 

An initial performance test of the 

control device would be required within 

180 days after initial start-up of the 

affected facility. This test would be 

repeated when requested by the 

Administrator or when control device 

operating conditions are changed. The 

owiii.-i or operator would be required to 

continuously monitor the control device 

as described in the section on Selection 

of Monitoring Requirements. No monthly 

performance tests would be required 

because the cost of monthly stack tests 

could be unreasonable. 

Neither an initial performance test nor 

monthly performance tests would be 

required for the capture system. 

However, the owner or operator would 

be required to Include in the initial 

compliance report a statement 
Federal Register /Vol . 48, No. 14 / Thursday, January 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules 2687 

indicating whether each of the 

equipment specifications has been met. 

Selection of Monitoring Requirements 

Monitoring requirements are included 

in standards of performance to provide 

a means for ensuring proper operation 

and maintenance of emission reduction 

systems and to provide plant and 

enforcement personnel with sufficient 

data to determine compliance with the 

proposed standards. 

Where thermal incineration is used to 

achieve compliance, the owner or 

operator would be required to install, 

calibrate, operate, and maintain a 

monitoring device to continuously 

record the combustion (firebox) 

temperature of the control device. If 

catalytic incineration were used, the 

owner or operator would be required to 

install a monitoring device to 

continuously record the gas temperature 

both upstream and downstream of the 

catalyst bed. The owner or operator 

would be required to continually record 

these values. 

Where a control device that recovers 

VOC is used to achieve compliance with 

a percent reduction requirement by 

meeting equipment specifications, the 

owner or operator would be required to 

install a continuous monitoring device. 

Equipment is available to monitor the 

operational variables associated with 

solvent recovery system operation. 

Monitoring of operations indicates 

whether the solvent recovery system is 

being properly operated and maintained, 

and whether the system is continuously 

reducing VOC emissions to an 

acceptable level. The variable which 

would yield the best indication of 

system operation is VOC concentration 

at the solvent recovery system outlet. 

EPA has not yet developed 

performance specifications for solvent 

recovery system monitors, but a 

program is underway to develop these 

specifications. Consequently, until EPA 

proposes and promulgates monitor 

performance specifications, owners and 

operators subject to the requirement to 

install a continuous monitor on the 

solvent recovery system will not be 

required to do so. 

Recordkeeping and Reporting 

Requirements 

The proposed standards would 

require that the owner or operator 

maintain records of all data and 

calculations used to determine VOC 

emissions from each affected facility for 

at least two years. For each affected 

facility which uses thermal incineration 

to achieve compliance, continuous 

records of the incinerator combustion 

chamber temperature must be 

maintained at the source for a period of 

at least two years. Where catalytic 

incineration is used, continuous records 

of the gas temperature, both upstream 

and downstream of the incinerator 

catalyst bed, must be maintained at the 

source for a period of at least two years. 

Where a control device that recovers 

VOC is used to achieve compliance with 

a percent reduction requirement by 

meeting the equipment specifications, 

the owner or operator must maintain at 

the source for a period of at least two 

years continuous records of VOC 

concentration at the solvent recovery 

system outlet. 

The proposed standards would 

require the owner or operator to 

maintain records of all 3-hour periods 

during which the average temperature of 

a thermal incinerator is more than 28'C 

(50°F) less than the average temperature 

during the most recent performance test 

at which the destruction efficiency was 

determined. For catalytic incinerators 

the owner or operator would maintain 

records of all 3-hour periods during 

which the average temperature 

immediately before the catalyst bed is 

more than 28°C (50*F) less than the 

average temperature during the most 

recent performance test at which the 

destruction efficiency was determined 

or the temperature difference across the 

catalyst bed is less than 80 percent of 

the average temperature difference 

during the most recent performance test 

at which the destruction efficiency was 

determined. Where a control device that 

recovers VOC is used to achieve 

compliance with a percent reduction 

requirement by meeting the equipment 

specifications, the owner or operator 

must maintain records of all 3-hour 

periods during which the average VOC 

concentration from the outlet of the 

solvent recovery system is greater than 

the average value measured during the 

most recent test of the control device. 

The proposed standards would 

require notification reports and reports 

of all Initial performance tests, as 

required by the General Provisions. 

Impacts of Reporting Requirements 

A reports impact analysis for the 

rubber tire manufacturing industry was 

prepared. The purpose of the analysis is 

to estimate the economic impact of the 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements that would be imposed by 

the proposed standards and by those 

appearing in the General Provisions of 

40 CFR Part 60. Included in the analysis 

are the rationale for the selection of the 

proposed requirements, an evaluation of 

the major alternatives considered prior 

to the selection of the proposed 

requirements, and a description of the 

information required by the General 

Provisions and by the proposed 

standards. A copy of the reports impact 

analysis is included in the rubber tire 

manufacturing docket (EPA Docket No. 

A-fl0-e-II-B-14). 

Based on the reports impact analysis, 

a maximum of 3 person-years would be 

required industry-wide to comply with 

the recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements through the first five years 

of applicability. 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 

(Pub. L. 96-511) requires clearance from 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) of certain public reporting/ 

recordkeeping requirements before this 

rulemaking can be promulgated as final. 

The reporting/recordkeeping 

requirements associated with this 

standard have been submitted to OMB 

for approval. 

Public Hearing 

A public hearing will be held to 

discuss the proposed standards in 

accordance with Section 307(d)(5) of the 

Clean Air Act Persons wishing to make 

oral presentations should contact.EPA 

at the address given in the ADDRESSES 

section of this preamble. Oral 

presentations will be limited to 15 

minutes each. Any member of the public 

may file a written statement before, 

during, or within 30 days after the 

hearing. Written statements should be 

addressed to the Central Docket Section 

address given in the ADDRESSES section 

of this preamble. 

