RULES AND REGULATIONS 34341 RULES AND ......RULES AND REGULATIONS th e authority of section 111 th Clean Air Act. Public comments were requested on the proposal in the FED-ERAL REGISTER

34340

[6560-01]

Title 40—Protection of theEnvironment

CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCY

SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS

[PRL 907-2]

PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORM-ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARYSOURCES

Groin Elevators

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).ACTION: Final rule.SUMMARY: The standards limit emis-sions of particulate matter from new,modified, and reconstructed grain ele-vators. The standards implement theClean Air Act and are based on theAdministrator's determination thatemissions from grain elevators contrib-ute significantly to air pollution. Theintended effect of these standards is torequire new, modified, and recon-structed grain elevators to use the bestdemonstrated system of continuousemission reduction, considering costs,nonair quality health, environmentaland energy impacts.EFFECTIVE DATE: August 3, 1978.ADDRESSES: Copies of the standardssupport documents are available on re-quest from the U.S. EPA Librarye ° i ty.Baverages above 65 percecause of this wide rar : e . emis-emissions, a n opacity n ' d t»sion limit cannot be eswould ensure the use

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 150—THURSDAY, AUGUST 3, 1978

,ystem of continuous emission reduc-jjon. An equipment standard, there-fore, rather than an emission standardjs being promulgated for barge andjnip unloading stations.

Another change from the proposedstandards is that section 60.14 (modifi-cation) of the general provisions hasbeen clarified to ensure that only capi-tal expenditures which are spent di-rectly on an affected facility are usedto determine whether the annual assetguideline repair allowance percentageis exceeded. The annual asset guide-line repair allowance percentage hasbeen defined to be 6.5 percent.

The remaining change from the pro-posed standards is that four types ofalterations at grain elevators havebeen exempted from consideration asmodifications. The exempted alter-ations are:

(1) The addition of gravity load-outspouts to existing grain storage orpain transfer bins.

(2) The installation of automaticgrain weighing scales.

(3) Replacement of motor and driveunits driving existing grain handlingequipment.

(4) The installation of permanentstorage capacity with no increase inhourly grain handling capacity.ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS

The promulgated standards willreduce uncontrolled particulatematter emission from new grain eleva-tors by more than S9 percent and willreduce particulate matter emissions by70 to 90 percent compared to emissionlimits contained in State or local airPollution regulations. This reductionin emissions will result in a significantreduction of ambient air concentrationlevels of particulate matter in the vi-cinity of grain elevators. The maxi-

'um 24-hour average ambient air par-'ulate matter concentration at a dis-

* of 0.3 kilometer (km) from a1 grain elevator, for example,

be reduced by 50 to 80 percentthe ambient air concentration

would result from control ofsions to the level of the typical

T local air pollution regulations.eral of the changes to the pro-

andards reduce the estimatedof the Proposed stand-

of "ductag emissions ofmatter from grain eleva-

e*ample a^°muliPteci standards, for*ators Tl?ply only to large grain ele-m°fe emi« ! chanees will permitto thei0nlof Par«culate matter

iPhere. It was estimatedhave redifr °}>osed standards wouldfatter em nati°nal particulate2l'°°0 iS /* by approximately^iUsnllT °Ver the next 5mm*ated s?£ ' estjmated that the pro-

>tandards will reduce partic-

RULES AND REGULATIONS

ulate matter emissions by 11,000metric tons over the next 5 years.

The secondary environmental im-pacts associated with the promulgatedstandards will be a small increase insolid waste handling and disposal anda small increase in noise pollution. Arelatively minor amount of particulatematter, sulfur dioxide and nitrogenoxide emissions will be discharged intothe atmosphere from steam/electricpower plants supplying the additionalelectrical energy required to operatethe emission control devices needed tocomply with the promulgated stand-ards. The energy impact associatedwith the promulgated standards willbe small and will lead to an increase innational energy consumption in 1981by the equivalent of only 1,600 m3 (ca.10,000 barrels) per year of No. 6 fueloil.

Based on information contained inthe comments submitted during thepublic comment periods, approximate-ly 200 grain terminal elevators andgrain storage elevators at gram pro-cessing plants will be covered by thepromulgated standards over the next 5years. The total incremental costs re-quired to control emissions at thesegrain elevators to comply with thepromulgated standards, above thecosts necessary to control emissions atthese elevators to comply with Stateor local air pollution control regula-tions, is $15 million in capital costsover this 5-year period and $3 millionin annualized costs in the fifth year.Based on this estimate of the nationaleconomic impact, the promulgatedstandards will have no significanteffect on the supply and demand forgrain products, or on the growth ofthe domestic grain industry. .

PUBLIC PARTICIPATIONPrior to proposal of the standards,

interested parties were advised bypublic notice in the FEDERAL REGISTERof a meeting of the National Air Pollu-tion Control Techniques AdvisoryCommittee. In addition, copies of theproposed standards and the StandardsSupport and Environmental ImpactStatement (SSEIS) supporting thesestandards were distributed to membersof the grain elevator industry and sev-eral environmental groups at the timeof proposal. The public commentperiod extended from January 13, toMay 14, 1977. During this period 1,817comments were received from grainelevator operators, vendors of equip-ment, Congressmen, State and localair pollution control agencies, otherFederal agencies, and individual U.S.citizens.

Due to the time required to reviewthese comments, the proposed stand-ards were suspended on June 24, 1977.This action was necessary to avoid cre-ating legal uncertainties for those

34341

gram elevator operators who mighthave undertaken various expansion oralteration projects before promulga-tion of final standards.

Following review of the public com-ments, a draft of the final standardswas developed consistent with theAugust, 1977, amendments to theClean Air Act. A report responding tothe major issues raised in the publiccomments and containing the draftfinal standards was mailed on August15, 1977, to each individual, agricul-ture association, equipment vendor,State and local government, andmember of Congress who submittedcomments. Comments were requestedon the draft final standards by Octo-ber 15, 1977.

One hundred and one commentswere received and the final standardsreflect a thorough evaluation of thesecomments. Several comments resultedin changes to the proposed standards.A detailed discussion of the commentsand changes made to the proposedstandards is contained in volume 2 ofthe SSEIS, which was distributedalong with a copy of the final stand-ards to all interested parties prior totoday's promulgation of final stand-ards.

