-------
                                            AULES AND tEGULATIONS
37

PART 61— NATIONAL EMISSION STAND-
   ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUT-
   ANTS

      Region V Address; Correction
  Section  61.04 paragraph (a) is  cor-
rected by  changing Region V OUinois,
Indiana.   Minnesota,  Michigan, Ohio,
Wisconsin), 1 North W acker Drive, Chi-
cago, Illinois 60606 to Region V (Illinois,
Indiana,   Minnesota,  Michigan, Ohio,
Wisconsin), 230 South Dearborn Street,
Chicago, Illinois 60604.

  Dated:  March 21, 1977.
                    R.  ALEXANDER,
             Resrional Administrator.
  (PB DOC.77-MOT Filed S-2S-77;8 :45 un]
     -61— NATIONAL EMISSION STAND-
  ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUT-
  ANTS
  Delegation of Authority to the State of
    —         Wisconsin

  Pursuant to the delegation of author-
ity  (or national  emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPS) to
the State of Wisconsin on September 38,
1»76, EPA is today amending 40  CPR
•1.04, Address, to reflect this delegation.
A. Mottee announcing this delegation is
published today March SO, 1977, mt 42 PR
16845 in  this FEDERAL RCGISTES.  The
amended Section 61.04, which adds the
address of the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources  to which all reports,
requests, applications,  aubmtttals.  and
communications  to the Administrator
pursuant to this part must also toe ad-
dressed, is set forth below.
  The Administrator finds good -cause
tot foregoing prior public notice and lor
making this rulemaklng effective Immed-
iately in that it is an administrative
change and not one of substantive  con-
tent. No additional substantive burdens
are imposed on the parties affected. The
delegation which is reflected by this ad-
ministrative amendment was effective on
September 28, 1976, and It serves no pur-
pose to delay the technical change of this
addition of the State address to the Code
of Federal "Regulations.
  Tills rulemaking is effective immedi-
ately, and is issued under the authority
of section 112 of the Clean 3Mr Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 1857c-7.
  Dated: March 21, 1977.

        GCOBGI R. ALEXANDER, Jr.,
             Regional Administrator.
  Part 61  of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
  1. In I 61.04 paragraph (b) is amended
by revising subparagraph (YY) to  read
as fellows:
g 61.04  Address.
     "»     *      »     ••      •
  (b) •  •  •
                                         (TT) Wisconsin —
                                       WlJoopBlri Department of Nfctura! Hesonroo,
                                         f£>. Box 7821, Madison, Wisconatn 58707.

                                         tnt DOC.77-M06 Filed S-30-77;*:«6 cm)
    FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 42, NO. 41—WEDNESDAY, MAICH 30, 1*77
                                                                              38
                                                                                  KDMAI RfOISTU, VOl. 41, NO. 10*-

                                                                                     -TUISOAY, JWNi V,
PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION STAND-
ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
  Standard for Vinyl Chloride; Corrections
           and Amendments
AGENCY:   Environmental  Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: These amendments are be-
ing made to the vinyl chloride standard
which was promulgated under the  au-
thority of the Clean Air Act on October
21, 1976. The standard contains some
typographical errors and needs clarifica-
tion in some parts. These amendments
are Intended to correct the typographical
errors and clarify the standard.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 7, 1977.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON-
TACT:
  Don R. Goodwin, Emission Standards
  and Engineering Division,  Environ-
  mental Protection  Agency, Research
  Triangle  Park, North Carolina 27711,
  telephone 919-688-8146, ext.  271.
SUPPLEMENTARY   INFORMATION:
On October 21,1976, under section 112 of
the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.
1857), the  Environmental  Protection
Agency (EPA)  promulgated a national
emission  standard for vinyl  chloride (41
PR 46560). The standard covers plants
which manufacture ethylene dichloride,
vinyl chloride, and/or polyvinyl chloride.
Since that time, it has become apparent
that a few sections of the standard and
Test Methods 106 and 107 are unclear.
The purpose of the amendments being
made at this time is to clarify these sec-
tions and to correct typographical errors.
These corrections are in addition to those
published on December 3, 1976 (41  FR
53017). The  Administrator  finds that
                                                      IV-84

-------
                                              RULES AND REGULATIONS
 food  cause  exists  for omitting prior
 notice  and  public  comment on these
 amendments  as  unnecessary and  for
 making them Immediately  effective be-
 cause they simply clarify and correct the
 existing regulations and impose no ad-
 ditional substantive requirements.
   The  most  significant amendment in-
 volves clarification of the requirements
 for certification  of  the analysis of gas
 cylinders which may be used to calibrate
 testing and monitoring equipment. The
 standard, as  promulgated on October 21,
 1976, requires that an analysis of the gas
 used  for calibration purposes, "•  * * be
 traceable  to  the National Bureau  of
 Standards or to a gravimetrically cali-
 brated permeation  tube."  Comments
 were received indicating that the term
 "traceable" was unclear.
   These amendments require that  the
 composition of gas cylinders which may
 be used for  calibration of  testing and
 monitoring equipment be certified by the
 (as manufacturer. The certlfled compo-
 sition must have been determined by di-
 rect analysis of the gas contained  in each
 calibration cylinder  using an  analytical
 procedure  the manufacturer'had cali-
 brated on the day the analysis was per-
 formed. Calibration  of the  analytical
 procedure was to have been done using
 Vases for which the concentrations have
 been  verified: (1) By comparison with a
 calibrated  vinyl  chloride  permeation
 tube, (2) by comparison with a gas mix-
 ture prepared in acordance with the pro-
 cedure described  in § 7.1 of Test Method
 106 and using 99.9 percent vinyl chloride,
 or (3) by direct analysis by  the National
 Bureau of Standards. These amendments
 are  being  made  to  85 61.65(b>(8) (iii)
 and 61.68(c), which contain the  moni-
 toring requirements, and to 55 5.2 and 6.2
 of Test Methods 106  and  107,  respec-
 tively.
   There are  several other  changes  in
wording for  clarification  purposes. For
example,  § 61.60  is  being  amended
to clarify that the testing, reporting, and
recordkeeping requirements  apply to re-
search and development equipment sub-
ject to §5 61.64 (a)(l), (b), (c).and (d).
and definitions for standard  temperature
and pressure are being  added  to § 61.61.
The phrase "in vinyl chloride service" is
being added  to sei.esrbXl)  to  clarify
that loading  and unloading  lines which
clearly do not contain vinyl chloride do
not have  to  be continuously  tested to
demonstrate  that fact.  Section 61.67(d)
te being redesignated as 861.67(g)U)
 (6)(l)  before being
 opened.
   (b)  Oxychlorinatlon reactor:  Except
 as provided In §61.65(a), emlfsions of
 vinyl  chloride to  the atmosphere  from
 each oxychlorination reactor are not to
 exceed 0.2 g/kg (0.0002 Ib/lb) of the 100
 percent ethylene dichloride product from
 the oxychlorination process.
   4. In $61.65, paragraphs  (b)(l), (b)
 (8) (ill) (A),   and   (b) (8) (ill) (B)   are
 amended as follows:
 § 61.65  Emission standard for ethyl«ne
     dichloride, vinyl chloride and  poly-
     vinyl chloride plants.
     •       •       •      »       •
   (b)  »  » •
   (1)  Loading  and   unloading  lines:
 Vinyl  chloride  emissions from loading
 and unloading lines  In  vinyl chloride
 service which are opened to  the  atmos-
 phere after each loading or unloading op-
 eration are to be  minimized as follows:
     *       *       •      •       •
   (8)  *  •  »
   (ill) *  • •
   (A)  A  calibration gas mixture  pre-
 pared from the gases specified In sections
 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 of  Test Method 106 and
 in accordance with section  7.1 of  Test
 Method 106, or
   (B)  A calibration gas cylinder stand-
 ard containing the appropriate concen-
 tration of  vinyl chloride.  The gas com-
 position of the calibration gas cylinder
 standard Is to have been certlfled by the
 manufacturer. The manufacturer must
 have recommended a maximum shelf life
 for each cylinder so that the concentra-
 tion does  not change greater than ±5
 percent from the certlfled value. The date
 of gas cylinder  preparation,  certlfled
 vinyl chloride concentration and recom-
 mended maximum shelf life  must have
 been affixed to the cylinder before ship-
 ment  from the manufacturer  to the
 buyer.  If a gas chromatotrraph Is used as
 the vinyl  chloride monitoring  system
 these gas mixtures may be directly used
 to prepare a chromatograph  calibration
 curve as described in  section  7.3 of Test
 Method 106.  The  requirements  in  sec-
 tion  5.2.3.1 and 5.2.3.2 of Test Method
 106 for certification  of cylinder stand-
ards and for establishment and verifica-
 tion  of calibration standards are to be
followed.
                               KOERAl REGISTER, VOl. 42, NO. 10»—TUESDAY,  JUNE  7, 1977
                                                    IV-85

-------
(Sees. 112 and 301 (a).  Clean  Air Act  (42
TT.S.C. 1857C-7 and 1857g(a)).)
  5. Section 61.67 is amended by deleting
and reserving paragraph  (d), revising
paragraphs (e),  (g) (1) (11)  and (g) (1)
(111),  and by adding paragraph (g) U)
(Iv) as follows:
§ 61.67  Emission tests.
    >       •      •       •      •

  (d) [Reserved]
  (e) When at all possible,  each sample
Is to be analyzed within 24 hours, but In
no  case In excess of 72 hours of sample
collection.  Vinyl  chloride emissions  are
to be determined within 30 days after the
emission test. The  owner  or operator
shall  report the  determinations to  the
Administrator by a registered letter dis-
patched before the close of the next busi-
ness day following the determination.
  (g) •  •  •

  (ii) Each emission test is to consist of
three runs. For the purpose of determin-
ing emissions, the  average of results of
all runs Is to apply. The average Is to be
computed on a time weighted basis.
  (ill) For gas streams containing more
than 10  percent oxygen the  concentra-
tion of vinyl chloride as determined by
Test Method 106 is to be corrected to 10
percent oxygen  (dry basis) for determi-
nation of emissions by using  the follow-
ing equation:
                         10.9
    ^K-."....'"-^ 20.9-percent O,
where:
  Ci(00rtected) = The concentration of vinyl
    chloride in the exhaust gases, corrected
    to 10-percent oxygen.
  C(=The concentration of vinyl chloride
    as measured by Test Method 106.
  20.9 = Percent  oxygen in  the ambient
    air at standard  conditions.
  10.9=Percent  oxygen in  the ambient
    air at standard conditions,  minus the
    10.0-percent  oxygen  to which the
    correction is being made.
  Percent  Oj= Percent oxygen  in the
    exhaust gas  as measured  by  Refer-
    ence  Method 3  in Appendix  A  of
    Part 60 of this chapter.

  (iv)  For those emission sources where
the emission limit is prescribed in terms
of mass rather than concentration, mass
emissions in kg/100 kg product are to be
determined by using the following equa-
tion:

       „   _[Ct(2.60)Q10-'][100]
       C BI -          z

where:
    CgT = kg vinyl  chloride/100 kg prod-
            uct.
      C»=The concentration of  vinyl chlo-
            ride  as  measured  by Test
            Method 106.
    2.60= Density of vinyl chloride at one
            atmosphere  and  20°  C  in
            kg/m'.
       0= Volumetric  flow rate in m'/hr as
            determined   by   Reference
            Method 2 of  Appendix A  to
            Part 60 of this chapter.
    10~»=Conversion  factor for ppm.
       Z= Production  rate  (kg/hr).
      RULES  AND  REGULATIONS

  6.  Section  61.68 is amended by revis-
ing paragraphs (c) (1)  and (c> (2) as fol-
lows:

§61.68  Emission monitoring.
  (1) A calibration  gas mixture pre-
pared from the gases specified in sections
5.2.1 and 5.2.2 of Test Method 106 and
in accordance with section  7.1 of Test
Method 106, or
  (2) A calibration gas cylinder stand-
ard containing the appropriate concen-
tration  of vinyl chloride. The gas com-
position  of the calibration gas cylinder
standard Is to have been certified by the
manufacturer. The manufacturer  must
have recommended a maximum  shelf
life for each cylinder so that  the concen-
tration  does  not change greater  than
±5 percent from the certified value. The
date of gas cylinder preparation, certified
vinyl chloride concentration  and recom-
mended  maximum  shelf life must have
been affixed to the cylinder before ship-
ment from  the manufacturer to the
buyer. If a gas chromatograph Is used as
the  vinyl chloride  monitoring system,
these gas mixtures may be directly used
to prepare a chromatograph calibration
curve as described in section 7.3 of Test
Method  106.  The requirements in sec-
tions 5.2.3.1 and 5.2.3.2 of Test Method
106 for  certification of cylinder stand-
ards and for establishment and verlflca-
                                                                                tion of calibration standards are to be
                                                                                followed.
                                                                                 (Sees. 112. 114, and 301 (a), Clean Air Act (42
                                                                                TTS.C. 18S7C-7, I867c-£and 1864g(a))  )

                                                                                   7. In  561.70  paragraphs  (c)(2>u>
                                                                                and (c) (2) (v) are amended  as follows

                                                                                 g 61.70  Semiannual report.
                                           (C)  • • •
                                           (2)  • * •
                                           (1)  If batch stripping is used, one rep-
                                         resentative sample of polyvinyl chloride
                                         resin is to be taken from each batch of
                                         each grade of resin immediately follow-
                                         ing the completion of the stripping op-
                                         eration, and identified by resin type and
                                         grade and the date and time the batch
                                         is completed.  The corresponding quan-
                                         tity of material processed in each strip-
                                         per batch is to be recorded and  identi-
                                         fied by resin  type and grade and the
                                         date and time the batch Is completed.
                                             *****
                                           (v)  The report to the Administrator
                                         by the owner or operator is to  Include
                                         the vinyl chloride content found in each
                                         sample required  by paragraphs (c) (2)
                                         (i)  and (c) (2) (ii) of this section, aver-
                                         aged  separately for each type of resin,
                                         over  each calendar  day and weighted
                                         according to the  quantity of each grade
                                         of  resin processed  by  the stripper(s)
                                         that calendar day, according to the fol-
                                         lowing equation:
n
•^"\ 4 n TLjf
_£^j — *• *Ot M G, n ii*
Qr.
* + P^+ •
Qr,
• • + Pa,Mo,

                                         where:
                                              A = 24-hour average concentration of
                                                   type  Ti resin  in  ppm  (dry
                                                   weight basis).
                                              Q= Total  production  of  type  7\
                                                   resin over the 24-hour period,
                                                   in kg.
                                              T,= Type  of resin;  t=l,2 .  . . m
                                                   where  m  is total number of
                                                   resin  types " produced during
                                                   the 24-hour period.
                                             M = Concentration  of  vinyl chloride
                                                   in   one sample  of  grade  Gt
                                                   resin, in ppm.
                                              P= Production  of  grade  G,  resin
                                                   represented by  the sample, in
                                                   kg.
                                             Gt= Grade of resin; e.g., G^ Gt, and
                                                   G,.
                                              n = Total number  of  grades of resin
                                                   produced  during  the 24-hour
                                                   period.
                                           8. Section 61.71 is amended by correct-
                                         ing paragraphs  (a) (2) and (a) (3) . and
                                         by adding- paragraph (a) (4)  as follows :
                                         § 61.71   Recordkeeping.
                                           (a) •  • *
                                           (2) A record of the leaks detected dur-
                                         ing routine monitoring with the portable
                                         hydrocarbon  detector and  the   action
                                         taken to  repair  the leaks, as required
                                         by I 61.65(b) (8), including a brief state-
                                         ment explaining the location and cause
                                         of each leak detected with the portable
                                         hydrocarbon detector, the date and time
                                         of the  leak, and any action taken to
                                         eliminate that leak.
                                           (3) A record of emissions measured
                                         In accordance with 5 61.68.
                                           (4) A dally operating record for each
                                         polyvinyl   chloride  reactor,  Including
                                         pressures  and temperatures.

                                           9. Section  I.I  of  Test Method  106
                                         Is corrected as follows:
                                           1.1  An  Integrated bag sample  of stack
                                         gas containing vinyl chloride (chloroethene)
                                         Is subjected to chromatographlc analysis, us-
                                         ing  a flame lonlzatlon detector.

                                           10. Section 3 of Test Method  106 Is
                                         corrected  as  follows:
                                           3. Interferences. Acetaldehyde, which can
                                         occur In some vinyl chloride sources, will In-
                                         terfere with the vinyl chloride peak from
                                         the Chromasorb  102 * column. See sections
                                         4.3.2 and  6.4. If resolution of  the vinyl
                                         chloride peak is  still not satisfactory for a
                                         particular  sample, then chromatograph  pa-
                                         rameters can  be  further altered with prior
                                         approval of the Administrator If alteration
                                         of the chromatograph parameters  fails to
                                         resolve the vinyl chloride peak, then sup-
                                         plemental  confirmation of the vinyl chloride
                                         peak through an absolute analytical tech-
                                         nique, such as mass spectroscopy, must b»
                                         performed.

                                           11. Section 4.1 of Test Method 106 is
                                         corrected  as  follows:
                                           4.1  Sampling (Figure 106-1).

                                         -  12. Section 4.1.3 of  Test  Method 106 is
                                         corrected  as  follows:
                                           4.1.3  Male  (2) and  female (2)  stainless
                                         steel quick-connects, with ball checks (one
                                         pair without)  located  as shown  In  Figure
                                         106-1
                                 FEDERAL RECISTER, VOL 42, NO.  109—TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 1977
                                                         IV-86

-------
                                                    RULES  AND REGULATIONS
    13. Section 4.1.10 of Test Method 106 is
  corrected as follows:
    4.1.10  Connecting   tubing.  Teflon,   0.4
  mm  outside diameter, to assemble  sample
  train (Figure 106-1).

    14. Section 4.3.2 of Test Method 106 is
  amended as follows:
    4.3.2  Chromatographic column. Stainless
  steel, 2 mx3.2 mm, containing 80/100 mesh
  Chromasorb 102. A secondary column of OE
  SF-96,20 percent on 60/80 mesh AW Chroma-
  sorb  P, stainless steel. 2 mx3.2 mm or Pora-
  pak T, 80/100 mesh, stainless steel, 1 mx3.2
  mm Is required If acetaldehyde Is present. If
  used, a secondary column Is placed after the
  Chromasorb  102  column.   The  combined
  columns should then be operated  at  120*  C.

    15. Section 5.2 of Test Method 106  is
  revised as follows:
    63  Calibration. Use one  of  the following
  options: either 5.2.1 and 6.2.2, or 5.2.3.
    6.2.1  Vinyl chloride, 99.9+ percent. Pure
  vinyl chloride gas certified by the manufac-
  turer to contain a minimum of 99.9 percent
  vinyl chloride for use  In the preparation of
  standard  gas mixtures In Section 7.1. If the
  gas manufacturer maintains a  bulk cylinder
  supply  of 99.9+ percent vinyl  chloride, the
  certification analysis may  have  been per-
  formed on this supply  rather than on each
  gas cylinder prepared from this bulk supply.
  The date  of gas cylinder preparation and the
  certified analysis must have been affixed to
  the cylinder before shipment from  the gas
  manufacturer to the buyer.
    6.2.2  Nitrogen gas. Zero grade, for prepa-
  ration of standard gas  mixtures.
    6.2.3  Cylinder  standards  (3).  Gas mix-
  ture  standards  (60, 10, and 6 ppm vinyl
  chloride In nitrogen cylinders) for which the
  gas composition  baa been certified by  the
  manufacturer. The manufacturer must have
  recommended a maximum shelf life for each
  cylinder so that the concentration does not
  change greater than ±5  percent  from  the
  certified value. The date of gas cylinder prep-
  aration, certified  vinyl chloride concentra-
  tion and  recommended maximum shelf  life
  must have been affixed to the cylinder before
  shipment from the gas  manufacturer to the
  buyer. These gas mixture standards  may be
  directly used to prepare a  chromatograph
  calibration curve as described In section 7.3.
    6.2.3.1   Cylinder  standards  certification.
  The concentration of vinyl chloride In nitro-
  gen In each cylinder must have been certified
  by the manufacturer by a direct analysis of
  each  cylinder using an  analytical procedure
  that the manufacturer had calibrated  on the
  day of cylinder analysis. The calibration of
  the analytical procedure shall, as a minimum,
  have utilized a three-point calibration curve.
  It Is  recommended that the manufacturer
  maintain  two calibration standards and use
•  these  standards in the following way:  (1)  a
  high concentration standard  (between 50 and
  100 ppm)  for preparation of a calibration
  curve by an appropriate dilution technique;
  (2) a low concentration standard  (between
  5 and 10 ppm) for verification of the dilution
  technique used.
   6.2.3.2   Establishment and verification  of
 calibration standards. The concentration of
 each  calibration standard must have been
 established  by  the  manufacturer  using
  reliable   procedures.   Additionally,   each
 calibration standard must have been veri-
 fied by the  manufacturer  by one  of the
 following  procedures,  and  the agreement
 between  the initially  determined  concen-
 tration  value and the  verification concen-
 tration value must be  within + 6 percent:
  (1) verification value determined by com-
 parison  with  a  calibrated   vinyl  chloride
 permeation  tube,  (2)  verification  value
 determined by comparison with a gas mix-
 ture prepared  in accordance with the pro-
 cedure described In section  7.1  and using
 99.9+ percent vlnyle chloride, or (3)  verifi-
 cation  value   obtained  by   having  the
 calibration standard  analyzed by the  Na-
 tional Bureau  of Standards.  All calibration
 standards must  be  renewed  on  a  time
 Interval  consistent with  the shelf  life of
 the cylinder standards sold.

   16. Section 6.2 of Test Method 106 is
 •amended as follows:
   82  Sample storage. Sample bags must be
 kept out  of direct sunlight.  When at  all
 possible analysis is to be performed within
 24 hours, but in  no case in excess of 72
 hours of sample  collection.

   17. Section 7.1 of Test Method 106 is
 •amended as follows:.
   7.1  Preparation of vinyl chloride stand-
 ard gas mixtures. Evacuate a slxteen-inch
 square Tedlar  bag  that  has  passed  a leak
 check (described in Section 7.4) and meter
 In 5 liters of nitrogen.  While  the  bag Is
 filling, use  the  0.5 ml  syringe to  inject
 250^1  of  99.9+   percent  vinyl  chloride
 through the wall  of  the bag. Upon with-
 drawing  the syringe  needle,  Immediately
 cover  the resulting hole with  a piece of
 adhesive  tape.  The  bag now  contains  a
 vinyl chloride concentration of 50 ppm. In
 a like manner  use the  other  syringe  to
 prepare gas mixtures  having  10  and  5 ppm
 vinyl  chloride  concentrations.  Place  each
 bag on  a smooth surface and  alternately
 depress opposite sides of  the  bag 50 times
 to further mix the gases. These gas mixture
 standards may be used for 10 days from the
 date of preparation, after which time prep-
 aration of  new  gas mixtures  Is  required.
 (CAUTION.—Contamination may  be a prob-
 lem when a bag  Is reused if the new gas
 mixture  standard  contains  a lower  con-
 centration than  the previous gas mixture
 standard did.)

   18. Section 7.3 of Test Method  106 is
 amended as follows:

   7.3  Preparation of chromatograph cali-
 bration curve. Make a gas Chromatographic
 measurement of each  gas  mixture standard
 (described In section 5.2.2 or 7.1) using con-
 ditions identical with those listed in sections
 8.3 and 6.4. Plush-the sampling loop for 30
seconds at the rate of  100 ml/mln with each
 standard gas mixture and activate the sam-
 ple  valve.  Record C,,  the concentration of
 vinyl chloride Injected, the attenuator set-
 ting, chart speed,  peak area, sample  loop
 temperature, column  temperature, carrier
 gas flow rate, and retention time. Record the
 laboratory pressure. Calculate  A«, the peak
 area multiplied by  the attenuator setting.
 Repeat until two Injection areas are within
 5 percent, then plot these  points v. C.. When
 the other concentrations have  been plotted,
 draw a smooth curve through the points.
 Perform calibration dallytor before and after
each set of bag  samples, whichever Is more
 frequent.

   19. Section 1.2 of  Test Method 107 is
amended as follows:
   1.2  This procedure  Is suitable for  deter-
mining the vinyl chorlde monomer (VCM)
content of inprocess wastewater samples, and
the   residual  vinyl   chloride   monomer
 (BVCM)  content   of  poly vinyl  chloride
 (PVC) resins, wet cake,  slurry, and  latex
samples. It cannot be used for polymer in
fused forms, such  as  sheet or cubes. If a
resolution of the vinyl chloride peak  Is not
satisfactory for  a particular  sample,  then
 chromatograph parameters  may  be altered
 provided that the precision and  reproduci-
 blllty of the analysis of vinyl chloride cylin-
 der standards are not Impaired.  If there is
 reason to believe that some other hydro-
 carbon with  an identical retention time Is
 present in the sample,  then supplemental
 confirmation  of  the  vinyl  chloride  peak
 through  an  absolute analytical  technique,
 such  as mass spectroscopy, should be per-
 formed.

   20. Section 5.3.2 is amended as follows:
   5.3.2  Chromatographic column. Stainless
 steel,  2 m X  3.2 mm, containing 0.4 percent
 Carbowax 1500 on Carbopak A, Perkln-Elmer
 Corporation  No.   105-0133,  or  equivalent.
 Carbopak C can be used In place of Carbopak
 A. If methenol and/or acetaldehyde is pres-
 ent In the sample, a pair of Poropak Q col-
 umns In series (1 m X 3.2 mm followed by
 2 m X 3.2 mm) with provision for backflush
 of the first column has been shown to pro-
 vide adequate separation of vinyl  chloride

   21.  Section 6.2 of- Test  Method 107 is
 revised as follows:
   6.2  Calibration.
   6.2.1  Cylinder  standards (4). Gas mixture
 standards (50, 500, 2,000, and 4,000 ppm vinyl
 chloride in nitrogen cylinders) for which the
 gas  composition  has  been certified  by  the
 manufacturer. Lower concentration stand-
 ards should be obtained if lower concentra-
 tions of vinyl chloride samples are expected.
 as the Intent is to bracket the sample con-
 centrations with  standards. The  manufac-
 turer  must have  recommended a  maximum
 shelf life for  each cylinder  so that the con-
 centration does not change greater  than  ±5
 percent from the certified value. The date
 of gas cylinder preparation, certified vinyl
 chloride  concentration  and recommended
 maximum shelf life must have been affixed
 to the cylinder  before shipment from  the
 manufacturer to the buyer.
   6.2.1.1  Cylinder  standards certification
 The concentration of vinyl chloride in nitro-
 gen in each cylinder must  have been certi-
 fied by the manufacturer  by a direct analysts
 of each  cylinder using an analytical proce-
 dure that the manufacturer had  calibrated
 on the day of cylinder analysis. The calibra-
 tion of the analytical procedure shall, as a
 minimum, have utilized a three-point cali-
 bration curve. It  is recommended that  the
 manufacturer  maintain   two  calibration
 standards  and use  these standards in  the
 following  way: (1)  a high concentration
 standard (between 4,000 and 8,000 ppm)  for
 preparation of a calibration curve by an ap-
 propriate dilution technique;  (2) a low con-
 centration standard  (between  50 and  500
 ppm)  for  verification of  the dilution tech-
 nique  used.
   6.2.1.2  Establishment and  verification  of
 calibration standards. The concentration of
 each calibration  standard must have been
 established by the manufacturer using reli-
 able procedures. Additionally, each  calibra-
 tion standard  must have been verified by the
 manufacturer by one of the following proce-
 dures,  and the agreement between the ini-
 tially  determined  concentration  value and
 the verification concentration value  must be
 within ±6 percent: (1) verification value de-
 termined by comparison with a gas mixture
 standard generated In a similar manner  to
 the procedure described  in section  7 1  of
 Method 106 for preparing  gas mixture stand-
 ards using 99.9+  percent vinyl chloride,  or
 (2) verification value obtained by having the
 calibration standard analyzed by the Nation-
al Bureau of Standards. All calibration stand-
 ards must be renewed on a time Interval
 consistent with the shelf life of the cylinder
standards sold.
                                    FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 42, NO.  109—TUESDAY, JUNE 7,  1977


                                                          IV-8 7

-------
                                             RULES AND  REGULATIONS
  22. Section 7.3.2.d. of Test Method 107
is corrected as follows:
  d. w—Stabilization time. The normal set-
ting Is 02 minutes.

  23. Section 9.2 of Test Method 107 is
corrected as follows:
  0.2  Residual vinyl chloride monomer con-
centration, or vinyl chloride monomer con-
centration.
  Calculate C,,, as follows:
            V,= Volume  of  vapor phase  (vial
                  volume less sample volume).
            m ,= Weight of sample, grams.
             R=Gn'« constant [62,360  (cc-mm-
                mole-degvees Kelvin)]
            K = Henry's  Law   constant.   For
                  VCM  in  PVC at  90°  C,
                  K=6.52X10H>=K',.      For
                  VCM  in  1 cc (approximate)
                  wastewater sample at 90° C,
                        Equation 107-2
where:
    Crte= Concentration of vinyl  chloride
           in the sample, in ppm.
     P«= Laboratory  atmosphere
           sure, mm Hg.
      7"i=Room temperature, °K.
     M,= Molecular  weight   of   VCM
           (62.5).
            Tf— Equilibration temperature,  *K.
        If the  following  conditions  are  met,
      Equation  107-2  can  be  simplified  as
      follows :
        1. r, = 22° C (295° K)
        2. T2=90° C (363° K)
        3. P,= 750 mm. Hg.
pros-
      where
           • ,— .ml volume, cc (23.5).
        5. Sample contains less than 0.5 percent
      water.
                      -=4; (4
197X10-'+
5.988 XlQ-;
    m,
Equation 107-3
  The  following general equation can be used for any sample which contains VCM,
PVC and water.
                                                               Equation 107-4
where:

    TS = Total solids.
  NOTE: K» must be determined for sam-
ples with a vapor volume to liquid volume
ratio other than 22.5 to 1. This ratio  can
be obtained by adjusting the sample weight
through giving consideration to the total
solids and density of the PVC.
         Results calculated using Equation 107-4
       represent concentration based on the total
       sample. To obtain .results based  on dry
       PVC content, divide by TS.
         For  a  1-cc wastewater sample  (that is,
       22.5 to 1  vapor volume to liquid  volume
       ratio), Kw is  5.0X10"8.  Thus,  Equation
       107-4 can be simplified to the following:
                               5.988X10-'
                                         + (2.066X10-J)
                             .Equation 107-6
 (Sec?. 112 and 301 (a) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 1857c-7 and 1857g(a).)

                       |PR Doc.77-15828 Filed 6-6-77:8:45 «n)
              KOfMl UGISTER, VOL. 42, NO. 10«—TUISDAY, JUNE  7, 1»77
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 21, 1977.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON-
TACT:
  J. Kevin Healy, Attorney, U.S. Envi-
  ronmental Protection Agency, Region
  n, General Enforcement Branch, En-
  forcement Division, 26 Federal Plaza,
  New York, New  York 10007 (212-264-
  1196).

SUPPLEMENTARY  INFORMATION:
On May 9, 1977 EPA delegated author-
ity to the State of New Jersey to Imple-
ment and enforce many categories of the
National Emission Standards for Haz-
ardous Air Pollutants regulations. A full
account of the background to this action
'and of the exact terms of the delegation
appear in the Notice of Delegation which
is also being published in today's FEDERAL
REGISTER.
  This rulemaking is effective immedi-
ately, since the Administrator has found
good cause to forego prior public notice.
This addition of the State of New Jersey
address to the Code of Federal Regula-
tions is a technical change  and imposes
no additional substantive burden on the
parties affected.

   Dated: July 18,1977.

                    BARBARA BLUM,
                Acting Administrator.

   Part 61 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended,
under authority of section 112 of the
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857c-7), as fol-
lows:

   (1)  In  {61.04  paragraph   (b)   to
amended by revising subparagraph (FF)
to read  as follows:

 161.04   Address.
                                                  (b) « *  »

                                                (FF)—State of New Jersey:  New Jersey D«-
                                                  partment  of Environmental  Protection,
                                                  John Fitch Plaza, P.O. Box 2807, Trenton,
                                                  New Jersey 08625.
                                                                                   (FR DOC.77-210S1 Filed 7-20-77:8:48 am]
 39

 PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION  STAND-
 ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
 Delegation of Authority to the State of New
                 Jersey
 AGENCY:   Environmental   Protection
 Agency.
 ACTION: Final rule.
 SUMMARY: A notice announcing EPA's
 delegation of authority for certain cate-
        gories of  the National Emission Stand-
        ards for Hazardous Air  Pollutants reg-
        ulations to the State of New  Jersey is
        published at page 37386 of today's FED-
        ERAL REGISTER. In  order to  reflect this
        delegation,  this document amends EPA
        regulations to require the submission of
        all notices, reports, and other communi-
        cations called for by the delegated regu-
        lations to the State of New Jersey rather
        than to EPA.
                     FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 42, NO. 140-

                         -THURSDAY, JULY 21,  1977
                                                       IV-8 8

-------
40
                                              RULES AND  REGULATIONS
    TOe 4O—Protection of Environment

     CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
         PROTECTION AGENCY
              [FRL 776-4]
 PART  60—STANDARDS  OF  PERFORM-
 ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES

 PART  61—NATIONAL EMISSION STAND-
 ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT*

       Authority Citations; Revision

 AGENCY:  Environmental  Protection
 Agency.

 ACTION: Final rule.

 SUMMARY: This action revises the au-
 thority citations for  Standards of Per-
 formance  for New Stationary  Source*
 and National Emission Standards for
 Hazardous Air Pollutants. The  revision
 adopts a method recommended by' the
 FEDERAL REGISTER for identifying which
 sections are enacted under which statu-
 tory  authority,  making the  citations
 more useful to the reader.

 EFFECTIVE  DATE:  August 17, 1977.

 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION COH-
 TACT:

   Don R.  Goodwin, Emission Standards
   and Engineering  Division, Environ-
   mental  Protection  Agency, Research
   Triangle Park, N.C. 27711,  telephone
   919-541-5271.

 SUPPLEMENTARY  INFORMATION:
 This action is being taken In accordance
 with  the requirements  of 1  CFR 21.4S
 and is authorized under section 301 (a)
 of  the Clean Air Act,  as amended, 42
 UJ3.C. I857g(a). Because the  amend-
 ments are  clerical in nature and  affect
 no  substantive rights or requirements,
 the Administrator  finds it unnecessary
 to  propose and invite public  comment.

   Dated: August 12,1977.

                DOUGLAS M. COSTLE,
                      Administrator.


   PmrU M and 91 of Chapter I. Title M
 of  the Code  of Federal Regulations are
 revised as follows:

        ********

   4. The authority citation following the
  table of sections in Part 61 is. revised te
  read  as follows:
   AUTROUTT:  See. 113, 301 (a)  of  the Cle*a
  Air Act as amended (42 D.8.C. 1867C-7. IBSTf
  (a)), unless otherwise noted.

    t. Following i 61.16,  the following au-
  thority citation is added:
  (Sec.  116 of the Clean Air Act as amende*
  (43 U.S.C. 1857d-l).)
   6. Following  5561.09,  61.10,  61.12.
  61.13, 61.14, 61.15,  61.24, 61.33,  61.34,
  81.43, 61.44,  61.53.  61.54. 61.55, 61.67,
  81.68, 61.69, 61.70, 61.71, and Appendices
  A*'and B, the following authority citation
  1-. added:
  (Sec.  114 of the Clean Air Act as amended
  (42XTJ3.0. 18670-9).)
   |F* Doc.77-23837 Filed 8-19-77;8:4» am)
  FEDERAL REGISTEK, VOL. 41, NO. 159-

   -WEDNESOAf, AUGUST  17, 1*77
41
   Title 40—Protection of Environment
     CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
         PROTECTION AGENCY
              [FRL 784-7)

PART  €0—STANDARDS OF  PERFORM-
ANCE  FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION STAND-
ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
   Delegation of Authority; New Source
        fleview; State of Montana
AGENCY:  Environmental  Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This rule will change  the
address 4o which reports  and applica-
tions must be  sent by operators of new
sources In the State of Montana. The
address change is the result of delegation
of authority to the State of Montana for
New Source Performance Standards  (40
CFR Part 60) and National  Emissions
Standards for  Hazardous Air Pollutants
(40 CFR Part 61).
ADDRESS: Any questions  or comments
should be sent to Director, Enforcement
Division,   Environmental   Protection
Agency,  1860  Lincoln  Street, Denver,
Goto. 80295.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON-
TACT:
  Mr. Irwln L. Dlckstein, 303-837-38*8.
SUPPLEMENTARY  INFORMATION:
The amendments below institute certain
 address changes for reports and appli-
 cations required from operators of new
 sources. EPA has delegated to the State
 of Montana authority to review new and
 modified sources. The delegated author-
 ity Includes the  review under 40 CFR
 Part 60 for the standards of performance
 for new stationary sources and  review
 under 40 CFR Part 61 for national emis-
 sion  standards   for  hazardous  air
 pollutants.
   A Notice announcing the delegation of
 authority is published today in the FED-
 ERAL REGISTER (42FR. 44573). The amend-
 ments provide that all reports, requests,
 applications, submittals, and communi-
 cations previously required for the dele-
 gated  reviews will now be sent  to the
 Montana Department of Health and En-
 vironmental Sciences Instead of EPA's
 Region vm.
   The Regional Administrator finds good
 cause  for foregoing prior public notice
 and for making this rulemaking effective
 immediately in that  It is an adminis-
 trative change and not one of substan-
 tive content. No  additional substantive
 burdens  are imposed  on the parties af-
 fected. The delegation which is reflected
 by this administrative amendment was
 effective on May  18, 1977, and it serves
 no purpose to delay the technical change
 of this addition of the State address to
 the Code of Federal Regulations.
   This rulemaking is effective  immedi-
 ately, and is issued under the authority
 of sections 111 and 112 of  the Clean Air
 Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1857,1857c-5,
 6.7 and 1857g.

   Dated: August 17,1977.

                   JOHN  A. GREEN,
             Regional Administrator.
   Part 60 of Chapter I, Title  40  of the
 Code of Federal Regulations is amended
 as follows:
   1. In S 60.4 paragraph (b) is amended
 by revising subparagraph  (BB) to read
 as follows:
 § 60.4   Address.
    *****
   (b) • • •
   fBB) state of Montana, Department of
 Health and Environmental Services, Cogswell
 Building, Helena, Mont. 69601.
    *****

  Part 61 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
 Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
   2. In 5 61.04 paragraph (b) is amended
 by revising subparagraph  (BB) to read
 as follows:

 161.04  Address.
    *****
   (b) • * *
  (BB)  State of Montana, Department  of
Health  and  Environmental Sciences, Cogs-
well Building, Helena, Mont. 69601.
   (PR Doc.77-35827 Filed 9-2-77;8:46 am]

    FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 42. NO. 172-
     -TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1977
                                                     IV-89

-------
      RULES AND  REGULATIONS
   Title 4O—Protection of Environment
     CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
         PROTECTION AGENCY
              IFRL 784-3]

PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION STAND-
  ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUT-
  ANTS
        Units and Abbreviations
AGENCY:   Environmental   Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY:  This action  revises the
General Provisions by reorganizing the
unite and abbreviations, and adding the
International System of Units (SI). Un-
til recently, EPA did not have a preferred
system of measurement to be used In
Its  regulations issued  under  this part.
Now the Agency Is using 81 unit* in all
regulations  Issued under this part. This
necessitates that SI units be added to
the  General  Provisions  to provide  a
complete listing of abbreviations used.
EFFECTIVE DATE:  October 31, 1977.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON-
TACT:
  Don  R.  Goodwin,  Emission Stand-
  ards and  Engineering Division, Envi-
  ronmental  Protection  Agency,  Re-
  search Triangle Park, N.C. 27711, tel-
  ephone (919-541-5271).
SUPPLEMENTARY  INFORMATION:
Section 3 of Pub. L. 94-168, the  Metric
Conversion  Act of 1975, declares that the
policy of  the United  States shall be  to
coordinate  and  plan the  Increasing use
of the metric system in the United States.
On December 10,1976, a notice was pub-
lished In  the FEDERAL REGISTER (41  FR
54018) that set forth the Interpretation
and  modification of  the International
System of  Units (81)  . for the  United
States. EPA  Incorporates  SI units  In
all regulations issued under 40 CFR Part
61  and provides common equivalents In
parentheses where desirable.  Use of  81
units requires this revision of  the abbre-
viations section (5 61.03)  of the General
Provisions  of 40 CFR Part 61.
   An explanation of the International
System of  Units was presented In  the
FEDERAL  REGISTER  notice   mentioned
above (41 FR 54018). EPA is using the
Standard for Metric Practice  (E 380-76)
published by the American Society for
 Testing and Materials  (A.S.T.M.) as Its
 basic reference.  This document may be
 obtained by sending $4.00 to A.S.T.M.,
 1916 Race Street. Philadelphia, Pennsyl-
 vania 19103.
   A* this revision has no regulatory Im-
 pact, but only defines units and abbre-
 viations used In this part, opportunity
 for  public participation  was  judged
 unnecessary.
   This action is taken under the  author-
 ity of sections  112 and 301 (a)  of the
 Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C 1857g(a)
   NOTE.—The   Environmental   protection
 Agency hae determined that this document
 doee not contain a major proposal requiring
 preparation of an Economic Impact Analysis
 under Executive Orders 11821 and 11949 and
 OMB Circular A-107.
  Dated: September 26,1977.          ^

              DOUGLAS M. COSTLE,
                      Administrator.

  40 CFR Part 61 is amended by revising
S 61.03 to read as follows:

§61.03   Units and abbreviations.

  Used in this part are abbreviations and
symbols of units of measure. These Are
defined as follows:
  (a) System International (SI)  unite
of measure:
A=ampere
HE=hertz
J=Joule
K=degree Kelvin
kg=kilogram
m=meter
m'=cubic meter
mg=milligram = 10 ' gram
ram = millimeter = 10-* meter
Ifg = megagrun = 10> gram
znol=mole
N=new ton
ng=:nanogram —10~* gram
nm=nanometer = 10-' meter
Pa=pascal
s=second
V=volt
W=watt
n=omh
>ig=mlcrognani = 10-« gram

  (b) Other units of measure:
•C = degree Celsius (centigrade)
cfm=cubic feet per minute
cc=cubic centimeter
d=day
'F=degree Fahrenheit
ft*=square feet
IV=cubic feet
gal=gallon
In = Inch
in Hg = inches of mercury
In HaO = lnche€ of water
1=liter
lb=pound
1pm=liter per minute
nun=minute
ml = mllllllter=10-» liter
oz=ounces
pslg=pounds per square lnch£age
•R=degree RanKlne
fl = mlcrollter= 10-« liter
v/v=volume per volume
yd J=square yards
yr=year

  (c) Chemical nomenclature:
Be=beryllium
Hg=mercury
H2O=water

  (d) Miscellaneous:
•ct=actual
avg=average •
I.D. = inside diameter
M=molar
N=normaJ
O.D. = outside diameter
% = percent
std=standard
(Sections 112 and 301 (a) of the  Clean Air
Act,  as   amended   1*3  U.S.C.  1857c-7,
1857g(a)] )
  (FR Doc.77-28718 Piled 9-28-77;8:45 am]

  WMKAi M4MSTH. VOL. 42, NO. U9-

   —THUtSDAY,  SEFTEMBEI 39, 1*77
      61 — NATIONAL EMISSION STAND-
ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
      Delegation of Authority to the
      Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

AGENCY.   Environmental  Protection
Agency.

ACTION: Final rule

SUMMARY: A notice announcing EPA'.s
delegation of authority for certain cate-
gories of the National Emission Stand-
ards for Hazardous Air Pollutants regu-
lations to the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico is published at page 62196 of today's
FEDERAL REGISTER. In order to reflect this
delegation, this document amends EPA
regulations to require the submission of
all notices, reports,  and other communi-
cations called for by the delegated regu-
lations to the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico as well as to EPA.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 9, 1977

FOR  FURTHER INFORMATION CON-
TACT:

   J. Kevin  Healy.  Attorney.  U.S. En-
   vironmental  Protection Agency. Re-
   gion II, General Enforcement Branch.
   Enforcement  Division,  26   Federal
   Plaza.  New  York. N.Y.  10007. 212-
   264-1196.

SUPPLEMENTARY  INFORMATION
By letter dated January  13.  1977 EPA
delegated authority  to  the  Common-
wealth of Puerto Rico to implement and
enforce many categories of the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous  Air
Pollutants  regulations. The  Common-
wealth accepted this delegation by letter
dated October 17, 1977. A  full account of
the background to this action and of the
exact terms of the delegation appears in
the Notice of Delegation  which is also
being  published  in  today's   FEDERAL
REGISTER.
   This rulemakmg  is effective immedi-
ately, since the Administrator  has found
good cause to forego prior public notice
This addition of the Commonwealth- of
Puerto Rico address to the Code of Fed-
eral Regulations  is  a technical change
and imposes no additional substantive
burden on the  parties affected

   Dated , November 22. 1977

                 ECKARDT C BECK.
             Regional Administrator

  Part 61 of  Chapter I. Title  40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
   (1)   In  § 61.04  paragraph  (b>   u
amended  by  revising   subparagraph
(BBB) to read as follows

§ 61.04   Addrp,s.
  (AAAl " '  -
  (BBB) — Commonwealth of Puer'o  Rico
Commonwealth  of  Puerto  Rico  Environ-
mental Quality  Board. PO  Bo< 11TS5 S»:\-
turce. PR 00910


  (FR Doo 77-35163 Filed 12-8-77 .B 4.5 atnf
                       FEDCKAl MOISTM. VOl 41, NO  I37—FWDAV, DtCEMiM  9, t»f/
              IV-90

-------
44
   Title 40—Protection of Environment
    CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
        PROTECTION AGENCY
             [FRL 838-31

           AIR  POLLUTION
Delegation of Authority to the State  of
  Minnesota for Prevention of Significant
  Deterioration;  Inspections,  Monitoring
  and Entry; Standards of Performance for
  New Stationary Sources; and National
  Emission  Standards for Hazardous Air
  Pollutants
AGENCY:   Environmental   Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The amendment below in-
stitutes an address change for the imple-
mentation of technical and administra-
tive review and enforcement of Preven-
tion of Significant Deterioration provi-
sions; Inspections, Monitoring and Entry
provisions;  Standards of Performance
for New Stationary Sources; and Nation-
al Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants.  The notice announcing
the delegation of authority is published
elsewhere  In this  issue of  the FEDERAL
REGISTER.

EPPKCT1VJ!: DATE: October 8, 1977.
ADDRESSES: This amendment provides
that all reports, requests,  applications,
and  communications required for the
delegated  authority will no longer  be
sent to the U03. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Region V Office, but will be
tent  instead to:  Minnesota  Pollution
Control Agency, Division of Air Quality,
1936 West  County Road B-2, Boseville,
Minn. 55113.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CON-
TACT:
  Joel Morbito, Air Programs Branch,
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
  Region  V. 230  South Dearborn St.,
  Chicago, HI. 60604, 312-353-2205.
SUPPLEMENTARY  INFORMATION:
The Regional Administrator finds good
cause for forgoing  prior public notice
and for making this rulemaking effective
immediately in that it is  an adminis-
trative change and not one of substantive
content. No additional substantive bur-
dens are imposed on the parties affected.
The  delegations which are granted  by
this   administrative  amendment  were
effective  October  6, 1977, and it serves
no  purpose  to  delay  the  technical
change of this addition of the State ad-
dress  to the Code of Federal Regulations.
This rulemaking is effective immediately
and is issued under authority of sections
101,  110, 111,  112,  114,  160-169 of the
Clean Air  Act, as amended (42  U.S.C.
7401,  7410, 7411,  7412,  7414—7470-79,
7491). Accordingly. 40 CFR Parts 52, 60
and 61 are amended as follows:
     IDLES  AND REGULATIONS


PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSIONS STAND-
ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
     Subpart A—General Provisions

  1.  Section 61.04 is amended by adding
a new paragraph (b) (Y) as follows:

§ 61.04   Address.
    •     «     •      •      •
  (b) *  ' *
(Y) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
  Division of. Air Quality, 1935 West County
  Road B-2, Rosevllle, Minn. 55113.

  Dated:  December 21, 1977.

               GEORGE ALEXANDER,
            Regional Administrator.
 [FB Doc.77-37404 Filed l»-30-77;8:46 am]


   FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 1-
     -TUESOAY, JANUARY 3, 1971
 45
     TMo 40  Protection of Environment

 CHAPTER. I—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
               AGENCY

       SURCHAPTER C—AH PROGRAMS

             [FRL 846-7]

          NEW.SOUKCE REVIEW

 Delegation of Authority to MM Commonwetrtth
              of Kentucky

AGENCY: Environmental  Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The amendments below
institute certain address changes for
reports and applications required from
operators of new sources. EPA has del-
egated to the Commonwealth of Ken-
tucky authority to review new and
modified sources. The  delegated au-
thority Includes the reviews under 40
CFR Part 52 for the prevention of sig-
nificant deterioration. It also includes
the review under  40 CFR Part 60 for
the standards of performance for new
stationary sources and reviewed under
40 CFR Part 61  for national emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants.
A notice announcing the delegation of
authority was published in the Notices
section of  a previous issue of the FED-
ERAL  REGISTER.  These amendments
provide that all  reports, requests, ap-
plications, submittals, and communica-
tions previously required for the dele-
gated reviews will now be sent to the
Division of Air Pollution Control, De-
partment for Natural Resources and
Environmental    Protection,    West
Frankfort  Office Complex, U.S. 127,
Frankfort, Ky. 40601, instead of EPA's
Region IV.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 25, 1978.
FOR  FURTHER  INFORMATION,
CONTACT:
  John Eagles, Air Programs Branch,
  Environmental  Protection  Agency,
  Region  IV,  345 Courtland  Street
  NE., Atlanta. Oa. 30308, phone 404-
  881-2864.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The  Regional  Administrator  finds
good cause  for foregoing prior public
notice and for making this rulemaking
effective immediately in that it is an
administrative change and not one of
substantive   content.  No  additional
substantive  burdens  are imposed  on
the  parties affected.  The  delegation
which is reflected by this administra-
tive  amendment was effective on April
12, 1977, and it serves no purpose to
delay the technical change of this  ad-
dition of the state address to the Code
of Federal Regulations.
(Sees. 101. 110, 111, 112, 301. Clean Air Act,
as amended.  (42 D.S.C.  7401, 7410, 7411.
7412,7601).)
  Dated: January 10, 1978.
                  JOHN C. WHITE.
            Regional Administrator.
 PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS
    FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS

  Part 61 of Chapter I, Title 40, Code
of Federal Regulations, is amended as
follows:
  4.  In  §61.04,  paragraph  (b)(S)  is
added as follows:

§ 61.04  Address.
  (b) * » •

  (S) Division of Air Pollution Control. De-
partment for Natural Resources and Envi-
ronmental Protection, U.S.  127, Frankfort,
Ky. 40601.
                                         [PR Doc. 78-2032 Filed 1-24-78; 8:45 am]
                                                  FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 17—WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 25, 1978
                                                     IV-91

-------
46
  PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS
     FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS

  Delegation of Authority to State of Delaware

 AGENCY:  Environmental Protection
 Agency.
 ACTION: Final rule.
 SUMMARY:  This document amends
 regulations concerning air programs to
 reflect delegation to the State of Dela-
 ware of  authority to implement and
 enforce  certain  National  Emission
 Standards  for  Hazardous Air Pollut-
 ants.
 EFFECTIVE  DATE:   February  16,
 1978.
 FOR  FURTHER   INFORMATION
 CONTACT:
   Stephen R. Wassersug, Director, En-
   forcement  Division, Environmental
   Protection  Agency, Region III,  6th
   and  Walnut Streets,  Philadelphia,
   Pa. 19106. 215-597-4171.
 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

            I. BACKGROUND

   On September 7, 1977, the State of
  Delaware requested delegation of au-
  thority to  implement and enforce cer-
  tain National Emission Standards for
  Hazardous Air Pollutants. The request
  was reviewed  and  on  September 30,
  1977,  a  letter was  sent to Pierre S.
  DuPont IV,  Governor,  State of Dela-
  ware,  approving the delegation  and
  outlining its conditions. The approval
  letter  specified  that  if  Governor
  DuPont or  any other representative
  had any objections to  the  conditions
  of delegation they were to  respond
  within ten (10)  days after  receipt of
  the letter. As of this date, no objec-
  tions have been received.

    II. REGULATIONS AFFECTED BY THIS
               DOCUMENT

    Pursuant  to the  delegation of au-
  thority  for  National Emission  Stan-
  dards for Hazardous  Air  Pollutants
  (NESHAPS) to the State of Delaware
  on  September 30,  1977, EPA is today
  amending 40 CFR 61.04, Address, to re-
  flect  this  delegation.   A  Notice an-
  nouncing  this  delegation  was  pub-
  lished on February 15, 1978, in the
  FEDERAL  REGISTER.  The   amended
  561.04,  which adds the address of the
  Delaware Department of Natural Re-
  sources and Environmental Control, to
  which  all  reports,  requests  applica-
  tions, submittals, and communications
  to  the Administrator pursuant lo this
  part  must  also be addressed,  is set
  forth below.
               III. GENERAL

    The Administrator finds  good cause
  for foregoing prior public  notice and
  for making this rulemaking effective
   immediately in that it is an adminis-
   trative change and not one of substan-
   tive content. No additional  substantive
   burdens .are Imposed on the parties af-
   fected. The delegation which is reflect-
   ed by this Administrative amendment
      RULES AND REGULATIONS

was effective on September 30, 1977,
and it serves no purpose to delay the
technical change of this address to the
Code of Federal Regulations.
  This rulemaking is effective immedi-
ately, and is issued under the author-
ity of section 112 of the Clean Air Act,
as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1857c-7.
  Dated: January 31,1978.
             '   JACK J. SCHRAMM,
            Regional Administrator.
  Part 61 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amend-
ed as follows:
  1. In § 61.04, paragraph (b) is amend-
ed by revising subparagraph (I)  to
read as follows: •

{61.04  Address.
  (b)• • •

  (AWH) • • •
  (I) State of Delaware (for asbestos, beryl-
lium and mercury only): Delaware Depart-
ment of Natural Resources and Environ-
mental Control, Edward Tatnall Building.
Dover, Delaware 19901.
  tFR Doc. 78-4267 Filed 2-15-78; 8:45 am]
   KDf RAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. tt-

    -THURSDAV, FEMUARY, |«, 1971
47

  Title 40—Protection of Environment
             CTRL 848-2]

    CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
        PROTECTION AGENCY

 PART 60—STANDARDS  OF  PERFOR-
   MANCE  FOR  NEW STATIONARY
   SOURCES

 PART   61—NATIONAL   EMISSION
   STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
   POLLUTANTS
   Revision of Authority Citations

AGENCY:  Environmental  Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This action amends the
authority citlations for Standards of
Performance  for  New   Stationary
Sources and National Emission Stan-
tards for Hazardous Pollutants.  The
amendment adopts the redesignation
of classification  numbers as  changed
in the 1977 amendments to the Clean
Air Act. As amended, the Act formerly
classified to 42 U.S.C. 1857  et seq. has
been transferred and is now classified
to 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 3.1978.
FOR   FURTHER   INFORMATION
CONTACT:
  Don R.  Goodwin,  Emission Stan-
  dards and Engineering Division. En-
  vironmental  Protection Agency, Re-
  search  Triangle  Park. N,C. 17711
  telephone 019-541-6271.
SUPPLEMENT ART INFORMATION:
This  action is being  taken in accor-
dance with the requirements of 1 CFR
21.43  and is authorized under section
JOl(a) of the Clean Air Act, as amend-
ed. 42  U.S.C. 7601(a).  Because  the
amendments are clerical in nature and
affect no substantive rights or require-
ments, the Administrator finds it un-
necessary to propose and invite public
comment.
  Dated: February 24.1978.
              DOUGLAS M. COSTLE,
                    Administrator.
  Parts 60 and 61  of Chapter I. Title
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
are revised as follows:
  4. The authority citation following
the table of sections in part 61  is re-
vised to read as follows:
  AUTHORITY: Sec. 112, 301(a) of the Clean
Air Act  as  amended  [42  TJ.S.C.  7411.
7601(a)], unless otherwise noted.

{61.16  [Amended]
  5. Following §61.16,  the following
authority citation is added:

(Sec. 116, Clean Air Act ai amended (41
U.8.C. 74161).

IS 61.09, 61.10,  61.12.61.13, 61.14, 61.15,
   61.24, 61.33.  61.34,  61.43,  61.44.
   61.53. 61.54,  61.55,  61.67,  61.88,
   61.69. 61.70, 61.71, and Appendices
   A and B [Amended]
  6. The following authority citation is
added to the  above sections and ap-
pendices:

(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended
<4J C.S.C. 7414)).

  CFR Doc. 78-6347 Filed J-S-78; 8:48 ami

   FEDERAL  REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 43-
       -FRIDAY, MARCH 3,  1*7*
                                                      IV-9 2

-------
48
   FART   61—NATIONAL   EMISSION
     STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
     POLLUTANTS


   Delegation  of  Authority  to  State/
     local Air Pollution Control  Agen-
     cies  in  Arizona,  California,  and
     Nevada


   AGENCY:  Environmental  Protection
   Agency.
   ACTION: Final rulemaking.
   SUMMARY: The Environmental Pro-
   tection Agency (EPA) is amending 40
   CPR 61.04  Address by adding address-
   ee of agencies  to reflect new delega-
   tions of authority from EPA to certain
   itate/local  air pollution  control agen-
   cies  In   Arizona,   California,  and
   Nevada. EPA has delegated authority
   to  these agencies,  as described in a
   notice appearing elsewhere in today's
   FEDERAL REGISTER, in order to  imple-
   ment and enforce the national emis-
   sion  standards  for hazardous air  pol-
   lutants.
  EFFECTIVE DATE: May 16,1978.
  FOR   FURTHER   INFORMATION
  CONTACT:
    Gerald Katz (E-4-3), Environmental
    Protection  Agency,   215  Fremont
    Street, San Francisco, Calif. 94105,
    415-556-8005.
    Pursuant to  delegation of authority
  for national standards  for  hazardous
  •Jr pollutants  (NESHAPS) to State/
  Local air pollution control agencies in
  Arizona, California, and Nevada from
  March  30, 1977, to January 30, 1978,
  EPA is today amending 40 CFR 61.04
  Address,  to  reflect these  actions. A
  notice  announcing  this  delegation is
  published elsewhere in today's FEDER-
  AL REGISTER. The amended §61.04 is
  set forth below. It adds the address of
  the air pollution control agencies, to
  which must be addressed all reports,
  requests, applications, submittals,  and
  communications pursuant to this part
  by sources  subject  to  the NESHAPS
  located within  these agencies' jurisdic-
  tions.
    The Administrator finds  good cause
  for foregoing prior public  notice  and
  for making this rulemaking effective
  immediately in that it is an adminis-
  trative change  and not one of substan-
  tive content. No additional substantive
  burdens are imposed on the parties af-
  fected.  The  delegation  actions which
  we reflected  In  this administrative
  amendment  were  effective  on  the
  dates of  delegation and it serves no
  purpose to delay the technical change
  on these additions of the air pollution
  control  agencies'  addresses  to  the
  Code of Federal Regulations.
                                                RULES  AND REGULATIONS
  (Sec.  112, Clean  Air Act.  as amended (42
  UJB.C. 7411).)

   Dated: April 5.1978.

           SHAILA M. PRIRDIVILLE,
     Acting Regional Administrator,
                     EPA, Region IX.

   Part 61 of chapter I,  title 40 of the
  Code of Federal Regulations is amend-
  ed as follows:
   1. In § 61.04 paragraph (b) is amend-
  ed  by  revising subparagraphs  D, F,
  and DD to read as follows:

  {61.04  Address.
   (b)• « •

   (D) Arizona.
   Maricopa County Department of Health
 Services. Bureau of Air Pollution Control,
 1825 East  Roosevelt Street, Phoenix, Ariz.
 86006.
   Pima County  Health Department. Air
 Quality Control District, 151 West Congress,
 Tucson, Ariz. 85701.
   (P) California.
   Bay Area Air Pollution Control District,
 939 Ellis Street, San Francisco, Calif. 94109.
   Del Norte County Air Pollution Control
 District, Courthouse, Crescent City, Calif.
 95531.
   Fresno County Air Pollution Control Dis-
 trict, 515  South Cedar  Avenue, Fresno,
 Calif. 93702
   Humboldt County Air Pollution Control
 District, 5600 South  Broadway, Eureka,
 Calif. 95501.
   Kern County Air Pollution Control  Dis-
 trict, 1700 Flower Street (P.O. Box 997). Ba-
 kerafleld, Calif. 93302.
   Madera County Air Pollution Control Dis-
 trict, 135 West Yosemite  Avenue, Madera,
 Calif. 93637.
   Mendocino County Air Pollution Control
 District, County Courthouse, Ukiah, Calif.
 94582.
   Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Con-
 trol District, 420 Church Street (P.O.  Box
 487), Salinas. Calif. 93901.
   Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution
 Control District, 3313 Chanate Road, Santa
 Rosa, Calif. 95404.
   Sacramento County Air Pollution Control
 District, 3701 Branch Center Road, Sacra-
 mento, Calif. 95827.
   San Diego County Air Pollution Control
 District, 9150 Chesapeake Drive, San Diego
 Calif. 92123.
  San Joaquln County Air Pollution Control
 District, 1601 East Hazelton  Street  (P.O.
 Box 2009), Stockton, Calif. 95201.
  Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Con-
 trol District, 4440 Calle Real, Santa Bar-
 bara, Calif. 93110.
  Shasta County Air Pollution Control Dis-
 trict,  1855  Placer Street,  Redding,  Calif.
 96001.
  South Coast Air Quality Management Dis-
trict, 9420 Telstar Avenue,  El Monte,  Calif.
91731.
  Stanislaus County Air Pollution Control
District, 820 Scenic Drive. Modesto,  Calif.
95350.
  Trinity County Air Pollution Control Dis-
trict. Box AJ. Weavervttle. Calif. 96093.
  Ventura  County  Air  Pollution  Control
District. 625 East Santa Clara Street.  Ven-
tura. Calif. 93001.
  (DD) Nevada.
  Clark County, County District Health De-
partment, Air Pollution Control Division.
625 Shadow Lane. Las Vegas, Nev. 89106.
  Washoe County District Health Depart-
ment, Division of Environmental Protection.
10 Kirman Avenue, Reno, Nev. 89502.
                                          IFR Doc. 78-13012 Filed 5-15-78; 8:45 am]
                                   HOttAL UOISm, VOL. 43, NO. 95-TUfSOAY, MAY 16, 1TO
                                                         IV-93

-------
                                            RULES AND REGULATIONS
49
       Title 40—Prelection of the
              Environment

     CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
         PROTECTION AGENCY
              [FRL 869-7]

  PART   61—NATIONAL   EMISSION
    STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
    POLLUTANTS
   Amendments to Asbestos Standard

  AGENCY: Environmental Protection
  Agency (EPA).
  ACTION: Final rule.
  SUMMARY: This rule amends the na-
  tional emission standard  for asbestos
  by extending the requirements of  the
  provisions which apply to the spraying
  of asbestos-containing  materials and
  to demolition  and renovation  oper-
  ations. These amendments are a result
  of a  determination that the  standard
  did not require control  of  asbestos
  emissions  during spray application of
  asbestos-containing  materials   other
  than  fireproofing  and insulation  or
  during the demolition and renovation
  of structures  where  friable  asbestos
  materials other than  fireproofing and
  insulation are present.
  EFFECTIVE DATE: June 19, 1978.
  ADDRESS: A  summary of the public
  comments on  the proposed  amend-
  ments  and  EPA's responses is  con-
  tained in the Standards Support Docu-
  ment which may  be obtained upon
  written request from the EPA Library
  (MD-35).  Research  Triangle  Park,
  N.C.  27711 (specify Standards Support
  Document: Promulgated Amendments
  to National Emission Standard for As-
  bestos, EPA 450/2-77-030.  January.
  1978). The Standards Support Docu-
  ment is also available for public  In-
  spection  and  copying at  the EPA
  Public Information  Reference Unit,
  Room  2922  (EPA Library). 401  M
  Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20460.
  FOR  FURTHER  INFORMATION
  CONTACT:
    Don R.  Goodwin, Director, Emission
    Standards and Engineering Division
    (MD-13), Environmental Protection
    Agency, Research  Triangle  Park,
    N.C. 27711,  telephone number 919-
    541-5271.
  SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
  On  March  2,  1977  (42 FR  12121).
  amendments to the national emission
  standard  for asbestos  were  proposed
  under sectforT112 of the Clean Air Act.
  Interested persons participated in the
  rulemaking  by submitting  comments
  to EPA. The comments have  been con-
  sidered and. where determined by the
  Administrator  to   be  appropriate.
  changes   reflecting  these  comments
have been incorporated  into the pro-
mulgated amendments.
  Under section  112(e) of the Clean
Air Act, as amended in  1977, the Ad-
ministrator may promulgate a "design,
equipment, work practice,  or  oper-
ational  standard,  or  combination
thereof" for control  of a hazardous air
pollutant if it is infeasible to prescribe
an  emission  standard  under section
112(b) for the pollutant. Such infeasi-
bility occurs, for example,  when "a
hazardous  pollutant  or  pollutants
cannot be emitted through a convey-
ance designed and constructed to emit
or capture such a pollutant" or when
"the  application   of   measurement
methodology  to  a particular class  of
sources is  not practicable due to tech-
nological  or  economic limitations."
The spraying of friable asbestos mate-
rials and demolition or  renovation  of
buildings  containing  such  materials
are sources of asbestos  emissions for
which EPA believes it is not feasible to
prescribe a numerical emission stand-
ard. This is because asbestos cannot be
emitted through a conveyance which
readily captures  emissions  for mea-
surement  and because such measure-
ment, in  any event, would be techno-
logically and economically impractical.
Therefore, work practice  standards
rather than  emission  standards  are
being promulgated.
  This promulgation is not affected by
the Supreme  Court  decision In Adamo
Wrecking  Co. v. U.S. (No. 76-911, de-
cided January  10,  1978). That case
arose in the narrow  context of a crimi-
nal enforcement  proceeding  and was
decided on an interpretation of section
112  prior  to  Its amendment in 1977.
The court held that the pre-1977 ver-
sion of section 112 did not authorize a
portion of the national ^mission stand-
ard  for asbestos (prescribing certain
work practices for demolition and ren-
ovation activities) because it consisted
of requirements other than numerical
limitations on  emissions.  The  1977
amendments  to section 112 now clear-
ly authorize the Administrator to pro-
mulgate work practice or other nonnu-
merical standards in order to control
emissions of  hazardous  air pollutants.
Another important  1977  amendment
to  the  Clean Air  Act  explicitly au-
thorizes citizens and States, under sec-
tion 304, to enforce work practice and
other nonnumerical standards promul-
gated under section 112.

      SUMMARY or AMENDMENTS

  The national emission standard  for
asbestos  currently  regulates demoli-
tion and renovation operations Involv-
ing asbestos-containing  insulation and
fireproofing  materials  and  prohibits
the spray application of these materi-
als if they contain more than 1 per-
cent  asbestos.  The   promulgated
amendments extend  coverage of the
demolition and renovation  provisions
(40 CFR 61.22(d)) to all friable asbes-
tos materials and extend the coverage
of the asbestos spraying provisions (40
CFR 61.22(e)) to all materials which
contain  more than 1 percent asbestos.
Materials in which the asbestos fibers
are encapsulated with a bituminous or
resinous binder and which are not fri-
able after drying are exempt from the
spraying provisions.

   SUMMARY or ENVIRONMENTAL AKB
         ECONOMIC IMPACTS

  The  promulgated  amendments  to
the asbestos standard will have a sig-
nificant   beneficial   environmental
Impact by reducing emissions of asbes-
tos to the atmosphere. There will be
fnintmal solid  waste and water pollu-
tion  impacts  from  the  increased
amount of friable asbestos materials
which must be removed and disposed
of in conjunction  with demolition or
renovation.  No impact  on  national
energy consumption is anticipated.
  The amendments to the demolition
and renovation  provisions may  in-
crease the  cost of demolition or ren-
ovation  because  of  the  increased
amount of friable asbestos-containing
materials which will  be  covered  by
these  regulations.   Comments  from
representatives of the demolition  in-
dustry,  however, did not  address this
point. Therefore, this impact is not ex-
pected to be significant.
  Spray-on asbestos-containing decora-
tive coatings are the primary products
prohibited  by the amendments to the
spraying restrictions. Since substitutes
are available  for  these  products, no
significant adverse economic  impacts
are expected to result from prohibit-
ing their use.

       .SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS

  During the  public comment period,
EPA received  24  letters  commenting
on the proposed amendments. These
Included  16 from  Industry,  3  from
other  governmental agencies, and  5
from other  interested parties.  As  a
result of these comments, there  has
been only one significant change made
to the  amendments  since  proposal.
This change involves the spraying re-
striction in  561.22(e). The  proposed
amendments  would  have  prohibited
the spraying of all  materials contain-
ing more than 1 percent asbestos by
weight.
   Several  commenters,  however,  re-
quested that EPA  exempt from  the
•praying restrictions  certain bitumi-
nous- and resinous-based  asbestos-con-
 taining coatings.  These  coatings  are
 typically used as roofing compounds,
 waterproofing of Insulation exposed to
 the weather,  automobile  undercoat-
 ings, and industrial maintenance coat-
 Ings.
   Based on information supplied  by
 the commenters, there are no accept-
 able substitutes  available for these
                                FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. IIS—MONDAY, JUNE l», 1971
                                                      IV-94

-------
 uses of  asbestos. Among the  most
 likely substitutes which have been In-
 vestigated are glass, cotton, wood, cel-
 lulose,  mineral wool, hemp, and other
 types of, inorganic and organic fibers;
 telling  and  thickening  agents; clay
 thickeners.   Including   attapulgite;
 ground   cork;  styrpfoam;   ground
 rubber, vermiculite; feldspar; polyeth-
 ylene fibrous powders;  and ceramic
 fibers.  Generally, these substitutes
 have been  found to be  unacceptable
 because of unsatisfactory  durability;
 insufficient bulk; unsatisfactory Quali-
 ties related to fibrous reinforcing, ho-
 mogeneity, and adhesiveness; agglom-
 eration  during spraying; and settle-
 ment In the container over time. Fur-
 thermore, if asbestos  fibers are re-
 leased during application of the coat-
 ings,  during  their  service  life,  or
 during  demolition or renovation, the
 fibers will not remain airborne because
 they are encapsulated  by droplets of
 the binder  and  are  too  heavy  to
 remain suspended.
   Because there  do not appear to be
 acceptable  substitutes  available and
 any beneficial environmental Impact
 resulting from the prohibition of this
 use of  asbestos  would be  negligible,
 the spraying of materials in which the
 asbestos fibers are encapsulated  by a
 bituminous  or resinous  binder and
 which are not friable after  drying is
 exempt   from   the   provisions   of
 161.22(e) of the  promulgated amend-
 ments.
   There were several  other significant
 comments which did  not result  in
 changes to the amendments. To aid
 enforcement of the proposed spraying
 restrictions in J61.22(e),  commenters
 suggested that products should be la-
 beled as to their asbestos content if
 they contain in excess of 1 percent as-
 bestos by dry weight and have the po-
 tential  for  spray-on  application. Re-
 quiring labeling would constitute a sig-
 nificant  change  in  the amendments
 «nd would require reproposal. Rather
 than  reproposing. the  need for this
 provision  will be assessed during en-
 forcement of the amendments and, if
 appropriate, labeling requirements will
 be proposed.
  One commenter suggested  that the
 regulation be extended to require re-
 moval  of existing asbestos-containing
 sprayed materials which  present sig-
 nificant risks to human health due to
 deterioration, particularly in buildings
 accessible to the public. The proposed
 amendments would have only prohib-
 ited the future application of asbestos-
 containing spray material.
  This  problem  is  being  addressed
 through the preparation of a guidance
 document which "will assist  govern-
 mental  agencies and  private  individ-
 uals who must decide on proper action
 to take when sprayed asbestos materi-
 als are  found  in existing buildings.
The first volume of this document dis-
      tULES  AND tEGULATIONS

 cusses criteria for determining wheth-
 er asbestos material in a building is a
 problem; the  current knowledge of
 hazards  from  spray-on  asbestos in
 buildings; and alternative corrective
 actions that may be taken, including
 acceptable removal procedures and the
 use of sealants for the coating of ma-
 terial. The second volume of the docu-
 ment, which is expected  to be availa-
 ble in late 1978, will  present  the re-
 sults of studies which will be done on
 sealants to determine their effecti"e-
 ness and acceptability for coating as-
 bestos materials. Copies  of the first
 volume of this document may be ob-
 tained upon written request from the
 Emission Standards and  Engineering
 Division (MD-13), Environmental Pro-
 tection  Agency,  Research  Triangle
 Park, N.C. 27711 (specify Sprayed At-
 bestot-Containinp tfaterialt in Build-
 ings: A Guidance Document).
  The lack of EPA reference methods
 (or making various asbestos measure-
 ments was  of  concern to some  com-
 menters.  Specifically,  they suggested
 that EPA publish a method for deter-
 mining the percentage of asbestos in
 spray materials and reference OSHA-
 NIOSH procedures for measuring air-
 borne  asbestos participate  matter
 from spraying operations.
  A number of methods for the analy-
 sis of asbestos-containing samples are
 now  in use and the variability of re-
 sults obtained by these methods is ex-
 tremely wide. In an attempt to stand-
 ardize procedures and reduce this vari-
 ability,  an  EPA provisional electron
 microscope  procedure for measuring
 the concentration of  asbestos in air
 samples  has  been  developed. This
 method can  also be used for analysis
 of material samples. It will be further
 evaluated and refined for use in actual
 field studies and it found acceptable,
 may eventually serve as the basis for
 »n EPA reference method. "The proce-
 dure is available in a publication enti-
 tled  Electron   Microscope  Measure-
 ment of Airborne Asbestos Concentra-
 tions:  A  Provisional  Methodology
 Manual,  EPA  800/2-77-178, August
 1977. Copies  of this document may be
 obtained upon  written request from
 the Environmental  Sciences Research
 Laboratory  (MTX-49), EPA, Research
Triangle Park. N.C. 27711.
  The OSHA-NIOSH  method  meas-
 ures airborne asbestos fiber concentra-
 tions by phase  contrast microscopy. It
 measures  only  those fibers which are
 longer than  5  microns and does  not
 differentiate  between  asbestos  and
 other fibers. While such a method
 may  be sufficient  for enforcing  the
 OSHA workplace asbestos standard, it
 is not sufficient as an indicator  of
total asbestos concentration in the am-
bient air. Many asbestos fibers  are
smaller than the smallest measured by
the OSHA-NIOSH method and these
fibers can contribute significantly  to
 the amount of asbestos which may be
 present in the ambient air. The provi-
 sional electron microscope method de-
 scribed above is  useful for estimating
 airborne asbestos fiber concentrations
 with greater precision.
  Some  commenters  suggested  that
 since asbestos is a carcinogen and no
 threshold level for health effects has
 been established, the 1 percent allowa-
 ble asbestos content  for spray-on ma-
 terials permits too much environmen-
 tal contamination and should be low-
 ered considerably. If not completely
 eliminated.  The  1 percent allowable
 msbestos content was selected primar-
 ily to allow the  spray application of
 materials which contain trace  amounts
 of asbestos which occur in numerous
 natural substances and which  could
 not  be reduced or eliminated without
 effectively banning the use  of these
 materials.

           MISCELLANEOUS

  Hon.—The   Environmental  Protection
 Agency has determined that this  document
 does not contain a major action  requiring
 preparation of an Economic Impact  Analy-
 sis under Executive Orders 11821 and 11949
 and OMB Circular A-107.
  Dated: June 13,1978.
                   BARBARA BLUM,
              Acting Administrator.
  In Part 61 of Chapter I, Title  40, of
 the  Code  of Federal  Regulations,
 H 61.21 and 61.22 are amended as fol-
 lows:

    Subpart B—National Emitiion
       Standard for Asbestos

  1. Section 61.21 is amended by revis-
 ing paragraphs (m), (q). and (r) to read
 as follows:

 861.21  Definition*.
  
-------
                                           IULES AND REGULATIONS
                ).  or
(dXvli) of this section.
  (iii) Pipes, ducts, boilers, tanks, reac-
tors, turbines, furnaces, or structural
members  that are covered or coated
with friable asbestos materials may be
taken out  of any building, structure,
facility, or Installation subject to this
paragraph as units or In sections pro-
Tided the friable asbestos materials ex-
posed during cutting or disjoining are
adequately wetted during the cutting
or  disjoining operation. Such  units
shall not be dropped or thrown to the
ground, but shall be carefully lowered
to ground level.
  (iv) The stripping of friable asbestos
materials  used  on any pipe,  duct,
boiler, tank, reactor, turbine, furnace,
or structural  member that  has been
removed as a unit or in sections as pro-
vided in paragraph (d)<4Xiii) of this
section  shall be performed in accord-
ance with paragraph (d)(4Xii) of this
section. Rather than comply with the
wetting requirement, a local exhaust
ventilation and collection system may
be used to  prevent emissions to the
outside air. Such local exhaust ventila-
tion systems shall be designed and op-
erated to capture the asbestos particu-
late matter  produced by the stripping
of friable  asbestos materials.  There
shall  be no visible emissions to the
outside air  from  such local exhaust
ventilation  and   collection  systems
except as provided in paragraph (f) of
this section.
  (e) Spraying. There shall be no visi-
ble emissions to  the outside air from
the spray-on  application of materials
containing more than 1 percent asbes-
tos,  on a  dry weight basis, .used on
equipment and machinery, except as
provided in paragraph (f) of this sec-
tion. Materials sprayed  on  buildings,
structures, structural members, pipes.
and conduits shall contain less than 1
percent asbestos on a dry weight basis.
  <2)  Any owner or operator who in-
tends  to  spray  asbestos  materials
which contain more than 1 percent as-
bestos on a dry weight basis on equip-
ment and machinery shall report such
intention to the Administrator at least
20 days prior to the commencement of
the spraying  operation.  Such  report
shall  include  the  following informa-
tion: • • •
  (3)  The spray-on application of ma-
terials in which the asbestos fibers are
encapsulated with a bituminous or re-
sinous  binder during spraying  and
which are not friable after drying is
exempted  from the requirements of
paragraphs (e) and (e)(2) of this sec-
tion.
(Sees. 112 and 301(a> of the Clean Air Act a*
amended (42 U.S.C. 7412, 7601(a).»
  tFR Doc. 78-16891 Filed 6-16-78; 8:45 am]
                               FEDERAL IEGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 1 !•—MONDAY, JUNE 19, 1971
                                                     IV-96
-------
50
  PART    61—NATIONAL   EMISSION
    STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
    POLLUTANTS

  Delegation of Authority for State of
             Rhode Island

  AGENCY: Environmental  Protection
  Agency (EPA).
  ACTION: Amendment.
  SUMMARY:  The delegation of au-
  thority to the State of Rhode Island
  for  national emissions  standards for
  hazardous air  pollutants (NESHAPS)
  was made on March  31,  1978. This
  amendment, which adds the address of
  the Rhode Island Department of Envi-
  ronmental Management, reflects this
  delegation. A notice announcing this
  delegation is  published today  in the
  FEDERAL REGISTER.

  EFFECTIVE  DATE: October 16, 1978.
  FOR   FURTHER  INFORMATION
  CONTACT:
    John  Courcier, Air  Branch,  EPA
    Region I, Room 2113, JFK Federal
    Building, Boston, Mass. 02203, 617-
    223-4448.
  SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
  Under the delegation of authority for
  the national  emission  standards for
  hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPS)
  to the State of Rhode Island on March
  31.  1978. EPA is today amending 40
  CFR 61.04, Address, to reflect this del-
  egation. A notice announcing this dele-
  gation is published  today  elesewhere
  In this part of the FEDERAL REGISTER.
  The amended §61.04, which adds the
  address of the Rhode Island Depart-
  ment  of Environmental Management
  to which all reports, requests, applica-
  tions, submittals, and communications
  to the Administrator pursuant to this
  part  must also  be  addressed,  is set
  forth  below.
    The Administrator finds good cause
  for foregoing  prior  public notice and
  for making this rulemaking effective
  Immediately in that it is an adminis-
  trative change and not one of substan-
  tive content.  No additional  burdens
  are imposed  on  the parties affected.
  The delegation which is reflected by
  this administrative amendment was ef-
  fective  on March  31.  1978,  and it
  serves no purpose to delay the techni-
  cal  change  of this  addition  of  the
  State  address to the Code of Federal
  Regulations.
    This rulemaking is effective immedi-
  ately, and is issued under the authori-
  ty of section 112 of the Clean Air Act,
  as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7411.
    Date: September 18, 1978.
            WILLIAM R. ADAMS, Jr.
            Regional Administrator,
                           Region J.
                                            RULES AND REGULATIONS
  Part 61 of chapter I, title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amend-
ed as follows:
  In §61.04 paragraph (b) is amended
by adding subparagraph (OO) to read
as follows:
{61.04  Address.
  (b) • • •

  (OO) State of Rh6de Island. Department
of Environmental  Management,  83  Park
Street, Providence, R.I. 02908
 [FR Doc. 78-29106 Piled 10*13-78: 9:49 ami
51
 PART   61—NATIONAL   EMISSION
   STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
   POLLUTANTS

   Delegation of Authority to State of
                Texas

 AGENCY:  Environmental  Protection
 Agency.
 ACTION: Final rule.
 SUMMARY:  This action amends Sec-
 tion 61.4, Address, to reflect the dele-
 gation of  authority for the National
 •mission Standards for Hazardous Air
 Pollutants (NESHAPS) to the State of
 Texas.
                                     EFFECTIVE DATE: February 7. 1970.
                                     FOR   FURTHER  INFORMATION
                                     OOMTACT:
                                      James Veach, Enforcement Division.
                                      Region 6, Environmental Protection
                                      Agency,  First International  Build-
                                      ing,  1201 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas
                                      75270. telephone <214) 767-2760.
                                     SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
                                     A notice announcing the delegation of
                                     authority  is published elsewhere in
                                     the NoUce Section in this issue of the
                                     FEDERAL REGISTER. These amendments
                                     provide that, all reports and communi-
                                     cations previously  submitted  to the
                                     Administrator,  will now be sent to the
                                     Texas Air  Control Board, 8520 Shoal
                                     Creek Boulevard.  Austin.  Texas,  in-
                                     stead of EPA's Region 6.
                                      As this action is not one of substan-
                                     tive content, but is only an administra-
                                     tive change, public participation was
                                     judged unnecessary.
                                     (Sections US and SOU*) of the Clean  Air
                                     Act; Section 4(a) of Public Law *1-M4. M
                                     BUt. 1685; Section 2 of Public Law 90 148.
                                     81 Stat. 504  [42 U.S.C. 7412 unti 700 Ka'3).
                                      Dated: November 15, li'
                                                   ADIiNE E^
                                               Regional Admin. ':a,i
-------
            Federal Register  /  Vol. 44, No. 187  / Tuesday, September 25,  1979 / Rules and Regulations.
52
   40 CFR Part 61

   [FRL 1328-1]

   National Emission Standards for
   Hazardous Air Pollutants; General
   Provisions; Definitions

   AGENCY: Environmental Protection
   Agency (EPA).
   ACTION: Final Rule.

   SUMMARY: This document makes some
   editorial changes and rearranges the
   definitions alphabetically in Subpart
   A—General Provisions of 40 CFR Part
   61. An alphabetical list of definitions
   will be easier to update and to use.
   EFFECTIVE DATE: September 25,1979.
   FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
   Mr. Don R. Goodwin, Director, Emission
   Standards and Engineering Division
   (MD-13), U. S. Environmental Protection
   Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
   Carolina 27711, telephone (919) 541-
   5271.
   SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
   "Definitions" section (§ 61.02) of the
   General Provisions of 40 CFR Part 61
   now lists definitions by paragraph
   designations. Due to the anticipated
   increase in the number of definitions to
   be added to the General Provisions in
   the future, continued use of the present
   system of adding definitions by
   paragraph designations at the end of the
   list could become administratively
   cumbersome and could make the list
   difficult to use. Therefore, paragraph
   designations are being eliminated and
   the definitions are rearranged
   alphabetically. New definitions will be
   added to § 61.02 of the Genera]
   Provisions in alphabetical order
   automatically.
     Since this rule simply reorganizes
   existing provisions and has no
   regulatory impact, it is not subject to the
   procedural requirements of Executive
   Order 12044.
     Dated: September 19,1979.
   Edward F. Tuerk,
   Acting Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise,
   and Radiation.
     40 CFR 61.02 is  amended by removing
   all paragraph designations and by
   rearranging the definitions in
   alphabetical order as follows:

   S 61.02  Definitions.
     The terms used in this part are
   defined in the Act or in this section as
   follows:
     "Act" means the Clean Air Act (42
   U.S.C. 1857 et seq.).
  "Administrator" means the
Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency or his authorized
representative.
  "Alternative method" means any
method of sampling and analyzing for
an air pollutant which is not a reference
or equivalent method but which has
been demonstrated to the
Administrator's satisfaction to, in
specific cases, produce results adequate
for his determination of compliance.
  "Commenced" means, with respect to
the definition of "new source" in section
lll(a)(2) of the Act, that an owner or
operator has undertaken a continuous
program of construction or modification
or that an  owner or operator has entered
into a contractual obligation to
undertake and complete, within a
reasonable time, a continuous program
of construction or modification.
  "Compliance schedule" means the
date or dates by which a source or
category of sources is required to
comply with the standards of this part
and with any steps toward such
compliance which are set forth in a
waiver of compliance under § 61.11.
  "Construction" means fabrication,
erection, or installation of an affected
facility.
  "Effective date" is  the date of
promulgation in the Federal Register of
an applicable standard or other
regulation under this part.
  "Equivalent method" means any
method of sampling and analyzing for
an air pollutant which has been
demonstrated to the Administrator's
satisfaction to have a consistent and
quantitatively known relationship to the
reference method, under specified
conditions.
  "Existing source" means any
stationary source which is not a new
source.
  "Modification" means any physical
change in, or change in the method of
operation of, a stationary source which
increases  the amount of any hazardous
air pollutant emitted by such source or
which results in the emission of any
hazardous air pollutant not previously
emitted, except that:
  (a) Routine maintenance, repair, and
replacement shall not be considered
physical changes, and
  (b) The  following shall not be
considered a change in the method of
operation:
  (1) An increase in the production rate,
if such increase does not exceed the
operating design capacity of the
stationary source;
  (2) An increase in hours of operation.
  "New source" means any stationary
source, the construction or modification
of which is commenced after the
publication in the Federal Register of
proposed national emission standards
for hazardous air pollutants which will
be applicable to such source.
  "Owner or operator" means any
person who owns, leases, operates,
controls, or supervises a stationary
source.
  "Reference method" means any
method of sampling and analyzing for
an air pollutant, as described in
Appendix B to this part.
  "Standard" means a  national emission
standard for a hazardous air pollutant
proposed or promulgated under this
part.
   "Startup" means th/ setting in
 operation of a stationary source for any
 purpose.
   "Stationary source" means any
 building, structure, facility, or
 installation which emits or may emit
 any air pollutant which has been
 designated as hazardous by the
 Administrator.
 (Sep. 112, 301(a), Clean Air Act as amended
 (42 U.S.C. 7412 and 7601(a)))
 | PR Ooc. 79-29768 Filed 9-24-79; 8:45 am)
                                                          IV-98
-------
           Federal Register / Vol. 44. No.  220 / Tuesday, November 13. 1979 / Rules  and Regulations
53
   ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
   AGENCY

   40 CFR Part 61

   [FBL 1356-2]

   National Emission Standards for
   Hazardous Air Pollutants; General
   Provisions

   AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection
   Agency.
   ACTION: Final rule.

   SUMMARY: This amendment institutes an
   address change for the implementation
   of technical and administrative review
   and enforcement of the National
   Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
   Pollutants. The notice announcing the
   delegation of authority is published
   elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
   Register.
   EFFECTIVE DATE: Effective November 13.
   1979.
   ADDRESSES: All reports, requests,
   applications and communications
   required pursuant to 40 CFR 61.10 for the
   Counties in  Ohio listed below are to be
   submitted to the Regional Air Pollution
   Agency, Montgomery County Combined
   General Health District, 451 West Third
   Street, Dayton, Ohio 45402. Copies of
   these reports shall also be submitted to
   U.S. EPA, Region V. Enforcement
   Division, 230 South Dearborn Street, '
   Chicago, Illinois 60604.
   FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
   Debra Marcantonio, USEPA Air
   Programs Branch, U.S. Environmental
   Protection Agency, Region V, 230 South
   Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
   (312) 886-6048.
   SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
   Regional Administrator finds good cause
   for foregoing prior public notice and for
   making this rulemaking effective
   immediately in that it is an
   administrative change and not one of
   substantive content No additional
   substantive  burdens are imposed on. the
   parties, affected. The delegation became
   effective-September 11,1979v Therefore*
   it serves.no purpose to delay the
   technical change of this addition o£ an
   address to the Code of Federal
   Regulations. This rulemaking is-effective
   immediately and is issued under
   authority of Section 112 o£ the: Clean Air
   Act. (42 U.S.C. 7412)'
     Section 61.04 of Part 61 of Chapter I.
   Title 40 of the Code of Federal
   Regulations  is amended by adding, a
   new paragraph (bj(kk) as follows:
 Subpart A—General Provision*

   § 61.04 is-amended as follows:
 $61.04  Address.
 *    *     *     •    »
   (b) * * *
   (kk) Ohio
   Montgomery County: Regional Ale
 Pollution Control Agency, Montgomery
 County Combined General Health
 District, 451 West Third Street, Daytonv
 Ohio 45402.
  Clarke, Darke, Greene, Miami and
Preble Counties [except for air
information required under §. 61.22 fdj
and (e)J: Montgomery County Combined1
General Health District. 451 West Third
Street. Day ton, Ohio 45402.
*    •    *    •   •
  Dated: November £. 1979,.
John McGuire,,
RegionalAdministrator.
[FR Doc 7»44M2 WM n-»-7ft Hi.m|
     Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 41  /  Thursday,  February  28, 1980 /

                           Rules and Regulations
54
   ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
   AGENCY

   40 CFR Part 61

   [FRL 1411-5]

   National Emission Standards for
   Hazardous Air Pollutants; Delegation
   of Authority to the State of Maryland

   AGENCY: Environmental Protection
   Agency.
   ACTION: Final Rulemaking.

   SUMMARY: Pursuant to the delegation of
   authority for National Emissions
   Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
   [NESHAPS] to the State of Maryland on
   October 9,1979, EPA is today amending
  40 CFR 61.04, Address to reflect this
  delegation.
  EFFECTIVE DATE: February 28,1980.
  FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
  Thomas Shiland, (215) 597-7915 EPA,
  Region III (Curtis Building), 6th &
  Walnut Streets, Philadelphia,
  Pennsylvania 19106.
  SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A Notice
  announcing this delegation is published
  today elsewhere in the Federal Register.
  The amended 61.04 which adds the
  address of the Maryland Bureau of Air
  Quality to which all reports, requests,
  applications, submittals, and
  communications to the Administrator
 pursuant to this part must also be
 addressed, is set forth below.
   The Administrator finds good cause
 for foregoing prior public Notice and for
 making this rulemaking effective
 immediately in that it is an
 Administrative change and not one of
 substantive content. No additional
 burdens are imposed on the parties
 affected. The delegation which is
 reflected by the Administrative
 amendment was effective on October 9,
 1979, and it serves no purpose to delay
 the technical change of this address to
 the Code of Federal Regulations.
   This rulemaking is effective *
 immediately, and is issued under the
 authority of Section 112 of the Clean Air
 Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 7412.
   Dated: January 28,1980.
 R. Sarah Compton,
 Director, Enforcement Division.
   Part 61 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
 Code of Federal Regulations is amended
 as follows:
   1. In §  61.04 paragraph (b) is amended
 by revising Subparagraph V to read as
 follows:

 $61.04 Address
 *****
   (b)  * * *
  (V) State of Maryland, Bureau of Air
 Quality and Noise Control, Maryland State
 Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.
 201 West Preston Street. Baltimore, Maryland
 21201.
 (FR Doc. M>-ai87 Filed 2-27-ett 8:45 «m]
                                                      IV-99
-------
              Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 96  / Tuesday.  May 19.  1981 / Rules  and Regulations
55
 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
 IA-7-FRL-1830-2J
 New Source Performance Standards;
 Delegation of Authority to the State of
 Missouri and Addition of Address

 AGENCY: Environmental Protection
 Agency (EPA).
 ACTION: Final rulemaking.

 SUMMARY: The Missouri Department of
 Natural Resources (MDNR) has been
 delegated authority to implement and
 enforce the federal New Source
 Performance Standards (NSPS)
 regulations for 30  stationary source
 categories and national emission
 standards for five hazardous air
 pollutants. Notification of this
 delegation is published today elsewhere
 in the Federal Register. This document
 adds the address of the MDNR to which
 all reports, requests, applications,
 submittals. and communications  to the
 Administrator, as required by 40 CFR
 Part 60 and 40 CFR Part 61, must also be
 addressed.
 EFFECTIVE DATE: May 19,1981.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
 Mr. Charles W. Whitmore, Air, Noise
 and Radiation Branch, U.S.
 Environmental Protection Agency,
 Region VII. 324 E. llth Street, Kansas
 City, Missouri 64106, (816) 374-6525; FTS
 758-6525.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
MDNR has been delegated authority to
implement and enforce the federal New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
regulations for 30 stationary source
categories and national emission
standards for five hazardous air
pollutants. Notification of this
delegation is published today elsewhere
in the Federal Register. The amended 40
CFR 60.4(b)(AA), and 40 CFR
61.04(b)(AA) adds the address of the
MDNR to which all reports, requests,
applications, submittals, and
communications to the Administrator, as
required by 40 CFR Part 60 and 40 CFR
Part 61, must also be addressed.
  The Administrator finds good cause
for foregoing prior public notice and for
making this rulemaking effective
immediately in that it is an
Administrative change and not one of
substantive content. No additional
burdens are imposed upon the parties
affected.
  The delegation which influenced this
Administrative amendment was
effective on December 16,1980, and it
serves no purpose  to delay the technical
change of this address in the Code of
Federal Regulations. This rulemaking is
effective immediately, and is issued
under the authority of Section 111 of the
Clean Air Act, as amended. 42 U.S.C.
§ 7412.
  Dated: May 4,1961.
William W. Rice
Acting Regional Administrator, Region VII.
PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS

  Part 61 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
  1. In § 61.04, paragraph (b) is amended
by revising subparagraph (AA) to read
as follows:

{61.04  Address.
*****

  (b) *  * *

  (AA) Missouri Department of Natural
Resources, Post Office Box 1368,
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101.
*****
|KR Doc. 81-14996 Filed t-1*-«l.» 45 am)
              Federal Register / Vol.  46. No.  104 / Monday. June 1. 1981 / Rules and Regulations
56
  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
  AGENCY

  40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
  [A-4-FRL-1830-8]

  Afr Pollution; New Source Review;
  Delegation of Authority to the State of
  Tennessee
  AGENCY: Environmental Protection
  Agency.
  ACTION: Final rule.

  SUMMARY: The amendments below
  institute certain address changes for
  reports and applications required from
  operators of certain sources subject to
  Federal regulations. EPA has delegated
  to the State of Tennessee authority to
  review new and modified sources. The
  delegated authority includes the review
  under 40 CFR Part 60 for the standards
  of performance for new stationary
sources and review under 40 CFR Part
61 for national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants. A notice
announcing the delegation of authority
is published in the Notices section of
this issue nf the Federal Register. These
amendments provide that all reports,
requests, applications, submittals, and
communications previously required for
the delegated reviews will now be sent
to the Division of Air Pollution Control,
Tennessee Department of Public Health,
256 Capitol Hill Building, Nashville,
Tennessee 37219.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 11,1980.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Raymond S. Gregory, Air Programs
Branch, Environmental Protection
Agency, Region IV, 345 Courtland Street,
N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30366, phone 404/
881-3286.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Regional Administrator finds good cause
for foregoing prior public notice and for
 making this rulemaking effective
 immediately in that it is an
 adminstrative change and not one of
 substantive content. No additional
 substantive burdens are imposed on the
 parties affected. The delegation which is
 reflected by this administrative
 amendment was effective on April 11,
 1980, and it serves no purpose to delay
 the technical change of this addition of
 the state address to the Code of Federal
 Regulations.
  The Office of Management and Budget
 has exempted this regulation from the
 OMB review requirements of Executive
 Order 12291 pursuant to Section 8(b) of
 that order.
 (Sees. 101,110, 111, 112, 301, Clean Air Act, as
 amended. (42 U.S.C. 7401, 7410, 7411, 7412,
 7601))

    Dated: May 3,1981.
  John A. Little,
  Acting Regional Administrator.
                                                       IV-100
-------
PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS

  Part 61 of Chapter I, Title 40, Code of
Federal Regulations, is amended as
follows:
  In § 61.04, paragraph (b) (RR) is added
•s follows:
                       {61.04 Address.
                       *****

                         (b) * * *
                       (RR) Division of Air Pollution Control,
                         Tennessee Department of Public Health,
                         256 Capitol Hill Building, Nashville,
                         Tennessee 37219
                       |FR Doc H-162M Filed R-IS-81,8-45 «m|
57
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 147 / Friday, July 31,1981 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60 and 61

[A-7-FRL 1888-1)

New Source Performance Standards
and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Pollutants; Delegation of
Authority to the State of Nebraska and
Change of Address

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The EPA is today amending
its regulations on standards of
performance for new stationary sources
of air pollution and National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS) to reflect a change of
address of the Nebraska Department of
Environmental Control (DEC) and the
Region VII office of the EPA, and to
reflect a delegation to the DEC of
NESHAPS.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 31,1981.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steve A. Kovac, Air, Noise and
Radiation Branch, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region VII, 324 East
llth Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106;
816/374-6525; FTS 758-6525.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The DEC
has been delegated authority to
implement and enforce the federal New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
regulations for 25 stationary source
categories and national emission
standards for four hazardous air
pollutants. An original delegation of 12
source categories was published in the
Federal Register on December 30,1976.
A second delegation, affecting 13
additional source categories and four
hazardous air pollutants, is published
today elsewhere in the Federal Register.
The amended § 60.4(a) and  § 61.04(a)
correct the address of the Region VII
office of the EPA. The amended § 60.4(b)
corrects the address of the DEC to
which all reports, requests,  applications,
submittals, and communications to the
Administrator, as required by 40 CFR
                       Part 60, must also be submitted. The
                       amended S 61.04(b) adds the address of
                       the DEC to which information to the
                       Administrator, as required by 40 CFR
                       Part 61, must also be submitted.
                         The Regional Administrator finds
                       good cause for foregoing prior public
                       notice and for making this rulemaking
                       effective immediately in that it is an
                       administrative change and not one of
                       substantive content. No additional
                       burdens are imposed upon the parties
                       affected.
                         The delegation which influenced this
                       Administrative amendment was
                       effective on July 22,1981, and it serves
                       no purpose to delay the technical
                       change of this address in the Code of
                       Federal Regulations. This rulemaking is
                       effective immediately, and is issued
                       under the authority of Section 111 of the
                       Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
                       7412.
                         Under Executive Order 12291, EPA
                       must judge whether a rule is "major"
                       and, therefore, subject to the
                       requirements of a Regulatory Impact
                       Analysis. This rule is not a "major" rule,
                       because it only corrects and
                       supplements addresses to which sources
                       are required to submit reports under
                       existing requirements. Thus, it is
                       unlikely to have an annual effect on the
                       economy of $100 million or more or to
                       have other significant adverse impacts
                       on the national economy.
                         This rule was submitted to the Office
                       of Management and Budget (OMB) for
                       review as required by Executive Order
                       12291.
                         Dated: June 7,1981.
                       William W. Rice,
                       Acting Regional Administrator, Region VII.
                         Part 60 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
                       Code of Federal Regulations is amended
                       as follows:

                       PART 60—STANDARDS OF
                       PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
                       STATIONARY SOURCES

                         1. In § 60.4, paragraph (a) the address
                       for Region VII is revised:
§80.4 Address.
  (a) * ' *
  Region VII (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri,
Nebraska), 324 East llth Street, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106.
*****
  2. In $ 60.4, paragraph (b) is amended
by revising paragraph (CC) to read as
follows:

$60.4 Address.
  (b) * * *
  (CC) State of Nebraska, Nebraska
Department of Environmental Control,
P.O. Box 94877, State House Station,
Lincoln, Nebraska 68509.
PART 61— NATIONAL EMISSIONS
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANT

  Part 61 of Chapter I. Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
  1. In § 61.04, paragraph (a) the address
for Region VII is revised:

$61.04  Address.
  (a) * * *
  Region VII (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri,
Nebraska), 324 East llth Street. Kansas
City, Missouri 64106.
  2. In § 61.04, paragraph (b) is amended
by adding Subparagraph (CC) to read as
follows:

$61.04  Address.
*  •  *    4     *     *
  (b) * * *
  (CC) State of Nebraska, Nebraska
Department of Environmental Control,
P.O.  Box 94877, State  House Station,
Lincoln, Nebraska 68509.
*****
(FR Doc 81-22350 Filed 7-3O-81. 8:45 am)
                                                      IV-101
-------
            Federal Register / Vol. 46. No.  195 / Thursday. October  8. 1981  / Rules  and Regulations
58
  40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
  [A-9-FRL-1875-2]

  Standards of Performance for New
  Stationary Sources (NSPS) and
  National Emission Standards for
  Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS);
  Delegation of Authority to State of
  California

  AGENCY: Environmental Protection
  Agency.
  ACTION: Notice of final rulemaking.

  SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
  Agency is amending its regulations on
  Standards of Performance for New
  Stationary Sources (NSPS) and the
  National Emission Standards for
  Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS).
  The rules delegate authority to
  implement and enforce the NSPS and
  NESHAPS programs to 19 state and
  local air pollution control agencies in
  California. These delegations are being
  issued under the Clean Air Act which
  requires the Administrator to delegate
  this type of authority to any State or
  local agency that submits adequate
  procedures for implementation and
  enforcement.
  DATES: The amendments to the list of
  addresses of Air Pollution Control
  Districts in 40 CFR B0.4(b](F) and
  6l.04(b)(F) are effective October 8,1981.
  Delegation of pollutant categories to
  each Air Pollution Control District is
  effective as of the date of delegation
  shown in the table in || 60.4(b)(F)(l)
  and 61.04(F)(1).
  FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
  David Solomon, Permits Branch,
  Environmental Protection Agency,
  Region 9, 215 Fremont Street, San
  Francisco, CA 94105; Attn: E-4-2 (415)
  556-8005.
  SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Sections
  lll(c) (NSPS) and 112(d) (NESHAPS) of
  the Clean Air Act require the
  Administrator of EPA to delegate
authority to implement and enforce
NSPS and NESHAPS to any state or
local agency that submits adequate
procedures. Pursuant to Sections lll(c)
and 112(d), EPA, Region 9, has delegated
authority to implement and enforce the
NSPS and NESHAPS programs to
various state and local agencies in
California.
  The NSPS and NESHAPS programs
are delegated by each category of
pollutant, not by the total program. A
request for delegation of authority for
each pollutant category is submitted by
a state or local agency to EPA where it
is reviewed and delegated if it meets the
proper standards.
  Pursuant to the Administrative
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b), EPA has,
in the past, in addition to informing the
state or local agency, published notices
of delegation in the Federal Register.
However, these notices did not specify
which particular pollutant category had
been delegated.
  The primary purpose of this action is
to rectify any ambiguities that might
exist concerning which agencies have
previously been delegated the authority
to administer a particular pollutant
category and to rectify any omissions
EPA has made in publishing past notices
of delegation in the Federal Register.
  This notice  lists, in tabular form, only
Air Pollution Control Districts that are
affected by this notice. The table lists
the specific category or categories of
pollutant that the District has been
delegated authority over. In addition, a
list of addresses which revises and adds
new addresses of Air Pollution  Control
Districts to the list found in 40 CFR
60.4(b)(F) and 61.04(b)(F).
  Pursuant to NSPS and NESHAPS
regulations, sources are required to
submit all required reports to the state
or local agency that has jurisdiction over
the source, and to EPA.
  The Administrator finds good cause to
forego prior public notice and to make
this rulemaking effective immediately. It
is an administrative change, not one of
substantive content, and imposes no
additional burdens on the parties
affected.
  The delegation actions reflected in
this administrative amendment were
effective on the dates of delegation,
which appear in the table. No useful
purpose would be served by delaying
the technical changes included herein.
  Regulatory Impact: Pursuant to
Executive Order 12291, EPA must
determine whether a newly promulgated
regulation is "major" and therefore
subject to the requirements of a
Regulatory Impact Analysis. This rule is
not a major regulation because  it neither
creates new responsibilities nor
 adversely affects the economy in any
 significant way. Nor is this regulation a
 new rule perse, It is merely a rule
 providing public notice of past
 delegations that previously were not
 published in the Federal Register and
 listing the specific pollutant categories
 that have been so delegated.
   This regulation was submitted to the
 Office of Management and Budget
 (OMB) for review as required by
 Executive Order 12291.
 (Sees. Ill and 112 of the Clean Air Act, as
 amended. (42 U.S.C. 1857C-6 and 1857C-7))
   Dated: July 30,1981.
 Anne M. Gorauch,
. Administrator.

 PART 60—STANDARDS OF
 PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
 STATIONARY SOURCES

 PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION
 STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
 POLLUTANTS

   Subparts A of Parts 60 and 61 of
 Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal
 Regulations are amended as follows:
   1. Sections 60.4(b)(F) and 61.04(b)(F]
 are each amended by revising the
 addresses of the following Air Pollution
 Control Districts.

 560.4  Address.

 $61.04   Address.
 *****

   (b)***
   (F) California.
 Del Norte County Air Pollution Control
   District, 909 Highway 101 North, Crescent
   City, CA 95531
 Fresno County Air Pollution Control District,
   P.O. Box 11867,1246 L Street. Fresno, CA
   93721
 Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control
   District, 1270 Natividad Road, Room 105,
   Salinas, CA 93906
 Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution
   Control District, 134 "A" Avenue, Auburn,
   CA 95448
 Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control
   District, 300 North San Antonio Road,
   Santa Barbara, CA 93110
 Shasta County Air Pollution Control District,
   2650 Hospital Lane, Redding, CA 96001
 South Coast Air Quality Management
   District, 9150 Flair Drive, El Monte. CA
   91731
 Stanislaus County Air Pollution Control
   District, 1030 Scenic Drive, Modesto, CA
   95350
 Trinity County Air Pollution Control District,
   P.O. Box AK, Weaverville, CA 96093
 Ventura County Air Pollution Control
   District, 800 South Victoria Avenue,
   Ventura, CA 93009

   2. Sections 60.4(b)(F) and 61.04(b)(F)
 are further amended by adding the
                                                      IV-102
-------
            Federal  Register / Vol. 46,  No. 196 / Thursday,  October 8, 1981  / Rules and Regulations
 addresses of the following Air Pollution
 Control Districts.

 H 60.4 and 61.04  I Amended)
 *****

   (bj * * '
   (F) California.
 Amador County Air Pollution Control
   District, P.O. Box 430,810 Court Street.
   Jackson, CA 95642
 Butte County Air Pollution Control District
   P.O. Box 1229,316 Nelson Avenue,
   Oroviiie. CA 95065
 Calaveras County Air Pollution Control
   District. Government Center, El Dorado
   Road. San Andreas, CA 95249
 Colusa County Air Pollution Control District
   751 Fremont Street. Colusa. CA 95952
 El Dorado Air Pollution Control District 390
   Fair Lane, Placerville. CA 95667
 Glenn  County Air Pollution Control District
   P.O. Box 351, 720 North Colusa Street,
   Willows. CA 96988
 Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control
   District. 863 North Main Street, Suite 213.
   Bishop. CA 93514
 Imperial County Air Pollution Control
   District, County Services Building. 939
   West Main Street, El Centre, CA 92243
 King* County Air Pollution Control District
   330 Campus Drive. Hanford CA 93230
Lake County Air Pollution Control District
  256 North Forbes Street Lakeport CA
  95453
Lassen County Air Pollution Control District
  ITS Russell Avenue. Susanville, CA 96130
Maruxwa County Air Pollution Control
  District. Box 5. Mariposa, CA 95338
Merced County Air Pollution Control District
  P.O. Box 471. 240 East 15th Street Merced.
  CA 95340
Modoc County Air Pollution Control District,
  202 West 4th Street, Alturas, CA 96101
Nevada County Air Pollution Control District
  H.E.W. Complex. Nevada  City, CA 95959
Placer County Air Pollution Control District
  11491 "B" Avenue. Auburn. CA 96603
Piumas County Air Pollution Control District
  P.O. Box 480, Quincy. CA 95971
San Bernardino County Air Pollution Control
  District 15579-Bth, Victorville, CA 92392
San LULS Oiuspo County Air Pollution Control
  District P.O. Box 637, San Luis Obispo, CA
  93406
Sierra County Air Pollution Control District.
  P.O. Box 286. Downieville. CA 95936
Slskiyou County Air Pollution Control
  District, 525 South Foothill Drive. Yreka,
  CA 96097
Sutler County Air Pollution Control District
  Sutter County Office Building, 142 Garden
  Highway, Yuba City, CA 95991
Tehama County-Air Pollution Control
  District P.O. Box 38.1760  Walnut Street
  Rod Blutt CA 98080
TJare Cowity Air Pollution Control District
  County Civic Center. Visalia. CA 93277
Tuolumne County Air Pollution Control
  District 9 North Washington Street.
  Sonora. CA 95370
Yolo-Solano Air Pollution Control District
  P.O. Box 1008, 323 First Street. *S.
  Woodland. CA 06805
            Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 35 /  Monday.  February 22. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
59

  40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
  [A-6-FRL-2057-1]

  New Source Performance Standards
  and National Emission Standards for
  Hazardous Air Pollutants; Delegation
  of Authority to the State of Arkansas
  AGENCY: Environmental Protection
  Agency (EPA).
  ACTION: Final rule.	
  SUMMARY: EPA has delegated the
  authority for implementation and
  enforcement of New Source
  Performance Standards (NSPS) and
  National Emission Standards for
  Hazardous Air Pollutants (except
  demolition and renovation of buildings
  containing asbestos] to the Arkansas
  Department of Pollution Control  and
  Ecology (ADPCE). The State specified in
  its request that delegation of authority
  for demolition and renovation  of
  buildings containing asbestos,  would not
  be accepted. Except as specifically
  limited, all of the authority and
  responsibilities of the Administrator or
  the Regional Administrator which are
 found in 40 CFR Part 60 and 40 CFR Part
 61 are delegated to the ADPCE. Any of
 such authority and responsibilities may
 be redelegated by the Department to its
 Director or staff.
 EFFECTIVE DATE: September 14,1981.
 ADDRESS: Copies of the State request
 and State-EPA agreement for delegation
 of authority are available for public
 inspection at the Air Branch,
 Environmental Protection Agency,
 Region 6, First International Building.
 28th Floor, 1201 Elm Street, Dallas,
 Texas 75270; (214) 767-1594 or (FTS)
 729-1594.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
 William H. Taylor, Air Branch, address
 above, Telephone: (214) 767-1594 or
 (FTS) 729-1594.
 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July
 1,1981, the State of Arkansas submitted
 to EPA, Region 6, a request for
 delegation of authority  to the ADPCE for
 the implementation and enforcement of
 the NSPS and NESHAP programs
 (except demolition and renovation of
 buildings containing asbestos). After a
 thorough review of the request and
 information submitted,  the Regional
 Administrator determined that the
 State's pertinent laws and the rules and
 regulations of the ADPCE were found to
 provide an adequate and effective
 procedure for implementation and
 enforcement of the NSPS and NESHAP
 programs.
   Under Executive Order 12291, EPA
 must judge whether a publication is
 "major" and therefore subject to the
 requirements of a regulatory impact
 analysis.  The delegation of authority is
 not "major", because it is an
 administrative change, and no
 additional burdens are imposed on the
 parties affected.
   The delegation letter to Arkansas was
 submitted to OMB and determined not
 to be a major rule under E.0.12291.
   Effective immediately, all information
 pursuant  to 40 CFR 60 and 61 by sources
 locating in the State of Arkansas should
 be submitted to the State agency at the
 following address: Arkansas
 Department of Pollution Control and
 Ecology, 8001 National Drive, Little
 Rock, Arkansas 72209.
                                                          IV-103
-------
            Federal  Register  /  Vol.  47, No. 53 / Thursday, March  18, 1982  / Rules and Regulations
(Sec*. 101 and 301 of the Clean Air Act as
amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 and 7601))
  Dated: February 2,1982.
Frances E. Phillips,
Acting Regional Administrator.
PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS

  Part 61 of Chapter 1, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
  Section 61.04 paragraph (b) is
amended by revising subparagraph (E)
to read as follows:

S61.4 Address.
60
  (E) State of Arkansas, Program
Administrator, Air and Hazardous Materials
Division, Arkansas Department of Pollution
Control and Ecology, 8001 National Drive,
Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 (with the
exception of (l)(d) Demolition and
Renovation of Buildings Containing
Asbestos).'
*****
(FR Doc. (Z-4701 Filed 2-1B-KL MS am)
 40 CFR Part 61

 [A-7-FRL-2076-7]

 National Emission Standards for
 Hazardous Pollutants; Delegation of
 Authority to the State of Iowa and
 Addition of Address

 AQENCY: Environmental Protection
 Agency (EPA).
 ACTION: Final rulemaking.

 SUMMARY: The EPA is today amending
 40 CFR 61.04(b)(Q). Address, to reflect a
 delegation of authority to the Iowa
 Department of Environmental Quality
 (IDEQ). The IDEQ has been delegated
 authority to implement and enforce the
 federal National Emission Standards for
 Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS)
 for source categories involving four
 pollutants (asbestos, beryllium, mercury
 and vinyl chloride]. Notification of this
 delegation is published today elsewhere
 in the Federal Register. The amended 40
 CFDR 61.04(b)(Q) adds this address  of
 the IDEQ to which all reports, requests,
 applications, submittals, and
 communications to the Administrator, as
 required by 40 CFR Part 61, must also be
 addressed.
 EFFECTIVE DATE March 18,1982.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
 Mr. Charles W. Whitmore, Air Branch,
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
 Region VII, 324 East llth Street, Kansas
 City, Missouri 64106, 816/374-6525; FTS
 758-6525.
 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
 administrator finds good cause for
 foregoing prior public notice and for
 making this rulemaking effective
 immediately in that it is an
 Administrative change and not one of
 substantive content No additional
 burdens are imposed upon the parties
 affected.
   The delegation which influenced this
 administrative amendment was effective
 on January 19,1982,  and it serves no
 purpose to delay the .technical change of
 this address in the Code of Federal
 Regulations. This rulemaking is effective
 immediately, and is issued under the
 authority of Section  112 of the Clean Air
 Act, as amended. The Office of
 Management and Budget has exempted
 the underlying action in this rulemaking
 from the requirement of Section 3 of
 Executive Order 12291.
  Dated- March 5,1982.
John ]. Franke, Jr.,
Regional Administrator, Region VII.

PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS

  Part 61 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
  1. In | 61.04, paragraph (b) is amended
by adding subparagraph (Q) to read as
follows:

§61.04 Address.
*****

  (b) • * '
*****

  (Q)  Iowa Department of
Environmental Quality, Henry A.
Wallace Building, 900 East Grand, Des
Moines, Iowa 50316.
*****
[FR Doc. U-7M3 Filed S-17-K; IMf «ra|
                                                      IV-104
-------
             Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 57 / Wednesday, March 24,1982 / Rules and Regulations
 61
  40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

  (A-4-FRL-2080-31

  Standards of Performance for New
  Stationary Sources National Emission
  Standards for Hazardous Air
  Pollutants; Mississippi: Delegation of
  Authority

  AOENCY: Environmental Protection
  Agency.
  ACTION: Final rule.	

  SUMMARY: The amendments institute
  certain address changes for reports and
  applications required from operators of
  certain sources subject to Federal
  regulations. EPA has delegated to the
  State of Mississippi authority to review
  new and modified sources. The
  delegated authority includes the review
  under 40 CFR Part 60 for the standards
  of performance for new stationary
  sources and review under 40 CFR Part
  61 for national emission standards for
  hazardous air pollutants. A notice
  announcing the delegation of authority
  was published in the Notices section of
the March 22,1982 issue of the Federal
Register. These amendments provide
that all reports, requests, applications,
submittals, and communications
previously required for the delegated
reviews will now be sent to the Bureau
of Pollution Control, Department of
Natural Resources, P.O. Box 10385,
Jackson, Mississippi 39209.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 30,1981.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Denise W. Pack, Air Programs
Branch, Environmental Protection
Agency, Region IV, 345 Courtland Street,
N E.. Atlanta, Georgia 30365, phone 404/
8R1-3286.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Regional Administrator finds good cause
for foregoing prior public notice and for
making this rulemaking effective
immediately in that it is an
administrative change and not one of
substantive content. No additional
substantive burdens are imposed on the
parties affpcted. The delegation which is
reflected by this administrative
amendment was effective on November
30, 1981, and it serves no purpose to
delay the technical change of this
addition of the state address to the Code
of Federal Regulations.
  The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this regulation from the
OMB review requirements of Executive
Order 12291 pursuant to Section 3[b) of
that order.
(Sees. 101,110. Ill, 112, 301. Clean Air Act, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 7401. 7411, 7412, 7601))
  Dated: March 3.1982
Charles R. Jeter,
Regional A dministrator
PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS

  Part 61 of Chapter 1, Title 40, Code of
Federal Regulations, is amended as
follows:
  In § 61.04, paragraph (b)(Z) is added
as follows:

§61.04 Address.
*****

  (b) * * *
  (Z) Bureau of Pollution Control,
Department of Natural Resources, P.O. Box
10385. Jackson, Mississippi 39209.
              Federal Register / Vol. 47. No.  78 / Thursday. April 22. 1982 / Rules and  Regulations
62
  40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
  [A-e-FRL-2103-6]

  New Source Performance Standards
  and National Emission Standards for
  Hazardous Air Pollutants Delegation of
  Authority to the State of Oklahoma
  AGENCY: Environmental Protection
  Agency (EPA).
  ACTION: Final rule.	

  SUMMARY: EPA, Region 6, has delegated
  the authority for implementation and
  enforcement of New Source
  Performance Standards (NSPS) and
  National Emission Standards for
  Hazardous Air Pollutants to the
  Oklahoma State Department of Health
  (OSDH). Except as specifically limited,
  all of the authority and responsibilities
  of the Administrator or the Regional
  Administrator which are found in 40
  CFR Part 60 and 40 CFR Part 61 are
  delegated to the OSDH. Any of such
  authority and responsibilities may be
  redelegated by the Department to its
  Director or staff.
  •FFECTIVE DATE: March 25.1982.
  ADDRESS: Copies of the State request
  and State-EPA agreement for delegation
  of authority are available for public
 inspection at the Air Branch,
 Environmental Protection Agency,
 Region 6. First International Building.
 28th Floor. 1201 Elm Street, Dallas,
 Texas 75270; (214) 767-1594 or (FTS)
 729-1594.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
 William H. Taylor, Air Branch, address
 above; (214) 767-1594 or FTS 729-1594.
 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
 December 18,1980, the State of
 Oklahoma submitted to EPA, Region 6, a
 request for delegation of authority to the
 OSDH for the implementation and
 enforcement of the NSPS and NESHAP
 programs. After a thorough review of the
 request and information submitted, the
 Regional Administrator determined that
 the State's pertinent laws and the rules
 and regulations of the OSDH were found
 to provide an adequate and effective
 procedure for implementation and
 enforcement of the NSPS and NESHAP
 programs.
  The Office of Management and Budget
 has exempted this information notice
 from the requirements of Section 3 of
 Executive Order 12291,
  Effective immediately, all information
 pursuant to 40 CFR 60 and 40 CFR 61 by
 sources locating in the State of
 Oklahoma should be submitted to the
State agency at the following address:
Oklahoma State Department of Health,
Air Quality Service, P.O. Box 53551,
Oklahoma City. Oklahoma 73152.
  This delegation is issued under the
authority of Sections 111 and 112 of the
Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.
7411 and 7412).
  Dated: April 7,1982
Dick Whittington,
Regional A dministrator.

PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS

  Part 61 of Chapter 1, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
  Section 61.04 is amended by revising
paragraph (b)(LL) to read as follows:

{•1.04   Address.
*****
  (b) *  * •
(LL) State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
   Department of Health, Air Quality
   Service, P.O. Box 53551, Oklahoma City,
   Oklahoma 73152.
*****
[FR Doc 62-10509 Filed 4-21-42: MS am]
                                                        IV-105
-------
              Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 81  / Tuesday. April 27,  1982 / Rules and Regulations
63
 40 CFR Parts 00 and 61

 [A-3-FRL-211JM]

 New Source Performance Standards
 and National Emission Standards for
 Hazardous Pollutants; Delegation of
 Authority to the State of Delaware

 AGENCY: Environmental Protection
 Agency (EPA).
 ACTION: Final rule.

 SUMMARY: This document amends EPA
 regulations  which state the address of
 the Delaware Department of Natural
 Resources and Environmental Control to
 reflect delegation to the State of
 Delaware of authority to implement and
 enforce additional Standards of
 Performance for New Stationary
 Sources and National Emission
 Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants.
 CmCTIVE DATC April 27,1982.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
 Laurence Budney (3AW12),
 Environmental Protection Agency,
 Region ID, Curtis Bldg., 6th & Walnut
 Sts., Philadelphia, PA 19106, Telephone:
 (215) 597-2842.
 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
 I. Background
   On September 22,1981 and February
 3,1982, John E. Wilson III, Secretary of
 the Delaware Department of Natural
 Resources and Environmental Control,
 submitted requests for delegation of
 authority to implement and enforce
 regulations  for:
 • New Source Performance Standards
   (NSPS) for stationary gas turbines
 • New Source Performance Standards
   (NSPS) for petroleum refineries
 • National Emission Standards for
   Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
   for vinyl chloride
   The request was reviewed and on
 April 15,1982 a letter was sent to John E.
 Wilson III, Secretary, Department  of
 Natural Resources and Environmental
 Control, approving the delegation and
 outlining  its conditions. The approval
 letter specified that if Secretary Wilson
 or any other representatives had any
 objections to the conditions of the
 delegation they were to respond within
 ten (10) days after receipt of the letter.
 As of this date, no objections have been
 received.
 D. Regulations Affected by This
 Document
   With respect to the authority
 delegations referred to above, EPA is
 today amending 40 CFR 60.4 and 61.04,
 Address, to reflect these delegations.
 The amended § 60.4 and § 61.04 which
 state the address of the Delaware
 Department of Natural Resources and
 Environmental Control (to which all
 reports, requests, applications,
 submittals and communications to the
 Administrator regarding this subpart
 must be addressed), is set forth below.
   The Administrator finds good cause to
 make this rulemaking effective
 immediately without prior public notice
 since it is an administrative change and
 not one of substantive content. No
 additional substantive burdens are
 imposed on the parties affected^The
 delegation which is reflected by this
 administrative amendment was effective
 on April 15,1982.
   This rulemaking is effective
 immediately, and is issued under the
 authority of Sections 111 and 112 of the
 Clean Air Act, as amended.
   The Office of Management and Budget
 has exempted this action from Executive
 Order 12291.

 ID. Last of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60
   Air pollution control, Aluminum,
 Ammonium sulfate plants, Cement
 industry, Coal, Copper, Electric power
 plants, Glass and glass products, Grains,
 Intergovernmental relations, Iron, Lead,
 Metals, Motor vehicles, Nitric acid
 plants, Paper and paper products
 industry, Petroleum, Phosphate, Sewage
 disposal. Steel, Sulfuric acid plants,
 Waste treatment and disposal, Zinc.
 IV. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 61
   Air pollution control, Asbestos,
 Beryllium, Hazardous materials,
 Mercury, Vinyl chloride.
 (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.)
   Dated: April IS, 1982.
' Stephen R. Waesersug,
 Director, Air & Waste Management Division.

 PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION
 STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
 POLLUTANTS

   Part 61 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
 Code of Federal Regulations is amended
 as follows:
   In { 61.04, paragraph (b) is amended
 by revising subparagraph (I) to read as
 follows:

 J 61.04  Address.
    Building, P.O. Box 1401, Dover, Delaware
    19901
  PH Doc. IZ-11471 Filed 4-20-12; *46 «m|
   (b)***
   (AHH)' ' •
   (I) State of Delaware (for asbestos,
 beryllium, mercury and vinyl chloride):
 Delaware Department of Natural Resources
   and Environmental Control, Tatnall
64

 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

 [A-10-FRL-2119-7J

 New Source Performance Standards
 and National Emissions Standards for
 Hazardous Air Pollutants;
 Subdelegaticn of Authority to an
 Oregon Local Agency

 AGENCY: Environmental Protection
 Agency (EPA).
 ACTION: Rule.

 SUMMARY: EPA is today approving a
 request dated March 11,1982 from the
 State of Oregon Department of
 Environmental Quality for subdelegation
 to enforce certain New Source
 Performance Standards and National
 Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
 Pollutants to the Lane Regional Air
 Pollution Authority.
 DATE: April 23,1982.
 ADDRESSES: The related material in
 support of this subdelegation may be
 examined during normal business hours
 at the following locations:
 Central Docket Section (10A-82-*).
  West Tower Lobby, Gallery I,
  EnTironB»entBl Protection Agency, 401
  M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
  20460
Air Programs Branch, Environmental
  Protection Agency, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
  Seattle, Washington 98101
State of Oregon, Department of
  Environmental Quality, 522 S.W. Fifth
  Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97207.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mark H. Hooper, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, Washington 98101, Telephone:
(206) 442-1949, FTS: 399-1949
                                                      IV-106
-------
           Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 92 / Wednesday. May  12.  1982 / Rules  and Regulations
 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant
 to section lll(c)(l) and 112(d) of the
 Clean Air Act, as amended, the Regional
 Administrator of Region 10,
 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
 delegated to the State of Oregon on
 November 10.1975, and December 3,
 1981, the authority to implement and
 enforce the program for New Source
 Performance [NSPS) and National
 Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
 Pollutants (NESHAPS). The delegation
 was announced in the Federal Register
 on February 20, 1976 and December 22.
 1981 (41 FR 7749 and 46 FR 62066).
 respectively.
  On March 11.1982. the State of
 Oregon Department of Environmental
 Quality requested EPA's concurrence in
 the State's subdelegation of the NSPS
 and NESHAPS program to the Lane
 Regional Air Pollution Authority. After
 reviewing the State's request, the
 Regional Administrator determined thai
 the subdelegation met all the
 requirements outlined in EPA's
 delegations. Therefore, the Regional
 Administrator on April 23, 1982,
 concurred in the subdelegation to the
 local  agency listed below with the
 stipulation that all the conditions placed
 on the original delegation to the State
 shall  also apply to the subdelegation  to
 the local agency. EPA is today amending
 40 CFR 60.4 and 61.4 to reflect the
 State's subdelegation.
  This rulemaking is effective April 23,
 1982 and is issued under the authority of
 section lll(c)(l) and 112(d) of the Clean
 Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857c-7).
  Dated: April 23,1982.
 John R. Spencer.
 Regional Administrator.

 PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION
 STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
 POLLUTANTS

  Part 61 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
 Code of Federal Regulations is amended
 as follows:
  Section 61.4 is amended by adding
 paragraph (b)(MM)(viii):

 {61.04 AddreW
  (b) * ' '
  (MM)' • •
  (viii) Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority.
1244 Walnut Street, Eugene. Oregon 97403
(FR Doc U-12851 Filed 5-11-M. Mf am)
65

 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
 AGENCY

 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

 (A-6-FRL-2128-6J

 Delegation of Additional Authority to
 the State of Arkansas for New Source
 Performance Standards (NSPS) and
 National Emission Standards for
 Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESKAP)
 AGENCY: Environmental Protection
 Agency.
 ACTION: Information notice.

 SUMMARY: On September 14,1981, EPA
 delegated the authority for
 implementation and enforcement of
 existing New Source Performance
 Standards and National Emission
 Standards of Hazardous Air Pollutants
 (except demolition and renovation of
 buildings containing asbestos) to the
 State of Arkansas.
  On March 11,1982, the Arkansas
 Department of Pollution Control  and
 Ecology (ADPCE) requested delegation
 of authority to implement and enforce
 future NSPS and NESHAP requirements.
 On March 25,1982, EPA granted  this
 additional authority to ADPCE by
 modifying Condition 4 of the NSPS/
 NESHAP delegation agreement.
  EFFECTIVE DATE: March 25,1982.
  ADDRESS: Copies of the State request
  and State/EPA agreement for delegation
  of authority are available for public
  inspection at the Air Branch, Air and
  Waste Management Division,
  Environmental Protection Agency,
  Region 6, First International Building,
  28th Floor, 1201 Elm Street, Dallas,
  Texas 75270.

  TOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
  William H. Taylor, Jr., Chief, Technical
  Section, Air Branch, address above,
  telephone (214) 767-1594 or (FTS) 729-
  1594.

  SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
 March 11,1982, the State of Arkansas
  submitted to EPA, Region 6, a request
  for delegation of additional authority to
  the ADPCE for the implementation and
 enforcement of future NSPS and
 NESHAP programs. After a through
 review of the request and information
 submitted, the Regional Administrator
 determined that the State's pertinent
 laws and the rules and regulations of the
 ADPCE were adequate and effective to
 implement and enforce future NSPS and
 NESHAP requirements. Therefore,
 Condition 4 of the NSPS/NESHAP
 agreement letter was amended on
 March 25,1982, as follows:

   4. The Arkansas Department of Pollution
 Control and Ecology is authorize to
 implement and enforce a)) future NSPS and
 NESHAP requirements without making a
 written request to EPA, subject to the
 delegation conditions and terms as set forth in
 the delegation agreement letter dated
 September 14,1981.

   Under Executive Order 12291, EPA
 must judge whether a publication is
 "major" and therefore subject to the
 requirements of a regulatory impact
 analysis. The delegation of authority is
 not "major", because it is an
 administrative change, and no
 additional burdens are imposed on the
 parties affected.
  The Office of Management and Budget
 has exempted this action from the
 rpquirements of Section 3 of Executive
 Order 12291.
  This delegation is issued under the
 authority of sections 111 and 112 of the
 Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.
 7411 and 7412).

  Dated: April 29,1982
Frances E. Phillips,
Regional Administrator.
|FR One. 82-13996 Filed 5-20-SC. 845 am)
                                                    IV-107
-------
              Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 110 / Tuesday, June B. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
66
 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
 AGENCY

 40 CFR Part 61
 [AD-FRL 2087-8]

 National Emission Standards for
 Hazardous Air Pollutants; Appendix
 B—Test Methods; Revisions and
 Addition
 March 10.1982.
 AGENCY: Environmental Protection
 Agency (EPA).
 ACTION: Final rule.

 SUMMARY: Revisions to Methods 101 and
 102, "Determination of Particulate and
 Gaseous Mercury  Emissions from Chlor-
 Alkali Plants—Air Streams," and
 "Determination of Particulate and
 Gaseous Mercury  Emissions from Chlor-
 Alkali Plants—Hydrogen Streams,"
 respectively, and a new Method 111,
 "Determination of Particulate and
 Gaseous Mercury  Emissions from
 sewage Sludge Incinerators," were
 proposed in the Federal Register on
October 15,1980 (45 FR 68514). This
action promulgates the revisions and the
new method, redesignated as Method
101A. The intended effect is to require
all chlor-alkali plants and sewage sludge
treatment plants specified to conduct
emissions tests under Subparts A and E
of 40 CFR Part 61 to hereafter (see
effective date listed below) use these
new and revised methods for
determining compliance. In addition,
amendments to Subparts A and E are
made to include new Method 101A.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 8, 1982.
  Under section 307(b)(l) of the Clean
Air Act, judicial review of the revisions
and addition is available only by the
filing of a petition for review in the U.S.
Court of Appeals  for the District of
Columbia Circuit  within 60 days of
today's publication of this rule. Under
section 307(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act,
the requirements  that are the subject of
today's notice may not be challenged
later in civil or criminal proceedings
brought by EPA to enforce these
requirements.
ADDRESSES: Summary of Comments and
Responses.  This document for the
promulgated test methods 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 "Revisions to
Methods 101.101A, and 102 for the
Determination of Mercury Emissions
(Proposed October 15,1980, 45 FR
68514)—Summary of Comments and
Responses,  EPA 450/3-82-008." The
document contains (1) a summary of all
the public comments made on the
proposed test methods with the
Administrator's response to the
comments, and (2) a summary of the
changes made to  the test methods since
proposal.
  Docket. A docket, number A-79-45,
containing information considered by
EPA in development of the promulgated
test methods, is available for public
inspection between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00
p.m., Monday through Friday, at EPA's
Central Docket Section (A-130), West
Tower Lobby, Gallery 1,401  M Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.  A
reasonable  fee may be charged for
copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Roger T. Shigehara, Emission
Measurement Branch, Emission
Standards and Engineering Division
(MD-19), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone (919) 541-
2237.
Public Participation
  The test methods were proposed and
published in the Federal Register on
October 15,1980 (45 FR 68514). To
provide interested persons the
opportunity for oral presentation of
data, views, or arguments concerning
the proposed test methods, a public
hearing was scheduled for November 6,
1980, at the Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, but no person desired to
make an oral presentation. The public
comment period was from November 6,
1980, to December 15,1980, and was
extended to February 13,1981. Five
comment letters were received
concerning issues relative to the
proposed test methods. The comments
have been carefully considered and,
where determined to be appropriate by
the Administrator, changes have been
made in the proposed test methods.
Significant Comments and Changes to
the Proposed Test Methods
  Five comment letters were received
on the proposed test methods. A
detailed discussion of these comments
and responses can be found in the
background information document
which is referred to in the ADDRESSES
section of this preamble. The summary
of comments and responses serves as
the basis for the revisions which have
been made to the test methods between
proposal and promulgation. The major
comments and responses are
summarized in this preamble. Most of
the comment letters contained multiple
comments. The significant comments
and subsequent method changes are
listed according to the affected method.
Method 101
  One commenter cited success from
the extensive use of KMnO, as the
mercury absorbing medium and
suggested it serve as an acceptable
alternative to iodine monochloride. This
substitution will be allowed, as long as
the entire system can meet the
performance specifications that have
been added to the methods.
  It was pointed out that section 7.3.2 is
confusing as written and seems to
indicate that separate flasks should be
pipetted during the dilution. This has
been corrected by rewording the first
two sentences to read "Pipet a 2-ml
aliquot from the diluted sample from
7.3.1 into a 250-ml volumetric flask. Add
10 ml of 5 percent H2SO4 and adjust the
volume to exactly 250 ml with deionized
distilled water."
  In section 9.4, the total mercury
weight (CHruc>) was originally listed as
mercury concentration. This correction
has been made.
                                                       IV-108
-------
              Federal Register  /  Vol. 47, No.  110 /  Tuesday, lane 8.  1982  /  Rules  and Regulations
Methods 101,101 A. and 102
   Because of their similarities, several
of the received comments pertained to
all three methods. Most concerned the
use of various alternative sampling and
analysis equipment which are reported
to give results that are as accurate and
precise as the apparatus specified in the
methods. An equipment performance
specification has been incorporated into
the methods allowing such alternative
systems to be used as long as they meet
these performance criteria.
   The use ef dried, mercury-free air will
be allowed as an optional aeration gas
in place of dried nitrogen. The asbestos
gasket specified for the probe nozzle
and the asbestos insulation tape
specified for the optical cell have been
replaced by fiberglass components.
   Borosilicate glass containers are
specified for use in preparing and
storing all mercury standard  solutions.

Docket
   The docket is an organized and
complete file of all the information
considered by EPA in the development
of this rulemaking. The docket is a
dynamic file, since material is added
throughout the rulemaking development.
The docketing system is intended to
allow members  of the public  and
industries involved to readily identify
and locate documents so that they can
intelligently and effectively participate
in the rulemaking process. Along with
the statement of basis and purpose of
the proposed and promulgated test
methods and EPA responses  to
significant comments, the contents of
the docket will serve as the record in
case of judicial review [section
307(d](7)(A)].

Miscellaneous
   This rulemaking does not impose any
additional emission measurement
requirements on facilities affected by
this rulemaking, nor does it change the
emission standard or make it more
stringent. Rather, this rulemaking
revises the test methods to which the
affected facilities are already subject. If
future standards impose emission
measurement requirements, the impacts
of the revised test methods promulgated
today will be evaluated during
development of these standards.
   Under Executive Order 12291, EPA
must judge whether a regulation is
"major" and, therefore, subject to the
requirement of a regulatory impact
analysis. This regulation is not major
because it will not have an annual effect
on the economy  of $100 million or more;
it will not result  in a major increase  in
costs or prices; and there will be no
 significant adverse effects on
 competition, employment investment,
 productivity, innovation, or on the
 ability of U.S.-based enterprises to
 compete with foreign-based enterprises
 in domestic or export markets.
  This rule was submitted to the Office
 of Management and Budget for review
 under Executive Order 12291.
  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.
  This rulemaking is issued under the
 authority of sections 112.114,. and 301(a)
 of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42
 U.S.C. 7412, 7414, and  7601(a)).

 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 61

  Air pollution control, Asbestos,
 Beryllium, Hazardous  materials.
 Mercury, Vinyl chloride.
  Dated: May 26,1982.
 Anne M. Gorauch,
 Administrator.

 PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION
 STANDARDS FOR  HAZARDOUS AIR
 POLLUTANTS

  40 CFR Part 61 is amended as follows:
  1. By revising J 61.14(a) as follows:

 Subpart A—General Provisions
§ 61.14  Source test and analytical
methods.
  (a) Methods 101,101A, 102, and 104 in
Appendix B to this part shall be used for
all source tests required under this part,
unless an equivalent method or an
alternative method has been approved
by the Administrator.
*****

  2. By revising § 61.53(d)(2) as follows:

§ 61.53  Stack sampling
*****

  (d) * * *
  (2) Method 101A m Appendix B to this
part shall be used to test emissions as
follows:
  (i) The test shall be performed within
90 days of the effective date of these
regulations in the case of an existing
source or a new source which has an
initial startup date preceding the
effective date.
  (ii) The test shall be performed within
90 days of startup in the case of a new
source which did not have an initial
startup date preceding the effective
date.
   3. By revising Methods 101 and 102
 and adding Method 101A to Appendix B
 as follows:

 Appendix B—Test Methods

 Method 101—Determination of ParticuJote
 and Caseous Mercury Emissions From Chlor-
 Alkali Plants—Air Streams
   I. Applicability and Principle—1.1
 Applicability. This method applies to the
 determination of participate and gaseous
 mercury {Hg) emissions from chlor-alkali
 plants and other sources (as specified in the
 regulations], where the carrier-gas stream in
 the duct or stack is principally air.
   1.2 Principle. Particulate and gaseous Hg
 emissions are withdrawn isokinetically from
 the source and collected in acidic iodine
 monochloride (1C1) solution. The Hg collected
 (in the mercuric form) is reduced to elemental
 Hg, which is then aerated from the solution
 into an optical cell and measured by atomic
 absorption spectrophotometry.
   2. Range and Sensitivity—2.1  Range.
 After initial dilution, the range of this method
 is 0.5 to 120 fig Hg/mL The upper limit can be
 extended by further dilution of the sample
   2.2 Sensitivity. The sensitivity of this
 method depends on the  recorder/
 spectrophotometer combination selected.
   3. Interfering Agents—3.1  Sampling. SO»
 reduces IC1 and causes premature depletion
 of the IC1 solution.
   3.2 Analysis. IC1 concentrations greater
 than 10"4 molar inhibit the reduction of the
 Hg (II) ion in the aeration cell. Condensation
 of water vapor on the optical cell windows
 causes a positive interference.
  4. Precision and Accuracy—The following
 estimates are based on collaborative tests,
 wherein 13 laboratories  performed duplicate
 analyses on two Hg-containing samples from
 a chlor-alkali plant and  on one laboratory-
 prepared sample of known Hg concentration.
 The concentration ranged from 2 to 65 u.g Hg/
 ml.
  4.1  Precision. The estimated within-
 laboratory and between-laboratory standard
 deviations are 1.6 and 1.8 fig Hg/ml,
 respectively,
  4.2  Accuracy. The participating
 laboratories that analyzed a 64.3-ng Hg/ml
 (in 0.1 M Id)  standard obtained a mean of
 63.7 fig Hg/ml.
  5. Apparatus—5.1   Sampling Train. A
 schematic of the sampling  train is shown in
 Figure 101-1; it is similar to the Method 5
 train fmention of Method 5 refers to Parts 60
 of 40 CFR). The sampling train consists of the
 following components:
  5.1.1 Probe Nozzle, Pilot Tube.
Differential Pressure Gauge, Metering
System, Barometer, and Gas Density
Determination Equipment Same as Method
5, Sections 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 2.1.4, 2.1.8, 2.1.9, and
2.1,10, respectively.
  5.1.2 Probe Liner. Borosilicate or quartz
glass tubing. The tester may use a heating
system capable of maintaining a gas
temperature of 120±14°  C (248±25° F) at the
probe exit during sampling to prevent water
condensation.
  Note.—Do not use metal probe liners.
                                                         IV-109
-------
               Federal  Register /  Vol.  47, No. 110 /  Tuesday. June 8,  1982  / Rules  and Regulations
  5.1.3  Impingers. Four Greenburg-Smith
impingers connected in series with leak-free
ground glass fittings or any similar leak-free
noncontaminating fittings. For the first, third,
and fourth impingers, the tester may use
impingers that are modified by replacing the
tip with a 13-mm-ID (0.5-in.) glass tube
extending to 13 mm (0.5 in.) from the bottom
of the flask.
  5.1.4  Acid Trap. Mine Safety Appliances
air line filter, Catalog number 81857. with
acid absorbing cartridge and suitable
connections, or equivalent.
  5.2  Sample Recovery. The following items
are needed:
  5.2.1  Glass Sample Bottles. Leakless,  with
Teflon-lined caps, 1000- and 100-ml.
  5.2.2  Graduated Cylinder. 250-ml.
  5.2.3  Funnel and Rubber Policeman. To
aid in transfer of silica gel to container; not
necessary if silica gel is weighed in the field.
  5.2.4  Funnel. Glass, to aid in sample
recovery.
  5.3  Sample Preparation and Analysis. The
following equipment is needed;
  5.3.1  Atomic Absorption
Spectrophotometer. Perkin-Elmer 303, or
equivalent, containing a hollow-cathode
mercury lamp and the optical cell described
in Section 5.3.2.
  5.3.2  Optical Cell. Cylindrical shape with
quartz end windows and having the
dimensions shown in Figure 101-2. Wind the
cell with approximately 2 meters of 24-gauge
nichrome heating wire, and wrap with
Fiberglass insulation tape or equivalent; do
not let the wires touch each other.
  5.3.3  Aeration Cell. Constructed
according to the specifications in Figure 101-
3. Do not use a glass frit as a substitute for
the blown glass bubbler tip shown in Figure
101-3.
  5.3.4  Recorder. Matched to output of the
Spectrophotometer described in Section 5.3.1.
  5.3.5  Variable Transformer. To vary the
voltage on the optical cell from 0 to 40 volts.
  5.3.6  Hood. For venting optical cell
exhaust.
  5.3.7  Flowmetering Valve.
  5.3.8  Flowmeter. Rotameter or equivalent.
capable of measuring a gas flow of 1.5 liters/
min.
  5.3.9  Aeration Gas Cylinder. Nitrogen or
dry, Hg-free air, equipped with a single-stage
regulator.
  5.3.10  Connecting Tubing. Use glass
tubing (ungreased ball- and socket-
connections are recommended) for all tubing
connections between the solution cell and the
optical cell; do not use Tygon tubing, other
types of flexible tubing, or metal tubing as
substitutes. The tester may use Teflon, steel.
or copper tubing between the nitrogen tank
and flowmetering valve (5.3.7), and Tygon,
gum. or rubber tubing between the       <
flowmetering valve and the aeration cell.
  5.3.11   Flow Rate Calibration Equipment.
Bubble flowmeter or wet test meter for
measuring a gas flow rate of 1.5±0.1 liters/
min.
  5.3.12  Volumetric Flasks. Class A with
penny head standard taper stoppers; 100-,
250-, 500- and 1000-ml.
  5.3.13  Volumetric Pipets. Class A; 1-,  2-. 3-
. 4-, and 5-ml.
  5.3.14  Graduated Cylinder. 50-ml.
  5.3.15  Magentic Stirrer. General-purpose
laboratory type.
  5.3.16  Magnetic Stirring Bar. Teflon-
coated.
  5.3.17  Balance. Capable of weighing to
±0.5 g.
  5.4   Alternative Analytical Apparatus.
Alternative systems are allowable as long as
they meet the following criteria:
  5.4.1  A linear calibration curve is
generated and two consecutive samples of
the same aliquot size and concentration agree
within 3 percent of their average.
  5.4.2  A minimum of 95 percent of the
spike  is recovered when an aliquot of a
source sample is spiked with a known
concentration of mercury (II) compound.
  5.4.3  The reducing agent should be added
after the aeration  cell is closed.
  5.4.4  The aeration bottle bubbler should
not contain a frit.
  5.4.5  Any Tygon used should be as short
as possible and conditioned prior to  use until
blanks and standards yield linear and
reproducible results.
  5.4.6  If manual stirring is done before
aeration, it should be done with the aeration
cell closed.
  5.4.7  A drying  tube should not be used
unless it is conditioned as the Tygon above.
  6. Reagents—Use ACS reagent-grade
chemicals or equivalent, unless otherwise
specified.
  6.1   Sampling and Recovery. The  reagents
used in sampling and recovery are as follows:
  6.1.1  Water. Deionized distilled, meeting
ASTM Specifications for Type I Reagent
Water—ASTM Test Method D 1193-74. If
high concentrations of organic matter are not
expected to be present, the analyst may
eliminate the KMnO, test for oxidizable
organic matter. Use this water in all  dilutions
and solution preparations.
  6.1.2  Nitric Acid (HNO,}, 50 Percent (V/
V). Mix equal volumes of concentrated HNOi
and deionized  distilled water, being  careful to
slowly add the acid to the water.
  6.1.3  Silica Gel. Indicating type. 6- to 16-
mesh. If previously used, dry at 175°  C (350°
F) for 2 hours. The tester may use new silica
gel as received.
  6.1.4  Potassium Iodide (KI) Solution. 25
Percent. Dissolve  250 g of Kl in deionized
distilled water and dilute to 1 liter.
  6.1.5  Iodine Monochloiide (ICI) Stock
Solution, 1.0 M. To 800 ml of 25 percent KI
solution, add 800 ml of concentrated
hydrochloric acid  (HC1). Cool to room
temperature. With vigorous stirring,  slowly
add 135 g of potassium iodate (KIO,) and stir
until all free iodine has dissolved. A clear
orange-red solution occurs when all  the KIOj
has been added. Cool to room temperature
and dilute to 1800 ml with deionized distilled
water. Keep the solution in amber glass
bottles to prevent degradation.
  6.1.6  Absorbing Solution, 0.1 M ICI. Dilute
100 ml of the 1.0 M ICI stock solution to 1 liter
with deionized distilled water. Keep the
solution in amber glass bottles and in
darkness to prevent degradation. This
reagent is stable for at least 2 months.
  6.2   Sample Preparation and Analysis. The
reagents needed are listed below:
  6.2.1  Tin (II) Solution. Prepare fresh daily
and keep sealed when not being used.
Completely dissolve 20 g of tin (II) chloride
[or 25 g of tin (II) sulfate] crystals (Baker
Analyzed reagent grade or any other brand
that will give a clear solution) in 25 ml of
concentrated HC1. Dilute to 250 ml with
deionized distilled water. Do not substitute
HNO,. HjSC<4, or other strong acids for the
HC1.
  6.2.2  Mercury Stock Solution. 1 mg Hg/
ml. Prepare and store all mercury standard
solutions in borosilicate glass containers.
Completely dissolve 0.1354 g of mercury (II)
chloride in 75 ml of deionized distilled water
in a 100 ml glass volumetric flask. Add 10 ml
of concentrated HNO>, and adjust the volume
to exactly 100 ml with deionized distilled
water. Mix thoroughly. This solution is stable
for at least 1 month.
  6.2.3  Sulfuric Acid, 5 Percent fV/VJ.
Dilute 25 ml of concentrated H«SO4 to 500 ml
with deionized distilled water.
  6.2.4  Intermediate Mercury Standard
Solution, 10 u,g Hg/ml. Prepare fresh weekly.
Pipet 5.0 ml of the mercury stock solution
(6.2.2) into a 500-ml glass volumetric flask
and add 20 ml of the 5 percent H.SO.
solution. Dilute to exactly 500 ml with
deionized distilled water. Thoroughly mix the
solution.
  6.2,5  Working Mercury Standard
Solution, 200 ng Hg/ml. Prepare fresh daily.
Pipet 5.0 ml from the "Intermediate Mercury
Standard Solution"  (6.2.4) into a 250-ml
volumetric glass flask. Add 10 ml of the 5
percent H*SO. and 2 ml of the 0.1 M ICI
absorbing solution taken as a blank (7.2.3)
and dilute to 250 ml with deionized distilled
water. Mix thoroughly.
  7. Procedure—7.1  Sampling. Because of
the complexity of this method, testers should
be trained and experienced with the test
procedures to assure reliable results. Since
the amount of Hg that is collected generally is
small the method must be carefully applied
to prevent contamination or loss of sample.
  7.1.1  Pretest Preparation. Follow the
general procedure given in Method 5, Section
4.1.1, except omit the directions on the filter.
  7.1.2  Preliminary Determinations. Follow
the general procedure given in Method 5.
Section 4.1.2, except as follows: Select a
nozzle size based on the range of velocity
heads to assure that it is not necessary to
change the nozzle size in order to maintain
isokinetic sampling rates below 28 liters/min
(1.0 cfm).
  Obtain samples over a period or periods
that  accurately determine the maximum
emissions that occur in a 24-hour period. In
the case of cyclic operations, run sufficient
tests for the accurate determination of the
emissions that occur over the duration of the
cycle. A minimum sample time of 2 hours is
recommended. In some instances, high Hg or
high SO2 concentrations make it impossible
to sample for the desired minimum time. This
is indicated by reddening (liberation of free
iodine) in the first impinger. In these cases.
the tester may divide  the sample run into two
or more subruns to insure that the absorbing
solution is not depleted.
   7.1.3  Preparation of Sampling Train.
Clean all glassware [probe, impingers, and
connectors] by rinsing with 50 percent HNCv
tap water, 0.1 M ICI, tap water, and finally
                                                               IV-110
-------
                Federal  Register /  Vol. 47,  No.  110 / Tuesday. June 8. 1982  /  Rules  and Regulations
 deionized distilled water. Place 100 ml of 0.1
 MIC1 In each of the first three impingers.
 Take care to prevent the absorbing solution
 from contacting any greased surfaces. Place
 approximately 200 g of preweighed silica gel
 in the fourth impinger. The tester may use
 more silica gel, but should be careful to
 ensure that it is not entrained  and carried out
 from the impinger during sampling.  Place the
 •ilica gel container in a clean place for later
 use in the sample recovery. Alternatively,
 determine and record the weight of the silica
 gel plus impinger to the nearest 0.5 g.
   Install the selected nozzle using a Viton A
 O-ring when stack temperatures are less than
 260* C (500° F). Use a fiberglass string gasket
 if temperatures are higher. See APTD-0576
 (Citation 9 in Section 10) for details. Other
 connecting systems using either 316 stainless
 steel or Teflon ferrules may be used. Mark
 the probe with heat-resistant tape or by  some
 other method to denote the proper distance
 into the stack or duct for each  sampling point.
 Assemble the train as shown in Figure 101-1,
 using (if necessary) a very light coat of
 silicone grease on all ground glass joints.
 Grease only the outer portion (see APTD-
 0576) to avoid possibility of contamination by
 the silicone grease.
   Note.—An empty impinger may be inserted
 between the third impinger and the silica gel
 to remove excess moisture from the sample
 stream.
 ' After the sampling train has  been
 assembled, turn on and set the probe, if
 applicable, at the desired operating
 temperature. Allow time for the temperatures
 to stabilize. Place crushed ice around the
 impingers.
   7.1.4  Leak-Check Procedures. Follow the
 leak-check procedures  outlined in Method 5,
 Sections 4.1.4.1 (Pretest Leak Check), 4.1.4.2
 (Leak Checks During Sample Run), and 4.1.4.3
 (Post-Test Leak Check).
  7.1.5  Mercury Train Operation.  Follow
 the general procedure given in  Method 5,
 Section 4.1.5. For each run, record the data
 required on a data sheet such as the one
 shown in Figure 101-4.
  7.1.6  Calculation of Percent Isokinetic.
 Same as Method 5, Section 4.1.6.
  7.2  Sample Recovery. Begin proper
 cleanup procedure as soon as the probe is
 removed from the stack at the end of the
 sampling period.
  Allow the probe to cool. When it can be
 safely handled, wipe off any external
 paniculate matter near the tip of the probe
 nozzle and place a cap  over it.  Do not cap off
 the probe tip tightly while the sampling train
 is cooling. Capping would create a vacuum
 and draw liquid out from the impingers.
  Before moving the sampling train  to the
 cleanup site, remove the probe  from the train,
 wipe off the silicone grease, and cap the open
 outlet of the probe. Be careful not to Icse  any
 condensate that might be present. Wipe off
 the silicone grease from the impinger. Use
 either ground-glass stoppers, plastic  caps, or
 serum caps to close these openings.
  Transfer the probe and impinger assembly
to a cleanup area that is clean,  protected
from the wind, and free of Hg contamination.
The ambient air in laboratories located in the
immediate vicinity of Hg-using  facilities is
not normally free of Hg-contamination.
   Inspect the train before and during
 assembly, and note any abnormal conditions.
 Treat the sample as follows:
   7.2.1  Container No. 1 (Impinger and
 Probe). Using a graduated cylinder, measure
 the liquid in the first three impingers to
 within ±1 ml. Record the volume of liquid
 present (e.g., see Figure 5-3 of Method 5).
 This information is needed to calculate the
 moisture content of the effluent gas. (Use
 only glass storage bottles and graduated
 cylinders that have been precleaned as in
 Section 7.1.3.) Place the contents of the first
 three impingers into a 1000-ml glass sample
 bottle.
   Taking care that dust on the outside of the
 probe or other exterior surfaces does not get
 into the sample, quantitatively recover the Hg
 (and any condensate) from the probe nozzle,
 probe fitting, and probe liner as follows:
 Rinse these components with two 50-ml
 portions of 0.1 M ICl. Next, rinse the probe
 nozzle, fitting and liner, and each piece of
 connecting glassware between the probe
 liner -.id the back half of the third impinger
 with a maximum of 400 ml of deionized
 distilled water. Add all washings to the 1000-
 ml glass sample bottle containing the liquid
 from the first three impingers.
   After all washings have been collected in
 the sample container, tighten the lid on the
 container to prevent leakage during shipment
 to the laboratory. Mark the height of the
 liquid to determine later whether leakage
 occurred during transport. Label the
 container to clearly identify its contents.
   7.2.2  Container No. 2 (Silica Gel). Note
 the color of the indicating silica gel to
 determine whether it has been completely
 spent and make a notation of its condition.
 Transfer the silica gel from its impinger to its
 original container and seal. The tester may
 use as aids a funnel to pour the silica gel and
 a rubber policeman to remove the silica gel
 from  the impinger. The small amount of
 particles that may  adhere to the impinger
 wall need not be removed. Since the gain in
 weight is to be used for moisture calculations,
 do not use any water or other liquids to
 transfer the silica gel.  If a balance is
 available  in the field, weigh the spent silica
 gel (or silica gel plus impinger) to the nearest
 0.5 g; record this weight.
   7.2.3  Container No. 3 (Absorbing Solution
 Blank). For a blank, place 50 ml of the 0.1 M
 ICl absorbing solution in a 100-ml sample
 bottle. Seal the container. Use this blank to
 prepare the working mercury standard
 solution (6.2.5).
   7.3   Sample Preparation. Check the liquid
 level  in each container to see whether liquid
 was lost during transport. If a noticeable
 amount of leakage  occurred,  either void the
 sample or use methods subject to the
 approval of the Administrator to account for
 the losses. Then follow the procedures below:
  7.3.1  Container No. 1 (Impinger and
 Probe). Carefully transfer the contents of
 Container No. 1 into a 1000-ml volumetric
flask and adjust the volume to exactly 1000
ml with deionized distilled water.
  7.3.2  Dilutions.  Pipet a 2-ml aliquot from
the diluted sample  from 7.3.1 into a 250-ml
volumetric flask. Add 10 ml of 5 percent
HiSO, and adjust the volume to exactly 250
ml with deionized distilled water. These
solutions are stable for at least 72 hours.
   Note.—The dilution factor will be 250/2 for
 this solution.
   7.4  Analysis. Calibrate the
 spectrophotometer and recorder and prepare
 the calibration curve as described in Sections
 8.1 to 8.4.
   7.4.1  Mercury Samples. Repeat the
 procedure used to establish the calibration
 curve with appropriately sized ahquots (1 to 5
 ml) of each of the diluted samples (from
 Section 7.3.2) until two consecutive peak
 heights agree within ±3 percent of their
 average value. The peak maximum of an
 aliquot (except the 5-ml aliquot) must be
 greater than 10 percent of the recorder full
 scale. If the peak maximum of a 1.0-ml
 aliquot is off scale on the recorder, further
 dilute the original source sample to bring the
 Hg concentration into the calibration range of
 the spectrophotometer.
   Run a blank  and standard at least after
 every five samples to check the
 spectrophotometer calibration; recalibrate as
 necessary.
   It is  also recommended that at least one
 sample from each stack test be checked by
 the method of standard additions to confirm
 that matrix effects have not interfered in the
 analysis.
   7.4.2   Container No. 2 (Silica Gel). Weigh
 the spent silica gel (or silica gel plus
 impinger) to the nearest 0 5 g using a balance.
 (This step may be conducted in the field.)
   8. Calibration and Standards—Before use,
 clean all glassware, both new and used, as
 follows: brush with soap and water, liberally
 rinse with tap water, soak for 1  hour in 50
 percent HNO,,  and then rinse with deionized
 distilled water.
   8.1   Flow Calibration. Assemble the
 aeration system as shown in Figure 101-5. Set
 the outlet pressure on the aeration gas
 cylinder regulator to a minimum pressure of
 500 mm Hg (10  psi), and use the flowmetering
 valve and a bubble flowmeter or wet test
 meter to obtain a flow rate of 1.5±0.1 liters/
 min through the aeration cell. After the flow
 calibration is complete, remove the bubble
 flowmeter from the system.
   8.2   Optical Cell Heating System
 Calibration. Using a 50-ml graduated
 cylinder, add 50 ml of deionized distilled
 water to the bottle section of the aeration ctll
 and attach the bottle section to the bubbler
 section of the cell. Attach the aeration eel! to
 the optical cell; and while  aerating at 1 5
 liters/mm, determine the minimum variable
 transformer setting necessary to prevent
 condensation of moisture in the optical cell
 and in the connecting tubing. (This setting
 should not exceed 20 volts.)
   8 3  Spectrophoiomeier and Recorder
 Calibration. The mercury response mty be
 measured by either peak height or peak area
   Note.—The temperature of the solution
 affects (he rate at which elemental Hg is
 released from a solution and, consequently, it
 affects the shape of the absorption curve
 (area) and the point of maximum absorbance
 (peak height). Therefore, to obtain
reproducible results, bring all solutions to
room temperature before use.
  Set the spectrophotometer wavelength at
253.7 nm. and make certain the optical cell is
at the minimum temperature that will prevent
                                                              iv-ni
-------
               Federal Register  / Vol. 47. No.  110  /  Tuesday.  June  B,  1982 / Rules and  Regulations
water condensation. Then set the recorder
scale as follows: Using a 50-ml graduated
cylinder, add 50 ml of deionized distilled
water to the aeration cell bottle and pipet 5.0
ml of the working mercury standard solution
into the aeration cell.
  Note.—Always add the Hg-containing
solution to the aeration cell after the 50 ml of
deionized distilled water.
  Place a Teflon-coated stirring bar in the
bottle. Before attaching the bottle section to
the bubbler section of the aeration cell, make
certain that (1) the aeration cell exit arm
stopcock (Figure 101-3) is closed (so that Hg
will not prematurely enter the optical cell
when the reducing agent is being added) and
(2) there is no flow through the bubbler. If
conditions (1) and (2) are met, attach the
bottle section to the bubbler section of the
aeration cell through the side arm of the cell
and immediately stopper the side arm. Stir
the solution for 15 sec, turn on the recorder,
open the aeration cell exit arm stopcock, and
then immediately initiate aeration with
continued stirring. Determine the maximum
absorbance of the standard and set this value
to read 90 percent of the  recorder full scale.
  8.4   Calibration Curve. After setting the
recorder scale, repeat the procedure in
Section 8.3 using 0.0-. 1.0-, 2.0-. 3.0-, 4.0-, and
5.0-ml aliquots of the working standard
solution (final amount of Hg in the aeration
cell is 0. 200, 400, 600, 800, and 1000 ng.
respectively). Repeat this proced\ire on each
aliquot size until two consecutive peaks
agree within 3 percent of their average value.
(Note: To prevent Hg carryover from one
sample to another, do not close the aeration
gas tank valve and do not disconnect the
aeration cell from the optical cell until the
recorder pen has returned to the baseline.) It
should not be necessary  to disconnect the
aeration gas inlet line from the aeration cell
when changing samples. After separating the
bottle and bubbler sections of the aeration
cell, place the bubbler section into a 600-ml
beaker containing approximately 400 ml of
deionized distilled water. Rinse the bottle
section of the aeration cell with a stream of
deionized distilled water to remove all traces
of the tin (II) reducing agent. Also, to prevent
the loss of Hg before aeration, remove all
traces of the reducing agent between samples
by washing with deionized distilled water. It
will be necessary, however, to wash the
aeration cell parts with concentrated HC1 if
any of the following conditions occur: (1) A
white film appears on any inside surface of
the aeration cell, (2) the  calibration curve
changes suddenly, or (3) the replicate
samples do not yield reproducible results.
  Subtract the average peak height (or peak
area) of the blank (0.0-ml ab'quot)—which
should be less than 2 percent of recorder full
scale—from the averaged peak heights of the
1.0-, 2.0-, 3.0-, 4.0-, and 5.0-ml aliquot
standards. If the blank absorbance is greater
than 2 percent of full-scale, the probable
cause is Hg contamination of a reagent or
carry-over of Hg from a previous sample. Plot
the corrected peak height of each standard
solution versus the corresponding final total
Hg weight in the aeration cell (in ng) and
draw the best-fit straight line. This line
should either pass through the origin or pasi
through a point no further from the origin
than ±2 percent of the recorder full scale. If
the line does not pass through or very near to
the origin, check for nonlineanty of the curve
and for incorrectly prepared standards.
  8.5   Sampling Train Calibration. Calibrate
the sampling train components according to
the procedures outlined in the following
sections of Method 5: Section 5.1 (Probe
Nozzle), Section 5.2 (Pilot Tube), Section 5 3
(Metering System), Section 5.4 (Probe
Heater), Section 5.5 (Temperature Gauges).
Section 5.7 (Barometer). Note that the leak-
check described in Section 5.6 of Method 5
applies to this method.
  9. Calculations—9.1  Dry Gas Volume
Using the data from this test, calculate Vm(>u,,
the dry gas sample volume at standard
conditions (corrected for leakage, if
necessary) as outlined in Section 6.3 of
Method 5.
  9.2   Volume of Water Vapor and Moisture
Content. Using the data obtained from this
test, calculate the  volume of water vapor
Vw(.td) and the moisture content Bwf of the
stack gas. Use Equations 5-2 and 5-3 of
Method 5.
  9.3   Stack Gas  Velocity. Using the data
from this test and  Equation 2-9 of Method 2.
calculate the average stack gas velocity v,
  9.4   Total Mercury. For each source
sample, correct the average maximum
absorbance of the two consecutive samples
whose peak heights agree within ±3 percent
of their average for the contribution of the
solution blank (see Section 8.4). Use  the
calibration curve and these corrected
averages, to determine th<> final total weight
of mercury in nanograms in the aeration cell
for each source sample. Correct for any
dilutions made to  bring the sample in the
working range of the spectrophotometer
Then calculate the Hg in ftg (mHg) in  the
original solution as follows:
                               Eq 101-1
Where:
CH.= Total nanograms of mercury in
    aliquot analyzed (reagent blank
    subtracted).
D.F. = Dilution factor for the Hg-containing
    solution (before adding to the aeration
    cell; e.g., D.F. = 250/2 if the source
    samples were diluted as described in
    Section 7.3.2.)
V,= Solution volume of original sample, 1000
    ml for samples diluted as described in
    Section 7.2.1.
10" 3= Conversion factor, fig/ng.
S=Aliquot volume added to aeration cell, ml.