A verbatim transcript of the hearing 

and written statements will be available 

for public inspection and copying during 

normal working hours at EPA's Central 

Docket Section in Washington, D.C. (see 

ADDRESSES section of this preamble). 

Docket 

The docket is an organized and 

complete fde of all the information 

submitted to or otherwise considered in 

the development of this proposed 

rulemaking. The principal purposes of 

the docket are (1) to allow interested 

parties to readily identify and locate 

documents so that they can intelligently 

and effectively participate in the 

rulemaking process, and (2) to serve as 

the record in case of judicial review 

(except for those portions of the docket 

excluded from the record under Section 

307(d)(7)(A)). 

Miscellaneous 

As prescribed by Section 111, 

establishment of standards of 

performance for rubber tire 

manufacturing plants was preceded by 

the Administrator's determination (40 
2688 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 14 / Thursday, January 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules 

CFR 60.16. 44 FR 49222, dated August 21, 

1979) that these sources contribute 

significantly to air pollution which may 

reasonably be anticipated to endanger 

public health or welfare. In accordance 

with Section 117 of the Act, publication 

of this proposal was preceded by 

consultation with appropriate advisory 

committees, independent experts, and 

Federal departments and agencies. The 

Administrator will welcome comments 

on all aspects of the proposed 

regulation, including economic and 

technological issues, and on the 

proposed test methods. 

It should be noted that standards of 

performance for new stationary sources 

established under Section 111 of the 

Clean Air Act reflect: 

* * ' application of the best technological 

system of continuous emission reduction 

which (taking Into consideration the cost of 

achieving such emission reduction, any 

nonair quality health and environmental 

Impact and energy requirements) the 

Administrator determines has been 

adequately demonstrated. (Section 111(a)(1).) 

Although there may be emission control 

technology available that can reduce 

emissions below those levels required to 

comply with standards of performance, this 

technology might not be selected as the basis 

of standards of performance due to costs 

associated with its use. Accordingly, 

standards of performance should not be 

viewed as the ultimate in achievable 

emission control. In fact the Act requires (or 

has the potential for requiring] the imposition 

of a more stringent emission standard in 

several situations. 

For example, applicable costs do not 

play as prominent a role in determining 

the "lowest achievable emission rate" 

for new or modified sources located in 

nonattainment areas, i.e., those areas 

where statutorily-mandated health and 

welfare standards are being violated. In 

this respect. Section 173 of the Act 

requires that a new or modified source 

constructed in an area where ambient 

pollutant concentrations exceed the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) must reduce emissions to the 

level that reflects the "lowest 

achievable emission rate" (LAER), as 

defined in Section 171(3), for such 

category of source. The statute defines 

LAER as that rate of emissions based on 

the following, whichever is more 

stringent: 

(A) The most stringent emission limitation 

which Is contained In the Implementation 

plan of any State for such class or category of 

source, unless the owner or operator of the 

proposed source demonstrates that such 

limitations are not achievable, or 

(B) The most stringent emission limitation 

which Is achieved In practice by such class or 

category of source. 

In no event can the emission rate exceed 

any applicable new source performance 

standard (Section 171(3)). 

A similar situation may arise under 

the prevention of significant 

deterioration of air quality provisions of 

the Act (Part C). These provisions 

require that certain sources (referred to 

in Section 169(1)) employ "best 

available control technology" (BACT) as 

defined in Section 189(3) for all 

pollutants regulated under the Act. Best 

available control technology must be 

determined on a case-by-case basis, 

taking energy, environmental and 

economic impacts and other costs into 

account. In no event may the application 

of BACT result in emissions of any 

pollutants which will exceed the 

emissions allowed by any applicable 

standard established pursuant to 

Section 111 (or 112) of the Act. 

In all events, State Implementation 

Plans (SIPs) approved or promulgated 

under Section 110 of the Act must 

provide for the attainment and 

maintenance of NAAQS designed to 

protect public health and welfare. For 

this purpose, SIPs must in some cases 

require greater emission reduction than 

those required by standards of 

performance for new sources. 

States are free under Section 116 of 

the Act to establish even more stringent 

emission limits than those established 

under Section 111 or those necessary to 

attain or maintain the NAAQS under 

Section 110. Accordingly, new sources 

may in some cases be subject to 

limitations more stringent than 

standards of performance under Section 

111, and prospective owners and 

operators of new sources should be 

aware of this possibility in planning for 

such facilities. 

This regulation will be reviewed four 

years from the date of promulgation as 

- required by the Clean Air Act. This 

review will include an assessment of 

such factors as the need for integration 

with other programs, the existence of 

alternative methods, enforceability, 

improvements in emission control 

technology, and reporting requirements. • 

The reporting requirements in this 

regulation will be reviewed as required 

under EPA's sunset policy for reporting 

requirements In regulations. 

Section 317 of the Clean Air Act 

requires the Administrator to prepare an 

economic impact assessment for any 

new source standard of performance 

promulgated under Section 111(b) of the 

Act. An economic Impact assessment 

was prepared for the proposed 

regulations and for other regulatory 

alternatives. All aspects of the 

assessment were considered In the 

formulation of the proposed standards 

to ensure that the proposed standards 

would represent the best system of 

emission reduction considering costs. 

The economic impact assessment is 

included in the Background Information 

Document 

"Major Rule " Determination. Under 

Executive Order 12291, EPA is required 

to judge whether a regulation is a 

"major rule" and therefore subject to 

certain requirements of the Order. The 

Agency has determined that this 

regulation would result in none of the 

adverse economic effects set forth in 

Section 1 of the Order as grounds for 

finding a regulation to be a "major rule." 