SIGNIFICANT COMMENTSMost of the comment letters re-

ceived by EPA contained multiplecomments. The most significant com-ments and changes made to the pro-posed standards are discussed below:

NEED FOR STANDARDS

Numerous commenters questionedwhether grain elevators should be'reg-ulated since the industry is a smallcontributor to nationwide emissions ofparticulate matter and grain dust isnot hazardous or toxic.

The standards were proposed undersection 111 of the Clean Air Act. Thissection of the act requires that stand-ards of performance be established fornew stationary sources which contrib-ute to air pollution. Existing sourcesare not affected unless they are recon-structed, or modified in such a way asto increase emissions. The overridingpurpose of standards of performanceis to prevent new air pollution prob-lems from developing by requiringmaximum feasible control of emissionsfrom new, modified, or reconstructedsources at the time of their construc-tion. This is helpful in attaining andmaintaining the National Ambient AirQuality Standard (NAAQS) for sus-pended particulate matter.

The Report of the Committee onPublic Works of the United StatesSenate in September 1970 (SenateReport No. 91-1196), listed grain eleva-tors as a source for which standards ofperformance should be developed. Inaddition, a study of 200 industrial cat-


•

34342egories of sources, which were evaluat-ed to develop a long-range plan for set-ting standards of performance for par-ticulate matter, ranked grain elevatorsrelatively high. The categories wereranked in order of priority based onpotential decrease in emissions. Var-ious grain handling operations rankedas follows: Grain processing—4; graintransfer—6; grain cleaning and screen-ing—8; and grain drying—33. There-fore, grain elevators are a significantsource of particulate matter emissionsand standards of performance havebeen developed for this source catego-ry.Many commenters felt, however,that it was unreasonable to requiresmall country elevators to comply withthe proposed standards because oftheir remote location and smallamount of emissions. This sentimentwas reflected in the 1977 amendmentsto the Clean Air Act which exemptedcountry elevators with a grain storagecapacity of less than 88,100 m s (ca. 2.5million U.S. bushels) from standardsof performance. Consequently, thescope of the proposed standards hasbeen narrowed and the promulgatedstandards apply only to new, modified,or reconstructed facilities within grainelevators with a permanent storage ca-pacity in excess of 88,100 m'.

A number of commenters also feltsmall flour mills should not be coveredby standards of performance becausethey are also small sources of particu-late matter emissions and handle lessgrain than some country elevatorswhich were exempted from standardsof performance by the 1977 amend-ments to the Clean Air Act. These pro-cessors are considered to be relativelysmall sources of particulate matteremissions that are best regulated byState and local regulations. Conse-quently, grain storage elevators atwheat flour mills, wet corn mills, drycorn mills (human consumption), ricemills, and soybean oil extractionplants with a storage capacity of lessthan 35,200 m 3 (ca. 1 million U.S.bushels) of grain are exempt from thepromulgated standards.

With regard to the hazardous natureor toxicity of grain dust, the promul-gated standards should not be inter-preted to imply that grain dust is con-sidered hazardous or toxic, but merelythat the grain elevator industry is con-sidered a significant source of particu-late matter emissions. Studies indicatethat, as a general class, particulatematter causes adverse health and wel-fare effects. In addition, some studiesindicate that dust from grain elevatorscauses adverse health effects to eleva-tor workers and that grain dust emis-sions are a factor contributing to anincreased incidence of asthma attacksin the general population living in thevicinity of grain elevators.


EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY

A number of commenters were con-cerned with the reasonableness of theemission control technology which wasused as the basis for the proposedstandards limiting emissions from rail-car unloading stations and graindryers.

A number of commenters believed itwas unreasonable to base the stand-ards on a four-sided shed to captureemissions from railcar unloading sta-tions at grain elevators which use unittrains. The data supporting the pro-posed standards were based on obser-vations of visible emissions at a grainelevator which used this type of shedto control emissions from the unload-ing of railcars. This grain elevator,however, did not use unit trains. Basedon information included in a numberof comments, the lower rail rate forgrain shipped by unit trains places alimit on the amount of time & grainelevator can hold the unit train. Theadditional time required to uncoupleand recouple each car individuallycould cause a grain elevator subject tothe proposed standards to exceed thistime limit and thus lose the cost bene-fit gained by the use of unit trains. Inlight of this fact, the proposed visibleemission limit for railcar unloading isconsidered unreasonable. The promul-gated standards, therefore, are basedupon the use of a two-sided shed forrailcar unloading stations. Thischange in the control technology re-sulted in a change to the visible emis-sion limit for railcar unloading sta-tions and is discussed later.

A number of comments were re-ceived concerning the proposed stand-ard for column dryers. The proposedstandards would have permitted themaximum hole size in the perforatedplates used in column dryers to be nolarger than 2.1 mm (0.084 inch) in di-ameter for the dryer to automaticallybe in compliance with the standard. Afew comments contained visible emis-sion data taken by certified opacity ob-servers which indicated that columndryers, with perforated plates contain-ing holes of 2.4 mm (0.094 inch) diame-ter could meet a 0-percent opacityemission limit. Other comments indi-cated that sorghum cannot be dried incolumn dryers with a hole size smallerthan 2.4 mm (0.094 inch) diameterwithout plugging problems. In light ofthese data and information, the speci-fication of 2.1 mm diameter holes isconsidered unreasonable and the pro-mulgated standards apply only tocolumn dryers containing perforatedplates with hole sizes greater than 2.4mm in diameter.

STRINGENCY OF THE STANDARDS

Many commenters questionedwhether the standards for various af-fected facilities could be achieved even

if the best system of emission reduc-tion were installed, maintained, andproperly operated. These commenterspointed out that a number of variablescan affect the opacity of visible emis-sions during unloading, handling, andloading of grain and they questionedwhether enough opacity observationhad been taken to assure that thestandards could be attained under alloperating conditions. The variablesmentioned most frequently were windspeed and type, dustiness, and mois-ture content of grain.

It is true that wind speed could havesome effect on the opacity of visibleemissions. A well-designed capturesystem should be able to compensatefor this effect to a certain extent, al-though some dust may escape if windspeed is too high. Compliance withstandards of performance, however, isdetermined only under conditions rep-resentative of normal operation, andjudgment by State and Federal en-forcement personnel will take windconditions into account in enforcingthe standards.