  9.5  Mercury Emission Rate. Calculate the
Hg emission rate R in g/day for continuous
operations using Equation 101-2. For cyclic
operations, use only the1 time per day each
stack is in operation. The total Hg emission
rate from a source will be the summation of
results from all stacks.
R=K my. V. A. [86.400X10-1
       IVUuH
                                          .
                                     • 101'Z
Where:

A, = Stack cross-sectional area, m*(ft*).
86,400=Con version factor, sec/day.
10""= Conversion factor, g/MS-
Tt=Absolute average stack gas temperature.
    •K (°R).
P,=Absolute stack gas pressure, mm Hg (in.
    Hg).
K =0.3858 °K/mm Hg for metric units
    =17*5 °R/m. Hg for English units

  9.6   Isokinetic Variation and Acceptable
Results. Same as Method 5. Sections 6.11 and
6.12, respectively
  9.7   Determination of Compliance. Each
performance test consists of three repetitions
of the applicable test method. For the purpose
of determining compliance with an  applicable
national emission standard, use the average
of the results of all repetitions.
  10. Bibliography. 1. Addendum to
Specifications for Incinerator Testing at
Federal Facilities. PHS. NCAPC. December 6.
1967.
  2. Determining Dust Concentration in a Gas
Stream. ASME Performance Test Code No.
27. New York, NY. 1957.
  3. Devorkin, Howard, et al. Air Pollution
Source Testing Manual. Air Pollution Control
District. Los Angeles, CA. November 1963
  4. Hatch, W.R.. and W.I. OH. Determination
of Sub-Microgram Quantities of Mercury by
Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry. Anal.
Chem. 40:2085-87.1968.
  S. Mark. L.S. Mechanical Engineers'
Handbook. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc. New
York, NY. 1951
  6. Martin, Robert M. Construction Details
of Isokinetic Source Sampling Equipment.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC. Publication No
APTD-0581. April 1971.
  7. Western Precipitation Division of Joy
Manufacturing Co. Methods for
Determination of Velocity, Volume, Dust and
Mist Content of Gases. Bulletin WP-50. Los
Angeles, CA. 1968.
  8. Perry, J.H. Chemical Engineers'
Handbook McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc. New
York, NY. 1960.
  9. Rom. Jerome J. Maintenance, Calibration,
and Operation of Isokinetic Source Sampling
Equipment. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.  Research Triangle Park, NC.
Publication No. APTD-0576. April 1972.
  10. Shigehara, R.T., W.F. Todd, and W.S.
Smith  Significance of Errors in Stack
Sampling Measurements. Stack Sampling
News. J:(3):6-18. September 1973.
  11. Smith, W.S., et al. Stack Gas  Sampling
Improved and Simplified with New
Equipment. APCA Paper No. 67-119.1967.
  12. Smith, W.S., R.T. Shigehara, and W.F.
Todd. A Method of Interpreting Stack
Sampling Data.  Stack Sampling News. J(2):8-
17. August 1973.
  13. Specifications for Incinerator Testing at
Federal Facilities. PHS, NCAPA. 1967.
  14. Standard Method for Sampling Stacks
for Particulate Matter. In: 1971 Annual Book
of ASTM Standards. Part 23. ASTM
Designation D-2928-71. Philadelphia, PA.
1971.
  15. Vennard, J.K. Elementary Fluid
Mechanics. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New
York. 1947.
  16. Mitchell, W.J., and M.R. Midgett.
Improved Procedure for Determining Mercury
                                                              IV-112
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 110 /  Tuesday, June 8,1982 /  Rules and Regulations
                                                                   en

                                                                  "5.

                                                                   8
                                                                   
-------
          Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 110 / Tuesday, June 8, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
                                     18/9 FEMALE BALL SOCKET
                 LENGTH NECESSARY TO FIT SOLUTION CELL
                      TO SPECTROPHOTOMETER
                          (END VIEW)
                                              TO VARIABLE TRANSFORMER
   VENT TO HOOD
9-mm OD
                                 9-mrn OD  f£^   2.5 cm
             1AMMM
3.81cm DIAMETER
QUARTZ WINDOWS
AT EACH END
                     (FRONT VIEW)
   NOTES:
   CELL WOUND WITH 24-GAUGE NICHROME WIRE
   TOLERANCES ± 5 PERCENT
                      Figure 101-2.  Optical cell.
                                      IV-114
-------
           Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 110 / Tuesday. June 8.1982 / Rules and Regulations

                       FROM TANK
                           T~\  18/9 MALE BALL JOINT
                                        	4-mm BORE TEFLON STOPCOCK
                              BUBBLER
                              PORTION
                                      "j  i:
                                            ~T    _x^T0
                                       ,6\\    
-------
                    PLANT	
                    LOCATION 	
                    OPERATOR	
                    DATE     	
                    RUN NO.   	
                    SAMPLE BOX NO.
                    FILTER BOX NO.
                    METER AH@>
                    CFACTOR 	
                    PITOTTUBE COEFFICIENT. Cp.
                                                               SCHEMATIC OF STACK CROSS SECTION
AMBIENT TEMPERATURE	
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE 	
ASSUMED MOISTURE,*  	
PROBE LENGTH, m (ft)   	
NOZZLE IDENTIFICATION NO.   	
AVERAGE CALIBRATED NOZZLE DIAMETER, cm (in.).
PROBE HEATER SETTING*	
LEAK RATE, m^/min (cfm)	
PROBE LINER MATERIAL	
STATIC PRESSURE, mm H| (in. H|).
FILTER N0.«	
CTl
TRAVERSE POINT
NUMBER

-












TOTAL
AVERAGE
SAMPLING
TIME
(0\. mm.
















VACUUM
mm Hj
(in. Hg)
















STACK
TEMPERATURE
«(T5'
'C (^F)
















VELOCITY
HEAD
(APS)
















PRESSURE
DIFFERENTIAL
ACROSS
ORIFICE
METER
mm H^O
(in. H20)
















GAS SAMPLE
VOLUME
m3 (tt3)
















I
GAS SAMPLE
TEMPERATURE
AT DRY GAS METER
INLET
°C (°F>














Av,.
Avg.
OUTLET
°C (°F)














Avj.

FILTER
HOLDER*
TEMPERATURE.
°C (°F)
















TEMPERATURE
OF GAS
LEAVING
CONDENSER OR
LAST IMPINGER
°C (°F) ,















rt

                                                                                                                                                          2
                                                                                                                                                          o
                                                                                                                                                          Q.
                                                                                                                                                          a
                                                                                                                                                          fO
                                                                                                                                                          00
                                                                                                                                                          l-»
                                                                                                                                                          $
                                                                                                                                                          58
                                                                                                                                                          p>
                                                                                                                                                          Q.
                                                                                                                                                          a.
                                                                                                                                                          1
                    •IF APPLICABLE
                                                                     Fig. 101-4. Mercury field data.
-------
                NEEDLE VALVE FOR
                 FLOW CONTROL
 N2 CYLINDER
                  EXIT ARM
                  STOPCOCK

E
3
AERATION
CELL
FLOW

Mi
=

                                                                              TO VARIABLE TRANSFORMER
                                                            MAGNETIC STIRRING BAR
METER
                                             MAGNETIC STIRRER
                               Figure 101-5. Schematic of aeration system.
WLUNG CODE (MO-M-C
                                                                                                          o
                                                                                                          CD
                                                                                                          CP
                                                                                                          0.
                                                                                                          IB
                                                                                                          c
                                                                                                          CD
                                                                                                          I
                                                                                                          n
                                                                                                          09
                                                                                                          03
                                                                                                          s.
                                                                                                          §
                                                                                                          go
-------
               Federal Register  / Vol.  47, No. 110 / Tuesday,  June  8.  1962  / Rules  and Regulation*
Method 101A. Detennlnation of Particulate
and Gueous Mercury Emiadons From
Sewage Sludge Incinerators

Introduction
  This method is similar to Method 101,
except acidic potassium permanganic
solution is used instead of acidic iodine
monochloride for collection.
  1. Applicability and Principle—1.1
Applicability. This method applies to the
determination of participate and gaseous
mercury (Hg) emissions from sewage sludge
incinerators and other sources as specified in
the regulations.
  1.2   Principle. Particulate and gaseous Hg
emissions are withdrawn isokinetically from
the source and collected in acidic potassium
permanganate  (KMnO.) solution. The Hg
collected (in the mercuric form) is reduced to
elemental Hg, which is then aerated from the
solution into an optical cell and measured by
atomic absorption spectrophotometry.
  2. Range and Sensitivity—2.1  Range.
After initial dilution, the range of this method
is 20 to 800 ng Hg/ml. The upper limit can be
extended by further dilution of the sample.
  2.2   Sensitivity. The sensitivity of the
method depends on the recorder/
spectrophotometer combination selected.
  3. Interfering Agents—3.1 Sampling.
Excessive oxidizable organic matter in the
stack gas prematurely depletes the KMnO.
solution and thereby prevents further
collection of Hg.
  3.2   Analysis. Condensation of water
vapor on the optical cell windows causes a
positive interference.
  4. Precision—Based on eight paired-train
tests, the within-laboratory standard
deviation was estimated to be 4.B pg Hg/ml
in the concentration range of SO to 130 fig Hg/
m'.
  5. Apparatus—S.I   Sampling Train and
Sample Recovery. Same as Method 101,
Sections 5.1 and 5.2, respectively, except for
the following variations:
  5.1.1 Probe Liner. Same as Method 101,
Section 5.1.2, except that if a filter is used
ahead  of the impingers,  the tester must use
the probe heating system to minimize the
condensation of gaseous Hg.
  5.1.2  Filter Holder (Optional). Borosilicate
glass with a rigid stainless-steel wire-screen
filter support (do not use glass frit supports)
and a silicone rubber of Teflon gasket,
designed to provide a positive seal against
leakage from outside or around the filter. The
filter holder must be equipped with a filter
heating system capable of maintaining a
temperature around the filter holder of 120 ±
15* C (248 ±25'7] during sampling to
minimize both water and gaseous Hg
condensation. The tester may use a filter in
cases where the stream contains large
quantities of paniculate matter.
  5.2   Analysis. The apparatus needed for
analysis is the same as Method 101, Sections
5.3 and 5.4, except as follows:
  5.2.1  Volumetric Pipets. Class A; 1-, 2-, 3-
.  4-, 5~, 10-. and 20-ml.
  5.2.2  Graduated Cylinder. 25-ml.
  5.2.3  Steam Bath.
  6. Reagents—Use ACS reagent-grade
chemicals or equivalent, unless otherwise
specified.
  6.1  Sampling and Recovery. The reagents
used in Mmpling and recovery are as follows:
  6.1.1  Water. Oeionized distilled, meeting
ASTM Specifications for Type I Reagent
Water—ASTM Test Method D1193-74. If
high concentrations of organic matter are not
expected to be present the analyst may
eliminate the KMnO. test for oxidizable
organic matter. Use this water in all dilutions
and solution preparations.
  6.1.2  Nitric Acid (UNO,). SO Percent (V/
V). Mix equal volumes of concentrated HNO,
and deionized distilled water, being careful to
slowly add the acid to the water.
  6.1 J  Silica Gel. Indicating type, 6- to 16-
mesh. If previously used, dry at 175' C (350*
F) for 2 hr. The tester may use new silica gel
as received.
  6.1.4  Filter (Optional). Glass fiber filter,
without organic binder, exhibiting at least
88.95 percent efficiency on 0.3 urn dioctyl
phthalate smoke particles. The tester may use
the filter in cases where the gas stream
contains large quantities of particulate
matter, but he should analyze blank filters for
Hg content.
  6.1.5  Sulfuric Add /H.SO,), 10 Percent
(V/V). Add and mix 100 ml of concentrated
H»SO. with 900 ml of deionized distilled
water.
  6.1.6  Absorbing Solution, 4 Percent
KMnO* (W/V). Prepare fresh daily. Dissolve
40 g of KMnO. in sufficient 10 percent HUSO.
to make 1 liter. Prepare and store in glass
bottles to prevent degradation.
  6.2  Analysis. The reagents needed for
analysis are  listed below:
  6.2.1  Tin (II) Solution. Prepare fresh daily
and keep sealed when not being used.
Competely dissolve 20 g of tin (II) chloride [or
25 g of tin (H) sulfate] crystals (Baker
Analyzed reagent grade or any other brand
that will give a clear solution) in 25 ml of
concentrated HC1. Dilute to 250 ml with
deionized distilled water. Do not substitute
HNO!, H>SO., or other strong acids for the
HC1.
  6.2.2  Sodium Chloride—Hydroxylamine
Solution. Dissolve 12 g of sodium chloride
and 12 g of hydroxylamine sulfate (or 12 g of
hydroxylamine hydrochloride) in deionized
distilled waiter and dilute to  100 ml.
  6^.3  Hydrochloric Acid (HCl), 8 N. Dilute
67 ml of concentrated HNO, to 100 ml with
deionzed distilled water (slowly add the HCl
to the water).
  6.2.4  Nitric Acid. 15 Percent (V/V). Dilute
15 ml of concentrated HNO, to 100 ml with
deionized distilled  water.
  6.2.5  Mercury Stock Solution, 1 mg Hg/
oil. Prepare and store all mercury standard
solutions in borosilicate glass containers.
Completely dissolve 0.1354 g of mercury (H)
chloride in 75 ml of deionized distilled water.
Add 100 ml of concentrated  HNO,, and adjust
the volume to exactly 100 ml with deionized
distilled water. Mix thoroughly. This solution
is stable for at least 1 month.
  6.2.6  Intermediate Mercury Standard
Solution, 10 ug Hg/ml. Prepare fresh weekly.
Pipet 5.0 ml of the mercury stock solution
(Section 6.2.5) into  a 500-ml volumetric flask
and add 20 ml of 15 percent HNO, solution.
Adjust the volume  to exactly 500 ml with
deionized distilled water. Thoroughly mix the
solution.
  6.2.7  Working Mercury Standard
Solution, 200 ng Hg/ml. Prepare fresh daily.
Pipet SJ> ml from the "Intermediate Mercury
Standard Solution" (Section 6.2.6) into a 250-
ml volumetric flask. Add 5 ml of 4 percent
KMnO. absorbing solution and 5 ml of 15
percent HNO.. Adjust the volume to exactly
250 ml with deionized distilled water. Mix
thoroughly.
  6J.8  Potassium Permanganate, S Percent
(W/V). Dissolve S g of KMnO. in deionixed
distilled water and dilute to 100 ml.
  &Z.9  Filter. Whatman No. 40 or
equivalent.
  7. Procedure—7.1  Sampling. The
sampling procedure is the same as Method
101, except for changes due  to the use of
KMnO. instead of IC1 absorbing solution and
the possible use of a filter. These changes an
as follows:
  7.1.1  Preliminary Determinations. The
preliminary determinations are the same as
those given in Method 101, Section 7.1.2,
except for the absorbing solution depletion
sign. In this method, high oxidizable organic
content may make it impossible to sample for
the desired minimum time. This problem is
indicated by the complete bleaching of the
purple color of the KMnO, solution. In these
cases, the tester may divide the sample run
into two or more subruru to insure that the
absorbing solution would not be depleted. In
cases where an excess of water condensation
is encountered, collect two runs to make one
sample.
  7.1.2  Preparation of Sampling Train. The
preparation of the sampling train is the same
as that given in Method 101, Section 7.1.3,
except for the cleaning of the glassware
[probe, filter holder (if used), impingers, and
connectors] and the Charging of the first three
impingers. In this method, clean all the glass
components by rinsing with 50 percent HMO*
tap water, 6 N HCl, tap water, and finally
deionized distilled water. Then place SO ml of
4 percent KMnO. in the first impinger and 100
ml in each of the second and third impingers.
  If a filter is used, use a pair of tweezers to
place the filter in the filter holder. Be sure to
center the filter and place the gasket in
proper position to prevent the sample gas
stream from by-passing the  filter. Check the
filter for tears after assembly is completed.
Be sure also to set the filter heating system at
the desired operating temperature after the
sampling train has been assembled.
  7.1.3  Sampling Train Operation. In
addition to the procedure given in Method
101, Section 7.1.5, maintain a temperature
around the filter (if applicable) of 120'±14* C
(248'±25* F).
  7.2  Sample Recovery. Begin proper
cleanup procedure as soon as the probe is
removed from the stack at the end of the
sampling period. Allow the  probe to cool.
When it can be safely handled, wipe off any
external particulate matter near the tip of the
probe nozzle and place a cap over it. Do not
cap off the probe tip tightly while the
sampling train is cooling because the
resultant vacuum would draw liquid out from
the impingers.
   Before moving the sample train to the
cleanup site, remove the probe from the train,
wipe off the silicone grease, and cap the open
                                                              IV-118
-------
               Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 110  /  Tuesday, June  8,  1982  / Rules  and Regulations
outlet of the probe. Be careful not to lose any
condensate that might be present. Wipe off
the silicons grease from the impinger. Use
either ground-glass stoppers, plastic caps, or
serum caps to close these openings.
  Transfer the probe, impinger assembly, and
(if applicable) filter assembly to a cleanup
area that is clean, protected from the wind,
and free of Hg contamination. The ambient
•ir In laboratories located in the immediate
vicinity of Hg-using facilities is not normally
free of Hg contamination.
  Inspect the train before and during
assembly, and note any abnormal conditions.
Treat the sample as follows:
  7.2.1  Container No. 1 (Impinger, Probe,
and Filter Holder). Use a graduated cylinder;
measure the liquid in the first three impingers
to within ±1 ml. Record the volume of liquid
present (e.g., see Figure 5-3 of Method 5 in
Part 80 of 40 CFR). This information is needed
to calculate the moisture content of the
effluent gas. (Use only graduated cylinder
and glass storage bottles that have been
precleaned as in Section 7.1.2.) Place the
contents of the first three impingers into a
1000-ml glass sample bottle.
(Note.—If a filter is used, remove the filter
from its holder, as outlined under "Container
No. 3" below.)
  Taking care that dust on the outside of the
probe or other exterior surfaces does not get
into the sample, quantitatively recover the Hg
(and any condensate) from the probe nozzle,
probe fitting, probe liner and front half of the
filter holder (if applicable) as follows: Rinse
these components with a total of 250 to 400
ml of fresh 4 percent KMnO. solution; add all
washings" to the 1000-ml glass sample bottle;
remove any residual brown deposits on the
glassware using the minimum amount of 8 N
HC1 required; and add this HC1 rinse to this
sample container.
  After all washings have been collected in
the sample container, tighten the lid on the
container to prevent leakage during shipment
to the laboratory. Mark the height of the fluid
level to determine whether leakage occurs
during transport. Label the container to
clearly identify its contents.
  7.2.2.   Container No. 2 (Silica Gel). Note
the color of the indicating silica gel to
determine whether it has been completely
spent and make a notation of its condition.
Transfer the silica gel from its impinger to its
original container and seal. The tester may
use as aids a funnel to pour the silica gel and
a rubber policeman to remove the silica gel
from the impinger. It is not necessary to
remove the small amount of particles that
may adhere to the impinger wall and are
difficult to remove. Since the gain in weight is
to be used for moisture calculations, do not
use any water or other liquids to transfer the
silica gel. If a balance is available in the field,
weigh the spent silica gel (or silica gel plus
impinger) to the nearest 0.5 g; record this
weight.
  7.2.3  Container No. 3 (Filter). If a filter
was used, carefully remove it from the filter
holder, place it in a 100-ml glass sample
bottle, and add 20 to 40 ml  of 4 percent
KMnO.. If it is necessary to fold the filter, be
sure that the particulate cake is inside the
fold. Carefully transfer to the 150-ml sample
bottle any particulate matter and filter fibers
that adhere to the filter holder gasket by
using a dry Nylon bristle brush and a sharp-
edged blade. Seal the container. Label the
container to clearly identify its contents.
Mark the height of the fluid level to determine
whether leakage occurs during transport.
  7.2.4  Container No. 4 (Filter Blank). If a
filter was used, treat an unused filter from the
same filter lot used for sampling in the same
manner as Container No. 3.
  7.2.5  Container No. 5 (Absorbing Solution
Blank). For a blank, place 500 ml of 4 percent
KMnO. absorbing solution in a 1000-ml
sample bottle. Seal the container.
  7.3  Sample Preparation. Check liquid
level in each container to see if liquid was
lost during transport. If a noticeable amount
of leakage occurred, either void the sample  or
use methods subject to the approval of the
Administrator to account for the losses. Then
follow the procedures  below.
  7.3.1  Containers No. 3 and No. 4 (Filter
and Filter Blank). If a filter was used, place
the contents, including the filter, of
Containers No. 3 and No. 4 in separate 250-ral
beakers and heat the beakers on a steam
bath until most of the liquid has evaporated.
Do not take to dryness. Add 20 ml of
concentrated  HNO> to the beakers, cover
them with a glass, and heat on a hot plate at
70°  C for 2 hours. Remove from the hot plate
and filter the solution through Whatman No.
40 filter paper. Save the filtrate for Hg
analysis. Discard the filter.
  7.3.2  Container No. 1 (Impingers, Probe,
and Filter Holder). Filter the contents of
Container No. 1 through Whatman 40 filter
paper to remove the brown MnO, precipitate.
Wash the filter with 50 ml of 4 percent
KMnO. absorbing solution and add this wash
to the filtrate. Discard  the filter. Combine the
filtrates from Containers No. 1 and No. 3 (if
applicable), and dilute to a known volume
with deionized distilled water. Mix
thoroughly.
  7.3.3  Container No. 5 (Absorbing Solution
Blank). Treat  this container as described in
Section 7.3.2. Combine this filtrate with the
filtrate with Container No. 4 and dilute to a
known volume with deionized distilled water.
Mix thoroughly.
  7.4  Analysis. Calibrate the
spectrophotometer and recorder and prepare
the calibration curve as described in Sections
6.1 to 8.4. Then repeat  the procedure used to
establish the calibration curve with
appropriately sized aliquots (1 to 10 ml) of the
samples (from Sections 7.3.2 and 7.3.3) until
two consecutive peak  heights agree within
±3 percent of their average value. If the 10-
ml sample is below the detectable limit, use a
larger aliquot (up to 20 ml), but decrease the
volume of water added to the aeration cell
accordingly to prevent the solution volume
from exceeding the capacity of the aeration
bottle. If the peak maximum of a 1.0-ml
aliquot is off scale, further dilute the original
sample to bring the Hg concentration into the
calibration range of the spectrophotometer. If
the Hg content of the absorbing solution and
filter blank is below the working range of the
analytical method, use zero for the blank.
  Run a blank and standard at least after
every five samples to check the
spectrophotometer calibration; recalibrate as
necessary.
  It is also recommended that at least one
sample from each stack test be checked by
the Method of Standard Additions to confirm
that matrix effects have not interfered in the
analysis.
  8. Calibration and Standards—The
calibration and standards are the same as
Method 101, Section 8, except for the
following variations:
  8.1  Optical Cell Heating System
Calibration. Same as method 101, Section 8.2,
except use a 25-ml graduated cylinder to add
25 ml of deionized distilled water to the
bottle section of the aeration cell.
  8.2  Spectrophotometer and Recorder
Calibration. The mercury response may be
measured by either peak height or peak area.
(Note: the temperature of the solution affects
the rate at which elemental Hg is released
from a solution and, consequently, it affects
the shape of the absorption curve (area) and
the point of maximum absorbance (peak
height). To obtain reproducible results, all
solutions must be brought to room
temperature before use.) Set the
spectrophotometer wave length at 253.7 run
and make certain the optical cell is at the
minimum temperature that will prevent water
condensation.
  Then set the recorder scale as follows:
Using a 25-ml graduated cylinder, add 25 ml
of deionized distilled water to the aeration
cell bottle and pipet 5.0 ml of the working
mercury standard solution into the aeration
cell. (Note: Always add the Hg-containing
solution to the aeration cell after the 25 ml of
deionized distilled water.) Place a Teflon-
coated stirring bar in the bottle. Add 5 ml of
the 4 percent KMnO. absorbing solution
followed by 5 ml of 15 percent HNO, and 5 ml
of 5 percent KMnO. to the aeration bottle and
mix well. Now, attach the bottle section to
the bubbler section of the aeration cell and
make certain that (1) the aeration cell exit
arm stopcock (Figure 101-3 of Method 101) is
closed (so that Hg will, not prematurely enter
the optical cell when the reducing agent is
being added) and (2) there is no flow through
the bubbler. Add 5 ml of sodium chloride
hydroxylamine in 1-ml increments until the
solution is colorless. Now add 5 ml of tin (II)
solution to the aeration bottle through the
side arm. Stir the  solution for 15 seconds, turn
on the recorder, open the aeration cell exit
arm stopcock, and immediately initiate
aeration with continued stirring. Determine
the maximum absorbance of the standard
and set this value to read 90 percent of the
recorder full scale.
  9. Calculations—9.1  Dry Gas Volume.
Volume of Water Vapor and Moisture
Content, Stack Gas Velocity, Isokinetic
Variation and Acceptable Results, and
Determination of Compliance. Same as
Method 101, Sections 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.6, and 9.7,
respectively, except use data obtained from
this test.
  9.2   Total Mercury. For each source
sample, correct the average maximum
absorbance of the two consecutive samples
whose peak heights agreed within ±3
percent of their average for the contribution
of the field blank. Then calculate the total Hg
content in fig in each sample. Correct for any
                                                              IV-119
-------
               Federal Register  / Vol.  47. No. 110 /  Tuesday, June 8. 1982  / Rules  and Regulations
dilutions made to bring the sample into the
working range of the spectrophotometer.
  9.3  Mercury Emission Rate. Calculate the
Hg emission rate R in g/day for continuous
operations using Equation 101A-1. For cyclic
operations, use only the time per day each
stack is in operation. The total Hg emission
rate from a source will be the summation of
results from all stacks.

    K mm v. A. (86.400 X 10"*)
     [V.(std)
                               Eq. 101A-1

Where:
ran, = Total Hg content in each sample, jig.
v, = Average stack gas velocity, m/sec (fps).
A, = Stack cross-sectional area, m*(ft*).
66,400 = Conversion factor, sec/day.
10"' = Conversion factor, g/fig.
     > = Dry gas sample volume at standard
    conditions, corrected for leakage (if any),
    m'fff).
VW<|U) = Volume of water vapor at standard
    conditions, ms(ft*).
T, = Absolute average stack gas
    temperature, "K (*R).
P, = Absolute stack gas pressure, mm Hg (in.
    Hg).
K = 0.3858 'K/mm Hg for metric units.
    = 17.64 'R/in. Hg for English units.
  10. Bibliography. 1. Same as Method 101,
Section 10.
  2. Mitchell, W. ]., M. R. Midgett, J. C. Suggs,
and D. Albrinck.
  Test Methods to Determine the Mercury
Emissions from Sludge Incineration Plants.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Publication No. EPA-600/4-79-058.
September 1979.

Method ipz. Determination of Particulate and
Gaseous Mercury Emissions From Chlor-
Alkali Plants — Hydrogen Streams
  1. Introduction — Although similar to
Method 101. Method 102 requires changes  to
accommodate the sample being extracted
from a hydrogen stream. Conduct the test
according to Method 101, except as shown
below:
  2. Mercury Train Operation — 2.1  Probe
Heating System. Do not use, unless otherwise
specified.
  2.2  Glass Fiber Filter. Do not use, unless
otherwise specified.
  2.3  Safety Procedures. The sampler must
conduct the source test under conditions of
utmost safety, because hydrogen and air
mixtures are explosive. Since the sampling
train essentially is leakless, attention to safe
operation  can be concentrated at the inlet
and outlet. If a leak does occur, however,
remove the meter box cover to avoid a
possible explosive mixture. The following
specific precautions are recommended:
  2.3.1  Operate only the vacuum pump
during the test. The other electrical
equipment, e.g., heaters, fans, and timers,
normally are not essential to the success of a
hydogen stream test.
  2.3.2  Seal the sample port to minimize
leakage of hydrogen from the stack.
  2.3.3  Vent sampled hydrogen at least 3 m
(10 feet) away from the train. This can be
accomplished by attaching a 13-mm-ID (0.50-
in) Tygon tube to the exhaust from the orifice
meter. (Note: A smaller ID tubing may cause
the orifice meter calibration to be erroneous.)
Take care to ensure that the exhaust line is
not bent or pinched.
  2.4  Setting oflsokinetic Rates.
  2.4.1  If a nomograph is used, take special
care in the calculation of the molecular
weight of the stack gas and in the setting of
the nomograph to maintain isokinetic
conditions during sampling (Sections 2.4.1.1
through 2.4.1.3 below).
  2.4.1.1  Calibrate the meter boxorifice.
Use the techniques described in APTD-0576
(see Citation 0 in Section 10 of Method 101).
Calibration of the orifice meter at flow
conditions that simulate the conditions at the
source is suggested. Calibration should either
be done with hydrogen or with  some other
gas having a similar Reynolds Number so
that there is similarity between the Reynolds
Numbers during calibration and during
sampling.
  2.4.1.2  The nomograph described in
APTD-0576 cannot be used to calculate the C
factor because the nomograph is designed for
use when the stack gas dry molecular weight
is 20±4. Instead, the following calculation
should be made to determine the proper C
factor:
0.00154 AH
Where:
AH$ = Meter box calibration factor obtained
    in Section 2.4.1.1, in. H,O.
Cp= Pilot tube calibration coefficient,
    dimensionless.
TB— Absolute temperature of gas at the
    orifice, 'R.
P,= Absolute pressure of stack gas, in Hg.
Pm= Absolute pressure of gas at the meter, in
    Hg.
B^= Fraction by volume of water vapor in
    the stack gas.
M
-------
Federal Register  /  Vol. 47,  No. 133 /  Monday. July  12.  1982  / Rules and  Regulations
   67
        40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

        IA-9-FRL 2165-6]

        Delegation of New Source
        Performance Standards (NSPS) and
        National Emission Standards for
        Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS);
        State of Arizona

        AGENCY: Environmental Protection
        Agency (EPA).
        ACTION: Notice of delegation.

        SUMMARY: The  EPA hereby places the
        public on notice of its delegation of new
        •ource performance standards (NSPS)
        and national emission standards for
        hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPS)
        authority to the Pima County Health
        Department (PCHD). This action is
        necessary to bring the NSPS and
        NESHAPS program delegations up to
        date with recent EPA promulgations and
        amendments of NSPS and NESHAPS
        categories. This action does not create
        any new regulatory requirements
        affecting the public. The effect of the
        delegation is to shift primary program
        responsibility for the  affected NSPS and
        NESHAPS source categories from EPA
        to local governments.
        EFFECTIVE DATE: June 3,1982.
        FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
        David lesson, New Source Section  (A-3-
        1), Air Operations  Branch, Air
        Management Division, EPA, Region 9,
        215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA
        94105, Tel: (415) 974-8220, FTS 454-8220.
        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
        PCHD has required authority for
        delegation of certain NSPS and
        NESHAPS source categories. A
        delegation of authority was granted by
        letter dated May 24,1982 and is
        reproduced in its entirety as follows:
        Mr. C. Lee Fox,
        Director. Air Quality Control District, Pima
            County Health Department. 151 West
            Congress Street,  Tucson, AZ 85701.
          Dear Mr. Fox: I am pleased to  inform  you
        that we are delegating to your agency
        authority to implement and enforce certain
        categories of New Source Performance
        Standards (NSPS) and National Emission
        Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
        (NESHAPS). We have reviewed your request
        for delegation and have found your present
        programs, rules, and procedures  to be
        acceptable. This delegation includes
        authority for the following source categories:
        Electric Utility Steam Generators
        Storage Vessels for Petroleum Uquds
        Kraft Pulp Midi
                                     _. .  BB
 40 CFR
 Part 60
 eubpart

Oa.
Ka
NSPS

Stationary Gas Turbines 	
Uma Manufacturing Plants

40 CFR
Part 80
aubpan
DO
GG
HH

NESHAPS
Vinyl Chloride 	
40 CFR Par
61 aubpan
f
   In addition, we are redelegating the
 following NSPS and NESHAPS categories
 since your revised programs, rules, and
 procedures are acceptable:
              NSPS
. Foam-Fuel Fred Steam Generators  	
 Incinerators  	
 Portland Cement Plants	
 Nitnc Acid Plants..:	
 Sutlunc Acid Plants	
 Asphalt Concrete Plants	
 Petroleum Refineries  	
 Storage Vessats lor Petioteom Liquids 	
 Secondary Lead Smelters  	
 Secondary Brass and Bronze  Ingot Produc-
  tion Plants
 Iron and Steel Plants (BOPF)	
 Sewage Treatment Plants	_	
 Primary Copper Smelters 	
 Primary Zinc Smelters  	
 Primary Lead Smelters	
 Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants 	
 Phosphate Fertilizer Industry.  Wet Process
  Phosphoric Acid Plants
 Phosphate Fertilizer  Industry  Superphos-
  phonc Aod Planta
 Phosphate Fertilizer Industry Diammomum
  Phosphate Plants.
 Phosphate Fertilizer Industry  Triple Super-
  phosphate Plants
 Phosphate Fertilizer Industry Granular Triple
  Superphosphate.
 Coal Preparation Plants	
 Ferroalloy Production Facilities  	
 Iron and Steel Plants (Electric Arc Furnaces)
                                          40 CFR Pan
                                           60 subpart
                                          Y
                                          Z
                                          AA
NESHAPS
Asbestos 	
Beryllium .


40 CFR Part
61 subpart
B
C
E

  Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
 your agreement to follow all applicable
 provisions of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61. The
 delegation is effective upon the date of this
 letter unless the USEPA receives written
 notice from you of any objections within 10
 days of receipt of this letter. A notice of this
 delegated authority will be published in the
 Federal Register in the near future.
      Cordially yours,
 Sonia F. Crow,
 Regional Administrator.

  cc. Arizona Department of Health Services.

  With respect to areas under the
jurisdiction of the PCHD, all reports,
applications, submittals, and other
                                           IV-121
-------
                Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 133  /  Monday,  July  12, 1982 / Rules  and Regulations
   communications pertaining to the above
   listed NSPS and NESHAPS source
   categories should be directed to the
   PCHD at the address shown in the letter
   of delegation.
    The Office of Management and Budget
   has exempted this rule from the
   requirements of Section 3 of Executive
   Order 12291.
   (Sees. Ill and 112 of the Clean Air Act, as
   •mended (42 U.S.C. 1857, etseq.)]
    Dated: June 29,1982.
   Sonia F. Crow,
   Regional Administrator.
   IFR Doc. 82-18681 Filed 7-0-82; 6:45 am]
   MLLINQ CODE MM-M-M

68
   40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

   [A-9-FRL 2165-7]

   Delegation of New Source
   Performance Standards (NSPS) and
   National Emission Standards for
   Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS);
   State of California

   AGENCY: Environmental Protection
   Agency (EPA).
   ACTION: Notice of delegation.

   SUMMARY: The EPA hereby places the
   public on notice of its delegation of new
   source performance standards (NSPS)
   and national emission standards for
   hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPS)
   authority to the California Air Resources
   Board (GARB) on behalf of the Ventura
   County Air Pollution Control District
   (APCD). This action is necessary to
   bring the NSPS and NESHAPS program
   delegations up to date with recent EPA
   promulgations and amendments of NSPS
   and NESHAPS categories. This  action
   does not create any new regulatory
   requirements affecting the public. The
  effect of the delegation is to shift
  primary program responsibility  for the
  affected NSPS and NESHAPS source
  categories from EPA to local
  governments.
  EFFECTIVE DATE: June 3,1982.
  FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
  David Jesson, New Source Section (A-3-
  1), Air Operations Branch, Air
  Management Division, EPA, Region 9,
  215  Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA
  94105, Tel: (415) 974-8220, FTS 454-8220.
  SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
  CARB has requested authority for
  delegation of certain NSPS and
  NESHAPS source categories on behalf
  of the Ventura County APCD. A
  delegation of authority was granted by
  letter dated May 24,1982 and is
  reproduced in its entirety as follows:
 Mr. James D. Boyd,
 Executive Officer, Air Resources Board,
    1709-llth Street, P.O. Box 2815,
    Sacramento, CA 95812.

   Dear Mr. Boyd: I am pleased to inform you
 that we are delegating to your agency
 authority to implement and enforce certain
 categories of New Source Performance
 Standards (NSPS] on behalf of the  Ventura
 County Air Pollution Control District (APCD).
 We have reviewed your request for
 delegation and have found that the Ventura
 County APCD's present programs,  rules, and
 procedures are acceptable. This delegation
 includes authority for the following source
 categories:
NSPS


40 CFR Part
sosubpwt
A

  In addition, we are redelegating the
 following National Emission Standards for
 Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS)
 categories since the Ventura County APCD's
 revised programs, rules, and procedures are
 acceptable.
NESHAPS
Asbestos 	

Beryllium Rocket Motor Firing ._ 	
Mercury 	

40 CFR Part
61 subpart
g
c
0
E

  Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
your agreement to follow all applicable
provisions of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61. The
delegation is effective upon the date of this
letter unless the USEPA receives written
notice from you or the District of any
objections within 10 days of receipt of this
letter. A notice of this delegated authority
will be published in the Federal Register in
the future.
     Cordially yours,
Sonia F. Crow,
Regional Administrator.
cc: Ventura County Air Pollution Control
  District

  With respect to Ventura County, all
reports, applications, submittals, and
other communications pertaining to the
above listed NSPS and NESHAPS
source categories should be directed to
the Ventura County APCD at the
address shown in 40 CFR Parts 60.4 and
61.4.
  The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
(Sees. Ill  and 112 of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 1857, et seq.))
   Dated: June 29.1982.
 Sonia F. Craw,
 Regional Administrator.

 PART 60—STANDARDS OF
 PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
 STATIONARY SOURCES

 PART 61— NATIONAL EMISSION
 STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS
 AIR POLLUTANTS
   Subpart A of Parts 60 and 61 Chapter
 I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal
 Regulations is amended as follows:

 Subpart A—General Provisions

 §5 60.4 and 61.04  [Amended]
   1. Sections 60.4(b)(F) and 61.04(b)(F)
 are each amended by revising the
 address of the Ventura County Air
 Pollution Control District to read  as
 follows:
 *****
   (b)* *  *

   (FT *  *
 Ventura County Air Pollution Control
   District,
 600 South Victoria Avenue,
 Ventura, CA 93009
 *****
 |FR Doc 82-18882 Filed 7-S-82:8:45 am)
 BIU.INO CODE 6S60-50-M

 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
 (A-9-FRL 2165-8]
 Delegation of New Source
 Performance Standards (NSPS) and
 National Emission Standards for
 Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS),
 State of California
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of delegation.

SUMMARY: The EPA hereby places the
public on notice of its delegation of new
source performance standards (NSPS)
and national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPS)
authority to the California Air Resources
Board (CARB) on behalf of the South
Coast Air Quality Management District
(AQMD). This action is necessary to
bring the NSPS and NESHAPS program
delegations up to date with recent EPA
promulgations and amendments of NSPS
and NESHAPS categories. This action
does not create any new regulatory
requirements affecting the public. The
effect of the delegation is to shift
primary program responsibility for the
affected NSPS and NESHAPS source
categories from EPA to local
governments.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 3,1982.
                                                       IV-122
-------
             Federal Register / Vol.  47,  No. 133 / Monday. July  12.  1982  /  Rules  and  Regulations
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Jesson, New Source Section (A-3-
1), Air Operations Branch, Air
Management Division, EPA, Region 9,
215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA
94105, Tel: (415) 974-8220. FTS 454-8220.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
GARB has requested authority for
delegation of certain NSPA and
NESHAPS source categories on behalf
of the South Coast AQMD. A delegation
of authority was granted by letter dated
May 24,1982 and is reproduced in its
entirety as follows:
Mr. James D. Boyd.
Executive Officer,
Air Resources Board.
17O9—lltfi Street,
P.O. Box 2815,
Sacramento, CA 95812.
  Dear Mr. Boyd: I am pleased to inform you
that we are delegating to your agency
authority to implement and enforce certain
categories of New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) and National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS) on behalf of the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (AQMD). We
have reviewed your request for delegation
and have found that the South Coast
AQMD's present programs, rules, and
procedures are acceptable. This delegation
includes authority for the following source
categories:
NSPS

Storage Vessels (or Petroleum Liquids 	
Stationary Gas Turbines 	
Une Manulactunng Plants 	
Ammonium Sulfate 	
40 CFR Part
60 subpart
A.
Ka
GG
HH
PP.
           NESHAPS
General Provisions .
40 CFH Part
 61 subpart
  In addition, we are redelegating the
following NSPS and NESHAPS categories
iince the South Coast AQMD's revised
programs, rules, and procedures are
acceptable:
             NSPS
Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generators .. .
Incnerators	
Portland Cement Plants	
Nitnc Acid Plants	
SuHunc Add Plants 	
Asphalt Concrete Plants	
Petroleum Refineries	
Storage Vessels lor Petroleum Liquids
Secondary Lead Smelters.
Secondary Brass A Bronze Ingot Production
 Plants.
Iron and Steel Plants (BOPF)	
Sewage Treatment Rants 	
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry Wet  Process
 Phosphoric Acid Plants.
Phosphate Fertilizer  Industry Superpnos-
 pnonc And Plants
40 CFR Part
 60 subpart

0
E
F
G
M
I
J
K
L
                       NSPS
           Phosphate  FerUizer Industry Diammonium
            Phosphate Plants.
           Phosphate  Fertilizer Industry Triple Super-
            phosphate Plants
           Phosphate Fertilizer Industry Granular Triple
            Superphosphate
           Coal Preparalon Plants	
           Iron and Steel Plants (Electric Arc Furnaces)
           Grain Elevators	
                              40 CFR Part
                               60 subpart
                              V.

                              W

                              X

                              V
                              AA.
                              00
NESHAPS
Asbestos 	

Beryllium Rocket 	

Mercury 	
Vinyl Chloride. 	

40 CFR
Part 61
subpart
B
C

D
E
F.

  Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
your agreement to follow all applicable
provisions of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61. The
delegation is effective upon the date of this
letter unless the USEPA receives written
notice from you or the District of any
objections within 10 days of receipt of this
letter. A notice of this delegated authority
will be published in the Federal Register in
the near future.
      CoHially yours,
Sonia F. Crow,
Regional Administrator.
cc: South Coast Air Quality Management
  District

  With respect to areas under the
jurisdiction of the South Coast AQMD,
all reports, applications, submittals, and
other communications pertaining to the
above listed NSPS and NESHAPS
source categories should be directed to
the South Coast AQMD at the address
shown in 40 CFR Parts 60.4 and 61.4.
  The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
(Sec. Ill and 112 of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 1857, et seq.))
  Dated: June 29,1982.
Sonia F. Crow,
Regional Administrator.

PART 60—STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
STATIONARY SOURCES

PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS  FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS

  Subpart A of Parts 60 and 61 of
Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
Subpart A—General Provisions

§§ 60.4 and 61.04 [Amended]
  1. Sections 60.4(b)(F) and 61.04(b)(F)
are each amended by revising the
address of the South Coast Air Quality
Management District to read as follows:
*****
  (b)  *  * *
  (F)' ' *
South Coast Air Quality Management
  District, 9150 Flair Drive. El Monte, CA
  91731
                                                    [FR Doc 82-18883 Filed 7-8-62: 8.45 am]
                                                    BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

[A-9-FRL 2166-1]

Delegation of New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS); and
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS);
State of California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of delegation.   •

SUMMARY: The EPA hereby places the
public on notice of its delegation of New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
and National Emission  Standards  for the
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS)
authority to the California Air Resources
Board (GARB) on behalf of the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District
(AQMD). This action is necessary to
bring the NSPS and NESHAPS program
delegations up to date with recent EPA
promulgations and amendments of NSPS
and NESHAPS categories. This action
docs not create any new regulatory
requirements affecting the public. The
effect of the delegation  is to shift
primary program responsibility for the
affected NSPS and NESHAPS source
categories from EPA to  local
governments.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 3, 1982.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
David Jesson, New Source Section (A-3-
1), Air Operations Branch, Air
Management Division, EPA, Region 9.
215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA
94105, Tel: (415) 974-6220, FTS 454-8220.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
CARB has requested authority for-
delegation of certain NSPS and
NESHAPS source categories on behalf
of the Bay Area AQMD. A delegation of
authority was granted by letter dated
Mny 24, 1982 and is reproduced in its
entirety as follows:
                                                        IV-123
-------
               Federal  Register  / Vol.  47.  No.  133 /  Monday,  July 12, 1982 / Rules and  Regulations
 Mr. James D. Boyd,
 Executive Officer, Air Resources Board, 1709
     llth Street, P.O. Box 2815, Sacramento,
     CA 95812.
   Dear Mr. Boyd: I am pleased to inform you
 that we are delegating to your agency
 authority to implement and enforce certain
 categories of New Source Performance
 Standards (NSPS) on behalf of the Bay Area
 Air Quality Management District (AQMD).
 We have reviewed your request  for
 delegation and have found that the Bay Area
 AQMD's present programs, rules, and
 procedures are acceptable. This  delegation
 includes authority for the following source
 categories:
NSPS
Electnc Utility Steam Generators 	
Kraft Pulp Mills 	

Stationary Gas Turbines 	
Ume Manufacturing Plants 	
Ammonium Sutfate 	 	

40CFRPart
60 subpart
Da.
BB
DD
GG
HH
PP

   In addition, we are redelegating the
 following NSPS and National Emission
 Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
 (NESHAPS) categories since the Bay Area
 AQMD's revised programs, rules, and
 procedures are acceptable.
              NSPS
 General Provisions	    	
 Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generators 	
 Incinerators	
 Portland Cement Plants	
 Nitric Acid Plants  	
 Sulfunc Acid-Plants	
 Asphalt Concrete Plants	
 Petroleum Refineries	
 Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids	
 Secondary Lead Smelters 	
 Secondary Brass 4 Bronze Ingot Production
  Plants.
 Iron and Steel Plants (BOPF)	
 Sewage Treatment Plants	
 Primary Copper Smelters	
 Primary Zinc Smelters	
 Pnmary Lead Smelters	
 Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants	
 Phosphate Fertilizer Industry. Wet Process
  Phosphoric Acid Plants
 Phosphate  Fertilizer  Industry:  Superphoa-
  phonc Add Plants
 Phosphate Fertilizer Industry  Diammonium
  Phosphate Plants.
 Phosphate Fertilizer Industry Triple Super-
  phosphate Plants.
 Phosphate Fertilizer Industry- Granular Tnple
  Superphosphate
 Coal Preparation Plants	
 Ferroalloy Production Facilities  	
 Iron and Steel Plants (Electric Arc Furnaces)...
 40 CFR Part
 eOsubpart
Y.
z
AA.
NESHAPS
General Provisions 	
Asbestos 	
Beryllium 	
Beryllium Rocket Motor Fmng 	
Mercury 	

40 CFR Part
61 subpart
A
B.
c
D.
E

  Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
your agreement to follow all applicable
provisions of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61. The
delegation is effective upon the date of this
letter unless the USEPA receives written
            notice from you or the District of any
            objections within 10 days of receipt of this
            letter. A notice of this delegated authority
            will be published in the Federal Register in
            the near future.
                  Cordially yours,
            Sonia F. Crow, Regional Administrator.
            cc: Bay Area Air Quality Management
              District
               With respect to areas under the
            jurisdiction of the Bay Area AQMD, all
            reports, applications, submittals, and
            other communications pertaining to the
            above listed NSPS and NESHAPS
            source categories should be directed to
            the Bay Area AQMD at the address
            shown in 40 CFR Parts 60.4 and 61.4.
              The Office of Management and Budget
            has exempted this rule from the
            requirements of Section 3 of Executive
            Order 12291.
            (Sees. Ill and 112 of the Clean Air Act, as
            amended (42 U.S.C. 1B57, et seq.))
              Dated: June 29,1982.
            Sonia F. Crow,
            Regional Administrator.
            [FR Doc. 82-18684 Filed 7-8-62, 8.45 am|
            BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

 [A-9-FRL 2166-2]

 Delegation of New Source
 Performance Standards (NSPS) and
 National Emission Standards for
 Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS);
 State of California

 AGENCY: Environmental Protection
 Agency (EPA).
 ACTION: Notice of delegation.

 SUMMARY: The EPA hereby places the
 public on notice of its delegation of new
 source performance standards (NSPS)
 and national  emission standards for
 hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPS)
 authority to the California Air Resources
 Board (CARS) on behalf of the San
 Diego County Air Pollution Control
 District (APCD). This action is
 necessary to bring the NSPS and
 NESHAPS program delegations up to
 date with recent EPA promulgations and
 amendments  of NSPS and NESHAPS
 categories. This action does not create
 any new regulatory requirements
 affecting the public. The effect of the
 delegation is to shift primary program
 responsibility for the affected NSPS and
 NESHAPS source categories frorri EPA
 to local governments.
 EFFECTIVE DATE: June 3, 1982.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Jesson, New Source Seuion (A-3-
1), Air Operations Branch, Air
Management Division, EPA, Region 9,
                                            215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA
                                            94105. Tel: (415) 974-6220. FTS 454-8220.
                                            SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
                                            CARB has requested authority for
                                            delegation of certain NSPS and
                                            NESHAPS source categories on behalf
                                            of the San Diego County APCD. A
                                            delegation of authority was granted by
                                            letter dated May 24,1982 and is
                                            reproduced in its entirety as follows:
                                            Mr. James D. Boyd,
                                            Executive Officer, Air Resources Board, 1700
                                               llth Street, P.O. Box 2815, Sacramento,
                                               CA 95812.
                                              Dear Mr. Boyd: I am pleased to inform you
                                            that we are delegating to your agency
                                            authority to implement and enforce certain
                                            categories of New Source Performance
                                            Standards (NSPS) and National Emission
                                            Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
                                            (NESHAPS) on behalf of the San Diego
                                            County Air Pollution Control District (APCD).
                                            We have reviewed your request for
                                            delegation and have found that the San Diego
                                            County APCD's present programs, rules, and
                                            procedures are acceptable. This delegation
                                            includes authority for the following source
                                            categories:
NSPS
General Provisions 	
Electric Utility Steam Generators 	
Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids 	
Glass Manufacturing Plants



40 CFR Part
60 subpart
A
Da
Ka
CC
DD
GG

NESHAPS
General Provisions 	 	

40 CFR Part
61 subpart
A

                                                        In addition, we are redelegating the
                                                      following NSPS categories since the San
                                                      Diego County APCD's revised programs,
                                                      rules, and procedures are acceptable:
NSPS
Petroleum Refineries 	
Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids 	
40 CFR Part
60 subpart
j
K
                                                        Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
                                                      your agreement to follow all applicable
                                                      provisions of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61. The
                                                      delegation is effective upon the date of this
                                                      letter unless the USEPA receives written
                                                      notice from you or the District of any
                                                      objections within 10 days of receipt of this
                                                      letter. A notice of this delegated authority
                                                      will be published in the Federal Register in
                                                      the near future.
                                                             Cordially yours,
                                                       Sonia F. Crow,
                                                       Regional Administrator.
                                                           IV-124
-------
               Federal Register / Vol. 47,  No. 133  / Monday. July 12, 1962  /  Rules and Regulations
  cc: San Diego County Air Pollution Control
    District
    With respect to San Diego County, all
  reports, applications, submittals, and
  other communications pertaining to the
  above listed NSPS and NESHAPS
  source categories should be directed to
  the San Diego County APCD at the
  address shown in 40 CFR Parts 60.4 and
  61.4.
    The Office of Management and Budget
  has exempted this rule from the
  requirements of Section 3 of Executive
  Order 12291.
  (Sees. Ill and 112 of the Clean Air Act. as
  amended (42 U.S.C. 1857, et seq.))
    Dated: June 29,1982.
  Sonia F. Crow,
  Regional Administrator.
  (FR Doc 62-18685 Filed 7-9-62. B 45 am|
  MILLING CODE 6560-50-M

69
  40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

  [A-9-FRL 2165-4]

  Delegation of New Source
  Performance Standards (NSPA) and
  National Emission Standards for
  Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS);
  State of Nevada

  AGENCY: Environmental Protection
  Agency (EPA).
  ACTION: Notice of delegation.

  SUMMARY: The EPA hereby places the
  public on notice of its delegation of new
  source performance standards (NSPS)
  and national emission standards for
  hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPS)
  authority to the Clark County Health
  District (CCHD). This action is
  necessary to bring the NSPS and
  NESHAPS program delegations up to
  date with recent EPA promulgations and
  amendments of NSPS and NESHAPS
  categories. This action does not create
  any new regulatory requirements
  affecting the public. The effect of the
  delegation is to shift primary program
  responsibility for the affected NSPS and
  NESHAPS source categories  from EPA
  to State and local governments.
  EFFECTIVE DATE: June 3.1982.
  FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
  David Jesson; New Source Section (A-3-
  1), Air Operations Branch, Air
  Management Division, EPA, Region 9,
  215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA
  94105, Tel: (415) 974-6220, FTS 454-8220.
  SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
  CCHD has requested authority for
  delegation of certain NSPS and
  NESHAPS source categories. A
  delegation of authority was granted by
 letter dated May 24,1982 and is
 reproduced in its entirety as follows:
 Mr. Michael H. Naylor, P.E.,
 Director, Air Pollution Control Division.
     Clark County Health District. P.O. Box
     4426. 625 Shadow Lane, Las Vegas, NV
     89106.
   Dear Mr. Naylor: I am pleased to inform
 you that we are delegating to your agency
 authority to implement and enforce certain
 categories of New Source Performance
 Standards (NSPS) and National Emission
 Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
 (NESHAPS). We have reviewed your request
 for delegation and have found your present
 programs and procedures to be acceptable.
 This delegation includes authority for the
 following source categories:
NSPS
General Provisions 	
Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids 	


Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface
Coating Operations.

NESHAPS
General Provisions 	
Beryllium Rocket Motor Finng

40 CFH Part
BOtubpart
A
Ka
DO
GG
HH
MM

40 CFR Part
61 subpart
A.
D

   In addition, we are redelegating the
 following NSPS and NESHAPS categories
 since your revised programs and procedures
 are acceptable:
NSPS


Portland Cement Plants
Asphalt Concrete Plants 	
Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids 	





Coal Preparation Plants


NESHAPS


Mercury
Vinyl Chloride

40 CFR Part
60 subpart
D.
E
F
1
K
L
o
P
Q
R
Y


40 CFR Part
61 subpart
B
C
E
f

   Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
 your agreement to follow all applicable
 provisions of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61. The
 delegation is effective upon the date of this
 letter unless the USEPA receives written
 notice from you of any objectione within 10
 days of receipt of this letter. A notice of this
 delegated authority will be published in  the
 Federal Register in the near future.
      Cordially yours,
Sonia F. Crow,
Regional Administrator.
 cc: Division of Environmental Protection,
   Nevada Department of Conservation and
   Natural Resources

   With respect to areas under the
 jurisdiction of the CCHD, all reports,
 applications, submittals, and other
 communications pertaining to the above
 listed NSPS and NESHAPS source
 categories should be directed to the
 CCHD at the address shown in the letter
 of delegation.
   The Office of Management and Budget
 has exempted this rule from the
 requirements of Section 3 of Executive
 Order 12291.
 (Sees. Ill and 112 of the Clean Air Act. as
 amended (42 U.S.C. 1857, et seq.}
   Dated: June 29,1982.
 Sonia F. Crow,
 Regional Administrator.
 |FR Doc. 82-16680 Filed 7-9-82, 8.45 am)
70
   40 CFR Part 61

   [AD-FRL-2070-8]

   Appendix B; Test Methods; Revised
   Methods 106 and 107; and Appendix C,
   Quality Assurance Procedures 1 and 2;
   Revision

   AGENCY: Environmental Protection
   Agency (EPA).
   ACTION: Final'rule.

   SUMMARY: Revised Test Methods 106
   and 107 for vinyl chloride were
   proposed in the Federal Register on
   November 18,1980 (45 FR 76346). This
   action promulgates the revised test
   methods. The intended effect of this
   action is to require all sources of vinyl
   chloride specified to conduct emission
   tests under Subparts A and F of 40 CFR
  Part 61 to hereafter (see effective date
  below) use  these methods for
  determining compliance.
    Appendix C, Quality Assurance
  Procedures 1 and 2, was proposed in the
  Federal Register on April 18,1980 (45 FR
  26682). This action promulgates
                                                       IV-125
-------
          Federal  Register  /  Vol. 47, No. 173 / Tuesday. September 7,  1982 / Rules and  Regulations
Procedures 1 and 2 of Appendix C. The
intended effect of Procedure 1 is to
provide a method for determination of
gas chromatograph (GO) column
resolution, and the  intended effect of
Procedure 2 is to provide a method for
auditing GC sample analysis.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 7,1982.
  Under Section 307(b)(l) of the Clean
Air Act, judicial review of this
rulemaking is available only by the
filing of a petition for review in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit within 60 days of
today's publication of this rule. Under
Section 307(b}(2) of the Clean Air Act,
the requirements that are the subject of
today's notice may  not be challenged
later in civil or criminal proceedings
brought  by EPA to enforce these
requirements.
ADDRESSES: Summary of Comments and
Responses. The summary of comments
and responses for the proposed test
methods 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
"Revised Test Methods 106 and 107—
Summary of Comments and Responses,
EPA 450/3-B2-002." The document
contains (1) a summary of the changes
made to the test methods since proposal
and (2) a summary of all the public
comments made on the proposed
revised methods and the
Administrator's responses to the
comments.
  Docket. A docket, number A-80-50,
containing information considered by
EPA in the development of the test
methods and docket number OAQPS 79-
3 Part 2 that contains background
information pertaining to Appendix C
are available for public inspection
between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, at EPA's Central Docket
Section (A-130), West Tower Lobby,
Gallery 1, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460. A reasonable
fee may  be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Roger T. Shigehara, Emission
Measurement Branch, Emission
Standards and Engineering Division
(MD-19), U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone  (919) 541-
2237.

Public Participation

  The revised test methods were
proposed and published in the Federal
Register on November 18,1980 (45 FR
76346). Public comments were solicited
at the time of proposal. The public
comment period was from November IB,
1980, to January 19,1981, with an
extension to February 19,1981.
  Five comment letters were received
concerning issues relative to the
proposed test methods. The comments
have been carefully considered; and
where determined to be appropriate by
the Administrator, changes have been
made in the proposed revisions to the
test methods.
  Procedures 1 and 2 of Appendix C
were proposed and published in the
Federal Register April 18,1980 (45 FR
26660). Public comments were solicited
at the time of proposal. The public
comment period was from April 18,1980,
to August 21,1980.
  No comment letters were received.
Significant Comments and Changes to
the Proposed Test Methods
  Comments on the proposed revisions
to the test methods were received from
industry, industry counsel, engineering
firms, and equipment manufacturers. A
detailed discussion of these comments
and responses can be found in the
summary of comments and responses
which is referred to in the ADDRESSES
section of this preamble. The summary
of comments and responses serves as
the basis for the revisions which have
been made to the test methods between
proposal and promulgation. The major
comments and responses are
summarized  in this preamble. Most of
the comment letters contained multiple
comments. The comments have been
divided into the following areas:
Proposal of Revised Test Methods 106
and 107
  One commenter felt that EPA should
publish a notice in the Federal Register
to clarify the November 18,1980, notice
on Test Methods 106 and 107 (45 FR
76346) as to whether the changes in the
methods were proposed or final
amendments. The EPA considered the
suggestion to be reasonable; and a
notice was published in the Federal
Register on January 6,1981 (46 FR 1318)
to clarify that the changes in Methods
106 and 107 published on November 18,
1960, were proposed changes.
Sample Analysis Procedure—Method
106
  One commenter suggested that
Section 7.2.2, Preparation of
Chromatograph Calibration Curve, be
changed to require calibration at least
once every 8 hours of continuous
operation of the chromatograph,
whereas the method requires daily
calibration. The EPA has decided it
would be an  unnecessary burden to
arbitrarily set 8 hours as a cutoff point
for valid calibration. However, the
 comment has identified the need for
 instruction in the method as to the use of
 multiple calibration curves in data
 interpretation, and Section 7.2.2 has
 been revised to provide that instruction.
   One commenter questioned the use of
 Figure 106-2 because it appeared to
 illustrate a standards preparation
.procedure different from the one
 described in the method. Figure 106-2
 did illustrate a different sample
 preparation procedure and has been
 deleted from the method.

 Sample Collection and Analysis
 Procedure—Method 107

   One commenter questioned the need
 for the sample prepressurization
 procedure that is included  in the revised
 test method. The Agency believes the
 prepressurization procedure is valid as
 prepressurization of sample vials prior
 to analysis has been shown to produce
 k,, values which  agree with theoretical
 values. A paper describing a  study of
 this technique has been added to the
 bibliography section of the method as an
 aid in the use of this procedure.

 Quality Assurance—Method 106

   One commenter requested  that
 Section 5.2.4, Audit Cylinder  Standards,
 further describe  commercial gas
 manufacturers as an alternative source
 of these standards. The Agency
 considered the request to be reasonable,
 and Section 5.2.4 has been  revised to
 define the acceptability of  audit
 cylinders obtained from commercial gas
 manufacturers.

 Docket

  The docket is an organized and
 complete file of all the information
 considered by EPA in the development
 of this rulemaking. The docket is a
 dynamic Hie, since material is added
 throughout the rulemaking  development.
 The docketing system is intended to
 allow members of the public and
 industries involved to readily identify
 and locate documents so that they can
 intelligently and effectively participate
 in the rulemaking process.  Along with
 the statement of basis and  purpose of
 the proposed and promulgated test
 methods and EPA responses to
 significant comments, the contents of
 the docket will serve as the record in
 case of judicial review [Section
 307(d)(7)(A)].

 Miscellaneous

  This rulemaking does not impose any
 additional emission measurement
 requirements on facilities affected by
 this rulemaking. Rather, this rulemaking
 revises the test methods to which the
                                                    IV-126
-------
           Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 173 / Tuesday. September 7, 1982 /  Rules  and Regulations
affected facilities are already subject.
The revisions do not affect the present
emission standards. If future standards
impose emission measurement
requirements, the impacts of the revised
test methods promulgated today will be
evaluated during development of those
standards.
  Under Executive Order 12291, EPA
must judge whether a regulation is
"major" and, therefore, subject to the
requirement of a regulatory impact
analysis. This  regulation is not major
because it will not have an annual effect
on  the economy of $100 million or more;
it will not result in a major increase in
costs or prices; and there will be no
significant effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity,
innovation, or on the ability of U.S.-
based enterprises to compete with
foreign-based enterprises in domestic or
export markets.
  The regulation was submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget for
review as required by Executive Order
12291.
  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.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 61
  Air pollution control. Asbestos,
Beryllium, Hazardous materials,
Mercury, Vinyl chloride.
(Sees. 112.114, 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 7412. 7414. 7601(a))
  Dated: August 24, 1982.
John W. Hernandez,
Acting Administrator.

PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS

  40 CFR Part 61 is amended by revising
Test Methods 106 and 107 of Appendix B
to read  as follows:
Appendix B—Test Methods
 *****

Method 1»8—Determination of Vinyl Chloride
From Stationary Sources
Introduction
  Performance of this method should not be
attempted by persons unfamiliar with the
operation of a gas chromatograph (GCJ nor
by  those who are unfamiliar with source
sampling, because knowledge beyond the
scope of this presentation is required. Care
must be  exercised to prevent exposure of
sampling personnel to vinyl chloride, a
carcinogen.
 1. Applicability and Principle
  1.1  Applicability. The method is
 applicable to the measurement of vinyl
chloride in stack gases from ethylene
dichloride. vinyl chloride, and polyvinyl
chloride manufacturing processes. The
method does not measure vinyl chloride
contained in paniculate matter.
  1.2  Principle. An integrated bag sample of
stack gas containing vinyl chloride
(chloroethene) is subjected to GC analysis
using a flame ionization detector (FID).

2. Range and Sensitivity
  This method is designed for the 0.1 to 50
ppm range. However, common GC
instruments are capable of detecting 0.02 ppm
vinyl chloride With proper calibration, the
upper limit may be extended as needed.

3. Interferences
  The chromatographic columns and the
corresponding operating parameters herein
described normally provide an adequate
resolution  of vinyl chloride; however,
resolution  interferences may be encountered
on some sources. Therefore, the
chromatograph operator shall select the
column and operating parameters best suited
to his particular analysis requirements.
subject to the approval of the Administrator.
Approval is automatic, provided that the
tester produces confirming data through an
adequate supplemental analytical technique.
such as  analysis with a different column or
GC/mass spectroscopy, and has the data
available for review by the Administrator.

4. Apparatus
  4.1  Sampling (see Figure 106-1). The
sampling train consists of the following
components:
  4.1.1  Probe. Stainless steel, Pyrex glass, or
Teflon tubing (as stack temperature permits)
equipped with a glass wool plug to remove
participate matter.
  4.1.2  Sample Lines. Teflon. 6 4-mm outside
diameter, of sufficient length to connect
probe to bag. Use a new unused piece for
each series of bag samples that constitutes  an
emission test, and discard upon completion of
the test.
  4.1.3  Quick Connects. Stainless  steel.
male (2) and female (2). with ball checks (one
pair without), located as shown in Figure 106-
1.
  4.1.4  Tedlar Bags. 50- to 100-liter capacity.
to contain sample. Aluminized Mylar bags
may be used if the samples are analyzed
within 24 hours of collection.
  4.1.5  Bag Containers. Rigid leak-proof
containers for sample bags, with covering to
protect  contents from sunlight.
  4.1.6  Needle Valve. To adjust sample flow
rates
  417  Pump. Leak-free, with minimum  of 2-
liter/min capacity
  41.8  Charcoal Tube. To prevent
admission of vinyl chloride and other
organics to the atmosphere in the vicinity of
samplers.
  4 1.9  Flowmeter. For observing sampling
flow rate:  capable of measuring a flow range
from 0.10 to 1.00 liter/mm
  4.1.10  Connecting Tubing. Teflon. 6 4-mm
outside diameter, to assemble sampling tram
(Figure 106-1)
  4111   Tubing Fittings and Connectors.
Teflon or  stainless steel, to assemble
sampling train
  4.2  Sample Recovery Teflon tubing. 64-
mm outside diameter, to connect bag to GC
sample loop for sample reco\er>  Use a new
unused piece for each series of bag samples
that constitutes an emission test, and discard
upon conclusion of ana!\ sis of those bags
  4.3  AnaKsis The following equipment is
required
  4.3 1   Gas Chromatograph  With FID.
potentiometric strip chart recorder and 1.0- to
5.0-ml heated sampling loop in automatic
sample valve. The chromatographic systc.i
shall be capable of producing a response f
0.1-ppm vinyl chloride that is at least a^ gnv'
as the average noise level. (Response is
measured from the average value of the !> 3 2 mm containing 80/100-
mesh Porapak T. Column B is required as a
secondary column if acetaldehyde is present
If used, column B is placed after column A
The combined columns should be operated a'
120' C.
  4.3.3  Flowmeters (2). Rotameter Hpe KXI-
ml/min capacity, with flow control \al\i •>
  4.3.4  Gas Regulators. For  required gds
cylinders.
  4.3.5  Thermometer. Accurate to 1  C ti
measure temperature of heated sample loop
at time of sample injection.
  4.3.6  Barometer. Accurate to  5 mm Up to
measure atmospheric pressure around GC
during sample analysis.
  4.3.7  Pump. Leak-free, with minimum of
100-ml/mm capacity.
  4.3.8  Recorder. Strip chart type, optionally
equipped with either disc or electronic
integrator
  4.3.9  Planimeter. Optional in place of disc
or electronic integrator on recorder  to
measure chromatograph peak areas
   4.4  Calibration. Sections 4.4 2 through
4.44 are for the optional procedure in Section
 7.1
   4.4.1  Tubing. Teflon. 6.4-mm outside
 diameter, separate pieces marked fo* each
 calibration concentration
   4.4 2 Tedlar Bags. Sixteen-inch•'-q'Mrt
 size, with valve; separate bag marked for
 each calibration concentration
   4.4.3  Synngs  0 5-ml and 50-^! f,^ !ic-'
 individually calibrated to dispense gaseous
 vmvl chloride.
                                                          IV-127
-------
           Federal  Register /  Vol. 47.  No.  173  / Tuesday,  September  7.  1982 / Rules  and Regulations
  4.4.4  Dry Gas Meter, with Temperature
and Pressure Gauges. Singer model DTM-115
with 802 index, or equivalent, to meter
nitrogen in preparation of standard gas
mixtures, calibrated at the flow rate used to
prepare standards

5. Reagents
  Use only reagents that are of
chromatograph grade.
  5.1  Analysis. The following are required
for analysis.
  5.1.1  Helium or Nitrogen. Zero grade, for
chromatographic carrier gas.
  5.1.2  Hydrogen. Zero grade.
  5.1.3  Oxygen or Air. Zero grade, as
required by the detector.
  5.2  Calibration. Use one of the following
options: either 5.2.1 and 5.2.2, or 5.2.3.   .
  5.2.1  Vinyl Chloride. Pure vinyl chloride
gas certified by the manufacturer to contain a
minimum of 99.9 percent vinyl chloride, for
use in the preparation of standard gas
mixtures in Section 7.1. If the gas
manufacturer maintains a bulk cylinder
supply of 99.9+  percent vinyl chloride, the
certification analysis may have been
performed on this supply rather than on each
gas cylinder prepared from this bulk supply.
The date of gas cylinder preparation and the
certified analysis must have been affixed to
the cylinder before shipment from the gas
manufacturer to the buyer.
  5.2.2  Nitrogen. Zero grade, for preparation
of standard gas mixtures as described in
Section 7.1.
  5.2.3  Cylinder Standards (3). Gas mixture
standards (50-, 10-, and 5-ppm vinyl chloride
in nitrogen cylinders). The tester may use
cylinder standards to directly prepare a
chromatograph calibration curve as
described in Section 7.2.2, if the following
conditions are met: (a) The manufacturer
certifies the gas composition with an
accuracy of ±3 percent or better (see Section
5.2.3.1). (b) The manufacturer recommends a
maximum shelf life over which the gas
concentration does not change by greater
than ±5 percent from the certified value, (c)
The manufacturer affixes the date of gas
cylinder preparation, certified vinyl chloride
concentration, and recommended maximum
shelf life to the cylinder before shipment to
the buyer.
  5.2.3.1  Cylinder Standards Certification.
The manufacturer shall certify the
concentration of vinyl  chloride in nitrogen in
each cylinder by (a) directly analyzing each
cylinder and (b) calibrating his analytical
procedure on the day of cylinder analysis. Tc
calibrate his analytical procedure, the
manufacturer shall use, as a minimum, a
three-point calibration curve. It is
recommended that the manufacturer maintain
(1) a high-concentration calibration standard
(between 50 and 100 ppm) to prepare his
calibration curve by an appropriate dilution
technique and (2) a low-concentration
calibration standard (between 5 and 10 ppm)
to verify the dilution technique used. If the
difference between the apparent
concentration read from the calibration curve
and the true concentration assigned to the
low-concentration calibration standard
exceeds 5 percent of the true concentration,
the manufacturer shall determine the source
 of error and correct it. then repeat the three-
 point calibration.
   5.2.3.2  Verification of Manufacturer's
 Calibration Standards. Before using a
 standard, the manufacturer shall verify each
 calibration standard (a) by comparing it to
 gas mixtures prepared (with 99 mole percent
 vinyl chloride) in accordance with the
 procedure described in Section 7.1 or (b)
 calibrating it against vinyl chloride cylinder
 Standard Reference Materials (SRM's)
 prepared by the National Bureau of
 Standards, if such SRM's are available. The
 agreement between the initially determined
 concentration value and the verification
 concentration value must be within  ±5
 percent. The manufacturer must reverify all
 calibration standards on a time interval
 consistent with the shelf life of the cylinder
 standards told.
   5.2.4  Audit Cylinder Standards (2). Gas
 mixture standards with concentrations
 known only to the person supervising the
 analysis of samples. The audit cylinder
 standards shall be identically prepared as
 those in Section 5.2.3  (vinyl chloride in
 nitrogen cylinders). The concentrations of the
 audit cylinder should be: one low-
 concentration cylinder in the range of 5 to 20
 ppm vinyl chloride end one high-
 concentration cylinder in the range of 20 to  50
' ppm. When available, the tester may obtain
 audit cylinders by contacting: Environmental
 Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring
 Systems Laboratory, Quality Assurance
 Division (MD-77), Research Triangle Park,
 North Carolina 27711. Audit cylinders
 obtained from  a commercial gas
 manufacturer may be used provided: (a) the
 gas manufacturer certifies the audit cylinder
 as described in Section 5.2.3.1, and (b) the gas
 manufacturer obtains an independent
 analysis of the audit cylinders to verify this
 analysis. Independent analysis is defined
 here to mean analysis performed by an
 individual different than the individual who
 performs the gas manufacturer's analysis,
 while using calibration standards and
 analysis equipment different from those used
 for the gas manufacturer's analysis.
 Verification is complete and acceptable when
 the independent analysis concentration is
 within ±5 percent of the gas manufacturer's
 concentration.

 6. Procedure
   6.1  Sampling. Assemble the sample train
 as shown in Figure 106-1. A bag leak check
 should have been performed previously
 according to Section 7.3.2. )oin the quick
 connects as illustrated, and determine that  all
 connection between the bag and the probe
 are tight. Place the end of the probe at the
 centroid of the stack and start the pump with
 the needle valve adjusted to yield a flow that
 will fill over 50 percent of bag volume in the
 specific sample period. After allowing
 sufficient time to purge the line several times,
 change the vacuum line from the container  to
 the bag and evacuate the bag until the
 rotameter indicates no flow. Then reposition
 the sample and vacuum lines and begin the
 actual sampling, keeping the rate
 proportional to the stack velocity. At all
 times, direct the gas exiting the rotameter
 away from sampling  personnel. At the end of
the sample period, shu! off the pump,
disconnect the sample line from the bag. and
disconnect the vacuum line from the bag
container. Protect the bag container from
sunlight.
  6.2  Sample storage  Keep the sample bags
out of direct sunlight When at all possible.
analysis is to be performed within 24 hours,
but in no case in excess of 72 hours of sample
collection. Aluminized Mylar bag samples
must be analyzed within 24 hours.
  6.3  Sample Recovery. With a new piece of
Teflon tubing identified for that bag, connect
a bag inlet valve to the gas chromatograph
sample valve. Switch the valve to receive gas
from the bag through the sample loop.
Arrange the equipment so the sample gas
passes from the sample valve to 100-ml/min
rotameter with flow control valve followd by
a charcoal tube and a 1-in. H»O pressure
gauge. The tester may maintain the sample
flow either by a vacuum pump or container
pressurization if the collection bag remains in
the rigid container. After sample loop purging
is ceased, allow the pressure gauge to return
to zero before activating the  gas sampling
valve.
  6.4  Analysis. Set the column temperature
to 100° C and the detector temperature to 150°
C. When optimum hydrogen  and oxygen flow
rates have been determined, verify and
•maintain these flow rates during all
chromatography operations.  Using zero
helium or nitrogen as the carrier gas,
establish a flow rate in the range consistent
with the manufacturer's requirements for
satisfactory detector operation. A flow rate of
approximately 40 ml/min should produce
adequate separations. Observe the base line
periodically and determine that the noise
level has stabilized and that base line drift
has ceased. Purge the sample loop for 30
seconds at the rate of 100 ml/min, shut off
flow, allow the sample loop pressure to reach
atmospheric pressure as indicated by the H,O
manometer, then activate the sample valve.
Record the injection time (the position of the
pen on the chart at the time of sample
injection), sample number, sample loop
temperature, column temperature, carrier gas
flow rate, chart speed,  and attenuator setting.
Record the barometeric pressure. From the
chart, note the peak having the retention time
corresponding to vinyl  chloride as
determined in Section 7.2.1. Measure the
vinyl chloride peak area. A*, by use of a disc
integrator, electronic integrator, or a
planimeter. Measure and record the peak
heights, HK. Record Am and retention time.
Repeat the injection at least  two times or
until two consecutive values for the total area
of the vinyl chloride peak do not vary more
than 5 percent.  Use the average value for
these two total areas to compute the bag
concentration.
  Compare the ratio of Hm to AB for the vinyl
chloride sample with the same ratio for the
standard peak that is closest in height. If
these ratios differ by more than 10 percent.
the vinyl chloride peak may  not be pure
(possibly acetaldehyde is present) and the
secondary column should be employed (see
Section 4.3.2.2).
  6.5  Determination of Bag Water Vapor
Content. Measure the ambient temperature
                                                            IV-128
-------
           Federal Register /  Vol. 47.  No.  173  / Tuesday. September  7.  1982  / Rules and  Regulations
and barometric pressure near the bag. From a
water saturation vapor pressure table,
determine and record the water vapor
content of the bag as a decimal figure.
(Assume the relative humidity to be 100
percent unless a  lesser value is known.)

7. Preparation of Standard Gas Mixtures,
Calibration, and Quality Assurance
  7.1   Preparation of Vinyl Chloride
Standard Gas Mixtures. (Optional
Procedure—delete if cylinder standards are
used.) Evacuate a 16-inch square Tedlar bag
that has passed a leak check (described in
Section 7.3.2) and meter in 5.0 liters of
nitrogen. While the bag is filling, use the 0.5-
ml syringe to inject 250 \L\ of 99.9+ percent
vinyl chloride gas through the wall of the bag.
Upon withdrawing the syringe, immediately
cover the resulting hole with a piece of
adhesive tape. The bag now contains a vinyl
chloride concentration of 50 ppm. In a like
manner use the 50 /il syringe to prepare gas
mixtures having 10- and 5-ppm vinyl chloride
concentrations. Place each bag on a smooth
surface and alternately depress opposite
sides of the bag 50 times  to further mix the
gases. These gas mixture standards may be
used for 10 days  from the date of preparation,
after which time  new gas mixtures must be
prepared. (Caution: Contamination may be a
problem when a bag is reused if the new gas
mixture standard is a lower concentration
than the previous gas mixture standard.)
  7.2   Calibration.
  7.2.1   Determination of Vinyl Chloride
Retention Time. (This section can be
performed simultaneously with  Section 7.2.2.)
Establish chromatograph conditions identical
with those in Section 6.4  above. Determine
proper attenuator position. Flush the
sampling loop with zero helium or nitrogen
and activate the sample valve. Record the
injection time, sample loop temperature,
column temperature, carrier gas flow rate,
chart speed, and  attenuator setting. Record
peaks and detector responses that occur in
the absence of vinyl chloride. Maintain
conditions with the equipment plumbing
arranged identically to Section 6.3, and flush
the sample loop for 30 seconds at the rate of
100 ml/min with one of the vinyl chloride
calibration mixtures. Then activate the
•ample valve. Record the injection time.
Select the peak that corresponds to vinyl
chloride. Measure the distance on the chart
from the injection time to the time at which
the peak maximum occurs. This quantity
divided by the chart speed is defined as the
retention time. Since other organics may be
present in the sample, positive identification
of the vinyl chloride peak must be made.
  7.2.2   Preparation of Chromatograph
Calibration Curve. Make  a GC measurement
of each gas mixture standard (described in
Section 5.2.3 or 7.1) using conditions identical
with those listed in Sections 6.3 and 6.4. Flush
the sampling loop for 30 seconds at the rate
of 100 ml/min with one of the standard
mixtures, and activate the sample valve.
Record the concentration of vinyl chloride
injected (Cc), attenuator setting, chart speed,
peak area, sample loop temperature, column
temperature, carrier gas flow rate, and
retention time. Record the barometric
pressure. Calculate A*, the peak area
multiplied by the attenuator setting. Repeat
until two consecutive injection areas are
within 5 percent, then plot the average of
those two values versus C,. When the other
standard gas mixtures have been similarly
analyzed and plotted, draw a straight line
through the points derived by the least
squares method. Perform calibration daily, or
before and after the analysis of each
emission test set of bag camples, whichever
is more frequent. For each group of sample
analyses, use the average of the two
calibration curves which bracket that group
to determine the respective sample
concentrations. If the two calibration curves
differ by more than 5  percent from their mean
value, then report the final results by both
calibration curves.
  7.3   Quality Assurance.
  7.3.1  Analysis Audit. Immediately after
the preparation of the calibration curve and
prior to the sample analyses, perform the
analysis audit described in Appendix C,
Procedure 2: "Procedure for Field Auditing
GC Analysis."
  7.3.2  Bag Leak Checks. Checking of bags
for leaks is required after bag use and
strongly recommended before bag use. After
each use, connect a water manometer and
pressurize the bag to 5 to 10 cm H,O (2 to 4
in. HiO). Allow to stand for 10 min. Any
displacement in the water manometer
indicates a leak. Also, check the rigid
container for leaks in this manner. (Note: An
alternative leak check method is to pressurize
the bag to 5 to 10 cm H,O and allow it to
stand overnight. A deflated bag indicates a
leak.) For each sample bag in its rigid
container, place a rotameter in line between
the bag and the pump inlet. Evacuate the bag.
Failure of the rotameter to register zero flow
when the bag appears to be empty indicates a
leak.
  6. Calculations.
  B.I   Determine the  sample peak area. A«,
as follows:
  8.2  Vinyl Chloride Concentrations. From
the calibration curves described in Section
7.2.2, determine the average concentration
value of vinyl chloride, Cc, that corresponds
to AC, the sample peak area  Calculate the
concentration of vinyl chloride in the bag. Cb.
as follows:
            CRT.
                             Eq.  106-1
Where:
  A. = Measured peak area.
  A,=Attenuation factor.
Where:
  P,=Reference pressure, the laboratory
    pressure recorded during calibration, mm
    Hfi.

  T|=Sample loop temperature on the
    absolute scale at the time of analysis, °K

  P,=Laboratory pressure at time of analysis,
    mmHg.

  T,=Reference temperature, the sample
    loop temperature recorded during
    calibration, 'K

  Bwk=Water vapor content of the bag
    sample, as analyzed.
  9. Bibliography.

  1. Brown D.W., E.W. Loy, and M.H.
Stephenson, Vinyl Chloride Monitoring Near
the B. F. Goodrich Chemical Company in
Louisville, KY. Region IV, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Surveillance and Analysis
Division, Athens, GA. June 24.1974.
  2. G.D. Clayton and Associates. Evaluation
of a Collection and Analytical Procedure for
Vinyl Chloride in Air. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park.
N.C. EPA Contract No. 68-02-1408. Task
Order No. 2, EPA Report No. 75-VCL-l.
December 13,1974.
  3. Midwest Research Institute.
Standardization of Stationary Source
Emission Method for Vinyl Chloride. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Research
Triangle Park, N.C. Publication No. EPA-600/
4-77-026. May 1977.
  4. Scheil. G. and M.C. Sharp. Collaborative
Testing of EPA Method 106 (Vinyl Chloride)
that Will Provide for a Standardized
Stationary Source Emission Measurement
Method. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park. N.C.
Publication No. EPA 600/4-78-O58. October
1978.
MUUNQCOK HM-M-M
                                                           IV-129
-------
        Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 173 / Tuesday, September 7, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
FILTER (GLASS WOOL)
              PRODE
      TEFLON
    SAMPLE LINE
                                        VACUUM LINE
    STACK WALL
                                QUICK
                              CONNECTS
                                (MALE)
 BALL  iS
CHECKS
                                           NO BALL
                                      	 CHECKS
                                      real
     FLOW METER
                          TEDLAROR
                          ALUMINIZEO
                          MYLAR BAG
                            RIGID LEAK-PROOF
                               CONTAINER
                               CHARCOAL TUBE
                                                  PUMP
    Figure 106-1.  Integrated-bag sampling train.  (Mention of trade names
    or specific products does not constitute endorsement by the Environ-
    mental Protection Agency.)
                                       IV-130
-------
           Federal  Register /  Vol. 47.  No.  173  / Tuesday.  September 7. 1982 /  Rules and  Regulations
Method 107—Determination of Vinyl Chloride
Content of Inprocess Wastewater Samples,
and Vinyl Chloride Content of Polyvinyl
Chloride Resin. Slurry, Wet Cake, and Latex
Samples

Introduction
  Performance of this method should not be
attempted by persons unfamiliar with the
operation of a gas chromatograph (GC), nor
by those who are unfamiliar with source
sampling, because knowledge beyond the
scope of this presentation is required. Care
must be exercised to prevent exposure of
sampling personnel to vinyl chloride, a
carcinogen.
  1. Applicability and Principle.
  1.1 Applicability. This method applies to
the measurement of the vinyl chloride
monomer (VCM) content of inprocess
wastewater samples, and the residual vinyl
chloride monomer (RVCM) content of
polyvinyl chloride (PVC) resins, wet cake,
slurry, and latex samples. It cannot be used
for polymer in  fused forms, such as sheet or
cubes. This method is not acceptable where
methods from Section 304(h) of the Clean
Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. (the Federal
Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972
as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977)
are required.
  1.2 Principle. The basis for this method
relates to the vapor equilibrium that is
established between RVCM, PVC resin,
water, and air in a  closed system. The RVCM
in a PVC resin will equilibrate rapidly in a
closed vessel, provided that the temperature
of the PVC resin is maintained above the
glass transition temperature of that specific
resin.
  2. Range and Sensitivity. The lower limit of
detection of vinyl chloride will vary
according to the chromatograph used. Values
reported include 1 x 10"7 mg and 4 x 1(T7 mg.
With proper calibration, the upper limit may
be extended as needed.
  3. Interferences. The chromatograph
columns and the corresponding operating
parameters herein  described normally
provide an adequate resolution of vinyl
chloride; however, resolution interferences
may be encountered on some sources.
Therefore, the chromatograph operator shall
select  the column and operating parameters
best suited to his particular analysis
requirements,  subject to the approval of the
Administrator. Approval is automatic
provided that the tester produces confirming
data through an adequate supplemental
analytical technique, such as analysis with a
different column or GC/mass spectroscopy,
and has  the data available for review by the
Administrator.
   4. Precision and Reproducibility. An
interlaboratory comparison between  seven
laboratories of three resin samples, each split
into three parts, yielded a standard deviation
of 2.63 percent for a sample with a mean of
2.09 ppm, 4.16 percent for a sample with a
mean  of 1.66 ppm, and 5.29 percent for a
 sample with a mean of 62.66 ppm.
   5. Safety. Do not release vinyl chloride to
 the laboratory atmosphere during preparation
 of standards Venting or purging with VCM/
 air mixtures must be held to a minimum.
 When they are required, the vapor must be
routed to outside air. Vinyl chloride, even at
low ppm levels, must never be vented inside
the laboratory. After vials have been
analyzed, the gas must be vented prior to
removal of the vial from the instrument
turntable. Vials must be vented through a
hypodermic needle connected to an activated
charcoal tube to prevent release of vinyl
chloride into the laboratory atmosphere. The
charcoal must be replaced prior to vinyl
chloride breakthrough.
  6. Apparatus.
  6.1  Sampling. The following equipment is
required:
  6.1.1  Glass bottles. 60-ml (2-oz) capacity,
with wax-lined screw-on tops, for PVC
samples.
  6.1.2  Glass Vials. 50-ml capacity Hypo-
vial, sealed with Teflon faced Tuf-Bond discs,
for water samples.
  6.1.3  Adhesive Tape. To prevent
loosening of bottle tops.
  6.2 Sample Recovery. The following
equipment is required:
  6.2.1  Glass Vials. With butyl rubber septa,
Perkin-Elmer Corporation Nos. 0105-0129
(glass vials), B001-0728 (gray butyl rubber
septum, plug style), 0105-0131 (butyl  rubber
septa), or equivalents. The seals must be
made from butyl rubber. Silicone rubber seals
are not acceptable.
  6.2.2  Analytical Balance. Capable of
weighing to  ±0.0001 gram.
  6.2.3  Vial Sealer. Perkin-Elmer No. 105-
0106, or equivalent.
  6.2.4  Syringe. 100-fil capacity, precision
series "A" No. 010025, or equivalent.
  6.3  Analysis. The following equipment is
required:
  6.3.1   Gas Chromatograph. Perkin-Elmer
Corporation Model F-40, F-42, or F-45 Head-
Space Analyzer, or equivalent. Equipped with
backflush accessory.
  6.3.2   Chromatographic Columns.  Stainless
steel 1 m by 3.2 mm and 2 m by 3.2 mm, both
containing 50/80-mesh Porapak Q. The
analyst may use other columns provided that
the precision and accuracy of the analysis of
vinyl chloride standards are not impaired and
he has available for review information
confirming that there is adequate resolution
of the vinyl chloride peak. (Adequate
resolution is defined as an area overlap of
not more than 10 percent of the vinyl chloride
peak by an interferent peak. Calculation of
area overlap is explained in Appendix C,
Procedure 1: "Determination of Adequate
Chromatographic Peak Resolution.") Two
1.83 m columns, each containing 1 percent
Carbowax 1500 on Carbopak B. have been
suggested for samples containing
acetaldehyde.
   6.3.3   Thermometer. 0 to 100° C. accurate
to ±0.1° C, Perkin-Elmer No. 105-0109, or
equivalent
   6.3.4   Sample Tray Thermostat System.
Perkin-Elmer No. 105-0103, or equivalent.
   6.3.5   Septa. Sandwich type, for automatic
dosing. 13 mm. Perkin-Elmer No. 105-1008. or
equivalent.
   6.3.6   Integrator-Recorder. Hewlett-
 Packard Model 3380A, or equivalent
   6.3.7   Filter Drier Assembly (3). Perkin-
 Elmer No 2230117, or equivalent.
   6.3.8  Soap Film Flowmeter. Hewlett
 Packard No. 0101-0113, or equivalent.
  6.3.9  Regulators  For required gas
cylinders.
  6.3 10  Headspace Vial Pre-Pressunzer
Nitrogen pressurized hypodermic needle
inside protective shield. (Blueprint available
from Test Support Section. Emission
Measurement Branch. Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards. Environmental
Protection Agency. Mail Drop 19. Research
Triangle Park. N.C. 27711.)
  7. Reagents. Use only reagents that are of
chromatographic grade.
  7.1   Analysis. The following items are
required for analysis:
  7.1.1  Hydrogen. Zero grade.
  7.1.2  Nitrogen. Zero grade.
  7.1.3  Air. Zero grade.
  7.2  Calibration. The following items are
required for calibration:
  7.2.1  Cylinder Standards (4). Gas mixture
itandards (50-. 500-, 2000- and 4000-ppm vinyl
chloride in nitrogen cylinders). The tester
may use cylinder standards to directly
prepare a chromatograph calibration curve as
described in Section 9.2, if the following
conditions  are met:  (a) The manufacturer
certifies the gas composition with  an
accuracy of ±3 percent or better (see Section
7.2.1.1). (b) The manufacturer recommends a
maximum shelf life  over which the gas
concentration does  not change by greater
than ±5 percent from the certified value |c)
The manufacturer affixes the date of gas
cylinder preparation, certified vinyl chloride
concentration, and recommended  maximum
shelf life to the cylinder before shipment to
the buyer.
  7.2.1.1  Cylinder Standards Certification.
The manufacturer shall certify the
concentration of vinyl chloride in  nitrogen in
each cylinder by (a) directly analyzing each
cylinder and (b) calibrating his analytical
procedure  on the day of cylinder analysis. To
calibrate his analytical procedure, the
manufacturer shall  use, as a minimum, a 3-
point calibration curve. It  is recommended
that the manufacturer maintain (1) a high-
concentration calibration  standard (between
4000 and 8000 ppm) to prepare his calibration
curve  by an appropriate dilution technique
and (2) a low-concentration calibration
standard (between 50 and 500 ppm) to venfx
the dilution technique used. If the difference
between the apparent concentration read
from the calibration curve and the true
concentration assigned to the low-
concentration calibration standard exceeds 5
percent of the true concentration, the
manufacturer shall determine the source of
error and correct it, then repeat the 3-point
calibration.
   7.2.1.2   Verification of Manufacturer's
Calibration Standards. Before using the
 manufacturer shall verify each calibration
 standard by (a) comparing it to gas mixtures
 prepared (with 99 mole percent vinyl
 chloride) in accordance with the procedure
 described in Section 7.1 of Method 106 or by
 (b) calibrating it against vinyl chloride
 cylinder Standard Reference Materidls
 (SRM s) prepared by the National Bureau of
 Standards, if such SRM's  are available The
 agreement between the initially determined
 concentration veiue and the verification
 concentration value must be within - 5
                                                             IV-131
-------
           Federal  Register / Vol. 47. No. 173 / Tuesday,  September 7. 1982 /  Rules  and Regulations
percent. The manufacturer must reverify all
calibration standards on a time interval
consistent with the shelf life of the cylinder
standards sold.
  8. Procedure.
  8.1  Sampling.
  8.1.1  PVC Sampling. Allow the resin or
slurry to flow from a tap on the tank or silo
until the tap line has been well purged.
Extend and fill a 60-ml sample bottle under
the tap.  and immediately tighten a cap on the
bottle. Wrap adhesive tape around the cap
and bottle to prevent the cap from loosening.
Place an identifying label on each bottle, and
record the date, time, and sample location
both on  the bottles and in a log book.
  8.1.2  Water Sampling.  Prior to use, the 50-
ml vials (without the discs) must be capped
with aluminum foil and heated in a muffle
furnace  at 400* C for at least 1 hour to destroy
or remove any organic matter that could
interfere with analysis. At the sampling
location fill the vials bubble-free to
overflowing so that a convex meniscus forms
at the top. The excess water is displaced as
the sealing disc is carefully placed, with the
Teflon side down,  on the opening of the vial.
  Place  the aluminum seal over the disc and
the neck of the vial, and crimp into place.
Affix an identifying label on the bottle, and
record the date, time, and sample location
both on  the vials and in a log book. All
samples must be kept refrigerated until
analyzed.
  &2  Sample Recovery. Samples must be
run within 24 hours.
  8.2.1  Resin Samples. The weight of the
resin used must be between 3.5 and 4.5
grams. An exact weight must be obtained
(±0.0001 g) for each sample. In the case of
suspension resins, a volumetric cup can be
prepared for holding the required amount  of
sample.  When the cup is used, open  the
sample bottle, and add the cup volume of
resin to  the tared sample vial (tared,
including septum and aluminum cap). Obtain
the exact sample weight, add lOOfil or about
two equal drops of distilled water, and
immediately seal the vial. Report this value
on the data sheet:  it is  required for
calculation of RVCM. In the case of
dispersion resins, the cup  cannot be used.
Weigh the sample in an aluminum dish,
transfer the sample to the tared vial, and
accurately weigh it in the vial. After
prepressurization of the samples, condition
them for a minimum  of 1 hour in the  90* C
bath. Do not exceed 5 hours.
  Not*.—Some aluminum vial caps have a
center section that must be removed prior to
placing into sample tray. If the cap is not
removed, the injection needle will be
damaged.
  8.2.2  Suspension  Resin Slurry Aid Wet
Cake Samples. Decant the water from a wet
cake sample, and turn the sample bottle
upside down onto a paper towel. Wait for the
water to drain, place approximately 0.2 to 4.0
grams of the wet cake sample in a tared vial
(tared, including septum and aluminum cap)
and seal immediately. Then determine the
•ample weight (±0,0001 g). All samples must
be prepressurized  and then conditioned for 1
hour at 90* C A sample of wet cake is used to
determine total solids (TS). This is required
for calculating the RVCM.
  8.2.3  Dispersion Resin Slurry and Geon
Latex Samples. The materials should not be
filtered. Sample must be thoroughly mixed.
Using a tared vial (tared, including septum
and aluminum cap) add approximately eight
drops (0.25 to 0.35 g) of slurry or latex using a
medicine dropper. This should be done
immediately after mixing. Seal the vial as
soon as possible. Determine sample weight
(±0.0001 g). After prepressurization,
condition the vial for 1 hour at 90* C in the
analyzer bath. Determine the TS on the slurry
sample (Section 8.3.5).
  8.2.4  Inprocess Wastewater Samples.
Using a tared vial (tared, including septum
and aluminum cap) quickly add
approximately 1 cc of water using a medicine
dropper. Seal the vial as soon as possible.
Determine sample weight (±0.0001 g).
Prepressurize the vial, and then condition for
1 to 2 hours aa required at 90* C in the
analyzer bath.
  8.3  Analysis.
  8.3.1  Preparation of Equipment. Install the
chromatographic column and condition
overnight at 160*  C. In the first operation,
Porapak columns must be purged for 1 hour
at 230* C.
  Do not connect the exit end of the column
to the detector while conditioning. Hydrogen
and air to the detector must be turned off
while the column is disconnected.
  8.3.1.1  Flow Rate Adjustments. Adjust
flow rates as follows:
  a. Nitrogen Carrier Gas. Set regulator on
cylinder to read 50 psig. Set regulator on
chromatograph to produce a flow rate of 30.0
cc/min. Accurately measure the flow rate at
the exit end of the column using the soap film
flowmeter and a stopwatch, with the oven
and column at the analysis  temperature.
After the instrument program advances to the
"B" (backflush) mode, adjust the nitrogen
pressure regulator to exactly balance the
nitrogen flow rate at the detector as was
obtained in the "A" mode.
  b. Vial Prepressurizer Nitrogen. After the
nitrogen carrier is set, solve the following
equation and adjust the pressure on the vial
prepressurizer accordingly.
           IP"    P«V>1   -
           IP1       7.50  J
10 k Pa
Where:
  Ti« Ambient temperature, *K.
  Tt=Conditioning bath temperature, *K.
  Pi—Gas chromatograph absolute dosing
    pressure (analysis mode), k Pa.
  P.,=Water vapor pressure @ 90* C (525.8
    mmHg).
  P.,=Water vapor pressure @ 22* C (19.8
    mmHg).
  7.50«= mm Hg per k Pa.
  10 k Pa-Factor to adjust the
    prepressurized pressure to  slightly less
    than the dosing pressure.
  Because of gauge errors, the apparatus may
over-pressurize the vial. If the vial pressure is
at or higher than the dosing pressure, an
audible double injection will occur. If the vial
pressure is too low, errors will occur on resin
samples because of inadequate time for head-
space gas equilibrium. This condition can be
avoided by running several standard gas
samples at various pressures around the
calculated pressure, and then selecting the
highest pressure that does not produce a
double injection. All samples and standards
must be pressurized for 60 seconds using the
vial prepressunzer. The vial is then placed
into the 90* C conditioning bath and tested
for leakage by placing a drop of water on the
septum at the needle hole. A clean, burr-free
needle is mandatory.
  c. Burner Air Supply. Set regulator on
cylinder to read 50 psig. Set regulator on
chromatograph to supply air to burner at a
rate between 250 and 300 cc/min. Check with
bubble flowmeter.
  d. Hydrogen Supply. Set regulator on
cylinder to read 30 psig. Set regulator on
chromatograph to supply approximately 35 ±
5 cc/min. Optimize hydrogen flow to yield the
most sensitive detector response without
extinguishing the flame. Check flow with
bubble meter and record this flow.
  8.3.1.2  Temperature Adjustments. Set
temperatures as follows:
  a. Oven (chromatograph column). 140° C.
  b. Dosing Line, ISO* C.
  c. Injection Block, 170* C.
  d. Sample Chamber, Water Temperature,
90* C ± 1.0* C.
  8.3.1.3  Ignition of Flame lonization
Detector. Ignite the detector according to the
manufacturer's instructions.
  8.3.1.4  Amplifier Balance. Balance the
amplifier according to the manufacturer's
instructions.
  8.3.2  Programming the Chromatograph.
Program the chromatograph as follows:
  a. I—Dosing or Injection Time. The normal
setting is 2 seconds.
  b. A—"Analysis Time." The normal setting
is approximately 70 percent of the VCM
retention time. When this timer terminates,
the programmer initiates backflushing of the
first column.
  c. B—Backflushing Time. The normal
setting is double the "analysis time."
  d. W—Stabilization Time. The normal
setting is 0.5 min to 1.0 min.
  e. X—Number of Analyses Per Sample. The
normal setting is one.
  8.3.3  Preparation of Sample Turntable.
Before placing any sample into turntable, be
certain that the center section of the
aluminum cap has been removed. All samples
and standards must be pressurized for 60
seconds by using the vial prepressurizer. The
numbered sample vials should be placed in
the corresponding numbered positions in the
turntable. Insert samples in the following
order
  Position 1 and 2—Old 2000-ppm standards
for conditioning. These are necessary only
after the analyzer has not been used for 24
hours or longer.
  Position 3—50-ppm standard, freshly
prepared.
  Position 4—500-ppm standard, freshly
prepared.
                                                           IV-132
-------
           Federal Register /  Vol. 47. No.  173 /  Tuesday. September 7. 1982 /  Rules and Regulations
  Position 5—2000-ppm standard, freshly
prepared
  Position 6—4000-ppm standard, freshly-
prepared.
  Position 7—Sample No. 7 (This is the first
sample of the day, but is given as 7 to be
consistent with the turntable and the
integrator printout.)
  After all samples have been positioned.
insert the second set of 50-. SOX)-. 2000-, and
4000-ppm standards. Samples, including
standards, must be conditioned in the bath of
90' C for 1 hour (not to exceed 5 hours).
  8.3.4  Start Chromatograph Program. When
all samples, including standards, have been
conditioned at 90° C for 1 hour, start the
analysis program according to the
manufacturer's instructions. These
instructions must be carefully followed when
starting and stopping a program to prevent
damage to the dosing assembly.
  8.3.S  Determination of TS. For wet cake,
slurry, resin solution, and PVC latex samples,
determine TS for each sample by accurately
weighing approximately 3 to 4 grams of
sample in an aluminum pan before and after
placing in a draft oven (105 to 110° C).
Samples must be dried to constant weight.
After first weighing, return the pan to the
oven for a short period of time, and then
reweigh to verify complete dryness. The TS
are then calculated as the final sample
weight divided by initial  sample weight.
  9. Calibration. Calibration is to be
performed each 8-hour period when the
instrument is used. Each  day, prior to running
samples, the column should be conditioned
by running two 2000-ppm standards from the
previous day.
  9.1  Preparation of Standards. Calibration
standards are prepared as follows: Place
lOOu.1 or about two equal drops of distilled
water in the sample vial, then fill the vial
with the VCM/nitrogen standard, rapidly
seat the septum, and seal with the aluminum
cap. Use a X-in. stainless steel line from the
cylinder to the vial. Do not use rubber or
tygon tubing. The sample line from the
cylinder must be purged (into a properly
vented hood) for several minutes prior to
filling the vials. After purging, reduce the
flow rate to 500 to 1000 cc/min. Place end of
tubing into vial (near bottom). Position a
septum on top of the vial, pressing it against
the X-in. filling tube to minimize the size of'
the vent opening. This is necessary to
mimimize mixing air with the standard in the
vial. Each vial is to be purged with standard
for 90 seconds, during which time the filling
tube is gradually slid to the top of the vial.
After the 90 seconds, the tube is removed
with the septum, simultaneously sealing the
vial. Practice will be necessary to develop
good technique. Rubber gloves should be
worn during the above operations. The sealed
vial must then be pressurized for 60 seconds
using the vial prepressurizer. Test the vial for
leakage by placing a drop of water on the
septum at the needle hole.
  9.2  Preparation of Chromatograph
Calibration  Curve.
  Prepare two 50-, 500- . 2000- , and 4000-ppm
standard samples. Run the calibration
samples in exactly the same manner as
regular samples. Plot A., Jhe integrator area
counts for each  standard sample, versus Cc,
the concentration of vinyl chloride in each
standard sample. Draw a straight line through
the points derived by the least squares
method.
  10. Calculations.
  10.1  Response Factor. If the calibration
curve described in Section 9.2 passes through
zero, a response factor, R,, may be used to
compute vinyl chloride concentrations.  To
compute a response factor, divide any
particular A. by the corresponding Cc.
                              Eq.  107-1
 Where:
   A. = Chromatograph area counts of vinyl
     rvc
,sa
  •V-T
                     M.. V
  Results calculated using these equations
represent concentration based on the total
sample. To obtain results based on dry PVC
content, divide by TS.
  11. References.
  1. B.F. Goodrich, Residual Vinyl Chloride
Monomer Content of Polyvinyl Chloride
Resins, Latex, Wet Cake, Slurry and Water
Samples. B.F. Goodrich Chemical Group
Standard Test Procedure No. 1005-E. B.F.
Goodrich Technical Center, Avon Lake, Ohio.
October 8,1979.
  2. Berens, A.R. The Diffusion of Vinyl
Chloride in Polyvinyl Chloride. ACS—
Division of Polymer Chemistry, Polymer
Preprints 15 (2):197.1974.
  3. Berens. A.R. The Diffusion of Vinyl
Chloride in Polyvinyl Chloride. ACS—
Division of Polymer Chemistry, Polymer
    Crvc " Rf 294
Gas Chromatography. Journal of Applied
Polymer Science. 79:3169-3172.1975.
  5. Mansfield. R.A. The Evaluation of
Henry's Law Constant (Kp) and Water
Enhancement in the Perkm-Elmer Multifract
F-40 Gas Chromatograph. B.F. Goodrich.
Avon Lake, Ohio. February 10,1978.

  40 CFR Part 61  is amended by adding
Appendix C as  follows:

Appendix C.—Quality Assurance Procedures
                                      chloride for the sample.
                                    P.=Ambient atmospheric pressure, mm Hg
                                    R,=Response factor in area counts per ppm
                                      VCM.
                                    T| = Ambient laboratory temperature. °K.
                                    Mv=Molecular weight of VCM, 62.5 g/
                                      mole.
                                    V,=Volume of the vapor phase, cm3.
                                    R = Gas constant. (62360 cmj) (mm Hg/
                                      mole) CK).
                                    m = Sample weight, g.
                                    Kp=Henry's Law Constant for VCM in
                                      PVC @ 90° C, 6.52xlO-«g/g/mm Hg.

                                    If the calibration curve does not pass
                                  through zero, the calibration curve must  be
                                  employed to calculate each sample
                                  concentration unless the error introduced by
                                  using a particular R, is known.
                                    10.2 Residual Vinyl Chloride Monomer
                                  Concentration. (Cn,) or Vinyl Chloride
                                  Monomer Concentration. Calculate Cnf in
                                  ppm or mg/kg as follows:
KP  (TS)
                                                         '  TS>  T
Eq.  107-2
                                  Preprints 15 (2):203.1974.
                                    4. Berens. A.R., LB. Crider. C J Tomanek,
                                  and J.M. Whitney. Analysis for Vinyl
                                  Chloride in PVC Powders by Head—Space

                                    TS=Total solids expressed as a decimal
                                      fraction.
                                    T>=Equilibrium temperature, °K.
                                    Kw=Henry's Law Constant for VCM in
                                      water @ 90° C, 7 x 10"7 g/g/mm Hg
                                    Assuming the following conditions are met.
                                  these values can be substituted into Equation
                                  107-2:
                                    P. = 750 mm Hg.
                                    V, = Vial volume—sample volume (Fisher
                                      vials are 22.0 cm3 and Perkm-Elmer vials
                                      are 21.8 cm5).
                                    T,=23° Cor 296° K.
                                    T,=90°Cor363°K.
                                            * 6.25 x 10'6(TS)(363) + 7.0 x 10"7 (1-TSM363)
                                  Procedure 1—Determination of Adequate
                                  Chromatographic Peak Resolution

                                    In this method of dealing with resolution.
                                  the extent to which one chroma lographic
                                  peak overlaps another is determined.
                                    For convenience, consider the range of the
                                  elution curve of each compound as running
                                  from -2
-------
           Federal Register /  Vol. 47. No, 173 / Tuesday. September 7, 1982 /  Rules and Regulations
        b+2a
       f    V"t2 \          f /- * \          r /- *

V2Tio  J                 V2n ./             V5n J
       b-2a                   b-2as              b+2a£
                                                          dx
                                  c                 c

The following calculation  steps are required:*

1.  2o$ =  ts/^ In 2
2.  oc =  tc/2V2 In 2

3.  xt =  (b-2os)/oc

4.  x2 =  (b+2as)/oc
5.  Q(X!)=-=
                                              peaks are separated by a known distance, b.
                                              one can determine the fraction of the area of
                                              one curve that lies within the range of the
                                              other. The extent to which the elution curve
                                              of a contaminant compound overlaps the
                                              curve of a compound that is under analysis is
                                              found by integrating the contaminant curve
                                              over the limits b-Zcr, to b+2cr., where 
-------
            Federal Register  / Vol. 47. No.  173  / Tuesday, September  7.  1982 / Rules and  Regulations
   In judging the suitability of alternate GC
 columns or the effects of altering
 chromalographic conditions, one can employ
 the area overlap as the resolution parameter
 with a specific maximum permissible value.
   The use of Gaussian functions to describe
 chromatographic elution curves is
 widespread. However, some elution curves
 are highly asymmetric. In cases where the
 sample peak is followed by a contaminant
 that has a leading edge that rises sharply but
 the curve then tails off, it may be possible to
 define an effective width for t, as "twice the
 distance from the leading edge to a
 perpendicular line through the maxim of the
 contaminant curve, measured along a
 perpendicular bisection of that line."

 Procedure 2—Procedure for Field Auditing
 GC Analysis
   Responsibilities of audit supervisor and
 analyst at the source sampling site include
 the following:
   A. The audit supervisor verifies that audit
 cylinders are stored in a safe location both
 before and after the audit to prevent
 vandalism.
   B. At the beginning and conclusion of the
 audit, the analyst records each cylinder
 number and pressure. An audit cylinder is
 never analyzed when the pressure  drops
 below 200 psi.
   C. During the audit, the analyst performs a
 minimum of two consecutive analyses of
 each audit cylinder gas. The audit must be
 conducted to coincide with the analysis of
 source test samples, normally immediately
 after GC calibration and prior  to sample
 analyses.
   D. At the end of audit analyses, the audit
 supervisor requests the calculated
 concentrations from the analyst and
 compares the results with the actual audit
 concentrations. If each measured
 concentration agrees with the respective
 actual concentration within ±10 percent, he
 directs the analyst to begin analyzing source
 samples. Audit supervisor judgment and/or
 supervisory policy determine action when
 agreement is not within ±10 percent. When a
 consistent bias in excess of 10 percent is
 found, it may be possible to proceed with the
 sample analysis, with a corrective factor to
 be applied to the results at  a later time.
 However, every attempt should be  made to
 locate the cause of the discrepancy, as it may
 be misleading. The audit supervisor records
 each cylinder number, cylinder pressure (at
 the end of the audit), and all calculated
 concentrations. The individual being audited
 must not under any circumstance be told
 actual audit concentrations until calculated
 concentrations have been submitted to the
 audit supervisor.

 Held Audit Report
  Part A.—To be filled out by organization
 supplying audit cylinders.
  1. Organization supplying audit sample(s)
 and shipping address

  2. Audit supervisor, organization, and
phone number
  4. Guaranteed arrival date for
cylinders	
  5. Planned shipping date for
cylinders	
  6. Details on audit cylinders from last
analysis

a. D*t» of test tnatyM
b Cyhndw numb*
c Cyfcnd* prMeUrc, pet 	
d Audit 9t*{«*)/lM*«nc« gm
•. AudH gu(M). ppm 	 ,


Low cone







High cone







  Part B.—To be filled out by audit
supervisor.
  1. Process sampled	
  2. Audit location-
  3. Name of individual audit-
  4. Audit date	
  5. Audit results:
• Cylinder number	
b. Cylinder pressure before audft.
  pei	
c Cylinder prawn after audit,
d Measured concentfetiuii, pprn
  Injection  #r  Infection  »2'
  Average 	
•. Actual audit concentration, ppm
  (Part A. 6»	
f. Audit accuracy'
   Low Cone Cylinder	
   High Cone Cylinder	
                          Low cone
                           cylinder
                                   High cone.
Percent' accuracy >
               Measured Cone  -Actual Cone
                                        1100
                        Actual Cone
B Problema delected (if any	L	I	

  'Results  oi two consecutive injeckons that  meet *w
sample analysis catena of the teat method

[FR Doc. S2-M3S1 Filed »-J-»i 1:45 am]
  3. Shipping instructions: Name, Address,
Attention
                                                             IV-135
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 174 / Wednesday,  September 8,  1982 / Rules and Regulations
     71  40CFRPart61

         [AD-FRL-2115-7]

         Appendix B; Test Methods; Method
         107A

         AGENCY: Environmental Protection
         Agency (EPA).
         ACTION: Final rule.

         SUMMARY: Test Method 107A for vinyl
         chloride was proposed in the Federal
         Register on February 12,1981 (46 FR
         12168). This action promulgates the test
         method. The intended effect of this
         action is to allow all sources of vinyl
         chloride specified to conduct emission
         tests under Subparts A and F of 40 CFR
         Part 61 to hereafter (see effective date
         below) use this method for determining
         compliance.
         EFFECTIVE DATE: September 8,1982.
           Under Section 307(b)(l) of the Clean
         Air Act, judicial review of this test
         method is available only by the filing of
         a petition for review in the U.S. Court of
         Appeals for the District of Columbia
         Circuit within 60 days of today's
         publication of this rule. Under Section
         307(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act, the .
         requirements that are the subject of
         today's notice may not be challenged
         later in civil or criminal proceedings
         bought by EPA to enforce these
         requirements.
         ADDRESSES: Summary of Comments and
         Responses. The summary of comments
         and responses for the proposed test
         method 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
         "Test Method 107A—Summary of
         Comments and Responses, EPA-450/3-
         82-004." The document contains a
         summary of all the public comments
         made on the proposed method and the
         Administrator's response to the
         comments.
           Docket. A docket, number A-80-37,
         containing information considered by
         EPA in the development of this test
         method, is available for public
         inspection between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00
         p.m. Monday through Friday, at EPA's
         Central Docket Section (A-130), West
         Tower Lobby, Gallery 1, 401 M Street,
         S\V., Washington, D.C. 20460. A
         reasonable fee may be charged for
         copying.
         FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
         Roger T. Shigehara, Emission
         Measurement Branch, Emission
         Standards and Engineering Division
         (MD-19). U.S. Environmental Protection
         Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
         Carolina 27711, telephone (919) 541-
         2237.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: .

Public Participation

  The test method was proposed and
published in the Federal Register on
February 12,1981 (46 FR 12188). A public
hearing was scheduled for March 26,
1981, but was not held since no one
requested to speak. Public comments
were solicited at the time of proposal.
The public comment period was from
February 12,1981, to April 13,1981.
  Seven comment letters were received
concerning issues relative  to the
proposed test method. The comments
have been carefully considered, and it
was determined that no changes were
necessary in the proposed test method.

Significant Comment to the Proposed
Test Method
  Comments on the proposed test
method were received from industry,
industry counsel, engineering firms, and
equipment manufacturers. A detailed
discussion of these comments and
responses can be found in the summary
of comments and responses, which is
referred to in the ADDRESSES section
of this preamble. The  major comments
and responses are summarized in this
preamble. The comments have been
divided into the following areas:

Prior Approval of Method 10"'A
  One commenter felt that Method 107A
is very similar to methods in use before
the regulation containing Method 107
was promulgated in 1977, and a great
deal of time and money could have been
saved had Method 107A been permitted
originally.
  The commenter apparently failed to
recognize that Part 61 of Title 40, CFR,
provides for approval by the
Administrator of methods which have
been demonstrated to the
Administrator's satisfaction to produce
results adequate for determination of
compliance. Method 107 is an automated
analytical technique that is best suited
for the high-volume quality control
analyses that are an integral part of
most polyvinyl chloride facilities, but for
those who may prefer to use another
method, that option has always been a
possibility.

Safety of Method 107A
  One commenter stated that due to the
hazards involved, the Agency should not
recommend the use of pure vinyl
chloride to prepare liquid  calibration
standards. Furthermore, due to the
availability of standard reference
materials from the National Bureau of
Standards, the commenter believes that
the accuracy of commercially prepared
                                            IV-136
-------
        Federal Register / Vol.  47.  No.  174 / Wednesday.  September 8.  1962 /  Rules  and  Regulations
gaseous vinyl chloride mixtures is
probably far superior to any liquid
standards prepared by the procedure
described in the proposed method.
  The Agency recognizes the need to
exercise great caution in the use of pure
vinyl chloride in Section 5, Safety, and
Section 9.1,  Preparation of Standards.
Liquid standards are an integral part of
the method, and gas standards would
add considerable cost to the method
without increasing the accuracy to a
significant or necessary degree.
Citation of Brand Name'Products
  A manufacturer of gas
chromatographs and accessories
objected to  the citations of brand name
products (Sections 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.7),  and
suggested they be replaced with generic
equivalents. In their opinion, many
potential method users will never
question a particular brand selection if
one is cited.
  While this may be true, most method
users find it helpful to know which
particular brand has been shown to
produce satisfactory results. However,
as the EPA does not have the capability
to screen all products to determine
acceptability, it believes the best course
of action is  to leave the method users
the option to choose some other brand
by adding the phrase "or equivalent" to
each brand  product cited.

Docket
  The  docket is an organized and
complete file of all the information
considered  by EPA in the development
of this rulemaking. The docket is a
dynamic file, since material is added
throughout the rulemaking development.
The docketing system is intended to
allow members of the public and
industries involved to identify and
locate documents readily so that they
can intelligently and effectively
participate in the rulemaking process.
Along  with  the statement of basis and
purpose of the proposed and
promulgated test methods and EPA
responses to significant comments, the
contents of  the docket will serve as the
record in case of judicial review
(Section 307(d)(7)(A)).
Miscellaneous
  This rulemaking does not impose any
additional emission measurement
requirements on facilities affected by
this rulemaking. Rather, this rulemaking
allows the use of an alternative test
method. If future standards impose
different emission measurement
requirements, the impacts of the
alternative test method promulgated
today will be evaluated during
development of these standards.
  Under Executive Order 12291, EPA
must judge whether a regulation is
"major" and, therefore, subject to the
requirement of a regulatory impact
analysis. This regulation is not major
because it will not have an annual effect
on the economy of $100 million or more;
it will not result in a major increase in
costs or prices; and there will be no
significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or on the
ability of U.S.-based enterprises to
compete with foreign-based enterprises
in domestic or export markets. This
regulation was submitted to the Office
of Management and Budget for review
as required by Executive Ordet 12291.
  Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
605(b), I hereby certify that the attached
rule will not have a significant economic
impaci on a substantial number of small
entities because the rule does not
impose any additional requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 61
  Air pollution control, Asbestos,
Beryllium, Hazardous materials,
Mercury, Vinyl chloride.
Sec. 112,114, 301 (a) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 7412, 7414, 7601(a))
  Dated: August 24,1982.
John W. Hernandez, Jr.,
Acting Administrator.

PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS

  Secton 61.67{g) and Appendix B of 40
CFR Part 61 are amended as follows:
  1. By adding a sentence to §  61.67(g)
as follows:

§ 61.67  Emission tests.
*****
  (g) * * * alternative is withdrawn.
Whenever Test Method 107 is specified,
and the conditions in Section 1.1,
"Applicability" of Method 107A are  met,
Method 107A may be used.
*****
  2. By adding Method 107A to
Appendix B to read as follows:
Appendix B—Test Methods
Method 107A—Determination of Vinyl
Chloride Content of Solvents, Resin-Solvent
Solution, Polyvinyl Chloride Resin, Resin
Slurry, Wet Resin, and Latex Samples

Introduction
  Performance of this method should not be
attempted by persons unfamiliar with the
operation of a gas chromatograph (GC) or by
those who are unfamiliar with source
sampling because knowledge beyond the
scope of this presentation is required. Care
must be exercised to prevent exposure of
sampling personnel to vinyl chloride, a
carcinogen.

1. Applicability and Principle
  1.1  Applicability. This is an alternative
method and applies to the measurement of
the vinyl chloride content of solvent.", resin
solvent solutions, polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
resin, wet cake slurries. latex; and fabricated
resin samples  This method is not acceptable
where methods from Section 304(h) of the
Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.. (the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 as amended by the
Clean Water Act of 1977) are required.
  1.2  Principle. The basis for this method
lies in the direct injection of a liquid sample
into a chromatograph and the subsequent
evaporation of all volatile material into the
carrier gas stream of the chromatograph, thus
permitting analysis of all volatile  material
including vinyl chloride.

2. Range and Sensitivity
  The lower limit of detection of vinyl
chloride in dry PVC resin is 0.2 ppm. For resin
solutions, latexes, and wet resin,  this limit
rises inversely as the nonvolatile  (resin)
content decreases.
  With proper calibration, the upper limit
may be extended as needed.

3. Interferences
  The chromatograph columns and the
corresponding operating parameters herein
described normally provide an adequate
resolution of vinyl chloride. In cases where
resolution interferences are encountered, the
chromatograph operator shall select the
column and operating parameters best suited
to his particular analysis problem, subject to
the approval of the Administrator. Approval
is automatic, provided that the tester
produces confirming data through an
adequate supplemental analytical technique.
such as analysis with a different column or
GC/mass spectroscopy, and has the data
available for review by the Administrator

4. Precision ond Reproducibflity
  A standard sample of latex containing
181.8 ppm vinyl chloride analyzed 10 times by
the alternative method showed a  standard
deviation of 7.5 percent and a mean error of
0.21 percent.
  A sample of vinyl chloride copolymer resin
solution was analyzed 10 times by the
alternative method and showed a standard
deviation of 6.6 percent at a level of 35 ppm.

5. Safety
  Do not release vinyl chloride to the
laboratory atmosphere during preparation of
standards. Venting or purging with vinyl
chloride monomer (VCM) air mixtures must
be held to minimum When purging is
required, the vapor must be routed to outside
air. Vinyl chloride, even at low-ppm levels.
must never be vented inside the laboratory.
                    •
6. Apparatus
6.1  Siimpling. The following equipment is
    required:
6.1.1  Glabs Bottles. 16-oz wide mouth wide
    polyethylene-lined, screw-on tops.
                                                        IV-137
-------
         Federal  Register /  Vol. 47.  No.  174  / Wednesday.  September  8.  1982 / Rules and Regulations
  6.1.2  Adhesive Tape. To prevent
loosening of bottle tops.
  6.2  Sample Recovery. The following
equipment is required:
  6.2.1  Glass Vials. 20-ml capacity with
polycone screw caps.
  6.2.2  Analytical Balance. Capable of
weighing to ±0.01 gram.
  6.2.3  Syringe. 50-microliter size, with
removable needle.
  6.2.4  Fritted Glass Sparger. Fine porosity.
  6.2.5  Aluminum Weighing Dishes.
  6.2.6  Sample Roller or Shaker. To help
dissolve sample.
  6.3  Analysis. The following equipment is
required:
  6.3.1  Gas Chromatograph. Hewlett
Packard Model 5720A or equivalent.
6.3.2  Chromatograph Column. Stainless
    steel, 6.1 m by 3.2 mm, packed with 20
    percent Tergitol E-35 on Chromosorb W
    AW 60/80 mesh. The analyst may use
    other columns provided that the
    precision and accuracy of the analysis of
    vinyl chloride standards are not impaired
    and that he has available for review
    information confirming that there is
    adequate resolution of the vinyl chloride
    peak. (Adequate resolution is defined as
    an area overlap of not  more than 10
    percent of the vinyl chloride peak by an
    interfering peak. Calculation of area
    overlap is explained in Apendix C,
    Procedure 1: "Determination of Adequate
    Chromatographic Peak Resolution.")
6.3.3  Valco Instrument Six-Port Rotary
    Valve. For column back flush.
6 3.4  Septa. For Chromatograph injection
    port.
6.3.5  Injection Port Liners. For
    Chromatograph used.
6.3.6  Regulators. For required gas cylinders.
6 3.7  Soap Film Flowmeter. Hewlett Packard
    No. 0101-0113 or equivalent.
6 4  Calibration. The following equipment is
    required:
6.4.1  Analytical Balance. Capable of
    weighing to ±0.0001 g.
6.4.2  Erlenmeyer Flask With Glass Stopper.
    125ml.
6.4.3  Pipets. 0.1, 0.5,1, 5,10. and 50 ml.
6.4.4  Volumetric Flasks. 10 and 100 ml.

7. Reagents
Use only reagents that are  of Chromatograph
    grade.
7.1  Analysis. The following items are
    required:
711  Hydrogen Gas. Zero grade.
7.1.2  Nitrogen Gas. Zero grade.
7.1.3  Air. Zero grade.
7.1 4  Tetrahydrofuran (THF). Reagent grade.
  Analyze the THF by injecting 10 microhters
into the prepared gas Chromatograph.
Compare the THF chromatOBram with that
shown in Figure 107A-l. If the chromatogram
is comparable to A. the THF should  be
spgrged with pure nitrogen for approximately
2 hours using  the fritted glass sparger to
attempt to remove the interfering peak.
Reanalyze the sparged THF to determine
whether the THF is acceptable for use. If the
scan is comparable to B, the THF should be
acceptable for use in the analysis.
7.1 5  N. N-Dimethylacetamide (DMAC).
    Spectrographic grade. For use in place of
    THF.
                              * interfering  peak
                                   Time, minutes
                                     Figure  107A-1
7.2  Calibration. The following item is
    required:
7.2 1  Vinyl Chloride 99.9 Percent. Ideal Gas
    Products lecture bottle, or equivalent. For
    preparation of standard solutions.

B Procedure
8.1   Sampling Allow the liquid or dried resin
    to flow from a tap on the tank, silo, or
    pipeline until the tap has been purged
    Fill a wide-mouth pint bottle, and
    immediately tightly cap the bottle. Place
    an identifying label on each bottle and
    record the date, time, sample location,
    and material.
  B.2 Sample Treatment. Sample must be
run within 24 hours.
  8.2.1  Resin Samples. Weigh 9.00 ± 0.01 g
of THF or DMAC in a tared 20-ml vial Add
1 00 ± 0.01 g of resin to the tared vial
containing the THF or DMAC. Close the vial
tightly with the screw cap,  and shake or
otherwise agitate the vial until complete
solution of the resin is obtained. Shaking may
require several minutes to several hours,
deppnding on the nature  of the resin.
  8.2.2  Suspension Resin Slurry and Wet
Resin Sample.  Slurry must be filtered using a
small Buchner funnel  with vacuum to yield a
wet resin sample. .The filtering process must
be continued only as long as a steady  stream
of water is exiting from the funnel. Excessive
filtration time could result in some loss of
VCM. The wet resin sample is weighed into a
tared 20-ml vial with THF or DMAC as
described earlier for resin samples (8.2.1) and
treated the same as the resin sample A
sample of the wet resin is used to determine
total solids as required for calculating the
residual VCM (Section 8.3.4).
  8.2 3  Latex and Resin Solvent Solutions
Samples must be thoroughly mixed. Weigh
1.00 ± 0 01 g of the latex or resin-solvent
solution into a 20-ml vial containing
9.00 ± 0.01 g of THF or DMAC as for the
resin samples (8.2.1). Cap and shake until
complete solution is obtained. Determine the
total solids of the latex or resin solution
sample (Section 8.3 4).
  8.2.4  Solvents and Non-viscous Liquid
Samples No preparation of these samples is
required The neat samples are injected
directly into the GC.
  8.3 Analysis.
  831  Preparation of CC. Install the
chromatographic column, and condition
overnight at 70° C. Do not connect the exit
end of the column to the  detector while
conditioning.
  8.3.1.1  Flow Rate Adjustments. Adjust the
flow rate as follows:
  a. Nitrogen Carrier Gas. Set regulator on
cylinder to read 60 psig Set column flow
controller on the Chromatograph using the
soap flim flowmeter to yield a flow late of 40
cc/min
  b. Burner Air Supply  Set regulator on the
cylinder at 40 psig. Set regulator on the
Chromatograph to supply air to the buiner to
yield a flow rate of 250 to 300 cc/min using
the flowmeter.
  c. Hydrogen. Set regulator on cylinder to
read 60 psig. Set regulator on the
Chromatograph to supply 30 to 40 cc/min
using the flowmeter. Optimize hydrogen flow
to yield the most sensitive detector response
without extinguishing the flame. Check flou
with flowmeter and record this flow.
  d. Nitrogen Back Flush Gas. Set regulatoi
on the Chromatograph using the soap film
flowmeter to yield a flow rate of 40 cc/min.
  8.3.1.2  Temperature Adjustments Set
temperature as follows:
  a Oven (chromatographic column) at 70" C
  b. Injection Port at 100° C.
  c Detector at 300° C.
  8.3.1.3  Ignition of Flame lomzation
Detector. Ignite the detector according to the
manufacturer's instructions Allow system to
stabilize approximately 1 hour.
  8.3.1.4  Recorder. Set pen at zero and start
chart drive.
  8.3.1.5  Attenuation  Set attenuation to
yield desired peak height depending on
sample VCM content.
  8.3.2  Chromatographic Analyses.
  a Sample Inaction. Remove needle from
50-microliter syringe. Open sample vial and
draw 50-microliters of THF or DMAC sample
recovery solution  into the syringe  Recap
sample vial. Attach needle to the syringe and
while holding the  syringe vertically (needle
uppermost), eject  40 microhters into an
absorbent tissue Wipe needle with tissue
Now inject 10 microliters into Chromatograph
system. Repeat the injection until two
consecutive values for the height of the vinyl
chloride peak do not vary more than 5
percent. Use the average value for these two
peak heights to compute the sample
concentration
  b. Back Flush After 4 minutes has elapsed
after sample injection, actuate the back flush
valve to purge the first 4 feet of the
chromatographic column of solvent and other
high  boilers.
                                                           IV-138
-------
         Federal Register  /  Vol.  47, No. 174  / Wednesday.  September  8.  1982 / Rules  and Regulations
  c. Sample Data. Record on the
chromatograph strip chart the data from the
sample label.
  d. Elution Time. Vinyl chloride elutes at 2.8
minutes. Acetaldehyde elutes at 3.7 minutes.
Analysis is considered complete when chart
pen becomes stable. After 5 minutes, reset
back flush valve and inject next sample
  8.3.3  Chromatograph  Servicing.
  a. Septum. Replace after five  sample
injections.
  b Sample  Port Liner. Replace the sample
port liner with a clean spare after five sample
injections.
  c. Chromatograph Shutdown. If the
chromatogragph has been shut down
overnight, rerun one or more samples from
the preceding day to test stability and
precision prioi to starting on the current day's
work.
  8.3.4  Determination of Total Solids (TS).
For wet resin, resin solution, and PVC latex
samples, determine the TS for each sample
by accurately weighing approximately 3 to 5
grams of sample into a tared aluminum pan
The initial procedure is as follows:
  a Where water is the major volatile
component: Tare the weighing dish, and add
3 to 5 grams  of sample to the dish. Weigh  to
the nearest milligram.
  b. Where volatile solvent is the major
volatile component: Transfer a portion of the
sample to a 20-m! screw cap vial and cap
immediately. Weigh the vial to the nearest
milligram. Uncap the vial and transfer a 3- to
5-gram portion of the sample to a tared
aluminum weighing dish. Recap the vial and
re weigh to the nearest milligram. The vial
weight loss is the sample weight.
  To continue, now place the weighing  pan in
a 130° C oven for 1  hour. Remove the dish
and allow to cool to room temperature in a
desiccator. Weigh the pan to the nearest 0.1
mg. Total solids is the weight of material in
the aluminum pan after heating divided by
the net weight of sample added to the pan
originally times 100.
  9. Calibration of the Chromatogi-aph
  9.1  Preparation  of Standards. Prepare u 1
percent by weight (approximate) solution of
vinly chloride in THF or DMAC by bubbling
vinyl chloride gas from a cylinder into a tared
125-ml glass-stoppered flask containing THF
or DMAC. The weight of vinyl chloride  to be
added should be calculated prior to this
operation, i.e., 1 percent of the weight of THF
or DMAC contained in the tared flask. This
must be carried out in a laboratory hood.
Adjust the vinyl chloride flow from the
cylinder so that the vinyl chloride dissolves
essentially completely in the THF or DMAC
and is not blown to the atmosphere. Take
particular care not  to volatize any of the
solution. Stopper the flask and swirl the
solution to effect complete mixing. Weigh the
stoppered flask to nearest 0.1 mg to
determine the exact amount of vinyl chloride
added.
  Pipe! 10 ml of the approximately 1 percent
solution into a 100-ml glass-stoppered
volumetric flask, and add THF or DMAC to
fill to  the mark. Cap the flask and invert 10 to
20 times. This solution contains
approximately 1,000 ppm by weight of vinyl
chloride (note the exact concentration).
  Pipet 50-. 10-. 5-, 1-, 0.5-, and 0.1-ml aliquots
of the approximately 1,000 ppm  solution into
10 ml glass stoppered volumetric flasks.
 Dilute to the murk with THF or DMAC. cap
 the flasks and invert each 10 to 20 times.
 These solutions contain approximately 500,
 100, 50, 10, 5, and 1 ppm vinyl chloride. Note
 the exact concentration of each one. These
 standards are  to be kept under refrigeration
 in stoppered bottles. and mus; be renewed
 eveiy 3 months
   9.Z  Preparation of Chromdtogidph
 Calibration Curve.
   Obtain the GC for each of the six final
 solutions prepared in Section 9.1 by using the
 proLtduie in Section 8.3.2. Prepare a chart
 plotting peak height obtained from the
 chromatogiam of each solution versus the
 known concentration. Draw a straight line
 through the points derived b\ the least
 squares meihods
   10 Culcitlatinns
   10.1  Response Factor. From the
 calibration curve described ir. Section 9.2.
 select the value of Cc that corresponds to Hc
 for each sample. Compute the response
 factor, R(, for each sample as follows-

 R,=  _£_    Eq. 107A-1
       Hc
  10.2  Residual vinyl chloride monomer
concentration (Cm} or vinyl  chloride
monomer concentration in resin:

Q^IOH.R,   Eq. 107A-2
Where:
  1-1,, = Peak height of sample, mm.
  Rt=Chromatograph response factor.
  10.3 Samples containing volatile material,
i.e., resin solutions, wet resin, and latexes:
0,,,=
                     Eq. 107 A-3
         TS
  10.4  Samples of solvents and in process
wastewater:

      JML     Eq.l07A-4
       0.8B8
Where:
  0 888=Specific gravity of THF.
  11. Bibliography
  1. Communication from R. N. Wheeler, Jr.;
Union Carbide Corporation. Part 61 National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants Appendix B, Method 107—
Alternate Method, September 19,1977.
(FR Doc 82-24530 Filed 9-7-82: a45 am)
                                                            IV-139
-------
       Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 189 / Wednesday. September 29,  1982 / Rules and Regulations
72

 40 CFR Part* 60 and 61

 IA-7-FRL 2217-1]

 New Source Performance Standards
 (KSPS) and National Emission
 Standards for Hazardous Air
 Pollutants (NESHAPS); Delegation of
 Authority to Lincoln/Lancaster County
 Health Department (Nebraska)

 AGENCY: Environmental Protection
 Agency (EPA).
 ACTION: Final rulemaking.

 SUMMARY: The EPA is today amending
 40 CFR 60.4 and 61.04, Address, to
 reflect a delegation of authority to
 Nebraska's Lincoln/Lancaster County
 Health Department for New Source
 Performance Standards (NSPS) and
 National Emission Standards for
 Hazardous Air Pollutants [NESHAPS).
 EFFECTIVE DATE: September 29,1982.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
 Steve A. Kovac, Air Branch, U.S. EPA,
 Region VII, 324 East llth Street, Kansas
 City, Missouri 64106; 816/374-6525; FTS
 758-6525.
 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
 Nebraska Department of Environmental
 Control has subdelegated authority to
 implement and enforce the federal NSPS
 regulations for 32 stationary source
 categories and national emission
 standards for four hazardous air
 pollutants to the Lincoln/Lancaster
 County Health Department. The
 amended 40 CFR 60.4(b)[CC) and
 61.04(b)(CC) adds the address of the
 county health department to which all
 reports, requests, applications,
 submittals, and communications to the
 Administrator, as required by 40 CFR
 Pacts 60 and 61, must also be addressed.

 List of Subjects

 40 CFR Part 60
   Air pollution control, Aluminum,
 Ammonium sulfate plants, Cement
 industry, Coal, Copper, Electric power
 plants, Class and glass products, Grains,
 Intergovernmental relations, Iron, Lead,
 Metals, Motor vehicles. Nitric acid
 plants. Paper and paper products
 industry, Petroleum, Phosphate, Sewage
 disposal, Steel, Sulfuric acid plants.
 Waste treatment and disposal, Zinc.
40 CFR Part 61

  Air pollution control. Asbestos.
Beryllium, Hazardous materials,
Mercuo  Vinyl chloride.
  The Administrator finds good cause
for foregoing prior public notice and for
making this rulemaking effective
immediately in that it is an
administrative change and not one of
substantive content. No additional
burdens are imposed upon the parties
affected.
  The delegation which influenced this
amendment was effective on August 5,
1982, and it serves no purpose to delay
technical change of this address in the
Code of Federal Regulations. This
rulemaking is effective immediately, end
is issued under the authority of Section
111 of the Clean Air Act as amended, 42
U.S.C. 7412.
  The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
  Dated: September 14, 1982.
William W. Rice,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region Vll.

PART 60— STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
STATIONARY SOURCES

   Part 60 of Chapter 1, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
   In § 60.4, paragraph (b)(CC) is
amended by adding the following
address after the existing address:

|60.4  Address.
   (CC) * * *
   Lincoln-Lancaster County Health
 Department, Division of Environmental
 Health, 2200 St. Marys Avenue, Lincoln.
 Nebraska 68502.
 PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION
 STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
 POLLUTANTS

   Part 61 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
 Code of Federal Regulations is amended
 as follows:
   In S 61.04, paragraph (b)(CC) is
 amended by adding the following
 address after the existing address:

 $ 61.04  Address.
 *    «    *    *    *

   fb) •  '  '
   (CC)  *  * *
   Lincoln-Lancaster County Health
 Department, Division of Environmental
                                                                              Health, 2200 St. Marys Avenue, Lincoln.
                                                                              Nebraska 68502.
                                                                              •    •    «    •    *
                                                                              [FR Doc. B2-JMM Filed O-28-62; MS un)
                                                     IV-140
-------
          Federal Register /  Vol. 47.  No.  190  / Thursday. September 30, 1982  /  Rules and  Regulations
73
40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

[A-9-FRL 2217-2]

Delegation of New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS);
States of Arizona, California, and
Nevada and Territory of Guam

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; notice of delegation.

SUMMARY: The EPA hereby places the
public on notice of its delegation of New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS)  to
various State and local air pollution
control agencies in Region 9. This action
is necessary to bring  the NSPS and
NESHAPS program delegations up to
date with recent EPA promulgations and
amendments of NSPS and NESHAPS
categories. This action does not create
any new regulatory requirements
affecting the public. The effect of the
delegation is to shift primary program
responsibility for the affected NSPS and
NESHAPS source categories from EPA
to State and local governments.
DATES: The regulations are amended to
reflect these delegations effective
September 27,1982.
  The delegations are effective on the
dates listed in the Supplementary
Information.
                                           FOM FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
                                           Julie A. Rose, New Source Section (A-3-
                                           1), Air Operations Branch, Air
                                           Management Division, EPA, Region 9,
                                           215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA
                                           94105, Tel: (415) 974-8236, FTS 454-8236.
                                           SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
                                           following state and local air pollution
                                           control agencies have requested
                                           authority for delegation or redelegation
                                           of certain NSPS and NESHAPS source
                                           categories. Delegation or redelegations
                                           of authority were granted to the
                                           following agencies and are effective as
                                           listed below:

                                           Bay Area Air Quality Management
                                           District

                                              Effective Date: July 19,1982.

                                           New Delegation
                                                        NESHAPS
Vinyl Chloride
Redelegation
             NESHAPS
Beryllium	
Beryllium Rocket Motor Firing ..
                                  40 CFR
                                  panel
                                  subpart
 40 CFR
 part 61
 subparl
Del Norte County Air Pollution Control
District (APCDj

  Effective Date: September 6,1982.

New Delegation
              NSPS
General Provisions	
Electric Utility Steam Generators  	
Petroleum Storage Vessels 	
Gfass Manufacturing Plants	
Stationary Gas Turbines   	
Automobile & Light-Duty Truck Surface Coating
  Operations
Ammonium SuKate	
 40 CFR
 part 60
 subpart
A.
Da
Ka.
CC
GG
MM
General Provisions...
                                  40 CFR
                                  part 61
                                  subpart
Redelegation
              NSPS
                                           Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generators..
 40 CFR
 part BO
 subpart
                                                         NSPS
          Incinerators  	
          Portland C«ment Plants	
          Nitnc Acid Plants	
          SuHunc Add Plants	
          Asphalt Concrete plants  	
          Petroleum Refineries	
          Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids  	
          Secondary Lead Smelters ....
          Secondary Brass & Bronze Ingot Production
            Plants
          Iron and Steel Plants (BOPF)	
          Sewage Treatment Plants	
          Primary Copper Smelters 	
          Pnmary Zinc Smelters    .    .  .
          Pnmary Lead Smelters 	
          Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants 	
          Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
             West process Phosphoric Acid Plants . .
          Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
             Superphosphonc Acid Plants	
          Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
             Diammoruum Phosphate Plants 	
          Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
             Triple Superphosphate Plants	
          Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
             Granular Tnple Superphosphate	
          Coal Preparation Plants  	
          Ferroalloy Production Facilities	
          Iron and steel Plants (Electric Arc Furnaces) .
          Kraft Pulp Mills	
          Grain Elevators	
          Lime Manufacturing Plants	
                                  40 CFR
                                  pan 60
                                  subpa'l


                                 E
                                 F
                                 G.
                                 H
                                 I.
                                 J
                                 K
                                 L
                                 M

                                 N
                                 O

                                 O

                                 s

                                 T

                                 u
                                 j
                                 V
                                 X
                                : Y

                                iAA
                                IBB
                                I oo
                                1 KH
                                                        NESHAPS
                                  40 CFR
                                  part 61
                                  subparl
          Asbestos  	
          Beryllium .         	
          Beryllium Rocket Motor Firing
          Mercury  .
          Vinyl Chloride _	
Fresno County APCD

  Effective Date: June 21,1982.

New Delegation
NSPS

Kraf! Pulp Mills 	



40 CFR
part 60
subpart
A
BB
DD
HH

                                                        NESHAPS
          General Provisions	
          Vinyl Chloride 	
                                             40 CFR
                                             pan 61
                                             subpart
                                            Great Basin Unified APCD

                                              Effective Date: August 16,1982.
                                                           IV-141
-------
            Federal  Register  /  Vol.  47.  No.  190  /  Thursday.  September  30.  1982  /  Rules  and  Regulations
New Delegation
                  NSPS
Iron and Steel Planla (Electric Arc Furnaces)	
    40CFR
    part 60
    subpirt

NESHAPS

Asbestos 	
Beryllium 	
Beryllium Rocket Motor Finng 	
Mercury 	 	 	
Vinyl Chloride 	

4CCFR
pan 61
subpart
B
c
D
E
F

                                                                                                                              NESHAPS
                                                       Asbestos  	
                                                       Beryllium	
                                                       Beryllium Rocket Motor Firing .
                                                       Mercury	
                                                       Vinyl Chloride	
                                                         40CFR
                                                         part 61
                                                         subpart


                                                       B
                                                       C
                                                       D
                                                       E
                                                       F
Humboldt County APCD

   Effective Date: September 6,19B2.

Redelegation
                  NSPS
 !   40CFR
 I   part 60
 !   subpart
-f   -  -
General Provisions ....  	  A
Electric Utility Steam Generators	 Da
Petroleum Storage Vessels	 Ka
Glass Manufacturing Plants	  CC
Stationary Gas Turbines	  GG
Automobile & Ughl-Outy Truck Surface Coating | MM
  Operations.
Ammonium Surtate	 PP.
                NESHAPS
    40CFR
    part 61
    subpart
General Provisions	 A
Redelegation
                  NSPS
                                     ~l
Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generators  	
Incinerators	
Portland Cement Plants	
Nitric Acid Plants	
Sultunc Acid Plants	
Asphalt Concrete Plants	
Petroleum Refineries	
Storage Vessels for  Petroleum Liquids 	
Secondary Lead Smelters	
Secondary Brass & Bronze  Ingot  Production
  Plants
Iro" and Steel Plants (BOPF)	
Sewage Treatment Plants  	
Primary Copper Smelters  	
Pnmary Zinc Smelters  	
Primary Lead Smelters	
Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants	
Phosphate Fertilizer  Industry
    Wet Process Phosphoric Acid Plants  .   .
Phosphate Fertilizer  Industry:
    Superphosphonc Acid Plants	
Phosphate Fertilizer  Industry:
    Diammonlum Phosphate Plants	
Phosphate Fertilizer  Industry.
    Triple Superphosphate Plants	
Phosphate Fertilizer  Industry:
    Granular Triple Superphosphate	
Coal Preparation Plants	
Ferroalloy Production Facilities	
Iron and Steel Plants (Electric Arc Furnaces)	
Kraft Pulp Mills	
Gram El»vstors4	
Lime Manufacturing  Plants	
    40CFR
    part 60
    subpart
   X.
   V
   z.
   AA.
   BB.
   DO.
   HH.
                Kern County APCD

                  Effective Date: July 19.1982.

                New Delegation
                                                                         NSPS
                                                       General Provisions
                               NESHAPS
                                           40CFR
                                           part 60
                                     	|  subpart
                                           40CFR
                                            pan 61
                                           subpan
                                                       General Provisions
                                                       Redelegation
                                                                         NSPS
Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generators	
Electric Utility Steam Generators	
Incinerators	
Portland Cement Plants	
NHric Acid Plants	
Sufunc Acid Plants	
Asphalt Concrete Plants	
Petroleum Refineries	
Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids	
Petroleum Storage Vessels	
Secondary Lead Smelters	
Secondary Brass  &  Bronze  Ingot  Production
  Plants.
Iron and Steel Plants (BOPF)	
Sewage Treatment Plants	
Primary Copper  Smelters	
Primary Zinc Smelters 	
Primary Lead Smellers	
Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants 	
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
    Wet Process Phosphoric Acid Plants	
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
    Superphosphonc Acid Plants	
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
    Diammomum Phosphate Plants	
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
    Triple Superphosphate Plants  	
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
    Grangular Triple Superphosphate	
Coal Preparation Plants	
Ferroalloy Production Facilities	
Iron and Steel Plants (Electric Arc Furnaces)	
Kraft Pulp Mills	
Glass Manufacturing Plants	
Grain Eervators	
Stationary Gas Turbines	
Lime Manufacturing Plants	
Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Surface Coat-
  ing
Ammonium Sulfate Manufacturing 	
 40CFR
 part 60
 subpart


D.
Da
E
F.
G.
H.
I.
J
K
Ka
L
M

N
O
P
O
R
S
X
Y.
Z.
AA.
BB.
CC.
DO.
GG
HH
                                                       Kings County APCD

                                                          Effective Date: August 16,1982.

                                                       New Delegation
                                                                                                                                NSPS
                                                                       Kraft Pulp Mills  	
                                                                       Gram Elevators  	
                                                                       Lime Manufacturing Plants
                                                         40CFR
                                                         part 60
                                                         subpan


                                                       BB
                                                      |DD
                                                       Lake County APCD

                                                          Effective Date: August 16,1982.

                                                       New Delegation
                                                                                                                                NSPS
                                                                                                                   40CFR
                                                                                                                   part 60
                                                                                                                   subpart
General Provisions 	
Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generators	
Incinerators	
Portland Cement Plants	
Nitric Acid Plants	
Sultunc Acid Plants	
Asphalt Concrete Plants  	
Petroleum Refineries  	
Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids	
Secondary Lead Smelters	
Secondary Brass  A  Bronze Ingot  Production
  Plants
Iron and Steel Plants  (BOPF). ...
Sewage Treatment Plants	
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
    Wet Process Phosphoric Acid  Plants   . ...
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
    Superphosphonc  Acid Plants..      .  .  .
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
    Diammontum Phosphate Plants .
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
    Triple Superphosphate Plants	
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
    Granular Tnple Superphosphate   	
Iron and Steel Plants  (Electric Arc  Fumacf s)
 A.
 D
i E
.' F
i G
I H
| I

|K
IL
 M

 N
 O
                                                                                                                 X
                                                                                                                 AA
General Provisions-
Asbestos
Beryllium
Beryllium Rocket Motor Firing	I  D
Mercury	j  E
                                                                        IV-142
-------
            Federal  Register  /  Vol.  47,  No. 190 / Thursday.  September  30.  1982  /  Rules  and Regulations
Madera County APCD

   Effective Date: September 6,1982.


New Delegation
                  NSPS
 Primary Copper Smellers	
 Primary Zinc Smelters  	
 Primary lead Smerters 	
 Primary Alumium Reduction Plants     	
 Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
    Wet Process Phosphoric Acid Plants	
 Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
    Superphosphonc Acid Plants	
 Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
    Diammormim Phosphate Plants  	
 Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
    Triple Superphosphate Plants	
 Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
    Granular Triple Superphosphate	
 Coal Preparation Plants	
 Ferroalloy Production Facilities 	
 Iron and Steel Plants (Elecnc Arc Furnaces)  ...
 Kraft Pulp Mills	
 Gram Elevators  	
 Ume Manufacturing Plants	
                NESHAPS
 Vmyl Chloride  . ..
 40 CFR
 part 60
 subpart
X.
Y.
Z
AA
BB
DD
HH
 40CFH
 part 61
 subpart
                            NESHAPS
                                          40CFR
                                          part 61
                                          subpart
            General Provisions
                                                      Redelegation
                                                                        NSPS
 Redelegation
Foss4-Fuel Fired Steam Generators	 .
Incenerators        .      	
Portland Cement Plants	
Nitric Add Plants  	
Sulfunc Acid Plants       	
Asphalt Concrete Plants  	
Petroleum Refineries  	
Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids 	
Secondary Lead Smelters 	
Secondary Brass  « Bronze  Ingot  Production
  Plants
Iron and Steel Plants (BOPF)	
Sewage Treatment Plants	
Primary Copper Smelters   	
Pnmary Zinc Smerters	
Pnmary Lead Smelters   	
Pnmary Aluminum  Reduction Plants 	
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
    Wet Process Phosphoric Acid Plants	
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
    Superphosphonc Acid Plants	,
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry.
    Diammorwjm Phosphate Plants	
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry.
    Triple Superphosphate Plants	
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
    Granular Triple Superphosphate	
Coal Preparation Plants 	
Ferroalloy Production Facilities	
Iron and Steel Plants (Electric Arc Fumances)....

NESHAPS

General Provisions 	
Vinyl Chloride 	

40CFR
part e-
subpan
A
F

                                                                                                            Redelegation
                                                                                                                              NSPS
                                                                                                           I  40 CFR
                                                                                                           1  pan eo
                                                                                                           |  subpart
Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generators ...       , D
Incinerators     	  E
Portland Cement Plants   	   F
Nitnc Acid Plants  	         .  ' G
Sulfunc Acid Plants  	H.
Asphalt Concrete Plants	    j I.
Petroleum Refineries	, J
Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids.  .  .   .  j K
Secondary. Lead Smelters   .    .    .   .    ! L
Secondary Brass and Bronze Ingot Production  M
  Plants                                 .
Iron and Steel Plants (BOPF)	   N
Sewage Treatment Plants   	   O
Pnmary Copper Smelters  	j P
Pnmary Zinc Smelters	 j O
Primary Lead Smelters	  i R
Pnmary Aluminum Reduction Plants	i S.
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry-
    Wet Process Phosphoric Aod Plants  	  T.
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry                j
    Superphosphonc Add Plants	 , U
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry                i
    Diammorwjm Phosphate Plants	: V
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry-                I
    Triple Superphosphate Plants	 ' W
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:                j
    Granular Triple Superphosphate 	j X.
Coal Preparation Plants 	 j Y
Ferroalloy Production Facilities	> Z.
Iron and Steel Plants (Electric Arc Furnaces) .  ! AA
NESHAPS





40 CFR
part 61
subpart
B
C.
D
E

 Mendocino County APCD

    Effective Date:  September 6,1982.

 Delegation
                                                                      NESHAPS
                                                       Asbestos    	
                                                       Beryllium	
                                                       Beryllium Rocket Motor Fmng
                                                       Mercury  	
                                                       Vinyl Chloride	
                                                        40 CFR
                                                        part 61
                                                        subpart
             Northern Sonoma Country APCD

                Effective Date: September 6, 1982.

             New Delegation
                                                                                                                            NESHAPS
                                                                   Asbestos 	
                                                                   Beryllium     ....      	
                                                                   Beryllium Rocket Motor Firing  	
                                                                   Mercury    	
                                                      Monterey Bay Unified APCD

                                                         Effective Date: June 21, 1982.

                                                      New Delegation
                                                                                                 40 CFR
                                                                                                 part 61
                                                                                                 subparl
NSPS
General Provisions 	 	
Electric Utility Steam Generators 	
Kraft Pulp Mills


Stationary Gas Turbines 	
Ume Manufacturing Plants 	
Automobile 4 Light-Duty Truck Surface Coating
Operations

40 CFR
part 60
subpart
A
Da
Ka
BB
CC
DD
GG
HH
MM.
PP.

                                                                        NSPS
                                                       General Provisions      	
                                                       Electric Utility Steam Generators   	
                                                       Petroleum Storage Vessels 	.'	
                                                       Kraft Pulp Mills .  .     	
                                                       Glass Manufacturing Plants	
                                                       Stationary Gas Turbines  	
                                                       Lime Manufactunng Plants   	
                                                       Automobile A Light-Duty Truck Surface Coating
                                                         Operations
                                                       Ammonium SuHale  	
                                                        40 CFR
                                                        part 60
                                                        subpart
                                                      A.
                                                      Da
                                                      Ka
                                                      BB
                                                      CC
                                                      GG
                                                      HH.
                                                                                                                              NSPS
                                                                                                             General Provisions
                                                                                                 40CFH
                                                                                                 part 60
                                                                                                 subpal

NESHAPS



40 CFR
part 61
subpan
A

                                                                          IV-143
-------
            Federal  Register  /  Vol.  47, No.  190  /  Thursday,  September 30,  1982 /  Rules and  Regulations
Redelegation
                 NSPS
Fowl-Fuel Fired Steam Generators  ..
Incinerators 	        	
Portland Cement Plants .  .
Asphalt Concrete Plants	
Storage Vessels lor Petroleum Liquids
Sewage Treatment Plants
  40CFR
  pan 80
  subpart
 D
 E
 F
 I
 K
 O
                                                                      NESHAPS
Asbestos  	
Ben/mum	_	
Beryllium Rocket Motor Fnng ..
Mercury	
Vinyl Chloride         	
 40CFR
 pan 61
 subpart


B
C
D
E
F
Son Joaquin County APCD

   Effpclive Datr: Seplnmhnr 6,1902.

New Delegation
                                                                                                                            NESHAPS
Asbestos	 .
Beryllium  	
Beryllium Rocket Motor Firing
Mercury	
Vinyl Chloride      	
                                                                                                                                                       40CFR
                                                                                                                                                       panel
                                                                                                                                                       subpan


                                                                                                                                                      B
                                                                                                                                                      C
                                                                                                                                                      D
                                                                                                                                                      E
                                                                                                                                                      F
             San Luis Obi.ipo APCD

                Effective Date: September 6,1982.

             New Delegation
                NESHAPS
Asbestos	
Beryllium  	
Beryllium Rocket Motor Fifing , „  ,
Mercury    ...
                                           40CFR
                                           pan 61
Sacramento County APCD

   Effective Date: September 27,19B2.


New Delegation
                NESHAPS
  40CFR
  part 61
  subpart
 Mercury	
 Sun Bernardino County APCD

    Effective Date: September 6,1982.


 New Delegation
                  NSPS
I  40CFR
  pan 60
  subpan
Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generators         .  .
IncineratO'S	       ...
Poliand Cement Plants....
N.'tnc Acid Plants 	
Su'fu'ic Acid Plants	
Aspnalt Concrete Plants	     	
Petroleum Refineries	
Storage Vessels lor Petroleum Liquids 	
Secondary Lead Smelters  	
Secondary Brass and Bronze Ingol Production
  Plants
iron and Steel Plants (BOPF)  .  .
Sewage Treatment Plants	
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
    Wet Proems Phosphoric Acid Plants  	
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
    Superphosphoric Add Plants	
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
    Oammonum Phosphate  Plants        .  ...
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry-
    Triple Superphosphate Plants   	
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
    Granular Triple Superphosphate  	
Coal Preparation Plants	
Iron and Steel Plants (Electric Arc Furnaces)	
 N
 O

 T

 U

 V

 w

 X
 Y.
 AA
                                                        40CFR
                                                         paneo
                                                      I   subpart
                                                   - -t    	
              General Provisions	        	
              Electric Utility Steam Generators    ..  .  .
              Petroleum Storage Vessels   	
              Glass Manufacturing Plants	—
              Grain Elevators      	
              Stationary Gas Turbines  	
              Automobile  and Light-Duty Truck Surface Coat-
               ing Operations
              Ammonium  Sulfate	 	
                                                                      NESHAPS
                                          A
                                          Da
                                          Ka
                                          CC
                                          DO
                                         ; GG
                                         1 MM
                                         I
                                         j PP
                                                       General Provisions
                                                       Redelegation
                                                         40CFR
                                                         part 61
                                                         subpan
                               NSPS
                                            40CFR
                                            part 61
                                            subpan
 Fossd-Fuel Fired Steam Generators 	
 Incinerators	
 Portland Cement Plants	
 Nitre Acid Plants 	
 Suttunc Acid Plants	
 Asphalt Concrete Plants	
 Petroleum Refineries	
 Storage Vessels lor  Petroleum Liquids	
 Secondary Lead Smelters  	
 Secondary Brass and Bronze Ingot Production
   Plants
 Iron and Steel Plants (BOPF)	
 Sewage Treatment Plants	_	
 Primary Copper Smelters	
 Primary Zinc Smelters	
 Primary Lead Smelters	
 Pnmary Aluminum Reduction Plants	
 Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
     Wet Process Phosphoric Add Plants	
 Phosphate Fertilizer Industry.
     Superphosphoric Add Plants	
 Phosphate Fertilizer Industry.
     Diammonium Phosphate Plants	
 Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
     Triple Superphosphate Plants	
 Phosphate Fertilizer Industry-
     Granular Triple  Superphosphate	
 Coal Preparation Plants	
 Ferroalloy Production Facilities	
 Iron and Steel Plants (Electric Arc Furnaces)	
 Kraft Pulp MiHs	
 Lime Manufacturing Plants	-	
                                                                                                                               NSPS
             General Provisions  	
             Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generators    .  ..
             Electric Utility Steam Generators	
             Incinerators  	
             Portland Cement Plants  	
             Nitric Acid Plants	
             Sultunc Acid Plants 	
             Asphalt Concrete Plants 	
             Petroleum Relinenes  	
             Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids 	
             Secondary Lead Smelters 	
             Secondary Lead Smelters 	
             Secondary Brass and Bronze Ingol Production
               Plants
             Iron and Steel Plants (BOPF)	
             Sewage Treatment Plants	
             Primary Copper Smelters...	
             Primary Zinc Smelters	
             Pnmary Lead Smelters	
             Pnmary Aluminum Reduction Plants
             Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
                 Wet Process Phosphoric Acid Plants
             Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
                 Superphosphoric Acid Plants  	
             Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
                 Diammonium Phosphate Plants   .
             Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
                 Triple Superphosphate Plants   .    ...
             Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
                 Granular Tnple Superphosphate
             Coal Preparation Plants 	
             Ferroalloy Production Facilities
             Iron and Steel Plants (Electric Arc Furnaces)  ..
             Krafl Pulp Mills	
             Glass Manufacturing Plants	
             Gram Elevators   	
             Stationary Gas Turbines    ...  .      	
             Lime Manufacturing Plants  	
             Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Surface Coat-
               ing Operations
             Ammonium Sultate	
                                                                                                  40CFR
                                                                                                  pan 60
                                                                                                  subpart
                                          w

                                          x
                                         • Y
                                          2
                                         • AA
                                          BB
                                         ,CC
                                         , DD
                                         IGG
                                         ' HH
                                                                                                                             NESHAPS
                                                                                                                40CFR
                                                                                                                pan 61
                                                                                                                subpan
                                                                                                              General Provisions	_	|  A
                                                                                                              Asbestos 	;  B
                                                                                                              Beryllium 	j  C
                                                                                                              Beryllium Rocket Motor Finng	  D
                                                                                                              Mercury 	[  E
                                                                                                              Vinyl Chloride  	 \F
                                                                                                              Santa Barbara APCD

                                                                                                                 Effective Date: June 21.1982.
                                                                        IV-144
-------
          Federal Register /  Vol. 47,  No.  190  /  Thursday, September 30, 1982  /  Rules and  Regulations
Sew Delegation
NESHAPS
Asbestos 	
Shasta County APCD
Effective Date: August 16. 1982
New Delegation
NSPS
Kraft Pulp Mills 	
Qram Elevators . 	
Lime Manufacturing Plants 	


NESHAPS



NSPS

40 CFR Secondary Brass and Bronze Ingot Production
part 61 Plants
subpart mxi and Steal Plants (BOPF) 	

0 Primary Copper Smelters 	
Primary Lead Smelters 	
Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants 	
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry-
Wet Process Phosphoric Acid Plants 	
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
40 CFR coai preparation Plants 	
Part 6° Ferroalloy Production Facilities 	
subparl Iron and Steel Plants (Electric Arc Furnaces) 	

40 CFR
part 60
subpart
M
N.
O.
P.
Q
R
S
T.
U
V.
W
X
Y
2
AA
BB.
DD.
HH

NESHAPS

40 CFR Asbestos 	
P»" 61 Beryllium 	
""P"" Beryllium Rocket Motor Firing 	

F Vinyl Chloride 	

40 CFR
panel
subpart
B.
C
D.
E
F

NSPS
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
Wet Process Phosphoric Add Plants 	
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry-
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
Coal Preparation Plants 	

Iron and Steel plants (Electric Arc Fumances)
Kraft Pulp MiUs 	


40 CFR
part 60
subparl
T.
U
V
W
X.
Y
2
AA
BB
OD

NESHAPS

* revisions 	
Beryllium
Beryllium Rocket Motor Firing 	



40 CFR
part 61
subpart
A.
B.
C
D.
E.
f.
Territory of Guam
Trinity County APCD

  Effective Date: September 6,1982.

New Delegation
NSPS



Kraft Pulp Mills 	




Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Surface Coat-
ing Operations

40 CFR
part 60
subpart
A.
Da.
Ka.
BB.
CC
DD
GG
HH.
MM.
PP

         Tulare County APCD

           Effective Date:

         New Delegation
NSPS






Lead-Acid Battery Manufacturing Plants 	
Automobile & Light-Duty Truck Surface Coating
Operations.
Phosphate Rock Plants 	


40 CFR
part 60
subpart
A.
Da.
Ka
CC.
GG
HH
KK.
MM.
NN.
PP.

  Effective Date: June 21,1982.

New Delegation
                                                                                                     NSPS
                                                                                       40CFFI
                                                                                       part 60
                                                                                       subparl
                                                                                       General Provisions	I A.
                                                                                       Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generators	 D.
                                                                                       Portland Cement Plants	 j F.
                                                                                       Asphalt Concrete Plants	  I I
                                                                                       Petroleum Refineries 	j J
                                                                                       Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids	; K
                                                                                       State of Nevada

                                                                                         Effective Date: July 19,1982.

                                                                                       New Delegation

NESHAPS



40 CFR
panel
subpart
A

Redelegation
              NSPS
Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generators	
Incinerators	
Portland Cement Plants	
Nitre Add Plants..	_	
Sulfunc Acid Plants	
Asphalt Concrete Plants	
Petroleum Refineries	
Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids...
Secondary Lead Smelters	„	
40 CFR
part 60
subparl
                                            Redelegation
NSPS


Portland Cement Plants
Nrtnc Acid Plants 	
Sulfunc Acid Plants 	 - 	 _ 	


Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids 	

Secondary Brass A Bronze Ingot Production
Plants.
Iron and Steel Plants (BOPF)



Primary Lead Smelters
Primary Alumnum Reduction Plants 	
40 CFR
part 60
subpart
D.
E.
F
G.
H.
|
J
K.
L
M.
N
o
P
Q.
R.
S
NSPS

Phosphate Rock Plants

40 CFR
part GO
subpal
KK.
NN.

  Pursuant to NSPS and NESHAPS
regulations, sources are required to
submit all required reports to the state
or local agency that has jurisdiction over
the source, and to EPA.
  The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
(Sees. Ill and 112 of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 1857, et seq.})
                                                            IV-145
-------
         Federal  Register / Vol. 47, No.  190 / Thursday,  September  30,  1982 / Rules and Regulations
List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 60
  Air pollution control. Aluminum,
Ammonium sulfate plants, Cement
industry, Coal, Copper, Electric power
plants, Glass and glass products, Grains.
Intergovernmental relations, Iron. Lead.
Metals, Motor vehicles, Nitric acid
plants. Paper and paper products
industry. Petroleum. Phosphato, Sewage
disposal, Steel, Sulfuric acid plants.
Waste treatment and disposal. Zinc.

40 CFR Part 61
  Air pollution control. Asbestos,
Beryllium, Hazardous materials.
Mercury, Vinyl chloride.
  Dated: September 17.19B2
Sonia F. Crow,
Regional Administrator.

PART 60—STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
STATIONARY SOURCES

PART 61-NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS

   Subparts A of Parts 60 and  61 of
Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations are amended as follows:

Subpart A—General Provisions

   1. Sections 60.4(b)(D] and 61.04(b)(D|
are each amended by adding the
address of the State of Arizona to read
 as follows:

 §
-------
             Federal  Register  /  Vol. 47. No. 200 / Friday, October  15.  1982  /  Rules and Regulations
notice from you of any objections within 10
days of receipt of this letter. A notice of this
delegated authority will be published in the
Federal Register in the near future.
    Cordially yours,
Sonia F. Crow,
Regional A dministrator.
With respect to areas under the
jurisdiction of the NDCNR, all reports,
applications, submittals, and other
communications pertaining to the above
listed NSPS and NESHAPS source
categories should be directed to  the
NDCNR at the address shown in the
letter of delegation.
  The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
(Sees. Ill and 112 of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 1857, et seg.))
  Dated: October 1.1962.
Sonia F. Crow,
Regional Administrator.

PART 61—[AMENDED]

  Subpart A of Part 61 of Chapter I, Title
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

Subpart A—General Provisions

  1. Section 61.04{b)(DD) is amended by
adding the addreas of the Nevada
Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources, to read as follows:

$61.04  Address.
*****
  (b) * *  *
  (DD) '  *  *
  Nevada Department of Conservation and
 Natural Kesoim.es, Division of Environmental
 Protection, 201 South Kail Street, Carson City.
 NV 89710.
 *****

 |FR Doc. 02-20420 Piled 10-14-42. II45 «m|
 BILLING CODE «56O-SO-M
40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
1A-9-FRL 2227-5J

Delegation of New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS);
State of Arizona
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of delegation.

SUMMARY: The EPA hereby places the
public on notice of its delegation of New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS)
authority to the Arizona Department of
Health Services (ADHS). This action is
necessary to bring .the NSPS and
NESHAPS program delegations up to
date with recent EPA promulgations and
amendments of NSPS and NESHAPS
categories. This action does not create
any new regulatory requirements
affecting the public. The effect of the
delegation is to shift primary program
responsibility for the affected NSPS and
NESHAPS source categories from EPA
to State and local governments.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 1, 1982.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Julie A. Rose, New Source Section (A-3-
1), Air Operations Branch, Air
Management Division,  EPA, Region 9,
215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA
94105, Tel: (415) 974-8236, FTS 454-8236.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
ADHS has requested authority for
delegation of certain NSPS and
NESHAPS source categories. A
delegation of authority was granted by
letter dated March 22,1982 and is
reproduced in its entirety as follows:
Dr. James E. Sam,
Arizona Department of Health Services, 1740
    West Adams Street, Phoenix, AZ
  Dear Dr. Sarn: 1 am pl( used to inform you
that  we are delegating to your agency
authority to implement and enforce certain
categories of New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) and National Emissions
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS). We have reviewed your request
for delegation and have found your present
programs and procedures  to be acceptable.
This delegation includes authority for the
following source categories:
         NSPS
         NSPS
Fossil-fuel lired steam generators .
Incinerators  .
Portland cement plants.
NIUIC acid plants	
Sullunc acid plants   . .
A&pnalt concrete plants	
Petroleum refineries  	«  ..
Storage vessels for petroleum liq-
  uids.
Secondary lead smelters
Secondary brass t bronze ingot
  production planls
Iron and sleel plants (BOPF)....
Sewage treatment plant*	
Primary copper smelters
Pnmary zmc smelters 	
Primary lead smelters ..
Primary  aluminum   reduction
  planls
Phosphate fertilizer industry- wet
  procebs phofaphonc acid planls
Phosphate fertilizer Industry su-
  perphosphonc acid planls.
Phosphate   fertilizer  industry.
  diammomum phosphate plants
Phosphate fertilizer Industry  tnple
  superphosphate planls.
Phosphate   fertilizer  Industry
  granular l/iple superphosphate
Coal preparation planls ..
Ferroalloy production lacikuei
                        40 CFR Part 60 Subpart
Iron and sleel planls (electric arc
  furnaces)
Kraft pulp mils	
Gram elevators 	
Stationary gas turbines	
Lime manufacturing plants	
                        40 CFR Part 60 Subpart
BB
DO
GG
NESHAPS


Beryllium rocket motor tang 	
Vmytchtonde 	
40 CFR Part 61
B
c
D
E
F.
Subpart




  Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
your agreement to follow all applicable
provisions of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61. The
delegation is effective upon the date of this
letter unless the USEPA receives written
notice from you of any objections within 10
days of receipt of this letter. A notice of this
delegated authority will be published in the
Federal Register in the near future.
    Cordially yours,
Sonia F. Crow,
Hi:j>ionul Administrator.
With respect to areas under the
jurisdiction of the ADHS, all reports,
applications, submittals, and  other
communications pertaining to the above
listed NSPS and NESHAPS source
categories should be directed to the
ADHS at the address shown in the letter
of delegation.
  The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
(Sees. Ill and 112, Clean Air Act, us
amended (42 U.S.C. 1857, et seg)}
  Dated: October 1,1982.
Sonia F. Crow,
Regional Administrator.