Fifth-year annualized costs of the 

standard, compared to an uncontrolled 

situation, would be about $3.4 million in 

the worst case. The product wholesale 

price is not expected to increase. The 

Agency has therefore concluded that the 

proposed regulation is not a "major 

rule" under Executive Order 12291. 

This regulation was submitted to the 

Office of Management and Budget for 

review as required by Executive Order 

12291. Any comments from OMB to EPA 

and any EPA response to those 

comments are available for public 

inspection in Docket No. A-80-A, EPA's 

Central Docket Section, West Tower 

Lobby, Gallery 1, Waterside Mall, 401 M 

Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460. 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Certification. The Regulatory Flexibility 

Act of 1980 requires that adverse effects 

of all Federal regulations upon small 

businesses be identified. According to 

current Small Business Administration 

guidelines, a small business in the SIC 

category 3011, "Tires and innertubes," is 

one that has 1,000 employees or less. 

This is the criterion to qualify for SBA 

loans or for the purpose of government 

procurement. Of the 18 tire 

manufacturing companies, 3 existing 

companies have less than 1,000 

employees. An industry representative 

has Btated that employment in a typical 

new plant is expected to average 1,400, 

with a range of 1,000 to 2,000. Thus, it is 

unlikely that any new plant would be 

considered a ? mill entity. Existing small 

entities are not expected to become 

subject to the NSPS through new 

construction, modification, or 

reconstruction. However, if a small 

business did become subject to the 

NSPS, the cost of compliance would 

have minimal impacts. 

Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 

605(b), I hereby certify that the attached 

rule will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 14 / Thursday. January 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules 2689 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60 

Air pollution control, Aluminum, 

Ammonium sulfate plants. Asphalt 

Cement industry, Coal, Copper, Electric 

power plants, Glass and glass products, 

Grains, Intergovernmental relations, 

Iron, Lead, Metals, Metallic minerals, 

Motor vehicles, Nitric acid plants, Paper 

and paper products industry, Petroleum, 

Phosphate, Sewage disposal, Steel 

sulfuric acid plants. Waste treatment 

and disposal, Zinc, Tires. 

Dated: January 5,1983. 

John W. Hernandez, Jr., 

A cling A dministralor. 

PART 60—[AMENDED] 

It is proposed that 40 CFR Part 60 be 

amended by adding a new Subpart BBB 

to read as follows: 

Subpart BBB—Standards of Performance 

for trie Rubber Tire Manufacturing Industry 

Sec. 

60.540 Applicability and designation of 

affected facilities. 

60.541 Definitions. 

60.542 Standards for volatile organic 

. compounds. 

60.543 Performance test and compliance 

provisions. 

60.544 Monitoring of emissions and 

operations. 

60.545 Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

00.546 Reference methods and procedures. 

Authority: Sees. Il l and 301(a), Clean Air 

Act, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 7411.7601(a)), 

unless otherwise noted. 

Subpart BBB—Standards of 

Performance for the Rubber Tire 

Manufacturing Industry 

§ 60.540 Applicability and designation of 

affected facilities. 

(a) The provisions of this subpart 

apply to tiie following affected facilities 

in rubber tire manufacturing plants: each 

undertread cementing operation, each 

sidewall cementing operation, each 

tread end cementing operation, each 

bead cementing operation, each inside 

green tire spraying operation, each 

outside green tire spraying operation, 

each Michelin-A operation, each 

Michelin-B operation, and each 

Michelin-C-automatic operation. 

(b) The provisions of this subpart 

apply to each affected facility which Is 

Identified In paragraph (a) of this section 

and which commences construction or 

modification after January 20,1983. 

(c) The provisions of $ 60.544(c), 

5 60.545(c)(3), { 60.545(f). and I 60.545(h) 

will not apply until EPA has established 

and promulgated performance 

specifications for the VOC 

concentration monitoring device. After 

the promulgation of performance 

specifications, these provisions will 

apply to each affected facility under 

paragraph (b) of this section. 

§ 60.541 Definitions. 

(a) All terms which are used In this 

subpart and are hot defmed below are 

given the same meaning as in the Act 

and in Subpart A of this part 

(1) "Bead" means rubber covered 

strands of wire, wound into a circular 

form, which ensure a seal between a tire 

and the rim of the wheel onto which the 

tire is mounted. Each tire usually 

contains two beads. 

(2) "Bead cementing operation" means 

the system which is used to apply 

cement to the bead rubber before or 

after it is wound into Its final circular 

form. A bead cementing operation 

consists of a cement application station, 

such as a dip tank, spray booth and 

nozzles, cement through and roller or 

swab applicator; and all other 

equipment necessary to apply cement to 

wound beads or bead rubber and to 

allow evaporation of solvent from 

cemented beads. 

(3) "Component" means a piece of 

tread, combined tread/sidewall, or 

separate sidewall rubber of the length 

needed to manufacture a tire of the size 

and type for which the component is 

produced. 

(4) "Drying area" means the area 

where VOC from applied cement or 

green tire sprays is allowed to 

evaporate. • 

(5) "Enclosure" means a structure, 

designed to contain evaporated VOC, 

which surrounds a cement, solvent or 

spray application area, and/or drying 

area and ducts contained VOC to a 

control device(s). Enclosures may have 

permanent and temporary openings. 

(6) "Green tire" means an assembled, 

uncured tire. 

(7) "Inside green tire spraying 

operation" means the system used to 

apply a mold release agent and 

lubricant to the inside of green tires to 

facilitate the curing process and prevent 

rubber from sticking to the curing press. 

Sprays may be organic solvent-based or 

water-based. An inside green tire 

spraying operation consists of the inside 

spray application station and related 

equipment such as the lubricant supply 

system, the booth where spraying is 

performed, and associated fans and 

ductwork. 