It is also true that the type, dusti-ness, and moisture content of grainaffect the amount of particulatematter emissions generated during un-loading, handling, and loading ofgrain. A well-designed capture system,however, should be designed to cap-ture dust under adverse conditions andshould, therefore, be able to compen-sate for these variables.

In developing the data base for theproposed standards, over 60 plantvisits were made to grain terminal andstorage elevators. Various grain un-loading, handling, and loading oper-ations were inspected under a wide va-riety of conditions. Consequently, tstandards were not based on conjec-ture or surmise, but on observations ovisible emissions by certified opaciobservers at well-controlled existingrain elevators operating under ritine conditions. Not all grain elevawere visited, however, and not all ferations within grain elevators «inspected under all conditions,while the proposed standardsbased upon a sufficiently broadbase to allow extrapolation cdata, particular attention wasthose comments submitted duipublic comment period which invisible emission data taken by «observers from operations at gvators which were using 'emission control systems the prstandards were based upon. *of these data indicates thatemission limit for truck unlostions and railcar loading,should be 5 percent opacit:0 percent opacity which wThe promulgated standardslimit visible emissions froncilities to 5 percent opacit

As discussed earlier, the emissioncontrol technology selected as thebasis for the visible emissions standardjor railcar unloading has beenchanged from a four-sided shed to atwo-sided shed. Visible emission dataincluded with the public comments in-dicate that emissions from a two-sidedshed will not exceed 5 percent opacity.Consequently, the promulgated stand-ards limit visible emissions from rail-ear unloading stations to 5 percentopacity.

A number of commenters also indi-cated that the opacity limit includedin the proposed standards for bargeloading was too stringent. One com-menter indicated that the elevator op-erator had no control over when the"topping off" operation commencedbecause the ship captain and the ste-vedores decide when to start "toppingoff." Several State agencies comment-ed that the standards should be atleast 20 percent opacity. Based onthese comments, the standards forbarge and ship loading operationshave been increased to 20 percentopacity during all loading operations.The comments indicate that thisstandard will still require use of theemission control technology uponwhich the proposed standards werebased.

Data included with the public com-ments confirm that a visible emissionlimit of 0 percent opacity is appropri-ate for grain handling equipment,grain dryers, and emission controlequipment. Consequently, the visibleemission limits for these facilities havenot been changed.

OPACITY

Many commenters misunderstood• concept of opacity and how it is

uwd to measure visible emissions.•her commenters stated that opacityasurements were not accurate

0 to 15 percent opacity and aJMHlard below these levels was unen-forceable.

'Pacity is a measure of the degree» particulate matter or other

reduce the transmis-and obscure the view of

* m the background. Opacityssed on a scale of 0 to 100 per-

*» a totally opaque plume as-


ff 0Pacltv has been used

*»ethp of air Pollution control"Tn of the century. The con-

lhroughwt tten upheld in courtswt the country as a reason-

°f

er"1>ned

of determiningStandard is notnts but is de-

observer fo1'Studiesthat certified ob-


servers can accurately determine theopacity of visible emissions. To becomecertified, an individual must be trainedand must pass an examination demon-strating his ability to accurately assignopacity levels to visible emissions. Toremain certified, this training must berepeated every 6 months.

In accordance with method 9, theprocedure followed in making opacitydeterminations requires that an ob-server be located to a position wherehe has a clear view of the emissionsource with the sun at his back. In-stantaneous opacity observations arerecorded every 15 seconds for 6 min-utes (24 observations). These observa-tions are recorded in 5 percent incre-ments (i.e., 0, 5, 10, etc.). The arithme-tic average of the 24 observations,rounded off to the nearest wholenumber (i.e., 0.4 would be rounded offto 0), is the value of the opacity usedfor determining compliance with visi-ble emission standards. Consequently,a 0 percent opacity standard does notnecessarily mean there are no visibleemissions. It means either that visibleemissions during a 6-minute period arenot sufficient to cause a certified ob-server to record them as 5 percentopacity, or that the average of thetwenty-four I5-second observations iscalculated to be less than 0.5 percent.Consequently, although emissions re-leased into the atmosphere from anemission source may be visible to acertified observer, the source may stillbe found to compliance with a 0 per-cent opacity standard.

Similarly, a 5-percent opacity stand-ard permits visible emissions to exceed5 percent opacity occasionally. If, forexample, a certified observer recordedthe following twenty-four 15-secondobservations over a 6-minute period: 7observations at 0 percent opacity; 11observations at 5 percent opacity; 3 ob-servations at 10 percent opacity; and 3observations at 15 percent opacity, theaverage opacity would be calculated as5.4 percent. This value would berounded off to 5 percent opacity andthe source would be to compliancewith a 5 percent opacity standard.

Some of the commenters felt theproposed standards were based only onone 6-minute reading of the opacity ofvisible emissions at various grain ele-vator facilities'. None of the standardswere based on a stogie 6-minute read-tog of opacity. Each of the standardswere based on the highest opacityreadings recorded over a period oftime, such as 2 or 4 hours, at a numberof grata elevators.

A number of commenters also feltthe visible emission standards were toostringent in light of the maximum ab-solute error of 7.5 percent opacity as-sociated with a stogie opacity observa-tion. The methodology used to developand enforce visible emission standards,

34343

however, takes into account this ob-server error. As discussed above, visi-ble emission standards are based onobservations recorded by certified ob-servers at well-controlled existing fa-cilities operating under normal condi-tions. When feasible, such observa-tions are made under conditions whichyield the highest opacity readingssuch as the use of a highly contrastingbackground. These readings thenserve as the basis for establishing thestandards. By relying on the highestobservations, the standards inherentlyreflect the highest positive error intro-duced by the observers.

Observer error is also taken into ac-count to enforcement of visible emis-sion standards. A number of observa-tions are normally made before an en-forcement action is initiated. Statisti-cally, as the number of observationsincreases, the error associated withthese observations taken as a groupdecreases. Thus, while the absolutepositive error associated with a stogieopacity observation may be 7.5 per-cent, the error associated with anumber of opacity observations, takento form the basis for an enforcementaction, may be considerably less than7.5 percent.

