|
<br />10820
<br />
<br />C.OD. shipments a. wri~ten notice
<br />setting forth the 10 day l1mit on ~t-
<br />ta.nce of conections. the applicable time
<br />limitation on. Illing cls.lms agalDst the
<br />surety whose bond hBs been lIIed with
<br />the Board. pursuant to ! 297.73. and the
<br />name and address of the surety. Such
<br />notice shall either be printed upon the
<br />consignor's COpy of the airwayblll or
<br />attached thereto.
<br />IFR Doc.73-8560 Filed 5-1-73;8:45 am]
<br />
<br />ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
<br />AGENCY
<br />
<br />[40 CFR Part 60]
<br />
<br />STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR
<br />NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
<br />
<br />Emissions During Startup. Shutdown and
<br />Malfunction
<br />
<br />The Environmental Protection Agency
<br />promulgated standards of performance
<br />for new stationary sources pursuant to
<br />section 111 of the Clean-Air Amendments
<br />of 1970. 40 D.S.C. 1857c-&, on Decem-
<br />ber 23. 1971. for fossa fuel~f1.red
<br />steam generators, incinerators. portland
<br />cement plants. Bnd nitric. and sul1ur~c
<br />acid plants (36 FR 248X6). New or modi-
<br />fied sources tn those categories are re-
<br />quired to- meet standar<1s for em1ss1ons
<br />at air pollutants wh1ch reflect the de-
<br />gree of emissions limitation achievable
<br />through the application of the best sys-
<br />tem of emission reduction which (taking
<br />into account the cost of achieVing such
<br />reduction) the Administrator determined
<br />to. be adequately demonstrated.
<br />On August 25.1972. the Environmental
<br />Protection Agency proposed procedures
<br />pursuant to which new sources could
<br />be deemed, not to be in violation of the
<br />new source performance standards 1f
<br />emissions durmg startup, shutdown and
<br />malfunction wlavoidably exceeded the
<br />standa.rds~ (37 FR 17214l. A total of 141
<br />responses were received during the
<br />period allowed for omcial. comment on
<br />the proposal. Comments, received were
<br />strongly critical of the various report-
<br />ing requirements,. and. the lack. of more
<br />specific criteria for granting exceptions
<br />to the standards. A number of comments
<br />were directed toward EPA's poliCY on
<br />delegating enforcement of these proce-
<br />dures to the States as provided under sec-
<br />tlon 111 of the Clean AIr Act. This new
<br />proposal is intended to. respond to these
<br />criticisms. The August 25, 1972, proposal
<br />Is hereby withdrawn.
<br />Attempts to classify all of tile sItu-
<br />ations in which excess emissions due to
<br />malfunction, startup and. shutdown could
<br />occur and the amount and duration of
<br />excess emission from each such situ-
<br />atIon indicated that It Is not feasIble to
<br />provide Quantitative standards or guides
<br />which would apply to periods of mal-
<br />functions, startups and shutdowns,
<br />Comments rece1ved in response to the
<br />proposal, however. stmongly. emphasized
<br />the dimculties in plannilJ.~ and financing
<br />new sources when no assurance could
<br />be made that the sources would be in
<br />compliance l\'ith the standards or would
<br />
<br />PROPOSED RUtES
<br />
<br />be 'granted a waiver in those cases whe1;e
<br />failure to meet the standard was not the
<br />fault of the plant owner or operator.
<br />Accordingly. the approach described
<br />below is now proposed by EP'A. Th1s ~P-
<br />proach will ensure that new sources
<br />Install the best adequately demonstrated
<br />technology and operate and maintain
<br />.such equipment to keep emissions as
<br />low as possible.
<br />The proposed regulatioDli make it clear
<br />that compliance with. emission stand~
<br />ards, other than opacity standards, is de-
<br />termined through performance tests
<br />conducted under representative condi~
<br />tions. The present tests, for new sources
<br />reqUire that inltial performance tests
<br />be conducted within 60 days after achiev-
<br />ing the maximum production rate at
<br />which a faCility will be operated but not
<br />later than 180 days after startup and
<br />authorizes subsequent tests from time
<br />to time as required by the Administrator.
<br />It Is anticipated that the initial per-
<br />formance test and subsequent perform-
<br />ance tests will ensure that equipment
<br />.Is installed which will permit the stand-
<br />ards to be attained and that such equip-
<br />ment is not allowed to deteriorate to the
<br />point where the standards are no longer
<br />. maintained, In addition, the proposed
<br />regulation requires that the plant oper-
<br />ator use maintenance and operating
<br />procedures designed to minimize emis-
<br />sions in excess of the standard. This re-
<br />Quirement will ensure that plant opera-
<br />tors properly maintain and operate the
<br />affected facility and control eqUipment
<br />between performance tests and during
<br />periods of startup, shutdown and un-
<br />avoidable malfunction.