(8) "Michelin-A operation" means that 

operation where cement is applied 

which Is Identified as Michelin-A in the 

Emission Standards and Engineering 

Division confidential file as referenced 

in Docket A-60-0-II-B-12. 

(9) "Michelin-B operation" means that 

operation where cement is applied 

which is Identified as Michelin-B In the 

Emission Standards and Engineering 

Division confidential file as referenced 

in Docket A-80-9-II-B-12. 

(10) "Michelin-C-automatic operation" 

means that operation where cement is 

automatically applied which is 

identified as Michelin-C-automatic in 

the Emission Standards and Engineering 

Division confidential file as referenced 

in Docket A-80-9-II-B-12. 

(11) "Outside green tire spraying 

operation" means the system used to 

apply a mold release agent to the 

outside of green tires to facilitate the 

curing process and prevent rubber from 

sticking to the curing press. Sprays may 

be organic solvent-based or waterbased. An outside green tire spraying 

operation consists of the outside spray 

application station and related 

equipment such as the lubricant supply 

system, the booth where spraying is 

performed, and associated fans and 

ductwork. 

(12) "Permanent opening" means an 

opening designed into an enclosure to 

allow tire components to pass through 

the enclosure by conveyor or other 

mechanical means, to provide access for 

permanent mechanical or electrical 

equipment or to direct air flow through 

the enclosure. A permanent opening is 

not equipped with a door or other means 

of obstruction. 

(13) "Sidewall cementing operation" 

means the system used to apply cement 

to a continuous strip of sidewall 

component A sidewall cementing 

operation consists cf a cement 

application station and all other 

equipment such as the cement supply 

system and feed and takeaway 

conveyors, necessary to apply cement to 

sidewall strips and to allow evaporation 

of solvent from cemented sidewall. 

(14) 'Temporary opening" means an 

opening into an enclosure that is 

equipped with a means of obstruction, 

such as a door, window, or port, which 

is normally closed. 

(15) 'Tire" means any agricultural, 

airplane, industrial, mobile home, lightduty truck and/or passenger vehicle tire 

which has a bead diameter less than or 

equal to 0i5 meter (m) [19.7 inches] and 

cross section dimension less than or 

equal to 0.325 m (12.8 in.) and is mass 

produced in an assembly-line fashion. 

(16) "Tread end cementing operation" 

means the system used to apply cement 

to one or both ends of tread or combined 

tread/sldewall component A tread end 

cementing operation consists of a 

cement application station and all other 

equipment such as the cement supply 
2690 • Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 14 / Thursday, January 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules 

system and feed and takeaway 

conveyors, necessary to apply cement to 

tread ends and to allow evaporation of 

solvent from cemented tread ends. 

(17) "Undertread cementing 

operation" means the system used to 

apply cement to a continuous strip of 

tread or combined tread/sidewall 

component. An undertread cementing 

operation consists of a cement 

application station and all other 

equipment such as the cement supply 

system and feed and takeaway 

conveyors, necessary to apply cement to 

tread or combined tread/sidewall strips 

and to allow evaporation of solvent 

from cemented tread or combined tread/ 

sidewall. 

(18) "VOC emission control device" 

means equipment that destroys or . 

recovers VOC. 

(19) "VOC emission reduction system" 

means a system composed of an 

enclosure, hood, or other device for 

containment and capture of VOC 

emissions and a VOC emission control 

device. 

(b) Notations used under this subpart 

are defined below: 

C,=Concentration of VOC in gas 

stream in vents after control device 

(parts per million by volume) 

Ct,s= concentration of VOC in gas 

stream in vents before control device 

(parts per million by volume) 

C(=concentration of VOC in gas 

stream in vents from affected facility to 

atmosphere (parts per million by 

volume) 

De=density of cement or spray 

material (grams per litre) 

Dr=density of VOC recovered by an 

emission control device (grams per litre) 

E=emi8sion control device efficiency, 

inlet versus outlet (fraction) 

Fc=capture efficiency, VOC captured 

and routed to one control device versus 

total VOC used for an affected facility 

(fraction) 

F0=fraction of total mass of VOC 

used in a calendar month by all facilities 

served by a common cement or spray 

material distribution system that is used 

by a particular affected facility served 

by the common distribution system 

G=monthly average mass of VOC 

used per complete tire processed for a 

particular affected facility (grams per 

tire) 

Lj=volume of cement or spray 

material used for a calendar month 

(litres) 

L,=volume of VOC recovered by an 

emission control device (litres) 

M=total mass of VOC used for a 

calendar month by all facilities served 

by a common cement or spray material 

distribution system (grams) 

M<,=total mass of VOC used at an 

affected facility for a calendar month 

(grams) 

Mp=mass of VOC recovered by an 

emission control device (grams) 

N=mass of VOC emitted to the 

atmosphere per complete tire processed 

for an affected facility for a calendar 

month (grams per tire) 

Q,=volumetric flow rate in vents 

after control device (dry standard cubic 

meters per hour) 

Qb=volumetric flow rate in vents 

before control device (dry standard 

cubic meters per hour) 

Q,=volumetric flow rate in vents from 

affected facility to atmosphere (dry 

standard cubic meters per hour) 

R=overall efficiency of an emission 

reduction system (fraction) 

T„=total number of tires processed at 

a particular affected facility for a 

calendar month 

W„=weight fraction of VOC in a 

cement or spray material. 

§ 60.542 Standards for volatile organic 

compounds. 