ECONOMIC IMPACT

Several commenters felt the estimat-ed economic impact of the proposedstandards was too low. Some com-menters questioned the ventilationflow rate volumes used to developingthese estimates. The air evacuationflow rates and equipment costs used toestimating the costs associated withthe standards, however, were based oninformation obtained from grata ele-vator operators during visits to facili-ties which were being operated withvisible emissions meeting the proposedstandards. These air evacuation flowrates and equipment costs were alsochecked against equipment vendor es-timates and found to be to reasonableagreement. These ventilation flowrates, therefore, are compatible withthe opacity standards. Thus, the unitcost estimates developed for the pro-posed standards are considered reason-ably accurate.

Many commenters felt that the totalcost required to reduce emissions tothe levels necessary to comply withthe visible emission standards shouldbe assigned to the standards. The rele-vant costs, however, are those incre-mental costs required to comply withthese standards above the costs re-quired to comply with existing Stateor local air pollution regulations.While it is true that some States haveno regulations, other States have regu-lations as stringent as the promulgat-ed standards. Consequently, an esti-mate of the costs required to complywith the typical or average State regu-

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 150-THURSDAY, AUGUST 3, 1978

L

34344

lation, which lies between these ex-tremes, is subtracted from the totalcost of complying with the standardsto identify the cost impact directly as-sociated with these standards.

Most State and local regulations, forexample, require aspriation of truckdump pit grates and installation of cy-clones to remove particulate matterfrom the aspirated air before releaseto the atmosphere. The promulgatedstandards would require the additionof a bifold door and the use of a fabricfilter baghouse instead of a cyclone.The cost associated with the promul-gated standards, therefore, is only thecost of the bif old doors and the differ-ence in cost between a fabric filterbaghouse and a cyclone.

In conclusion, the unit cost esti-mates developed for the proposedstandards are essentially correct andgenerally reflect the costs associatedwith the promulgated standards. As aresult, the economic impact of the pro-mulgated standards on an individualgrain elevator is considered to beabout the same as that of the pro-posed standards. The maximum addi-tional cost that would be imposed onmost grain elevators subject to compli-ance with the promulgated standardswill probably be less than a cent perbushel. The impact of these additionalcosts imposed on an individual grainelevator will be small.

Based on information contained incomments submitted by the NationalGrain and Feed Association, approxi-mately 200 grain terminal elevatorsand grain storage elevators at grainprocessing plants will be covered bythe standards over the next 5 years.Consequently, over this 5-year periodthe total incremental costs to controlemissions at these grain elevators tocomply with the promulgated stand-ards, above the costs to control emis-sions at these elevators to comply withState or local air pollution control re-quirements, is $15 million in capitalcosts and $3 million in annualizedcosts in the 5th year. Based on this es-timate of the national economicimpact, the promulgated standardswill have no significant effect on thesupply and demand of grain or grainproducts, or on the growth of the do-mestic grain industry.

ENERGY IMPACT

A number of commenters believedthat the energy impact associated withthe proposed standards had been un-derestimated and that the true impactwould be much greater. As pointed outabove, the major reason for this dis-agreement is probably due to the factthat these commenters assigned thefull impact of air pollution control tothe proposed standards, whereas theimpact associated with compliancewith existing State and local air pollu-


tion control requirements should besubtracted. In the example discussedabove concerning costs, the additonalenergy requirements associated withthe promulgated standards is simplythe difference in energy required tooperate a fabric filter baghouse com-pared to a cyclone.

For emission control equipment suchas cyclones and fabric filter baghouses, energy consumption is directlyproportional to the pressure dropacross the equipment. It was assumedthat the pressure drop across a cy-clone required to comply with existingState and local requirements would beabout 80 percent of that across afabric filter baghouse required tocomply with the promulgated stand-ards. This is equivalent to an increasein energy consumption required to op-erate air pollution control equipmentof about 25 percent. This representsan increase of less than 5 percent inthe totl energy consumption of a grainelevator.

Assuming 200 grain elevatorsbecome subject to the promulgatedstandards over the next 5 years, thisenergy impact will increase nationalenergy consumption by less than 1,600ms (ca. 10,000 U.S. barrels) per year in1982. This amounts to less than 2 per-cent of the capacity of a large marineoil tanker and is an insignificant in-crease in energy consumption.

MODIFICATION

Many commenters were under themistaken impression that all existinggrain elevators would have to complywith the proposed standards and thatretrofit of air pollution control equip-ment on existing facilities within grainelevators would be required. This isnot the case. The proposed standardswould have applied only to new, modi-fied, or reconstructed facilities withingrain elevators. Similarly, the promul-gated standards apply only to new,modified, or reconstructed facilitiesand not existing facilities.

Modified facilities are only subjectto the standards if the modificationresults in increased emissions to theatmosphere from that facility. Fur-thermore, any alteration which is con-sidered routine maintenance or repairis not considered a modification.Where an alteration is considered amodification, only those facilitieswhich are modified have to complywith the standards, not the entiregram elevator. Consequently, thestandards apply only to major alter-ations of individual facilities at exist-ing grain elevators which result in in-creased emissions to the atmosphere,not to alterations which are consid-ered routine maintenance and repair.Major alterations that do not result inincreased emissions, such as alter-ations where existing air pollution

control equipment is upgraded tomaintain emissions at their previouslevel, are not considered modification

The following examples illustrat,how the promulgated standards applyto a grain elevator under various circumstances. The proposed standardswould have applied in the same way.

(1) If a completely new- grain eleva-tor were built, all affected facultieswould be subject to the standards.

(2) If a truck unloading station at anexisting grain elevator were modifiedby making a capital expenditure to in.crease unloading capacity and this re-sulted in increased emissions to the at-mosphere in terms of pounds pethour, then only that affected facility(i. e., the modified truck unloading sta-tion) would be subject to the stand-ards. The remaining facilities withinthe grain elevator would not be sub-ject to the standards.

(3) if a grain elevator containedthree grain dryers and one grain dryerwere replaced with a new grain dryer,only the new grain dryer would besubject to the standards.