PART 60—[AMENDED]

PART 61—[AMENDED]

  Subpart A of Parts 60 and 61 of
Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:

Subpart A—General Provisions

$ 60.4 and 61.04  [ Amended]
  1. Sections 60.4(b)(D) and 61.04(b)(D)
are each amended by adding  the
address of the Arizona Department of
Health Services to read as follows:
  (b)'
  (D)*
                                                         IV-147
-------
             Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 201  / Monday,  October 18,  1982 / Rules and  Regulations
   Arizona Department of Health Services,
 1740 WeM Adams Street, Phoenix, AZ 85007
 (FRDoc H2-2MM Filed 10-1 *-fl2 A 45 am)
 MUINQ COM «MO-W-M
75
   ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
   AGENCY

   40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
   (A-2-FRL 2229-2]

   Standards of Performance for New
   Stationary Sources and National
   Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
   Pollutants; Delegation of Authority to
   the State of New Jersey
   AGENCY: Environmental Protection
   Agency.
   ACTION: Notice of Delegation of
   Authority.

   SUMMARY: This notice announces the
   delegation of authority by the
   Environmental Protection Agency to the
   State of New Jersey to implement and
   enforce additional source categories of
the Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources (NSPS) and portions
of the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS).
This delegation was requested by the
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection.
  NSPS and NESHAPS are air pollution
control requirements set under the Clean
Air Act. NSPS are applicable to certain
cntegories of new air pollution sources.
NESHAPS require the control of certain
hazardous pollutants from both new and
existing sources.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective
October 18,1982.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Francis W. Giaccone, Chief, Air
Facilities Branch, Air & Waste
Management Division, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region II Office, 26
Federal Plaza, New York, New York
10278(212)264-9627
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
lll(c) of the Clean Air Act directs the
Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to delegate
EPA's authority to implement and
enforce Standards of Performance for
New Stationary Sources (NSPS) to any
state which has submitted adequate
procedures. Section 112(d) of the Clean
Air Act provides similar direction with
respect to National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS). In both instances, the
Administrator retains concurrent
authority to enforce the standards
following delegation of authority to a
state.
  On September 30.1981 the
Commissioner of the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP) requested that the EPA delegate
to that Department the authority to
implement and enforce certain
additional source categories of NSPS
and NESHAPS. The following is a
complete listing of NSPS and NESHAPS
delegated to the DEP. The source
categories now being delegated by
today's action are identified with an
asteriskf).

NSPS (40 CFR Part 60)
D—Fossil-Fuel  Fired Steam Generators
    for Which Construction
    Commenced After August 17,1971
*Da—Electric Utility Steam Generating
    Units for Which Construction
    Commenced After September 18.
    1978
E—Incinerators
F—Portland Cement Plants
G—Nitric Acid Plants
H—Sulfuric Acid Plants
I—Asphalt Concrete Plants
J—Petroleum Refineries—(All
    Categories)
K—Storage Vessels for Petroleum
    Liquids Constructed After June 11,
    1973 and Prior to May 19,1978
*Ka—Storage Vessels for Petroleum
    Liquids Constructed After May 18.
    1978
L—Secondary Lead Smelters
M—Secondary Brass and Bronze Ingot
    Production Plants
N—Iron and Steel Plants
O—Sewage Treatment Plants
P—Primary Copper Smelters
Q—Primary Zinc Smelters
R—Primary Lead Smelters
S—Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants
T—Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Wet
    Process Phosphoric Acid Plants
U—Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
    Superphosphoric Acid Plants
V—Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
    Diammonium Phosphate Plants
W—Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Triple
    Superphosphate Plants
X—Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
    Granular Triple Superphosphate
    Storage Facilities
Y—Coal Preparation Plants
Z—Ferroalloy Production Facilities
AA—Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces
*BB—Kraft Pulp Mills
*CC—Glass Manufacturing Plants
*DD—Grain Elevators
*GG—Stationary Gas Turbines
*HH—Lime Plants
*MM—Automobile and Light Duty
    Truck Surface Coating Operations
*PP—Ammonium Sulfate Manufacture
*KK—Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing
    Plants
*NN—Phosphate Rock Plants
NESHAPS (40 CFR Part 61)
B—Asbestos (manufacturing, spraying.
    fabricating, insulating, waste
    disposal from above operations)
C—Beryllium (all categories)
D—Ber> Ilium Rocket Motor Firing (all
    categories)
E—Mercury (all categories)
F—Vinyl Chloride (all categories)

NESHAPS (40 CFR 61 Subpart)
B—Asbestos
*—manufacturing
*—spraying
*—fabricating
*—insulating
*—waste disposal from above
    operations
C—Beryllium (all categories)
D—Beryllium Rocket Motor Firing (all
    categories)
E—Mercury (all categories)
*F—Vinyl Chloride (all categories)
                                                      IV-148
-------
           Federal Register  /  Vol. 47,  No. 201  /  Monday,  October 18, 1982 / Rules  and Regulations
EPA's Findings
  The authority and procedures which
the Department would use for program
implementation and enforcement were
outlined in correspondence with the
Commissioner and the General Counsel
of the DEP. Copies of this
correspondence and EPA's delegation
letter are available for public inspection
in the Office of the Air Facilities Branch
at the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region II Office, 26 Federal Plaza, New
York. New York 10278.
  EPA's determination that the
delegation request should be approved
is based on the Agency's review of the
New Jersey Air Pollution Control Act
N.J.S.A. 26:2C; the State Public Records
Act. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1; and Title 7
Chapters 27 and 27B of the New Jersey
Administrative Code. Specifically,
N.J.S.A. 26:9C-9.2 provides that no one
shall construct or operate a source
capable of causing the emission of an air
contaminant without obtaining a valid
installation or alteration permit from the
DEP. These permits must incorporate
"advances in the art of air pollution
control developed for the kind and
amount of air contaminant emitted
* * *." EPA determined that such
delegation is, therefore, appropriate and
so notified the Commissioner of the
DEP, in a letter dated June 22,1982. This
letter identified the conditions under
which delegation would be made. DEP,
in a letter dated August 5,1982.
requested that the EPA approve minor
revisipns to some of the conditions for
delegation. EPA approved these
modifications in a September 8,1982
letter to the Commissioner of the DEP.

Consequences of EPA's Action

  Effective immediately, all
correspondence, reports and
notifications required by the delegated
NSPS and NESHAPS should be
submitted to the Offices of the New
Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection located at John Fitch Plaza.
CN027, Trenton, New Jersey, 08625.
  The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this action from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive
Order 12991.

(Sees. 113 and 112 of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 7411 and 7412))

  Dated: October 1,1982.
Jacqueline E. Schafer,
Regional Administrator.
|FR Doc 82-28572 Filed 10-15-82. 8:45 am|
BILLING CODE 656O-5O-M
                                       76
                                       [A-6-FRL 22M-5]

                                       40CFRPart61

                                       Delegation of Authority to the State of
                                       New Mexico for National Emission
                                       Standards for  Hazardous Air
                                       Pollutants (NESHAP)

                                       AGENCY: Environmental Protection
                                       Agency (EPA).
                                       ACTION: Final rule.

                                       SUMMARY: EPA, Region 6, has delegated
                                       the authority for implementation of the
                                       administrative  and technical review
                                       portions of the  National Emission
                                       Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
                                       (NESHAP) program to the New Mexico
                                                     IV-149
-------
         Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 214  / Thursday, November 4.  1982 / Rules and  Regulations
Environmental Improvement Division
(NME1D). Except as specifically limited,
all of the authority and responsibilities
of the Administrator or the Regional
Administrator which are found in 40
CFR Part 61 are delegated to the NMEID.
Any of such authority and
responsibilities may be redelegated by
the  Department to its staff.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 30. 1982.
ADDRESS: Copies of the State request
and State-EPA«greement  for delegation
of authority are available for public
inspection at the Air Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
Region 6,p First International Building,
28th Floor, 1201 Elm Street, Dallas,
Texas 75270.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William H.Taylor, Air Branch, EPA,
address above, Telephone: (214) 767-
9873.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
December 20,1980, the State of New
Mexico requested EPA, Region 6, to
delegate authority to the NMEID for the
implementation of the NESHAP
program. After a thorough review of the
request and information submitted, the
Regional Administrator determined that
the  State's pertinent laws, rules, and
regulations of the NMEID were found to
provide an adequate and effective
procedure for the implementation of the
administrative  and technical review
portions of the  NESHAP program. EPA,
Region 6, retains enforcement authority,
as requested by the State,  over NESHAP
subject sources constructed or modified
in the State of New Mexico.
  The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this information notice
from the requirements of Section 3 of
Executive Order 12291.
  Effective immediately, sources
locating in the State of New Mexico
should submit all information pursuant
to 40 CFR Part 61 directly to the State
agency at the following address: New
Mexico Environmental Improvement
Division, Health and Environment
Department, P.O. Box 968, Crown
Building, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504
and EPA Region 6.
  This delegation is issued under the
authority of Section 112 of the Clean Air
Act. as amended  (42 U.S.C. 7412).
  Dated: October 19,1982.
Frances E. Phillips,
Acting Regional Administrator.

PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS

  Part 61 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
  § 61.4 paragraph (b) is amended by
adding subparagraph (GG) to read us
follows:

§61.4 Address.
*****

  (b) * * *
  (GG) Director, New Mexico Environment^
Improvement Division, Health and
Environment Department. P.O. Box 968,
Crown Building, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504.
JFR Doc. 82-30223 Filed 11-3-82. &« um|
BILLING CODE eS«0-SO-M
40 CFR Part 61

[A-6-FRL 2238-3]

Delegation of Authority to the State of
Louisiana for National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA, Region 6, has delegated
the authority for implementation of the
administrative and technical review
portions of the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) program to the Louisiana
Department of Natural Resources
(LDNR). Except as specifically limited,
all of the authority and responsibilities
of the Administrator or the Regional
Administrator which are found in  40
CFR Part 61 are delegated to the LDNR.
Any of such authority and
responsibilities may be redelegated by
the Department to its Program
Administrator or staff.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 30. 1982.
ADDRESS:  A copy of the State-EPA
agreement for delegation of authority is
available for public inspection at the Air
Branch, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 6, First
International Building, 28th Floor,  1201
Elm Street, Dallas, Texas 75270.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William H. Taylor, Air Branch. EPA,
address above, Telephone: (214) 767-
9873.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
  On July  20,1982, the State of
Louisiana  requested EPA, Region 6, to
delegate authority to the LDNR for the
implementation of the NESHAP
program. After a thorough review  of the
request and information submitted, the
Regional Administrator determined that
the State's pertinent laws and the rules
and regulations of the LDNR were found
to provide an adequate and effective
procedure for the implementation of the
administrative and technical review
portions of the NESHAP program. EPA.
Region 6, retains enforcement authority,
as requested by the State, over NESHAP
subject sources constructed or modified
in the State of Louisiana.
  The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this information notice
from the requirements of Section 3 of
Executive Order 12291.
  Effective immediately,  sources
locating in the State of Louisiana should
submit all information pursuant to 40
CFR Part 61 directly to the State agency
at the following address; Louisiana
Department of Natural Resources. Air
Quality Division, P.O. Box 44066, Baton
Rouge, Louisiana 70804 and EPA Region
6.
  This delegation is issued under the
authority of Section 112 of the Clean Air
Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7412).
  Dated: October 19,1982.
Frances E. Phillips
Acting Regional Administrator.

PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS

  Part 61 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
  § 61.4 paragraph (b) is  amended by
adding subparagraph (T) to read as
follows:

§61.4  Address.
*****

  (b) * * *
  (T) Secretary, Louisiana Department of
Natural Resources, P.O. Box 44066,  Bdton
Rouge, Louisiana 70804.
|FR Doc 82-30224 Filed 11-3-82. 8.45 am|
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
                                                    IV-150
-------
        Federal Register  / Vol.  47, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 1O. 1982  /  Rules and Regulations
77
40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

(A-4-FRL 2239-5)

Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources, National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants; Florida: Delegation of
Authority

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: These amendments institute
address changes for reports and
applications required from operators of
certain sources subject to Federal
regulations. EPA has delegated to the
State of Florida  authority to administer
and enforce 40 CFR Part 60 (Standards
of Performance for New Stationary
Sources) and 40 CFR Part 61 (National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants). These amendments provide
that all reports, requests, applications,
submittals, and communications
required by these Federal standards will
now be sent to the State.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 10,1982.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the Florida
request and EPA's delegation letter may
be examined during normal business
hours at the  following locations:
Air Planning Section, EPA, Region  IV,
  345 Courtland Street NE., Atlanta,
  Georgia 30365
Bureau of Air Quality Management,
  Florida Department of Environmental
  Regulation, Twin Towers Office
  Building, 2600 Blair Stone Road.
  Tallahassee, Florida 32301
  All requests, reports, applications,
submittals, and other communications
required by the Federal standards listed
below should be sent to the Florida
address rather than to EPA Region  IV.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
Mr. Barry Gilbert, Air Management
Branch, Environmental Protection
Agency, Region  IV, 345 Courtland Street
NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30365, phone 404/
881-3286.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA
reviewed the pertinent laws of the  State
of Florida and the rules and regulations
thereof, and  determined that they
provide an adequate and effective
procedure for implementation of the
NSPS and NESHAPS by the State of
Florida. Therefore, pursuant to Section
111 of Pub. L. 91-604 (1970) as amended
by Pub. L. 95-95 (1977), the Clean Air
Act (CAA) as amended, we delegated
our primary authority for
implementation and enforcement of
NSPS and NESHAPS to the State of
Florida as follows:
  A. Responsibility for all sources
located or to be located in the State of
Florida subject to the Standards of
Performance for New Stationary
Sources promulgated in 40 CFR Part 60
and amendments thereto as published in
the Federal Register as of the date of the
State's request (May 19,1982). The
categories of new sources covered by
this responsibility are: Fossil-Fuel Fired
Steam Generators (D); Incinerators (E);
Portland Cement Plants (F); Nitric Acid
Plants (G); Sulfuric Acid Plants (H);
Asphalt Concrete Plants (I); Petroleum
Refineries (J); Storage Vessels for
Petroleum Liquids (K); Secondary Lead
Smelters (L); Secondary Brass & Bronze
Plants (M); Iron & Steel Plants (N);
Sewage Treatment Plants (O);
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry—Wet
Process  Phosphoric Acid Plants (T),
Superphosphoric Acid Plants (U),
Diammonium Phosphate Plants (V),
Triple Superphosphate Plants (W), and
Granular Triple Superphosphate Storage
Facilities (X); Ferroalloy Production
Facilities (Z);  Steel Plants: Electric Arc
Furnaces (AA);  Grain Elevators (DD);
Gas Turbines (GG); Automobile & Light-
Duty Truck Coating Operations (MM);
and Ammonium Sulfate Manufacture
(PP).
  B. Responsibility for all sources
located or to be located in the State of
Florida subject to the National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants promulgated in 40 CFR Part
61 and amendments thereto as
published  in the Federal Register as of
the date of the State's request (May 19,
1982). The categories of new sources
covered by this responsibility are:
Asbestos (B);  Beryllium (C); Beryllium
Rocket Motor Firing (D); Mercury (E);
and Vinyl  Chloride (F).
  C. This delegation is based upon
several conditions which are listed in
our June 10,1982, letter of delegation.
  The Regional Administrator finds
good cause for foregoing prior public*.
notice and for making this rulemaking
effective immediately in that it is an
administrative change and not one of
substantive content. No additional
substantive burdens are imposed on the
parties affected. The delegation which is
reflected by this administrative
amendment was effective on June 10,
1982, and it serves no purpose to delay
the technical change of this addition of
the state address to the Code of Federal
Regulations.
  The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this regulation from the
OMB review requirements of Section 3
of Executive Order 12291.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 60 and
61

  Air pollution control. Aluminum,
Ammonium sulfate plants, Asbestos,
Beryllium, Cement industry, Coal,
Copper, Electric power plants. Glass and
glass products, Grains, Hazardous
materials,  Intergovernmental relations.
Iron, Lead, Mercury, Metals, Motor
vehicles, Nitric acid plants, Paper and
paper products industry, Petroleum,
Phosphate, Sewage disposal, Steel,
Sulfuric acid plants, Vinyl chloride,
Waste treatment and disposal, Zinc.
(Sees. 101.110, 111, 112, 301, Clean Air Act. us
amended. (42, U.S.C. 7401. 7411, 7412, 7601))
  Dated October 26,1982.
Charles R. Jeter,
Regional A dministrator.

PART 60—STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
STATIONARY SOURCES

  Part 60 of Chapter I. Title 40, Code of
Federal  Regulations, is amended as
follows:
  In 5 60.4, paragraph (b|(K) is added as
follows:

$60.4 Address.
*****

  (b) * * *
  (K) Bureau of Air Quality Management,
Department of Environmental Regulation,
Twin Towers Office Building, 2600 Blair
Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32301.

PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS

  Part 61 of Chapter I, Title 40, Code of
Federal  Regulations, is amended as
follows:
  In $ 61.04, paragraph (b)(K) is added
as follows:

§61.04  Address.
*****

  (b) * * *

  (K) Bureau of Air Quality Management,
Department of Environmental Regulation,
Twin Towers Office Building, 2600 Blair
Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32301.
|FR Doc 82-30*06 Filed 11-V-6& 1:45 am)
WUJNO CODE (MO-CO-M
                                                    IV-151
-------
          Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 244 / Monday,  December  20. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
78
40 CFR Part 61
[A-3-FRL 2267-3]

National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Ah- Pollutants; Delegation
of Authority to Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Allegheny County Health
Department has requested the
delegation of authority to implement and
enforce the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) program for asbestos and
mercury only. Section 112(d)(l) of the
Clean Air Act requires the
Administrator to delegate this authority
to any agency which submits an
adequate procedure. Therefore, on
September 27,1982, authority for the
NESHAP program for asbestos and
mercury in Allegheny County was
delegated. This rulemaking provides
notice of this action and amends 40 CFR
61.04, Address, to reflect this delegation.
This Section is also being amended to
reflect a new address for Philadelphia's
Air Management Services, which has
already been delegated NESHAP
authority.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 20,1982.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gregory Ham, (215) 597-2745, EPA
Region III, Curtis Building, 6th and
Walnut Streets, Philadelphia, PA 19106.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) have been
promulgated by the Administrator under
40 CFR Part 61 for four pollutants:
Beryllium, Asbestos, Mercury, and Vinyl
Chloride. Section 112(d)(l) directs the
Administrator to delegate authority to
implement and enforce the standards to
any agency which submits an adequate
procedure. Nevertheless, the
Administrator retains concurrent
authority to implement and enforce the
standards following delegation of
authority to a State or local agency.
  On September 24,1982, the Director of
the  Allegheny County Health
Department (ACHD), and the Allegheny
County Commissions jointly requested
the  delegation of authority for the
NESHAP program for asbestos and
mercury only. ACHD has determined
that standards for Beryllium and Vinyl
Chloride would not currently apply to
any sources in the County, and therefore
did not request delegation at this time.
  The Director of the Air and Waste
Management Division has determined
that the ACHD procedure for
implementing and enforcing the
standards is adequate. Pursuant to
authority delegated to him by the
Administrator, the Air and Waste
Management Division Director notified
the  Director of the Health Department
on September 27,1982 that authority to
implement and enforce the standards for
asbestos and mercury was delegated to
the  Allegheny County Health
Department. The letter approved the
delegation and outlined the conditions
of it. A ten day response period was
provided during which the Director of
the  Health Department or any other
representative could present objections
to the conditions of the delegation. No
responses were received during this
period. Therefore, this delegation is
final.
  Copies of the request for delegation of
authority are available for public
inspection at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, Curtis
Building, 6th & Walnut Streets,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19106.
  Effective immediately, all reports
required pursuant to the emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants
(asbestos and mercury only) should be
submitted to the Allegheny County
Health Department, Bureau of Air
Pollution Control, 301 Thirty-ninth
Street, Pittsburgh,  Pa., 15201, with copies
to the Director, Air and Waste
Management Division, at the EPA
address above. The amended § 61.04,
Address, which adds the address of the
Bureau (to which all reports, requests,
applications, submittals, and
communications to the Administrator
pursuant to this part must be
addressed), is set forth below.
  In addition, { 61.04 is being amended
to reflect a new address for
Philadelphia's  Air Management Services
(AMS). AMS has moved to a new
address since delegation of authority for
NESHAP occurred.
  The Administrator finds good cause
for foregoing prior public notice and for
making this rulemaking effective
immediately because it is an
administrative change and not one of
substantive content. No additional
burdens are imposed on the parties
affected. The delegation which is
reflected by the Administrative
amendment was effective on September
27,1982, and it serves no purpose to
delay this change of address in the Code
of Federal Regulations.
(Sec. 112 of the Clean Air Act, as amended,
42 U.S.C. 7412.)
  The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted  this rulemaking  from
requirements of Executive Order 12291.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 61

  Air pollution control, Asbestos,
Beryllium, Hazardous materials,
Mercury, Vinyl chloride.
  Dated: November 23,1982.
Stanley L. Laskowski,
Acting Regional Administrator.

PART 61—[AMENDED]

  Part 61 of Chapter I. Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
  1. In 5 61.04 paragraph (b) (NN) is
revised to read as follows:

861.04  Addreee
                                                   IV-1S2
-------
           Federal Rebate / Vol. 48. No. 19 / Thursday, January 27. 1983 / Rules and Regulations
  (NN) (i) City of Philadelphia:
Philadelphia Department of Public
Health, Air Management Services. 500 S.
Broad Street. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19146.
  (ii) Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:
Department of Environmental
Resources. Post Office Box 2063,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 17120
  (iii) Allegheny County: Allegheny
County Health Department, Bureau of
Air Pollution Control, 301 Thirty-ninth
Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 15201.
*****
|FR Doc. tt-MM FIM l*-17-at Mt uj
79
40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

[AD-FRL-224+4]

Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Incorporation by Reference

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.	

SUMMARY: This is a technical
amendment incorporating certain
materials by reference into existing new
source performance standards (NSPS)
and national emission standards for
hazardous ah- pollutants (NESHAP)
promulgated under Sections 111 and 112,
respectively, of the Clean Air Act. These
materials are already cited in those
standards, but they have not until now
been incorporated by reference under
the applicable regulations of the Office
of the Federal Register. The intent of this
action is to comply with those
regulations.
VKCnvi DATE January 27,1983. The
incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in the regulation is
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register as of January 27,1983.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Shirley Tabler, Standards
Development Branch (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5624.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C.
552, Congress authorized incorporation
of materials into regulations by
reference in an effort to reduce the
volume of material published in the
Federal Register and Code of Federal
Regulations. Incorporation by reference
allows federal agencies to comply with
the requirement to publish regulations in
the Federal Register simply by referring
to material already published elsewhere,
rather than reprinting such material in
the published regulations. The legal
effect of incorporation by reference is
that the material is treated as if it were
published in the Federal Register. This
material, like any other properly issued
regulation, has the force and effect of
law.
  In this action, EPA is incorporating by
reference into several of its existing new
source  performance standards (NSPS)
and national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP)
promulgated under Clean Air Act
Sections 111  and 112 (at 40 CFR Parts 60
and 61), respectively, materials that are
already cited in those standards. This is
because these materials have not
previously been incorporated by
reference pursuant to the formal
procedures established in 1 CFR Part 51.
The amendment sets forth the sections
affected by this action and the material
being incorporated into each section. All
of the materials are available for
inspection at the Office of the Federal
Register, Room 8401,1100 L Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. as well as at the
Ubrary (MD-35), U.S. EPA, Research
Triangle Park. North Carolina. These
incorporations by reference were
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register on January 27,1963.
  This  amendment incorporates by
reference two sets of materials: (a)
Materials identical in form (i.e., same
edition and publication date) to the
materials currently cited in NSPS and
NESHAP; and (b) later editions of
materials currently cited in these
regulations. Regardless of the category
particular materials fall within,
however, all the materials that this
amendment incorporates by reference
are substantively the same as those
currently cited in the regulations.
  This amendment informs the public
that the Director of the Federal Register
has approved incorporation of these
materials by reference. It imposes 110
requirements beyond those already
cited in the affected NSPS and NESHAP.
Therefore, additional notice and
comment are "unnecessary," and the
Agency has "good cause," under 42
U.S.C. 7607(d)(l) and 5 U.S.C. § 553(b).
subparagraph (B), to promulgate these
incorporations without further notice
and comment.
  For the same reason, the Agency finds
that good cause exists for making these
incorporations effective immediately.
under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
Miscellaneous

  Under Section 307(b)(l) of the Act,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the  appropriate
circuit by March 28,1983. This action
may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce the NSPS and
NESHAP into which the materials
discussed above are incorporated by
reference [see § 307(b)(2)).
  This rulemaking is issued under the
authority of Sections 111, 112, and 301 (a)
of the Clean Air Act as amended [42
U.S.C. 7411, 7412, and 7601(a)].
  Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
605(b), I hereby certify that this rule, if
promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small  entities because it
imposes no new requirements.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 6O

  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, Incorporation
by reference.
40 CFR Part 61

  Air pollution control, Asbestos,
Beryllium, Hazardous materials.
Mercury, Vinyl choloride, Incorporation
by reference.
  Dated: December 20,1982.
Anne M. Gonuch,
Administrator.

PART 60—[AMENDED]
                                                    IV-153
-------
           Federal Register  / Vol. 48. No. 19 / Thursday. January 27. 1983  / Rules  and  Regulations
                                          (2) ASTM D1193-77, Standard
                                        Specification for Reagent Water, ffiR
                                        approved January 27,1983 for Appendix
                                        B of Part 61, Method 101, par. 6.1.1;
                                        Method 101A, par. 8.1.1.
                                          2. In § 61.23, paragraph (a) is revised
                                        to read as follows:
                                         organic matter. Use this water in all dilutions
                                         and solution preparations.
                                         •    «    •    •    »
                                         (PR Doc M-an«FU«il-»-i*WS«Bil
                                         MUNM COM SMO-IO-M
                                        §61.23  Alr-clMnlne.
PART 61-{ AMENDED]

  40 CFR Part 61 is amended as follows:
  1. A new { 61.16 is added to read as
follows:

{61.18   Incorporation* by reference.
  The materials listed below are
incorporated by reference in the
corresponding sections noted. These
incorporations by reference were
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register on the date listed. These
materials are incorporated as they exist
on the date of the approval, and a notice
of any change in these materials will be
published in the Federal Register. The
materials are available for purchase at
the corresponding address noted below,
and all are available for inspection at
the Office of the Federal Register, Room
8401,1100 L Street. N.W., Washington,
D.C. and the Ubrary (MD-35). U.S. EPA,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
  (a) The following material is available
for purchase from at least one of the
following addresses: American Society
for Testing and Materials  (ASTM), 1916
Race Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19103; or University Microfilms
International, 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann
Arbor, Michigan 48106.
  (1) ASTM D737-75, Standard Test
Method for Air Permeability of Textile
Fabrics, incorporation by  reference
(LBR) approved January 27,1983 for
S 61.23(a).
  (a) Fabric filter collection devices
must be used, except as noted in
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section
Such devices must be operated at a
pressure drop of no more than 4 inches
water gage, as measured across the
filter fabric. The airflow permeability, es
determined by ASTM Method D737-75
(incorporated by reference—see § 61.16).
must not exceed 30 ft'/min/ft2 for
woven fabrics or 35'/min/ft2 for felted
fabrics, except that 40 ft'/min/ft5 for
woven and 45 ft'/min/ft* for felted
fabrics is allowed for filtering air from
asbestos ore dryers. Each square yard of
felted fabric must weigh at least 14
ounces and be at least  X« inch thick
throughout. Synthetic fabrics must not
contain fill yarn other than that which is
spun.
  3. In Appendix B of Part 61, Method
101, paragraph 6.1.1 is revised to read as
follows:

Method 101—Determination of Participate
and Gaseous Mercury Emissions from Chlor-
Alkali Plants—Air Streams
*****
  6.1.1   Water. Deionized distilled, meeting
ASTM Specifications for Type I Reagent
Water—ASTM Test Method D1193-77
(incorporated by reference—see i 61.18). If
high concentration* of organic matter are not
expected to be present, the analyst may
eliminate the KMnO«test for oxidizable
organic matter. Use this water in all dilutions
and solution preparations.
  4. In Appendix B to Part 61, Method
101A, paragraph 6.1.1 is revised to read
as follows:

Method 101A—Determination of Paiticulate
and Gaseous Mercury Emissions From
Sewage Sludge Incinerators
  6.1.1  Water. Deionized distilled, meeting
ASTM Specifications for Type I Reagent
Water—ASTM Test Method D1193-77
(incorporated by reference—see I 61.18). If
high concentrations of organic matter are not
expected to be present the analyst may
eliminate the KMnO4 test for oxidizahlc
                                                       IV-154
-------
              Federal Register / Vol. 48,  No. 90 / Monday. May 9, 1983 / Rules and  Regulations
80
 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
 AGENCY

 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

 [A-6-FRL 2299-5]

 Delegation of Additional Authority to
 State of Texas for New Source
 Performance Standards (NSPS) and
 National Emission Standards for
 Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
 Programs
 AGENCY: Environmental Protection
 Agency (EPA).
 ACTION: Final rule.

 SUMMARY: EPA, Region 6, has delegated
 to the State of Texas, the additional
 authority to implement and enforce the
 New Source Performance Standards
 (NSPS) and National Emission
 Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
 (NESHAP) requirements adopted after
 the delegation dates of November 15,
 1978, and February 5,1981. Except as
 specifically limited, all of the authority
 and responsibilities of the Administrator
 or the Regional Administrator which are
 found in 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61 are
 delegated to the Texas Air Control
 Board (TACB). Any such authority and
 responsibilities may be redelegated by
 the Board to its staff.
 EFFECTIVE DATE: December 28,1982.
 ADDRESS: Copies of the State request
 and State-EPA agreement for this
 delegation of authority are available for
 public inspection at the Air Branch,
 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
 Region 6, Interfirst Two Building, 28th
 Floor, 1201 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas
 75270.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
 William H. Taylor, Air Branch, EPA,
 address above. Telephone 214-767-1594;
 FTS 8-729-1594.
 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  On May
 9.1975, the State of Texas requested
 EPA, Region 6, to delegate the authority
 to the TACB to implement and enforce
the NSPS and NESHAP programs
specified under 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61.
  On November 15,1978 and February
5,1981, EPA delegated the authority to
the State of Texas to implement and
enforce the existing NSPS and NESHAP
programs in the State of Texas.
Condition 4 of the delegation agreement
did not allow the State to assume the
responsibilities to implement and
enforce the NSPS and NESHAP
requirements adopted after the above
delegation dates. Therefore, on
December 15,1982, the State of Texas
requested a revision of the delegation of
responsibility for the NSPS and
NESHAP programs. After a thorough
review of the request and information
submitted, the Regional Administrator
determined that the State's pertinent
laws and the rules and regulations of the
TACB were found to provide an
adequate and effective procedure to
implement and enforce all future NSPS
and NESHAP requirements. Therefore,
on December 28,1982, EPA delegated
the additional authority to the State of
Texas to implement and enforce all
previously adopted and all future NSPS
and NESHAP requirements pursuant to
Sections lll(c) and 112[d) of the Clean
Air Act subject to the conditions and
limitations as specified in the
agreements. However, the State may
decline delegation of any standard
within thirty (30) days after final
promulgation. This amendment
supersedes the November 15,1978, and
February 5,1981, delegation agreements.
  This notice will have no effect on the
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards.
  The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
  Sources locating in the State of Texas
should submit all information  pursuant
to 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61 directly to the
State agency at the following address:
Texas Air Control Board, 6330 Highway
290 East, Austin, Texas 78723

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 60
  Air pollution control, Aluminum,
Ammonium sulfate plants, Cement
industry, Coal, Copper, Electric power
plants, Glass and glass products, Grains,
Intergovernmental relations, Iron, Lead,
Metals, Motor vehicles, Nitric acid
plants, Paper and paper products
industry, petroleum, Phosphate, Sewage
disposal. Steel, Sulfuric acid plants.
Waste treatment and disposal. Zinc.
 40 CFR Part 61
   Air pollution control. Asbestos.
 Beryllium, Hazardous materials.
 Mercury, Vinyl chloride.
   This delegation is issued under the
 authority of Section* 111 and 112 of the
 Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.
 7411 and 7412).
   Dated: January 25.1983.
 Frances E. Phillips,
 Acting Regional Administrator

 PART 60—NEW SOURCE
 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

   The address for the State agency has
 been changed. Therefore, Part 60 of
 Chapter 1, Title 40 of the Code of
 Federal Regulations is amended as
 follows:
   In § 60.4. paragraph (b)(SS) is
' amended by revising the phrases "8520
 Shoal Creek Boulevard" to read "6330
 Highway 290 East" and "78758" to read
 "78723" as follows:

 § 60.4  Address.
   (b)*
   (SS)
 East,  *
'  6330 Highway 290
 78723.
 PART 61— NATIONAL EMISSION
 STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
 POLLUTANTS

   The address for the State agency has
 been changed. Therefore, Part 61 of
 Chapter 1, Title 40 of the Code of the
 Federal Regulations is amended as
 follows:
   In I 61.4, paragraph (b)(SS) is
 amended by revising the phrases "8520
 Shoal Creek Boulevard" to read "6330
 Highway 290 East" and "78758" to read
 "78723" as follows:

 §61.4   Address.
   (SS) * * * 6330 Highway 290
 East.  *  * * 78723.
 |FR Due (13-iaM1, Hied 5-C-&5 »45 dm;
 BILLING CODE 6660-50-41
                                                     IV-155
-------
              Federal Register  /  Vol. 48,  No.  120  /  Tuesday, June 21, 1983  /  Rules and  Regulations
81
40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
[A-9-FRL 2386-3]

Delegation of New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS);
California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of delegation.

SUMMARY: The EPA hereby places the
public on notice of its delegation of
NSPS and NESHAPS authority to the
California Air Resources Board on
behalf of the Fresno County Air
Pollution Control District (FCAPCD).
This action is necessary to bring the
NSPS and NESHAPS program
delegations up to date with recent EPA
promulgations and amendments of these
categories. This action does not create
any new regulatory requirements
affecting the public. The effect of the
delegation is to shift the primary
program responsibility for the affected
NSPS and NESHAPS categories from
EPA to State and local governments.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 18,1983.
                                           FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
                                           Julie A. Rose, New Source Section (A-3-
                                           1), Air Operations Branch, Air
                                           Management Division, EPA, Region 9,
                                           215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA
                                           94105, Tel: (415) 974-8236, FTS 454-8236.
                                           SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
                                           GARB has requested authority for
                                           delegation of certain NSPS and
                                           NESHAPS categories on behalf of the
                                           FCAPCD. Delegation of authority was
                                           granted by a letter dated April 6,1983
                                           and is reproduced in its entirety as
                                           follows:
                                           Mr. James D. Boyd.
                                           Executive Officer. California Air Resources
                                               Board, 1202 Q S'.rfet. P.O. Box 2825,
                                               Sacramento, CA
                                             Dear Mr Boyd- In response to your request
                                           of February 3,1983,1 am pleased to inform
                                           you that we are delegating to your agency
                                           authority to implement and enforce certain
                                           categories of New Source Performance
                                           Standards (NSPS) on behalf of the Fresno
                                           County Air Pollution Control District
                                           n'CAPCD). We have reviewed your request
                                           for delegation and have found the FCAPCD's
                                           programs and procedures to be acceptable.
                                           This delegation includes authority for the
                                           following source  categories:
                                                        NSPS
                                            40 CCR Pa-.
                                            60, bubpan
                                                        NSPS
FossS-Puel Fired Stearr Generators	
Petroleum Storage Vessels 	_	
Glass Manufacturing Plants 	
Surface Coating of Metal Fumrture	 ...
Stationary Gas Turbines  	
Uftd-AoJ Battery Manufacturing Plants	
Automobile  a light-Duty Truck Surface
 Coating Operations
Phosphate Hock Plants	_	
Ammonium Sufste 	
Graphic Arts  Publication Roto&evure Print-
 ing.
Industrial  Surface  Coatmo/—Large  Appt-
 ances
Metal Coil Surface Coating Operations	
Asphelt Processing and Asphalt Roof Manu-
 facturer
                                40 CFR Pan:
                                60. Subpart
Da
Ka
CC
EE
GG
KK
NN
PP
OO
uu
  In addition, we are redelegating the
following NSPS and National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS) categories since the FCAPCD's
revised programs and procedures are
acceptable:
             NSPS
General Provisions	
Fossil-Fuel Fied Steam Generators	
Incinerators	
Portland Cement Plants	
Nttnc Aod Plants 	,	
Sultunc Acid Plants		
Asphalt Concrete Plants	_	_			
Petroleum Refineries	„	
Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids	
Secondary Lead Smelters	
Secondary Brass A Bronze Ingot Production
  Plants
Iron and Steel Plants (BOPF)	
Sewage Treatment Plants	
Primary Copper Smelters.	
 40 CFR Part
 60 Subpart
                                           Primary Zinc Smelters    .      	i O
                                           Primary Lead Smellers .   .     	   R
                                           Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants 	   S
                                           Phosphate Fertilizer Industry Wet Process i T
                                             Phoephonc Aod Plants             1
                                           Phosphate Fertilizer Industry Superphos- i U
                                             phone Aod Plants
                                           Phosphate Fertilizer Industry Oammomum  V
                                             Phosphate Plants
                                           Phosphate Fertilizer Industry Triple Super- i W
                                             phosphate Plants
                                           Phosphate  Fertilizer Industry  Granular  X
                                             Triple Superphosphate
                                           Coal Preparation Pinnts	I Y
                                           Ferroalloy Production Faciirues   .  .   .' Z
                                           Iron and Steel Plants (Electric  Arc Fur- : AA
                                             naces)
                                           Kraf Pulp Mills     	  I B3
                                           Grain Elevators	      ... | DO
                                           Lime Manufacturing Plants	   HH
NESHAPS



Beryitum Rocket Motor Fmng
Mercury 	
Wiyl Chlonde 	
40 CFR Pan
61, Subpai
A
B
C
D
E
F
  Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
your agreement to follow all applicable
provisions of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 81.
including use of EPA test methods and
procedures. The delegation is effective upor.
the date of this letter unless the USEPA
receives written notice from you of any
objections within 10 days of receipt of this
letter. A notice of this delegated authority
will be published in the Federal Register in
the near future.
      Cordially yours.
Sonia F. Crow,
Regional A dministrator.
  cc: Fresno County Air Pollution Control
District.

  With respect to Fresno County  all
reports, applications, submittals,  and
other communications pertaining to the
above listed NSPS and NESHAPS
source categories should be directed to
the FCAPCD at the address shown in
the letter of delegation.
  The Office of Management and Budge:
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
  This Notice is issued under the
authority of Section 111  of the Clean Air
Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857,  et
seq.).
  Dated. June 13,1983.
John Wise,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. B3-1BSS3 Filed B-20-83. MS »m|
MLLMG CODE MM-CO-M
                                                         IV-156
-------
            Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 120 / Tuesday. June 21, 1983 / Rules and Regulations

40 CFR Parts 60 and 61 NESHAPS
[A-9-FRL 23*6-2] 	
(VtlMMtlnn of NMM S/inraa 	 	 .- 	

40 CFR j
PW161
Suopert
A,


^40 CFR Part 60 and 61
lA-O-TML. 240O-3J
Detonation of Additional Authority to
Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS)
Marlcopa County Health Department,
Arizona

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of Delegation.

SUMMARY: The EPA hereby places the
public on notice of its delegation of
NSPS and NESHAPS authority to the
Maricopa County Health Department
(MCHD). This action is necessary to
bring the NSPS and NESHAPS program
delegations up to date with recent EPA
promulgations and amendments of these
categories. This action does not create
any new regulatory requirements
affecting the public. The effect of the
delegation is to shift the primary
program responsibility for the affected
NSPS and NESHAPS categories from
EPA to State and local governments.
EFFECTIVE DATE April 18,1983.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Julie A. Rose, New Source Section (A-3-
1), Air Operations Branch, Air
Management Division, EPA, Region 9,
215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA
94105, Tel: (415) 974-8236. FTS 454-8236.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
MCHD has requested authority for
delegation of certain NSPS and
NESHAPS categories. Delegation of
authority was granted by a letter dated
April 6,1983 and is reproduced in its
entirety as follows:
Ref: NSS 3-4-1
Mr. Robert W. Evans,
Chief, Bureau of Air Pollution Control,
   Maricopa County Health Department,
   1825 East Roosevelt, Phoenix, AZ 85OO1.
  Dear Mr. Evans: In response to your
request  of February 16,1983,1 am pleased to
inform you that we are delegating to your
agency authority to implement and enforce
certain categories of New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAPS). We have reviewed
your request for delegation and have found
your present programs and procedures to be
acceptable. This delegation includes
authority for the following source categories:
  Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
your agreement to follow all applicable
provisions of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61,
including use of EPA'* test methods and
procedures. The delegation is effective upon
the date of this letter unless the USEPA
receives written notice from you of any
objections within 10 days of receipt of this
letter. A notice of this delegated authority
will be published in the Federal Register in
the near future.
     Cordially yours,
Sonia F. Crow,
Regional Administrator.
c'c: Arizona Department of Health Services.
  With respect to Maricopa County all
report:, applications, submittals, and
other communications pertaining to the
above listed NSPS and NESHAPS
source categories should be directed to
the  MCHD at the address shown in the
letter of delegation.
  The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
  This Notice is issued under the
authority of Section 111 of the Clean Air
Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857, et
seq.).
  Dated: June 13,1983.
John WUe,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc  63-19554 Filed 8-20-83; S.-46 am]
MLLJNOCOOC IS60-M-M
NSPS

Lmd-acxi battery manufacturing piano 	
Phoaphate rock plants 	

40 CFR
Pan 60
Subpart
A.
KK
UN

Oklahoma State Department of Health
and Subdelegatfon of Authority to the
Tulsa City-County Health Department
for the New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) Programs

AGENCY: Enviromental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 6.
ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: On June 10,1983 EPA
delegated to the Oklahoma State
Department of Health (OSDH) the
additional authority to subdelegate the
NSPS and NESHAP programs to
qualified local air pollution control
authorities in the State of Oklahoma.
The OSDH has subdelegated the
authority to implement and enforce the
programs in Tulsa County to the Tulsa
City-County Health Department
(TCCH). Except as specifically limited,
all of the authority and responsibilities
delegated to the OSDH by EPA which
are found in 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61 are
subdelegated to the TCCHD. Any such
authority and responsibilities may be
redelegated by the TCCHD to its staff.
The subdelegation will allow for the
implementation and the enforcement of
these programs at the local level.
EFFECTIVE DATE June 10,1983.
ADDRESS: Copies of the delegation of
addition authority to the OSDH allowing
for subdelegation, as well as copies of
the TCCHD request and the TCCHD/
OSDH agreement for this subdelegation
of authority are available for public
inspection at the Air Branch, Air and
Waste Management Division,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 6, Inter-First Two Building, 28th
Floor, 1201 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas
75270.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William H. Taylor, Jr., Air Branch, EPA,
address above (214) 767-2746.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
January 21,1983, the TCCHD requested
the OSDH to delegate to them the
authority to implement and enforce the
NSPS and NESHAP programs as
specified under 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
for sources located in Tulsa County. On
February 7,1983, the OSDH approved
subdelegating to the TCCHD this
authority.
  On June 10,1983, EPA delegated the
additional authority to the OSDH to
subdelegate the authority for the NSPS
and NESHAP programs to local air
pollution control agencies in Oklahoma.
                                                   IV-157
-------
             Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 144  /  Tuesday,  July 26. 1983  /  Rules and Regulations
Effective on this date, the authority is
granted to the TCCHD to administer the
requirements for the NSPS and NESHAP
programs specified in 40 CFR Parts 60
and 61, as delegated to the OSDIi by
EPA.
  This notice will have no effect on the
National Ambient  Air Quality
Standards.
  The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this information notice
from the requirements of Section 3 of
Executive  Order 12291.
  Sources locating in Tulsa County
should submit all information pursuant
to 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61 directly  to the
Tulsa City-County Health Department,
4616 East Fifteenth Street, Tulsa
Oklahoma 74112.
  I certify that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
  Dated: June 24,1383.
MyioD O. Knudson,
Acting Regional Administrator.

PART 60—NEW SOURCE
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

  Part 60 of Chapter 1, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
  1. Section 60.4 paragraph (a) is
amended by removing "to the attention
of the Director, Enforcement Division."
and by changing the  address for Region
VI to read as follows:

§60.4  Address.
  (a) * *  *
  Region VI (Arkansas, Louisiana, New
Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas), 1201 Elm Street.
Dallas, 75270.

  2. Section 60.4 paragraph (b)(LL) is
amended by adding paragraphs (i) and
(ii) to read as follows:

§60.4  Address.
*****

  (b) * *  *
  (LL)' •  •
  (i) [Reserved]
  (ii) Tulsa County: Tulsa City-County Health
Department, 4616 East Fifteenth Street. Tulsa.
Oklahoma 74112.

PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS

  Part 61 of Chapter 1, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
  1. Section 61.04 paragraph (a) is
amended by removing the following
words "to  the attention of the Director,
Enforcement Division." and by revising
the address for Region VI to read as
follows:

§61.04 Address.
  (a) • •  •
  Region VI (Arkansas, Louisiana. New
Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas), 1201 Elm Street,
Dallas, Texas 75270.

  2. Section 61.04 paragraph (b)(LL) is
amended by adding paragraphs (i) and
(ii) to read as follows:

§61.04 Address.
*****

  (b) • •  •
  (LL)' *  •
  (i) [Reserved]
  (ii) Tulsa County: Tulsa City-County Health
Department. 4616 East Fifteenth Street, Tulsa,
Oklahoma 74112.
\P* Doc. S3-201M Filed 7-2S-S3: MS »m|
MUJNO CODE NW-W4I
 83
 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
 AGENCY

 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
 f A-1-FRL 2413-7]

 Air Programs; Delegation of New
 Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
 and National Emission Standards for
 Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs);
 Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire,
 Rhode Island, Vermont, and
 Massachusetts

 AGENCY: Environmental Protection
 Agency (EPA).
 ACTION: Final rule.

 SUMMARY: The EPA hereby notifies the
 public that it has delegated authority
 over certain New Source Performance
 Standards (NSPS) and National
 Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
 Pollutants (NESHAPs) to .the State Air
 Pollution Agencies in Region 1. The
 NSPS and NESHAPs program
 delegations have now been brought up
 to date with recent EPA promulgations
 of standards and revisions to NSPS and
NESHAPs categories. Several of the
States' delegations provide that
authority over future promulgated
standards and revisions will
automatically be delegated to the State
agency. These delegations do not create
any new regulatory requirements
affecting the public. The effect of the
delegations is to shift primary program
responsibility for the affected NSPS and
NESHAPs source categories  from EPA
to State governments. Some States do
not have full authority over the
programs; limitations are noted where
appropriate.
DATES: The regulations are amended to
reflect these address changes effective
Maine, September 30,1982. Connecticut.
September 30,1983, Massachusetts, June
24,1982, New Hampshire, September 30.
1982, Rhode Island, September 29,1982.
and Vermont, September 28,1982.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Linda Murphy, State Air Programs
Branch, Air Management Division, EPA,
Region I, Room 2111, John F.  Kennedy
Building, Boston, MA 02203, Telephone
(617) 223-5130, FTS 223-5130.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The air
pollution control agencies of the
following States have requested and
received, by delegation, authority over
certain NSPS and NESHAPs  source
categories. Delegations are effective as
listed below:
State of Connecticut
  Effective  Date: September  30, 1982
(except as otherwise noted).
  Limitations: None—Full authority was
delegated.
  Future standards and revisions. Full
authority over all new or amended
regulations  under 40 CFR Part 60 or 61
will be delegated to the State of
Connecticut upon EPA notice to the
State of final promulgation of the new or
amended regulation.

             DELEGATIONS
NSPS
General Provisions .. .
Fossil-Fuel-Rred Steam Gener-
ators
Electric Utility Steam Generation
Units'
Incinerators 	
Portland Cement Plants .. .
Nitnc Add Plants 	
Sullunc Acid Plants 	
Asphalt Concrete Plants 	
Petroleum Rehrtenes . . .
Storage Vessels for Petroleum
bqu.as constructed poor to
May 19. 1976
Storage Vessels tor Petroleum
Liquids constructed after May
18. 1978'
Secondary Lead SmeHers
Secondary Brass and Bronze
Ingot Production Plant*.
Iron and Steel Plant. 	
Sewage Treatment Plant* 	
40 CFH P tn 60 SuOpart
A
D

Da

E
f
G
H
1
J
K


Ka


L
M

N
O
                                                     IV-158
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 157  / Friday. August 12. 1983 / Rules and Regulations
DELEGATIONS— Continued
NSPS
Phosphate Fertilizer InduMry Wet
Process Phoaphonc Add Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry Su-
perphosphonc Acid Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
Dtamfnoniufn Phosphate Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
Tnple Superphosphate Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
Granular Tnpte Superphosphate
Storage Facilities
Steel Plant*. Electric Arc Fur-
naces.
Glass Manufacturing Plants ' 	
Metal Furmture Surface Coating *...
Stationary Internal Combustion
Engines*.
Stationary Gas Turbines 	
Ume Manufacturing Plants ' 	
Organic Solvent Cleaners ' 	
Autombile a Light-Duty Truck Sur-
face Coating >.
Perchloroetrtyiene Dry Cleaners > ...
Graphic Arts*
Pressure Sensitive Tape A Label
Surface Coating Operations *.
Large Appliance Surfacr Coating '..
Metal Coil Coating « 	
Asphalt Roofing
Beverage Can Surface Coating
Industry*.
Gasoline Tank Truck Loading
Tracks ».
Rubber Tra Manufacturing > .._ 	
Flexible Vinyl Coating ' 	
VOC Fugitive Emissions from Pe-
troleum Refineries'.
Synthetic Roar Production Facft-
bes*.
Petroleum Dry Cleaners • 	 _ 	
40 CFR Part 80 Subpart
T.
U.
V.
w
X
AA
CC
EE.
FF
GG.
HH
JJ
MM
00
00
RR.
SS.
TT.
UU
WW.
XX
BBB
FFF
GGG.
HHH
JJJ.
1 Effective date March 16, 1963
* Effective date February 10. 1983.
> Effective date Apn! 29. 1983.
NE SNAP'S
General Provisions 	
Asbestos*-.
Beryllium ....
Beryllium Rocket Motor Fmng .„ 	
40 CFR Part 61 Subpart
A.
B-.
C.
D.
•§61-22(d), Demolition and Renovation, and any other
portion of Subpart B pertaining to «, • not delegated
NESHAP's

Vinyt Chionde
Benzene Malec Anhydride1 	
Benzene Emissions from Ethyl-
ene/Styrene Plants1.
VOC Fugitive Emission Sources
in the Synthetic Organic Chemi-
cal Manufacturing Industry1
Benzene Emissions from Ben-
lene Storage Vessels'
40 CFR Part 60 Subpart
E.
F.
H
1
J.
K.
'Effective date April 29, 1963
State of Maine
Effective Date: September 30, 1982
(except as otherwise noted).
Limitations: None — full authority was
delegated.
Future standards and revisions: Full
authority over all new or amended
regulations under 40 CFR Part 60 or 61
will be delegated to the State of Maine
upon EPA notice to the State of final
promulgation of the new or amended
regulation.
DELEGATIONS
NSPS

Foasil-Fual-Fired Steam Gener-
ators.
Electric UtJrty Steam Generating
Units.
Portland Cement Plants 	
Nrtnc Acid Plants

Asphalt Concrete Plants ..

Storage Vessels tor Petroleum
liquids constructed prior to
May 19. 1978.
Storage Vessels for Petroleum
Liquids constructed after May
18. 1978.
Secondary Lead Smelters 	
Secondary Bronze and Brass
Ingot Production Plants.
Iron & Steel Plants 	 	 	
Sewage Treatment Plants 	 _ _ 	
Primary Copper Smelters 	

Pnmary Aluminum Reduction
Plants.
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry Wet
Process Phosphoric Aoxj Plants.
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Su-
pcrprtosphonc Acid Ptants.
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
Diammonum Phosphate Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
Tnple Superphosphate Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
Granular Triple Superphosphate
Storage facilities.
Coal Preparation Plants 	
Ferroalloy Production Facilities 	
Steel Plants. Electric Arc Fur-
naces
Kraft Pulp Mills
Glass Manufacturing Plants 	
Gram Elevators 	 _ 	
Metal Furniture Surface Coating >...
Stationary Gas Turbines 	
Lime Manufacturing Plants 	
Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing . .
Automobile « Light Duty Truck
Surface Coaling Operations.
Ammonium Suttate Manufacture . ..
Large Appliance Surface Coat-
ing '.
Metal Coil Coating ' 	 	 	

40 CFR Part 60 Subpart
A.
D
Da.
E'
F.
G
H
1.
J
K.
Ka.
L
M.
N
0.
P.
o
R.
S
T.
U.
V.
W.
X
Y.
Z.
AA.
BB.
CC.
DD
EE.
GG.
HH.
KK.
MM.
NN
PP
00
SS.
TT.
UU.
• Authority regarding cone burners serving populations of
less man 25.000 was not delegated
• Effective date February 25. 1963.
NESHAP's

Asbestos' 	



40 CFR Part 61 Subpart
A
B'
C.
E
f^9t~22(
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 157  / Friday, August 12, 1983 / Rules and Regulation^
Future standards and revisions: Full
authority over all new or amended
regulations under 40 CFR Part 60 or 61
will be delegated to the State of New
Hampshire upon EPA notice to the State
of final promulgation of the new or
amended regulation.
DELEGATION
NSPS «0 CFR Part 60 Subpart
Genera1 Provisions A
Fossi' Fue.-fired Steam Gener D
etors
Electric Utility Steam Generating Da
Units
Incinerators E
Aspnatt Concrete Plants
Petroleum Refinenes . J
Storage Vessels lot Petroleum K
Liquids constructed prior to
May 19. 1976
Storage Vessels for Petroleum Ka
Liquids constructed alter May
18 1978
Secondary Lead Smeite-s . L
Secondary Bran ana Bronze M
Ingot Production Plants
Iron and Steel Plants N
Sewage Treatment Plants . O
Steel Plants Electric Arc Fur- AA
naces
Kraft Pulp Mills BB
Grain Elevators .„ 	 DD
Metal Furniture Surface Coating ' EE
Stationary Gas Turbines GG
Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing ' KK
Graphic Arts ' . . QO

< Effective data February 14. 1963
NESHAP s 40 CFR Part 81 Subpert
General Provisions 	 A
Asbestos 	 B
Beryllium 	 C
Mercury 	 E
State of Rhode Island
Effective Date: September 29, 1982
(except as otherwise noted).
Limitations: Only administrative
portions of the standards have been
delegated.
Future standards and revisions:
Authority over administrative portions
of all new or amended regulations under
40 CFR Part 60 or 61 will be delegated to
the State of Rhode Island upon EPA
notice to the State of final promulgation
of the new or amended regulation.
DELEGATIONS
NSPS 40 CFR Pan 60 Subpart
General Provwona 	 A
FosU-Fuel-Fred Steam Oener- D
•tor*
Electric Utility Swam Generating De
Onus
Incinerator! 	 E

Niex Acid Plants 	 „ 	 	 G
Surtunc Add Plant! 	 H
Asphalt Concrete Plants 	 1
Storage Vessels lor Petroleum K
UMds corMruded prior to
May U. 1»7»
DELEGATIONS— Continued
NSPS 40 CFR Part 60 Subpan
Storage Vessels for Petroleum Ka
Liquids constructed after May
18, 1978
Secondary Lead Smelters . . . . L
Secondary Bronze and Brass M
Ingot Production Plant*
Iron and Steel Plants ... N
Sewage Treatment Plants . O
Primary Copper Smelters P
Primary Zinc Smelters 	 O
Primary Lead Smelters . ... R
Primary Aluminum Reduction S
Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry Wet T
Process Phosphoric Add Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer industry Su- U
perphosphonc Acid Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry V
Duimmonium Phosphate Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry W
Triple Superphosphate Plant*
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry X
Granular Triple Superphosphate
Storage Facilities
Coal Preparation Facilities ... Y
Ferroalloy Production Plants . 2
Steel Plants Electric Arc Fur- AA
naces
Glass Manufacturing Plants . CC
Grain Elevators 	 DO
Metal Furniture Surface Coating' . EE
Stationary Gas Turbines 	 GO
Una Manufacturing Plants 	 HH
Lead-Add Battery Manufacturing . KK
Automobile and Light Duly Truck MM
Surface Coating Operatnna
Phosphate flock Plants 	 NN
Ammonium Sulfate Manufacture .... PP
Graphic Arts ' 	 QO
Large Appliance Surface Coat- SS
«g '
Metal Coil Coating ' 	 TT


1 Effective date February 3. 1*83
NESHAP'. 40 CFR Part 81 Subpan

General Provisions 	 A
Asbestos * 	 B *

'Mel 20. «1 21. 81 22 (c). (f). end (g). 61 23 and 61 24
only
NESHAf. 40 CFR Part 80 Subpen
Beryllium ... .... . C
BeryHurn Rocket Motor Firmg 	 	 D
Mercury 	 E
Vinyl Chloride F

State of Vermont
Effective Date: September 28, 1982.
Limitations: Only Held surveillance
has been delegated for NESHAPs; full
authority waa delegated for NSPS.
Future standards and revisions: The
State of Vermont will specifically
request any delegation of authority it
desires with respect to any new or
amended regulations under 40 CFR Part
60 or 61.
DELEGATIONS
NSPS 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart

FosaH-Fust-Fwd tteem Oener- O.
•lore
DELEGATIONS— Continued
NSPS 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart
Electric Utility Steam Generating Da
Units
Incinerators . ... E
Asphalt Concrete Plants _ .. 1

NESHAP • 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart
Asbestos ' . 	 B *
•}|6t 22 Id) (a)(ii). (f) and (g) and 61 23 only
Pursuant to NSPS and NESHAP's
regulations, sources are required to
submit all required reports to the state
or local agency that has jurisdiction over
the source, and the EPA.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive
Order 12291. [Sees. Ill and 112 of the
Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.
1857, et seq.)]
I certify that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part. 60
Air pollution control, Aluminum,
Ammonium sulfate plants, Cement
industry, Coal, Copper, Electric power
plants, Class and glass products, Grains,
Intergovernmental relations. Iron, Lead,
Metals, Motor vehicles, Nitric acid
plants, Paper and paper products
industry, Petroleum, Phosphate, Sewage
disposal, Steel, Sulfuric acid plants,
Waste treatment and disposal, Zinc.
40 CFR Part 61
Air Pollution control, Asbestos,
Beryllium, Hazardous materials,
Mercury, Vinyl chloride.
(Sees lll(c). 112(d) and 301(a). Clean Air
Act ai amended (42 U.S.C. 74.11 (c), 741 2(d]
and 7601(a)))
Dated: July 7, 1983.
Michael R. Deland,
Regional Administrator, Region 1,
PART 60— STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
STATIONARY SOURCES
PART 61— NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS
- Subparts A of Parts 60 and 61 of
Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations are amended as follows:
Subpart A— Gvrwral Provision*
1. Section 60.4, Address and { 61.04.
Address, are each amended by revising
                                   IV-160
-------
Federal Register  / Vol. 46. No. 180 / Thursday.  September 15. 1983  / Rules and Regulations
the address of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts in paragraph (b)(W) to
read as follows:

§§ 60.4 and 61.04   [Amended]
*****

  (b) • ' *
  (W) Commonwealth of Massachusetts:
Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Quality Engineering. Division of Air Quality
Control. One Winter Street, Boston. MA
02108

  2. Sections 60.4(b)(EE) and
61.04(b)(EE) are  each amended by
revising the address of the State of New
Hampshire to read  as follows:
*     *     *     *     *

  (b) * * '
  (EE) State of New Hampshire. New
Hampshire Air Resources Agency, Health
and Welfare Building, Hazen Drive, Concord.
NH 03301.

  3. Sections 60.4(b)(OO) and
61.04(b)(OO) are each amended by
revising the address of the State of
Rhode Island to read as follows:
*     •     *     *     *

  (b) * • *

  (OO) State of Rhode Island: Rhode Island
Department of Environmental Management.
204 Cannon Building.  Davis Street.
Providence. Rl 02908.
-     *     *     *    •

  4. Sections 60.4(b)(UU) and
61.04(b)(UU) are each amended by
revising the address of the State of
Vermont to read as follows:
  (b)' *  *
  (UU) State of Vermont. Vermont Agency of
Environmental Conservation. Air Pollution  (
Control. State Office Building. Montpelier. VT
05602.
•     *     «     *    *
|KR  Dot 83-22040 Filed 8-11-83 B45 »m|
BILLMM COOC «Stt-MMM
                                40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

                                [A-9-FRL 2432-4]

                                Delegation of New Source
                                Performance Standards (NSPS) and
                                National Emission Standards for
                                Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS);
                                Hawaii Department of Health

                                AGENCY: Environmental Protection
                                Agency (EPA).
                                ACTION: Final delegation.

                                SUMMARY: The EPA hereby places the
                                public on notice of its delegation of
                                authority for certain NSPS and
                                NESHAPS categories to the Hawaii
                                Department of Health (HDOH). This
                                action gives the HDOH the authority to
                                implement and enforce the federal NSPS
                                and NESHAPS programs. The effect of
                                the delegation is to shift the primary
                                program responsibility for the affected
                                NSPS and NESHAPS categories from
                                EPA to the State government.
                                EFFECTIVE DATE August 15,1983.
                                ADDRESS: Hawaii Department of Health,
                                Environmental Protection and Health
                                Services Division, 1250 Punchbowl
                                Street, Honolulu, HI 96813.
                                Mailing Address: Hawaii Department of
                                  Health, Environmental Protection and
                                  Health Services Division, Post Office
                                  Box 3378, Honolulu, HI 96801.
                                FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
                                Julie A. Rose, New Source Section (A-3-
                                1), Air Operations Branch, Air
                                Management Division, EPA, Region 9,
                                215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA
                                94105, Tel: (415) 974-8236, FTS 454-8236.
                                SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July
                                28,1983, the Deputy Director for
                                Environmental Health, Hawaii
                                Department  of Health requested
                                delegation of authority for certain NSPS
                                and NESHAPS categories. Delegation of
                                authority was granted by a letter and
                                agreement dated August 15,1983. The
                                following agreement represents the
                                terms  and conditions of the delegation:
                                U.S. EPA-HDOH Agreement for Delegation of
                                Authority of the Regulations for Standards of
                                Performance for New Stationary Sources (40
                                CFR Part BO) and National Emission
                                Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40
                                CFR Part 61)
                                  The undersigned, on behalf of the Hawaii
                                Department of Health (HDOH) and the
                                United States Environmental Protection
                                Agency (U.S. EPA), hereby agrees to the
                                delegation of authority for the
                                implementation of 40 CFR Part 60, Standards
                                of Performance for New Stationary Sources
                                (NSPS) and 40 CFR Part 61, National
                                Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
                                Pollutant* (NESHAPS) from the U.S. EPA to
                                the HDOH, subject to the terms and
                                conditions below.
Permits.
  1. After the effective date of this
Agreement, Authority to Construct permits
issued by HDOH shall include appropriate
provisions to ensure compliance with
applicable NSPS. The categories of new or
modified sources covered by this Agreement
«re:
  a. Fossil Fuel Fired Steam Generators,
Subpart D.
  b. Electric Utility Steam Generator. Subpart
Da.
  c. Incinerators, Subpart E.
  d. Portland Cement Plants, Subpart F.
  e. Asphalt Concrete Plants, Subpart I.
  f. Petroleum Refineries, Subpart ].
  g. Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids
Constructed after May 18,197B. Subpart Ka.
  h. Sewage Treatment Plants, Subpart O.
  i. Stationary Gas Turbines, Subpart GG.
  2. After the effective date of this
Agreement, Authority to Construct permits
issued by HDOH shall include appropriate
provisions to ensure compliance with
applicable NESHAPS. The category of new or
modified sources covered by this Agreement
is limited to mercury, Subpart E.
  4. If at any time there is a conflict between
a HDOH regulation and a U.S. EPA
regulation (40 CFR Parts 60 and 61). the U.S.
EPA regulation must be applied if it is more
stringent than that of the HDOH. Exemptions
authorized under HDOH's permit regulations
will not exempt sources from controls
required by 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61.
  5. Performance tests shall be scheduled and
conducted in accordance with the procedures
set forth in 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61 unless
alternate methods or procedures are
approved by the U.S. EPA. Although the U.S.
EPA retains the exclusive right to approve
equivalent and  alternative test methods as
specified in 40 CFR 60.8(b) (2) and (3), and
61.14,  the HDOH may approve minor changes
in methodology provided these changes are
reported to U.S. EPA. The U.S. EPA also
retains the right to change an opacity
standard as specified in 40 CFR 60.11(e).
  a. The HDOH shall observe whenever
possible required performance tests and
determine compliance with NSPS/NESHAPS
end maintain the following documentations
for each test: (i) Source test plan and review:
(ii) Source test observation report; and (iii)
Source test report evaluation.
  b. The HDOH shall notify U.S. EPA of all
source test violations of applicable NSPS/
NESHAPS within five days of completion of
the HDOH's evaluation.
  c. By December 31,1983. the HDOH shall
require sources to report particulate
emissions in two categories: (i) Front half
(filter  and probe) and (ii) Front and back half
(probe, filter and impingers).
  d. Each quarter, the HDOH shall notify U.S.
EPA of upcoming performance tests for the
upcoming quarter.
  e. The U.S. EPA shall provide HDOH with
source test observation training by December
31,1983.
  6. Additionally, the HDOH must require
reporting of all excess emissions from any
NSPS  source in accordance with 40 CFR
«0.7(c).
                                             IV-161
-------
         Federal  Register /  Vol. 48. No. 180  /  Thursday,  September 15, 19H3 / Rules and Regulations
  7. Alternatives to continuous monitoring
procedures or reporting requirements, as
outlined in 40 CFR 60.13(i), may be approved
by the HDOH with the prior concurrence of
the U.S. EPA.
  8. If a source proposes to modify its
operation or facility which may cause thp
source to be subject to NSPS/NESHAPS
requirements, or if there are questions on
interpretations of the same, the HDOH shall
notify U.S. EPA and obtain a determination
on the applicability of the NSPS/NESHAP
regulations.

Enforcement
  HDOH will have primary responsibility for
enforcement of the delegated NSPS/
NESHAPS categories in accordance with the
State's p Dcedures and regulations.

Technical Support and Monitoring
  1. HDOH air laboratory cannot provide any-
technical and monitoring support for NSPS at
this time.
  2. NESHAPS sampling and analysis will be
the responsibility of the generator: any
additional or follow-up sampling and
analysis for HDOH will be done by a private
laboratory under contract to HDOH

General Delegation Conditions
  1. Acceptance of this delegation of
presently promulgated NSPS and NESHAPS
does not commit the State to request or
accept responsibility of future standards and
requirements. A new request for
responsibility will be required  for any
standards not included in 1 and 2 under
Permits.
  2. This delegation covers regulation as in
effect on the date of this Agreement and
revisions promulgated after the date for NSPS
and NESHAPS categories identified in 1 and
2 under Permits. U.S. EPA will be responsible
to provide HDOH with six copies of the
regulations and revision thereof delegated
under this Agreement. HDOH shall not be
responsible for aspects of any permit for
which EPA failed to provide HDOH with
appropriate regulations or revisions prior to
HDOH's issuance of a permit.
  3. If the U.S. EPA determines that the
HDOH is not implementing the NSPS or
NESHAPS programs in accordance with the
terms and conditions of this delegation, this
delegation, after consultation with HDOH.
may be revoked in whole or part. Any such
revocation shall be effective as of the date
specified in a Notice of Revocation to the
HDOH
  4. The delegation may be amended or
cancelled at any time by the formal written
agreement of both the HDOH and the U.S.
EPA including amendments to add. change or
remove conditions or terms of this
Agreement.
  5. Information shall be made available to
the public in accordance with 40 CFR 60.9
and 61.15(b). Any records, reports, or
information provided to, or otherwise
obtained by, the HDOH in accordance with
the provisions of these regulations shall be
made available to the designated
representative of U S EPA upon request
  C This delegation of authority iseffettivc
upon the date of this Agreement
  Dated. July 28, 1983.
Mel\ in K. Koizumi.
Hawaii Department of Health.
  Dated August 15. 1983
John Wise.
Environmental Protection Agency
  A copy of the letter requesting
delegation of authority is available for
public inspection at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Region 9 Office, Air Management
Division, Air Operations  Branch, 215
Frerriont Street, San Francisco,
California 94105.
  With respect to the State of Hawaii,
all reports, applications, submittals. and
other communications pertaining to the
NSPS and NESHAPS source categories
listed in the agreement should be
directed to the HDOH at  the address in
the ADDRESS section  of this notice.
  The Regional Admin strator finds
good cause for forgoing prior public
notice and for making this rulemaking
effective immediately in that it is an
administrative change and not one of
substantive content. No additional
substantive burdens are imposed on the
parties affected. This delegation became
effective according to the date cited in
DATES, therefore, it serves no purpose to
delay the technical change of this
addition of the State  address to the
Code of Federal Regulations.
  The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
  This Notice is  issued under the
Authority of Section 111 of the Clean Air
Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857, et
seq.).

  Dated: September 6,1983.
|ohn C Wise.
Acting Regional Administrator.


PARTS 60 AND 61—[AMENDED]

  Subpart A of Parts 60 and 61 of
Chapter I, Title 40 of-the  Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:


Subpart A—General Provisions

   Sections 60.4(b)(M) and 61.04(b)(M)
are each amended by adding the
address of the Hawaii Department of
Health to read as follows:

§§ 60.4 and 61.04  AddrtM.
  (h) " • '
  (Mr •  •
HdAau Department of Health. 1250
  Punchbowl Street. Honolulu. HI 96H13
Hawaii Department of Health (mailing
  address). Post Office Box 3378 Honolulu
  HI 9b8l 11
|FR DM BJ 2"4B

BIU.ING CODE (560-SO-M
                                                         IV-162
-------
             Federal  Register  / Vol. 48, No. 183 / Tuesday,  September 20,  1983  / Rules and Regulations
85
   40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

   [A-9-FRL 2436-7]

   Delegation of New Source
   Performance Standards (NSPS) and
   National Emission Standards for
   Hazardous Pollutants (NESHAPS);
   State of California

   AGENCY: Environmental Protection
   Agency (EPA).
   ACTION: Rule-related notice.

   SUMMARY: The EPA hereby places the
   public on notice of its delegation of
   NSPS and NESHAPS authority to the
   California Air Resources Board (GARB)
   on behalf of the Madera County Air
   Pollution Control District (MCAPCD).
   This action is necessary to bring the
   NSPS and NESHAPS program
   delegations up to date with recent EPA
   promulgations and amendments of these
   categories. This action does not create
   any new regulatory requirements
   affecting the public. The effect of the
   delegation is to shift the primary
   program responsibility for the affected
   NSPS and NESHAPS categories from
   EPA to State and local governments.
   EFFECTIVE DATE: June 28,1983.
   ADDRESS: Madera County Air Pollution
   Control District, 135 W. Yosemite
   Avenue, Madera, CA 93637.
   FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
   Julie A. Rose, New Source Section (A-3-
   1), Air Operations Branch, Air
   Management Division, EPA, Region 9,
   215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA
   94105. Tel: (415) 974-8236, FTS 454-8236.
   SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
   GARB has requested authority for
   delegation of certain NSPS and
   NESHAPS categories on behalf of the
   MCAPCD. Delegation of authority was
   granted by a letter dated June 13,1983
   and is reproduced in its entirety as
   follows:
   Mr. James D. Boyd.
   Executive Officer. California Air Resources
       Board. 1102 Q Street. P.O. Box 2815.
       Sacramento. CA 95812.
      Dear Mr. Boyd: In response to  your request
   of May 4,1983,1  am pleased to inform you
that we are delegating to your agency
authority to implement and enforce certain
categories of New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) and National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS) on behalf of the Madera County
Air Pollution Control District MCAPCD}. We
have reviewed your request for delegation
and have found the MCAPCD's programs and
procedures to be  acceptable. This delegation
includes authority for the following source
categories:
               NSPS
Genera! Provisions   ..       	
Electric Utility Steam Generators 	
Petroleum Storage Vessels    	_.. ..
Glass Manufacturing Plants	
Surface Coating of Metal Furniture  	
Stationary Gas Turbines	
Lead-Acid Battery Manufacturing Plants  	
Automobile & Light-Duty Truck Surface Coating
  Operations  ....   	
Phosphate Hock Plants  	
Ammonium Sutfate  . ...   	
Graphic  Arts  Industry: Publication Rotogravure
  Pnnting 	
Industrial Surface Coating Large Appliances	
Metal Coil Surface Coating 	
Asphalt Roofing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacture
40 CFR
Part 60
Subpart
     A
    D*
    Ka
    CC
    EE
    6G
    KK
   NN
    PP

   CO
    SS
    TT
   UU
             NESHAPS
General Provisions.
40CFH
Part 81
Subpart
  In addition, we are redelegating the
following NSPS and NESHAPS categories
since the MCAPCD's revised programs and
procedures are acceptable:
               NSPS
 Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generators	_
 Incinerators   .     .       	
 Portland Cement Plants 	
 Nitnc Acid Plants    	_	
 Sulfunc Acid Plants   	
 Asphalt Concrete Plants	
 Petroleum Refineries  	
 Storage Vessels tor Petroleum Liquids  	
 Secondary Lead Smelters	
 Secondary  Brass  &  Bronze Ingot Production
  Plants         	
 Iror and Steel Plants (BOPF)       	
 Sewage Treatment °lants 	„.  „	
 Pnmary Copper Smeltei ft.   		
 Primary Zinc Smelters
 Primary Lead: Smellers 	
 Pnmary Atummum Reduction Plants 	_
 Phosphate  Fertilizer Industry. Wet Process Phos-
  phoric Acio Plants        .     	
 Phosphate  Fertilizer Industry  Super phosphoric
  Acid Plants.     . .     	
 Phosphate  Fertilizer Industry Diammornum Phos-
  phate Plants     .     	
 Phosphate  Fertilizer  Industry Tnple Soperphoa-
  pha'e Plants
 Phosphate  Fertilizer Industry Granular Triple Su-
  perphosphate
 Coal Preparation Plants    .  .     —
 Fenoaltoy Production Facilities.
 Iron and Steel Plants (Electric Arc Furnaces)  .
 Kraft Pulp Mills     	
 Grain Elevators            .  .     ....
 Lime Manufacturing  Plants
40 CFR
Part 60
Subpart
     D
     E
     F
     C
     H
      I
     J
     K
     L

     M
     N
     O
     P
     O
     R
     s
                                                                                      x
                                                                                      Y
                                                                                      z
                                                                                      AA
                                                                                      BB
                                                                                      DD
NESHAPS
Airjaitot
Beryllium 	
BervHmm Rocket Motor Flrmg
Mercury
Vinyl Chloride . - 	

40 CFR
Panft»
Subpart
•
C
B
E
f

  Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
your agreement to follow all applicable
provisions of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61,
including use of EPA's test methods and
procedures. The delegation is effective upon
the date of this letter unless the USEPA
receives-written notice from you or the
District of any objections within 10 days of
receipt of this letter. A notice of this
delegated authority will be published in the
Federal Register in the near future.
      Sincerely,
John Wise,
Acting Regional Administrator.
cc: Madera County Air Pollution Control
District.
   With respect to Madera County all
reports, applications, submittals,  and
other communications pertaining to the
above listed NSPS and NESHAPS
source categories should be directed to
the MCAPCD at the address shown in
the ADDRESS section of this notice.
   The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
   This Notice is issued under the
authority of Section 111 of the Clean Air
Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857,  et
set).).
   Dated: September 7,1983.
John Wise,
Acting Regional Administrator.
|FR Doc 83-25581 Filed 9-19-83. 8:45 am)
WLUMQCOOE CMO-SO-M
                                                             IV-163
-------
            Federal Register /  Vol. 48. No. 186 / Friday, September 23,  1983  / Rules and Regulations
86
40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

[A-»-FRL 2436-6]

Delegation of New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Pollutants (NESHAPS);
State of California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Rule-related notice.

SUMMARY: The EPA hereby places the
public on notice of its delegation of
NSPS and NESHAPS authority to the
California Air Resources Board (GARB)
on behalf of the Merced County Air
Pollution Control District (MCAPCD).
This action is necessary to bring the
NSPS and NESHAPS program
delegations up to date with recent EPA
promulgations and amendments of these
categories. This action does not create
any new regulatory requirements
affecting the public. The effect of the
delegation is to shift the primary
program responsibility for the affected
NSPS and NESHAPS categories from
EPA to State and local governments.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 10,1983.
ADDRESS: Merced County Air Pollution
Control District, 210 East 15th Street,
P.O. Box 471, Merced, CA 95340.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Julie A. Rose, New Source Section (A-3-
1), Air Operations Branch, Air
Management Division, EPA, Region  9,
215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA
94105. Tel.. (415) 974-8236, FTS 454-8236.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
GARB has requested authority for
delegation of certain NSPS and
NESHAPS categories on behalf of the
MCAPCD. Delegation of authority was
granted by a letter dated May  26,1983
aprt is reproduced in its e^'rety aa
follows1
                                          Mr. James D. Boyd,
                                          Executive Officer, California Air Resources
                                             Board, 1102 Q Street, P.O. Box 2815.
                                             Sacramento, CA 95812.
                                            Dear Mr. Boyd: In response to your request
                                          of May 4.1983,1 am pleased to inform you
                                          that we are delegating to your agency
                                          authority to implement and enforce certain
                                          categories of New Source Performance
                                          Standards (NSPS) and National Emission
                                          Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
                                          (NESHAPS) on behalf of Merced County Air
                                          Pollution Control District (MCAPCD). We
                                          have reviewed your request for delegation
                                          and have found the MCAPCD's programs and
                                          procedures to be acceptable. This delegation
                                          includes authority for the following source
                                          categories:
                                                        NSPS
General Provisions	
Electric Uttrty Steam Generators	
Petroleum Storage veseete	
Kraft Pulp Mills	
Glass Manutactunng Plants	
Gram Elevators	
Surface Coating of Metal Furniture  	
Stationary Gaa Turbines	
Ume Manufactumg Plants	.-.
Lead-Add Battery Manutactunng Plants	
Automobile 4 Light-Duty Truck Surface Coating
  Operations
Phosphate Rock Plants	
Ammonium Suttate	_	
Industrial Surface Coating: Large App'wnces	
Asphalt Roofing and Asphalt Roofing Manufac-
  ture
                                  40 CFR
                                  part 60
                                  subpart
A
Da
Ka
BB
CC
DO
EE
GG
HH
KK
MM

NN
PP.
SS
uu
            NESHAPS
Vinyl Chloride...
 40 CFR
 pan 61
 subpan
  In addition, we are redelegating the
following NSPS and NESHAPS categories
since the MCAPCD's revised programs and
procedures are acceptable:
              NSPS
 40 CFR
 part 60
 subpart
 Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generators  	  D
 Incinerators  	     E
 Portland Cement Plants	   I f
 Nrtnc Add Plants	| G
 Suflunc Add Plants	 | H
 Asphalt Concrete Plants	  I
 Petroleum Refineries   	 J
 Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids. .  .   .  K
 Secondary Lead Smelters    ...       L
 Secondary Brass ft Bronze  Ingot  Production  M
  Plants
 Iron and Steel Plants (BOPF)	    N
 Sewage Treatment Plants. 	 O
 Primary Copper Smelters 	  P
 Pnmary Zinc Smelters ....     ....     O
 Primary Lead Smelters        .      . .  R
 Pnmary Aluminum Reduction Plants  ....   | S
 Phosphate Fertilizer industry             j
    Wet Process Phosphoric Acid Ptanis .    ' T
 Phosphate Fertiliser Industry
    Superpnosphonc Acid Plants	  U
 Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
    Diammonium Phosphate Plants  .        V
 Phosphate Femlaer Industry
    Triple Superphosphate Plants	W
 Phosphate Fertotaer Industry-
    Granular Triple Superphosphate   .     . X
 ^.M Preparation Plants        ..        V
 FenoaNov Production Facilities ..          2
                                                         NSPS
                                           Iron and Steel Plants (Electric Arc Furnaces)..
                                                                             40 CFR
                                                                             part 60
                                                                            AA.
NESHAPS

Aebestoe 	
Barykum
Beryllium Rocket Motor Firing
Mercury 	

40 CFR
part 61
eubpart

B
c
D
E

  Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
your agreement to follow all applicable
provisions of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61,
including use of EPA'8 test methods and
procedures. The delegation is effective upon
the date of this letter unless the USEPA
receives written notice from you or the
District of any objections within 10 days of
receipt of this letter. A notice of this
delegated authority will be published in the
Federal Register in the near future.
  Cordially yours,
Sonia F. Crow,
Regional Administrator.
cc: Merced County Air Pollution Control
    District.

  With respect to Merced County all
reports, applications, submittals, and
other communications pertaining to the
above listed NSPS and NESHAPS
source categories should be directed to
the MCAPCD at the address shown in
the ADDRESS section of this notice.
  The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this  rule from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
  This Notice is issued under the
authority of Section 111 of the Clean Air
Act, as  amended {42 U.S.C. 1857, et
seq.).
  Dated: September 7,1983.
John Wise,
Acting Regional Administrator.
(FR Doc. 83-25580 Filed 8-22-83: K«5 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-SO-M
          40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
          [A-9-FRL 2436-8]

          Delegation of New Source
          Performance Standards (NSPS) and
          National Emission Standards for
          Hazardous Pollutants (NESHAPS) State
          of California
          AGENCY: Environmental Protection
          Agency (EPA).
          ACTION: Rule-related notice.

          SUMMARY: The EPA hereby places the
          public on notice of its delegation of New
          Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
          and National Emission Standards for
                                                         IV-164
-------
            Federal  Register  / Vol. 48.  No. 186 / Friday, September 23. 1983  / Rules and Regulations
                                                       NSPS
                                                                           40CFR
                                                                           part eo
Hazardous Pollutants (NESHAPS)
authority to the California Air Resources
Board (GARB) on behalf of the Kern        	1
County Air Pollution Control District       a**nt Provmone	A.
(KCAPCD). This  action is necessary to     ^^^^^S^!^"         o.
bring the NSPS and NESHAPS program    mdmratm	~.~'~.111'..! E
delegations up to date with recent EPA    ^^pI2^Plint*  	  Q
promulgations and amendments of these   suHunc AOH pie/its'.'"	ZT	'."".I..!"".."  '..". H
categories. This action does not create     pJSSIuSrRSIww*"18	  j
any new regulatory requirements          s^^ v«Man tor pwoiiiim UM*     ~  K
affecting the public. The effect of the       Petroleum stw»g« vesae*               Ka
delegation is to shift  the primary          *££» '^T^e,^ Product M
program responsibility for the affected       Mw>ts
NSPS and NESHAPS categories  from       ££?!2£%%%r^	-	S
EPA to State and local governments.       Primary Copper smeners .     "'"."....'".' P
                                          Primary Zinc Smelters  	  O
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 12, 1983.             Primary Lnd Smelters  	 R
                                          Primary Akirnnum Reduction Plants 	  S
ADDRESS: Kern County Air Pollution       Phosphate  Ferttaw  Industry  W«l  Proons T
Control District,  1601 "H"  Street, Suite     p^p^XTC**, sop^^o™ o
250, Bakersfield.  CA  93301.                  AW) Plant.
                                          Phosphate Fwubzer Industry
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:         Oammonium Phosphate Plants	 V
Julie A. Rose, New Source Section (A-3-   f*X?ijSSlSSpi«»	w.
1), Air Operations Branch, Air             Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
Management Division, EPA, Region 9,      cJ^^fi^*"^^*         v
215 Fremont  Street, San Francisco, CA     Ferroalloy Production FaaMx»""'"".'.'".'.'..!.. z
94105, Tel: (415) 974-8236,  FTS 454-8236.   "«" •«» s"»i «•«» (a*** *« Fumeos.)   AA
                                          Kraft Pulp Mtils	    	  B6
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The        °la!9 2"%***** Ptants  	  ££
_,.__.            .   ..   ...           Gnwn Etevators	 DD
CARB has requested authority for         Stationary Gas Turbines	 6G
delegation of certain NSPS and            ume Manufacturing Plants	HH
NESHAPS categories on behalf of the      Al£££»* *""** '""* *"** °MW
-------
           Federal Register /  Vol  48, No.  199 / Thursday.  October, 13, 1983 / Pules and Regulations
87
40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

[AD-FRL-2449-7]

Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources and National
Emission Standards For Hazardous Air
Pollutants; Delegation of Authority to
the State of New York

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Rule related notice
SUMMARY: This notice announces the re
delegation of authority by the
F.mironmental Protection Agency to the
State of New York to implement and
enforce certain portions of the Fedcr-.il
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources ("NSPS") and the
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants ("NESHAPs").
pursuant to Section lll(c)(l) and
112(dMl) of the Clean Air Act. It also
announces the delegation of additional
NSPS source categories.
   NSPS and NESHAPs are air pollution
control regulations promulgated under
the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et.
seq.). NSPS are applicable to certain
categories of new air pollution sources
NESHAPs are applicable to certain
categories of sources which emit certain
pollutants considered hazardous
EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effHc tixe
OUober 13. 1983
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Francis W Gtaccone. Chief. Air
Compliance Branch. Air and Waste
Management  Division. Region 11 Office.
26 Federal Plaza. New York. New York
10278, (212) 264-9627.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
August 10. 1983, Commissioner Henry G
Williams of the New York State
Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) accepted authority
from the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to implement and  enforce
certain portions of the federally
established Standards of Performance
for New Stationary Sources (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) as
fallows'
   NSPS, 40 CFR Part 60, Subparts
E  Incinerators
   Portland Cement  Plants
   Nitric Acid Plants
   Sulfunc Acid Plants
   Asphalt Concrete Plants
   Petroleum Refineries
   Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids
    Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids
    Constructed after S/1B/78
   Secondar\  L( ad Smelters
    Secondary Br.iss £ Bronze Ingot
    Production
   lion «r Steel F'lants
   Sewage Treatment Plants
   Primary Copper Smelters
   Primary Zinc Smelters
   Primary Lead Smelters
   Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants
   Wet Process Phosphoric Acid Plants
   Superphosphonc Acid Plants
   Di-Ammonium Phosphate Plants
    Triple Superphosphate Plants
   Granular Triple Superphosphate Plants
   Coal Preparation Plants
   Ferroalloy Production Facilities
     Electric Arc Furnaces in the Steel
    Indi.strv
     Ki'nf; Pulp Mills
     GU"s Manufacturing Plants
     Grain Elevators
      Metal Furniture Surface Coaling
     Lime Manufacturing Plants
 K.K"  Lead-Acid Battery Manufacturing
    Plants
 MM  Automobile & Light-Duly Truck Surface
    Coating Operations
 NN-  Phosphate Rock Plants
     Ammonium Sulfate Manufacture
       Graphic Arts Industry Production
    Rotogravure Printing
      Industrial Surface Coating. Large
    Appliances
 IT'  Metal Coil Surface Coating
 '1LP   Asphalt Processing and Asphalt
    Roofing Manufacture
   'Newly Delegated

   NESHAPS, 40 CFR Part 61. Subparts.
    Asbestos (excepting only 5§ 61.22(1))
     (Surfacing of Roadways with Asbestos-
     Containing Materials): 61.22(d)
F
G
H
I
)
K
K.i

I.
M
O
P
Q
R
S
T
V
V
W
X
Y
z
AA

BB
CC
UD
EE'
HH
 PP
 QQ-
 ss-
    (Demolitions and Renovations: (il 22! |
    (Insulating), and 61 2:'(|j[2| t>] 22lk|iJ|
    and hi 25 (all three of v\hu h relate lu
    waste disposal)]
C  Beryllium
D  Beryllium Rocket Motoi Firing
E  Merrurv
F  Vinyl Chloride
  EPA's determination that the
delegation request should be approved
is based upon the Agency's review of
the New York State Environmental
Conservation Law Article 19 (Air
Pollution Control) and Article 71. Title
21 (Enforcement of Title 19); and
rele\ ant portions of Title 6 Official
Compilation of Codes, Rules and
Regulations of the State of New York
("NYCRR"). in particular. Parts 200. 201.
202 and 212.
  EPA determined that such delegation
is. therefore, appropriate and so  notified
the Commissioner of DEC in a letter
dated July 14,1983. This letter identified
the conditions under which delegation
would be approved.  DEC subsequently
accepted delegation in a letter dated
August 10.1983. Copies of all
correspondence and EPA's delegation
letter are available for public inspection
in the Office of the Air Compliance
Branch, at the Environmental Protection
Agency. Region 11 Office, 26 Federal
Plaza, New York, New York 10278
  Effective immediately, all
correspondence, reports and
notifications required by the delegated
NSPS and NESHAPs should be
submitted to the appropriate regional
office of the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation or the
central office located at 50 Wolf Road.
Albany,  N.Y. 12233,  Attention: Division
of Air, Bureau of Source Control.
  The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this action from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
   This Notice is issued under the
authority of Sections 111 and 112 of the
Clean Air Act. as amended (42 U.S.C.
Sections 7411 and 7412).
   Dated: September 21, 1983
Jacqueline E. Schafer,
Regional Administrator
 IKRDoc fU-27b!il Filed 10-l.'-fl') 1145 ^ni|
 BILLING CODE 65CO-SO-M
 B
                                                        IV-166
-------
          Federal Register / Vol.  48, No. 237 / Thursday, December 8, 1983 /  Rules and Regulations
88
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
IA-7-FRL 2483-5]

Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS);
Delegation of Authority to the State of
Missouri
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Rule related notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces an
extension of a delegation of authority
that was initially issued to the State of
Missouri by the Environmental
Protection Agency on December 16,
1980, regarding the requirements of the
Federal Standards of Performance for
New Stationary Sources {NSPS), 40 CFR
Part 60, and the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS), 40 CFR Part 61. The
extension was requested by the State of
Missouri. The extension action added
two (2) NSPS source categories to the
delegation. The delegation of authority
now includes all delegable requirements
of the federal NSPS and NESHAPS
regulations as promulgated by the
agency through July 1,1982.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 8,1983.
ADDRESSES: All requests, reports.
applications, submittals and such othei
communications that are required to be
submitted under 40 CFR Part 60 or 40
CFR Part 61 (including the  notifications
required under Subpart A of the
regulations) for facilities in Missouri
affected by the revised delegation
should be sent to the Missouri
Department of Natural Resources,  P.O.
Box 176, Jefferson City. Missouri 65102.
A copy of all Subpart A related
notifications must also be sent to the
attention of the Director, Air and Waste
Management Division, U.S. EPA, Region
VII. 324 East llth Street. Kansas City.
Missouri 64106.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Charles W. Whitmore, Chief, Technical
Analysis Section, Air Branch. U.S. EPA.
Region VII, at the above address (816-
374-6525 or FTS-758-6525).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Sections
lll(c) and 112(d) of the  Clean Air Act,
respectively, allow the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency
(i.e., EPA or the agency) to delegate to
any state government the authority to
implement and enforce  the requirements
of the federal NSPS and NESHAPS
regulations. When a delegation is
issued, the agency retains concurrent
authority to implement and enforce the
requirements of said regulations. The
effect of a delegation is  to shift the
primary responsibility for implementing
and enforcing the standards for the
affected categories (and the affected
activities) from the agency to the state
government.
  On December 16,1980, the agency
delegated to the State of Missouri the
authority to implement  and enforce the
standards as promulgated by the agency
through December 1,1979 (see 46 FR
27392, May 19,1981). On November 6.
1981, and June 17,1982.  the agency
extended the initial delegation to
include all requirements of said
regulations as amended by the agency
through July 1,1980, and July 1,1981.
respectively (see 47 FR  36422, August 20,
1982).
  On September 20,1983, the State of
Missouri requested an extension of the
delegation to reflect an  updating of its
NSPS and NESHAPS rules. The State of
Missouri has revised 10 CSR 10-6.070
(NSPS-related) and 10 CSR 10-6.080
(NESHAPS-related) to incorporate by
reference the standards of 40 CFR Parts
60 and 61 as amended by the agency
through July 1,1982.
  In consideration of the information
contained in the above-mentioned letter,
the agency granted the  extension
request on October 7,1983.
  The latest action by the agency
extended the delegation to include the
following additional provisions:

NSPS

   Subpart KK—Lead Acid Battery
Manufacturing Plants;
   Subpart NN—Phosphate Rock Plants;
   Reference Method 12—Determination
of Inorganic Lead Emissions from
Stationary Sources; and.
  Revisions made to Subpart GG
 (Stationary Gas Turbines).

NESHAPS

  Reference Method 101A—
Determination of Particulate and
Gaseous Mercury Emissions from
Sewage Sludge Incinerators; and.
  Revisions  made to Subpart A (General
Provisions), Subpart E (National
Emission Standard for Mercury), and
Reference Methods 101 and 102 of
Appendix B.
  Effective immediately, all reports.
correspondence, and such other
submittals required under the NSPS or
NESHAPS regulations for sources
affected by the revised delegation
should be sent to the Missouri
Department  of Natural Resources at the
above address rather than the EPA
Region VII office, except as noted
below.
  A copy of each notification required
under 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart A. or
under 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart A. must
also be sent to the attention of the
Director, Air and Waste Management
Division. EPA, Region VII. 324 East llth
Street, Kansas City. Missouri 64106.
  Each document and letter mentioned
in this notice is available for public
inspection at the EPA regional office.
  This notice is issued under the
authority of Sections 111 and 112 of the
Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.
7411 and 7412).

  Dated- November 8,1983
Morris Kay,
Regional Administrator.
 |FR Doc 83-325" Filed 12-7-83 8 45 »m|
BILLING CODE 6S60-SO-M
                                                     IV-167
-------
              Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 233 / Friday, December 9, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
 NVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40CFRPart61
IAD-FRL 2453-7]

National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Revisions
and Additions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: Revisions to Methods 103 and
104 of Appendix B of 40 CFR Tart 01 are
being made to incorporald metric units
in data collection and calculations,  and
to provide consistency with other
methods in Part 61. Additions to § 61.18
are being made to incorporate by
reference the quality specifications  for
the reagent water required by Method
104, and for the filter media required by
Methods 103 and 104. This action
promulgates the revisions and additions.
DATES: Effective December 9,1983.
Under Section 307(b)(l) of the Clean Air
Act, judicial review of the revisions and
amendment is available only by the
filing of a petition for review in the  U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit within 60 days of
today's  publication of this rule. Under
Section  307(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act,
the requirements that are the subject of
today's  notice may not be challenged
later in  civil  or criminal proceedings
brought by EPA to enforce these
requirements.
  Incorporation by Reference, The
incorporation by reference of certain
publications in these standards is
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register as of December 9,1983.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Roger Shigehara, Emission Measurement
Branch, Emission Standards and
Engineering Division (MD-19), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone (919) 541-2237.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Revisions and Additions
  This rulemaking does not impose any
additional emission measurement
requirements on any facilities. Rather.
the rulemaking simply provides for  the
use of the metric system and simplified
 instructions in test methods associated
 with emission measurement
 requirements that would apply
 irrespective of this rulemaking.
 Therefore, additional notice and
 comment are "unnecessary," and the
 Agency has "good cause," under 42
 U.S.C. 7607(d)(l) and 5 U.S.C. 553(b),
 subparagraph (B), to promulgate these
 revisions and additions without further
 notice and comment.
 Public Participation
   Public comments were not sought
 because of the noncontroversial nature
 of the revisions  and additions.
 Miscellaneous
   Under Executive Order 12291, EPA
 must judge whether a regulation is
 "major" and, therefore, subject to the
 requirement of a regulatory impact
 analysis. The regulation is not major
 because it will not have an annual effect
 on the economy of $100 million or more;
 it will not result in a major increase in
 costs or prices; and there will be no
. significant adverse effects on
 completion, employment, investment,
 productivity, innovation, or on the
 ability of U.S.-based enterprises to
 compete with foreign-based enterprises
 in domestic or export markets.
   This regulation was submitted to the
 Office of Management and Budget
 (OMB)  for review as required by
 Executive Order 12291.
   This rule does not contain any
 information collection requirements
 subject to OMB review under the
 Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 U.S.C.
 3501 et seq.
   Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
 605(b). I hereby certify that the attached
 rule will not have any economic impact
 on a substantial number of small
 entities, because the revisions do not
 impose any additional test cost.
   This rulemaking is issued under the
 authority of sections 112,114, and 301(a)
 of the Clean Air Act, amended (42 U.S.C.
 7412, 7414, and 7601(a)).
 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, Incorporation
by Reference, Can surface  coating,
Sulfuric acid plants. Industrial organic
chemicals, Organic solvent cleaners,
Fossil-Fuel-Fired Steam generators.
  Dated: December 5, 1983.
William D. Ruckelshaus,
Administrator.

PART 61—[AMENDED]

  40 CFR Part 61 is amended as follows:
  1. In § 61.18, paragraph (a) is amended
by revising paragraph (a)(2) and by
adding a new paragraph (a)(3) as
follows:

$61.18  Incorporation* by reference.
*****
  (a) *  * *
  (2) ASTM D 1193-77, Standard
Specification for Reagent Water, IBR
approved for Method 101, par. 6.1.1;
Method 101A, par. 6.1.1;  Method 104,
par.  3.1.2.
  (3) ASTM D 2986-71 (Reapproved
1978), Standard Method  for Evaluation
of Air, Assay Media by the
Monodisperse DOP (Dioctyl Phthalate)
Smoke Test, IBR approved for Method
103,  par. 2.1.3; Method 104, par. 3.1.1.
*****
  2.  By revising Test Methods 103 and
104 of Appendix B to read  as follows-
Appendix B—Test Methods
Method 103—Beryllium Screening Method
  1. Applicability and Principle.
  1.1  Applicability. This procedure details
guidelines and requirements for methods
acceptable for use in determining beryllium
(Be) emissions in ducts or stacks at
stationary sources as specified under the
provisions of { 61.14 of the regulations.
  1.2  Principle. Be emissions are
isokinetically sampled from three points in a
duct or stack. The collected sample is
analyzed for Be using an appropriate
technique.
  2. Apparatus.
  2.1  Sampling Train. A schematic of the
required sampling train configuration is
shown in Figure 103-1. The essential
components of the train are the following:
                                                      IV-168
-------
   NOZZLE
                     PROBE
                                      METER-PUMP
                                         SYSTEM
Figure 103-1.   Beryllium screening method; sample train schematic.
Federal  Register / Vol. 48.  No.  238  / Friday, December  9.  1983 / Rules  and Regulations


                                                                              4.1.2  Alternate Sampling Site. Some
                                                                            sampling situations may render the above
                                                                            sampling site criteria impractical. In such
                                                                            cases, select an alternate site no less than
                                                                            two diameters downstream and one-half
                                                                            diameter upstream from any point of flow
                                                                            disturbance. Additional sample runs are
                                                                            recommended at any sample site not meeting
                                                                            the criteria of Section 4.1.1.
                                                                              4.1.3  Number of Sample Runs Per Test.
                                                                            Three sample runs constitute a test. Conduct
                                                                            each run at one of three different points.
                                                                            Select three points that proportionately
                                                                            divide the diameter, or are located at 25, SO,
                                                                            and 75 percent of the diameter from the
                                                                            inside wall. For horizontal ducts, sample on a
                                                                            vertical line through the centrold. For
                                                                            rectangular ducts, sample on a line through
                                                                            the centroid and parallel to a side. If
                                                                            additional sample runs are performed per
                                                                            Section 4.1.2, proportionately divide the duct
                                                                            to accommodate the total number of runs.
                                                                              4.2 Measurement of Stack Conditions.
                                                                            Using the equipment described in Section 2.2.
                                                                            measure the stack gas pressure, moisture, and
                                                                            temperature to determine the molecular
                                                                            weight of the stack gas. Sound engineering
                                                                            estimates  may be made in lieu of direct
                                                                            measurements. Describe the basis for such
                                                                            estimates  in the test report.
                                                                              4.3  Preparation of Sampling Train.
                                                                            Assemble the sampling train as shown in
                                                                            Figure 103-1. It is recommended that all
                                                                            glassware be precleaned by soaking in wash
                                                                            acid for 2 hours.
                                                                              Leak  check the sampling train at the
                                                                            sampling site. The leakage rate should not be
                                                                            in excess of 1 percent of the desired sample
                                                                            rate.
                                                                              4.4  Beryllium Train Operation. For each
                                                                            run, measure the velocity at the selected
                                                                            sampling point. Determine the isokinetic
                                                                            sampling rate. Record the velocity head and
                                                                            the required sampling rate. Place the nozzle
                                                                            at the sampling point  with the tip pointing
                                                                            directly into the gas stream. Immediately
                                                                            start the pump and adjust the flow to
                                                                             isokinetic conditions. At the conclusion of the
                                                                             test, record the sampling rate. Again measure
                                                                             the velocity head at the sampling point. The
                                                                             required isokinetic rate at the end of the
                                                                             period  should not have deviated more than 20
                                                                             percent from that originally calculated.
                                                                             Describe the reason for any deviation beyond
                                                                             20 percent in the test  report.
                                                                               Sample at a minimum rate of 14 1pm (0.5
                                                                             cfm). Obtain samples over such a period or
                                                                             periods of time as are necessary to determine
                                                                             the  maximum emissions which would occur
                                                                             in a 24-hour period. In the case of cyclic
                                                                             operations, perform sufficient sample runs so
                                                                             as to allow determination or calculation of
                                                                             the  emissions that occur over the duration of
                                                                             the cycle. A minimum sampling time of 2
                                                                             hours per run is recommended.
                                                                               4.5  Sample Recovery. It is recommended
                                                                             that all glassware be precleaned as in Section
                                                                             4.3. Sample recovery should also be
                                                                             performed in an area free of possible Be
                                                                             contamination. When the sampling train is
                                                                             moved, exercise care to prevent breakage
                                                                             and contamination. Set aside a portion of the
                                                                             acetone used in the sample recovery as a
                                                                             blank for analysis. The total amount of
  2.1.1  Nozzle. Stainless steel, or
equivalent, with sharp, tapered leading edge.
  2.1.2  Probe. Sheathed borosilicate or
quartz glass tubing.
  2.1.3  Filter. Millipore AA (Note: Mention
of trade names or specific products does not
constitute endorsement by the Environmental
Protection Agency), or equivalent, with
appropriate filter holder that provides a
positive seal against leakage from outside or
around the filter. It is suggested that a
Whatman 41, or equivalent, be placed
immediately against the back side of the
Millipore filter as a guard against breakage of
the Millipore. Include the backup filter in the
analysis. To be equivalent, other filters shall
exhibit at least 99.95 percent efficiency (0.05
percent penetration) on 0.3 micron dioctyl
phthalate smoke particles, and be amenable
to the Be analysis procedure. The filter
efficiency tests shall be conducted in
accordance with American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard
Method D 2986-71 (reapproved 1978)
(incorporated by reference—see { 61.18). Test
data from the supplier's quality control
program are sufficient for this purpose.
  2.1.4  Meter-Pump System. Any system
that will maintain isokinetic sampling rate.
determine sample volume, and is capable of a
sampling rate of greater than 14  1 pm (0.5
cfm).
  2.2  Measurement of Stack Conditions.
The following equipment is used to measure
stack conditions:
  2.2.1  Pilot Tube. Type S, or equivalent,
with a coefficient within 5 percent over the
working range.
  2.2.2  Inclined Manometer, or Equivalent.
To measure velocity head to within 10
percent of the minimum value.
  2.2.3  Temperature Measuring Device. To
measure stack temperature to within 1.5    <"'
percent of the minimum absolute stack
temperature.
  2.2.4  Pressure Measuring Device. To
measure stack pressure to within 2.5 mm Hg
(0.1 in. Hg).
  2.2.5  Barometer. To measure atmospheric
pressure to within 2.5 mm Hg (0.1 in. Hg).
  2.2.6  Wet and Dry Bulb Thermometers.
Drying Tubes, Condensers, or Equivalent. To
determine stack gas moisture content to
within 1 percent.
  2.3  Sample Recovery.
                                        2.3.1  Probe Cleaning Equipment. Probe
                                      brush or cleaning rod at least as long as
                                      probe, or equivalent. Clean cotton balls, or
                                      equivalent, should be used with the rod.
                                        2.3.2  Leakless Glass Sample Bottles. To
                                      contain sample.
                                        2.4   Analysis. Use equipment necessary to
                                      perform an atomic absorption,
                                      spectrographic, fluorometric,
                                      chromatographic, or equivalent analysis.
                                        3. Reagents.
                                        3.1   Sample Recovery.
                                        3.1.1  Water. Distilled water.
                                        3.1.2  Acetone. Reagent grade.
                                        3.1.3  Wash Acid. 50 Percent (V/V)
                                      Hydrochloric Acid (HC1).
                                        Mix equal volumes of concentrated HC1
                                      and water, being careful to add the acid
                                      slowly to the water.
                                        3.2   Analysis. Reagents'as necessary for
                                      the selected analytical procedure.
                                        4. Procedure. Guidelines for source testing
                                      are detailed in the following sections. These
                                      guidelines are generally applicable; however,
                                      most sample sites differ to some degree and
                                      temporary alterations such as stack
                                      extensions or expansions often are required
                                      to insure the best possible sample  site.
                                      Further, since Be is hazardous, care should be
                                      taken to minimize exposure. Finally, since the
                                      total quantity of Be to be collected is quite
                                      small, the test must be carefully conducted to
                                      prevent contamination or loss of sample.
                                        4.1   Selection of a Sampling Site and
                                      Number of Sample Runs. Select a suitable
                                      sample site that is as close as practicable to
                                      the point of atmospheric emission. If possible,
                                      stacks smaller than 1 foot in diameter should
                                      not be sampled.
                                        4.1.1   Ideal Sampling Site. The ideal
                                      sampling site is at least eight stack or duct
                                      diameters downstream and two diameters
                                      upstream from any flow disturbance such as
                                      a bend, expansion or contraction.  For
                                      rectangular cross sections, use Equation 103-
                                      1 to determine an equivalent diameter, Dr
                                      Eq. 103-1

                                                            ZLW
                                                           L+W
                                       Where:
                                       L= length
                                       W = width
                                                      IV-169
-------
             Federal  Register /  Vol. 48,  No. 238 / Friday,  December 9,  1983  / Rules  and Regulations
acetone used should be measured for
accurate blank correction. Blanks can be
eliminated if prior analysis shows negligible
amounts.
  Remove the filter (and backup filter, if
used) and any loose particulate matter from
filter holder, and place in a container.
  Clean the probe with acetone and a brush
or long rod and cotton balls. Wash into the
container with the filter. Wash out the filter
holder with acetone, and add to the same
container.
  4.6  Analysts. Make the necessary
preparation of samples and analyze for Be.
Any currently acceptable method such as
atomic absorption, spectrographic,
fluorcmetric, chromatographic, or equivalent
may be  used.
  5. Calibration and Standards.
  5.1  Sampling Train. As a procedural
check, compare the sampling rate regulation
with a dry gas meter, spirometer, rotameter
(calibrated for prevailing atmospheric
conditions), or equivalent, attached to the
nozzle inlet of the complete sampling train.
  5.2   Analysis. Perform the analysis
standardization as suggested by the
manufacturer of the instrument, or the
proceduies for  the analytical method in use.
  6. Calculations.
   Calculate the Be emission rate R in g/day
for each stack using Equation 103-2, For
cyclic operations, use only the time per day
each  stack is in operation. The total Be
emission rate from a source is the summation
of results from  all stacks.
Eq. 103-2

            W,'.(avg)  A. (86.400X10-1
 Where:
 W,=Total weight of Be collected, fig.
 v»(avg) = Average stack gas velocity, m/sec
     (ft/sec).
 A,(avg) = Stack area, mVt1).
 86.400=Conversion factor, sec/day.
 10"*= Conversion factor, g/ng.
 V,OU| = Total volume of gas sampled, m^u*).
   7. Test Report.
   Prepare a test report that includes as a
 minimum: A detailed description of the
 sampling train used, results of the procedural
 check described in Section 5.1 with all data
 and calculations made, all pertinent data
 taken during the test, the basis for any
 estimates  made, isokinetic sampling
 calculations, and emission results. Include a
 description of the test site, with a block
 diagram and brief description of the process,
 location of the sample points in the stack
 cross section, and stack dimensions and
 distances  from any point of disturbance.

 Method 104—Reference Method for
 Determination of Beryllium Emissions From
 Stationary Sources
   1. Applicability and Principle.
   1.1  Applicability. This method is
 applicable for the determination of beryllium
 (Be] emissions in ducts or stacks at
 stationary sources. Unless otherwise
 specified, this method Is not intended to
 apply to gas streams other than those emitted
directly to the atmosphere without further
processing.
  1.2   Principle. Be emissions are
isokinetically sampled from the source, and
the collected sample is digested in an acid
tolution and analyzed by atomic absorption
spectrophotometry.
  2. Apparatus.
  2.1   Sampling Train. The sampling train  is
identical to the Method 5 train  as shown in
Figure 5-1 (mention of Method  5 refers to 40
CFR Part 60). The sampling train consists of
the following components:
  2.1.1  Probe Nozzle, Pitot Tube,
Differential Pressure Gauge, Metering
System, Barometer, and  Gas Density
Determination Equipment. Same as Method 5,
Seciions 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 2.1.4, 2.1.8. 2.1.9, and
2.1.10, respectively.
  2.1.2 Probe Liner. Borosilicate or quartz
glass  tubing. The tester may use a heating
system capable of maintaining a gas
temperature of 120±14'C (248±25"F) at the
probe exit during sampling to prevent water
condensation. Note: Do  not use metal probe
liners.
  2.1.3 Filter Holder. Borosilicate glass, with
a glass frit filler support and a  silicone rubber
gasket. Other materials  of construction (e.g.,
stainless steel, Teflon. Viton) may be used.
subject to the approval of the Administrator.
(Note: Mention of trade  names of specific
products does not constitute endorsement  by
the Environmental Protection Agency.) The
bolder design shall provide a positive seal
against leakage from the outside or around
the filter. The holder shall be attached
immediately at the outlet of the probe. A
heating system capable of maintaining the
filter at a minimum temperature in the range
of the stack temperature may be used to
prevent condensation from occurring.
  2.1.4  Impingers. Four Greenburg-Smith
impingers connnected in series with leak-free
ground glass fittings or  any similar leak-free
noncontaminating fittings. For the first, third,
and fourth impingers, the tester may use
impingers that are modified by replacing the
tip with  a 13-mm-ID (0.5-in.) glass tube
extending to 13 mm (0.5 in.) from the bottom
of the flask.
   2.2 Sample Recovery. The  following items
are needed:
   2.2.1  Probe Cleaning Rod. At least as long
 as probe.
   2.2.2  Glass Sample Bottles. Leakless, with
Teflon-lined caps, 500-ml.
   2.2.3  Graduated Cylinder. 250-ml.
   2.2.4  Funnel and Rubber Policeman. To
 aid in transfer of silica  gel to container; not
 necessary if silica gel is weighed in the field.
   2.2.5  Funnel. Glass, to aid  in sample
 recovery.
   2.2.6  Plastic far. Approximately 300-ml.
   2.3 Analysis. The following equipment is
 needed:
   2.3.1  Atomic Absorption
 Spectrophotometer. Perkin-Elmer 303, or
 equivalent, with nitrous oxide/acetylene
 burner.
   2.3.2  Hot Plate.
   2.3.3  Perchloric Acid Fume Hood.
   3.  Reagents.
   Use ACS reagent-grade chemicals or
 equivalent, unless otherwise specified.
   3.1  Sampling and Recovery. The reagents
 used in sampling and recovery are as follows:
  3.1.1  Filter. Millipore AA, or equivalent. It
is suggested that a Whatman 41 filter ot
equivalent be placed immediately against the
back side of the Millipore filter as a guard
against breaking the Millipore filter. To be
equivalent, other filters shall exhibit at least
99.95 percent efficiency (0.05 percent
penetration) on 0.3 micron dioctyl phthalate
smoke particles. The filter efficiency teets
shall be conducted in accordance with ASTM
Standard Method D 2986-71 (reapproved
1978)  (incorporated by reference—see
{ 61.18). Test data from the supplier's quality
cop.'uol program are sufficient for this
purpose.
  3.1.2  Water. Deionized distilled, meeting
ASTM Specifications for Type 3 Reagent
Water—ASTM Test Method D 1193-77
(incorporated by reference—see  § 61.18). If
high concentrations of organic matter are not
expected to be present, the analyst may
eliminate the KMnO« test for oxidizab'e
organic matter.
  3.1.3  Silica Gel. Indicating type, 6-  to 16-
mesh. If previously used, dry at 175° C
(350'  F) for 2  hours. The tester may use new
silica gel as received.
  3.1.4  Acetone.
  3.1.5  Wash Acid, 50 Percent (V/V)
Hydrochloric Acid (HC1).
  Mix equal volumes of concentrated  HC1
and water, being careful to add the acid
slowly to the water.
  3.2  Sample Preparation and Analysis. The
reagents needed are listed below:
  3.2.1  Water. Same as Section 3.1.2.
  3.2.2.  Perchloric Acid (HCIO*).
Concentrated (70 percent).
  3.2.3  Nitric Acid (HNCs). Concentrated.
  3.2.4  Beryllium Powder. Minimum purity
98 percent.
  3.2.5  Sulfuric Acid (HiSCM Solution, 12 N.
 Dilute 33 ml of concentrated HzSO* to 1 liter
 with  water.
   3.2.6  Hydrochloric Acid Solution, 25
 percent HO  (V/V).
   3.2.7  Standard Beryllium Solution, 1  fig
 Be/ml. Dissolve 10 mg of Be in 80 ml of
 lENHaSO. solution, and dilute to 1000 ml with
 water. Dilute a 10-ml aliquot to 100 ml with 25
 percent HC1 solution to give a concentration
 of 1 fig/ml. Prepare this dilute stock solution
 fresh daily. Equivalent strength  Be stock
 solutions may be prepared from Be salts such
 as BeCli and Be(NOj}2 (98 percent minimum
 purity).
   4. Procedure.
   4.1  Sampling. Because of the complexity
 of this method testers should be trained and
 experienced with the test procedures to
 assure reliable results. As Be is hazardous,
 testers should take precautions to minimize
 exposure. The amount of Be that is collected
 is generally  small, therefore, it is necessary to
 exercise particular care to prevent
 contamination or loss of sample.
   4.1.1  Pretest Preparation. Follow the
 general procedure given in Method 5. Section
 4.1.1. Omit the directions of filters, except
 check them  visually against light for
 irregularities and flaws such as pinholes.
    4.1.2 Preliminary Determinations. Follow
 the general procedure given in Method 5,
 Section 4.1.2, except as follows: Select a
 nozzle size based on the range  of velocity
                                                            IV-170
-------
             Federal Register  / Vol. 48. No. 238 /  Friday. December 9. 1983  / Rules  and Regulations
heads to assure that it is not necessary to
change the nozzle size in order to maintain
isokinetic sampling rates below 28 liters/min
(1.0 cfm).
  Obtain samples over a period or periods of
time that accurately determine the maximum
emissions that occur in a 24-hour period. In
the case of cyclic operations, perform
sufficient sample runs for the accurate
determination of the emissions that occur
over the duration of the cycle. A minimum
sample time of 2 hours per run is
recommended.
  4.1.3  Prior to assembly, clean all
glassware (probe, impingers. and  connectors)
by first soaking in wash acid for 2 hours,
followed by rinsing with water. Place 100 ml
of water in each of the first two impingers.
and leave the third impinger empty. Save a
portion of the .water for a blank analysis.
Place approximately 200 g of preweighted
silica gel in the fourth impinger. The tester
may use more silica gel, but should be careful
to ensure that it is not entrained and carried
out from the impinger during sampling. Place
the silica gel container in a clean  place for
later use in the sample recover)'. As an
alternative, determine and record the weight
of the silica gel plus impinger to the nearest
0.5 g.
  Install the selected nozzel using a Viton A
O-ring when stack temperatures are less the
260°C (500°F). Use a fiberglass string gasket if
temperatures are higher. See APTD-0576
(Citation 9 in Section 10 of Method 101) for
details. Other connecting systems using
either 316 stainless steel or Teflon ferrules
may be used.
  If condensation in the probe or filter is a
problem, probe and  filter heaters  will be
required. Adjust the heaters to provide a
temperature at or above the stack
temperature. However, membrane filters such
as the Millipore AA are limited to about
225'F. If the stack gas is in excess of about
200°F, consideration should be given to an
alternate procedure such  as moving the filter
holder downstream  of the first impinger to
insure that the filter does not exceed its
temperature limit. Mark the probe with heat-
resistant tape or by  some other method to
denote the proper distance into the stack or
duct for each sampling point. Assemble the
train as shown in Figure 5-1 of Method 5.
using (if necessary)  a very light coat  of
silicone grease on all ground glass joints.
Crease only the outer portion (see APTD-
0576) to avoid possibility of contamination by
the silicon grease. Note: An empty impinger
may be inserted between the third impinger
and the silica gel to  remove excess moisture
from the sample stream.
  After the sampling train has been
assembled, turn on and set the probe, if
applicable, at the desired operating
temperature. Allow  time for the temperatures
to stabilize. Place crushed ice around the
impingers.
  4.1.4.   Leak-Check Procedures. Follow the
leak-check procedures outlined in Method 5,
Sections 4.1.4.1 (Pretest Leak Check), 4.1.4.2
(Leak Checks During Sample Run), and 4.1.4.3
(Post-Test Leak Check).
  4.1.5  Beryllium Train Operation. Follow
the general procedure given rn Method 5,
Section 4.1.5. For each run, record the data
required on a data sheet such as the one
shown in Figure 5-2 of Method 5.
  4.1.6  Calculation of Percent Isokinetic.
Same as Method 5, Section 4.1.6.
  4.2  Sample Recovery. Begin proper
cleanup procedure  as soon as the probe is
removed from the stack at the end of the
sampling period.
  Allow the probe  to cool. When it can be
safely handled, wipe off any external
particulate matter near the tip of the probe
nozzle, and place a cap over it. Do not cap off
the probe tip tightly while the sampling train
is cooling. Capping would create a vacuum
and draw liquid out from the impingers.
  Before moving the sampling train to the
cleanup site, remove the probe from the train.
wipe off the silicone grease, and cap the open
outlet of the probe. Be careful not to lose any
condensate 'hat might be present. Wipe off
the silicone grease  from the impinger. Use
either ground-glass stoppers, plastic caps, or
serum caps to close these openings.
  Transfer the probe and impinger assembly
to a cleanup area that is clean, protected
from the wind, and free of Be contamination
  Inspect the train  before and during this
assembly, and note any abnormal conditions.
Treat the sample as follows:
  Disconnect the probe from the impinger
train. Remove the filter and any  loose
particulate matter from the filter holder, and
place in a sample bottle. Place the contents
(measured to ±1 ml) of the first  three
impingers into another sample bottle. Rinse
the probe and all glassware between it and
the back half of the third impinger with water
and acetone, and add this to the latter sample
bottle. Clean the probe with a brush or a long
slender rod and cotton balls. Use acetone
while cleaning. Add these to the sample
bottle. Retain a sample of the water and
acetone as a blank. The total amount of
water and acetone used should be measured
for accurate blank  correction. Place the silica
gel in (he plastic jar. Seal and secure all
sample containers  for shipment. If an
additional test is desired, the glassware can
be carefully double rinsed with water and
reassembled. However, if the glassware is
out of use more than 2 days, repeat  the initial
acid wash procedure.
  4.3  Analysis.
  4.3.1  Apparatus Preparation. Before use.
clean all glassware according to the
procedure of Section 4.1.3. Adjust the
instrument settings according to the
instrument manual, using an absorption
wavelength of 234.B nm.
  4.3.2  Sample Preparation. The digestion of
Be samples is accomplished in part in
concentrated HC1O«. Caution: The analyst
must insure that the sample is heated to light
brown fumes after the initial HNO, addition;
otherwise, dangerous perchlorates may result
from the subsequent HC1O. digestion. HC1O.
should be used only under a hood.
  4.3.2.1   Filter Preparation. Transfer the
filter and any loose particulate matter from
the sample container to a 150-ml beaker. Add
35 ml concentrated HNO,. Heat  on a hotplate
until light brown fumes are evident to destroy
all organic matter.  Cool to room temperature.
and add 5 ml concentrated H,SO, and 5 ml
concentrated HC1O4. Then proceed with step
4.3.2.4.
  4.3.2.2  Water Preparation. Place a portion
of the water and acetone sample into a 150-
ml beaker, and put on a hotplate. Add
portions of the remainder as evaporation
proceeds and evaporate to dryness. Cool the
residue, and add 35 ml concentrated HNO,.
Heat on a hotplate until light brown fumes
are evident to destroy any  organic matter.
Cool to room  temperature,  and add 5 ml
concentrated  H,SO. and 5 ml concentrated
HCIO,. Then proceed with  step 4.3.2.4.
  4.3.2.3  Silica Gel Preparation Analyses.
Weigh the spent silica gel,  and report to the
nearest gram.
  4.3.2.4  Final Sample Preparation. Samples
from 4.3.2.1 and 4.3.2.2 may be combined here
for ease of analysis. Replace on a hotplate.
and evaporate to dryness in a HC1O4 hood.
Cool and dissolve the residue in 10.0 ml of 25
percent V/V HO. Samples are now ready for
the atomic absorption unit. It is necessary for
the Be concentration of the sample to be
within the calibration range of the unit. If
necessary, perform further dilution of sample
with 25 percent V/V HC1 to bring the sample
within the calibration range.
  4.3.3  Beryllium Determination. Analyze
the samples prepared in 4.3.2 at 234.8 nm
using a nitrous oxide/acetylene flame.
Aluminum, silicon and other elements  can
interfere with this method  if present in large
quantities. Standard methods are available,
however, that may be used to effectively
eliminate these interferences (see Citation 2
in Section B).
  5. Calibration.
  5.1   Sampling Train. Calibrate the
sampling train components according to the
procedures outlined in the following sections
of Method 5:  Section 5.1 (Probe Nozzle).
Section 5.2 (Pilot Tube), Section 5.3 (Metering
System), Section 5.4 (Probe Heater), Section
5.5 (Temperature Gauges), Section 5.7
(Barometer).  Note that the leak check
described in Section 5.6 of Method 5 applies
to this method.
  6. Calculations.
  6.1  Dry Gas Volume. Using the data from
each  sample  run. calculate the dry gas
sample volume at standard conditions V „<,„,>
(corrected for leakage, if necessary) as
outlined in Section 6.3 of Method 5.
  6.2  Volume of Water Vapor In Sample
and Moisture Content of Stack Gas. Using the
data obtained from each sample run,
calculate the volume of water vapor V.K(U> 'n
the sample, and the moisture content Bw> of
the stack gas. Use Equations 5-2 and 5-3 of
Method 5.
  6.3 Stack Gas Velocity. Using the data from
each sample  run and Equation 2-9 of Method
2. calculate the average stack gas velocity
V.Uv,)-
  6.4  Beryllium Emission Rate. Calculate
the Be emission rate R in g/day for each
stack using Equation 104-1. For cyclic
operations, use only the time per day each
stack is in operation. The  total Be emission
rate from a source will be the summation of
results from all stacks.
                                                          IV-171
-------
	Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 238 / Friday, December  9.  1983  / Rules and Regulations	


Eq. 104-1                                   P. = Absolute stack gas pressure, mm Hg (in.      In addition to Citations 1-3 and 5-15 of
                                               Hg).                                    Section 10 of Method 101, the following
                                           K=0.3858'K/mm Hg for metric units.           citations may be helpful:
      R = K   W'Vl<-'  A.!86400^""!            = 17.64'P/in.Hg for English units.             1. Amos, M.D., and J. B. Willis. Use of High-
              [V.W + V.ta,,)(T./PJ              6.5 Isokinetic Variation and Acceptable      Temperature Pre-Mixed Flames in Atomic
                                           Results. Same as Method 5. Sections 6.11 and    Absorption Spectroscopy. Spectrochim. Acta.
,.,.                                        6.12, respectively                             22:1325.1966.
w   T1,,   -K,  f«.n,H                7. DeLminaL of Compliance.**,*         2^18., KJ. Liberty, and TS. West. A
W, = Total we,ght of Be collected ^          performance test consists of three sample       Study of Some Matrix Effects m the
A. = Stack cross-sectional area, M2 (ft2).        rung of the applicable test method For the       Determination of Beryllium by Atomic
86,400=Conver8ion factor, sec/day.            purpose of determining compliance with an      Abiorptten Spectroscopy in the Nitrous
10-« = Conversion factor. g/M.                applicable national emission standard, use      Oxide-Acetylene Flame. Talanta 77:203.1970.
T, = Absolute average stack gas temperature,    the average of the results of all sample runs.
    •K CP)                                   8. Bibliography.
                                                         IV-172
-------
            Federal Register  /  Vol. 49.  No. 26 / Tuesday.  February  7,  1984 / Rules  and  Regulations
 90
 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
 AGENCY

 40 CFR Part 61
 IA-6-FRL 2521-1]

 Delegation of Authority to the State of
 Louisiana for National Emission
 Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants
 (NESHAP)

 AGENCY: Environmental Protection
 Agency [EPA).
 ACTION: Authority delegations.

 SUMMARY: EPA, Region 6, has delegated
 the authority for implementation and
 enforcement of the NESHAP program to
 the Louisiana Department of Natural
 Resources (LDNR). Except as
 specifically limited, all of the authority,
 and responsibilities of the Administrator
 or the Regional Administrator which are
 found in 40 CFR Part 61 are delegated to
 the LDNR. Any of such authority and
 responsibilities may be redelegated by
 the Department to its Program
 Administrator or staff.
 EFFECTIVE DATE: October 14,  1983
 fOtt FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
 Donna M. Ascenzi, Air Branch.
 Environmental Protection Agency.
 Region 6, InterFirst Two Building. 28th
 ! ioor, 1201 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas
 75270; (214) 767-1594 or (FTS) 729-1594
 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
 LDNR has requested delegation of
 authority to implement and enforce
 XESHAP. After review of the Louisiana
 Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
 Pollutants (LESHAP). delegation of
 authority was granted October 14,1903.
 The following represents the terms and
 conditions of the delegation:
  1. Implementation and enforcement of
 the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants in the State of
Louisiana will  be the primary
 responsibility of the LDNR. If the State
of Louisiana or the LDNR determines
 that such implementation or
 •nforcement is not possible or feasible.
ei'lier with respect to an individual
source, a class of sources, or generally
 the LDNR shall within 30 days notify
 EPA Region 6. of such impossibility or
 infectsibility so that EPA may timely
 exercise its concurrent authority with
 respect to sources within the State: of
 Louisiana
   2. The LDNR is authorized to assume
 NESHAP partial delegation
 responsibility for future standards, and
 requirements without making a written
 request to EPA, subject to the delegation
 conditions and terms as set forth in this
 agreement. Partial delegation
 responsibilities include the technical
 and administrative review. Technical
 and administrative duties shall include.
 but not be limited to, determination of
 applicability, review and evaluation of
 NESHAP applications, review and
 evaluation of request for waivers of
 compliance under 40 CFR 61.11 and/or
 waivers of emission tests under 40 CFR
 61.13, performance and evaluation of
 inspections, and observance and
 evaluation of stack tests and continuous
 emission monitoring tests.
   3. Acceptance of this delegation
 constitutes agreement by the LDNR to
 follow all interpretations, past and
 future, made by EPA of 40 CFR Part 61
 including determinations of
 applicability. The LDNR agrees to
 consult with the EPA Region 6 on
 questions of interpretations of the
 NESHAP. A copy of each interpretation
 (including compliance determinations)
 made by the LDNR shall be sent to EPA
 Region 6.
  4. The State of Louisiana and the
 LDNR are not authorized to grant any
 exemption, variance, or waiver from
 compliance with any provision of 40
 CFR Part 61 except for the waiver of
 emission tests authorized in 40 CFR
 61.13 and the waiver of compliance
 authorized in 40 CFR 61.11. A copy of
 any waiver of emission tests under 40
 CFR 61.13, or of any waiver of
 compliance under 40 CFR 61.11 shall be
 sent to EPA Region 6. Should the State
 of Louisiana or the LDNR grant any
 other exemption, variance or waiver to
 any source or category of sources
 pursuant to any sthte law, regulations.
 or practice which is contrary to the
 provisions of 40 CFR 61, then LDNR
 shall immediately notify EPA Region 6,
 of the granting of such an exemption,
 variance or waiver from the compliance
 with Federal requirements. EPA may
 consider any source receiving such relief
 to be violating or threatening to violate
 the applicable federal regulation and
may initiate enforcement action against
 the source pursuant to Section 113 of the
Clean Air Act. The granting of any
exemption, variance,  or waiver by the
State of Louisiana or the LDNR shall
also constitute grounds for revocation of
delegation b\ EPA. in whole or in [urt
at the discretion of the Regional
Administrator of EPA Region 6
  5. The LDNR shall utilize methods rimi
means of determining compliance at
least as stringent as those specified in 40
CFR Part 61  All  performance tests ;.re
to be conducted  at nonmi! maximum
production All requests from sources
for equivalent or alternate methods sh.i'1
be forwarded to  EPA Region 6. with 01
\vsthou'. a  recommendation  Authority .s
delegated to approve minor
modifications to the reference test
me!hods during either a pre-test meelu.g
or the actual sampling period. These
minor modifications would have to
produce results essentially identical to
the reference method results. Approval
of these minor modifications should be
based on .sound engineering judgement
Under no circumstances are
modifications to  be used which mighi
result in the non-uniform application of
the standards.
  6. If at any time there is a conflict
between any State regulatiop and anj
provision of 40 CFR Part 61, the federal
regulation must be applied to the extent
that it is more stringent than that of the
State. If the State of Louisiana or the
LDNR does not have the authority to
enforce the more stringent federal
regulation, the LDNR shall immediate!;*,
notify EPA. Region 6 pursuant to
Provision 1 above. The delegation ma\
be revoked by EPA,  Region 6. in whole
or in part, in the  event any such conflict
makes implementation or enforcement
of the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants
administratively  impractical.
  7. If a claim of confidentiality or am
oiher reason should  ever legally prevent
the State of Louisiana and the LDNR
from providing to EPA any and all
information required by or pertaining to
the implementation of NESHAP. thf-
LDXR shall, upon request, assist EPA
Region 6 in obtaining that information
directiy from the source. As a minimum.
such assistance shall consist of
providing to EPA an identification of the
nature of the information withheld,
adequate to allow EPA to identify to the
source the information.
  8. All matters in process at the time of
delegation of authority may be
processed  through to completion by EPA
Region 6, or may, at the request of the
LDNR and at the discretion of EPA
Region 6, be transferred to the LDNR for
completion. Appropriate reproduction of
pertinent file material in the EPA Region
6 files in relation to source regulation
under NESHAP shall be provided
through  mutual cooperation of the st;tr:s
of the respective  offices.
                                                   IV-173
-------
            Federal  Register  / Yol  49, No  26 / Tuesday.  February  7.  19;*4 /  Rules and Regulations
  The Office of Management Hnd Badge!
has exempted this information notice
from the requirements of Section 3 of
Executive Order 12291.
  Effective immediately, all information
pursuant to 40 CFR Part 61 by the
sources locating in the State of
Louisiana should be submitted directly
to the State agency at the following
address Louisiana Department ot
Natural Resources, Air Quality Division.
PO Box 44000 Baton Rou(
LD.\R on August 30. 1
-------
                  Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 67 / Thursday. April 5. 19B4 / Rules dnO
91
   ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
   AGENCY

   40 CFR Part 61
   IAD-FRL2S15-8J

   National Emission Standards tor
   Hazardous Air Pollutants;
   Amendments to Asbestos Standard
   AGENCY: Environmental Protection
   Agency (EPA)
   ACTION: Final rule.
   SUMMARY: Amendments to the national
   emission standard for asbestos were
   proposed in the Federal Register on July
   13,1983 (48 FR 32126). This action
   promulgates the amendments under
   Section 112 of the Clean Air Act as
   amended in 1977. The intended effect of
   the amendments is to reinstate woik
   practice and equipment provisions of the
   standard that were held not to be
   emission standards by the U.S. Supreme
   Court in 1978. They also reword and
   rearrange the standard for clarity.
   EFFECTIVE DATE: April 5, 1984. Under
   Section 307(b)(l) of the Clean Air Act.
   judicial review of these amendments is
   available only by the filing of a petition
   for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals
   for the District of Columbia Circuit
   within 60 days of today's publication of
   this rule. Under Section 307(b)(2) of the
   Clean Air Act, the requirements that are
   the subject of today's notice may not be
   challenged later in civil or criminal
   proceedings brought by EPA  to enforce
   these requirements.
   ADDRESSES: Docket. A docket, number
   A-83-02, containing information
   considered by EPA in development of
   the promulgated amendments, is
   available for public inspection between
   8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through
   Friday, at EPA's Central Docket Section
   (LE-131), West Tower Lobby, Gallery 1.
   401 M Street, SW., Washington. D.C.
   20460. A reasonable fee may be charged
   for copying.
   FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
   Mr. Robert L. Ajax. Standards
   Development Branch, Emission
   Standards and Engineering Division
   (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection
   Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
   Carolina 27711, telephone (919) 541-
   5578.
   SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
   The Amendments
    The amendments reinstate portions of
   the asbestos NESHAP that were
   equipment or work practice
   requirements. The Supreme Court held
   m Adamo Wrecking Company v. United
   States. 434 U.S. 275 (1978) that work
practice requirements of the NESHAP
were not authorized by the 1970
Amendments to the Clean Air Act under
which they were onginsily promulgated
The 1977 Amendments to the Act
specifically authorize such
requirements On June 19, 1978 (43 FR
26372). EPA repromulgated many of the
requirements under authority of the 1977
Amendments, and today's ai.tion
repromulgHtes the following remaining
requirements in a new Subpart M of 40
CFR Part 61.
  1. Section 61.143 reinstates a
prohibition of surfacing roadways with
asbestos tailings or asbestos containing
waste
  2. Sections  61.145(c) and 61.147|g)
reinstate a partial exemption for
demolition operations for structurally
unsound buildings
  3. Section 61.147(e) reinstates the
requirement that asbestos removed
during demolition or renovation be kept
wet until it  is collected for disposal. It
also requires  that the asbestos-not be
dropped or thrown  to the ground or a
lower floor and that asbestos removed
more than 50  feet above ground level be
transported to the ground in dust-tight
chutes or containers (unless it is
removed in units or sections)
  4. Section 61.147(f] reinstates
alternative work practices that may be
used for removal of asbestos prior to
demolition when there are freezing
temperature conditions at the point
where the asbestos is being wetted
  5. Section 61.150 reinstates the
prohibition  of installation of certain
molded or wet-applied insulating
materials that contain commercial
asbestos.
  6. Sections 61.151{a) and 6U52(a)
simply refer to the requirements of
Section 61.156
  7. Sections 61.151 (b) and (c). 61.152(b)
(1), (2). and (3): 61.153{a) (2). (3), and (4):
61.154: and 61.156 (c) and (d) reinstate
alternative work practices or equipment
that may be used in lieu of complying
with a no visible emission limit
  8. Sections 61.153(b) and 61.15Hlb)
reinstate the requirement for warning
signs and fencing around asbestos
waste disposal sites if (1) the owner or
operator chooses to comply with a no
visible emission limit rather than follow
specified work practices, and (2) there is
no natural barrier to deter access by the
general public.
  In addition  to these requirements.
today's action clarifies the asbestos
NESHAP by rewording and rearranging
it into a new Subpart M of 40 CFR Part
61
Public Participation
  The amendments were proposed T.
the Federal Register on Ju!> 13. 19S>t (4H
FR 32126]  To provide interested  person1-
the opportunity, for oral presentation o(
data, views, or arguments concerning
the proposed amendments, a publu
hearing was held on August 9, 19H3, at
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
The hearing WHS open to Ibe pub'u anil
each attendee WHS given an opp/>r!.mi!\
to comment on ^he proposed
amendments The  public comment
period was fiom Jul\ 13, 19R3 to
September 9, 1963
  Fifteen comment letters were recr,n.ed
and two interested parties testified at
the public hearing concerning issues
relative to the proposed amendments
The comments have been carefully
considered and. where determined to In-
appropriate by the Administrator,
changes have been made to the
proposed amendments

Summary of Comments and Changes to
the Proposed Amendments
  Comments on the proposed
amendments were received from
industry. Federal agencies. State and
local air pollution  control agencies, and
private citizens. The following summar\
of comments and responses serves as
the basis for the revisions that ha\e
been made to the proposed
amendments. Most of the letters
contained multiple comments, some of
which were outside the scope of  this
rulemakmg Those comments have been
summarized in Item No. IV-B-1 of
Docket No. A-83-02 They are beir.«
evaluated in conjunction with the
comprehensive review of the asbestos
NESI1AP that is currently underway
  Most of the remaining comments
pertain to the effect that rewording and
rearranging the proposed amendments
had on the original meaning and  intent
of the asbestos NESHAP Some of them
also pertain to the reasonableness of
those requirements being repromulgHteci
(see list in the section entitled "The
Amendments") The comments aie
discussed  below and are organized
according to the sections of the
proposed amendments to which the\
pertain
Section 61 141
  One commenter noted that  the
proposed definition of "demolition"
deletes the previous reference to "am
related removing or stripping of friable
asbestos materials" and recommended
restoring the definition to the old
wording. The commenter believes that
the new wording may be interpreted to
not include removing and stripping
                                                      IV-175
-------
             Federal  Register / Vol. 49, No.  67 / Thursday, April  5, 1984 / Rules and  Regulations
  EPA intended that the proposed
du'iniijon of "demolition" describe the
activities that occur when a facility is
demolished as distinguished from
"renovation," as the terms are used in
the regulation. The primary
distinguishing activity ia that load-
supporting structural membert are
wrecked or taken out in • demolition
operation but not in a renovation
Asbestos stripping or remo\al may
occur in either but should not be used to
define the primary activity of demolition
or renovation. Section 61.145 clearly
states that when demolition or
renovation operations meet certain
specified criteria regarding asbestos
materials in the facility, they are subject
to rbe regulation. Also, § 61.147 clearly
specifies that stripping or removal of
asbestos materials during demolition or
renovation must be carried out in
accordance with the standard. It is not
necessary to repeat these provisions in
the definition of "demolition."
  One commenter noted that the
proposed definition of renovation would
apply onty to removal of asbestos and
not to stripping and recommended that
the new definition be as comprehensive
as the old one.
  EPA did not intend to omit the word
"stripping" from the definition of
"renovation" at the time of proposal
However, EPA has reevaruated the
definition to determine the wording that
would be the most useful and
informative for the regulation. As
discussed in the response to the
previous comment about the definition
of "demolition," the terms should be
defined  to describe the type of activity
that is being carried out at a facility,
regardless of the presence or absence of
asbestos material, and the definition of
"renovation" has been revised
accordingly.
  One commenter recommended
restoring the phrase "based on operating
experience" to the definition of
"planned renovation" to clarify the
basis for predicting future renovations
involving asbestos removal. The phrase
was in the old definition. The
commenter's recommendation has been
incorporated into the amendments
  One commenter requested
clarification of the  definition of
"emergency renovation operation." He
asked whether it would include
malfunctions, such as leaking valves.
that require the removal of asbestos-
containing insulation. Although these
malfunctions are expected to occur, they
are not planned or scheduled.
  EPA considers the type of occurrence
described by the commenter to be part
of a planned renovation operation and
not an emergency renovation operation
The cconmenter indicated thai although
the situation* are not planned or
scheduled, they are expected to occur.
They would, therefore, fit the definition
of "planned renovation operation" in
{ 61.141 that says, 'individual
nouscheduled operations are included if
a number of such operations can be
predicted to occur during a given period
of time."

Section 61.145
  One commenter noted that the word
"or" between "operators" and
"demolition" in § B1.145(e) should be
changed to "of." He indicated thaJ the
proper wording would show what he
believed to be the Agency's intent to
limit applicability of the  regulations to
only "wreckers and renovators" and not
to include facility owners and operators.
  The commenter is correct that the
word "or" should be changed to "of."
and this correction has been made.
However,  the commenter's
interpretation that the regulations apply
to only "wreckers and renovators" and
not to facility owners and operators is
incorrect. The general provisions of 40
CFR Part 61 define "owner or operator"
as any person who owns, leases,
operates, controls, or supervises a
stationary source (40 CFR 81.02(1)). The
stationary source in this case is the
demolition or renovation operation. The
demolition or renovation contractor
would clearly be considered an owner
or operator by "operating" the
stationary source. The facility owner or
operator, by purchasing  the services of
the demolition or renovation contractor.
acquires ownership and  control of the
operation  and would, therefore, be the
"owner" for purposes of this standard.
Therefore, the standard applies to both
the contractor and the facility owner or
operator.

Sections 61.146 and 61.147
  One*commenter believes that the
wording in §§ 61.146 and 61.147 is vague
with respect to identifying who is
subject to the requirements, unlike the
wording in §§61.142, 61.143, 61.144.
61.146, and 61.149, which is restrictive in
describing the regulated party.
  EPA believes that the  applicability of
§§ 61.146 and 61.147 as described in
§ 61.145 adequately identifies those
subject to the requirements of the
demolition and renovation standard.
  One commenter questioned the intent
of § 61.147(e)(l). The regulation requires
that asbestos materials be adequately
wetted to ensure that they remain wet
during all remaining stages of demolition
or renovation and related handling
operations. The commenter asked
whether this requirement should be
interpreted to moan that the asbestos
has to stay wet even after it is properly
bagged and seeled.
  The intent of the requirement to keep
friable asbestos materials wet during all
remaining stages of demolition was to
ensure that the asbestos materials that
have been removed or stripped but not
yet disposed of we not allowed to dry
out «o that  asbestos fibers become
airborne. If they are properly sealed in
leak-tight containers or bags while wet,
they should not dry out before they can
be transferred to *n Acceptable disposal
site, in any case, after they are bagged,
the waste disposal requirements in
S «1.152 (and not { 61.147) would apply
to  the handling of the asbestos
materials. To clarify the meaning of this
portion of tke standard, the wording of
i 61.W7(e)l1) has been revised to
indicate 
-------
             Federal  Register / Vol. 49, No. 67  /  Thursday, April 5. 1984  /  Rules and Regulations
pointed out that the use of Vis inch is
nol in keeping with EPA's metric
program. The errors noted by the
commenter have been corrected ir the
final rule.

Section 6] 155
  One commenter requested
clarification of the Agency's intunt in
5 61.155, which requires that existing
sources covered by the asbastos
NESHAP provide to the Agency within
90 days information regarding their
asbestos emission control methods. The
commenter asked if renotification and
rcsubmission would be required if they
hdd already complied with these same
requirements in the old designation
§ 61.24.
  EPA does not intend that  existing
sources of asbestos emissions resub'Tiit
notifications that were originally
required by the standard promulgated in
1973. The wording of  i 61.155 has been
revised to accurately  reflect EPA's
intent.

Miscellaneous
  One commenter expressed the opinion
that the proposed amendments do not
sufficiently correct the weakness of the
NESHAP regulations  and thut they
represent a "crude sl;ip in the face to
asbestos victims and  will create hea'di
hazards of such proportions that new
generations of asbestos victims will be
guaranteed." He supported Ins opinion
with the following arguments:
  1. The no visible emission limit is not
adequate for regulating airborne
asbestos because it does not take into
account the substantial asbestos tlbease
risk when emissions that are not visible
are present.
  2. The proposed reinstatement of the
exemption from certain netting
requirements during demolition
operations in freezing temperatures
should not be allowed. Weather
conditions that do not allow wetting
should a'so rot allow asbestos to be
removed. Wetting requirements are
important because they can reduce dust
levels by a power of 10.
  3. Allowing exceptions when local
entities pronounce buildings structurally
unsound is tantamount to opening a way
for widespread violation of  health
practices.
  4. Under no circumstances should
visible emissions be allowed.
  5. All references to the economic
impact should be dropped. EPA should
concern itself with the economic impact
on society, which ends up paying for
disease victims produced by inadequate
work regulations.
  The first four of the commenter's
statements concern issues that are
currently being investigated in the
review of th«! asbestos NESHAP: the no
visible emission limit, the exemption
from wetting requirements during
freezing weather, and the exemption for
structurally unsound buildings. EPA will
evaluate the effect of these provisions
and determine whether they need to be
revised. That evaluation is beyond the
scope of today's rulemaking, howovpr.
The amendments are m'ended to
reinstate the provisions of the origirr.ii
NESHAP and not to include new
pro', isions or delete any of the original
ones. Therefore, no changes are bain?
made to these portions of the proposed
amendments.
  In response to the ^jpinsrnter's
su^gci;ion to diop all ref?rpncp<» to the
economic impact of the proposed
amendr.ien's, the Ag°ncy believes th;;t
econoinic impact on the regulated
entities, is one of many factors that
should be considered when setting
standards under Section 112 of the
Clean Air Act. Any adverse economic
impact on society resulting from
inadequate regulations for a hazardous
air pollutant would be of concern to EPA
as it would be a consequence of adverse
public health effects. The current  review
of the NESHAP will include an
evd!u.:tion of this ar.pe"' of r^gu'ating
abbpstor to determine if more stringent
requirements are needed.
  One commenter said that the
requirement in § C1.14B(o)(3J to explain
the techniques of estimation of the
amount of asbestos for certain
demolition jobs seems to be a r-r'.\
requirement because he could not locate
it in the old regulation. The requiicinent
was in § 61.22(d)(l)(ii) of the o'd
regulation.
  One commenter said that States thrit
are enforcing the asbestos NES1 LAP
sciRdtimes have a different
interpretation of regulations than EPA
and suggested that EPA provide
clarification of intent for the States.
  Under the Clean Air Act, States ere
free to require more stringent asbestos
emission control measures than those in
the asbestos NESHAP. EPA docs.
however, provide EPA enforcement
deteiminations to States that have been
delegated authority to enforce the
NESHAP. These determinations include
EPA's interpretations of portions of the
regulation as questions arise concerning
them, and they are very useiu! in
ensuring consistency of enforcement
among the Statf-s and EPA Regional
Offices.
  One commenter said that there is a
statement in the proposal preamble that
is not true. It says, "Demolition and
renovation contractors typically
transport the asbestos they remove from
a facility to a waste disposal site on a
daily basis." T/ie commeiter stated th,i!
the economics of doing this would be
astronomical. For example, the cost of
hauling a small number of bags to a
disposal silt- 40 miles away wojld be
very high, and the contractor would watl
until a full load had accumulated.
  The Agency has carefully considered
this comment and concluded that no
changes 'u the regulation are needed
since it rtfc-rs to a discussion in the
pieamble to the proposed amendments
Theie nrp. no requirements in the
NESHAP that asbestos waste be
transported to a disposal s'te daily
  Thrive conimenters said that the
amendments improve the cldrit^ and
readahil-ly of the asbrstos NtSHAP c::it'
two irtdicaieJ that l\\°. required work
pid(.tici;S are currently being used by
theii companies. Two c-omrnenters nott;
-------
             federal  Register / Vol. 49. No. «? / Thursday,  Aprfl 5.  1984 /  Rules and Regulations
61i)i, 61.10, 61.149,91.148, and 61.155)
have been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980. 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq. and have been assigned OMB
control number 2000-0264.
  This regulation was submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review as required by E.O.
12291.
  Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
605(b), I hereby certify that this rule, if
promulgated, will not kive a significant
economic impact on any small entities.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 61
  Air pollution control, Asbeatoc.
Beryllium, Hazardous materials.
Mercury, Vinyl chloride.
  Doted: Man* 30,1984.
William D. Ruckelshaus,
Administrator.

PART 61—[AMENDED]

  40 CFR Part 61 is amended by
redesignating Subpart B (§§61.20-61.25)
as Subpart M and revising the new
Subpart M to read as follows:
Subpart M—National  Emission Standard for
Asbestos
Sec
61.140  Applicability.
W.141  Definitions.
61.142  Standard for asbestos mills
61.143  Standard for roadways.
61 144  Standard for manufacturing.
61.145  Standard for demolition and
    renovation: Applicability.
61.146  Standard for demolition and
    renovation: Notification requirements.
61147  Standard for demolition and
    renovation: Procedures for asbestos
    emission control.
61.148  Standard for spraying.
61 140  Standard for fabricating
61.150  Standard for insulating materials
61 151  Standard for waste disposal for
    asbestos mills.
61.152  Standard for waste disposal for
    manufacturing, demolition, renovation.
    spraying, and fabricating operations.
61153  Standard for inactive waste disposal
    sites for asbestos mill* and
    manufacturing and fabricating
    operations.
61.154   *J; cleaning.
61.155  Reporting.
61.156   Active waste disposal sites.
   Authority: Sees. 112 and 301(a) of the Clean
 Air Act. as amended (42 U.S.C. 7412, 7601(a)),
 and additional authority as noted below

 Subpart UK—National Emission
 Standard for Asbestos

 §61.140 Applicability.
   The provisions of this subpart are
 applicable to  those sources specified in
 §8 61.142 through 61.153.
§61.141  Definition*.
  All terms that are used in this subpart
and are not defined below are given the
same meaning as in the Act and in
Subpart A of this part.
  Active waste disposal site means any
disposal she other than an inactive site.
  Adequately wetted means sufficiently
mixed or coated with water or an
aqueous solution to prevent dust
emissions.
  Asbestos means the asbestiform
varieties of serpentinite (chrysotile),
riebecktte (crocidolite), cummingtonite-
gnmerite, anthophyllite, and actinolite-
tremoLte.
  Asbestos-containing waste materials
means any waste that contains
commercial asbestos and is generated
by a source subject to the provisions of
this subpart. This term includes asbestos
mill tailings, asbestos waste from
control devices, friable asbestos waste
material, and bags or containers that
previously contained commercial
asbestos. However, as applied to
demolition and renovation operations,
this term includes only friable asbestos
waste and asbestos waste from control
devices.
  Asbestos material means asbestos or
any material containing asbestos.
  Asbestos mill means any facility
engaged in converting, or in any
intermediate step in converting,
asbestos ore into commercial asbestos.
Outside storage of asbestos material is
not considered a part of the asbestos
mill.
  Asbestos tailings means any solid
waste that contains asbestos and is a
product of asbestos  mining or milling
operations.
  Asbestos waste from control devices
means any waste material that contains
asbestos and is collected in a pollution
control device.
   Commercial asbestos means any
asbestos that is extracted from asbestos
ore.
   Demolition means the wrecking or
taking out  of any load-supporting
structural member of a facility together
with any related handling operations.
   Emergency renovation operations
 means a renovation operation that was
 not planned but results from a sodden.
 unexpected event. This term includes
 operations necessitated by nonroutine
 failures of equipment.
   Fabricating means any processing of a
 manufactured product that contains
 commercial asbestos, with the exception
 of processing at temporary sites for the
 construction or restoration of facilities.
   Facility means any institutional,
 commercial, or industrial structure.
 installation, or building (excluding
apartment buildings having no more
than four dwelling units).
  Facility component means any pipe.
duct, boiler, tank, reactor, turbine, or
furnace at or in a facility, or any
structural member of a facility.
  Friable asbestos material means any
material containing more than 1 percent
asbestos by weight that hand pressure
can crumble, pulverize, or reduce to
powder when dry.
  Inactive waste disposal site means
any disposal site or portion of it where
additional asbestos-containing waste
material will not be deposited and
where the surface is not disturbed by
vehicular traffic.
  Manufacturing means the combining
of commercial asbestos—or, in the case
of woven friction products, the
combining of textiles containing
commercial asbestos—with any other
material(s), including commercial
asbestos, and the processing of this
combination into a product.
   Outside air means the air outside
buildings and structures.
   Particulate asbestos material means
finely divided particles of asbestos
material.
   Planned renovation operations means
a renovation operation, or a number of
such operations, in which the amount of
friable asbestos material that will be
removed or stripped within a given
period of time can be predicted.
Individual nonscheduled operations are
included if a number of such operations
can be predicted to occur during a given
period of time based on operating
experience.
   .Remove means to take out friable
asbestos materials from any facility.
   Renovation means altering in any way-
one or more facility components.
Operations in which load-supporting
 structural members are wrecked or
 taken out are excluded.
   Roadways means surfaces on which
 motor vehicles travel. This term includes
 highways, roads, streets, parking areas,
 and driveways.
   Strip means to take off friable
 asbestos materials from any part of
 facility.
   Structural member means any load-
 supporting member of a facility, such as
 beams and loan supporting walls; or any
 nonload-supporting member, such as
 ceilings and nonload-supporting walls.
   Visible emissions means any
 emissions containing particulate
 asbestos material that are visually
 detectable without the aid of
 instruments. This does not include
 condensed uncombined water vapor.
                                                     IV-178
-------
             Federal  Register / Vol. 49, No.  67 / Thursday, April  5. 1984 / Ruies and Regulations
§ 61.142 Standard for asbestos mills.
  Each owner or operator of an asbestos
mill shall either discharge no visible
emissions to the outside air from that
asbestos mill or use the methods
specified by § 61.154 to clean emissions
containing participate asbestos material
before they escape to, or are vented to,
the outside air.

§ 61.143 Standard for roadways.
  No owner or operator of a roadway
may  deposit asbestos tailings or
asbestos-containing waste material on
that roadway, unless it is a temporary
roadway on an area of asbestos ore
deposits.

§ 61.144 Standard for manufacturing.
  (a) Applicability: This section applies
to the following manufacturing
operations using commercial asbestos.
  (1) The manufacture of cloth, cord,
wicks, tubing, tape, twine,  rope, thread,
yarn, roving, lap. or other textile
materials.
  (2) The manufacture of cement
products.
  (3) The manufacture of fireproofing
and insulating materials.
  (4) The manufacture of friction
products.
  (5) The manufacture of paper,
millboard, and felt.
  (6) The manufacture of floor tile.
  (7) The manufacture of paints.
coatings, caulks, adhesives, and
sealants.
  (8) The manufacture of plastics and
rubber materials.
  (9) The manufacture of chlorine.
  (10) The manufacture of  shotgun shell
wads.
  (11) The manufacture of  asphalt
concrete.
  (b) Standard: Each owner or operator
of any of the manufacturing operations
to which this section applies shall either:
  (1) Discharge no visible emissions to
the outside air from these operations or
from any building or structure in which
they are conducted; or
  (2) Use the methods specified by
§ 61.154 to clean emissions from these
operations containing particulate
asbestos material before they escape to,
or are vented to, the outside air.

f 61.145 Standard for demolition and
renovation: Applicability.
  The requirements of J§ 61.146 and
61.147 apply to each owner or operator
of a demolition or renovation operation
as follows:
  (a) If the amount of friable asbestos
materials in a facility being demolished
is at least 80 linear meters  (260 linear
feet) on pipes or at least 15 square
meters (160 square feet) on other facility
components, all the requirements of
§S 61.146 and 61.147 apply, except as
provided in paragraph (c) of this section.
  (b) If the amount of friable asbestos
materials in a facility being demolished
is less than 80 linear meters (260 linear
feet] on pipes and less than 15 square
meters (160 square feet) on other facility
components, only the notification
requirements of paragraphs (a), (b), and
(c) (1), (2), (3). (4), and (5) of $ 61.148
apply.
  (c) If the facility is being demolished
under an order of a State or local
governmental agency, issued because
the facility is structurally unsound and
in danger of imminent collapse, only the
requirements in { 61.146 and in
paragraphs (d), (e), (f). and (g) of
$ 61.147 apply.
  (d) If at least 80 linear meters (260
linear feet) of friable  asbestos materials
on pipes or at least 15 square meters
(160 square feet) of friable asbestos
materials on other facility components
are stripped or removed at a facility
being renovated, all the requirements of
§5 61.146 and 61.147 apply.
  (1) To determine whether paragraph
(d) of this section applies to planned
renovation operations involving
individual nonscheduled operations,
predict the additive amount of friable
asbestos materials to be removed or
stripped over the maximum period of
time a prediction can be made, not to
exceed 1 year.
  (2) To determine whether paragraph
(d) of this section applies to emergency
renovation operations, estimate the
amount of friable asbestos materials to
be removed or stripped as a result of the
sudden, unexpected event that
necessitated the renovation.
  (e) Owners or operators of demolition
and renovation operations are exempt
from the requirements of §5 61.05(a),
61.07, and 61.09.

$61.146  Standard for demolition and
renovation: Notification requirements.
  Each owner or operator to which this
section applies shall:
  (a) Provide the Administrator with
written notice of intention to demolish
or renovate.
  (b) Postmark or deliver the notice as
follows:
  (1) At least 10 days before demolition
begins if the operation is described in
S 61.145(a);
  (2) At least 20 days before demolition
begins if the operation is described in
{ 61.145(b);
  (3) As early as possible before
demolition begins if the operation is
described ir 5 61.145(c);
  (4) As early as possible before
renovation begins.
  (c) Include the following information
in the notice:
  (Ij Name and address of owner or
operator.
  (2) Description of the facility being
demolished or renovated, including the
size, age, and prior use of the facility.
  (3) Estimate of the approximate
amount of friable asbestos material
present in the facility. For facilities
described in $ 61.145(b), explain
techniques of estimation.
  (4) Location of the facility being
demolished or renovated.
  (5) Scheduled starting and completion
dates of demolition or renovation.
  (6) Nature of planned demolition or
renovation and method(s) to be used.
  (7) Procedures to be used to comply
with the requirements of this Subpart.
  (8) Name and location of the waste
disposal site where the friable asbestos
waste material will be deposited.
  (9) For facilities described in
S 61.145(c), the name, title, and authority
of the State or local governmental
representative who has ordered the
demolition.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2000-0264)

§61.147  Standard for demolition and
renovation: Procedures for asbestos
emission control
  Each owner or operator to whom this
section applies shall  comply with the
following procedures to prevent
emissions of particulate asbestos
material to the outside air:
  (a) Remove friable asbestos materials
from a facility being demolished or
renovated before any wrecking or
dismantling that would break up the
materials or preclude access to the
materials for subsequent removal.
However, friable asbestos materials
need not be removed before demolition
if:
  (1) They are on a facility component
that is encased  in concrete or other
similar material; and
  (2) These materials are adequately
wetted whenever exposed during
demolition.
  (b) When a facility component
covered or coated with friable asbestos
materials is being taken out of the
facility as units or in sections:
  (1) Adequately wet any friable
asbestos materials exposed during
cutting or disjointing operations; and
  (2) Carefully lower the units or
sections to ground level, not dropping
them or throwing them.
  (c) Adequately wet friable asbestos
materials when they are being stripped
from facility components before the
members are removed from the facility
                                                    IV-179
-------
             Federal  Register / Vol. 49. No.  67 / Thursday.  April 5.  1984 / Rules and Regulations
In renovation operations, wetting that
would unavoidably damage equipment
is not required if the owner or operator:
  (1) Asks the Administrator to
determine whether wetting to comply
with this paragraph would unavoidably
damage equipment, and, before
beginning to strip, supplies the
Administrator with adequate
information to make this determination;
and
  (2) When the Administrator does
determine that equipment damage
would be unavoidable, uses a local
exhaust ventilation and collection
system designed and operated to
capture the particulate asbestos
material produced by the stripping and
removal of the friable asbestos
materials. The system must exhibit no
visible emissions to the outside air or be
designed and operated in accordance
with the requirements in 5 61.154.
  (d) After a facility component has
been taken out of the facility as units or
in sections, either:
  (1) Adequately wet friable asbestos
materials during stripping; or
  (2) Use a local exhaust ventilation and
collection system designed and operated
to capture the particulate asbestos
material produced by the stripping. The
system must exhibit no visible emissions
to the outside air or be designed and
operated in accordance with the
requirements in § 61.154.
  (e) For friable asbestos materials that
have been removed or stripped:
  (1) Adequately wet the materials to
ensure that they remain wet until they
are collected for disposal in accordance
with $ 61.152; and
  (2) Carefully lower the materials to
the ground or a lower floor, not dropping
or throwing them; and
  (3) Transport the materials to the
ground via dust-tight chutes or
containers if they have been removed or
stripped more than 50 feet above ground
level and were not removed as units or
in sections.
  (f) When the temperature at the point
of wetting is below O'C (32T):
  (1) Comply with the requirements of
paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section.
The owner or operator need not comply
with the other wetting requirements in
this section; and
  (2) Remove facility components
coated or covered with friable asbestos
materials as units or  in sections to the
maximum extent possible.
  (g) For facilities described in
§ 61.145(c), adequately wet the portion
of the facility that contains friable
asbestos materials during the wrecking
operation.
§61.148 Standard for (praying.
  The owner or operator of an operation
in which asbestos-containing materials
are spray applied shall comply with the
following requirements:
  (a) Use materials that contain 1
percent asbestos or less on a dry weight
basis for spray-on application on
buildings, structures, pipes, and
conduits, except as provided in
paragraph (c) of this section.
  (b) For spray-on application of
materials that contain more than 1
percent asbestos on a dry weight basis
on equipment and machinery, except as
provided in paragraph (c) of this section:
  (1) Notify the Administrator at least
20 days before beginning the spraying
operation. Include the following
information in the notice:
  (i) Name and address of owner or
operator.
  (ii) Location of spraying operation.
  (iii) Procedures to be followed to meet
the requirements of this paragraph.
  (2) Discharge no visible emissions to
the outside air from the spray-on
application of the asbestos-containing
material or use the methods specified by
5 61.154 to clean emissions containing
particulate asbestos material before
they escape to, or are vented to, the
outside air.
  (c) The requirements of paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this section do not apply to
the spray-on application of materials
where the  asbestos fibers in the
materials are encapsulated with a
bituminous or resinous binder during
spraying and the materials are not
friable after drying.
  (d) Owners and operators of sources
subject to this section are exempt from
the requirements of SS 61.05(a), 61.07,
and 61.09.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2000-0264)

$61.149 Standard for fabricating.
  (a) Applicability. This section applies
to the following fabricating operations
using commercial asbestos:
  (1) The fabrication of cement building
products.
  (2) The fabrication of friction
products, except those operations that
primarily install asbestos friction
materials on motor vehicles.
  (3) The fabrication of cement or
silicate board for ventilation hoods;
ovens; electrical panels; laboratory
furniture, bulkheads, partitions, and
ceilings for marine construction; and
flow control devices for the molten
metal industry.
  (b) Standard. Each owner or operator
of any of the fabricating operations to
which  this section applies shall either
  (1) Discharge no visible emissions to
the outside air from any of the
operations or from any building or
structure in which they are conducted;
or
  (2) Use the methods specified by
§ 61.154 to clean emissions containing
particulate asbestos material before
they escape to, or are vented to. the
outside air.

{ 61.150 Standard for Insulating material*.
  After the effective date of this
regulation, no owner or operator of a
facility may install or reinstall on a
facility component any insulating
materials that contain commercial
asbestos if the materials are either
molded and friable or wet-applied and
friable after drying. The provisions of
this paragraph do not apply to spray-
applied insulating materials regulated
under 5 61.148.

§61.151 Standard for waste dlapoMl for
•sbesto* mills.
  Each owner or operator of any source
covered under the provisions of § 61.142
shall:
  (a) Deposit all asbestos-containing
waste material at waste disposal sites
operated in accordance with the
provisions of § 61.156; and
  (b) Discharge no visible emissions to
the outside air from the transfer of
asbestos waste from control devices to
the tailings conveyor,  or use the
methods specified by § 61.154 to clean
emissions containing particulate
asbestos material before they escape to,
or are vented to, the outside air. Dispose
of the asbestos waste from control
devices in accordance with § 61.152(b)
or paragraph (c) of this section; and
  (c) Discharge no visible emissions to
the outside air during  the collection,
processing, packaging, transporting, or
deposition of any asbestos-containing
waste  material, or use one of the
disposal methods specified in
paragraphs (c) (1] or (2) of this section,
as follows:
  (1) Use a wetting agent as follows:
  (i) Adequately mix all asbestos-
containing waste material with a
wetting agent recommended by the
manufacturer of the agent to effectively
wet dust and tailings, before depositing
the material at a waste disposal site.
Use  the agent as recommended for the
particular dust by the manufacturer of
the agent.
  (ii) Discharge no visible emissions to
the outside air from the wetting
operation or use the methods specified
by § 61.154 to clean emissions
containing particulate asbestos material
                                                      IV-180
-------
             Federal Register / Vol. 49. No.  67 / Thursday. April  5, 1984 / Rules  and  Regulations
before they escape to, or are vented to,
the outside air.
  (iii) Wetting may be suspended when
the ambient temperature at the waste
disposal site is less than -9.5°C (1ST).
Determine the ambient air temperature
by an appropriate measurement method
with an accuracy of ±1'C(±2'F), and
record it at least hourly while the
wetting operation is suspended. Keep
the records for at least 2 years in a form
suitable for inspection.
  (2) Use an alternative disposal method
that has received prior approval by the
Administrator.