(a) On and after the date on which 

§ 60.8(b) requires a performance test to 

be completed, each owner or operator 

subject to the provisions of this subpart 

shall not cause to be discharged into the 

atmosphere more than: 

(1) For each undertread cementing 

operation: 

(i) 25 percent of the VOC used (75 

percent emission reduction) for each 

calendar month if the operation uses 

more than 25 grams of VOC per tire 

processed; or 

(ii) 25 grams of VOC per tire 

processed for each calendar month if the 

operation uses 25 grams or less of VOC 

per tire processed and does not employ 

a VOC emission reduction system. 

(2) For each sidewall cementing 

operation: 

(i) 25 percent of the VOC used (75 

percent emission reduction) for each 

calendar month If the operation uses 

more than 25 grams of VOC per tire 

processed; or 

(ii) 25 grams of VOC per tire 

processed for each calendar month if the 

operation uses 25 grams or less of VOC 

per tire processed and does not employ 

a VOC emission reduction system. 

(3) For each tread end cementing 

operation: 10 grams of VOC per tire 

process for each calendar month. 

(4) For each bead cementing 

operation: 10 grams of VOC per tire 

processed for each calendar month. 

(5) For each inside green tire spraying 

operation: 1.2 grows per tire processed 

for each calendar month. 

(6) For each outside green tire 

spraying operation: 9.3 grams per tire 

processed for each calendar month. 

(7) For each Michelin-A operation: 35 

percent of the VOC used for each* 

calendar month (65 percent emission 

reduction). 

(8) For each Michelin-B operation; 25' 

percent of the VOC used for each 

calendar month (75 percent emission . 

reduction). 

(9) For each Michelin-C-automatic 

operation: 35 percent of the VOC used 

for each calendar month (65 percent 

emission reduction). ' 

$60,543 Performance test and compliance 

provisions. 

(a) Section 60.8(d) does not apply to 

the monthly performance test 

procedures required by this subpart. 

Section 60.8(d) does apply to initial 

performance tests. Section 60.8(f) does 

not apply when Reference Method 24 is 

used. 

(b) The owner or operator of an 

affected facility shall conduct an initial 

performance test as required under 

§ 60.8(a) except as described in 

paragraph (h) of this section. The owner 

or operator of an affected facility shall 

thereafter conduct a performance test 

each calendar month except as 

described in paragraphs (e)(1) and (h) of 

this section. Initial and monthly 

performance tests shall be conducted . 

according to the procedures in this 

section. 

(c) For each undertread cementing, 

sidewall cementing, tread end 

cementing, bead cementing, inside green 

tire spraying, and outside green tire 

spraying operation which does not use a 

VOC emission reduction system, the 

owner or operator shall use the 

following procedure to determine 

compliance with the applicable g/tire 

limit specified under § 60.542(a). 

(1) Calculate the total mass of VOC 

(M„) used at the affected facility for the 

calendar month by the following 

procedure. 

(i) For each affected facility for which 

cement or sp-.-iy i9 delivered in batch or 

via a distribution system which serves 

only that affected facility: 

where: n equals the number of different 

cements or sprays used during the 

calendar month. 

(ii) For each affected facility for which 

cement or spray is delivered via a 

common distribution system which also 
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 14 / Thursday. January 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules 2691 

serves other, affected or existing 

facilities. 

(A) Calculate the total mass (M) of 

VOC used for all of the facilities served 

by the common distribution system for 

the calendar month: 

= XU»D.W„ 

where: n equals the number of different 

cements or sprays used during the 

calendar month. 

(B) Determine the fraction (F<,l°f M 

,used by the affectetTfacilily by 

comparing the production records and 

process specifications for the material 

cemented or sprayed at the affected 

facility for the calendar month to the 

production records and process 

specifications for the material cemented 

or sprayed at all other facilities served 

by the common distribution system for 

the calendar month or by another 

procedure acceptable to the 

Administrator. 

(C) Calculate the total monthly mass 

of VOC(M„) used by the affected 

facility: 

M.=MF0 

(2) Determine the total number of tires 

(T„) processed at the affected facility for 

the calendar month by the following 

procedure. 

(i) For undertread cementing, T„ 

equals the number of tread or combined 

tread/sidewall components which 

receive an application of undertread 

cement. 

(ii) For sidewall cementing, T0 equals 

the number of sidewall components 

which receive art application of sidewall 

cement, divided by 2. 

(iii) For treed end cementing, T„ 

equals the number of tread or combined 

tread/sldewall components which 

receive an application of tread end 

cement. 

(iv) For bead cementing, T0 equals the 

number- of beads which receive an 

application of bead cement, divided by 

2. 

(v) For inside green tire spraying, T0 

equals the number of green tires which 

receive an application of inside green 

tire spray. 

(vi) For outside green tire spraying, T0 

equals the number of green tires which 

receive an application of outside green 

tire spray. 

(3) Calculate the mass of VOC used 

per tire processed (G) by the affected 

facility for the calendar month: 

H. 

(4) Calculate the mass of VOC emitted 

per tire processed (N) for the affected 

facility for the calendar month: 

N=C 

(5) Where the value of the mass of 

VOC emitted per tire processed (N) is 

less than or equal to the applicable g/ 

tire limit specified under § 60.542(a), the 

affected facility is in compliance. 

(d) The owner or operator shall use 

the following procedure for each tread 

end cementing, bead cementing, inside 

green tire spraying, and outside green 

tire spraying operation which uses a 

VOC emission reduction system with a 

control device that destroys VOC (e.g., 

incinerator) to comply with the 

applicable g/tire limit specified under 

5 60.542(a). 

(1) Calculate the mass of VOC used 

per tire processed (G) for the affected 

facility for the calendar month as 

described under § 60.543(c)(3). 