The initial assessment of the poten-tial for modification of existing facili-ties concluded that few modificationswould occur. The few modificationsthat were considered likely to takeplace would involve primarily the up-grading of existing country grain ele-vators into high throughput grain ele-vator terminals. A large number ofcommenters, however, indicated thatthey believed many modificationswould occur and that many existinggrain elevators would be required t<comply with the standards.

To resolve this confusion and clarifythe meaning of modification, a meet-ing was held with representatives <the grain elevator industry to ident:various alterations to existing facililthat might be considered modifitions. A list of alterations was devoped which frequently occur vgrata elevators, primarily to rlabor costs or to increase graildling capacity, although not newily annual grain throughput,impact of considering four of tterations as modifications, su6compliance with the standard!viewed as unreasonable. Conseqithey are exempted from consideas modifications in the promulistandards.

In particular, the four altewithin grain elevators whichcifically exempt from the promuiistandards are (1) The additionity load-out spouts to existing 8 ffi(storage or grata transfer binsaddition of electronic automaweighing scales whichhourly grata handling capacH ^replacement of motors and <driving existing grain handment with larger motors a


which increases hourly gratang capacity; and (4) the addition

0{ grain storage capacity with no in-crease in hourly grata handling capac-ity-

If the first alteration were consid-ered a modification, this could requireinstallation of a load-out shed therebyrequiring substantial reinforcement ofthe grain storage or grata transfer binto support the weight of emission con-trol equipment. In light of the rela-tively small expenditure usually re-quired to install additional gravityload-out spouts to existing grata stor-age or transfer bins, and the relativelylarge expenditure that would be re-quired to install a load-out shed or toreinforce the storage or transfer bin,consideration of this sort of alterationwithin an existing grata elevator as amodification was viewed as unreason-able.

Under the general modification reg-ulation which applies to all standardsof performance, alteration two, the ad-dition of electronic automatic grataweighing scales, would be considered achange in the method of operation ofthe affected facility if it were to in-crease the hourly grata throughput. Ifthis alteration were to increase emis-sions to the atmosphere and require acapital expenditure, the grata receiv-ing or loading station whose methodof operation had changed (i.e., in-creased grain throughput), would beconsidered a modified facility subjectto the standards. Consideration of thistype of alteration, which would resultin only minor changes to a facility, isviewed as unreasonable in light of therelatively high expenditure this couldrequire for existing grata elevators tocomply with the standards.

Alterations three and four, replace-ment of existing motors and driveswith larger motors and drives and ad-ution of grata storage capacity with! increase in the hourly grata han-18 capacity, would probably not be

nsidered modifications under the«al modification regulation. Since

Me evident that there was con-sole confusion concerning modifi-

s, however, alterations three andin'* ng with alterations one and

discussed above, are specificallyt from consideration as modifi-

the promulgated standards.CFR Rnn;0dlf icatkm Provisions in 40

We) exempt certain physicalîS0™1 chan&es ^°m being

though •as modifications, evenoccup, n 1, mcrease m emission ratemere' •(Pinder 40 CFR 80.14(eX2), if aning jMj ' Production rate of an exist-

can be accomplished with-tlonaryT al exPenditure on the sta-

nce containing that facility,catioR s not considered a modifi-


A capital expenditure is defined asany amount of money exceeding theproduct of the Internal Revenue Serv-ice (IRS) "annual asset guidelinerepair allowance percentage" timesthe basis of the facility, as defined bysection 1012 of the Internal RevenueCode. In the case of grata elevators,the IRS has not listed an annual assetguideline repair allowance percentage.Following discussions with the IRS,the Department of Agriculture, andthe grata elevator industry, theAgency determined that 6.5 percent isthe appropriate percentage for thegrain elevator industry. If the capitalexpenditures required to increase theproduction rate of an existing facilitydo not exceed the amount calculatedunder the IRS formula, the change inthe facility is not considered a modifi-cation. If the expenditures exceed thecalculated amount, the change in op-eration is considered a modificationand the facility must comply withNSPS.

Often a physical or operationalchange to an existing facility to in-crease production rate will result in anincrease in the production rate of an-other existing facility, even though itdid not undergo a physical or oper-ational change. For example, if newelectronic weighing scales were addedto a truck unloading station to in-crease grata receipts, the productionrate and emission rate would increaseat the unloading station. This couldresult in an increase in production rateand emission rate at other existing fa-cilities (e.g., grain handling oper-ations) even though physical or oper-ational changes did not occur. Underthe present wording of the regulation,expenditures made throughout a grataelevator to adjust for increased pro-duction rate would have to be consid-ered in determining if a capital ex-penditure had been made on each fa-cility whose operation is altered by theproduction increase. If the capital ex-penditure made on the truck unload-ing station were considered to be madeon each existing facility which in-creased its production rate, it is possi-ble that the alterations on each suchfacility would qualify as modifications.Each facility would, therefore, have tomeet the applicable NSPS.

Such a result is inconsistent withthe intent of the regulation. TheAgency intended that only capital ex-penditures made for the changed fa-cility are to be considered in determin-ing if the change is a modification. Re-lated expenditures on other existingfacilities are not to be considered inthe calculation. To clarify the regula-tion, the phrase "the stationary sourcecontaining" is being deleted. Becausethis is a clarification of intent and nota change in policy, the amendment is

34345

being promulgated as a final regula-tion without prior proposal.

PERFORMANCE TEST

Several commenters were concernedabout the costs of conducting perform-ance tests on fabric filter baghouses.These commenters stated that thecosts involved might be a very substan-tial portion of the costs of the fabricfilter baghouse itself, and severalbaghouses may be installed at a mod-erately sized grata elevator. The com-menters suggested that a fabric filterbaghouse should be assumed to be incompliance without a performancetest if it were properly sized. In addi-tion, the opacity standards could beused to demonstrate compliance.

It would not be wise" to waive per-formance tests in all cases. Section60.8(b) already provides that a per-formance test may be waived if "theowner or operator of a source hasdemonstrated by other means to theAdministrator's satisfaction that theaffected facility is ta compliance withthe standard." Since performancetests are heavily weighed ta court pro-ceedings, performance test require-ments must be retained to insure ef-fective enforcement.

SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS

In December 1977, and January1978, several grata elevators exploded.Allegations were made by various indi-viduals within the grata elevator in-dustry contending that Federal airpollution control regulations were con-tributing to an increase ta the risk ofdust explosions at grata elevators byrequiring that building doors and win-dows be closed and by concentratinggrata dust ta emission control systems.Investigation of these allegations indi-cates they are false.

