[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 26, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13125-13129]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7277]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[FRL-5446-8]
Proposed Requirements for Control Technology Determinations for
Major Sources in Accordance With Clean Air Act (Act) Section 112(g)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of reopening of comment period; notice of availability
of draft rule.
SUMMARY: The EPA is reopening the comment period for the proposed rule
implementing section 112(g) of the Act and is announcing the
availability of a revised draft of the proposal. Section 112(g)
establishes requirements for owners or operators who intend to
construct, reconstruct, or modify a major source of hazardous air
pollutants (HAP). When no emission standard has been promulgated under
section 112(d) of the Act, determinations concerning such sources must
be made on a case-by-case basis. Today's notice announces the
availability of a revised draft of the proposed rule which implements
section 112(g)(2)(B) of the Act with respect to constructed or
reconstructed major sources, and requests comment on the revised draft.
The EPA does not intend at this time to issue a rule implementing the
provisions of section 112(g) which concern modifications.
DATES: The revised draft of the proposed rule will be available in the
public docket and on the EPA electronic bulletin board on the date this
document is signed. Comments concerning this document or the revised
draft rule must be received by EPA on or before April 25, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The revised draft rule and other information pertaining to
the proposed rule are contained in Docket Number A-91-64. The docket is
available for public inspection and copying from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00
p.m. and 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the EPA's
Air Docket Section, Waterside Mall, Room M1500, EPA, 401 M Street,
Southwest, Washington, DC 20460. A reasonable fee may be charged for
copying. The draft rule is also available on the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS) electronic bulletin board, the
Technology Transfer Network (TTN), under Clean Air Act, Title III,
Recently Signed Rules. For information on how to access the TTN, please
call (919) 541-5384 between the hours of 1:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.
eastern standard time.
Comments concerning this notice or the revised draft rule should be
submitted (in duplicate if possible) to: Central Docket Section (6102),
EPA, Attn: Air Docket No. A-91-64, Washington, DC 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Gerri Pomerantz, telephone (919)
541-2371, or Ms. Kathy Kaufman, telephone (919) 541-0102, Information
Transfer and Program Integration Division (MD-12), OAQPS, EPA, Research
Triangle Park, NC, 27711.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this notice is organized
as follows:
I. Background and Major Differences between the Proposed Rule and
Draft Final Rule
II. Definition of ``Construct a Major Source''
III. Review of Applications for a maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) Determination
IV. Extensions of Compliance Date for Subsequent Emission Standards
[[Page 13126]]
I. Background and Major Differences Between the Proposed Rule and
Draft Final Rule
In designing a program to implement MACT requirements under section
112(g), the EPA is guided by the need to balance several, often
competing, goals. Given a complex statutory mandate, the EPA has the
difficult task of designing a rule that is simultaneously
environmentally protective, maintains consistency across Agency
programs, minimizes the administrative burden on sources and States,
provides flexibility to sources, and maintains enforceability--yet is
not overly complex. The EPA's task is to create a coherent regulatory
whole that strikes the right balance among a broad set of goals.
Section 112(g) is primarily a transitional program designed to
operate until MACT standards issued under section 112(d) are in effect
for all categories of major sources of HAP. To date, the EPA has issued
17 MACT standards covering 29 categories of major sources of HAP
emissions, and has proposed five additional MACT standards covering 18
source categories. The EPA is currently developing all of the MACT
standards that are due to be completed in 1997, as well as several of
the standards due to be completed in 2000.
The EPA has concluded that the greatest benefits to be derived from
section 112(g) would be from the control of major source construction
and reconstruction in the period before these MACT standards go into
effect. Therefore the EPA has determined that today's draft rule should
implement only that portion of section 112(g) which requires new source
MACT determinations for constructed and reconstructed major sources,
but not that portion which requires existing source MACT determinations
for modifications of existing sources. The EPA requests comment on this
approach.
Under this approach, sources of toxic air pollution will be
controlled at the time of construction or reconstruction, when controls
are most cost-effective to install. This is a major streamlining and
simplification step that will focus section 112(g) implementation where
it will provide the greatest reduction in emissions to the environment,
certainty to the regulated community, and reduce the overall
administrative burden on both regulators and the regulated community.