{61.152 Standard for wast* disposal for
manufacturing demolition, renovation,
•praying, and fabricating operations.
  Each  owner or operator of any source
covered under the provisions of
(§61.144-61.149 shall:
  (a) Deposit all asbestos-containing
waste material at waste disposal sites
operated in accordance with the
provisions of § 61.156; and
  (b) Discharge no visible emissions to
the outside air during the collection,
processing (including incineration),
packaging, transporting, or deposition of
any asbestos-containing waste material
generated by the source, or use one of
the disposal methods specified in
paragraphs (b)(l), (2), or (3) of this
section, as follows:
  (1) Treat asbestos-containing waste
material with water
  (i) Mix asbestos waste from control
devices with water to form a slurry;
adequately wet other asbestos-
containing waste material; and
   (ii) Discharge no visible emissions to
the outside air from collection, mixing,
and wetting operations, or use the
methods specified by 5 61.154 to clean
emissions containing particulate
asbestos material before they escape to,
or are vented to, the outside air, and
   (iii) After wetting, seal all asbestos-
containing waste material in leak-tight
containers while wet; and
   (iv) Label the containers specified in
 paragraph (b)(l)(iii) as follows:
CAUTION
Contains Asbestos-
Avoid Opening or
Breaking Container
Breathing Asbestos is hazardous
to Your Health
   Alternatively, use warning labels
specified by  Occupational Safety and
Health Standards of the Department of
Labor,  Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) under 29 CFR
   (2) Process asbestos-containing waste
 material into nonfriable forms:
  (i) Form all asbestos-containing waste
material into nonfriable pellets or other
shapes; and
  (ii) Discharge no visible emissions to
the outside air from collection and
processing operations, or use the
methods specified by i 61.154 to dean
emissions containing particulate
asbestos material before they escape to,
or are vented to, the outside air.
  (3) Use an alternative disposal method
that has received prior approval by the
Administrator.
'{61.153  Standard for Inactive wast*
disposal sites for asbestos mills and
manufacturing and fabricating operations.
  Each owner or operator of any
inactive waste disposal site that was
operated by sources covered under
SS 61.142, 61.144, or 61.149 and received
deposits of asbestos-containing waste
material generated by the sources, shall
  (a) Comply with one of the following:
  (1) Either discharge no visible
emissions to the outside air from an
inactive waste disposal site subject to
this paragraph; or
  (2) Cover the asbestos-containing
waste material with at least 15
centimeters (6 inches) of compacted
nonasbestos-containing material, and
grow and maintain a cover of vegetation
on the area adequate to prevent
exposure of the asbestos-containing
waste material; or
   (3) Cover the asbestos-containing
waste material with at least 60
centimeters (2 feet) of compacted
nonasbestos-containing material, and
maintain it to prevent exposure of the
asbestos-containing waste; or
   (4) For inactive waste disposal sites
for asbestos tailings, apply a resinous or
petroleum-based dust suppression  agent
that effectively binds dust and controls
wind erosion. Use the agent as
recommended for the particular
asbestos tailings by the manufacturer of
the dust suppression agent. Obtain prior
approval of the Administrator to use
 other equally effective dust suppression
 agents. For purposes of this paragraph,
waste crankcase oil is not considered a
 dust suppression agent.
   (b) Unless a natural barrier
 adequately deters access by the general
 public, install and maintain warning
 signs and fencing as follows, or comply
 with paragraph (a)(2) or  (a)(3) of this
 section.
   (1) Display warning signs at all
 entrances and at intervals of 100 m (330
 feet) or less along the property line of
 the site or along the perimeter of the
 sections of the site where asbestos-
 containing waste material was
 deposited. The warning signs must:
  (i) Be posted in such a manner and
location that a person can easily read
the legend; and
  (ii) Conform to the requirements for 51
cmX36 cm (20"X14") upright format
signs specified in 29 CFR 1910.145(d)(4)
and this paragraph; and
  (iii) Display the following legend in
the lower panel with letter sizes and
styles of a visibility at least equal to
those specified in this paragraph.
Uo*nd
Asbettot Wasta Dfepoaal Sta.
Do Not Create Oust 	
BnMMng AibMoa to Haz-
ardous to Your HMltti
Notation
2.5 cm (1 Inch) San* Sen*.
Gothic or Stock
1.9 cm (% inch) Sant Sent.
Gothic or Block
14 Point Gothic.
Spacing between any two lines must be
at least equal to the height of the upper
of the two lines.
  (2) Fence the perimeter of the site in a
manner adequate to deter access by the
general public.
  (3) Upon request and supply of
appropriate information, the
Administrator will determine whether a
fence or a natural barrier adequately
deters access by the general public.
  (c) The owner or operator may use an
alternative control method that has
received prior approval of the
Administrator rather than comply with
the requirements of paragraph (a) or (b)
of this section.

{61.154  Alr-deanlng.
   (a) The, owner or operator who elects
to use air-cleaning, as permitted by
§ J 61.142. 61.144, 61.147(c)(2).
61.147(d)(2), 61.148(b)(2), 61.149(b),
61.152(b)(l)(ii), and61.152(b){2) shall:
   (1) Use fabric filter collection devices.
except as noted in paragraph (b) of this
section, doing all of the following:
   (i) Operating the fabric filter
collection devices at a pressure drop of
no more than 4 inches water gage, as
measured across the filter fabric; and
   (ii) Ensuring that the airflow
permeability, as determined by ASTM
Method D737-75, does not exceed 9 ma/
min/m1 (30 ft'/min/ft*) for woven
fabrics or ll»/min/m»(35 ft'/min/ft2)
for felted fabrics, except that 12 m3/
min/m* (40 ftsmin/ft2) for woven and 14
m'/min/m1 (45 ft »min/ft») for felted
 fabrics is allowed for filtering air from
 asbestos ore dryers; and
   (iii) Ensuring that felted fabric weighs
 at least 475 grams per square meter (14
 ounces per square yard) and is at least
 1.6 millimeters (one-sixteenth inch) thick
 throughout; and
                                                      IV-181
-------
             Federal  Register / Vol. 49. No.  67 / Thursday,  April 5.  1984 / Rules and Regulations
  (iv) Avoiding the use of synthetic
fabrics that contain fill yarn other than
that which is spun.
  (2) Properly install, use, operate, and
maintain all air-cleaning equipment
authorized by this section. Bypass
devices may be used only during upset
or emergency conditions and then only
for so long as it takes to shut down the
operation generating the particulate
asbestos material.
  (b) There are the following exceptions
to paragraph (a)(l):
  (1) If the use of fabric creates a fire or
explosion hazard, the Administrator
may authorize as a substitute the use of
wet collectors designed to operate with
a unit contacting energy of at least 9.95
kilopascals (40 inches water gage
pressure).
  (2) The Administrator may authorize
the use of filtering equipment other than
that described in paragraphs (a)(l) and
(b)(l) of this section if the owner or
operator demonstrates to the
Administrator's satisfaction that it is
equivalent to the described equipment in
filtering particulate asbestos material.

961.155  Reporting.
  (a) Within 90 days after the effective
date of this subpart each owner or
operator of any existing source to which
this subpjrt applies shall provide the
following information to the
Administrator, except that any owner or
operator who provided this information
prior to April 5,1984 in order to comply
with { 61.24 (which this section
replaces) is not required to resubmit it.
  (1) A description of the emission
control equipment used for each
process;  and
  (2) If a fabric filter device is used to
control emissions,  the pressure drop
across the fabric filter in inches water
gage; and
  (i) If the fabric device uses a woven
fabric, the airflow permeability in m3/
min/m* and; if the fabric is synthetic,
whether the fill yarn is spun or not spun;
and
  (ii) If the fabric filter device uses a
felted fabric, the density in g/mz, the
minimum thickness in inches, and the
airflow permeability in m3/min/mz.
  (3) For sources subject to §5 61.151
and 61.152:
  (i) A brief description of each process
that generates asbestos-containing
waste material; and
  (ii) The average weight of asbestos-
containing waste material disposed of,
measured in kg/day; and
  (iii) The emission control methods
used in all stages of water disposal; and
  (iv) The type of disposal site or
incineration site used for ultimate
disposal, the name of the site operator,
and the name and location of the
disposal site.
  (4) For sources subject to § 61.153:
  (i) A brief description of the site; and
  (ii) The method or methods used to
comply with the standard, or alternative
procedures to be used.
  (b) The information required by
paragraph (a) of this section must
accompany the  information required by
8 61.10. The information described in
this section must be reported using the
format of Appendix A of this part.
(Sec. 114. Clean Air Act as amended (42
U.S.C. 7414)).
(Approved by this Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2000-0264)

S 61.156  Actlvt wiste disposal •«•».
  To be an acceptable site for disposal
of asbestos-containing waste material
under §§ 61.151 and 61.152, an active
waste disposal  site must meet the
requirements of this section.
  (a) Either there must be no visible
emissions to the outside air from any
active waste disposal site where
asbestos-containing waste material has
been deposited, or the requirements of
paragraph (c) or (d) of this section must
be met.
  (b)  Unless a natural barrier
adequately deters access by the general
public, either warning signs and fencing
must be installed and maintained as
follows, or the requirements of
paragraph (c)(l) of this section must be
met.
  (1) Warning signs must be displayed
at all entrances and at intervals of 100 m
(330 ft) or less along the property line of
the site or along the perimeter of the
sections of the site where asbestos-
containing waste material is deposited.
The warning signs must:
  (i) Be posted  in such ajnanner and
location that a person can easily read
the legend; and
  (ii) Conform to the requirements of 51
cm x 38 cm (20"  x 14") upright format
signs specified  in 29 CFR 1910.145(d)(4)
and this paragraph; and
  (iii) Display the following legend in
the lower panel with letter sizes and
styles of a visibility at least equal to
those specified in this paragraph.
Ugcnd
AtbwtM Wi»u Dnpoul
Sit*
BrMttwg Aibwto* » H*i-
•rtJoutte Your HMlttt
Notation
25 em (1 inch) S»n» S»nf.
Gothic or Stock
1 « cm (*4 inch) Sara Sent.
Gothic or Block
14 Pont Gothic
Spacing between any two lines must be
at least equal to the height of the upper
of the two lines.
  (2) The perimeter of the disposal site
must be fenced in a manner adequate to
deter access by the general public.
  (3) Upon request and supply of
appropriate information, the
Administrator will determine whether a
fence or a natural barrier adequately
deters access by the general public.
  (c) Rather than meet the no visible
emission requirement of paragraph (a) of
this section, an active waste disposal
site would be an acceptable  site if at the
end of each operating day, or at least
once every 24-hour period while the site
is in continuous operation, the asbestos-
containing waste material which was
deposited at the site during the
operating day or previous 24-hour period
is covered with either.
  (1) At least 15 centimeters (6 inches)
of compacted nonasbestos-containing
material, or
  (2) A resinous or petroleum-based
dust suppression agent that effectively
binds dust and controls wind erosion.
This agent must be used as
recommended for the particular dust by
the manufacturer of the dust
suppression agent. Other equally
effective dust suppression agents may
be used upon prior approval by the
Administrator. For purposes of this
paragraph, waste crankcase oil is not
considered a dust suppression agent.
  (d) Rather than meet the no visible
emission requirement of paragraph (a) of
this section, an active waste disposal
site would be an acceptable site if an
alternative control method for emissions
that has received prior approval by the
Administrator is used.
(Sees. 112 and 301 (a) of the Clean Air Act as
amended (42 U.S.C. 7412. 7601(a)|
[FR Doc 84-8060 Filed t-4-«4 8-45 «m]
BILLING CODE 6MO-SO-M
                                                      IV-182
-------
              Federal Register  /  Vol. 49. No. 69 / Monday. April  9. 1984 / Rules and Regulations
92
40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

[A-9-FRL 2562-3]

Delegation of New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS);
State of Arizona
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Delegation of authority.

SUMMARY: The EPA hereby places the
public on  notice of its delegation of
NSPS and NESHAPS authority to the
Pima County Health Department
(PCHD). This action is necessary to
bring the NSPS and NESHAPS program
delegations up to date with recent EPA
promulgations and amendments of these
categories. This action does not create
any new regulatory requirements
affecting the  public. The effect of the
delegation is to shift the primary
                                         program responsibility for the affected
                                         NSPS and NESHAPS categories from
                                         EPA to State and local governments.
                                         EFFECTIVE DATE: March 29,1984.
                                         FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
                                         Julie A. Rose, New Source Section (A-3-
                                         1), Air Operations Branch, Air
                                         Management Division, EPA,  Region 9,
                                         215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA
                                         94105, Tel: (415) 974-8236, FTS 454-6236.
                                         SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
                                         PCHD has requested authority for
                                         delegation of certain NSPS and
                                         NESHAPS categories. Delegation of
                                         authority was granted by a letter dated
                                         March 16,1984  and is reproduced in its
                                         entirety as follows:
                                         Patricia A. Nolan, M.D.,
                                         Director, Pima County Health Department,
                                            151 West Congress Street, Tucson, AZ
                                           Dear Dr. Nolan: In response to your request
                                         of February 24,1984,1 am pleased to inform
                                         you that we are delegating to your agency
                                         authority to implement and enforce the
                                         categories of New Source Performance
                                         Standards (NSPS) and National  Emission
                                         Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
                                         (NESHAPS) promulgated as of June 8,1983
                                         listed below. We have reviewed your request
                                         for delegation and have found your present
                                         programs and procedures to be acceptable.
                                         This delegation includes authority for the
                                         following new source categories:

NSPS

General Provisions ....
G'a» Manufacturing Plants .
Surface Coating of Metal Furniture
Lead-Acid Battery Manufacturing Plants
AutomoMe A Light-Duty Truck 	
Surface Coating Operations 	
Phc-H-hate Roc* Plants 	
Ammonium Sulfate
G:ap >ic A/i* Industry Publication Rotogravure
tr*.*.,;>rna' ^rface Coating La.rge Appliances
f. eta' Coil Su^ace Coating ....
»spr^,H Pioces^ns and AsphaJt Poofing Manufac-
'

NESHAPS

General Provisions 	
B^-fyllium Rocket Motor Firmg .. .
40 CFR
part 60.
subpart
A
cc
EE
KK

MM
NN
PP
OQ
SS
TT
UU

40 CFR
part 61,
•ubpart
A
D
  Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
your agreement to follow all applicable
provisions of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 81,
including use of EPA '» test methods and
procedures. The delegation is effective upon
the date of this letter unless the USEPA
receives written notice from you of any
objections within 10 days of receipt of this
ktter. A notice of this delegated authority
will be published in the Federal Register in
the near future.
                                          Sincerely,
                                        Judith E Ayres,
                                        Regional Administrator.
                                          With respect to the areas under the
                                        jurisdiction of the PCHD, all reports,
                                        applications, submittals, and other
                                        communications pertaining to the above
                                        listed NSPS source categories should be
                                        directed to the PCHD at\he address
                                        shown in the letter of delegation.
                                          The Office of Management and Budget
                                        has exempted this rule from the
                                        requirements of section 3 of Executive
                                        Order 12291.
                                          I certify that this rule will not have a
                                        significant economic impact on a
                                        substantial number of small entities
                                        under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
                                          This Notice is issued under the
                                        authority of Section 111 of the Clean Air
                                        Act, as  amended (42 U.S.C. 1857, et
                                        seq.).
                                          Dated. March 29,1984.
                                        Judith E. Ayres,
                                        Regional A administrator.
                                        |FR Doc 84-8359 Filed 4-6-84, 845 am]
                                        BILLING CODE (HO-SO-M
                                                       IV-183
-------
Federal  Register  / Vol. 49, No. 69  / Monday, April  9,  1984  / Rules  and  Regulations
        93
        40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

        [A-9-FRL 2561-5]

        Delegation of New Source
        Performance Standards (NSPS) and
        National Emission Standards for
        Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS);
        State of California

        AGENCY: Environmental Protection
        Agency (EPA).
        ACTION: Delegation of authority.

        SUMMARY: The EPA hereby places the
        public on notice of its delegation of
        NSPS and NESHAPS authority to the
        California Air Resources Board (CARB)
        on behalf of the San Joaquin County Air
        Pollution Control District (SJCAPCD).
        This action is necessary to bring the
        NSPS and NESHAPS program
        delegations up to date with recent EPA
        promulgations and amendments of these
        categories. This action does not create
        any new regulatory requirements
        affecting the public. The effect of the
        delegation is to shift the primary
        program responsibility for the affected
        NSPS and NESHAPS categories from
        EPA to State and local governments.
        EFFECTIVE DATE: January 23,1934.
        ADDRESS: San Joaquin County  Air
        Pollution Control District, 1601 E.
        Hazelton  Avenue, Stockton,  CA 95210.
        FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
        Julie A. Rose, New Source Section  (A-3-
        1). Air Operations Branch, Air
        Management Division, EPA,  Region 9,
                                                   215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA
                                                   94105, Tel: (415) 974-B236. FTS 454-823b
                                                   SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
                                                   CARB has requested authority for
                                                   delegation of certain NSPS and
                                                   NESHAPS categories on behalf of the
                                                   SJCAPCD. Delegation of authority vvds
                                                   granted by a letter dated December 22,
                                                   1983 and is reproduced in its entirety as
                                                   follows:
                                                   Mr. James D. Boyd,
                                                   Executive Officer,  California Air Resources,
                                                       Board, 1102 Q Street, P.O. Box 2S15.
                                                       Sacramento, CA
                                                     Dear Mr. Boyd: In response to your request
                                                   of December 5.1983. 1 am pleased to ir.furm
                                                   you that we are delegating to your agency
                                                   authority to implement and enforce certain
                                                   categories of New  Source Performance
                                                   Standards (NSPS)  on behalf of the San
                                                   Joaquin County Air Pollution Control District
                                                   (SJCAPCD). We have reviewed your request
                                                   for delegation and have found the SJCAPCD's
                                                   programs and procedures to be acceptable.
                                                   This delegation includes authority for the
                                                   following sources categories:
                                                                  NSPS
Surface Coating of Metal Furniture	
Lead-Acid Battery Manufacturing Plants 	
Phosphate Rock Plants.	
Graphic Arts Industry  Publication Rotogravure
  Printing
Pressure Sensitive Tape and Label Surface Coat-
  ing.
Industrial Surface Coating Large Appliances ... .
Metal Coil Surface Coating	
Asphalt Roofing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacture
                                   40 CFR.
                                   part 60
                                   subpart
EE
KK
NN
QQ
SS
TT
UU
  In addition, we are redelega'ing the
following NSPS and National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS) categories since the SJCAPCD's
revised programs and procedures are
acceptable:
               NSPS
Goneml Provisions	   A
FossH-Fjel Fired Steem Generators	   D
Electric Utility Steam Generators	   Da
Incinerators 	-	  E
Portland Cement Plants 	     • f
Nrtnc Add Plants 	  I G
Sul'^nc Acid Plants   	I M
Asphalt Concrete Plants  	| I
Petroleum Refineries 	  ; J
Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids	   j K
Petroleum Storage Vessels 	    Ka
Secondary Lead Smelters  	    L
Secondary Brass  a  B'onze Ingot  Production  M
  Plants
Iron and Steel Plants (BOPF)	   N
Sewage Treatment Plants  	   O
Primary Copper Smelters	 | P
Primary Zinc Smelters  	  O
Primary Lead Smelters      	   P
Pnmary Aluminum Reduction Plants   	  S
Phosphate FarMuar Industiy  Wet Process Phos-  T
  phone Acid Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer  Inoustry Superphosphooc i u
  Acid Plants                         |
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry  Diammomum Phos-  V
  phate Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry Tnpte Superphos-  W
  phate Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry Granular Triple Su-  X
  perphosphate
                                            IV-184
-------
               Federal  Register  / Vol.  49. No. 69  / Monday. April 9. 1964 / Rules  and Regulations
NSPS
Coal Preparation Plants 	 	 	 	 	 .
Ferroalloy Production F«c*oea 	 _
iron and Steel Plants (Elactnc Arc FurnacasI ..... _
Kraft Pulp Mill*
Glass Manufacturing Plants . .._ 	 .. _ 	
Stationary Gas Turbines 	
Urne Manufacturing Plants 	
Automobile & Light-Duty Truck Surface Coating
Operations

40 CFR
pan 60
subpan
Y
Z.
AA
BB
CC
DO
6G
HH
MM
PP


NESHAPS

General Provisions 	 	
Asbestos - 	
Beryllium 	 ... 	 	
BeryUt'jm Rocket MotlX Fung 	 	
Mercury
Vinyl Chtonde _ 	 	 	 	 	 	
40 CFR
panel.
aubpart
A
B
C
D
E
F
  Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
your agreement to follow all applicable
provisions of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61,
including use of EPA's test methods and
procedures. The delegation is effective upon
the date of this letter unless the USEPA
receives written notice from you or the
District of any objections within 10 days of
receipt of this letter. A notice of this
delegated authority will be  published in the
Federal Register in the near future
  Sincerely,
Judith E. Ayres,
Regional Administrator.
cc. San Joaquin County Air  Polution Control
    District

  With respect to the areas under the
jurisdiction of the SJCAPCD, all reports,
applications, submittals, and other
communications pertaining to the above
listed NSPS and NESHAPS source
categories should be directed to the
SJCAPCD at the address shown hi the
ADDRESS section of the notice.
  The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
  I certify that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on  a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
  This Notice is  issued under the
authority of Section 111 of the Clean Air
Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857, et
seq.}.

  Dated: March 29,1984.

Judith E. Ayres,
Regional A dministrator.
'< S Due 84-9362 Filed 4-6-84. > »5 »m|
BILLING COOt IMO-SO-U
40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

IA-9-FRL 2561-4]

Delegation of New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS);
State of California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Delegation of authority.

SUMMARY: The  EPA hereby places the
public on notice of its delegation of
NSPS and NESHAPS authority to the
California Air Resources Board (CARB)
on behalf or the North Coast Unified Air
Quality Management District. This
action is necessary to bring the NSPS
and NESHAPS program delegations up
to date with recent EPA promulgations
and amendments of these categories.
This action does not create any new
regulatory requirements affecting the
public. The effect of the delegation is to
shift the primary program responsibility
for the  affected NSPS and NESHAPS
categories from EPA to State and local
governments.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 23,1984.
ADDRESS: North Coast Unified  Air
Quality Management District, 5630
South Broadway, Eureka, CA 95501.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
Julie A. Rose, New Source Section (A-3-
1), Air Operations Branch, Air
Management Division, EPA, Region 9.
215 Fremont Street, San Francisco. CA
94105, Tel: (415) 974-8236, FTS 454-8236
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
November 1,1982, the Del Norte County
and the Trinity County Air Pollution
Control Districts merged with the
Humboldt County Air Pollution Control
District to be known as the North Coast
Unified Air Quality Management
District (NCUAQMD). These address
changes are corrected in 40 CFR 60.4
and 61.4.
  The CARB has requested authority for
delegation of certain NSPS and
NESHAPS categories on behalf of the
NCUAQMD. Delegation of authority
was granted by a letter dated December
22,1983 and is reproduced in its entirety
as follows:
Mr. James D. Boyd,
Executive Officer, California Air Resources
    Board. 1102 Q Street. P.O. Box 2815.
    Sacramento,  CA
  Dear Mr. Boyd: In response to your request
of December 5.1983,1 am pleased to inform
you that we are delegating to your agency
authority to implement and enforce certain
categories of New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) and National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS) on behalf of the North Coast
                                                                                       Unified Air Quality Management District
                                                                                       [NCUAQMD) We have reviewed your
                                                                                       request for delegation and ha\e found the
                                                                                       NCUAQMD's programs and procedures to be
                                                                                       acceptable This delegation includes
                                                                                       authority for the following source categories
                                                                                                      NSPS
                                   40O-R
                                   Pan 60
                                  | Sut.part
General Provisions    ...            ! A
Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generators          ' D
Electirc Utility Steam Generators             Da
Incmerators	       .   . , E
Portland Cement Rants          ...   .IF
Nrtnc Acid Plants              .    ..    I G
Sultunc Acid Plants     	     . ! H
Asphalt Concrete Plants	       ' i
Petroleum Refineries             .      . ' J
Storage Vessels tor Petroleum Liquids    ...    i K
Pefoleum Storage Vessels	      . j Ka
Secondary Lead Smelters   	          L
Secondary Brass  A  Bronze  Ingot  Production ' M
  Plants                             j
Iron and Steel Plants (BOPF)	IN
Sewage Treatment Plants ...  ._	       f O
Primary Copper Smelter* 	_	 i P
Primary Zinc Smelters	 j Q
Primary Lead Smelters	      j fl
Pnmary Aluminum Reduction Plants 	.      [ S
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry Wet Process Phos- | T
  phone Acid Plants                    i
Phosphate Fertilizer  Induslry  Superphosphoric j U
  Acid Plants                         i
Phosphate Fertilize' Industry DtammoniuTi Pnos-  V
  phate Plan's                        1
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry Triple Superpltos- ,' w
  phate Plants                        |
Phosphate Fe^lizer Industry Granutar Triple Su- i X
  perphosphate                        I
Coal Preparatnn Plants			j V
Ferroalloy Production Facilities	, Z
Iron and Steel Plants (Electric Arc Furnaces)	 _| AA
Kraft Pulp Mitts    	        . | SB
Glass Manufacturing Plants                ' CC
Grain Elevators		  DD
Surface Coating of Metal Furniture   	  EE
Stationary Gas Turbines	_	—	  GG
Lime Manutactunng Plants     .    .        HH
Lead-Acid Battery Manulaclunng Plants	   ; KK
Automobile 1 Light-Duty  Truck  Surface Coating ' MM
  Operations                         |
Phosphate Rock Plants 	„	 j UN
Ammonium SuMate	 -   	! PP
Giaphic  Arts Industry Publication Rotogravure ' QO
  Pnnting                           j
Industnaj Surface Coating- Large Appliances
Metal Coil Surface Coating Operations
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing. Mamrlac
  ture
Beverage Can Surface Coating
Bulk Gasoline Terminals
wv\
XX
General Provisions
Asbestos   	
Beryllium      	
Beryllium Rocket Motor Fling  .
Mercury    	
Vinyf Chloride  	
  Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
your agreement to follow all applicable
provisions of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61.
including use of EPA's test methods and
procedures. The delegation is effective upon
the date of this letter unless the USEPA
receives written notice from you or the
District of any objections within 10 days of
receipt of this letter. A notice of this
delegated authority will be  published in the
Federal Register in the near future
                                                         IV-185
-------
               Federal Register /  Vol. 49. No. 69  / Monday,  April  9.  1984  / Rules and Regulations
  Sincerely,
Judith E. Ayers,
Regional Administrator.
cc: North Coast Unified Air Quality
    Management District
  With respect to the areas under the
jurisdiction of the NCUAQMD, all
reports, applications, submittals, and
other communications pertaining to the
above listed NSPS and NESHAPS
source categories should be directed to
the NCUAQMD at the address shown in
the ADDRESS section of this notice.
  The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
  I certify that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
  This Notice is issued under the
authority of Section 111 of the Clean Air
Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857, et
seq.}.
  Dated: March 29,1984.
Judith E. Ayres,
Regional A dministrator.

PARTS 60 AND 61-{ AMENDED]

  Subpart A of Parts 60 and 61 of
Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:

Subpart A—General Provisions

§§ 60.4 and 61.04  [Amended]
  Sections 60.4(b)(F) and 61.04(b)(F) are
both amended by removing the
addresses of the Del Norte County Air
Pollution Control District. Humboldt
County Air Pollution Conirol District,
and the Trinity County Air Pollution
Control District and adding the address
for the North Coast Unified Air Quality
Mnnagement District to read as follows:
*****
  (b) * * *
  (F)' * *
North Coast Unified Air Quality Management
  District, 5630 South Broadway. Eureka. CA
  95501
*****
[FR Doc M-A3H3 Filed 4-0-84. 8.45 am|
•IUIHO cooe
40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
[A-9-FRL 2561-3]

Delegation of New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS);
State of California
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Delegation of authority.

SUMMARY: The EPA hereby places the
public on notice of its delegation of
NSPS and NESHAPS authority to the
California Air Resources Board (GARB)
on behalf of the Kern County Air
Pollution Control District (KCAPCD).
This action is necessary to bring  the
NSPS and NESHAPS program
delegations up to date with recent EPA
promulgations and amendments of these
categories. This action does not create
any new regulatory requirements
affecting the public. The effect of the
delegation is to shift the primary
program responsibility for the affected
NSPS and NESHAPS categories from
EPA to State and local governments.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 22,1984.
ADDRESS: Kern County Air Pollution
Control District, 1801 H Street, Suite 250,
Bakersfield, CA 93301.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Julie A. Rose, New Source Section (A-3-
1), Air Operations Branch, Air
Management Division, EPA, Region 9,
215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA
94105, Tel: (415) 974-8236, FTS 454-8236.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
GARB has requested authority for
delegation of certain NSPS and
NESHAPS categories on behalf of the
KCAPCD. Delegation of authority was
granted by a letter dated February 9,
1984 and is reproduced in its entirety as
follows:
Mr. James D. Boyd.
Executive Officer, California Air Resources
    Board. 1102 Q Street, r.O. Box 2815.
    Sacramento, CA
  Dear Mr. Boyd: In response to your request
of January 24.1984,1 am pleased to inform
you that we are delegating to your agency
authority to implement and enforce certain
categories of New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) on behalf of the Kern
County Air Pollution Control District
(KCAPCD). We have reviewed your request
for delegation and have found the KCAPCD'g
programs and procedures to be acceptable.
This delegation includes authority for the
following source categories.
               NSPS
NSPS
Beverage Can Surface Coabng Industry 	
Bulk Gaaolina Terminals

40 CFR.
pat 60.
Subpart
WW
XX

  In addition, we are redelegatmg the
following NSPS and National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS) categories since the KCAPCD's
revised programs and procedures are
acceptable:
40CFP
pan 6C
subpai
Gentrs1 Provisions   	 A
Fossri-Fjei Fired Staam Generators  	  | D
Etoct-.c Utility Staam Generators 	  Da
Incinerators 	 E
Portland Cement Plants  	 F
Nrtnc Acid Plants  	! Q
Suttunc Aod Plants  	   I H
Asphalt Concrete Plants  	  II
Petroleum Refineries	 j J
Storage Vessels tor Petroleum Liquids   ...   . , K
Petroleum Storage Vassals	  j Ka.
Secondary teed Smelters	 u
Secondary Bran * Bronze Ingot Producbon M
  Plants
Iron and Steel Plants (BOP11)	  N
Sewage Treatment Plants 	_	  ' 0
Pnmary Copper Smeiters  	  j P
Prirrary Zinc Smellers 	| O
Pnrrwrv Load Smelters  	  j R
Pnmary Akimir-jm Reduction Plants  	IS
Phosphate Fert'l/er Industry Wet Process Phoa- T
  phone Aod Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer  Industry  Super ohosphonc U
  Add Plants                         |
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry O-ammomum Phos- I V
  phate Plants                         [
Phosphate Fertl zer Industry  Tnpie Superphos- I W
  phate Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Indust-y Granular Top's Su- X
  perpnospnate
Coal Preparation Plants  	 Y.
Ferroalloy Producton Faculties   	  | 2
Iron and Steel Plants (Electric Arc Furnaces)	  | AA
Kraft FtHp Mills		 ! BB.
Glass Manufacturing Plants 	  > CC
Gram Elevators  	_	  ! DD
Surface Coating of Metal Furniture   	  I EE
Stationary Gas Turbines 	 GQ.
Lime Manufacturing Plants  	 HH
Lead-Add Battery Manufacturing Plants	 KK
Automobile a Light-Duty  Truck Surface Coating I MM.
  Operations.                         I
Phosphate Rock Plants	| NN.
Ammonium Sutfate	 PP
Graphic  Arts Industry.  Publication Rotogravue OO
  Pnnting
Industnc! Sj^tace Coating- Large Appliarces 	 SS
Metal Co>! Surtece Coating    	  TT
Asphalt Processing tnd Asphalt Roc*mg Mar-ufac- UU
  ture
	I	
NESHAPS
Gertfra! P'OtfSions . 	
Asbeuos 	
Beryin,,m 	
BerylliL m Rocket Motor Firing 	
Mercury 	 	 	
Vsnyt Chlonde

40 CFR
part 61
aubpari
B
C
D
E
F

  Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
your agreement to follow all applicable
provisions of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61,
including use of EPA's test methods and
procedures. The delegation is effective upon
the date of this letter unless the USEPA
receives written notice from you or the
District of any objections within 10 days of
receipt of this letter. A notice of this
delegated authority will be published in the
Federal Register in the near future.
  Sincerely,
Judith E. Ayres.
Reg, onal Administrator.
cc: Kern County Air Pollution Control District

  With respect  to the areas under the
jurisdiction of the KCAPCD, all reports,
applications, submittals, and other
communications pertaining to the  abovp
                                                        IV-186
-------
              Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 92 / Thur&day. May 10. 1984  /  Rules and Regulations
hsted NSPS and NESHAPS source
categories should be directed to the
KCAPCD at the address shown in the
address section of this notice.
  The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
  I certify that this rule will not ha\e a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
  This Notice is issued under the
authority of Section 111 of the Clean Air
Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857, el
seg).
  Dated March 29, 1984
Judith E. Ay res,
Regional Administrator.
!>'R line 84-9364 Filed 4-«-«4. 8 46 jmi
BILLING CODE «5so-so-n
                                         94
                                         ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
                                         AGENCY

                                         40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
                                         [A-7-FRL-2585-6]

                                         Standards of Performance for New
                                         Stationary Sources (NSPS) and
                                         National Emission Standards for
                                         Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS)
                                         Delegation of Authority to the State of
                                         Iowa
                                         AGENCY: Environmental Protection
                                         Agency (EPA).
                                         ACTION: Notice of delegation of
                                         uulhoi jty.

                                         SUMMARY: This notice announces an
                                         extension of delegations of authority
                                         that were initially issued to the State of
                                         lowd by the Environmental Protection
                                         Agency on June 6,1975 and January 19,
                                         1982, regarding the requirements of the
                                         federal Standards of Performance for
                                         Now Stationary Sources (NSPS), 40 CFR
                                         Part 60, and the National Emission
                                         Stiinclards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
                                         (NES1IAPS), 40 CFR Part 61.
                                         respectively. The extension was
                                         requested by the State of Iowa. The
extension action added seven (7) NSPS
source categories to the NSPS
delegation. The delegations of authority
now include all delegable requirements
of the federal NSPS and NESHAPS
regulations as adopted by the State of
Imva and as amended by the agency
through June 30, 1983.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 1984.
ADDRESSES: All requests, reports,
applications, submittals and such other
communications that are required to be
submitted under 40 CFR Part 60 or 40
CFR Part 61 (including the notifications
required under Subpart A of the
regulations) for facilities or activities in
Iowa affected by the revised delegations
of authority should be sent to the Iowa
Dfpurtmunl of Water, Air and Waste
Management, Henry A. Wallace
Building, 900 East Grand, Des Moinfs,
Iowa 50319. A copy of all Subpart A
related notifications must also be sent to
the  attention of the Director, Air and
Waste Management Division, U.S. EPA,
Region VII,  324 East llth Street, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Charles W.  Whitmore, Chief, Technical
Analysis Section, Air Branch, U.S. EPA,
Region VII,  at the above address (816-
374-6525 or FrS-758-6525.
SUPPLMENTARY INFORMATION: Sections
lll(c) and 112(d) of the Clean Air Act,
respectively, allow the Administrator of
the  Environmental Protection Agency
(i.e., EPA or the agency) to delegate to
any state government authority to
implement and enforce the requirements
of the federal NSPS and NESHAPS
regulations. When a delegation  is
issued, the agency retains concurrent
authority to implement and enforce the
requirements of the delegated
regiilation(s). The effect of a delegation
is to shift the primary responsibility for
implementing and enforcing the
standards for the affected categories
(and/or for the affected activities) from
the  agency to the state government.
  On June 6,1975, the agency delegated
to the Stute of Iowa authority to
implement and enforce the standards for
eleven (11) NSPS source categories as
promulgated by the agency through
April 1, 1974 (see 41 FR 56889, December
30,  1976). The delegation was
subsequently extended to include the
standards of performance for 21
additional source categories on August
25,  1980 (see 45 FR 75758, November 17,
1980), March 31.1983 and May 10, 1983
(see 48 FR 29691, June 28,1983).
Authority to implement and enforce the
NESHAPS for asbestos (except for 40
CFR 61.22(d)). beryllium, beryllium
rut  kut motor firing, mercury, and vinyl
                                                     IV-187
-------
             Federal  Register / Vol. 49. No. 92 / Thursday, May 10.  19B4 / Rules and Regulations
chloride, us promulgated and/or
amended by the agency through
December 31.1980. was delegated to the
Slate of Iowa on January 19,1982 (see 47
FR 11662. March 18,1982). The NSPS
and NESHAPS delegations gave the
State of Iowa authority to implement
and enforce the standards against
affected  facilities and activities'which
exist  (or  occur) in Iowa.
   On February 9,1984, the State of Iowa
requested an extension of the
delegations to reflect a recent updating
of its  rules. The state government has
revised Rule 23.1(2) [NSPS-relatedl and
Rule 23.1(3) [NESI lAPS-related] of the
Iowa  Department of Water, Air and
Waste Management's rules and
regulations to incorporate,  by reference.
the standards of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
(as promulgated and as amended by the
agency through June 30,1983) which
have  been specifically adopted by the
State.
  In consideration of the information
contained in the above-mentioned letter,
the agency granted the extension
request on March 16,1984. The action
extended the delegations to include the
following-additional provisions:

NSI'S
—Subpart EE (Surface Coating of Metal
  Furniture);
—Subpart KK (Lead Acid Battery
  Manufacturing Plants);
—Subpart NN (Phosphate Rock Plants);
--Subparl QQ (Graphic Arts Industry:
  Publication Rotogravure Printing);
—Subparl SS (Industrial Surface Coating:
  Large Appliances);
—Subpurt IT (Metal Coil Surface Coating):
—Subpart UU (Asphalt Processing and
  Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing);
—Rt'feience Methods 5A. 6A, 6B, 12. 22. and
  24A; and.
—The  revisions, clarifications, etc.. made to
  Subparts A, D. Da, T, U. V, W, QQ, TT. to
  Reference Method 20 of Appendix A. and
  to the Performance Specifications of
  Appendix B of the regulation.

KESHAPS
—Test Methods 101A and 107A;
—Appendix C, Procedures 1 and 2; and.
—The  revisions clarifications, etc., made tu
  Subparts A, E, and F, and to Test Methods
  101,102,106. and 107 of Appendix B of the
  regulation.

  Effective immediately, all reports.
correspondence, and such other
communications required to be
submitted under the NSPS or NESHAPS
regulations for facilities or activities in
Iowa  affected by the revised delegations
of authority should be sent to the Iowa
Department of Water, Air and Waste
Management at the above address
rather than to the EPA Region Vll office.
f \cept as noted below.
  A copy of each notification required
to be submitted under 40 Cl'R Hurt W),
Suhpart A, or under 40 CFR Part 61,
Subpart A, must also be sent to the
attention of the Director, Air and Waste
Management Division, U.S. EPA, Region
VII, 324 East llth Street, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106.
  Each document and letter mentioned
in this notice is available for public
inspection at the EPA regional office.
  This notice is issued under the
authority of section 111 and 112 of the
Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.
7411 and 7412).
  Dated: April 27. 19H4.

Morris Kay,
Regional Administrator.
|I'K DIM. M-1201B Kiled &-8-B4 «45«ra|
•IIOJNG CODE H40-M-M
95
   ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
   AGENCY
   40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
   IAD-FRL 2594-8]

   Standards of Performance for New
   Stationary Sources and National
   Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
   Pollutants
   AGENCY: Environmental Protection
   Agency (EPA).
   ACTION: Final rule amendments.

   SUMMARY: Relocation of offices and
   internal reorganization within the
   Agency over the past several years hau
   caused the published addresses to
   become outdated for EPA offices
   responsible for air pollution control and
   enforcement activities at EPA Regional
  Offices. These amendments make the
  addresses current for correspondence
  related to the provisions of new souru-
  performance standards (NSPS) and
  national emission standards for
  hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP).
  These addresses are contained in 40
  CFR Subpart A § 60.4(a) and Subpnrt A
  § 61.04!a).
  EFFECTIVE DATE: May 29. 1984.
  FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
  Robert L Ajax, (919) 541-5578.
  SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Since the
  promulgation of 40 CFR 60.4(a)  and
  61.04(a), mailing addresses have
  changed for five of the EPA Regional
  Offices. Organizational changes have
  eliminated "Enforcement Divisions."
  and matters pertaining to air pollution
  control are now the responsibility of
  either an "Air Management Division" or
  an "Air and Waste Management
  Division" at EPA Regional Offices.
  Correcting these addresses in the  CFR's
  will facilitate efficient handling of
  correspondence directed to air pollution
  program offices in the 10 EPA Regional
  Offices.
    Because these amendments are  purely
  administrative and impose no new
  regulatory requirements or any  policy
  implications, they are not subject to
  re\ iew under Executive Order 12291 by
  the Office of Management and Budget.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
  6905(b), I hereby certify that these
  amendments will not have a significant
  economic impact on a substantial
  number of small business entities
  because small business entities are not
  affected by the amendments.
  List of Subjects
  40 CFR Part 60
   Air pollution control. Aluminum.
  Ammonium sulfate plants. Asphalt.
                                                      IV-188
-------
            Federal Register /  Vol. 49,  No. 104  /  Tuesday, Mciy  29. 1984 / Rules  and Regulations
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, W jste treatment
and disposal, Zinc, Tires,  Incorporation
by reference, Can surface coating,
Sulfuric acid plants, Industrial organic
chemicals, Organic solvent cleaners,
Fossil fuel-fired steam generate: s.
Fiberglass insulation, Synthetic fibers.

40 CFR Part 6J
  Asbestos, Beryllium, Hazardous
substances. Mercury. Reporting and
record keeping requirement, Vinyl
chloride.
(Sec. Ill Clean Air Act. as amended (42
U.S.C. 7411))
  Dated: May 21,1984.
Joseph A. Cannon,
Assistant Adminstrator for Air and Rod ction.

PART 60—[AMENDED]

  1. 40 CFR § 60.4(a) is revised to read
as follows:

§ 60.4  Address.
  (a) All requests, reports, applications,
submittals, and other communications to
the Administrator pursuant to this part
shall be submitted in duplicate to the
appropriate Regional Office of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency to the
attention of the Director of the Division
indicated in the following list of EPA
Regional Offices.
Region I {Connecticut, Maine,
  Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
  Rhode Island, Vermont), Director, Air
  Management Division,  U.S.
  Environmental Protection Agency,
  John F. Kennedy Federal Building,
  Boston, Massachusetts  02203
Region II (New Jersey, New York, Puerto
  Rico, Virgin Islands), Director, Air and
  Waste Management Division, U.S.
  Environmental Protection Agency,
  Federal Office Building, 26 Federal
  Plaza, New York, New  York 10278
Region III (Delaware, District of
  Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania,
  Virginia, West Virginia), Director, Air
  and Waste Management Division, U.S.
  Environmental Protection Agency,
  Curtis Building, Sixth and Walnut
  Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  19106
Region IV (Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
  Kentucky, Mississippi,  North Carolina,
  South Carolina, Tennessee), Director,
  Air and Waste Management Division,
  U.S. Environmental Protection
  Agency, 345 Courtland  Street, NE.,
  Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Region V (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
  Minnesota. Ohio, Wisconsin),
  Director. Air Management Division,
  U.S. Environmental Protection
  Agency, 230 South Dearborn Street,
  Chicago Illinois 60604
Region VI (Arkansas, Louisiana. New
  Mexico, Oklahoma. Texas), Director.
  Air and Waste Management Division,
  U.S. Environmental Protection
  Agency, 1210 Elm Street, Dallas,
  Texas 75270
Region VII (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri,
  Nebraska), Director, Air and Waste
  Management Division, U.S.
  Envirormental Protection Agency, 324
  East llth Street, Kansas City,
  Missouri 64106
Region VIII (Colorado, Montana, North
  Dakota, South Dakota, Utah.
  Wyoming), Director, Air and Waste
  Management Division, U.S.
  Environmental Protection Agency,
  1860 Lincoln Street, Denver, Colorado
  80295
Region IX (American Samoa, Arizona,
  California, Guam, Hawaii, Nevada),
  Director. Air Management Division,
  U.S. Environmental Protection
  Agency, 215 Fremont Street, San
  Francisco, California 94105
Region X (Alaska, Idaho, Oregon,
  Washington), Director, Air and Waste
  Management Division, U.S.
  Environmental Protection Agency,
  1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle.
  Washington 98101
PART 61—[AMENDED]

  2. Section 61.04(a) is revised to read as
follows:

§61.04  Address.
  (a) All requests, reports, applications,
submittals, and other communications to
the Administrator pursuant to this part
shall be submitted in duplicate to the
appropriate Regional Office of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency  to the
attention of the Director of the Division
indicated in the following list of EPA
Regional Offices.
Region I (Connecticut, Maine,
  Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
  Rhode Island, Vermont), Director, Air
  Management Division, U.S.
  Environmental Protection Agency,
  John F. Kennedy Federal Building,
  Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Region II (New Jersey, New York, Puerto
  Rico, Virgin Islands), Director, Air and
  Waste Management Division, U.S.
  Environmental Protection Agency,
  Federal Office Building.  26 Federal
  Plaza, New York, New York 10278
Region HI (Delaware. District of
  Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania,
  Virginia, West Virginia), Director. Air
  and Waste Management Division, I; S
  Environmental Protection Agonc\»,
  Curtis Building. Sixth and Wylnut
  Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  19106
Region IV (Alabama, Florida, Georgia.
  Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carol5
Region V (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan.
  Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin).
  Director, Air Management Division
  U.S. Environmental Protecticn
  Agency, 230 South Dearborn Street.
  Chicago Illinois 60604
Region VI (Arkansas, Louisiana, New
  Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas), Director
  Air and Waste Management Division.
  U.S. Environmental Protection
  Agency, 1210 Elm Street, Dallas,
  Texas 75270
Region VII (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri,
  Nebraska), Director, Air and Waste
  Management Division, U.S.
  Environmental Protection Agency, 324
  East llth Street,  Kansas City,
  Missouri 64100
Region VIII (Colorado, Montana, North
  Dakota, South Dakota, Utah.
  Wyoming), Director, Air and Was'e
  Management Division, U.S.
  Environmental Protection Agency,
  1860 Lincoln Street, Denver, Colorado
  80295
Region IX (American Samoa. Arizona,
  California, Guam, Hawaii, Nevadd),
  Director, Air Management Division,
  U.S. Environmental Protection
  Agency, 215 Fremont Street, San
  Francisco, California 94105
Region X (Alaska,  Idaho, Oiegon,
  Washington), Director, Air and V\ as'.:j
  Management Division, U.S.
  Environmental Protection Agency.
  1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,
  Washington 98101
*****
JFK Doc 64-14091 Filed 5-25-84. 6 45 am]
                                                     IV-189
-------
           Federal Register  /  Vol. 49.  Nu. 110  /  Wednesday. June  6. 1984 / Rules  and Regulations
 NVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 61

IAD-F3L-2523-7]

National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Regulation
of Benzene

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Response to public comments.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) listed benzene as a
hazardous air pollutant under Section
112 of the Clean Air Act on June 8,1977
(42 FR 29332). Standards were
subsequently proposed for maleic
Anhydride process vents (45 FR 25660,
April 18, 1980); ethylbenzene/styrene
(EB/S) process vents (45 FR 83448.
December 18,1980); benzene fugitive
emission sources (46 FR 1165, January 5,
1981); and benzene storage vessels (45
FR 83952, December 19,1980). This
Federal Register notice responds to
public comments on the listing, health
effects, and regulation of benzene as a
hazardous air pollutant.
ADDRESSES: Background Information
Document. The background information
document (BID) 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 "Response to Public Comments
on EPA's Listing of Benzene Under
Section 112," EPA-450/5-82-003, which
contains a summary of all public
comments on the health effects, listing,
dnd regulatory approach for benzene.
  Ducket, Docket No. OAQPS 79-3 (Part
I] contains information considered on
the health effects, listing, and regulation
of benzene. Other dockets containing
public comments on the listing, health
effects, and regulation of benzene are
contained in Docket No. OAQPS 79-3
(Part II), for maleic anhydride plants;
Docket No. A-79-27, for benzene
fugitive emissions: Docket No. A-79-49,
for EB/S plants; and Docket No. A-80-
14, for benzene storage vessels. These
dockets are available for public
inspection between 8:00 a.m.  and 4:00
p.m., Monday through Friday, at EPA's
Central Docket Section (LE-131), West
Tower Lobby, Gallery 1,401 M Street,
SW., Washington, D.C. 20460. A
reasonable fee may be charged for
copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For further information on the listing
and health effects of benzene, contact
Mr. Robert Kellam. Pollutant
Assessment Branch, Strategies and Air
Standards Division (MD-12), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5645.
For further information on the regulation
of benzene, contact Mr. Gilbert H.
Wood, 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:

Overview of Benzene Regulation
  This section provides background
information  and 'Summarizes EPA's
responses to the major public comments
on the listing, health effects, and
regulation of benzene. This section is
intended to be an overview only.
Subsequent  sections and the BID
contain more detailed responses to
public comments.
Background
  Based on studies linking occupational
exposure to  benzene with leukemia,
EPA's general presumption that
carcinogenic thresholds do not exist, the
absence of a demonstrated threshold for
benzene, and widespread exposure to
large quantities of benzene emitted by
stationary sources, EPA concluded that
benzene could reasonably be
anticipated to cause an increase in
contracting leukemia for individuals
exposed to benzene emissions from
stationary sources. EPA therefore listed
benzene as a hazardous air pollutant on
June 8,1977  (42 FR 29332).
  Stationary sources of benzene are
now estimated to emit at least 55,000
Megagrams  (Mg) (about 120 million
pounds) of benzene per year. The
benzene sources have been divided into
12 source categories, based on
'technological considerations (such as
control technology applicability)
important in standards development.
EPA decided to address the stationary
source benzene problem by selecting for
initial regulation five of these  source
categories: maleic anhydride process
vents, ethylbenzene/styrene (EB/S)
process vents, benzene fugitive
emissions sources, benzene storage
vessels, and coke oven by-product
recovery plants.
  EPA is collecting additional data on
the remaining seven source categories to
use in deciding whether or not
standards development is warranted for
them.
  Benzene standards for four  of the five
source categories selected for initial
regulation were proposed: maleic
anhydride process vents (45 FR 26660,
April 18,1980); EB/S process vents (45
FR 83448, December 18,1980); benzene
storage vessels (45 FR 83952, December
19,1980); and benzene fugitive emissions
sources (46 FR 1165, January 5,1981).
The Agency intends to promulgate
standards for benzene fugitive emission
sources and propose standards for the
fifth source category,  coke by-product
plants, in separate notices. In a third
notice the Agency is withdrawing the
proposed standards for maleic
anhydride process vents, EB/S process
vents, and benzene storage vessels,
based on the conclusion that both the
benzene health risks to the public from
these source categories and potential
reductions in health risks achievable
with available control techniques are
too small to warrant Federal regulatory
action under section 112.

Summary of Responses to Major
Comments

  The primary comment received on the
proposed standards was that benzene
should not have been listed as a
hazardous air pollutant. Commenters
argued that benzene did not meet the
criteria for listing under section 112
because they believe  the health hazard
posed by ambient levels of benzene is
negligible, if not zero. Specifically,
commenters, while generally agreeing
with EPA that epidemiological studies
have shown  that a causal relationship
exists between occupational benzene
exposure and leukemia, maintained that
the relationship had not been
demonstrated at the much lower levels
of benzene characteristic of the ambient
air. In contending that EPA's
nonthreshold presumption has been
applied inappropriately in the case of
benzene, commenters cited the lack of
direct evidence that ambient levels pose
leukemogenic risks as well as benzene
research data and theoretical
considerations compatible with the
presence of a carcinogenic threshold for
benzene.
  Commenters asserted that the
absence of data demonstrating that
benzene reacts chemically with DNA
supports the theory that benzene is
likely to cause cancer by other than a
direct genetic mechanism (the
production of a transformed cell by
direct interaction of a benzene molecule
and the cellular genetic material). The
nongenetic, or epigenetic, theory holds
that such carcinogens must be present in
sufficient quantities to induce toxic
injury to the target tissue before cancer
can occur. At levels below that required
to cause "-injury," body defense
mechanisms are capable of protecting
the tissues from a carcinogenic insult.
                                                   IV-190
-------
           Federal Register  /  Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6, 1984 / Rules and  Regulations
  In support of a threshold for benzene.
commenters maintained that benzene-
induced leukemia was in most, if not ail,
cases preceded by evidence of injury to
the blood-forming system (anemia,
cytopenia, etc.). Commenters argued
that because thresholds (10 to 35 ppm)
exist for such effects, benzene exposure
below these thresholds should  not pose
carcinogenic risks. Similarly,
commenters cited epidemiological
studies that did not show a positive
correlation between benzene exposure
and leukemia, as support for a  risk
threshold.
  The EPA recognized at the time of
listing that benzene at ambient levels, as
with most other carcinogens, had not
been demonstrated by epidemiologic
studies to cause leukemia. The
epidemiological methods that have
successfully revealed associations
between occupational exposure and
cancer for substances such as benzene,
asbestos, vinyl chloride, and ionizing
radiation are not readily applied to the
ambient environment with its increased
number of confounding variables, a
more diverse and mobile exposed
population, a lack of consolidated
medical records, and an almost total
absence of historical exposure data.
Given such uncertainties, EPA  considers
it improbable that any ambient
association, short of a relationship of
epidemic proportions or large increases
in an extremely rate form of cancer, can
be delected epidemiologically with any
reasonable certainty.
  Further, EPA egrees with the
observations of the National A, a jeni>
of Sciences (NAS) (1):
  In considering the possibility of thresholds
for carcinogenesis, it is important lo
understand that there is no agent, chemical or
physical, that induces a form of cancer in
man that does not occur in the absenrr of
that agent  In other words, when there is
exposure to a material, we are not starting at
an origin of zero cancers. Nor are we starting
at an origin of zero carcinogenic agents in our
environment. Thus, it is likely that any
carcinogenic agent added to the environment
will act by a particular mechanism on a
particular cell population  that is already
being acted on by the same mechanism to
induce cancers. This reasoning implies that
only if it acted by a mechanism entirely
different from that already operating on the
tissue could a newlj added carcinogen show
a threshold in its dose response curve.
This view is consistent with evidence
that any exposure may produce a
change in the genetic material  that can
lead to cell transformation and that
cancers may arise from a single
transformed cell.
  In addition to the support for a
nonthreshold hypothesis, EPA notes the
problems inherent in attempting to
identify and to quantify real or practical
carcinogenic thresholds. In this regard,
EPA concurs with the NAS that
theoretical evidence for the existence of
carcinogenic thresholds must be
tempered by the knowledge that the
exposed human population is a "large,
diverse, and genetically heterogeneous
group exposed to a large variety of toxic
agents. Genetic variability to
carcinogenesis is well documented, and
it is also known that individuals who
are deficient in immunological
competence (for genetic or
environmental reasons) are particularly
susceptible to some forms of cancer." (1)
  For these reasons, EPA has taken the
position, shared by other Federal
regulatory agencies, that in the absence
of sound scientific evidence to the
contrary, carcinogens should be
considered to pose finite health risks at
any nonzero exposure levels. This
nonthreshold presumption is based on
the view that as little as one molecule of
a carcinogenic substance may be
sufficient to transform a normal cell into
a cancer cell. Evidence is available from
both the human and animal health
literature that cancers may arise from a
single transformed cell. Mutation
research with ionizing radiation in  cell
cultures indicates that such a
transformation can occur as the result of
interaction with as little as a single
cluster of ion pairs.
  In the decision to list benzene under
section 112 EPA found no reason to
believe that the nonthreshold
presumption did not apply to benzene.
After reviewing the public comments,
EPA believes that although they provide
a comprehensive discussion of the
scientific and theoretical support for a
carcinogenic threshold for benzene, the
evidence is inadequate to support a
conclusion that ambient levels of
benzene are without carcinogenic risk.
  The EPA did  not at listing and does
not now believe that information such
as the benzene  exposure levels
estimated from "negative" epidemio-
logic;.! studies can be regarded as the
equivalent of no-effect levels. Because
of the problems and uncertainties
inherent in the design and conduct of
such studies, they do not support the
conclusion that the absence of a
statistical correlation demonstrates the
absence of a hazard.
   While the epigenetic mechanism
offers a possible explanation for the
way in which cancers could arise in the
absence of direct interaction with
genetic material, this theory has not
been substantiated by experimental
evidence nor has applicability to the
specific case of benzene been
established beyond largely theoretical
grounds.
  The EPA does not agree with
industry's conclusion that the absence
or nondetection of covalent bonding
with DNA indicates that benzene cannui
directly interact with the genetic
material. Evidence exists that benzene
at levels as low as 1 to 2.5 ppm
significantly increases chromosomal
aberrations. [2] (3) Similarly, EPA docs
not regard as conclusive the evidence
provided by commenters that leukemia
or other adverse health effects do not
occur in the absence of overt signs of
blood toxicity. Again, studies are
available demonstrating benzene-
induced chromosomal aberrations
following exposure to benzene at lev»!s
below those advanced as thresholds  for
blood toxicity.
  Finally, commenters have argued that
below the benzene levels required to
"injure" the blood-forming tissues, the
body's defense mechanisms protect the
tissues from low-level carcinogenic
insults. EPA is not persuaded that such
mechanisms are 100 percent effective In
addition, although the commentors dn
not regard chromosomal  aberrations  as
evidence of blood toxicity. the presenu-
o1" these effects indicates that benrnne
or an aci,\ e metabolite has byen able lo
overwhelm the protective mechanisms
and enter the cellular nuclejs
   In summary, EPA continues to In i.^ir
that the nonthreshold pres.imp! on
should apply in the case  of benzerif and
thai exposure to benzene via  the
ambient air should be regarded as
posing carcinogenic risks. Although EiJ \
recognizes that this finding is not
without uncertainty, the Agency
believes thai it is consistent with the
mandate of Section 112 requiring the
protection of public health against ai:
pollutants thai "may reasonably lj?.
anticipated" to cjuse or contributp to
the health effects of concern.
   After reviewing the public comments.
EPA also continues to believe that
benzene emissions from  some stationary
sources represent a significant risk oi
leukemia to exposed populations. This
judgment is based on the documented
evidence that benzene is a  leukemogen.
on the magnitude of benzene  emissions
from stationary sources to the ambient
air, on the observed and estimated
ambient concentrations,  on the
proximity of large populations to
emitting sources, on the estimates of the
health risks to the exposed populations,
and consideration of the uncertainties
associated with quantitative risk
estimates (including the effects of
concurrent exposures to  other
                                                      IV-191
-------
           Federal  Register / Vol. 49. No. 110 /  Wednesday, June 6.  1984 / Rules  and  Regulations
substances and tc other benzene
emissions).
  Section 112 provides for the delisting
of benzene only if it is found that
benzene is clearly not a hazardous air
pollutant. EPA judges the evidence,
including that submitted by commenters.
to be insufficient  to support a conclusion
that ambient levels of benzene do not
pose carcinogenic risks or that the risks
posed by ambient benzene emitted by
stationary sources are insignificant. In
conclusion, EPA continues to regard the
listing of benzene on June  8,1977,  as
appropriate and considers delisting at
this time inappropriate.
  A second major comment on the
proposed standards contends that the
individual source categories covered do
not pose a significant health risk and,
further, are already controlled
adequately. In fact, several plants have
installed controls or shut down since the
basic information for standard's
development was obtained and, indeed,
since standards were proposed. EPA has
revised its emissions and health risk
estimates based on the latest emissions
information provided by the industry
and has included in these  estimates
consideration of current controls.  EPA
has also adjusted its unit risk factor in
response to public comments and  is
using a more detailed human exposure
model. EPA has reassessed this new
information for maleic anhydride
process  vents, EB/S process vents,
benzene storage vessels, and benzene
fugitive emission sources and concludes
that in light of the health risks  and
potential reductions of these four  source
categories, only benzene fugitive
emissions warrant Federal regulations
under Section 112. Details regarding the
new information  and conclusions  are
included in the separate notices for
these source categories.
Public Participation

  The Science Advisory Board reviewed
draft documents in December of 1977 on
EPA's assessment of the health effects
at low-level exposure, the extent of
human exposure, and the estimation of
population risks.  Public comments were
so!;cited at proposal of the maleic
anhydride standard (April 18> 1980; 45
FR 26660) on the  health effects, listing.
and regulation of benzene. A public
hearing  was held on August 21,1980, in
Washington,'D.C., to provide interested
parties an opportunity for oral
presentation of data, views,  or
arguments on the health effects, listing,
and regulation of benzene. The hearing
was open to the public, and each
attendee was given an opportunity to
comment. The public comment period
was from April 18,1980, to November 6,
1980.
  Comments have been considered and
changes made to the analysis and
conclusions, where appropriate. Major
comments received on the health effects,
listing and regulation of benzene, and
EPA'9 responses ate summarized in this
preamble. More detailed responses to
the major comments and responses to
the other comments not addressed in
this preamble are contained in
"Response to Public Comments on
EPA's Listing of Benzene Under Section
112," EPA-450/5-«2-003. Comments are
identified by the docket item number in
parentheses.

Listing of Benzene Under Section 112

  The EPA listed benzene as a
hazardous air pollutant based on
"(s]cientific reports [which] strongly
suggest an increased incidence of
leukemia in workers exposed to
benzene" (42 FR 29332, June a 1977).
These reports included a review of
benzene by MAS, [4] updated criteria
published by the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH), (5) and a proposal by the
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) for a revision
downward of the existing workplace
standard for benzene (42 FR 22516, May
3,1977, and 42 FR 27452, May 27,1977).
While acknowledging that ambient
exposure to benzene normally occurs at
levels "substantially lower than those to
which affected workers were exposed,"
EPA maintained that "there is reason to
believe that ambient exposures may
constitute a cancer risk and should be
reduced" (42 FR 29332, June 8,1977).
  At the time of listing. EPA announced
that it would review the scientific data
to determine the health risks from
exposure to ambient levels of benzene
and invited public participation. The
resulting EPA reports—"Assessment of
Health Effects of Benzene Germane to
Low Level Exposures," (6) "Assessment
of Human Exposures to Atmospheric
Benzene," (7) and "Carcinogen
Assessment Group's Report on
Population Risk to Ambient Benzene"
(8)—form the basis for the majority of
the public comments directed at the
listing decision.
  Commenters, largely from potentially
affected industries and trade
associations, argued that the listing of
benzene was ill-timed unnecessary, and
unjustified. The main thrusts of these
arguments are that EPA failed to
develop an adequate record in advance
of listing and that the record
subsequently prepared does not
demonstrate that benzene at the levels
encountered in the ambient air warrants
designation as a hazardous air pollutant.

Timing of Benzene Listing Decision

  Many commenters though benzene
was listed improperly, or at least
prematurely, citing what they believed
to be an inadequate record (OAQPS-79-
3 [Part I] IV-D-13 [Part II] IV-F-1, IV-F-
9; A-79-^19 IV-D-9, IV-D-11; A-79-27
IV-D-19) and EPA's reliance on a
proposed policy regarding airborne
carcinogens (44 FR 58642; October 10,
1979) (A-79-27 FV-D-8, IV-D-25, IV-D-
26; OAQPS-79-3 [Part I] IV-D-1, IV-D-
11; A-79-^9 IV-D-7).
  The Clean Air Act requires EPA to list
under section 112 substances judged to
cause or contribute to air pollution
"which may reasonably be anticipated
to result in an increase in mortality or
an increase in serious, irreversible  or
incapacitating, reversible illness"
[section 112(a)(l)]. EPA based the
decision to list benzene on a growing
consensus in the scientific and
regulatory community, evidenced by
reports by NAS (4) and NIOSH (5} and
proposed regulations issued by OSHA
(42 FR 27452; May 27,1977) that benzene
was causally linked to the occurrence of
leukemia in occupationally exposed
populations. In EPA's view, leukemia
clearly meets the criterion described in
section 112 as resulting in an increase in
mortality or "serious, irreversible or
incapacitating, reversible illness."
  The EPA's judgment that benzene
present in the ambient air may
"reasonably be anticipated" to pose a
significant health hazard to the general
population relied on two arguments
advanced in the listing notice: first, that
benzene was released to the air in  100
million pound quantities annually to
which "large numbers of people are
routinely exposed" and, second, that
EPA had "adopted a regulatory policy
which recognizes that some risk exists
at any level of exposure to carcinogenic
chemicals" (42 FR 29332; June 8,1977).
The latter referred to the "Interim
Procedures and Guidelines for Health
Risk and Economic Impact Assessments
of Suspected Carcinogens" published by
EPA May 25,1976 (41 FR 21402).
  Based on the above, EPA believes that
the decision to list benzene was fully
informed, timely, and therefore
appropriate. The subsequent
assessments of low-level exposure and
carcinogenic risk were intended, as
indicated in the listing notice, for use in
"determining which sources of benzene
emissions must be controlled, and  the
extent of control needed" (42 FR 29333,
June 8,1977). To the extent that these
assessment documents addressed the
                                                     IV-192
-------
           Federal  Register  /  Vol. 49,  No. 110 /  Wednesday, June 6. 1984  /  Rules and Regulations
criteria for listing benzene under section
112, they have affirmed EPA's decision.
  The EPA rejects the contention that
the delay between listing and the
proposal of emission standards for
benzene sources suggests that EPA
lacked the scientific evidence to justify
the June 1977 listing. EPA's assessments
of the health effects of low-level
exposure,(6} the extent of human
exposure,(7) and the estimation of
population risks (8) were submitted for
external review by EPA's Science
Advisory Board in December 1977 and
publicly released in September 1978,
June 1978, and January 1979,
respectively. The first emissions
standard for benzene sources"was not
proposed until April 18,1980 (45 FR
26660). Proposal was not delayd by "the
evidence" for listing but rather the
complex task of developing specific
national emission standards for each
source category.
  Several commenters (A-79-27-IV-D-
8, IV-D-25, IV-D-26; A-60-14-IV-D-4,
IV-D-11; OAQPS-79-3 [Part I] IV-D-1, .
IV-D-11; A-79-49-IV-D-7; OAQPS-79-3
(Part Il-IV-D-5) maintained that the
listing and rulemaking proceedings for
benzene were premature, arguing that
they were based on a proposed policy
regarding airborne carcinogens (44 FR
58642; October 10,1979).
  Neither the listing of benzene nor the
proposed or promulgated standards are
based on the proposed airborne
carcinogen policy. They are based on
section 112. As described above, EPA is
persuaded that the decision to list
benzene under section 112 was neither
premature nor in excess of the Agency's
legal authority.
Health Effects of Benzene
   Public comments on the EPA report
"Assessment of Health Effects of
Benzene Germane to Low-Level
Exposure" focused on areas of the
benzene health literature relevant to
^valuation of human health risks from
ambient exposure. These include effects
on reproduction and development
(embryotoxicity and leratogenicity),
effects on the cellular genetic material
(mutagenicity and chromosome
breakage), and carcinogenicity. The
basis for listing benzene as a hazardous
air pollutant is carcinogenicity.
However, since comments were
received on the report's discussions on
the other effects, they are included for
completeness.
   Reproductive and Teratogenic Effects.
EPA concluded in the benzene health
assessment report  that the health
literature was inconclusive regarding
potential effects of benzene on human
reproduction and the fetus. Some
commenters took a stronger position,
asserting that no evidence was available
linking benzene with reproductive or
teratogenic effects (OAQPS-79-3 [Part
I|_IV-D-9, IV-D-13; [Part II]-IV-D-22,
IV-F-1, IV-F-8).
  The EPA agrees with the commenters
that the available data do not implicate
benzene as a potential teratogen or
embryotoxin in test species. The risks of
adverse fetal developmental or
reproductive effects, however, have not
been studied adequately. No state-of-
the-art multiple generation reproduction
studies involving benzene have  been
done, without which it will not be
possible to determine the levels at
which benzene would have no observed
effect.
  From the available data concerning
adverse reproductive effects of benzene
in humans, it is not possible to conclude
that no adverse human reproductive
consequence results from ambient levels
of benzene, since no well-designed and
executed epidemiological studies have
been conducted. It is not known if
ambient levels of benzene have effects
on the many areas of human
reproduction, such as the processes of
spermatogenesis and changes in
menstrual cycle. Until such possibilities
are explored, EPA believes that the
evidence for benzene-induced
reproductive effects in humans must be
regarded as inconclusive.
  Chromosomal Effects. Although
commenters did not disagree with EPA's
conclusion that benzene can cause
chromosome breakage in humans. (6)
they were divided on the exposure
levels at  which such damage occurs and
on the implications of the observed
changes (OAQPS-79-3 [Part I] IV-D-8,
IV-D-13, [Part II] IV-F-1, IV-F-«; A-79-
27,1V-D-27; A-79-49, IV-D-9).  Several
commenters asserted that these effects
result only from high exposures, in
excess of 10 ppm (A-79-27, IV-D-27,  A-
79-49, IV-D-9, OAQPS-79-3  [Part I] IV-
D-13), and that "no reliable evidence"
exists to link subclinical benzene
exposure to chromosome aberrations or
to relate  the observation of chromosome
breakage with human leukemia
(OAQPS-79-3 [Part I] IV-D-13, [Part  II]
IV-F-1, F-8; A-79-49 IV-D-9).
  Conversely, one commenter
challenged EPA's conclusion that a
dose-dependent relationship between
benzene  exposure and chromosome
damage had not been demonstrated,
citing a study by Picciano (2) fn
benzene-exposed workers, and
maintained that this study documented
chromosomal effects at benzene
exposure levels at and below 2.5 ppm
(OAQPS-79-3 [Part I] IV-D-6).
  The EPA does not agree that the data
on human cytogenetic effects support a
conclusion that benzene-induced
chromosome damage occurs only after
"excessive exposure." As described in
the health assessment document, studies
are available that relate increaspj
chromosome breakage to benzene
exposure well below the OSHA
standard of 10 ppm time-weighted
average (TWA). (3) (9)
  With respect to a dose-response
relationship, EPA agrees that the
Picciano study indicates a dosp-
dependent relationship between
exposure to benzene and the amount of
chromosome damage. As noted in the
EPA health assessment  document,
however, "[tjhere is no correlation,
* * *, between the degree or length of
exposure, the clinical symptons, and
persistence or extent of chromosomal
aberrations" [emphasis  added]. [6] EPA
believes that this study  and the study by
Kilian and Daniel (3) are appropriately
considered evidence of  an assocation
between benzene exposure and
chromosome breakage and that the
lowest benzene levels (1.0 to 2.5 ppm)
where significant increases in breakage
were found are considered properly lo
reflect exposures below those
associated with clinical symptons of
toxicity.
  EPA also agrees that no direct
evidence of a casual linkage between
chromosomal aberrations and leukemia
exists. EPA remains concerned,
however, by the frequency of reports
correlating chromosome abnormalities
with cancer incidence. In addition  to
benzene workers and leukemia, this
association has been pointed out in
atomic bomb survivors  with leukemia,
(10) in uranium miners with lung cancer,
in vinyl chloride workers with liver
cancer, in liminous dial painters with
bone cancer, and in individuals
developing visceral cancers after
methotrexate treatment for psoriasis.
(")
  Carcinogenicity, Commenters did not
challege EPA's conclusion that "there in-
substantial epidemiological evidence
that benzene is  a human leukemogen."
(8) A number of commenters, however.
disagreed with EPA's conclusion that
benzene posed increased leukemia risk
at the levels present in the ambient air.
EPA addresses  these comments below
in "Health Issues Relevant to Benzene
Listing Decision."
  One commenter took issue with  EPA's
conclusion that "there is no cur.vincipg
evidence that benzene causes
neoplasias, including leukemia, in
animals." (6) The commenter citeJ tv>o
studies, one by  Maltoni and Scarnato
                                                     IV-193
-------
           Federal  Register / Vol. 49, No. 110  /  Wednesday, June 6.  1984 / Rules  and  Regulations
(12) and one by Snyder et al. (13)
demonstrating benzene-induced tumors
in rodents ( OAQPS-79-3 [Part I) IV-D-
8).
  The carcinogenicity studies on
benzene in animals reported by Majtoni
and Scarnato  (1979) (12) and Snyder et
al. (1980) (13)  support the comment that
a positive tumorigenic effect of benzene
is evident from these studies. The
results of these studies are addressed in
the following  section.
Health Basis for Listing
  As previously discussed, the Agency
based the decision to list benzene on a
growing consensus in the scientific and
regulatory community, supported by
reports by NAS, (4) NIOSH, (5) and
emergency temporary standards issued
by OSHA (42  FR 22518. May 3,1977) that
benzene  was  causally related to the
occurrence of leukemia in
occupationally exposed populations.
  Although the association between
human leukemia and benzene exposure
is only one of several adverse health
effects attributed to benzene, the serious
consequences of this disease and the
uncertainties  regarding the existence of
any no-effect  levels of exposure
combined to make it the basis for the
derision to list. EPA's health basis for
listing rested  primarily on retrospective
studies in occupationally exposed
human populations. Of these, three
reports documenting an association
received greatest emphasis:  Infante et
&l..(14) Aksoy et al., (75) and Ott et al.
(16) In the interval since listing, animal
data have become available that further
support a causal relationship. (12) (13)
  Commenters critical of EPA's decision
to list benzene argued that these studies
suffered from design and methodological
flaws, the correction of which would
tend to greatly reduce if not eliminate
the observed  association. Several
commenters also thought EPA had
misinterpreted the study results and
ignored other well-conducted studies
that reached  significantly different
conclusions.
  Epidemiological Studies. The work by
Infante et al., a retrospective cohort
mortality study undertaken by NIOSH,
was reported initially in 1977 with a
completed follow up published in 1981.
(17) The study found a greater than
fivefold excess risk of leukemia among
workers exposed to benzene during the
period of 1940 to 1949 in the "Pliofilm"
(rubber hydrochloride) production
industry.
   One commenter stated that the
Infante work was "seriously flawed and
largely discredited," citing testimony
from the public hearings on the OSHA
benzene standard (18) and the Supreme
Court's plurality decision on the OSHA
standard (19) (OAQPS-79-3 [Part II] IV-
D-5; A-79-27 IV-D-8). More
specifically, commenters asserted that
the study was flawed in two respects:
the exposed cohort was improperly
defined: and the exposure levels
assumed were erroneous (OAQPS-79-3
[Part I] IV-D-13, [Part II] IV-D-5. IV-F-
1, IV-F-9; A-79-27 IV-D-8; A-79-49 IV-
D-9; A-80-14 IV-D-4, IV-D-16).
  Though EPA recognizes that the
Infante et al., study has weaknesses,
EPA believes that the characterization
of the study as "seriously flawed and
largely discredited" is inaccurate.
Although the commenter does not
provide explanation of his criticism
beyond references to the OSHA benzene
rulemaking, his remarks imply that the
study is invalid due to erroneous
reporting of the exposure
concentrations. EPA acknowledges, as
did the authors of the study, that the
historical exposure levels cannot be
determined with certainty. This fact,
however, is irrelevant to the study's
conclusion that exposed workers
experienced a fivefold excess risk of
leukemia over the general population.
  Commenters thought the cohort
selected for the study inappropriately
excluded certain mechanical and "dry
side" workers as well as an unknown
number of workers who left the plant's
employment before 1944.
  The issue of cohort definition in
Infante et aL was discussed in
subsequent publications by the authors
(20) (21) as well as the OSHA benzene
rulemaking (43 FR 5918, February 10.
1978). The authors argue that "dry side"
workers "were never intended for
inclusion in the cohort following
discussion with company personnel
indicating there was no benzene
exposure on the dry side" (43 FR 5927).
Subsequent reports of benzene levels
(three sample points) on the "dry side"
by the University of North Carolina (22)
were regarded as inadequately detailed
"to permit a valid interpretation." (20)
The authors also contend that
maintenance personnel (pipefitters,
mechanics, etc.) were appropriately
excluded from the cohort "because
company records did not show which
men had responsibilities in pliofilm
production." (20)  Workers who left
employment prior to 1944 "could not be
included because their personnel
records were not in a retrievable form."
(20)
   The EPA considers the rationale for _
the selection of the Infante et al. cohort
appropriate. EPA notes further that, as
described in the completed follow up by
Rinsky et al. as well as expert testimony
offered by Dr. Marvin Sakol at the
OSHA benzene hearings, (18) the strict
cohort definition excludes several
additional cases of leukemia that
"support further the notion that there
existed a causal link between benzene
exposure in those facilities and the
occurrence of leukemia." (17)
  Commenters also contended that the
benzene concentrations to which the
workers were exposed were much
higher than assumed by EPA, supplying
information from studies indicating that
the workers could have been exposed to
levels of 100 to 1,000 ppm in the 1940's
and as high as 355 ppm in the 1970's
with a mean of 30  ppm.
  Rinsky et al. (17) provide a thorough
discussion of the available information
on the benzene levels to which workers
may have  been exposed in the subject
facilities during the periods studied. The
authors concluded that "for the most
part, employees' 8-hour time-weighted
averaged exposures were within the
recommended [occupational] standard
in effect at the time. However, as is
characteristic of industrial processes,
there were occasional excursions above
these limits." EPA concludes that, while
intermittent levels may have
approached the values suggested by the
commenters, the range of occupational
standards for the periods studied (100 to
10 ppm) appears reasonable as an
estimate of the chronic exposure
pattern. In this regard. EPA agrees with
the recent conclusion of the Benzene
Work Group of the International Agency
for Research on Cancer (IARC) that "the
excessive mortality from myelogenous
and monocytic leukemia had occurred
among workers with occupational
exposure  to benzene that was generally
within accepted limits," recognizing that
"the possible contribution of the
occasional excursions in exposure and
of the employment of some workers in
other areas of the plant must be noted;
and * * * May have made some
contribution to the observed excess in
mortality  from leukemia." (23)
   Aksoy et al. studied the incidence of
leukemia  and other diseases among
workers occupationally exposed to
benzene in the Turkish shoeworking
industry. (24) (25) (28) Based on case
ascertainment by contact with medical
care and comparison of leukemia
incidence in the exposed population to
estimates for the general population of
Western nations,  Aksoy et al. found a
two fold exces leukemia risk among
shoeworkers with chronic benzene
exposure.
   Although commenters generally
 agreed that the study was of value "in
reaffirming, * * *  that prolonged
exposures to high concentrations of
                                                    IV-194
-------
           Federal Register / Vol. 49. No.  110 / Wednesday. June 6, 1984  /  Rules and Regulations
benzene result in serious blood
disorders including a small number of
leukemias" (OAQPS-79-3 [Part II] IV-F-
1, IV-F-9), several specific criticisms
suggested that the excess risk observed
was exaggerated. Two commenters
argued that Aksoy et al. relied on
inappropariate figures (6 per 100,000) for
the background leukemia incidence and
that when a more reasonible estimate
derived from the experience of the
Eurpean Standard Population (8 to 14
per 100,000) was used, the study no
longer shows an excess incidence
among the exposed workers (OAQPS-
79-3 [Part I] IV-D-13 [Part II] IV-F-1,
IV-F-9; A-79-49 IV-D-9). One
commenter expressed concern that the
age distribution of exposed workers was
not available and speculated that the
margin for error in the "official count"
used as the denominator of the
shoeworking population (28,500) was
"probably substantial" (OAQPS-79-3
[Part II] IV-F-1, IV-F-9).
  EPA agrees that Aksoy's choice of the
6-per-100,000 background leukemia
incidence is subject to criticism since it
is not easily attributed to the Turkish
rural population. It is also reasonable
thai the "official count" of 28,500
shoeworkers may be an underestimate
and therefore overestimates the excess
leukemogenic risk in the exposed
population. It is equally likely, however,
that Aksoy's methodology leads to an
underestimate of the excess risk. First,
only leukemia cases of which the author
was directly aware  as a  medical
practitioner were counted in the study.
As Aksoy testified before OSHA,
"undoubtedly there were other
additional patients among shoeworkers
who were not included in our study."
(18) Second, as EPA's health assessment
points out, "the distribution of cases
reported by Aksoy et al. strongly differs
from that of leukemia in the general
population. If the relative incidence
were computed solely for acute
myeloblastic leukemia and its variants
[the forms of leukemia associated with
benzene exposure], a magnification of
the risk in benzene-exposed
shoeworkers would be observed." [6]
Finally, Aksoy has also testified that
rural leukemia incidence in Turkey may
be on the order of 3 per 100,000, or half
of what he had estimated originally.(18}
This fact would also increase the
calulated excess risk.
   Concerning the age distribution of the
shoemaker population, the limited age
information available led EPA to
incorporate an age adjustment factor in
 the Agency's risk assessment. On the
basis of better information on the age
 stucturo of Turkey's male population.
(27) EPA now believes this adjustment
was unnecessary and has revised the
unit risk derivation accordingly.
  Ott et al. (76) reported long-term
mortality patterns and associated
benzene exposure for a cohort of 594
chemical manufacturing workers. Three
cases of leukemia were observed where
0.8 was expected, an excess risk of 3.75.
The finding was statistically significant
(p =0.047) in a one-tailed test of
significance.
  One  commenter criticized the
statement in EPA's health assessment (6)
that excess leukemia incidence
observed in the Ott et  al. study was only
of "borderline" statistical significance.
The commenter noted  that "[s]ince the  p
value observed (0.047) is less than the p
value (0.050) commonly used to
determine statistical significance, there
is no basis for considering the value
borderline" (OAPQS 79-3 [Part I] IV-D-
8). Other commenters argued that the
study should be appropriately regarded
as "inconclusive" (OAQPS 79-3  [Part I]
IV-D-9, IV-D-13, [Part II] IV-D-22, IV-
F-1, IV-F-9; A-79-49 IV-D-9, IV-F-2).
One commenter remarked that while the
cases were too few to  draw "solid
statistical conclusions," the Ott et al.
study was the "best documented study
of chronic exposures to benzene in the
literature to date" (OAQPS 79-3 [Part II]
IV-F-1, F-9).
  Commenters also contended that the
exclusion of one decedent whose
leukemia was identified as a "significant
other condition" rather than the cause  of
death eliminated  the significance
(QAQPS 79-3 [Part I] IV-D-13). One
commenter asserted that Ott et al.
applied an "inappropriate one-tailed
[statistical] test" to determine
significance and that the use of an
appropriate test (two-tailed) did not
reveal a significant association between
the leukemia cases and exposure to
benzene (OAQPS 79-3 [Part I] IV-D-13).
  The  presence of confounding
exposures to other potential carcinogens
was also noted by commenters as
evidence that the study should not be
viewed as conclusive  of a benzene-
leukemia association. The same
commenters noted that the cases of
leukemia occurred in workers exposed
to lower benzene levels (2 to 9 ppm)
than those encountered by many other
individuals in the study population
(OAQPS 79-3 [Part I]  IV-D-13, [Part II]
IV-F-1, VI-F-9).
  While EPA does not view the Ott'et
al.  study, taken alone, as conclusive
evidence of an association between low-
level (2 to 9 ppm) occupational exposure
to  benzene and leukemia, the Agency
believes that this work, combined with
other findings in the benzene health
literature, serves to reinforce the public
health concerns regarding benzene
exposure.
  EPA does not agree that the use of
"borderline" in describing the
significance of the Ott et al.  study is
inappropriate since the value calculated
(0.047) was very close to the
predetermined limit (0.050) chosen for
the test. EPA does agree that the te?t. a?
constructed, supports a finding of
significance.
  EPA disagrees that the use of a "two-
tailed" test for significance would be
more appropriate than the one-tailed
test employed by Ott et al. The
hypothesis to be tested in that benzene
exposure increases the leukemia risk,
not that risk may increase or decrease.
The benzene health literature does not
support a finding that benzene exerts a
protective influence on exposed
individuals.
  Omitting from the study the individual
for whom leukemia was not the
immediate cause of death would not, in
EPA's opinion, be an appropriate
change. In view of the recognized causal
relationship between benzene and
nonlymphatic leukemias, EPA believes
that a case of myelogenous  leukemia,
such as this, should net be ignored
  EPA does not view the extent of
confounding exposures in Ott et al.  as
severe. The authors did exclude from
their analysis persons known to have
been exposed to levels of arsenicals,
vinyl chloride, and asbestos, all of
which have been associated with human
health effects. This exclusion eliminated
53 persons from consideration including
one leukemia victim. The remaining
substances, which include the suspect
carcinogen vinylidene chloride, have not
been shown to be associated with a
leukemia risk in either man or animals.
Therefore, inclusion of such exposed
persons would not be likely to affect the
target organ site for benzene in terms of
increased risk.
   According to the authors' testimony
before OSHA, the "low levels of
potential benzene exposure relative to
other employees in the
cohort . . .  made a retrospective
assessment of the possible  relationship
to benzene exposure very
judgmental." (18} EPA, while recognizing
this uncertainty, agrees with the
reservation expressed by OSHA in its
benzene ruiemaking that "because of the
small population  size as well as the
possibility of sensitivity of  those
individuals developing leukemia, it
cannot be concluded that these deaths
are not caused by benzene  exposure"
 (43 FR 5928).
                                                      IV-195
-------
           Federal Register /  Vol. 49.  No. lio / Wednesday.  June 6. 1984  /  Rules  and Regulations
              cited other
              l studies, notably the
work of Thorpe, [28] for which no
• M.-^'atioa between leukemia and
benzene exposure was demonstrated
IOAQPS-79-3 (Part I] IV-D-9, IV-D-13,
IPh-t H| 1V-F-1. IV-F-9; A-79-27 IV-D-
24, iV-f-1: A-79-49 IV-D-9, IV-F-2).
The Th?-pe study found "no excess
i.-cic'.Hnce of leukemia among petroleum
'.vr-rk^.-s exposed to benzene levels
estimated  to range up to 20 ppm"
iOAQPS-79-3 [Part I] IV-D-13).
  ?? \ believes that deficiencies in the
Thorpe study  preclude a judgment that
pvp.isure to benzene below 20 ppm
JL-BS ao risk  of leukemia. The author of
this study  dwells on the shortcomings of
the -vork, the  most important of which
a-p that (1) quantitative determinations
•.if >he extent of exposure could not be
dore, (2) follow up of members of the
•-oho,-! was inadequate, and (3) problems
existed with verifying the leukemia
diagnosis.
  Followup was left to each unit (plant)
•ifoarately. Since the author did none of
it, !he follow up was poor. Many units
had no mechanisms by  which to notify
'he plant of the death of an annuitant
and, where notification was made, often
no Lduse of death was reported to  the
<' rrpany. Cases reported among
annuitants were included, although
p-'^'He underreporting in the group
v.as recognized. No mention was made
..warning follow up efforts on former
'riplujees who did not  qualify for an
annuity. Unfortunately,  no table on
completeness of ascertainment of vital
-.(srus was given.
  Other problems with  this study
involve the questionable practice of
reporting on the pooled  results of a
study of eight separate and perhaps
considerably different plants. A
•sig.-;:F Ctin! risk that may be present in
one or more of the plants could have
',,'o,n c.i.--cvired by the inclusion of
populations of nonexposed individuals.
AdJ,:n..ially.  no consideration of latent
factors was presented; no effort was
made by the author to require a
minimum time since onset of
employ ment of individuals in the study
or ;o provide even cause-specific
if.ortality by time since  first
employment. Furthermore, the study has
bee'i criticized by Brown (29) with
respect to  factors relating to
•underreporting of leukemia in the study
population.
  Animal Studies. EPA  originally
concluded in the benzene health
assessment that "there is no convincing
evidence that benzene causes
neoplasias. including leukemia, in
animals."(0) One commenter submitted
that two animal studies, reports by
 Maltoni and Scarnato(.Z2) and Synder et
 al.(M) had become available
 demonstrating benzene-induced tumors
 in rodents {OAQPS-79-3 (Part I] IV-D-
 8).
   EPA agrees that the studies
 referenced support the finding of a
 positive tumorigenic effect of benzene in
 rodents] The study by Maltoni and
 Scarnato indicated an increased
 incidence of Zymbal gland carcinomas,
 mammary gland carcinomas, and
 leukemia in benzene-treated Sprague-
 Dawley rats. Snyder et al. observed a
 higher occurrence of hematopoietic
 neoplasms, bone marrow hyperplasia,
 and splenic hyperplasia in benzene-
 treated C57BL mice. The hematopoietic
 neoplasms were categorized as
 lymphocytic lymphoma with thymic
 involvement, plasmacytoma (myeloma),
 and leukemia with a hematocytoblast
 apparently as the predominant cell type.
 The finding of a tumorigenic effect of
 benzene in other mammalian species
 serves to strengthen the concern over
 benzene's effects on human populations.

 Health Issues Relevant to Benzene
 Listing Decision

   EPA listed benzene as a hazardous air
 pollutant based on evidence linking
 occupational benzene exposure with
 leukemia and on the knowledge that
 large numbers of people are exposed to
 and, therefore, may be at risk from,
 benzene emitted into the ambient air by
 a variety of stationary sources. This
 rationale assumes that (1) it is
 reasonable to conclude that a causal
 relationship continues to exist at the
 significantly lower exposure levels
 characteristic cf the ambient air, and (2)
 that the magnitude of the relationship
 warrants efforts to reduce human
 exposure.
   A number of commenters took issue
 with EPA's judgment, arguing that an
 exposure threshold for benezerte-
 induced leukemia exists below which
 there is no health risk and that, even
 granting an association with leukemia at
 ambient levels, the magnitude of the
 health risks to exposed populations is
 negligible. (Due to the number of
 commenters on these subjects, the
 comment numbers are not listed.) The
 comments focus on EPA's presumption
 that effect thresholds do not exist for
 carcinogens (the nonthreshold
' hypothesis) and the methodology used
 by EPA's Carcinogen Assessment Group
 (GAG) in deriving quantitative estimates
 of benzene leukemogenic risks. A
 summary of public comments addressing
 the issue of a carcinogenic threshold for
 benzene follows the statement of EPA's
 position on carcinogenic thresholds.
  EPA's Position on Carcinogenic
Thresholds (Nonthreshold Hypothesis).
In evaluating the public health hazards
associated with exposure to known and
potential carcinogens, EPA has
maintained that, in the absence of sound
scientific evidence ?o the contrary, such
substances must be considered to pose
some finite cancer ri?k at any exposure
level above zero (41 FR 21402. May 25,
1976; 44 FR 58642, October 10, 1979; 44
FR 39858, July 6.1979). OSHA (45 FR
5002. January 22,1980), the Consumer
Pioduct Safety Commission (CPSC), the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA),
the Food Safety and Quality Service,
rind the President's Regulatory Council
(44 FR 60038, October 17,1979), among
others, have shared this  conviction.
  Support for the nonthreshold
hypothesis for carcinogens dervices
from both scientific and  practical
considerations. As summarized by the
Interagency Regulatory Liaison Group
(IRLG): "(tjhe self-replicating nature of
cancer, the multiplicity of causative
factors to which individuals can be
exposed, the additive and possibly
synergistic combination  of effects, and
the wide range of individual
susceptibilities work together in making
it currently unreliable to predict a
threshold below which human
population exposure to a carcinogen has
no effect on cancer risk" (44 FR 39876).
  The mechanism by which a
carcinogen acts is cf particular
importance in postulating whether or not
an effect threshold exists. NAS has
observed:
  Whether or not a particular effect follows a
dose-response relationship  that has a
threshold depends entirely on the mechanism
of the effect. Many effects have thresholds.
For example, the gastrointestinal-radiation
syndrome, acute drug toxicity, and radiation
or drug control of some tumors all have dose-
response curve's that show thresholds. The
curves are sigmoid. and below a particular
dose there is a zero probability of producing
the effect, because the effect requires many
independent events  and will not occur until
the number of such events exceeds some
critical value. The gastrointestinal-radiation
(or drug) syndrome is a case in point. An
animal will not die until the number of
intestinal crypt cells that have been killed
exceeds a value that is critical to the integrity
of the organ. Any radiation or drug dose that
kills fewer cells than this critical number can
be considered to be  safe (at least for this one
syndrome).
  We are used to thinking in terms of
thresholds and sigmoid dose-response curves.
For example, if it costs $4,000 to buy an
automobile, we do not imagine that we will
have a 50% chance of buying the same
vehicle for $2,000. If 100 aspirin tablets
constitute a lethal dose, we do not calculate
that we will have a 1% chance of dying if we
                                                     IV-196
-------
            Federal Register  /  Vol. 49. No. 110  / Wednesday, June 6,  1984  / Rules and Regulations
swallow a single tablet. Because we know
the mechanisms underlying these events, we
expect thresholds to the dose-response
curves, and indeed they are evident.
  However, other effects may well not have
threshold dose-effect relationships. If an
effect can be caused by a single hit, a single
molecule, or a single unit of exposure, then
the effect in question cannot have a threshold
in the dose-response relationship, no matter
how unlikely it is that the single hit or event
will produce the effect. Mutations in
prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells can be
caused by a single cluster of ion pairs which
were produced by a beam of ionizing
radiation. We would expect that mutations
can be caused by a single molecule or
perhaps  group of molecules in proximity to
the DNA. The necessary conclusion from this
result is  that the dose-response relationship
for radiation and chemical mutagenesis
cannot have a threshold and must be linear,
at least at low doses.
  It is one step further to correlate
mutagenesis with carcinogenesis.
Nevertheless, the evidence is strong that
there is a close relationship between the two
[references].
  We therefore conclude that, if there is
evidence that a particular carcinogen acts by
directly  causing a mutation in the DNA, it is
likely that the dose-response curve for
carcinogenesis will not show a threshold and
will be linear with dose at low doses.(7)
  Evidence for a linear-carcinogenic
response at low dose comes from
studies suggesting cancers may arise
from the "transformation"  of a single
cell. (30)(3J) One study observed that in
women with a genetic condition that
leads to their body cells being of two
recognizable types, tumors are
characteristically of one cell type, while
normal tissues are composed of a
mixture of both types. Another
described experimental efforts in which
transformed cells were transplanted into
whole animals. Both of these
observations further support the theory
that cancers may arise from single cells.
A single cell origin of cancers implies
that the statistical form of the
carcinogenic dose response relationship
may be highly influenced by the extreme
tail of the distribution of cell
transformations with dose. As Crump
points out "the effect of this is to make
virtually any process of discrete  events
approximately linear at low dose." (18)
  EPA's presumption that  any exposure
to a carcinogen poses a health risk is not
intended to foreclose discussion or
ignore evidence or real or practical
effect thresholds for such substances. In
this regard, a number of theories
postulate the existence of thresholds.
These include consideration of the
body's  defense and repair capabilities
(immunosurveillance, detoxification,
and DNA repair) and reports of the
regression of preneoplastic lesions with
the cessation  of exposure. Observations
of an inverse relationship between dose
and the latency period for tumor
expression have been proposed as
evidence of practical thresholds where
the dose corresponds to a latency that
exceeds the individual's lifespan.
Proponents also have suggested, as
indirect evidence of thresholds, the
carcinogenicity at high doses of certain
substances for which a biological
requirement exists. Threshold levels
have, in addition, been inferred from
"negative" epidemiological and animal
studies.
  While EPA agrees that  the evidence
for real or practical carcinogenic
thresholds should play a role in hazard
evaluation, the Agency is persuaded
that  the utility of such information in
establishing "no effect" levels is
seriously limited. Although protective
mechanisms such as DNA repair are
reasonably effective, it is generally
recognized that few, if any, biological
processes are 100 percent efficient (45
FR 5126, 5129). Similarly,  while
decreased dose could increase the
median time-to-tumor to greater than a
lifespan, the typical distribution of
tumors across age groups still would
result in "early" cancers arising.
  Evidence for practical thresholds is
also questionable. There is no reason to
believe that biologically required
substances, which have been found to
be carcinogenic at high levels, may not
pose some cancer risk at  levels where
they are normally found in the body.  In
the same way, the failure to detect a
positive association in the animal
bioassay or epidemiological study does
not constitute evidence of a no-effect
level. NAS has noted that
* * * the observation of no positive
responses does not guarantee that the
probability of response is actually zero. From
a statistical viewpoint, zero  responders out of
a population of size N is consistent at the 5%
significance level with an actual response
probability between zero and approximately
3/N (e.g., when N=100 and zero responders
are observed, the true probability of response
may  be as high as 3%).(J)
  Finally, EPA concurs with NAS that
theoretical arguments for the existence
of carcinogenic thresholds must be
tempered by the knowledge that the
exposed human population is a "* *  *
large, diverse, and genetically
heterogeneous group exposed to a
variety of toxic agents. Genetic
variability to carcinogenesis is well
documented (Strong), 1976, (32) and it is
also known that individuals who are
deficient in immunological competence
(for  genetic or environmental reasons)
are particularly susceptible to some
forms of cancer (Cottier et al.,
        )." (1)
  OSHA noted in its summary of public
hearings on an occupational carcinogen
policy:
  A number of witnesses testified that, even
if thresholds could be established for the
circumstances in which animals are exposed
only to single carcinogens, this would have
little or no relevance to risk assessment for
humans, who are exposed to many
carcinogens, either simultaneously or
sequentially. Specifically, several witnesses
pointed out that there is already a relatively
high incidence of cancer in the human
population. Hence many individuals are
already at or close to the threshold for certain
processes involved in cancer development, so
that incremental exposure to even small
quantities of an agent that accelerates these
processes would be expected to lead to an
increase in the frequency of cancer. (45 FR
5135)

NAS has further elaborated:
  In considering the possiblity of thresholds
for carcinogenesis, it is important to
understand that there is no agent, chemical  or
physical, that induces a form of cancer in
man that does not occur in the absence of
that agent. In other words, when there is
exposure to a material, we are not starting at
an origin of zero cancers. Nor are we starting
at an origin of zero carcinogenic agents in our
environment. Thus, it is likely tha-t any
carcinogenic agent added to the environment
will act by a particular mechanism on a
particular cell population that is already
being acted on by the same mechanism to
induce cancers. This reasoning implies that
only if it acted by a mechanism entirely
different from that already operating on the
tissue could a newly added carcinogen show
a threshold in its dose-response curve. (1)

  In summary, EPA's position has been
that the nonthreshold hypothesis is, for
carcinogens, a reasonable and
appropriate presumption that must be
overcome by sound scientific evidence
before any exposure to such substances
can be concluded to be without health
risk. At the same time, however, EPA
regards relevant evidence of the ability
of biological systems to mitigate adverse
health effects as important
considerations in  the evaluation of the
health hazard.
  Support for a Threshold for Benzene.
Commenters challenged EPA's
nonthreshold presumption for benzene,
arguing that the Agency had failed to
consider convincing evidence that a
leukemogenic threshold for benzene
does exist and that this threshold is well
above any ambient levels that might be
encountered by the general population.
In support of this position, commenters
cited studies of benzene metabolism,
alternative mechanisms for cancer
induction, and evidence derived from
epidemiological studies.
  One commenter cited the work of
Richert and Irons (34) as evidence that
                                                       IV-197
-------
           Federal Register /  Vol.  49.  No. 110  /  Wednesday.  June 6. 1984  /  Rules and Regulations
exposure to levels of benzene below 10
ppm does not produce any adverse
hedlth consequences in human cells
(OAQPS-79-3 [Part I] IV-D-13, [Part II]
IV-F-1, IV-F-2, IV-F-3).
  Rickert studied benzene metabolism
• n rodents and human cells in vitro to
determine the concentrations of toxic
^f-7»Tie metabolites that night occur in
the bone marrow of humans exposed to
benzene (OAQPS 79-3 [Part II] IV-F-2).
He concluded that the metabolite
mrve.->trations in rats and human tissue
are of the same  order of magnitude at
ai.-rular benzene doses. Irons used this
information to compare the metabolite
concentrations expected at various
benzene exposures with those at which
the first signs of hematotoxicity
(!y r.phocytopenia) occurred. He found
' tJ'.i'. a significant difference exists
between the projected concentration of
benzene metabolities in bone marrow,
as calculated for a B hour exposure to 10
ppm benzene in vitro, and the
concentration of the same metabolites
which produce a demonstrable effect on
a sensitive population of human cells in
vitro" (OAQPS 79-3 (Part II) IV-F-3).
  AUhough EPA regards this work,
published after the release of the health
dssessment document, as generally
supportive of the concept of a threshold
for lymphocytopenia and other
hematotoxic effects that may result from
benzene exposure, EPA does not agree^
with the inference drawn from this study
that exposures below 10 ppm pose no
health risk. The in vitro system used
may not represent the most sensitive
human population at risk of hematotoxic
effects. Further, it is not clear that
effects such as lymphocytopenia must
precede the induction of leukemia, nor
has it been established that the benzene
meiabclities studied are related to the
onset of leukemia.
  Several commenters submitted that
EPA's presumption of low-level benzene
risk ignored alternative mechanisms for
carcinogenesis,  applicable to benzene,
for which effect thresholds appear
likely. One commenter asserted that,
while a substance's ability to directly
dlter genetic material could be viewed
as support for a nonthreshold
mechanism, there is "no evidence that
[benzene] react[s] with DNA" (OAQPS-
79-3 [Part I] IV-D-9, [Part II] IV-D-22).
According to the commenter, "Benzene
induces neoplasia through cell injury" to
the bone marrow. The injury is
"followed by regeneration of the bone
marrow and myelogenous leukemia in a
small number of cases." During
exposures of humans to benzene levels
in the air of 10 ppm or less, the
metabolic detoxification reactions
maintain the levels [of benzene] and its
metabolites to be sufficiently low in the
blood to be below the threshold for any
effect on the bone marrow or metabolic
effects on lymphocytes" (OAQPS 79-3
[Part I] IV-D-9, IV-D-13. [Part II] IV-D-
22. IV-F-1, IV-F-9; A-79-27 IV-D-24.
IV-D-27, IV-D-29; A-79-49 IV-D-9, IV-
D-ll. IV-D-12. IV-F-1. IV-F-2; A-flO-14
IV-D-1. IV-D-3, IV-F-1).
  Similarly, commenters argued that the
documented association between
hematotoxic effects (usually decreases
in the levels of various formed elements
in blood: cytopenia, pancytopenia, and
lymphocytopenia) and leukemia
supports the finding that such effects
may be a necessary precondition for
leukemia. In this regard, one commenter
quotes Goldstein's observation that
"there [do] not appear to be any proven
cases in which leukemia began in the
absence of previous cytopenia." (35]
Commenters contend that because "pre-
leukemic" changes such as cytopenia
"do not occur below about 35 ppm," this
exposure level or, more conservatively,
a level of 20 or 10 ppm constitutes an
effective threshold below which
benzene "presents no health risk
whatsoever."
  While EPA agrees that the nongenetic,
or "epigenetic," mechanism constitutes a
possible explanation  for the way in
which cancers could arise in the
absence of direct interaction with
genetic material, the Agency is not
persuaded, based on  the largely
theoretical nature of this position, that
such a mechanism has been
demonstrated in the case  of benzene.
For similar reasons, the Agency
continues to regard as inconclusive the
contention that hematotoxic effects
must necessarily precede the
development of leukemia  in benzene-
exposed individuals.
  Covalent bonding (reaction) with
DNA  is generally regarded as evidence
that an agent may have the ability to
"transform"a normal cell into an
abnormal, and possibly cancerous, cell
via a somatic mutation. The absence of
such bonding or its nondetection,
however, does not demonstrate that
substances such as benzene may not
interact directly with genetic material to
produce aberrant cells. In fact, there is
good evidence that benzene,  at levels as
low as 1 to 2.5 ppm, significantly
increases chromosome abnormalities in
bone marrow cells including
chromosome breaks and marker
chromosomes (rings,  dicentrics,
translocations, and exchange
figures).(3)(0) Whether such changes are
appropriately considered mutations or
simply toxic events depends on the fate
of the affected cell. As OSHA has
pointed out in its benzene rulemaking:
  If the alteration in the chromosomal
material results in an inhibition of further
cellular division, the", in terms of its
reproductive potential, the cell is dead and
the damage inflicted may be classified as a
toxic event. However, if the damage does not
interfere with the reproductive ability of the
ceil, and the alteration is replicated, this may
constitute a persistent gross mutation. The
finding of gross chromosomal damage in bone
marrow cells clear'.y demonstrates that
despite competing detoxification reactions
* *  * benzene, or a reactive metabolite Is
able to overwhelm proiective defense
mechanisms and enter the nucleus of
hematopoietic cells (43 FR 5918)

  The quote attributed to Goldstein
noting that "there [do] not appear to be
any proven cases in which leukemia
began in the absence of previous
cytopenia" is correct but incomplete.
Later in the page Goldstein cautions that
this interpretation is "open to
speculation, especially in view of the
paucity of routine laboratory data
preceding the onset of leukemia."(36)
  The lack of information, as well as the
retrospective nature of most of the
analysis, makes it difficult to
substantiate a precedent relationship
between hematotoxic effects and
leukemia. In this regard, OSHA has
observed:
* *  * since the mechanism by which benzene
induces leukemia has not been elucidated it
is possible that leukemia develops, not in
response to the pancytopenic effects of
benzene, but rather to the direct carcinogenic
effect on the marrow hematopoietic stem
cells not necessarily accompanied by any
other evidence of marrow effect * * *. In
such events, protection against non-
neoplastic blood disorders would not rule out
subsequent development of leukemia (43 FR
5929).

  Similarly, Browning, in 1965, noted:
"benzene leukemia is frequently
superimposed upon a condition of
aplastic anemia, but it can develop
without a preceding peripheral blood
picture characteristic of bone marrow
aplasia."(7S)
  Finally, EPA is not persuaded that the
"thresholds" identified by commenters
for benzene-induced "injury" are sound.
First, it is not clear that techniques such
as peripheral blood counts and
aspiration of bone marrow are capable
of consistently detecting injury to the
hematopoietic system, particularly when
the  normal ranges of such counts are
broad.(fi)
  Second, injury may be occurring at
levels below those at which cytopenia is
observed. In its review of benzene, NAS
commented  on a report of benzene-
induced chromosome abnormalities:
                                                    IV-198
-------
           Federal  Register / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday. June 6,  1984 / Rules and  Regulations
"Vigliar.i and Forni (37) reported
chromosomal aberrations of both the
stable and unstable type. In general, the
chromosome aberrations were higher in
peripheral blood lymphocytes of
workers exposed to benzene than in
those of controls. This was true even in
the absence of overt signs of bone
marrow damage" (4} [emphas's added].
As noted above, Picciano and Kilian and
Daniel have also reported significant
increases in chromosomal aberrations,
an effect whose toxic poiential cannot
be ignored, in workeis exposed to
benzene at levels substantially below
the 10 ppm submitted as the lowest level
for a "threshold" for benzene-induced
effects.
   Commenters found support for a
benzene carcinogenic threshold in
epidemiological studies that did not find
a significant association between
benTono ^-..^ncvrp and leukemia (citing
work by "H-n-ps. (?#} Tabershaw. [38]
and Stallones (^y)j. in control or
nonnxpuvjci populations for which a
case fur benzene exposure could be
made (citing Infante et al. (14)}, and
among exposed populations following
exposure redaction efforts (citing
Infante  et al. (14} and Askoy et al. (15)).
(OAQPS-79-3 [Part I) IV-D-9, IV-D-11,
IV-D-13. [Part II] IV-D-22, IV-F-1. IV-
F-9, A-79-27 l\-D-24, IV-D-28: A-79-
49 IV-D-10. IV-D-11. 1V-D-12. IV-F-1.
IV-F-2; A-aO-14 IV-F-1).
   As indicated  in "Health Basis foi
Listing" above.  EPA believes that the
shortcomings of the Thome study do not
permit a firm conclusion regarding a
carcinogenic threshold for benzene. In
the larger context of the utility of
negative epideinio'ogical studies, EPA,
as a member of the IRLG, concluded that
studies not finding a positive statistical
correlation do not demonstrate the
absence of a hazard, due to the
limitations of epidemiologic
investigations and long cancer latency
periods during which exposure to other
potentially carcinogenic substances can
occur (44  FR 39858; July 6,1979). In
addition,  OSHA (45 FR 5001; January 2,
1980) and the National Cancer Advisory
Board (40) contend that negative
epidemiological data do not necessarily
establish  the safety of suspect materials.
   Similarly, while EPA agrees that
follow up studies such as those
undertaken on  the Infante et al. and
Aksoy et  al. populations may be useful
in demonstrating risk reductions, they
are not appropriate support for a
position that risks have been eliminated.
As with "negative"epidemiological
studies, EPA does not agree that  such
findings demonstrate the absence of a
 hazard.
  Having reviewed the public
comments, EPA concludes that the
evidence submitted in support of a real
or practical threshold for benzene-
induced leukemia is not sufficient to
overcome EPA's presumption that
benzene may pose a finite risk of
leukemia at any exposure level greater
than zero.
  Although commenters have sought to
demonstrate that benzene may cause
leukemia via a nongenetic mechanism
that requires threshold-governed tissue
injury prior to leukemia induction and
that levels of benzene below this
threshold are noninjurious or otherwise
detoxified, EPA regards this evidence as
largely theoretical in nature and,
inconclusive.
  EPA believes that the support for a
"hematotoxic" threshold as protective
against leukemia induction is
speculative for two reasons: first.
because neither the mecfifcnivm for
benzene-induced leukemia nor that for
blood disorders has been elucidated,
and, second, because information is
available that other effects of potential.
adverse health consequence have been
shown to occur at levels lower than
those postulated as hemalotoxic
thresholds. Finally. EPA does not accept
the prcTiise that the mnposiHvf
epidemiological studies offer a means of
establishing credible no-effect levels.
  For these reasons, recognizing the
uncertainties in the scientific data base
EPA believes that the nomhreshold
presumption should continue to apply in
the case of benzene and that benzene
should be considered to pose a risk of
cancer at any exposure level above zero.
EPA believes that this finding is
consistent with the mandate of Section
112 reauiring the protection of public
health against air pollutants that "may
reasonably be anticipated" to cause or
con'ribute  to the health effects of
concern.
  Quant-'tative Risk Estimates of
Carcinogens. EPA initially published
interim guidelines for the conduct of
quantitative risk assessments (QRA) for
carcinogens on May 25,1976 (41 FR
21402). In 1979, these were succeeded by
the report of the Work Group on Risk
Assessment of IRLG (41 FR 39858; July 6.
1979) of which EPA was a  member.
  EPA prepared, in conjunction with the
listing of benzene under Section 112 and
 the development of emissions
regulations, an assessment of the
population risk to ambient benzene
exposures.(S) The assessment was
 based on an extrapolation of the human
 leukemogenic risk drawn from available
 epidemiological evidence in
 combination with an assessment of
human exposure to benzene emitted inlo
the air by stationary sources. (7)
  Although a few commenters objected
to the performance of a risk assessment.
arguing that the underlying uncertainties
were too great to permit a meaningful
result, most respondents favored
attempting to estimate population risks
In an extensive critique of EPA's
assessment, however, commenters
disagreed  with EPA on a number of
scientific and technical grounds, ranging
from the appropriateness of the
dispersion model used in estimating
ambient benzene levels to errors in thp
assumptions made in deriving an
estimate of benzene's leukemogenic
potency. Commenters argued that the
correction of such errors would result in
an overall leukemogenic risk from
benzene sources substantially below
that predicted by EPA, and. in fart.
small enough to be regarded as a
"statistical artifact" for which regulator,
attention was unwarranted.
   The original assessment of human
exposure  to benzene was  performed by
the Stanford Research Institute (SRI)
under contract to EPA. (,") A number ol
commenters on the benzene listing and
proposed  standards criticized the SRI
assessment as relying on  outdated
emissions estimates, fci^p'oyir.g o~\
upwaidl>  biased exposure modti.
omitting plant-speciLC information, nno
erroneously including plants no lonst"
using benzene (OAQPS-79-3 IParl K!
IV-F-1, 1V-F; A-79^9 IV-D-9) One
commenter questioned the use of a 2')-
kilometer radius in developing the
exposure  estimates (OAQPS-79-3 [FMi;
Ij IV-D-8). Several commenters \\pr»-
supportive of an alternative
methodology submitted by Systems
Applications, Inc. (SAI) (OAQPS-79-3
 [Part I] IV-D-9, IV-D-13,  [Part IIj iV-D-
22, IV-F-1, IV-F-8, IV-F-9- A-79-49 IV-
D-9).
   EPA agrees that the SAI exposure
 methodology offers some improvements
 over the exposure methodology used b\
 SRI for the bpnzene assessment. S M
 developed its methodology under
 contract to EPA in response to a need
 for a rapid, computer-efficient metho )
 for conducting national-level expcsi_">'
 assessments. This methodology, with
 the additional data submitted in the
 course of the comment periods on the
 benzene proposals, has been used to
 revise the exposure estimates and ns.V
 assessments for the promulgated
 standards.
   Although the SAI methodology has
 supplanted the methodology initially
 used by EPA to estimate  benzene
 exposures, EPA does not agree that the
                                                    IV-199
-------
           Federal  Register / Vol. 49. No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6,  1984 / Rules and  Regulations
SRI report, for the purposes intended, is
grossly inaccurate or upwardly biased.
  The SRI report was intended to be an
initial rough estimate  of national-level
exposures to ambient air concentrations
of benzene caused by air emissions from
various types of sources. The purpose of
the report was to help EPA decide which
benzene sources to study in more depth
and thereby determine the extent of
regulation needed under the Clean Air
Act. The report also helped EPA
determine the order in which  the studies
would be conducted. Those studies,
uhich accompany the development of
regulations under section 112 of the
Clean Air Act, address far more
explicitly the sources  of benzene
selected for regulation and the public
exposures to benzene associated with
those sources. The nature of many of the
comments suggests that the commenters
did not understand EPA's intended use
of the report and of the intentionally
rough-cut approach considered
appropriate for that use,
  EPA agrees that much of the SRI
report is difficult to evaluate.  This report
was one of EPA's first attempts at
estimating nationwide exposure, and the
methodologies were not yet fully
described. As explained, the report was
not meant to be  a definite statement on
exposure to benzene,  but to be a guide
to follow-on studies. All deficiencies
considered, EPA considers the report
adequate for its  intended use.
  The selection  of a 20- kilometer limit
on exposure estimation in the vicinity of
stationary sources is based on modeling
considerations. Twenty kilometers was
chosen as a practical  modeling stop-
point. The results of dispersion models
are considered reasonably accurate
within that distance. The dispersion
coefficients used in modeling are based
on empirical measurements made within
10 kilometers of sources. These
coefficients become less applicable at
long distances from the source, and the
modeling results become more
uncertain.
  Comments were generally critical of
the use by CAG of a linear,
nonthreshold model to derive a benzene
unit risk factor. One commenter
(OAQPS-79-3 [Part II] IV-D-9) rejected
the assumptions used by CAG of no
ihreshold and the validity of the linear
model extrapolated toward zero. Other
commenters viewed the model as
"inherently conservative" and likely to
yield an upper limit of the health risks
(OAQPS-79-3 [Part I] IV-D-13; A-79-
27-IV-D-27; A-80-14-IV-D-10a, IV-D-
13).
  While EPA agrees that the linear,
nonthreshold model is conservative and
would tend to provide an upper bound
to the statistical range for the unit risk
factor, the Agency does not believe that
the assumptions upon which it is based
are unreasonable or that the results of
its use are exaggerated. IRLG agreed
that although the mathematical model
identifies an upper limit estimate of risk
from a statistical standpoint, "[tjhe risk
estimates as applied to humans should
not be regarded as upper limit estimates
becausepf large biological
uncertainties."^)
  The dose-response model with
linearity at low dose has been adopted
for low-dose extrapolation by EPA
because it has  the best, albeit limited,
scientific basis of any current
mathematical extrapolation model.(41}
This  basis is supported by EPA's
conclusions in  a Federal Register notice
(45 FR 79359; November 28.1980)
announcing the availability of Water
Quality Criteria documents. The Agency
concluded that, "[t]he linear non-
threshold dose-response relationship  is
.  . . consistent  with the relatively few
epidemiological studies of cancer
responses to specific agents that contain
enough information to make the
evaluation possible . . . There is also
some evidence from animal experiments
that is consistent with the linear non-
threshold hypothesis . . .  ."
  Commenters argues that, in addition
to the conservative nature of the model1
used, the assumptions made by EPA
(CAG) in the derivation of a unit
leukemia risk factor for benezene
represented "serious misinterpretation"
of the underlying epidemiological •
evidence (OAQPS-79-3 [Part I] IV-D-13,
[Part II] IV-F-1, IV-F-9; A-79-27-IV-D-
27; IV-D-24; A-80-14-iV-D-10a, IV-D-
21). Among the specific criticisms were:
CAG (1) inappropriately included in its
evaluation of the Infante et al. study two
cases of leukemia  from outside the
cohort, inappropriately excluded a
population of workers that had been
exposed to benzene, and improperly
assumed that exposure levels were
comparable with prevailing
occupational standards; (2) accepted, in
the Aksoy et al. studies, an
unreasonable undercount of the
background leukemia incidence in rural
Turkey, made a false adjustment for age,
and underestimated the exposure
duration; and (3) included the Ott et al.
study in the analysis despite a lack of
statistical significance.
  As previously discussed in "Health
Basis for Listing,"  EPA has reexamined
and reevaluated each of the three
studies. In summary, EPA concluded
that one case of leukemia was
inappropriately included from the
Infante et al. study in computing the
original unit risk factor. Additionally,
EPA reaffirmed its decision to exclude
dry-side workers from that study in
developing the risk factor. The Agency
with the commenters that the Aksoy et
al. study was adjusted improperly for
age; however, the exposures and
durations of exposures are still
considered reasonable estimates. The
Ott et al. study was not eliminated from
the risk assessment because the findings
meet the test of statistical significance
and because it provides the best
documented exposure data available
from the three epidemiological studies.
  Based on these findings, the unit risk
factor [the probability of an individual
contracting leukemia after a lifetime of
exposure to a benzene concentration of
one part benzene per million parts air)
was recalculated. The revised estimate
resulted in a reduction of about 7
percent from the original estimate of the
geometric mean, from a probability of
leukemia of 0.024/ppm to a probability
of leukemia of 0.022/ppm.
  S:gnificance of Estimated
Carcinogenic Risks from Benzene
Exposure. Based on EPA's estimates of
carcinogenic risk or on the alternative
calculations submitted to the Agency for
consideration, a number of commenters
asserted that the risk of developing
leukemia from exposure to benzene in
the ambient air was too small to
warrant regulatory consideration under
section 112. Specifically, commenters
argued that the regulation of benzene
under section 112 would have "no
meaningful impact on the occurrence of
leukemia in the general population"
(OAQPS-79-3 [Part I] IV-D-9, [Part II]
IV-F-1. IV-F-9). In support of this
position, commenters cited EPA's
estimate that roughty 80 percent of
ambient benzene emissions were
attributable  to mobile sources that
would not be regulated under section
112 and noted that the number of
leukemia cases predicted by the EPA
assessment to occur as the result of
benzene emissions from stationary
source categories represented "less than
one-tenth of one percent [of] the normal
leukemia mortality risk in the U.S.
population,... a result so small as to
be indistinguishable from a risk of zero"
(OAQPS-79-3 [Part I] IV-D-13, [Part II]
IV-F-1, IV-F-9; A-79-49-IV-D-9; A-79-
27_IV-D-18, IV-D-10, IV-F-1; A-80-14-
IV-D-lOa, IV-F-1).
  Several commenters referenced, as
evidence of the insignificance of the
ambient benzene risk, the comparable or
higher risks associated with activities
such as skiing, hunting, and sky diving
(OAQPS-79-3 [Part I] IV-D-19) and with
involuntary hazards such as drowning
                                                    IV-200
-------
           Federal Register / Vol.  49,  No. 110  /  Wednesday, June 6.  1984 / Rules and Regulations
and electrocution (OAQPS-79-3 [Part I]
IV-D-13, [Part II] IV-F-1, IV-F-9).
  Commenters also maintained that the
estimated risks posed by benzene
emissions were at or below levels
recognized by EPA and other Federal
agencies as acceptable goals or targets
for regulation (OAQPS-79-3 [Part I] IV-
D-13).
  EPA does not agree with the
commenter's assertions that the health
risks posed by benzene emissions from
all stationary sources are insignificant
or that the regulation of benzene under
Section 112 is, therefore, unwarranted.
EPA cont;nues to believe that the well-
documented evidence of benzene's
leukemogenicity, the quantity of
stationary source emissions, the
observed and estimated ambient
concentrations, the proximity of large
populations to emitting sources, and the
numerical estimates of health risks
(including consideration of the
uncertainties of such estimates) support
the judgement that benzene is an air
pollutant that "causes or contributes to
air pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to result in an increase in
mortality or an increase in serious
irreversible, or incapacitating reversible,
illness" (section 112[a)(l) of the Clean
Air Act).
  With an estimated 9.9 billion pounds
(4.5 million megagrams) produced in
1981, benzene ranks 16th among all
chemicals in terms of production volume
in the United States. [42] Benzene is the
largest production  chemical that has
been causally linked to cancer in
humans.
  EPA estimates that more than 120
million pounds (55,000 megagrams) of
benzene are emitted annually to the
ambient air from stationary industrial
sources. The  sources are primarily
plants involved in benzene production,
other chemical manufacturing, and the
storage and distribution of benzene and
gasoline. At these sources, benzene is
emitted from the process vents, storage
tanks, and liquid transfer operations as
well as from leaks in process
components such as pumps and valves.
According to EPA estimates  at least 30
to 50 million people live within 20
kilometers of stationary sources
(excluding gasoline marketing sources)
that emit benzene. Levels of benzene
have been monitored in the vicinity of
benzene-emitting facilities at  levels as
high as 350 ppb (1,117 jig/m3) with
median values of 3.0 ppb (9.6  jig/m3).
(43)
  EPA regards benzene emissions from
some stationary source categories and
potential human exposure to these
emissions as significant. The fact that
mobile sources emit more benzene than
do stationary sources has no bearing on
the significance of the benzene
emissions from stationary sources, since
these sources also emit large quantities
of benzene. The fact that specific
standards have not been proposed for
mobile sources does not imply that the
Agency has reached a conclusion on the
significance of the health risks
associated with these sources. As
commenters pointed out, mobile sources
are not regulated under section 112, but
under Title II of the Clean Air Act. A
control technology applicable for
benzene emissions from mobile sources,
as for other hydrocarbon compounds, is
installation of  a catalytic converter. In
fact, benzene emissions from mobile
sources are reduced substantially (along
with other hydrocarbon compounds) by
catalytic converters, installed in
response to standards established under
Title II of the Clean Air Act. EPA
projects that by 1985, mobile source
benzene emissions will have been
reduced by 69  percent compared with
those in the baseline year when the
Clean Air Act  was enacted (1970), and
by 1990 they will have been reduced by
83 percent.
  EPA disagrees that benzene does not
warrant regulation because such
regulation will not have a meaningful
impact on the occurrence of leukemia in
the general population. Except for ,
established causal relationships with
benzene and certain hereditary factors,
the causes of leukemia  are not known.
Because it is estimated that only a small
proportion of leukemias may, at present,
be preventable does not argue that
reasonable control measures should not
be taken.
  Furthermore, EPA does not agree that
the presence of other unregulated or
tolerated health risks, equal or greater in
magnitude than those estimated for
benzene  exposure, obviates the need for
regulation. Activities such as hunting
and skiing are essentially voluntary in
nature with well-advertised risks. The
risk of someone being struck by
lightning, while largely involuntary.
would be difficult to reduce effectively.
For benzene, however,  a large
component of  the health risk is
involuntary. At the same time,
reasonable actions are available that
can reduce the risks from benzene
exposure. EPA questions the  '
appropriateness of weighing riskf thai
are accepted voluntarily or that have
little opportunity for mitigation against
risks largely beyond the individual's
control but for which societal remedies
are readily available.
   Finally, commenters have chosen to
make comparisons based on the
"average" lifetime risks or the expected
number of leukemia cases attributable
to benzene emissions, arguing that an
"average" lifetime risk of leukemia from
ambient levels of benzene of 1 per
100,000 (10~s) does not constitute a
significant hazard and has, in fact, beer
accepted by EPA and other Feder.i'1
agencies as an appropriate goal  fui
regulation. Aside from the technical and
philosophical difficulties inherent in thr-
selection ?nd verification of such goaib
described above, EPA has not selected a
specific "goal" for carcinogenic risk'
from hazardous air pollutants and.
further, disagrees with the choice of the
"average" lifetime risk as an appropriate
measure of individual risk. EPA  be!k'\ r<
that the determination that a substance
poses a significant health risk via the
ambient air must include consideration
of the magnitude of the hazard to those
individuals and subpopulations  most
expose to emissions of the substance. In
the case of benzene, the estimated
maximum lifetime risks for these
populations are generally higher than
are "average" risks  cited by
commenters. Current EPA estimates for
the most exposed individuals living in
the vicinity of source categories for
which standards are being developed
range from a leukemia risk of 150 per
100,000 for benzene fugitive sources tu
640 per 100,000 for coke by-producJ
plants (OAQPS A-79-16). The reader
should recognize that any time leuken.io
risk numbers are cited, they are subjrct
to considerable uncertainty. These
uncertainties are explained in the ne\t
section of this preamble, titled
"Selection of Benzene Source Cfa'PS'""''"
for Regulations."
  In conclusion, EPA continues  to
believe that benzene emissions  fror>i
some stationary source categories
represent a significant risk of leuk-jiv-.n
to exposed populations, particularly to
those individuals and subpopulalions
residing near major point sources This
belief rests on the documented evidence
that benzene is a human leukemogen, on
the magnitude of benzene emissions to
the ambient air, on  the  observed rind
estimated ambient concentrations, on
the proximity of large populations to
emitting sources, and on estimates of the
health risks to exposed populd'.ions,
including consideration of the
uncertainties associated with
quantitative risk estimates (indud " j:
the effects of concurrent exposures to
other substances and to other Li-rui-M
emissions).
  Thus, EPA still believes that the
listing of benzene or, June 8,1377. v> c.^
appropriate and that delisting is
inappropriate. The evidence submitud
by  commenters is judged insufficient  to
                                                    IV-201
-------
           Federal  Register / Vol. 49. No.  110 / Wednesday.  )une 6. 1984 /  Rules and Regulations
support a conclusion that ambient levels
of benzene do not pose carcinogenic
risks or that the risks posed by benzene
emitted by all stationary source
categories are insignificant.

Other Issues Relevant to Listing of
Benzene
  Several commenters asserted that the
listing of benzene was unnecessary in
view of the "network of regulatory
programs already put into effect to
control ambient benzene exposures,"
thus taking benzene out of the statutory
definition of "hazardous air pollutant"
under section 112 (OAQPS-79-3 [Part I]
IV-D-10, IV-D-13, [Part II] IV-F-1, IV-
F-9; A-79-49 IV-D-10, IV-F-1, IV-F-2;
A-80-14-IV-D-13, IV-D-lOa, IV-F-1).
  The regulatory programs to which the
commenters refer were put into effect to
attain and maintain the  national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS)
for ozone, not to control ambient
benzene exposures. The health effects
from exposure to ozone  are very
different from the health effects from
exposure to benzene; ozone-caused
health effects are serious,  but there is no
evidence that exposure to ozone causes
cancer. Therefore, no scientific or
technical basis exists for believing that
attaining and maintaining NAAQS for
ozone will ensure that the public is
umply protected from benzene exposure.
  It is true that controlling VOC
emissions to attain and maintain the
ozone standard often results in a degree
of control over benzene emissions,
because benzene is often emitted with
the  VOC's being controlled. EPA did
not, as one commenter suggests,
"ignore" this fact. The effectiveness of
existing State standards and control
devices in place for any other reason
has been considered when emissions
from existing plants have been
estimated. In fact, the amount of control
currently in place for three benzene
source categories for which standards
were previously proposed, maleic
anhydride and EB/S process vents and
benzene storage vessels, is relevant to
the  Agency's proposed conclusion that
benzene emissions from these source
categories no longer warrant federal
regulatory action. One cannot
reasonably assume, however, that the
extent and stringency of the control of
VOC emissions equates to adequate
control of all benzene emissions
nationwide. For example,  the State
regulations that control  VOC emissions
are federally required only for areas of
the  State where they are needed to
attain and maintain the ozone standard;
in areas cf the State where such
regulations are required, the regulations
need be applied only to enough VOC
sources with enough regulatory
stringency to attain and maintain the
ozone standard. Such regulations do not
necessarily control all stationary
benzene sources adequately.
Consequently, the Agency disagrees
with the commenters' assertions that
existing regulatory programs for ozone/
VOC's make it unnecessary to regulate
any benzene sources.
  Commenters suggested that EPA
should adopt an acceptable carcinogenic
risk target for benzene and other
airborne carcinogens, citing precedents
in other EPA and Federal rulemakings
(OAQPS-79-3) [Part I) IV-D-13, [Part II]
IV-F-1, IV-F-9;  A-79-49 IV-F-1, IV-F-
2).
  EPA agrees that it can identify a lower
range of risk estimates (incidence and
maximum risk) where it is judged that
the health risks do not pose such a
public health problem as to warrant
federal regulation. This, in conjunction
with other factors such as achievable
emissions and health risk reductions,
can convince the Administrator that a
source category  is not appropriate  to
regulate under section 112.  This is the
case for the proposed withdrawal of the
proposed benzene standards for maleic
anhydride and EB/S process vents and
benzene storage vessels.

Selection of Benzene Source Categories
for Regulation
  EPA proposed standards for four
source categories of benzene emissions:
maleic anhydride process vents,
ethylbenzene/styrene process vents,
fugitive emission sources, and benzene
storage vessels.  A standard will be
proposed for a fifth source  category,
coke by-product plants. Comments
submitted on each of the four proposed
standards contended that each of the
source categories regulated does not
pose a significant risk to public health
and therefore does not warrant
regulation (OAQPS-79-3 [Part II] IV-D-
9, IV-D-22, IV-F-1, IV-F-9; A-79-27 IV-
D-24, IV-D-27, IV-D-28, IV-F-1, IV-K-
1; A-79-19 IV-D-7. IV-D-10, IV-D-12;
A-80-14 IV-D-lOa, IV-D-13, IV-D-16,
IV-F-1). Similar preproposal comments
have been received on the coke by-
product source category ."Arguments
advanced in support of this position
include the relative insignificance of
stationary source emissions of benzene
versus mobile source emissions; the low
level of estimated benzene risks
compared to other public health risks;
and the negligible impact of benzene
control on the total U.S. leukemia
Incidence. EPA's response  to these
comments appears in the section
entitled "Significance of the Estimated
Carcinogenic Risks from Benzene
Exposures." Additionally, commenters
maintained that, even if the source
categories regulated could be
considered significant at proposal,
emissions from these source categories
are now actually much lower than
projected at proposal and, thus, no
longer pose significant risk.

Selection of Five Source Categories for
Initial Regulation

  Following the listing of benzene as a
hazardous air pollutant, EPA divided the
stationary sources of benzene emissions
into 12 source categories. After
evaluating these 12 source categories,
EPA selected five source categories of
benzene for initial regulation: process
vents at maleic anhydride and EB/S
plants, benzene fugitive emission
sources, benzene storage vessels, and
coke by-product plants.
  EPA is collecting additional data on
the remaining seven source categories to
use in deciding whether or not
standards development is warranted for
them.

Proposal of Standards: Significant Risk
Judgment

  The information used in selecting the
five source categories for initial
regulation was preliminary information,
based on screening studies of the
identified source categories. During
standards development prior to
proposal, EPA gathered more detailed
and refined information. The new
information necessitated revisions in
emissions estimates for the five source
categories with some estimates
increasing and others decreasing.
Examples of the information used to
upgrade emissions estimates include
emissions test data, updated status on
the number of operating plants, and
more precise information on the control
devices already installed on these
plants.
  In addition to upgrading the emissions
estimates, EPA used the more precise
emissions data to revise the quantitative
risk estimates. At the time that
standards for maleic anhydride process
vents, EB/S process vents, benzene
fugitive emissions sources, and benzene
storage vessels were proposed, EPA
made a judgment that the emissions
from each of these source categories
pose a significant leukemia risk. EPA
based this judgment on the upgraded
emissions and risk estimates available
at that time.
  Table I presents information for each
source category, based on the emissions
status of that source category at the time
the standards were proposed. The
                                                     IV-202
-------
           Federal  Register / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday, June  6, 1984 / Rules  and Regulations
uncertainties in the risk estimates are
described in the following paragraphs.
  The ranges of maximum lifetime risk
and annual leukemia incidence at
proposal presented in Table I represent
the uncertainty of estimates concerning
benzene concentrations to which
workers were exposed in the
occupational studies of Infante, Aksoy,
and Ott that served as the basis for
developing the benzene unit risk factor.
The ranges presented in this table
represent 95 percent confidence limits
on two sources of uncertainty in the
benzene risk estimates. One source
derives from the variations in dose/
response among the three occupational
studies upon which the benzene unit
risk factor is based. A second source
involves the uncertainties in the
estimates of ambient exposure. In the
former case, the confidence limits are
based on the assumption that the slopes
of the dose/response relationships are
unbiased estimates of the true slope and
that the estimates are log normally
distributed. In the latter case, the limits
are based on the assumption that actual
exposure levels may vary by a factor of
two from the estimates obtained by
dispersion modeling (assuming that the
source-specific input data are accurate).
                                                    IV-203
-------
                  Federal Register / Vol.  49, No.  110 / Wednesday. June 6.1984 / Rules and Regulations


                       TABLE  I.    BASELINE IMPACTS OF BENZENE  SOURCE  CATEGORIES  AT  PROPOSAL AND  NOW
Standard
Bfnzeno Fugitive
At proposal
Current
Benzene
emissions
(Mg/year)
8,300
7,900
Benzene
and other
VOC
emissions
(Mg/year)
13,200
12,600
Number of
affected
plants
130
128
Leukemia
incidence/year ' 3
Maximum lifetime risk2 a (Cases per year)
1.7 x 10"4 to 1.2 x 10"3 0.15 to 1.1
1.5 • 10"3 0.45
         Anhydride
  At proposal

  Current

Ethyl benzene/Sty rene

  At proposal

  Current

Benzepe Storage

  At proposal

  Current
5,800

  960



2,400

  210
7.400

1,250



6,240

   330
                          2.3  *  10
 7  (I)4



13  (12)«

13
                                    -5
         7.6 x  10
6.2 x  10~4 to 4  4 x  10~3
                                                           1.4 «  10
      0.46

      0.029



0.027  to 0.20

     0.0057
2,200
620
2,200
620
126
126
1.5 x 10"4 to 10 x 10"3
3.6 x io"5
0.12 to 0.82
0.043
   •notes  for  Table I

      'wr.h
-------
           Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6. 1984  /  Rules and Regulations
  Several other uncertainties are
associated with the estimated health
numbers and not quantified in the
proposal ranges in Table I. EPA has
extrapolated the  leukemia risks
identified for occupationally exposed
populations (generally healthy, white
males) to the general population for
whom susceptibility to a carcinogenic
insult could differ. The presence of more
or less susceptible subgroups within the
general population would result in an
occupationally-derived risk factor that
may underestimate or overestimate
actual risks. To the extent that there are
more susceptible subgroups within the
general population, the maximum
individual lifetime risks are
underestimated.
  On the other hand, general population
exposures to benzene are much lower
than those experienced by the exposed
workers in the occupational studies,
often by several orders of magnitude. In
relating the occupational experience to
the general population, EPA has applied
a linear, nonthreshold model  that
assumes that the leukemia response is
linearly related to benzene dose, even at
very low levels of exposure. There are
biological data supporting this approach,
particularly for carcinogens. However,
there are also data which suggest that,
for some toxic chemicals, dose/response
curves are not linear, with response
decreasing faster than  dose at low levels
of exposure. At such levels, the
nonlinear models tend to produce
smaller risk factors than the linear
model. The data for benzene  do not
conclusively support either hypothesis.
EPA has elected  to use the linear model
for benzene because this model is
generally considered to be conservative
compared to the nonlinear alternatives.
This choice may result in an
overestimate of the actual leukemia
risks.
  EPA estimates ambient benzene
concentrations in the vicinity of emitting
sources through the use of atmospheric
dispersion models. EPA believes that its
ambient dispersion modeling provides a
reasonable estimate of the maximum
ambient levels of benzene to  which the
public could be exposed. The models
accept emission estimates, plant
parameters, and meteorology as inputs
and predicts ambient concentrations at
specified locations, conditional  upon
certain assumptions. For example,
emissions and plant parameters often
must be estimated rather than
measured, particularly in determining
the magnitude of fugitive emissions and
where there are large numbers of
sources. This can lead  to overestimates
or underestimates of exposure.
Similarly, meteorological data often are
not available at the plant site but only
from distant weather stations that may
not be representative of the meteorology
of the plant vicinity.
  EPA's dispersion models normally
assume that the terrain in the vicinity of
the sources is flat. For  sources located in
complex terrain, this assumption would
tend to underestimate  the maximum
annual concentration although estimates
of aggregate population exposure would
be less affected. On the other hand,
EPA's benzene exposure models assume
that the exposed population is immobile
and outdoors at their residence,
continuously exposed  for a lifetime to
the predicted concentrations. To the
extent that benzene levels indoors are
lower and that people  do not reside in
the same area for a lifetime, these
assumptions will tend  to overpredict
exposure.
  Upon reconsideration, EPA has
concluded that the presentation of the
risk estimates as ranges does not offer
significant advantages over the
presentation as the associated point
estimates of the risk. Further, the
proposal ranges for benzene make risk
comparisons among source categories
more difficult and tend to  create a false
impression that the bounds of the risks
are known with certainty. For these
reasons, the benzene risks in this
rulemaking are presented  as point
estimates of the leukemia  risk. EPA
believes that these risk numbers
represent plausible,  if  conservative,
estimates of the magnitude of the actual
human cancer risk posed by benzene
emittecl from the source categories
evaluated. For comparison, the proposal
ranges may be converted into rough
point estimates by multiplying the lower
end of the range by a factor of 2.6.
Post-Proposal Review  of Significant
Risk Judgment
  Some commenters on the proposed
standards indicated that benzene
emissions were actually much lower
than estimated at proposal, citing
factors such as increased  controls, plant
closures, reduced production capacity,
and lower emission  factors. In support
of their contentions, they submitted
detailed plant-specific information and
results of emission test programs.
  Based on this updated information,
EPA has revised benzene  emissions for
the various sourc% categories (see Table
I). The maleic anhydride emissions
estimates now include consideration of
all new controls, plant closures, and
changes in feedstock. The EB/S
emissions estimates are those provided
by the industry, based on  plant-specific
information. (In addition, EPA-assumed
flare efficiency has been revised to 98
percent from 60 percent.) New benzene
emission factors have been developed
for benzene storage tanks and refined
for benzene fugitive sources.
  Based on these revised emissions
estimates, EPA reconsidered whether
benzene emissions from maleic
anhydride process vents, EB/S process
vents, benzene fugitive emission
sources, and benzene storage vessels
still warrant Federal regulation under
Section 112. The factors considered by
EPA are described in the following
paragraphs. (The selection of coke by-
product recovery plants for regulation is
discussed  in the preamble to the
proposed standard for that source
category and is  not discussed further
here).
  Benzene fugitive emissions, which are
not substantially different than they
were when judged to be significant at
proposal, contribute 7,900 Mg/yr: this
figure reflects currrent controls. (EPA
adjusted the control level for petroleum
refineries in nonattainment areas to
reflect controls required by States in
accordance with EPA's Control
Techniques Guideline  (CTG) document.
This adjustment reduced emissions, but
the reduction was offset to some extent
by refinements in emissions factors.)
Approximately 20 to 30 million people
live within 20 kilometers of the 128
plants with these fugitive emissions.
These people are exposed to higher
levels of benzene than is the general
population. Due to the lack of a
demonstrated threshold for benzene's
carcinogenic effects, these people not
only incur a higher benzene exposure
but also run greater risk of contracting
leukemia due to that exposure.
  EPA revised the quantitative risk
assessments for this source category
based on the updated emissions
estimates, the revised risk factor, and
the more detailed SAI  human exposure
model. The lifetime risk of contracting
leukemia for the most exposed
individuals is estimated to be about 1.5
x 10  ' for benzene fugitive emission
sources, and the increased leukemia
incidence  as a result of exposure to the
current fugitive  emissions is estimated
to be about 0.45 cases per year. As
explained earlier in this section, there is
considerable uncertainty associated
with the calculation of leukemia
incidence  and maximum lifetime risk
numbers.
  The number of process units emitting
benzene fugitive emissions is
anticipated to grow from about 240 to
310 units. These new sources probably
would increase  the number of people
exposed to benzene emitted from this
                                                    IV-205
-------
            Federal Register / Vol.  49,  No.  110 /  Wednesday, June 6.  1984  / Rates and Regulations
source catsgory and increase the
estiTv'pd leukemia incidence
accordingly.
  Based on the human carcinogenicity
of Leruene, the magnitude of benzene
fugi'we emissions, the estimated
ambient benzene concentrations in the
vu.inny of the plants with fugitive
emissions,  the proximity of people to
these plants,  the resulting estimated
maximum individual risks and estimated
incidence of leukemia cases  in the
exposed population, the projected
increase in benzene emissions as a
result of new sources, the estimated
reductions  in emissions and  health risks
that can be achieved, and consideration
of the uncertainties associated with  the
quantitative risk estimates (including
t;l!V>cN of i.o.icurrent exposures to other
substances and to other benzene
pensions;. EPA finds that benzene
er. i.is:-; "•; r,om benzene fugitive
emission sources pose a significant
ridiicer rsk and that the establishment
of a national  emission standard under
Section 112 is warranted.  These factors
u ill be discussed in more detail in the
ior'hc.'irriing document, "Benzene
Fugitive Emissions—Background
Information for Promulgated
Standards," EPA-450/3-80-032b.
  Several other factors were also
considered which suoport this  finding.
First, if no standards were promulgated,
several existing plants would remain
uncontrolled  or poorly controlled. Some
benzene fugitive emissions sources are
located in nonattainment areas and  are
controlled to  some extent in  accordance
:er. ed. Fraumem, J. F. Jr.  Ar&nVmic
Press. N Y . 1975 pp 3-37.
  i •'-?) Maltoni, C., and C. Scarnato. "F'rst
Experimental Demonstration of the
Carcinogenic Effects of Benzeru;." Estratto da
"I.a Medicina de! lavoro" 70-5, 1979.
  (/;) Snyder, Carroll A. et al. "The
Inhalation Toxocology of Benzene: Incidence
of Hematopoietic Neoplasms and
Hematotoxicily in AKR/J and C57BL/6J
Mice" Tox. and Appl. Pharm. 54-323-331,
1980.
  (14) Infante. P. F.,  R  Rinsky, J.  Wagoner,
and R. Young, "Leukemia in Benzene
Workers," Lancet, 2:76-78. 1977a.
  (75) Aksoy, M., S.  Erdem, and G. Dmcol,
"Types of Leukemia in Chronic Benzene
Poisoning, A Study in Thirty-Four Patients.
Acta Hematol.  55-65-72, 1976.
  (16) Ott, M. G , J. C. Townsend, W. A.
Fishback. and R. A.  Langner, "Mortality
Among Individuals Occupationally Exposed
to Benzene," Exhibit 154, OSHA  Benzene
Hearings, July 19-Aug'sst  10, 1977.
  (27) Rinsky, R. A., R. Young, and A. Smith,
"Leukemia in Benzene Workers," American
Journal of Industnal Medicine, 2:217-245.
1981.
  (IS) Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Docket *H-059,
Occupational Exposure to Benzene, Proposed
Standard. Transcript of Public Hearing July
19-August 10, 1977b.
  (14} Si'pieme Court of the United States.
/'•Justrioi Union Oepai • n:i.-ut v American
Petroleum Institute 'et al., 448 U.S 607 (1980).
  (*)) Infants, P. F.,  R. Rinsky. J.  Wagoner,
and R Young, "Benzene and Leukemia,"
lancet. CMober 22.  1977b.
  (21) White, M C.,  P,  Infante, and B. Walker,
Jr "Occupational Exposure to Ebazene: A
Rdv>tw of Carcinogenic ard Related Health
Effects Following the U S. Supreme Court
Decision," Am  J. Indust. Med.,  7:233-243,
1980.
  (22} Environmental Survey. Occupational
Health St'ju^ Group. University of North
Carolina, ji;h'jo! of Public llerfl'h, 1974.
  (J3) International  Agency for Research on
Cante", Monographs on the Evaluation of'he
Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans,
2993-148. May 1Q32.
  [2-i] Aksoy, M K.  Dincol, T. Akgun, E.
Erdem, and G. Dincol,  "Haematological
effects of chronic benzene poisoning in 217
workers," Br. J. Ind.  Med, 2*296-302, 1971.
  {25} Aksoy, M. K.  Dincol, S. Erdem, and G.
Dincol, "Acute leukemia due to chronic
exposure to benzene," Am. J. Med.. 55.160-
166, 1972.
  (26} Aksoy, M., S.  Erdem. and G. Dincol,
"Leukemia in shoeworkers exposed
chronically to benzene," Blood •M(6)>837-841,
1974.
-  (27) U S. Department of Labor,  Bureau of
the Census, "County Demographic Profiles,
Turkey," ISP-DP-25. August 1980.
  (28} Thorpe, J, J. "Epidemiologic survey of
leukemia in persons potentially exposed to
benzene," J. Occup.  Med.  76(6):J75-382.1974.
  (29) Brown, S. "Letter to the editor
concerning Thorpe article or leukemia and
potential benzene exposure," JOM 77[l):5-6,
1975.
                                                        IV-206
-------
            Federal  Register / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6, 1984 /  Rules and Regulations
  (30] Fiaklow, P.). "The origin and
development of human tumors: studies with
cell markers," New Eng. J. Med 297:28-35,
1974.
  (37) Gart'.er, S. M. "Utilization of mosaic.
systems in the study of the origin and
progression of tumors" in Chromosomes and
Cancer, ]. German, ed. Wiley Interscience,
New York, p. 313-334,1974.
  (32) Strong, L. C. "Susceptible subgroups,"
presented at NIEHS Conference on the
Problems of Extrapolating the Results of
Laboratory Animal Data to Man and of
Extrapolating the Results from High-Dose
Level Experiments to Low Dose Level
Exposures, Pinehurst, N.C., March 10-12,
1976.
  (33) Cottier, H., M. W. Hess. H. U. Keller, P.
Luscieti. and B. Sordat "Immunological
deficiency states and malignacy," In:
Interaction of Radiation and Host Immune
Defense Mechanisms in Malignancy.
Proceedings of a conference at Greenbrier,
W. Va., March 1974, p. 30-44.
  (34) Rickert. D., and R. Irons (oral
statements) from U.S. EPA, "Pubiir Hearing:
National Emission Standards for Hazaradous
Air Pollutants: Benzene Emissions from
Maleic Anhydride Plants," August 21,1980
(Transcript pp. 5-24).
  (35) Goldstein, B. "Hematotoxicity in Man,"
A Critical Evaluation of Benzene Toxicity, S.
Laskin. and B. Goldstein,  ed., 1977, p. 105.
  (36) Goldstein, p. 165.
  (37) Vigliani, E. C., and A. Forni, "Benzene,
chromosome changes, and leukemia," J.
Occup. Med. n:148-149.1969.
  (38) Tabershaw Cooper Associates, A
Mortality Study of Petroleum Refinery
Workers Project OH-1 (1974) (OSHA
Benzene Record, Ex. 2-59).
  (39) Stallones, R. A., and D. Syblik, Report
on Mortality from Leukemia (1977) (OSHA
Benzene Record, Ex. 115,  C.2).
  (40) National Cancer Advisory Board,
"General Criteria for Assessing the Evidence
for Carcinogenicity of Chemical Substances:
Report of the Subcommittee on
Environmental Carcinogens," J.N.C.l. 50:461-
465,1977.
  (41} Crump. K.. D. Hoel, C. Langley. and R.
Peto, "Fundamental carcinogenic processes
and their implications for low-dose risk
assessment." Cancer Res. 36:9, pp. 2973-2979,
1976.
  (42) Chemical and Engineering News, May
3,1978, p. 11
  (43) U.S. EPA, "Volatile Organic Chemicals
in the Atmosphere: An Assessment of
Available Data" Office of Research and
Development. 1983 (EPA-600/3-83-027(A))

  Dated: May 23.1984.
William D. Ruckelshaus,
Administrator.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 61

  Air pollution control, Asbestos,
Beryllium, Hazardous substances,
Mercury, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Vinyl chloride.
(FR Doc. M-14479 Filed «-S-M. 6:45 ami
                                                           IV-207
-------
           Federal  Register / Vol. 49, No. 110  /  Wednesday, June 6,  1984 / Rules  and  Regulations
 NVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40 CFR Part 61

[AD-FRL-2538-4]

National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Benzene
Equipment Leaks (Fugitive Emission
Sources)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (F.PA) listed benzene as a
hazardous air pollutant under Section
112 of the Clean Air Act on June 8,1977
(42 FR  29332). A standard was
subsequently proposed for benzene
fugitive emission sources (46 FR 1165,
January 5,1981). This Federal Register
notice  responds to comments on and
promulgates the standards for benzene
fugitive emission sources.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 6,1984. Under
section 307(b)(l) of the Clean Air Act,
judicial r«view of national emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants
(NESHAP) is available only by filing a
petition for review in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia circuit within 60 days of
today's publication of these rules. Under
section 307(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act,
the requirements that are the subject of
today's notice may not be challenged
later in civil or criminal proceedings
brought by EPA to enforce  these
requirements. The director of the
Federal Register approves the
incorporation by reference of certain
publications in 40 FR effective on June 6/
1984.
ADDRESSES: Background Information
Documents. The background
information documents (BID's) may be
obtained from the U.S. EPA Library
(MD-35), Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)
541-2777. For background information
on today's promulgated standard, please
refer to "Benzene Fugitive Emissions—
Background Information for
Promulgated Standards," EPA-450/3-
80-032b. The BID for the promulgated
standard contains: (1) A summary of all
public comments on the proposed
standard and the Administrator's
 response to the comments; (2) a
 summary of changes to the standard
 since proposal; and (3) the final
 environmental impact statement (EIS),
 which summarizes the impacts of the
 standard.
   Dockets. Docket No. A-79-27 contains
 technical information considered in
developing the promulgated standard for
benzene fugitive emissions. Docket No.
OAQPS 79-3 (Part I) contains
information considered on the health
effects, listing, and regulation of
benzene. These dockets are available
for public inspection between 8:00 a.m.
and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
at EPA's Central Docket Section (LE-
131), West Tower Lobby, Gallery 1, 401
M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
A reasonable fee may be charged for
copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For further information concerning the
background technical information
supporting the promulgated standard,
contact Mr. James F. Durham, Chemicals
and Petroleum Branch. Emission
Standards and Engineering Division
(MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)
541-5671. For further information on the
regulation of benzene and the
promulgated standard, contact Mr.
Gilbert H. Wood, 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:

Background Information on Health
Effects of Benzene
   On June 8,1977, the Administrator
announced his decision to list benzene
as a hazardous air pollutant under
section 112 of the Clean Air Act (42 FR
29332). Supplementary background
information regarding the health effects
and listing of benzene as a hazardous
air pollutant may be obtained from
Docket No. OAQPS-79-3 (Pait I). A
public hearing was held on August 21,
1980, to discuss the health effects and
listing of benzene as a hazardous air
pollutant. Comments were received and
EPA's responses are detailed in the EPA
document, "Response to Public
Comments on EPA's listing of Benzene
Under section 112" (EPA^50/5-82-003).

Summary of the Standard
   The standard applies to certain new
 and existing equipment in benzene
 service (i.e., equipment containing
 materials with a benzene concentration
 of 10 percent or more by weight) except
 those located in process units that
 produce benzene or benzene mixtures at
 coke by-product plants or at plant sites
 that are designed to produce or use
 benzene in quantities of 1,000
 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) or less-
 Equipment covered by the standard
includes new and existing valves,
pumps, compressors, pressure relief
devices, sampling connection systems,
open-ended valves or lines, pipeline
flanges, product accumulator vessels.
and closed vent systems and control
devices used to comply with the
standard. The standard includes work
practices and other requirements as
provided by  section 112(e) of the Clean
Air Act and discussed in the preamble
to the proposed rule (46 FR 1177).
Permission to use any alternative means
of emission limitation will be granted
after a notice is published in the Federal
Register and an opportunity for a public
hearing.
  Valves. A monthly leak detection and
repair program is required by the
standard for valves in gas or liquid
service. However, EPA will allow
quarterly monitoring for valves that
have been found not to leak for 2
successive months. This is monthly/
quarterly leak  detection and repair. Leak
detection is to  be performed with a
portable organic vapor analyzer
according to Reference Method 21 (see
Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 60). If a
reading of 10,000 ppm or greater of
organic materials is obtained, a leak is
detected. Initial repair of the leak must
be attempted within 5 days, and the
repair must be completed within 15
days.
  Since proposal, provisions for
difficult-to-monitor and unsafe-to-
monitor valves have been added to the
standard for valves. For existing valves,
the standard has been changed to allow
an annual leak detection and repair
program for valves that are difficult to
monitor. Valves  that are difficult to
monitor are defined as valves that
would require  elevating the monitoring
personnel more than 2 meters above any
permanent available support surface.
This means valves that cannot be safely
monitored by the use of step ladders
could be classified as difficult to
monitor.
  In addition,  some valves are unsafe to
monitor. Valves that are unsafe to
monitor cannot be eliminated in new or
existing units. The final standard has
been changed  to allow an owner or
operator to submit a plan that defines a
leak detection and repair program
conforming with the routine monitoring
requirements of the standard as much as
possible, with the understanding that
monitoring should not occur during
unsafe conditions. Valves that are
unsafe to monitor are defined as those
valves that  could, as demonstrated by
the owner or operator, expose
 monitoring'personnnel to imminent
 hazards from temperature, pressure, or
                                                     IV-208
-------
           Federal Register / Vol. 49, No.  110 / Wednesday.  June 6, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
explosive process conditions. EPA
expects very few unsafe-to-monitor
valves in benzene service.
  At proposal, two alternative
standards were presented for valves in
gas/vapor and liquid service. Both of
these alternatives called for 1 year of
monthly monitoring to obtain data on
which to base the alternative standard.
However, since proposal, the two
alternative standards have been.
changed in response to comments
concerning the need to collect data.
  The first alternative standard
specifies a 2 percent limitation as the
maximum percent of valves leaking
within a process unit, determined by a
minimum of one performance test
annually. This alternative provides the
flexibility of a performance level that
could be met by implementing any type
of leak detection and repair program
and engineering controls chosen at the
discretion of the owner or operator. If
the results of a performance test show a
percentage of valves leaking higher than
2 percent, however, the process unit
would not be in compliance with the
standard. Finally, if owners or operators
determine  that they no longer wish to
comply with this alternative standard,
they must submit a notification in
writing to EPA stating that they will
comply with the monthly/quarterly leak
detection and repair program.
  The second alternative standard
specifies two statistically-based skip-
period leak detection and repair
programs. Under skip-period leak
detection, an owner or operator can skip
from routine monitoring (monthly/
quarterly monitoring) to less frequent
monitoring after completing a number of
consecutive monitoring intervals with
performance levels less than 2 percent.
This approach provides that the
performance level is achieved for each
skipped period with better than 90
percent certainty. Based on this skip-
period approach, two sets of
consecutive periods and fraction of
periods skipped were determined for
benzene process units. First, after two
consecutive quarterly periods with
fewer than 2 percent of valves leaking,
an owner or operator may skip to
semiannual monitoring. Second, after
five consecutive quarterly periods with
fewer than 2 percent of valves leaking,
an owner or operator may skip to
annual monitoring. This alternative
standard also requires that, if a  process
unit exceeds the 2 percent of valves
leaking, the owner or operator must
revert to the monthly/quarterly  leak
detection and repair program.
Compliance with this alternative
standard would be determined by
inspection and review of records.
  The delay of repair provisions for
valves have been expanded in the final
standard. In the proposed standard,
delay of repair was allowed where
repair is technically or physically
infeasible without a process unit
shutdown. In addition to the provision
already in the proposed standard,
several provisions have been added to
the final standard. One added provision
allows for delay of repair beyond a
process unit shutdown for valves when
unforeseeable circumstances deplete
valves used for repair. Another
provision has been added to allow delay
of repair for valves if the owner or
operator shows that leakage of purged
material during repair is greater than the
equipment leaks that are likely to result
from delay of repair. EPA expects this
provision to be used seldom.
  A definition of "process unit
shutdown" has been added to the
standard to avoid extended delays in
returning a process unit to production if
the unit shuts down briefly due to
unforeseen circumstances. Delay of
repair beyond an unforeseen process
unit shutdown will be allowed if the
shutdown is less than 24 hours in
duration. Repair of leaking equipment
for which repair has been delayed
would be required at  the next process
unit shutdown.
  As part of the delay of repair
requirements, EPA is  clarifying its intent
for spare-equipment that does not
remain in benzene service. Delay of
repair of equipment for which leaks
have been detected will be allowed if
the equipment is isolated from the
process-and no longer-contains benzene
in concentrations greater than 10
percent. The equipment purge must be
destroyed or recovered in a system that
complies with the requirements
discussed in the Closed-vent systems
and control devices portion of this
section of the preamble.
  Pumps. A monthly leak detection and
repair program is required by the
standard for benzene-handling pumps in
liquid service. Leak detection is to be
performed with a portable organic vapor
analyzer according to Reference Method
21. If a reading of 10,000 ppm or greater
of organic materials is obtained, a leak
is detected. Initial repair of the leak
must be attempted within 5 days, and
the repair must be completed within 15
days. Delay of repair  will be allowed for
pumps that cannot be repaired without a
process unit shutdown. Delay of repair,
up to 6 months after detecting a leak, is
also allowed when the plant owner or
operator determines that repair of the
pump requires using a dual mechanical
seal system. Delay of repair is not
expected to be needed for most
situations, however, because pumps are
commonly spared.
  At proposal, EPA required a monthly
leak detection and repair program for
existing pumps but required the
installation of dual mechanical seal
systems for new pumps. Since proposal,
as discussed in the Selection of the
Final Standard section of this preamble.
EPA analyzed the annualized cost of
controlling benzene emissions and the
resultant emission reduction for each
alternative control technique. Based on
comparison of costs and emission
reductions, including estimates of
exposures to benzene, EPA selected the
work practice standard (leak detection
and repair] for new as well as existing
pumps. However, EPA is allowing the
use of dual mechanical seal systems in
the final standard. If an owner or
operator prefers, he or she may comply
with the equipment standard. The
details or provisions of the equipment
standard have not been changed since
proposal.
  Compressors. The standard for new
and existing compressors requires the
use of mechanical seals with barrier
fluid systems and controlling degassing
vents. The controlling degassing vents
must use a closed-vent system and a
control device that complies with the
requirements as discussed in the Closed-
vent systems and control devices
portion of this section of the preamble.
For existing compressors, EPA proposed
a monthly leak detection and repair
program. Since proposal, EPA
reconsidered  the selection of the final
standard and concluded that the
installation of control equipment is the
only viable control technique for
compressors.
  Pressure relief devices. The use of
control equipment (rupture disk systems
or closed-vent systems to flares) is the
basis for the standard for pressure relief
devices in gas service. For control
techniques that  eliminate equipment
leaks, such as the use of rupture disk
systems, an emission limit measurement
for "no detectable emissions" can be
established. An instrument reading of
less than 500 parts per million by
volume (ppmv) above a background
concentration based on Reference
Method 21 will be used to indicate
whether equipment leaks have been
eliminated.
  The "no detectable emission" limit
will not apply to discharges through the
pressure relief device during
overpressure  relief because the function
of relief devices is to discharge process
                                                    IV-209
-------
           Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday, June  6, 1984 / Rules  and  Regulations
fluid, thereby reducing dangerous high
pressures within the equipment. The
standard specifies, however, that the
rolief device be returned to a "no
detectable emissions" status within 5
days afidr such a discharge. The
standard further requires an initial and
annual test to verify the "no detectable
emissions" status of the pressure relief
devices.
  Plant owners or operators may also
comply with this standard by connecting
pressure relief devices in gas service to
a system that complies with the
requirements as discussed in the Closed-
vent systems and control devices
portion of this section of the preamble.
Since proposal, the use of flares has
been allowed as an alternative control
device  in the final standard. EPA judges
that the added emission reduction
achieved by reducing the emissions that
occur during overpressure relief offsets
the decrease in emission reduction that
would  occur by allowing 95"percent
reduction (level of control required of all
control devices) rather than the 100
percent reduction associated with
rupture disk systems.
  Sampling connection systems. Closed-
purge sampling is the required standard
for sampling connection systems.
Closed-purge sampling connection
systems eliminate emissions due to
purging by either returning the purge
material directly to the process or by
collecting the purge in a collection
system that is not open to the
atmosphere. Collected purge material
must be destroyed or recovered in a
system that complies with requirements
discussed in the Closed-vent systems
and control devices portion of this
section of the preamble.
  Since proposal. EPA decided to allow
closed-vent vacuum systems connected
to a control device and in-situ sampling
systems in  addition to closed-purge
sampling. Closed-vent vacuum systems
that are connected to a control device
extract the sample purge and then
reduce emissions from the sample purge
by transporting benzene to the control
device. If closed-vent vacuum systems
are not open to the atmosphere and the
system Complies with the requirements
discussed in the Closed-vent systems
an-1 control devices portion of this
section of the preamble, then their
reduction of benzene emissions would
l,e equivalent to the reduction achieved
by closed-purge sampling connection
svstems. In-situ sampling systems
involve measurement or sampling of
process stream conditions without
extraction of the sample from the
process stream. In-situ sampling
systems, therefore, result in no
emissions of benzene.
  Open-ended valves or lines. The
standard for open-ended valves or lines
requires the use of caps, plugs, or any
other equipment that will effect
enclosure of the open end. The standard
has not changed since proposal. If a
second valve is used, the standard
requires the upstream valve to be closed
first. After the  upstream valve is
completely closed, the downstream
valve must be closed. This operational
requirement is necessary in order to
prevent trapping process fluid between
the two valves, which could result in a
situation equivalent to the uncontrolled
open-ended valve or line.
  Product accumulator vessels, pipeline
flanges, and pressure relief devices in
liquid service.  The standard for product
accumulator vessels effectively requires
venting accumulator vessel emissions to
a system that complies with the
requirements as discussed in the Closed-
vent systems and control devices
portion of this  section of the preamble.
Flanges and pressure relief devices in
liquid service will be excluded from the
routine leak detection and repair
requirements. However, if leaks are
detected from these sources, the same
allowable repair interval that applies to
valves and pumps will apply.
  Closed-vent  systems and control
devices. Control devices will be used to
reduce benzene equipment leaks
captured and transported through
closed-vent systems. Reference Method
21 will be used to  verify that a closed-
vent system has been designed and
installed properly. At proposal, control
devices were, required to be either
enclosed combustion devices designed
to provide a minimum residence time of
0.50 seconds at a minimum temperature
of 760°C or vapor recovery systems with
an efficiency of 95 percent or greater.
Based  on review of comments on  the
proposed standard, EPA concluded that
all reasonably designed, existing  control
devices for organic emissions can
achieve a reduction efficiency for
benzene of at least 95 percent. EPA,
therefore, has not changed the
requirements for control devices.  EPA
has made it clear, however, that an
enclosed combustion device with a
reduction efficiency of at least 95
percent can be used even if the
residence time and minimum
temperature requirements are not
achieved.
  Additionally, EPA decided to allow
use of  smokeless flares operated under
certain conditions in complying with the
control device requirements because
EPA believes that destruction
efficiencies better than 95 percent can
be obtained with properly operated
flares. Flares operated within these
conditions are considered as
alternatives to enclosed combustion
devices (incinerators, catalytic
incinerators, boilers, process heaters,
etc.) and vapor recovery systems (such
as carbon adsorbers and condensation
units). They may be applied to control
emissions from pump seals (or degassing
reservoirs), compressor seals (or
degassing reservoirs), pressure relief
devices, and product accumulator
vessels. The conditions include a
requirement for the presence of a flame:
this can be  ensured by monitoring the
flare's pilot light with an appropriate
heat sensor, such as a thermocouple.
The conditions also include
requirements for smokeless operation
(visible emissions are limited to less
than 5 minutes in any 2-hour period) and
for the heat content of gases combusted
by the flare. The standards for closed
vent systems and control devices permit
the use of devices that have an
efficiency better than 95 percent,
including steam-assisted and
nonassisted flares designed for and
operated with an exit velocity of less
than 18 m/sec. EPA has been studying
the question of whether additional types
of flares will also achieve better than 95
percent efficiency; if so, the Agency will
revise the standards accordingly.
  Reporting and recordkeeping. The
promulgated standard includes reporting
provisions requiring semiannual reports
of leak detection and repair efforts
within a process unit. The amount of
reporting and the burden associated
with the reporting have been reduced
from those  in the proposed standard. In
particular, the quarterly reporting
requirement in the proposed standard
has been reduced to semiannual
reporting. The burden associated with
the recordkeeping requirements has also
been reduced since proposal. However,
the final standard additionally requires
that records be kept of periods when a
flare pilot light does not have a flame
and that unsafe-to-monitor and difficult-
to-monitor valves be identified.

Summary of Impacts of the Standard

  The standard applies to certain
equipment in benzene service. This
equipment is used in the production of
benzene and other chemicals and
products, such as maleic anhydride,
ethanol, and Pharmaceuticals. The
standard will affect equipment located
in more than 200 existing process units
and an expected 60 new process units
by 1985.
                                                     IV-210
-------
           Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 110 / Wednesday. June 6, 1984 / Rules  and Regulations
  The environmental, health, economic,
and energy impacts are summarized
here and are discussed in greater detail
in the BID for the promulgated standard,
"Benzene Fugitive Emissions—
Background Information for
Promulgated Standard," EPA-450/3-80-
032b.
  Environmental and health impacts.
Since the standard was proposed, EPA
has revised the baseline emission
estimate and the estimate of benzene
leaks to the atmosphere that will be
reduced by the standard. The final
standard will reduce emissions from
existing benzene equipment leaks by
about 69 percent from the baseline
control level, which includes petroleum
refinery CTG controls. This percentage
reduction represents a decrease in
emissions from about 7,920 megagrams
of benzene per year (Mg/yr) to about
2,470 Mg/yr for existing equipment leaks
of benzene. Implementation of the
standard will result in negligible impacts
on water quality and solid waste. No
noise impact will result.
  EPA has also revised the assessment
of leukemia risk from exposure to
existing equipment leaks of benzene as
a result of revised emission estimates,
exposure modeling techniques, and the
benzene unit risk factor. In  its revised
estimate, EPA has calculated that the
standard will reduce the estimated
maximum lifetime risk for the most
exposed population from about 1.5X10"*
at current  (baseline) controls to about
4.5 X10"4 for existing benzene
equipment leaks. The standard will
reduce the estimated annual incidence
of leukemia (cases per year) for the
public living within 20 kilometers of
existing benzene equipment leaks from
about 0.45 cases per year at current
controls to about 0.14 cases per year.
Due to the assumptions that were made
in calculating these maximum lifetime
risk and leukemia incidence numbers,
there is uncertainty associated with the
numbers presented here and elsewhere
in this preamble. The use of the risk
numbers is discussed in the Federal
Register notice regarding the regulation
of benzene as a hazardous  air pollutant.
  Cost and economic impacts. Since the
standard was proposed, EPA has
reanalyzed the cost of controlling
benzene equipment leaks and the
resultant benzene emission reduction for
each type of equipment covered by the
standard and for each control technique.
In response to comments, EPA
considered the costs and emission
reductions associated with  each type of
equipment in selecting the final
standard.
  For existing equipment the nationwide
capital cost for the standard will be
about $5.5 million, and the 1985
nationwide annualized cost as a result
of the standard will be about $400,000.
Because the cost of the standard is
mostly offset by the value of the
benzene recovered by the standard and,
to the extent that the cost is not
completely offset, the cost is very small
in comparison to the value of the
product made by this equipment,
product prices will not increase as a
result of the standard. Thus, profits and
market positions of individual
manufacturers would be unchanged.
  Energy impacts. The final standard
will result in a positive energy impact by
conserving benzene and other organic
compounds that have an energy value.
Implementation of the standard will
result in an energy savings of about
10,000 barrels of crude oil in the fifth
year of the standard.
  New sources. The standard will result
in positive environmental and health
impacts for new equipment leaks of
benzene. The magnitude of these
impacts is difficult to determine because
it will depend on several factors,
including the location of the new
equipment, the number and distribution
of people living in the vicinity of the
new  equipment, and the level of control
that would have been used in the
absence of the standard. The
nationwide capital and 1985 annualized
costs for new equipment will depend on
the level of control that would  have
been used in the absence of this
standard. These factors cannot be
determined definitely before sources are
actually constructed. Because EPA
recognizes this additional uncertainty in
environmental and health impacts, cost
and economic impacts, and energy
impacts for leaks of benzene from new
equipment, these impacts are not
presented here. The impacts, however,
will be proportionately similar to the
impacts for existing sources; that is, if
the standard result in less emission
reduction for new sources than for
existing sources (because fewer new
sources would be covered), then the cost
of this emission reduction will  be
proportionately less also.