There were no Federal regulationsspecifically limiting dust emissionsfrom grain elevators which were taeffect at the time of these grata eleva-tor explosions. A number of State andlocal air pollution control agencies,however, have adopted regulationswhich limit particulate matter emis-sions from grata elevators. Many ofthese regulations were developed byStates and included ta their implemen-tation plans for attaining and main-taining the NAAQS for particulatematter. Particulate matter, as a gener-al class, can cause adverse health ef-fects; and the NAAQS, which werepromulgated on April 30, 1971, wereestablished at levels necessary to pro-tect the public health and welfare.

Although compliance with State orlocal air pollution control regulations,or the promulgated standards of per-formance, can be achieved ta some in-stances by closing building doors andwindows, this is not the objective ofthese regulations and is not an accept-

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 150—THURSDAY, AUGUST 3, 1978

34346

able means of compliance. The objec-tive of State and local regulations andthe promulgated standards of per-formance is that dust be captured atthose points within grain elevatorswhere it is generated through the useof effective hoods or enclosures withair aspiration, and removed from thegrain elevator to an air pollution con-trol device. This is the basis for thepromulgated standards of perform-ance. Compliance with air pollutioncontrol regulations and the promul-gated standards of performance doesnot require that windows and doors inbuildings be closed to prevent escapeof dust and this practice may in factbe a major safety hazard.

Fabric filter baghouses have beenused for many years to collect combus-tible dusts such as wheat flour. Therehave been extremely few incidences ofdust explosions or fires caused by suchemission control devices in the flourindustry. In the grain elevator indus-try, no air pollution control device hasbeen identified as the cause of a grainelevator explosion. Consequently,fabric filter baghouses, or emissioncontrol devices in general, which areproperly designed, operated, and main-tained will not contribute to an in-creased risk of dust explosions at grainelevators.

These conclusions were supported ata joint meeting between representa-tives of EPA; the Federal Grain In-spection Service (FGIS) of the Depart-ment of Agriculture; the OccupationalSafety and Health Administration(OSHA); the grain elevator industry;and the fire insurance industry. Instal-lation and use of properly designed,operated, and maintained air pollutioncontrol systems were found to be con-sistent with State and local air pollu-tion regulations, OSHA regulations,and national fire codes. Chapter 6 ofthe National Fire Code for Grain Ele-vators and Bulk Grain Handling Fa-cilities (NFPA No. 61-B), which wasprepared by the National Fire Protec-tion Association, for example, recom-mends that "dust shall be collected atall dust producing points within theprocessing facilities." The code thengoes on to specially recommend thatall elevator boots, automatic scales,scale hoppers, belt loaders, belt dis-charges, trippers, and discharge heads,and all machinery such as cleaners,scalpers, and similar devices be pro-vided with enclosures or dust hoodsand air aspiration.

Consequently, compliance with ex-isting State or local air pollution regu-lations, or the promulgated standardsof performance, will not increase therisk of dust explosions at grain eleva-tors if the approach taken to meetthese regulations is capture and con-trol of dust at those points within anelevator where it is generated. If, how-


ever, the approach taken is merely toclose doors, windows, and other open-ings to trap dust within the grain ele-vator, or the air pollution controlequipment is allowed to deteriorate tothe point where it is no longer effec-tive in capturing dust as it is generat-ed, then ambient concentrations ofdust within the elevator will increaseand the risk of explosion will also in-crease.

The House Subcommittee on Com-pensation, Health, and Safety is cur-rently conducting oversight hearingsto determine if something needs to bedone to prevent these disastrous grainelevator explosions. The FGIS, EPA,and OSHA testified at these oversighthearings on January 24 and 25, 1978.The testimony indicated that dustshould be captured and collected inemission control devices in order toreduce the incidence of dust explo-sions at grain elevators, protect thehealth of employees from such ail-ments as "farmer's lung," and preventair pollution. Consequently, properlyoperated and maintained air pollutioncontrol equipment will not increasethe risk of grain elevator explosions.

MISCELLANEOUSIt should be noted that standards of

performance for new sources estab-lished under section 111 of the CleanAir Act reflect the degree of emissionlimitation achievable through applica-tion of the best adequately demon-strated technological system of con-tinuo.us emission reduction (takinginto consideration the cost of achiev-ing such emission reduction, anynonair quality health and environmen-tal impact and energy requirements).State implementation plans (SIP's) ap-proved or promulgated under section110 of the. act, on the other hand,must provide for the attainment andmaintenance of national ambient airquality standards (NAAQS) designedto protect public health and welfare.For that purpose, SIP's must in somecases require greater emission reduc-tions than those required by standardsof performance for new sources. Sec-tion 173 of the act requires, amongother things, that a new or modifiedsource constructed in an area in viola-tion of the NAAQS must reduce emis-sions to the level which reflects the"lowest achievable emission rate" forsuch category of source as defined insection 171(3). In no event can theemission rate exceed any applicablestandard of performance.

A similar situation may arise when amajor emitting facility is to be con-structed in a geographic area whichfalls under the prevention of signifi-cant deterioration of air quality provi-sions of the act (part C). These provi-sions require, among other things,that major emitting facilities to be

constructed in such areas are to besubject to best available control technology for all pollutants regulatedunder the act. The term "best avai]able control technology" (BACT), as de-fined in section 169(3), means "anemission limitation based on the maxi-mum degree of reduction of each poj!lutant subject to regulation under thisact emitted from or which resultsfrom any major emitting facilitywhich the permitting authority, on acase-by-case basis, taking into accountenergy, environmental, and economicimpacts and other costs, determines isachievable for such facility throughapplication of production processesand available methods, systems, andtechniques, including fuel cleaning ortreatment or innovative fuel combus-tion techniques for control of eachsuch pollutant. In no event shall appli-cation of 'best available control tech-nology' result in emissions of any pol-lutants which will exceed the emis-sions allowed by any applicable stand-ard established pursuant to sections111 or 112 of this Act."