The EPA's decision to implement only the construction and
reconstruction provisions of section 112(g) is premised in part on the
Agency's ability to issue the remaining MACT standards under section
112(d) in a timely way, and also in part on the assumption that where
there are existing State air toxics programs that address
modifications, they will continue to operate as they do currently. If
there were substantial delays in issuance of MACT standards, or radical
changes to existing State programs, increased exposure to emissions
from unregulated sources of HAP could occur and threaten public health
and the environment. If such delays were to occur, the EPA would
reconsider whether to move forward to cover modifications under section
112(g).
The EPA believes that Congress's basic goal in adopting section
112(g) of the Act was to make use of the opportunity for environmental
protection that exists when major sources of HAP undergo changes that
would lead to significant emission increases. The opportunity to
evaluate emission control technologies, or other beneficial ways to
bring about environmental improvements, generally exists because the
environmental improvements are more efficient when built as part of the
initial design.
The EPA also recognizes that it is critical to the success of the
program to ensure that its provisions are enforceable and provide the
greatest possible incentive for compliance. At the same time, the EPA
recognizes the need to minimize administrative delays and grant sources
and permitting authorities the flexibility to seek environmentally
beneficial alternative means of control.
Finally, the program must be as consistent as possible with other
Federal air pollution control programs, and must be simple enough to
ensure smooth implementation. Today's draft rule eliminates much of the
complexity inherent in the portion of section 112(g) which covers
modifications to existing sources. Among other things, under this
simpler approach, it will not be necessary to proceed with development
of de minimis emission values or the hazard ranking system necessary to
support offset determinations. It will also not be necessary to address
the multitude of issues and concerns, raised in the proposed rule,
associated with defining the types of operations that would be
considered ``modifications.''
II. Definition of ``Construct a Major Source''
Today's draft rule does require additional discussion to clarify
the conditions under which a stationary source would require a new
source MACT determination; i.e., what criteria must be met for new
equipment to be considered construction or reconstruction of a major
source. The new equipment which would meet these criteria is referred
to as the ``affected source.'' The EPA intends that either a major
source constructed on a greenfield site, or a new major-emitting
stationary source with a discrete function at an existing plant site,
such as a new discrete process or production unit, should be considered
construction of a major source, and thus require a new source MACT
determination. The stationary source must also itself be inherently
major-emitting; the EPA does not intend that a new process unit causing
increased emissions at another unit downstream should be covered by
today's draft rule. The EPA requests comment on this overall approach.
Figure (1) illustrates how the definition of ``construct a major
source'' works.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 13127]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MR96.013
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
[[Page 13128]]
If the stationary source is constructed on a greenfield site and is
major-emitting, then the stationary source is an affected source under
section 112(g), and must apply new source MACT. If the stationary
source is being constructed at an existing plant site, then several
other criteria will determine whether it is to be considered an
affected source under section 112(g), and must apply new source MACT.
Box (i) (the box labels refer back to the sections of the
``construct a major source'' definition in the draft rule) asks: Will
the stationary source be controlled by existing emission control
equipment which the permitting authority has determined represents one
of the best technologies for control of HAP? If a new source can be
incorporated into such existing control technology without any
reduction in the degree of control of HAP, the new source would not be
considered ``construction'' under section 112(g)(2)(B). The state
permitting authority will be responsible for determining whether these
criteria apply, using those procedures it deems most appropriate.
The general purpose of this exclusion from the definition of
``construct a major source'' is to assure that facilities which have
previously installed good control equipment with presently unutilized
capacity will not be precluded from fully utilizing such equipment by
any marginal differences in control effectiveness between such
equipment and that required by new source MACT. Existing controls
should be deemed satisfactory only where they are representative of the
best technologies presently in use and the addition of new sources to
existing control equipment will not impair its overall effectiveness.
The rule also explicitly recognizes that some facilities have
previously installed such controls to comply with a best available
control technology (BACT) determination (that controls the HAP emitted
by the stationary source) under the prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) program, a lowest-achievable emission rate (LAER)
determination under the new source review (NSR) program, or a toxics-
best available control technology (T-BACT) determination under a State
or local air toxics control program. The EPA requests comment on this
exclusion.