Public Participation
  Prior to proposal of the standard,
interested parties were advised by
public notice in the Federal Register (45
FR 18474, March 21, 1980) of a meeting
of the National Air Pollution Control
Techniques Advisory Committee to
discuss the national emission standard
for benzene fugitive emissions
recommended for proposal. This meeting
was held on April 16,1980. The meeting
was open to the public, and each
attendee was given an opportunity to
comment on the standard recommended
for proposal. The standard was
proposed in the Federal Register on
January 5,1981 (46 FR 1165). The
preamble to the proposed standard
discussed the availability of the BID for
the proposed standard (EPA-450/3-80-
032a), which described in detail the
regulatory alternatives considered and
the impacts of those alternatives. Public
comments were solicited at the time of
proposal, and when requested, copies of
the BID were distributed to interested
parties. To provide interested persons
the opportunity for oral presentation of
data, views, or arguments concerning
the proposed standard, a public hearing
was held on July 14, 1981, at Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. The
hearing was open to the public, and
each attendee was given an opportunity
to comment on the proposed standard.
The public comment period was
extended to September 14,1981.
  EPA received 30 comment letters on
the proposed standard and BID. Industry
representatives submitted most of the
comments. Also commenting were
representatives of State and local air
pollution agencies and a representative
of an environmental group. The
comments have been considered
carefully1 and, where determined to be
appropriate by EPA, changes have been
made to the proposed standard.
  EPA published an Additional
Information Document (AID) in April of
1982. The AID contains a technical
discussion of methodologies and
estimates of emissions, emission
reductions, and cost associated with
control of equipment leaks of organic
compounds, including benzene. A notice
of the availability of the AID and a
request for comments on the AID was
published in the Federal Register on
May 7, 1982 (47 FR 19724). Fourteen
letters were received containing
comments on the AID. Comments on the
AID have been considered carefully,
and changes have been  made to the
technical aspects of EPA's analysis
where appropriate.
Significant Comments and Changes to
the Proposed Standard

  Most of the comment letters  contained
multiple comments, and many of the
comment letters repeated comments
contained in other letters. A detailed
discussion of these comments and
responses can be found in the BID for
the promulgated standard, which is
referred to in the ADDRESSES section of
this preamble. The comments and
responses in the BID for the promulgated
standard serve as the basis for the
revisions that have been made to the
                                                    IV-211
-------
           Federal  Register / Vol. 49, No.  110 / Wednesday,  June 6, 1984 /  Rules and Regulations
standdid between proposal and
promulgation. The major revisions to the
stdnddrd are indicated in the
SUMMARY OF THE STANDARD
section of this preamble.
  The most important comments, in
addition to the comments on the listing
of benzene, considered by EPA
concerned whether benzene fugitive
emissions warrant regulation. Benzene
fugitive emissions, which are not
substantially different  from the
emissions judged to be significant at
proposal, contribute 7,900 Mg/yr; this
figure reflects current controls. (EPA
adjusted the control level for petroleum
refineries in nonattainment areas to
reflect controls required by States in
accordance with EPA's Control
Techniques Guideline (CTG) document.
This adjustment reduced emissions, but
the reduction was offset to some extent
by rufin '-Hen's in emission factors.)
Approximately 20 to 30 million people
live within 20 kilometers of the 128
plants with these fugitive emissions.
These people are exposed to higher
leie's of benzene than is the general
population. Due to the  lack of a
demonstrated threshold for benzene's
carcinogenic effects, these people not
nr:K mciir a higher benzene exposure
but i'so run greater risk of contracting
leukemia due to that exposure.
  KPA revised the quantitative i'sk
dSbt-bainents for this source category
based on the updated emissions
estimates, the revised risk factor, and
the more detailed SAI  human exposure
model. The lifetime risk of contracting
leukemia for the most exposed
individuals is estimated to be about
1.5x10"' for benzene fugitive emission
sources, and the increased leukemia
incidence as a result of exposure to the
current fugitive emissions is estimated
to be about 0.45 cases  per year.
  The number of process units emitting
benzene fugitive emissions is
anticipated to grow from about 240 to
310 units. These new sources would
probably increase the  number of people
exposed to benzene emitted from this
source category and increase the
estimated leukemia incidence
accordingly.
  Based on the human carcinogenicity
of benzene, the magnitude of benzene
fugitive emissions, the estimated
ambient benzene concentrations in the
vicinity of the plants with fugitive
emissions, the proximity of people to
these plants, the resulting estimated
maximum individual risks and estimated
incidence of leukemia cases in the
exposed population, the projected
increase in benzene emissions as a
result of new sources, the estimated
reductions in emissions and health risks
that can be achieved, and consideration
of the uncertainties associated with the
quantitative risk estimates (including
effects of concurrent exposures to other
substances and to other benzene
emissions), EPA finds that benzene
emissions from benzene fugitive
emission sources pose a significant
cancer risk and that the establishment
of a national emission standard under
Section 112 is warranted.
  In this preamble, only the major
comments concerning the standard for
equipment leaks of benzene are
addressed. Comments on  the need  for
standards to cover emission sources of
benzene (including equipment leaks of
benzene) and health effects and risk
assessment of exposure to benzene are
addressed in detail in the Federal
Register notice regarding the  regulation
of benzene as a hazardous air
pollutant. Comments on minor issues,
such as test methods and piocedures,
are addressed in detail in the BID for the
promulgated standard. This preamble
addresses issues concerning selection of
the final standard, economic  impact of
the final standard, and recordkeeping
and reporting requirements.

Selection of the Final Standard
  EPA selected the appropriate levels of
control for the benzene fugitive
emissions standard in light of
carcinogenic risks and technological and
economic factors. EPA is  requiring that
the source categories selected for
regulation, as a minimum, achieve
emission levels reflecting best available
technology considering costs, energy,
and economic impacts (BAT), to control
benzene emissions. After selecting BAT,
EPA identified a level of control more
stringent than BAT and evaluated  the
incremental reductions in health risks
obtainable against the incremental costs
and economic impacts estimated to
result from the application of a more
stringent alternative. As described in
more detail later in this notice, EPA
concluded from this evaluation that the
estimated risks remaining after the
application of BAT to benzene fugitive
emission sources are not unreasonable
in view of the costs and economic
impacts of reducing risks further, and
that for this reason, BAT provides an
ample margin of safety to protect human
health.
  Many people commented on the basis
for section of the proposed standard.
Several commenters questioned the cost
effectiveness (cost per unit of emission
reduction) and impacts of Regulatory
Alternatives III and IV for existing and
new equipment in benzene service.
Some of the commenters recommended
the selection of less stringent regulatory
alternatives, and some recommended
the selection of a more stringent
regulatory alternative. Other
commenters stated that selection should
be based on the cost and emission
reduction impacts for each type of
equipment covered by the standard
instead of regulatory alternatives.
  After considering these comments,
EPA selected the final standards for
new and existing equipment in benzene
service.  Selection of the basis of the
final standard was a two-step process
and was similar to the approach used
when the standard was proposed. The
first step was the selection of the best
available technology (BAT). Best
available technology for equipment in
benzene service is  technology which, in
the judgment of the Administrator, is the
most effective level of control
considering economic, energy, and
environmental impacts and any
technological problems associated with
the retrofitting, of existing equipment.
After consideration of these impacts for
each alternative control technique, one
set of control techniques was selected
as BAT  for equipment in benzene
service.
  After  selecting certain control
techniques as BAT, EPA evaluated the
estimated health risks remaining after
application of BAT to determine if they
are unreasonable in view of health risk
reductions and cost (economic) impacts
that would result if a more stringent
level of control were applied. This
provides a cpmparison of the costs and
economic impacts  of control with th«
benefits of further  risk reduction. The
benefits of risk reduction are expressed
in terms of the estimated leukemia
incidence (cases per year) within 20
kilometers of the equipment  covered by
the standard and the estimated
maximum lifetime risk at the point of
maximum exposure. The results of this
comparison determine whether, in the
judgment of the Administrator, the
residual risks remaining after
application of BAT are unreasonable. If
the risks remaining after application of
BAT are judged to be unreasonable,
further controls would be required.
   The cost of the proposed control
techniques for benzene equipment leaks
are very small relative to the capital and
operating costs of affected process units.
As a consequence, none of these control
techniques impact the ability of an
owner or operator to raise capital or
measurably impact product prices or
energy requirements. Therefore, EPA
selected BAT primarily based on a
comparison of costs and emission
reductions associated with each
alternative control technique. In making
                                                     IV-212
-------
           Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 110 / Wednesday, )une  6. 1984  /  Rules and  Regulations
thjfj decision. EPA is accepting the
suggestions of commenters to consider
further cost per unit emission reduction
estimates and to consider these
estimates for each type of equipment
covered by the standard in the selection
of BAT. In selecting BAT, EPA initially
selected control techniques that achieve
the greatest emission reduction with
reasonable control costs per megagram
of emission reduction. The emission
reductions and the average and
incremental costs per megagram of
benzene and total emissions (including
benzene and other volatile organic
compounds (VOC)) are summarized in
Tables 1 and 2, respectively, for each
type of equipment covered by the
standard. After initially selecting one set
of control techniques as BAT for each
type of equipment covered by the
standard, EPA analyzed economic and
other impacts of this set of control
techniques. To the extent that the<.s
impacts were reasonable, the control
techniques were selected as BAT and

then were used in estimating the risks
remaining after application of BAT
                  Table 1.   CONTROL  COSTS  PER  MEGAGRAM OF BENZENE  REDUCED*

Type of
Equipment
tfalres





Pumps







Compressors
Pressure
»elief
Devices

Open-ended
Lines
Sampling
Connection
System
Product
Accumulator
vessels

Control Tecnnique
Annual leak detection and
repair
Quarterly leak detection
and repair
Monthly leak detection
and repair'
S'eaTedoeT'lows valves
Annual leak detection and
repair
Quarterly leak detection
and repair
Moattriy leak detection
and repair
Su*l aecKInical seal
system
Degassing reservoir
Quarterly leak detection
and repair'
Monthly leak detection
and repair1
Equipment control'-1
Caps on open ends'

Closed-purge lampllng'


Closed-vent svsteV


Benzene Emission
Reduction0
(Nj/yr)
New Existing

162 799

639 2.750
736 3.160
998 4.280

77 290

266 959

307 1.140

372 1.360
3.59 —ft

53 190
58 207
32 29S
54 187

37 318


27 106


Average Incremental
J/Hg 8enienec t/Mo. 3enzened
New Existing Mew Existing

..e ..e ..e ..e

--• • --* •-* --*
— • — • 210 120
8.500 11,000 33,000 44,000

870 670 370 870

--• .-• --• --•

.-• ..t .-t — •

2.100 2.400 13,000 15,000
— e ..ft --* .-ft

..» ..e ..e ..e
— • --• 300 290
96 180 1.400 1.700
430 470 430 470

380 900 380 900


94 97 94 97


                                                    IV-213
-------
          Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 110 / Wednesday. June 6.1984 / Rules and Regulations


aCosts and emission reductions are presented on a nationwide basis and
 are derived from the BID for the promulgated standard, EPA-450/3-80-032b.

^Benzene emission reductions are presented on a nationwide basis as
 explained 1n Docket No. A-79-27-IV-B-14.

cAverage dollars per megagram (cost effectiveness) = net annualized cost
 * annual benzene emission reduction.   These cost-effectiveness numbers
 can be calculated on a component basis, on a model unit basis,  or on a
 nationwide basis.  In any case, the resulting cost effectiveness will be
 essentially the same.  The numbers in thfs table have been calculated
 on a nationwide basis by multiplying  the net annual cost per component
 (BID Tables A-l through A-ll) by the  total number of components nationwide
 (BID Tables 2-6 and 2-7) and then dividing the resulting nationwide net
 cost by the nationwide emission reduction.

dIncremental dollars per megagram = (net annualized cost of the control
 technique - net annualized cost of the next less restrictive control
 technique) * (annual benzene emission reduction of control technique -
 annual benzene emission reduction of  the next less restrictive control
 technique).

eDashes denote savings.

^Control technique selected as the basis for the final standard.

9Emiss1on reduction associated with one new compressor.

"Existing compressors in benzene service are not known to exist; however,
 if one does, the emission reduction and control costs per megagram of
 benzene would be the same as for a new compressor.

''Costs of equipment controls for pressure relief devices are based on the
 following:  75 percent of relief devices are already controlled.  For
 the remaining uncontrolled sources, 75 percent of relief devices will
 be vented to a flare, 12.5 percent will be controlled by rupture disk/
 block valve systems, and 12.5 percent will be controlled by rupture
 disk/3-way valve systems.
                                       IV-214
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
Table 2. CONTROL COSTS PER MEGAGRAM OF TOTAL
EMISSIONS REDUCED3

Total Emission
Reduction6
Type Of
Equipment
Valves





Pumps






Compressors

Pressure
Relief
Devices


Open-inded
Lines
Sa^Hng
Connection
System
Product
Accumulator
Vessels
Control Technique
Annual leak detection and
repair
Quarterly leak detection
and repair
Monthly leak detection
and repair
Sealed bellows valves
Annual leak detection and
repair
Quarterly leak detection
and repair
Monthly leak detection
and repair*
dual mecfianlcal seal
systems
Degassing reservoir

Quarterly leak detection
and repair1
Monthly leak detection
and repair"
Equipment control'-'
Caps on open ends'

Closed-purge sampling/


Closed-vent systen1"


rg/^
New' 1

313

1.005
1.150
1.540

124

413
484

534
5.59


83

90
128
83

136


42


'<•
.xistlng

1.306

4,440
5,090
6.960

463

1,560
1.330

2.210
— h


308

336
475
313

510


171


Average

New

..e

..e
..e
4,900

540

..e
-.e

1,400
„ e


..e

..e
61
380

560


60


t/fg*-
Existing

..e

—e
..i
6.900

540

..e
..e
/
1.500
—n


..e

..e
110
280

560


60


Incremental
S /Ma**
Sew Existing

..e ..e

..e —e
140 74
20.000 26,000

540 540

..e ..e
..e ..e

8,200 8.700
..e .Ji


..e ..e

190 180
940 1.100
280 280

560 560


60 60


                                 IV-215
-------
          Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6, 1984 / Rules and Regulations


aCosts and emission reductions are presented on a nationwide basis and
 are derived from the BID for  the promulgated standard, EPA-450/3-80-032b.

^Total  emission reductions are estimated for benzene and other VOC and
 are presented on a nationwide basis as explained in Docket No.
 A-79-27-IV-B-14.

cAverage dollars per megagram  (cost effectiveness)  * net annualized cost
 4 annual emission reduction.  See Table II-l, footnote c.

^Incremental dollars per megagram - (net annualized cost of the control
 technique - net annualized cost of the next less restrictive control
 technique) * (annual emission reduction of the control technique -
 annual emission reduction of  the next less restrictive control technique).

eDashes denote savings.

^Control technique selected as the basis for the final standard.

^Emission reduction associated with one new compressor.

"Existing compressors in benzene service are not known to exist; however,
 if one does, the emission reduction and control costs per megagram of
 total  emissions would be the  same as for a new compressor.

^Cost of equipment controls for pressure relief devices are based on  the
 following: 75 percent of relief devices are already controlled.  For
 the remaining uncontrolled sources, 75 percent of  relief devices will
 be vented to a flare, 12.5 percent will be controlled by rupture disk/block
 valve systems, and 12.5 percent will be controlled  by rupture disk/3-way
 valve systems.
BILLING CODE 6560-SO-C
                                        IV-216
-------
           Federal  Register / Vol. 49, No.  110 / Wednesday.  June 6. 1984 /  Rules and Regulations
  I1 or each type of equipment, the
 I'.urage cost effectiveness of each
i untrol technique was calculated based
HI She net annualized cost and the
Annual emission reduction from the
','(controlled level. Starting with the
,'ios! stringent control technique, which
lu.hievcs the greatest emission reduction
.it the ^--eatt.'St annualized cost.  EPA
.'\<-mined the incremental cost
t Sfectiveness between the most stringent
coat'ol technique and the next less
" striuive control technique. The
 [...-(.mental cost effectiveness between
,'iiy two alternative control techniques
 .\, s based on the difference in net
.in.niMhzed costs divided by the
 ^"lf>rliug a
 control technique as BAT.
   The basis for selecting BAT for each
 ';;•!; of equipment in benzene service  is
 Discussed below. It should be noted that
 •he control costs for each type of
 equipment do not represent the actual
 .iiiiounts of money spent at any
 particular plant site. The cost of
 emission reduction systems will vary
 •fcordmg to the chemical product being
 produced, production equipment, plant
 l
-------
           Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. '110  /  Wednesday. June 6, 1984 / Rules  and Regulations
above. EPA has thus concluded that
control equipment is reasonable for
existing compressors and, therefore,
selected it as BAT for existing
compressors as well as new
compressors.
  Pressure relief devices. The
annualized costs and emission
reductions associated with monthly and
quarterly leak detection and repair
programs and with the use of control
equipment (rupture disks and flares)
were determined for pressure relief
devices in gas service. As Tables 1 and 2
show, both the quarterly and monthly
leak detection and repair programs are
less expensive than installation of
equipment controls, but they result in
lower emission reductions. These
programs result in an incremental cost
effectiveness of about $300/Mg of
benzene for the monthly program
(compared to the quarterly program) and
a credit for the quarterly program.
Equipment controls would result
(compared to a monthly program)  in
incremental emission reductions of
about 90 Mg/yr of benzene and an
incremental cost of about $150,000/yr.
This reflects an incremental cost
effectiveness of about $l,700/Mg.
Because EPA considers the incremental
cost effectiveness of equipment controls
reasonable, equipment controls were
selected as BAT for pressure relief
devices.
  Open-ended lines, sampling
connection systems, and product
accumulator vessels. EPA considered
caps or closures as the control technique
for the standard for open-ended lines.
Costs of $430/Mg and $470/Mg of
benzene are reasonable for controlling
equipment leaks of benzene from new
and existing open-ended lines,
respectively. EPA selected caps or
closures as BAT for open-ended lines.
  EPA considered closed-purge
sampling as the control technique for the
standard for sampling systems. Costs of
$880/Mg and $900/Mg of benzene are
reasonable for controlling equipment
leaks of benzene from new and existing
sampling systems, respectively. EPA
selected closed-purge sampling as BAT
for sampling systems.
  EPA considered closed-vent sj stems
connected to a control device as the
control technique for the final standard
for product accumulator vessels. For
existing units in benzene service,  the
installation of closed-vent systems
connected to a control device will result
in a nationwide net annual cost of
$10,300 and an annual emission
reduction of about 100 Mg of benzene;
this represents a cost effectiveness of
about $100/Mg. Since the cost
associated with this control technique is
reasonable, EPA selected closed-vent
systems as BAT for product accumulator
vessels.
  New sources. Emission reductions and
costs for new sources are similar to
those for existing sources. If the
standard results in less emission
reduction for new sources than for
existing sources (because fewer new
sources would be covered), then the cost
of trf emission reduction for new
sources will be less. However, as seen
in Tables 1 and 2, the costs that are
unreasonable for existing sources are
also unreasonable for new sources;
therefore, BAT for new sources is the
same as-BAT for existing sources.
  Economic impact considerations of
BA T. As mentioned above, once BAT
was identified for each type of
equipment covered by the standard,
EPA analyzed the economic impact of
the initial set of BAT control techniques.
As a result and as explained in the next
section of this preamble, EPA concluded
that the control techniques initially
selected as BAT have reasonable
economic impacts. In addition, EPA has
also concluded that other impacts,
environmental and energy, associated
with these control techniques are
reasonable. Thus, they were selected as
BAT for equipment in benzene service.
  Selection of the final standards. After
selecting certain control techniques as
BAT (those identified above), EPA
evaluated the estimated health risks
remaining after application of BAT to
determine if they are unreasonable in
view of health risk reductions and cost
(economic) impacts that would result if
a more stringent level of control were
applied. Because the most stringent,
viable  control technique for each type of
equipment covered by the standard is
already selected for all types of
equipment except for valves and pumps,
EPA identified a more stringent level of
control by reviewing the control
techniques for valves and pumps. The
more stringent level of control used for
this anaylsis includes the use of dual
mechanical seal systems on pumps in
addition to the requirements selected as
BAT. This control technique was
selected for analysis because it adds the
next most cost-beneficial control
technique. Thus, if EPA decided not to
require this control technique in
addition to those control techniques
selected as BAT, then EPA would not
require less cost-beneficial control
techniques, such as sealed bellows
valves.
  Health and cost impacts were first
examined for existing equipment
covered by the standard to determine
whether a more stringent level of control
should be required. Requiring a more
stringent level of control instead'oi HAT
would reduce estimated leukemia
incidence within 20 kilometers of the
equipment covered by the standard from
about 0.14 cases per year to about 0.13
cases per year for existing equipment. It
would reduce the estimated maximum
lifetime risk at the point of maximum
exposure from about 4.5X10 ~*to about
4.2X10 "4. Requiring the more stringent
level of control rather than BAT would
increase capital cost from $5.5 million lo
$19.5 million and would increase 1985
net annualized costs from $400.000 to a
cost of $3.7 million for existing
equipment. Because of the relatively
small health benefits  to be gained with
the additional costs of requiring the
more stringent level of control instead of
BAT for existing equipment, EPA
considers the risks remaining after
application of BAT to existing
equipment not to be unreasonable. For
this reason, EPA judged the level of
control selected as BAT to provide an
ample margin of safety and decided not
to require a more stringent level of
control than BAT for  existing equipment.
  Health and cost impacts were next
examined for new equipment covered
by the standard to determine whether a
more stringent control level should be
required. As with  existing equipment.
EPA considered the use of dual
mechanical seal systems on pumps as
the more stringent control level that is
next most cost-beneficial. Thus, if EPA
decides not to require the use of  these
seals, then EPA would not require less
cost beneficial control technologies.
such as  sealed bellows valves. Requiring
the more stringent level of control—the
use of dual mechanical  seals on pumps
in addition to BAT—could reduce
estimated leukemia incidence within 20
kilometers of the equipment covered by
the standard from about 0.034 cases per
year to about 0.032 cases per year for
new equipment. It would reduce the
estimated maximum lifetime risk at the
point of maximum exposure from about
4.5x10 •• to about 4 2X10  4. Requiring
the more stringent level of control rather
than BAT would increase capital cost
from $1.4 million to $5.1 million and net
annualized costs of $100,000 to $900.000
for new equipment. Because of the
relatively small health benefits to be
gained with the additional costs of
requiring the more stringent level of
control instead of BAT  for new
equipment, EPA considers the risks
remaining after application of BAT to
new equipment not to be unreasonable.
For this reason. EPA judged the level of
control selected as BAT to provide an
ample margin of safety and decided not
                                                    IV-218
-------
           Federal  Register / Vol. 49. No. 110 /  Wednesday, June  6. 1984 / Rules and Regulations
to require a more stringent level of
control than BAT for new equipment.

Economic Impacts of the Final Standard
  The cost of the proposed standard is
discussed in Chapter 8 of the BID for the
proposed standard, and economic
impacts are discussed in Chapter 9.
Changes made to the standard since
proposal make the annualized cost of
the final standard smaller than the
annualized cost for the proposed
standard. The 1985 net annualized cost
of the final standard is $400,000 for
existing units and $100.000 for new
units. The BID for the proposed standard
concludes that any potential price
increases resulting  from imposition of
the proposed standard would be well
under 1 percent and that the profits and
market positions of individual
manufacturers would not be changed. In
view of the lower cost of the final
standard, these corsch-'ions can be
underscored.
  Comments and responses in this
section are addressed in three
categories: impacts on small facilities,
cost effectiveness, and benefit-cost
considerations  This categorization is
not rigid because some comments are
quite broad.
  Impacts on small plants. This
subsection addresses two principal
concerns: the effect of the standard on
smdli businesses, and the application of
the standard to small process units and
to process units that use minor amounts
of benzene or that use benzene
intermittently.
  The Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L
96-354, September 19,1980) directs
Federal agencies to pay close attention
»o minimizing any potentially adverse
impacts of a standard on small
businesses, small governments, and
small organizations. Accordingly, EPA
has reviewed the final standard in
accordance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.  This standard will have
no known effects on small governments
and small organizations. A small
business in the  benzene-using industries
generally is one that employs fewer than
750 persons. This level was set by the
Small Business  Administration (SBA) as
a c:iterion for extending SBA loans and
 rfiated assistance (13 CFR Part 121.
Schedule A). The definition applies to
firms that manufacture cyclic crudes
and cyclic intermediates.
Pharmaceuticals, and many other
chemicals. The  BID for the proposed
standard lists 77 existing companies that
may be affected by the standard. Most
of these companies manufacture cyclic
crudes and many other chemicals With
;he possible exception of two
-.ompanies. all of these firms either
employ more than 750 persons, or are
subsidiaries of large firms. To the extent
these two companies are small
businesses, the impacts of the standard
will be few and minor. Because the
standard is expected to result in small
annualized costs, EPA concluded that
there will be no adverse impacts on
firms regardless of whether they are a
small business or not.
  One commenter felt  that the leak
detection ar.d repair requirements would
impose substantial costs on small-
volume users of benzene with no
appreciable benefit to public health.
According to the commenter, small-
volume pipeline systems at
pharmaceutical plants may contain
several hundred valves that would need
to be monitored monthly when in
benzene service. The commenter added
that the economic and administrative
burden of complying with the standard
would be heavy for small-volume use^s,
as compared to large benzene
production units, in proportion to the
level of equipment leaks from such
facilities.
  As discussed in section 2.8.1 of the
BID for the promulgated standard, EPA
is exempting from the standard
equipment at plant sites that are
designed to produce or use 1,000 Mg/yr
or less of benzene. This cutoff is based
on the amount of equipment in a process
unit ar.d relates this amount to a design
production rate. The 1,000 Mg/yr
exemption would exclude most research
facilities, pilot plants, and intermittent
users of benzene from the standard.
  The possibility that pharmaceutical
operations  could be adversely affected
by the standard is very small. This is
true for several reasons. First, most
pharmaceutical plants use very little
benzene. According to estimates
contained in Market Input/Output
Studies—Benzene Consumption as a
Solvent (EPA-560/6-77-034, October
1978, p. 41), 1978 benzene consumption
by pharmaceutical manufacturers was
about 0.72 Gg. No companies consumed
more than 1,000 Mg/yr in 1978. The
commenter states that they consumed
about 325 Mg/yr during 1981. Thus, it is
unlikely that pharmaceutical operations
would be affected by the standard
because the final standard exempts
equipment  at plant sites that are
designed to produce or use 1,000 Mg/yr
or less of benzene. Second, benzene
consumption by the pharmaceutical
industry  is  declining rapidly. The market
input/output study just noted estimates
that  consumption declined from 214 Gg
in 1976 to 0.72 Gg in 1978, a decline of
about 66 percent over  the 2-year period.
Third, the number of companies using
ben?pnp  has also declined and is
expected to continue to fall. For the 2-
year period 1976 to 1978, the study
estimates that the number of
pharmaceutical companies using
benzene declined from 10 to 5. And
finally, even though pharmaceutical
operations that are designed to produce
or use benzene in excess of 1,000 Mg/yr
are subject to the standard, they have
substantial equipment inventories in
benzene service, and, therefore, emit
benzene in enough quantity to warrant
coverage by the final standard. EPA has
reviewed the cost for these operations
and has concluded that the cost is
reasonable.
  Use of cost effectiveness. Commenters
felt that EPA had not selected the most
cost-effective alternative as the basis for
the proposed standard. One commenter
said that industry's experience in air
pollution abatement control programs
has led it to conclude that capital costs
in excess of $3,000/Mg are not cost
effective and should be rejected unless
the other alternatives do not
substantially achieve the necessary
degree of control. The commenter
concluded that SOCMI data indicate
that the cost effectiveness is definitely
higher than the industry guideline of
$3,000/Mg.
  Selection of BAT was based, in
response to these commenters, on an
examination of the incremental cost
effectiveness among various control
techniques for each type of equipment
covered by the standard. Whether to
require more restrictive control than
BAT is based on judging the risks
remaining after BAT is applied and the
cost and other impacts of reducing these
risks. Since proposal, EPA has selected
a less restrictive standard than the
standard proposed in January 1981;
consequently, the cost associated with
the standard has decreased.
  EPA based emission estimates  on
refinery emission factors rather than  on
SOCMI emission factors because recent
benzene-specific emission  data from
refineries and chemical plants are more
similar to refining units than to SOCMI
units. Therefore, the commenler's
conclusion that SOCMI data (discussed
in "Fugitive Emission Sources of
Organic Compounds—Additional
Information on Emissions,  Emission
Reductions, and Costs," EPA-450/3-82-
010) indicate that the cost effectiveness
is higher than the industry guideline of
$3.000/Mg is not based on  the same
emission estimates used by EPA.  Also in
contrast to the commenter. EPA bases
cost effectiveness of a standard on net
annualized costs rather than on capital
costs. It is unclear how the commenter
estimated what they called "oprrntinp
                                                   IV-219
-------
           Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday.  June 6,  1984 / Rules  and  Regulations
costs." Using 1985 net annualized costs,
however, the overall cost effectiveness
for the standard is reasonable ($77/Mg
of benzene).
  Another commenter felt that cost
effectiveness dictates that Alternative
IV at a minimum, or preferably
Alternative V, should have been
selected instead of Alternative III in
order to fulfill the mandate of Section
112. This judgment is based on the
commenter's observation that the net
price increase would be less than one-
fourth of 1 percent in benzene prices for
Alternative IV and less than 4 percent
for Alternative V. The commenter
considered this a "trivial price to pay for
saving additional lives," noting that, in
rulemaking on the vinyl chloride
standard in 1975, EPA~decided that a
price impact as high as 10 percent would
have been acceptable. The commenter
added that cost estimates are usually
PXaerated, and firms often  develop
innovative, less costly compliance
techniques.
  EPA has selected the final standard
after considering whether the risk that
remains after application of BAT
warrants the incremental cost of
additional control. In analyzing the cost
of the standard, EPA has made
reasonable attempts to ensure that the
cost is not underestimated. Even though
industry sometimes may develop less
costly compliance techniques, EPA
considers its cost estimates reasonable
Based on these cost estimates, EPA
judges that the reduction in risk that
remains after application of BAT does
not warrant the incremental cost of
additional control.
Reporting Requirements
  One commenter felt that the reporting
requirements are purely for the ease of
enforcement purposes, for data
collection purposes, and require the
submittal of duplicate information. The
commenter suggested that EPA either
delete the requirements or justify the
need for the routine reporting
requirements in determining  compliance
with the standard. Other commenfers
recognized the need for reports but
suggested changes to the requirements
One commenter suggested that after
submitting the initial report, plants
should report only changes in the
number of valves or leaks detected and
repaired. Other commenters
recommended that only leaks not
repaired should be reported quarterly
and that reporting the number of \alves
in each process unit is unnecessary
since the number rarely changes. One of
the commenters added that records of
details of unsuccessful repair attempts,
while possibly of interest to the owner
or operator, should not be made a
reporting requirement.
  Effective enforcement of standards,
such as this one, is important. In doing
this, public officials must implement
enforcement programs that are efficient
in order to reduce the cost of
enforcement. Reporting requirements
are very helpful for effective and
efficient enforcement of the standard.
Contrary to what one commenter
suggests, EPA is not  establishing
reporting requirements for the purpose
of data collection and has reviewed the
requirements to reduce possibly
duplicative requirements. Reports will
be used in a  meaningful manner in
conjunction with records and
inspections to enforce the standard.
  Reporting  is an effective mechanism
for reducing the cost of enforcement
because reports reduce the amount of
time required to conduct inspections and
make it possible to reduce the number of
inspections conducted by enforcement
personnel. In response to conrnents,
however, the standard was changed to
require semiannual rather than quarterly
reports since proposal. Semiannual
reports cost  less to industry  than
quarterly reports, and they better
indicate to enforcement personnel the
efforts of plants to control equipment
leaks than quarterly reports. Thus, EPA
changed the reporting frequency from
quarterly to  semiannual.
  Also, in response to the'comments on
reporting requirements, EPA reduced the
amount of information that must be
reported by  the plant owner or operator.
The information required in reports is
the same information that a  plant
manager would likely want to evaluate
his or her program. The report will
include the number of leaks that
occurred within the process unit during
the reporting period, the number of leaks
that could not be repaired within 15
days, and the general reasons for
unsuccessful or delay of repair past the
15-day period. Since no reporting format
is required by the standard, reports
required by  other regulations may
simply be photocopied and submitted in
compliance  with the standard for
equipment leaks of benzene as long as
the report satisfies the informational
requirements of § 61.247.
   The requirement to report reasons for
unsuccessful or delay of repair is
necessary to allow EPA to assess
whether the owner or operator is making
reasonable attempts at repair and
understands the workings of the
standard. EPA expects that delays will
occur only because repair would result
in process unit shutdown. Such delays
can be readily explained by the owner
or operator. Since EPA does not export
many of these delays to occur, EPA
considers reporting the reasons for tb^-m
to be reasonable. The requirement to
report the number of leaks found will
assist EPA in determining whether the
number of leaks not repaired within 15
days indicates reasonable attempts at
repair.  EPA will gauge the significance
of the number of leaks not repaired
within  15 days in relation to the numbnr
leaks found.
  The requirements in the final stands: ii
involve recordkeeping along with
reporting. This provides enforcement of
the standard in an effective and efficient
manner. It should fit well with
management of the standard by plant
personnel. The recordkeeping
requirements are the minimum thsf
could be implemented without
precluding the possibility of enforcing
the standard. The recordkeeping
requirements are essentially the sarrf &->
those proposed and reflect a level of
documentation that plant personnel
would  require to evaluate
implementation of the standard. Withoiit
retrospective data, inspections woi.';'':
useless and reporting would be
impossible. In the proposed standard?
EPA included a  requirement to repori
leak location and I.D. number. This
would  have allowed EPA to detern:.r,'
whether certain equipment leaks  of
benzene in  a plant  were causing
repeated problems. However, in orr> 'i
reduce reporting requirements for
industry and to  reduce EPA review
requirements, EPA has decided to
eliminate leak location and I.D. nuiiVt
from the reporting requirements.
  During the first 2 years of the prog: i-.-i
the average annual burden of reporting
and recordkeeping to industry would b--
about  20 person-years. The burden is
distributed among  about 240 process
units and, on an annual basis,
represents  about 1 person-month per
process unit. Over  the same period, th^
average annual burden of reporting.
recordkeeping, and inspections to EPA
would be about 10 person-years. This
program provides a reasonable level of
compliance monitoring.

Incorporation of Volatile Hazardous Ati
Pollutant Standards
   Other standards for volatile
hazardous  air pollutants (VHAP), if
established, will likely be similar to  the
standard selected by EPA for equipmfr.1
leaks of benzene. [This will occur
unless, for  a specific VHAP, BAT is
different, or EPA selects a control level
associated with a technology more
stringent than BAT.| Subpart V (40 OR
Part 61) is being promulgated as
                                                     IV-220
-------
            Federal Register  /  Vol. 49,  No. 110  /  Wednesday, June  6. 1984 / Rules and Regulations
requirements for equipment leaks of
VHAP. Subpart ], which promulgates the
specific standard for equipment leaks of
benzene, refers to Subpart V as the
substantive requirements for all the
sources covered by Subpart J Standards
for other VHAP, if proposed, would use
Subpart V as a general guideline for the
standard for equipment leaks of the
VHAP. The technology selected as the
basis for Subpart J would be used as the
basis for the analyses of other VHAP.
This provides an extra degree of
certainty for public commenters and an
effective mechanism to incorporate
appropriate technological changes to all
standards for equipment leaks of VHAP.
Docket
  The docket is an organized and
complete file of all the information
considered by EPA in the development
of this rulemaking. The docket is a
dxTvmic file, since matenHl is added
throughout the rulemaking development.
The docketing system is intended to
allow members of the public and
industries involved to identify and
locate documents readily so that they
can effectively participate in the
rulemaking process. Along with the
statement of basis and purpose of the
proposed and final standard EPA
responses to significant comments, the
contents of the docket will serve as the
record in case of judicial review, except
for interagency review materials
(section 307{d)(7)(A)].
Miscellaneous
  The effective date of this regulation is
June 6.1984. Section 112 of the Clean Air
Act provides that national emission
standards for hazardous air polutants
become effective upon promulgation and
apply to all existing and new sources.
  As prescribed by section 112,
promulgation of this standard was
preceded by the Administrator's
determination that benzene presents a
significant carcinogenic risk to human
health and is, therefore, a hazardous air
pollutant as defined in section 112(a)(l)
of the Act. Benzene  was added to the
list of hazardous air pollutants on June
8,1977. In accordance with section 117
of the Act, publication of this
promulgated standard was preceded by
consultation with appropriate advisory
committees, independent experts, and
Federal departments and agencies. In
addition, members of  the benzene task
group of the Interagency Regulatory
Liaison Group (1RLG), representing the
EPA, the OSHA, the Food and Drug
Administration,  and the Consumer
'Product Safety Commission, have met
(when the IRLG existed) and reviewed
the standard to ensure that each rule is
jointly understood and is consistent
with their programs.
  An economic impact assessment was
prepared for the regulation and for other
regulatory alternatives. The economic
impact assessment for the standard is
included in the BID for the proposed and
promulgated standard.
  The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
of 1980 (Pub. L. 9&-511) requires
clearance from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB]  of
reporting and recordkeeping
requirements that qualify as an
"information collection request"  under
the PRA, which affect 10 or more plants
for the standard. OMB is currently
clearing information collection requests
for a period of 2 years. For the purposes
of OMB's review, an analysis of  the
burden associated with the reporting
and recordkeeping requirements of this
regulation has been made. During the
first 2 years of this regulation, the
average annual burden of the reporting
and recordkeeping requirements for the
benzene fugitive  standard would be
about 20 person-years, based on an
average of about 240 process units per
year.
  Information collection requirements
associated with this regulation (Subpart
A and Subpart J of Part 61) have been
approved by the  Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act  of 1980.
44 U.S.C. 3501 et  seq., and have been
assigned OMB control number 2060-
0068.
  Under Executive Order 12291,  the EPA
is required to judge whether this
regulation is a "major rule" and
therefore subject to certain requirements
of the Order. The EPA has determined
that this regulation will 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."
This regulation is not major because: (1)
Nationwide annual compliance costs are
not as great as the threshold of SI00
million; (2) the standard does not
significantly increase prices or
production costs; and (3) the standard
does not cause significant, adverse
effects on domestic competition,
employment, investment, productivity.
innovation, or competition in foreign
markets.
  This regulation was submitted to the
OMB for review as required by
Executive Order  12291. Any comments
from the OMB to the EPA and any EPA
response to those comments are
included in Docket No. A-79-27
(benzene fugitive). The docket is
available for public inspection at the
EPA's Central Docket Section, West
Tower Lobby, Gallery 1, Waterside
Mall, 401 M Street. S.W., Washington.
D.C. 20460.
  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 that
manufactures cyclic crudes and cyclic
intermediates. Pharmaceuticals, and
many other chemicals is one that has
750 employees or fewer. Currently, very
few of the businesses in the existing
industry employ fewer than 750 people.
Even if facilities owned by small
businesses do become subject to the
standard, none will be affected
adversely. This  conclusion is based on
the fact that, in  doing the economic
analysis for the benzene fugitives
standard, the price increase and
profitability impacts have been
estimated from  the perspective of the
smaller process units in operation
Therefore, the finding that the
annualized cost of the standard will be-
very small (about $2,000/yr) for units
affected by the standard accurately
reflects the impacts for benzene fugitive
facilities owned by small businesses.
  Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
605(b). I hereby certify that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 61

  Asbestos. Beryllium, Hazardous
substances. Mercury, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements. Vinyl
chloride.
  Dated: May 23.1984.
William D. Ruckelshaus.
Administrator.

PART 61—[AMENDED]

  40 CFR Part 61 is amended bv addum
Subparts J and V and by adding three
subparagraphs to paragraph (a) of
§61.18 as follows:
  1. By adding Subparts) and V to 4(1
CFKPartei as follows:

Subpart J—National Emission Standard for
Equipment Leaks (Fugitive Emission
Sources) of Benzene
Sec.
61.110  Applicability and designation of
    sources.
61.111  Definitions:
61.112  Standards
61.113-61.119 (Reserved).
                                                    IV-221
-------
           Federal Register  /  Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday. June 6. 1984  / Rules  and Regulations
Subpart V—National Emission Standard for
Equipment Leaks (Fugitive Emission
Sources)
Si<<
61.240  Applicability and designation of
    sources.
61.241  Definitions.
61.242-1 Standards: General.
61.242-2 Standards: Pumps.
61.242-3 Standards: Compressors.
61.242-4 Standards: Pressure relief devices
    in gas/vapor service.
61.242-5 Standards: Sampling connection
    systems.
61.242-4 Standards: Open-ended valves or
    lines.
61.242-7 Standards: Valves.
61.242-8 Standards: Pressure relief devices
    in liquid service and flanges and other
    connectors.
61.242-9 Standards: Product accumulator
    vessels.
61.242-10  Standards: Delay of repair.
61.242-11  Standards: Closed-vent'systems
    and control devices.
61.243-1 Alternative standrds for valves in
    UHAP Service—allowable percentage of
    valves leaking.
61.243-2 Alternative standards for valves in
    VHAP service—skip period leak
    detection and repair.
61.244  Alternative means of emission
    limitation.
61.245  Test methods and procedures.
61.246  Recordkeeping requirements.
61.247  Reporting requirements.
  Authority: Sections 112 and 301(a) of the
Clean Air Act, as amended [42 U.S.C. 7412,
7601(a)J, and additional authority as noted
below.

Subpart J—National Emission
Standard for Equipment Leaks
(Fugitive Emission Sources) of
Benzene
§61.110 Applicability and designation of

   (a) The provisions of this subpart
 apply to each of the following sources
 that are intended to operate in benzene
 service: pumps, compressors, pressure
 relief devices, sampling connections,
 systems, open-ended valves or lines,
 valves, flanges and other connectors,
 product accumulator vessels, and
 control devices or systems required by
 this subpart.
   (b) The provisions of this subpart do
 not apply to sources located in coke by-
 product plants.
   (c)(l) If an owner or operator applies
 for one of the exemptions in this
 paragraph, then the owner or operator
 shall maintain records as required in
 ! 61.246(i).
   (2) Any equipment in benzene service
 that is located at a plant site designed to
 produce or use less than 1,000
 megagrams of benzene per year is
 exempt from the requirements of
 § 61.112.
   (3) Any process unit (defined  in
 § 61.241) that has no equipment in
benzene service is exempt from the
requirements of 5 61.112.
  (d) While the provisions of this
subpart are effective, a source to which
this subpart applies that is also subject
to the provisions of 40 CFR Part 60 only
will be required to comply with the
provisions of this subpart.

§61.111  Definitions.
  As used in this subpart, all terms not
defined herein shall have the meaning
given them in the Act, in Subpart A of
Part 61, or in Subpart V of Part 61, and
the following terms shall have  the
specific meanings given them:
  "In benzene service" means  that a
piece of equipment either contains or
contacts  a fluid (Liquid or gas) that is at
least 10 percent benzene by weight as
determined according to the provisions
of i 61.245{d). The provisions of
§ 61.245(d] also specify how to
determine that a piece of equipment is
not in benzene service.
  "Semiannual" means a 6-month
period; the first semiannual period
concludes on the last day of the last
month during the 180 days following
initial startup for new sources; and the
first semiannual period concludes on the
last day  of the last full month during the
180 days after June 6,1984 for  existing
sources.

§61.112  Standards.
  (a) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall
comply with the requirements of
Subpart  V of this part.
  . (b) An owner or operator may elect to
comply with the requirements of
 S 61.243-1 and § 61.243-2.
   (c) An owner or operator may apply to
 the Administrator for a determination of
 an alternative means of emission
 limitation that achieves a reduction in
 emissions of benzene at least  equivalent
 to the reduction in emissions of benzene
 achieved by the controls required in this
 subpart. In doing so, the owner or
 operator shall comply with requirements
 of $ 61.244.

 §61.113-61.119  [Reserved)
 Subpart V—National Emission
 Standard for Equipment Leaks
 (Fugitive Emission Sources)

 §61.240  Applicability and designation of
 sources.
   (a) The provisions of this subpart
 apply to each of the following sources
 that are intended to operate in volatile
 hazardous air pollutant (VHAP) service:
 pumps, compressors, pressure relief
 devices, sampling connection systems,
 open-ended valves or lines, valvps.
flanges and other connectors, product
accumulator vessels, and control
devices or systems required by this
subpart.
  (b) The provisions of this subpart
apply to the sources listed in paragraph
(a) after the date of promulgation of a
specific subpart in Part 61.
  (c) While the provisions of this
subpart are effective, a source to which
this subpart applies that is also subject
to the provisions of 40 CFR Part 60 on I \
will be required to comply with the
provisions of this subpart.

§61.241  Definitions.
  As used in this subpart, all terms not
defined herein shall have the meaning
given them in the Act, in Subpart A of
Part 61, or in specific subparts of Part 81,
and the following terms shall have
specific meaning given them:
  "Closed-vent system" means a system
that is not open to atmosphere and that
is composed of piping, connections, and,
if necessary, flow-inducing devices that
transport gas or vapor from a piece or
pieces of equipment to a control device.
  "Connector" means, flanged, screwed,
welded, or other joined fittings used to
connect two pipe lines or a pipe line and
a piece of equipment.
  "Control device" means an enclosed
combustion device, vapor recovery
system, or flare.
  "Double block and bleed system"
means two block valves connected in
series with a bleed valve or line that can
vent the line between the two block
valves.
   "Equipment" means each pump,
 compressor, pressure relief device,
 sampling connection system, open-
 ended valve or line, valve, flange or
 other connector, product accumulator
 vessel in VHAP service, and any control
 devices or systems required by this
 subpart.
   "First attempt at repair" means to
 take rapid action for the purpose of
 stopping or reducing leakage of organic
 material to atmosphere using best
 practices.
   "In gas/vapor service" means that a
 piece of equipment contains process
 fluid that is in the gaseous state at
 operating conditions,
   "In liquid service" means that a piec.o
 of equipment is not in gas/vapor service
   "In-situ sampling systems" means
 nonextractive samplers or in-line
 samplers.
   "In vacuum service" means that
  equipment is operating at an interru!
 pressure which is at least 5 kilopasi.dls
  (kPa) below ambienl pressure.
   "In VHAP service" means thai a pici >•
  of equipment either contains
                                                        IV-222
-------
           Federal Register  /  Vol. 49. No. 110  / Wednesday,  June 6.  1984 / Rules and Regulations
a fluid (liquid or gas) that is at least 10
percent by weight a volatile hazardous
air pollutant (VHAP) as determined
according to the provisions of
§ 61.245(d). The provisions of § 61.245(d)
also specify how to determine that a
piece of equipment is not in VHAP
service.
   "In VOC service" means, for the
purposes of this subpart, that (a) the
piece of equipment contains or contacts
a process fluid that is at least 10 percent
VOC by weight (see 40 CFR 60.2 for the
definition of volatile organic compound
or YOG and 40 CFR 60.458(d) to
determine whether a piece of equipment
is not in VOC service) and (b) the piece
of equipment is not in liquid service as
defined in 40 CFR 60.481.
   "Open-ended valve or line" means
any valve, except pressure relief valves,
having one side of the valve seat in
contact with process fluid and one side
open to atmosphere, either directly or
through open piping.
   "Pressure release" means the
emission of materials resulting  from the
system pressure being greater than the
set pressure of the pressure relief
device.
   "Process unit" means equipment
assembled to produce a VHAP or its
derivatives as intermediates or final
products, or equipment assembled to use
a VHAP in the production of a product
A process unit can operate
independently if supplied with sufficient
feed or raw materials and sufficient
product storage facilities.
   "Process unit shutdown" means a
work practice or operational procedure
that stops production from a process
unit or part of a process unit. An
unscheduled work practice or
operational procedure that stops
production from a process unit or part of
a process unit for less than 24 hours is
not a process unit shutdown. The use of
spare equipment and technically
feasible bypassing of equipment without
stopping production are not process unit
shutdowns.
  "Product accumulator vessel" mtdns
any distillate receiver, bottoms receiver.
surge control vessel, or product
separator in VHAP service that is
vented to atmosphere either directl> or
through a vacuum-producing system. A
product accumulator vessel is in VHAP
service if the liquid or the vapor in thr
vessel is at least 10 percent by weight
VHAP.
  "Repaired" means that  equipment is
adjusted, or otherwise altered, to
eliminate a leak as indicated by one of
the following: an instrument reading of
10,000 ppm or greater, indication of
liquids dripping, or indication by a
sensor that a seal or barrier fluid system
has failed.
  "Semiannual" means a 6-month
period; the first semiannual period
concludes on the last day of the last
month during the 180 days following
initial startup for new sources; and  the
first semiannual period concludes on the
last day of the last full month during the
180 days after the effective date of a
specific subpart that references this
subpart.
  "Sensor" means a device that
measures a physical quantity or the
change in a physical quantity, such as
temperature, pressure, flow rate, pH, or
liquid level.
  "Volatile Hazardous Air Pollutant" or
"VHAP" means a substance regulated
under this subpart for which a standard
for equipment  leaks of the substance has
been proposed and promulgated.
Benzene is a VHAP.

§ 61.242-1 Standards: General.
  (a) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall
demonstrate compliance with the
requirements of § 61.242-1 to § 61.242-11
for each new and existing source as
required in 40 CFR 61.05, except as
provided in § 61.243 and § 61.244.
  (b) Compliance with this subpart  will
be detemined by review of records.
review of performance test results, and
inspection using the methods and
procedures specified in § 61.245.
  (c)(l) An owner or operator may
request a determination of alternative
means of emission limitation to the
requirements of §§ 61.242-2, 61.242-3,
61.242-5, 61.242-7, 61.242-8, 61.242-9 and
61.242-11 as provided in § 61.244.
  (2) If the Administrator makes a
determination  that a means of emission
limitation is at least a permissible
alternative to the requirements of
§§ 61.242-2, 61.242-3, 61.242-5. 61.242-6.
61.242-7, 61.2^-8, 61.242-9 or 61.242-11.
an owner or jperator shall comply with
the requirements of that determination.
  (d) Each piece of equipment to which
this subpail applies shall be marked in
such a manner that it can be
distinquished readily from other pieces
of equipment.
  (e) Equipment that is in vacuum
service is excluded from the
requirements of § 61.242-2, to § 61.242-
11 if it is identified as required in
§61.246(e)(5).

§ 61.242-2 Standards: Pumps.
  (a)(l) Each pump shall be monitored
monthly to detect leaks by the methods
specified in § 61.245(b), except as
provided in § 61.242-l(c) and
paragraphs (d). (e), and (f)  of this
sertion.
  (2j Each pump shall be checked by
visual inspection each calendar week
for indications of liquids dripping from
the pump seal.
  (b)(l) if an instrument reading of
10,000 ppm or greater is measured, a
leak is detected.
  (2) If there are indications of liquids
dripping from the pump seal, a leak is
detected.
  (c)(l) When a leak is detected, it sh.il!
be repaired as soon as practicable, but
not later than 15 calendar days after it is
detected, except as provided in § 61.242-
10.
  (2) A first attempt at repair shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days after
each leak is detected.
  (d) Each pump equipped with a dual
mechanical seal system that includes a
barrier fluid system is exempt from the
requirements of pargraph (a), provided
the following requirements are met-
  (1) Each dual mechanical seal system
is:
  (i) Operated with the barrier fluid at ti
pressure that is at all times greater than
the pump stuffing box pressure; or
  (ii) Equipped with a barrier fluid
degassing reservior that is  connected b.v
a closed-vent system to a control device
that complies with the requirements of
§ 61.242-11; or
  (iii) Equipped with a system that
purges the barrier fluid into a process
stream with zero VHAP emissions to
atmosphere.
  (2) The barrier fluid is not in VHAP
service and, if the pump is  covered by
.standards under 40 CFR Part  00. is mil i-
VOC service.
  (3) Each barrier fluid system is
equipped with a sensor that will detect
failure of the seal system, the barrier
fluid system, or both.
  (4) Each pump is checked by visual
inspection each calendar week for
indications of liquids dripping from (he
pump seal.
  (5)(i) Each sensor as described in
paragraph (d)(3) of this section is
checked daily or is equipped with a
audible alarm, and
  (ii) The owner or operator determines
based on design considerations and
operating experience, a criterion that
indicates failure of the seal system, the
barrier fluid system, or both.
  (6)(i) If there are indications of liquids
dripping from the pump seal or the
sensor indicates failure of the seal
system, the barrier fluid system, or both
based on the criterion determined in
paragraph (d)(5)(ii). a leak is detected.
  (ii) When a leak is detected, it shall be
repaired as soon as practicable, but no!
later than 15 calendar days after it is
                                                    IV-223
-------
           Federal Register  /  Vol. 49,  No. 110  /  Wednesday.  June 6, 1984  /  Rules and Regulations
detected, except as provided in § 61.242-
10.
  (iii) A first attempt at repair shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days after
each leek is detected.
  (e) Any pump that is designated, as
described in § 61.246(e){2), for no
detectable emissions, as indicated by an
instrument  reading of less than 500 ppm
above background, is exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (a), (c), and
(d) if the pump:
  (1) Has no externally actuated shaft
penetrating the pump housing,
  (2) Is demonstrated to be operating
with no detectable emissions, as
indicated by an instrument reading of
less than 500 ppm above background, as
measured by the method specified in
§ 61.245(c),  and
  (3) Is tested for compliance with
paragraph (e)(2) initially upon
designation, annually, and at other times
requested by the Administrator.
  (f) If any  pump is equipped with a
closed-vent system capable of capturing
and transporting any leakage from the
seal or seals to a control device that
complies with the requirements of
§ 61.242-11, it is exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (a)-(e}.

§ 61.242-3   Standards: Compressors.
  (a) Each compressor shall be equipped
with a seal  system that includes a
barrier fluid system and that prevents
leakage of process fluid to atmosphere,
except as provided in § 61.242-l(c) and
paragraphs (h) and (i) of this section.
  (b) Each compressor seal system as
required in  paragraph (a) shall be:
  (1) Operated with the barrier fluid at a
pressure that is greater than the
compressor stuffing box pressure; or
  (2] Equipped with a barrier fluid
system that is connected by a closed-
vent system to a control device that
complies with the requirements of
§ 61 242-11; or
  (3) Equipped with a system that
purges the barrier fluid into a process
stream with zero VHAP emissions to
atmosphere.
  (c) The barrier fluid shall not be in
VHAP service and, if the compressor is
covered by  standards under 40 CFR Part
60, shall not be in VOC service.
  (d) Each barrier fluid system as
described in paragraphs (a)-(c) of this
section shall be equipped with a sensor
that will detect failure of the seal
system, barrier fluid system, or both.
  (e)(l) Each sensor as required in
paragraph (d) shall be checked daily or
shall be equipped with an audible alarm.
  (2) The owner or operator shall
determine,  based on design
considerations and operating
experience, a criterion that indicates
failure of the seal system, the barrier
fluid system, or both.
  (f) If the sensor indicates failure of the
seal system, the barrier fluid system, or
both based on the criterion determined
under paragraph (e)(2) of this section, a
leak is detected.
  (g)(l) When a leak is detected, it shall
be repaired as soon as practicable, but
not later than 15  calendar days after it is
detected, except  as provided in § 61.242-
10.
  (2) A first attempt at repair shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days after
eack leak is detected.
  (h) A compressor is exempt from the
requirements  of paragraphs (a) and (b) if
it is equipped with a closed-vent system
capable of capturing and transporting
any leakage from the seal to a control
device that complies with the
requirements  of § 61.242-11, except as
provided in paragraph (i).
  (i) Any Compressor that is designated,
as described in § 61.246(e}(2), for no
detectable emission as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background is exempt from the
requirements  of paragraphs (a)-(h) if the
compressor:
  (1) Is demonstrated to be operating
with no detectable emissions, as
indicated by an instrument reading of
less than 500 ppm above background, as
measured by the method specified in
§ 61.245(c); and
  (2) Is tested for compliance with
paragraph (i)fl) initially upon
designation, annually, and at other times
requested by the Administrator.

§ 61.242-4  Standards: Pressure relief
devices In gas/vapor service.
  (a) Except during pressure releases,
each pressure relief device in gas/vapor
service shall be operated with no
detectable emissions, as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background, as measured by the
method specified in § 61.245(c).
  (b)(l) After each pressure release, the
pressure relief device shall be returned
to a condition of no detectable
emissions, as indicated by an instrument
reading of less than 500 ppm above
background, as soon as practicable, but
no later than 5 calendar days after each
pressure release.
  (2) No later than 5 calendar days after
the pressure release, the pressure relief
device shall be monitored to confirm the
condition of no detectable emissions,  as
indicated by an instrument reading of
less than 500 ppm above background, as
measured by  the method specified in
! 61.245(c).
  (c) Any pressure relief device that is
equipped with a  closed-vent system
capable of capturing and transporting
leakage from the pressure relief device
to a control device as described in
§ 61.242-11 is exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b).

§ 61.242-5  Standards: Sampling
connecting systems.
  (a) Each sampling connection system
shall be equipped with a closed-purge
system or closed vent system, except as
provided in § 61.242-l(c).
  (b) Each closed-purge system or
closed-vent system as required in
paragraph (a) shall:
  (1) Return the purged process fluid
directly to the process line with zero
VHAP emissions to atmosphere; or
  (2) Collect and recycle the purged
process fluid with zero VHAP emissions
to atmosphere; or
  (3) Be designed and operated to
capture and transport all the purged
process fluid to a control device thai
complies with the requirements of
§ 61.242-11.
  (c) In-situ sampling systems ere
exempt from the requirements of
paragraphs (a) and (b).

§ 61.242-6  Standards: Open-ended valves
or lines.
  (a)(l) Each open-ended valve or line
shall be equipped with a cap, blind
flange, plug, or a second valve, except
as provided in § 61.242-l(c).
  (2) The cap, blind flange, plug, or
second valve shall seal the open end at
all times except during operations
requiring process fluid flow through the
open-ended valve or line.
  (b) Each open-ended valve or line
equipped with a second valve shall be
operated in a manner such that the
valve on the process fluid end is closed
before the second valve is closed.
  (c) When a double block and bleed
system is being used, the bleed valve or
line may remain open during operations
that require venting the line between the
block valves but shall comply with
paragraph (a) at all other times.

§ 61.242-7  Standards: Valves.
  (a) Each valve shall be monitored
monthly to detect leaks by the  method
specified in  § 61.245{b) and shall comply
with paragraphs (b)-{e), except as
provided in paragraphs (f), (g).  and {h) of
this section, §§61.243-1 or 61.243-2. and
§ 61.242-l(c).
  (b) If an instrument reading of 10 000
ppm or greater is measured, a leak is
detected.
  (c)(l) Any valve for which a  leak is
not detected for 2 successive months
may be monitored the first month of
every quarter, beginning with the next
quarter, until a leak is detected.
                                                    IV-224
-------
           Federal Register  /  Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6, 1984 / Rules  and Regulations
  (2) If a leak is detected, the valve shall
be monitored monthly until a leak is not
detected for 2 successive months.
  (d)(l) When a leak is detected, it shall
be repaired as soon as practicable, but
no later than 15 calendar days after the
leak is detected, except as provided in
5 61.242-10.
  (2) A first  attempt at repair shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days after
each leak is  detected.
  (e) First attempts at repair include, but
are not limited to, the following best
practices where practicable:
  (1) Tightening of bonnet bolts;
  (2) Replacement of bonnet bolts;
  (3) Tightening of packing gland nuts;
and
  (4) Injection of lubricant into
lubricated packing.
  (f) Any valve that is designated, as
described in § 61.246(e)(2), for no
detectable emissions, as indicated by an
instrument reading of less  than 500 ppm
above background, is exempt from the
requirements of paragraph (a) if the
valve:
  (1) Has no external actuating
mechanism in contact with the process
fluid;
  (2) Is operated with emissions less
than 500 ppm above background, as
measured by the method specified in
§ 61.245(c): and
  (3) Is tested for compliance with
p«ragraph (f)(2) initially upon
designation, annually, and at other times
requested by the Administrator.
  (g) Any valve that is designated, as
described in § 61.246(fj(l). as an unsafe-
to-monitor valve is exempt from the
requirements of paragraph (a) if:
  (1) The owner or operator of the valve
demonstrates that the valve is unsafe to
monitor because monitoring personnel
would be exposed to an immediate
danger as a consequence of complying
with paragraph (a); and
  (2) The owner or operator of the valve
has a written plan that requires
monitoring of the valve as  frequent as
practicable during safe-to-monitor times.
  (h) Any valve that is designated, as
described in S 61.246(f){2), as a difficult-
to-monitor valve is exempt from the
requirements of paragraph (a) if:
  (1) The owner or operator of the valve
demonstrates that the valve cannot be
monitored without elevating the
monitoring personnel more than 2
meters above a support surface:
  (2) The process unit within which the
valve is located is an existing process
unit: and
  (3) The owner or operator of the valve
follows a written plan that requires
monitoring of the valve at least once per
calendar vear.
§ 61.242-8 Standards: Pressure relief
devices In liquid service and flanges and
other connectors.
  (a) Pressure relief devices in liquid
service and flanges and other
connectors shall be monitored within 5
days by the method specified in
§ 61.245(b) if evidence of a potential
leak is found by visual, audible,
olfactory, or any other detection
method.
  (b) If an instrument reading of 10,000
ppm or greater is measured, a leak is
detected.
  (c)(l) When a leak is detected,  it shall
be repaired as soon as practicable, but
not later than 15 calendar days after it is
detected, except as provided in § 61.242-
10.
  (2) The first  attempt at repair shall be
made no later  than 5 calendar days after
each leak is detected.
  (d) First attempts at repair include.
but are not limited to, the best practices
described under  § 61.242-7(e).

§ 61.242-9 Standards: Product
accumulator vessels.
  Each product accumulator vessel shall
be equipped with a closed-vent system
capable of capturing and transporting
any leakage from the vessel to a control
device as described in § 61.242-11.

§ 61.242-10 Standards: Delay of repair.
  (a) Delay of repair of equipment for
which leaks have been detected will be
allowed if the repair is technically
infeasible without a process unit
shutdown. Repair of this equipment
shall occur before the end of the nexl
process unit  shutdown.
  {b) Delay of repair of equipment for
which leaks have been detected will be
allowed for equipment that is isolated
from the process and that does not
remain in VHAP service.
  (c) Delay of repair for valves will be
allowed if:
  (1) The owner or operator
demonstrates that emissions of purged
material resulting from immediate repair
are greater than the fugitive emissions
likely to result from delay of repair, and
  (2) When repair procedures are
effected, the purged material is collected
and destroyed or recovered in a control
device complying with § 61.242-11.
  (d] Delay of repair for pumps will be
allowed if:
  (1) Repair requires the use of a  dual
mechanical seal system that includes a
barrier fluid system, and
  (2) Repair is completed as soon as
practicable, but not later than 6 months
after the leak was detected.
  (e) Delay of repair  beyond a process
unit shutdown will be allowed for a
valve if valve assembly replacement is
necessary during the process unit
shutdown, valve assembly supplies have
been depleted, and valve assembly
supplies had been sufficiently stocked
before the supplies were depleted. Delu\
of repair beyond the next process unit
shutdown will not be allowed unless the'
next process unit shutdown occurs
sooner than 6 months after the first
process unit shutdown.

§61.242-11  Standards: Closed-vent
systems and control devices.
  (a) Owners or operators of closed-
vent systems and control devices used
to comply with provisions of this
subpart shall comply with the provisions
of this section.
  (b) Vapor recovery systems (for
example, condensers and adsorbers)
shall be designed and  operated to
recover the organic vapors vented to
them with an efficiency of 95 percent 01
greater.
  (c) Enclosed combustion devices shall
be designed and operated to reduce the
VHAP emissions vented to theniwith an
efficiency of 95 percent or greater or to
provide a  minimum residence time of
0.50 seconds at a minimum temperature
of 760°C.
  (d)(l) Flares shall be designed for an
operated with no visible emissions as
determined by the methods specified in
§ 61.245(e), except for  periods not to
exceed a total of 5 minutes during any t
consecutive hours.
  (2) Flares shall be operated  with a
flame present at all times, as determined
by the methods specified in §  61.245.(e).
  (3) Flares shall be used only with the
net heating value of the gas being
combusted being 11.2 MJ/scm (300 Btu/
scf) or greater if the flare is  steam-
assisted or air-assisted; or with the net
heating value of the gas being
combusted being 7.45 MJ/scm or greater
if the flare is nonassisted. The net
heating value of the gas being
combusted shall be determined by the
method specified in § 61.245(e).
  (4) Steam-assisted and nonassisted
flares shall be designed for and
operated with an exit velocity, as
determined by the method specified in
§ 61.245(e)(4) jess than 18 m/sec (60 ft/
sec).
  (5) Air-assisted flares shall be
designed and operated with an exit
velocity less than the velocity, vmax, as
determined by the method specified in
§ 61.245(e)(5).
  (6) Flares used comply with this
subpart shall be steam-assisted, air-
assisted, or nonassisted.
  (e) Owners or opera tors of control
devices that are used to comply with the
provisions of this supbart shall monitor
                                                     IV-225
-------
           Federal Register / Vol.  49, No. 110  /  Wednesday. June 6,  1984 / Rules and Regulations
these control devices to ensure that they
are operated and maintained in
conformance with their design.
  (f)(l) Closed-vent systems shall be
designed for and operated with no
detectable emissions, as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background and by visual
inspections, as determined by the
methods specified as § 61.245[c).
  (2) Closed-event systems shall be
monitored to determine compliance with
this section initially in accordance with
I 61.05, annually, and at other times
requested by the administrator.
  (3) Leaks, as indicated by an
instrument reading greater than 500 ppm
and visual inspections, shall be repaired
as soon as practicable, but not later than
15 calendar days after the leak is
detected.
  (4) A first attempt at repair shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days after
the leak is delected,
  (g) Closed-vent systems and control
devices use to comply with provisions  of
this subpart shall be operated at all
times when emissions may be vented to
them.

§ 61.243-1 Alternative standards for
valves In VHAP service—allowable
percentage of valves leaking.
   (a) An owner or operator may elect to
have all valves within a process unit to
comply with an allowable percentage of
valves leaking of equal to or less than
2.0 percent.
   (b) The following requirements shall
be met if an owner or operator decides
to comply with an allowable percentage
of valves leaking:
   (1) An owner or operator must notify
the Administrator that the owner or
operator has elected to have all valves
within a process unit to comply with the
allowable percentage of valves leaking
before implementing this alternative
 standard, as specified in § 61.247(d).
   (2) A performance test as specified in
paragraph (c) of this section shall be
 conducted initially upon designation,
 annually, and at other times requested
 by the Administrator.
   (3) If a v«lve leak is detected, it shall
 be repaired in accordance with § 61.242-
 7(d) and (e).
   (c) Performance tests shall be
 conducted in the following manner:
   (1) All valves in VHAP service within
 the process unit shall be monitored
 within 1 week by the methods specified
 in | G1.245(b)
   (2) If an instrument reading of 10.000
 ppm or greater is measured, a leak is
 detected.
   (3) The leak percentage shall be
 determined by dividing the number of
 valves in VHAP service for which leaks
are detected by the number of valves in
VHAP service within the process unit.
  (d) Owner or operators who elect to
have all valves comply with this
alternative standard shall not have a
process unit with a leak percentage
greater than 2.0 percent.
  (e) If an owner or operator decides no
longer to comply with § 61.243-1, the
owner or operator must notify the
Administrator in writing that the work
practice standard described in § 61.242-
7(a)-(e) will be followed.

§ 61.243-2 Alternative standards for
valves In VHAP service—skip period leak
detection and repair.
  (a)(l) An owner or operator may elect
for all valves within a process unit to
comply with one of the alternative work
practices specified in paragraphs (b)(2)
and (3) of this section.
  (2) An owner or operator must notify
the Administrator before implementing
one of the alternative work practices, as
specified in § 61.247(d).
  (b](l) An owner or operator shall
comply initially with the requirements
for valves, as described in §  61.242-7.
  (2] After 2 consecutive quarterly leak
detection periods with the percentage  of
valves leaking equal to or less than 2.0,
an owner or operator may begin to skip
1 of the quarterly leak detection periods
for the valves in VHAP service.
  (3)  After 5 consecutive quarterly leak
detection periods with the percentage of
valves leaking equal to or less than 2.0,
an owner or operator may begin to skip
3 of the quartely leak detection  periods
for the valves in VHAP service.
   (4) If the percentage of valves leaking
is greater than  2.0, the owner or operator
shall comply with the requirements as
described in § 81.242-7 but may again
elect to use this section.

§ 61.244 Alternative means of emission
 limitation.
   (a) Permission to use an alternative
 means of emission limitation under
 Section 112(e)(3] of the Clean Air Act
 shall be governed  by the following
 procedures:
   (b) Where the standard is an
 equipment, .design, or operational
 requirement:
   (1) Each owner or operator applying
 for permission shall be responsible for
 collecting and  verifying test data for an
 alternative means of emission limitation.
   (2) The Administrator will compare
 test data for the means of emission
 limitation to test data for the equipment.
 design, and operational requirements.
   (3) The Administrator may condition
 the permission on requirements that
 may be necessary to assure operation
 and  maintenance  to achieve the same
emission reduction as the equipment,
design, and opera-tional requirements.
  (c) Where the standard is a work
practice:
  (1) Each owner or operator applying
for permission shall be responsible for
collecting and verifying test data for an
alternative means of emission limitation
  (2) For each source for which
permission is requested, the emission
reduction achieved by the required woik
practices shall be demonstrated for a
minimum period of 12 months>
  (3) For each source for which
permission is requested, the emission
reduction achieved by the alternative
means of emission limitation shall be
demonstrated.
  (4) Each owner or operator applying
for permission shall commit in writing
each source to work practices that
provide for emission reductions equal to
or greater than the emission redir-.ficr,s
achieved by the required work practices
  (5) The Administrator will compare
the demonstrated emission reduction for
the alternative means of emission
limitation to the demonstrated emission
reduction for the required work
practices and will consider the
commitment in paragraph (c)(4).
   (6) The Administrator may condition
the permission on requirements that
may be necessary to assure operation
and maintenance to achieve the same
emission reduction as the required \\orK
practices of this subpart.
   (d) An owner or operator may offer f,
unique approach to demonstrate the
alternative means of emission limitation
   (e)(l) Manufacturers of equipment
used to control equipment leaks of a
VHAP may apply to the Administrator
for permission for an alternative mean?
of emission limitation that achieves a
 reduction in emissions of the VHAP
 achieved by the equipment, design, and
 operational requirements of this subpar,
   (2) The Administrator will grant
 permission according to the provisions
 of paragraphs (b), (c), and (d).

 § 61.24S Test methods and procedures.
   (a) Each owner or operator subject to
 the provisions of this subpart shall
 comply with the  test methods and
 procedures requirements provided in
 this section.
   (b) Monitoring, as required in § 61.24.1
 § 61.243, and § 61.244. shall comply with
 the following requirements:
   (!) Monitoring shall comply with
 Reference Method 21.
   (2) The detection instrument shall
 meet the performance criteria of
 Reference Method 21.
   [3) The instrument shall be calibrated
 before use on each day ot its use hy thp
                                                     IV-226
-------
           Federal Register  /  Vol. 49, No.  110 / Wednesday, June  6, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
procedures specified in Reference
Method 21.
  (4) Calibration geses shall be:
  (i) Zero air (less than 3 ppm of
hydrocarbon in air); and
  (ii) A mixture of methane or n-hexane
and air at a concentration of
approximately, but less than. 10,000 ppm
methane or n-hexane.
  (5) The instrument probe  shall be
traversed around all potential leak
interfaces as close to the interface as
possible  as described in Reference
Method 21.
  (c) When equipment is tested for
compliance with no detectable
emissions,  as required in §§ 61.242-2(e),
61.242-3{i), 61.242-4. 61.242-7(f). and
61.242-ll(f). the test shall comply with
the following requirements:
  (!) The requirements of paragraphs
fb)(l)-(4) shall apply.
  (21 The background level shall be
determined, as set forth in Reference
Method 21.
  (3) The instrument probe shall be
traversed around all potential leak
interfaces as close to the interface as
possible as described in Reference
Method 21.
  (4) The arithmetic difference between
'.he maximum concentration indicated
bj the instrument and the background
level is compared with 635  upm for
determining compliance.
  !d)(1) Each piece of equipment within
a process unit that can conceivably
contain equipment in VHAP service is
presumed to be in VHAP service unless
,in owner or operator demonstrates that
the piece of equipment is not in VHAP
service. For a piece of equipment to be
considered not in VHAP service, it must
be determined that the perc.ent VHAP
content can be reasonably  expected
never  to exceed 10 percent by wcighi.
For purposes of determining the percent
VHAP content of the process fluid that
is contained in or contacts equipment.
procedures that conform to the  methods
described  in ASTM Method U-2267
(incorporated by the reference as
specified in § 61.18) shall be usei.1.
  (2)(i) An owner or operator may use
engineering judgment rather than the
procedures in paragraph (d)(l) of this
section to  demonstrate that the percent
VHAP content does not exceed 10
percent by weight, provided that  the
rngineering judgment demonstrates that
 the VHAP content clearly does not
exceed 10  percent by weight. When an
owner or operator and the
 Administrator do not agree on whether
-------
           Federal Register  /  Vol. 49, No.  110 / Wednesday. June  6, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
recorded and kept in a readily
accessible location.
  (1) Detailed schematics, design
specifications, and piping end
instrumentation diagrams.
  (2) The dates and descriptions of any
changes in the design specifications.
  (3) A description of the parameter or
parameters monitored, as required in
§ 61.242-llie), to ensure that control
devices are operated and maintained in
conformance with their design and an
explanation of why that parameter (or
parameters) was selected for the
monitoring.
  (4) Periods when the closed-vent
systems and control devices required in
§§ 61.242-2, 61.242-3, 61.242-4, 61.242-5
and 61.242-9 are not operated as
designed, including periods when a flare
pilot light does not have a flame.
  (5) Dates of startups and shutdowns of
the closed-vent systems and control
devices required in  §§ 61.242-2, 61.242-
3, 61.242-4, 61.242-5 and 61.242-9.
  (e) The following information
pertaining to all equipment subject to
the requirements in § 61.242-1 to
§ 61.242-11 shall be recorded in a log
that is kept in a rendily accessible
location.
  (1) A list of identification numbers for
equipment subject to the requirements
of this subpurt.
  (2)(i) A list of identification number !>
for equipment that the owner or
operator elects to designate for no
detectable emissions, as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background,  under the provisions
of §§ 61.242-2(e). 61.242-3(i), and 61.242-
7(f).
  (ii) The designation of this equipment
as subject to the requirements of
§ 61.242-2(e). 61.242-3(i), or 61.242-7(f)
shall  be signed by the cwner or
operator.
  (3)  A list of equipment identification
numbers for pressure relief devices
required to comply with § 61.242-4(a).
  (4)(i) The dates of each compliance
test required in §§ 61.242-2(e), 61.242-
3(i), 61 242-4, and 61.242-7(f).
  (ii) The background level measured
during each compliance test.
  (iii) The maximum instrument reading
measured at the equipment during each
compliance test.
  (5) A list of identification numbers for
equipment in vacuum service.
  (f) The following information
pertaining to a\l valves subject to the
requirements of § 61.242-7(g) and (h)
shall be recorded in a log that is kept in
a readily accessible location:
  (1) A list of identification numbers for
valves that are designated as unsafe to
monitor, an explanation for each valve
stating whj thp valve is unsafe to
monitor, and the plan for monitoring
each valve.
  (2) A list of identification numbers for
valves that are designated as difficult to
monitor, an explanation for each valve
stating why the valve is difficult to
monitor, and the planned schedule for
monitoring each valve.
  (g) The following information shall be
recorded for valves complying with
§ 61.243-2:
  (1) A schedule of monitoring.
  (2) The percent of valves found
leaking during each monitoring period.
  (h) The following information shall be
recorded in a log that is kept in a readily
accessible location:
  (1) Design criterion required in
§ 61.242-2(d)(5) and § 61.242-3(e)(2) and
an explanation of the design criterion;
and
  (2) Any changes to this criterion and
the reasons for the changes.
  (i) The following information shall be
recorded in a log that is kept in a readily
accessible location for use in
determining exemptions as provided in
the applicability section of this subpart
and other specific subparts:
  (1) An analysis demonstrating the
design capacity of the process unit, and
  (2) An analysis demonstrating that
equipment is not in VHAP service
  (j) Information and data used to
demonstrate that a piece of equipment is
not in VHAP service shall  be recorded
in a log that is kept in  a readily
accessible location.
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as an/ended
(42 U.S.C. 7414).)
(Approved by the Office  of Management and
Budget under control number 2060-0068)

§ 61.247  Reporting requirements.
  (a)(l) An owner or operator of any
piece of equipment to  which this subpart
applies shall submit a statement in
writing notifying the Administrator that
the requirements of §§ 61.242. 61.245,
61.246, and 61.247 are being
implemented.
  (2) In the case of an existing source or
a new source which has an initial
startup date preceding the effective
date,  the statement is to be submitted
within 90 days of the effective date,
unless a waiver of compliance is granted
under § 61.11, along with the
information required under § 61.10. If a
waiver of compliance is granted, the
statement is to be submitted on a date
scheduled by the Administrator
  (3)  In the case of new sources which
did not have an initial startup date
preceding the effective date, the
statement shall  be submitted with the
application for approval of construction.
as described in  § 61.07.
  (4) The statement is to contain the
following information for each source
  (i) Equipment identification numbe1
and process unit identification.
  (ii) Typp of equipment (for example  «
pump or pipeline valve).
  (iii) Percent by weight VHAP in  thi
fluid at the equipment.
  (iv) Process fluid slate at the
equipment (gas/vapor or liquid).
  (v) Method of compliance with thi
standard (for example, "monthly leak
detection and repair" or "equipped v\ ::)•
dual mechanical seals").
  (b) A report shall be submitted to thn
Administrator semiannually starling b
months after the initial report requited
in § 61.247(a). that includes the
following information:
  (1) Process unit identification
  (2) For each month during the
semiannual reporting period,
  (i) Number of valves for which Iv^'*.*-
were detected as described in § 61.242-
7(b) of § 61.243-2.
  (ii) Number of valves for which  \ed\-.t-
were not repaired as required in
§61.242-7( d)
  (iii) Number of purr.us for which li-o<•.>-.
were detected as described in § 61.242-
2(b) and (d)(6).
  (iv) Number of pumps for whi ,b \c->.> «•
were not repaired as required in
§61.242-2(cj «nd (d)(G).
  (v) Number of compressors for whn h
leaks were dr-!p<;ied as described  ir
§ 61.242-3;!)
  (vi) Number of compressors for  v. V  •
leaks were not repaired as required ir
§ 61.242-3{g)
  (vii) The facts that explain any  df...•.
of repairs and. \\hcre appropriate, wr;.
a process unit shu'dowr, was technirrf'ij
infeasible
  (3) Dates of process unit shutdown
which occurred within the semisniv, J
reporting period.
  (4) Revisions to items reported
according to paragraph (a) if changes
have occurred since the initial report •••
subsequent revisions to the initial
report.
  (5) The results of all performance ii-> >
to determine compliance with § 61.241!-
2(e). § 61.242-3(i),  § 61.242-4(a),
§ 61.242-7(f), § 61.242-ll(f),  § 61.243-1
and § 61.243-2 conducted within the
semiannual reporting period.
  (c) In the first report submitted  e<-
required in § 61.247(a). the report  bhaii
include a reporting schedule stating thi-
months that semiannual reports shall b(-
submitted. Subsequent reports shall bf
submitted according to that schedule
unless a revised schedule has been
submitted in a previous semiannual
report.
                                                     IV-228
-------
           Federal Register  /  Vol. 49. No. 110 / Wednesday.  |une 6. 1984  /  Rules  and Regulations
  (dj An ownei or operator electing to
comply with the provisions of §§ 61.243-
1 arid 61.243-2 shall notify the
Administrator of ihe alternate e
standard selected 90 days before
implementing either of the provisions
  (e) An application for approval of
construction or modification. § 61.05(aj
and § 61.07, will not be required if—
  (1) The new source complies with the
standard, § 61.242;
  (2) The new source is not part of thf
construction of a process-unit; and
  (3) In  the next semiannual report
required by § 61.247(b), the information
in § 61.247(a)(4) is reported.
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (4^
U.S.C. 7414).) (Approved by the Of/ice of
Management and Budget under control
number ICR-1153.)

  2. By adding paragraphs (a) (4). (5),
and (6) to § 61.18 of Subpart A—General
Provisions as follows. The introductory
text of the section and of paragraph (a)
are shown for reader convenience
§ 61.18  Incorporation by reference.
  The materials listed below are
incorporated by reference in the
corresponding sections noted. These
incorporations by reference were
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register on the date listed. These
materials are incorporated as they exist
on the date of the approval, and a notice
of any changes in these materials will be
published in the Federal Register. The
materials are available for purchase at
the corresponding address noted below,
and all are available for inspection at
the Office of the Federal Register
Information Center, Room 8401,1100 1.
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20408
and the Library (MD-35), U.S. EPA,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711.
  (a) The following materials are
available for purchase from at least one
of the following addresses: American
Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM), 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia.
Pennsylvania 19103; or the University
Microfilms International. 300 North Zee\,
Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
*****

  (4) ASTM D 2267-68 (Reapproved
1978), Aromatics in Light Naphthas and
Aviation Gasolines' by Gas
Chromatography, IBR approved June f>,
1984, for § 61.245[d)(l).
  (5) ASTM D 2382-76, Heat of
Combustion of Hydrocarbon Fuels by
Bomb Calorimeter (High-Precision
Method), IBR approved June 6,1984. for
§ 61.245{e)(3).
  (6) ASTM D 2504-67 (Reapproved
1977), Noncondensable Gases in C3 ar.d
Lighter Hydrocarbon Products by Gas
Chromatography, IBR approved June 6.
1984. for § 61.245(e)(3).
(Sections 112 and 301(a) of the Clean Air ,\< •
as amended, |42 U.S.C. 7412. 7601 (a)|)
|FR[)cc 84-14^-9 F,IK'(-5-M. 84S am|
                                                      IV-229
-------
             Federal  Regular / Vol. 49. No. 112  /  Friday. June  8. 1984  /  Rules and Regulations
98
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

[FRL-2592-8]

Subdelegation of Authority to the
Oklahoma City-County Health
Department for the New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
Programs

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 6.
ACTION: Final rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Oklahoma State
Department of Health (OSDH) has
subdelegated the authority to implement
and enforce the NSPS and NESHAP
programs in Oklahoma City and County
to the Oklahoma City-County Health
Department (OCCHD). Except as
specifically limited, all of the authority
and responsibilities delegated to the
OSDH by EPA, which are found in 40
CFR Parts 60 and 61, are subdelegated to
the OCCHD. Any such authority and
responsibilities may be redelegated by
the OCCHD to its staff.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 1.1983.
ADDRESS: A copy of the OCCHD/OSDH
agreement for this subdelegation of
authority is available for public
inspection at the Air Branch, Air and
Waste Management Division,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 6, InterFirst Two Building, 28th
Floor, 1201 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas
75270.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
Donna M. Ascenzi, Air Branch, EPA,
address above; Telephone (214) 767-
9873.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June
10,1983, EPA delegated the additional
authority to the OSDH to subdelegate
the authority for the NSPS and NESHAP
programs to local air pollution control
agencies in Oklahoma. Effective on
August 1,1983, this-authority was
granted to the OCCHD to administer the
requirements for the NSPS and NESHAP
programs specified in 40 CFR Parts 60
and 61, as delegated to the OSDH by
EPA.
  In April 1983, the OCCHD requested
the OSDH to delegate  to them the
authority to implement and enforce the
NSPS and NESHAP programs as
specified under 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
for sources located in Oklahoma County
and all sources located in Canadian
County that are in the  Oklahoma City
limits. On August 1.1983,  the OSDH
approved subdelegating this authority to
the OCCHD.
  This notice will have no effect on the
National Ambient Air  Quality
Standards.
  The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this information notice
from the requirements of section 3 of
Executive Order 12291.
  Sources locating in Oklahoma City
and County should submit all
information pursuant to 40 CFR Parts 60
and 61 directly to the Oklahoma City-
County Health Department, 1000
Northeast 10th Street  Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma 73152.

List of Subjects

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,  Incorporation
by reference, Can surface coating,
Sulfuric acid plants, Industrial organic
chemicals, Organic solvent cleaners.
Fossil fuel-fired steam generators,
Fiberglass insulation, Synthetic fibers.
40 CFR Part 61
  Asbestos, Beryllium, Hazardous
substances. Mercury, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements. Vinyl
chloride.
  Dated: May 10,1984.
Dick Whitnngton.
Regional Administrator.

PART 60—NEW SOURCE
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

  Part 60 of Chapter 1. Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
  Section 60.4 is amended by revising
paragraph (b)(LL)(i) to read as follows:

{60.4 Address,
*****
  (b)***
  (LLT**
  (i) Oklahoma City and County:
Oklahoma City-County Health
Department, 1000 Northeast 10th Street,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73152.

PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS

  Part 61 of Chapter 1, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
  Section 61.04 is amended by revising
paragraph (b)(LL)(i) to read as follows:

161.04  AddrtM.
*    *    *    *    *

  (b)***
  (LL)***
  (i) Oklahoma City and County:
Oklahoma City-County Health
Department, 1000 Northeast 10th Street,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73152.
(Clean Air Act sees. Ill and 112,42 U.S.C.
7411 and 7412)
|FR Doc. M-137S7 PIM $-7-M t45 «m]
                                                   IV-230
-------
               Federal Register /  Vol. 49. No. 121 / Thursday.  June 21. 1984 / Rules and Regulations
99.
   40 CFR Part 61

   [AD-FRL 2611-4]

   National Emission Standards for
   Hazardous Air Pollutants;
   Amendments to Asbestos Standard:
   Correction

   AGENCY: Environmental Protection
   Agency (EPA).
   ACTION: Final rule; correction.

   SUMMARY: This document corrects a
   final rule for amendments to the
   Asbestos Standard that was published
   April 5,1984 (49 FR 13657). This action is
   necessary to correct typographical
   errors.
   FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
   Mr. Doug Bell, Standards Development
   Branch, ESED (MD-13). U.S. EPA.
   Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
   27711, telephone (919) 541-5624.
     Dated: June 11,1984.
   Joseph A. Cannon,
   Assistant Administrator for Air and
   Radiation.
     The following corrections are made in
   40 CFR Part 61 appearing on page 13657
   in the issue of April 5,1984:
     1. On page 13661, column two, the
   definition of "asbestos waste from
   control devices" is corrected by
   replacing the word "in" with "by."
     2. On page 13661, column two, the
   term  "Emergency renovation
   operations" is corrected to "Emergency
   renovation operation."
     3. On page 13661, column three, in  the
   definition of "strip," insert "a" between
   "part of and "facility."
     4. On page 13661, column three, in  the
   third line of the definition of "structural
   member," replace the word "loan" with
   "load."
     5. On page 13662, column one,
   S 61.143, the first two lines are corrected
   to read "No person may surface a
   roadway with asbestos tailings
   or	
      6. On page 13662, column two,
   S 61.145(b), the sixth line is corrected to
   read, "components, only the  *  *  *"
      7. On page 13662, .column three,
   S 61.146(c)(3), the first sentence is
   corrected to read, "Estimate of the
   approximate amount of friable asbestos
   material present  in the facility in terms
   of linear feet of pipe, and surface area
   on other facility components."
      B. On page 13664, column one,
   S 61.152, the first sentence, third line is
   corrected to read, "§§ 61.147 and 61.149
   shall:"
      9. On page 13664, column one,
   { 61.152(b)(l)(iv), the word "hazardous"
   should be capitalized.
  10. On page 13864, column three,
{ 61.154(a), the third and fourth lines are
corrected to read "61.147(d)(2),
61.148{b)(2), 81.149(b), 81.151(b),
B1.151(c)(l)(ii), 81.152(b)(l)(ii). and
61.152(b)(2)(ii) shall:"
  11. On page 13664, column three,
S 61.154(a)(l)(i), the third line is
corrected to read, "no more than .995
kilopascal (4 inches water gage), as".
Pit Doc. S4-US2S Filed »-20-84; 1*5 un]
MLUMQ COW MM-M-M
 100
  40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

  [OAR-FRL-2615-3]

  Delegation of New Source
  Performance Standards (NSPS) and
  National Emission Standards for
  Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS);
  State of Nevada

  AGENCY: Environmental Protection
  Agency (EPA).
  ACTION: Notice of delegation.

  SUMMARY: The EPA hereby places the
  public on notice of its delegation of
  NSPS and NESHAPS authority to the
  Nevada Department of Conservation
  and Natural Resources (NDCNR). This
  action is necessary to bring the NSPS
  and NESHAPS program delegations up
  to date with recent EPA promulgations
  and amendments of these categories.
  This action does not create any new
  regulatory requirements affecting the
  public. The effect of the delegation is to
  shift the primary program responsibility
  for the affected NSPS and NESHAPS
  categories from EPA to State and local
  governments.
  EFFECTIVE DATE June 4,1984.
  FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
  Julie A. Rose, New Source Section (A-3-
  1), Air Operations Branch, Air
  Management Division, EPA, Region 9,
  215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA
  94105. Tel: (415) 974-8236. FTS 454^8236.
  SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
  NDCNR has requested authority for
  delegation of certain NSPS and
  NESHAPS categories. Delegation of
  authority was granted by letters dated
  December 20,1983, May 14,1984, and
  May 18,1984 and are reproduced in their
  entirety as follows:
  December 20,1983.
  Mr. Richard Serdoz,
 Air Quality Officer, Divition of
    Environmental Protection, Nevada
    Department of Conservation and Natural
    Resources, Capitol Complex, Carson
    City. NV8S710
   Dear Mr. Serdoz: In response to your
 request of Novembr IS, 1963,1 am pleased to
 inform you that we are delegating to your
 agency authority to implement and enforce
 the New Source Performance Standard
 (NSPS) category in 40 CFR Part 60: Subpart
 RR—Standards of Performance for Pressure
 Sensitive Tape and Label Surface Coating
 Operations and Subpart W—Standards of
 Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in
 the Synthetic Organic Chemicals
 Manufacturing Industry. We have reviewed
 your request for delegation and have found
 your present programs and procedures to be
 acceptable.
   Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
 your agreement to follow all applicable
 provisions of 40 CFR Part 60. including use of
 EPA approved test methods and procedures.
 The delegation is effective upon the date of
 this letter unless the USEPA receives written
 notice from you of any objections within 10
 days of receipt of this letter. A notice of this
 delegated authority will be published in the
 Federal Register in the near future.
       Sincerely,
 Judith E. Ayres,
 Regional Administrator.
 May 14,1964.
 Mr. Richard Serdoz;
 Air Quality Officer, Division of
    Environmental Protection, Nevada
    Department of Conservation and Natural
    Resources, Capitol Complex. Carson
    City, NV 89710
   Dear Mr. Serdoz: In response to your
 request of April 23,1984,1 am pleased to
 inform you that we are delegating to your
 agency authority to implement and enforce
 the New Source Performance Standard
 (NSPS) category in 40 CFR Part 60: Subpart
 LL—Standards of Performance for Metallic
 Mineral Processing Plants. We have reviewed
 your request for delegation and have found
 your present programs and procedures to be
 acceptable.
  'Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
 your agreement to follow all applicable
 provisions of 40 CFR Part 60, including use of
 EPA approved teat methods and procedures.
 The delegation is effective upon the date of
 this letter unless the USEPA receives written
 notice from you of any objections within 10
 days of receipt of this letter. A notice of this
 delegated authority will be published in the
 Federal Register in the near future.
       Sincerely.
 Judith E. Ayres,
 Regional Administrator.
 May IB, 1984.
*Mr. Richard Serdoz,
 Air Quality Officer, Division of
    Environmental Protection, Nevada
    Department of Conservation and Natural
    Resources, Capitol Complex. Carson
    City. NV 80710
   Dear Mr. Serdoz: In response to your
 request of April 30.1984.1 am pleased to
                                                          IV-231
-------
           Federal Register  /  Vol 48. No. 125 / Wednesday. June 27. 1964  /  Rules  and  Regulations
inform you that we are delegating to your
agency authority to implement and enforce
the New Source Performance Standard
(NSPS) category in 40 CFR Part 6ft Subpart
HHH—Standards of Performance for
Synthetic Fiber Production Facilities and the
National Emission Standard for Hazardous
Air Pollutants (NESHAP) category in 40 CFR
Part 01: Subpart M—National Emission
Standard for Asbestos. We have reviewed   -i r*4	
your request for delegation and have founcT^   4* rco Part m
your present programs and procedures to be            a  B
acceptable.
  Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
your agreement to follow all applicable
provisions of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61.
including use of EPA approved test methods
and procedures. The delegation it effective
upon the date of this letter unless the USEPA
receives written notice from you  of any
objections within 10 days of receipt of this
letter. A notice of this delegated authority
will be published in the Federal Register in
the near future.
     Sincerely,
Judith E. Ayres,
Regional Administrator.
recordkeeping requirements. Vinyl
chloride.

  Dated: June 18.1984.
Judith E. Ayres,
Regional Administrator.
|FK Doc. St-lTOH F««d 6-Jt-M. MS am]
MLUNOCODt SSSO-50-M
[OAR-FRI-261S-2]

Delegation of National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAPS); State of
California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of delegation.
  With respect to the areas under the
jurisdiction of the NDCNR. all reports,
applications, submittals, and other
communications pertaining to the above
listed NSPS and NESHAP source
categories should be directed to the
NDCNR at the address shown in the
letters of delegation.
  The Olfice of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
  I certify that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
  This Notice is issued under the
authority  of section 111 of the Clean Air
Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857. et
seq.}.
List of Subjects
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, Incorportion
by reference. Can surface coating,
Sulfuric acid plants. Industrial organic
chemicals, Organic solvent cleaners,
Fossil fuel-fired steam generators.
Fiberglass insulation. Synthetic fibers.
40 CFR Part 61
   Asbestos, Beryllium, Hazardous
substances, Mercury. Reporting and
SUMMARY: The EPA. hereby places the
public on notice of its delegation of
NESHAPS authority to the California
Air Resources Board (CARB) on behalf
of the Sacramento County Air Pollution
Control District (SCAPCD). This action
is necessary to bring the NESHAPS
program  delegations up to date with
recent EPA promulgations and
amendments of these categories. This
action does not create any new
regulatory requirements affecting the
public. The effect of the delegation is to
shift the primary program responsibility
for the affected NESHAPS categories
from EPA to State and local
governments.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 25,1984.
ADDRESS: Sacramento County Air
Pollution Control District, 3701 Branch
Center Road, Sacramento, CA 95827.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Julie A, Rose, New Source Section (A-3-
1), Air Operations Branch, Air
Management Division. EPA, Region 9,
215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA
94105, Tel: (415) 974-8236, FTS 454-8236.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
CARB has requested authority for
delegation of certain NESHAPS
categories on behalf of the SCAPCD.
Delegation of authority was granted by
a letter dated May 10,1984 and is
reproduced in its entirety as follows:
Mr. James D. Boyd,
Executive Officer, California Air Resources
    Board, 1102 Q Street, P.O. Box 2815,
    Sacramento, CA 95812
  Dear Mr. Boyd: In response to your request
of April 4,1964,1 am pleased to inform you
that we are delegating to your agency
authority  to implement and enforce the
National Emission Standard for Hazardous
Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Category in 40 CFR
Part 61: Standard of Asbestos on behalf of the
Sacramento County Air Pollution Control
District (SCAPCD). We have reviewed your
request for delegation and have found the
SCAPCD programs and procedures to be
acceptable.
  Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
your agreement to follow all applicable
provisions of 40 CFR Part 61. including use of
EPA's test methods and procedures. The
delegation is effective upon the date of this
letter unless the USEPA receives written
notice from you or the District of any
objections within 10 days of receipt of this
letter. A notice of this delegated authority
will be published in the Federal Register in
the near future.
     Sincerely.
Judith E. Ayres,
Regional Administrator.
cc: Sacramento County Air Pollution Control
    District

  With respect to the areas under the
jurisdiction of the SCAPCD, all reports.
applications, submittals,  and other
communications pertaining to the above
listed NESHAPS source category should
be directed to the SCAPCD at the
address shown in the ADDRESS Section
of this notice.
  The  Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of section 3 of Executive
Order  12291.
  I certify that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 61

  Asbestos, Beryllium, Hazardous
substances'. Mercury, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Vinyl
chloride.
  This Notice is issued under the
authority of section 111 of the Clean Air
Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857, et
seq.).
  Dated: June 18,1984.
Judith E. Ayres,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc M-17065 Filed «~2»-M. S.4S *n>J
•ILUMO  COM SS60-SO-M
                                                      IV-232
-------
                Federal Register  / Vol.  49. No. 131 / Friday. July 6. 1984 / Rules and Regulations
102
  40 CFR Part 61

  [OAR-FRL-2622-7]

  Delegation of Additional Authority to
  the State of Arkansas for the National
  Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
  Pollutants Program
  AGENCY: Environmental Protection
  Agency (EPA).
  ACTION: Final rule; information notice.

  SUMMARY: EPA has delegated the
  authority to implement and enforce that
  portion of the National Emission
  Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
  (NESHAP) for the demolition and
  renovation of buildings containing
  asbestos to the Arkansas Department of
  Pollution Control and Ecology (ADPCE).
  Except as specifically limited, all of the
  authority and responsibilities of the
  Administrator or the Regional
  Administrator which are found in  40
  CFR Part 61.22(d) are delegated to the
  ADPCE. Any of such authority and
  responsibilities  may be redelegated by
  the Department to its Director or staff.
  EFFECTIVE DATE: September 30,1982.

  ADDRESS: Copies of the State request
  and State-EPA agreement for delegation
  of authority are available for public
  inspection at the Air Branch,
  Environmental Protection Agency,
  Region 6, InterFirst Two Building,  28th
  Floor, 1201 Elm  Street, Dallas, Texas
  75270;  (214) 767-1594 or (FTS) 729-1594.
  FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
  Donna M. Ascenzi, Air Branch, address
  above.
  SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July
  1,1981, the State of Arkansas submitted
  to the EPA, Region 6 office, a request for
  delegation to the ADPCE the authority
  to implement and enforce the NESHAP
  (40 CFR Part 61) program with the
  exception of (l)(d), Demolition and
  Renovation of Buildings Containing
  Asbestos. This delegation became
  effective on September 16,1981.
    On August 23,1982, the State of
  Arkansas submitted to EPA, Region 6, a
  request for delegation of additional
  authority to the  ADPCE to implement
  and enforce that portion of the NESHAP
  program for the  demolition and
  renovation of buildings containing
  asbestos. After a thorough review  of the
request and information submitted, the
Regional Administrator determined that
the State's pertinent laws and the rales
and regulations of the APDCE were
found to provide an adequate and
effective procedure to implement and
enforce this NESHAP program.
  The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this information notice
from the requirements of section 3 of
Executive Order 12291.
  Effective immediately, all information
pursuant to 40 CFR 61.22(d) required of
sources locating in the State of
Arkansas should be submitted to the
State agency at the following address:
Arkansas Department of Pollution
Control and Ecology, 8001 National
Drive, Little Rock, Arkansas 72209.
  This additional delegation is issued
under the authority of Sections 101 and
301 of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42
U.S.C. 7401 and 7601).
  Dated: June 25,1984.
Frances E. Phillips,
Acting Regional Administrator.

PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS

  Part 61 of Chapter 1, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
  1. Section 61.04(b) is amended by
revising paragraph (E) to read as
follows:

§61.4 Address.
*****
  (b) * * *
  (E) Program Administrator, Air and
Hazardous Materials Division, Arkansas
Department of Pollution Control and Ecology,
8001 National Drive, Little Rock, Arkansas
72209.
[FR Doc 04-17908 Flhd 7-t-M; MS UB]
BILLING COOt MM-M-M
  103

 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
 [Docket No. AM701PA; OAR-FRL-2628-11

 Standards of Performance for New
 Stationary Sources and National
 Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
 Pollutants for Stationary Sources;
 Delegation of Authority to the City of
 Philadelphia; Department of Public
 Health
 AGENCY: Environmental Protection
 Agency.
ACTION: Rule-related notice.

SUMMARY: Section in(c) and H2(d) of
the Clean Air Act permits EPA to
delegate to the States the authority to
implement and enforce the standards set
out in 40 CFR Part 60, Standards of
Performance for New Stationary
Sources (NSPS) and 40 CFR Part 61,
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary
Sources (NESHAPS) respectively.
  On November 3,1982, the City of
Philadelphia Department of Public
Health (Department) requested EPA to
delegate to it the authority for additional
NSPS and NESHAPS categories. EPA
granted the request on December 30,
1982. The Department now has the
authority to implement and enforce
NSPS regulations for Electric Utility
Steam Generating Units constructed
after September 19,1978, Storage
Vessels for Petroleum Liquids
Constructed after May 18,1978.
Ferroalloy Production Facilities, Steel
Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces, Kraft Pulp
Mills, Class Manufacturing Plants. Grain
Elevators, Stationary Gas Turbines,
Lime Manufacturing Plants, Lead-Acid
Battery Manufacturing Plants,
Automobile and Light-Duty Truck
Surface Coating Operations, Phosphate
Rock Plants, Ammonium Sulfate
Manufacture, and  Asphalt Processing
and Asphalt Roofing Manufacture and
the authority to implement and enforce
NESHAPS regulations for Vinyl
Chloride.
  On April 15,1983, May 18,1983,
November 7 and November 23,1983,
respectively, the Department requested
that EPA delegate to it authority for
additional NSPS categories. EPA
granted the former two requests on June
30,1983 and the final two requests on
June 11,1984. The  Department now has
the authority to implement and enforce
NSPS regulations for Industrial Surface
Coating: Large Appliances, Metal
Furniture Surface Coating, Metal Coil
Surface Coating, Bulk Gasoline
Terminals, Beverage Can Surface
Coating Industry, Pressure Sensitive
Tape and Label Surface Coating
Operations, and Volatile Organic
Compounds in Synthetic Organic
Chemicals Manufacturing Industry.
  Applications and reports required
under the NSPS and NESHAPS for
which EPA has delegated authority to
the Department to implement and
enforce should be  sent to the
Department.
EFFECTIVE DATES:  December 30,1982.
June 30,1983, and June 11,1984.
ADDRESSES: Applications and reports
required under all NSPS and NESHAPS
                                                       IV-233
-------
               Federal Register /  Vol. 49. No. 136 / Friday, )uly  13,  1984  / Rules and  Regulations
source categories for which EPA has
delegated authority to the Department to
implement and enforce should be
addressed to the Philadelphia
Department of Public Health, Air
Management Services, 500 S. Broad
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19146. rather
than to EPA Region III.
  Copies of the revision and
accompanying documents are available
for inspection during normal business
hours at the Philadelphia AMS address
given above or at the following offices:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
  Region III; Curtis Building, Second
  Floor, Sixth and Walnut Streets,
  Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106,
  ATTN: Michael Giuranna (3AM11),
  Telephone: (215) 597-2842.
Public Information Reference Unit,
  Room 2922-EPA Library, U.S.
  Environmental Protection Agency, 401
  M Street, SW. (Waterside Mall),
  Washington,  D.C. 20460.
The Office of the Federal Register, 1100
  L Street, NW., Room 8401,
  Washington,  D.C. 20408.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Giuranna of EPA Region  Ill's
Air Programs Branch, telephone (215)
597-9189.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
November 3,1982, April 25,1983, May
18,1983, November 7,1983, and
November 23,1983, the Department
requested EPA delegate to it the
authority to implement and enforce
additional NSPS and Neshaps source
categories. The Department requested
these delegations to supplement the
delegations for other source categories
which Philadelphia had already
received and for which EPA published
in the Federal Register at 42 FR 6886 on
February 4,1977.
   In response to the Department's
request of November 3,1982, delegation
of authority was granted by the
following letter of December 30,1982:
Stuart H. Shapiro, M.D. M.P.H.,
Health Commissioner, City of Philadelphia.
     Municipal Services Building, Room 540,
     Philadelphia. PA 19107
RE: Delegation of Authority for New Source
     Perfonnance Standards pursuant to
     section lll(c) and National Emission
     Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
     pursuant to section 112(d) of the Clean
     Air Act, as amended
   Dear Dr. Shapiro: This is in response to
 your letter of November 3,1982. requesting
 delegation of enforcement authority for
 additional New Source Performance
 Standards (NSPS) and National Emission
 Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants
 (NESHAP).
   We have reviewed the pertinent laws and
 regulations governing the control of air
 pollution in the City of Philadelphia and have
determined that they provide an adequate
and effective procedure for implementation
and enforcement of the NSPS and NESHAP
regulations by the Philadelphia Department
of Public Health (the Department).
  Therefore, I am pleased to delegate
authority to the Department, as follows:
  The Department is delegated and shall
have enforcement authority for the following
source categories subject to the requirements
in 40 CFR 60.30:
(1) Electric Utility Steam Generating Units
  .Constructed after 9/18/78
(2) Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids
  Constructed after 5/18/78
(3) Ferroalloy Production Facilities
(4) Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces
(5) Kraft Pulp Mills
(6) Glass Manufacturing Plants
(7) Grain Elevators
(8) Stationary Gas Turbines
(9) Lime Manufacturing Plants
(10) Lead-Acid Battery Manufacturing Plants
(11) Automobile and Light-Duty Truck
  Surface  Coating Operations
(12) Phosphate Rock Plants
(13) Ammonium Sulfate Manufacture
(14) Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing
  Manufacture.
  Enforcement authority is also delegated  for
Vinyl Chloride Plants subject to the
requirement in 40 CFR 61 and 60.
  This delegation is based upon the following
conditions:
  1. Quarterly reports will be submitted to
EPA by  Philadelphia and should include the
following:
  A. For New Source Performance Standards:
  (i) Sources determined to be applicable
during that quarter,
  (ii) Applicable sources which started
operation  during that quarter or which
started operation prior to that quarter which
have not been previously reported;
  (iii) The compliance status of the above,
including  the summary sheet from the
compliance test(s); and
  (iv) Any legal actions which pertain to
these sources.
  B. For National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants:
  (i) NESHAP sources granted a permit to
construct;
  (ii) NESHAP sources inspected during that
quarter and their compliance status (except
under § 61.22 (d) and (e));
  (iii) The requirements of (A) above.
  2. Enforcement of the NSPS and NESHAP
regulations in the City of Philadelphia will be
the primary responsibility of the Department.
 Where the Department determines that such
 enforcement  is not feasible and so notifies
 EPA. or where the Department acts in a
 manner inconsistent with the terms of this
 delegation, EPA will exercise its concurrent
 enforcement authority pursuant to section 113
 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, with
 respect to sources within the City of
 Philadelphia subject to NSPS and NESHAP
 regulations.
   3. Acceptance of this delegation for the
 regulations for the source categories listed
 above does not commit the City of
 Philadelphia to request or accept delegation
 of other present or future standards and
 requirements. A new request for delegation
will be required for any additional standards
or amendments to previously delegated
standards
  4. The Philadelphia Department of Public
Health will at no  time grant a waiver of
compliance under the  NESHAP regulations
  5. The Department will not grant a variance
from compliance  with the applicable NSPS
regulations if such variance delays
compliance with the Federal Standards (Part
60). Should the Department grant such a
variance, EPA will consider the source
receiving the variance to be in violation of
the applicable Federal regulations and may-
initiate enforcement action against the source
pursuant to section 113 of the Clean Air Act.
The granting of such variances by the
Department shall also constitute grounds for
revocation of delegation by EPA.
  6. The Department and EPA will develop a
system of communication sufficient to
guarantee  that each office is always fully
informed regarding the interpretation of
applicable regulations. In instances where
there is a conflict between a Department
interpretation and a Federal interpretation of
applicable regulations, the Federal
interpretation must be applied if it is more
stringent than that of the Department.
  7. If at any time there is a conflict between
a Department regulation and Federal
regulation 40 CFR Parts 60 or 81, the Federal
regulation must be applied if it is more
stringent than that of the Department. If the
Department  does not have the authority" to
enforce the more stringent Federal regulation,
this portion of the delegation may be
revoked.
  8. The Department will utilize the methods
specified in 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61, in
performing source tests pursuant to these
regulations.
  9. If the Director of the Air and Waste
Management Division determines that a
Department program for enforcing or
implementing the NSPS or NESHAP
regulations is inadequate, or is not being
effectively carried out, this delegation may be
revoked in whole or in part. Any such
revocation shall be effective as of the date
specified  in  a Notice of Revocation to the
Department. A Notice announcing this
 delegation will be published in the Federal
 Register in the near future. The Notice will
 state, among other things, that effective
 immediately, all reports required pursuant to
 the above-enumerated Federal NSPS and
 NESHAP regulations by sources located in
 the City of Philadelphia should be submitted
 to  the Philadelphia Department of Public
 Health, Municipal Services Building. Room
 540. Philadelphia. Pennsylvania 19107 in
 addition to EPA Region III. Any original
 reports which have been or may be received
 by EPA Region III. will be promptly
 transmitted to the Department.
   Since this delegation is effective
 immediately, there is no requirement that the
 Department notify EPA of its acceptance.
 Unless EPA receives from the Department
 written notice of objections within ten (10)
 days of receipt of this letter, the City of
  Philadelphia's Department of Public Health
  will be deemed  to have accepted all of the
  terms of the delegation.
                                                           IV-234
-------
               Federal Register /  Vol.  49.  No.  136  / Friday. July 13. 1984  /  Rules and  Regulations
      Sincerely yours.
Stephen R. Wassersug,
Director, Air and Water Management
D'vision.
  In response to the City of
Philadelphia's requests of April 25.1983
and May 18,1983, delegation of
authority was granted by the following
letter on June 30,1983:
Stuart W. Shapiro, M.D., M.P.H..
Health Commissioner, City of Philadelphia,
    Municipal Services Building, Room 540,
    Philadelphia, PA 19107
  Dear Dr Shapiro: On September 30,1976,
and December 30,1982, we delegated to the
City of Philadelphia the authority for
implementation and enforcement of the
Standards of Performance for New Stationary
Sources (NSPS) that had been  promulgated
by the Environmental Protection Agency. On
October 27,1982, October 29.1982, and
November 1,1982 EPA promulgated NSPS for
Industrial Surface Coating: Large Appliances;
Metal Furniture Surface Coating; and Metal
Coil Surface Coating: respectively. In your
letters of April 25,1983 and May 18,1983. you
requested that EPA delegate to the City of
Philadelphia the authority for implementation
and enforcement of these Federal regulations.
  We have reviewed the pertinent laws, rules
and regulations of the City of Philadelphia
and have determined that they continue to
provide an adequate and effective procedure
for implementing and enforcing the NSPS.
Therefore, we hereby delegate our authority
for the implementation and enforcement of
the NSPS regulations to the City of
Philadelphia follows:
  Authority for all sources located or to be
located in the City of Philadelphia subject to
the Standards of Performance  for New
Stationary Sources for Industrial Surface
Coating: Large Appliances (SS). Metal
Furniture Surface Coating (EE); and Metal
Coil Surface Coating (TT), promulgated in 40
CFR Part 60 as of the date of this letter.
  This delegation is based upon the following
conditions:
  1. Quarterly reports which may be
combined with other reporting information
are to be submitted to EPA Region III, Air
Enforcement section (AW12) by the City of
Philadelphia and should include the
following-
  (i) Sources determined to be applicable
during that quarter,
  (li) Applicable sources which started
operation during that quarter or which
started operation prior to that  quarter which
have not been previously reported;
  (iii) The compliance status of the above,
including the summary sheet from the
compliance test(s); and
  (iv) Any legal actions which pertain to
these sources.
  2. Enforcement of the NSPS  regulations in
the City of Philadelphia will be the primary
responsibility of the Department of Public
Health (the Department). Where the
Department determines that such
enforcement is not feasible and so notifies
EPA. or where the Department acts in a
manner inconsistent with the terms of this
delegation, EPA will exercise its concurrent
enforcement authority pursuant to Section
113 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, with
respect to sources within the City of
Philadelphia subject to NSPS regulations
  3. Acceptance of this delegation for the
regulations for the source categories listed
above does not commit the City of
Philidelphia to request or accept delegation of
other present or future standards and
requirements. A new request for delegation
will be required for any additional standards
or amendments to previously delegated
standards.
  4. The Department of Public Health will not
grant a variance from compliance with the
applicable NSPS regulations if such vanance
delays compliance with the Federal
Standards.  Should  the Department grant such
a variance, EPA will consider the source
receiving the variance to be in violation of
the applicable Federal regulations and may
initiate enforcement action against the source
pursuant to Section 113 of the Clean Air Act.
The granting of such variance by the Agency
shall also constitute grounds for revocation of
delegation by EPA.
  5. The Department and EPA will develop a
system of communication sufficient to
guarantee that each office is always fully
informed regarding the interpretation of
applicable regulations. In instances where
there is a conflict between a Department
interpretation and a Federal interpretation of
applicable regulations, the Federal
interpretation must be applied if it is more
stringent than that of the Department.
  6. If at any time there is a  conflict between
a Department regulation and Federal
regulation 40 CFR Part 60, the Federal
regulation must be applied if it is more
stringent than that of the Department. If the
Department does not have the authority to
enforce the more stringent Federal regulation.
this portion of the delegation may be
revoked.
  7. The Department will utilize the methods
specified in 40 CFR Part 60 in performing
source tests pursuant to these regulations.
However, alternatives to continuous
monitoring procedures and requirements  may
be acceptable upon concurrence by EPA as
stipulated in 40 CFR 60.13.
  8. If the Director of the Air and Waste
Management Division determines that a
Department program for enforcing or
implementing the NSPS regulations is
inadequate, or is not being effectively earned
out, this delegation may be revoked in whole
or in part. Any such revocation shall be
effective as of the date specified in a Notice
of Revocation to the Department.
  9. Information shall be made available to
the public in accordance with 40 CFR 60.9
  EPA procedures permit delegation of all the
Administrator's authorities under 40 CFR Part
60 except for any which require rulemaking in
the Federal Register to implement or where
Federal overview  is the only way to ensure
national consistency in the application of
standards. Accordingly, the following
authorities  are not delegable under Section
111 of the Clean Air Act, as amended.
  1. Performance  Tests, Paragraph 6O.8(b)l2)
and 80.8(b)(3). Order to ensure uniformity
and technical quality in the test methods
used for enforcement of national standards,
EPA will retain the authority to approve
alternative and equivalent methods which
effectively replace a reference method  This
restriction on delegation does not apply to
60.8(b)(l), which allows for approval of minor
modifications to reference methods on  a
case-by-case basis.
  Some subparts include general references
to the authority in 60.B(b) to approve
alternative or equivalent standards
Examples include, but are not necessarily
limited to. paragraphs 60.11(b), 60.274(d|.
60.396(a)(l), 60.396(a)(2), and 60.393(c)|1)(i)
These references are reminders of the
provisions of paragraph 60.8 and are not
separate authorities which can be delegated.
  2 Compliance with Standards and
Maintenance Requirements, 60.11 (e) The
granting of an alternative opacity standard
requires a site-specific opacity limit to  be
adopted under 40 CFR Part 60.
  3. Subpart S, 6O.195(b). Development  of
alternative compliance testing schedules  for
primary aluminum plants is done by adopting
site-specific amendments to Subpart S
  4. Subpart Da, 60.45a. Commercial
demonstration permits allow an alternative
emission standard for a limited number of
utility steam generators.
  5. Subpart GG. 60.332(a)(3) and
60.335(a)(u). These sections pertain to
approval of customized factors (fuel nitrogen
content and ambient air conditions,
respectively) for use by gas turbine
manufacturers in assembly-line compliance
testing. Since each approval potentially could
affect the emissions from equipment installed
in a number of States, the decision-making
must be maintained at the Federal level to
ensure national consistency. Notice of
approval must be published in the Federal
Register.
  6 Equivalency Determinations, section
llllh)(3) of the Clean Air Act. Approval of
alternatives to any design, equipment,  work
practice, or operational standard [e g.,
60 114(a) and 60.302(d)(3)] is accomplished
through the rulemaking process and is
adopted as a change to the  individual
subpart.
  7. Innovative Technology Waiver section
lllf/j of the Clean Air Act.  Innovative
technology waivers must be adoplfd as site
specific amendments to  the individual
subpart. Any applications or questions
pertaining to such waivers should be sent to
the Director. Air and Waste Management
Division, Region III. [States may be delegated
that authority to enforce waiver provisions if
the State has been delegated the authority to
enforce NSPS.]
  8 Determination of Construction or
Modification (Applicability), Paragraph.  6(>5
In order to ensure uniformity in making
applicability determinations pertaining to
sources. EPA will retain this authority  The
delegated agency may exercise judgement
based on the Compendium  of Applicability
determinations issued by EPA annually  and
updated quarterly. Any applicability
determinations not explicitly treated in the
EPA Compendium must be  referred to  EPA
for a determination. Also, any determinations
made by the State agency based on  the
Compendium must be sent to EPA for
                                                         IV-235
-------
              Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 136  /  Friday, July 13, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
informational purposes in order for EPA to
maintain national consistency.
  A notice announcing this delegation will be
published in the Federal Register in the near
future. The Notice will state, among other
things, that effective immediately, all reports
required pursuant to the above-enumerated
Federal NSPS regulations by sources located
in the City of Philadelphia should be
submitted to the Department of Public Health.
Municipal Services Building (Room 540).
Philadelphia. PA. 19107, in addition to EPA
Region III. Any original reports which have
been or may be received by EPA Region III.
will be promptly transmitted to the
Department.
  Since this delegation is effective
immediately, there is no requirement that the
Department notify EPA of its acceptance.
Unless EPA receives from the Department
written notice of objections within ten (10)
days of receipt of this letter, the Department
of Public Health will be deemed to have
accepted all of the terms of the delegation.
     Sincerely yours,
Stanley L. Laskowski,
Acting Regional Administrator.
  In response to the City of
Philadelphia's request of November 7,
and November 23,1983, delegation of
authority was granted by the following
letter of June 11,1984.
Stuart H. Shapiro,
Health Commissioner. City of Philadelphia.
    Municipal Services Building, Room 540,
    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
  Dear Dr. Shapiro: This is in response to
your letters of November 7 and 23.1983.
requesting delegation  of authority for the
Philadelphia Air Management Services to
enforce New Source Performance Standards
for Bulk Gasoline Terminals, Beverage Can
Surface Coating Industry, Pressure Sensitive
Tape and Label Surface Coating Operations
and Volatile Organic Compounds in
Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing
Industry.
  We have reviewed the pertinent laws, rules
and regulations of the City of Philadelphia
and have determined  that they continue to
provide an adequate and effective procedure
for implementing and  enforcing the NSPS.
Therefore, we hereby  delegate the authority
for the implementation and enforcement of
the NSPS regulation to the City of
Philadelphia as follows.
  Authority for all sources located or to be
located in the City of Philadelphia subject to
the Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources for Bulk Gasoline
Terminals (XX), Beverage Can Surface
Coating Industry (WW), Pressure Sensitive
Tape and Label Surface Coating Operations
(RR) and Volatile Organic Compounds in
Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing
Industry (VV).
  This delegation is based upon the
conditions given in our June 30,1983 letter to
you which delegated 7 additional NSPS
source categories to the City of Philadelphia.
  If you need any further information feel
free to contact Mike Giuranna at (215) 597-
9189.
      Sincerely,
W. Ray Cunningham.
Air Management Division.
  For all sources located or to be
located in the City of Philadelphia,  -
effective immediately, all applications,
reports, and other correspondence
required under the NSPS requirements
in 40 CFR Part 60 for Electric Utility
Steam Generating Units Constructed
after September 18,1978 (Da),  Storage
Vessels for Petroleum Liquids
Constructed after May 18,1978 (Ka),
Ferroalloy Production Facilities (Z),
Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces (AA),
Kraft Pulp Mills  (BB). Glass
Manufacturing Plants (CC), Grain
Elevators (DD), Metal Furniture Surface
Coating (EE), Stationary Gas Turbines
(GG), Lime Manufacturing Plants (HH),
Lead-Acid Battery Manufacturing Plants
(KK), Automobile and Light-Duty Truck
Surface Coating Operations [MM).
Phosphate Rock Plants (NN),
Ammonium Sulfate  Manufacture (PP),
Industrial Surface Coating: Large
Appliances (SS), Metal Coil Surface
Coating (TT). Asphalt Processing and
Asphalt Roofing Manufacture  (UU), Bulk
Gasoline Terminals (Part XX), Beverage
Can Surface Coating Industry  (Part
WW), Volatile Organic Compounds in
Synthetic Organic Chemicals
Manufacturing Industry (Part VV), and
Pressure Sensitive Tape and Label
Surface Coating Operations (Part RR),
and under the NESHAPS requirements
in 40 CFR Part 61 for Vinyl Chloride
Plants (F) should be sent to the City of
Philadelphia, Department of Public
Health (address above) rather than to
the EPA Region III Office in
Philadelphia.
  The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this action from the
requirements of section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
  Authority: Sees, lll(c) and 112(d), Clean
Air Act (42 U.S.C.  7411(c)).
  Dated: June 26,1984.
Stanley L. Laskowski,
Deputy Regional Administrator.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 60

  Air pollution control, Aluminum,
Ammonium sulfate  plants, Cement
Industry, Coal, Copper, Electric power
plants, Glass and glass products, Grains.
Intergovernmental relations, Iron, Lead,
Metals, Motor vehicles, Nitric  acid
plants, Paper and paper products
industry, Petroleum, Phosphate, Sewage
disposal. Steel, Sulfuric acid plants.
Volatile organic compounds, Waste
treatment and disposal. Zinc.
40 CFR Part 61

  Air pollution control, Asbestos,
Beryllium, Hazardous materials,
Mercury, Vinyl chloride.
[FR Doc Bt-ieeiB Filed 7-1J-M. 845 tm|
 104
 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
 AGENCY

 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

 [OAR-FRL-2631-31

 Standards of Performance for New
 Stationary Sources; National Emission
 Standards for Hazardous Air
 Pollutants; Delegation of Authority to
 States

 AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection
 Agency (USEPA).
 ACTION: Delegation of authority.

 SUMMARY: Sections lll(c) and 112(d) of
 the Clean Air Act permit USEPA to
 delegate to the States authority to
 implement and enforce the standards set
 out in 40 CFR Part 60, Standards of
 Performance for New Stationary
 Sources (NSPS), and in 40 CFR Part 61,
 National Emission Standards for
 Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS). A
 number of States in USEPA Region V
 have recently requested and received
 one or more of these delegated programs
 or have recently received an expansion
 to an existing delegated program. More
 specifically, a number of NSPS have
 been added to the delegated programs in
 Michigan, Minnesota, Indiana, Ohio, and
 Wisconsin. Furthermore, an additional
 NESHAPS has been delegated to
 Michigan and Wisconsin and an initial
 delegation of all the NESHAPS was
 made to Ohio. Revisions and
 amendments to previously delegated
 standards were also delegated to a
 number of these States  along with an
 automatic delegation feature covering
 future Federal NSPS and NESHAPS
 promulgations.
 EFFECTIVE DATES: Indiana—March 18,
 1982 and June 8,1983; Michigan—March
                                                     IV-236
-------
              Federal Register / Vol.  49.  No. 137 / Monday.  July 16. 1984 / Rules and Regulations
29.1982 and June 9,1983; Minnesota—
September 1,1982 and March 29,1984;
Ohio—August 9,1982; and Wisconsin—
September 27,1983.
ADDRESSES: The related material in
support of these delegations may be
examined during normal business hours
at the following respective locations:
All Delegations—
U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency,
  Air and Radiation Branch, 230 South
  Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois
  60G04
Specific State Delegations—
Indiana—Indiana Air Pollution Control
  Board. 1330 West Michigan Street
  Indianapolis, Indiana 46206
Michigan—Air Quality Division,
  Michigan Department of Natural
  Resources, State Secondary
  Government Complex, General Office
  Building, 7150 Harris Drive, Lansing,
  Michigan 48917
Ohio—Ohio Environmental Protection
  Agency, 361 East Broad Street,
  Columbus. Ohio 43216
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
  1935 West County Road, B-2,
  Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Wisconsin Department of Natural
  Resources, 101 South Webster Street
  G.E.F.2, Madison, Wisconsin 53707
FOR  FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ronald J. Van Mersbergen of the USEPA
Region V, Air and Radiation Branch
(5ARB-26), 230 South Dearborn Street,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, Telephone (312)
886-6056.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Indiana
  On February 19,1982,  the Technical
Secretary of the Indiana Air Pollution
Control Board requested delegation of
authority to implement and enforce the
NSPS source category of Automobiles
and  Light-Duty Truck Surface Coating
Operations (4O CFR Part 6O, Subpart
MM). On March 18,1982 this source
category was added to the delegated
program by the letter which follows.
  Furthermore, on February 9,1983 (the
following delegation document
incorrectly states February 10,1983) the
State requested an automatic delegation
for any new NSPS and NESHAPS and
any  revisions to previously promulgated
standards. For Indiana, an automatic
delegation means that the State will
assume any engineering and
administrative responsibilities with
respect to a new standard or an
amendment upon USEPA promulgation.
The  State will assume full enforcement
authority upon notification that the
State has adopted the newly
promulgated standards or amendments.
The automatic delegation given in a June
8,1983 letter to Mr. Harry D. Williams
supercedes all previous delegations for
NSPS and NESHAPS. The June 8,1983
letter is published below following the
March 16.1682 letter.
  Notices of earlier delegations and
amendments were published in the
Federal Register on September 30,1976
(41 FR 43237), September 12,1977 (42 FR
45705), and December 22,1981 (46 FR
82065).
March IB, 1982.
Mr. Harry D. Williams,
Technical Secretary,  Indiana Air Pollution
    Control Board. 1330 W. Michigan Street.
    Indianapolis, Indiana 46206
  Dear Mr. Williams: Thank you for your
February 19,1982 letter requesting expansion
of your existing Delegation of Authority to
include an additional New Source
Perforr-ance Standard (NSPS).
  We have reviewed your request and have
found the State procedures to be acceptable.
Therefore, the U.S Environmental Protection
Agency (U.S. EPA) is hereby delegating to the
State of Indiana authority to implement and
enforce the NSPS for  automative painting
found in 40 CFR Part 60 subpart MM.
  The terms and conditions applicable to this
delegation are in the previous letter of
delegation of April 21,1976 as amended by
the letters of June 6,1977 and February 8,
1981.
  A notice of this delegated authority will be
published in the Federal Register.
  This delegation is effective upon the date
of this letter unless the U.S. EPA receives
written notice  from the Indiana Air Pollution
Control Board of objections within 10 days of
receipt of this letter.
      Sincerely yours,
Valdas V. Adamkus.
Regional Administrator.
5AMD
June 6,1983.
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Harry D. Williams,
Technical Secretary.  Indiana Air Pollution
    Control Board, 1330 West Michigan
    Street. Indianapolis, Indiana 46206
  Dear Mr. Williams: In response to your
February 10.1983, letter, we are amending the
delegation of authority agreement for New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Pollutants (NESHAPS). Since the original
delegation on April 21,1976, a number of
amendments have been made, and it is the
purpose of this letter  to replace the original
and the amendments.
  We have reviewed the pertinent laws and
regulations of the State of Indiana and the
State's 7-year history of implementing the
programs, and we have determined that the
State of Indiana has the resources and the
ability to implement and enforce the NSPS
and NESHAPS Programs for the regulations
appropriately promulgated by the State, and
to implement the additional responsibilities
requested in the February 10,1983, letter.
Therefore, subject to the specific conditions
and exceptions set forth below, the U S.
Environmental Protection Agency (U S F.PA)
hereby grants delegation of authority to the
State of Indiana to implement and enforce the
NSPS and NESHAPS as follows.
  A. Authority for all sources located or to be
located in the State of Indiana subject to the
NSPS promulgated in 40 CFR Part 60. This
delegated authority includes all future
standards promulgated for additional
pollutants and source categories and all
revisions and amendments to existing and
future standards.
  B. Authority for all sources  located or to be
located in the State of Indiana subject to the
NESHAPS promulgated in 40 CFR Part 61.
This delegation includes all future standards
promulgated for additional pollutants and
source categories and all revisions and
amendments to existing and future standards
  This delegation is based upon the following
conditions and exceptions:
  1. This delegation letter replaces the
previous delegation  letter of April 21,1976.
and the amendments dated June 6,1977,
February B, 1981. and March 18.1982.
  2, For  new NSPS and NESHAPS pollutants
and source categories and for amendments to
existing  NSPS and NESHAPS which  the State
of Indiana has not promulgated regulations or
amendments, the State will perform the
administrative and engineering
responsibilities with respect to plan review.
applicability determinations, notifications
and record keeping, and performance testing
in accordance with items 5. 9 and 13 of the
conditions and exceptions. The
administrative and engineering
responsibilities shall continue until such time
as the State promulgates appropriate
regulations or amendments at which time the
State is given full implementation and
enforcement responsibility as is cited in item
3 of the conditions and exceptions.
  3. Implementation and enforcement of the
NSPS and NESHAPS in the State of Indiana
will be the primary responsibility of  the State
of Indiana for those  standards for which the
State has promulgated appropriate
regulations and subsequently notified the
Regional Administrator.
  4. If, after appropriate discussions with the
Indiana  Air Pollution Control Board (1APCB).
the Regional Administrator determines that a
State procedure is inadequate for
implementing or enforcing any NSPS and
NESHAPS in accordance with item 2 or 3 of
the conditions and exceptions, or is not being
effectively carried out, this delegation may be
revoked in whole or in part. Any such
revocation shall be effective as of the dates
specified in a Notice of Revocation to the
Governor of the State of Indiana or his
designee for NSPS or NESHAPS matters.
  S. If the State of Indiana determines that a
violation of a NSPS sr NESHAPS exists, the
IAPCB shall immediately notify U.S. EPA,
Region V, of the nature of the violation
together with a brief description of State's
efforts or strategy to secure compliance. With
respect to those NSPS and NESHAPS for
which the State has only administrative and
engineering responsibilities and during the
time which the State has only administrative
and engineering responsibility, any violations
                                                       IV-237
-------
              Federal  Register / Vol. 49. No. 137 / Monday. July 16. 1984 /  Rules  and Regulations
will be immediately referred lo U.S. EPA,
Region V. The U.S. EPA may exercise its
concurrent enforcement authority pursuant to
Section 113 of the Clean Air Act, as amended,
with regard to any violations of an NSPS or
NESHAPS regulation.
  6. The Federal NSPS regulations in 40 CFR
Part 60, as amended, do not have provisions
for granting variances. Hence, this delegation
dues not convey to the State oflndiana
authority to grant variances from NSPS
regulations.
  7. This delegation includes the authority on
a case-by-case basis to waive a NSPS
performance test in accordance to 40 CFR
60.8(b)(4), approve use of reference methods
with minor modifications as specified in 40
CFR 60.8(b)(l), and waive NESHAPS
emission tests in accordance with 40 CFR
61 13. The IAPCB must report any of these
actions to the Regional Administrator in
jc t ordance with the reporting procedures sot
forth in condition 10.
  B This delegation does not include the
Administrator's authority to waive certain
existing requirements or establish alternative
requirements under Section 111 or 112 of the
Act. or any regulations promulgated
thereunder. This would include the following:
Alternative design, equipment, work practice
01 operational standards under Section
111(h)(3); innovative technology waivers
under Section lll(j): alternative opacity
standards under 40 CFR 60.11(e); approval of
equivalent and alternate teat methods under
40 CFR 60.8(b) (2) and (3) authority to issue
commercial demonstration permits under 40
CFR 60.45a (subpart Da); approval of
a'ternative testing times for primary
reduction plants under 40 CFR 60.195(d); and
certain portions of the Stationary Gas
Turbine Standards dealing with nitrogen fuel
allowance in 40 CFR 60.332{a) and ambient
condition correction factors in 40 CFR
60.335(a)(ii).
  9. Prior U.S. EPA concurrence is to be
obtained on any matter involving the
interpretation of Section 111 or 112 of the
Clean Air Act and of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
to the extent that application,
implementation, administration, or
enforcement of these sections have not been
covered by determinations or guidance sent
to the IAPCB.
  10. The IAPCB and U.S. EPA Region V will
develop a system of communication for  the
purpose of insuring that each office is
informed on (a) the current compliance status
of subject sources in the State of Indiana; (b)
the interpretation of applicable regulations;
(c) the description of sources and source
inventory data; and (d) compliance test
waivers and other approvals under condition
7. The reporting provisions  in 40 CFR 60.4 and
61.04 requiring sources to make submissions
to the U.S. EPA are met by sending such
submissions to the IAPCB. The State will
make available this information to the U.S.
EPA on a case-by-case basis.
  11. At no time shall the State of Indiana
enforce a State regulation less stringent than
the Federal requirements for NSPS or
NESHAPS (40 CFR Part 60 or 61 as amended).
  12. Upon approval of the  Regional
Administrator of Region V, the Technical
Secretary of the IAPCB may subdelegate this
authority to implement and enforce these
NSPS and NESHAPS to other air pollution
control agencies in the State when the
agencies have demonstrated that they have
equivalent or more stringent programs in
force.
  13. The Indiana Air Pollution Control Board
will utilize the methods specified in 40 CFR
Parts 60 and 61 in performing source test
pursuant to the regulations.
  14. At least once a year and more
frequently when appropriate, the State will
amend its NSPS and NESHAPS to correspond
with Federal Amendments and newly
promulgated regulations for NSPS and
NESHAPS pollutant and source categories.
  A notice announcing this delegetion will be
published in the Federal Register in the near
future. This delegation becomes effective as
of the date of this letter. Unless the U.S. EPA
receives written notice from the IAPCB of
objections within 10 days of receipt of this
letter, it will be deemed that the State has
accepted all the conditions and exceptions of
this delegation.
      Sincerely yours,
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.

B. Michigan
  On January 4,1982, the Director of the
Michigan Air Quality Division requested
delegation of authority for the NSPS and
NESHAPS which were promulgated
since the previous request of February 3.
1975, as well as any revisions or
amendments to the previously delegated
standards. On March 29,1982, a  revised
delegation was made by the following
letter. Furthermore on February 2.1983,
the State requested an automatic
delegation for NSPS and NESHAJ>S.
This request was granted on June 9,1983
and is published below following the
March 29,1982 letter.
  Notice of the initial delegation was
published  in the Federal Register on
January 13, 1976 (41 FR 1942).
March 29,1982.
Robert P. Miller.
Chief, Air Quality Division. Michigan
    Department of Natural Resources, P.O.
    Box 30028. Lansing. Michigan 48909
  Dear Mr.  Miller: This is in response to your
letter of January 4,1982, requesting
delegation of authority for implementation
and enforcement of the New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) to the State of
Michigan.
  We have reviewed the pertinent
procedures and supporting regulations of the
State of Michigan and have determined that
the State has an adequate program for the
implementation and enforcement of the NSPS
and NESHAPS. Therefore, in accordance
with Clean  Air Act Sections lll(c) and  112(d)
and subject to the specific terms and
conditions set forth below, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
hereby delegates authority to the State of
Michigan to implement and enforce the NSPS
and NESHAPS as follows:
  A. Authority for all sources located in the
State of Michigan subject to the NSPS
promulgated in 40 CFR Part 60 as of January
4, 1982. This delegation includes the source
categories in Subpart D. Da, E, F, G, H, I, ), K.
Ka, L, M, N, O, P, Q. R. S, T, U, V. W, X, Y, Z,
AA, BB. CC. DD, GG, HH. MM. and PP.
  B. Authority for alJ sources  located in the
State of Michigan subject to the NESHAPS
promulgated in 40 CFR Part 61 as of January
4, 1982. This delegation includes the poli'jtant
categories of asbestos, beryllium, mercury.
and vinyl chloride in Subparts B, C, D. E,
anil F
  This delegation of authority for NSI"S and
NESHAPS supersedes the previous statewide
delegations of November 5. 1975, and is
subject to the following terms and conditions:
  1. Granting this delegation does not
obligate the USEPA to delegate authority for
implementation and enforcement of
additional NSPS or NESHAPS if other
standards are promulgated. .In addition.
acceptance of this delegation  of presently
promulgated NSPS and NESHAPS does not
commit the State of Michigan to request or
accept delegation of future standards and
requirements. A new request for delegation
and another USEPA review will be required
before any standards or requirements not
included in the State's request of January 4.
1982, will be delegated.
  2. Upon approval of the Regional
Administrator of Region V, the Executive
Secretary of the Michigan Air Pollution
Control Commission may subdelegate  this
authority to implement and enforce the NSPS
and NESHAPS to other air pollution
authorities in the State when  such authorities
have demonstrated that they have equivalent
or more stringent programs in force.
  3. This delegation does not  include the
Administrator's responsibility to establish
opacity standards as set forth in 40 CFR
  4. The State of Michigan will at no time
grant a waiver of compliance with NESHAPS
  5. The Federal NSPS regulations in 40 CFR
Part 60, as amended, do not have provisions
for granting waivers by class of testing
requirements or variances, hence this
delegation does not convey to the State of
Michigan authority to grant waivers by class
of testing requirements or variances fiom
NSPS regulations.
  6. The State of Michigan will utilize  the
methods specified in appendices and
Subparts of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61 in
performing source tests pursuant to the
regulations.
  7. Enforcement of NSPS and NESHAPS in
the State of Michigan will be the primary
responsibility of the State of Michigan. If,
after  appropriate discussion with the Air
Quality Division, the Regional Administrator
determines that a State procedure for
implementing and enforcing the NSPS or
NESHAPS is not in compliance with Federal
regulations (40 CFR Parts 60 and 61), or is not
being effectively carried out, this delegation
will be revoked in whole or in part. Any such
revocation shall be effective as of the  date
specified in a Notice of Revocation to  the
Chief of the Air Quality Division.
                                                          IV-238
-------
              Federal Register  /  Vol. 49, No. 137 /  Monday, July  16,  1984  / Rules and Regulations
  8. The Air Quality Division and the USEPA
Region V will develop a system of
communication for the purpose of insuring
that each office is informed on (a) the current
compliance status of subject sources in the
State of Michigan: (b) the interpretation of
appbcable regulations; and (c) the description
of sources and source inventory data. The
reporting provisions in 40 CFR 60.4 and 61.04
requiring industry to make submission to the
USEPA are met by sending such submissions
to the State. The State will make available
this information to the USEPA on a case-by-
case basis
  8. Pnor USEPA concurrence is to be
obtained on any matter involving the
interpretation of Sections 111 or 112 of the
Clean Air  Act or 40 CFR to the extent that
application, implementation, administration,
or enforcement of these sections have not
been covered by determinations or guidance
sent to the Air Quality Division. This
concurrence request includes the innovative
technology waivers authorized in Section
lll(j) of ther Clean Air Act.
  10 If the State of Michigan determines that
a violation of a delegated NSPS or NESHAPS
exists, the Air Quality Division shall
immediately notify EPA, Region V, of the
nature of the violation together with a brief
description of the State's efforts or strategy to
secure compliance.
  A notice announcing this delegation will be
published in the Federal Register in the near
future. This delegation becomes effective as
of the date of this letter and, unless the
USEPA receives written notice from the Air
Quality Division of objections within 10 days
of the receipt of this letter, it will be decided
that the State has accepted all the terms and
conditions of this delegation.
      Sincerely yours,
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
June 9,19B3.
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Robert P. Miller,
Chief. Air Quality Division. Department of
    Natural Resources, P.O. Box 30028,
    Lansing, Michigan 48909
  Dear Mr. Miller: This letter is in response
to your February 2,1983, request to amend
the March 29,1982, delegation of authority by
including  additional authorities to implement
the New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) and  the National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS).
Additionally, this letter amends the March  29,
1982. NSPS and NESHAPS delegation to the
State by providing for Wayne County's
implementation and enforcement of the NSPS
and NESHAPS.
  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
hereby amends the March 29,1982,
delegation to Michigan as follows.
  1. Paragraph "A" is amended to read as
 follows.
   A. Authority for all sources located or to be
 located in the State of Michigan subject to the
 NSPS promulgated in 40 CFR Part 60. This
 delegated authority includes all future
 standards promulgated for additional
 pollutants and source categories and all
 revisions and amendments to existing and
 future standards.
  2. Paragraph "B" is amended to read as
follows:
  B. Authority for all sources located or to be
located in the State of Michigan subject to the
NESHAPS promulgated in 40 CFR Part 61.
Thic delegation includes all future standards
promulgated for additional pollutants and
source categories and all revisions and
amendments to existing and future standards.
  3. Paragraph "1" of the terms and
conditions is amended to read as follows:
  1. If the State of Michigan determines that
for some reason, including budget reductions,
that it is unable to accept any new NSPS or
NESHAPS, the Chief of the Air Quality
Division will notify the Regional
Administrator. Upon such notification by the
State, the primary enforcement responsibility
for such new standards will return to the U.S.
EPA.
  4. The following language is added to the
first sentence of item "7" of the terms and
conditions: "except in Wayne County.
Michigan during such time that a NSPS or
NESHAPS is delegated to the County."
  We trust that these amendments will
provide for a more efficient program in
Michigan.
    Sincerely yours,
Valdas V. Adamkus.
Regional Administrator.

C. Minnesota
   On August 13,1982 the Executive
Director of the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency requested delegation of
authority for the NSPS which had been
promulgated since the State's previous
request of June 27,1977 and requested
delegation of authority for revisions and
amendments which occurred since June
27.1977 to its previously delegated
source categories of the NSPS and
NESHAPS. On September 1,1982 a
revised delegation was made by the
following letter. Furthermore, on January
17,1984 the State requested automatic
delegation of the NSPS and NESHAPS.
This request was granted on March 29,
1984 and is published below following
the September 1,1982 letter.
   Notice of the initial delegation was
published in the Federal Register on
January 3.1978 (43 FR 33).
September 1,1982.
Mr. Louis J. Breimhurst,
Executive Director, Minnesota Pollution
    Control Agency, 1935 W. County Road
    B2. Roseville, Minnesota 55113-2785
   Dear Mr. Breimhurst: On August 13.1982
you requested delegation of authority to
implement and enforce the New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) which have been
promulgated since your previous request of
June 27,1977. The request included all
revisions and amendments to the previously
 delegated NSPS and NESHAPS.
   We have reviewed the pertinent
 procedures and supporting regulations of the
 State of Minnesota and have determined that
 the State has an adequate program for the
implementation and enforcement of the NSPS
and NESHAPS. Therefore, in accordance
with Clean Air Act Sections lll(c) and 112(d)
and subject to the specific terms and
conditions set forth below, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
hereby delegates authority to the State of
Minnesota to implement and enforce the
NSPS and NESHAPS as follows:
  A. Authority for all sources located in the
State of Minnesota subject to the NSPS
promulgated in 40 CFR Part 60. as amended.
as of August 13,  1982. This delegation
includes the source categories in Subpart D.
Da, E. F, G.. a 1, I. K, Ka, L, M. N, O. P. Q. R,
S, T. U, V. W, X. Y. Z. AA. BB, CC, DD. GG.
HH. KK, MM, NN. PP, and UU.
  B. Authority for all sources located in the
State of Minnesota subject to the NESHAPS
promulgated in 40 CFR Part 61. as amended.
as of August 13. 1982. This delegation
includes the pollutant categories of asbestos.
beryllium, mercury, and vinyl chloride in
Subparts B, C. D, E. and F.
  C. ThU delegation of authority for NSPS
and NESHAPS supersedes the previous
statewide delegations of September 20, 1977.
and is subject to the following terms and
conditions:
  1. Upon approval of the Regional
Administrator of Region V, the Executive
Director of the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA) may subdelegate this
authority to implement and enforce the NSPS
and NESHAPS to other air pollution
authorities in the State when such authorities
have  demonstrated that they have equivalent
or more stringent programs in force.
  2. This delegation does not include the
Administrator's responsibility to establish
opacity standards as set forth in 40 CFR
   3. The State of Minnesota will at no time
 grant a waiver of compliance with NESHAPS.
   4. The Federal NSPS regulations in 40 CFR
 Part 60. as amended, do not have provisions
 for granting waivers by class of testing
 requirements or variances, hence this
 delegation does not convey to the State of
 Minnesota authority to grant waivers by
 class of testing requirements or variances
 from NSPS regulations.
   5. The State of Minnesota will utilize the
 methods specified in appendices and
 Subparts of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61 in
 performing source tests pursuant to the
 regulations.
   «. Enforcement of NSPS and NESHAPS in
 the State of Minnesota will be the primary
 responsibility of the State of Minnesota. If,
 after appropriate discussion with the MPCA,
 the Regional Administrator determines that a
 State procedure for implementing and
 enforcing the NSPS or NESHAPS is not in
 compliance with Federal regulations (40 CFR
 Parts 80 and 81). or is not being effectively
 carried out, this delegation will be revoked in
 whole or in part. Any such revocation shall
 be effective as  of the date specified in a
 Notice of Revocation to  the Executive
 Director of the  MPCA.
   7. The Division of Air  Quality and the
 USEPA Region V will develop a system of
 communication for the purpose of insuring
 that each office is informed on (a) the current
                                                          IV-239
-------
              Federal Register /  Vol. 49.  No.  137  /  Monday. July  16.  1984  / Rules  and Regulations
compliance status of subject sources in the
State of Minnesota: (b) the interpretation of
applicable regulations; and (c) the description
ofsoun.es and source inventory ddld  The
reporting provisions in 40 CFR 00.4 and 61.04
requiring industry to make submissions (o the
USEPA are met by sending such submissions
to the MPCA. The MPCA will make available
this mlormdtion to the USEPA on a case-by-
Cdse basis.
  8. Prior USEPA concurrence is to be
obtained on any matter involving the
interpretation of Section 111 or 112 of the
Clean Air Act or 40 CFR to the extent that
application, implementation, administration.
or enforcement of these sections have not
been covered by determinations or guidance
sent to the Division of Air Quality This
concurrence request includes the innovative
technology waivers authorized in Section
lll(j) of the Clean Air Act.
  9. If the State of Minnesota determines that
a violation of a delegated NSPS or NESHAPS
exists, the Division of Air Quality shall
immediately notify USEPA, Region V, of the
nature of the violation together with a brief
description of the State's efforts or strategy to
secure compliance.
  A notice announcing this delegation will be
published in the Federal Register in the near
future. This delegation becomes effective es
of the date of this letter and, unless the
USEPA receives written notice from the
MPCA of objections within 10 days of the
receipt of this letter, it will be deemed that
the State has accepted all the terms and
conditions of this delegation.
  Sincerely yours,
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
March 29,1984.
CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN
RECEIPT REQUESTED
Sandra S. Gardebring,
Executive Director, Minnesota Pollution
    Control Agency,  1935 W. County Road
    B-2, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-2785
  Dear Ms. Gardebring: On February 21,
1984,  you requested an expansion of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA)
delegation of authority to Minnesota  to
implement and enforce the New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants (NESHAPS). The request
included all future promulgated NSPS and
NESHAPS standards and all revisions and
amendments to existing and future NSPS and
NESHAPS.
  We have reviewed the pertinent
procedures and supporting regulations of the
State of Minnesota and have determined that
the State has an adequate program for the
implementation and enforcement of the NSPS
and NESHAPS. Therefore, in accordance
with  Clean Air Act Sections lll(c) and 112(d)
and subject to the specific terms and
conditions set forth below, the USEPA hereby
delegates authority to the State of Minnesota
to implement and enforce the NSPS and
NESHAPS as follows:
  A.  Authority for all sources located or to be
located in the State of Minnesota subject to
the NSPS promulgated in 40 CFR Part 60. This
delegation includes all future standards
promulgated for additional pollutants and
source categories and all revisions and
amendments to existing and future standards
The delegation of authority to enforce future
standards revisions, and amendments will be
effective a« of the date that such standards
become applicable pursuant to Stale law
  B Authority for all sources located or to be
located in tht> State of Minnesota subject to
the NESHAPS promulgated in 40 CFR Par! 61.
This delegation includes all future standards
promulgated for additional pollutants and
source categories and all revisions and
amendments to existing and future standards.
The delegation of authority to enforce future
standards, revisions, and amendments will be
effective as of the date that such standards
become applicable pursuant to State law.
  C. This delegation of authority for NSPS
and NESHAPS supersedes the previous
statewide delegations of September 20. 1977;
September 1, 1982; and June 17,  1983; and is
subject to the following terms and conditions:
  1. Upon approval of the Regional
Administrator of Region V, the Executive
Director of the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA) may  subdelegate this
authority to implement and enforce the NSPS
and NESHAPS to other air pollution
authorities in the State when such authorities
have demonstrated that they have equivalent
or more stringent programs in force.
  2. This delegation does not include the
Administrator's responsibility to establish
opacity standards as set forth in 40 CFR
  3. The State of Minnesota will at no time
grant a waiver of compliance with NESHAPS.
The State of Minnesota may grant variances
from State standards which are more
stringent than the NSPS so long as the
variances do not prevent compliance with the
NSPS.
  4. The Federal NSPS regulations in 40 CFR
Part 60, as amended, do not have provisions
for granting waivers by class of testing
requirements or variances, hence this
delegation does not convey to the State of
Minnesota authority to grant waivers by
class of testing requirements or variances
from NSPS regulations. Minnesota may waive
a performance test or specify the use of a
reference method with minor changes in
methodology under 40 CFR 60.8(b) on a case
by case basis, however the State must  inform
USEPA of such actions.
   5. The State of Minnesota will utilize the
methods specified in appendices and
Subparts of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61 in
performing source tests pursuant to the
regulations. The Administrator retains the
exclusive authority to approve (a) the use of
equivalent and alternative test methods
pursuant to 40 CFR 60.8(b) (2) and (3), and (b)
approve the use of alternative testing times
for primary aluminum reduction plants
pursuant to 40 CFR 60.195(d).
   6. Enforcement of NSPS and NESHAPS in
the State of Minnesota will be the primary
responsibility of the State  of Minnesota. If,
after appropriate discussion with the MPCA,
the Regional Administrator determines that a
State procedure for implementing and
enforcing the NSPS or NESHAPS is not in
 compliance with Federal regulations (40 CFR
 Parts 60 and 61), or is not being effectively
carried out. this delegation will be revoVrd in
whole or in part. Any such revocation shall
be effective as of the date specified in a
Notice of Revocation to the Executive
Director of the MPCA.
  7. The Division of Air Quality and the
USEPA Region V will develop a system of
communication for the purpose of insuring
that each office is informed on (a) the current
compliance status of subject sources in the
State of Minnesota; (b) the interpretation of
applicable regulations; and (c) the description
of sources and source inventory data. The
reporting provisions in 40 CFR 604  and 61.04
requiring industry to make submiss.on'. to t!,p
USEPA are met by sending such submissions
to the MPCA. The MPCA will make available
this information to the IISF.PA on a case-by
case basis.
  MPCA's annual report, submitted to
USEPA pursuant to 40 CFR Part 51. will
include information relating to the staUis of
sources subject to 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
Such information will include the name and
address of the most recent stack test,
compliance status of facility, enforcement
actions initiated, surveillance action
undertaken for each facility and results of
reports relating to emissions data.
  8. Prior USEPA concurrence is to be
obtained on any matter involving the
interpretation of Section 111  or 112 of the
Clean Air Act or 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61 to
the extent that implementation,
administration, or enforcement of these
sections have not been covered by
determinations or guidance sent to the
Division of Air Quality. All applicability
determinations which have not been
specifically treated in the Compendium of
Applicability Determinations issued by
USEPA annually are reserved for USEPA.
Any applicability determination made by
MPCA based on a prior USEPA
determination must be submitted to USEPA.
   9. If the State of Minnesota determines that
a violation of a delegated NSPS or NESHAPS
exists, the Division of Air Quality shall
within 30-days notify USEPA, Region V, of
the nature of the violation together with a
brief description of the State's efforts or
strategy to secure compliance. Furthermore, if
the State determines that it is unable to
enforce an NSPS or NESHAPS standard, the
State shall immediately notify USEPA.
Region  V. This delegation in no way limits
the Administrator's concurrent enforcement
authority  as provided in Sections lll(r)(2)
and 112(d)(2) of the Clean Air Act.
   10. In addition to any future provision
which may be cited in forthcoming NSPS or
NESHAPS which cannot be delegated, the
Administrator retains authority for approval
of equivalency for design, equipment, or work
practice or operational standard pursuant to
Section lll(h) or Section 112(e) of the Clean
Air Act and for the granting of an innovative
 technology waiver pursuant to Section 111 (j)
 of the Clean Air Act.
   11. If the State of Minnesota determines
 that for any reason, including budget
 reductions, it is unable to administer any new
 NSPS or NESHAPS. the Executive Director of
 the MPCA will notify the Regional
 Administrator. Upon such notification by  the
                                                            IV-240
-------
              Federal Register /  Vol. 49. No. 137 / Monday, July 16. 1984  /  Rules and Regulations
State, the primary enforcement responsibility
for such new standards will return to the
USEPA
  A notice announcing this delegation will be
published in the Federal Register in the near
future. This delegation becomes effective as
of the date of this letter and, unless the
USEPA receives written notice from the
MPCA of objections within 10 days of the
receipt of this letter it will be deemed that the
State has'accepted all the terms and
conditions of this delegation
  We trust that this amended delegation will
provide for a more efficient  NSPS and
NESHAPS enforcement program in
Minnesota.
      Sincerely yours,
Valdas V. Adamkus.
Regional A dministrator.

D. Ohio
  On June 8.1982, the Director of the
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
requested authority for the NSPS
promulgated since  his previous request
of May 12,1980, as well as authority for
revisions and amendments to  the
previously delegated NSPS standards.
The request letter, asked  for automatic
delegation of all future standards and
revisions. The delegation was made on
August 9,1982 by means of the letter
published below. Notices of previous
delegations and amendments were
published in the Federal  Register on
December 21,1976 (41 FR 55575) and
December 22,1981  (46 FR 62065).
  Furthermore, on June 2,1982, the
Director of Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency made an initial
request for the authority  to implement
and enforce the NESHAPS. The State
also requested automatic delegation for
ell future standards and revisions. The
subsequent NESHAPS delegation  was
combined with the NSPS delegation in
the previously cited August 9,1982
letter.
  On September 11,1979, certain
NESHAPS has been delegated to the
Regional Air Pollution Control Agency
(RAPCA) located in Dayton, Ohio. The
delegation agreement with RAPCA was
published in the (44 FR 65477) on
November 13,1979. The RAPCA
delegation agreement contained a
condition which provides for the
termination of the delegation when the
NESHAPS program was  transferred to
the State of Ohio. Such a termination
letter was sent to RAPCA on September
30,1982 and follows in this section.
  Because the August 9.1982 delegation
was the initial delegation to Ohio  for
NESHAPS, a rule change is published
elsewhere in today's Federal Register
which adds to 40 CFR Part 61.04(b) the
addresses to which reports and notices
required by the NESHAPS must be sent
for Ohio sources.
August 9,1982.
Wayne S. Nichols,
Director, Ohio Environmental Protection
    Agency, 361 E. Brood Street, Columbus,
    Ohio 43216
  Dear Mr. Nichols: The purpose of this letter
is to delegate to the State of Ohio the
enforcement authority for additional source
categories of the new source performance
standards (NSPS) and to delegate for the first
time to Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency (OEPA) the authority for the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAPS). The authority for the
NSPS program had been previously delegated
to Ohio based upon requests dated June 3,
1976, October  3,1979. and May 12.1980. and
is hereby being amended based on the most
recent request of June 8,1982. The authority
for the NESHAPS program was requested on
June 2,1982 and is hereby being delegated for
the first time.
  We have reviewed the pertinent
procedures and supporting regulations of the
State of Ohio and have determined that the
State has an adequate program for the
implementation and enforcement of the NSPS
and NESHAPS. Therefore,  in accordance
with the Clean Air Act Sections lll(c) and
112(d) and subject to the specific terms and
conditions set forth below, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
hereby delegates authority to the State of
Ohio to implement and enforce the NSPS and
NESHAPS as follows:
  A. Authority for all sources located or to be
located in the  State of Ohio subject to the
NSPS promulgated in 40 CFR Part 60. This
delegated authority includes all future
standards promulgated for additional
pollutants and source categories and all
revisions and amendments to existing and
future standards.
  B. Authority for all sources located or to be
located in the  State of Ohio subject to the
NESHAPS promulgated in 40 CFR Part 61.
This delegation includes all future standards
promulgated for additional pollutants and
source categories and all revisions and
amendments to existing and future standards.
  C. This delegation of authority supersedes
all other NSPS and NESHAPS delegations
made to agencies in Ohio, and is subject to
the following terms and conditions:
  1. Upon approval of the Regional
Administrator of Region V, the Director of
OEPA may subdelegate this authority to
implement and enforce the NSPS and
NESHAPS to other air pollution authorities in
the State when such authorities have
demonstrated  that they have an equivalent or
more stringent program in force.
  2. This delegaton does not include the
Administrator's responsibility to establish
opacity standards as set forth in 40 CFR
60.11(e) (4).
  3. The State of Ohio will at no time grant a
waiver of compliance with NESHAPS.
  4. The Federal NSPS regulations  in 40 CFR
Part 60. as amended, do not have provisions
for granting waivers by class of testing
requirements or variances, hence this
delegation does not convey to the State of
Ohio authority to grant waivers by class of
testing requirements or variances from NSPS
regulations.
  5. The State of Ohio will utilize the
methods specified in appendices and
Subparts of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61 in
performing source tests required by the
regulations.
  6. Enforcement of NSPS and NESHAPS in
the State of Ohio will be the primary
responsibility of the State of Ohio.  If, after
appropriate discussion with the OEPA. the
Regional Administrator determines that a
State procedure for implementing and
enforcing the NSPS or NESHAPS is not in
compliance with Federal regulations (40 CFR
Part 60 and 61), or is not being effectively
carried out, this delegation will be  revoked in
whole or in part after a 30 day notification.
Any such revocation shall be effective as of
the date specified in a Notice of Revocation
to the Director of OEPA.
  7. The OEPA and  USEPA Region V will
develop  a system of communication for the
purpose  of insuring that each office is
informed on (a) the current compliance status
of subject sources in the State of Ohio; (b) the
interpretation of applicable regulations: and
(c) the description of sources and source
inventory data. The reporting provisions in 40
CFR 60.4 and 61.04 requiring industry to make
submission to the USEPA are met by sending
such submissions to the State. The State will
make available this information to the
USEPA on a case-by-case basis.
  8. Prior USEPA concurrence is to be
obtained on any matter involving the
interpretation of Section 111 or 112 of the
Clean Air Act or 40  CFR Parts 60 and 61 to
the extent that application, implementation,
administration, or enforcement of these
sections have not been covered by
determinations or guidance sent to the OEPA
This concurrence request includes  the
innovative technology waivers authorized in
Section lll(j) of the Clean Air Act.
  9. If the State of Ohio determines that a
violation of a delegated NSPS or NESHAPS
exists, OEPA shall immediately notify EPA.
Region V. of the nature of the violation
together with a brief description of the State's
efforts or strategy to secure compliance.
  A notice announcing this delegation will  be
published in the Federal Register in the near
future. This delegation becomes effective as
of the date of this letter and, unless the
USEPA receives written notice from the
OEPA of objections within 10 days of the
receipt of this letter, it will be deemed that
the State has accepted all the terms and
conditions of this delegation.
      Sincerely yours,
Valdus V. Adamkus.
Regional Administrator.
September 30,1982.
William Burkhart.
Supervisor, Regional Air Pollution Control
    Agency. Montgomery Count\ Combined
    General Health  District. 451 West Third
    Street. Davton, Ohio 454O2
Dear Mr. Burkhart: On September 11,1979,
the U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
delegated to the Regional Air Pollution
Control Agency (RAPCA) authority to
implement and enforce certain national
emission standards  for hazardous air
pollutants (NESHAPS) within the six-county
                                                         IV-241
-------
              Federal Register  / Vol.  49.  No.  137  / Monday.  )uly 16.  1984  /  Rules and Regulations
area of RAPCA. According to the agreement.
the delegation was scheduled for termination
when the State of Ohio received delegated
authority for NESHAPS.
  Since the State of Ohio now has received a
full delegation of the NESHAPS program on
August 9.198?, this letter is to be considered
a termination notice of the September 11,
1979 delegation
  Although the agreement must be
terminated, we will continue to depend upon
your Agency in its new cooperative role with
the State of Ohio as the NESHAPS program is
administered Statewide. When needed, we
will also depend upon your cooperation in
supplying source information which was
accumulated during the period  the authority
was transferred to RAPCA.
  I appreciate your 3 years of effort in
implementing the NESHAPS program in your
Region as well as your initiative in taking the
lead in the State by assuming responsibility
for the NESHAPS program. If you have need
for further inquiry, please contact Ron \fan
Mersbergen, at (312) 886-6036, or me.
      Sincerely yours.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
E. Wisconsin
  On August 10.1983, the Secretary of
the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources requested a partial delegation
of authority to implement any existing
and future NSPS and NESHAPS and,
futhermoi-e, full authority for such
standards upon notice to USEPA that
the State has adopted similar standards.
An automatic delegation  with a
temporary partial feature was granted
on  September 27,1983 and is published
below. The State was previously
granted full delegation on September 29,
1976 for twelve NSPS  and three
NESHAPS which was published as a
notice in the  Federal Register on March
30,1977 (42 FR 16845).
  In accordance with the September 27,
1983 delegation, the State on October 20,
1983 informed USEPA that  they adopted
all Federal NSPS and  NESHAPS which
were promulgated as of July 1,1983.
September 27,1983.
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Carroll D. Besadny,
Secretary, Bureau of Air Manogement.
    Wisconsin Department of Natural
    Resources, P.O. Box 7921. Madison,
    Wisconsin 53707
  Dear Mr. Besadny: In response to your
August 10,1983 letter, we are amending the
delegation of authority agreement for New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Pollutants (NESHAPS). Since the original
 delegation on September 28.1976. a number
 of additional NSPS and NESHAPS have been
 promulgated and changes in delegation policy
 have been made. Therefore this letter
 replaces the original delegation.
  We have reviewed the pertinent laws and
 regulations of the State of Wisconsin and the
State's history of implementing the programs.
and we have determined that the State of
Wisconsin has the resources and the ability
to implement and enforce the NSPS and
NESHAPS programs for the regulations
appropriately promulgated by the State, and
to implement the additional responsibilities
requested in your August 10.1983 letter.
Therefore, subject to the specific conditions
and exceptions set forth below, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA)
hereby grants delegation of authority to the
State of Wisconsin to implement and enforce
the NSPS and NESHAPS as follows:
  A. Authority for all sources located or to be
located in the State of Wisconsin subject to
the NSPS promulgated in 40 CFR Part 60 This
delegated authority includes all future
standards promulgated for additional
pollutants and source categories and all
revisions and amendments  to existing and
future standards
  B Authority for all sources located 01  to be
located in the State of Wisconsin subject to
the NESHAPS promulgated in 40 CFR Part 61.
This delegation  includes all future standards
promulgated for additional pollutants and
sources categories and all revisions and
amendments to  existing and future standards.
  This delegation is based upon the following
conditions and exceptions.
  1. This delegation letter replaces the
previous NSPS and NESHAPS delegation
letter  of September 28,1976.
  2. Certain provisions of the NSPS and
NESHAPS regulations allow the
Administrator to take further standard setting
actions. Such standard setting provisions
cannot be delegated and these are as follows:
  a. Alternative means of emission
limitations in Clean Air Act (CAA) lll(b)(3)
which is exemplified in 40 CFR 60.114a.
  b. Innovative technology waivers in CAA
Section lll(j).
  c. Alternative testing times for Primary
Aluminum  Reduction Plants in 40 CFR
60.195(d).
  d. Approval of equivalent and alternate
test methods in 40 CFR 60.8(b) (2) and (3).
  e. Establishment of alternative opacity
standards in 40 CFR 60.11(e).
  f. Issuance of commercial demonstration
permits under 40 CFR 60.45a.
  g. The portions of the Stationary Gas
Turbine Standards dealing with nitrogen fuel
allowance in 40 CFR 60.332(a) and the
ambient condition correction factors in 40
CFR 60.335(a)(ii).
   3. The following provisions are included in
this delegation  and can only be exercised on
a case-by-case  basis. When any of these
authorities are exercised, the State must
notify USEPA Region V in  accordance with
 the reporting procedures referred to in item
10 of the conditions and exceptions.
   a. Waiver of a performance test in
 accordance with 40 CFR 60.8(b)(4), or make
 minor modifications in accordance with 40
 CFR 60.8(b)(l).
   b. Determination of representative
 conditions for the purpose of conducting a
 performance test as allowed by 40 CFR
 60.8(c).
   c. Approval of smaller sampling times or
 sampling volumes under 40 CFR 60.46 (b) or
 (d).
  d Authorization of both the use of wel
collectors in accordance with 40 CFR 61 23(b)
and also the use of filtering equipment as
explained in 40 CFR 61.23(c).
  e. Approval of sampling techniques as
specified in 40 CFR 61.43(a).
  4. The Federal NSPS regulations in 40 CFR
Part 60. as amended, do not provide for
granting waivers by source class of testing
requirements or granting variances, hence
this delegation does not convey to the State
of Wisconsin authority to grant waivers by
source class of testing requirements or grant
variances from NSPS regulations
  5. For Federal NSPS and NESHAPS
pollutants and source categories and for
amendments to existing Federal NSPS and
NESHAPS for which the State of Wisconsin
has not promulgated regulations or
amendments, the State will exercise a partial
delegation by performing the administrative
and engineering responsibilities with respect
to plan review, notifications and
recordkepping. and performance testing all in
accordance with items 9 and 12 of the
conditions and exceptions. The partial
delegation does not include applicability
determinations or enforcement actions. The
administrative and engineering
responsibilities shall continue  until such time
as the State promulgates appropriate
regulations or amendments at which time the
State is given fully delegated responsibility
as is cited in item 6 of the conditions and
exceptions.
  6. implementation and enforcement of the
NSPS and NESHAPS in the State of
Wisconsin will be the primary responsibility
of the State of Wisconsin for those standards
for which the State has promulgated
appropriate regulations and for which the
State has notified the Regional
Administrator. The authority includes but is
not limited to those responsibilities in item 5.
routine applicability determinations in
accordance with item 7, and enforcement
actions.
  7. The  State will make routine applicabilitj
determinations pertaining to sources subject
to NSPS and NESHAPS regulations. Where
previous determinations exist in the form of
written guidance  from USEPA, the State's
source specific determinations will be in
accordance With such written guidance. The
U.S. EPA will periodically forward such U.S
EPA  compiled determinations to the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
 (WDNR). If a non-routine situation arises
 which is not covered by a U.S EPA
 determination, the State will forward the
 details to U.S. EPA Region V for final
 resolution. A U.S. EPA resolution is to be
 obtained on any matter involving the non-
 routine interpretation of Sections 111 or 112
 of the Clean Air Act and of 40 CFR Parts 60
 and 61 to the extent that application,
 implementation, administration, or
 enforcement of these sections have not been
 covered by determinations of guidance sent
 to the WDNR.
   8. If, after appropriate discussions with the
 WDNR,  the Regional Administrator
 determines  that a State procedure is
 inadequate  for implementing or enforcing any
 NSPS or NESHAPS in accordance with item 5
                                                           IV-242
-------
Federal Register  /  Vol. 49. No.  137 / Monday.  July 16.  1984  /  Rules  and  Regulations
or 6 of the conditions and exceptions, or is
not being effectively carried out, this
delegation may be revoked in whole or in
part Any such revocation shall be effective
as of the dates specified in a Notice of
Revocation to the Secretary of WDNR.
  9. If the State of Wisconsin determines that
a violation of a NSPS or NESHAPS exists, the
WDNR shali immediately notify U.S. EPA,
Region V. of the nature of the violation
together with a brief description of the State's
efforts or strategy to secure compliance. With
respect to those NSPS and NESHAPS for
which the State has only administrative and
engineering responsibilities and during the
time which the State has only administrative
and engineering responsibility, any violations
will be immediately referred to U.S. EPA,
Region V. The U.S. EPA may at any time
exercise its concurrent enforcement authority
pursuant to Section 113 of the Clean Air Act,
as amended, with regard to any violation of
an NSPS or NESHAPS regulation.
  10. The WDNR and the U.S. EPA Region V
will develop a system of Communication for
the purpose of insuring that both agencies are
informed on (a) the current compliance status
of subject sources in the State of Wisconsin:
(bl the interpretation of applicable
regulations; (c) the description of sources and
source inventory data: and (d) compliance
test waivers and approvals listed in item 3 of
the conditions and exceptions. The reporting
provisions in 40 CFR 60.4 and 61.04 requiring
sources to make submissions to the U.S. EPA
are met by sending such submissions to the
WDNR. The State will make available this
information to the U.S. EPA on a case-by-
case basis.
  11. At no time shall the State of Wisconsin
enforce a State NSPS or NESHAPS regulation
less stringent than the Federal requirements
for NSPS or NESHAPS (40 CFR Parts 60 or 61
as amended) in accordance with 116 of the
CAA
  12. The WDNR will utilize the methods
specified in 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61 in
performing source  tests pursuant to the
regulations.
  13. From time to time when appropriate, the
State will revise its NSPS and NESHAPS to
include the provisions of Federal
amendments and newly promulgated
regulations for NSPS and NESHAPS pollutant
and source categories.
   A notice announcing this delegation will be
published in the Federal Register in the near
future. This delegation becomes effective  as
of the date of this letter. Unless the U.S. EPA
receives written notice from the WDNR of
 objections within 10 days of receipt of this
 letter, it will be deemed that the State has
 accepted all the conditions and exceptions of
 this delegation.
        Sincerely yours.
 Alan  Levin.
 Acting Regional Administrator

   If further revisions are made to any of
 the current delegation agreements in
 Region V, USEPA will publish these in
 the Federal Register.
 (Sec. lll(c).  sec. 112(d) and sec 301(a), Clean
 Air Act (42 U.S.C.  7411(c), 7412(d) and
 7601(a))
  Dated: July 6,1984.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
(FR Doc. 84-18701 Filed 7-13-84. 8.45 am)
BILLING CODE «5*0-5O-M
40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

[OAR-FRL-2631-2]

Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources; National Emisson
Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants, Delegation of Authority to
Ohio
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: On August 9,1982, authority
was delegated to Ohio to implement and
enforce the national emission standards
for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPS).
Reports and notification from New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
and NESHAPS sources in Ohio must
now be submitted to the State, through
the appropriate district or local agency
office instead of to the EPA. Therefore,
EPA today is adding the appropriate
addresses for the State of Ohio to 40
CFR Part 61. It  is also making
corrections to the Ohio addresses in Part
60.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 9, 1982.
ADDRESSES: The related material in
support of the delegation may be
examined during normal business hours
at the following locations. Support
materials for the delegations are
available in the Region V office.
Region V Environmental Protection
   Agency, Air  and Radiation Branch,
   230 South Dearborn Street, Chicago,
   Illinois 60604
Ohio—Ohio Environmental Protection
   Agency, 361  East Broad Street,
   Columbus, Ohio 43216
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ronald J. Van Mersbergen, Air and
Radiation Branch (5ARB-26), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 230
 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois
60604, (312) 886-6056.
 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant
 to section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act,
 the Director of the Ohio Environmental
 Protection Agency requested on June 2,
 1982 authority to implement and enforce
 all the NESHAPS.  After a review of the
 request, the appropriate State laws and
 regulations, and the State's new source
 review program, the Regional
 Administrator of Region V determined
 that the State procedures in Ohio were
 adequate to implement and enforce the
 NESHAPS program. The NESHAPS
                                                                    program was transferred to the State of
                                                                    Ohio on August 9,1982 in a letter of
                                                                    delegation agreement. The delegation
                                                                    agreement is published elsewhere in
                                                                    today's Federal Register.
                                                                      Effective immediately all information
                                                                    required pursuant to 40 CFR Part 61 from
                                                                    sources in Ohio must be sent directly to
                                                                    the appropriate district office or local
                                                                    agency rather than the EPA Region V
                                                                    office. The appropriate addresses for
                                                                    sources in the various counties are
                                                                    provided in 40 CFR 61.04(b)(KK). Finally,
                                                                    EPA is taking this opportunity today to
                                                                    update the Ohio addresses in 40 CFR
                                                                    60.4 to reflect administrative changes
                                                                    within Ohio's NSPS program.
                                                                      Under Executive Order 12291, EPA
                                                                    must judge whether or not a publication
                                                                    is "major" and, if it is "major", whether
                                                                    it is subject to the requirements of a
                                                                    regulatory impact analysis. The
                                                                    delegation of authority is not "major"
                                                                    because it is an administrative change,
                                                                    and no additional burdens are imposed
                                                                    on the parties affected.