Standards of performance shouldnot be viewed as the ultimate inachievable emission control andshould not preclude the imposition ofa more stringent emission standard,where appropriate. For example, whilecost of achievement may be an impor-tant factor in determining standardsof performance applicable to all areasof the country (clean as well as dirty),statutorily, costs do not play such arole in determining the "lowest achiev-able emission rate" for new or modi-fied sources locating in areas violatingstatutorily mandated health and wifare standards. Although there maybeemission control technology availablethat can reduce emissions below ttlevels required to comply with starards of performance, this technoloimight not be selected as the basis istandards of performance due to costassociated with its use. This in no washould preclude its use in situatwhere cost is a lesser consideratisuch as determination of the "1achievable emission rate,"

In addition, States are free 1section 116 of the act to establisimore stringent emission limitsthose established under section 1those necessary to attain or mathe NAAQS under section 110 Jnew sources may in some cases Dject to limitations more stringent P»standards of performance unaeition 111, and prospective owroperators of new sources shoaware of this possibility in Plafor such facilities.

ECONOMIC IMPACT AssESSME"1An economic assessment 1

prepared as required under seciof the Act."


Dated: July 26,1978.DOUGLAS M. COSTLE,

Administrator.REFERENCES

1 "Standards Support and EnvironmentalImpact Statement—Volume I: Proposedstandards of Performance for Grain Eleva-tnr Industry," U.S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency-OAQPS, EPA-450/2-77-001a,Research Triangle Park, N.C., January 1977.

2 "Draft—For Review Only: Evaluation ofPublic Comments: Standards of Perform-ance For Grain Elevators," U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency—OAQPS, Re-search Triangle Park, N.C., August 1977.

3. "Standards Support and EnvironmentalImpact Statement—Volume II: PromulgatedStandards of Performance for Grain Eleva-tor Industry," U.S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency-OAQPS, EPA-450/2-77-001b,Research Triangle Park, N.C., April 1978.

Part 60 of chapter I, title 40 of theCode of Federal Regulations is amend-ed as follows:

Subpcrt A—General Provisions

1. Section 60.2 is amended by revis-ing paragraph (v). The revised para-garaph reads as follows:

§ 60.2 Definitions.

(v) "Particulate matter" means anyfinely divided solid or liquid material,other than uncombined water, asmeasured by the reference methodsspecified under each applicable sub-part, or an equivalent or alternativemethod.

§60.14 [Amended]2. Section 60.14 is amended by delet-

ing the words "the stationary sourcecontaining" from paragraph (e)(2).

3. Part 60 is amended by adding sub-part DD as follows:

Subpart DD— Standards of Performance forGrain Elevators

Sec.60.300 Applicability and designation of af-

fected facility.•301 Definitions.

Standard for particulate matter.Test methods and procedures.

60-304 Modification.

. . . ,additional authority as noted

DD— Standards oftrformance for Grain Elevators

560-300 Applicability and designation of"Heeled facility.

The provisions of this subparteach affected facility at any

storaep ?Unal elevator or any grain>levator, except as provided

h . - : Secs- U1 and 301(a) of theAir Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7411,

below and additional a noted


under §60.304(b). The affected facili-ties are each truck unloading station,truck loading station, barge and shipunloading station, barge and ship load-ing station, railcar loading station,railcar unloading station, grain dryer,and all grain handling operations.

(b) Any facility under paragraph (a)of this section which commences con-struction, modification, or reconstruc-tion after (date of reinstatement ofproposal) is subject to the require-ments of this part.

§ 60.301 Definitions.As used in this subpart, all terms not

defined herein shall have the meaninggiven them in the act and in subpart Aof this part.

(a) "Grain" means corn, wheat, sor-ghum, rice, rye, oats, barley, and soy-beans.

(b) "Grain elevator" means anyplant or installation at which grain isunloaded, handled, cleaned, dried,stored, or loaded.

(c) "Grain terminal elevator" meansany grain elevator which has a perma-nent storage capacity of more than88,100 m3 (ca. 2.5 million U.S. bushels),except those located at animal foodmanufacturers, pet food manufactur-ers, cereal manufacturers, breweries,and livestock feedlots.

(d) "Permanent storage capacity"means grain storage capacity which isinside a building, bin, or silo.

(e) "Railcar" means railroad hoppercar or boxcar.

(f) "Grain storage elevator" meansany grain elevator located at anywheat flour mill, wet corn mill, drycorn mill (human consumption), ricemill, or soybean oil extraction plantwhich has a permanent grain storagecapacity of 35,200 m3 (ca. 1 millionbushels).

(g) "Process emission" means theparticulate matter which is collectedby a capture system.

(h) "Fugitive emission" means theparticulate matter which is not collect-ed by a capture system and is releaseddirectly into the atmosphere from anaffected facility at a grain elevator.

(i) "Capture system" means theequipment such as sheds, hoods, ducts,fans, dampers, etc. used to collect par-ticulate matter generated by an affect-ed facility at a grain elevator.

(j) "Grain unloading station" meansthat portion of a grain elevator wherethe grain is transferred from a truck,railcar, barge, or ship to a receivinghopper.

(k) "Grain loading station" meansthat portion of a grain elevator wherethe grain is transferred from the ele-vator to a truck, railcar, barge, or ship.

(1) "Grain handling operations" in-clude bucket elevators or legs (exclud-ing legs used to unload barges orships), scale hoppers and surge bins

34347

(garners), turn heads, scalpers, clean-ers, trippers, and the headhouse andother such structures.

(m) "Column dryer" means anyequipment used to reduce the mois-ture content of grain in which thegrain flows from the top to the bottomin one or more continuous packed col-umns between two perforated metalsheets.

(n) "Rack dryer" means any equip-ment used to reduce the moisture con-tent of grain in which the grain flowsfrom the top to the bottom in a cas-cading flow around rows of baffles(racks).

(0) "Unloading leg" means a devicewhich includes a bucket-type elevatorwhich is used to remove grain from abarge or ship.

§ 60.302 Standard for particulate matter.(a) On and after the 60th day of

achieving the maximum productionrate at which the affected facility willbe operated, but no later than 180days after initial startup, no owner oroperator subject to the provisions ofthis subpart shall cause to be dis-charged into the atmosphere anygases which exhibit greater than 0percent opacity from any:

(1) Column dryer with column plateperforation exceeding 2.4 mm diame-ter (ca. 0.094 inch).