The EPA notes that the definition of a ``green-field site'' in the
draft rule includes developed sites which do not presently emit major
source quantities of HAP. EPA therefore requests comment concerning
whether the exclusion for new sources that use existing emission
controls should be applied to area sources that are within the
definition of a ``green-field site.''
Box (ii) asks: Is the new stationary source an integral component
of a larger process or production unit? If the source is a discrete
process unit or production unit as defined in the rule, and emissions
from the source exceed the major source threshold, it meets the
definition of an ``affected source'' under section 112(g) and is
subject to new source MACT control. The EPA requests comment on this
exclusion.
What does it mean to be an integral component of a larger process
or production unit? Today's rule defines ``integral component of a
larger process or production unit'' to be a stationary source or group
of stationary sources whose function, and the function of the process
unit or production unit, are interdependent. In other words, the
stationary source is the kind of component upon which the functioning
of the process or production unit relies, and vice versa. Equipment
which is an integral component of a process or production unit is part
of the functioning of the overall process or production unit. Under the
proposed definition, equipment which is not an integral component
itself comprises a process or production unit.
The EPA acknowledges that there is some room for judgment in
determining if a stationary source is an integral component of a larger
unit. Each individual determination should be based on answers to the
following questions: Is the new stationary source a component critical
to the function of the larger process or production unit? Could the
stationary source stand alone as an individually functioning unit if
constructed elsewhere? Could the stationary source be reasonably
controlled independently of the larger process? Reference documents
such as AP-42 1 describe examples of different groupings of
stationary sources that should be considered to be separately-
controlled processes, as well as those stationary sources, contained
within such processes, which should be considered integral components.
Examples in these reference documents, where relevant, should be used
to define a process or production unit.
\1\ U.S. EPA, AP-42, ``Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission
Factors,'' 5. ed., January 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following examples should help illustrate where section 112(g)
should and should not apply. The EPA requests comment on these
examples.
1. An electronics manufacturing facility replaces individual
manufacturing equipment such as etching, plating, or photolithography
equipment with next generation etching, plating or photolithography
equipment. This equipment change would not trigger section 112(g),
because the individual etching or plating or photolithography equipment
is the kind of component upon which the functioning of the larger
production process relies. Therefore the function of the new stationary
source (the new etching, plating, or photolithography equipment) and
the larger production process are interdependent.
2. An aluminum reduction plant has several potlines. Each potline
consists of many pots, which are controlled using a common dry
scrubbing system. The company replaces a few pots on each line. This
equipment change would not trigger section 112(g), because the
individual pots are the kind of component upon which the functioning of
the larger production process relies. Therefore the function of the new
stationary source (the new pots) and the larger production process are
interdependent.
3. A chemical plant builds a new distillation column, to be added
to a series of distillation columns, the emissions from which are
collected at the end of the series and vented to a carbon absorber.
This equipment change would not trigger section 112(g), because the
individual distillation columns are the kind of component upon which
the functioning of the larger production process relies. Therefore the
function of the new stationary source (the new distillation column) and
the larger production process are interdependent.
4. A composites manufacturer adds additional vacuum and/or in-mold
coating capability to an existing mold, in order to improve surface
quality. This equipment change would not trigger section 112(g),
because the additional components of the mold are the kind of
components upon which the functioning of the larger production process
relies. Therefore the function of the new stationary source (the new
components of the mold) and the larger production process are
interdependent.
5. A glass manufacturer adds a new glass furnace and associated
process line which will emit HAPs in amounts above the major source
threshold. This is an example of a stationary source which is not an
integral component of a process or production unit, because it is
itself a production or process unit. Therefore the new furnace meets
the definition of ``affected source'' under section 112(g) and should
be controlled with new source MACT.
6. A composites manufacturer adds a new large molding line which
will emit
[[Page 13129]]
HAPs in amounts above the major source threshold. This is an example of
a stationary source which is not an integral component of a process or
production unit, because the molding line is itself a separately
functioning process unit. Therefore the molding line meets the
definition of ``affected source'' under section 112(g) and should be
controlled with new source MACT.
7. An auto parts manufacturer adds a new automobile surface coating
line (i.e., from body shop to trim shop) which will emit HAPs in
amounts above the major source threshold. This is an example of a
stationary source which is not an integral component of a process or
production unit, because the line is itself a separately functioning
process unit, as described in AP-42. Therefore the coating line meets
the definition of ``affected source'' under section 112(g) and should
be controlled with new source MACT.