(2) Calculate the mass of VOC emitted 

per tire processed (N) for the affected 

facility for the calendar month: 

N = G(i-R) 

For the Initial performance test the 

overall reduction efficiency (R) shall be 

determined as prescribed In (d)(2) (i), 

(ii), and (iii) of this section. In 

subsequent months, the owner or 

operator may use the most recently 

determined overall reduction efficiency 

(R) for the performance test providing 

the control device and capture system 

operating conditions have not changed. 

The procedure in (d)(2) (i), (ii), and (til) 

of this section shall be repeated when 

directed by the Administrator or when 

the owner or operator elects to operate 

the control device or capture system at 

conditions different from the most 

recent determination of overall 

reduction efficiency. 

(i) Determine the fraction (Fe) of total 

VOC used for the affected facility which 

enters the control device, the owner or 

operator of an affected facility shall 

construct a temporary total enclosure 

around the application and drying areas 

during the performance test for the 

purpose of capturing fugitive VOC 

emissions and use the following 

equation: 

£ty_ 

.?>Cb,Qb,+ Ji 0 "

5 * 

where: m is the number of vents from the 

affected facility to the control device and 

n Is the number of vents from the 

affected facility to. the atmosphere. 

(ii) Determine the destruction 

efficiency (E) of the control device by 

using values of the volumetric flow rate 

of each of the gas streams and the VOC 

content (as carbon) of each of the gas 

streams in and out of the control device 

by the following equation: ' 

iQ-C«- VOAi 

E=Ji £• 

tObA, 

i -i 

where: n Is the number of vents before the 

control device, and m Is the number of 

vents after the control device. 

- (iii) Determine the overall reduction 

efficiency (R) using the following 

equation: 

R=EF, 

(3) Where the value of the mass of 

VOC emitted per tire processed (NJ.is 

less than or equal to the applicable g/ 

tire limit specified under I 60.524(a). the 

affected facility is in compliance. 

(e) The owner or operator shall use 

the following procedure for each 

undertread cementing, sidewall 

cementing, Michelin-A, Michelin-B, and 

Michelin-C-automatic affected facility 

which uses a VOC emission reduction 

system with a control device that 

destroys VOC (e.g., incinerator) to 

comply with the applicable percent 

emission reduction requirement 

specified under { 60.542(a). 

(1) For the initial performance test the 

overall reduction efficiency (R) shall be 

determined as prescribed in 

5 60.543(d)92)(i}—(ill). The performance 

test shall be repeated using this same 

procedure when directed by the 

Administrator or when the owner or 

operator elects to operate the control 

device or capture system at conditions 

different from the most recent 

determination of overall reduction 

efficiency. No monthly performance 

tests are required. 

(2) Each undertr-ond cementing, 

sidewall cementing, or Michelin-B 

facility where R is greater than or equal 

to 0.75 is in compliance. 

(3) Each Michelin-A or Michelin-Cautomatic facility where R is greater 

than or equal to 0.65 is in compliance. 

(f) The owner or operator shall use the 

following procedure for each tread end 

cementing, bead cementing, inside green 

tire spraying, and outside green tire 

spraying affected facility which uses a 
VOL 

2892 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 14 / Thursday, January 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules 

VOC emission reduction system with a 

control device that recovers VOC (e.g., 

carbon adsorber) to comply with the 

applicable g/tire limits specified under 

i 60.542(a). 

(1) Calculate the mass of VOC used 

per tire processed (G) at the affected 

facility for the calendar month as 

described under § 60.543(c)(3). 

(2) Calculate the total mass of VOC 

recovered (Mr) from the affected facility 

for the calendar month using the 

following equation: 

M,=L,D, 

(3) Calculute the overall reduction 

efficiency [V) for the VOC emission 

reduction system for the calendar month 

using the following equation: 

Mo 

(4) Calculate the mass of VOC emitted 

per tire processed (N) for the affected 

facility for the calendar month using the 

following equation: 

N = C(1-R) 

(5) Where the value of the mass of 

VOC emitted per tire processed (N) is 

less than or equal to the applicable g/ 

tire limit specified under 5 60.542(a), the 

affected facility is in compliance. 

(g) The owner or operator shall use 

the following procedure for each 

undertread cementing, sidewall 

cementing, Michelin-A, Michelin-B, and 

Michelin-C-automatic affected facility 

which uses a VOC emission reduction 

system with a control device that 

recovers VOC (e.g., carbon adsorber) to 

comply with the applicable percent 

reduction requirement specified under 

§ 60.542(a). 

(1) Calculate the total mass of VOC 

used at the affected facility (MJ for the 

calendar month as described under 

5 60.543(c)(1). 

(2) Calculate the total mass of VOC 

recovered (M, from the affected facility 

for the calendar month using the 

following equation: 

Mr=L,D, 

(3) Calculate the overall reduction 

efficiency (R) for the VOC emission 

reduction system for the calendar month 

using the following equation: 

M. 

(4) Each undertread cementing, 

sidewall cementing, or Michelin-B 

facility where R is greater than or equal 

to 0.75 Is In compliance. 

(5) Each Michelin-A or Michelin-Cautomatic facility where R is greater 

than or equal to 0.64 is in compliance. 

(h) Rather than demonstrate 

compliance with the provisions of 

§ 60.542(a)(l),(2), or (8) using the 

performance test procedures described 

in paragraphs (e) and (g) of this section, 

an owner or operator of an undertread 

cementing, sidewall cementing, or 

Michelin-B affected facility that uses a 

VOC emission reduction system may 

demonstrate compliance by meeting the 

equipment design and performance 

specifications listed in (l)-(5) below and 

by conducting a performance test to 

demonstrate compliance with (5) below. 