                                                                    List of Subjects

                                                                    40  CFR Part 60

                                                                      Air pollution control. Aluminum,
                                                                    Ammonium sulfate plants, Cement
                                                                    industry, Coal, Copper, Electric power
                                                                    plants, Fossil-fuel fired steam
                                                                    generators, Glass and glass products,
                                                                    Grain, Intergovernmental relations, Iron,
                                                                    Lead, Metals, Motor  vehicles, Nitric acid
                                                                    plants, Paper and paper products
                                                                     industry, Petroleum,  Phosphate fertilizer,
                                                                     Sewage disposal, Steel, Sulfuric acid
                                                                     plants, Waste treatment and disposal,
                                                                     Zinc.

                                                                     40 CFR Part 61

                                                                       Intergovernmental relations, Air
                                                                     pollution control, Asbestos, Beryllium,
                                                                     Hazardous materials, Mercury, Vinyl
                                                                     chloride.
                                                                     (Sec. lll(c).  112(d) and 301(a) of the Clean
                                                                     Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7411(c),
                                                                     7412(d) and 7601(a)).
                                                                       Dated: July 6,1984.
                                                                     Valdas V. Adamkus,
                                                                     Regional Administrator.

                                                                     PART 60—STANDARDS OF
                                                                     PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
                                                                     STATIONARY SOURCES

                                                                        Part 60 of Chapter 1, Title 40 of the
                                                                     Code of Federal Regulations is amended
                                                                     as follows:
                                                                        1. Section 60.4(b) is amended by
                                                                     revising subparagraph (KK) to read as
                                                                     follows:
                                           IV-243
-------
          Federal Register  /  Vol. 49. No.  137 /  Monday, July 16. 1984  / Rules  and  Regulations
PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS

  Part 61 of Chapter 1. Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
  1. Section 61.04(b) is amended by
revising subparagraph (KK) to read as
follows:

§61.04  AddrtM.
*****

  (b) * *  *
  (KK) State of Ohio-
Medina, Summit and Portage Counties;
  Director, Air Pollution Control, 177 South
  Broadway, Akron, Ohio 44308.
Stark County; Director, Air Pollution Control
  Division, Canton City Health Department,
  City Hall Annex Second Floor, 218
  Cleveland Avenue S.W., Canton, Ohio
  44702.
Butler, Clermont, Hamilton and Warren
  Counties; Director, Southwestern Ohio Air
  Pollution Control Agency, 2400 Beekman
  Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45214.
Cuyahoga County; Commissioner, Division of
  Air Pollution Control, Department of Public
  Health and Welfare, 2735 Broadway
  Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44115.
Belmont, Carroll, Columbians, Harrison,
  Jefferson, and Monroe Counties; Director,
  North Ohio Valley Air Authority
  (NOVAA), 814 Adams Street, Steubenville,
  Ohio 43952.
Clark, Darke, Greene, Miami, Montgomery,
  and Preble Counties; Supervisor, Regional
  Air Pollution Control Agency (RAPCA),
  Montgomery County Health Department,
  451 West Third Street, Dayton, Ohio 45402
Lucas County and the City of Rossford (in
  Wood County); Director, Toledo Pollution
  Control Agency, 26 Main Street, Toledo,
  Ohio 43605.
Adams, Brown, Lawrence, and Scioto
  Counties; Engineer-Director, Air Division,
  Portsmouth City Health Department, 728
  Second Street, Portsmouth, Ohio 45662.
Allen, Ashland, Auglaize, Crawford,
  Defiance, Erie, Fulton, Hancock, Hardin,
  Henry, Huron, Marion, Mercer, Ottawa,
  Paulding, Putnam, Richland, Sandusky,
  Seneca, Van Wert, Williams, Wood (except
  City of Rossford), and Wyandot Counties;
  Ohio Environmental Protection Agency,
  Northwest District Office, Air Pollution
  Group 1035 Devlac Grove Drive, Bowling
  Green, Ohio 43402.
Ashtabula, Holmes, Lorain, and Wayne
  Counties; Ohio Environmental Protection
  Agency, Northeast District Office, 2110
  East Aurora Road, Twinsburg, Ohio 44087.
Athens, Coshocton, Gallia, Guernsey,
  Hocking, Jackson, Meigs, Morgan,
  Muskingum. Noble. Perry, Pike. Ross.
  Tuscarawas, Vinton, and Washington
  Counties; Ohio Environmental Protection
  Agency, Southeast District Office, Air
  Pollution Group, 2195 Front Street, Logan.
  Ohio 43138.
Champaign, Clinton, Highland. Logan, and
  Shelby Counties; Ohio Environmental
  Protection Agency, Southwest District
  Office, 7 East Fourth Street, Dayton, Ohio
  45402.
Delaware, Fairfield, Fayette. Franklin. Knox.
  Licking, Madison, Morrow, Pickaway, and
  Union Counties; Ohio Environmental
  Protection Agency, Central District Office,
  Air Pollution Group. 361 EastyBroad Street.
  Columbus, Ohio 43215.
Geauga and Lake Counties: Lake County
  General Health District, Air Pollution
  Control, 105 Main Street, P.O. Box 490
  Painesville, Ohio 44077
Mahoning and Trumbull Counties; Mahoning-
  Trumbull Air Pollution Control.
  Metropolitan Tower, Room 404,1 Federal
  Plaza West, Youngstown, Ohio 44503
*****

|FR Doc. S4-18700 Filled 7-1J-44. 8.45 am)
MUINO CODC M60-60-M
 106
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40CFRPart61

[AD-FRL-2634-1]

National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Reference
Methods; Method 105 Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This action revises "Method
105, Determination of Mercury in
Wastewater Treatment Plant Sewage
Sludges." Changes in the sampling and
analytical procedure, which will
improve the precision and accuracy of
the method, are being made as a result
of field and laboratory evaluations of
the method.
  In addition, it corrects an error in
Methods 101 and 101A which resulted
when several sentences are
inadvertently deleted before
publication.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 12,1984.
  Under section 307(b)(l) of the Clean
Air Act, judicial review of this new
source performance standard is
available only by the filing of a petition
for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia within 60
days of today's publication of this rule.
Under section 307(b)(2) of the Clean Air
Act, the requirements that are the
subject of today's notice may not be
challenged later in civil or criminal
proceedings brought by EPA to enforce
these requirements.
  Docket. Docket Number A-83-31,
containing materials relevant to this
rulemaking, is available for public
inspection and copying between 8:00
a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, at EPA's at Central Docket
Section (LE-131), West Tower Lobby,
Gallery 1, Waterside Mall, 401 M Street,
SW.. Washington. D,C. 20460. A
reasonable fee may be charged for
copying.
POM FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Mr. Gary McAlister or Mr. Roger
Shigehara, Emission Measurement
Branch, Emission Standards and
Engineering Division (MD-19), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
                                                         IV-244
-------
        Federal Register / Vol.  49, No. 178 / Wednesday. September 12. 1984  /  Rules and Regulations
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone (919) 541-2237.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
revised Method 105 differs from the
present method as follows: (1) A sludge-
blending procedure has been added; (2)
the sludge sample size has been
increased from 3.0 liters; and (3) twenty-
mi portions of wet sludge are taken for
mercury analysis rather than the 0.2-g
portions of dried sludge now required.
Public Participation
  The revisions were proposed and
published in the Federal Register in
November 1983 (48 FR 51084). The
opportunity to request a public hearing
was presented to provide interested
persons the opportunity for oral
presentation of data, views,  or
arguments concerning the proposed
revisions, but no person desired to make
an oral presentation. The public
comment period was from November 4,
1983, to January 8,1984. Two comment
letters were received concerning issues
relative to the proposed revisions. The
comments have been carefully
considered and, where determined to be
appropriate by the Administrator,
changes have been made.

Comments and Changes To The
Proposed Method Revisions
  Two comments letters were received
on the proposed revisions. The
comments and responses are
summarized in this preamble. Some of
the comment letters contained multiple
comments.
  1. One commenter reported that the
aqua regia digestion procedure
described in Method 105 did not give
valid results. He recommended that the
sulfuric acid digestion specified in
Environmental Protection Agency
Methods 245.1 and 245.5 be used
instead.
  EPA has successfully used the aqua
regia digestion and has received no
other negative comments about it.
However, under § 60.8{b), the
Administrator can approve alternative
procedures which can be demonstrated
to give acceptable results.
  2. One commenter reported that he
had obtained adequate homogenizetion
of 3-liter sludge samples by hand
blending and kneading the samples in a
heavy plastic bag. The relative standard
deviation for the samples ranged from
2.8 to 29.98 percent. He noted that the
cost of the equipment for mechnical
mixing could be as much as $2,100 and
questioned whether the expense was
justified if manual mixing could produce
adequate sample precision.
  Method 105 now requires 15-liter
samples which are much larger than the
3-liter samples measured by this
commenter. During collaborative testing
of the method, EPA determined that
manual mixing of these large samples
could not provide adequate
homogenization, but the mechanical
blending procedure described in Method
105 did produce adequate mixing.
Because a homogeneous sample is
necessary to obtain consistent results,
EPA believes that mechanical mixing of
samples is required and that the need
for representative samples justifies the
added expense.
  3. Another commenter noted that
unless the sludge charging rate, Q, in the
equation in § 61.54 for calculating
mercury emissions, was on a dry basis,
the equation would overestimate the
emission rate. This commenter
suggested that this be corrected by
dividing the charging rate by the weight
fraction of solids, F_.
  EPA agrees. The equation in 8 61.54
(3)(d) has been changed so that the
sludge charging rate will be on a dry
basis.
  4. One commenter thought that in
Appendix B, Section 5.1, m is the mass
of mercury in the aliquot analyzed, not
the mass in the digested sample.
  EPA agrees that m is the mass of
mercury in the aliquot of digested
sample analyzed instead of the whole
digested sample and has made the
necessary change.
  5. One commenter wrote that the
solids content after mixing in the mortar
mixer, Fm, has no place in Equation
105-4. The commenter thought that
Equation 105-4 should read as follows:

            M=C«(avg)/F-,

  EPA agrees Equation 105-4 was
incorrect and has corrected the equation
as shown above.
Docket
  The docket is an organized and
complete file of the information
considered by EPA in the development
of this rulemaking. The docket is a
dynamic file, since material is added
throughout the rulemaking development.
The docketing system is intended to
allow members of the public and
industries  involved to identify readily
and locate documents so that they can
intelligently and effectively participate
in the rulemaking process. Along with
the statement of basis and purposes of
the proposed and promulgated rule and
EPA responses to significant comments,
the contents of the docket will serve as
the record in case of judicial review
(Section 307(d)(7)(A)).
Miscellaneous

  This rulemaking would not impose
any additional emission measurement
requirements on any facilities. Rather,
the rulemaking would simply revise an
existing test method associated with
emission measurement requirements
that would apply irrespective to this
rulemaking.
  Under Executive Order 12291, EPA
must judge whether a regulation is
"major" and, therefore, subject to the
requirements of a regulatory impact
analysis. This regulation is not major
because it will not have an annual effect
on the economy of $100 million or more;
it will not result in a major increase in
costs or prices; and there will be no
significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or on the
ability of U.S.-based enterprises to
compete with foreign-based enterprises
in domestic or export markets. It has
been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget for review.
  Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
605(b), EPA must consider the economic
effect of this standard on small entities.
Most, if not all, of the facilities covered
by this regulation are owned by State or
local governments would not be small
entities.
  This proposed  rulemaking is issued
under the authority of sections 112,114,
and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 7412, 7414, and
7601(a)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 61

  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, Incorporation
by Reference, Can surface coating,
Sulfuric acid plants, Industrial organic
chemicals, Organic solvent cleaners,
Fossil fuel steam generators, Fiberglass
insulation, Synthetic fibers.
  Dated: September 5,1984.
William D. Ruckelshaus,
Administrator.

PART 61—[AMENDED]

  40 CFR Part 61 is amended by revising
S 61.54 and Methods 101,101A, and 105
of Appendix B to read as follows:
  1. In S 61.54. paragraphs (c)(l), (c)(3),
and (d) are revised as follows:
                                                    IV-245
-------
        Federal  Register / Vol. 49, No. 178 / Wednesday. September 12. 1984  /  Rules and Regulations
§ 61.54  Sludge campling.
*     •     *     t     #
  (c) * * *
  (1) The sludge shall be sampled
according to Method 105—
Determination of Mercury in
Wastewater Treatment Plant Sewage
Sludges. A total of three composite
samples shall be obtained within an
operating period of 24 hours. When  the
24-hour operating period is not
continuous, the total sampling period
shall not exceed 72 hours after the first
grab sample is obtained. Samples shall
not be exposed to any condition that
may result in mercury contamination or
loss.
*     *     *     *     *
  (3) The sampling, handling.
preparation, and analysis of sludge
samples shall be accomplished
according to Method  105 in Appendix B
of this part.
  (d) The mercury emissions shall be
determined by use of the following
equation.
             EH,-
                      1000
 where:
 EH, = Mercury emissions, g/da>
 M-Mercury concentration of sludge on a dry
     solids basis, jig/g.
 Q  Sludge changing rate, kg/day.
 r\
one of the 20-mi blended samples from
Section 4.2  in an oven at 105 " C to constan!
weight. Cool in a desiccator, and weigh, and
record the dry  weight of the sample
  4.4  Aqua Regia Digestion of Blended
Samples. To each of the three remaining 20
ml samples from Section 4.2. add 25 ml of
aqua regia. and digest the samples on a hot
plate at low heat (do not boil) for 30 mm. or
until samples are a pale yellow-brown color
and are void of the dark brown color
characteristic of organic matter. Remove fro:.
the hot plate, and allow to cool.
   Filter each digested sample separately
through an S and S No.  588 filter, or
equivalent, and rinse the filter contents with
50ml of water. Transfer the filtrate and fille:
washing to a 100-ml volumetric flask, and
carefully dilute to volume with water
   4.5  Solids Content of Sludge Before
Blending. Using a 200-ml beaker, remove tuo
100-ml portions of mixed sludge from the
mortar mixer,  and place in separate, tared
400-ml beakers. Reweigh each beaker to
determine the  exact amount of sludge added
Dry in an oven at 105 ' C. and  cool in a
desiccator to constant weight.
   4.6  Analysis for Mercury. The same as
Method 101A, Sections 7.4 and 8. except for
the following variation.
   4.6.1  Spectrophotometer and Recorder
Calibration. The mercury response may be
 measured by either peak height or peak an a
 Note: The temperature  of the solution affects
 the rate at which elemental Hg is released
 from solution  and, consequently, it affects th>-
 shape of the absorption curve (area) and the
 point of maximum absorbance (peak heigV.'.)
 Therefore, to obtain reproducible results
 bring all solutions to room temperature
 before use.
   Set the Spectrophotometer wavelength tti
 253.7 nm. Make certain the optical ct-li is at
 the minimum  temperature that will  prevent
 water condensation from occurring. Then s-et
 the recorder scale as follows: Using a 25-ml
 graduated cylinder, add 25 ml oi water to the
 aeration-cell bottle Add three d^ops of
 Antifoam B to the bottle, and then pipet 5.0
 ml of the working Hg standard solution into
 the aeration cell
   Note.—Always add the Hg containing
 solution to the aeration cell after the 25 nil of
 water
   Place a Teflon-coated stirring bar in the
 bottle. Add 5  ml of 15-percent HNO3 and 5 nil
 of 5-percent KMnO4 to the aeration bottle.
 and mix well. Next, attach the bottle section
  to the bubbler section  of the aeration cell
 and make certain that: (1) the exit arm
  stopcock of the aeiation cell (Figure 105-3) is
  closed (so that Hg will not prematu-ely enter
  the optical cell when the reducing agent is
  being added), and (2) there is no flow thron'-h
  the bubbler. Add 5 ml  of sodium chloride
                                                            IV-246
-------
        Federal Register / Vol. 49,  No. 178 / Wednesday, September 12, 1984  / Rules and Regulations
hydroxylamine solution to the aeration bottle
through the side arm, and mix. If the solution
does not become colorless, add additional
sodium chloride-hydroxylamine solution in 1-
ml increments until the solution is colorless.
Now add 5 ml of tin (II) solution to the
aeration bottle through the side arm, and
immediately stopper the side arm. Stir the
solution for 15 sec, turn on the recorder, open
the aeration cell  exit arm stopcock, and then
immediately initiate aeration with continued
stirring. Determine the maximum absorbance
of the standard, and set this value to read 90
percent of the recorder full scale.
  5. Calculations.
  5.1  Nomenclature.
Q» = Concentration of Hg in the digested
    sample, ng/g.
Frt,=Weight fraction of solids in the blended
    sludge.
F«=Weight fraction of solids in the
    collected sludge after mixing.
M = Hg content of the sewage sludge (on a
    dry basis), fig/g.
m = Mass of Hg in the aliquot of digested
    sample analyzed, fig.
V.=Volume of digested sample analyzed, ml.
V.=Volume of digested sample, ml.
W,=Weight of empty sample flask, g.
Wfc=Weight of sample flask and sample, g.
WM=Weight of sample flask and sample
    after drying, g.
Wb=Weight of empty sample beaker, g.
W6.=Weight of sample beaker and sample,
    8-
WM=Weight of sample beaker and sample
    after drying, g.
  5.2  Mercury Content of Digested Sample
(Wet Basis). For each sample, correct the
average maximum absorbance of the two
consecutive samples whose peak heights
agree with ±3 percent of their average for
the contribution of the blank. Use the
calibration curve and these corrected
averages to determine the final Hg
concentration in the solution cell for each
sludge sample.
  Calculate the total Hg content in each gram
of digested sample correcting for any
dilutions made to bring the sample into the
working range of the spectrophotometer and
for the weight of the sludge portion digested.
                                    mV,
                                V. (Wtt- W,)
                                                          Eq. 105-1
  5.3 Solids Content of Blended Sludge.
 Determine the solids content of the 20-ml
 aliquot dried in the oven at 105 *C (Section
 4.3).

              Wft-WM
      F-,=l—,	 Eq. 105-2
               W..-W,
   5.4  Solids Content of Bulk Sample (after
 mixing in mortar mixer). Determine the solids
 content of each 100-ml aliquot (Section 4.5),
 and average the results.

              W,,-WM
      Fm=l—	  Eq. 105-3
   5.5  Mercury Content of Bulk Sample (Dry
 Basis). Average the results from the three
 samples from each 8-hr composite sample,
 and calculate the Hg concentration of the
 composite sample on a dry basis.
       M =
              C.(avg)
                        Eq. 105-4
  4. Bradenberger, H. and H. Bader. The
Determination of Nanogram Levels of
Mercury in Solution by a Flameless Atomic
Absorption Technique. Atomic Absorption
Newsletter. ftlOl. 1967.
  5. Analytical Quality Control Laboratory
(AQCL). Mercury in Sediment (Cold Vapor
Technique) (Provisional Method). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Cincinnati,
Ohio. April 1972.
  6. Kopp, J.F.,  M.C. Longbottom. and L.B.
Lobring. "Cold Vapor" Method for
Determining Mercury. Journal AWWA.
«{l):20-25.1972.
  7. Manual of Methods for Chemical
Analysis of Water and Wastes. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Cincinnati,
Ohio. Publication No.  EPA-624/2-74-003.
December 1974. p. 118-138.
  8. Mitchell, W.]., M.R. Midgett.). Suggs, R.J.
Velton, and D.  Albrinch. Sampling and
Homogenizing  Sewage for Analysis.
Environmental Monitoring and Support
Laboratory, Office of Research and
Development, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park, N.C. March
1979. 7 p.
[FR Doc. 64-24061 Filed 9-11-84. 8:45 an)
WLUNO CODE 6SM-SO-M
   6.  Bibliography.
   1. Bishop, J.N. Mercury in Sediments,
 Ontario Water Resources Commission.
 Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 1971.
   2. Salma, M. Private Communication. EPA
 California/Nevada Basin Office. Alameda,
 California.
   3. Hatch, W.R. and W.L. Ott. Determination
 of Sub-Microgram Quantities of Mercury by
 Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry.
 Analytical Chemistry. «?.2085.1968.
107
 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
 AGENCY

 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

 [OAR-4-FRL-2668-5]

 Standards of Performance for New
 Stationary Sources National Emission
 Standards for Hazardous Air
 Pollutants; Supplemental Delegation of
 Authority to South Carolina

 AGENCY: Environmental Protection
 Agency.
 ACTION: Notice of delegation of
 authority.

 SUMMARY: On February 1, April 17, and
 25,1984, the State of South Carolina
 requested a delegation of authority for
 the implementation and enforcement of
 several additional categories of New
 Source Performance Standards and one
 category of National Emission
 Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants.
 EPA's review of South Carolina's laws,
 rules, and regulations  showed  them to
 be adequate for the implementation and
 enforcement of these Federal standards,
 and the Agency made  the delegation as
 requested.
 EFFECTIVE DATE: These delegations of
 authority to South Carolina were
 effective April 6 and May 10,1984.
 ADDRESSES: Copies of the requests for
 the delegations of authority and EPA's
 letters of delegation are available for
 public inspection at EPA's Region IV
 Office, 345 Courtland  Street, N.E..
 Atlanta, Georgia 30365.
    All reports required pursuant to the
 newly delegated standards should not
 be submitted to the EPA Region IV
 Office, but should instead be submitted
 to the following address: Mr. Otto
 Pearson, PE, Bureau of Air Quality
 Control, South Carolina Department of
 Heelth and Environmental Control, 2600
 Bull Street, Columbia, South Carolina
 29201.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
 Al Yeast (404) 881-3286.
 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:  Sections
 101,110, and 111 of the Clean Air Act
 authorize the Administrator to delegate
 his authority to implement and enforce
 the National Standards of Performance
 for New Stationary Sources (NSPS) and
 the National Emission Standards for
                                                         IV-247
-------
         Federal Register  / Vol. 49, No.  179 / Thursday. September 13, 19B4 / Rules and  Regulations
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), to
any State which has submitted adequate
implementation and enforcement
procedures.
  On October 26,1976. EPA delegated to
the State of South Carolina the authority
to implement the NSPS and NESHAP.
Subsequent NSPS delegations were
mada on March 17.1981. and March 22.
1902. On March 24.1983. South Carolina
requested that EPA delegate authority
for  the NSPS categories that had been
promulgated since the March 22,1982,
delegation. On February 1, April 17 and
25.1984, the State of South Carolina
requested delegation of authority for
several NSPS and NESHAP categories.
The NSPS categories requested are as
follows:
  1. Surface Coating of Metal Furniture.
40 CFR Part 60. Subpart EE. as
promulgated on October 29,1982.
  2. Industrial Surface Coating: Large
Appliances, 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart SS.
as promulgated on October 27,1982.
  3. Metal Coil Surface Coating. 40 CFR
Part 60, Subpart TT. as promulgated on
November 1,1982.
  4. Synthetic Fiber Production
Facilities, 40 CFR Part 60. Subpart HHH
as promulgated on April 5,1984.
  5. Metallic Mineral Processing, 40
CFR Part 60, Subpart LL. as promulgated
on February 21,1964.
  6. Pressure Sensitive Tape and Label
Coating Operations, 40 CFR Part 60,
Subpart RR, as promulgated on October
18.1983.
  7. Equipment Leaks of VOC in the
Synthetic Organic Chemicals
Manufacturing Industry, 40 CFR Part 60,
Subpart W, as promulgated on October
18.1983.
  8. Beverage Can Surface Coating
Industry. 40 CFR Part 60. Subpart WW,
as promulgated on August 25,1983.
  9. Bulk Gasoline Terminals, 40 CFR
Part 60, Subpart XX. as promulgated on
August 18.1983.
  The NESHAP category being
requested is:'
  1. Asbestos, 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart
M. as promulgated on April 5.1984.
  Action. Since review of the pertinent
South Carolina laws, rules, and
regulations showed them to be adequate
for the implementation and enforcement
of the aforementioned categories of
NSPS and NESHAP. I delegated to the
State of South Carolina my authority for
the  source categories listed above on
April C and May 10,1984.
  The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this delegation from the
requirements of section 3 of the
Executive Order 12291.
  This notice ii issued under the authority of
•actions 101.110. Ill and 301 of thf Clean Air
Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401, 7410, 7411,
and 7601).
  Dated: August 31.1984
John A. Little.
Acting Regional Administrator.
|FR Doc W-MOOO Film) B-12-M: 145 im|
BILLING CODE (MO-SO-M
                                      108
                                      ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
                                      AGENCY

                                      40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

                                      [A-8-FRL-2671-1]

                                      Standards of Performance for New
                                      Stationary Sources and National
                                      Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
                                      Pollutants Delegation of Authority In
                                      Region VIII

                                      AGENCY: Environmental Protection
                                      Agency.
                                      ACTION: Final rulemaking.

                                      SUMMARY: This notice is to clear up any
                                      confusion which may have arisen
                                      concerning the specific subparts of the
                                      Federal New Source Performance
                                      Standards {NSPS) and National
                                      Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
                                      Pollutants (NESHAPS) which are
                                      delegated to each of the States in EPA
                                      Region VIII to enforce. These States are
                                      Colorado, Montana, North Dakota,
                                      South Dakota. Utah and Wyoming.
                                      EFFEcnvt DATE: September 17,1984.
                                                   IV-248
-------
         Federal Regular / Vol. 49, No. 181 / Monday.  September 17. 1984  / Rale» «nd Regulations
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dale M. Wells, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1860
Lincoln Street, Denver, Colorado 80295,
(303) 844-6131.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS)
are Federal regulations for industries
and pollutants of national concern.
These regulations were first
promulgated in 1971 and have been
delegated to the State* for enforcement
since 1974. The list of affected industries
has grown each year, however, and not
all industries have a potential for
locating in each of the States. As each
new subpart has been added, every
State has not always adopted an
equivalent regulation to enable State
enforcement.
  The State of Utah has incorporated by
reference all present and future NSPS
and NESHAPS regulations and does
have the authority and resources to
enforce them. Utah will automatically
receive delegation of each new NSPS
and NESHAPS subpart, as it is
promulgated. The other States must
adopt an equivalent  State regulation
prior to delegation.
  The lists below indicate the
delegation status of each State in Region
VIII for each NSPS and NESHAPS
subpart. This Notice is issued under the
authority of Sections 111 and 112 of the
Clean Air Act
(Sees. Ill and 112, 42 U.S.C. 7412 of the Clean
Air Act)

List of Subjects

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, Incorporation
by reference, Can surface coating,
Sulfuric acid plants, Industrial organic
chemicals, Organic solvent .cleaners,
Fossil fuel-fired steam generators,
Fiberglass insulation, Synthetic fibers.

40 CFR Pa ft 91
  Air pollution control, Asbestos,
Beryllium, Hazardous materials,
Mercury. Vinyl chloride.
  Dated. August B, 1984.
John G. W«Ues,
Regional Administrator.

PART 60-1 AMENDED]

  Title 40, Part 60 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
 PART 61—{AMENDED]

   Title 40, Part 61 of the Code of Federal
 Regulations is amended as follows:
 Subpart A—General Provisions

 {61.04  [Amended]
   In § 61.04 the table below is added as
 follows:
            DELEGATION STATUS OF NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDSOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (NESHAPS) IN REGION VIM

Subpart

B Asbestos 	 	





Colorado
(•
C
(•
(•
(•
(•


Montana






su
Nor* Dakota
)
)
)
)
)
O

te
South Dakota







Utah
O
C)
C)
C)
C)
C)


Wyoming


	



    •Indicates delegation

 |FF Doc 84-24494 Filed 9-14-M, 1:45 am)

 BttUNO CODE WW-SO-M
                                                    IV-249
-------
          Federal Register / Vol. 49.  No. 185 / Friday. September  21, 1984  /  Rules and Regulations
109
40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
[Docket Np. ACB-NY 8401; A-2-FRL-2675-
7]

Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS);
Delegation of Authority to the State of
New York
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Delegation of Authority.	

SUMMARY: Section lll(c) of the Clean
 Air Act permits EPA to delegate to the
 States the authority to implement and
 enforce the standards set out in 40 CFR
 Part 60, Standards of Performance for
 New Stationary Sources (NSPS) and 40
 CFR Part 61, National Emission
 Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
 (NESHAPS). On March 8,1984, in
 accordance with the agreement set out
 in EPA's previous delegation letter of
 July 14,1983 (48 FR 46535, October 13,
1983), EPA informed the State of New
York of those additions, changes and
revisions which had occurred since the
last delegation (from June 10,1984
through January 31,1984) and offered
delegation of those additions, changes
and revisions which EPA determined the
State of New York had the authority to
implement and enforce. On May 29,
1984, the  State of New York accepted
delegation of the  new NSPS sub-parts
and the revisions to the previously
delegated NSPS and NESHAPS
standards which  EPA offered in its
March 8,1984 letter. The State of New
York now has authority to implement
and enforce these standards.
Applications, reports and other
submittals required under these
regulations should now be sent to the
State's Department of Environmental
Conservation.
EFFECTIVE DATE:  June 6,1984.
ADDRESSES: Applications, reports and
other submittals required under those
NSPS and NESHAPS categories for
which the State of New York has
delegation should be addressed to the
appropriate regional office of the New
York State Department of
Environmental Conservation or the
central office at 50 Wolf Road, Albany,
New York 12233, Attention: Division of
Air, Bureau of Source Control.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
F. W. Giaccone, Chief, Air Compliance
Branch, EPA Region II. telephone (212)
264-9627 or FTS  264-3627,
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July
10,1983 EPA and the New York State
Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) entered into a
delegation agreement whereby, among
 other things, EPA would offer, every six
 months, delegation of those new
 categories of NSPS and NESHAPS
 standards that were promulgated by
 EPA during that six month period and
 that EPA found DEC had the authority to
 implement and enforce. Additionally,  by
 this July 10,1983 delegation agreement,
 EPA was to inform DEC of any changes
 or revisions to previously delegated
 NSPS or NESHAPS categories.
 Subsequently, DEC would accept
 delegation of these changes and
 revisions if DEC did not decline such
 delegation.
   On March 8,1984, EPA informed DEC
 of the new NSPS categories and those
 changes to previously delegated NSPS
 and NESHAPS categories.
   On April 18,1984 and again on May
 29,1984, the DEC responded to EPA's
 offer of delegation of the new NSPS
 Subparts RR, WW, and XX and the
 previously undelegated NSPS Subparts
 D and GG by accepting delegation of
                                                                           these NSPS Subparts. DEC also
                                                                           accepted delegation of all changes and
                                                                           revisions to the previously delegated
                                                                           NSPS and NESHAPS categories. DEC
                                                                           now has the authority to implement and
                                                                           enforce all NSPS and NESHAPS
                                                                           standards promulgated prior to February
                                                                           1,1984 except the following:

                                                                           NSPS
                                                                           40 CFR Part 60 Subpart Da
                                                                           40 CFR Part 60 Subpart VV

                                                                           NESHAPS
                                                                           40 CFR Part 61 Subpart M 145,146,147.
                                                                             150 & 152
                                                                             Effective immediately, all
                                                                           applications, reports, correspondence
                                                                           and other submittals required under the
                                                                           categories of NSPS and NESHAPS
                                                                           delegated to the State of New York
                                                                           should be sent to the address listed
                                                                           above.
                                                                             The Office of Management and Budget
                                                                           has exempted this action from the
                                                                           requirements of section 3 of Executive
                                                                           Order 12291.
                                                                             This Notice is issued under the
                                                                           authority of sections 111 and 112 of the
                                                                           Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.
                                                                           7411 and 7412).
                                                                             Dated: August 28,1984.
                                                                            Richard T. Dewling,
                                                                           Acting Regional Administrator.
                                                                            [FR Doc 84-24931 Filed 9-20-«4. 8.45 am]
                                                                            BILUHQ CODE KM-S&-M
                                                    IV-250
-------
Federal Register  / Vol. 49. No. 189  / Thursday.  September 27. 1984  / Rules and Regulation^
             110
             40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

             [A-9-FRL-2681-8]

             Delegation of New Source
             Performance Standards (NSPS) and
             National Emission Standards for
             Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP);
             State of Arizona

             AGENCY: Environmental Protection
             Agency (EPA).
             ACTION: Notice of delegation of
             authority.

             SUMMARY: The EPA hereby places the
             public on notice  of its delegation of
             NSPS and NESHAP authority to the
             Arizona Department of Health Services
             (ADHS). This action is necessary to
             bring the NSPS and NESHAP program
             delegations up to date with recent EPA
             promulgations and amendments of these
             categories. This action does not create
             any new regulatory requirements
             affecting the public. The effect of the
             delegation is to shift the primary
             program responsibility for the affected
             NSPS and NESHAP categories from EPA
             to State  and local governments.
             EFFECTIVE DATE: August 12, 1984.
             FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
             Julie A. Rose, New Source Section (A-3-
             1), Air Operations Branch, Air
             Management Division, EPA, Region 9,
             215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA
             94105, Tel: (415) 974-8236, FTS 454-8236.
             SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
               The ADHS has requested authority for
             delegation of certain NSPS and
             NESHAP categories. Delegation of
             authority was granted by a letter dated
             July 31,1984 and is reproduced in its
             entirety as follows:
             Mr. Charles Anders,
             Assistant Director for Environmental Health
                Services. Division of Environmental
                Health. Arizona Department of Health
                                                         Services. State Health Building, 1740
                                                         West Adams Street. Phoenix. AZ 85007.
                                                       Dear Mr. Anders: In response to your
                                                     request of June 26,1984.1 am pleased to
                                                     inform you that we are delegating to your
                                                     agency authority to implement and enforce
                                                     certain categories of New Source
                                                     Performance Standards (NSPS) and National
                                                     Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
                                                     Pollutants (NESHAP). We have reviewed
                                                     your request for delegation and have found
                                                     your present programs and procedures to be
                                                     acceptable with the exception of Subparl A,
                                                     General Provisions. This delegation includes
                                                     authority for the following source categories:

NSPS

NESHAP

40CFR
Part 60
•ubpan
Ka
CC
A.

  With regard to your Rule R9-3-801.
paragraphs (1) and (3), for Subpart A,
General Provisions, EPA cannot approve the
substitution of "Director, Arizona Department
of Health Services, for (EPA)
"Administrator." This is because EPA cannot
delegate certain sections of 40 CFR Part 60:
namely, SS 60.8(b)(2), 60.8(b)(3). and 60.11 (e)
of Subpart A. Section 60.8 applies to the
approval of alternate and equivalent test
methods. EPA must retain the authority to
approve alternate and equivalent methods
which effectively replace a reference test
method. This restriction on delegation does
not apply to 8 60.8(b)(l) which allows for
approval of minor modifications to reference
methods on a case-by-case basis. This
authority allows a field engineer to approve
deviations to methods that are necessary due
to site-specific problems or circumstances.
The Administrator also cannot delegate the
authority to grant an alternative opacity
standard under S 60.11(e). Therefore, Rule
No. R9-3-801 of the Arizona rules and
regulations cannot be approved to be
delegated.
  Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
your'agreement to follow all applicable
provisions of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61,
including use of EPA approved test methods
and procedures. The delegation is effective
upon the date of this letter unless the USEPA
receives written  notice from you of any
objections within 10 days of receipt of this
letter. A notice of this delegated authority
will be published in the Federal Register in
the near future.
      Sincerely,
Judith E. Ayres.
Regional Administrator.
  With respect to the areas under the
jurisdiction of the ADHS, all reports,
applications, submittals, and other
communications pertaining to the above
listed NSPS and NESHAP source
categories should be  directed to the
address shown in the letter of
delegation.
                                               IV-251
-------
         Federal Register / Vol.  49,  No. 189 / Thursday,  September 27, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
  The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
  1 certify that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
  This Notice is issued  under the
authority of section 111 of the Clean Air
Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857, et
seq.).
  Dated: September 17,1S84.
John Wise,
Acting Regional Administrator.
|FR Doc. 84-25581 Filed »-Z8-84 845 «m|
HLUNQ COOE 6S60-SO-*!
40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

(A-9-FRL- 2682-1]

Delegation of New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP);
State of Arizona

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of Delegation of
Authority.

SUMMARY: The EPA hereby places the
public on notice of its delegation on
NSPS and  NESHAP authority to the
Maricopa County Health Department
(MCHD) in the State  of Arizona. This
action is necessary to bring the NSPS
and NESHAP program delegations up to
date with recent EPA promulgations and
amendments of these categories. This
action does not create any new
regulatory requirements affecting the
public. The effect of the delegation is to
shift the primary program responsibility
for the affected NSPS and NESHAP
categories from EPA  to State and local
governments.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 13, 1984.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Julie A. Rose, New Source Section (A-3-
1), Air Operations Branch, Air
Management Division, EPA, Region 9,
215  Fremont Street. San Francisco, CA
94105, Tel: (415) 974-8236, FTS 454-8236.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
MCHD has requested authority for
delegation of certain NSPS and
NESHAP categories. Delegation of
authority was granted by a letter dated
July 31,1984 and is reproduced in its
entirety as follows:
Mr, Robert W. Evans,
 Chief Burecu of Air Pollution Control,
     Maricopa  County Health Department,
     1825 E. Roosevelt Street, Phoenix, AZ
     85006
  Dear Mr. Evans: In response to your
request of July 12.1984. 1 am pleased to
inform you that we are delegating to your
agency authority to implement and enforce
certain categories of New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAPS). We have reviewed
your request for delegation and have found
your present programs and procedures to be
acceptable. This delegation includes
authority for the following source categories:
                                 40 CFR
                                 part 60
                                 subpart
NSPS
   Surface coaling of metal furniture	—
   Lime manufacturing plants 	
   Metallic mineral processing plant*.	 .... .
   Graphic arts industry publication rotogravure
    pnrtting
   Pressure sensitive tape 1 label surface coal-
    ing operations
   Industrial surface coating large appliances ...
   Metal coil surface coating	_.
   Asphalt processing and aspnatt roofing manu-
    facture
   Synthetic organic chemical manufacturing m>
    dustr, equipment leaks of VOC
   Beverage can surface coahng industry	
   Bulk gasoline terminals 	
   Equipment leaks of VOC, petroleum refineries
    and synlhetc organic chemical manUactur-
    ing industry
   Synthetic «ber production facilities		
NEShAP.
   Equpmem Leaks (Fugitive Emission Sources)
    of Benzene
   Asbestos	
   Equipment Leaks (Fugitive Emission Sources)
    Benzene
 EE
j HH
la
 00

 RB.

 SE
 TT.
 UU

 W

 ww.
 XX.
IGGG.
  I wish to take this opportunity to clarify the
effect of EPA's delegation of Subpart A,
General Provisions to your agency on April 6,
1983. EPA's delegation does not authorize
your agency to approve alternate and
equivalent methods which effectively replace
a reference test method, unless the
modification is minor and the deviation is
necessary because of site-specific problems
or circumstances (see { 60.8(b)(l)). The
Administrator also cannot delegate the
authority to grant an alternative opacity
standard under f 60.11(e). Therefore, we
request that you amend paragraphs (A)(2)(a)
and (A)(2)(c) of your Rule 36 to indicate that
EPA, rather than the District, maintains
authorities identified in {J 60.8(b)(2).
60.8(b)(3), andeo.ll(e).
   Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
your agreement to follow all applicable
provisions of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 01,
including use of EPA's test methods and
procedures. The delegation is effective upon
the date of this letter unless the USEPA
receives written notice from you of any
objections within 10 days of receipt of this
letter. A notice of this delegated authority
will be published in the Federal Register in
the near future.
      Sincerely,
Judity E. Ayres,
Regional Administrator.
   With respect to the areas under the
 jurisdiction of the MCHD, all reports,
 applications, submittals,  and other
 communications pertaining to the above
 listed NSPS and NESHAP source
categories should be directed to the
NCHD at the address shown in the letter
of delegation.
  The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
  1 certify that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
  This Notice is issued under the
authority of section 111 of the Clean eir
Act, as amended (42 U.S.C 1857, et seq.).
  Dated: September 17,1984.
John Wise,
Acting, Regional Administrator.
|FR Doc 84-25582 Filed »-2e-84. S 45 am)
•HUNG COOE 6MO-50-M
   CFR Parts 60 and 61
[A-8-FRL-2632-3]

Delegation of New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP);
State of Nevada

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of Delegation of
authority.

SUMMARY: The EPA hereby places the
public on notice of its delegation of
NSPS and NESHAP authority to the
Nevada Department of Conservation
and Natural Resources (NDCNR). This
action is necessary to bring the NSPS
and NESHAP program delegations up to
date with recent EPA promulgations and
amendments  of these categories. This
action does not create any new
regulatory requirements affecting the
public. The effect of the delegation is to
shift the primary program responsibility
for the affected NSPS and NESHAP
categories from EPA to State and local
governments.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 24,1984.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
Julie A. Rose, New Source Section (A-3-
1), Air Operations  Branch, Air
Management Division, EPA, Region 9,
215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA
 94105, Tel: (415) 974-8236, FTS 454-8236.
 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
 NDCNR has requested authority for
 delegation of certain NSPS and
 NESHAP categories. Delegation of
 authority was granted by letters dated
 June 14,1984, July  19,1984, and
 September 7,1984 and are  reproduced in
 their entirety as follows:
                                                        IV-252
-------
          Federal Register  /  Vol. 49,  No.  189 /  Thursday,  September  27, 1984  / Rules  and  Regulations
June 14,1984.
Mr. Richard Serdoz
Air Quality Officer, Division of
    Environmental Protection, Nevada
    Department of Conservation 6- Natural
    Resources, Capitol Complex, Carson
    City, NV 89710
  Dear Mr. Serdoz: In response to your
request of May 21,1984,1 am pleased to
inform you that we are delegating to your
agency authority to implement and enforce
the New Source Performance Standard
(NSPS) category in 40 CFR Part 60: Subpart
HH—Standards of Performance for Lime
Manufacturing Plants. We have reviewed
your request for delegation and have found
your present programs and procedures to be
acceptable.
  Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
your agreement to follow all applicable
provisions of 40 CFR Part 60. including use of
EPA approved test methods and procedures.
The delegation is effective upon the date of
this letter unless the USEPA receives written
notice from you of any objections within 10
days of receipt ot this letter. A notice of this
delegated authority will be published in the
Federal Register in the near future.
      Sincerely,
Judith E. Ayres,
Regional Administrator.
July 19,1984.
Mr. Richard Serdoz
Air Quality Officer, Division of
    Environmental Protection, Nevada
    Department of Conservation & Natural
    Resources, Capitol Complex, Carson
    City, NV 89710
  Dear Mr. Serdoz: In response to your
request of June 29,1984,1 am pleased to
inform you that we are delegating to your
agency authority to implement and enforce
the New Source Performance Standard
(NSPS) category in 40 CFR Part 60: Subpart
GGG—Standards of Performance for
Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum
Refineries and National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants Categories in 40
CFR Part 61: Subparts J and V—National
Emission Standard for Equipment Leaks/
Fugitive Emission Sources of Benzene. We
have reviewed your request for delegation
and have found your present programs and
procedures to be acceptable.
  Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
your agreement to follow all applicable
provisions of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61,
including use of EPA approved test methods
and procedures. The delegation is effective
upon the date of this letter unless the USEPA
receives written notice from you of any
objections within 10 days of receipt of this
letter. A notice of this delegated authority
will be published in the Federal Register in
the near future.
      Sincerely,
Judith E. Ayres,
Regional Administrator.
September 7,1984.
Mr. Richard Serdoz,
Air Quality Officer, Division of
    Environmental Protection, Nevada
    Department of Conservation and Natural
    Resources, Capitol Complex, Carson
    City, Nevada 89710
  Dear Mr. Serdoz: In response to your
request of August 22.1984,1 am pleased to
inform you that we are delegating to your
agency authority to implement and enforce
the New Source Performance Standard
(NSPS) category in 40 CFR Part 60: Subpart
FFF—Standards of Performance for Flexible
Vinyl and Urethane Coating and Printing. We
have reviewed your request for delegation
and have found your present programs and
procedures to be acceptable.
  Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
your agreement to follow all applicable
provisions of 40 CFR Part 60, including use of
EPA approved test methods and procedures.
The delegation is effective upon the date of
this letter unless the USEPA receives written
notice from you of any objections within 10
days of receipt of this letter. A notice of this
delegated authority will be published in the
Federal Register in the near future.
      Sincerely,
Judith E. Ayres,
Regional Administrator.

  With respect to the areas under the
jurisdiction of the NDCNR, all reports,
applications, submittals, and other
communications pertaining to the above
listed NSPS and NESHAP source
categories should be directed to the
address shown in the letter of
delegation.
  The Office of Management  and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
  I certify that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
  This Notice is issued under the
authority of section 111 of the Clean Air
Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1957, et
seq.).
  Dated: September 17,1984.
John Wise,
Acting Regional Administrator.
(FR Doc S4-2S5S4 Filed 9-26-»4. »:45 tm]
BILLING CODE M60-M-M
                                                        IV-253
-------
           Federal Register / Vol. 49. No.  192 / Tuesday. October 2. 1984  /  Rules and Regulations
112
 40CFRPart61

 [AD-FRL 2676-5]

 National Emission Standards for
 Hazardous Air Pollutants;
 Amendments to Standard for Benzene
 Equipment Leaks; Correction

 AGENCY: Environmental Protection
 Agency (EPA).
 ACTION: Final rule; correction.

 SUMMARY: This document corrects
 portions of 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart V,
 that were published June 6,1984 (49 FR
 23498).
 TOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
 Mr. Fred Dimmick or Mr. Gilbert Wood,
 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. This action is
 necessary to correct errors that
 appeared in the June 6,1984, publication
 of 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart V.
  Dated: September 17,1964.
 |ooeph A. Cannon,
 Assistant A dministratorfor Air and
 Radiation.

  The following corrections are made in
 FR Document 84-14479 appearing on
 page 23498 in the issue of June 6,1984:
  1. On page 23509, bottom of column
 three; the estimated maximum lifetime
 risk numbers "4.5 X104 to about
 4.2x10*' are corrected to read
 "4.5 X 10~4 to about 4.2 X10" V

 $61.241 [Corrected]
  2. On page 23514, column one, in
 S 61.241, in the definition for "In VOC
 service;" the CFR citation, "40 CFR
 60.458(d)," is corrected to read "40 CFR
 80.485(dj," and the term "in liquid
 service" is corrected to read "in heavy
 liquid service."
  3. On page 23514, column two, in the
 definition for "Semiannual;" the phrase
 "for existing sources" is  added to the
 end of the definition.

 $61.242-1  [Corrected]
  4. On page 23514, column two,
 S 61.242-1, paragraph (c)(l), the list of
 section numbers should also include
 "§ 61.242-6."
$61.242-2  [Corrected]
  5. On page 23515, column one,
$ 61.242-2; paragraph (g) is added as
follows:
*****
  (g) Any pump that is located within
the boundary of an unmanned plant site
is exempt from the weekly visual
inspection requirement of paragraphs
(a)(2) and (d)(4) of this section, and the
daily requirements of paragraph (d)(5)(i)
of this section, provided that each pump
is visually inspected as often as
practicable and at least monthly.

$61.242-3  [Corrected]
  6. On page 23515, column one,
S 61.242-3; paragraph (e)(l) is corrected
to read: "(e)(l) Each sensor as required
in paragraph (d) of this section shall be
checked daily or shall be equipped with
an audible alarm unless the compressor
is located within the boundary of an
unmanned plant site."

$61.242-4  [Corrected]
  7. On page 23515, column two,
S 61.242-4; paragraph (b)(l) is corrected
by adding the following words to the
end of the paragraph ", except as
provided in $ 61.242-10."

$61.242-6  [Corrected]
  8. On page 23516, column two,
§ 61.242-8; the phrase ", except as
provided in S 61.242-l(c)." is added at
the end of paragraph (a).

$61.242-9  [Corrected]
  9. On page 23516, column two,
S 61.242-9; the phrase ", except as
provided in $ 61.242-l(c)." is added at
the end of paragraph (a).

$61.242-11  [Corrected]
  10. On page 23516, column three,
{ 61.242-11; the phrase ". except as
provided in S 61.242-l(c)." is added at
the end of paragraph (a).

$61.242-11  [Corrected]
  11. On page 23516, column three,
$ 61.242-11, paragraph (d)(l); "1
consecutive hours" is corrected to read
"2 consecutive hours."

$61.245 [Corrected]
  12. On page 23518, column one,
$ 61.245. paragraph (b)(4)(i); "3ppm" is
corrected to read 10 ppm.
  13. On page 23518, column one,
S 61.245, paragraph (c)(4); "655 upm" is
corrected to read "500 ppm."
  14. On page 23518, column two.
§ 61.245. paragraph (e)(3); "K = constant.
1.74x10'* *  *" is corrected to read
"K^i.onstant.  1.74X10  7 * * * ".
  15. On page 23519, column one.
§ 61.246; paragraph (e)(l) is revised as
follows. "(1) A list of identification
number* for equipment (except welded
fittings) subject to the requirements of
this iubpart."
  16. On page 23519, column three,
I 61.247; a note is added to paragraph
(b)(4) as follows:
  "(Note.—Compliance with the
requirements of { 61.10(c) it not required for
revisions documented under this
paragraph.]."
|FR Doc. M-26172 Fil«d 10-1-M: MS «m|
MUJMO coot mm m m
 Federal  Register / Vol. 40. No. 212

 /  Wednesday, October 31, 1984 /
       Rules  and Regulations
113
 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
 AGENCY

 ^0 CFR Part 61
 [AD-FRL 2676-5]

 National Emission Standards for
 Hazardous Air Pollutants;
 Amendments to Standard for Benzene
 Equipment Leak*
 Correction
   In FR Doc. 84-25172 beginning on page
 38946 in the issue of Tuesday, October 2,
 1984, make the following correction: In
 the third column, third line from the
 bottom "1.74 xlO7" should read
 "1.74X10--'".
 MLUNO COM 1KW-01-M
                                                    IV-254
-------
         Federal  Register / Vol. 49. No.  218 / Thursday. November B. 1984 / Rules  and  Regulations
114
 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
 AGENCY

 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
 IA-4-FRL-2711-5]

 Standards of Performance for New
 Stationary Sources; National
 Emissions Standards for Hazardous
 Air Pollutants; Relinquishment of
 Authority to Tennessee; Delegation of
 Authority to Mississippi
 AGENCV: Environmental Protection
 ACTION: Delegation of Authority.

 SUMMARY: On March 21. 1983. the State
 of Tennessee requested that EPA
 relinquish to the State the authority to
 implement and enforce EPA's New
 Source Performance Standards (NSPSJ
 for three additional categories of air
 pollution  sources (listed under
 "SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION"). The
 State of Mississippi requested a
 delegation of authority for the
 implementation and enforcement of 12
 additional categories of air pollution
 sources under the NSPS program and
 one additional category- under the
 National Emission Standards for
 Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS)
 program on May 14, 1984.
  Since EPA's review of pertinent state
IHVVS and rules and regulations showed
them to be adequate for the
implementation and  enforcement of
these Federal standards, the agency has
made the delegations as requested.
DATEvThe effective date of the
relinquishment of authority to
Tennessee is June 30,1983, and of the
delegation of authority to Mississippi is
June 13. 1984.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the requests for
delegation of authority and EPA's letters
of delegation are available for public
inspection at EPA's Region IV office. 345
Courtland Street, NE. Atlanta. Ga 30365.
  All reports required pursuant to the
newly  delegated standards (listed
below) should be submitted to the
following addresses:
In Tennessee: Mr. Harold E. Hodges.
  P.E.. Director, Division of Air Pollution
  Control, Tennessee Department of
  Health and Environment. 150 9th
  Avenue North, Nashville. Tennessee
  37203
In Mississippi: Mr. Dwight K. Wylie,
  Chief, Bureau of Pollution Control.
  Mississippi Department of Natural
  Resources, P.O. Box 10385. Jackson.
  Mississippi 39209
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
Walter Bishop at (404) 881-3286.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
301. in conjunction with Sections 101.
110. and  111 of the Clepn Air Act.
authorizes EPA to relinquish authority to
implement and enforce the Standards of
Performance for New Stationary
Sources (NSPS) and the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAPS).
   On Apr.l 11. 1980, EPA relinquished to
Tennessee the authority to implement
and enforce the NSPS. The Tennessee
Di\ ision of Air Pollution Control
requested a relinquishment of authorih
on March 21, 1963, for the following
recently  promulgated NSPS contained in
40 CFR Part 60:
Subpart  Ka: Storage Vessels for
   Petroleum Liquids constructed after
   May 18, 1978
Subpart  DD: Grain Elevators
Subpart  GG: Stationary Gas Turbines
   After a thorough review of the request
and information submitted, the Regional
Administrator determined that such a
relinquishment was appropriate for
 these  source categories with the
 conditions set forth in the original
 relinquishment letter of April 11,1980.
 and granted the State's request in a
 letter  dated June 30,1983. Tennessee
 sources subject to the requirements of
 Si.bparts Ka. DD and GG of 40 CPR Part
60 will now be under the jurisdiction of
the State of Tennessee.
  On November 30,1981, EPA ddeg.itrcl
to the Mississippi Department of Naturdl
Resources the authority for
implementation and enforcement of the
NSPS and NESHAPS. Mississippi
requested a delegation of authority on
May 11,1984 for the following recenth
promulgated NSPS contained in 40 CFK
Part 60:
Subpart T: Phosphate Fertilizer Industn
   Wet Process Phosphoric Acid Pldnts
Subpart U: Phosphate Fertilizer Industry.
   Superphosphoric Acid Plants
Subpart V: Phosphate Fertilizer In
   Diammonium Phosphate Plants
Subpart W: Phosphate Fertilizer
   Industry: Triple Superphosphate
   Plants
Subpart HH: Lime Manufacturing T'Lmts
Subpart LL: Metallic Mineral Processing
   Plants
Subpart QQ: Graphic Arts Industry.
   Publication Rotogravure Printing
Subpart RR: Pressure Sensitive Tape-
   and Label Surface Coating
   Operations.
Subpart VV: Equipment Leaks of VOC
   in the Synthetic Organic Chemicals
   Manufacturing Industry.
Subpart WW: Beverage Can Surfm e
   Coating Industry
Subpart XX: Bulk Gasoline Terminals
Subpart HHH: Synthetic Fiber
   Production Facilities
   Mississippi also requested a
delegation of authority for Subpart M
Asbestos of the NESHAPS contained in
40 CFR Part 61. After a thorough re\is w
of the lequest and information
 submitted, the Regional Administrate
 determined that such a delegation was
 appropriate for these source categories
 with  the conditions set forth in the
 original delegation letter of No\ emlu r
 30, 1981, and granted the State's request
 in a letter dated June 13. 1984.
 Mississippi sources subject to the
 requirements of Subparts T. L'. V. V\
 HH. LL. QQ. RR, VV. WW, XX. and
 HHH of 40 CFR Part 60, and Subpart M
 of 40 CFR Part 61 will now be under thi
 jurisdiction of the State of Mississippi
 (Sci..  101.110. 111. and 301 of the Cle.m Ai-
 Act (42U.S.C  7401. 7410. 7411. and 7001)1
   D,ited: October 25.1984.
 John A. Little,
 A( ling Regional Administrator
 |KK Doc M-2X115 Kilt-cl ll-'-M »45 *ir,'
 BILLING CODE 6SCO-SO-M
                                                     IV-255
-------
            Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 242  / Friday.  Decemhei  14. 1984  / Rules and Regulations
115
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

(EPA Docket Nos. AM701WV and 702WV;
A-3-FRL-2712-41]

Performance Standards for New
Stationary Sources and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants; Delegation of Authority to
the State of West Virginia

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.	_______

SUMMARY: This notice Amends 40 CFR
60.4 and 40 CFR 61.04 to reflect
delegation to the State of West Virginia
for authority to implement and enforce
 New Source Performance Standards
(N'SPS) and National Emission
 Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
 (NESHAPS) respectively, under the
 Clean Air Act.
 EFFECTIVE DATE: December 14,1984
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
 Michael Ciuranna, U.S. Environmental
 Protection Agency, Region III, Curtis
 Building, 6th & Walnut Streets,
 Philadelphia, PA 19106 (215) 597-S189
 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: .

 I. Background
   On June 13,1984, Don R. Richardson.
 Chairman, West Virginia Air Pollution
 Control Commission, requested
 delegation on authority to implement
 and enforce existing regulations for Now
 Source Performance Standards (NSPS).
 under section lll(c) of the Clean Air Act
 (CAA), and National Emission
 Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
 (NESHAPS) under section 112(d) of the
 Clean Air Act.
    The request was reviewed and. on
  July 24,1984 a letter was sent to Don R.
  Richardson stating that delegation of
authority for the NSPS and NESHAPS in
West Virginia is approved subject to the
conditions set forth in that letter as
follows:

Certified mail

Return Receipt Requested
Mr. Don R. Richardson. Chairman,
West Virginia Air Pollution Control
    Commission, 1558 Washington Street,
    East Charleston, West Virginia 25311
Re: Delegation of authority for NBW Source
    Performance Standards and National
    Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
    Pollutants pursuant to Sections lll(c)
    and 112(d) of the Clean Air Act, as
    amended.
  Dear Mr. Richardson: This is in response to
a letter of June 13,1984, to Thomas P. Eichler,
Regional Administrator, requesting
delegation of authority for implementation
and enforcement of existing New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAPS) in West Virginia.
  We have reviewed the pertinent laws and
regulations governing the control of air
pollution in West Virginia and have
determined that they provide an adequate
and effective procedure for implementation
and enforcement of the NSPS and NESHAPS
regalations by the Air Polljtion Control
Commission (.he Commission).
  Therefore, we hereby delegate authority to
the Commission, as follows:
  The Commission is delegated and shall
have authority for a!! sources located in the
State of West Virginia subject to the
Standards of Performance for New Stationary
Sources, with the exception of Glass
Manufacturing Plants (subpdrt CC), and all
categories of National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants, presently
promulgated, or subject to anv standards
promulgated in the future in 40 CFR Parts 60
 and 61.
   This delegation is bated upon the following
conditions'.
   1. Quarterly reports will be submitted to
 EPA by the Commission and should include
 !he following
   A. For New Source Performance Standards:
   (i) Sources determined to be applicable
 duiing that quarter;
   (11) applicable sources which started
 operation during that quarter or which
 started operation pi ior to that quarter which
 have not been previously reported;
   (lii) the compliance status of the above:
 including the summary sheet from
 compliance test(s): and
   (iv) any legal actions which pertain to
 these sources.
   B. For National Emission Standards for
 Hazardous Air Pollutants:
   (i) NESHAPS sources granted a permit to
 construct;
   (ii) NESHAPS sources inspected during
 that quarter and their compliance status
 (except under i 61.22 (d) and (e)J;
   (in) the requirements of A.i), A.ii). and A.iv)
 above.
   2 Enforcement of the NSPS and NESHAPS
 regulation* in the State of West Virginia wilt
 be the primary responsibility of the
Commission. Where the Commission
determines that such enforcement is not
feasible and so notifies EPA, or where the
Commission acts in a manner inconsistent
with the terms of this delegation, EPA will
exercise its concurrent enforcement
authority, pursuant to  Section 113 of the
Clean Air Act, as amended, with respect to
sources within the  State of We*t Virginia
subject to NSPS and NESHAPS regulations.
  3. Acceptance of these delegations does not
commit the State of West Virginia to request
or accept delegation of future standards and
requirements. A new request for delegation
will be required for any additional standards
not included in the State's request of June 13.
1984.
  4. The West Virginia Air Pollution Control
Commission will at no time grant a waiver of
compliance under  the  NESHAPS regulations.
  5. The Commission  will not grant a
variance for compliance with the applicable
NSPS regulations if such variance delays
compliance with the Federal Standards (Part
60). Should the Commission grant such a
variance, EPA will consider the source
receiving the variance to be in violation of
the applicable Federal regulations and may
initiate enforcement action against the source
pursuant to Section 113 of the Clean Air Act.
The granting of such variances by the
Commission shall  also constitute grounds for
revocation of delegation by EPA.
  6. The Commission  and EPA  will develop a
system of communication sufficient to
guarantee that each office is always fully
informed regarding the interpretation of
applicable regulations. In instances where
there is a conflict between a Commission
interpretation and a Federal interpretation of
applicable regulations, the Federal
interpretation must be applied  if it is more
stringent than that of the Commission.
   7.-If at any time there  is e conflict between
a Commission regulation and a Federal
regulation, 40 CFR Part 60 or 61, the Federal
regulation must be applied if it is more
stringent than that of the Commission. If the
Commission does  not have the authority to
enforce the more stringent Federal regulation.
this portion of the delegation may be
revoked.
   8. The Commission will utilize the methods
 in 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61 in performing
 source tests pursuant to these regulations.
   9. U the Director of the Air Management
 Division determines that a Commission
 program for enforcing or implementing the
 NSPS or NESHAPS regulation* is inadequate.
 or is not being effectively carried out, this
 delegation may be revoked in whole or in
 part. Any such revocation shall be effective
 as of the date specified in a Notice of
 Revocation to the Commission.
   A notice announcing  this delegation will be
 published in the Federal Register in the near
 future. The notice will state, among other
 things, that effective  immediately, all reports
 required pursuant to the above-referenced
 NSPS or NESHAPS regulations by sources
 located in  the State of West Virginia should
 be submitted to the Commission in addition
 to EPA Region UL Any original reports which
 have been or may be received by EPA Region
 HI will be promptly transmitted to the
 Commission.
                                                            IV-256
-------
           Federal Register  /  Vol. 49, No. 242 / Friday, December  14. 1984 / Rules and Regulations
  Since this delegation is effective
irnmedidtely, there is no requirement thjt :h»
Conrn'ssion notify EPA of its acceptanre.
Unless EPA receives fiom the Commission
written notice of objections within ten (1(1)
days of receipt of this letter, the Air Pol!u''on
Control Commission will be deemed tn haie
accepted all of the terms of the delegation.
       Sincerely,
W. Ray Cunningham,
Director, AirManagement Dnii>iun
  Therefore, pursuant to the authority
delegated by  the Administrator, the Air
Management Division Director notified
Don R. Richardson that authority to
implement and enforce New Source
Performance Standards and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants was delegated to the West
Virginia Air Pollution Control
Commission.  Part 60, Performar.ee
Standards for New Stationary Sources,
is delegated with the condition that the
WVAPCC submit to EPA any excess
emission reports, as defined in 40 CFR
60.7(c).

II. Regulations Affected by This Action

  EPA is today amending 40 CFR 60 4
and 61.04 to reflect the delegation
discussed above. The amended § 60 4
and § 61.04 which stale the  addiess of
the West Virginia Air Pollution Control
Commission (to which all reports.
requests, applications, and
communications to the Administrator
regarding this subpart must be
addressed] is set forth below.
  The Administrator finds good cause  to
make this rulemaking effective
immediately without prior public notice
since it is an administrative change and
not one of substantive content. No
additional substantive burdens are
imposed on the parties affected.
  This rulemaking is effective
immediately,  and is issued under the
authority of sections 110 and 301 of the
Clean Air Act, as amended.
  The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this action from Executive
Order 12291.

List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 60
  Air pollution control, Aluminum,
Ammonium sulfate plants, Cement
industry, Coal, Copper, Electric power
plants, Class and glass products, Grains,
Intergovernmental relations, Iron, Lead,
Metals, Motor vehicles, Nitric acid
plants, Paper  and paper products
industry, Petroleum, Phosphate, Sewage
disposal. Steel, Sulfuric acid plants.
Waste treatment and disposal,  Zinc
40 CFR Part 61
  Air pollution control, Asbestos.
Beryllium, Hazardous materials.
Mercury, Vinyl chloride.
(42 U.S.C. 7401 el seq.}
  Dated. October 17,1984.
Thomas P. Eichler,
Regional Administrator,

PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS

  Part 61 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
  In § 61.04, Paragraph (b) is amended
by adding subparagraph (XX) to read as
follows:

§61.04  Address.
*****
  (b)• ' •
  (XX) State of West Virginia: Air Pollution
Cortrol Commission, 1558 Washington Street.
East. Charleston, West Virginia 25311
|FR Doc 84-29399 Filed 12-73-84 8 45 am]
BILLING CODE 654O-5O-M
                                                      IV-257
-------
         Federal Register /  Vol. 49, No. 252  /  Monday, December 31, 1984  /  Rules and Regulations
116
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40 CFR Part* 60 and 61

IA-4-FRL-2745-4]

Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources National Emission
Standards For Hazardous Air
Pollutants; Delegation of Authority to
the State of Florida

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Delegation of authority.

SUMMARY: Sections lll(cj and 112(d) of
the Clean Air Act permit EPA to
delegate to* slate the authority to
implement and enforce the standard* *et
out in 40 CFR Part 60, Standards of
Performance for New Stationary
Sources (NSPS), and in 40 CFR Part 61.
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). On
June 11,1984, the State of Florida asked
EPA to delegate to it authority for the
implementation  and enforcement of the
NESHAP for asbestos, Subpart M.
except for 8 61.156. On September 28.
1984, the State requested the authority
for the implementation and enforcement
of $ 61.156, and on A^gi^t 23, 1984. -fur
four additional categories oT NSPS:
Subparts QQ, RR.  VV, & XX. Since
EPA'a review of jtactiaent State laws
and rules»and regulations showed them
to be adequate Tor ftie Implementation
and enforcement of these Federal
standards, the Agency has made  the
delegations as requested.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of
the delegation of authority is November
7,1984.
ADDRESSES: Copiftg of the requests for
delegatioB.of .authority and EPA's letter
of delegation are available for public
inspection at EPA's Region IV office, 345
Courtland Street NE, Atlanta, GA 30365.
  All reports required pursuant to .the
newly delegated standards (listed
below) should be submitted to the
following address: Mr. Steve
Smallwood. Chief, Bureau of Air Quality
Management, Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation. Twin Towers
Office Building. 2600 Blair Stone Road.
Tallahassee, Florida 32301.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James Wilburn (404) 881-3785.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
301, in conjunction with sections 101.
110, and 111 of the Clean Air Act,
authorizes EPA to delegate authority to
implement and enforce the Standards of
Performance for New Stationary
Sources (NSPS) and the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP).
  On June 10,1982, EPA initially
delegated the authority for
implementation and enforcement of the
NESHAP to the State of Florida. On
April 5,1984, EPA revised the NESHAP
for asbestos. On June 11,1984, the State
of Florida requested a delegation of
authority to implement and enforce the
applicable NESHAP for asbestos,
codified as 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart M,
except for $ fil.156. Active Waste
Disposal Sites. On September 28,1984.
Florida requested a .delegation of
authority to implement and enforce
5 61.156.
  Upon  review, EPA acknowledged the
fact that the Agency had delegated
complete authority for implementation
and enforcement of the asbestos
NESHAP to the State of Florida in the
past; however, some question had arisen
us to the legal authority of the Stiite  of
Florida to carry out that delation.
Consequently, let it be noted that EPA
has delegated full authority to
implement and enforce Subpart M of 40
Cra Part 61.
  On August 23,1984, Florida requested
a delegation of authority for the
following recently promulgated NSPS
contained in 40 CFR Part 60:
Subpart QQ: Graphic Arts Industry:
    Publication Rotogravure Printing
Subpart RR: Pressure Sensitive Tape
    and Label Surface Coating
    Operations
Subpart VV: Equipment Leaks of VOC
    in the Synthetic Organic Chemicals
    Manufacturing Industry
Subpart XX: Bulk Gasoline Terminals
  After a thorough review of the
request, the Regional Administrator
determined that such a delegation was
appropriate for these source categories
with the conditions set forth in the
original delegation letter of June 10,
1982, and granted the State's request in
a letter dated November?, 1984. Florida
sources subject to the requirements  of
Subpart M of 40 CFR Part 61, and
Subparts QQ, RR. VV..and XX of 40 CFR
Part 60 will now be under the
jurisdiction of the State of Florida.
(Sees. 101.110, 111. and 3tfl of the Clean Air
Act 142 U.SJ1 7401,7410.7411. and 7601))
                                                                               Uutud: December 14,1984.
                                                                             John A Little.
                                                                             Di-puty for Acting Regional Administrator.
                                                                             [FR Doc. 84-33746 Filed 12-28-84: 8:45 am]
                                                                             BMJJNO CODE MW-W-M
                                                    IV-258
-------
 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No.  5 / Tuesday.  January 6. 1985 / Rules and  Regulations
117
       40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
       [A-7-FRL-2752-4]

       Standards of Performance for New
       Stationary Sources (NSPS) and
       National Emission Standards for
       Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS);
       Automatic Delegation of Authority
       Agreements and Delegation of
       Additional Authority (Nebraska, Iowa.
       and Missouri)

       AGENCY: Environmental Protection
       Agency (EPA).
       ACTION: Notice of delegation of
       authority.                     ^

       SUMMARY: This notice announces a
       revision of the delegation of authority
       procedures involving EPA and the States
       of Nebraska, Iowa and Missouri. Under
       the terms of the new procedures,
       Nebraska, Iowa and Missouri will
automatically receive authority to
implement and enforce the federal
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources (NSPS), 40 CFR Part
60 and/or the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS), 40 CFR Part 61,  upon the
state's adoption of additional standards.
The new procedures were set forth in
separate agreements between EPA and
the states involved. The notice also
announces an extension of the
Nebraska, Iowa and Missouri
delegations of authority to include
additional standards. The extension
actions, which automatically occurred
under the terms of the new agreements
added the following: four (4)  NSPS
source categories and one (1) NESHAPS
category to the Nebraska delegation; six
(6) NSPS source categories to the Iowa
delegation; and, five (5) NSPS source
categories to the Missouri delegation.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January & 1965.
ADDRESSES: All requests, reports,
applications, submittals and  such other
communications required to be
submitted under 40 CFR Part 60 or 40
CFR Part 61 (including the notifications
required under Subpart A of  the
regulations) for facilities or activities in
Nebraska, Iowa or Missouri affected by
the respective state's NSPS or
NESHAPS rule should be sent to the
appropriate state agency (i.e., the Iowa
Department of Water, Air and Waste
Management (IDWAWM), Henry A.
Wallace Building, 900 East Grand, Des
Moines, Iowa 50319; the Nebraska
Department of Environmental Control
(NDEC), P.O. Box 94877, State House
Station, Lincoln, Nebraska 68509; or the
Missouri Department of Natural
Resources (MDNR), Division of
Environmental Quality, Air Pollution
Control Program, P.O. Box 1368,
Jefferson City, Missouri 65102). A copy
of all Subpart A related notifications
must also be sent to the attention of the
Director, Air and Waste Management
Division, U.S. EPA, Region VII, 324 East
llth Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Charles W. Whitmore, Chief, Technical
Analysis Section, of the EPA, Region
VII, office (816/374-6525 or FTS: 758-
6525).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Sees.
lll(c) and 112(d) of the Clean Air Act,
respectively, allow the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency
(i.e., EPA or the agency) to delegate to
any state government authority to
implement and enforce the requirements
of the federal NSPS and NESHAPS
regulations. When a delegation^
issued, the agency retains concurrent
                                          IV-259
-------
            Federal Register / Vol.  50,  No. 5 / Tuesday, January  8, 1985 / Rules and  Regulations
authority to implement and enforce the
requirements of the delegated
regulation(s). The effect of a delegation
is to shift the primary responsibility for
implementing and enforcing the
standards for the affected categories
(and/or the affected activities) from the
agency to the state government.
  From time to time, EPA promulgates
NSPS and NESHAPS for additional
source categories, activities, and/or
pollutants and revises previously
promulgated regulations. In turn, the
states periodically update their rules by
adopting most of the additional and
revised standards, and request
delegations of authority from EPA for
the additional standards.
  The basic intent of the new
procedures discussed below was to
streamline the delegation process.
  Prior to the establishment of the new
delegation procedures, a state that
wanted to enforce particular NSPS or
NESHAPS would have to adopt the
standard(s) in question and then submit
a formal request for a delegation of
authority to implement and enforce the
standard(s) to the EPA through the
Governor's office. The regional office
would review each request and, if     ,
deemed appropriate, would delegate to
the requesting state agency authority to
implement and  enforce the adopted
standard(s). The state would then be
required to acknowledge acceptance of
the delegation action. The EPA would
then announce  the delegation action in a
Federal Register notice. Delays in the
process typically occurred as follows:
the period between the state's adoption
action and the state's formal request for
delegation, the  internal review period at
the regional office, and the period
between the regional office's issuance
and the state's  acceptance of the
delegation. The time period between the
state's adoption action and the state's
acceptance of the delegation action as
discussed above could easily encompass
three or four months. Most of the delays
probably could be attributed to higher
priority activities, the need to prepare
 and internally clear formal
 correspondence, staff workloads, etc. In
 general, the EPA regional office grants,
 and the states accept, the delegations
 which are requested.
   To eliminate the three to four month
 time lag'mentioned above, the EPA
 regional office  and the States of
 Nebraska, Iowa and Missouri have
 entered into agreements which set forth
 procedures under which concurrent
 authority to implement and enforce
 additional standards will be
 automatically delegated to the states
 upon the adoption of the additional
 standards by the state if the conditions
of the agreement are met. The new
procedures are set forth in separate
agreements (i.e., Superseding
Documents] involving the EPA, Region
VII, office and the States of Nebraska,
Iowa, and Missouri. The agreements
supersede NSPS- and NESHAPS-related
delegation and extension of authority
letters previously issued to the states by
the EPA regional office. Past delegations
(and extensions) of authority remain in
effect as of the date of the action;
however, said previous actions are now
subject to the conditions of the
applicable Superseding Document.
  The conditions of the Superseding
Documents addressed, in part, the
following: identification of the state
agency (i.e.. the NDEC, IDWAWM, and
MDNR) which will have the
responsibility of implementing and
enforcing the delegated standards; the
establishment of pre- and postadoption
notifications regarding the adoption of
additional standards by the state;
subdelegation of authority to local air
pollution control agencies; identification
of the provisions which the state is
expected to implement and enforce
under the delegation (e.g., performance
test, maintenance, monitoring, and
recordkeeping requirements; the use of
NSPS/NESHAPS reference methods,
etc.); identification of NSPS/NESHAPS
provisions which are not delegable;
applicability determinations;  and,
withdrawal of authority provisions.
Most of the conditions of the
Superseding Documents are identical;
the other conditions differ slightly
because of last minute discussions
between EPA and state representatives
on certain items (e.g., communication
and data submittal between EPA and
the state, applicability determinations,
subdelegation,  etc.).
   As of August 7,1984 (Nebraska),
August 20,1984 (Iowa) and October 29.
1984 (Missouri), the state will
automatically receive authority to
implement and enforce federal NSPS
and/or NESHAPS upon its adoption of
 additional NSPS/NESHAPS standards
 into its rules or regulations, if the state
 complies with the conditions of the
 applicable Superseding Document.
   Hereafter, the regional office will
 periodically publish a Federal Register
 notice which announces the automatic
 delegations of authority which have
 occurred under the terms of the
 Superseding Documents.
   Interested individuals are also
 informed that on the above-mentioned
 dates the States of Nebraska and
 Missouri were also delegated authority
 to implement and enforce the standards
 for the following source categories (and/
 or pollutant):
Nebraska
NSPS/Subpart Da—Electric Utility Steam
  Generating Units (for which Construction is
  Commenced after September 18,1978);
NSPS/Subpart Ka—Storage Vessels for
  Petroleum Liquids Constructed after May
  18,1978;
NSPS/Subpart GG—Stationary Gas Turbines;
NSPS/Subpart HH—Ume Manufacturing
  Plants; and,
NESHAPS/Subpart F—Vinyl Chloride.

Missouri:
NSPS/Subpart EE—Metal Furniture Surface
  Coating;
NSPS/Subpart QQ—Publication Rotogravure
  Printing;
NSPS/Subpart SS—Large Appliance Surface
  Coating;
NSPS/Subpart TT—Metal Coil Surface
  Coating; and.
NSPS/Subpart UU—Asphalt Processing and
  Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing.

  On November 14,1984, the State of
Iowa was delegated authority to
implement and enforce the standards for
the following source categories (and/or
pollutant) under the terms of the
automatic delegation agreement:

Iowa:
NSPS/Subpart LL—Metallic Mineral
  Processing Plants;
NSPS/Subpart RR—Pressure Sensitive Tape
  and Label Surface Coating Operations;
NSPS/Subpart W—Equipment Leaks of
  VOC in the Synthetic Organic Chemical
  Manufacturing Industry;
NSPS/Subpart WW—Beverage Can Surface
  Coating;
NSPS/Subpart XX—Bulk Gasoline Terminals;
NSPS/Subpart HHH—Synthetic Fiber
  Production Plants; and,
NESHAPS/Subpart M—Asbestos (except for
  the provisions of 40 CFR 61.145 through
  61.147)

  Effective immediately, all reports.
 correspondence, and such other
 communications required to be
 submitted under the NSPS or NESHAPS
 regulations for facilities or activities in
 Nebraska, Iowa or  Missouri affected by
 the delegated standards should be sent
 to the appropriate state agency at the
 above address rather than to the EPA
 Region VII office, except as noted
 below.
   A copy of each notification required
 to be submitted under 40 CFR Part 60,
 Subpart A, or under 40 CFR Part 61,
 Subpart A, must also be sent to the
 attention of the Director, Air and Waste
 Management Division, U.S. EPA, Region
 VII, 324 East llth Street, Kansas City,
 Missouri 64106.
   Each document and letter mentioned
 in this  notice is available for public
 inspection at the EPA regional office.
   This notice is issued under the
 authority of sees. Ill and 112 of the
                                                        IV-260
-------
           Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 9  /  Monday, January 14,  1985 / Rules  and Regulations
Clean Air Act, as amended {42 U.S.C.
7411 and 7412).
  Dated: December 24.1984.
Moms Kay,
Regional Administrator.
(FR Doc. 85-610 Filed 1-7-K: k45 am]
                              118
                                      ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
                                      AGENCY

                                      40 CFR Part 60

                                      [A-4-FRL-2754-7]

                                      National Emission Standards for
                                      Hazardous Air Pollutants;
                                      Supplemental Delegation of Authority
                                      to Mississippi

                                      AGENCY: Environmental Protection
                                      Agency.
                                      ACTION: Supplemental delegation of
                                      authority.

                                      SUMMARY: On September 26,1984, the
                                      State of Mississippi requested a
                                      delegation of authority for the
                                      implementation and enforcement of the
                                      National Emission Standards for
                                      Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for
                                      equipment leaks (fugitive emission
                                      sources) of benzene. EPA's review of
                                      Mississippi laws, rules, and regulations
                                      showed them to be adequate for the
                                      implementation and enforcement of
                                      these Federal standards, and the Agency
                                      made the delegation as requested.
                                      EFFECTIVE DATE: This delegation of
                                      authority to Mississippi was effective
                                      November 20,1984.
                                      ADDRESSES: Copies of the requests for
                                      delegation of authority and EPA's letter
                                      of delegation are available for public
                                      inspection at EPA's Region IV office,  345
                                      Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, Ga 30365.
                                        All reports required pursuant to the
                                      newly delegated standards should not
                                      be submitted to the EPA Region IV
                                      office, but should instead be submitted
                                      to the following address: Mr. Charles H.
                                      Chisolm, Director, Bureau of Pollution
                                      Control, Mississippi Department of
                                      Natural Resources, P.O. Box 10385,
                                      Jackson, Mississippi 39204.
                                      FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
                                      Thomas Devine at 404-257-3454.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
301 of the Clean Air Act, in conjunction
with sections 101,110, and 112,
authorizes the Administrator to delegate
his authority to implement and enforce
the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), to
any state which has submitted adequate
implementation and enforcement
procedures.
  On November 30,1981, EPA delegated
to the State of Mississippi the authority
to implement the NESHAP for asbestos,
beryllium, mercury, and vinyl chloride
(Subparts B-F of 40 CFR Part 61). This
delegation was updated on June 13,1984,
by delegating to the State the  newly
revised NESHAP for asbestos (Subpart
M of 40 CFR Part 61). On September 26,
1984, the State of Mississippi requested
delegation of authority for two
additional NESHAP categories:
  1. National Emission Standard for
Equipment Leaks (Fugitive Emission
Sources) of Benzene, 40 CFR Part 60,
Subpart J,  as promulgated June 6,1984.
  2. National Emission Standard for
Equipment Leaks (Fugitive Emission
Sources), 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart V, as
promulgated June 6,1984.

Action

   Since review of the pertinent
Mississippi laws, rules, and regulations
showed them to be adequate  for the
implementation and enforcement of the
aforementioned categories of NESHAP, I
delegated to the State of Mississippi my
authority for the source categories listed
above on November 20,1984.
   The Office of Management  and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
   This notice is issued under  the
authority of sections 101,110,112 and
301 of the  Clean Air Act, as amended (42
U.S.C. 7401, 7410, 7412, and 7601)
  Dated: December 21,1984.
Charles R. Jeter,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 85-984 Filed 1-11-65; 8:45 am]
                                                     IV-261
-------
              Federal  Register  /  Vol. 50,  No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6,  1985 / Rules  and Regulations
119
     ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
     AGENCY

     40CFRPart61

     [AO-FRL-2764-7]

     National Emission Standards for
     Hazardous Air Pollutants; Standards
     for Radlonuclldes

     AGENCY: Environmental Protection
     Agency (EPA).
     ACTION: Final rules.	

     SUMMARY: On April 6.1983, the
     Environmental Protection Agency,
     pursuant to Section 112 of the Clean Air
     Act published in the Federal Register
     proposed standards for sources of
     emissions of radionuclides to air. These
     included the following source categories:
     (1) Department of Energy (DOE)
     facilities; (2) Nuclear Regulatory
     Commission (NRC)-licensed facilities
     and non-DOE Federal facilities; (3)
     elemental phosphorus plants; and (4)
     underground uranium mines.
     Subsequently, on October 23,1984, the
     Agency withdrew its proposed
     standards for the first three source
     categories on the grounds that current
     emission control and operational
     practices provide an ample margin of
     safety in protecting the public health
     from the hazards associated with
     exposure to airborne radionuclides from
     these sources. EPA continues to believe
     existing emissions from these sources
     are so low that the public health is
     already protected with an ample margin
     of safety, even without regulations. EPA
     also concluded it was impossible at the
     time to issue a legally valid final
     standard for uranium mines.
        However, the U.S. District Court for
     the Northern District of California has
     ordered the Agency to either promulgate
     standards for the first three source
     categories by January 10,1985, or to find
     that radionuclides are clearly not a
     hazardous pollutant, in essence
     "delisting" the pollutant from regulatory
     consideration under Section 112 of the
     Act. EPA believes that this order
     exceeds the District Court's jurisdiction
     and is appealing it to die Court of
     Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As set
     forth in its withdrawal decision, EPA
     believes that, although emission levels
     from these three source categories are
     not hazardous, radionuclides cannot
     properly be delisted under Section 112
     because radionuclide emissions from
     uranium mines appear to reach
     hazardous levels that warrant
     regulation. Under the provisions of the
     Court's order, however, the Agency is
     nonetheless required to issue standards
governing these three source categories.
Accordingly, the Agency is promulgating
final rules for DOE facilities, NRC-
licensed and non-DOE Federal facilities,
and elemental phosphorus plants. EPA
continues to believe that its original
position was correct and intends to
pursue its appeal of the District Court's
order. The Court also ordered EPA to
promulgate final standards for
underground uranium mines. EPA
expects to promulgate these standards
by April 10,1985, the  date specified in
the Court order.
EFFECTIVE DATE: Final rules are effective
on February 6,1985. For existing
sources, the standards shall not apply
until 90 days after the effective date.
  The information collection	
requirements contained in 40 CFR 61.94,
61.95. 61.96, 61.97, 61.104. 61.105, 61.107.
61.108. 81.123, 61.124. 81.125, 61.126, and,
as they apply to radionuclide sources,
61.07,61.09,61.10, and 81.13 have not
been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)  and are
not effective until OMB has approved
them.
ADDRESSES: The rulemaking record is
contained in Docket No. A-79-11. This
docket is available for public inspection
between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.,  Monday
through Friday, at EPA's Central Docket
Section, West Tower Lobby, Gallery
One, Waterside Mall. 401M Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460. A
reasonable fee may be charged for
copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James M. Hardin, Environmental
Standards Branch (ANR-460), Criteria
and Standards Division, Office of
Radiation Programs,  U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
20460, (703) 557-8977.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Supporting Documents
   A final Background Information
Document has been prepared and single
copies may be obtained by writing the
Program Management Office, Office of
Radiation Programs (ANR-458),  U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. 20480, or by calling
(703) 557-9351. Please refer to
 "NESHAPS—Radionuclides:
Background Information Document for
Final Rules, Volumes 1 and 2,  [EPA 520/
 1-84-022-1, EPA 520/1-84-022-2],
 October 1984. Volume 1 of the
 Background Information Document
 contains a complete description of the
 Agency's methodology used in its risk
 assessment of the hazards associated
 with airborne emissions of
 radionuclides. Volume 2 contains a
 description of how the Agency applied
this methodology to each source
category subject to this rulemaking.
  The Agency has also prepared a final
economic analysis of the impact of its
standards on the elemental phosphorus
industry, entitled "Regulatory Impact
Analysis of Environmental Standards
for Elemental Phosphorus Plants" [EPA
520/1-84-025], October 1984. In additior
a final report on control technology for
radionuclide emissions to air at DOE
facilities has been completed and is
entitled "Control Technology for
Radioactive Emissions to the
Atmosphere at U.S. Department of
Energy Facilities" [PNL-4621], October
1984. Single copies of both reports may
be obtained from the Program
Management Office, Office of Radiatior
Programs.
  The Agency's decision to withdraw il
proposed standards for radionuclide
emissions from elemental phosphorus
plants, DOE facilities, and NRC-license
and non-DOE Federal facilities was
published in the Federal Register on
October 31.1984 (43906). The notice
contains a complete history of the
rulemaking up to the withdrawal actioi
a summary of the major issues raised ii
public comments and the Agency's
responses, alternatives considered, ant
the Agency's rationale for its decision
withdraw the proposed standards.
Single copies of this document may be
obtained by contacting the Program
Management Office, Office of Radiatio
Programs.
II. History of Standards Development

  On April 6,1983, EPA announced in
the Federal Register its proposed
standards for sources of emissions of
radionuclides from four categories: (1)
DOE facilities; (2) NRC-licensed
facilities and non-DOE Federal faciliti
(3) elemental phosphorus plants;  and (
underground uranium mines. The notic
also-identified several additional sour
categories which emit radionuclides.
However, the Agency concluded  that
good reasons existed to propose not t<
regulate these categories, which
included: (1) coal-fired boilers; (2) the
phosphate industry; (3) other extractic
industries; (4) uranium fuel cycle
facilities, uranium mill tailings, and
management of high-level radioactive
waste; and (5) low energy accelerator
(48 FR 15076, April 6,1983). At the tim
of proposal, these nine source categor
were considered to be all that might
potentially release radionuclides to ai
at levels that could warrant regulator
attention.
   On February 17,1984, the Sierra Ch
filed suit to compel final action in the
 U.S. District Court for the Northern
                                                         IV-262
-------
         Federal Register / Vol. 50. No.  25 / Wednesday. February 6. 1985  /  Rules and Regulations
District of California, pursuant to the
citizens' suit provision of the Act (Sierra
Club v. Ruckelshaus, No. 84-0656
WHO). On July 25.1984, the Court
granted Sierra Club's summary judgment
motion and ordered EPA to promulgate
standards or make a finding that
radionuclides are not a hazardous air
pollutant within 90 days of the date of
the order.
  On October 23,1964, EPA withdrew
its proposed standards for radionuclide
emissions from the following categories:
(1) elemental phosphorus plants; (2)
DOE facilities; (3) NRC-licensed
facilities and non-DOE Federal facilities;
and (4) underground uranium mines. The
Agency also affirmed its original
decision not to regulate emissions from
the five other source categories
considered (49 FR 43906, October 31,
1984). The proposed standards for the
first three categories were withdrawn
because the Administrator determined
that current practice provides an ample
margin of safety in protecting the public
health from the hazards associated with
exposure to radionuclides from these
sources.
  In the case of underground uranium
mines, the Administrator withdrew the
proposed standard because it did not
meet the legal requirements of section
112 of the Clean Air Act Simultaneous
with this action, the Agency published
an Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking for radon-222 emissions
from underground uranium mines to
solicit additional information on control
methods such as bulkheading and other
forms of operational controls for radon-
222 which would meet the legal
requirements of section 112 (49 FR 43915,
October 31,1984).
  On October 31,1984, the U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California
issued an order requiring the
Administrator and the Agency to show
cause why they should not be held in
contempt of the Court's July 25 order. A
Court hearing was held on November 21,
1984, to consider the issue. In a ruling on
December 11,1984, the Court found the
Administrator and the Agency in
contempt and ordered the following
remedial action:
  1. (a) Issue within 30 days of the date
of the order final radionuclide emission
standards for DOE facilities, NRC-
licensed and non-DOE Federal facilities,
and elemental phosphorus plants, and
  (b) Issue within 120 days of the date of
the order final radionuclide emission
standards for uranium mines; or
  2. Make a  finding based on the
information presented at hearings during
the rulemaking, that radionuclides are
clearly not a hazardous pollutant.
  On December 21,1984, EPA requested
a stay of the District Court's order; this
request was denied on January 3,1985.
The Agency subsequently requested a
stay from the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals on January 8,1985. This request
was also denied. However, the Court did
allow the Agency an additional seven
days to provide time for further appeal
to the U.S. Supreme Court. These efforts
also failed. Therefore, to comply with
the District Court's EPA is promulgating
standards for radionuclide emissions to
air from DOE facilities, NRC-licensed
and non-DOE Federal facilities, and
elemental phosphorus plants. Litigation
regarding these three standards is
continuing.
ID. Summary of Decision
  As stated above, EPA withdrew
proposed standards for the three
categories that are the subject of this
notice based on the judgment that
emissions from these source categories
are presently controlled at levels that
provide an ample margin of safety in
protecting public health from the
hazards associated with exposure to
airborne radionuclides. In reaching this
judgment. EPA considered the available
evidence, including public comments on
its proposed standards and information
developed since that proposal.
  In the case of DOE facilities and NRC-
licensed and non-DOE Federal facilities,
the risk was judged too small to warrant
regulation. Since the beginning of
regulation under section 112, EPA has
interpreted this section as not requiring
regulation in cases where the risks from
a category of sources do not exceed a
certain minimum threshold. Indeed,
contrary interpretations lead to results
that are hard to defend from any logical
or policy perspective. The risks
presented by radionuclide emissions
from these source categories are not as
great as risks that EPA has found
insufficient to trigger regulation in prior
rulemakings under section 112. The
health gains from regulation, as
represented by the difference between
the risk before and after regulation, are
smaller still.
  In the case of elemental phosphorus
plants, the risks are also very small. In
addition, the cost of controls compared
to the amount that the risk is reduced is
far higher than EPA has imposed in prior
regulatory decisions under section 112.
  At the same  time, EPA believed that
radionuclides could not properly be
delisted because a fourth category of
sources, uranium mines, did emit
radionuclides in amounts that appeared
to warrant regulation.
  None of these circumstances has
changed since  October 23. EPA
continues to believe that its original
position was correct and hopes that
future litigation will permit the Agency
to return to that position. However, the
District Court's December 11  order and
the subsequent denials of stays, compel
issuance of standards for these three
categories absent a decision by EPA to
delist radionuclides. For the reasons
discussed in detail in the Advance
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for
underground uranium mines and the
Federal Register notice published on
October 31, EPA cannot conclude that
radionuclides are clearly not hazardous.
and thereby delist.
  The standards established  today limit
radionuclide emissions from DOE
•facilities to an amount that causes a
dose equivalent rate of 25 mrem/y to the
whole body or a dose equivalent rate of
75 mrem/y to the critical organ of any
member of the public. This standard
excludes doses due to radon-220, radon-
222, and their respective decay products.
For NRC-licensed and non-DOE Federal
facilities, EPA is promulgating a
standard which limits radionuclide
emissions from these facilities to  an
amount that causes a dose equivalent
rate of 25 mrem/y to the whole body or
a dose equivalent rate of 75 mrem/y to
the critical organ of any member of the
public. This standard also excludes
doses due to radon-220, radon-222, and
their respective decay products. EPA
will grant a waiver of the limits of 25
mrem/y to the whole body or 75 mrem/y
to the critical organ of any member of
the public and issue alternative
standards, if a facility operator
demonstrates that no member of the
public will receive a continuous
exposure of more than 100 mrem/y
effective dose equivalent and a
noncontinuous exposure of more  than
500 mrem/y effective dose equivalent
from all sources, excluding natural
background and medical procedures. In
the case of elemental phosphorus plants.
EPA is promulgating a standard which
limits the total emissions of polonium-
210 from calciners  and nodulizing kilns
at these plants to 21 Ci/y. These limits
will assure that emissions do not
increase over present levels.

IV. Rationale for Standards

A. Department of Energy Facilities

  The DOE administers many
government-owned, contractor-operated
facilities that emit  readionuclides to the
air. Operations at these facilities  include
research and development, production
of nuclear weapons, enrichment of
uranium and production of plutonium for
nuclear weapons and reactors, and
                                                      IV-263
-------
         Federal Register / Vol. 50, No.  25 / Wednesday, February 6, 1985  /  Rules and Regulations
processing, storing, and disposing of
radioactive wastes. These facilities are
on large sites, some of which cover
hundreds of square miles in remote
areas, and are located in about 20
different states. Some smaller facilities
resemble typical industrial sites and are
located in suburban areas.
  The Agency estimates that the total
population risk from radionuclide
emissions to air from all DOE facilities
is about 0.07 fatal cancer cases per year,
or one case every 14 years. The risk to
nearby individuals exposed to the most
concentrated of the plants' emission is
about one in ten thousand to seven in
ten thousand.
  DOE facilities currently operate under
a policy of keeping radionuclide
emissions "as low as reasonably
achievable"  (ALARA). This policy has
generally led to low emissions from
most facilities and EPA expects that this
current policy will continue.
  The Agency is promulgating a final
standard that will limit radionuclide
emissions to air from DOE facilities to
that amount which will cause a dose
equivalent of 25 mrem/y to the whole
body or 75 mrem/y to the critical organ
of any member of the public. These
limits generally reflect current emission
levels achieved by existing control
technology and operating practices at
DOE facilities.
  This final rule does not apply to
radon-220, radon-222 and their
respective decay products. These
radionuclides are exempted because the
Agency currently has very little
information regarding the emissions of
these radionuclides from DOE facilities.
However, available information
suggests that the DOE facilities that are
covered by this standard are likely only
to have relatively small total quantities
of materials containing radium-224 and
radium-226,  the sources of radon-220
and radon-222, respectively. The
quantities of these materials will be
much smaller than uranium mill tailings
piles, for example. In practice, EPA
expects DOE will seal up all significant
sources of radon emissions to air or take
other appropriate control action as part
of their ALARA program. In addition, it
would not be appropriate to establish a
dose equivalent standard for radon-220
 and radon-222 because radon decay
 products cause exposure primarily to
 only a small part of the lung—the
 bronchial epithelia cells. Such an
 exposure cannot be accurately
 expressed as a dose equivalent to the
 lung.
   For DOE facilities that exceed the
 limits of 25 mrem/y to the whole body or
 75 mrem/y to the critical organ of any
 member of the public, EPA will issue
alternative standards, if DOE
demonstrates that no member of the
public will receive a continuous
exposure of more than 100 mrem/y
effective dose equivalent and a
noncontinuous exposure of more than
500 mrem/y effective dose equivalent
from all sources, excluding natural
background and medical procedures.
This provision applies to those specific
DOE facilities where emissions may
exceed the limits of 25 mrem/y to  the
whole body or 75 mrem/y to the critical
organ of any member of the public.
These provisions embody the
recommendations of the National
Council on Radiation Protection and
Measurements for exposure to external
radiation ("Control of Air Emissions of
Radionuclides," National Council  on
Radiation Protection and Measurements,
September IS, 1984).
B. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-
Licensed Facilities andNon-DOE
Federal Facilities
  NRC-licensed and non-DOE Federal
facilities include research and test
reactors, shipyards, the
radiopharmaceuticai industry, and other
research and industrial facilities. This
category includes both facilities licensed
by NRG and facilities licensed by a
State under an agreement with NRG.
These facilities number in the thousands
and are located in all fifty States.
Uranium fuel cycle facilities are not
included because radionuclide
emissions from these facilities are
limited by standards promulgated
previously by EPA (40 CFR Part 190).
  The Agency estimates that the total
population risk from radionuclide
emissions to air from all NRC-licensed
facilities and non-DOE Federal facilities
is no more than 0.001 fatal cancer case
per year, or one case every one
thousand years. The risk to nearby
individuals exposed to the most
concentrated of the plants' emissions is
about two in one hundred thousand.
  The NRC and all non-DOE Federal
facilities currently operate under a
policy of keeping radionuclide emissions
"as low as reasonably achievable"
(ALARA). This policy has generally led
to low emissions from most facilities
and the Agency expects that this policy
will continue.
  The Agency is promulgating a final
standard that will limit radionuclide
emissions to air from these facilities to
that amount which will cause a dose
equivalent of 25 mrem/y to the whole
body or 75 mrem/y to the critical organ
of  any member of the public. These
limits reflect current emission levels
 achieved by existing control technology
and operating practices at NRC-licensed
facilities and non-DOE Federal facilities.
  This standard, similarly, does not
apply to radon-220, radon-222, and their
respective decay products. Facilities
covered by this standard are likely only
to have relatively small quantities of the
sources of these radionuclides and are
expected to take appropriate control
action to limit emissions as part of the
NRC's ALARA program.
  For facilities that exceed the limits of
25 mrem/y to the whole body or 75
mrem/y to the critical organ of any
member of the public, EPA will issue
alternative standards, if a facility
operator demonstrates that no member
of the public will receive a continuous
exposure of more than 100 mrem/y
effective dose equivalent and a
noncontinuous exposure of more than
500 mrem/y effective dose equivalent
from all sources, excluding natural
background and medical procedures.
This provision applies to those specific
NRC-licensed and non-DOE Federal
facilities where emissions may exceed
25 mrem/y to the whole body or 75
mrem/y to the critical organ of any
member of the public. These provisions
embody the recommendations of the
National Council on Radiation
Protection and Measurements for
exposure to external radiation ("Control
of Air Emissions of Radionuclides,"
National Council on Radiation
Protection and Measurements,
September IB, 1984).
  After reviewing comments, EPA has
concluded that the great majority of
NRC-licensed facilities are licensed to
possess such small quantities of
radionuclides, that even given the most
conservative assumptions, they are
unlikely to emit radionuclides at a level
that would violate the standard during
normal operation. Therefore, these
facility owners will not be required to
submit an initial report (40 CFR 61.10).
EPA has established a simple procedure
(40 CFR 61.106) to exempt most of these
licensees from the initial reporting
requirements of the Clean Air Act. EPA
expects that all but a few (less than 100)
facilities licensed by the NRC could
make use of this exemption; the
remainder are major facilities using
large amounts of radionuclides.
Radiation safety personnel at these
facilities are expected to have the skill
necessary to demonstrate compliance.
   Many facilities are licensed by NRC to
obtain and use sealed sources of
radionuclides. Such sources have no
potential to routinely release
radionuclides to air and have, therefore,
been exempted from this final rule. In
 addition, low energy accelerators have
                                                       IV-264
-------
          Federal Register  /  Vol.  50,  No. 25  /  Wednesday, February 6, 1985  / Rules and Regulations
been exempted because EPA concluded
that emissions from these sources are
negligible (49 FR 43906, October 31,
1984).

C. Elemental Phosphorus Plants
  There are six elemental phosphorus
plants in the United States which
process phosphate rock into elemental
phosphorus that is used in the
production of phosphoric acid,
phosphate-based detergents, and
organic chemicals. Some of the uranium
decay products, polonium-210 and lead-
210, contained in the phosphate rock are
volatilized by the  high temperatures in
the plant calciners.
  The Agency estimates that the total
population risk from radionuclide
emissions to air from all elemental
phosphorus plants in about 0.06 fatal
cancer cases per year, or one case every
seventeen years. The risk to nearby
individuals exposed to the most
concentrated of the plants' emissions is
about one in one thousand.
  The Agency is promulgating a
standard which limits the total
emissions of polonium-210 from
calciners and nodulizing kilns at these
plants to 21 Ci/y. This standard reflects
current emission levels achieved by
existing control technology and
operating practices at elemental
phosphorus plants.
  The areas surrounding two plants, the
FMC plant in Pocatello, Idaho, and the
Monsanto plant in Soda  Springs, Idaho,
are characterized by high total levels of
radiation from a variety  of sources. The
storage and widespread use of slag and
possibly other waste products from
these plants have significantly increased
the natural background radiation levels
in parts of the  communities. In
particular, phosphate slag from these
plants has been widely used as
aggregate in road and house
construction in these areas.  EPA and the
State of Idaho will initiate a total
assessment of the various sources and
will investigate ways to  reduce or
prevent risks from growing.

V. Miscellaneous

A. Docket
  The docket is an organized and
complete file of all information
considered by EPA in the development
of the standards. The docket allows
interested persons to identify and locate
documents so they can effectively
participate in the  rulemaking process. It
also serves as the record for judicial
review.
  Transcripts of the hearings, all written
statements, the Agency's response to
comments, and other relevant
documents have been placed in the
docket and are available for inspection
and copying during normal working
hours.
B. General Provisions
  The general provisions of 40 CFR Part
61, Subpart A apply to all sources
regulated by this rule.

C. State Implementation of Enforcement
and Emission Standards
  Under section 112(d)(l) of the Act, any
State may develop and submit to the
Administrator a procedure for
implementing and enforcing emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants
for stationary sources located in such
State. If the Administrator finds a
State's procedure for implementing the
standard adequate, the Federal
authority then is delegated to the State.
To streamline this procedure, some of
EPA's Regional offices have entered into
agreements with certain States for
"automatic" delegation of new section
112 standards. Under this arrangement.
States are delegated authority to
implement and enforce all new section
112 standards when they are issued.
  The Agency has decided that
"automatic" delegation shall not be
made for the radionuclide final rules.
When EPA entered into these
agreements,  the State's capabilities and
expertise with respect to radionuclides
were not considered. Therefore, States
must reapply for delegation in the case
of radionuclide final rules.

D. Measurement Techniques and
Waivers of Compliance
  The Agency recognizes that today's
notice does not contain descriptions of
EPA's approved measurement
techniques for measuring emissions and
estimating dose. The Agency will
publish a list shortly  of methods it
believes suitable for the purpose of
implementing its final rules for DOE
facilities and NRC-licensed and non-
DOE Federal facilities. Owners of such
facilities are invited to submit
procedures for inclusion on this list of
Agency approved procedures.
Submissions should be sent to the
Director, Criteria and Standards
Division (ANR-460], Office of Radiation
Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,
D.C. 20460.
  This rule is effective immediately for
new sources and after 90 days for
existing facilities. Those facilities that
are not in compliance with the final rule
based on information currently
available to them and who may wish to
request a waiver from the Administrator
under the provisions of section 112(c)(l}
shall follow the procedures established
under § 61.10 for waiver of compliance,
as modified in this rule.

E, Communications

  Communications with the
Administrator regarding the reporting
and recordkeeping requirements of this
rule, as well as requests for waivers,
shall follow the provisions of § 61.10,
except as otherwise noted in this rule.

F. Executive Order 12291

  Under Executive Order 12291, issued
February 17,1981, EPA must judge
whether a rule is a "major rule" and,
therefore, requires that a Regulatory
Impact Analysis be prepared. EPA has
determined that this rule is not a major
rule as defined in section l(b) of the
Executive Order because the annual
effect of the rule on the economy will be
less than $100 million. Also, it will not
cause a major increase in costs or prices
for any sector of the economy or for any
geographic region. Further, it will not
result in any significant adverse effects
on competition, employment,
investment, productivity, innovation, or
the ability of United States enterprises
to compete with foreign enterprises in
domestic or foreign markets. Under
Executive Order 12291, this regulation
was submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB] for
review. Any comments from OMB to
EPA and any response to those
comments are included in the docket.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

   Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1980 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.. the
information collection provisions in this
rule will be submitted for approval to
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). They are not effective until OMB
approves them. A notice of that
approval will be published in the
Federal Register. Further, EPA will not
require reporting until it publishes the
list of acceptable measurement
techniques described in §§ 61.93 and
61.103.

H. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

   Section 603 of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. 5 U.S.C. 603, requires
EPA to prepare and make available for
comment an "initial regulatory
flexibility analysis" in connection with
any rulemaking for which there is a
statutory requirement that a general
notice of proposed rulemaking be
published. The "initial regulatory
flexibility analysis" describes the effect
of the proposed rule on small business
entities.
                                                     IV-265
-------
          Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 25 / Wednesday. February  6, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
  However, section 604(b) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act provides that
section 603 "shall not apply to any
proposed  . . . rule if the head of the
Agency certifies that the rule will not, if
promulgated, have a significant
economic  impact on a substantial
number of small entities."
  EPA believes that virtually all small
businesses covered by this final rule
already comply. Therefore, this rule will
have little or no impact on small
businesses. A small business is one that
has 750 employees or fewer.
  For the preceding reasons, I certify
that this rule will not have significant
economic  impact on a substantial
number of small entities.

/. Judicial Review

  Judicial  review of these standards is
available only by filing a petition for
review in  the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit within 60 days of today's
publication date. The requirements
established in this notice may not be
challenged later in civil or criminal
proceedings brought  by EPA to enforce
them.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 61

  Air pollution control, Hazardous
materials, Asbestos,  Beryllium, Mercury,
Vinyl chloride, Benzene, Arsenic,
Radionuclides.
  Dated: January 17,1985.
Lee M. Thomas,
Acting Administrator.

PART 61—{AMENDED]

  Part 61 of Chapter I of Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
  I. By adding Subparts H. I, and K to
read as follows:

Sobpart H—National Emission Standard for
Radionucllde Emissions From Department
of Energy (DOE) Facilities

Sec.
61.90  Designation of facilities.
61.91  Definitions.
61.92  Emission standard.
61.93  Emission monitoring and compliance
    procedures.
61.94  Reporting.
61.95  Recordkeeping.  [Reserved]
61.96  Waiver of compliance.
61.97  Alternative emission standards.
61.98  Exemption from reporting and testing
    requirements of 40 CFR 61.10.
Subpart I—National Emission Standard for
Radionuclide Emissions From Facilities
Licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) and Federal Facilities
Not Covered by Subpart H

Sec.
61.100  Designation of facilities.
61.101  Definitions.
61.102  Emission standard.
61.103  Emission monitoring and compliance
    procedures.
61.104  Reporting. [Reserved]
61.105  Recordkeeping. [Reserved]
61.106  Exemption from reporting and testing
    requirements of 40 CFR 61.10.
61.107  Waiver of compliance.
61.108  Alternative emission standards.
*****
Subpart K—National Emission Standard for
Radlonudlde Emissions From Elemental
Phosphorus Plants
61.120  Applicability.
61.121  Definitions.
61.122  Emission standard.
61.123  Emission testing.
61.124  Test methods and procedures.
61.125  Monitoring of operations.
61.126  Waiver of compliance.
*****
  Authority: Sees. 112 and 301(a), Clean Air
Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7412, 7601(a)).

Subpart H—National Emission
Standard for Radionuclide Emissions
From Department of Energy (DOE)
Facilities
§61.90  Designation of faculties.
  The provisions of this subpart apply
to all facilities that are owned or
operated by the Department of Energy,
except any facility regulated under 40
CFR Parts 190,191, or 192.
S 61.91  Definitions.
  (a) "Dose equivalent" means the
product of absorbed dose and
appropriate factors to account for
differences in biological effectiveness
due to the quality of radiation and its
distribution in the body. The unit of the
dose equivalent is the rem.
  (b) "Critical organ" means the most
exposed human organ or tissue
exclusive of the integumentary  system
(skin) and the cornea.
  (c) "Radionuclide" means any nuclide
that emits radiation. (A nudide is a
species of atom characterized by the
constitution of its nucleus and hence by
the number of protons, the number of
neutrons, and the energy content.)
  (d) "Whole body" means all human
organs or tissue exclusive of the
integumentary system (skin) and the
cornea.
  (e) "Effective dose equivalent" means
 the sum of the products of the dose
equivalents to individual organs and
tissues and appropriate weighing factors
representing the risk relative to that for
an equal dose to the whole body.

§ 61.92  Emission standard.
  Emissions of radionuclides to air from
DOE facilities shall not exceed those
amounts that cause a dose equivalent of
25 mrem/y to the whole body or 75
mrem/y to the critical organ of any
member of the public. Doses due to
radon-220, radon-222, and  their
respective decay products are  excluded
from these limits.

§ 61.93  Emission monitoring and
compliance procedures.
  To determine compliance with the
standard,  radionuclide emissions shall
be determined and dose equivalents to
members of the public shall be
calculated using EPA approved
sampling procedures, EPA models
AIRDOS-EPA and RADR1SK, or other
procedures, including those based on
environmental measurements,  that EPA
has determined to be suitable.
Compliance with this standard will be
determined by calculating the dose to
members of the public at the point of
maximum annual air concentration in an
unrestricted area where any member of
the public resides or abides.
  List of approved methods: (Reserved]
§61.94  Reporting.
   (a)  The  following provisions of § 61.10
are applicable to DOE-owned  facilities:
paragraphs (bHd).
   (b)  The  following provisions are also
applicable:
   (1) The  owner or operator of any
existing source, or any new source to
which a standard prescribed under this
part is applicable which had an initial
startup which preceded the effective
date of a standard prescribed under this
part shall, within 90 days after the
effective date, provide the following
information in writing to the
Administrator
   (i) Name and address of the  owner or
operator.
   (ii)  The  location of the source.
   (iii) The types of radionuclides
emitted by the stationary source and the
annual quantity (in Ci/y for the most
recent calendar year) of each
radionuclide emitted.
   (iv) A brief description of the nature,
size, design, and method of operation of
the stationary source including the
operating design capacity of such
source. Identify each point of emission
for each hazardous pollutant.
                                                        IV-266
-------
          Federal Register  /  Vol.  50,  No. 25  /  Wednesday. February 6, 1985  /  Rules and Regulations
  (v) Estimate of dose equivalent rate to
the member of the public at the point of
maximum annual air concentration in an
unrestricted area where an individual
resides or abides.
  (vi) A description of the existing
control equipment for each emission
point.
  (A) Primary control device(s) for
radionuclide emissions.
  (B) Secondary control device(s) for
radionuclide emissions.
  (C) Estimated control efficiency
(percent) for each control device.
  (vii) A statement by the owner or
operator of the source as to whether he
can comply with the standards
prescribed in this part within 90 days of
the effective date.
All information collection provisions in
this subpart are not effective until the
Office of Management and Budget
approves them.
  (c) In addition to the reporting
requirements described in paragraphs
(a) and (b) of this section, DOE shall
submit to EPA an annual report, by June
1,1986, and annually thereafter, that
includes the results of monitoring
emissions from points subject to this
final rule and associated dose
calculations. This information shall be
based on data collected during the
calendar year immediately preceding
the required date of submission of the
annual report. This report shall be sent
to the Assistant Administrator for Air
and Radiation (ANR-443), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. 20460.

§ 61.95  Recordkeeping. [Reserved]

§ 61.96  Waiver of compliance.
  To request a waiver, applicants shall
provide the information required in
§ 61.11 and § 61.94 (a) and (b). Waiver
requests shall be sent to the Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation
(ANR-443). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Washington, D.C.
20460.

§ 61.97  Alternative emission standards.
  If a facility may exceed the values
established in § 61.92, DOE may apply
to EPA for an alternative emission
standard. The Administrator will review
such applications and will establish an
appropriate alternative emission
standard that will ensure that no
member of the public being exposed to
emissions from the facility  will receive a
continuous exposure of than 100 mrem/y
effective dose equivalent and a
noncontinuous exposure of more than
500 mrem/y effective dose  equivalent
from all sources, excluding natural
background and medical procedures.
The application shall include the
following:
  (a) An assessment of the additional
effective dose equivalents to the
individual receiving maximum exposure
from the facility due to all other sources.
  (b) The information required in
§ 61.94.
  (c) The effective dose equivalent shall
be calculated using the following
weighting factors:
Organ
[Reserved]
Weighting factor
[Reserved]
Requests for alternative emission
standards shall be sent to the Assistant
Adminis':ator for Air and Radiation
(ANR-443), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street,
Washington, D.C. 20460.

§ 61.98  Exemption from reporting and
testing requirements of 40 CFR 61.10.
  Facilities having emissions of
radionuclides to air that do not exceed
those amounts that cause a dose
equivalent of 5 mrem/y to the whole
body or 15 mrem/y to the critical organ
of any member of the public residing or
abiding at the point of maximum annual
air concentration in an unrestricted
area, are exempt from the reporting
requirements of 40 CFR 61.10.

Subpart I—National Emission Standard
for Radionuclide  Emissions From
Facilities Ucensed by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) and
Federal Facilities Not Covered by
Subpart H

§61.100  Designation of facilities.
  The provisions of this subpart apply
to NRC-licensed facilities and to
facilities owned or operated by any
Federal agency other than the
Department of Energy that emit
radionuclides to air. This subpart does
not apply to facilities regulated under 40
CFR Parts 190,191, or 192, to any low
energy accelerator, or to any user of the
sealed radiation sources.
§61.101   Definitions.
  (a) "Agreement State" means any
State with which the Atomic Energy
Commission or the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission has entered into an
effective agreement under subsection
274(b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended.
  (b) "Dose equivalent" means the
product of absorbed dose and
appropriate factors to account for
differences in biological effectiveness
due to the quality of radiation and its
distribution in the body. The unit of dose
equivalent is the rem.
  (c) "NRC-licensed facility" means any
facility licensed by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission or any
Agreement State to receive title to,
receive, possess, use, transfer, or deliver
any source, byproduct, or special
nuclear material, except facilities
regulated by 40 CFR Parts 190,191, or
192.
  (d) "Critical organ" means the most
exposed human organ or tissue
exclusive of the integumentary system
(skin) and the cornea.
  (e) "Radionuclide" means any nuclide
that emits radiation. (A nuclide is a
species of atom characterized by the
constitution of its nucleus and hence by
the number of protons, the number of
neutrons, and the energy content.)
  (f) "Whole body" means all organs or
tissues exclusive of the integumentary
system (skin) and the cornea.
  (g) "Effective- dose equivalent" means
the sum of the products of the dose
equivalents to individual organs and
tissues and appropriate weighting
factors representing the risk relative to
that for an equal dose to the whole
body.

§61.102  Emission standard.
  Emissions of radionuclides to  air from
facilities subject to this subpart shall not
exceed those amounts that ciuse a dose
equivalent of 25 mrem/y to the whole
body  or 75 mrem/y to the critical organ .
of any member of the public. Doses due
to radon-220, radon-222, and their
respective decay products are excluded
from these limits.

§61.103  Emission monitoring and
compliance procedures.
  To determine compliance with the
standard, radionuclide emissions shall
be determined and dose equivalent .to
members of the public shall be
calculated using EPA-approved
sampling procedures, EPA codes
AIRDOS-EPA and RADRISK, or other
procedures, including those based on
environmental measurements, that EPA
has determined to be suitable. In most
cases, compliance with  this standard
will be determined by calculating the
dose to members of the public at the
point  of maximum annual air
concentration in an unrestricted area
where any member of the public resides
or abides.
  List  of approved procedures: [Reserved]
                                                       IV-267
-------
          Federal Register /  Vol. 50.  No. 25 /  Wednesday. February 6. 1985  /  Rules and Regulations
§61.104 Reporting. [Reserved!

§ 61.105 Recordkeeping. [Reserved]

§81.106 Exemption from reporting and
testing requirements of 40 CFR 61.10.
  Facilities in possession of a
radionuclide in annual quantities less
than the activity shown in Table 1 are
exempt from the reporting requirements
of 40 CFR 61.10. If a facility possesses
more than one radionuclide, and the
sum of the annual amount possessed
divided by the equivalent activity in
Table 1 is summed for all radionuclides
in possession,  and the sum is less than
unity, then the facility is exempt from
the reporting requirements of 40 CFR
81.10. For radionuclides not on this list
a facility may apply to the
Administrator for an exemption from the
reporting requirements.
Table! [Reserved!

§61.107 Waiver of compliance.
  (a) To request a waiver,  applicants
shall follow the requirements of § 61.10
   (b) The following provisions also
 apply:
   (1) the owner or operator of any
 existing source, or any new source to
 which a standard prescribed under this
 part is applicable which had an initial
 startup which preceded the effective
 date of a standard prescribed under this
 part shall, within 90 days after the
 effective date, provide the following
 information in writing to the
 Administrator;
   (i) Name and address of the owner or
 operator.
   (ii) The location of the source.
   (Hi) The types of radionuclides
 emitted by the stationary source and the
 annual quantity (in Ci/y for the most
 recent calendar year) of each
 radionuclide emitted.
   (iv) A brief description of the nature,
 size, design, and method of operation of
 the stationary source including the
 operating design capacity of such
 source. Identify each point of emission
 for each hazardous pollutant.
   (v) Estimate of dose equivalent rate to
 the member of the public at the point of
 maximum annual air concentration in an
 unrestricted area where any member of
 the public resides or abides.
   (vi) A description of the existing
 control equipment for each emission
 point.
   (A) Primary control device (s) for
 radionuclide emissions.
   (B) Secondary control devicefs) for
 radionuclide emissions,
   (C) Estimated control efficiency
 (percent) for each control device.
   (vii) A statement by the owner or
 operator of the source as to whether he
can comply with the standards
prescribed in this part within 90 days of
the effective date.

§61.108 Alternative emission standard.
  If a facility may exceed the emission
standard established in S 61.102, the
operator may apply to EPA for an
alternative emission standard. The
Administrator will review such
applications and will establish an
appropriate alternative emission
standard that will ensure that no
member of the public being exposed to
emissions from the facility receives a
continuous exposure of more than 100
mrem/y effective dose equivalent and a
noncontinuous exposure of more than
500 mrem/y effective dose equivalent
from all sources, excluding natural
background and medical procedures.
The application shall include the
following:
   (a) An assessment of the additional
effective dose equivalents to the
member of the public receiving
maximum exposure from the facility due
to all other sources. The natural
radiation background shall be part of
this assessment
   (b) The information required in
§ 61.107.
   (c) The effective dose equivalent shall
be calculated using the following
weighting factors:
Organ
[Pmrndl
. t.. . .

[R«Mmdl
 Requests for alternative emission
 standards shall be sent to the Assistant
 Administrator for Air and Radiation
 (ANR-443), U.S. Environmental
 Protection Agency, 401M Street SW.,
 Washington, D.C. 20460. This action
 shall be taken, for existing facilities by
 April 17,1985.

 Subpart ((—National Emission
 Standard tor Radtonucttd* Emissions
 From Elemental Phosphorus Plant*

 §61.120 AppUcsbUty.
   The provisions of this subpart are
 applicable to owners and operators of
 calciners and nodulizing kilns at
 elemental phosphorus plants.

 §61.121 Definitions.
   (a) "Elemental phosphorus plant"
 means any facility that processes
 phosphate rock to produce elemental
 phosphorus using pyrometallurgical
 techniques.
   (b) "Calciner" or "Nodulizing Win"
 means a unit in which phosphate rock is
 heated to high temperatures to remove
 organic material and/or to convert it to
 a nodular form. For the purpose of this
subpart, calciners and nodulizing kilns
are considered to be similar units.
  (c) "Curie" is a unit of radioactivity
equal to 37 billion nuclear
transformations (decays) per second.

§61.122  Emission standard.
  Emissions of polonium-210 to air from
calciners and nodulizing kilns at an
elemental phosphorus plant shall not
exceed a total of 21 curies in a calendar
year.

§61.123  Emission testing.
  (a) Unless a waiver of emission
testing is obtained under { 61.13, each
owner or operator of an elemental
phosphorus plant shall test emissions
from his plant according to the following
requirements:
  (1) Within 90 days of the effective
date of this standard for a source that
has an initial start-up date preceding the
effective date of this standard; or
  (2) Within 90 days of start-up for a
source, that has  an initial startup after
the effective date of the standard.
  (b) The Administrator shall be
notified at least  30 days prior to an
emission test so that EPA may, at its
option, observe the test
  (c) An emission test shall be
conducted at each operational calciner
or nodulizing kiln. If emissions from a
calciner or nodulizing kiln are
discharged through more than one stack,
• then an emission test shall be conducted
at each stack and the total emission rate
from the calciner or kiln shall be the
sum of the emission rates from each of
the stacks.
   (d) Each emission test shall consist of
three valid sampling runs. The
phosphate rock  processing rate during
 each run shall be recorded. An emission
 rate in (nines per metric ton of
 phosphate rock  processed shall be
 calculated for each run. The average of
 all three runs shall apply in computing
 the emission rate for the test. The
 annual polonium-210 emission rate from
 a calciner or nodulizing kiln shall be
 determined by multiplying the measured
 polonium-210 emission rate in curies per
 metric ton of phosphate rock processed
 by the annual phosphate rock
 processing rate  in metric tons. In
 determining the annual phosphate rock
 processing rate, the values used for
 operating hours and operating capacity
 shall be values  that will maximize the
 expected processing rate. For
 determining compliance with the
 emission standard of Section 61.122 the
 total annual emission rate is the sum of
 the annual emission rates for all
 operating calciners or nodulizing kilns.
                                                        IV-268
-------
          Federal Register /  Vol. 50, No.  25 / Wednesday, February 6. 1985  / Rules  and Regulations
  (e) If the owner or operator changes
his operation in such a way as to
increase his emissions of polonium-210,
such as changing the type of rock
processed, the temperature of the
calciners or kilns, or increasing the
annual phosphate rock processing rate,
then a new emission test shall be
conducted under these conditions.
  (f) Each owner or operator of an
elemental phosphorus plant shall furnish
the Administrator a written report of the
results of the emission test within 60
days of conducting the test.
  (g) Records of emission test results
and other data needed to determine
total emissions shall be retained at the
source and made available for
inspection by the Administrator for a
minimum of 2 years.
All information collection provisions in
this subpart are not effective until the
Office of Management and Budget
approves them.

§ 61.124  Test method* and procedure*.
  (a] Each owner or operator of a source
required to test emissions under
§ 61.213, unless an equivalent or
alternate method has been approved by
the Administrator, shall use the
following test methods:
  (1) Test Method 1 of Appendix A to
Part 60 shall be used to determine
sample and velocity traverses;
  (2) Test Method 2 of Appendix A to
Part 60 shall be used to determine
velocity and volumetric flow rate;
   (3) Test Method 3 of Appendix A to
Part 60 shall be used for gas analysis.
  (4) Test Method 5 of Appendix A to
Part 60 shall be used to collect
particulate matter containing the
polonium-210; and
   {5} Test Method 111 of Appendix B to
this part shall be used to determine the
polonium-210 emissions.

§ 61.125  Monitoring of operations.
   (a) The owner or operator of any
source subject to this subpart using a
wet-scrubbing emission control device
shall install, calibrate, maintain, and
operate a monitoring  device for the
continuous  measurement of the pressure
loss of the gas stream through the
scrubber. The monitoring device must be
certified by the manufacturer to be
accurate with ±250 pascals (±1 inch of
water). Records of these measurements
shall be maintained at the source and
made available for inspection by the
Administrator for a minimum of 2 years.
   (b) The owner or operator of any
source subject to this subpart-using an
electrostatic precipitator control device
shall install, calibrate, maintain, and
operate a monitoring device for the
continuous  measurement of the primary
and secondary current and the voltage
in each electric field. Baseline operating
values for these parameters shall be
maintained with ±30 percent of their
baseline operating values.
  (c) For the purpose of conducting an
emission test under Section 61.123, the
owner or operator of any source subject
to the provisions of this subpart shall
install, calibrate, maintain, and operate
a device for measuring die phosphate
rock feed to any affected calciner or
nodulizing kiln. The measuring device
used must be accurate to within±5
percent of the mass rate over its
operating range.

§ 61.126  Waiver of compliance.
  (a) To request a waiver, applicants
shall follow the requirements of
S 61.10(bHd).
  (b) The following provisions also
apply:
  (1) The owner or operator of any
existing source, or any new source to
which a standard prescribed under this
part is applicable which had an initial
startup which preceded the effective
date of a standard prescribed under this
part shall, within 90 days after the
effective date, provide the following
information in writing to the
Administrator
  (i) Name and address of the owner or
operator.
  (ii) The location of the source.
  (iii) The annual quantity of polonium-
210 emitted (in Ci/y for the most recent
calendar year).
  (iv) A brief description of the nature,
size, design, and method of operation of
the stationary source including the
operating design capacity of such
source. Identify each point of emission
for each hazardous pollutant.
  (v) The average amount of polonium-
210 being processed by the source over
the last 12 months preceding the date of
the report.
  (vi) A description of the existing
control equipment for each emission
point.
  (A) Primary control device(s)  for
radionuclide emissions.
  (B) Secondary control  device(s) for
radionuclide emissions.
  (C) Estimated control efficiency
(percent) for each control device.
  (vii) A statement by the owner or
operator of the source as to whether he
can comply with  the standards
prescribed in this part within 90 days of
the effective date.
  2. Appendix B to Part 61 is amended
by adding Test Method 111 as follows:
Appendix B—{Amended]

Method 111—Determination of Polonium-210
Emissions From Stationary Sources
  Performance of this method should not be
attempted fay persons unfamiliar with the use
of equipment for measuring radioactive
disintegration rates.
1.0  Applicability and Principle.
1.1  Applicability
  This method is applicable to the
    determination of polonium-210 emissions
    in particulate samples collected in stack
    gases. Samples should be analyzed
    within 30 days of collection to minimize
    error due to growth of polonium-210 from
    any lead-210 present in the sample.
1.2  Principle
  A particulate sample is collected from
    stack gases as described in Method 5 of
    Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 60. The
    polonium-210 in the sample is put in
    solution, deposited on a metal disc, and
    the radioactive disintegration rate
    measured. Polonium in acidsolution
    spontaneously deposits on surfaces of
    metals that are more electropositive than
    polonium. This principle is routinely used
    in the radiochemical analysis of
    polonium-210.
2.0  Apparatus.
2.1  Alpha spectrometry system consisting of
    a multichannel analyzer, biasing
    electronics, silicon surface barrier
    detector, vacuum pump and chamber.
2.2  Constant temperature bath at 85 *C.
2.3  Polished silver discs, 3.8 cm diameter,
    0.4 mm thick with a small hole near the
    edge.
2.4  Glass beakera, 400 ml, 150ml.
2.5  Hot plate, electric.
2.6  Fume hood.
2.7  Telfon' beakers, 150 ml.
2.8  Magnetic stirrer.
2.9  Stirring bar.
2.10 Plastic or glass hooks to suspend
    plating discs.
2.11 Internal proportional counter for
    measuring alpha particles.
2.12 Nuclepore' filter membranes, 25 mm
    diameter, 0.2 micrometer pore size or
    equivalent.
2.13 Planchets, stainless steel, 32 mm
    diameter with 1.5 mm lip.
2.14 Transparent plastic tape, 2J> cm wide
    with adhesive on both sides.
2.15 Epoxy spray enamel.
2.16 Suction filter apparatus for 25 mm
    diameter filter.
2.17 Wash bottles, 250 ml capacity.
2.18 Plastic graduated cylinder, 25 ml
    capacity.
3.0  Regents.
3.1  Ascorbic acid. Reagent grade.
3.2  Ammonium hydroxide (NftOH) 15 M,
    Reagent grade.
3.3  Distilled water meeting ASTM
    specifications for Type 3 Reagent Water.
    ASTM Test Method D1193-77
    (incorporated by reference-Section
    61.18).
3.4  Ethanol (CsHtOH), 95 percent. Reagent
    grade.
3.5  Hydrochloric acid (HC1), 12 M, Reagent
    grade.
                                                         IV-269
-------
           Federal  Register /  Vol. 50.  No.  25  / Wednesday.  February 6. 1985  /  Rules  and Regulations
3.6  Hydrochloric acid, 1 M, dilute 83 ml of
    the 12 M Reagent grade HC1 to 1 liter
    with distilled water.
3.7  Hydrofluoric acid (HF). 29 M, Reagent
    grade.
3.8  Hydrofluoric acid, 3 M, dilute 52 ml of
    the 29 M Reagent grade HF to 500 ml
    with distilled water. Use a plastic
    graduated cylinder and storage bottle.
3.9  Lanthanum carriei. 0.1 mg La* s/ml.
    Dissolve 0.078 gram Reagent grade
    lanthanum nitrate, La(NQ>)j-6HjO in 250
    mloflMHCl.
3.10  Nitric acid (HMOs), 16 M. Reagent
    grade.
3.11  Perchloric acid (HNO«), 12 M, Reagent
    grade.
3.12  Polonium-209 solution.
3.13  Commercial silver cleaner.
3.14  Degreaser.
3.15  Standard solution of plutonium or
    americium.
3.16  Volumetric flask, 100 ml, 250 ml.
4.0  Procedure.
4.1  Sample Preparation
4.1.1   Place filter collected by EPA Method 5
    of Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 60 in
    Teflon beaker,  add 30 ml of 29 M
    hydrofluoric acid, and evaporate to near
    dryness on hot plate in a properly
    operating fume hSod. Caution: Do not
    allow residue to go to dryness and
    overheat. This  will result in a loss of
    polonium.
 4.1.2   Repeat the procedure described in
    Section 4.1.1 until the glass Tiber filter is
    dissolved.
 4.1.3   Add 100 ml of 16 M nitric acid to
    residue in Teflon beaker and evaporate
     to near dryness. Caution: Do not allow
     residue to go to dryness and overheat
 4.1.4   Add 50 ml of 16 M nitric acid to
     residue from Section 4.1.3 and heat to 85
     °C.
 4.1.5  Transfer acid solution into a 150 ml
     glass beaker and add 10 ml of 12 M
     perchloric acid.
 4.1.6  Heat acid mixture until dense
     perchloric acid fumes are evolved.
 4.1.7  Dilute sample with 1 M HC1 to a
     volume of 250 ml in a volumetric flask.
 4.2  Sample Screening
   The samples are checked for radioactivity
     levels to avoid contaminaton of the alpha
     spectrometry system. Use the following
     screening method:
 4.2.1  Twenty ml of 1 M HC1 are added to a
     150 ml beaker.
 4.2.2  One ml of the lanthanum carrier
     solution, 0.1 mg lanthanum per ml, is
     added to beaker.
 4.2.3  A 1 ml aliquot of solution from Section
     4.1.7 is added  to the beaker.
 4.2.4  Three ml of 15 M ammonium
     hydroxide are added to the beaker.
 4.2.5  The solution from Section 4.2.4 is
     allowed to stand for a minimum of 30
      minutes.
 4.2.6  The solution is filtered through a filter
      membrane using suction.
 4.2.7 The membrane is washed with 10 ml of
      distilled water and 5 ml of ethanol.
4.2.8  The membrane is allowed to air dry
    and then mounted, filtration side up, on a
    planchet lined with double-side plastic
    tape.
4.2.9  The membrane is radioassayed using
    an internal proportional alpha counter.
4.2.10  The activity of the original solution
    from Section 4.1.7 is calculated using Eq.
    111-1.
(Eq. 111-1)
             P=
                   250Cs-C»
                  2.22 E,
where:
P=total activity of original solution from
    Section 4.1.7, in pCi.
C,=total counts of screening sample.
C»= total counts of procedure background.
    (See 4.6).

(Eq. 111-2)
E, = counting efficiency as determined in
    Section 8.0, counts per minute per
    disintegration per minute.
2.22 = disintegrations per minute per
    picocurie.
AL=aliquot used in Section 4.2.3 in ml if
    different from 1 ml.
T=counting time in minutes for sample and
    background (which must be equal).
250=volume of solution from Section 4.1.7 in
    ml.
4.2.11  Determine the aliquot volume of
    solution from Section 4.1.7 to be
    analyzed for polonium-210 using results
    of the calculation described in Section
    4.2.10. The aliquot used should contain
    an activity between 1 and 4 picocuries.
                               250 (desired picocuries in aliquot)
    1 Mention of registered trade names or specific
  products does not constitute endorsement by the
  Environmental Protection Agency.
 AI=aliquot to be analyzed in ml.
 P=total activity, as calculated with Eq. 111-
     1.
 4.3  Preparation of silver disc for
     spontaneous electrodeposin'on.
 4.3.1  Clean both sides of disc with a mild
     abrasive commercial silver cleaner.
 4.3.2  Clean both sides of disc with
     degreaser.
 4.3.3  Place disc on absorbent paper and
     spray one side with epoxy spray enamel.
     This should be carried out in a well-
     ventilated area, with the disc lying flat to
     keep paint on one side only.
 4.3.4  Allow paint to dry for 24 hours before
     using disc for deposition.
 4.4  Sample Analysis
 4.4.1  Add the aliquot of solution from
     Section 4.1.7 to be analyzed as
     determined in Section 4.2.11 to a suitable
     200 ml container to be placed in a
     constant temperature bath.  Note, aliquot
     volume may require a larger container.
 4.4.2  Add an aliquot of polonium-209 tracer
     solution (see Section 7.0) that contains
     approximately the same amount of
     activity as that in the aliquot of the
     sample to be analyzed as determined in
     Section 4.2.11.
 4.4.3  If necessary, bring the volume to 100
     ml with 1 M HC1. If the aliquot volume
     exceeds 100 ml, use total aliquot.
 4.4.4  Add 200 mg of ascorbic acid and heat
     solution to 85 'C in a constant
     temperature bath.
 4.4.5  Stirring of the solution must be
     maintained while the solution is in the
     constant temperature bath  for plating.
 4.4.6  Suspend a silver disc in the heated
     solution using a glass or plastic rod with
     a hook inserted through the hole in the
     disc. The disc should be totally immersed
     in the solution at all time.
 4.4.7  Maintain the disc in solution for 3
     hours while stirring.
 4.4.8  Remove the silver disc, rinse with
      distilled water and allo'v to air dry at
      room temperture.
  4.5  Measurement of Polonium-210
 4.5.1   Place the silver disc, with deposition
    side (unpainted side) up, on a planchet
    and secure with double-side plastic tape.
 4.5.2   Place the planchet with disc in alpha
    spectrometry system and count for 1000
    minutes.
 4.6  Determination of Procedure Background
   Background counts used in all equations
     are determined by performing the
     specific analysis required using the
     analytical reagents only. This should be
     repeated every 10 analyses.
 4.7  Determination of Instrument Background
   Instrument backgrounds of the internal
     proportional counter and alpha
     spectrometry system should be
     determined on a weekly basis.
     Instrument background should not
     exceed procedure background. If this
     occurs, it may be due to a malfunction or
     contamination.
 5.0   Calculation of Polonium-210 Activity.
 5.1   Calculate the activity of polonium-210
     on a sample filter using Eq. 111-13

 Eq. 111-3
                     C,-C.L
                  2.22 ET EC T D
  where:
  A=picocuries of polonium-210 per filter.
  CT=total counts in polonium-210 spectral
     region.
  CB = procedure background counts in
     polonium-210 spectral region.
  L=dilution factor. This is the volume in ml of
     solution in Section 4.1.7 (250 ml) divided
     by volume in ml used in Section 4.4.1.
  2.22=disintegrations per minute per
      picocurie.
  EY = fraction of polonium recovered on the
      planchet. Given by:
                                                                IV-270
-------
          Federal Register  / Vol.  50, No. 25 / Wednesday,  February 6, 1985  /  Rules and  Regulations
            Ev =
                  2.22 F EC T
    multiplying this sum fay the annual metric
    tons of phosphate rock processed by that
    calciner, according to Eq.
where:
BT=polonium-209 tracer counts in sample.
BB=procedure background counts measured
    in polonium-209 spectral region.
F=activity in picocuries of polonium-209
    added to sample—from Eq. 111-7.
2.22=disintegrations per minute per
    picocurie.
Ec=See below.
T=Sea below.
EC—counting efficiency of detector used,
    given by Eq. 111-6, as counts per minute
    per disintegration per minute.
T=counting time, specified in Section 4.5.2
    and 7.11 as  lOOO.minutes for all alpha
    spectrometry sample and background
    counts.
D=decay correction for time "I" fin days)
    from sample collection to sample
    counting, given by: 0=,—****
5.2 Procedure for Calculating Emission Rate
    in Curies per Metric Ton of Phosphate
    Rock Processed
  Calculate the  polonium-210 emission per
    metric ton of rock processed from each
    run at each stack using equation 111-4.
    The emission rate from each stack is
    determined by averaging the emission
    rates calculated for each of the three
    runs at each stack.
(Eq.111-4)
                    V8DMH
Where:
Ra = emission rate from stack, in curies of
    polonium-210 per metric ton of rock
    processed.
A=picocuries of polonium-210 in filter
    sample as determined by A in Eq. 111-3.
QSD=volumetric flow rate of effluent stream
    in dry standard m'/hr as determined by
    Method 2 of Appendix A to 40 CFR Part
    60.
VgD=total volume of air sample in dry
    standard m' as determined by Method 5
    of Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 60.
MH = rock processing rate during sampling in
    metric tons/hr.
    1X10* "= curies per picocurie.
5.3   Average Stack Emission Rate
    Calculation
  Determine the average stack emission rate
    from the average of the three emission
    rates calculated in Section  5.2. Perform
    these calculations for each stack of each
    calciner.
5.4   Calciner Emission Rate Calculation
  Determine each calciner's emission rate
    (Xi) by taking the sum of the emission
    rates from all stacks of each calciner.
5.5   Annual Polonium-210 Emission
    Calculation
  Determine the annual elemental
    phosphorus plant emissions of polonium-
    210 by taking the sum of emission rates
    at each calciner (X, in 5.4) and
                                            (Eq. 111-5)
          S=X,
                 + XNMN
Where:
S= annual polonium-210 emissions in curies
    from the elemental phosphorus plant.
Xi = emission rate from a calciner (I) in curies
    per metric ton, as determined in Section
    5.4.
N = number of calciners at the elemental
    phosphorus plant.
Mi = phosphate rock processed per year, in
    metric tons for each calciner.
6.0 Standardization of Alpha Spectrometry
    System.
6.1 Obtain a standardized solution of an
    alpha-emitting actinide element such as
    plutonium-239 or americium-241. Add a
    quantity of the standardized solution to a
    100 ml volumetric flask so that the final
    concentration when diluted to a volume
    of 100 ml will be approximately 1 pCi/ml.
    Add 10 ml of 16 M HNQ, and dilute to
    100 ml with distilled water.
6.2 Add 20 ml of 1 M HC1 to each of six 150
    ml beakers.
6.3 Add 1.0 ml of lanthanum carrier, 0.1 mg
    lanthanum per ml, to the acid solution in
    each beaker.
6.4 Add 1.0 ml of actinide solution from
    Section 6.1 to each beaker.
6.5 Add 5.0 ml of 3 M HF to each beaker.
6.6 Cover beakers and allow solutions to
    stand for a minimum of 30 minutes.
6.7 Filter each solution through a filter
    membrane using this suction filter
    apparatus.
6.8 After each filtration, wash the filter
    membrane with 10 ml of distilled water
    and 5 ml of ethanol.
6.9 Allow the filter membrane to air dry on
    the filter apparatus.
6.10  Carefully remove the filter membrane
    and mount with double-side tape on the
    inner surface of a planchet. Mount filter
    with filtration side up.
6.11  Place planchet in an alpha
    spectrometry system and count each
    planchet for 1000 minutes.
6.12  The counting efficiency of each
    detector can be calculated using Eq. 111-
    6.
(Eq.
                    C,-Cg

                   2.22 AA T
where:
Cs—gross ctounts in actinide peak.
CB = background counts in same peak area as
    Cs.
2.22=disintegrations per minute per
    picocurie.
AA=picocuries of actinide added.
EC=counting efficiency, counts per minute
    per disintegration per minute.
T=counting time in minutes, specified in
    Section 6.11 as 1000 minutes.
6.13  Determine the average counting
    efficiency for each detector by
    calculating the average of the six
    determinations.
7.0  Preparation of Standardized Solution of
    Polonium-209.
7.1  Obtain potonium-209 solution from an
    available supplier. Add a quantity of the
    Po-209 solution to a 100 ml volumetric
    flask so that the final concentration
    when diluted to a 100 ml volume will be
    approximately 1 pCi/ml. Add 10 ml of 16
    M HNQ, and dilute to 100 ml with
    distilled water.
7.2  Add 20 ml of 1MHCI to each of six 150
    ml beakers.
7.3  Add 1.0 ml of lanthanum carrier, 0.1 mg
    lanthanum per ml, to the acid solution in
    each beaker.
7.4  Add 1.0 ml of polonium-209 tracer from
    Section 7.1 to each beaker.
7.5  Add 3.0 ml of 15 M ammonium
    hydroxide to each beaker.
7.6  Cover beakers and allow to stand for a
    minimum of 30 minutes.
7.7  Filter the contents of each beaker
    through a separate filter membrane.
7.8  After each filtration, wash membrane
    with 10 ml of distilled water and 5 ml of
    ethanol.
7.9  Allow filter membrane to dry on filter
    apparatus.
7.10  Carefully remove the filter membrane
    and mount with double-side tape on the
    inner surface of a planchet. Mount filter
    with filtration side up.
7.11  Place planchet in alpha spectrometry
    system and count each planchet for 1000
    minutes.
7.12  The activity of the polonium solution
    can be calculated using Eq. 111-7.

(Eq. 111-7)
              F=
                    2.22 Ec T
where:
F=activity of polonium-209 solution, in pCi.
Cg=gross counts of polonium-209 in the 4.86
    MeV region of the spectrum in the
    counting time T.
CB=background counts in the 4.88 MeV
    region of spectrum the in the counting
    timeT.
2.22—disintegrations per minute per
    picocurie.
Ec=counting efficiency of detector used,
    counts per minute per disintegration per
    minute.
T=counting time, specified in Section 7.11 as
    1000 minutes.
7.13   Determine the average activity of the
    polonium-209 solution from the six
    determinations.
7.14   Aliquots of the solution from Section
    7.1 are to be used as tracer with each
    polonium-210 analysis.
8.0  Standardization of Internal Proportional
    Counter.
                                                             IV-271
-------
          Federal  Register /  Vol. 50, No. 25  / Wednesday,  February  6,  1985 /  Rules  and Regulations
8.1
    Obtain a standardized solution of an
    ulpha-emiting actinide element such as
    plutonium-239 or ameritium-241. Add a
    quantity of the standardized solution to a
    100 ml volumetric flask so that the final
    concentration when diluted to a 100 ml
    volume will be approximately 100 pCi/
    ml. Add 10 ml of 16 M HNOi and dilute
    to 100 ml with distilled water.
    Add 20 ml of 1 M HC1 to each of six 150
    ml beakers.
    Add 1.0 ml of lanthanum carrier, 0.1 mg
    lanthanum per ml. to the acid solution in
    each beaker.
    Add 1.0 ml of the actinide solution from
    Section 8.1 to each beaker.
    Add 5.0 ml of 3 M HF to each beaker.
    Cover beakers and allow solutions to
    stand for a minimum of 30 minutes.
    Filter each solution through a filter
    membrane using the suction filter
    apparatus.
    After each nitration, wash membrane
    with 10 ml of distilled water and 5 ml of
    ethanol.
    Allow filter membrane to dry on filter
    apparatus.
 8.10  Carefully remove filter membrane and
    mount with double-side tape on the inner
8.2
8.3
8.4

8.5
H.6

8.7
8.8
8.9
                                              surface of a planchet. Mount filter with
                                              filtration side up.
                                          8.11  Place planchet in internal proportional
                                              counter and count for 100 minutes.
                                          8.12  The counting efficiency of the internal
                                              proportional counter is determined as
                                              follows from the six samples:
(Eq. 111-8)
                                                       EB=
                   C.-C,

                  2.22 A. T
where:
E|=counting efficiency of proportional
    counter, counts per minute per
    disintegration per minute.
Cg=gross counts of standard.
CB=gross counts of procedure background.
2.22=disintegrations per minute per
    picocurie.             i
AA=picocuries of actinide added.
T=counting time in minutes, specified in
    Section 8.11 as 100 minutes.
8.13  Determine the average counting
    efficiency of the six determinations.
9.0  Quality Assurance.
9.1  General Requirements
9.1.1  All analysts using this method are
    required to demonstrate their ability to
    use the method and to define their
    respective accuracy and precision
    criteria.
9.1.2  The minimum requirements for the
    establishment of accuracy and precision
    criteria is four replicate analyses of an
    externally prepared performance
    evaluation sample.
9.2  Specific Requirements
9.2.1  Each sample will be analyzed in
    duplicate.
9.2.2  Every tenth sample will be an
    externally prepared performance
    evaluation sample submitted by the
    Quality Assurance Officer.
9.2.3  Duplicate measurements are
    considered acceptable when the
    difference between them is less than two
    standard deviations as described in  EPA
    600/4-77-001 or subsequent revisions.

[FR Doc. 85-2321 Filed 2-5-85: 8:45 am]
                                                                          120  40 CFR Parts60and61

                                                                                  [Docket No. AM705 PA]

                                                                                  Standards of Performance for New
                                                                                  Stationary Sources and National
                                                                                  Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
                                                                                  Pollutants; Delegation of Authority to
                                                                                  the City of Philadelphia  Department of
                                                                                  Public Health
                                                                                  AGENCY: Environmental Protection
                                                                                  Agency.
                                                                                  ACTION: Rule related notice.

                                                                                  SUMMARY: Section lll(c) and section
                                                                                  112(d) of the Clean Air Act permit EPA
                                                                                  to delegate to the States  the authority to
                                                                                  implement and enforce the standards set
                                                                                  out in 40 CFR Part 60, Standards of
                                                                                  Performance for New Stationary
                                                                                  Sources  (NSPS), and in 40 CFR Part  61,
                                                                                  National Emission Standards for
                                                                                  Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs).
                                                                                    On June 25.1984,  the City of
                                                                                  Philadelphia Department of Public
                                                                                  Health (Department) requested EPA to
                                                             IV-272
-------
              Federal Register / Vol. 50.  No. 42  / Monday. March 4. 1985 / Rules and Regulations
 delegate to it the authority for two (2)
 additional NSPS source categories. EPA
 granted the request on October 4,1984.
 On October 12,1984, the Department
 requested EPA to delegate to it  the
 authority for two (2) additional
 NESHAPs source categories. EPA
 granted the request on December 3,
 1984. The Department now has  the
 authority to implement and enforce
 NSPS regulations for Metallic Mineral
 Processing Plants and Synthetic Fiber
 Production Facilities and NESHAPs
 regulations for Equipment Leaks
 (Fugitive Emission Sources) of Benzene
 and Equipment Leaks (Fugitive  Emission
 Sources).

 EFFECTIVE DATES: October, 4,1984 and
 December 3,1984.

 ADDRESSES: Applications and reports
 required under all NSPS and NESHAPS
 source categories for which EPA has
 delegated authority to the Department to
 implement and enforce should be
 addressed to the Philadelphia
 Department of Public Health, Air
 Management Services (AMS), 500 S.
 Broad Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19146, in
 addition to EPA Region III.
   Copies of the revision and
 accompanying documents are available
 for inspection during normal business
 hours at the Philadelphia AMS address
 given above or at the following offices:
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
   Region III, Curtis Building, Tenth
   Floor, Sixth and Walnut Streets,
   Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106,
   Attn: Michael Giuranna  (3AM11),
   Telephone: (215) 597-9189
 Public Information Reference Unit,
   Room 2922—EPA Library, U.S.
   Environmental Protection Agency, 401
   M Street, SW., (Waterside Mall),
   Washington, DC 20460
 The Office of the Federal Register. 1100
   L Street, NW., Room 8401,
   Washington, DC 20408

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Giuranna of EPA Region Ill's
Air Programs Branch, (215) 597-9189.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June
25,1984, the Department requested that
EPA delegate to it the authority  to
implement and enforce additional NSPS
source categories. The Department
requested these delegations to
supplement the delegations for other
source categories which  the Department
had already received and which EPA
published in the Federal Register at 42
FR 0886 on February 4,1977.
  In response to the Department's
request of June 25,1984, delegation of
authority was granted by the following
letter of October 4,1984:
 Dr. Stuart H. Shapiro.
 Health Commissioner, City of Philadelphia.
    Municipal Services Building. Room 54ft
    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
   Dear Dr. Shapiro: This is in response to
 your letter of June 25.1984, requesting
 delegation of authority for the Philadelphia
 Air Management Services to enforce New
 Source Performance Standards for Metallic
 Mineral Processing  Plants and Synthetic
 Fiber Production Facilities.
   We have reviewed the pertinent laws, rules
 and regulations of the City of Philadelphia
 and have determined that they continue to
 provide an adequate and effective procedure
 for implementing and enforcing the NSPS.
 Therefore, we hareby delegate the authority
 for the implementation and enforcement of
 the NSPS regulations to the City of
 Philadelphia as follows:
   Authority for all sources located or to be
 located in the City of Philadelphia subject to
 the-Standards of Performance for New
 Stationary Sources for Metallic Mineral
 Processing Plants (LL) and Synthetic Fiber
 Production Facilities JHHH).
   Thrs delegation is based upon the
 conditions given in our June 30,1983 letter to
 you which delegated 7 additional NSPS
 source categories to the City of Philadelphia.
   If you need any further information, feel
 free to contact me.
      Sincerely,
 W. Ray Cunningham,
 Director, Air Management Division.
   In response to the Department's
 request of October 12,1984, delegation
 of authority was granted by the
 following letter:
 Dr. Stuart H. Shapiro,
 Health Commissioner, City of Philadelphia.
    Municipal Services Building, Room 54O.
    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
  -Dear Dr. Shapiro: This is in response to
 your letter of October 12,1984, requesting
 delegation of authority for the Philadelphia
 Air Management Services to enforce the
 National Emission Standards for Hazardous
 Air Pollutants Regulations for Equipment
 Leaks (Fugitive Emission Sources) of Benzene
 (Subpart)) and Equipment Leaks (Fugitive
 Emission Sources) of Volatile Hazardous Air
 Pollutants (Subpart V).
  We have reviewed the pertinent laws, rules
 and regulations of the City of Philadelphia
 and have determined that they continue to
 provide an adequate and effective procedure
 for implementing and enforcing the
 NESHAPs. Therefore, we hereby delegate the
 authority for the implementation and
 enforcement of the NESHAPs regulations to
 the City of Philadelphia as follows:
  Authority for all sources located or to be
 located in the City of Philadelphia subject to
 the National Emission Standards for
 Hazardous Air Pollutants for Equipment
Leaks (Fugitive Emission Sources) of Benzene
(Subpart ]) and Equipment Leaks (Fugitive
Emission Sources) of Volatile Hazardous Air
Pollutants (Subpart V).
  This delegation is  based upon the
conditions given in our December 30,1982
letter to you which delegated the NESHAPs
regulation for Vinyl Chloride to the City of
Philadelphia.
   If you need any further information, feel
 free to contact )im Sydnor at (215) 597-9075.
      Sincerely,
 W. Ray Cunningham,
 Director, Air Management Division.
   For all sources located or to be
 located  in the City of Philadelphia,
 effective immediately, all applications.
 reports,  and other correspondence
 required under  the NSPS requirements
 in 40 CFR Part 60 for Metallic Mineral
 Processing Plants (LL) and Synthetic
 Fiber Production Facilities (HHH) and
 under the NESHAPs requirements in 40
 CFR Part 61  for Equipment Leaks
 (Fugitive Emission Sources) (V) should
 be sent to the City of Philadelphia,
'Department of Public Health (address
 above) in addition to the EPA Region HI
 Office in Philadelphia.
   The Offide of Management and Budget
 has exempted this  action from the
 requirements of section 3 of Executive
 Order 12291.
   Authority: (Sec. lll(c) and 112(d). Clean
 Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7411(c)).
   Dated:  February 14.1985.
 Stanley L. Laskowski,
 Acting Regional Administrator.
 (FR Doc. 85-4899 Filed 3-1-85: 8:45 amj
                                                         IV-273
-------
 Federal  Register /  Vol. 50, No.  52 / Monday. March 18.  1985  /  Rules  and  Regulations
121  40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
       [A-9-FRL-2798-5]

       Delegation of New Source
       Performance Standards (NSPS) and
       National Emission Standards for
       Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESNAPS),
       State of HawaO

       AGENCY: Environmental Protection
       Agency (EPA).
       ACTON: Notice of Delegation.

       SUMMARY: The EPA hereby placet the
       public on notice of its delegation of
       NSPS and NESHAPS authority to the
       Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH).
       This action is necessary to bring the
       NSPS and NESHAPS program
       delegations up to date with recent EPA
       promulgations and amendments of these
       categories. This action does not  create
       any new regulatory requirements
       affecting the public. The effect of the
       delegation is to shift the primary
       program responsibility for the affected
       NSPS and NESHAPS categories  from
       EPA to State and local governments.
       EFFECTIVE DATES: November 12,1984
       (paragraph I.j., k.  and I.}; February 18,
       1985 (paragraph 2, b. and c.).
       FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
       Julie A. Rose, New Source Section (A-3-
       1), Air Operations Branch,  Air
       Management Division, EPA, Region 9,
       215 Fremont, Street, San Francisco, CA
       94105. Tel: (415] 974-8221, FTS 454-8221.
       SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
       HDOH has requested authority for
       delegation of four additional NSPS
       categories and two additional
       NESHAPS categories. Delegation of
       authority was granted by letters dated
       October 25,1984, December 18,1984,
       and February 8.1985 and are reproduced
       in their entirety as follows:
       October 25,1984.
       Mr. Melvin K. Koizumi,
      - Deputy Director for Environmental Health,
          Post Office Box  3378. Honolulu, HI.
         Dear Mr. Koizumi: In response to your
       request of September 25,1964,1 am pleased
       to inform you that we are delegating to your
       agency authority to implement and enforce
       three New Source Performance Standard
       (NSPS) categories in 40 CFR Part 60. We have
       reviewed your request for delegation and
       have found your present programs and
       procedures to be acceptable. This delegation
       amends the NSPS/NESHAPS  agreement
       between the U.S. EPA and the Hawaii
       Department of Health dated August 15,1983.
The agreement is amended by adding
subparagraphs j., k., and 1.. as follows under
the heading "Permits":
  j. Bulk Gasoline Terminals. Subpart XX.
  k. Beverage Can Surface Coating Industry,
Subpart WW.
  1. Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum
Refineries. Subpart GGG.
  Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
your agreement to follow all applicable
provisions of 40 CFR Part 60, including use of
EPA approved test methods and procedures.
The delegation is effective upon the date of
this letter unless the USEPA receives written
notice from you of any objections within 10
days of receipt of this letter. A notice of this
delegated authority will be published in the
Federal Register in the near future.
      Sincerely,
Judith E. Ayres,
Regional Administrator.

December 18,1984.
Mr. Melvin K. Koizumi,
Deputy Director for En vironmental Health,
    Hawaii Department of Health, Post
    Office Box 3378, Honolulu, Hawaii.
  Dear Mr. Koizumi: In response to your
request of November 23,1984,1 am pleased to
inform you that we are delegating to your
agency authority to implement and enforce
one New Source Performance Standard
(NSPS) category in 40 CFR Part 60. We have
reviewed your request for delegation and
have found your present programs and
procedures to be acceptable. This delegation
amends the NSPS/NESHAPS agreement
between the U.S. EPA and the Hawaii
Department of Health dated August 15,1983
and the amendment dated October 25,1984.
The agreement is further amended by adding
subparagraph m., as follows under the
heading "Permits":
  m. Petroeum Dry Cleaners, Subpart )}].
  Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
your agreement to follow all applicable
provisions of 4O CFR Part 60, including use of
EPA approved test methods and procedures.
The delegation is effective upon the date of
this letter unless the USEPA receives written
notice from you of any objections within 10
days of receipt of this letter. A notice of this
delegated authority will be published in  the
Federal Register in the near future.
      Sincerely,
Judith E. Ayres,
Regional Administrator,

February 8,1985.
Mr. Melvin K. Koizumi,
Deputy Director for Environmental Health
    Hawaii Department of Health, Post
    Office Box 3378, Honolulu, Hawaii.
  Dear Mr. Koizumi: In response  to your
request of January 21,1985,1 am pleased to
inform you that we are delegating to your
agency authority to implement and enforce
three  additional New Source Performance
Standard (NSPS) categories in 40 CFR Part 60
and two additional National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS) categories in 40 CFR Part 61. We
have reviewed your request for delegation
                                               IV-274
-------
              Federal Register  / Vol. 50. No. 52 / Monday.  March *6. 1985  /  Rules and  Regulations
and have found your present programs and     40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
procedures (o be acceptable.            122
  This delegation amends the NSPS/
NESHAPS agreement between the U.S. EPA
and the Hawaii Department of Health dated
August 15.1983 and the amendments dated
October 25, 1984 and December 18, 1984. The
agreement is amended by adding
subparagraphs n and o to paragraph No. 1
under "Permits" as follows:
  n. Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnace and
Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels
constructed after October 21,1974 and on or
before August 17,1983. Subpart AA.
  o. Steel Plants: Furnaces and Vessels
constructed after August 17.1983. Subpart
AAa.
  The  agreement is further amended by
revising paragraph No. 2 under "Permits" by
revising the wording of the last sentence and
adding the two new NESHAPS categories as
follows: "The categories of sources covered
by this Agreement are:"
  a. Mercury, Subpart E.
  b. Equipment Leaks (Fugitive Emission
Sources) of Benzene, Subpart J.
  c. Equipment Leaks (Fugitive Emission
Sources). Subpart V.
  Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
your agreement to follow all applicable
provisions of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61.
including use  of EPA approved test methods
and procedures. The delegation is effective
upon the date of this letter unless the USEPA
receives written notice from you of any
objections within 10 days of receipt of this
letter. A notice of this delegated authority
will be published in the Federal Register in
the near future.
       Sincerely.
Judith  E. Ayres,
Kfgional A dministra tor.

  With respect to  the areas under the
jurisdiction of the.HDOH, all reports,
applications, submittals, and other
communications pertaining to the  above
listed  NSPS  and NESHAPS source
categories should be directed to the
HDOH at the address shown in the
letters of delegation.
  The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
  1 certify that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entitles
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
  This Notice  is issued under the
authority of  section 111 of the Clean Air
Act. as amended (42 U.S-C. 1857, ft
srq ).

  Dated: March 7. 1985.
ludith E. Ayres,
/Sc^ional A dministmtor.
|KH Dot. 85-6330 Filed 3-15-85. 8 45 ,.m|
BILLING CODE 6560-SO-M
[A-9-FRL-2798-3]

Delegation of New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS);
State of California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of delegation.