<br />Although the requirements in the pres-
<br />ent regulations for continuous monitor-
<br />ing will be unaffected: by these proposed
<br />regulations, it is made clear that meas-
<br />urements obtained as the results of such
<br />monitoring will be used as evidence in
<br />determining whether good maintenance
<br />and operating procedures are being f?l-
<br />lowed. They will not be, used toJdetermme
<br />compliance wlth mass emission stand-
<br />ards unless approved as equivalent or al-
<br />ternative method tor performance test-
<br />ing. EPA may: in the future'reQuire that
<br />compliance with new source emissions
<br />standards be' determined' by continuous
<br />monitoring. In such cases, the apnlicable
<br />standard will speciflc&ll:l' require that
<br />compliance with mass em1ssion llin}ts be
<br />determined by continuous, monitoring,
<br />Such standards will' provide for malfWlc-
<br />.tion, startup and shutdown sltuations to
<br />the extent necessary.
<br />With respect to the opacity standards,
<br />a cl11!'erent approach was used because
<br />this- is a Pr1m.a.ry means of enforcement -
<br />using' v.isual surveillance employed by
<br />state and' Federal olliclals. EPA believes
<br />that the burden should' remain on the
<br />plant operator to justify a fallure to
<br />comply with opacity,. standards, This dlf-
<br />ference Is iusttn.ed because determina-
<br />tion of mass emission levels requIres cl08e
<br />contact wit.h plant ,personnel, operations
<br />and records and the burden imposed on
<br />enforcement agencIes to determine
<br />
<br />whether' good maintenance and operat-
<br />.1ng. procedures have been followed is
<br />. not sign1flcantJy greater than the burden
<br />of determining mass emlssion levels.
<br />However, opacity observations are taken
<br />outside the plant and do not require
<br />contact with plant personnel, operations
<br />. or records, and the burden of determln-
<br />,lng whether good maintenance and op-
<br />eratIng procedures have been followed
<br />. would be much greater than determining
<br />whether opacity standards have been
<br />violated', Nevertheless, EPA h&s recog-
<br />nized that malfunctioDS, startups and
<br />shutdowns may result in the opacity
<br />emission levels be1ng exceeded, Accord-
<br />Ingly, the standards will not apply in
<br />such cases. However, the burden will be
<br />upon the plant operator rather than EPA
<br />or tile state. to show that the opac1ty
<br />standards were not met because of such
<br />situations. In the event of any dispute,
<br />the owner or operator of the source may
<br />. seek review in an approprIate court.
<br />The reporting requirements in these
<br />proposed regulations have been greatly
<br />simplifled. They require only that at the
<br />end of each calendar Quarter owners and
<br />operators report emissioIlB measured or
<br />estimated to be greater than those allow-
<br />a.ble under standards applicable during
<br />performance tests.
<br />EP A believes that the proposed report-
<br />ing requirements along wJth applicatJon
<br />of the opacity standards wm provide
<br />adequate information to enable EPA and
<br />the States to e1rectively enforce the new
<br />. source perfonnance standards. Add1-
<br />. tioIiBJ. information and shorter reporting
<br />times would. not materally Increase en-
<br />forcement capab1l1ty and could, In fact,
<br />hinder such efforts due to the additional
<br />ttme and manpower required to process
<br />the information.
<br />The primary purpose of the quarterly
<br />. report is to- provide EPA and' the States
<br />with sufficient information to determine
<br />if further inspection or performance
<br />tests are warranted. It should be noted
<br />. that the Administrator can delegate en-
<br />forcement of the standards to the States
<br />as prov:fded by sectJon III (c) (I) 01 tlle
<br />Clean Air Act, 85 amended. Procedures
<br />for States to request this delegation are
<br />available from' EPA regional omces. It Is
<br />EPA's policy that upon delegation any
<br />reports required by these proposed regu-
<br />lations will be' sent to the appropriate
<br />state. (A change' in the address for sub-
<br />mittal of rePorts &s provided in 40 CFR
<br />60.4 wtII' be 'made after each delegation.>
<br />These proposed regulations will have
<br />no Significant adverse impact on the
<br />public health and welfare. Those sec.
<br />tions of the Clean Air Act which are
<br />specifically required to protect the public
<br />health and welfare, sections 109 and 110
<br />(National Ambient Air Quality Standards
<br />and their implementat1on), section 112
<br />. (Nat1onal Em1sston Standards lor Haz-
<br />ardous Ail:. Pollutants), and section 303
<br />(Emergency Powers to Stap the .Emis.
<br />. sions of Air Pollutants Presenting an Im-
<br />minent and Substantial Endangenncnt
<br />to the Health of Persons), will be un-
<br />affected by these new prOpOsed regula-
<br />
<br />fEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 3B, NO. B4-WEDNESDAY, MAY 2. 1973
<br />
|