(2) Rack dryer in which exhaustgases pass through a screen filtercoarser than 50 mesh.

(b) On and after the date on whichthe performance test required to beconducted by §60.8 is completed, noowner or operator subject to the provi-sions of this subpart shall cause to be .discharged into the atmosphere fromany affected facility except a graindryer any process emission which:

(1) Contains particulate matter inexcess of 0.023 g/dscm (ca. 0.01 gr/dscf).

(2) Exhibits greater than 0 percentopacity.

(c) On and after the 60th day ofachieving the maximum productionrate at which the affected facility willbe operated, but no later than 180days after initial startup, no owner oroperator subject to the provisions ofthis subpart shall cause to be dis-charged into the atmosphere any fugi-tive emission from:

(1) Any individual truck unloadingstation, railcar unloading station, orrailcar loading station, which exhibitsgreater than 5 percent opacity.

(2) Any grain handling operationwhich exhibits greater than 0 percentopacity.

(3) Any truck loading station whichexhibits greater than 10 percent opac-ity.

(4) Any barge or ship loading stationwhich exhibits greater than 20 percentopacity.


34348 RULES AND REGULATIONS

(d) The owner or operator of anybarge or ship unloading station shalloperate as follows:

(1) The unloading leg shall be en-closed from the top (including the re-ceiving hopper) to the center line ofthe bottom pulley and ventilation to acontrol device shall be maintained onboth sides of the leg and the grain re-ceiving hopper.

(2) The total rate of air ventilatedshall be at least 32.1 actual cubicmeters per cubic meter of grain han-dling capacity (ca. 40 ftVbu).

(3) Rather than meet the require-ments of subparagraphs (1) and (2), ofthis paragraph the owner or operatormay use other methods of emissioncontrol if it is demonstrated to the Ad-ministrator's satisfaction that theywould reduce emissions of particulatematter to the same level or less.

§ 60.303 Test methods and procedures.(a) Reference methods in appendix

A of this part, except as providedunder § 60.8(b), shall be used to deter-mine compliance with the standardsprescribed under § 60.302 as follows:

(1) Method 5 or method 17 for con-centration of particulate matter andassociated moisture content;

(2) Method 1 for sample and velocitytraverses;

(3) Method 2 for velocity and volu-metric flow rate;

(4) Method 3 for gas analysis; and(5) Method 9 for visible emissions,(b) For method 5, the sampling

probe and filter holder shall be operat-ed without heaters. The sampling timefor each run, using method 5 ormethod 17, shall be at least 60 min-utes. The minimum sample volumeshall be 1.7 dscm (ca. 60 dscf).(Sec. 114, Clean Air Act, as amended (42U.S.C. 7414).)

§ 60.304 Modifications.(a) The factor 6.5 shall be used in

place of "annual asset guidelinesrepair allowance percentage," to deter-mine whether a capital expenditure asdefined by § 60.2(bb) has been made toan existing facility.

(b) The following physical changesor changes in the method of operationshall not by themselves be considereda modification of any existing facility:

(1) The addition of gravity loadoutspouts to existing grain storage orgrain transfer bins.

(2) The installation of automaticgrain weighing scales.

(3) Replacement of motor and driveunits driving existing grain handlingequipment.

(4) The installation of permanentstorage capacity with no increase inhourly grain handling capacity.

[FR Doc. 78-21444 Filed 8-2-78; 8:45 am]

[6560-01]ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[40 CFR Part 60]

[FRL 907-3]

STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEWSTATIONARY SOURCES

Grain Elevators

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).ACTION: Reinstatement of proposedrule.SUMMARY: Proposed standards ofperformance limiting emissions of par-ticulate matter from new, modifiedand reconstructed grain elevators arebeing reinstated. The proposed stand-ards were suspended on June 24, 1977,to provide time for a thorough reviewof the usually large number of publiccomments received. Suspension wasnecessary to avoid creating legal un-certainties for those grain elevator op-erators who might have undertakenvarious expansion or alteration pro-jects before promulgation of finalstandards. The effect of this reinstate-ment is that any grain elevator the

PROPOSED RULES

construction or modification of whichis commenced after August 3, 1978, issubject to the final grain elevatorstandards promulgated elsewhere inthis issue of the FEDERAL REGISTER.EFFECTIVE DATE: August 3,1978.FOR FURTHER INFORMATIONCONTACT:

Don R. Goodwin, Director, EmissionStandards and Engineering Division(MD-13), U.S. Environmental Pro-tection Agency, Research TrianglePark, N.C. 27711; telephone 919-541-5271.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:On JaJiuary 13, 1977, standards of per-formance were proposed for the grainelevator industry (42 FR 2842) underthe authority of section 111 of theClean Air Act. Public comments wererequested on the proposal in the FED-ERAL REGISTER publication. About 2,000comments were recieved from grainelevator operators, vendors of equip-ment, Congressmen, State and localair pollution control agencies, otherFederal Agencies, and individual U.S.citizens. Many of the comments werebased on a misunderstanding that the

'proposed standard would cover exist-ing as well as new grain elevators. A

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 1 SO—THURSDAY, AUGUST 3, 1978

34349

number of comments, however, con-tained a significant amount of usefuldata and information. Due to the timerequired to review these comments,the proposed standards were suspend-ed on June 24, 1977. This action wasnecessary to avoid creating legal un-certainties for those grain elevator op-erators who might have undertakenvarious expansions or alteration pro-jects before promulgation of finalstandards.

Final standards of performancelimiting emissions of particulatematter from new, modified, and recon-structed grain elevators are promul-gated elsewhere in this issue of theFEDERAL REGISTER. The final standardsreflect a thorough evaluation of aircomments recieved on the proposedstandards.

All facilities at grain elevators thatare covered by the final standards,which are constructed, modified, or re-constructed on or after August 3, 1978will be subject to compliance withthese standards.

Dated: July 26, 1978.

DOUGLAS M. COSTLE,Administrator.

CFR Doc. 78-21443 Filed 8-2-78; 8:45 am]


img001.pdf

Documents

RULES AND REGULATIONS 34341 RULES AND ......RULES AND REGULATIONS th e authority of section 111 th Clean Air Act. Public comments were requested on the proposal in the FED-ERAL REGISTER