SUMMARY: The  EPA hereby places the
public on notice of its delegation of
NSPS and NESHAPS authority to the
California Air Resources Board (CARB)
on behalf of the Fresno County Air
Pollution Control District (FCAPCD).
This action is necessary to bring the
NSPS and NESHAPS program
delegations up  to date with recent EPA
promulgations and amendments of these
categories. This action does not create
any new regulatory requirements
affecting the public. The effect of the
delegation is to shift the primary
program responsibility for the affected
NSPS and NESHAPS categories from
EPA to State and local governments.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 21,1985.
ADDRESS: Fresno County Air Pollution
Control District, 1221 Fulton Mall.
Fresno, CA 93721.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Julie A. Rose, New Source Section (A-3-
1), Air Operations Branch,  Air  -
Management Division, EPA, Region 9,
215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA
94105, Tel: (415) 974-8221, FTS 454-8221.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
CARB has requested authority for
delegation of certain NSPS and
NESHAPS categories on behalf of the
FCAPCD. Delegation of authority was
granted by a letter dated February B,
1985 and is reproduced in its entirety as
follows:
Mr. James D. Boyd.
Executive Officer, California Air Resources
    Board, 1102 Q Street. P.O. Bo\ 2815.
    Sacramento,  CA
  Dear Mr. Boyd: In response to-your request
of January 23,1985, I am pleased to inform
you that we are delegating to your agency
authority to implement and enforce certain
categories of New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) and National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS) on behalf of the Fresno County
Air Pollution Control  District (FCAPCD). We
have reviewed your request for delegation
and have found the FCAPCD's programs and
procedures to be  acceptable This delegation
includes authority for the following source
categories
                                                          NSPS
Metallic Mineral Processing Plants  	_	
Pressure Sensitive Tape and  Label Surface
  Coating Operations
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing In-
  dustry Equipment Leaks of VOC
Beverage Can Surface Coat:ng Industry
Equipment Leaks of VOC, Petroleum Re*nenes
  and Synthetic Organic Chemical  Manufactur-
  ing Industry
Synthetic Fiber Production Facilities	
                                   40 CFR
                                   Part 60
                                   Subpart
LL
RR
WW
GGG
             NESHAPS
Asbestos
 40CFR
 Part 61
 Subpart
  In addition, we are redelegating the
following NSPS and NESHAPS categories
since the FCAPCD's revised programs and
procedures are acceptable:
              NSPS
General Provisions   	
Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generators  .  .
Electnc Utility Steam Generators     	
Incinerators            	_	
Portland Cement Plants	
Nitric Acid Plants   .      .     	
Sulfunc Acid Plants	_ ...
Asphalt Concrete Plants  ..	
Petroleum Refineries      .         	
Storage Vessels lor Petroleum Liquids .  ..
Petroleum Storage Vessels 	
Secondary-Lead Smelters		
Secondary Brass S B'onze Ingot Production
  Plants
Iron and Steel Plants (BOPF)  	
Sewage Teatment Plants
Pnmary Copper Smelters      	
Primary Zmc Smelters   	_	
Pnmary Lead Smelters	
Pnmary Aluminum Reduction Plants
Phosphate  Fertilizer  Industry  Wet Process
  Phosphonc Acid Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry Superphosphonc
  Add Plants
Phosphate  Fertilizer   Industry  Diammonium
  Phosphate Rants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry Triple Superphos-
  phate Plants
Phosphate FerUzer Industry  Granular  Triple
  Superphosphate
Coal Preparation Plants
Ferroalloy Production Facilities     	
Iron and Steel Plants (Electnc Arc Furnaces) . .
Kraft Pulp Mills
Glass Manufacturing Plants       . _ ._	
Gram Elevators             	
Surface Coating of Metal Furniture	
Stationary Gas Turbines       . .  ..
Lime Manufactunng Plants  	
Lead-Acid Battery Manufactunng Plants
Automobile & Light-Duty Truck  Surface Coating
  Operations
Phosphate Rock Plants
Ammonium Sulfale      	
Graphic Arts  industry Publication Rotogravure
  Printing
Industrial Surface Coating Large Appliances ....
Mela! Coil Surface Coating	_.			
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manu-
  facture
 40 CFR
 Part 60
 Subpart
A
O
Oa
£
F
G
H
I
J
K
Ka
L
M

N
O
P
O
R
S
T

U

V

w

X

V
z
AA
BB
CC
DD
EE
GG
HH
KK
MM

NN
PP
oo

ss
TT
uu
             HESHAPS
Generai Provisions
BeryH-um
Beryllium Rocket Molor Firing
Mercury
 40 CFR
 Panei
 Subpart
                                                             IV-275
-------
            Federal Register / Vol. SO, No. 52 /  Monday, March  18, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
HESHAPS
Vinyl Chloride 	

40CFH
Ptrt«1
Subpe/t
F

  Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
your agreement to follow all applicable
provisions of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61,
including use of EPA's test methods and
procedures. The delegation is effective upon
the date of this letter unless the USEPA
receives written notice from you or the
District of any objections within 10 days of
receipt of this letter. A notice of this
delegated authority will be published in the
Federal Register in the near future.
      Sincerely,
Judith E. Ayres,
Regional Administrator.
cc: Fresno County Air Pollution Control
District.
   With respect to the areas under the
jurisdiction of the FCAPCD, all reports,
applications, submittals, and other
communications pertaining to the above
listed NSPS and NESHAPS source
categories should be directed to the at
the address shown in the ADDRESS
section of this notice.
   The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
   I certify that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
   This notice is issued under the
authority of section 111 of the Clean Air
Act, as amended  (42 U.S.C. 1857, et
seq.}.
   Dated: March 7,1985.
John Wise,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 85-8347 Filed 3-15-85; 8:45 am]
MLUNO CODE UM-SO-M
 40 CFR Part 61
 [A-9-FRL.-27M-4]

 Delegation of National EmlMlon
 Standards for Hazardous Air
 Pollutants (NESHAPS); State of
 California
 AGENCY: Environmental Protection
 Agency (EPA).
 ACTION: Notice of Delegation.

 SUMMARY: The EPA hereby places the
 public on notice of its delegation of
 NESHAPS authority to the California
 Air Resources Board (CARB) on behalf
 of the Kern County Air Pollution Control
 District (KCAPCD). This action is
 necessary to bring the NESHAPS
 program delegations up to date with
 recent EPA promulgations and
amendments of these categories. This
action does not create any new
regulatory requirements affecting the
public. The effect of the delegation is to
shift the primary program responsibility
for the affected NESHAPS categories
from EPA to State and local
governments.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 4,1985.
ADDRESS: Kern County Air Pollution
Control District, 1601H Street, Suite 250,
Bakersfield, CA 93301.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Julie A. Rose, New Source Section (A-3-
1), Air Operations Branch, Air
Management Division, EPA, Region 9,
215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA
94105, Tel: (415) 974-8221. FTS 454-8221.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
CARB has requested authority for
delegation of certain NESHAPS
categories on behalf of the KCAPCD.
Delegation of authority was granted by
a letter dated January 24,1985 and is
reproduced in its entirety as follows:
Mr. James D. Boyd,
Executive Officer, California Air Resources
   Board, 1102 Q Street. P.O. Box 2815,
   Sacramento, CA 95812.
  Dear Mr. Boyd: In response to your request
of January 11,1985,1 am pleased to inform
you that we are delegating to your agency
authority to implement and enforce certain
categories of National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) on
behalf of the Kern County Air Pollution
Control District (KCAPCD). We have
reviewed your request for delegation and
have found the KCAPCD's programs and
procedures to be acceptable. This delegation
includes authority for the following source
categories:
NESHAPS
Equipment Leaks (Fugitive Emission Sources)
of Benzene.
Asbestos 	
Equipment Leaks (Fugitive Emission Sources) 	
4OCFR
Part 61
Subpart
J
M
V
  In addition, we are redelegating the
 following NESHAPS categories since the
 KCAPCD's, revised programs and procedures
 are acceptable:
NESHAPS
General: Provisk
Beryllium
Beryllium Rocfce
Vinyl Chloride



I Motor Firing 	



40 CFR
Part 81
Subpart
A
C
D
E
F
  Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
 your agreement to follow all applicable
 provisions of 40 CFR Part 61, including use of
 EPA's test methods and procedures. The
 delegation is effective upon the date of this
 letter unless the USEPA recehes written
 notice from you or the District of any
objections within 10 days of receipt of this
letter. A notice of this delegated authority
will be published in the Federal Register in
the near future.
     Sincerely,
Judith E. Ayres,
Regional Administrator.
  With respect to the areas under the
jurisdiction of the KCAPCD, all reports,
applications, submittals, and other
communications pertaining to the above
listed NESHAPS source categories
should be directed to the KCAPCD at
the address shown in the ADDRESS
section of this notice.
  The office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
  I certify that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
  This Notice is issued under the
 authority of section 111 of the Clean Air
 Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857, et
 seq.}.
 Judith E. Ayres,
Regional Administrator.
 (FR Doc. 85-6352 Filed  3-15-65; 8:45 am]
Bit-UNO CODE 6540-SO-M
                                                         IV-276
-------
Federal Register  /  Vol. 50, No.  62  /  Monday, April 1.  1985  / Rules and Regulations
  1 2 3  40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

           [A-9-FRL-2808-6]

           Delegation of New Source
           Performance Standards (NSPS) and
           National Emission Standards for
           Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP);
           State of California

           AGENCY: Environmental Protection
           Agency (EPA).
           ACTION: Notice of delegation.

           SUMMARY: The EPA hereby places the
           public on notice  of its delegation of
           NSPS and NESHAP authority to the
           California Air Resources Board (GARB)
           on behalf of the Merced  County Air
           Pollution Control District {MCAPCDJ.
           This action is necessary to  oring the
           NSPS and NESHAPS program
           delegations up to date with recent EPA
           promulgations  and amendments of these
           categories. This action does not create
           any new regulatory requirements
           affecting the public. The effect of the
           delegation is to shift the primary
           program responsibility for the affected
           NSPS and NESHAP categories from EPA
           to State and local governments.
           EFFECTIVE DATE: January 2,1985.
           ADDRESS: Merced County Air Pollution
           Control District,  210 E. 15th Street, P.O.
           Box 471, Merced, CA 95340.
           FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
           Julie A. Rose, New Source Section (A-3-
           1), Air Operations Branch, Air
           Management Division, EPA, Region 9,
           215 Fremont Street, San  Francisco, CA
           94105, Tel: (415)  974-8221, FTS 454-8221.
           SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
           CARB has requested authority for
           delegation of certain NSPS and
           NESHAP categories on behalf of the
           MCAPCD. Delegation of authority was
           granted by a letter dated December 18,
           1984 and is reproduced in its entirety as
           follows:
           Mr. James D. Boyd,
           Executive Officer, California Air Resources
               Board. 1102 Q Street. P.O. Box 2815.
               Sacramento, CA 95812
             Dear Mr. Boyd: In response to your request
           of December 3,1984, I am pleased to inform
           you that we are  delegating to your agency
           authority to implement and enforce certain
           categories of New Source Performance
           Standards (NSPS) and National Emission
           Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
           (NESHAP) on behalf of the Merced County
           Air Pollution Control District (MCAPCD). We
           have reviewed your request for delegation
           and have found  the MCAPCD's programs and
           procedures to be acceptable. This delegation
           includes authority for the following source
           categories:
              NSPS
Me'allic Minerals Process'ng Plants 	
Graphic Arts Industry Publication Rotogravure
  Printing
Pressure Sensitive  Tape and Label  Surface
  Coating Operations
Metal Coil Surface Coating Operations	
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing In-
  dustry Equipment  Leaks of VOC
Beverage Can Surface Coating Industry	
Bulk Gasoline Terminals	
Flexible Vinyl and Urethane Coating and Print-
  ing
Equipment Leaks of VOC, Petroleum Refineries
  and Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufactur-
  ing Industry
Synthetic Fiber Production Facilities	:	
             NESHAPS
Equipment Leaks (Fugitive Emission Sources)
  of Benzene.
Asbestos	
Equipment Leaks (Fugitive Emission Sources)
  of Benzene
 40CFH
 Pan 60
 Subpart
LL
CO
W

WW
XX
FFF

GGG
 40CFH
 Part 61
 Subparl
  In addition, we are redelegating the
following NSPS and NESHAP categories
since the MCAPCD's revised programs and
procedures are acceptable:
               NSPS
 40 CFR
 Part 60
 Subpart
General Provisions  	 A
Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generators	 D
Electric Utility Steam Generators	 Da
Incinerators  	 E
Portland Cement Plants	 F
Nitnc Acid Plants 	  G
Sulfunc Acid Plants,	  H
Asphalt Concrete Plants  	 I
Petroleum Refineries	 J
Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids 	  K
Petroleum Storage Vessels 	 Ka
Secondary Lead Smelters    	  L
Secondary Brass  & Bronze Ingot  Production M
  Plants
Iron and Steel Plants (BOPF) 	  N
Sewage Treatment Plants    	  O
Primary Copper Smelters	j P
Primary Zinc Smelters	 Q
Primary Lead Smelters   	 R
Pnmary Aluminum Reduction Plants  	  S
Phosphate  Fertilizer  Industry  Wet Process T
  Phosphoric Acid Plants.
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry Superphosphoric Lt
  Acid Plants
Phosphate  Fertilizer  Industry  Diammonium V
  Phosphate Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry. Triple Superphos- W
  phate Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry  Granular Triple X
  Superphosphate
Coal Preparation Plants 	  Y
Ferroalloy Production Facilities      	Z
Iron and Steel Plants (Electric Arc Furnaces).   AA
Kraft Pulp Mills 	    88
Glass Manutactunng Plants	 CC
Gram Elevators ....          	  DD
Surface Coating of Metal Furniture	  EE
Stationary Gas Turbines  	   GG
Lime Manufacturing Plants  ..     	 HH
Lead-Acid Battery Manufacturing Plants       KK
Automobile & Light-Duty Truck Surface Coating MM
  Operations
Phosphate Rock Plants  	 I NN
Ammonium Sulfate     ....            | PP
Industry!  Surface Coating Large Appliances   j SS
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Rooting Manu- UU
  facture
                                                 IV-277
-------
              Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 62 / Monday, April 1, 1985 /  Rules and Regulations
NESHAPS

Beryllium
Beryllium Rocket Motor Firing 	
Mercury 	
Vinyl Chloride 	

40 CFR
Panel
Subpart
A
c
D
E
F

  Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
your agreement to follow all applicable
provisions of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61.
including use of EPA's test methods and
procedures. The delegation is effective upon
the date of this letter unless the USEPA
receives written notice from you or the
District of any objections within 10 days of
receipt of this letter. A notice of this
delegated authority will be published in the
Federal Register in the near future.
    Sincerely,
Judith E. Ayres,
Regional Administrator.
cc: Mendocino County Air Pollution Control
District

   On January 14,1985, a letter was sent
to the GARB withdrawing delegation
authority for NSPS Subpart XX, Bulk
Gasoline Terminals. With respect to
Subpart XX only, all reports,
applications, submittals and other
communications should be  directed to
the EPA, Region 9 Officer at the address
shown in the "FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT" section of this
notice.
   With respect to the areas under the
jurisdiction of the MCAPCD, all reports,
applications, submittals, and other
communications pertaining to the above
listed NSPS (except Subpart XX) and
NESHAP source categories should be
directed to the MCAPCD at the address
shown in the ADDRESS section of this
notice.
   The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive
 Order 12291.
   I certify that this rule will not have a
 significant economic impact on a
 substantial number of small entities
 under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
   This Notice is issued under the
 authority of sections 111 and 112 of the
 Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.
 1857, et seq.)
   Dated: March 15,1985.
 David P. Howekamp,
 Acting Regional Administrator.
 [FR Doc. 85-7668 Filed 3-29-85; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE •560-SO-M
40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

[A-9-FRL-2808-7]

Delegation of New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP);
State of California
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of delegation.

SUMMARY: The EPA hereby places the
public on notice of its delegation of
NSPS and NESHAP authority to the
California Air Resources Board (CARB)
on behalf of the Mendocino County Air
Pollution Control District (MCAPCD).
This action is  necessary to bring the
NSPS and NESHAP program delegations
up to date with recent EPA
promulgations and amendments of these
categories. This  action does not create
any new regulatory requirements
affecting the public. The effect of the
delegation is to shift the primary
program responsibility for the affected
NSPS and NESHAP categories from EPA
to State and local governments.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 8,1985.
ADDRESS: Mendocino  County Air
Pollution Control District, Court House
Square, Ukiah, CA 95482.
FOR FURTHER  INFORMATION CONTACT
Julie A. Rose, New Source  Section (A-3-
1), Air Operations Branch, Air
Management  Division, EPA, Region 9,
215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA
94105, Tel: (415) 974-8221, FTS 454-8221.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
 CARB has requested authority for
 delegation of certain NSPS and
 NESHAP categories on behalf of the
 MCAPCD. Delegation of authority was
 granted by a letter dated January 24,
 1985 and is reproduced in its entirety  as
 follows:
 Mr. James D. Boyd,
 Executive Officer, California Air Resources.
     Board, 1102 Q Street. P.O. Box 2815,
     Sacramento,  CA 95812
   Dear Mr. Boyd: In response to your request
 of December 18,1984,1 am pleased to inform
 you that we are delegating to your agency
 authority to implement and enforce certain
 categories of New Source Performance
 Standards (NSPS) and National Emission
 Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
 (NESHAP) on behalf of the Mendocino
 County Air Pollution Control District
 (MCAPCD). We have reviewed your request
 for delegation  and have found the
 MCAPCD'S programs and procedures to be
 acceptable. This delegation includes
 authority for the  following source categories:
                                                                                                    NSPS
Surface Coating ol Metal Furniture	
Lead-Acid Battery Manufactunng Plants	
Metallic Mineral Processing Plants 	
Phosphate Rock Plants  	
Graphic Art* Industry Publication Rotogravure
  Printing
Pressure  Sensitive Tape and Label Surface
  Coating Operations
Industrial Surface Coating Large Appliances ...
Metal Coil Surface Coating 	
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manu-
  facture.
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufactunng In-
  dustry Equipment Leaks of VOC.
Beverage Can Surface Coating Industry  	
Flexible Vinyl and Urethane Coating and Print-
  ing
Equipment Leaks of VOC, Petroleum Refineries
  and Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufactur-
  ing Industry
Synthetic Fiber Production Facilities	
NESHAP
Equipment Leaks (Fugitive Emission Sources)
of Benzene
Asbestos . 	
Equipment Leaks (Fugitive Emission Sources)
of Benzene
40 CFR
Part 61
Subpart
J
M
V
                                  40CFR
                                  Part 60
                                  Subpart
EE
KK
LL
NN
OO

RR

SS
TT
UU

W

WW
FFF

GGG
   In addition, we are redelegating the
 following NSPS and NESHAP categories
 since the MCAPCD's revised programs and
 procedures are acceptable:
               NSPS
 Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generators	
 Electric Utility Steam Generators	
 Incinerators	
 Portland Cement Plants	
 Nrtnc Acid Plants     	
 Asphalt Concrete Planti	
 Petroleum Refineries	
 Storage Vessels lor Petroleum Liquids 	
 Petroleum Storage Vessels	
 Secondary Lead Smelters  	
 Secondary Brass  »  Bronze Ingot  Production
  Plants
 Iron and Steel Plants (BOPF) 	
 Sewage Treatment Plants	
 Primary Copper Smelters  	
 Pnmary Zinc Smelters  	
 primary Lead Smelters 	
 Pnmary Aluminum Reduction Plants	
 Phosphate  Fertilizer  Industry  Wet  Process
  Phosphoric Acid Plants
 Phosphate Fertilizer Industry  Superphosphonc
  Acid Plants
 Phosphate  Fertilizer  Industry  Diammonium
  Phosphate Plants.
 Phosphate Fertilizer Industry Triple  Superphos-
  phate Plants
 Phosphate Fertilizer Industry  Granular Triple
  Superphosphate
 Coal Preparation Plants    	
 Ferroalloy Production Facilities	
 Iron and Steel Plants (Electric Arc Furnaces)
 Kraft Pulp Mills 	
 Glass Manufactunng Plants  	
 Gram Elevators ...    	 •	
 Stationary Gas Turbines  .       	
 Automobile & UoM-Outy Truck Surface Coating
   Operations
 Ammonium Sulfate Manufactunng 	
               NESHAP
  General Provisions  	
  Beryllium  	
  Beryllium Rocket Motor Firing
  Mercury
  Vinyl Chloride.  .
  40CFR
  Part 60
  Subpart
 W
 Y
 Z
 AA
 BB
 CC
 DD
 GO
 MM

 PP
  40CFR
   Part 61
  Subpart
                                                              IV-278
-------
             Federal Register / Vol.  50. No. 62 / Monday.  April 1,  1985 / Rules and Regulations
  Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
your agreement to follow all applicable
provisions of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61,
including use of EPA's test methods and
procedures. The delegation is effective upon
the date of this letter unless the USEPA
receives written notice from you or the
District of any objections within 10 days of
receipt of this letter. A notice of this
delegated authority will be published in the
Federal Register in the near future.
      Sincerely,
Judith E. Ayres,
Regional Administrator.
cc: Mendocino County Air Pollution Control
District
  With respect to the areas under the
jurisdiction of the MCAPCD, all reports,
applications, submittals, and other
communications pertaining to the above
listed NSPS and NESHAP source
categories should be directed to the-
MCAPCD at the address shown in the
ADDRESS section of this notice.
  The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
  I certify that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
  This Notice is issued under the
authority of sections 111 and 112 of the
Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.
1857, et seq.J.
  Dated: March 15,1985.
David P. Howekamp,
Acting Regional Administrator.
|FR Doc. 85-7667 Filed 3-29-85; 8:45 am]
124
         40 CFR Part 61

         [A-9-FRL-2809-1]

         Delegation of National Emission
         Standards for Hazardous Air
         Pollutants (NESHAP); State of
         California

         AGENCY: Environmental Protection
         Agency (EPA).
         ACTION: Notice of Delegation.

         SUMMARY: The EPA hereby places the
         public on notice of its delegation of
         NESHAP authority to the California Air
         Resources Board (GARB) on behalf of
         the Northern Sonoma County Air
         Pollution  Control District (NSCAPCD).
         This action is necessary to bring the
         NESHAP program delegations up to dt.te
         with recent EPA promulgations and
         amendments of these categories. This
         action does not create any new
         regulatory requirements affecting the
         public. The  effect of the delegation is to
         shift the primary program responsibility
         for the affected NESHAP categories
         from EPA to State and local
         governments.
         EFFECTIVE DATE: January 2,1985.
         ADDRESS: Northern Sonoma County Air
         Pollution Control District, 134 A North
         Street, Healdburg, CA 95448.
         FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
         Juli;: A. Rose, New Source Section (A-3-
         1), Air Operations Branch, Air
         Management Division, EPA, Region 9,
         215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA
         94105, Tel: (415) 974-8221, FTS 454-8221.
         SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
         CARB has requested authority for
         delegation of certain NESHAP
         categories on behalf of the NSCAPCD.
         DeleeHiion of authority was granted bj
                                                         IV-279
-------
              Federal  Register / Vol.  50.  No. 63  / Tuesday. April 2,  1985 /  Rules and Regulations
a letter dated December 18,1984 and is
reproduced in its entirety as follows:
Mr. lames D. Boyd,
Executive Officer, Californiia Air Resources
   Board, 1102 Q Street, P.O. Box, 2815.
   Sacramento,  CA
  Dear Mr. Boyd: In response to your request
of December 5,1984,1 am pleased to inform
you that we are delegating to your agency
authority to implement and, enforce certain
categories of National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) on
be'half of the Northern Sonoma County Air
Pollution Control District (NSCAPCD). We
have reviewed your request for delegation
and have found the NSCAPDC's programs
and procedures to be acceptable. This
delegation includes authority for the
following source categories:
NESHAP
Aabesto*

40CFR
Part 61
Subpart
M

  In addition, we are redelegating the
following NESHAP categories since the
NSCAPCD's revised programs and
procedures are acceptable:
  In addition, we are redelegating the
following NSPS and NESHAP categories
since the MCAPCD's revised programs and
procedures are acceptable:
NESHAP

Beryllium
Beryllium Rocket Motor Firing
Mercury
Vmyt Cntoride

40CFR
Part 61
Subpart
A
c
D
E
F

  Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
 your agreement to follow all applicable
 provisions of 40 CFR Part 61, including use of
 EPA's test methods and procedures. The
 delegation is effective upon the date of this
 letter unless the USEPA receives written
 notice from you or the District of any
 objections within 10 days of receipt of this
 letter. A notice of this delegated authority
 will be published in the Federal Register in
 the near future.
      Sincerely,
 Judith E. Ayres,
 Regional Administrator.
 cc: Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution
    Control District
   With respect to the areas under the
 jurisdiction of the NSCAPCD, all
 reports, applications, submittals, and
 other communications pertaining to the
 above listed NESHAP source categories
 should be directed to the NSCAPCD at
 the address shown in the ADDRESS
 section of this notice.
   The Office of Management and Budget
 has exempted this rule from the
 requirements of Section 3 of Executive
 Order 12291.
   I certify that this rule will not have a
 significant economic impact on a
under the Regulatory Flexibility t
  This Notice is issued under the
substantial number of small entities
                             -Act.
                             tie
authority of Section 112 of the Clean Air
Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857, et
seq.).
  Dated: March IS, 1985.
David P. Howekamp,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 85-7665 Filed 4-1-85; 8:45 am]
MLLMO COOe MM-SO-M
40 CFR Part 61

[A-9-FRL-28W-21

Delegation of National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP); State of
California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of Delegation.

SUMMARY: The EPA hereby places the
public on  notice of its delegation of
NESHAP  authority to the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) on behalf of
the North Coast Unified Air Pollution
Control District (NCUAPCD). This
action is necessary to bring the
NESHAP  program delegations up to date
with recent EPA promulgations and
amendments of these categories. This
action does not create any new
regulatory requirements  affecting the
public. The effect of the delegation is to
shift the primary program responsibility
for the affected NESHAP categories
from EPA to State and local
governments.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 2,1985.
ADDRESS: North Coast Unified Air
Pollution  Control District, 5630 South
Broadway, Eureka, CA 95501.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT: Julie A. Rose, New Source
Section (A-3-1), Air Operations Branch,
Air Management Division, EPA, Region
9, 215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA
94105, Tel: (415) 974-8221. FTS 454-8221.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
CARB has requested authority for
delegation of certain NESHAP
categories on behalf of the NCUAPCD.
Delegation of authority was granted by
a letter dated January 24,1985 and is
reproduced in its entirety as follows:
Mr. James D. Boyd,
Executive Officer, California Air Resources
    Board, 1102 Q Street, P.O. Box 2815.
    Sacramento, CA
  Dear Mr. Boyd: In response to your request
of December 5,1984.1 am pleased to inform
you that we are delegating to your agency
authority to implement and enforce certain
categories of National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) on
behalf of the North Coast Unified Air
Pollution Control District (NCUAPCD). We
have reviewed your request for delegation
and have found the NCUAPCD's programs
•and procedures to be acceptable. This
delegation includes authority for the
following source categories:

Equpment Leek
of Benzene.
Aitmtot
Equipment Leek
of Benzene.
NESHAP
* (Fugitive EmieMon Source*)
* (Fugitive Errawon Source!)
40CFR
Part 61
Subpart
J
M
V
                                           In addition, we are redelegating the
                                         following NESHAP categories since the
                                         NCUAPCD's revised programs and
                                         procedures are acceptable:
                                           In addition, we are redelegating the
                                         following NSPS and NESHAP categories
                                         since the MCAPCD's revised programs and
                                         procedures are acceptable:
NESHAP

Beryllium
BerylNum Rocket Motor Firing
Mercury
Vinyl Chloride

•40 CFR
Part 61
Subpart
A
c
o
E
F

                                           Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
                                         your agreement to follow all applicable
                                         provisions of 40 CFR Part 61, including use of
                                         EPA's test methods and procedures. The
                                         delegation is effective upon the date of this
                                         letter unless the USEPA receives written
                                         notice from you or the District of any
                                         objections within 10 days of receipt of this
                                         letter. A notice of this delegated authority
                                         will be published in the Federal Register in
                                         the near future.
                                               Sincerely,
                                         Judith E. Ayres,
                                         Regional Administrator.
                                         cc: North  Coast Unified Air Pollution Control
                                             District
                                            With respect to the areas under the
                                         jurisdiction of the NCUAPCD. all
                                         reports, applications, submittals, and
                                         other communications pertaining to the
                                         above listed NESHAP source categories
                                         should be directed to the NCUAPCD at
                                         the address shown in the ADDRESS
                                         section of this notice.
                                            The Office of Management and Budget
                                         has exempted this rule from the
                                         requirements of Section 3 of Executive
                                         Order 12291.
                                            I certify that this rule will not have a
                                         significant economic impact on a
                                         substantial number of small entities
                                         under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
                                            This Notice is issued under the
                                         authority of Section 112 of the Clean Air
                                         Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857,  et
                                         seq.).
                                                         IV-280
-------
              Federal Register / Vol. 50, No.  74 / Wednesday, April  17, 1985 / Rules  and Regulations
12
     NVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
    AGENCY

    40 CFR Part 61

    [AD-FRL-2814-7]

    National Emission Standards for
    Hazardous Air Pollutants; Standard for
    Radon-222 Emissions from
    Underground Uranium Mines

    AGENCY: Environmental Protection
    Agency (EPA).
    ACTION: Final rule.

    SUMMARY: The U.S. District Court for the
    Northern District of California has
    ordered EPA to promulgate a final
    standard for airborne emissions of
    radionuclides from underground
    uranium mines by April 10,1985, or to
    find that radionuclides are clearly not a
    hazardous air pollutant. This final rule is
    designed to limit exposure of the public
    to radon-222 emissions from
    underground uranium mines.
    EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is
    effective on April 17,1985. For existing
    sources, the standards shall not apply
    until 90 days after the effective date.
    ADDRESSES: The rulemaking record is
    contained in Docket No. A-79-11. This
    docket is available for public inspection
    between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday
    through Friday, at EPA's Central Docket
    Section, West Tower Lobby, Gallery
    One, Waterside Mall, 401 M Street, SW.,
    Washington, D.C. 20460. A reasonable
    fee may be charged for copying.
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
    Paul J. Magno, Environmental Standards
    Branch (ANR-460), Criteria and
    Standards Division, Office of Radiation
    Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460, (703)
    557-0704.
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Supporting Documents
      A final Background Information
    Document has been prepared and single
    copies may be obtained by writing  the
    Program Management Office, Office of
    Radiation Programs (ANR-458), U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency,
    Washington, D.C. 20460, or by calling
    (703) 557-9351. Please refer to
    "Background Information Document:
    Standard for Radon-222 Emissions  to Air
    from Underground Uranium Mines."
    This document contains a description of
    the uranium mining industry, projected
    exposures and risks to nearby
    individuals and to the general
    population, and descriptions of radon-
    222 control methods.
II. History of Uranium Mine Standard
Development
  On April 6,1983, the Agency
announced in the Federal Register a
proposed standard to limit radon-222
emissions from underground uranium
mines (48 FR 15076, April 6,1983). This
proposed standard was withdrawn by
the Administrator in October 1984 on
the basis that it did not meet the legal
requirements of section 112 of the Clean
Air Act (49 FR 43906, October 31,1984).
The Agency has also received additional
technical information that suggested
that bulkheads and other techniques to
control radon-222 emissions may be
feasible. The withdrawal action was
taken in response to an order by the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District
of California compelling EPA, by
October 23,1984, to promulgate
standards or make a finding that
radionuclides are not a hazardous air
pollutant within the context of section
112 of the Clean Air Act.
  On December 11,1984, the Court
found the Administrator and the Agency
in contempt of its previous  order and
directed the following remedial actions:
  1. (a) Issue within 30 days of the date
of the order final radionuclide emission
standards for Department of Energy
(DOE) facilities, Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC)-licensed and non-
DOE Federal facilities, and elemental
phosphorous plants, and
  (b) Issue within 120 days of the date of
the order final  radionuclide emission
standards for underground uranium
mines; or
  2. Make a finding based on the
information presented at hearings during
the rulemaking, that radionuclides are
clearly not a hazardous air pollutant.
  The Agency  promulgated final
standards for DOE facilities, NRC-
licensed and non-DOE Federal facilities,
and elemental  phosphorous plants on
January 17,1985 (50 CFR 5190, February
6,1985), although it is noted that the
Agency intends to pursue its pending
appeal of this portion of the District
Court's order. A complete history of the
events leading to this action is
contained in the Federal Register notice
announcing the final standards.
  On February 21,1985, EPA published
in the Federal Register a proposed work
practice standard to limit radon-222
emissions from underground uranium
mines (50 FR 7280, February 21,1985).
The proposed work practice standard
required bulkheading abandoned and
temporarily abandoned mine areas to
reduce the amount of radon-222 emitted
to the above ground air from the mines.
Following publication of the proposed
standard, EPA conducted a public
hearing in Albuquerque, New Mexico,
on February 27 and 28,1985. The public
record was held 'open until March 28,
1985, to allow for written comments to
be received, however, EPA asked that
comments be submitted as soon as
possible to allow the Agency maximum
time to consider them. A significant
number of comments were received by
the Agency on the last day of the public
comment period. The short time
between the submission of all the public
comments and the Court deadline for
promulgating the rule allowed the
Agency a limited opportunity to respond
to all of the comments. The Agency has
generally reviewed all of the comments
and is responding to the major issues
and points in this notice. The Agency
did not receive any comments or
information subsequent to the public
hearing that warranted a dramatic
alteration in its approach. Changes
made to the final rule in response to
points raised in oral and written
comments are discussed in the following
sections.

III. Summary of the Final Rule
  This rule is designed to limit exposure
of the public to radon-222 emissions
from underground uranium mines. The
final rule differs in a number of ways
from the proposed rale because of
changes the Agency has made in
response to public comments. This
section provides an overview of the
final rule; changes from the proposed
rule are noted. The rationale for each of
these changes is provided in the
following sections of this notice. Both
the Federal Register notice describing
the proposed rule (50 FR 7280) and the
Background Information Document
provide further information  on those
portions of the final rule that have not
changed from proposal.
  The final rule:
   (1) Applies to an owner or operator of
an active underground uranium mine
which has mined or will mine over
100,000 tons of ore during the life of the
mine. A mine which will have or has
had an annual ore production rate
greater than 10,000 tons must also
comply with the standard, unless it can
be demonstrated that the mine will not
exceed a cumulative ore production of
100,000 tons. (The proposed standard
did not include the exclusion for mines
producing greater than 10,000 tons of ore
per year, but with an expected
cumulative ore production of less than
100,000 tons.)
   (2) Requires that an owner or operator
of an underground uranium  mine  install
and maintain bulkheads to isolate all
abandoned and temporarily abandoned
                                                         IV-281
-------
           Federal Register  /  Vol. 50, No. 74  /  Wednesday, April  17. 1985 / Rules  and Regulations
areas of the mine. If a negative pressure
behind the bulkhead is necessary, then a
maximum of 20 percent of the total
volume of air contained in the sealed
area may be exhausted per day. A mine
owner or operator may apply for an
alternative standard, if necessary to
protect miner health and safety. (The
proposed standard did not provide a
mine owner or operator the opportunity
to seek an alternative standard  based on
miner health and safety.)
  (3] Requires  quarterly inspections of
bulkheads and quarterly measurements
of the air exhaust rate for those
bulkheaded areas maintained under
negative pressure. (The proposed
standard required monthly bulkhead
inspections and monthly measurements
of the air exhaust rate.)
  (4) Requires that any necessary
repairs to bulkheads be made within ten
days. (The proposed standard required
that bulkhead  repairs be made  within
three days.)
  (5) Requires an annual certification of
compliance with the standard.  (The
proposed standard required an annual
report summarizing the number and
volumes of abandoned and temporarily
abandoned mine areas; the number of
bulkheads maintained; and an  estimate
of the average amount of air in the
bulkheaded areas which is exhausted
per day.)
  In establishing its final standard for
radon-222 emissions from underground
uranium mines, EPA had to weigh
protection of the public health with
protection of the mine personnel. The
Agency believes that this standard will
not significantly increase the radon
decay product concentrations to which
the underground miners are exposed.
EPA intends to work with the Mine
Safety and Health Administration to
ensure that implementation of this
standard will  not jeopardize miner
health and safety.
  This final standard requires  a work
practice, i.e., bulkheading, which is
 commonly used throughout the uranium
mining industry to direct fresh air to the
 working areas of the mine. However, the
 application of bulkheads to seal worked-
 out areas for reducing Tadon-222
 emissions from underground mines has
 not been thoroughly tested. Because of
 the limited time allowed by the Court
 order, EPA was unable to completely
 evaluate bulkheading or other
 potentially applicable work practices.
 EPA intends,  once this standard is
 promulgated,  to begin long-term studies,
 as necessary, to evaluate the efficiency
 of bulkheads  and other techniques for
 decreasing radon-222 emissions from
 underground uranium mines.
IV. Background Information
A. Industry Description
  Uranium mining involves the handling
of large quantities of ore containing
uranium-238 and its decay products. The
concentrations of these radtonuclides in
ore may be up to one thousand times
greater than their concentration in other
rocks and soils. Uranium mining is
predominantly carried out by either
surface (open pit) or underground
mining methods, depending on the
depth, ore grade, and thickness of the
ore deposit. Underground uranium
mines have generally accounted for
about thirty to forty percent of the
uranium oxide production in the United
States.
   The underground uranium mining
industry has undergone substantial
changes in recent years due to declining
demand and competition from low-cost
foreign sources. The total number of
underground mines fell from a peak of
300 in 1980 to only six by March 1985.
Currently, all underground uranium
mining in the United States takes place
in the western United States. In general,
the mines presently operating are
located in relatively remote areas of
New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, and
Arizona. Further reduction in the
number of operating mines is expected
during 1985.
   Production of uranium oxide by
underground mines peaked at 9600 tons
in I960; the industry estimates that
uranium oxide production in 1985 will be
approximately 1300 tons. EPA estimates
that, based on Department of Energy
projections of uranium oxide  demand,
the industry will produce close to 3100
tons of uranium oxide in 1985. The
Agency hers taken  into account both its
own and industry projections of uranium
 oxide production in assessing the risk
 associated with radon-222 emissions
 from underground uranium mines.
 B. Radionactfde Emissions from
 Underground Uranium Mines
   Radon-222 is the most significant
 radionuclide emitted to the above
 ground air from underground uranium
 mining activities. Radon-222 is released
 from underground mines in relatively
 high concentrations through mine
 ventilation systems. Results of
 measurement studies made at 27 large
 underground uranium mines during
 1978-1979 showed that radon-222
 emissions to air from individual mines
 ranged from 200 to 30,000 curies per year
 (Ci/y) with an average of 5600 Ci/y.
 These mines accounted for
 approximately 65  percent of the uranium
 oxide produced by all underground
 mines in 1978. Based on these
measurement results, the total radon-222
emissions from all underground uranium
mines in 1978 were about 240,000 curies.
EPA estimates emissions of radon-222
will be about 80,000 curies in 1985,
based on DOE projections of uranium
oxide demand. Using industry
projections of uranium oxide production,
emissions of radon-222 will be about
35,000 curies in 1985.
  It is important to note that the rate of
radon-222 emissions from underground
uranium mines is highly variable,
depending upon  a number of
interrelated factors, including mine
ventilation rates, ore grade, exposed
surface area, mining practices,'and
geologic formations. In addition, these
mines can differ significantly in their
configuration. The wide diversity among
mines makes it difficult to predict
emission rates of the effectiveness of
emission reduction practices at any
given mine.

C. Estimates of Exposure and Risk

  The risk  associated with emissions
from underground uranium mines is
primarily due to the short half-life decay
products of radon-222. Radon-222
decays into a series of short-lined
radionuclides. These decay products
readily attach to dust particles that may
become lodged in the lung when inhaled,
thus irradiating the surrounding cells.
   Individuals living near an
underground uranium mine can be
exposed to increased levels of radon
decay products of a result of radon-222
being released from the mine ventilation
shafts.  Radon-222 contained in the out-
side atmosphere enters homes and other
structures  built near the mine exhaust
vents through doors and windows, as
well as other openings in the structure.
The occupants of these structures may
then be exposed to potentially harmful
levels of radon-222 decay products.
   The increased lifetime risk of fatal
 lung cancer to individuals living near
 large underground uranium mines from
 the mine emissions is estimated to range
 from about one in one thousand to one
 in one hundred. The potential exists for
 an increased risk as great as one in ten
 in some situations, e.g, a person living
 very close to several horizontal mine
 vents or in areas influenced by multiple
 mine emissions. EPA estimates the
 increase in the fatal cancer risk to the
 total population from radon-222
 emissions from  underground uranium
 mines to have been about one to four
 fatal cancer cases per year during the
 peak production period of 1978-1982.
 With the decrease in the number of
 operating  underground uranium mines,
 the increased risk of fatal cancer is
                                                        IV-282
-------
           Federal  Register / Vol. 50, No.  74 / Wednesday, April 17, 1985  /  Rules and Regulations
expected to range from four-tenths to
two fatal cancer cases per year during
the period 1983-1990. Based on industry
production projections, the increased
risk of fatal cancer in 1985 is estimated
to range from three-tenths to six-tenths
of a fatal cancer case.
  Exposure levels are derived from
emission estimates, dispersion
modelling, and population data. For any
given emission rate, dispersion models
predict concentrations at different
distances from the emission source. By
combining those estimated
concentrations with census data on
population densities, the number of
people exposed at different
concentrations can be estimated.
However, several factors suggest that
actual exposure levels to nearby
individuals will be lower than those
estimated. In estimating exposure,
exposed individuals are assumed to be
subjected to the emissions for 24 hours
every day for 70 years (roughly a
lifetime). This does not consider, for
instance, the fact that most people in
their daily routines move in and out of
the specific areas where the
concentrations are the highest. In the
case of underground uranium mines, the
average life  of a mine ranges from 10-20
years, although some mines have
operated for almost thirty years.
   Several commenters pxprossrd
concern about the Agency's risk
estimates and the need for regulation of
this source category. Three specific
points were addressed: (1) The risk from
radon-222 emissions from underground
uranium mines is not of the magnitude
necessary to warrant regulation under
section 112 of the Clean Air Act,
therefore, the Agency should "delist"
radionuclides from regulatory
consideration under section 112; (2) little
evidence exists to indicate health effects
result below total exposure levels  of one
hundred working level months; and (3)
the decline in the uranium mining
industry significantly deflates the
already overestimated health risks
presented by the Agency.
   The Agency has considered these
interrelated issues and has concluded
that the "listing" of radionuclides as a
hazardous air pollutant within the
context of section 112 of the Clean Air
Act was entirely appropriate. Section
122 of the Clean Air Act requires the
Administrator to review all available
relevant information and determine
whether emissions of radioactive
pollutants to the ambient air will cause,
or contribute to, air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health. If the Administrator
concludes that emissions of
radionuclides meets this criterion, he
must list and regulate radionuclides
under section 108(a){l), section
lll(b)(l)(A), or, if he finds that
radionyclide emissions cause, or
contribute to, air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to result in an
increase in mortality or an increase in
serious irreversible, or incapacitating
reversible, illness, section 112(b)(l)(A)
of the Act, or take any combination of
such actions.
  The Agency believes that emission of
radionuclides from underground
uranium mines meets the general
criterion for an affirmative finding under
section 122. Further, the Agency believes
that emissions of radionuclides from
underground uranium mines meet the
criterion for regulation under section 112
of the Act. Specifically, there is no doubt
that radionuclides are carcinogenic,
mutagenic, and teratogenic. This
conclusion is based on extensive
scientific evidence derived from studies
of both human and animal populations.
Underground uranium mines emit radon-
222 and its decay products in large
quantities. Many studies in  the United
States and other countries of miners
exposed to radon-222 gas and its decay
products have presented highly
convincing evidence that exposure to
these radionuclides causes or
contributes to lung cancer.
  Estimating the magnitude of the
increased risk of developing lung cancer
to individuals living near underground
uranium mines and to the general
population living downwind of the
mines is complicated and uncertain.
Epidemiological data exist that
demonstrate a relationship between
cumulative exposure to radon-222 decay
products and increased lung cancer risk.
There is substantial evidence that
relates cummulati ve exposure of greater
than approximately one hundred
working level months (WLM) to an
increased risk of lung cancer. While
some studies based on human data
indicate that exposure to less than one
hundred WLM increases  the risk of lung
cancer, these data are less conclusive.
There are considerable difficulties in
demonstrating increased risk at a
statistical confidence level of 95 percent
for exposure at relatively low
concentrations of radon-222 decay
products because a very large study
population is needed. It is often  difficult
to identify appropriate study
populations large enough to conduct
such studies to examine risks at very
low levels.
  Cumulative exposure to a person
living near an undergound uranium mine
due to mine emissions is not likely to
exceed twenty WLM over his lifetime.
(This assumes exposure to about 0.3
WLM per year for about 70 years.)
While this is considerably  below
cumulative exposures at which we have
substantial human evidence relating to
lung cancer, the Agency believes that
such exposure is not below a threshold
at which no signficant health damage
could occur. Radiation protection
organizations, national  authorities, and
prestigious scientific committees
worldwide use the assumption that
there is no threshold below which
exposure to radiation does not pose
some risk to health. For example, the
National Academy of Sciences'
Committee on Biological Effects of
Ionizing Radiation recommended that
health risks from low level exposures to
alpha radiation, such as that produced
by radon-222  decay products, be
estimated by  extrapolating risks from
higher exposures using a linear
nonthreshold model. Therefore,
extrapolations from the available miner
epidemiological data have been used by
EPA to estimate risk at exposure levels
caused by radon-222 emissions from
underground uranium mines.
  Section 112 requires not  only a finding
that the pollutant at issue is hazardous
in the abstract, but also that it poses a
public health risk in its from as an air
pollutant. By coupling information on
radon-222 emissions form mines, air
transport models, and health risk
models, the Agency estimates that the
increased lifetime risk to individuals
living near an underground uranium
mine could be about one chance in one
hundred of incurring lung cancer
because of the emissions. For
perspective, the current average lifetime
risk of developing lung  cancer in the
United States is about three in one
hundred. Clearly, radon-222 emissions
from underground uranium mines may
significantly affect a nearby individual's
lung cancer risk. In addition, several
fatal cancers per year may result in the
total population due to  these emissions,
depending  on the quantity of ore
production each year.
  In making its health risk estimates,
EPA evaluated the air pollution risk of
radon-222 emissions from underground
uranium mines based on the magnitude
of both current and potential emissions,
on observed and estimated ambient
radon-222 concentrations,  on the
proximity of large populations  to
emitting sources, on estimates of health
risk to exposed populations, and on
considerations of uncertainties
associated with risk estimates. The
assessments and the assumptions used
to estimate lifetime risks are described
                                                       IV-283
-------
           Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 74  / Wednesday. April  17, 1985 / Rules  and Regulations
in more detail in the Background
Information Document. In addition, a
study conducted during the period 1978-
1980 by the New Mexico Environmental
Improvement Division clearly
demonstrated elevated concentrations
of radon-222 in air near underground
uranium mines in the Ambrosia Lake
area of New Mexico.
  The Agency believes that there is
sufficient evidence to conclude that
potential increases in the risk of lung
cancer to individuals and the general
population due to radon-222 emissions
from underground uranium mines may
be anticipated to endanger public health
and may be anticipated to result in an
increase in mortality. Consequently,
regulation of this source category under
sections 122 and 112 is appropriate.
  The Agency also believes that a
standard limiting exposure of the public
to radon-222 emissions from
underground uranium mines is
warranted, despite the low number of
operating mines. The Congress intended
hi section 112 that EPA act by a date
certain to protect  the health of current
and future generations from emissions of
pollutants that it determined to be
hazardous. This is still the Agency's
responsibility even if, as some might
argue, current production levels have
reduced risk. Demand for uranium oxide
may increase. In the peak production
years, the increase hi an individual's
lifetime risk of lung cancer from radon-
222 emissions from underground
uranium mines may have been as high
as one in ten to those individuals
exposed to mulitiple mine vents and
increased population risk may have
been as high as four fatal cancers per
year. Without a standard such as this,
risks to the public, both nationally and
regionally, would increase if demand
•nd production of uranium oxide
increases.
   Section 122 of the Clear Air Act
 allows EPA to use section 108(a)(l) or
 section lll(b)(l)(A) hi combination with
 section 112 if die Administrator
 determines it to be suitable. At this time,
 the Agency has chosen to regulate
 radon-222 emissions from underground
 uranium mines only under section 112.
 Current information suggests that
 regulation under these other sections
 would not significantly improve control
 of radon-222 emissions from
 underground uranium mines. Should
 new information alter this conclusion,
 the Agency may reconsider its approach
 to  regulating underground uranium
 mines.
 D, Control Technology
   Since radon-222 is a noble gas and the
 volume of air discharged through mine
vents is very lacge, at present there is no
practical method to remove radon-222
from the mine exhaust air. Application
of conventional methods to remove
radon-222 from mine ventilation air at
the volumes of air which must be treated
would require large, complex, unproven
systems that would be extremely costly,
i.e., adding at least $18 to $44 to the total
cost of producing a pound of uranium
oxide. (Currently, the average cost to
produce one pound of uranium oxide
from an underground mine is about $35.)
The industry now employs a number of
practices to reduce radon decay product
concentrations in the mine to meet
occupational exposure standards
established by the Mine Safety and
Health Administration. These practices,
which include  bulkheading abandoned
areas of the mine, have the effect of
reducing radon-222 emissions to the
above ground air.
  At EPA's request, the U.S. Bureau of
Mines evaluated the cost and
effectiveness of various work practices
in reducing radon-222 emissions. The
results of the study suggested that
bulkheading could reduce emissions of
radon-222 by about 10 to 60 percent.
Based on the peak production year, the
amount of population risk reduction
achieved could range from two-tenths to
two fatal cancer cases per year.
Estimates for 1983, the most recent year
for which actual production data are
available, range from one-tenth to one
fatal case per year. In 1985, based on
industry production projections, the
amount of population risk reduction is
estimated to range from three-
hundredths to three-tenths of a fatal
cancer case per year. These are only
rough estimates based on installing
bulkheads in a presently uncontrolled
mine (i.e., a mine with no bulkheads).
   Information presented during the
public comment period indicates that
uncertainty exists as to the amount of
radon-222  emission reduction
achievable by bulkheading in existing
mines. This is in part due to the
complexity in the configuration of these
mines, past mining practices, and
 consideration of miner health and
 safety. The extent to which additional
 bulkheads can be installed to further
 reduce radon-222 emissions can only be
 determined on a case-by-case basis.
   Comments from the industry
 supported EPA's conclusion that
 bulkheading is the only practical work
 practice that could be used to reduce
 radon-222 emissions to the above
 ground air. Other methods, such as rock
 sealants and backfilling, may also
 reduce radon-222 emissions; however,
 they are not thought to be as cost-
 effective or practical as bulkheading.
After considering all the available
information on control technologies, the
Agency has concluded that bulkheading
abandoned and temporarily abandoned
mine areas to seal the radon-222
underground is a practical method of
reducing radon-222 emissions from the
mines to the above ground air.

E. Bulkheading

  Bulkheads are air-restraining barriers
used to direct air and prevent
contamination or leakage of fresh air
going to the active areas of the mine.
This practice reduces the radon-222 and
decay product concentrations in the
active areas of the mine and also
reduces the volumes of air needed to
ventilate the mine. Bulkheading
practices vary among mines; some
mines make extensive use of bulkheads.
while others use few bulkheads.
  A secondary benefit of bulkheading
inactive areas of a mine is that ra'don-
222 emanating from the rock surface will
decay in the isolated area. Hence, this
technique can also reduce radon-222
emissions to the above ground air. The
amount of emission reduction achieved
is dependent on the volume of inactive
areas that are sealed with bulkheads
and the amount of air removed from^
these areas.
  The radon-222 in the sealed area
behind a bulkhead will build up to
relatively high concentrations (i.e., tens
of thousands of picocuries per liter), so
it is necessary to prevent or minimize
any leakage of air from behind the
bulkhead into the working areas of the
mine. Any such leakage could
significantly increase the radon decay
product concentration to which the
miners are exposed. Therefore, it is
often necessary to maintain a negative
differential pressure behind the
bulkhead to prevent  leakage of
contaminated air into the active mine
airways. This negative pressure is
achieved by bleeding (i.e., removing)  air
from behind the bulkhead into an
exhaust airway. For bulkheads to be
effective in reducing radon-222
 smissions to above ground  air, however,
 the amount of air bleed necessary to
maintain an adequate pressure
 differential across the bulkhead must be
 minimized. The smaller the air bleed, the
 more radon-222 will  decay behind the
 bulkhead rather than being released
 above ground.

 V. The Final Standard

   The complexity in the structure of
 underground uranium mines, the
 uncertainties in the effectiveness of in-
 mine control techniques, and the lack of
 suitable control technology to capture
                                                       IV-284
-------
           Federal Register  /  Vol.  50,  No. 74 /  Wednesday, April 17, 1985  /  Rules.and Regulations
radon-222 being vented from the mines
cause the Agency to conclude that an
emission standard is not feasible. The
effectiveness of techniques for radon-
222 emission reduction is not known.
This means that predictable, hence
measurable, steps toward compliance
with a generic emission standard can
not be identified. In this instance,
section 112(e)(l) of the Clean Air Act
allows the Agency to prescribe a work
practice or other type standard to
control the pollutant. This standard,
therefore, requires that bulkheading be
used to reduce emissions of radon-222
from the mines. A more thorough
description of the individual
components of the standard and the
rationale follows.

A. Applicability
  The standard is applicable to an
owner or operator of an active
underground uranium mine which has
mined or will mine over 100,000 tons of
ore during the life of the mine.  Mines
which have had or will have an annual
ore production rate greater than 10,000
tons must also comply with the
standard, unless it can be demonstrated
that the mine will not exceed a
cumulative ore production of 100,000
tons.
  An evaluation of radon-222 emissions
from underground mines operating in
1978 as a function of cumulative ore
production showed that 188 mines or 75
percent  of all the mines had a
cumulative ore production of less than
100,000 tons. The estimated radon-222
emission rate from each of these mines
was less than 200 curies per year, and as
a group  they contributed only five
percent  of the total curies emitted by all
underground uranium mines in 1978.
Since the radon-222 emissions  from
underground uranium mines with
cumulative ore productions of  less than
100,000 tons are small, the Agency has
concluded that these mines need not be
covered by the standard.
  One commenter suggested that the
Agency  eliminate the 100,000 tons of
cumulative ore production criterion;
another suggested increasing it to
500,000 tons. The Agency has decided to
maintain the cutoff at 100,000 tons
cumulative ore production in order to
include older mines which are  likely to
have significant emissions of radon-222
due to the large amount of surface area
emanating this radionuclide. EPA chose
the 100,000 tons cutoff based on the
results of the study discussed
previously. Ninety-five percent of the
radon-222 emissions from underground
uranium mines in 1978 were from mines
with a cumulative ore production of
100,000 tons or greater.
  The annual ore production value of
10,000 tons was selected to ensure that
mines which are likely to exceed 100,000
tons of cumulative ore production will
be covered by the standard on the
effective date of the standard or at the
time a new mine begins production.
Evidence exists which indicates that
mines with an annual ore production
rate of 10,000 tons or greater are likely
to mine 100,000 tons of ore  during their
lifetime. The standard allows a mine
owner or operator to demonstrate that
the mine will not exceed 100,000 tons of
cumulative ore production, and, thus,
not be subject to the standard.
B. Bulkheading Requirements
  Comments generally agreed with the
Agency's conclusion that bulkheading is
a practical method to reduce radion-222
emissions to the above ground air from
underground uranium mines. One
commenter suggested that backfilling
abandoned areas with mill tailings
might also yield some reduction in
radon-222 emissions. This final rule,
while prescribing bulkheading
requirements, allows a mine owner or
operator the flexibility to use other
methods of radon-222 control, such as
backfilling, upon approval by the
Administrator.
  The standard requires that an owner
or operator of an underground uranium
mine install and maintain reliable
bulkheads to isolate all abandoned and
temporarily abandoned areas of the
mine. If a negative pressure behind the
bulkhead is necessary, then a maximum
of 20 percent of the total volume of air
contained in the sealed area may be
exhausted per day. Many commentera
expressed concern about limiting the
amount of air which can be drawn from
behind a bulkhead to achieve a negative
pressure. In some situations, this
practice may result in an increase in
radon-222 decay product concentrations
in the working areas of the mine. In
addition, it may be difficult or
impractical to measure the amount of air
removed from a bulkheaded area.
Commenters requested that EPA
eliminate the limitation on  the amount of
air which can be drawn from behind a
bulkhead.
  EPA does not intend to promulgate a
standard which increases miner
exposure to radon decay products.
However, a limit on the rate of removal
of air from behind a bulkhead is
necessary to provide sufficient
residence time for the radon-222 in the
isolated area to decay. A 20 percent per
day value was selected as a balance
between the need to minimize the rate
of air removed from the isolated area
and the need to maintain adequate
negative pressure to prevent radon-222
from leaking into active mine airways
and increasing the radon-222 decay
product exposure to the miners. Our
analysis estimates that, when the
exhaust rate is maintained at 20 percent,
approximately 50 percent of the radon-
222 trapped behind the bulkhead will
decay and thus will not be vented to the
above ground air. Reducing the air
exhaust rate to 10 percent per day
would result in a radon-222 reduction of
approximately 65 percent, but we do not
have enough information at the present
time to know if this will provide
adequate protection of the miners.
  Industry representatives explained to
EPA that the ventilation routes in many
existing mines are designed so that air
from active areas is exhausted through
the inactive areas of the mine. As fresh
air is brought into the mine, care is
taken to prevent its contamination with
radon-222 decay products prior to its
reaching the active work areas.
Bulkheads are constructed primarily to
seal unused portions of the mine
adjacent to the intake airways to
prevent fresh air from escaping or
becoming contaminated. In current
practice, the mined-out areas become
exhaust airways as the mining process
retreats towards intake airways.
Therefore, a major portion of the mined-
out areas must be kept open to allow
passage of air to the exhaust vents. In
the case of one mine, ninety-six percent
of the mine is inactive areas which serve
as exhaust routes for contaminated air.
Bulkheading is unlikely to be practical
in these inactive areas unless major
changes are made in the ventilation
schemes of the mines, such as
constructing new ventilation shafts. In
addition,  entering these areas to
construct bulkheads may jeopardize the
health and safety of the miners because
of high concentrations of radon-222
decay products and ground instability.
Commenters requested that EPA exempt
from the requirements of the standard
inaccessible areas and those areas
which serve as ventilation passageways.
  After hearing the comments discussed
above and reviewing the configurations
of several existing mines, the Agency
has decided to include a provision in the
standard  to allow mine owners or
operators to apply for an alternative
standard, if necessary-to protect miner
health and safety. By including this
option, rather than simply eliminating
the air exhaust rate limitation and
exempting certain areas of a mine based
on their function, the Agency hopes to
provide incentive to design new mines
in such a way as to limit radon-222
emissions to above ground air. Industry
                                                       IV-285
-------
           Federal Register /  Vol.  50, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 17, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
representatives acknowledged at the
public hearing that a new mine could be
designed to limit the number of inactive
areas used as exhaust routes and to
maximize the amount of area which
could be bulkheaded.

C. Reporting and Recordkeeping
  The Agency received numerous
comments on the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements of the
proposed rule. In an effort to minimize
the amount of additional time personnel
must spend in a mine to meet its
standard, EPA has decreased the
number and frequency of the reporting
and recordkeeping requirements
imposed by the final rule. The revisions
are as follows:
  (1) Inspections The frequency of
inspections of bulkhead conditions and
measurements of the air exhaust rate for
those bulkheaded areas maintained
under negative pressure has been
reduced from monthly to quarterly.
Records of these inspections must be
kept at the mine and be available for
review by EPA.
  (2) Bulkhead repairs The length of
time allowed to make necessary repairs
to bulkheads has been lengthened from
three days to ten days. This change
allows mine operators greater flexibility
in managing their work force.
  (3) Annual report The amount of
information that is required to be
submitted annually to EPA has been
reduced. A mine owner or operator must
submit an annual certification of
compliance with the final rule. Records
of the number and volumes of
 abandoned and temporarily abandoned
areas, the number of bulkheads
 maintained, and an estimate of the
 average amount of air in the bulkheaded
 areas which is exhausted per day must -
 be kept at the mine. Annual submission
 of this information was required in the
 proposed rule.
 D. Definitions
   Based on public comments, several
 definitions were modified in the final
 rule.
   (1) The definitions of "abandoned
 mine area" and "temporarily abandoned
 mine area" have been modified to
 exempt not only those areas which
 function as escapeways, but also areas
 formerly-used as lunchrooms, shops,
 and transformer or pumping stations.
 These areas have been exempted
 because they are nonproduction areas
 which have low radon-222 emanation
 rates. In addition, the exemption for
 ventilation passageways is now limited
 to ventilation passageways designed to
 minimize the distance to vents and no
 longer allows large mined-out areas to
function as ventilation passageways.
Exempting these areas from the
bulkheading requirements would limit
the amount of radon-222 emission
reduction achieved by the standard. In
particular, the Agency wants to ensure
that new mines are designed to avoid
this practice.
  (2) The definition of "active mine" has
been modified to include only those
mines in which ore or waste material
are currently removed by conventional
methods. This change was made to
exempt slope leaching which does not
require workers to enter the mine,
except in rare instances.
  (3) A definition of "work" has been
added to clarify the intent of the
standard. For the  purposes of the
standard, "work" means mining activity
done in the usual  and ordinary course of
developing and operating an
underground uranium mine.

VI. Effects of the Final Standard
  The deadline imposed by the District
Court requires the Agency to promulgate
a standard for underground uranium
mines based only on the currently
available technical information. An
accurate estimate of the radon-222
emission reduction achieved by the
standard cannot be made with existing
information. The bulkheading
requirements of the rule are expected to
result in a decline in individual and
population risks as emissions of radon-
222 are reduced. Though the maximum
individual risk in particular has not been
reduced to levels EPA has selected in
other standards, the  very short time
 available for developing this rule, and
 the possibility that any reduction in risk
 to the general population might be
 achievable only by increasing the risk to
 miners, make it impossible to impose
 further controls at this time. EPA will
 continue  to investigate this matter to
 determine the possibility of tightening
 controls hi the future. Since most mines
 already install bulkheads to reduce
 ventilation requirements, it is not
 possible to estimate the incremental
 radon-222 emission reduction achieved
 by the standard.  EPA intends to gather
 additional information on the extent and
 nature of existing bulkheading practices
 and the efficacy of the standards.
   Further, the cost of the standard can
 only be generally estimated. Because we
 do not know the extent of present
 bulkheading practices or what
 additional bulkheading is practical, we
 cannot precisely estimate the cost to
 meet this standard.  Limited modelling
  analysis shows that the cost of installing
 bulkheads ranges from about one to five
  cents per pound  of uranium oxide
  produced. Based on the peak production
year, the total cost to the industry could
range from $200,000 to $1,000,000 per
year. Cost to the total industry in the
first year is estimated to range from
$30,000 to $150,000. Even if these costs
are significantly underestimated for
some mines, it is highly unlikely that the
cost of the standard would exceed one
percent  of the cost of producing uranium
oxide.
  EPA intends to begin long-term
studies, as necessary, to more
thoroughly determine the efficiency and
cost of bulkheads and other techniques
for decreasing radon-222 emissions to
the above ground air from underground
uranium mines. Such a study would
examine ways to reduce air emissions
further without increasing potential
exposure to miners. The results of a
study may lead to some modification of
the Agency's standard.

VII. Miscellaneous

A. Docket

   The docket is an organized and
complete file of all information
considered by EPA in the development
of this standard. The docket allows
interested persons to identify and locate
documents so they can effectively
participate in the rulemaking process. It
also serves as the record for judicial
review. Transcripts of the hearings, all
written statements, and other relevant
documents are placed in the docket and
are available for inspection and copying
during normal working hours.

B. General Provisions

   The general provisions of 40 CFR Part
61, subpart A apply to all sources
 regulated by this rule.
 C. State Implementation and
 Enforcement of Emission Standards
 D. Communications

   Communications with the
 Administrator regarding the reporting
 and recordkeeping requirements of this
 rule, as well as requests for waivers,
 shall follow the provisions of $ 61.10,
 except as otherwise noted hi this rule.

 E. Executive Order 12291

   Under Executive Order 12291, issued
 February 17,1981, EPA must judge
 whether a rule is a "major rule" and,
 therefore, requires that a Regulatory
 Impact Analysis be prepared. EPA has
 determined that this rule is not a major
 rule as defined in section l(b) of the
 Executive Order because the annual
 effect of the rule on the economy will be
 less than $100 million. Also, it will not
 cause a major increase in costs or prices
 for any sector of the economy or for any
                                                       IV-286
-------
           Federal Register / Vol. 50. No.  74 / Wednesday.  April 17.  1985 / Rules and Regulations
 geographic region. Further, it will not
 result in any significant adverse effects
 on competition, employment,
 investment, productivity, innovation, or
 the ability of United States enterprises
 to compete with foreign enterprises in
 domestic or foreign markets. Under
 Executive Order 12291, this rule was
 submitted to the Office of Management
 and Budget (OMB) for review. Any
 written comments from OMB to EPA,
 and responses to those comments, are
 included in the docket.

 F. Paperwork Reduction  Act

   The information collection
 requirements contained in this rule have
 been approved by OMB under the
 provisions  of the Paperwork Reduction
 Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 etseq. and
 have been assigned OMB control
 number 2060-0115.

 G. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

   Section 603 of the Regulatory
 Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 603, requires
 EPA to prepare and make available for
 comment an "initial regulatory
 flexibility analysis" in connection with
 any rulemaking for which there is a
 statutory requirement that a general
 notice of proposed rulemaking be
 published. The "initial regulatory
 analysis" describes the effect of the
 proposed rule on small business entities.
   However, section 604(b) of the
 Regulatory Flexibility Act provides that
 section 603 "shall  not apply to any
 proposed .  . . rule if the head of the
 Agency certifies that the  rule will not, if
 promulgated, have a significant
 economic impact on a substantial
 number of small entities."
  EPA believes this final rule will have
 little or no impact  on small business
 because the total costs associated with
 the standard will have relatively little
 impact on the total cost of producing
 uranium oxide. In  addition, the standard
 will apply only to  large, operating
 underground uranium mines.
  For the preceding reasons, I  certify
 that this rule, will  not have significant
 economic impact on a substantial
 number of small entities.

H. Judicial Review

  Judicial review of these standards is
 available only by filing a petition for
 review in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Distrirt of Columbia
Circuit within 60 days of  today's
publication date..The requirements
established in this notice may not be
challenged later in civil or criminal
proceedings brought by EPA to enforce
them.
 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 61

   Air pollution control, Hazardous
 materials. Asbestos, Beryllium, Mercury,
 Vinyl chloride, Benzene, Arsenic,
 Radionuclides.
   Dated: April 10,1985.
 Lee M. Thomas,
 Administrator.

   Part 61 of Chapter 1 of Title 40 of the
 Code of Federal Regulations is amended
 by adding the following Subpart B
 consisting of § J 61.20 through 61.28:

 PART 61—{AMENDED]

 Subpart B—National Emission Standard for
 Radon-222 Emissions from Underground
 Uranium Mine*
 Sec.
 61.20 Apr'icability.
 61.21 Definitions.
 61.22 Standard.
 61.23 Alternatives Standard.
 61.24 Bulkhead Inspection and Testing.
 61.25 Bulkhead Repair.
 61.26 RecMdkeeping.
 61.27 Reporting Requirements.
 61.28 Source Reporting and Waiver Request.
  Authority: Sec. 112 and 301(a) Clean Air
 Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7412, 7601(a).

 Subpart B—National Emission
 Standard for Radon-222  Emissions
 from Underground Uranium Mines

 §61.20 AppKcabmty.
   The previsions of this subpart are
 applicable to an owner or operator of an
 active underground  uranium mine
 which:
   (a) Has mined or will mine over
 100,000 tons of ore during the life of the
 mine; or
   (b) Has had or will have an annual ore
 production rate greater than 10,000 tons,
 unless it can be demonstrated that the
 mine will not exceed a total ore
 production of 100,000 tons during the life
 of the mine.

 §61.21 Definitions.
  As used in this subpart, all terms not
 defined here shall have the meaning
 given them in the Clean Air Act or in
 subpart A of Part 61 and the following
 terms shall have the specific meanings
 given below:
  (a) "Abandoned area" means a
 deserted mine area in which work has
 ceased and in which further work is not
 intended Areas which function as
 escapewqys, and areas formerly-used as
 lunchrooms, shops, and transformer or
pumping stations are not considered
abandoned areas. Except for designated
ventilation passageways designed to
minimize the distance to vents, worked-
out mine areas are considered
 abandoned areas for the purpose of this
 subpart.
   (b) "Active mine" means an
 underground uranium mine from which
 ore or waste material is currently
 removed by conventional methods.
   (c) "Area" means a man-made
 underground void from which ore or
 waste has been removed.
   (d) "Bulkhead" means an air-
 restraining barrier constructed for long-
 term control of radon-222 and radon-222
 decay product levels in mine air.
   (e) "Inactive  mine" is  a mine from
 which uranium ore has been previously
 removed but which is not an active mine
 as of the effective date of the standard.
 Inactive mines  which become active
 mines after the effective date of the
 standard are considered new sources
 under the provisions of subparts A and
 B of this part.
   (f) "Modification" as applied to an
 active underground uranium mine
 means any major change in the method
 of operation or mining procedure which
 will result in an increase in the amount
 of radon-222 emitted to air. The normal
 development or operation of an active
 mine, even though it results in an
 increase in emissions, is not considered
 a modification for the purposes of this
 subpart.
   (g)  "Temporarily abandoned area"
 means a mine area in which further
 work is not intended for at least six
 months. Areas which function as
 escapeways, formerly-used lunchrooms,
 shops, and transformer or pumping
 stations are not considered abandoned
 areas. Except for designated ventilation
 passageways designed to minimize the
 distance to vents', worked-out mine
 areas are considered temporarily
 abandoned areas  for the purpose of this
 subpart if work is not intended in the
 area for at least six months.
   (h)  "Underground uranium mine"
 means a man-made underground
 excavation made for the purpose of
 removing material containing uranium
 for the principal purpose of recovering
 uranium.
  (i) "Work" means mining activity
 done in the usual and ordinary course of
 developing and operating a mine.
 §61.22  Standard.
  (a) An owner or operator of an
 underground uranium mine subject to
 this subpart shall install  and maintain
 bulkheads to isolate all abandoned and
 temporarily abandoned areas according
 to the following requirements:
  (1) The bulkhead shall be a structure
designed and constructed for long-term
control of the isolated area and shall be
sealed to minimize air leakage through
                                                      IV-287
-------
           Federal Register / Vol. 50, No.  74 / Wednesday,  April 17,  1985 / Rules and Regulations
the bulkhead. The bulkhead shall be of
sufficient structural strength to resist
mechancial abuse, blasting shocks, air
pressure differentials, and rock
movement for an extended period of
time in the mine-operating environment.
The basic bulkhead structure may
consist of a timber or metal stud frame,
covered with lumber, expanded metal
lath, plywood, or other sheet products. It
may be a continuous nonporous
membrane or it may support such a
membrane. A sealant shall be applied
onto the basic structure and in the joints
between the structure and the rock to
form a'continuous seal and radon
barrier. The sealant shall be of a type
that will provide a protective seal, and
will not easily crack or develop holes or
leaks. A sealant may consist of coatings
of mortar, masonry, latex, uretane foam,
or similar materials. A properly
constructed and sealed bulkhead shall
have no visible cracks or gaps.
   (2) If negative pressure behind the
bulkhead is used, then a maximum of 20
percent of the total volume of air
contained in  the isolated area can be
exhausted per day.
   (3) As mine areas become abandoned
or temporarily abandoned after  the
applicable date of this standard, the
mine owner or operator must install a
bulkhead in compliance with the
provisions of § 61.22(a) within 30 days of
the area becoming abandoned or
temporarily abandoned.
   (b) Upon written application from an
owner or operator of an underground
uranium mine subject to this subpart,
the Administrator may approve
 alternative bulkhead designs or
construction, or other methods for
 isolating abandoned or temporarily
 abandoned areas, if such alternatives
 can be shown to provide isolation of the
 area equivalent to the requirements of
 § 61.22(a)(l).

 §61.23 Alternative Standard.
   (a) If compliance with the
 requirements of § 61.22 will result in
 increased radon-222 decay product
 concentrations in the active areas of the
 mine,  will require workers to enter
 unsafe areas, or will otherwise  be
 impractical to achieve because  of unique
 or unusual circumstances, then  the
 owner or operator of an existing source
 (i.e., existing active mine) may apply to
 the Administrator for an alternative
 standard. The Administrator may
 establish an alternative standard if the
 applicant demonstrates that an
 alternative is necessary  to provide for
 the health and safety of the workers and
 will minimize the exposure of nearby
 individuals and the general population
 to radon-222 decay products, to the
extent practical. Applications for an
alternative standard shall be made
within 90 days of the effective date of
the standard and include the following
information:
  (1) The reasons for requesting an
alternative;
  (2) A description of the alternative
requested;
  (3) A description of all measures that
have been taken or will be taken by the
mine owner or operator to minimize the
exposure of nearby individuals and the
general population to radon-222 decay
products, to the extent practical.
  (4) A schedule for complying with the
alternative standard.
  (b) An inactive mine which again*
becomes active may request an
alternative standard under $ 61.23(a).
Application for an alternative standard
must be submitted as part of an
application for approval of construction
or modification as required under
§ 61.07.
  (c) Requests for an alternative
standard shall be sent to the Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation
(ANR-443), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, D.C. 20460.

§61.24  Bulkhead Inspection and Testing.
  An owner or operator of an
underground mine subject to the
requirements of § 61.22 shall conduct the
following bulkhead inspections and
tests:
   (a) A visual inspection of the
condition of each bulkhead required
under § 61.22(a) shall be conducted
every three months by a qualified
representative of the mine owner or
operator to determine if, in his or her
judgment, the integrity of the bulkhead
is in compliance with the requirements
 of S 61.22(a)(l). A record of each
 inspection shall be made in accordance
 with the requirements of § 61.26.
   (b) For bulkheaded areas maintained
 under negative pressure, measurement
 of the air exhaust rate from the area
 shall be made at least every three
 months to determine compliance with
 the requirement of S 61.22(a)(2). A
 record of each exhaust rate
 measurement shall be made in
 accordance with the requirements of
 § 61.26.
   (c) Upon written application from an
 owner or operator of an underground
 uranium mine subject to this subpart,
 the Administrator may approve
 alternative testing and inspection
 procedures if such alternative
 procedures can be shown to provide
 reasonable assurance that the mine is in
 compliance with the requirements of
 S 61.22(a).
§61.25 Bulkhead Repair.
  Bulkheads determined not to be in
compliance with the requirements of
§ 61.22(a) during inspections required
under { 61.24 shall be repaired within
ten days in accordance with the
requirements of § 61.22(a)

§ 61.26 Rccordkeeping.
  Records of inspections and tests
required under § 61.24 shall be
maintained as described below. These
records shall include a bulkhead
identification number and location and
the date of each inspection or test.
  (a) The results of each inspection
required under § 61.24(a) shall be
recorded as follows:
  (1) A description of the condition of
the bulkhead including identification of
any damage and the extent of damages.
  (2) A determination  that the bulkhead
is in compliance with the specifications
of §  61.22(a) or that repairs are needed.
  (b) A record shall be maintained for
each bulkhead repaired under the
requirements of I 61.25.
  (c) A record shall be maintained for
each air flow rate measurement
conducted under the requirements of
§ 61.24(b). These records shall show the
results of each test and the method used.
The percent of the total air volume
behind the bulkheaded area which is
exhausted per day at the measured flow
rate shall be recorded.
  (d) Records of inspections and tests
shall be maintained at the mine and
made available for inspection and
copying by the Administrator for a
minimum of two years.
   (e) A current map or schematic of the
mine showing the location of each
bulkhead required under § 61.22(a) and
the approximate air volume of the
isolated area shall be maintained. Each
bulkhead shall be assigned an
 identification number which shall be
 used in inspections and tests, and the
 reporting requirements of §§ 61.24 and
 61.26. This map shall be kept at the mine
 and be made available for review by the
 Administrator.
 (Approved by the Office of Management and
 Budget under the control number 2060-0115)

 § 61.27 Reporting Requirements.
   (a) An owner or operator of an
 underground uranium mine subject to
 the  requirements of this subpart shall
 submit a certification to the
 Administrator by March 1,1986,  and
 annually thereafter. This certification
 shall be based on information and data
 concerning the calendar year
 immediately preceding the required data
 for submission of the certification and
 shall consist of a statement that  the
                                                        IV-288
-------
            Federal Register / Vol.  50, No. 74 / Wednesday,  April 17,  1985 / Rules and Regulations
 bulkheading requirements of § 81.22(a)
 or any alternative standard established
 under § 61.23 have been implemented.
   [b) If a waiver of compliance is
 granted, this certification is to be
 submitted on a date scheduled by the
 Administrator.
 (Approved by the Office of Management and
 Budget under control number 2060-0115)

 §61.28  Source Reporting and Waiver
 Request
   (a) The owner or operator of any
 existing source, or any new source to
 which a standard prescribed under this
 subpart is applicable which had an
 initial startup which preceded the
 effective date of a standard prescribed
 under this subpart shall, within 90 days
 after the effective date, provide the
 following information in writing to the
 Administrator:
   (1) Name and address of the owner or
 operator;
   (2) The location of the source;
                                        (3) A brief description of the nature,
                                      size, design, and method of operation of
                                      the mine including: (i) current or
                                      expected annual ore production rates,
                                      (ii) current cumulative ore production,
                                      (Hi) expected cumulative ore production
                                      over the life of mine;
                                        (4) The number of abandoned and
                                      temporarily abandoned areas in the
                                      mine and the number of these areas
                                      which are isolated by bulkheads; and
                                        (5) A statement  by the owner or
                                      operator of the source as to whether he
                                      can comply with the standard
                                      prescribed in this  subpart within 90 days
                                      of the effective date.
                                        (b) An owner or operator of an
                                      existing underground uranium mine (i.e..
                                      existing source) unable to operate in
                                      compliance with the standard
                                      prescribed under this subpart or lacking
                                      sufficient information to apply for an
                                      alternative standard within 90 days of
                                      the effective date  of the standard may
                                      request a waiver of compliance with
                                       such standard for a period not
                                       exceeding two years from the effective
                                       date. Any request shall be in writing and
                                       shall include the following information:
                                         (1) The reasons for requesting the
                                       waiver;
                                         (2) A schedule for achieving
                                       compliance with the standard, or if
                                       applicable, the alternative standard,
                                       including the steps which will be taken
                                       to come into compliance including a
                                       date by which each step will be ^
                                       achieved; and
                                         (3) Interim emission control steps will
                                       be taken  during the waiver period.
                                         (c) Changes in the information
                                       provided under paragraph (a) of this
                                       section shall be provided to the
                                       Administrator within 30 days after such
                                       change, except that if changes will  result
                                       from modification of the source, as
                                       defined in §§ 61.02, the provisions of
                                       § 61.07 and 61.08 are applicable.
                                       [FR Doc. 85-9200 Filed 4-10-85; 8:45 am]
I2ft
              Federal Register / Vol.  50. No. 75 / Thursday. April 18. 1985 / Rules and Regulations
   CFR Parts 60 and 61

 IA-7-FRL-2821-8]

 Standards of Performance for New
 Stationary Sources (NSPS) and
 National Emission Standards for
 Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS);
 Changes of Address

 AGENCY: Environmental Protection
 Agency (EPA).
 ACTION: Final rulemaking.

 SUMMARY: The EPA is today amending
 40 CFR 60.4 and 40 CFR 61.04 to reflect
 changes of address.
 EFFECTIVE DATE: April 18,1985.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
 Charles W. Whitmore, Chief, Air
 Compliance Section, Air Branch, EPA,
 Region VII, 726 Minnesota Avenue,
 Kansas City, Kansas 66101 (816/374-
 6525 or FTS: 758-6525).
 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  Sections
 40 CFR 60.4 and 61.04, respectively, set
 forth the EPA regional offices and state
 agencies  to which all requests, reports,
 applications, submittals, and other
 communications must be sent by owners
 and/or operators of facilities (or
 activities) affected by the  federal
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources (NSPS) or the
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS)
regulations. The information given in 40
CFR 60.4 and 61.04 must be changed to
reflect a change of address of the EPA,
Region VII," office and a change of title
of Iowa's air pollution control
department.
  The Administrator finds good cause
for foregoing prior public notices of the
amendments and for making this
rulemaking effective immediately in that
the amendments are an administrative
change and not one of substantive
content. No additional burdens are
imposed upon the parties affected by the
amendments.
  This rulemaking is effective
immediately and is issued under the
authority of section 111 and section 112
of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42
U.S.C. 7411 and 7412.
  Dated: March 25, 1985.
Morris Kay,
Regional Administrator.
  Parts 60 and 61 of Chapter I, Title 40
of the Code of Federal Regulatiqns are
amended as follows:
                                                                              PART 61—[AMENDED]

                                                                                1. In § 61.04, the address of Region VII
                                                                              in paragraph (a) and the entry for the
                                                                              State of Iowa in paragraph (b)(Q) are
                                                                              amended to read as follows:

                                                                              §61.04  Address.
                                                                                (a) *  ' '
                                                                                Region VII (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri.
                                                                              Nebraska), Director, Air and Toxics
                                                                              Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
                                                                              Agency, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas
                                                                              City, Kansas 66101.
                                                                                (b) *  * *
                                                                                (Q) State of Iowa: Iowa Department of
                                                                              Water,  Air and Waste Management,
                                                                              Henry A. Wallace Building, 900 East
                                                                              Grand,  Des Moines. Iowa 50319.
                                                                              *****

                                                                              (FR Doc. 85-9421 Filed 4-17-85; 8:45 am|
                                                                              BILLING CODE CMO-SO-M
                                                        1V-289
-------
               Federal Register  /  Vol. 50. No. 76 / Friday. April  19, 1985 / Rules  and  Regulations
127

 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

 (Docket No. AM707PA; A-3-FRL-2820-1I

 Standards of Performance for New
 Stationary Sources and National
 Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
 Pollutants; Delegation of Authority of
 the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
 Department of Environmental
 Resources

 AGENCY: Environmental Protection
 Agency.
 ACTION: Rule related notice.

 SUMMARY: Section lll(c) and 112(d) of
 the Clean Air Act permit EPA to
 delegate to the States the authority to
 implement and enforce the standards set
 out in 40 CFR Part 60 and Part 61,
 Standards of Performance for New
 Stationary Sources (NSPS) and National
 Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
 Pollutants  (NESHAP). respectively. On
 December 11,1984, the Commonwealth
 of Pennsylvania, Department of
 Environmental Resources requested
 EPA to delegate to it the  authority for
 additional NSPS and NESHPA source
 categories. EPA  granted the request on
 January 7,1985.  The Commonwealth
 now has authority to implement and
 enforce NSPS regulations for Equipment
 Leaks of Volatile Organic Compounds
 (VOC) in Petroleum Refineries (Sub-part
 GGG) and Flexible Vinyl and Urethane
 Coating and Printing (Subpart FFF). and
 NESHAP regulations for  Equipment
 Leaks (Fugitive Emission Sources) of
 Benzene (Subpart J] and  Equipment
 Leaks (Fugitive Emission Sources)
 (Subpart V).
 EFFECTIVE DATE: January 7,1985.
 ADDRESSES: Applications and reports
 required under all NSPS  and NESHAP
 source categories now being delegated
 to the Pennsylvania Department of
 Environmental Resources should be
 addressed to the Commonwealth of
 Pennsylvania, Department of
 Environmental Resources, P.O. Box 2063,
 Harrisburg. PA 17120. in  addition to U.S.
 EPA. Region III,  641 Chestnut Street.
Philadelphia, PA 19107, Attn: Thomas
Maslany (3AM20).
  Copies of the Notice and
accompanying documents are available
for inspection during normal business
hours at the Pennsylvania DER address
given above or at the following offices:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
  Region III, 841 Chestnut Street,
  Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19*7,
  ATTN: Michael Giuranna (3AM11),
  Telephone: (215) 597-9189
Public Information Reference Unit.
  Room 2»22—EPA Library, U.S.
  Environmental Protection Agency,
  401 M Street S.W. (Waterside Mall),
  Washington, D.C. 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Giuranna of EPA Region Ill's
Air Programs Branch, telephone (215)
597-9189.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
NESHAP program was delegaed to  the
Department on February 4,1977 with the
stipulation that Authority to enforce
subsequent standards would be
delegated only if specifically requested.
The NSPS program was delegated to the
Department on January 16,1980, with
the same stipulation.
  On December 11,1984, the
Department requested EPA to delegate
to it authority to implement and enforce
additional NSPS and NESHAP
Standards.
  Delegation oAhe additional standards
was made by the following letter on
January 7,1985.
Honorable Nicholas DeBenedicas,
Secretary, Deportment of Enviror m^. ntnl
   Resources.
  P.O. Box 2063.
  Harrisburg. Pennsylvania 17120
  Dear Mr. DeBenedictis: This is in response
to your letter of December 11,1904.
requesting delegation of authority for the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources to enforce New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) for VOC
Equipment Leaks in Petroleum Refineries and
the Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry (Sub-pert GGG)  and
Flexible Vinyl and Urethane Coating and
Printing (Subpart FFF), and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Benzene Equipment
Leaks (Fugitive Emission Sources) of Volatile
Hazardous Air Pollutants (Subpart V).
  We have reviewed the pertinent laws, rules
and regulations of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania and have determined that they
continue to provide an adequate and
effective procedure for implementing and
enforcing the NSPS and NESHAP. Therefore.
were hereby delegate the authority for the
implementation and enforcement  of the  NSPS
and NESHAP regulations to the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as follows:
  Authority for all sources located or to be
located in the Commonwealth of
Pennsjlvania subject to the Standards of
Performance for New Stationary Sources for
VOC Equipment Leaks in Petroleum
Refineries and the Synthetic Organic
Chemical Manufacturing Industry (GGG) and
Flexible Vinyl and Urethane Coating and
Printing (FFF) and National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Equipment Leaks (Fugitive Emission Sources)
of Benzene (]) and Equipment Leaks (Fugitive
Emission Sources) of Volatile Hazardous Air
Pollutants (V).
  This delegation is based upon the
conditions given in our June 30,1983 letter to
you which delegated 7 additional NSPS
source categories to the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.
  Also, thank you for your request for
automatic delegation of NSPS and NESHAP
We are presently reviewing the
Commonwealth's rules and regulations to
determine if they are adequate. Once our
determination is made, we will notify you. If
you have any questions, please contact Glenn
Hanson, Chief. PA/WV Section at (215) 597-
8486.
     Sincerely.
Thomas P. Eichler,
Regional Administrator.
  Effective immediately, all
applications, reports, and other
correspondence required under the
NSPS for VOC Equipment Leaks in
Petroleum Refineries (GGG) and
Flexible Vinyl and Urethane Coating
and Printing (FFF) and under the
NESHAP for Equipment Leaks (Fugitive
Emission Sources) of Benzene (]) and
Equipment Leaks (Fugitive Emission
Sources) (V). should be sent to the
Pennsylvania Department ef
Environmental Resources (address
above) in addition to the EPA Region III
Office in Philadelphia.
  The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.

List of Subjects

tO 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, Incorporation
by reference. Can surface coating.
Industrial organic chemicals, Organic
solvent cleaners. Fossil fuel-fired steam
generators. Fiberglass insulation.
Synthetic fibers.

40 CFR Part 61

  Air pollution control.
                                                      IV-290
-------
             Federal  Register  /  Vol. 50,  No. Ill / Monday, June  10, 1985  / Rules and Regulations
 (Sec. lll(c), and 112(d) Clean Air Act (42
 U.S.C.) 7411(c) and 7412(d)}
   Dated: April 4,1985.
 Stanley Laskowski,
 Acting Regional Administrator.
 [FR Doc. 85-9342 Filed 4-18-85; 8:45 am]
128

 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
 AGENCY

 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

 IAL-012; A-4-FRL-2848-5]

 Standards of Performance for New
 Stationary Sources, National Emission
 Standards for Hazardous Air
 Pollutants; Delegation of Authority to
 the State of Alabama

 AGENCY: Environmental Protection
 Agency.
 ACTION: Delegation of authority.

 SUMMARY: On March 25,1985, the State
 of Alabama requested that EPA delegate
 authority for implementation and
 enforcement of 13 additional  categories
 of Standards of Performance  for New
 Stationary Sources (NSPS), and 3
 additional categories of National
 Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
 Pollutants (NESHAP). Since EPA's
 review of pertinent State laws and rules
 and regulations showed them to be
 adequate for the  implementation and
 enforcement of these Federal Standards,
 the Agency has made the delegations as
 requested.
 EFFECTIVE DATE:  The effective date of
 the delegation of authority is  April  5.
 1985.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the requests for
delegation of authority and EPA's letter
of delegation are available for public
inspection at EPA's Region IV Office,
345 Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta,
Georgia 30365.
  All reports required pursuant to the
newly delegated standards (listed
below) should be submitted to the
following address: Air Division,
Alabama Department of Environmental
Management, 1751 Federal Drive,
Montgomery, Alabama 36109.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kelly McCarty, at the EPA Region IV
address listed above, and phone 404/
881-3286 or FTS 257-3286.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
301, in conjunction with sections 101 and
lll(c)(l) of the Clean Air Act, authorizes
EPA to delegate authority to implement
and enforce the standards set out in 40
CFR Part 60, NSPS, and 40 CFR Part 61.
NESHAP.
  On August 5,1976, EPA initially
delegated the authority for
implementation and enforcement of the
NESHAP and NSPS programs to the
State of Alabama. On March 28,1985.
Alabama requested a delegation of
authority for implementation and
enforcement of the following recently
promulgated NSPS categories found in
40 CFR Part 60:
Subpart EE: Surface Coating of Metal
  Furniture
Subpart KK: Lead-Acid Battery
  Manufacture
Subpart LL: Metallic Mineral Processing
  Plants
Subpart NN: Phosphate Rock Plants
Subpart QQ: Graphic Arts Industry:
  Publication Rotogravure Printing
Subpart RR: Pressure Sensitive Tape
  and Label Surface Coating Industry
Subpart SS: Industrial Surface Coating—
  Large Appliances
Subpart TT: Metal Coil Surface Coating
  Operations
Subpart UU: Asphalt Processing and
  Asphalt Roofing Manufacture
Subpart WW: Beverage Can Surface
  Coating Industry
Subpart GGG: VOC Fugitive Emission
  Sources—Petroleum Refineries
Subpart HHH: Synthetic Fiber
  Production Facilities
Subpart JJJ: Petroleum Dry Cleaners
  On the same date, the State of
Alabama also requested authority for
the following recently adopted NESHAP
categories:
Subpart ]: Benzene Equipment Leaks
Subpart M: Asbestos
Subpart V: Benzene Fugitive Emission
  Sources
  After a thorough review of the
request, the Regional Administrator
determined that such a delegation was
appropriate for these source categories
with the conditions set forth in the
original delegation letter of August 5,
1976. Alabama sources subject to the
requirements of Subparts EE, KK, LL,
NN, QQ, RR. SS, TT, UU, WW, GGG,
HHH, and JJJ of 40 CFR Part 60, and
Subparts J, M, and V of 40 CFR Part 61.
will now be under the jurisdiction of the
State of Alabama.
(Sees. 101, 111, and 301 of the Clean Air Act
(42 U.S.C. 7401, 7410, 7411, and 7601))
  Dated: May 28,1985.
John A. Little,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 85-13872 Filed 6-7-85; 8:45 am]
 129
 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

 [A-2-FRL-2857-7]

 National Emission Standards for
 Hazardous Air Pollutants and
 Standards of Performance for New
 Stationary Sources; Delegation of
 Authority to the State of New Jersey

 AGENCY: Environmental Protection
 Agency.
 ACTION: Notice of delegation of
 authority.
                                                      IV-291
-------
             Federal  Register  /  Vol. 50, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 2,  1985 / Rules  and Regulations
SUMMARY: This notice announces the
delegation of authority by the
Environmental Protection Agency to the
State of New Jersey to implement and
enforce additional source categories of
the Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources (NSPS) and revisions
and amendments to the NSPS and
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS).
This delegation was requested by the
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJDEP).
NSPS and NESHAPS are  air pollution
control requirements set under the Clean
Air Act. NSPS are applicable to  certain
categories of new air pollution sources.
NESHAPS are applicable to certain
categories of both new and existing
sources.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This action was
effective November 1,1984.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Francis W. Ciaccone, Chief, Air
Compliance Branch, Air & Waste
Management Division, Region EL Office,
26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York
10278, (212) 264-9627.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Sections
lll(c) and 112(d) of the Clean Air Act
directs the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
to delegate EPA's authority to
implement and enforce Standards of
Performance for New Stationary
Sources (NSPS) and National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS) to any state which has
submitted adequate procedures.
Nevertheless, the Administrator still
retains concurrent authority to enforce
the standards following delegation of
authority to a state.
  On September 14,1984  EPA notified
the NJDEP of four newly promulgated
and one not previously delegated NSPS
along with the revisions and
amendments to existing NSPS
promulgated between January 1,1984
and June 30,1984, and two newly
promulgated NESHAPS along with
revisions  and amendments promulgated
between July 1,1983 and June 30,1984.
NJDEP accepted four NSPS, and
revisions  and amendments to existing
NSPS and NESHAPS in a letter dated
October 19,1984 from the Commissioner
of the NJDEP to the EPA Regional
Administrator, Region II.  The following
provides a complete listing of NSPS and
NESHAPS delegated to the NJDEP. The
new categories now being delegated by
today's action are identified with an
asterisk (*). All revisions  and
amendments to the existing NSPS
promulgated between January 1,1984
and June 30.1984 and to the existing
NESHAPS promulgated between July 1,
1983 and June 30,1984 are included here
by reference.
NSPS Delegation
D  Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generators
  for Which Construction Commenced
  After August 17.1971 (Steam
  Generators and Lignite Fired Steam
  Generators)
Da   Electric Utility Steam Generating
  Units for Which Construction
  Commenced After September 18,1978
E  Incinerators
F  Portland Cement Plants
G  Nitric Acid Plants
H  Sulfuric Acid Plants
I Asphalts Concrete Plants
J Petroleum Refineries—(All
  Categories)
K  Storage Vessels for Petroleum
  Liquids Constructed After June 11,
  1973, and prior to May 19,1978
Ka   Storage Vessels for Petroleum
  Liquids Constructed After May 18,
  1978
L  Secondary Lead Smelters
M  Secondary Brass and Bronze Ingot
  Production Plants
N  Iron and Steel Plants
O  Sewage Treatment Plants
P  Primary Copper Smelters
Q  Primary Zinc Smelters
R  Primary Lead Smelters
S  Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants
T  Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Wet
  Process Phosphoric Acid Plants
U  Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
  Superphosphoric Acid Plants
V  Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
  Diammonium Phosphate Plants
W  Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Triple
  Superphosphate Plants
X  Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
  Granular Triple Superphosphate
  Storage Facilities
Y  Coal Preparation Plants
Z  Ferroalloy Production Facilities
AA Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces
BB   Kraft Pulp Mills
CC   Glass Manufacturing Plants
DD   Grain Elevators
EE   Surface Coating of Metal Furniture
GG  Stationary Gas Turbines
HH Lime Plants
KK   Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing
  Plants
*LL Metallic Mineral Processing Plants
MM  Automobile and Light-Duty Truck
  Surface Coating Operations
NN  Phosphate Rock Plants
PP  Ammonium Sulfate Manufacturing
  Plants
QQ Graphic Art Industry Publication
  Rotogravure  Printing
RR   Pressure Sensitive Tape and Label
  Surface Coating Operations
SS   Industrial  Surface Coating: Large
  Appliances
*TT  Metal Coil Surface Coating
UU  Asphalt Processing and Asphalt
  Roofing Manufacture
W  Equipment Leaks of Volatile
  Organic Compounds in Synthetic
  Organic Chemical Manufacturing
  Industry
WW  Beverage Can Surface Coating
  Industry
XX  Bulk Gasoline Terminals
*FFF  Flexible Vinyl and Urethane
  Coating and Printing
*HHH  Synthetic Fiber Production
  Facilities
C  National Emission Standard for
  Beryllium
D  National Emission Standard for
  Beryllium Rocket Motor Firing
E  National Emission Standard for
  Mercury
F  National Emission Standard for
  Vinyl Chloride
M  National Emission Standard for
  Asbestos (excluding Demolition and
  Renovation)

EPA's Findings

  EPA's determination that the
delegation be approved is based on the
Agency's review of the New Jersey Air
Pollution Control Act, N.J.S.A. 26:2C; the
State Public Records Act, N.J.S.A.
47:1A-1; and Title 7, Chapters 27 and
27B of the New Jersey Administrative
Code. Based on that review, EPA
determined that such delegation is,
therefore, appropriate and so notified
the Commissioner of the NJDEP, in a
letter  dated September 14,1984. NJDEP
subsequently accepted delegation of the
additional categories in a letter dated
October 19,1984. This delegation of
additional NSPS and NESHAPS is based
on the conditions delineated in EPA's
letter  to the Commissioner of February
19,1985. Copies of all correspondence
and EPA's delegation letter are
available for public inspection in the
Office of the Air Compliance Branch at
the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region II Office, 26 Federal Plaza, New
York,  New York 10278.

Consequences of EPA's Action

  Effective November 1,1984, all
correspondence, reports and
notifications required by the delegated
NSPS and NESHAPS should be
submitted to the Offices of the New
Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Enforcement
Operations, Division of Environmental
Quality at John Fitch Plaza—CN-027,
Trenton, New Jersey 08625.
  The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this action from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive
Order 12991.
                                                    IV-292
-------
           Federal Register  / Vol. 50, No. 148  / Thursday.  August 1, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
  This Notice is issued under the
authority of section 111 of the Clean Air
Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7411).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 60 and
61
  Air pollution control,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Incorporation by reference.
  Dated: June 18,1985.
Christopher). Daggett
Regional A dministrator.
(PR Doc. 85-15819 Filed 7-1-85: 8:45 am)
130
 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
 AGENCY

 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
 [A-4-FRL-2872-6]

 Standards of Performance for New
 Stationary Sources; National Emission
 Standards for Hazardous Air
 Pollutants; Delegation of Additional
 Standards to Georgia

 AGENCY: Environmental Protection
 Agency.
 ACTION: Delegation of Authority.

 SUMMARY: On June 5,1985,  the Georgia
 Department of Natural Resources
 requested that EPA delegate to the State
 the authority to implement  and enforce
 the Federal new source performance
 standards (NSPS) and national emission
 standards for hazardous air pollutants
 (NESHAP) not previously delegated to
 Georgia except the NESHAP for
 radionuclides. Since EPA's review of
 pertinent Georgia laws, rules, and
 regulations showed them to be adequate
 to implement and enforce these Federal
 standards, the Agency has  delegated the
 standards in question (listed below
 under "Supplementary Information") to
 Georgia. Affected sources should now
 contact the State rather than EPA on
 future matters.
 EFFECTIVE DATE: June 17,1985.
 ADDRESSES: Copies of the State's
 request and EPA's letter of delegation
 are available for public inspection at
 EPA's Region IV office, 345 Courtland
 Street, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30365. All
 reports required pursuant to the newly
 delegated standards (listed below)
 should be submitted to the  Air
 Protection Branch, Environmental
 Protection Division, Georgia Department
 of Natural Resources, 270 Washington
 Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30334,
 rather than the EPA Region IV.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
 Walter Bishop of the EPA Region IV Air
 Management Branch at the above
 address, telephone 404/881-3286 (FTS
 257-3286).
 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
 301, in conjunction with sections 101,
110, 111, and 112 of the Clean Air Act,
authorizes EPA to delegate authority to
implement and enforce the Standards of
Performance for New Stationary
Sources NSPS) and National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) to any state which has
adequate implementation and
enforcement procedures. On May 3,
1976, EPA delegated to Georgia
authority to implement and enforce
NSPS, and NESHAP then extant.  As
additional categories have been
promulgated, the State has requested
authority for them; EPA has responded
by making supplemental delegations of
authority on August 8,1977, April 15,
1982, and June 7,1982.
  On June 5,1985, the Georgia
Department of Natural Resources
requested a delegation of authority for
all standards in 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
(except the NESHAP for radionuclides)
which EPA had not previously delegated
to the State. The State's request cited
the May 1,1985, action of the Georgia
Board of Natural Resources adopting by
reference  all extant NSPS and NESHAP
except those for radionuclides. On June
17,1985, EPA Region IV responded by
delegating to Georgia the NSPS and
NESHAP listed below. The notation "R"
indicates standards which were
redelegated because they had been
revised by EPA after an earlier
delegation.

     NSPS—40 CFR PART 60, SUBPART
                                                                                  D

                                                                                  Os
                                                                                  Ka

                                                                                  M

                                                                                  O
                                                                                  P
                                                                                  s
                                                                                  T

                                                                                  u

                                                                                  V

                                                                                  w

                                                                                  AA


                                                                                  AAe
                                                                                  BB
                                                                                  CC
                                                                                  EE
                                                                                  GG
                                                                                  HH
                                                                                  LL
                                                                                  OO
      Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generators for Which Cor>
       struction M Commenced After August 17, 1971
       
      Electric Utility  Steam Generating Units for VWwh
       Construction is Commenced After September 18.
       1978 (R)
      Nitric Acid Plants (R).
      Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids Constructed
       After June 11. 1973. and Prior to May 19. »378
       (R)
      Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids Constructed
       After May 18. 1978 (R)
      Secondary Brass & Bronze Ingot Production Plants
       
      Sewage Treatment Plants (R)
      Primary Cooper Smelters (R).
      Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants (R)
      Phosphate Fertilizer Industry- Wet Process P*xv
       tponc Aod Plants (R)
      Phosphate Fertilizer Industry  SuperphoSponc Acid
       Plants (R)
      Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Diammonium Phos-
       phate Plants (R).
      Phosphate Fertilizer Industry- Triple Supe'phosp'-s'e
       Plants (R)
      Steel Plants-  Electric  Arc Furnaces Consimcwci
       After October 21, 1974, and On or Before August
       17. 1983 (R).
      Steel Plants:  Electric  Arc Furnace and  Argon
       Oxygen Decarbunzation  Vessels Cons'rucred
       After August 17, 1983.
      Kraft Pulp Mills (R).
      Glass Manufacturing Plants (R)
      Surface Coating of Metal FumiUire
      Stationary Gas Turbines (R).
      Lime Manufacturing Plants
      Metallic Mineral Processing Plants
      Grapt"c Arts Industry Publication Rotogratu-e PM-I
       "9
                                                         IV-293
-------
            Federal Register  /  Vol. 50,  No. 148 / Thursday,  August  1, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
     NSPS—40 CFR PART 60, SUBPART—
               Continued

Rfl
SS
17
UU
W
WW
XX
FFF
GOO
IHII 1
JJJ
PPP

Pressure Sensitive Tap* and Labal Surface Coating
Industrial Surface Coating Large Appliances.
Metal Coi Surface Coating.
Atphalt Preceding and Asphalt Roofing Manufac-
ture.
Epwpment Leak* of VOC In the Synthetic Organic
Chemicals Marwfaduang Musky
Bulk Gasoline Terminal*.
FtanMe Vinyl and Urethane Printing and Coating
Equipment Leak* of VOC In Petroleum Reftnerte*
Synthetic Fiber Production Fackbes.
Wool Ffeerglaia Ineutakoo ManulacluAig Ptanta.
NESHAP— 40 CFR PART 61, SUBPART

UOiuu.-> 2> I

Beryllium (R).
BaryMum Rocket Motor Firing (ft)
MwcurytR)
May) Chloride (Ft)
Equipment Leaks {Fugitive Emission Sources) ot
Owu0rw.
Aabeskx.
Equipment Leaks (Fugitive Emission Sources) Col
VHAP1.
    Georgia sources subject to these
  Federal standards should now contact
  the State agency (see address above)
  rather than EPA Region IV.
  {42 U.S.C. 7401. 7410,7411, 7412, and 7801)
    Dated: July 11,1985.
  Jack E. Raven,
  Regional Administrator.
  [PR Doc. 85-18106 Filed 7-3-85; 8.45 am]
  MLLINQ CODE 6S60-50-M

131	
  40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

  IA-4-FRL-2872-5]

  Standards of Performance for New
  Stationary Sources National Emissions
  Standards for Hazardous Air
  Pollutants; North Carolina; Delegation
  of Additional NSPS and NESHAP
  Authority

  AOENCY: Environmental Protection
  Agency.
  ACTION: Delegation of Authority.

  SUMMARY: On March 18,1985, the North
  Carolina Division of Environmental
  Management requested that EPA
  delegate  to the State the authority to
  implement and enforce Federal New
  Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
  for six additional categories of air
  pollution sources. The authority for two
  categories of the National Emissions
  Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
  (NESHAP) was also requested by the
  State. Since EPA's review of pertinent
  North Carolina laws, rules and
  regulations showed them to be adequate
to implement and enforce these Federal
standards, the Agency delegated the
authority for them to North Carolina.
Affected sources will not deal with the
State rather than EPA.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 2,1985.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the State's
request and EPA's letter of delegation
are available for public inspection at
EPA's Region IV Office (345 Courtland
Street. N.E.. Atlanta. GA 30365). All
reports required pursuant to the newly
delegated standards (toted below)
should be submitted to  the Air Quality
Section, Division of Environmental
Management, North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development. Archdale
Building, 512 N. Salisbury Street,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611, rather
than to EPA Region IV.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Janet Hayward of EPA Region TVs Air
Management Branch at the above
address and phone 404/881-3286 or FTS
257-3286.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
301, in conjunction with Sections 101,
110, 111 and 112 of the Clean Air Act,
authorizes EPA to delegate the authority
to implement and enforce the Standards
of Performance for New Stationary
Sources (NSPS) arid the National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) to any State which
possesses adequate implementation and
enforcement procedures.
   On November 24,1976. EPA delegated
to North Carolina the authority to
implement and enforce NSPS and
 NESHAP for the source categories that
 had been promulgated by  EPA as of
 March 23,1976. As additional categories
 have been promulgated, the State has
 requested authority to implement them.
 EPA has responsed by making
 supplemental delegations of authority to
 North Carolina on October 22,1980,
 December 4,1961, October 19,1982, and
 May 2,1984. On March 18,1985, the
 North Carolina Division of
 Environmental Management (DEM)
 requested the delegation of authority for
 the following NSPS categories contained
 in 40 CFR Part 60:
 Subpart LL—Metallic Mineral Processing
   Plants
 Subpart RR—Pressure Sensitive Tape and
   Label Surface Coating Operations
  Subpart VV—Equipment Leaks of VOC in the
   Synthetic Organic Chemicals
   Manufacturing Industry
  Subpart FFF—Flexible Vinyl and Urethane
   Printing and Coating
  Subpart GGG—Equipment Leaks of VOC in
   Petroleum Refineries
  Subpart HHH—Synthetic Fiber Production
    Facilities
  Also on March 18.1985. the North
Carolina DEM requested the delegation
of authority for the following NESHAPs
categories contained in 40 CFR Part 61:
Subpart J—Equipment Leaks (Fugitive
  Emissions Sources) of Benzene
Subpart V—Equipment Leaks (Fugitive
  Emissions Sources of Volatile Hazardous
  Air Pollutants)

  After a thorough review of the State's
request, the Regional Administrator
determined that such delegation was
appropriate with the conditions set forth
in the original delegation letter of
November 24.1976. Thus, On April 2,  .
1985, EPA delegated to North Carolina
the authority to implement and enforce
the above NSPS and NESHAP
categories. Sources in  the State which
are subject to the NSPS and NESHAP
listed above will now  deal with the
State of North Carolina.
  Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7642.
  Dated: July 23,1985.
John A. Little,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 85-18108 Filed 7-31-85: 8:45 am]
                                                        IV-294
-------
            Federal Register / Vol.  50, No. 164 / Friday, August  23, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
132
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

[Docket No*. AM702MD «t aU
 A-3-FRL-2876-5]

New Source Performance Standards
and National Emiaslon Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Delegation
of Authority to the State of Maryland,
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
and the City of Philadelphia

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Delegation of Authority.

SUMMARY: Sections lll(c) and 112(d) of
the Clean Air Act permit EPA to
delegate to the States authority to
implement and enforce the standards set
out in 40 CFR Part 60, New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and 40
CFR Part 61, National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP). The State of Maryland, the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the
City of Philadelphia have been
delegated this authority and have
requested delegation of any future NSPS
or NESHAP standards immediately
upon promulgation in the Federal
Register. The present delegations for
these areas require that they request
delegation each time a new standard is
promulgated. Automatic delegation
would remove this requirement.
EFFECTIVE DATES:
Maryland—May 10,1985
Pennsylvania—May 7,1985
Philadelphia—May 8,1985
ADDRESSES: All material relevant to
these delegations may be examined
during normal business hours at the
following locations:

AH Delegations
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
  Region III, 841 Chestnut Building,
  Philadelphia, PA 19107. Attn: Patricia
  Gaughan (3AM11)

Specific State and Local Delegations
Department of Public Health, Air
  Management Services, 500 South
  Broad Street, Philadelphia, PA 19146,
  Attn: William Reilly
Bureau of Air Quality Control,
  Pennsylvania Department of
  Environmental Resources, P.O. Box
  2063, Third and Locust Street,
  Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120, Attn:
  James K. Hambright
Air Management Administration,
  Maryland State Department of Health
  and Mental Hygiene, 201 West
  Preston Street, Baltimore, MD 21201.
  Attn: George P. Ferreri
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael C. Giuranna at the EPA, Region
III address above, telephone (215) 597-
9189.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April
9,1985, the Director of the Maryland  Air
Management Administration submitted
a letter to EPA, Region III, requesting
automatic delegation of NSPS  and
NESHAP. Maryland was delegated
authority for NSPS on September 15,
1978 (44 FR 69362) and for NESHAP on
October 9,1979 (45 FR 13193). These
original delegations require that
Maryland make separate requests in
writing in order to implement and
enforce any NSPS and NESHAP source
 categories not covered in their original
 delegation. Maryland will now receive
 delegation of future NSPS and NESHAP
 source categories upon EPA
 promulgation and State adoption. The
 following letter was sent to Maryland on
 May 10,1985, giving them automatic
 delegation. Notices of earlier
 delegations and amendments were
"published on December 3,1979 (44 FR
 69362), February 28,1980 (45 FR 13193),
 December 29,1983 (48 FR 57275) and
 March 1.1985 (50 FR 8324).
 Mr. George P. Ferreri,
 Director, Air Management Administration,
    Maryland State Department of Health
    and Mental Hygiene, 201 West Preston
    Street, Baltimore, MD 21201
   Dear Mr. Ferreri: In response to your April
 9,1985 letter, we are amending the delegation
 of authority agreement for New Source
 Performance Standards (NSPS) and National
 Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
 Pollutants (NESHAP) under Sections 111 and
 112 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7411, 7412.
 Since the original delegations on December 3,
 1979, and February 28,1981, a number of
 additional NSPS and NESHAP categories
 have been promulgated and changes in
 delegation policy have been made. Therefore.
 this letter replaces the original delegation.
   We have reviewed the pertinent laws and
 regulations of the State of Maryland and the
 Maryland Air Management Administration's
 (AMA) history of implementing the programs
 and have determined that the AMA has the
 resources to implement and enforce the NSPS
 and NESHAP programs in the manner which
 was requested in your April 9.1985 letter.
 Therefore, subject to the specific conditions
 and exceptions set forth below, the U.S.
 Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA)
 hereby grants delegation of authority to the
 AMA to implement and enforce the NSPS
 and NESHAP as follows:
   Authority for all sources located or to be
 located in the State of Maryland subject to
                                                        IV-295
-------
             Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 104 / Friday.  August  23.  1985 / Rules  and Regulations
the NSPS promulgated in 40 CFR Part 60 end
NESHAP promulgated in 40 CFR Part 81. This
delegated authority includes all future
standards promulgated for additional
pollutants and source categories and all
revisions and amendments to existing and
future standards.
  This delegation is based upon the following
conditions and exceptions.
  1. This delegation replaces the previous
NSPS and NESHAP delegations.
  2. Certain provisions of the NSPS and
NESHAP regulations allow only the
Administrator to take further standard setting
actions. Such provisions cannot be delegated
and are as follows:
For NSPS:
  a. Alternative mean* of emission
limitations hi the Clean Air Act Section
lll(h)(3) which is codified in 40 CFR 60.11a
and 60.484.
  b. Innovative technology waiver* in the
Clean Air Act Section lll(j)-
  c. Alternative testing times for Primary
Aluminum Reduction Plants in 40 CFR
60.195tb).
  d. Approval of equivalent and alternate
test methods in 40 CFR 60-8(b)  (2) and (3).
  e. Establishment of alternate opacity
standard* in 40 CFR 60.11 (e).
  f. Issuance of commercial demonstration
permits under 40 CFR 60.45a.
  g. The portions of the Stationary Gas
Turbine Standards dealing with nitrogen fuel
allowance in 40 CFR 60,332(ap) and the
ambient condition correction factors in 40
  h. The authority to make applicability
determinations pertaining to source* subject
to the NSPS and NESHAP. The AMA may
refer to the Compendium of Applicability
determinations issued by U.S. EPA annually,
and updated quarterly. Any applicability
determinations not explicitly treated in the
U.S. EPA Compendium must be referred to
EPA for determination. Also, any
correspondence from the AMA based on the
Compendium must be sent to U.S. EPA to
maintain National consistency.
For NESHAP.
  a. Determinations of whether actions taken
or intended to be taken constitute
construction or modification or the
commencement thereof under 40 CFR 61.06,
unless, previously addressed in the NESHAP
applicability compendium.
  b. Determinations of public availability of
information provided to or otherwise
obtained by U.S. EPA under 40 CFR 61.15
unless you have legal authority similar to
section 114 of the Clean Air Act
   c. Authority io approve alternate and
equivalent test and analytical methods per 40
CFR 61.14.
   d. The list of approved design,
maintenance, and housekeeping practices
under 40 CFR 61.53(c) [4) is only available
from the Administrator of U.S. EPA.
   e. Approval of alternative means of
emission limitation to any design, equipment,
work practice, or operational standard under
section 112(e] (3) of the Clean Air Act
   3. The following provisions are included in
this delegation and can only be exercised on
a case-by-case basis. When any of these
authorities are exercised, the AMA must
notify U.S. EPA, Region III in accordance
with the reporting procedures referred to in
item 7 of the conditions and exceptions:
  a. Waiver of a preformance test in
accordance with 40 CFR 60.8(bJ[4J or make
minor modifications in accordance with 40
CFR 80.8(b)(l).
  b. Determination of representative
conditions for the purpose of conducting a
performance test as allowed by 40 CFR
60.8(c).
  c. Approval of shorter sampling times or
smaller campling volume* under 40 CFR 60.46
(blorfd).
  d. Authorization of both the use of wet
collectors in accordance with 40 CFR
61.154(b)(l) and also the ase of filtering
equipment as  explained in 40 CFR
B1.154[b}{2).
  e. Approval of sampling techniques as
specified in 40 CFR 61.43(a).
  4. Enforcement of the NSPS and NESHAP
regulations m the State of Maryland win be
the primary responsibility of the AMA.
Pursuant to sections lll(c)(2) and 112(d)(2) of
the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7411(c)f2) and
7412(d}(2), U.S. EPA retains authority to
enforce any NSPS or NESHAP standard
whenever such enforcement is deemed by the
U.S. EPA to be necessary to carry out the
purposes of the Clean Air Act. Where the
Department determines that such
enforcement is not feasible and so notifies
EPA, or where the AMA acts  in a manner
inconsistent with the term of this delegation,
U.S. EPA will exercise its concurrent
enforcement authority, pursuant to section
113 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, with
respect to sources within the State of
Maryland subject to NSPS and NESHAP
regulations.
  5. The AMA may only grant waivers of
compliance within 90 days of promulgation of
a NESHAP regulation.
  e. The AMA will not grant a variance for
compliance with the applicable NSPS
regulations if such variance delays
compliance with the Federal Standards (4O
CFR Part 60).  Should the AMA grant such a
variance, EPA will consider the source
receiving the  variance to be in violation of
the applicable Federal regulations and may
initiate enforcement action against the source
pursuant to section 113 of the Clean Air Act.
The granting of such variances by the AMA
shall also constitute grounds  for revocation of
delegation by U.S. EPA.
  7. The AMA and U.S. EPA, Region IU will
develop a system of communication sufficient
to guarantee that each office  is always  fully
informed regarding the interpretation of
applicable regulations. In instances where
there is a conflict between an AMA
interpretation and a Federal interpretation of
applicable regulations, the Federal
interpretation must be applied if it is more
stringent than that of the AMA. This system
of communication will insure that both
agencies are  informed on (a) the current
compliance status of subject sources in State
of Maryland; (b) the interpretation of
 applicable regulations; (c) the description of
 sources and source inventory data; and, (d)
 compliance test waivers and approvals listed
 in item 3 of the conditions and exceptions.
The reporting provisions in 40 CFR ({ 60.4
and 61.04 requiring sources to make
submissions to the U.S. EPA are met by
sending such submission to the AMA, in
addition to U.S. EPA, Region HI.
  8. If at any time there it a conflict between
an AMA regulation and a Federal regulation,
40 CFR Part 60 or 61. the Federal regulation
must be applied if it is more stringent than
that of the AMA. If the AMA does not have
the authority to enforce the more stringent
Federal regulation they shall notify US. EPA
in writing as soon as possible,  so that this
portion of the delegation may be revoked.
  9. The AMA  will utilize the methods in 40
CFR Parts BO and 61 in performing source
test* pursuant to these regulations.
  10. From time to time when appropriate, the
AMA will revise it* NSPS and NESHAP
regulation* to include the provisions of
Federal amendments and newly promulgated
regulations for NSPS and NESHAP pollutant
source categories.
  11. If the Director of the Air Management
Division, or equivalent, determines that an
AMA program of enforcing or implementing
the NSPS or NESHAP regulations is
inadequate, or is not being effectively carried
out, this delegation may be revoked in whole
or in part. Any such revocation shall be
effective as of  the date specified in a Notice
of Revocation to the AMA.
  A notice announcing this delegation will be
published in the Federal Register in the near
future. The notice will state, among other
things, that effective immediately, all reports
required pursuant to the above-referenced
NSPS or NESHAP regulation* by sources
located in Maryland should be submitted to
the AMA in addition to U.S. EPA. Region IU.
Any original reports which have been or may
be received by EPA, Region III will be
promptly transmitted to the AMA.
   Since this delegation is effective
immediately, there is no requirement that the
AMA notify U.S. EPA of its acceptance.
Unless U.S. EPA receives from the AMA
written notice of objections  within ten (10)
days of receipt of this letter, the AMA will be
deemed to have accepted all of the term* of
the delegation.
      Sincerely,
W. Ray Cunningham,
Director, Air Management Division.

   On December 11,1984. the Secretary
erf the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources (DER)
submitted a letter to EPA, Region III.
requesting delegation of authority for
 two categories of NESHAP and  two
categories of NSPS. These categories
 were delegated to Pennsylvania on
 January 7,1985. This letter also
 requested that EPA give  Pennsylvania
 automatic delegation for all future NSPS
 and NESHAP standards. Pennsylvania
 received delegation of authority for
 NSPS on December 7,1979 (45 FR 3109}
 and for NESHAP on September 30,1976
 (42 FR 6887). These delegations required
 that Pennsylvania submit to EPA,
 separate requests to receive authority
                                                             IV-296
-------
             Federal  Register  / Vol.  50, No.  164  / Friday, August  23, 1985 / Rules and  Regulations
for any standards not included in their
original delegation. Automatic
delegation removes this requirement.
Pennsylvania can now implement and
enforce all future NSPS and NESHAP
source categories upon EPA
promulgation.
  The following letter was sent to
Pennsylvania on May 7,1985, giving
them automatic delegation. It should be
noted that NSPS and NESHAP sources
in Philadelphia and Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania are not  covered under this
delegation. Additionally, on May 31,
1985, EPA received a letter from the DER
which stated that Condition 10 of the
May 7,1985 letter did not apply in
Pennsylvania. This Condition requires
the DER to revise their regulations from
time to time  to incorporate any
amendments or newly promulgated
regulations into the State NSPS or
NESHAP regulations. Pennsylvania's
regulations allow them to do this
automatically. Thus, EPA agrees that
Condition 10 of the following letter is
not applicable in Pennsylvania.
  Notices of earlier delegations were
published on February 4,1977 (42 FR 6887),
January 16,1980 (45 FR 3109), July 13,1984 (49
FR 28555)i February 28.1985 (50 FR 8111).
Mr. Nicholas DeBenedictis,
Secretary. Pennsylvania Department of
    Environmental Resources, P.O. Box 2063,
    Harrisburg, PA 17120
  Dear Mr. DeBenedictis: In response to your
December 11,1984 letter, we are amending
the delegation of authority agreement for
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) under
sections 111 and 112 of the Clean Air Act, 42
U.S.C. 7411, 7412. Since the original
delegations on January 16,1980 and February
4,1977, a number of additional NSPS and
NESHAP categories have been promulgated
and changes in delegation policy have been
made. Therefore, this letter replaces the
original delegation.
  We have reviewed the pertinent laws and
regulations of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources'
(DER) history of implementing the programs
and we have determined that the DER has the
resources to implement and enforce the NSPS
and NESHAP programs  in the manner which
was requested in your December 11,1984
letter. Therefore, subject to the specific
conditions and exceptions set forth below,
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(U.S. EPA) hereby grants delegation of
authority to the DER to implement and
enforce the NSPS and NESHAP as follows:
  Authority for all sources located or to be
located in Pennsylvania subject to the NSPS
promulgated in 40 CFR Part 60 and the
NESHAP promulgated in 40 CFR Part 61. This
delegated authority includes all future
standards promulgated for additional
pollutants and source categories and all
revisions and amendments to existing and
future standards.
  This delegation is based upon the following
conditions and exceptions:
  1. This delegation replaces the previous
NSPS and NESHAP delegations.
  2. Certain provisions of the NSPS and
NESHAP regulations allow only the
Administrator to take further standard setting
actions. Such provisions cannot be delegated
and are as follows:
For NSPS:
  a. Alternative means of emission
limitations in the Clean Air Act section
lll(h)(3) which is codified in 40 CFR 60.11a
and 60.484.
  b. Innovative technology waivers in the
Clean Air Act section llljj)-
  c. Alternative testing times for Primary
Aluminum Reduction Plants in 40 CFR
60.195(b).
  d. Approval of equivalent and alternate
test methods in 40 CFR 60.8(b)(2) and (3).
  e. Establishment of alternate opacity
standards in 40 CFR 60.11(e).
  f. Issuance of commerical demonstration
permits under 40 CFR 60.45a.
  g. The portions of the Stationary Gas
Turbine Standards dealing with nitrogen fuel
allowance in 40 CFR 60.332(a)(3) and the
ambient condition correction factors in 40
CFR 60.335(a)(ii).
  h. The authority to make applicability
determinations pertaining to sources subject
to the NSPS and NESHAP. The DER may
refer to the Compendium of Applicability
determinations issued by U.S. EPA annually,
and updated quarterly. Any applicability
determinations not explicitly treated in the
U.S. EPA Compendium must be referred to
EPA for determination. Also, any
correspondence from the DER based on the
Compendium must be sent to U.S. EPA to
maintain National consistency.
For NESHAP:
  a. Determinations of whether actions taken
or intended to be taken constitute
construction or modification or the
commencement thereof under 40 CFR 61.06,
unless previously addressed in the NESHAP
applicability compendium.
  b. Determinations of public availability of
information provided to or otherwise
obtained by U.S. EPA under 40 CFR 61.15
unless you have legal authority similar to
section 114 of the Clean Air Act.
  c. Authority to approve alternate and
equivalent test and analytical methods per 40
CFR 61.14.
  d. The list of approved design,
maintenance, and housekeeping practices
under 40 CFR 61.53(c)(4) is only available
from the Administrator of U.S. EPA.
  e. Approval of alternative means of
emission limitation to any design, equipment,
work practice, or operational standard under
section 112(e)(3) of the Clean Air Act.
  3. The following provisions are included in
this delegation and can only be exercised on
a case-by-case basis. When any of these
authorities are exercised, the DER must
notify U.S. EPA, Region III in accordance
with the reporting procedures referred to in
item 7 of the conditions and exceptions:
  a. Waiver of a performance test in
accordance with 40 CFR 60.8(b)(4) or make
minor modifications in accordance with 40
CFR 60.8(b)(l).
  b. Determination of representative
conditions for the purpose of conducting a
performance test as allowed by 40 CFR
60.8(c).
  c. Approval of shorter sampling times or
smaller sampling volumes under 40 CFR 60.46
(b)or(d).
  d. Authorization of both the use of wet
collectors in accordance with 40 CFR
61.154(b)(l) and also the use of filtering
equipment as explained in 40 CFR
61.154(b)(2).
  e. Approval of sampling techniques as
specified in 40 CFR 61.43(a).
  4. Enforcement of the NSPS and NESHAP
regulations in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania will be the primary
responsibility of the DER. Pursuant to
Sections lll(c)(2) and 112(d)(2) of the Clean
Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7411(c)(2) and 7412(d)(2),
U.S. EPA retains authority to enforce any
NSPS or NESHAP standard whenever such
enforcement is deemed by the U.S. EPA to be
necessary to carry out the purposes of the
Clean Air Act.
  Where the DER determines that such
enforcement is not feasible  and so notifies
EPA, or where the DER acts in a manner
inconsistent with the terms  of this delegation,
U.S. EPA will exercise its concurrent
enforcement authority, pursuant to section
113 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, with
respect to sources within Pennsylvania
subject to NSPS and NESHAP regulations.
  5. The DER may only grant waivers of
compliance within 90 days of promulgation of
a NESHAP regulation.
  6. The DER will not grant a variance for
compliance with the applicable NSPS
regulations if such variance delays
compliance with the Federal Standards (40
CFR Part 60). Should the DER grant such B
variance, EPA will consider the source
receiving the variance to be in violation of
the applicable Federal regulations and may
initiate enforcement action  against the source
pursuant to section 113 of the Clean Air Act.
The granting of such variances by the DER
shall also constitute grounds for revocation of
delegation by U.S. EPA.
  7. The DER and U.S. EPA, Region 111 will
develop a  system of communication sufficient
to guarantee that each office is always fully
informed regarding the interpretation of
applicable regulations. In instances where
there  is a conflict between a DER
interpretation and a Federal interpretation of
applicable regulations, the Federal
interpretation must be applied if it is more
stringent than that of the DER. This system of
communication will insure that both agencies
are informed on (a) the current compliance
status of subject sources in Pennsylvania; (b)
the interpretation of applicable regulations;
(c)  the description of sources and source
inventory data; and, (d) compliance test
waivers and approvals listed in item 3 of the
conditions and exceptions.  The reporting
provisions in 40 CFR 60.4 and 61.04 requiring
sources to make submissions to the U.S. EPA
are met by sending such submission to the
DER,  in addition to U.S. EPA, Region III.
                                                             IV-297
-------
             Federal  Register / Vol. 50. No. 164  / Friday. August 23. 1985 /  Rules and Regulations
  8. If at any time there is a conflict between
a DER regulation and a Federal regulation, 40
CFR Part 60 or 61, the Federal regulation must
be applied if it is more stringent than that of
the DER. If the DER does not have the
authority to enforce the more stringent
Federal regulation they shall notify U.S. EPA
in writing as soon as possible, so that this
portion of the delegation may be revoked.
  9. The DER will utilize the methods in 40
CFR Parts  60 and 61 in performing source
tests pursuant to these regulations.
  10. From time to time when appropriate, the
DER will revise its NSPS and NESHAP
regulations to include the provisions of
Federal amendments and newly promulgated
regulations for NSPS and NESHAP pollutant
source categories.
  11. If the Director of the Air Management
Division, or equivalent, determines that a
DER program for enforcing or Implementing
the NSPS or NESHAP regulations is
inadequate, or is not being effectively carried
out, this delegation may be revoked in whole
or in part.  Any such revocation shall be
effective as of the date specified in a Notice
of Revocation to the DER.
  A notice announcing this delegation will be
published  in the Federal Register in the near
future. The notice will state, among other
things, that effective immediately, all reports
required pursuant to the above-referenced
NSPS or NESHAP regulations by sources
located in Pennsylvania should be submitted
to the DER in addition to U.S. EPA, Region HI.
Any original reports which have been or may
be received by U.S. EPA, Region III will be
promptly transmitted to the DER.
   Since this delegation is effective
immediately, there  is no requirement that the
DER notify EPA of its acceptance. Unless
EPA receives from the DER written notice of
objections within ten (10) days of receipt of
 this letter, the DER will be deemed to have
 accepted all of the terms of the delegation.
     Sincerely,
 W. Ray Cunningham,
 Director. Air Management Division
   On February 11,1985, the
 Commissioner of the Philadelphia
 Department of Public Health submitted
 a letter to EPA, Region III requesting
 automatic delegation of all future NSPS
 and NESHAP source categories.
 Philadelphia had originally received
 delegation of authority for NSPS and
 NESHAP on September 30,1976 (42 FR
 6886). This delegation required
 Philadelphia to submit separate requests
 to EPA to receive authority for any
 standards not included in their original
 delegation. Automatic delegation
 removes this requirement. Philadelphia
 can now implement and enforce all
 future NSPS and NESHAP standards
 upon EPA promulgation. The following
 letter was sent to Philadelphia on May 8,
 1985 giving them automatic deletion.
 Notices  of earlier delegations were
 published on February 4,1977 (42 FR
 6886), July 13,1984 (49 FR 28556), and
 February 28,1985 (50 FR 8620).
  Dr. Stuart H. Shapiro,
Commissioner, City of Philadelphia,
    Department of Public Health, Municipal
    Services Building, Room 540,
    Philadelphia, PA  19107
  Dear Dr. Shapiro: In response to your
February 11,1985 letter, we are amending the
delegation of authority agreement for New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants (NESHAP) under sections 111
and 112 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7411,
7412. Since the original delegation on
September 30,1976, a number of additional
NSPS and NESHAP categories have been
promulgated and changes in delegation policy
have been made. Therefore, this letter
replaces the original delegation.
  We have reviewed  the pertinent laws and
regulations of the City of Philadelphia and
the Philadelphia Department of Public
Health's (Department) history of
implementing the programs and we have
determined that the Department has the
resources to implement and enforce the NSPS
and NESHAP programs in the manner which
was requested in your February 11,1985
letter. Therefore, subject to the specific
conditions and exceptions set forth below,
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(U.S. EPA) hereby grants delegation of
authority to the Department to implement and
enforce the NSPS and NESHAP as follows:
  Authority for all sources located or to be
located in Philadelphia subject to the NSPS
promulgated in 40 CFR Part 60 and the
NESHAP promulgated in 40 CFR Part 61. This
delegated authority includes all future
standards promulgated for additional
pollutants and source categories and all
revisions and amendments to existing and
future standards.
  This delegation is based upon the following
conditions and exceptions:
  1. This delegation replaces the previous
NSPS and NESHAP delegations.
  2. Certain provisions of the NSPS and
NESHAP regulations allow only the
Administrator to take further standard setting
actions. Such provisions cannot be delegated
and are as follows:
For NSPS:
   a. Alternative means of emission
 limitations in the Clean Air Act section
 lll(h)(3) which is codified in 40 CFR BO.lla
 and 60.484.
   b. Innovative technology waivers in the
 Clean Air Act section lll(j).
   c. Alternative testing times for Primary
 Aluminum Reduction Plants in 40 CFR
 60.195(b).
   d. Approval of equivalent and alternate
 test methods in 40 CFR 60.8{b) (2) and (3).
   e. Establishment of alternate opacity
 standards in 40 CFR 60.11(e).
   f. Issuance of commercial demonstration
 permits under 40 CFR 60.45a.
   g. The portions of  the Stationary Gas
 Turbine Standards dealing with nitrogen fuel
 allowance in 40 CFR 60.332(a)(3) and  the
 ambient condition correction factors in 40
 CFR 60.335(ap).
    h. The authority to make applicability
 determinations pertaining to sources subject
 to the NSPS and NESHAP. The Department
 may refer to the Compendium of
 Applicability determinations issued by U.S.
EPA annually, and updated quarterly. Any
applicability determinations not explicitly
treated in the U.S. EPA Compendium must be
referred to EPA for determination. Also, any
correspondence from the Department based
on the Compendium  must be sent to U.S. EPA
to maintain National consistency.
For NESHAP:
  a. Determinations  of whether actions taken
or intended to be taken constitute
construction or modification or the
commencement thereof under 40 CFR 61.06,
unless previously addressed in the NESHAP
applicability compendium.
  b. Determinations  of Public availability of
information provided to or otherwise
obtained by U.S.  EPA, under 40 CFR 61.15
unless you have legal authority similar to
section 114 of the Clean Air Act.
  c. Authority  to approve alternate and
equivalent test and analytical methods per 40
CFR 61.14.
  d. The list of approved design,
maintenance, and housekeeping practices
under 40 CFR 61.53(c)(4) is only available
from the Administrator of U.S. EPA.
  e. Approval  of alternative means of
emission limitation to any design, equipment,
work practice, or operational standard under
section 112(e)(3)  of the Clean Air Act.
  3. The following provisions are included in
this delegation and can only be exercised on
a case-by-case basis. When any of these
authorities are exercised, the Department
must notify U.S.  EPA, Region III in
accordance with the reporting procedures
referred to in item 7 of the conditions and
exceptions:
   a. Waiver of a performance test in
 accordance with 40  CFR 60.8(b)(4) or make
 minor modifications in accordance with 40
 CFR 60.8(b)(l).
   b. Determination  of representative
 conditions for the purpose of conducting a
 performance test as allowed by 40 CFR
 60.8(c).
   c. Approval of shorter sampling times or
 smaller sampling volumes under 40 CFR 6O.46
 (b) or (d).
   d. Authorization of both the use of wet
 collectors in accordance with 40 CFR
 61.154(b)(l) and also the use of filtering
 equipment as explained in 40 CFR
 61.154{b)(2).
   e. Approval of sampling techniques as
 specified in 40 CFR 61.43(a).
   4. Enforcement of the NSPS and NESHAP
 regulations in Philadelphia will be the
 primary responsibility of the Department.
 Pursuant to Sections lll(c)(2) and 112(d)(2) of
 the Clean Air Act 42 U.S.C. 7411(c)(2) and
 7412(d)(2), U.S. EPA-retains authority to
 enforce any NSPS or NESHAP standard
 whenever such  enforcement is deemed by the
 U.S. EPA to be necessary to carry out the
 purposes of the  Clean Air Act.
    Where the Department determines that
  such enforcement is not feasible and so
  notifies EPA, or where the Department acts in
  a manner inconsistent with the terms of this
  delegation, EPA will exercise its concurrent
  enforcement authority, pursuant to section
  113 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, with
  respect to sources within Philadelphia subject
  to NSPS and  NESHAP regulations.
                                                               IV-298
-------
            Federal Register / Vol. 50. No.  164 / Friday. August 23, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
  5. The Department may only, grant waivers
of compliance within 90 dayt of promulgation
of a NESHAP regulation.
  6. The Department will not grant a variance
for compliance with the applicable NSPS
regulations if such variance delays
compliance with the Federal Standards (40
CFR Part 60). Should the Department grant
such a variance, EPA will consider the source
receiving the variance to be in violation of
the applicable Federal regulations and may
initiate enforcement action against the source
pursuant to section 113 of the Clean Air Act.
The granting of such variances by the
Department shall also constitute grounds for
revocation of delegation by U.S. EPA.
  7. The Department and U.S. EPA, Region in
will develop a system of communication
sufficient to guarantee that each office is
always fully informed regarding the
interpretation of applicable regulations. In
instances where there is a conflict between a
Department interpretation and a Federal
interpretation of applicable regulations, the
Federal interpretation must be applied if it is
more stringent than that of the Department.
This system of communication will insure
that both agencies are informed on (a) the
current compliance status of subject sources
in Philadelphia (b) the interpretation of
applicable regulations: (c) the description of
sources and source inventory data; and, (d)
compliance test waivers and approvals listed
in item 3 of the conditions and exceptions.
The reporting provisions in 40 CFR 60.4 and
61.04 requiring sources to make submissions
to the US. EPA are met by sending such
submissions to the Department, in addition to
U.S. EPA. Region III.
  6. If at any time there is a conflict between
a Department regulation and a Federal
regulation, 40 CFR Part 60 or 61,  the Federal
regulation must be applied if it is more
stringent then that of the Department If the
Department does not have the authority to
enforce the more stringent Federal regulation
they shall notify U.S. EPA in writing as soon
as possible, so that this portion of the
delegation may be revoked.
  9. The Department will utilize  the methods
in 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61 in performing
source tests pursuant to these regulations.
  10. From time to time when appropriate, the
Department will revise its NSPS and
NESHAP regulations to include the
provisions of Federal amendments and newly
promulgated regulations for NSPS and
NESHAP pollutant source categories.
  11. If the Director of the Air Management
Division, or equivalent determines that a
Department program for enforcing or
implementing the NSPS or NESHAP
regulations in inadequate, or is not being
effectively carried out, this delegation may be
revoked in whole or in part. Any such
revocation shall be effective as of the date
specified in a Notice of Revocation to the
Department.
  A notice announcing this delegation wil! be
published in the Federal Register in the near
future. The notice will state, among other
things, that effective immediately, all reports
required pursuant to the above-referenced
NSPS or NESHAP regulations by sources
located in Philadelphia should be submitted
to the Department in addition to U.S EPA.
Region IIL Any original reports which have
been or may be received by U.S. EPA, Region
IU will be promptly transmitted to the
Department.
  Since this delegation is effective
immediately, there is no requirement that the
Department notify EPA of it* acceptance.
Unless EPA receives from the Department
written notice of objections within ten (10)
days of receipt of this letter, the Department
will be deemed to have accepted all of the
terms of the delegation.
      Sincerely,
W. Ray Cunningham.
Director. Air Management Division.

  The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this nde from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
  Authority: (Sec. lll(c). and 112(d) Clean
Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7411(c) and 7412(dJ).
  Dated: August 16, 1985.
fames M. Self,
Regional A dminietrator.
[FR Doc. 45-40215 Filed 8-22-85; &45 amj
MLUNO CODE *MO-«MI
40 CFR Part 61

[AD-FRL-2886-1]

National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Benzene
Emissions From Maleic Anhydride
Plants, Ethylberaene/Styrene Plants.
Benzene Storage Vessels, and
Benzene Equipment Leaks

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Denial of petition for
reconsideration.

SUMMARY: The Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC) has petitioned
EPA to reconsider final decisions
published June 0, 1984, to •withdraw
•proposed benzene standards for maleic
anhydride process vents, ethylbeazene/
styrene [EB/Sj process vents, and
benzene storage vessels (49 FR 23558).
and to reconsider promulgated
standards for benzene equipment teaks
(49 FR 23498). The petitioner contended
that EPA's June benzene decisions were
not based on analysis of the most
current scientific evidence of the health
effects associated with benzene
exposure. The petitioner concluded that
if all relevant benzene health data were
considered, EPA would reverse its
decision not to regulate the three source
categories Vid would set more stringent
standards for benzene equipment leaks.
The petitioner also raised several
technical issues specific to EB/S flares
and the benzene equipment leaks
standards.
  The Administrator finds that the
objections raised do not provide
substantial support for revising these
decisions. Also, many of the objections
could have been raised during the
original rulemakings.
  The petition for reconsideration is
therefore denied.
DATES: The denial of the petition to
reconsider is a final action under
•actions 307(d)(7HB) and 307(b)(l) of the
Clean Air Act  Review of the denial  is
available only  by the filing of a petition
for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit
within 60 days of today's publication, as
provided in section 307(b)(l).
ADDRESSES: The dockets, No. OAQPS
79-3 (Part I and II), A-79-49, A-80-14.
and A-79-27, containing supporting
information are available for public
inspection and copying between 8 a.m.
and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
at Central Docket Section, West Tower
Lobby. Gallery 1, Waterside Mall, 401M
Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20460. A
reasonable fee may be charged for
copying.
KM FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For further information on the benzene
unit risk factor, contact Mr. Robert
Kellam, Pollutant Assessment Branch,
Strategies and Air Standard Division
(MD-12), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)
541-5645. For further information on the
regulatory aspects addressed in this
notice, contact Mr. Gilbert Wood,
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: .

Background
   On October 17,1984 the NRDC
petitioned the  Administrator of the EPA.
pursuant to section 307f.d)(7)(B) of the
Clean Air Act, to reconsider four final
decisions regarding emissions of the
hazardous air  pollutant benzene as
published in a Federal Register notice
June 6.1984 (49 FR 23478, 23498, and
23558}. Section 307(d)(7)(B) provides that
EPA shall convene a proceeding to
reconsider the rule in question if a
person raising an objection can
demonstrate that: (1) It was
impracticable  to raise such objection
during the comment period or that the
grounds for such objection arose after
the comment period but within the time
specified fcr judicial review under
 section 307 (b)(1). and (2) such objection
                                                         IV-299
-------
            Federal Register  /  Vol. 50.  No. 164 / Friday.  August  23. 1985 / Rules and Regulations
is of central relevance to the outcome of
the rule. Such objections are of central
relevance only if they provide
substantial support for the argument
that the standards should be revised.
See Denial of Petition to Revise NSPS
for Stationary Gas Turbines, 45 FR
81653, 81654 (Dec. 11,1980} and
decisions cited therein.
  Specifically the NRDC requested
reconsideration of:
  • The standard promulgated for
benzene emissions from equipment
leaks, termed fugitive benzene
emissions.
  • The withdrawal of the proposed
standard for benzene emissions from
maleic anhydride process vents.
  * The withdrawal of the proposed
standard for benzene emissions from
EB/S.
  • The withdrawal of the proposed
standard for benzene emissions from
benzene storage vessels.
  In the petition, the NRDC raised
objections to the June 6,1984, EPA
decisions on the grounds that health
data relevant to the health risks of
benzene were not available to the
petitioner during the prescribed public
comment period corresponding to a
notice proposing withdrawal of
proposed benzene standards (49 FR
8380). The petitioner contended that
EPA's June benzene decisions were not
based on analysis of the most current
and up-to-date scientific evidence of the
health effects associated with benzene
exposure. Moreover, the NRDC argued
that the EPA's latest assessment of the
carcinogenicity of benzene occurred in
1981. Thus, the Agency did not include
current studies that may have a
substantial impact on risk analyses.
Specifically, the NRDC contended that
two major epidemiological studies and
one animal bioassay related to benzene
exposure were not considered by the
EPA in evaluating the carcinogenic
potency of benzene. These studies are:
  • An epidemiological study of Ohio
rubber hydrochloride workers as
reported by Rinsky et al., 1981, in which
a study by Infante, et al., 1977, was
updated.
  • An epidemiological study of
chemical workers submitted to EPA by
the Chemical Manufacturers
Association and reported by Wong et
al., 1983.
  • An animal bioassay conducted by
the National Toxicological Program
(NTP, 1983).
In addition to consideration of these
studies, the petitioners also requested
that the EPA consider an unpublished
update through 1983 of the Rinsky et al.,
study, and a document on the health
effects of benzene published by the
California Department of Health
Services (DHS, November 1984).
  While NRDC submitted that the unit
risk estimate derived from Human
studies would increase EPA's unit risk
factor used in the recent decisions,
NRDC contended that the unit risk
estimate used in making regulatory
decisions on benzene should be based
solely on the NTP (1983) animal
bioassay and not the human studies.
Moreover, the NRDC submitted that the
unit risk estimate based on the NTP
bioassay should be derived from the
dose-response curve of the incidence of
preputial gland tumors of male B6C3F
mice because this assessment results in
the highest unit risk estimate and thus
would be a more "conservative"
estimate. The NRDC alleged that the
appropriate unit risk estimate is 0.340
per ppm and not the 0.0223 per ppm unit
risk estimate used by EPA in the June,
1984 decisions.
  The NRDC contended that the 15-fold
increase in the unit risk estimate used in
the June 1984 decisions would show a
high cancer risk to the  exposed
population, and would warrant an
reversal of the decision not to regulate
benzene emissions from maleic
anhydride process vents, EB/S process
vents, and benzene storage vessels.
Moreover, while the NRDC agreed with
the decision to regulate fugitive benzene
emissions from petroleum refinery and
chemical manufacturing facilities, NRDC
did not agree with the risk analysis
supporting the decision. The NRDC
contended that the EPA failed to correct
for an admitted 2 to 3-fold
underestimate of benzene exposure
around fugitive sources, and that such
an adjustment coupled with a revised
unit risk estimate would raise the post-
regulation estimate of the lifetime risk of
cancer for the most exposed individuals
by as much as 46-fold. Finally, NRDC
requested reconsideration of several
technical aspects associated with
controlling flares at EB/S plants and
equipment leaks.

Updating the Health Risk Assessment
for Benzene

   Of central relevance to NRDC's
reconsideration request is the
contention that the health risk
assessment relied upon in June was
outdated, and that the risk estimate for
benzene should be revised to reflect the
most current literature on benzene
carcinogenesis. In this regard, the NRDC
stated that "the petition for
reconsideration raises centrally relevant
objections based on data and analyses
which have become available only since
the close of the comment period for
these decisions."
  On March 6,1984, EPA proposed
withdrawal of proposed standards for
benzene emissions from the various
source categories (49 FR 9396). The
comment period for that notice ended
April 5,1984. During that time the EPA
received written comments from the
NRDC regarding the risk assessment
used in those decisions (Docket No.
OAQPS 79-3(11), VI-D-4). In those
comments, the NRDC stated that the
unit risk estimate for benzene did not
reflect consideration of all available and
most recent studies. They were critical
of the fact that the EPA had not
evaluated the leukemia response
observed in a 1983 epidemiologic study
of chemical workers exposed to benzene
(Wong, et al. 1983) in the derivation of
the unit risk estimate. Also, the NRDC
stated that the EPA had not included the
cancer response seen in a 1983 chronic
animal bioassay  (NTP, 1983), and that
"the inclusion of these studies may
affect the unit risk estimate." Thus, the
NRDC has previously made comment on
the same health issues as addressed in
the petition.
  The petitioner also suggested
inclusion of a further update through
1983 of the epidemiologic study of Ohio
rubber hydrochloride workers by Rinsky
et al., and to consider a review of the
health effects literature and a
quantitative risk assessment published
by the California Department of Health
Services (DHS, 1984).
   The Benzene Unit Risk Factor.  Since a
specific environmental carcinogen is
likely to be responsible for at most a
.small fraction of a community's overall
cancer incidence, and since the general
population is exposed to a complex
mixture of potentially toxic agents, it is
currently not possible to directly link
actual human cancers with ambient air
exposure to chemicals such as benzene.
Today's epidemiologic techniques are
not sensitive enough to measure the
association. Therefore, EPA must rely
upon mathematical modeling techniques
to estimate human health risks. These
techniques, termed "quantitative risk
assessment," are means whereby the
risk of adverse health effects from
exposure to benzene in the ambient
environment can be estimated
mathematically by extrapolating effects
found at higher occupational exposure
levels to lower concentrations
characteristic of human exposure in the
vicinity of industrial sources of benzene.
The analysis estimates the risk of cancer
at various levels of exposure. A unit risk
factor for benzene is derived from the
dose-response relationship observed in
                                                      IV-300
-------
            Federal  Register /  Vol. 50. No. 164  /  Friday. August 23, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
the occupational studies and is a
measure of carcinogenic potency. For
benzene, the unit risk represents the
probability of contracting leukemia as a
result of a lifetime of exposure to a unit
air concentration, one part benzene per
million parts air (PPM).
  Incorporation of More Recent Health
Data. The NRDC contended in the
petition, as they did during the response
period for the June decisions, that the
EPA's unit risk estimate for benzene is
at least 3 years out of date. They argued
that EPA derived the risk estimate in
1981; and, therefore, the computations
did not include the scientific literature
published since that time. The EPA
acknowledges that the June 1984
decisions did not include quantitative
consideration of the NTP (1983) animal
bioassay.  the Wong et al. (1963)
epidemiologic study, and the Rinsky et
al. (1981) epidemiologic study, However.
EPA does not agree with the petitioner
that these studies became available only
after the close of the public comment
periods on the relevant benzene
rulemakings.
   In response to the concerns of the
petitioner, the EPA evaluated the risk
implications of the epidemiological
findings of the Rineky et al. (1981) study
and the Wong et aL (1983) study. In
addition, the Ott et al. (1977) chemical
worker mortality study was included in
the analysis. The following section is a
synopsis of this analysis.
   The latest Rinsky (unpublished) study
of a follow-up of the same rubber
hydrochloride workers as reported in
the 1981 study cannot be used at this
time because the results of this
particular study are currently
undergoing internal scientific review
within .'.;•; N'atiOs.al !n£iiti';>; of
Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH), and has not been released by
that Agency. Until the most recent
Rinsky et al. study has been released by
NIOSH for publication, the EPA cannot
include this  study in a computation of a
benzene risk estimate. It is not EPA's
policy to include data that have not
been reviewed by the scientific
community.  Upon completion of formal
review and approval by NIOSH of the
most recent  Rinsky update, the Agency
v. ill  review the data, and take action as
appropriate.
   The EPA does agree with the
pclitioner that the carcinogenic potency
of benzene should b» reevaluated to
reflect the recent updates to the benzene
scientific  literature. The EPA evaluation.
described below, includes consideration
of recent publications as well as the
Report to the Scientific Review Panel
On Benzene (1984) published by the
California Department of Health
Services (DHS).
  Methodology for Risk Factor
Determinations. The petitioner alleged
that basing a risk analysis on these
studies would result in a "dramatic"
increase in the unit carcinogenic risk
estimate for benzene. Relying on the
DHS report. NRDC alleged that the
potency estimate for leukemia derived
from the Rinsky et al 1961 study of
rubber hydrochloride workers would be
more than two times the estimates used
by EPA in the }une 1984 decisions. Using
the NTP (1963) animal bioassay showing
elevated incidence of leukemia and
lymphoma increases the estimate more
than 10 times; and if the carcinomas of
the preputial glands found to be
significantly increased in male mice are
included, the unit risk estimate is
increased 15 times over the value used
by EPA in the June 1984 decisions.
While NRDC submitted that the risk
estimate derived from human studies
will increase EPA's unit risk factor used
in the recent decisions, NRDC
contended mat the unit risk estimate
used in making regulatory decisions on
benzene should be based solely on the
NTP (1983) animal bioassay and not the
human studies. Moreover, the NRDC
submitted that the unit risk estimate
based on {be NTP bioassay should be
derived from the dose-response curve of
the incidftnce of preputial gland tumors
of male B6C3F mice because this
assessment results in the highest unit
risk estimate and, thus, would be a more
"conservative" estimate. The NRDC
argued that such an increase in die unit
estimate would increase the computed
risk of leukemia to people residing in die
vicinity of industrial sources of benzene;
and. therefore, the June 1984 decisions
not to regulate certain source categories
should be reversed. Furthermore, the
petitioner was critical of EPA's
methodology of calculating a unit risk
estimate from the epidemiologic studies.
As stated in the DHS document (1984).
the focus of the criticism is the exclusion
of the Rinsky et al. (1981) and Wong et
al. (1983) studies in the analysis.
  In the March 6,1984 Federal Register
notice (49 FR 8386), the EPA explained
the health basis for withdrawing
proposed benzene standards. The
quantitative unit risk estimate used in
the risk assessment had been revised to
take into consideration comments
received after the maleic anhydride
proposal (45 FR 26660) concerning the
appropriateness of the various
epidemiologic studies. The EPA
reexamined and reevaluated the
scientific literature on benzene
carcinogenisis (49 FR 8388) and revised
the estimate from a probability of
leukemia of 0.024/ppm to a probability
of leukemia of 0.022/ppm (a reduction of
about 7 percent).
  The NRDC commented on EPA's
methodology in deriving the revised risk
estimate during the prescribed comment
period. The petition reiterated those
comments. The principal comment by
NRDC was  that EPA developed its
estimate of risk by pooling or
aggregating the dose-response curve of
three epidemiological studies; and,
therefore, did not yield the most
conservative unit risk estimate. The
NRDC stated during the comment period
that, "a truly conservative assessment
would have given principal weight to the
study yielding the higher risk estimate"
(Docket No. OAQPS 79-3(0), VI-D-4).
  The EPA disagrees that the estimates
of cancer risk for benzene should be
appropriately based on the single study
that yields  the highest possible risk
estimate. Where several quality data
sets are available, the measure of
carcinogenic potency gains certainly
from their combined use. The EPA
methodology for the evaluation of the
unit risk estimate for benzene is
described in a document entitled Interim
Quantitative Cancer Risk Estimates Due
to Inhalation of Benzene (OAQPS 79-3
(I), VIII-A-4). Although the animal
bioassays were considered, the EPA
believes that the unit risk estimate for
inhalation of benzene is appropriately
based upon the principal epidemiologic
studies since these studies are of
recognized quality  and have the greatest
relevance in the  estimation of health
risks for the general population. In the
revaluation of the unit risk estimate, the
EPA pooled the leukemia resprnses
observed in die Rinsky et al.  (1S81) and
Ott et al. (1977) cohorts, and computed a
geometric mean risk estimate. The
results of Wong et al. (1983) were then
pooled together with the results of
Rinsky et al. (1981) and Ott et al. (1977)
and compared with the results obtained
from pooling the results of Rinsky and
Ott only. The resulting ratio between
these two pooled sets of data was used
to adjust the computed geometric means
estimate. Based  on these calculations,
the unit risk factor was revised upward
from .0.022/ppm to 0.026/ppm. The
revised estimate represents a 17 percent
increase in the estimate used in the June
1984 decisions.
   Use of Animal Data to Calculate a
Unit Risk Estimate. The NRDC alleged
that the cancer incidence observed in a
2-year rodent bioassay conducted by the
National Toxicological Program (NTP,
1983) should be used by the EPA to
develop a unit cancer risk estimate for
                                                        IV-301
-------
            Kademl Renter / Vol. 50. No. 164  /  Friday. August 23.  1985 / Rules and  Regulations
exposure to benzene instead of
epidemiobgical studies. The NRDC
argued that the-NTP animal study has
several technical advantages in
comparison to die human studies.
  • First, in the NTP study, the animals
were subjected to detailed physical
examination, whereas the human
studies examined death certificates
alone. Death certificate studies are
known to suffer from uncertainty due to
lack of quality control in
characterizations of causes of death
recorded.
  • Second, in the NTP study, both
sexes were exposed and the animals
were examined for all types of cancer.
All of the human studies have focused
only male populations; none of the
studies examined breast cancer in
women, for example. Most of the human
studies focused solely on detecting
leukemia; in only the Wong study and
the iB-progress Rineky study were other
lung cancers examined.
  • Third, in most of the human studies,
many subjects have not been followed
to the end of their life  expectancy,
whereas in the NTP study, the animals
were studied to the end of their normal
lifespans.
  The EPA does not accept NRDC's
contention that animal data should
supersede epidemiological studies in
determining risk of exposure to air-
borne benzene. Well-designed
analytical epidemiological studies are a
means of observing directly the elevated
cancer risk associated with human
exposure to a chemical agent. Low-dose
risk estimate derived from laboratory
animal data extrapolated to humans are
complicated by a varity of factors that
differ among species and potentially
affect the observed response of
carcinoma. Included among these
factors are differences between humans
and experimental test animals with
respect to life span, body size, genetic
variability, population homogeneity,
existence of concurrent diseases,
phannacokineiic effects such as
metabolism and excretion patterns, and
the exposure.regimen. Therefore, when
making interepecies comparisons
between the cancer response in
laboratory animals to a predicted
response in humans, it is necessary to
extrapolate using standardized scaling
factors. Commonly employed dosage
scales include mg per kg body weight
per day, ppm in the diet or water, mg per
m2 body surface area per day, and mg
per kg body weight per lifetime. The
accuracy of these scaling factors as
predictors of the human responses is
highly uncertain.
   On the other hand, well-conducted
epidemiological studies provide direct
evidence of a causal link between the
chronic exposure in humans and
adverse health effect*. This direct
evidence of human cananogenesis
avoids the biological uncertainties
inherent in extrapolating animal cancers
tO Wiimma.
  Although a dear dose-response
association between carcinoma and
benzene exposure was demonstrated in
rodent bioassays, the EPA believes that
human data, when available, should be
the principal factor in the derivation of a
unit cancer risk estimate. There is strong
evidence of benzene carcinogenicity
resulting from well-conducted analytical
epidemiologk studies of people
chronically exposed to airborne benzene
in the work place.
  The reliability of the epidemiological
studies is given additional strength by
the fact that leukemia mortality rates
were observed among independent
cohorts in different occupational
settings by independent investigators. In
addition, individuals exposed to
benzene were followed over a time
period that spanned the latency of
leukemia. Given the wide range of levels
of benzene exposures and durations of
exposure,  the epidemiologic studies
showed a 3-fold to 20-fold increase in
risk of leukemia above individuals not
exposed to benzene.

Withdrawal of Proposed Benzene
Standards
  The petitioner felt that the withdrawal
of proposed standards for maleic
anhydride, EB/S, and benzene storage
should be reconsidered in light of an
increased unit risk factor. The petitioner
believed that higher health risk
estimates  would lead the Agency to
conclude that the source categories pose
significant risk to the public and that
regulation is warranted.
  The EPA applied the revised benzene
unit risk factor to the source categories
for which the proposed standards were
withdrawn. In addition to the
adjustment made to the benzene unit
risk factor, EPA also adjusted exposures
(benzene concentration times
population) in the maleic anhydride
industry because of the significant
changes in emissions that have
occurred.  This consisted of eliminating
the United States Steel, Neville Island.
and Pfizer, Terre Haute, plants from the
health risk calculations, because neither
plant now produces maleic anhydride
from benzene. The United States Steel
plant producers maleic anhydride
entirely froirt butane, and Pfizer no
longer produces but purchases all the
maleic acid it needs for fumaric acid
production.
  The Monsanto. St Louis, plant is now
the only in the U.S. that produces maleic
anhydride from benzene. The Monsanto
emissions are sent to an incinerator
when necessary to generate steam for
heating in the colder months and to meet
current State Implementation Plan (SIP}
volatile organic compound (VOC)
control requirements. Because it is more
expensive to produce maleic anhydride
from benzene than butane, the benzene
units are used as "swing" capacity, i.e.,
to meet variations in maleic anhydride
demand, and do not operate at full
production capacity. Based on
confidential information submitted bv
Monsanto {OAQPS 79-3(11), VHI-A-6].
the benzene units are expected to be
operated only part of 1985, with moet
emissions being incinerated. In addition.
the State of Missouri is expected to
incorporate into its SIP stringent VOC
reduction requirements for air oxidation
processes (maleic anhydride production
is an air oxidation process) later this
year. The revised health risk estimates
(OAQPS 7*9-3(11), Vffl-A-8) reflect this
combination of anticipated events es
well as the increased unit risk factor.
The EPA also notes that the Chemical
Manufacturers Association supplied
information (A-79-49, IV-D-2)
indicating that benzene emissions from
EB/S process vents declined to 155 Mg/
yr from 210 Mg/yr due to additional
controls and process modifications.
   In recalculating the health risk
estimates, the annual incidence for
maleic anhydride process vents
decreases to 0.005 from 0.029, and the
maximum lifetime risk to 1.4 x 10~* from
7.6xlO~5. For EB/S process vents, the
annual incidence increases to 0.0067
from 0.0057, and the maximum lifetime
risk to 13X10"' from 1.4 x«T4.
   For benzene storage vessels, the
annual incidence was previously
estimated to fall within a range from
0.043 to a maximum of 0X19; this would
increase to a range of 0.05 to 0.11. For
maximum lifetime risk, the
corresponding ranges are 3.6xlO~* to
3L6X10"4, with the increase to 4.2X10"5
».o 4.2 xlO"4. However, EPA's best
judgment is that the correct values are
in the  middle or upper portion of these
ranges.
   As stated in the final withdrawal (49
FR 23563; June 6,1984). these numbers
reflect an "* * * extremely conservative
 emission estimate to tanks equipped
with shingle seals." These estimates are
 characterized as conservative because
the existing test data results reflect
 higher emisssions due to testing
 irregularities, as well as the type of seal
 alone. However, because the portion of
 emission increase due to testing
                                                       IV-302
-------
             Federal Register /  Vol.  50, No. 184 / Friday,  August  23, 1985 / Rules  and Regulations
• irregularities cannot be quantified, the
 estimate reflecting the total uncertainty
 must be used, explicitly recognizing that
 these estimates reflect the upper bound
 of total uncertainty in emissions, and a
 lower bound based on continuous seals.
   Although two of these source
 categories, EB/S process vents and
 benzene storages vessels, show
 increases, the health risks are still
 considered small by the Administrator
 (and impacts for EB/S plants would be
 even smaller, if recalculated based on
 155 Mg/yr). Likewise, potential
 reductions are also considered small.
 For EB/S, annual incidence could be
 reduced to about 0.0012 and maximum
 lifetime risk to about 1.1 XlO'". For
 benzene storage annual incidence could
 be reduced to about 0.042 and maximum
 lifetime risk to about 3.4X10"'. Also, no
 significant reductions would be
 achieved at maleic anhydride plants
 because all remaining benzene
 emissions would be controlled by
 incineration. As a result, the
 Administrator considers the impacts of
 the reanalysis as still too small to
 warrant Federal regulatory action under
 Section 112. The petitioner's objection
 does not give substantial support for the
 argument that the withdrawals should
 be reversed and is, therefore, not of
 central relevance to the outcome of the
 rule.

 Flares at Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants
   The petitioner questioned the
 Agency's assumption that every flare
 within the EB/S industry achieves 98
 percent reduction of benzene. In making
 this argument, the petitioner points to:
 (1) Data indicating that some flare
 efficiencies are less than 98 percent, and
 (2) the absence of requirements for EB/S
 flare operation that the Agency
 promulgated in the benzene fugitive
 rulemaking to ensure 98 percent
 reduction.
   The petitioner cited data contained in
 "Flare Efficiency Study," EPA-600/2-83-
 052 (Docket No. A-79-49, IV-A-4) and
 "Evaluation of the Efficiency of
 Industrial Flares: Test Results" (Docket
 No. A-79-49, VI-A-1), as evidence that
 flares do not achieve 98 percent
 reduction under certain operating
 conditions. The documents indicate that
 such operating conditions are not typical
 of industry operating practices. Indeed,
 as the petitioner points out, the
 documents conclude that when flares
 are operated under conditions
 representative of industrial practices,
 greater than 98 percent reduction can be
 expected.
   In the notice to withdraw the
 proposed EB/S standards (49 FR 23363;
 June 6.1984), in the response to the same
comment made by the petitioner at that
time, EPA also noted that operators at
EB/S plants are unlikely to allow their
flares to operate under conditions
resulting in less than 98 percent
reduction, for safety and economic
considerations. Therefore, EPA felt it
reasonable to assume a 98 percent
average flare efficiency at EB/S plants
for estimating impacts. For calculating
plant-by-plant emissions and exposures,
EPA necessarily had to extend this 98
percent average assumption to each
flare, because actual flare efficiency
data for each flare are not available. It
should be emphasized that the Agency
did not and does not assume that every
flare, in fact, achieves at least 98 percent
reduction.
  In addition, EPA does not feel that the
exact percent is a critical factor in
estimating baseline impacts. A
simplified but conservative (would tend
to overestimate exposures} sensitivity
analysis that assumes an average flare
efficiency at EB/S plants as low as 80
percent results in only about a 15
percent increase in annual incidence
and no increase in maximum lifetime
risk for the source category (A-79-49,
VIII-A-5).
  In the benzene fugitive rulemaking, by
contrast, EPA set standards that ensure
that every flare used to control
equipment leak emissions achieves 98
percent reduction. The important
distinction is that in this case the
Agency is not deciding what source
category to regulate, but rather is
deciding the appropriate control level
for sources that it has previously
concluded warrant regulation.
  The petitioner further questioned the
Agency's assumed flare efficiency by
citing EPA's conclusions on the need for
further research on flare efficiencies to
better quantify flare performance  in
"Evaluation of the Efficiency of
Industrial Flares: Background—
Experimental Design—Facility." EPA-
600/2-83-070 (Docket No. A-79-49, IV-
A-5). The petitioner apparently is
implying that because the Agency
recommends additional research on
flares in quantifying reduction
efficiencies, it is inappropriate to assign
any numerical efficiency to flare
performance at all. However, EPA feels
it desirable, if not necessary, to try to
quantify impacts to identify appropriate
regulatory actions. The Agency does not
agree that exact estimates are needed,
and believtes that the information on
flare efficiency and typical industry
practices is adequate to assume an
average efficiency value for flares.
   In summary, after review of the
petitioner's objection regarding EB/S
flare efficiency, EPA has concluded two
points. First, the objection was raised in
the previous comment period and,
therefore, is not "new." Second, the
objection is not of central relevance to.
the outcome of the withdrawal action.
Thus  EPA has decided that
reconsideration of this objection is not
warranted.