8. An existing chemical plant builds a new nitric acid plant onsite
which will emit HAPs in amounts above the major source threshold. This
is an example of a stationary source or group of stationary sources
which is not an integral component of a process or production unit.
Therefore the nitric acid plant meets the definition of ``affected
source'' under section 112(g) and should be controlled with new source
MACT.
9. A manufacturer replaces an entire process which is similar to an
entire process as it is described in AP-42. This is an example of a
stationary source or group of stationary sources which is not an
integral component of a process or production unit. Therefore the
process meets the definition of ``affected source'' under section
112(g) and should be controlled with new source MACT, provided that it
will emit HAPs in amounts above the major source threshold.
III. Review of Applications for a MACT Determination
Today's draft rule contains three options for preconstruction
review procedures for constructed and reconstructed major sources. The
permitting authority has discretion to prescribe those procedures to be
used in making a case-by-case MACT determination for constructed or
reconstructed major sources (except that the owner or operator of the
source may elect to use the part 70 or part 71 permitting process). The
proposed rule allowed use of either the part 70 or 71 permitting
process or a process, described in the proposed rule and in today's
draft rule, culminating in issuance of a ``Notice of MACT Approval.''
Today's draft rule adds one more option, designed to provide
flexibility to the permitting authority and the source. Proposed
section 63.43(c)(2)(ii) provides that if a permitting authority
establishes, or has already established, preconstruction review
procedures for sources to follow, then these procedures may be used in
lieu of any procedures prescribed by today's draft rule. The permitting
authority's prescribed procedures may have been developed for other
purposes beyond implementation of section 112(g), so long as they
provide for public participation in the case-by-case MACT determination
and ensure that a final MACT determination will be made prior to
construction or reconstruction. The draft rule also provides that a
final case-by-case MACT determination issued pursuant to any of these
procedures will be deemed federally enforceable. The permitting
authority need not obtain delegation under 40 CFR Part 63 subpart E in
order to adopt its own review procedures for a case-by-case MACT
determination. The EPA requests comment on this new provision.
The EPA also requests comment specifically on the presumption, in
section 63.43(d)(iv), that the constructed or reconstructed major
source should comply with the emission limitation set out in a relevant
proposed MACT standard or presumptive MACT determination made by the
EPA. The EPA believes that sources would be well-advised to comply with
such emission limitations, as those limitations would be most likely to
be consistent with the requirements of the eventual MACT standard.
IV. Extensions of Compliance Date for Subsequent Emission Standards
The EPA anticipates that new source MACT requirements adopted with
respect to construction or reconstruction of a particular source under
section 112(g)(2)(B) will normally be at least as stringent as any
subsequent requirements for existing sources adopted as part of a MACT
standard issued under section 112(d). However, should a subsequently
promulgated MACT standard impose more stringent requirements, EPA
believes that it may be appropriate in some instances for EPA to
establish a later compliance date for those sources which have acted in
reliance on a prior case-by-case MACT determination. The draft rule
expressly provides that EPA may establish separate compliance dates for
facilities which have notified EPA of such determinations in a timely
manner. Specifically, EPA may establish, in the MACT standard, a later
compliance date for those sources which have installed controls
pursuant to section 112(g), and have provided the EPA with data on
their section 112(g) control determination by the end of the public
comment period on the subsequent Federal standard.
The EPA requests comment on this approach, and on whether such
sources should be required to inform EPA, before proposal of the
subsequent MACT standard, that they have installed section 112(g)
controls.
In those instances where the subsequent MACT standard does not
establish a compliance date for sources subject to a prior case-by-case
MACT determination, the present draft rule retains the provision from
the original proposal authorizing the permitting authority to grant up
to eight years of additional time for the affected source to comply
with the subsequent MACT standard. The EPA has previously explained
that the structure of section 112 as a whole supports such a
construction of section 112(g), and a source may also be afforded up to
8 years to comply with a MACT standard in instances where a prior
emission limitation has been established by permit under section
112(j). The EPA requests comment on these provisions and this
interpretation.
Dated: March 18, 1996.
Mary D. Nichols,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-7277 Filed 3-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