The owner or operator shall conduct this 

performance test of the control device 

efficiency (as specified in { 60.8(a)) not 

later than 180 days after initial startup 

of the affected facility. The 

Administrator has decided that meeting 

the capture system design and 

performance specifications, in 

conjunction with operating a 95 percent 

efficient control device, is an acceptable 

means of demonstrating compliance 

with the standard. Therefore, in 

accordance with § 60.8(b), the 

Administrator has waived the 

requirement for a performance test on 

the enclosure (as required by § 0.8(a)). 

No monthly performance tests are 

required. 

(1) The cement application and drying 

area of the affected facility shall be 

contained in an enclosure which meets 

the criteria in paragraphs (h) (2), (3), and 

(4) of this section; 

(2) The drying area shall be enclosed 

between the application area and the 

water bath or to the extent necessary to 

contain all tire components for at least 

J30 seconds after cement application, 

"whichever distance is less; 

(3) A minimum face velocity of 100 

feet per minute shall be maintained 

through each permanent opening into an 

enclosure; 

(4) The total area of all permanent 

openings into the enclosure shall not 

exceed the area that would be 

necessary to maintain the VOC 

concentration of the exhaust gas stream 

at 25 percent of the lower explosive limit 

(LEL) under the following conditions: 

(i) The affected facility is operating at 

maximum solvent use-rate; 

(ii) The face velocity through each 

permanent opening is 100 feet per 

minute; 

(iii) All temporary openings are 

closed. 

(5) All captured VOC are ducted to a 

VOC emission control device which 

achieves at least 95 percent destruction 

or recovery efficiency. To determine the 

efficiency (E) of the control device, for 

the initial performance test use values 

of the volumetric flow rate of each of the 

gas streams and the VOC content (as 

carbon) of each of the gas streams in 

and out of the control device by the 

following equation: 

I-I & 

J;Qb,cw 

The control device efficiency shall be 

redetermined when directed by the 

Administrator or when the owner or 

operator elects to operate the control 

device at conditions different from the 

most recent determination of control 

device efficiency. 

$ 60.544 Monitoring of emissions and 

operations. 

(a) Each owner or operator subject to 

the provisions of this subpart and using 

a VOC emission reduction system with 

a thermal incinerator shall continuously 

monitor and record the temperature of 

the gas in the combustion zone. The 

monitoring instrument shall have an 

accuracy equal to ±0.75 percent of the 

temperature being measured in *C or 

±2.5°C, whichever is greater. 

(b) Each owner or operator subject to 

the provisions of this subpart and using 

a VOC emission reduction system with 

a catalytic incinerator shall 

continuously monitor and record the 

temperature in the gas stream 

immediately before and after the 

catalyst bed. The monitoring 

instruments shall have an accuracy 

equal to ±0.75 percent of the 

temperature being measured in °C or 

±2.5°C, whichever is greater. 

(c) Each owner or operator of an 

undertread cementing, sidewall 

cementing, or Michelin-B operation 

which uses a VOC emission control 

device that recovers VOC to meet the 

requirements of § 60.543(h)(5) shall 

continuously monitor and record the 

VOC concentration of the exhaust gas 

stream from the VOC recovery device. 

The VOt.. concentration monitoring 

device shall be installed in a location 

that is representative of the VOC 

concentration in the exhaust vent, at 

least two equivalent stack diameters 

from the exhaust point, and protected 

from any interferences due to wind, 

weather, or other processes. 

(d) Each monitoring device shall be 

Installed, calibrated, operated, and 

maintained according to accepted 

practices and the manufacturer's 

specifications. 
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 14 / Thursday, January 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules 2693 

S 60.545 Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

(a) Each owner or operator of an 

affected facility shall include the 

following data in the initial performance 

test report required under 5 60.8(a). 

(1) For each affected facility which 

complies with a g/tire limit specified in 

§ 60.542(a) without the use of a VOC 

emission reduction system. 

(i) The mass of VOC used (K>), the 

number of tires processed (T0), and the 

mass of VOC emitted per tire processed 

(N). 

(ii) A description of the method used 

to determine M„ and T0. 

(2) For each affected facility which 

uses a VOC emission reduction system 

with a control device that destroys VOC 

(e.g., incinerator) to comply with a g/tire 

limit specified in § 60.542(a), 

(i) The mass of VOC used (Mo), the 

number of tires processed (T„), the mass 

of VOC emitted per tire processed (N), 

the mass of VOC used per tire processed 

(G), the emission control device 

efficiency (E), the capture system 

efficiency (F,.), the overall system 

emission reduction (R), and the mass of 

VOC emitted per tire processed (N). 

(ii) A description of the method used 

to determine Mo, T„, E, and Ff 

(3) For each affected facility which 

uses a VOC emission reduction system 

with a control device that destroys VOC 

(e.g., incinerator) to comply with a 

percent emission reduction requirement 

specified in § 60.542(a). 

(i) The emission control device 

efficiency (E), the capture system 

efficiency (Fc), and the overall system 

emission reduction (R). 

(ii) A description of the method used 

to determine E and Fe. 

(4) For each affected facility which 

uses a VOC emission reduction system 

with a control device that recovers VOC 

(e.g., carbon adsorber) to comply with a 

g/tire limit specified in 5 60.542(a). 

(i) The mass of VOC used (M„). the 

number of tires processed (T0), the mass 

of VOC used per tire processed (G), the 

mass of VOC recovered (M,), the oyerall 

system emission reduction (R), and the 

mass of VOC emitted per tire processed 

(N). 

(ii) A description of the method used 

to determine Mo and T„. 

(5) For each affected facility which 

uses a VOC emission reduction system 

with a control device that recovers VOC 

(e.g., carbon adsorber) to comply with a 

percent emission reductipn requirement 

specified In § 60.542(a). 

(i) The mass of VOC used (M,), the 

mass of VOC recovered (Mr), and the 

overall system emission reduction (R). 

(il) A description of the method used 

to determine Mg. 

(b) Each owner or operator.of an 

undertread cementing, sidewall 

cementing, or Michel in-B affected 

facility where the method in § 60.543(h) 

has been chosen to demonstrate 

compliance shall include in the initial 

compliance report a statement 

indicating which of the equipment 

design and performance specifications 

have been met and identifying each 

which has not been met. The initial 

compliance report shall also include the 

following data. 

(1) The emission control device 

efficiency (E), the airflow through all 

permanent enclosure openings with all 

temporary enclosure openings 

unobstructed, the total area of all 

permanent enclosure openings, the total 

area of all temporary enclosure 

openings, the maximum solvent use rate 

(kg/hr), the type(s) of VOC used, the 

lower explosive limit (LEL) for each 

VOC used, and the length of time each 

component is enclosed after application 

of cement or spray material. 

(2) A description of the method used 

to determine E, the system airflow, and 

the maximum solvent use rate. 

(c) Each owner or operator of an 

affected facility shall include the 

following data, as measured by the 

continuous monitoring device(s), in the 

initial performance test report. 

(1) The average combustion 

temperature during the test of 

incinerator destruction efficiency for 

each thermal incinerator. 

(2) The average temperature before 

and after the catalyst during the test of 

incinerator efficiency for each catalytic 

incinerator. 

(3) The average VOC concentration of 

the exhaust gas stream from the VOC 

recovery device during the test of VOC 

recovery device efficiency for each 

undertread cementing, sidewall 

cementing, or Michel in-B operation that 

uses a VOC emission control device that 

recovers VOC to meet the requirements 

of §60.543(h)(5). 

(d) Each owner or operator of an 

affected facility which uses a thermal 

Incinerator shall maintain at the source, 

for a period of at least two years, 

records of all 3-hour periods of 

operation for which the average 

combustion temperature was more than 

28'C (50*F) below the temperature at 

which the destruction efficiency of the 

thermal incinerator was last determined. 

(e) Each owner oroperator of an 

affected facility which uses a catalytic 

incinerator shall maintain at the source, 

for a period of at least two years, 

records of all 3-hour periods of 

operation for which the average 

temperature before the catalyst bed is 

more than 28'C below the temperature 

at which the destruction efficiency of 

the catalytic incinerator was last 

determined, and all 3-hour periods for 

which the average temperature 

difference across the catalyst bed is less 

than 80 percent of the temperature 

difference when the destruction 

efficiency of the catalytic incinerator 

was last determined. 

(f) Each owner or operator of an 

undertread cementing, sidewall 

cementing, or Michelin-B operation 

which uses a VOC emission control 

device that recovers VOC to meet the 

requirements of I 60.543(h)(5) shall 

maintain at the source, for a period of at 

least two years, records of all 3-hour 

periods of operation for which the 

average VOC concentration of the 

exhaust gas stream from the VOC 

recovery device exceeds the average 

value measured during the most recent 

test of the control device. 

(g) Each owner or operator subject to ' 

the provisions of this subpart shall 

maintain at the source, for a period of at 

least two years, records of all data and 

calculations used to determine VOC 

emissions from each affected facility. At 

affected facilities where compliance is 

achieved through the use of thermal 

incineration, each owner or operator 

shall maintain at the source, for a period 

of at least two years, continuous records 

of the incinerator combustion chamber 

temperature. If catalytic incineration is 

used, the owner or operator shall 

maintain at the source, for a period of at 

least two years, continuous records of 

the gas temperature, both upstream and 

downstream of the incinerator catalyst 

bed. 

(h) Each owner or operator of an 

undertread cementing, sidewall 

cementing, or Michelin-B operation that 

uses a VOC emission control device that 

recovers VOC to meet the requirements 

of i 60.543(h)(5) shall maintain at the 

source, for a period of at least two 

years, continuous records of the VOC 

concentration of the exhaust gas stream 

from the VOC recovery device. 

(i) Each owner or operator is 

exempted from the quarterly reports 

required under S 60.7(c). 

S 60.546 Reference methods and 

procedures. 

(a) The reference methods in 

Appendix A to this part except as 

provided in { 60.8, shall be used to 

conduct performance tests. 

(1) Reference Method 24 for the 

determination of the VOC content of 

cements or green tire spray materials. In 

the event of dispute, Reference Method 

24 shall be the reference method. 
2694 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 14 / Thursday, January 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules 

(2) Reference Method 25 for the 

determination of the VOC concentration 

in the effluent gas In each stack entering 

and leaving an emission control device. 

The owner or operator shall notify the 

Administrator 30 days in advance of any 

stack test by Reference Method 25. The 

following reference methods are to be 

used in conjunction with Reference 

Method 25: 

(I) Method 1 for sample and velocity 

traverses, 

(ii) Method 2 for velocity and 

volumetric flow rate, 

(Hi) Method 3 for gas analysis, and 

(iv) Method 4 for stack gas moisture. 

(b) For Reference Method 24, the 

cement or green tire spray sample must 

be a 1-litre sample collected in a 1-litre 

container at a point where the sample 

will be representative of the material as 

applied in the affected facility. 

(c) For Reference Method 25, the 

sampling time for each of three runs 

must be at least one hour, The minimum 

sample volume must be 0.003 dscm 

except that shorter sampling times or 

smaller volumes, when necessitated by 

process variables or other factors, may 

be approved by the Administrator. 

(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42 

U.S.C. 7414)) 

[FR Doc 80-1443 Filed 1-19-03? 6.45 am) 

BtUJNO COOC SMO-SO-M 

983