Benzene Equipment Leaks

  The NRDC requested reconsideration
of the national emission standard for
equipment leaks of benzene by raising
five basic objections:
  1. The NRDC requested that more
stringent control requirements be
established based on alleged
underestimates of risk and exposure.
The maximum lifetime risk, according to
NRDC, is underestimated by a factor of
approximately 31- to 46.5-fold.
  2. The NRDC requested that EPA
reconsider the use of sealed bellows
valves and dual mechanical seals for
pumps, which were not required, and
that EPA reconsider the 2 percent level
for the alternative standards for valves.
  3. The NRDC questioned EPA's
technical judgment in selecting 10,000
ppmv as the definition of an equipment
leak and requested that it be changed to
1,000 ppmv. In addition, NRDC
requested that EPA reduce the 5-day
first-attempt-at-repair period to 24 hours
and the 15-day period for completing
repairs to 5 days when feasible.  The
NRDC also requested that EPA require
the use of a directed preventive
maintenance program to reduce
emissions.
  4. The NRDC questioned the use of
cost effectiveness as the basis for the
exemption from monitoring for difficult-
to-monitor valves and the exemption for
equipment at plant sites that process
less than 1,000 megagrams (Mg)  of
benzene annually.
  5. The NRDC questioned the
reasonableness of keeping repair
records for only 2 years and requested
that records be kept for at least 5 years.
In addition, NRDC requested that each
piece of leaking equipment be
specifically identified and tagged.
  The EPA reviewed each of NRDC's
five basic objections. After reviewing
these objections, EPA concluded that
none  of NRDC's objections provides a
substantial basis for revising the
standards. They are therefore not of
central relevance to these standard; and,
therefore, EPA is not reconsidering any
of these aspects. In addition, NRDC's
objections were either considered before
promulgation of the standards or could
have  been raised by NRDC (but were
not) during their development. This
section summarizes EPA's responses to
                                                       IV-303
-------
            Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 164  /  Friday. August 23.  1985 / Rules and Regulations
NRDC's petition for reconsideration. In
Docket Item A-79-27 VI-B-1, EPA
presents in detail the results of this
review.
  The EPA reviewed NRDC's concerns
about correcting the alleged bias
contained in the exposure assessment
used in evaluating the standard. As one
aspect of this review {see section
entitled "Updating the Health Risk
Assessment for Benzene"), EPA decided
that the unit risk number should be
about 17 percent larger than used in the
risk assessment. The EPA also reviewed
NRDC's concerns about estimating
exposure to benzene around plants
using or producing benzene. In order to
test the sensitivity of the regulatory
decisions to changes in the exposure
assessment, EPA recalculated the
exposure assessment by increasing the
ambient concentrations and, there/ore,
exposure by 300 percent. A factor of 300
percent was used because it seems to be
the upper limit on the alleged
underestimation based on the analysis
presented in Appendix C of the Benzene
Fugitive Emissions Background
Information for Promulgated Standards
and detailed in Docket Item A-79-27,
IV-B-18.  After doing so, EPA concluded
that the standard would not change
based on the new exposure assessment
and; therefore, this objection is not of
central relevance to the standard. Thus,
EPA is not reconsidering this objection.
  The EPA reviewed NRDC's concerns
about sealed bellows valves, dual
mechanical seals for pumps, and the
alternative standards for valves. Based
on recalculated estimates of annual
leukemia incidence and maximum risk.
EPA determined ibat, because of die
relatively small health benefits to be
gained with the additional costs of
requiring the additional control of
sealed bellows valves and dual
mechanical seals instead of the controls
required by the standard for valves and
pumps, EPA considers the risks
remaining after application of the
technologies selected for equipment
covered fay lite standard not to be
unreasonable. Based on these
considerations, the Administrator has
not changed the decisions about the
levels of control associated with these
aspects of the standard.
  Concerning NRDC's request to revise
the level  for the alternative standard for
valves from 2 to 1 percent, this standard
is set at a level that is achievable, not at
a level that is achievable only half the
time, as would be the case with NRDC's
suggestion. In addition,  there is no
practical difference between limits of 1
and 2 percent of valves leaking: that is.
an owner or operator of a process unit
would implement the same control
measures to comply with the alternative
valve standards whether the limit is set
at 1 or 2 percent.
  The EPA reviewed NRDC's concerns
about EPA's technical judgment on the
definition of a leak, the repair intervals.
and the effectiveness of preventive
maintenance programs. With respect to
the definition of a leak, the EPA does
not disagree with NRDC that additional
emission reductions could be achieved
by reducing the leak definition from
10,000 to IjOOO ppmv. However, while
EPA has concluded that 10,000 ppmv is a
reasonable leak definition (i.e., there are
large enough emissions that repair can
be accomplished with reasonable costs).
EPA has not concluded that 1,000 ppmv
is a reasonable leak definition.
Therefore, until EPA has adequate data
to support the repair potential
associated with leak definitions like
1,000 ppmv, EPA is selecting a
reasonable leak definition (i.e., 10,000
ppmv). With respect to the repair
intervals, EPA previously explained its
justification for the 5-day first-attempt-
at-repair interval and the 15-day repair
interval for valves, pumps, and pressure
relief devices. Basically, the repair
intervals were based on EPA's
understanding  of modem industry
maintenance practices and leak
detection and repair programs, which
included technical judgments on the
practicality of control techniques and
work practices. During development of
the proposed standard, EPA personnel
made a concerted effort to investigate
and gain knowledge about industry
maintenance practices. After
considering all of the comments daring
the rulemaking; EPA concluded tbat
NRDC's suggestions of a 24-hour first
attempt period and a 5-day period for
completing repairs should not be
adopted.
  m response to NRDC's request to
mandate a directed preventive
maintenance program, EPA does not
believe that a directed preventive
maintenance program would necessarily
improve the standard's leak detection
and repair program. Directed preventive
maintenance does not entirely eliminate
leaks. While adding a directed
preventive maintenance program to the
standard can possibly reduce emissions,
it can increase emissions also. The EPA
continues to believe that, in some
instances, attempting repair of a
nonleaking valve can result in creating a
leaking source. The additional cost of
such a program (e.g., routine
replacement of valve packing) could be
unreasonable;  it would not reduce
emissions by more than the standard's
leak detection and repair program but it
would include considerable additional
costs.
  The EPA reviewed NRDC's concerns
with the provisions for difficult-to-
monitor valves and the basis for the
small plant cutoff. Even though EPA
expects few difficult-to-monitor valves
at a typical plant, these provisions are
needed to reduce unreasonable costs
that would otherwise be incurred. The
use of a probe on a boom for monitoring
leaks, as NRDC suggests, is neither
practical nor precise; and the labor cost
of monitoring a small number of valves
using a "cherry picker" would not be
justified considering the small emissions
reduction achieved. In response to
NRDC's concern about the effects of
inflation on the basis for the size cutoff.
EPA based the smaller plant exemption
on May 1979 dollars. The fact that the
cost-effectiveness criterion developed in
1978 had inflated to 1962 dollars is not
relevant because the cost of the
standard would also increase
proportionally. In fact, most plant sites
have production rates much greater than
1,000 Mg/yr; and, therefore, few, if any,
plants would be exempted from the
standard on the basis of the size cutoff.
The accuracy of the cost-effectiveness
number used in this decision.
consequently, is not important.
  The EPA reviewed NRDC's concerns
with the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements of the standard. The EPA
believes that  these requirements provide
for effective  enforcement. Concerning
NRDC's request for a longer period than
2 years for keeping records, EPA
believes that 2 years is long enough to
review and determine compliance for
most owners or operators affected by
the standards; therefore, it would not be
necessary for a plant to keep records
longer than 2 years. In response to
NRDCs requests to tag and report the
identity of each individual piece of
leaking equipment, EPA does not
specifically require tagging because it is
unnecessarily restrictive. Any form of
identification is acceptable as long as it
is weatherproof and readily visible (e.g.,
a detailed diagram locating valves). The
EPA believes that it is unnecessary to
require reporting of individual leaking
equipment and that reporting the
number of leaking equipment is
sufficient in helping to determine
compliance. This system of reporting
leaks will effectively reduce the number
of inspections without reducing the
effectiveness of compliance efforts.
  In summary, EPA reviewed each of
NRDC's five basic objections to the
promulgated benzene equipment leaks
standard. After reviewing  these
                                                       IV-304
-------
        Federal  Register / Vol. 50. No. 186 \  Wednesday. September 25.  1985  / Roles and Regulations
 objections, EPA concluded that none of
 NRDC's objections are of central
 relevance to the standard and therefore,
 EPA is not reconsidering any of these
 objections.
   Dated: August 16, 1985.
 Lee M. Thomas,
 Administrator.
 (PR Doc. 85-20212 Filed 8-22-85; 8:45 am]
134

40 CFR Pert* 80 and 61

[A-9-FRL-2903-4]

Delegation of New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS)
State of California
AGENCY: Environmental Pro lection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of Delegation.

SUMMARY: The EPA hereby places the
public on notice of its delegation of
NSPS and NESHAPS authority to the
California Air Resources Board (CARBJ
on behalf of the Ventura County Air
Pollution Control District {VCAPCD}.
This action is necessary to bring the
NSPS and NESHAPS program
delegations up to date with recent EPA
promulgations and amendments of these
categories. This action does not create
any new regulatory requirements
affecting the public. The effect of the
delegation is to shift the primary
program responsibility for the affected
NSPS and NESHAPS categories from
EPA to State and local governments.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 16,1985.

ADDRESS: Ventura County Air Pollution
Control District, 880 South Victoria
Avenue. Ventura, CA 93009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Julie A. Rose. New Source Section (A-3-
1). Air Operations Branch. Air
Management Division. EPA. Region 9.
215 Fremont Street. San Francisco. CA
94105. Tel: (415) 974-8221. FTS 454-8221.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
GARB ha« requested authority for
delegation of certain NSPS and
NESHAPS categories on behalf of the
VCAPCD. Delegation of authority was
granted by a letter dated September 16,
1985 and is reproduced in its entirety as
follows:
Mr. James D. Boyd.
Executive Officer. California Air Resources
    Board. 1102 Q Street, P.O. Box 2815. .
    Sacramento. CA 96812
  Dear Mr. Boyd: In response lo your reqnesl
of September 9,1985,1 am pleased to inform
you that we are delegating to your agency
authority to fanjdenetrt and enforce certain
categories of New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) and Nations! Eminion
Standard* for Hazardous Air AWhrtanto
(NESHAPS} on behalf of tbe Ventura ComHy
Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD). We
have reviewed your request for delegation
and have found the VCAPCD's programs and
procedures to be acceptable. This delegation
includes authority for the following source
categories:
NSPS
Fossil-fuel tired fleam generators . _ ._
Electnc «H% aaan fewMim. 	 	
Pnrtlanri catmint plttnlf 	
Petroleum storage vessels 	 	 	
Primary copper smelters ..._.._
P«mar» »nc smeHers 	 . 	 . 	
Pnma*~, lead shelters . 	 	 	 _...
Primary ata*Twium reduction plants
40OFR
4»*«0
JuOfWI
O
0?
f
Ka
P
O
ft
s
                                                                                                     W9PS
                                                                              40CFR

                                                                              suSpar
Electnc arc lumaces and argon-oxygen decarfojn
 zatKwi
Krall fmif mills	._. ..' . _  .
Glass manutactunng plants..
Gran etovatocs. _    _ _
Surface coaling ol watt Immure  -	
Stationary gas turbines  _...._.  .  .
Lime «»nulaciuri|i" <*«M»I piimj			
  Granular triple stpeiphosphate	
Coal preparation plants	_  ...  _
FeroaMov PH>*UO*OB lacjlfcus		
Iron and steel plants (etedric we
                                   pan 60
                                   subpan
                                                        MESMIKPS
                                            General provisions  _ —	
                                            Beryllun		_ .. _
                                            Beryllium racket Oder *nnj___.__	
                                            Mercury	  .. ._  		
                                   40CFR
                                   panel
                                   sutopan
                                             Acceptance ol thic delegation constitutes
                                            your agreement to follow all applicublr
                                                             IV-305
-------
        Federal Register /  Vol. 50,  No.  186  / Wednesday, September  25,  1935 / Rules  and Regulations
provisions of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61,
including use of EPA's test methods and
procedures. The delegation is effective upon
the date of this letter unless the USEPA
receives written notice from you or the
District of any objections within 10 days of
receipt of this letter. A notice of this
delegated authority will be published in the
Federal Register in the near future.
      Sincerely,
Judith E. Ayres,
Regional Administrator.
cc: Ventura County Air Pollution Control
District
   With respect to the areas under the
jurisdiction of the VCAPCD, all reports,
applications,  submittals, and other
communications pertaining to the above
listed NSPS and NESHAPS source
categories should be directed to the
VCAPCD at the address shown in Ihe
ADDRESS section of this notice.
   The Office  of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
   I certify that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
   This Notice is issued under the
authority of sections 111 and 112 of the
Clean Air Act. as amended (42 U.S.C.
1857, etseq.).
   Dated: September 17,1985.
John Wise,
Acting Regional Administrator.
|FR Doc. 85-22906 Filed 9-24-85; 8:45 am)
BILLING CODE 6580-50-M
 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

 IA-9-FRL-2903-3]

 Delegation of New Source
 Performance Standards (NSPS) and
 National Emission Standards for
 Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS),
 State of California

 AGENCY: Environmental Protection
 Agency (EPA).
 ACTION: Notice of Delegation.

 SUMMARY: The EPA hereby places the
 public on notice of its delegation of
 NSPS and NESHAPS authority to the
 California Air Resources Board (CARS)
 on behalf of the South Coast Air Quality
 Management District (SCAQMD). This
 action is necessary to bring the NSPS
 and NESHAPS program delegations up
 to date with recent EPA promulgations
 and amendments of these categories.
 This action does not create any new
 regulatory requirements affecting the
 public. The effect  of the delegation is to
 shift the primary program responsibility
for the affected NSPS and NESHAPS
categories from EPA to State and local
governments.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 16,1985.

ADDRESS: South Coast Air Quality
Management District, 9150 Flair Drive,
El Monte, CA 91731.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Julie A. Rose, New Source Section (A-3-
1), Air Operations Branch, Air
Management Division, EPA, Region 9,
215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA
94105. Tel: (415) 974-8221, FTS 454-8221.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
CARS has requested authority for
delegation of certain NSPS and
NESHAPS categories on behalf of the
SCAQMD. Delegation of authority was
granted by a letter dated September 16,
1985 and is reproduced in its entirety as
follows:

Mr. James D. Boyd,
Executive Officer. California Air Resources
     Board 1102 Q Street. P.O. Box 2815,
     Sacramento, CA 95812
   Dear Mr. Boyd: In response to your request
of September 9,1985,1 am pleased to  inform
you  that we are delegating to your agency
authority to implement and enforce certain
categories of New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) and National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS) 'on behalf of the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD). We
have reviewed your request for delegation
and have found the SCAQMD's programs and
procedures to be acceptable. This delegation
includes authority for the following source
categories.
                     NESHAPS
 General provisions.    	
 Electric utility steam generators
 Steel  plants Electric arc furnaces and  argon-
  ovygen  decarbunzation vessels  constructed
  alter 8-17-83.
 Kraft pu'P "»tt*  	
 Glass manufaclunng plants 	
 Surface coating of metal furniture
 Lead-acid battery manufacturing plants	
 Metallic mineral processing plants	
 Automobile  and tight-duty truck surface coating
  operations.
 Phosphate rock plants  	
 Graphic arts  industry  Publication rotogravure
  printing
 Pressure sensitive tape and label surface coating
  operations
 Industrial surface coating  large appliances
 Metal coil surface coating	
 Asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufac-
  ture
 Synthetic organic chemical manufacturing indus-
  try  Equipment leaks of VOC
 Beverage can surface coating industry
 Flexible vinyl and urethane coating and printing
 Equipment leaks ol VOC. petroleum refineries and
  synthetic organic chemical manufacturing indus-
  try
 Synthetic fiber production facilities
 Petroleum dry cleaners
                                     40 CFR
                                     part 60
                                     subpart
A
Da
AAa
BB
CC
EE
KK
LL
MM

NN
OQ
SS
TT
UU

VV

WW
FFF
GGG
        Equipment leaks (fugitive  emission  sources) of
         benzene
        Asbestos
        Equipment leaks (fugitive emission sources)
                                   40 CFR
                                   pan 61
                                   subpart
          In addition, we are redelegating the
        following NSPS and NESHAPS categories
        since the SCAQMD's revised programs and
        procedures are acceptable:
                       NSPS
        Fossil-fuel tired steam generators .  ...
        Incinerators  	
        Portland cement plants	
        Nitric acid plants	         	
        Sutfurtc acid plants  	
        Asphalt concrete plants  .. .
        Petroleum refineries
        Storage vessels for petroleum liquids
        Petroleum storage vessels	
        Secondary lead smelters   	
        Secondary brass and  bronze ingot production
          plants
        Iron and steel plants (BOPF)   	
        Sewage treatment plants	
        Primary copper smelters       	
        Primary zinc smelters   	      .  .
        Primary lead smelters         	
        Pnmary aluminum reduction plants  .
        Phosphate fertilizer industry
          Wet Process phosphoric acid plants ... .
          Superphosphoric acid plants
          Diammonium phosphate plants ..    ....
          Tnple superphosphate  plants	
          Granular tnpte superphosphate   	
        Coal preparation plants   	
        Ferroalloy production facrlities  ....    	
        Iron and steel plants (electric arc furnaces)
        Grain elevators  .    	
        Stationary gas turbines  	
        Lime manufacturing plants  	    	
        Ammonium su'fate ...    . .
                                   40 CFR
                                   pan 60
                                   subpart
                                   0
                                   E
                                   F
                                   G
                                   H
                                   I
                                   j-
                                   K
                                   Ka
                                   L
                                   M

                                   N
                                   O
                                   P
                                   O
                                   R
                                   S

                                   T
                                   U
                                   V
                                   w
                                   X
                                   V
                                   z
                                   AA
                                   DO
                                   GG
                                   HH
                                   PP

NESHAPS

General provisions
Beryllium ...
Beryllium rocket motor fmng 	



40 CFR
part 61
subpart
A
C
0
E
F

  Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
your agreement to follow all applicable
provisions of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61,
including use of EPA's test methods and
procedures. The delegation is effective upon
the date of this letter unless the USEPA
receives written notice from you or the
District of any objections within 10 days of
receipt of this letter. A notice of this
delegated authority will be published in the
Federal Register in the near future.
      Sincerely,
Judith E. Ayres,
Regional A dm in is t rat or.
cc: South Coast Air Quality  Management
District

   With respect to the areas under the
jurisdiction of the SCAQMD, all reports,
applications, submittals,  and other
communications pertaining to the above
listed NSPS and NESHAPS source
categories should be directed to the
                                                               IV-306
-------
        Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 186 /  Wednesday. September 25. 1985 / Rules and Regulations
SCAQMD at the address shown in the
ADDRESS section of this notice.
  The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of section  3 of Executive
Order 12291.
  I certify that tins rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
  This Notice is issued under the
authority of sections 111 and 112 of the
Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.
1857. etseq.).
  Ddted: September 17.1985.
John Wise,
Acting Regional Administrator.
|FR Doc. 22907 Filed 9-24-85;« 45 ami
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M

40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

IA-9-FRL-2903-2]

Delegation of New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS)
State of Nevada, Ctarfc County Hearth
District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of Delegation.

 SUMMARY: The EPA hereby places the
 public on notice of its delegation of
 NSPS and NESHAPS authority to the
 Clark County Health District {CCHD).
This action is necessary to bring the
 NSPS and NESHAPS program
 delegations up to date with recent EPA
 piomulgations and amendments to these
 categories. This action  does not create
 any new regulatory requirements
 affecting the public. The effect of the
 delegation is to shift the primary
 program responsibility for the affected
 NSPS and NESHAPS categories from
 EPA to State and local governments.
 EFFECTIVE DATE: June 24. 1965.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
 Julie A. Rose, New Source Section {A-3-
 1), Air Operations Branch, Air
 Management Division,  EPA, Region 9.
 215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA
 94105, Tel: (415) 974-6221, FTS 454-8221.
 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
 CCHD has requested authority for
 delegation of certain NSPS and
 NESHAPS categories. Delegation of
 authority was granted by letter dated
 June 24.1985 and is reproduced in its
 entirety as fellows:
 Mr. Michael H. Naylor, Director.
 A f Pollution Control Divicion. Ciurk Ct>t-nt\
     Health District. P.OBo* 4JL>G. K!5
         wr Lane, las Vefas. A'l'flPW
  Dear Mr. Naylor In response to your
request of June 6. 1985, 1 am pleased to inform
you that we are delegating to your agency
authority to implement and enforce the New
Source Performance Standard tNSPS)
category in 40 CFR Part 6ft Subpart JJJ-
Standards of Performance for Petroleum Dry
Cleaners and the National Emission Standard
for Hazardous Air Pollutants {NESHAPS)
category to 40 CFR Part 61: Subpart M—
National Emission Standard Cor Asbestos
We have reviewed your request for
delegation and have found your present
programs and procedure* to be acceptable.
  Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
your agreement  tofcWowefl applicable
provisions of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61.
including use of EPA approved test methods
and procedures. The delegation is effective
upon the date of this tetter tmtess the USEPA
receive* written notice from yon of any
objections within 10 days of receipt of this
letter. A notice of this delegated authority
will be published in the Federal Register in
the near future.
      Sincerely,
Judith E. Ayres,
Regional Administrator.
  With respect to the areas under the
jurisdiction of the CCHD, all reports.
applications, submiltals. and other
communications pertaining to the above
listed NSPS and NESHAPS source
categories should be directed to the
CCHD at the address shown in the letter
of delegation.
  The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
   I certify that this rule will aot have
significant economic impact oa •
 substantial number of small entities
 under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
   This Notice is issued under the
 authority of section 111 of the Clean Air
 Act as amended (42 U-S.C. 1857, et
 seq.).
   Dated: September 17. 1985.
 )ohn Wise,
 Acting Regional Administrator.
 IFR Doc. 85-22906 Filed «-24-«5; fr.45 ami
 BILLING CODE (560-SO-M
 40 CFR PARTS 60 and 61

 (A-9-FRL-2903-11

 Delegation of New Source
 Performance Standards (NSPS) and
 National Emission Standards for
 Hazardous A«r Pottetants (NESHAPS)
 State of Nevada

 AGENCY: Environmental Protection
 Agency (EPA).
 ACTION: Notice of Delegation.

 SUMMARY: The EPA hereby places the
 public on notice of its delegation of
 NSPS and NESHAPS authority to the
Nevada Department of Conservation
and Natural Resource (NDCNR). This
action is necessary to bring the NSPS
and NESHAPS program delegations up
to date with recent EPA promulgations
and amendments to these categories.
This action does not create any new
regulatory requirements affecting the
public. The effect of the delegation is to
shift the primary program responsibility
for the affected NSPS and NESHAPS
categories from EPA to State and local
governments.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 20. 1985.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Julie A. Rose, New Source Section  (A-3-
1), Air Operations Branch, Air
Management Division, EPA, Region 9.
215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA
94105, Tel: (415) 974-8221, FTS 454-6221
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
NDCNR has requested authority for
delegation of certain NSPS and
NESHAPS categories. Delegation of
authority was granted by letters dated
May 10,1965, June 5,1985, June 24,1985.
and August 20.1985 are reproduced in
their entirety as follows:
Mr. Dick Serdoz. PJE..
Air Quality Officer, Nevada Department i>f
    Conservation and Natural Resources.
    Capitol Complex. Carson City. NVSf>7](l
  Dear Mr. Serdoz: In response to your
request of April 15,1965.1 an pleased  to
inform you that we are delegating to your
agency authority to implement and enforce
the New Source Performance Standard
(NSPSj in 40 CFH Part 60: Subpart PPP-
Standards of Performance for Wool
Fiberglass Insulation Manufacturing Plants.
 We have reviewed your request for
 delegation and have found yaw present
 programs and procedures to be acceptable.
   Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
 your agreement to follow all applicable
 provisions of 40 CFR Parts 60, including use
 of EPA approved test methods and
 procedures. The delegation is effective upon
 the date of this letter unless the USEPA
 receives written notice from you of any
 objections within 10 days of receipt of this
 letter. A notice of Ihii delegated authority
 will be published in the Federal Register in
 the near failure.
      Sincerely.
 Judith E. Ayres.
 Regional Administrator
 June 5.1-985
 Dick Serdoz. P.E..
 A ir Qua/ify Officer, Nevada Department oJ
     Conversation and Natural Resources.
     Division of Environmental Protection.
     Capitol Complex. Carson City. NVB9~W
   Dear Mr. Serdoz: In response to your
 requests of May 8.1985,1 am pleased to
 inform you that we delegating Jo your agencj
 authority to implement and enforce the New
 Source Performance Standard (NSPS)
 category in 40 CFR Part Btt Subpart A—
 Genera! Provisions and the National
                                                        IV-307
-------
        Federal Register /  Vol. 50, No. 186 / Wednesday. September  25.  1985  /  Rules and Regulations
Emission Standard for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAPS) category in 40 CFR
Part 61: Subpart A—General Provisions.
These delegations do not include the
exceptions noted in your May 9.1985 letters.
We have reviewed your request for
delegation and have found your present
programs and procedures to be acceptable.
  Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
your agreement to follow all applicable
provisions of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
including use of EPA approved test methods
and procedures. The delegation is effective
upon the date of this letter unless the USEPA
receives written notice from you of any
objections within 10 days of receipt of this
letter. A notice of this delegated authority
will be published in the Federal Register in
the near future.
    Sincerely,
Judith E. Ayres,
Regional Administrator.

June 24,1985.
Dick Serdoz, P.E.
Air Quality Officer, Nevada Dept. of
    Conservation and Natural Resources,
    Division of Environmental Protection.
    Capitol Complex, Carson  City, NV 89710
  Dear Mr. Serdoz: In response to your
request of May 30,1965,1 am pleased to
inform you that we are delegating to your
agency authority  to implement and enforce
the New Source Performance Standard
(NSPS) category in 40 CFR Part 60: Subpart
EE—Standards of Performance for Surface
Coating of Metal  Furniture. We have
reviewed your request for delegation and
have found your present programs and
procedures to be  acceptable.
  Acceptance of this delegation constitute*
your agreement to follow all applicable
provisions of 40 CFR Part 60, including use of
EPA approved test methods and procedures.
The delegation is effective upon the date of
 his letter unless the USEPA receives written
 .ijtice from you of any objections within 10
days of receipt of this letter. A notice of this
delegated authority will be published in the
Federal Register in the near future.
      Sincerely,
Judith E. Ayres,
Regional A dministra tor.
August 20.1985.
Mr. Richard Serdoz, P.E.
Air Quality Officer, Division of
    Environmental Protection. Nevada
    Department of Conservation and Natural
    Resources, Capitol Complex, Carson
    City. NV 89710.
   Dear Mr. Serdoz: In  response to your
 request of July 17,1985,1 am pleased to
 inform you that we are delegating to your
 agency authority to implement and enforce
 the New Source Performance Standard
 (NSPS) category in 40  CFR Part 60: Subpart
 KKK—Standards of Performance for
 Equipment Leaks of VOC from Onshore
 Natural Gas Processing Plants. We have
 reviewed your request for delegation and
 have found your present programs and
 procedures to be acceptable.
   Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
 your agreement to follow all applicable
 provisions of 40 CFR Part 60,  including use of
EPA approved test methods and procedures.
The delegation is effective upon the date of
this letter unless the USEPA receives written
notice from you of any objections within 10
days of receipt of this letter. A notice of this
delegated authority will be published in the
Federal Register in the future.
      Sincerely,
Judith E. Ayres,
Regional Administrator.

  With respect to the areas under the
jurisdiction of the NDCNR, all reports.
applications, submittals, and other
communications pertaining to the above
listed NSPS and NESHAPs source
categories should be directed to the
NDCNR at the address shown in the
letter of delegation.
  The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
  I certify that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
  This Notice is issued under the
authority of section 111 of the Clean Air
Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857, et
seg.).
  Dated: September 17,1985.
John Wise,
Acting Regional Administrator.
IFR Doc. 85-22909 Filed 9-24-85; 8:45 am]
                                      136
                                       40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
                                       [A-4-FRL-2919-4]

                                       Standards of Performance for New
                                       Stationary Sources, National Emission
                                       Standards for Hazardous Air
                                       Pollutants; Delegation of Authority to
                                       the State of Florida
                                       AGENCY: Environmental Protection
                                       Agency.
                                                           IV-308
-------
       Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 215 / Wednesday. November 6. 1985  / Rules and Regulations
ACTION: Delegation of authority.

SUMMARY: On August 9,1985, the State
of Florida requested that EPA delegate
authority for implementation and
enforcement of several additional
categories of the Standards of
Performance for New Stationary
Sources (NSPS), and the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP). Since EPA's
review of pertinent State laws and rules
and regulations showed them to be
adequate for the implementation and
enforcement of these Federal standards,
the Agency has made the delegation as
requested.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of
the delegation of authority is September
24,1985.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the request for
delegation of authority and EPA's letter
of delegation are available for public
inspection at EPA's Region IV office, 345
Courtland Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia
30365.
  All reports required pursuant to the
newly delegated standards (listed
below) should be submitted to the
following address: Department of
Environmental Regulation, Twin Towers
Office Building, 2600 Blair Stone Road,
Tallahassee, Florida 32301.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Archie Lee, at the EPA Region IV
address listed above, and phone 404/
881-3286 or FTS 257-3286.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
301, in conjunction with sections 101,
and lll(c)(l) of the Clean Air Act,
authorizes EPA to delegate authority to
implement and enforce the standards set
out in 40 CFR Part 60, NSPS, and in 40
CFR Part 61, NESHAP.
  On June 10,1982, EPA initially
delegated the authority for
implementation and enforcement of  the
NSPS and NESHAP program to the State
of Florida. On August 9,1985, Florida
requested a delegation of authority for
implementation and enforcement of  the
following NSPS categories:
  1. Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon-
Oxygen Decarburization Vessels
Constructed after August 7,1983; 40  CFR
Part 60, Subpart AAa, as promulgated
10/31/84.
  2. Glass Manufacturing Plants; 40  CFR
Part 60, Subpart CC, as promulgated 10/
19/84.
  3. Metallic Mineral Processing Plants:
40 CFR Part 60, Subpart LL, as
promulgated 02/21/84.
  4. Beverage Can Surface Coating
Industry; 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart WW,
as promulgated 08/25/83.
  5. Flexible Vinyl and Ure thane
Coating and Printing; 40 CFR Part 60,
Subpart FFF. as promulgated 06/29/84.
  6. Equipment Leaks of VOC in
Petroleum Refineries; 40 CFR Part 60,
Subpart GGG, as promulgated OS/30/84.
  7. Synthetic Fiber Production
Facilities; 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart HHH.
as promulgated 04/05/84.
  8. Petroleum Dry Cleaners; 40 CFR
Part 60, Subpart JJ], as promulgated Kj
21/84.
  9. Wool Fiberglass Insulation
Manufacturing; 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart
PPP, as promulgated 02/25/85.
  On August 9,1985, Florida also
requested a delegation of authority for
implementation and enforcement of the
following NESHAP categories:
  1. Equipment Leaks (Fugitive Emission
Sources) of Benzene; 40 CFR Part 61.
Subpart ], as promulgated 06/06/84.
  2. Equipment Leaks (Fugitive Emission
Sources); 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart V, as
promulgated 10/31/84.
  After a thorough review of the
request, the Regional Administrator
determined that such a delegation was
appropriate for these source categories
with the conditions set forth in the
original delegation letter of June 10,
1982. Florida sources subject to the
requirements of the above categories of
NSPS and NESHAP will now be under
the jurisdiction of the State of Florida.
  Dated: October 17,1985.
John A. Little,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 65-28455 Filed 11-5-85; 8:45 am)
                                   137
                                    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
                                    AGENCY

                                    40 CFR Part 61

                                    [AD-FRL-2862-3]

                                    National Emission Standards for
                                    Hazardous Air Pollutants;
                                    Amendments to General Provisions

                                    AGENCY: Environmental Protection
                                    Agency (EPA).
                                    ACTION: Final rule.

                                    SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
                                    Agency (EPA) proposed amendments to
                                    Subpart A, the General Provisions for
                                    national emission standards for
                                    hazardous air pollutants, on June 6,1984
                                                     IV-309
-------
         Federal Register / Vol. 50. No.  216 / Thursday. November 7. 1985  /  Rules and Regulations
(49 FR 23568). This Federal Register
notice responds to comments on the
proposed amendments and promulgates
the amendments to the General
Provisions. The amendments codify
procedures and criteria used in
implementing these emission standards
and eliminate the repetition of general
information in subparts of future
standards. A summary of the specific
amendments is provided at the
beginning of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this notice.
DATE: Effective November 7,1985. Under
section 307(b)(l) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA), judicial review of the actions
taken by this  notice is available only by
filing a petition for review in the United
States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia circuit within 60 days of
today's publication. Under section
307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements
that are the subject of today's notice
may not be challenged later in civil or
criminal proceedings brought by EPA to
enforce these requirements.
ADDRESS: Docket. Docket No. A-81-12
contains supporting information used in
developing the promulgated
amendments. This docket is available
for public inspection between 8:00 a.m.
and 4:00 n.m., Monday through Friday,
at EPA's Central Docket Section (LE-
131), West Tower Lobby, Gallery  1,
Waterside Mall, 401 M Street SW.,
Washington,  DC 20460. A reasonable fee
may be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Gail K. Lacy or Mr. Gilbert H.
Wood, Standards Development Branch,
Emission Standards and Engineering
Division (MD-13), U.S. EPA, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone
number (919) 541-5578.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

 Summary of  Amendments
   Under the  authority of section 112 of
 the  CAA, EPA has been promulgating
 national standards for the emissions of
 hazardous air pollutants from existing
 and new stationary sources. The
 standards are contained in Part 61 of 40
 CFR, each constituting a subpart.
 Subpart A comprises general provisions
 that apply to all of the standards.
   Many provisions have been repeated
 in each standard's subpart. The
 amendments promulgated today  add
 these provisions into the General
 Provisions, thus eliminating the need to
 repeat them  in the subparts of future
 standards. They mainly comprise
 procedures related to emission testing
 and monitoring.
   These amendments aho piovide
 c1 iif;ria and procedures for determining
 whether proposed changes to a source
would constitute modification. They are
designed to clarify EPA's
implementation of modification, as it is
defined in the CAA and in the present
Part 61, for owners or operators who
propose to make changes to a source
which may result in increased
emissions.
  In addition, the amendments add
procedures that would be followed
when any person requests that the
Administrator permit the use of an
alternative design, piece of equipment,
work practice or operation in place of
one specified by a standard. This
amendment is consistent with the CAA,
which provides that the Administrator
may permit the use of an alternative
method of controlling emissions if, after
notice and opportunity for a public
hearing, the Administrator determines
that the alternative method is
equivalent, in terms of reducing
emissions, to that specified in the
applicable standard.
  The amendments also add two lists.
The first is a list of hazardous air
pollutants. The second is a list of other
substances for which the Agency has
published a notice that included
consideration of the serious health
effects, including cancer, from ambient
air exposure to the substance.
  The  amendments simplify Part 61 by
eliminating the concept "equivalent
method," a method of emission testing
that is equivalent to a reference method
specified in a standard, meaning that it
has a consistent and quantitative
relationship to the appropriate reference
method. Under these amendments, each
test method approved by the
Administrator that is not a reference
method, or a minor change from thereof,
would be classified as an alternative
method, meaning that it has been
 demonstrated to the Administrator's
 satisfaction to produce results adequate
 for the determination of compliance.
   The amendments also simplify the
 wording and punctuation in Subpart A.
 Public Participation
   At the time of proposal, public
 comments were solicited and copies of
 the proposal were distributed to
 interested parties. The public was also
 given  the opportunity to present views
 at a public hearing concerning the
 proposed standards in accordance with
 section  307(d)(5) of the CAA. The public
 comment period was from June 6 to
 August  20,1984. No one requested to
 speak at the public hearing, so a public
 hearing was not held. Eight comment
 letters were received. They were
 submitted by industry representatives
 and a State air pollution control agency.
Significant Comments and Changes to
the Proposed Amendments

  The comments have been carefully
considered and, where determined
appropriate by the Administrator,
changes have been made to the
proposed amendments. In the section on
emission testing, the provisions for use
of alternative methods were clarified,
and provisions for the use of reference
methods with minor changes were
added. Similar provisions were also
added to the monitoring section. In the
section on modification, an additional
reference source was added to provide
emission factors to be used to determine
emission increases. The new reference
source is the background information
document published for each individual
subpart. In addition, the definition of
capital expenditure, used in determining
if modification has occurred, was
clarified for sources constructed in 1980
and thereafter. A new pollutant, coke
oven emissions, was added to the list of
hazardous air pollutants under Section
112 of the CAA. Also, a list was added
for other substances for which the
Agency has published a notice that
included consideration of the serious
health effects, including cancer, from
ambient air exposure to the substance.
   The significant comments and EPA's
responses are discussed below. Also
included are discussions of changes that
are not related to public comments. The
discussions are organized in the same
order as the sections of the General
Provisions  to which they apply.

Lists of Pollutants

   The proposed amendments included a
list of hazardous air pollutants. In
 addition, the promulgated amendments
include a list of other substances for
 which EPA has published a notice that
 included consideration of the serious
 health effects, including cancer, from
 ambient air exposure to the substance.
   Publication of both of these lists
 serves to inform the public as to the
 status of EPA's program for assessing
 potentially toxic air pollutants as well
 as providing a useful reference for those
 Federal Register publications dealing
 with potentially toxic air pollutants. In
 addition, the first of these lists will
 remove uncertainty that the public may
 have as to the status of a particular
 pollutant between listing of the pollutant
 and promulgation of emission standards
 for that pollutant. The second of these
 lists will also convey to the public  the
 scope of the Agency's air toxics program
 by identifying all of the actions tbftt FJPA
 has t
-------
         Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 1985  /  Rules and Regulations
Definition of "Standard"

  The proposed amendments redefined
"standard" to include design,
equipment, work practice, and
operational standards, or any
combination thereof. Two commenters
thought that the proposed definition
should be changed to only apply to
actions subsequent to the 1977
Amendments to the CAA. They were
concerned that under the proposed
definition, work practice requirements in
the current vinyl chloride standard,
which are in their opinion, invalid,
would be considered valid by virtue of
the change in the General Provisions of
Part 61. The EPA disagrees. By simply
promulgating a definition that conforms
to the current section 112 of the CAA,
EPA is not attempting to address any
questions regarding the work practice
requirements of the vinyl chloride
standard. Therefore, EPA decided it was
inappropriate to change the proposed
definition of standard.
  Another commenter thought that a
clearer wording of the definition might
be: "A national emission standard 'and/
or' (rather than the proposed 'including')
a national design, equipment, work
practice or operational standard." The
proposed wording of the definition of
"standard" was derived from section
112(e)(5)  of the CAA, which states that
any design, equipment, work practice, or
operational standard, or any
combination thereof, shall be treated as
an emission standard. Therefore, the
proposed definition is consistent with
the CAA whereas the definition
suggested by the commenter is not

Address

  Comments on the Address section
(§ 61.04) all related to the delegation of
standards to the States. The proposed
revisions to this section stated that EPA
may permit requested information to be
submitted to the State agency only,
instead of to both the State agency and
to EPA. Three commenters requested
that, when standards have been
delegated to State agencies, the owner
should be required to submit
information only to the appropriate
State agency in all cases, rather than
EPA permitting it in some cases. The
EPA disagrees with the commenters'
request because both EPA and the
States have enforcement
responsibilities. There are aspects of all
the standards that EPA will not delegate
to any State. Moreover, EPA reserves
oversight authority for delegated
activities. The EPA would permit
sources to submit information solely to
the State agency only incases where the
permission has been specifically granted
in the written delegation.
  Another comment suggested that the
word "Administrator" be replaced by
"authorized agency" throughout the
General Provisions. As mentioned
above, not all provisions are delegated
to the States. Furthermore, EPA always
has the responsibility to ensure
enforcement; section 112(d)(2) of the
CAA reserves the Administrator's
authority to enforce standards even
when enforcement has been delegated
to a State. Use of the term "authorized
agency" could imply that the delegated
agency has sole authority to enforce.
Therefore, "Administrator" is the  more
appropriate term.
  One commenter suggested that the
listing of States with approved
delegation should note the extent  of
delegation allowed each State, or  at
least identify die Federal Register
notices wherein such delegations have
been made. Most States have full
delegation of all applicable NESHAP.
The listing already notes the exceptions
to full delegation for some of the States.
The EPA plans to continue updating the
listing to show exceptions to full
delegation on a case-by-case basis.
  Two commenters questioned if States
with delegated authority will be
required to revise their provisions to
match these amendments. The States
are required only to have provisions at
least as stringent as  the ones that  have
been delegated to them. However, these
amendments do not add any more
stringent requirements to the General
Provisions. Therefore, it is not expected
that States will be required to change
their provisions.
Applications for Approval of
Construction or Modification
  One commenter suggested a wording
change to the paragraph describing the
necessary information to be included in
an application for approval of
modification $ 61.07(c). The suggestion
was to replace the words "the precise
nature of the proposed changes" with "a
description of the proposed changes."
The EPA believes that the wording
"precise nature" more clearly conveys
that EPA needs exact information,
rather than a vague or general
description of the proposed changes.
  Another commenter requested that the
enforcement authority should be
allowed at least 120 days, rather than 60
days, to respond to applications for
approval of construction or
modification. The commenter believes
that a longer time is particularly
important when processing applications
that are subject to other rules requiring
public notice and/or an opportunity for
a public hearing. The EPA disagrees that
the allowed response time should be
lengthened Approvals of construction or
modification under the NESHAP
program are based on the expected
ability of the source to meet the
applicable NESHAP emission standard.
The EPA is not convinced that any more
than 60 days is necessary for this type of
determination. For cases where the
construction or modification is subject
to a public hearing under another rule.
the enforcement authority should be
able to determine if the construction or
modification would be approvable under
Part 61 regardless  of the public hearing
outcome. For cases in which the
construction or modification is not
subject to a rule requiring a public
hearing, it would be unfair to the source
for the enforcement authority to delay a
determination any longer man
necessary.

Notification of Startup

  The proposed §  61.09(a)(l) requires
notification of anticipated startup no.
more than 60 days and no less man 30
days before the planned startup date.
One commenter suggested that some
provisions should be added to include
those sources whose planned startup
falls within 30 days after the effective
date of the applicable standard.
  The EPA believes that it is unlikely
that a source would start up within 30
days of  the effective date. Any new or
modified source that has not had initial
startup before the effective date is
required to submit an application for
approval of construction or
modification, as specified in §61.07.
Startup  could not occur before the
Administrator approves the construction
or modification. To increase the
possibility that approval takes place
within 30 days after the effective date.
the owner or operator could submit the
application for approval before the
effective date. The owner or operator
could notify the Agency of the
anticipated startup date at the same
time. However, EPA cannot require that
these items be submitted before the
effective date. Therefore, EPA did not
add any special provisions to § 61.09.
Waiver of Compliance

  Several commenters stated that EPA
should provide that a source will not be
considered to be in violation of the
standard during the time between
submittal of a waiver of compliance and
final action on the waiver by EPA, if
final action has not taken place before
the 90-day compliance period is over.
One'of these commenters suggested that
the 90-day period for coming into
                                                      IV-311
-------
         Federal Register / Vol. 50. No.  216 / Thursday. November 7, 1985  /  Rules and Regulations
compliance should be removed from the
General Provisions and decided
separately for each standard.
  The CAA clearly states- in section
112(c)(l)(B) that an existing source shall
comply with the standard within go days
of the effective date unless the source is
operating under a waiver of compliance.
If would be inconsistent with the statute
to change the 90-day period or to add
the provision requested by the
commenters. Thus, the owner or
operator of a source should submit the
waiver application as soon as
practicable to allow time for the Agency
to make a determination within the 90-
day period after the effective date. One
should note that all substantive
standards are proposed prior to being
promulgated. The owner or operator
should take advantage of the time
between proposal and promulgation to
prepare significant portions of a plan for
achieving compliance. In addition, the
source should continue to* take all
possible steps toward achieving
compliance while the Agency is
evaluating the waiver application.
  One commenter requested that EPA
describe the compliance  schedule
requirements for waivers of compliance
applying to work practice, design, or
operational standards. The commenter
also suggested that EPA  modify the
example "request for waiver" form in
Appendix A of Part 61 to accommodate
work practice, design, or operational
standards. The EPA agrees that the
information requested in the waiver
application is oriented toward
equipment. This information would be
appropriate for design and equipment
requirements, as well as for standards
with a numerical emissions limit.
However, EPA disagrees that the
General Provisions or Appendix A
should be revised to describe the
compliance schedule information
required in applications  for waivers of
compliance with work practice or
operational standards. In most cases,
the owner or operator should be, able to
implement work practice and
operational requirements within 90 days
of the effecitive date. Furthermore, even
if a waiver may be justified, the
information needed in the waiver
application would be specific to the
particular standard. Therefore, it is more
appropriate that detailed guidance be
given in the subpart of the standard or
by the enforcement agency, rather than
in the General Provisions. General
guidance is that the waiver application
should contain sufficient information to
show why the source is unable to
<"omply within 90 days, the steps that the
source is taking to achieve compliance
in the minimum amount of time, and the
dates for completing each step.
Compliance with Standards and
Maintenance Requirements
  One commenter suggested a minor
wording change in the first paragraph of
the provisions in the proposed § 61.12 on
compliance determinations. The
wording in the proposed section said
that compliance shall be determined by
emission tests established in § 61.13 or
as otherwise specified in an individual
subpart. The EPA agrees that this
language was ambiguous. The intent of
EPA is that the individual subpart would
take precedence over the General
Provisions. The final wording removes
this ambiguity.
  Another comment suggested that EPA
remove the proposed words "for
minimizing emissions" from the
provision requiring the operation of the
source and associated air pollution
control equipment "in a manner
consistent with good air pollution
control practice for minimizing
emission." The EPA believes that these
words serve to clarify the phrase "good
air pollution control practice" and
therefore should be included.
  Other comments on this section
related to  the provisions of alternative
means of emission limitation. One
suggested that the language be made
consistent with the CAA by stating that
the Administrator "shall" (instead of the
proposed "will") publish in the Federal
Register a notice permitting the use of
the alternative means. The commenter
believes the "shall" more clearly states
the Administrator's obligation to permit
the use. The EPA disagrees. Throughout
the General Provisions, the word "will"
is used to describe the actions which
will be performed by the Administrator.
The EPA decided to leave "will" to
maintain consistency between this
section and the rest of the General
Provisions and because this properly
describes the actions to be taken by the
Administrator.
  The same commenter also requested
the addition of a sentence to
§ 61.12(d)(l) following the statement
that the permission to use an alternative
means may be conditioned on
requirements for the operation and
maintenance of the alternative means.
The suggested sentence states that such
operation and maintenance
requirements will be no more severe
than necessary to ensure that the
alternative method of emission
limitation will be operated and
maintained in such a manner as to
achieve a reduction in emissions at least
equivalent to the reduction to be
achieved  under any design, equipment.
work practice or operational standard
required by the Administrator for a
particular pollutant. The EPA agrees
that the intent of the operation and
maintenance provisions is to ensure that
the alternative means achieves at least
as must emission reduction as the
standard, instead of necessarily
achieving more emission reduction than
the standard. The EPA believes,
however, that in most cases, it is
infeasible to quantify the effect of the
operation and maintenance
requirements on the amount of emission
reduction. For example, it would often
be infeasible to  estimate that with one
set of maintenance requirements, the
control method would achieve 90
percent control; yet with another set of
maintenance requirements, it would
achieve 95 percent control. The selection
of operation and maintenance
requirements will be EPA's best
judgment of what is necessary to ensure
that the alternative method will achieve
a reduction in emissions at least
equivalent to the standard. Therefore, it
is not appropriate to change the
proposed regulation.

Emission Testing

  Comments were received on the
proposed § 61.13(b), which provides that
the Administrator may require emission
testing in addition to the initial emission
test "at any other time under section  114
of the Act." The commenters  believed
that one could infer from the proposed
wording that Section 114 gives unlimited
authority to EPA to require testing. The
EPA agtees with the commenters that
the wording of this paragraph could be
improved. The final amendments state
that the Administrator may require an
owner or operator to test emissions from
the source at any other time, when such
action is  authorized under section 114 of
the Act. This suggested wording was
chosen over other suggestions because it
most accurately reflects the intent of the
provision.
   Another  commenter requested that the
time for analyzing test samples be
lengthened from 30 to 45 days, and the
time for submitting a report after
emission testing be lengthened from 31
to 60 days. The  commenter believes this
time is needed especially when samples
have to be  shipped off-site for analysis.
The EPA intends to specify as short a
time period as reasonable to  minimize
delay in  determining the compliance
status of the source. The individual
subparts in Part 61 that require emission
testing allow 30 days for determining
emission test results, and require the
results to be sent to EPA the  next
business day following the
                                                      IV-312
-------
         Federal Register / Vol.  50, No. 216 / Thursday,  November 7, 1985 /  Rules and Regulations
determination. In enforcing these
standards, EPA has generally found
these deadlines to be reasonable. The
commenter did not provide any case to
illustrate any specific difficulty. The
proposed General Provisions allow for a
different time period to be specified in a
particular subpart if necessary, and
EPA will address testing schedules
when each  subpart is reviewed.
Consequently,  EPA disagrees with the
commenter's suggestion to change the
proposed time  period.
  The same commenter pointed out that
the requirements for emission test
facilities (e.g., sampling ports) in
§ 61.13(d) would be applicable only to
those sources required to perform
emission testing. The EPA agrees with
the commenter and has clarified this
point in the final regulation.
  Two commenters requested
clarification of the provisions for use of
alternative  methods for emission testing
that are in the  proposed § 61.13(h).  One
commenter stated that the section needs
to address the  date for submission of
requests to  use an alternative test
method during the initial emission test
for new sources that have initial startup
before  the effective date of the
applicable standard. The EPA agrees
with the commenter that for these
sources the date should be  the same as
for existing source*, which  is 30 days
after the effective date. Another
commenter requested that EPA consider
requests to  use an alternative test
method at any  other time, in addition to
during  the initial emission test. The EPA
also agrees with this request The final
regulation incorporates provisions
addressing  these points in § 61.13(h).
  Another change from the proposed
emission test § 61.13(h) is the addition of
a provision for the use of a  reference
method with minor changes in
methodology. Minor changes pertain to
contingencies that arise in the field and
to authorizations that may appear in the
regulations  where the potential for
advancement in test procedures,
equipment,  reagents, or analytic
methods was anticipated. The reason for
distinguishing minor changes to
reference methods from alternative
methods is  related to procedures for
approving their use. The decisions to
approve minor changes may be made
most efficiently and reasonably by the
implementing agency, which may be a
delegated State or local agency.
Subsequent approval at the Federal
level would be  unnecessary because
minor changes  do not affect the
precision or accuracy of the method and,
therefore, are not of national
significance. Conversely, EPA retains
authority for the approval of alternative
methods in order to ensure uniformity
and technical quality in the test methods
used for enforcement of national
standards. Therefore, the new provision
adds flexibility to the emission testing
section.

Monitoring Requirements
  One commenter stated that
monitoring data obtained during periods
of plant startup, shutdown, or
malfunction should not be included in
the monitoring data average, and
emissions excesses recorded during
those periods should not be considered
violations of the standard. The EPA
disagrees. The monitoring data collected
during periods of plant startup,,
shutdown, and malfunction should be
included Because  they contain relevant
information about the event It is
important to know how much is being
emitted during such a period, and how
long the period lasts, especially during
plant  startup and malfunction. Unless
specified otherwise in a particular
subpart compliance is determined by a
performance test,  and monitoring data
are used to indicate excess emissions, or
improper operation and maintenance.
Therefore, no such provisions were
added.
  Provisions for the use of minor
changes that do not affect the precision
and accuracy of specified monitoring
procedures were added to § 61.14(g).
These provisions are similar in
substance and purpose to those for the
use of minor changes to reference
emission-test methods. The provisions
also state the Administrator's authority
to require the use of the procedures
specified under this part if the
Administrator has reasonable  grounds
to dispute results obtained by an
alternative method.

Modification
  The EPA revised the proposed
definition of "capital expenditure."
which is used in determining whether
some  changes to an existing source are
modifications. In the proposal, "capital
expenditure" was defined as the product
of the applicable "annual asset guideline
repair allowable percentage"
(AAGRAP) specified in the latest edition
of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
publication 534 and the existing source's
basis. Recent tax revisions repealed the
use of AAGRAP for property placed in
service after December 31.1980.
Therefore, the EPA reviewed IRS
Publication 534 to determine if the
proposed procedure is practical for post-
1980 assets. The publication continues to
require the use of an existing source's
basis, and also continues to report the
AAGRAP because it is still used for tax
purposes for pre-1981 assets. This means
that asset records must be kept for post-
1980 assets similarly as for pre-1981
assets. Thus, EPA is revising the
definition of "capital expenditure" to
clarify that the AAGRAP can be for
post-1980 assets. The public comments
on modification and EPA's responses
are discussed below.
  Two commenters stated that, to
determine modification, the increase in
emissions should be compared to the
permitted emission level, rather than the
actual level. They contended that
measuring increases from the current
operating level would penalize owners
or operators for past reductions. The
EPA disagrees with these commenters.
The comparison of an emission increase
to the permitted level of emissions
instead of to the actual level is contrary
to the statutory definition of
modification. The definition of
modification in sections 112(a)(3) and
lll(a)(4) of the CAA refers to the
increase in terms of "the amount of air
pollutant emitted by the source,"
  Two commenters requested that only
changes resulting in a "significant"
increase in emissions be considered a
modification. They noted that only
significant increases are regulated under
the modification provisions in 40 CFR
51.24 and 52.21, which are the
prevention  of significant deterioration
(PSD) requirements of the State
implementation plan (SIP) rules. The
EPA believes the commenter'j request is
inappropriate for Part 61. Under the
definition of modification in the CAA,
any physical or operational change
resulting in an increase in emissions
constitutes  a "modification."  As the
commentera note, the PSD rules in 40
CFR 51.24 and 52.21 apply to "major
modifications" that result in. a
"significant" emissions increase, (i.e..
greater than a specified de minimis
amount). The promulgation of these
rules followed the decision in Alabama
Power Co v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323 (B.C.
Cir 1979), in which the D.C. Circuit held
that EPA has authority to interpret the
definition of modification for PSD
review so as to exempt sources with
small emissions increases on grounds of
administrative necessity. The Alabama
Power decision does not require EPA to
provide a de minimis exemption from
application of the modification for
NESHAP applicability purposes; nor
does EPA expect an administrative need
for exempting small emissions increases
from the modification provisions under
the NESHAP program. The NESHAP  are
categorically applicable emission
standards and the administrative
                                                     IV-313
-------
         Federal Register /  Vol.  SO, No. 216 / Thursday.  November 7. 1965 / Rules and Regulations
burden associated with their application
is not overwhelming. In contrast, the
PSD requirements involve an
assessment of the effects of the
modification on ambient air quality and
a case-by-case technical review
including opportunity for public
comment.
  The EPA received two comments that
EPA should emphasize the use of other
emission factors, rather than emission
factors contained in "Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emission Factors," EPA
Publication No. AP-42. for determining
emission increases. The commenters
cited the lack of emission factors
specific to the synthetic organic
chemical manufacturing industry
(SOCMI) in AP-42. In some cases, the
most appropriate emission factors for
determining emissions increases would
be those used by EPA in developing the
NESHAP. They are described in the
documents providing background
information for each standard.
Therefore, the promulgated modification
section refers to these documents, as
well as AP-42, as sources of emission
factors. The modification section would
continue to provide for use of other
emission factors determined by the
Administrator to be superior for
determining an emission increase to the
emission factors in AP-42 or the
background information documents.
This determination could be made on a
case-by-case  basis, or more generally in
the individual subparts.
  One commenter questioned why the
modification provision in 40 CFR
60.14(c) for the NSPS program is not
included in the proposed provisions for
Part 61. This provision states that "the
addition of an affected facility to a
stationary source or as a replacement
foi  an existing facility shall not by itself
bring within the applicability of this part
any other facility within that source."
This provision is inappropriate for Part
61.  The EPA uses the term "affected
facility" under Part 60 to designate the
unit subject to a standard. The EPA does
not use the term "affected facility"
under Part 61.
  Several comments were received on
the exemptions to modification listed in
the proposed § 61.15(d). One commenter
had two comments on the exemption for
an  increase in production rate of a
stationary source, if that increase can be
accomplished without a capital
expenditure on the stationary source
{§ 61.15(d)(2)). One of these comments
was that the definition of capital
expenditure should be changed to use
the replacement cost rather thnn the
original cost.  The comment stated that
EPA at leas! should allow the
alternative definition of capital
expenditure that is included in the NSPS
for equipment leaks (i.e., fugitive
emissions) from petroleum refineries
and SOCMI. The alternative definition
to which the comment referred uses the
replacement cost with an adjustment
factor to approximate the original cost,
rather than only the original cost. The
reason was that the original cost for the
particular equipment (e.g.. valves and
pumps) covered by these two NSPS may
not be available, and may be very
difficult to recreate at some plants. The
alternative definition of capital
expenditure achieves the same result by
using the replacement cost and
depreciating it to approximate the
original cost The EPA does not believe
that the difficulties with original costs
encountered by some of the plants
subject to the equipment leaks NSPS are
general enough to all standards to
warrant inclusion of this alternative
definition in the General Provisions.
Furthermore, if an alternative definition
were necessary for a specific standard.
the definition would need to be tailored
to the particular industry and
equipment. For example, the inflation
index used to depreciate the
replacement cost may be different from
that used for refineries and chemical
plants.
  The second comment was that EPA
should use "process  improvement"
rather than "increase in production rate"
in the exemption in § 61.15(d){2). The
use of "process improvement" is specific
to the NSPS for equipment leaks from
refineries and SOCMI and is not
appropriate for the General Provisions
of either Part 80 or Part 81. The
equipment leaks NSPS are unusual
because the affected facility (equivalent
to the "source" under NESHAP) is
broadly defined as the grouping of a
large number of certain types of
equipment within  process units rather
than the individual pieces of equipment
for which there are requirements. In
process units in refineries and chemical
plants, many routine changes that may
result in the minor addition of
potentially leaking equipment, such as a
few valves or a pump, are made for
specific reasons. For other source
categories, EPA has  no evidence that
such changes would routinely be made.
If such changes exist for another source
category, EPA would need to examine
the details of specific examples before it
would exempt the changes from
modification.
  One commenter stated that sources
that are relocated should not be
exempted from the modification
provisions. The commenter stated that
the exemption for relocated sources in
the proposed § 61.15(d)(95) is
inconsistent with other rules, such as
SIP's. The EPA disagrees. Sections
112(a)(3) and lll(a)(4) of the CAA
define modification to be a change in a
source that increases emissions. Section
61.15(d)(5) merely provides that
relocation of a source does not by itself
constitute a modification. This is correct
because relocation does not by itself
increase emissions. However.
§ 61.15(d)(5) clarifies that the owner
must report relocations and changes in
ownership to the EPA, as described
under §  61.10(c).
  One commenter questioned why an
exemption to modification in Part 60
was not included in the proposed
provisions in Part 61. The specific
exemption, in 5 60.14(e){5], is for "the
addition or use of any system or device
whose primary function is the reduction
of air pollutants except when an
emission control system  is removed or is
replaced by a system which the
Administrator determines to be less
environmentally beneficial." The EPA
believes that this exemption to
modification is inappropriate for the
Part 61 General Provisions because of
the hazardous nature of the subject
pollutants. If the addition or use of an
air pollution control device causes an
increase in emissions of  a hazardous air
pollutant, the source should become
subject  to the applicable standard to
protect the public health.
  A commenter noted that paragraph
I 61.15(e) referenced in the proposed
paragraph § 61.15(a), was missing. The
EPA found that the proposed paragraph
(a) of the modification provisions was
incorrect; there is no intended paragraph
§ 61.15(e). The final regulation has been
corrected.

Miscellaneous

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 the regulation to  be a "major
rule." In fact, this action would impose
no new regulatory requirements for
owners or operators of sources to which
a standard under Part 61 is applicable.
The Agency has therefore concluded
that  this regulation is not a "major rule"
under Executive Order 12291.
  This regulation was submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget
                                                      IV-314
-------
          Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 216  /  Thursday, November 7,  1985  /  Rules and Regulations
[OMB) for review as required by
Executive Order 12291. Any comments
from OMB to EPA and any EPA
response to these comments are
included in Docket Number A-81-12.

Paperwork Reduction Act

  These amendments do not add any
information collection burden for
sources subject to standards currently in
Part 61. Thus, this action is not an
information collection request (ICR)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1980,44 U.S.C. et seq.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Certification

  Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
605(b), I hereby certify that these
amendments to Part 61 will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The
amendments will not add any new
regulatory requirements to Part 61.
Consequently, they will not add
significant costs.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 61

  Asbestos, Beryllium, Hazardous
substances,  Mercury, Radionuclides.
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Vinyl chloride.
  Dated: September 23.1985.
Lee M. Thomas,
Administrator.

PART 61—[AMENDED]

  40 CFR Part 61 is amended as follows:
  1. The authority citation for Part 61 is
revised to read as set forth below and
the authority citations following all  the
sections in Part 61 are removed.
  Authority: Sees. 101,112,114.118, 301,
Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401,
7412, 7414, 7416, 7601).

  2. The table of contents is amended by
revising the table of contents for
Subpart A to read as follows:

PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS

Subpart A-General Provisions
Sec.
61.01  Lists of pollutants and applicability of
    Part 61.
61 02  Definitions.
61.03  Units and abbreviations.
PI 04  Address.
61.05  Prohibited activities.
61.06  Determination of construction or
    modification.
61.07  Application for approval of
    construction or modification.
61.08  Approval of construction or
    modification.
61.09  Notification of startup.
Sec.
61.10  Source reporting and request for
    waiver of compliance.
61.11  Waiver of compliance.
61.12  Compliance with standards and
    maintenance requirements.
61.13  Emission tests and waiver of emission
    tests.
61.14  Monitoring requirements.
61.15  Modification.
61.16  Availability of information.
61.17  State authority.
61.18  Incorporations by reference.
61.19  Circumvention.
*****

  3. Section 61.01 is revised to read as
set forth below:

§61.01  Lists of pollutants and applicability
of Part 61.
  (a) The following list presents the
substances that, pursuant to section 112
of the Act, have been designated as
hazardous air pollutants. The Federal
Register citations and dates refer to the
publication in which the listing decision
was originally published.
Asbestos (36 FR 5931; March 31,1971)
Benzene (42 FR 29332: June 8,1977)
Beryllium (36 FR 5931; March 31,1971)
Coke Oven Emissions (49 FR 36560;
    September 18,1984)
Inorganic Arsenic (45 FR 37886; )une 5,1980)
Mercury (36 FR 5931; March 31,1971)
Radionuclides (44 FR 76738; December 27,
    1979)
Vinyl Chloride (40 FR 59532; December 24.
    1975)

   (b) The following list presents other
substances for which a Federal Register
notice has been published that included
consideration of the serious health
effects, including cancer, from ambient
air exposure to the substance.
Acrylonitrile (50 FR 24319; June 10,1985)
Carbon Tetrachloride (50 FR 32621; August
    13,1985)
Chlorinated Benzenes (50 FR 32628; August
    13,1985)
Chlorofluorocarbon—113 (50 FR 24313: June
    10,1985)
Chromium (50 FR 24317; June 10,1983)
Epichlorohydrin (50 FR 24575; June 11,1985)
Manganese (50 FR 32627;  August 13,1985)
Methyl Chloroform (50 FR 24314; June 10,
    1985)
Polycyclic Organic Matter (49 FR 31680;
    August 8,1984)
Toluene (49 FR 22195; May 25,1984)
Vinylidene Chloride (50 FR 32632; August 13.
    1985)
   (c) This part applies to the owner or
operator of any stationary source for
which a standard is prescribed under
this part.
   4. Section 61.02 is amended by
removing the definition of "equivalent
method" and "modification"; by
correcting the definition of "Act"; by
revising the definitions for "alternative
method" and "standard"; and by adding
definitions of "capital expenditure",
"monitoring system", and "run". The
revised and new definitions will read as
follows:

§61.02 Definitions.
*****
  "Act" means the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).
*****
  "Alternative method" means any
method of sampling and analyzing for
an air pollutant which is not a reference
method but which has been
demonstrated to the Administrator's
satisfaction to produce results adequate
for the Administrator's determination of
compliance.
  "Capital expenditure" means an
expenditure for a physical or
operational  change to a stationary
source which exceeds the product of the
applicable "annual asset guideline
repair allowance percentage" specified
in the latest edition of Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) Publication 534 and the
stationary source's basis, as defined by
section 1012 of the Internal Revenue
Code. However, the total expenditure
for a physical or operational change to a
stationary source must not be reduced
by any "excluded additions" as defined
for stationary sources constructed after
December 31,1981, in IRS Publication
534, as would be done for tax purposes.
In addition, "annual asset guideline
repair allowance" may be used even
though it is excluded for tax purposes in
IRS Publication 534.
*****
   "Monitoring system" means any
system, required under the monitoring
sections in applicable subparts, used to
sample and condition (if applicable), to
analyze, and to provide a record of
emissions or process parameters.
*****
   "Run" means the net period of time
during which an emission sample is
collected. Unless otherwise specified, a
run may be  either intermittent or
continuous within the limits of good
engineering practice.
   "Standard" means a national emission
standard including a design, equipment,
work practice or operational standard
for a  hazardous air pollutant proposed
or promulgated under this part.
*****
   5. Section 61.04 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) introductory text
to read as follows:

§61.04  Address.
*****
   (b) Section 112(d) directs the
Administrator to delegate to each State.
                                                        IV-315
-------
          Federal Register  /  Vol. 50. No. 218 / Thursday, November 7. 1965 / Rales and Regulations
when appropriate, the authority to
implement and enforce national
emission standards for hazardous air
poUutaats for stationary sources located
in such State. If the authority to
implement and enforce a standard under
this part has been delegated to a Stete.
all information required to be submitted
to EPA under paragraph (a) of this
section shall also be submitted to the
appropriate State agency (provided, that
each specific delegation may exempt
sources from a certain Federal or State
reporting requirement). The
Administrator may permit all or some of
the information to be submitted to the
appropriate State agency only, instead
of to EPA and the State agency. The
appropriate mailing address for those
States whose delegation request has
been approved is as follows:
*****
  6. Section 81.05 is amended by
revising paragraphs {a), (b), and (c) to
read as follows:  -
(61.05  Prohibited activities.
  (a} After the effective date of any
standard, no owner or operator shall
construct or modify any stationary
source subject to that standard without
first obtaining written approval from the
Administrator in accordance with this
subpart, except under an exemption
granted by the President under section
112(c)f 2} of (he Act Sources, the
construction or modification of which
commenced after the publication date of
the standards proposed to be applicable
to the sources, are subject to this
prohibition.
  (b) After the effective date of any
standard, no owner or operator shall-
operate a new stationary source subject
to that standard in violation of the
standard, except under an exemption
granted by the President under section
112(c)(2) of the Act
   (c) Ninety days after the effective date
of any standard, no owner or operator
shall operate any existing source subject
to that standard in violation of the
standard, except under a waiver granted
by the Administrator under this part or
under an exemption granted by the
President under section 112(c)(2) of the
Act.
 *****
   7. Section 61.06 is revised to read  as
 follows:
 { 61.06  Determination of construction or
   An owner or operator may submit to
 the Administrator a written application
 for a determination of whether actions
 intended to be taken by the owner or
 operator constitute construction or
 modification, or commencement thereof.
of a source subject to a standard The
Administrator will notify the owner or
operator of his determination within 30
days after receiving sufficient
information to evaluate the application.
  8. Section 61.07 is revised to read as
follows:

§61.07  Appflcattonfofapprovalof
conatructtofi or muUlfteasiOH.
   (a) The owner or operator shall submit
to the Administrator an application for
approval of the construction of any new
source or modification of any existing
source. The application shall be
submitted before the construction or
modification is planned to commence, or
within 30 days after the effective date if
the construction or modification had
commenced before the effective date
and initial startup has not occurred. A
separate application shall be submitted
• for each stationary source.
   (b] Each application for approval of
construction shall include—
   (1) The name and address of the
applicant;
   (2) The location or proposed location
of the source; and
   (3) Technical information describing
the proposed nature, size, design,
operating design capacity, and method
of operation of the source, including a
description of any equipment to be used
for control of emissions. Such technical
information shall include calculations of
emission estimates in sufficient detail to
permit assessment of the validity of the
 calculations.
   (c) Each application for approval of
 modification shall include, in addition to
 the information required in paragraph
 (b) of this section—
   (1) The pretise nature  of the proposed
 changes;
   (2) The productive capacity of the
 source before and after the changes are
 completed; and
   (3) Calculations of estimates of
 emissions before and after the changes
 are completed, in sufficient detail to
 permit assessment of the validity of the
 calculations.
   9. Section 61.08 is revised to read as
 follows:

 §6148 Approval of construction or
 modification.
    (a) The Administrator will notify the
 owner or operator of approval or
 intention to deny approval of
 construction or modification within 60
 days after receipt of sufficient
 information to evaluate an application
 under § 61.07.
    (b) If the Administrator determines
 that a stationary source  for which an
 application under f 61.07 was submitted
will not cause emissions in violation of a
standard if properly operated, the
Administrator will approve the
construction or modification.
  (c) Before denying any application for
approval of construction or
modification, the Administrator will
notify the applicant of the
Administrator's intention to issue the
denial together with—
  (1) Notice of the information and
findings on which the intended denial is
based; and
  (2) Notice of opportunity for the
applicant to present, within such time
limit as the Administrator shall specify,
additional information or arguments to
the Administrator before final action on
the application.
  (d) A final determination to deny any
application for approval will be in
writing and will specify the grounds on
which the denial is based. The final
determination will be made within 60
days of presentation of additional
information or arguments, or 60 days
after the final date specified for
presentation if no presentation is made.
  (e) Neither the submission of an
application for approval nor the
Administrator's approval of construction
or modification shall—
  (1) Relieve an owner or operator of
legal responsibility  for compliance with
any applicable provisions of this part or
of any other applicable Federal State, or
local requirement; or
  (2) Prevent the Administrator from
implementing or enforcing this part or
taking any other action under the Act

  10. Section 61.09 is revised to read as
follows:

§ 61.09  Notification of startup.
  (a) The owner or operator of each
stationary source which has an initial
startup after the effective date of a
standard shall furnish the Administrator
with written notification as follows:
   (1) A notification of the anticipated
date of initial startup of the source not
more than 60 days nor less than 30 days
before that date.
   (2} A notification of the actual date of
initial startup of the source within 15
 days after that date.
   (b) If any State or local agency
requires a notice which contains all the
 information required in the notification
 in paragraph (a) of this section, sending
 the Administrator a copy of that
 notification will satisfy paragraph (a) of
 this section.

   11. Section 61.10 is amended by
 revising paragraphs {&) introductory
 text, (a){4), (a)(6). (afl7), fb) introductory
                                                      IV-316
-------
         Federal Register  /  Vol.  50,  No. 216  /  Thursday, November 7, 1985 / Rules  and Regulations
text, (b)(2)(i). (b)(2)(iii), (c). and (d) to
rend as follows:

§61.10  Source reporting and request for
waiver of compliance.
  (a) The owner or operator of each
existing source or each new source
which had an initial startup before the
effective date shall provide the
following information in writing to the
Administrator within 90 days after the
effective date:
*****
  (4) A brief description of the nature,
size, design, and method of operation of
the stationary source including the
operating design capacity of the source.
Identify each  point of emission for each
hazardous pollutant.
*    *    *   •*    *
  (6) A description of the existing
control equipment for each emission
point including—
  (i) Each control device for each
hazardous pollutant; and
  (ii) Estimated control efficiency
(percent) for each control device.
  (7) A statement by the owner or
operator of the source  as to whether the
source can comply with the standards
within 90 days after the effective date.
  (b) The owner or operator of an
existing source unable to comply with
an applicable standard may request a
waiver of compliance with that standard
for a period not exceeding 2 years after
the effective date. Any request shall be
in writing and shall include the
following information:
*****
  (2) A-compliance schedule, including
the date each step toward compliance
will be reached. The list shall  include as
a minimum the following dates:
  (i) Date by which contracts for
emission control systems or process
changes for emission control will be
awarded, or date by which orders will
be issued for the purchase of component
parts to accomplish emission control or
process changes;
*****

  (iii) Date by which onsite construction
or installation of emission control
equipment or process change is to be
completed;  and
*****
  (c) Any change in the information
provided under paragraph (a) of this
section or § 61.07(b) shall be provided to
the Administrator within 30 days after
the change. However,  if any change will
result from  modification of the source,
§§ 61.07(c) and 61.08 apply.
  (d) A possible format for reporting
under this section is included as
Appendix A of this part. Advice on
reporting the status of compliance may
be obtained from the Administrator.
  12. Section 61.11 is revised to read as
follows:

§ 61.11  Waiver of compliance.
  (a) Based on the information provided
in any request under i 61.10, or other
information, the Administrator may
grant a waiver of compliance with a
standard for a period not exceeding 2
years after the effective date of the
standard.
  (b) The waiver will be in writing and
will—
  (1) Identify  the stationary source
covered;
  (2) Specify the termination date of the
waiver
  (3) Specify dates by which steps
toward compliance are to be taken; and
  (4) Specify any additional conditions
which the Administrator determines
necessary to assure  installation of the
necessary controls within the waiver
period and to assure protection of the
health of persons during the waiver
period.
  (c) The Administrator may terminate
the waiver at an earlier date than
specified if any specification under
paragraphs (b)(3) and (b}(4) of this
section are not met.
  (d) Before denying any request for a
waiver, the Administrator will notify the
owner or operator making the request of
the Administrator's intention to issue
the denial, together with—
  (1) Notice of the information and
findings.on which the intended denial is
based; and
  (2) Notice of opportunity for the owner
or operator to present, within the time
limit the Administrator specifies,
additional information or arguments to
the Administrator before final action on
the request.
  (e) A final determination to deny any
request for a waiver will be in writing
and will set forth the specific grounds on
which the denial is based. The final
determination will be made within 60
days after presentation of additional
information or argument; or within 60
days after the final date specified for the
presentation if no presentation is made.
  (f) The granting of a waiver under this
section shall not abrogate the
Administrator's authority under section
114 of the Act.
  13. Section  61.12 is revised to read as
follows:

§61.12 Compliance with standards and
maintenance requirements.
  (a) Compliance with numerical
emission limits shall be determined by
emission tests established in § 61.13
unless otherwise specified in an
individual subpart.
  (b) Compliance with design,
equipment, work practice or operational
standards shall be determined as
specified in an individual subpart.
  (c) The owner or operator of each
stationary source shall maintain and
operate the source, including associated
equipment for air pollution control, in a
manner consistent with good air
pollution control practice for minimizing
emissions. Determination of whether
acceptable operating and maintenance
procedures are being used will be based
on information available to the
Administrator which may include, but is
not limited to, monitoring results, review
of operating and maintenance
procedures, and inspection of the
source.
  (d)(l) If, in the Administrator's
judgment, an alternative means of
emission limitation will achieve a
reduction in emissions of a pollutant
from a source at least equivalent to the
reduction in emissions of that pollutant
from that source achieved under any
design, equipment, work practice or
operational standard, the Administrator
will publish in the Federal Register a
notice permitting the use of the
alternative means for purposes of
compliance with the standard. The
notice will restrict the permission to the
source(s) or category(ies) of sources on
which the alternative means will
achieve equivalent emission reductions.
The notice may condition permission on
requirements related to the operation
and maintenance of the alternative
meaas.
  (2) Any notice under paragraph 1 shall
be published only after notice and an
opportunity for a hearing.
  (3) Any person seeking permission
under this subsection shall, unless
otherwise specified in the applicable
subpart submit a proposed test plan or
the results of testing and monitoring, a
description of the procedures followed
in testing or monitoring, and a
description of pertinent conditions
during testing or monitoring.
  14. In § 61.13. "emission tests" is
added to the heading and the section is
revised to read  as follows:

§61.13 Emission tests and waiver of
emission tests.
  (a) If required to do emission testing
by an applicable subpart and unless a
waiver of emission testing is obtained
under this section, the owner or operator
shall test emissions from the source—
  (1) Within 90 days after the effective
date, for an existing source or a new
                                                      IV-317
-------
          Federal Register  /  Vol. 50. No. 216 / Thursday. November 7, 1985 / Rules and  Regulations
•ource which has an initial startup date
before the effective date; or
  (2) Within 90 days after initial startup,
for a new source which has an initial
startup date after the effective date.
  (b) The Administrator may require an
owner or operator to test emissions from
the source at any other time when the
action is authorized by section 114 of the
Act
  (c) The owner or operator shall notify
the Administrator of the emission test at
least 30 days before the emission test to
allow the Administrator the opportunity
to have an observer present during the
test.
  (d) If required to do emission testing,
the owner or operator of each new
source and, at the request of the
Administrator, the owner or operator of
each existing source shall provide
emission testing facilities as follows:
  (1) Sampling ports adequate for test
methods applicable to each source.
  (2) Safe sampling platform(s).
  (3) Safe access to sampling
platformfs).
  (4] Utilities for sampling and testing
equipment.
  (5) Any other facilities that  the
Administrator needs to safely and
properly test a source.
  (e) Each emission test shall be
conducted under such conditions as the
Administrator shall specify based on
design and operational characteristics of
the source.
  (f) Unless otherwise specified in an
applicable subpart, samples shall be
analyzed and emissions determined
within 30 days after each emission test
has been completed. The owner or
operator shall report the determinations
of the emission test to the Administrator
by a registered letter sent before the
close of business on the 31st day
following the completion of the emission
test.
   (g) The owner or operator shall retain
at tike source and make available, upon
request, for inspection by the
Administrator, for a minimum of 2 years,
records of emission test results and
other data needed to determine
emissions.
   (h){l) Emission tests shall be
conducted as set forth in this section,
the applicable subpart and Appendix B
unless the Administrator—
   (i) Specifies or approves the use of a
 reference method with minor changes in
 methodology; or
   (ii) Approves the use of an alternative
 method; or
   (iii) Waives the requirement for
 emission testing because the  owner or
 operator of a source has demonstrated
 by other means to the Administrator's
satisfaction that the source is in
compliance with the standard.
  (2) If the Administrator finds
reasonable grounds to dispute the
results obtained by an alternative
method, he may require the use of a
reference method. If the results of the
reference and alternative methods do
not agree, the results obtained by the
reference method prevail.
  (3) The owner or operator may request
approval for the use of an alternative
method at any time, except—
  (i) For an existing source or a new
source that had an initial startup before
the effective date, any request for use of
an alternative method during the initial
emission test shall be submitted to the
Administrator within 30 days after the
effective date, or with the request for a
waiver of compliance if one is submitted
under § 60.10(b); or
  (ii) For a new source that has an
initial startup after the effective date,
any request for use of an alternative
method during the initial emission test
shall be submitted to the Administrator
no later than with the notification of
anticipated startup required under
§ 60.09.
  (i]{l) Emission tests may be waived
upon written application to the
Administrator if, in the Administrator's
judgment, the source is meeting the
standard, or the source is being operated
under a waiver or compliance, or the
owner or operator has requested a
waiver of compliance and the
Administrator is still considering that
request.
  (2) If application for waiver of the
emission test is made, the application
shall accompany the information
required by S 61.10 or the notification of
startup required by § 61.09, whichever is
applicable. A possible format is
contained in Appendix A to this part.
  (3) Approval of any waiver granted
under this section shall not abrogate the
Administrator's authority under the Act
or in any way prohibit the Administrator
from later cancelling the waiver. The
cancellation will be made only after
notice is given to the owner or operator
of the source.
  15. Section 61.14 is revised to read as
follows:

§ 61.14  Monitoring requirement*.
   (a) Unless otherwise specified, this
 section applies to each monitoring
 system required under each subpart
 which requires monitoring.
   (b) Each owner or operator shall
 maintain and operate each monitoring
 system as specified  in the applicable
 subpart and in a manner consistent with
 good air pollution control practice for
minimizing emissions. Any unavoidable
breakdown or malfunction of the
monitoring system should be repaired or
adjusted as soon as practicable after its
occurrence. The Administrator's
determination of whether acceptable
operating and maintenance procedures
are being used will be based on
information which may include, but not
be limited to, review of operating and
maintenance procedures, manufacturer
recommendations and specifications.
and inspection of the monitoring system.
   (c) When required by the applicable
subpart, and  at any other time the
Administrator may require, the owner or
operator of a source being monitored
shall conduct a performance evaluation
of the monitoring system and furnish the
Administrator with a copy of a written
report of the  results within 80 days of
the evaluation. Such a performance
evaluation shall be conducted according
to the applicable specifications and
procedures described in the applicable
subpart. The owner or operator of the
source shall furnish the Administrator
with written  notification of the date of
the performance evaluation at least 30
days before the evaluation is to begin.
   (d) When the effluents from a single
source, or from two or more sources
subject to the same emission standards,
are combined before being released to
the atmosphere, the owner or operator
shall install a monitoring system on
each effluent or on the combined
effluent. If two or more sources are not
subject to the same emission standards,
the owner or operator shall install  a
 separate  monitoring system on each
 effluent, unless otherwise specified. If
 the applicable standard is a  mass
- emission standard and the effluent from
 one source is released to the atmosphere
 through more than one point, the owner
 or operator shall install a monitoring
 system at each emission point unless the
 installation of fewer systems is
 approved by the Administrator.
   (e) The owner or operator of each
 monitoring system shall reduce the
 monitoring data as specified in each
 applicable subpart. Monitoring data
 recorded during periods of unavoidable
 monitoring system breakdowns,  repairs,
 calibration checks, and zero and span
 adjustments shall not be included  in any
 data average.
   (f) The owner or operator shall
 maintain records of monitoring data,
 monitoring system calibration checks,
 and the occurrence and duration of any
 period during which the monitoring
 system is malfunctioning or inoperative.
 These records shall be maintained at the
 source for a minimum of 2 years nnd
                                                      IV-318
-------
         Federal Register  /  Vol. 50. No. 216 / Thursday, November 7,  1985 / Rules and Regulations
made available, upon request, for
inspection by the Administrator.
  (x)(l) Monitoring shall be conducted
as set forth in this section and the
applicable subpart unless the
Administrator—
  (i) Specifies or approves the use of the
specified monitoring requirements and
procedures with minor changes in
methodology; or
  (ii) Approves the use of alternatives to
any monitoring requirements or
procedures.
  (2) If the Administrator finds
reasonable grounds to dispute the
results obtained by an alternative
monitoring method, the Administrator
may require the monitoring
requirements and procedures specified
in this part.

§61.15  [Redeskjnated «s § 61.16)
  16. Section 61.15 is redesignatud as
§ 61.16.
  17. A new § 61.15 is added to read as
follows:

§ 61.15  Modification.
  (a) Except as provided under
paragraph (d) of this section, any
physical or operational change to a
stationary source  which  results in an
increase in the rate of emission to the
atmosphere of a hazardous pollutant to
which a standard  applies shall be
considered a modification.
  (b) Upon modification, an existing
source shall become a new source for
each hazardous pollutant for which the
rate of emission to the atmosphere
increases and to which a standard
applies.
  (c) Emission rate shall be exprpssed
as kg/hr or any hazardous pollutant
discharged into the atmosphere for
which a standard  is applicable. The
Administrator shall use the following to
determine the emission rate:
  (1) Emission factors as specified in the
background information  document (BID)
for the applicable standard, or in the
latest issue of "Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emission Factors," EPA
Publication No. AP-42, or other emission
factors determined by the Administrator
to be superior to AP-42 emission factors,
in cases where use of emission factors
demonstrates that the emission rate will
clearly increase or clearly not increase
as a result of the physical or operational
change.
  (2) Material balances,  monitoring
data, or manual emission tests in cases
whore use of emission factors, as
referenced in paragraph  (c)(l) of this
section, does not demonstrate to the
Administrator's satisfaction that the
emission rate will clearly increase or
clearly not increase as a result of the
physical or operational change, or where
an interested person demonstrates to
the Administrator's satisfaction that
there are reasonable grounds to dispute
the result obtained by the Administrator
using emission factors. When the
emission rate is based on results from
manual emission tests or monitoring
data, the procedures specified in
Appendix C of 40 CFR Part 60 shall be
used to determine whether an increase
in emission rate has occurred. Tests
shall be conducted under such
conditions as the Administrator shall
specify to the owner or operator. At
least three test runs must be conducted
before and at least three after the
physical or operational change. If the
Administrator approves, the results of
the emission tests required in i 61.13(a)
may be used for the test runs to be
conducted before the physical or
operational change. All operating
parameters which may affect emissions
must be held constant to the maximum
degree feasible for all test runs.
  (d) The following shall not, by
themselves, be considered modifications
under this part:
  (1) Maintenance, repair, and
replacement which the Administrator
determines to be routine for a source
category.
  (2) An increase in production rate of a
stationary source, if that increase can be
accomplished without a capital
expenditure on the stationary source.
  (3) An increase in the hours of
operation.
  (4) Any conversion to coal that meets
the requirements specified in section
lll(aK8)ofthe Act.
  (5) The relocation or change in
ownership of a stationary source.
However, sudi activities must be
reported in accordance with § 61.10(c).
  18. Section 61.18 is redesignated as
§ 61.17 and is revised to read as follows:

§61.17  State authority.
  (a) This part shall not be construed to
preclude any State or political
subdivision thereof from—
  (1) Adopting and enforcing any
emission limiting regulation applicable
to a stationary source, provided that
such emission limiting regulation is not
less  stringent than the standards
prescribed under this part; or
  (2) Requiring the owner or operator of
a stationary source to obtain permits,
licenses, or approvals prior to initiating
constructjpn, modification, or operation
of the source.

§ 61.171  [ftetosignated a* 61.19 and
amended]
  19. Section 61.17 is redesignated as
§ 61.19 and the words "subject to the
provisions of this part" are removed
from the first sentence.
  20. In S 61.33, the introductory text of
paragraph (a) is revised to read as
follows:
§61.33
  (a) Unless a waiver of emission
testing is obtained under 1 61.13, each
owner or operator required to comply
with |61.32(a) shall test emissions from
the source according to Method 104 of
Appendix B to this part. Method 103 of
Appendix B to this part is approved by
the Administrator as an alternative
method for sources subject to § 61.32(a).
The emission test shall be performed—
*****
  21. In § 61.44, paragraph (a) is revised
to read as follows:

§61.44 Mack sampUflg.
  (a) Sources subject to i 61.42(b) shall
be continuously sampled, during release
of combustion products from the tank,
according to Method 104 of Appendix B
to this part. Method 103 of Appendix B
to this part is approved by the
Administrator as  an alternative method
for sources subject to i 61/42(b).
*****
  22. Section 61.53 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)fl) introductory
text, (b)(l) introductory text, and (c)(2)
introductory text  to- read as follows:

§61.53 Stack sampling.
  (a) Mercury ore processing facility.
  (l) Unless a waiver of emission testing
is obtained under f 61.31, each owner or
operator processing mercury ore shall
test emissions from the source according
(o Method 101 of Appendix B to this
part. The emission test shall be
performed —
*    *    *    *    *
  (b] Mercury chlor-alkali plant —
hydrogen and end-box ventilation gas
streams.
  (1) Unless a waiver of emission testing
is obtained under § 61.13, each owner or
operator employing mercury chlor-alkali
cell(s) shall test emissions from
hydrogen streams according to Method
102 and from end-box ventilation gas
streams according to Method 101 of
Appendix B to this part. The emission
test shall be performed —
*****
  (c) Mercury Chlor-alkali plants — Cell
room ventilation system.
******
  (2) Unless a waiver of emission testing
is obtained under § 61.13, each owner or
operator shall pass all cell room air in
force gas streams through stacks
suitable for testing and shall test
                                                      IV-319
-------
          Federal Register / Vol. 50.  No. 230 / Friday. November 29. 1B85 / Rules and Regulations
emissions from the source according to
Method 101 in Appendix B to this part.
The emission test shall be performed—
{61.65  [Amended]
  23. Section 61.65 is amended by
removing the words "equivalent or"
throughout paragraphs (b)(8)(i) and (c).

{61.67  [Amended]
  24. Section 61.67 is amended by
removing the words "an equivalent
method or" and "equivalent or"
throughout paragraph (g).

{61.66  [Amended]
  25. Section 61.68 is amended by
removing the words "equivalent or"
throughout paragraph (b).

{61.70  (Amended]
  26. Section 61.70 is amended by
removing the words "equivalent or"
throughout paragraph (c).

Appendix A  [Amended]
  27. In Appendix A. paragraph (II)(B) is
amended by replacing the words "of
beryllium or mercury pollutants" with
the words "subject to emission testing."

Appendix B  [Amended]
  28. In Method 103 of Appendix B,
paragraph 1.1 is amended by removing
the words "as specified under the
provisions of { 61.14 of the regulations."
|FR Doc. 85-26386 Filed 11-6-85; 8:45 am)
138

 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
 AGENCY

 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

 [A-1-FRL-2929-9]

 Delegation of New Source
 Performance Standards (NSPS) and
 National Emission Standards for
 Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs);
 States of Connecticut, Maine, New
 Hampshire, Rhode Island, and
 Massachusetts

 AGENCY: Environmental Protection
 Agency.
 ACTION: Delegation of Authority.

 SUMMARY: Sections lll(c) and 112(d) of
 the Clean Air Act permit EPA to
 delegate to the States the authority to
 implement and enforce the New Source
 Performance Standards (NSPS) set out
 in 40 CFR Part 60, Standards of
 Performance for New Stationary
 Sources, and 40 CFR Part 61, National
 Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
 Pollutants  {NESHAPs). The EPA hereby
 notifies the public  that it has delegated
 authority over certain NSPS and
 NESHAPs to the state air pollution
 control agencies in Region I. This notice
 announces the delegations granted since
 November 1984. In addition, the above
 listed States' delegation agreements
 provide that authority over future
 revisions to previously delegated
 standards  will automatically be
 redelegated to the  state agency. Also,
 these state delegation agreements
 provide for automatic delegation of new
 standards. These delegations do not
 create any new regulatory requirements
 affecting the public. The effect of the
 delegations is to shift primary program
 responsibility for the affected NSPS and
 NESHAPs source categories from EPA
 to state governments. Some states do
 not have full authority over the
 programs;  limitations are noted where
 appropriate.
 ADDRESSES: Applications and/or reports
 required under all  NSPS/NESHAPs
 source categories or which EPA has
                                                     IV-320
-------
           Federal Register  /  Vol.  50.  No. 230 /  Friday.  November 29. 1985 / Rules and Regulationi
 delegated authority to respective states
 should be addressed to:
 State of Connecticut:
  Division of Air Compliance,
    Department of Environmental
    Protection, 165 Capitol Avenue.
    Hartford, Connecticut 06115
 State of Maine:
  Bureau of Air Quality Control,
    Department of Environmental
    Protection, State House, Station No.
    17, Augusta, Maine 04333
 State of Massachusetts:
  Massachusetts Department of
    Environmental Quality Engineering,
    Division of Air Quality Control One
    Winter Street, Boston,
    Massachusetts 02106
 State of New Hampshire:
  New Hampshire Air Resources
    Agency, Health and  Welfare
    Building, Hazen Drive, Concord,
    New Hampshire 03301
 State of Rhode Island:
  Rhode Island Department of
    Environmental Management, 204
    Cannon Building, 75 Davis Street,
    Providence, Rhode Island 02908
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
 Thomas A. Elter, EPA Region I, Air
 Management Division. J.F.K. Federal
 Building, Boston, MA 02203. Telephone
 (617] 223-4875.
 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
 States of Connecticut Maine, Rhode
 Island and New Hampshire were
 delegated  authority over the General
 Provisions of the New Source
 Performance Standards and various
 source categories in letters from EPA
 dated September 30,1982; the
 Commonwealth of Massachusetts was
 delegated  this authority in a similar
 letter dated June 24,1982. These letters
 detailed the conditions of each
 delegation, and thereby established a
 mechanism of automatic  delegation of
 new standards when specifically
 requested  by the States. In accordance
 with this mechanism, requests for
 delegation were submitted to EPA and
 subsequently granted by  the Regional
 Administrator Michael R. Deland.
  Delegations for each State are listed
 below:
State of Connecticut
 Limitations: None; full enforcement
  delegated.
Delegations: NSPS Subparts:
Effective date: March 26,1985
LL—Metallic Mineral Processing Plants
FFF—Flexible Vinyl Urethane Coating
  and Printing
GGG—Equipment Leaks  of VOC in
  Petroleum Refineries
 11HI I—Synthetic Fiber Production
  Foe ilities
JJJ—Petroleum Dry Cleaners
NESHAPs Subparts.
}—Standards for Equipment Leaks
  (Fugitive Emissions Sources] of
  Benzene
V—Equipment Leaks (Fugitive Emission
  Sources) (VHAP Service)

State of Maine
Limitations: None; full authority
  delegated.
Delegations: NSPS Subparts:
Effective date: March 14,1984
LL—Metallic Mineral Processing
  Facilities
FFF—Flexible Vinyl Urethane Coating
  and Printing
GGG—Equipment Leaks of VOC in
  Petroleum Refineries
HHH—Synthetic Fiber Production
  Facilities
1)1—Petroleum Dry Cleaners
NESHAPS Subparts
Effective Date: November 1,1964
J—Standard for Equipment Leaks
  (Fugitive Emission Sources) of
  Benzene
V—Equipment Leaks (Fugitive Emission
  Sources) (VHAP Service)
Effective Date: November 26,1984
M—Standard for Asbestos: Sections
  61.140,  61.141,61.145, 61.146, 61.152,
  and 61.156 as they relate to demolition
  and renovation  activities.

State of New Hampshire
Limitations: None; full authority
  delegated.
Delegations: NSPS Subparts:
Effective  Date: March 8,1985
FFF—Flexible Vinyl Urethane Coating
  and Printing
JJJ—Petroleum Dry Cleaners

State of Rhode Island
Limitations: Administrative delegation,
  only.
Delegations: NSPS Subparts:
Effective  date: March 15,1984
FFF—Flexible Vinyl Urethane Coating
  and Printing
JJJ—Petroleum Dry Cleaners
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Limitations: None; full authority
  delegated.
Delegations: NSPS Subpart:
Effective  date: May 28,1985
FFF—Flexible Vinyl Urethane Coating
  and Printing
HHH—Synthetic Fiber Production
  Facilities
JJJ—Petroleum Dry Cleaners
  Effective immediately, all
applications, reports, and other
correspondence required under these
NSPS and NESHAPs standards should
be sent to the above State addresses,
and to the EPA.
  The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 60 and
61
  Air pollution control, Wool fiberglass,
Non-metallic minerals, Radionuclides.
  Authority: Sec. lll(c) and 112(d) of the
Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7411(c) and 7412(d).
  Dated: November 1,1985.
Michael R. Deland,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 85-28429 Filed 11-27-45; 8:45 am]
nuwo CODE ute-w-M
                                                     IV-321
-------
 SECTION V
 PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS
-------
                              TABLE OF CONTENTS

                           V.   PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
Subpart A -
Subpart E -

Subpart F -

Subpart L -
General Provisions
  Standards for Radon-222 Emissions from Underground
    Uranium Mines; Advance notice of proposed rule-
    making
  Standards for Radon-222 Emissions from Licensed
    Uranium Mills; Advance notice of proposed rule-
    making
  Assessment of Trichloroethylene as a Potentially
    Toxic Air Pollutant; Proposed rule
  Assessment of Perchloroethylene as a Potentially
    Toxic Air Pollutant; Proposed rule

Mercury; Review and Proposed revision

Vinyl Chloride; Proposed standards

Benzene Emissions from Coke By-Product Recovery
  Plants; Proposed standards
Equipment Leaks of Benzene
  and Fugitive Emission Sources
Subpart N,0,P- Inorganic Arsenic Emissions;  Proposed standards

Subpart V -    Equipment Leaks of Benzene and Fugitive Emission
                 Sources, see Subpart L

Appendix B -   Reference Methods

               Method 108 - Determination of Particulate and
                 Gaseous Arsenic Emissions,  see Subpart N,  0, P

               Method 108A - Determinations  of Arsenic Content in
                 Ore Samples from Nonferrous Smelters, see  Subpart
                 N, 0, P
Appendix C -
Policy and Procedures for Identifying, Assessing and
  Regulating Airborne Substances Posing a Risk of
  Cancer

Generic Standards
  Page

  A-l


  A-2


  A-3

  A-4

  A-8

  E-l

  F-l


  L-l

  L-37

N,0,P-1
                                                                     Appendix
                                                                        C-l

                                                                     Generic-1
                                     V-i
-------
 ENVIRONMENTAL
   PROTECTION
     AGENCY
NATIONAL EMISSION
 STANDARDS FOR
 HAZARDOUS AIR
   POLLUTANTS
GENERAL PROVISIONS
     SUBPART A
-------
             Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 212  / Wednesday, October 31. 1584  /  Proposed Rules
4tCFRPartl1

fa\A_BU *slB%a1_tet
im^^rv^k •••^^"•••j

National Emission Standard* for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Standard*
for Radon-gag DasssJons From
Underground Ursnlwm Mines
AO«HCV.Emrir
rtd Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTKM: Advance notice of proposed
rulemaking.

MMMMMY: This notice announces the
Agency's intent, under Section 112 of the
Clean Air Act, «• •mended, to start a
program to oannder a standard baaed
on bulkheading or related techniques to
control raoon emissions utHii
undugiuund omnium mines. This
standard omdd be am emission standard.
or a design, equipment, work practice,  or
operational standard, or a oombinatran
thereof. The Agency requests interested
parties to submit inforaation sand
eownents relative to confrolling these
emissions.
DATES: Information received by April 30,
1965 will be of maximum value.
ADORES*: Comments must be submitted
(in duplicate, if possible) to: Central
Docket Section {LE-130) Attention:
Docket No. A-7B-11, Environmental
Protection Agency, 401M Street S\VM
Washington. aC. 30460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James M. Hardia, (703) 557-4077,
Enrironmental Stan^fTiflt Breach,
Criteria and Standards Division (ANR-
480), Office of Radiation Programs.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D£L 2MBQ.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATICS!: This
Advance Notice of Proposed
Ralemaking (ANPRJ serves to inform
interested parties that the Agency is
considering a rulemaldng related to the
design and type of equipment work
practices, operational procedures, or to
emission standards based on these
techniques, to control the radon-222
emissions from underground uranium
mines. As of January 1983, there were
139 of these mines located in Arizona,
Colorado. New Mexico. Utah, and
Wyoming. These mines have a
production rate of 6,200 tons of U3O8
and account for about 46% of the total
production of UjO. in the United States.
  The Agency proposed a standard
under section 112 of me Clean Air Act in
April of 1983 for underground cranium
mines that would limit the annual
radon-222 concentration in air due to
emissions from an underground mine to
0.2 pQ/1 above background in any
unrestricted area. The principal method
to meet this standard was considered to
be control of land around the mine,
since at the time, the Agency believed
that no emission reduction measures
were practical.
  In EPA's most recent evaluation of the
risks due to radon-222 emissions from
underground uranium mines, the
estimated lifetime risk of fatal cancer to
nearby individuals ranges from one in
one thousand to one in one hundred.
The potential exists  for an even higher
risk in some situations (up to one in ten)
for individuals living very close to
several horizontal vents or in areas
influenced by multiple mine  emissions.
The fatal cancer risk to the total
population from radon-222 emissions
from all underground uranium mines is
five fatal cancers per year. The Agency
considers these  risks to be significant
and believes action is needed to protect
individuals living near underground
mines and other populations.
  However, analysis of the likely
reduction in health risks afforded by the
proposed standard showed that, while
risks to nearby individuals were.
reduced by a factor of about ten, the
risks to the total population  were only
negligibly reduced. The lack of
population risk reduction was due to the
fact that radon releases would not be
reduced,  they would only be more
widely dispersed.
  The Agency decided to withdraw its
proposed standard for underground
uranium mines based on its  conclusion
that the proposed standard was not
authorized by the Clean Air  Act and
that the limited  reduction in  population
risk would not meet the full  intent of
section 112 to provide adequate public
health protection.
  Because radon-222 is a noble gas and
the volume of air discharged through
mine vents is very large,  there is no
practical method to  remove  radon-222
from the  mine exhaust air. Adsorption
onto activated charcoal is the most
widely used method for removing noble
gases from a low volume air stream.
However, application of this method to
the removal of radon-222 from mine
ventilation air at the volumes of air that
must be treated would require large,
complex, unproven systems  which
would be extremely costly.
  Since proposal, EPA has received
additional information indicating that
work practices,  such as bulkheading, are
more feasible and cost-effective than
originally thought. The Agency has
decided to begin development of
standards based on bulkheading or
similar techniques to control radon
releases  from underground uranium
mines. Interested parties are requested
to submit information and comments on
the following issues:
  (1) Measured or estimated radon-222
releases from underground mines;
  (2) Applicable standards for reducing
radon emissions, including such
practices as bulkheading, sealants, mine
pressurization, and backfilling;
  (3) Methods of procedures to predict
releases of radon-222 without controls
and with controls, such as bulkheading.
sealants, mine  pressurization, and
backfilling;
  (4) Effectiveness, feasibility and costs
of controls;
  (5) Methods of determining
compliance with design, equipment,
work practice,  or operational type
standards;
  (6) Estimates of impacts on nearby
individuals and populations due to
radon-222 emissions before and after
control;
  (7) Extent of radon-222 controls now
practiced by the industry, including such
methods as bulkheading, sealants, mine
pressurization, and backfilling; and
  (8) Effect on  the industry if controls
are required.
  Dated: October 23,1984.
William D. Ruckelshaua,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 84-28439 Plied 10-26-M; 2:13 pm]
HLUNQ CODE (MO-M-M
                                                       V-A-2
-------
              Federal Register /  Vol. 49,  No. 212  /  Wednesday. October 31, 1984  /  Proposed Rules
40CFRPart61
[AD FRL 2694-2b]
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Standards
for Radon-222 Emissions from
Licensed Uranium Mills
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed
rule making.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the
Agency's intent, under section 112 of the
Clean Air Act, as amended, to consider
development of standards to control
radon-222 emissions from licensed
uranium mills. The Agency requests
interested parties to submit information
and comments relative to controlling
these emissions.
DATES: Information received by April 30,
1985 will be of maximum value.
ADDRESS: Comments must be submitted
(in duplicate, if possible) to: Central
Docket Section (LE-130) Attention:
Docket No. A-79-11, Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James M. Hardin, (703) 557-8977,
Environmental Standards Branch,
Criteria and Standards Division (ANR-
460), Office of Radiation Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPR) serves to inform
interested parties that the Agency is
considering emission standards under
the Clean Air Act for licensed uranium
ore processing facilities. As of January
1983, there were 27 licensed uranium
mills located in Colorado, New Mexico,
South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington.
and Wyoming. These mills have
produced a total of over 150 million
metric tons of tailings which contain
radioactive elements from the uranium
decay chain, including radium-226 which
decays to radon-222. The latter is a
radioactive gas which is emitted from
the piles to the ambient air.
  EPA issued standards under the
Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control
Act (UMTRCA) (40 CFR Part 192
Subparts D and E) for the management
of tailings at locations that are licensed
by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) or the States under Title U of the
UMTRCA. These standards do not
specifically limit radon-222 emissions
until after closure of the facility. When
the UMTRCA standards were
promulgated, the Agency stated that it
would issue an ANPR for consideration
of control of radon emissions from
uranium tailings piles during the
operational period of a uranium mill.
This notice fulfills that commitment.
  The Agency issued Environmental
Radiation Protection Standards for
Nuclear Power Operations (42 FR 2858,
January 13,1977). These standards (40
CFR Part 190) limit the total individual
radiation dose caused by emissions
from facilities that comprise the uranium
fuel cycle, including licensed uranium
mills. At the time 40 CFR Part 190 was
promulgated, there existed considerable
uncertainty about the public health
impact of existing levels of radon-222 in
the atmosphere, as well as uncertainty
about the best method for management
of new man-made sources of the gas.
The Agency exempted radon-222 from
control under 40 CFR Part 190 since at
that time the problems associated with
radon emissions were considered
sufficiently different from those of other
radioactive materials associated with
the fuel cycle to warrant separate
consideration.
  Subsequently, standards were
proposed under the Clean Air Act (48 FR
15076, April 6,1983) for NRC licensees,
but uranium fuel cycle facilities, which
included operating uranium mills, were
excluded because these sources are
subject to EPA's 40 CFR Part 190
standard that provided protection
equivalent to that of the Clean Air Act.
It was noted during the comment period
for the Clean Air Act standards that
radon-222 emitted from operating
uranium mills and their actively used
tailings piles are not subject to any
current or proposed EPA standards, and
that there may be significant risks
associated with resulting radon-222
emission.
  The Agency is particularly interested
in receiving information on the following
issues:
  (1) Radon-222 emissions from these
facilities;
  (2) Applicable control options and
strategies, including work practices:
  (3) Feasibility and cost of control
options and strategies;
  (4) Local and regional impacts due  to
emissions  of radon-222 from active
uranium mills;
  (5) Methods of determining
compliance with a work practice type of
standard; and
  (6) Effect on the industry if controls
are required.
  Dated: October 23.1964.
William D. Ruckelshau*.
Administrator.
(PR Doc. M-2M«0 Filed 10-28-M 2-14 im|
                                                      V-A-3
-------
             Federal  Register / Vol. 50,  No. 246  /  Monday, December 23, 1985  /  Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40CFRPart61
IADL-FRL-2889-5]

Assessment of Trichloroethylene as a
Potentially Toxic Air Pollutant
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This notice describes the
results of EPA's preliminary assessment
of Trichloroethylene (TCE) as a
potentially toxic air pollutant. Based on
the health and preliminary risk
assessment described in today's notice,
KPA now intends to add TCE to the list
of hazardous air pollutants for which it
intends to establish emission standards
under section 112{bl(l )(A) of the CAA.
The EPA will add TCE to the list if
emission standards are warranted. The
EPA will decide whether to add TCE to
the list only after studying possible
control techniques that might be used to
control emissions of TCE and after
further assessing public health risks.
This notice has no effect on the
regulation of TCE as a volatile organic
compound in order to attain the national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
for ozone. In addition, this notice does
not preclude any State or local air
pollution control  agency from
specifically regulating emission sources
of TCE.
  Through this notice, the Agency
solicits information on the intent to list
decision. The EPA also solicits
information on the potential
carcinogenicity of TCE, the potential
noncarcinogenic adverse health effects
of exposure to TCE, the effectiveness of
controlling TCE emissions with control
equipment, the current level of control of
TCE sources, and current TCE emission
estimates.
ADDRESSES: Submit written materials
(duplicate copies are preferred) to:
Central Docket Section (A-130),
Environmental Protection Agency, Attn:
Docket No. A-85-02,401M Street SW.,
Washington, DC. The docket may be
inspected between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30
p.m. on weekdays, and a reasonable fee
may be charged for copying.
DATES: Written comments are to be
submitted by February 21,1986.
ADDRESSES: The final Health
Assessment Document (HAD) for TCE is
available through the U.S. Department
of Commerce, National Technical
Information Service, 5285 Port Royal
Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.  the
National Technical Information Service
number PB85-249696 should be used
when ordering. Paper copies of the HAD
are available for $28.95 (price code A-
14), and microfiche copies are available
for $5.95 (price code A-01). Prices are
subject to change. For further
information on the availability of this
document, please contact: ORD
Publications, CERI-FR, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 (telephone: 513-
684-7562  commercial/684-7562 FTS).
  The source assessment document for
TCE is also available through the
National  Technical Information  Service
and can be ordered at the address
provided  above. The order number
PB86-107943/AS should be included
when ordering. Paper copies are
available for $16.95 (price code A-07)
and microfiche copies are available for
$5.95 (price code A-01). For additional
information on the source assessment
document, please contact Mr. Robert
Rosensteel (telephone: 919-541-5671
commercial/629-5671 FTS).
  The HAD was reviewed by the
Science Advisory Board (SAB),  an
independent group of recognized
scientists and technical experts that
provide advice and critical review of
scientific issues to the Administrator.
The SAB comments are available from
the SAB office (contact Cheryl Bentley,
A-101F, U.S. EPA, 401M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C.  20460; phone 202-382-
2560 commercial/382-2560 FTS).
Transcripts of the SAB meetings are
available for inspection and copying
from the  U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Committee Management Staff.
For additional information, please
contact Janet Workcuff, PM-213, Room
M2515, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington,
D.C. 20460 (telephone 202-382-5036
commercial/382r-5036 FTS).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert M. Schell, Pollutant Assessment
Branch (MD-12), Strategies and Air
Standards Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711 (telephone
919-541-5645 commercial/629-5645
FTS).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background
   TCE is a solvent widely used in the
industrial degreasing of metals, with
secondary solvent uses in adhesive,
paint, and polyvinyl chloride production.
A previous use for TCE was as  an
inhalation anesthetic agent in certain
surgical procedures, although this
practice  has been discontinued. The use
of TCE can be separated into
consumptive and solvent uses.
Consumptive uses result in direct
chemical alteration (i.e., PVC chain
terminator) or export of the TCE while
solvent uses employ TCE in
nonconsumptive applications. In
essentially every case of solvent use, the
majority of the TCE employed (79-100%)
is lost to the atmosphere through
volatilization, with a relatively small
amount (2-3%) released to ground and
surface waters, and the remainder to
incineration or solid waste disposal.
Some of the TCE released to water
bodies or disposal systems may
volatilize and ultimately be released to,
the atmosphere.
  In the atmosphere, TCE is
photochemically reactive, with an
estimated residence time (i.e., time to
decrease in concentration to 37% of
original amount) of 11 to 15 days. The
estimated northern hemisphere average
concentration is between 11 and 30
parts per trillion (ppl), with a gradient
observed between urban and rural
locations. The maximum measured
concentration in the ambient air is 87
parts per billion (ppb) (2 hours) in
Newark, New Jersey. The decomposition
products include dichloroacetyl
chloride, phosgene, carbon monoxide,
hexachlorobutene and hydrochloric
acid, with ozone produced through
trichloroethylene-associated free radical
reaction with nitrogen oxides. Given
currently estimated emissions and the
halflife of TCE in the atmosphere, public
exposure to decomposition products of
TCE is likely to be very low. While
associated public health risks are
difficult to quantify, such risks are also
expected to be low. However, because
other compounds which also undergo
transformation in the atmosphere may
contribute to atmospheric
concentrations and associated public
health risks, the Agency will continue to
conduct research and examine
monitoring information to better define
potential public health risks.
  TCE has certain chemical and
physical properties which make it a
desirable solvent for metal cleaning and
for paint, adhesive, pesticide,
pharmaceutical and fabric scouring
uses. Due to environmental and health
concerns, market factors such as
increased replacement of metals by
plastics and substitution of methyl
chloroform and other solvents,
production and use of TCE has declined.
TCE production peaked in 1970 at
277,000 megagrams per year (Mg/yr).
Production in 1983 is estimated at 65,700
Mg/yr.
  A summary of TCE uses and source
emissions for 1983 is provided in Table
1. The baseline emission estimates
assume that the source categories meet
                                                     V-A-4
-------
             Federal Register / Vol. 50, No.  246 / Monday, December 23, 1985 / Proposed Rules
current State emission limitations for
volatile organic compounds in order to
comply with the national ambient air
quality standards for ozone.
  In January 1984 the Office of Research
and Development's Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment (OHEA)
published a draft of the HAD for TCE.
This document was reviewed by the
SAB in May 1984, with a final letter
forwarding comments by SAB on the
HAD sent to the Administrator in
December 1984. The final HAD for TCE,
which incorporates comments and
changes requested by the SAB, was
printed in July 1985.

TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF TRICHLOROETHYLENE
      USES AND SOURCE EMISSIONS •


Source category

Metal degreasing 	
Publicly owned treatment
works 	
Production facilities
Chemical plants
Drinking water treatment facili-
ties
Miscellanous " 	
Total 	


•
(percent)

85

•N/A
N/A
10

N/A
5
100

Baseline
emissions to
US
atmosphere •
(Mg/yr)
52.600

1.450
102
158

42
3.300
57500

 •Estimates are for 1983 (EPA. 1985)
 "Assumes controls currently in place to meet State VOC
emission limitation requirements
 ' Not applicable
 'Includes use m paints and coatings,  adhesive formula-
tions, and general solvent use
Adverse Health Effects
  A number of studies have been
conducted to assess the health effects
related to exposure to TCE. The
majority of these studies have been
compiled, reviewed and evaluated in
HAD for Trichloroethylene.
  Acute, subchronic and chronic
exposure to TCE via inhalation,
ingestion or dermal exposure is
associated with a variety of adverse
health effects in humans and animals.
Acute exposure to TCE has been
documented in human case histories to
cause visual disturbances, mental
confusion fatigue and nausea, increasing
to unconsciousness and death at high
concentrations. In a limited number of
controlled human studies, headaches
and decreases in performance ability for
tests of perception, manual dexterity,
reaction time and memory are
associated with short-term exposures
near the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration Permissible
Exposure Limit (OSHA-PEL) of 100 ppm,
with a progressive decrease in
psychomotor performance as TCE
concentrations increase from 100 to 500
ppm.
  The primary noncarcinogenic adverse
health effect due to exposure to TCE is
dysfunction of the central nervous
system, with other effects observed on
the liver, kidney and cardiovascular
systems. Occasional hepatorenal
toxicity in humans is associated with
acute inhalation abuse. In limited
epidemiological studies of chronically-
exposed workers, symptoms related to
nervous system disorders increased in
frequency with both longer exposures
and higher concentrations of TCE for
concentrations ranging from 5 to 629
ppm. Symptoms resulting from acute to
chronic exposure 'have been reported to
be generally reversible, although
permanent nervous system disorders
have been documented as a result of
long-term exposure. Data are lacking so
that it is not possible to characterize the
parameters of exposure beyond which
irreversible damage occurs.
  Evidence of the carcinogenicity of
TCE evaluated in the HAD consists of
several positive mouse studies
(Inhalation: Bell et al., 1978; Herischler et
al., 1980; Gavage: NCI, 1976; MTP, 1982)
and one marginally positive gavage rat
study (NTP, 1982). Several additional
studies, (Inhalation: Fukuda et al., 1983;
Maltoni, unpublished; Gavage:
Henschler et al., 1984; NTP, unpublished;
Maltoni, unpublished) including at least
one inhalation study, received or
reported since completion of the HAD,
have not been fully evaluated, but at
least two of these studies (Fukuda et al.,
1983; Maltoni (inhalation), unpublished)
are reported to be positive, with a
positive response in more than one
species in one of the studies. OHEA has
indicated that the additional studies
received since completion of the HAD
will be incorporated into a future
addendum to  the HAD. The addendum
will be reviewed by the SAB prior to a
listing decision.
  Of the studies evaluated in the HAD,
the Henschler et. al. (1980) and Bell et.
al. (1978) mouse studies and the NTP
(1982) rat studies were judged to have
defects which made their results
inadequate to use in the quantitation of
a unit risk value, although they do lend
support to the overall weight of
evidence evaluation of TCE
carcinogenicity. The conclusion that
TCE is a probable carcinogen is based
on the findings of the NCI (1976) and
NTP (1982) mouse studies, which were
judged inthe  HAD to be scientifically
adequate. These studies demonstrated
treatment-related increases in the
incidence of hepatocellular carcinonas
(liver  tumors) in both sexes of B6C3F1
mice. The NCI (1976) and NTP (1982)
mouse gavage studies were, therefore,
the studies used to assess the
carcinogenicity of TCE in a quantitative
fashion.
  A number of human epidemiological
studies have also been conducted and
are reviewed in the HAD. While no
association between TCE exposure and
significant increases in human cancer
were demonstrated, each of these
studies was considered to have serious
deficiencies and  thus the epidemiologic
data base is considered inadequate to
evaluate the carcinogenic potential of
TCE.
  Using the criteria developed by the
International Agency for Research on
Cancer (IARC), the HAD concluded that
the overall ranking of TCE could be
either group 2B (i.e.. a probable
carcinogen for humans) or group 3 (i.e..
cannot be classified as to its
carcinogenicity for humans), depending
on the evaluation of mouse liver tumors
as being suggestive of human cancer.
The SAB, in their review of the HAD.
was unable to reach a definitive
conclusion regarding  the classification
of TCE carcinogenicity.
  While the SAB was deliberating their
conclusions, EPA completed and
published for review proposed
Guidelines for Carcinogen Assessment.
EPA announced at that time that the
Agency would use those guidelines as
interim measures. Using those
guidelines, a Technical Committee of the
Agency's Risk Assessment Forum
classified TCE as category B2 (i.e., a
probable human  carcinogen). This
classification of carcinogenicity was
based on a finding of sufficient animal
evidence (the proposed guidelines
regard mouse liver tumors as sufficient
evidence unless downgraded by a
variety of factors which were not shown
by the TCE results) and inadequate
human data. The Agency's proposed
Guidelines for Carcinogen Assessment
have now received a favorable review
by the SAB, with the HAD indicating
that under these guidelines TCE is
classified as a probable carcinogen
(category B2).
Risks to Public Health
  Estimates of human exposure to
atmospheric TCE emitted from all point
sources  identified in the EPA (1985)
source assessment document have been
calculated using the Human Exposure
Model. Maximum individual and annual
incidence cancer risk estimates were
also computed for the metal degreasing,
publicly-owned treatment works, and
miscellaneous source categories using a
dispersion algorithm which assigns
emissions to an area rather than to a
point. The quantity of emissions
assigned to an area is proportional to
                                                     V-A-5
-------
             Federal Register / Vol.  50, No. 246 /  Monday, December 23,  1985 / Proposed  Rules
the population density of that area, with
certain assumptions permitting
calculation of the risk estimates.
  The upper-bound incremental unit riak
estimate for air was derived from the
geometric mean of the results from four
sets of gavage bioassay data on
hepatocellular carcinomas in male and
female mice (NCI. 1976; NTP, 1982).
there being no inhalation data available
at the time the HAD was finalized. The
unit risk factor is an upper-bound
estimate of the additional probability
that an individual will die from cancer
resulting from continuous exposure to 1
microgram of TCE per cubic meter of
inspired air (assuming a 70 year life-
span). The upper-bound nature of the
unit risk estimate is such that the true
risk estimate for air (1.3 X 10s), the
aggregate risk of cancer due to exposure
to TCE for persons living within 50
kilometers of production sites  or
chemical plants or drinking water
treatment facilities, and resulting from
emissions from metal degreasing or
publicly-owned treatment works or
miscellaneous solvent uses, is 4.1 cases
of cancer per year (Table 2). The highest
individual risk estimate (defined as the
additional risk of cancer to an
individual continuously exposed to the
highest modeled ambient concentration
for a 70-year lifespan), is 9.4 X 10"*. This
analysis does not address potential risks
associated with exposure via other
media (i.e., food or water), the risks
associated with exposure to background
concentrations of TCE, or the
summation of risks for individuals
exposed to emission from area sources.

   TABLE 2.—HEALTH RISK ESTIMATES FOR
  TRICHLOROETHYLENE SOURCE CATEGORIES
Source category
Metal DegreMing* . . .
Pubadr-oiniad vwkmnt
works' 	 	 	 	 	
Production FaolWn.
Chemical Plain* .- 	 	
Drinking Wat* Traaanant ft-
c«tie» ...
Miscellaneou* ' • 	
Total all source* 	 	
Annual
fncidaiica
36
0.06
oooos
0.0078
O2
4.1
Maximum
individual
nrt-
94 x tO**
3.5 « 10-'
87 x 10-'
3.3 x 10- •
1.2 x 10"'
8.0 x 10-'

  • The maximum mdMduat riaK tttnMm do no! induda Vn»
 summation of ntta tar mdMduats exposed to (nimaium from
 are* sourcaa, mil* tttaa nak aatimam am thaty to undar-
 slale the natt vo *a moat axpoaed tndtaduai
  • Area source*.
  ' Includes UM in pamta and coaling*, adhesiva formula-
 tiona, and genarat soHrant us**.

   A study  to estimate the cancer
 incidence rate resulting from ambient
 exposure to TCE and other chemicals
 has been reported by Hunt et al. (1984).
 In the Hunt study estimates of national
 cancer incidence rates and maximum
 individual risk were calculated on the
 basis of limited monitoring of urban and
 rural ambient concentrations of TCB.
Using the Hunt technique, an aggregate
incidence of 8.0 and a maximum
individual risk of 2.6X10"5 were
calculated. These estimates compare
favorably with the modeling results
presented above.
  Risks to workers in facilities
manufacturing or using TCE have not
been estimated. However, if emission
controls were applied to degreasers, it is
likely that worker exposure to TCE will
be reduced.
  Current modeling information
suggests that noncarcinogenic adverse
health effects may occur in the vicinity
of some production facilities. Using a
worst-case modeling scenario, fenceline
(200 meters from emission point)
concentrations have been estimated at
60 ppm for an 8-hour averaging time and
2000 ppm for a 15-minute averaging time.
As noted previously, the OSHA PEL is
100 ppm for an 8-hour averaging time,
and adverse health effects such as task
performance decrements have been
reported as a result of exposure to TCE
near this concentration. Ttoe American
Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hygienists (ACGIH) has recommended
and eight hour Threshold Limit Value
(TLV) of 50 ppm, and a Short Term
Exposure Limit (STEL) of ISO ppm. In
order to determine the extent to which
these modeled concentrations reflect the
potential for adverse health effects, it
will be necessary to examine the
sources in much more detail along with
the distribution of population in the
vicinity of facilities that emit TCE.
Given the uncertainties of the present
analysis, it is difficult to estimate the
extent to which short-term emissions of
TCE pose risks to public health. As the
Agency move* forward toward a
decision on the listing of TCE, efforts to
refine this analysis and characterize the
risk to populations from short-term
exposures will be performed.
   There are a number of assumptions
underlying these estimates that can
yield either over or underestimates of
the risk posed by TCE. Further study
and assessment will not likely narrow
the uncertainties associated with some
of the inputs to the riak assessment or
yield an improvement in some of these
assumptions (e.g^ the carcinogenic
potency of a chemical estimated through
the use of a mathematical model for
extrapolating animal studies to the much
lower concentrations present in the
ambient air). There are otb^er inputs to
the risk estimates that are very
preliminary at the current stage of
assessment and that will be
substantially refined through further
study. The primary example of this i»
 the source information:  number and
types of sources, their locations,
emission rates, stack parameters.
variability of emissions, etc. Current
source information is based on
engineering estimates, data obtained
under section 114 of the Clean Air Act.
and other readily available information
in the literature. This information, in
many cases, will be improved through
plant visits, and source tests. The
Agency has concluded that the
preliminary risk estimates presented
here are sufficient to warrant further
study for possible regulation. The
Agency will improve these estimates,
particularly with respect to emissions
and exposure, before making a final
decision on whether to add TCE to the
list under section 112.

Statement of Intent

  Section 112(b)(l)(A) of the CAA
defines hazardous air pollutants as air
pollutants that contribute to mortality or
serious irreversible, or incapacitating
reversible, illness. Section 112(b)(l)(A)
provides that the Administrator shall
maintain "... a list which includes
each hazardous air pollutant for which
he intends to establish an emission
standard under this section." In deciding
whether to establish such emission
standards for carcinogens. EPA
considers both public health risks and
the feasibility and reasonableness of
control techniques (e.g., 49 FR 23522,
23498, 23558 (June 6,1984) (emission
standards for benzene)).
  Based on the health and preliminary
risk assessment  described in today's
notice, EPA now intends to add TCE to
the section 112(b)(l)(A) list. EPA will
decide whether to add TCE to the list
only after studying possible techniques
that might be used to control emissions
of TCE and after further improving the
assessment of the public health risks.
EPA will add TCE to the list if emission
standards are warranted. EPA will
publish this decision in the Federal
Register.
  If standards are not warranted under
section 112 of the Gean Air Act, the
Agency will consider other options as
described in EPA's report. "A Strategy
to Reduce Public Health Risks From Air
Toxics." June 1985. For example, in that
strategy EPA described other
approaches for dealing with routine
releases of toxic air pollutants from
stationary sources such as working with
State of local air pollution agencies to
address problems that do not warrant
Federal regulatory action but which
account for elevated risks in some areas.
                                                     V-A-6
-------
             Federal Register / Vol. 50, No.  246 / Monday, December 23. 1985 /  Proposed Rules
Standards Development Process
  The following discussion has been
prepared to provide the reader with an
explanation of the standards
development process and the timing of
the process. The standards development
process involves two phases, each
taking about two years. The first phase
is the identification of the emission
sources and the need and ability to
control those sources. The second phase
involves Agency decisionmaking and
public review prior to final action.
  During the first phase, EPA identifies
the sources that are significant emitters
of the pollutant and the specific
emission points within each source and
then determines the quantities of
pollution emitted, the alternative control
systems available, and their cost and
effectiveness in reducing emissions and
associated public health risks. A set of
alternative regulations is developed and
the environmental, economic, energy,
and public health risks are evaluated.
  The first phase requires investigation
of the many different ways in which a
candidate pollutant can be emitted and
controlled. As indicated earlier, TCE is
emitted from production and chemical
plant use of TCE, from drinking water
treatment facilities, from metal
degreasing and publicly owned
treatment works, and from
miscellaneous uses in paints and
coatings, adhesive formulations, and
general solvent use. Within a source
category there is wide variation in
designs, sizes, and processes. This
variation affects the emission rates, the
public health risks, and the cost and
controllability of the pollutant.
Assessment of source emissions and
controls is further complicated by the
fact that emissions are not necessarily
contained in stacks or ducts (i.e., some
are fugitive emissions] and emission test
programs are technically difficult and
costly.
  The decisionmaking and review phase
involves a series of EPA internal and
external activities. Prior to publication
of proposed rules, the Agency reviews
all of the technical, cost, and exposure/
risk data and makes decisions on the
level of standards. The data and
conclusions are reviewed publicly by an
independent technical advisory
committee. The standard is proposed for
public comment. The comment period is
open a minimum of two months and a
public hearing is held, if requested.
Following the comment period, Agency
technical staff review the comments and
resolve technical issues, an activity that
often requires obtaining and analyzing
new data.

Miscellaneous
  TCE is currently listed as a hazardous
substance under section 101(14) of the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability
Act (CERCLA). Under section 101(14) of
CERCLA, Reportable Quantities (RQs)
are established for substances specified
in the CERCLA, as well as substances
listed or designated under certain
sections of the Clean Water Act, the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act. the CAA (section 112) and the
Toxic Substances  Control Act (50 FR
13456: April 4,1985). Section lO3(a) of
the CERCLA requires any release of
TCE to the environment (including the
air) that is equal to or greater than 1,000
pounds  in any 24-hour period to be
reported to the National Response
Center [NRC] (Telephone 800-424-8802
or 202-426-2675 for the Washington DC.
metropolitan area). The current RQ for
TCE does not reflect consideration of its
potential as a human carcinogen and is
currently under review by the Agency.
Since TCE is already listed under
section 101(14) of the CERCLA, a
decision to list TCE under section 112 of
the CAA would not pose any additional
reporting requirements.
  Under Executive Order 12291, EPA
must judge whether this action is
"major" and therefore  subject to the
requirement of a Regulatory Impact
Analysis. This action is not major
because it imposes no additional
regulatory requirements on States or
sources. This proposal was submitted to
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review. Any written
comments from OMB and any written
EPA responses are available in the
docket. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(6), 1
hereby certify that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
because it imposes no new
requirements. This action does not
contain any information collection
requirements subject to OMB review
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1960.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 61
  Air pollution control, Asbestos,
Beryllium..Hazardou8 materials.
Mercury, Vinyl Chloride.
  Dated: December 14,1985
Lee M^Tbomm,
Administrator.
  40 CFR Part 61 i* amended as follows:

PART 61-4; AMENDED]

  1. The authority citation for Part 61
continues iAcead as fallows:
  Authority. 42 U.S.C. 7«01.7412, 7414, 7416
  2. Section 63 .OMwagrjt
re vised by adding die following entry in
the alphahgliwd Hat of substances.

§«1A1 U*ts of poHutmtejmd applicability
of Part «T.
*    *    *     *    *

  (b)  * * *

Trichloroethy-    (49  FR  [Page  number);
  tene.           fDMe of publication]).
(FR
Wed TMe-83; 8:45H«nl
                                                    V-A-7
-------
             Federal Register / Vol. 50, No.  248 / Thursday, December 26, 1985  /  Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40CFRPart61
[ADL-FRL-2889-4]

Assessment of Perchloroethylene as a
Potentially Toxic Air Pollutant

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: This notice describes the
results of EPA's preliminary assessment
of porchloroethylene
(letra'.hioroethylene, PERC) as a
potentially toxic air pollutant. Based on
the hodlth and preliminary risk
assessment described in today's notice,
EPA now intends to add PERC to the list
of hazardous air pollutants for which it
intends to establish emission standards
under section 112(b)(l)(A) of the CAA.
The EPA will  add PERC to the list if
emission standards are warranted. The
FPA will decide whether to add PERC  to
the list only after studying possible
control techniques that might be used to
control emissions of PERC and after
further assessing public health risks.
This notice has no effect on the
regulation of PERC as a volatile organic
compound in order to attain the national
ambient air quality standards for ozone.
In addition, this notice does not
preclude any State or local air pollution
control agency from specifically
regulating emission sources of PERC.
  Through this notice, the Agency :
solicits information on the Notice of
Intent to List decision. The EPA also
solicits information on the potential
ciircinogencity of PERC, the potential
noncarcinogenic health effects of
exposure to PERC, the effectiveness of
controlling PERC emissions with control
equipment, the current level of control of
PERC sources, and current PERC
emission estimates.
DATES: Written comments are to be
submitted by February 24,1986.
ADDRESSES: Submit written materials
[duplicate copies are preferred) to:
Central  Docket Section (A-130),
Environmental Protection Agency, Attn:
Oocket No. A-85-03, 401 M Street SW.,
Washington, DC. The docket may be
inspected between 8:00 a.m. and 4.30
p.m. on  weekdays, and a reasonable fee
may be  charged for copying.
Availability of Related Information
  The final Health Assessment
Document (HAD) for PERC is available
through the U.S. Department of
Commerce, National Technical
information Service, 5285 Port Royal
Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161. The
National Technical Information Service
number PB85-249704 should be used
when ordering. Paper copies of the HAD
are available for $22.94 (price code A-
13), and microfiche copies are available
for S5.95 (price code A-01).  Prices are
subject to change. For further
information on the availability of this
document, please contact: ORD
Publications, CERI-FR, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 (telephone: 513-
684-7562 commercial/684-7562 FTS).
  The source assessment document for
PERC is also available through the
National Technical Information Service
and can be ordered at the address
provided above. The order number
PB85-233518 should be included when
ordering. Paper copies are available for
$16.95 (price code A-07) and microfiche
copies are available for $5.95 (price code
A-01). For additional  information on the
source assessment document, please
contact Mr. Robert Rosensteel
(telephone 919-541-5671  commercial/
629-5671 FTS).
  The HAD was reviewed by the
Science Advisory Board  (SAB), an
independent group of recognized
scientists and technical experts that
provide advice and critical review of
scientific issues to the Administrator.
The SAB comments are available from
the SAB office (contact Cheryl Bentley,
A-101F, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20460; phone 202-382-
2560 commercial/382-2560 FTS).
Transcripts of the SAB meetings are
available for inspection and copying
from the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Committee Management Staff.
For additional information, please
contact Janet Workcuff, PM 213, Room
M2515, 401 M Street SW., Washington,
DC 20460 (telephone 202-382-4036
commercial/382-5036 FTS).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
Robert M. Schell, Pollutant Assessment
Branch  (MD-12), Strategies and Air
Standards Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina  27711 (telephone
919-541-5645 commercial/629-5645
FTS).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: .

Background
   PERC is widely used as a solvent in
dry cleaning and metal degreasing
operations and as an intermediate in
chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) production. In
essentially every case of solvent use,
much of the PERC employed (93-100%)
is lost to the atmosphere through
volatilization, with the remainder to
incineration or solid  waste disposal or
released to ground and surface waters.
Some of the PERC released to disposal
systems or water bodies may volatilize
and ultimately be released to the
atmosphere.
  In the atmosphere, PERC undergoes
slow photochemical degradation to the
extent that its estimated lifetime is
measured  in months, although it is
appreciably less than 1 year, and little
PERC is expected to be conveyed to the
stratosphere. Because of the reduced
solar energy in winter and seasonal
variations in hydroxyl radical
concentration, PERC levels in ambient
air are expected to be higher in winter
than in summer, with  a considerable
daily fluctuation.
  The estimated northern hemisphere
average background concentration is 40
parts per trillion (ppt), with urban
concentrations about  30 times the
background level. The hydroxyl radical-
initiated decomposition products
include dichloroacetyl chloride and
phosgene.
  PERC has chemical and physical
properties which make it the most
desirable solvent available for the dry
cleaning of fabrics. There are no known
substitutes available which combine the
low fire hazard, the desirable solvent
properties and the low acute toxicity of
PERC. Epoxides and other stabilizers
are commonly added  to PERC to
decrease its decomposition when
exposed to light. About 51 percent of
PERC production is used in dry cleaning
establishments, 15 percent is used in
metal degreasing operations and 34
percent as a chemical intermediate and
in miscellaneous processes. Production
of PERC in 1978 was estimated as
320,000 megagrams per year (Mg/yr),
with production in 1983 estimated as
249,000 Mg/yr. A summary of PERC uses
and source emissions is provided in
Table 1.
  In January 1984, the Office of
Research  and Development's Office of
Health and Environmental Assessment
(OHEA) published a draft of the Health
Assessment Document for
Derchloroethylene (HAD). This
document was reviewed by the Science
Advisory  Board (SAB) in  May 1984, with
a final letter forwarding comments by
SAB on the HAD sent to the
Administrator, in January 1950. The final
Health Assessment Document for
Perchlorothylene, which incorporates
comments and changes requested by the
SAB, was printed in July 1985.
  Since review and publication of the
HAD, a new National Toxicology
Program (NTP) study has been audited
and the results validated by the NTP
Board of Scientific Counselors. This
                                                     V-A-8
-------
             Federal  Register / Vol. 50. No. 248 / Thursday. December 26. 1985  /  Proposed Rules
positive inhalation study in mice and
ruts has demonstrated a carcinogenic
potential due to inhalation of PERC in
both sexes of mice and in male rats, thus
increasing the confidence that PERC is
carcinogenic. This NTP study, in
conjunction with the health effects
information summarized in the HAD,
has resulted in this Notice of Intent to
List.

Adverse Health Effects
  A number of studies have been
conducted to assess the health effects
resulting from exposure to
perchloroethylene. The key studies have
been compiled, reviewed and evaluated
in the Health Assessment Document for
Perchloroethylene (EPA. 1985b).
  Although ingestion of drinking water
contaminated by PERC is one source of
exposure, inhalation is the principal
route of concern by which PERC enters
the body. During inhalation, PERC is
absorbed by the blood and distributed
throughout the body. There is evidence
that PERC will part:tion selectively into
hpid-ric.h tissues with chronic or long-
term exposure until steady-state is
attained. Most inhaled PERC is excreted
via  the lungs in unchanged form, with
less that 2 percent of the absorbed PERC
excreted in a metabolized form.
  Epoxides and other stabilizers are
commonly used in commercial
formulations of PERC, although many
studies on the adverse health effects of
exposure to PERC, and in particular the
studies on which the Notice of Intent to
List is based, have used the compound
in a purified form.
  Excluding carcinogenicity as an
enpoint, toxicity testing in experimental
animals, coupled with limited human
data derived principally from
overexposure situations, suggests that
long term exposure of humans to typical
environmental levels of PERC is not
likely to present a discernible health
hazard.

TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF PERCHLOROETHYLENE
      USES AND SOURCE  EMISSIONS •



Source category



Production
Dry Cleaning . . . . 	
Metal Degreasmg . 	
Publicly-Owned Treatment Works
Chemical Plants
CFC Production
Drinking Water Treatment Facilities .. . .
Miscellaneous '


Use
(per-
cent)


•N/A
51
15
N/A
N/A
25
N'A
9
Baseline
emis-
sions to
US
atmos-
phere
(Mg-yr)
50
115.000
32.600
2.000
245
34
40
20.600
    Total
                       _L
                            100 I 171.169
 • Based on estimates tor 1963 (EPA, 1985a)
 ' Not applicable.
 ' Includes use m paints and coatings aahes've formula-
tions, anrj general solvent use.
  Decrements in task performance and
coordination are the first gross signs of
central nervous system (CNS)
depression and behavioral alterations
observed in controlled human studies in
which individuals were exposed to
about 100 ppm for up to 7 hours. More
sensitive tests, however, would have to
be performed to determine if PERC
affects the nervous system at even
lower concentrations.
  Evidence in rodent species suggests
that PERC has the potential to cause
liver damage with acute prolonged
exposure at levels that, in humans,
would cause only slight CNS depression.
However, there are insufficient data to
estimate the lowest levels of PERC that
are associated with adverse effects upon
the liver in  humans.
  The lo'-'est observed adverse effect
level (LOAEL), based on reversible, mild
CNS dysfunction (i.e. headaches,
sleepiness), is about 100 ppm for a
several-ho^ir exposure period. However,
the LOAEL may not characterize a level
of exposure protective of human health
when one considers that intermittent or
prolonged exposure of animals to PERC
has been observed to result in more
severe effects, such as liver and kidney
damage, at  concentrations near 200 ppm.
It should be noted that acute liver
damage in humans is generally
associated with short-term exposures
greatly in excess of 100 ppm.
  The mammalian animal tests
performed to date do not indicate any
significant teratogenic potential of PERC
in the species tested. The anatomical
effects observed reflect delayed fetal
development and can be considered
reversible. It is important to note,
however, that the reversible nature  of an
embryonic/fetal effect in one species
might, in another species, be manifested
in a more serious an irreversible
manner. At the current time, the
teratogenic potential of PERC for
humans must be considered unknown.
  PERC itself has not been clearly
shown to be a mutagen. Certain
commercial and technical preparations
have elicited positive responses in some
test systems, although the responses
were generally weak, and eliciting them
required rather high toxic
concentrations of PERC. No dose-
response relationships were established
in these studies. The position findings
may be explained by the presence of
mutagenic contaminants and/or added
stablizers. Highly purified PERC has
only been evaluated in the Ames/
Salmonella test, where negative results
were obtained.
  Although PERC itself has not been
shown to be mutagenic, it should be
emphasized that the negative results are
not wholly unequivocal. Appropriate
concurrent controls, adequate sample
sizes, and exposure conditions were
sometimes not used, and in some cases
the available data are not sufficient to
determine whether an adequate test was
conducted. Thus, in conclusion,
inadequate information exists to
warrant a provisional classification of
PERC either as nonmutagenic or
mutagenic. If PERC is a mutagen, the
evidence available thus far indicates
that it is only weakly so.
  The SAB reviewed an evaluated the
data in the draft HAD on the
carcinogenic potential of PERC. Using
the criteria of the International Agency
for Research on Cancer (IARC), the
HAD concluded that the chemical
cannot be classified as to its
carcinogenicity for humans (IARC
Category 3),  although there was enough
concern about the data to suggest that
the classification was approachirg IARC
category 2B (i.e. a probable human
carcinogen for humans). The SAB
agreed with  the Category 3
classification, with one member
expressing the opinion that the PERC
classification could be considered to be
in IARC Category 2B, as well as in IARC
category 3.
  While the  SAB were deliberating their
conclusions, EPA completed and
published for review proposed
Guidelines for Carcinogen Assessment.
The EPA announced at that time that the
Agency would use these guidelines as
interim measures. The proposed
Guidelines for Carcinogen Assessment
have now been favorably reviewed by
the SAB, with the final HAD indicating
that PERC is classified under the EPA
guidelines as a possible human
carcinogen (Group C).
  Since publication of the final HAD, a
new NTP inhalation study on mice and
rats has been reported, showing a
significant increase in the incidence of
liver tumors  in both sexes of B6C3F1
mice and an elevation in the incidence
of mononuclear-cell leukemia and
kidney tumors in male F344/N rats. The
NTP Board of Scientific Counselors Peer
Review Panel concluded that this study
demonstrated dear evidence of
carcinogenicity in male and female mice
and in male rats, and some evidence of
carcinogenicity in female rats. This
study impacts the carcinogenicity
assessment for PERC in that it provides
the first evidence of a positive
carcinogenic response in rats, the first
positive inhalation response, and
increased confidence about PERC's
carcinogenic potential. The
carcinogenicity data base for PERC is
being Devaluated, with a high likelihood
                                                     V-A-9
-------
             Federal Register /  Vol.  50. No. 248 / Thursday.  December 26,  1985 / Proposed  Rules
that it will be considered a probable
human carcinogen under the new EPA
guidelines (Anderson, 1985). The Agency
is preparing an addendum to the HAD
that incorporates the results of this NTP
study. The addendum is scheduled for
completion in 1986, and it will be
reviewed by the SAB prior to a listing
decision.
  Finally, an ongoing epidemiological
study of dry cleaning workers exposed
to PERC for at least one year prior to
1960 is being conducted by the National
Institute of Occupation Safety and
Health (NIOSH). Preliminary results
indicate a statistically significant
increase in, mortality due to urinary tract
cancer for all dry cleaning workers
included  in the study, but in the group
only exposed to PERC (600 out of 1,600),
no urinary tract cancer deaths were
found.  However, incomplete work
history da'a do not allow the drawing of
a conclusion about the role of PERC in
the incredseJ mortality. This study is
undergoing further analysis, and results
are expected in the near future.
Risks to Public Health
  Estimates of human exposure to
atmospheric PERC emitted from all point
sources identified in the source
assessment document (EPA, 1985a) have
been calculated using the Human
Exposure Model (HEM).
  For area sources such as the
commercial dry cleaning, metal
degreasing, publicly-owned treatment
works  (POTWs) and miscellaneous
source categories, it was necessary to"
use a dispersion algorithm with assigns
emissions to an area rather than to a
point to estimate emissions and
exposures. This area source
methodology was used because these
omission sources are too numerous to
model individually and some of the
information required to model them as
point sources was unavailable. In the
area source methodology, the quantity
of emissions assigned to an area is
proportional to the population density of
that area, with certain assumptions
permitting calculation of the maximum
individual and annual incidence cancer
risk estimates. The maximum individual
risks for some of the area source
categories may be underestimated
because the model treats these sources
as diffuse area sources although metal
dngreasing, dry cleaning, and POTW's
may be large enough to be considered
point sources. Emissions from these
sources may result in higher
concentrations, greater exposures and
greater individual risks to individuals
living  near these sources than is
 predicted by the area source
 methodology. Since the location of the
population with the maximum individual
risk from each area source category is
not certain, the Agency feels it is
appropriate to identify the maximum
individual risk estimate for each source
category rather than to sum these risk
estimates.
  The upper-bound incremental unit risk
estimate for air was derived from the
geometric mean of results from
inhalation bioassay data on
hepatocellular carcinomas and
hepatocellular adenomas in male and
female B6C3F1 mice and on
mononuclear cell leukemia in male and
female F344/N rats (NTP, 1985;
Anderson, 1985a; Anderson, 1985b). The
unit risk factor is an estimate of the
additional probability that an individual
will die from cancer resulting from
continuous exposure to 1 microgram of
PERC per cubic meter of inspired air
(assuming a 70-year life-span). The
upper-bound nature of the unit risk
estimate is such that the true risk is not
likely to exceed this value and may be
lower. Using the unit risk estimate for
air (5.8 x 10"*), the aggregate risk of
cancer due to exposure to PERC for
persons living within 50 kilometers of
production sites, chemical plants,
industrial dry cleaning facilities or
drinking water treatment facilities and
resulting from emissions from metal
degreasing, commercial dry cleaning
facilities, publicly-owned treatment or
miscellaneous solvent uses, is 5.3 cases
of cancer per year (Table 2). The highest
individual risk estimate (defined as the
additional risk of  cancer to an
individual continuously exposed to the
highest modeled ambient concentration
for a 70-year lifespan), is 1.5 x 10"4. The
new unit risk'number incorporating the
results of the new NTP study will be
published in the addendum to the HAD.
This analysis does not address potential
risks associated with exposure via other
media (i.e., food or water), the risks
associated with exposure to background
concentrations of PERC, or the
summation of maximum individual  risks
for individuals exposed  to emissions
from area sources.
   A study to estimate the cancer
incidence rate resulting  from exposure
to PERC and other chemicals has been
reported by Hunt et al. (1984). In the
Hunt study estimates of national cancer
incidence rates and maximum individual
risk were calculated on  the basis of
limited urban and rural ambient
concentrations of PERC. Using the Hunt
technique and the most  recent unit  risk
an aggregate cancer incidence of 8.7
 cases per year and a maximum
 individual risk of 1.5x10" 5 were
 calculated. These estimates compare
favorably with modeling results
presented above.
  Risks to workers in facilities         ~
manufacturing or using FERC have not
been estimated. However, if emission
controls were applied to degreasers then
it is likely that worker exposure to PERC
will be reduced.
  Current modeling information
suggests that noncorcmogenic adverse
health effects (i.e., central nervous
system dysfunction) due to short-term
concentrations may occur in the vicinity
of some production facilities. Using a
worst-case modeling scenario, fenceline
(200 m  from emission point)
concentrations have been estimated at
13 ppm for an 8-hour averaging time and
410 ppm for a 15-minute averaging time.
The Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) 8-hour
Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) is 100
ppm, and the lowest observed
noncarcinogenic adverse health effects
level is also about 100 ppm for an
exposure period of 20 to 30 minutes. The
American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) has
recommended that the 8-hour Threshold
Limit Value of 100 ppm be reduced to 50
ppm. In order to determine the extent to
which  modeled concentrations and
potential health effects might occur, it
will be necessary to examine the
sources in much more detail along with
the distribution of populations in the
vicinity of facilities that emit PERC.
Given  the uncertainties of the present
analysis, it is difficult to estimate the
extent to which short-term emission of
PERC pose risks to public health. As the
Agency moves forward toward a
decison on the listing of PERC, efforts to
refine  this analysis and characterize the
risk to populations from short-term
exposures will be performed.
  There are a number of assumptions
underlying these estimates that can
yield either over or underestimates of
the risk posed by PERC. Further study
and assessment will not likely narrow
the uncertainties associated with some
of the  inpu*s to the risk assessment or
yield an improvement in some of these
assumptions (e.g., the carcinogenic
potency of a chemical estimated through
the use of a mathematical model for
extrapolating animal studies to the much
lower  concentrations present in the
ambient air). There are other inputs to
the risk estimates that are very
preliminary at the current stage of
assessment and that will be
substantially refined through further
study. The primary example of this is
the source information: number and
types  of sources, their locations,
emission rates, stack parameters.
                                                     V-A-10
-------
             Federal  Register / Vol.  50, No. 248  /  Thursday, December 26, 1985 / Proposed  Rules
variability of emissions, etc. Current
source information is based on
engineering estimates, data obtained
under section 114 of the Clean Air Act.
and other readily available information
in the literature. This information, in
many cases, will be improved through
plant visits and source  tests. The
Agency has concluded  that the
preliminary risk estimates presented
here are sufficient to warrant further
study for possible regulation. The
Agency will  improve these estimates,
particularly with respect to emissions
and exposure, before making a final
decision on whether to add PERC to the
list under section 112.
   TABLE 2.—HEALTH RISK ESTIMATES FOR
  PERCHLOROETHYLENE SOURCE CATEGORIES
Source catego-y

Metal degreasing "
industrial dry cleane's
Commercial c^Y r^'1.1'.
Prc-djClion 'aol'i - -
Chemical plants
Drinking water treatment facilities
Misce'taneous ^ "
Total all sources
Annua.
inci-
dence
1 2
037
12

00019
00001
054
53
Maximum
individual
risk-
34
76
1 b
2 2
65
4 7
62
23
to
10
10
10
10
10
10
10



-'
4
1
"
'


  ' The maximum individual nsk estimates do not include the
summation ol risks lor individuals exposed to emissions Irom
a'ea sources thus these risk estimates are likely to under
stale the risks to tne most exposed individuals
  r Area sources
  ' Includes non-indjstnal comme'C.al and coin-operated *a-
C'ltlies
  " Includes use in paints and coatings adhesive formula
lions and general soive^t use

Statement of Intent

  Section 112(b)(l)(A) of the CAA
defines hazardous air pollutants as air
pollutants that contribute to mortality or
seiinus irreversible, or incapacitating
reversible, illness. Section 112(b)(l)(A)
provides that the Administrator shall
maintain "... a list which includes
each hazardous  air pollutant for which
he intends to establish  an emission
standard under this section."  In deciding
whether to establish such emission
standards for carcinogens. EPA
considers both public health risks and
the feasibility  and reasonableness of
control techniques (e.g.. 49 FR 23522.
23498.  23558 (June 6,1984) (emission
standards for benzene)).
  Based on the health and preliminary
risk assessment described in  today s
notice, EPA now intends to add PERC to
the section 112(b)(l)(A) list. EPA will
decide whether  to add PERC  to the list
only after studying possible techniques
that might be used to control  emissions
of PERC and after further improving the
assessment of the public health risks.
EPA will add PERC to the list if
emission standards are warranted. EPA
will publish this decision in the Federal
Register.
   If standards are not warranted under
section 112 of the Clean Air Act, the
Agency will consider other options as
described in EPA's report "A Strategy to
Reduce Public Health Risks from Air
Toxics," June 1985. For example, in that
strategy EPA described other
approaches for dealing with routine
releases of toxic air pollutants from
stationary sources such as working with
State or local air pollution control
agencies to address problems that do
not warrant federal regulatory action
but which account for elevated risks in
some areas.
Standards Development Process
  The following discussion has been
prepared to provide the reader with an
explanation of the standards
development process and the  timing of
the process. The standards development
process involves two phases,  each
taking about two years. The first phase
is the identification of the emission
sources and the need and ability to
control those sources. The second  phase
imolves Agency dedsionmaking and
public review prior to a final action.
  During the first phase, EPA  identifies
the sources that are significant emitters
of the pollutant and the specific
emission points within each source and
then determines the quantities of
pollution emitted, the alternative control
systems available,  and their cost and
effectiveness in reducing emissions and
associated public health risks. A set of
alternative regulations is dexeloped and
the environmental, economic, energy,
and public health risks are evaluated.
  The first phase requires investigation
of the many different ways in which a
candidate pollutant can be emitted and
controlled. As indicated earlier, PERC is
emitted from production and chemical
plant use of PERC, from metal
degreasing and dry cleaning uses,  from
drinking water treatment facilities, from
publicly-owned treatment works, and
from miscellaneous uses in paints  and
coatings, adhesive formulations, and
general solvent use. Within a  source
category there is wide variation in
designs, sizes, and processes  This
variation affects the emission rates, the
public health risks,  and the cost and
controllability of the pollutant.
Assessment of source emissions and
controls is further complicated by  the
fact  that emissions are not necessarily
contained in stacks or ducts (i.e., some
are fugitive emissions) and emission test
programs are technically difficult and
costly.
   The decisionmaking and review phase
involves a series of EPA internal and
external activities. Prior to publication
of proposed rules, the Afiencv reviews
all of the technical, cost, and  exposure/
risk data and makes decisions on the
level of standards. The data and
conclusions are reviewed publicly by an
independent technical advisory
committee. The standard is proposed for
public comment. The comment period is
open a minimum of two months and a
public hearing is held, if requested.
Following the comment period. Agency
technical staff review the comments and
resolve technical issues, an activity that
often requires obtaining and analyzing
new data.
Miscellaneous
  PERC is currently listed as a
hazardous substance under section
101(14) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA). Under
section 101(14) of CERCLA, Reportablo
Quantities (RQs) are established for
substances specified in the CERCLA, as
well as substances listed or designated
under certain sections of the Clean
Water Act, the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act. the CAA (section
112) and the Toxic Substances  Control
Act (50 FR 13456: April 4,1985). Section
103(a) of the CERCLA requires any
release of PERC to the environment
(including the air) that is equal to or
greater than one pound in any 24-hour
period must be reported to the  National
Response Center [NRC] (Telephone 800-
424-8802 or 202-426-2675 for the
Washington DC. metropolitan area). The
current RQ for PERC does not reflect
consideration of its potential as a
human carcinogen and is currently
under review by the Agency. Since
PERC is already listed under section
101(14) of the CERCLA. a decision to list
PERC under section 112 of the CAA
would not pose any additional reporting
requirements.
  Under Executive Order 12291. EPA
must judge whether this action is
"major" and therefore subject to the
requirement of a Regulatory Impact
Analysis. This action is not major
because it imposes no additional
regulatory requirements on States or
sources. This proposal was submitted to
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review. Any written
comments from OMB and any  written
EPA responses are available in the
docket. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(6), I
hereby certify that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on ;>
substantial number of small entities
because  it imposes no new
requirements. This action does not
contain any information collection
requirements subject to  OMB review
under  the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1980.
                                                       V-A-11
-------
             Federal  Register / Vol. 50. No. 248  / Thursday, December 26. 1985  /  Proposed Rules

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 61
  Air pollution control. Asbestos,
Beryllium, Hazardous materials.
Mercury, Vinyl chloride.
  Dated: December 14,1985.
Lee M. Thomas,
Administrator.

PART 61—[AMENDED]

  40 CFR Part 61 is proposed to be
amended as follows:
  1. The authority citation for Part 61
continues to read as follows:
  Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7412, 7414. 7416
and 7601.
  2. Section 61.01 paragraph (b) is
amended by adding the following entry
in the alphabetized list of substances.

$61.01  Lists of poHufemts and applicability
of Part 61.
*****
  (b) *  '  *
  Perchloroethylene (50 FR [Page
number]; December 26,1985.)
*****
[FR Doc. 85-30252 Filed 12-24-AS: &45 am]
                                                    V-A-12
-------
       ENVIRONMENTAL
         PROTECTION
          AGENCY
 NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS
FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
          ASBESTOS
          SUBPART B
-------
                                                PROPOSED RULES
           [ 40 CFR Part 61 ]
             (FBL 788-2]

 NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR
    HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
Development of Asbestos Standard for the
   Production and Use of Crushed Stone
AGENCY:   Environmental   Protection
Agency.
ACTION:  Advance  notice of proposed
rulemaklng.
SUMARY:  The Environmental Protec-
tion  Agency  (EPA) is undertaking  a
study of the crushed stone industry to
determine the extent to which quarrying
operations are being conducted in areas
containing serpentinite rock deposits, to
determine the asbestos content  of the
rock  being  mined,  and to  determine
whether  the public is being exposed to
asbestos  from  various uses of the  rock.
Serpentinite rock from a quarry location
in Rockville, Maryland, has been found
to  contain significant  quantities  of
asbestos, and the use of unbound (with-
out a coating or binding agent) crushed
stone produced from this rock on crushed
stone roads has been shown to result in
high  concentrations of  asbestos in the
air near these roads. If EPA determines
that the production and use of asbestos-
containing serpentinite  rock  is causing
asbestos emissions  proximate  to the
public in a number of  locations, stand-
ards  will be proposed  in  the FEDERAL
REGISTER under Section 12  of the Clean
Air Act.
DATE: The information requested in this
notice must be submitted on  or before
January 10, 1977.

ADDRESSEE: Information in response
to this Advance Notice of Proposed Rule-
making should be submitted to the Emis-
sion Standards and Engineering Division
(MD-13),  Environmental   Protection
Agency,  Research  Triangle Park, N.C.
27711, Attention: Mr. Ron R. Goodwin.

FOR  FURTHER INFORMATION CON-
    TACT:
  Mr.  Don R  Goodwin, Director, Emission
Standards and  Engineering Division  (MD-
13), Environmental Protection Agency, Be-
•earch  Triangle Park, N.C. 27711, 919-541-
6271.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: II
is well documented that airborne asbes-
tos fibers are related to human disease,
specifically pulmonary fibrosis, carcino-
ma,   and  pleural   mesothelioma.  The
quantification  of the health  risk  asso-
ciated with specific airborne concentra-
tions,  fiber dimensions,  and chemical
composition of the fibers, however, is in-
exact. The problem of estimating the
magnitude of this risk to human health
is further complicated by the 20- to 40-
year latency period between the onset of
exposure and the appearance of disease.
In addition, cancer-causing agents ap-
pear  to  be  "non-threshold"  pollutants
to that no level can be set  which is en-
tirely safe from cancer risk. Consequent-
ly, EPA  believes that  exposure  to air-
borne asbestos should be reduced to the
greatest  extent  feasible.  A  hazardous
emission standard  currently exists  for
several sources of asbestos. See 40 CFR,
Partei.SubpartB.
  In early 1977, EPA tests Indicated that
dust from  the crushed stone produced
by  a  Rockville, Maryland, rock quarry
contained from 0.25 to 0.70 weight per-
cent chrysotile asbestos. Analyses of  air
samples  taken by  EPA and Mt.  Sinai
School of Medicine near several sites in
Montgomery County,  Maryland, where
unbound crushed stone from this quarry
was In use, revealed ambient air concen-
trations of chrysotile asbestos as high as
17 million fibers per cubic meter and as
high as 6400 nanograms per cubic meter,
depending on distance from the road and
prevailing traffic  conditions. These con-
centrations  are as  much  as  1000  times
higher than those usually  found in  ur-
ban and metropolitan areas.
  It is clear  from the air monitoring
data  that  several  uses   of unbound
cruched stone from the Rockville, Mary-
land, quarry can  cause elevated concen-
trations of asbestos in the air. The Mary-
land State Bureau of Air Quality and
Noise Control,  the  Montgomery County
Department of Environmental  Protec-
tion, and the  Montgomery County De-
partment of Transportation  are taking
measures to control asbestos emissions
from roads and other public areas which
were surfaced with crushed stone from
the Rockville  quarry. Warning  signs
have been posted in parks and  school-
yards where asbestos-containing crushed
stone  is in use and in many cases  the
rock has been removed. Dust suppres-
sants  and liquid  asphalt  has been ap-
plied to the roads where the most severe
dust problems existed.  The Montgomery
County Department of Transportation
has issued a moratorium  on the use'of
crushed stone from  the Rockville quarry
and has notified  all public users of  the
rock and the largest private users that
the crushed stone they  have used is from
the Rockville  quarry  and  may  contain
asbestos. Maryland  has also found that
the rock in several other quarries in  the
State  contains asbestos and, as a result,
is developing regulations to restrict  the
future  use  of  crushed  stone  containing
asbestos in certain  applications and  to
control emissions from certain areas
which have been surfaced with asbestos-
containing crushed stone in an unbound
form.
  An analysis of geological survey maps
prepared by the United States Geological
Survey  indicates  that the  Rockville,
Maryland, rock quarry and a number of
other rock quarries in the United States.
produce crushed stone from serpentinite
rock deposits. Geologists agree that most
serpentinite rock deposits contain at least
a small percentage of chrysotile asbestos.
This leads EPA to believe that a number
of crushed  stone plants in  the United
States may be producing asbestos-con-
taining crushed stone similar to that pro-
duced by the Rockville, Maryland, rock
quarry. Other types of rock deposits may
also contain asbestos;  however, the cor-
relation between other rock types and the
presence of asbestos  is not as clear.
  EPA is therefore beginning a study to
determine the extent of the problem of
asbestos  emissions that may exist from
the use of crushed stone produced from
serpentinite  rock. This  study  is  being
conducted in response to requests from
officials of Montgomery County, Mary-
land: two Congressmen from the State of
Maryland; and the  Environmental De-
fense Fund. The purpose of this study is
to determine whether EPA should  de-
velop a Federal standard to limit asbestos
emissions from this source. In this study,
EPA will identify  serpentinite rock quar-
ries within the United States, collect and
analyze rock samples  from  these quar-
ries, determine whether elevated  levels
of asbestos in the air are occurring due
to the use of crushed stone containing
various asbestos contents, and determine
how widespread the  problem appears to
be.
  Currently both the State and  local
agencies  have indicated their intention
to take appropriate measures to control
this problem in Maryland. If EPA's study
determines that this problem does not
warrant work on proposal of a  Federal
standard,  EPA assistance will be avail-
able to local agencies on a case-by-case
basis to deal with this  problem.
  EPA is  requesting that all interested
1-ersons submit factual information con-
cerning crushed  stone produced  from
serpentinite rock, particularly informa-
tion on its production, sale, and use in
various applications; its asbestos con-
tent; and public exposure to ambient air
asbestos emissions resulting from its use
in various applications.  It  is expected
that such information will assist EPA in
determining whether to  formulate any
regulations.
  Dated:  November  3, 1977.

               DOUGLAS M. COSTLE,
                      Administrator.
[PR Doc.77-32666  Piled  U-9-77;8:45 am)
          FEDERAL REGISTER,  VOL. 41,  NO.  J17—THURSDAY, NOVEMBER  10, 1977
                                                           V-B-2
-------
 ENVIRONMENTAL
   PROTECTION
     AGENCY
NATIONAL EMISSION
 STANDARDS FOR
 HAZARDOUS AIR
   POLLUTANTS
    MERCURY
     SUBPART E
-------
           Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 249  / Wednesday. December 26. 1984 / Proposed  Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40 CFR Part 61

[AD-FRL-2676-6]

National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants Review and
Proposed Revision of the Standards
for Mercury From Mercury-Cell Chlor-
Alkatl Plants, Sludge Incineration and
Drying Plants, and Mercury Ore
Processing Facilities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Review and proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The current mercury national
emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants (NESHAP) implement section
112 of the Clean Air Act and are based
on the Administrator's earlier
determination that mercury is a
hazardous air pollutant. This
determination was based on the finding
that previously unregulated mercury
emissions might cause or contribute to
an increase in serious irreversible, or
incapacitating reversible, illness. The
intent of the standards is to protect the
public health with an ample margin of
safety.
  A review of the mercury NESHAP (40
CFR 61.5, Subpart E) has been
completed to determine if changes to the
existing standards are needed or if any
additional source categories should be
included. The NESHAP limit mercury
emissions from mercury-cell chlor-alkali
plants, sludge drying and incineration
plants, and mercury ore processing
facilities. This notice summarizes
information gathered during the review,
proposes the addition of monitoring and
reporting requirements to  the standard
for mercury-cell chlor-alkali plants, and
proposes to allow the owner or operator
of any affected facility 15  days to verify
the validity of source test  data prior to
reporting the results to the
Administrator.
  A  public hearing will be held, if
requested, to provide interested persons
an opportunity for oral presentation of
data, views, or arguments concerning
the proposed revisions to  the standard.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be
received on or before March 13,1985.
  Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the
EPA requesting to speak at a public
hearing by January 16,1985, a public
hearing will be held on February 13,
1985 beginning at 10:00 a.m. Persons
interested in attending the hearing
should call Mrs. Shelby Journigan at
(919) 541-5578 to verify that a hearing
will  occur.
  Request To Speak at Hearing. Persons
wishing to present oral testimony must
contact the EPA by January 16.1985.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments
should be submitted (in duplicate if
possible) to: Central Docket Section
(LE-131), Attention: Docket No. A-82-
41, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street. SW., Washington,
D.C.20460
  Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the
EPA requesting to speak at a public
hearing, it will be held at the
Environmental Research Center
Auditorium, corner of Highway 54 and
Alexander Drive, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. Persons wishing to
present oral testimony should notify
Mrs. Shelby Journigan, Emission
Standards and Engineering Division
(MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)
541-5578.
  Review Documents. The document
summarizing emissions information
gathered during the review of the
standards may be obtained from the
EPA Library (MD-35), Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone
number (919) 541-2777. Please refer to
"Review of National Emission
Standards for Mercury." EPA-450/3-84-
014.
  The document summarizing current
information on the potential health
effects associated with mercury
exposures may also be obtained from
the EPA Library. Refer to "Mercury
Health Effects Update," EPA-600/8-84-
019F.
  Docket.  Docket No. A-82-41,
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 Mali, 401M
Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20460. A
reasonable free may be charged for
copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
On policy issues contact: Ms. Dianne
Byrne or Mr. Gil Wood, 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.
  On technical issues contact: Dr. James
Crowder, Industrial Studies Branch,
Emission Standards and Engineering
Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone
number (919) 541-5601.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

  On March 31,1971 (36 FR 5931), the
EPA listed mercury as a hazardous air
pollutant under section 112 of the Clean
Air Act. The NESHAP for mercury were
proposed on December 7,1971 (36 FR
23239). Comments received during two
public hearings and a public comment
period were considered, and the
NESHAP were promulgated on April 8,
1973 (38 FR 8826). Initially, the standards
included emission limits for only two
sources, mercury-cell chlor-alkali plants
and mercury ore processing facilities.
These were the only sources that the
EPA reasonably expected to have the air
emission potential to adversely affect
human health. Mercury emissions were
limited to 2,300 grams per 24-hour period
for each source. As a result of a May 7.
1973, petition  to the EPA by the
Environmental Defense Fund, the EPA
agreed to investigate the need to
regulate mercury emissions from sludge
drying and incineration facilities. The
investigation  showed that mercury could
be emitted in  such a way as to endanger
human health from several facilities if
they were to carry out plans to
significantly expand their capacity.
Thus, the inclusion of these sources in
the NESHAP  was proposed on October
25,1974 (39 FR 38084), and promulgated
on October 14,1975 (40 FR 48302).
Emission limits for sludge drying and
incineration plants were set at 3.200
grams per 24-hour period.
  A revised authority citation to the
amended Clean Air Act was published
on March 3,1978 (43 FR 8799). Minor
revisions to Reference Test Methods 101
and 102, "Determination of Particulate
and Gaseous  Mercury Emissions from
Chlor-Alkali Plants-Air Streams" and
"Determination of Particulate and
Gaseous Mercury Emission from Chlor-
Alkali Plants-Hydrogen Streams,"
respectively,  to allow the use of
alternative sampling and analysis
equipment were proposed on October
15,1980 (45 FR 68514), and promulgated
on June 8,1982 (47 FR 24704). The
addition of Reference Test Method
101A, "Determination of Particulate and
Gaseous Mercury Emissions from
Sewage Sludge Incinerators" was
proposed and promulgated on the same
dates as the revised Reference Test
Methods 101  and 102.
   The emission standards for mercury
were developed with the intention of
regulating those sources that have the
potential to emit mercury in a manner
that could cause the mercury ambient
concentration, averaged over 30 days, to
exceed 1.0 microgram per cubic meter
                                                  V-E-2
-------
            Federal Register /  Vol. 49,  No. 249 /  Wednesday, December 26, 1984  /  Proposed Rules
(g/m?). This concentration is a guideline
developed by the EPA at the time of the
initial proposed rulemaking to protect
human health with an ample margin of
safety from the adverse health effects of
inhaled mercury, taking into
consideration the expected levels of
ingested mercury. A detailed discussion
of the development of the 1.0 g/m'
guideline is presented in the health
effects document referred to earlier
under Review Documents. Inhalation
and ingestion and mercury compounds
cause central nervous system and renal
damage. The effects depend on the dose
and include tremors and gingivitis as
well as a form of poisoning involving a
number of nonspecific neurological and
physiological symptoms, e.g., memory
loss, delusions, and hallucinations. An
EPA review of the mercury health
effects studies indicates that there is no
evidence that current standards are not
amply protective of human health from
the inhalation of mercury vapor or from
other airborne mercury exposures, and
revision of the current 1.0 g/m'
guideline, based on available data, is
not warranted. In making this
determination, the EPA would like to
note that the 1.0 ug/m' guideline was
based on the public health effects of
inhaled mercury, taking into
consideration dietary contributions to
total body burden of mercury. It did not
account for any indirect exposures to
mercury.  The final health effects review
document, however, states  that the
deposition of airborne mercury
emissions can lead to increased
concentrations of mercury in the edible
fish of local lakes and rivers. It also
states that recent studies suggest that
mercury levels in more remote lakes can
be affected as well through the long-
distance transport and deposition of
mercury on water and land, as the
runoff from land transfers mercury to
water.
  EPA believes  that the 1.0 ug/m»
guideline, which takes into account
average ingestion levels of mercury, is
amply protective because of
conservative assumptions made in the
development of the guideline. However,
because the effects of indirect exposures
have not  been definitively quantified.
EPA requests comments on this issue.
Should new information become
available to allow for quantification of
these effects,  the Agency will reevaluate
the adequacy of the mercury standards.
The final health effects review is
included in the docket as item II-A-13.
  The findings of the review of the
national emission standards for mercury
die presented in the following sections
of this notice. The first section discusses
the compliance and enforcement
experiences of the regulated source
categories and assesses the need to
revise the NESHAP for these sources.
The second section discusses the
emission potential of unregulated
sources of mercury emissions and the
need to regulate these  sources.
Findings

Unregulated (via NESHAP) Source
Categories
  The mercury emissions potential of
coal-fired power plants and nonferrous
smelters was investigated by the EPA
under the original rulemaking. These
sources were not included in the original
standard because it was found that
mercury emissions from these sources,
even assuming restrictive dispersion
conditions and uncontrolled emissions,
were not expected to cause the ambient
concentration guideline to be exceeded.
A recent study of mercury emissions
from power plants supports this
conclusion.
  Battery manufacturing, secondary
mercury recovery using retort furnances
or vacuum distillation, geothermal
power plants, peat-to-methanol plants,
mercury vapor lamp manufacturing,
industrial instrument manufacturing,
paint manufacturing, manufacture of
mercurials, laboratory use of mercury,
use of amalgams in dentistry, and solid
waste incenerators also emit mercury to
the air. Based on published information
about the use of mercury by these
sources and the probable magnitude of
their air emissions, only battery
manufacturing and secondary mercury
recovery were considered as candidates
for inclusion in the standard. Details
regarding these sources are provided in
the review document.
  Battery Manufacturing. Mercury in
the form of zinc (Zn) amalgam, mercuric
oxide (H,O), mercuric  chloride (H,C12),
or mercurous chloride (HKZC12) is a
component of most primary batteries
and some storage batteries. Because of
the amount of mercury involved,
mercuric oxide battery [commonly
called mercury battery) and alkaline-
manganese battery manufacturing
would have the greatest potential for
mercury emissions. Thus, these two
sources were analyzed first to determine
if the ambient mercury concentration
guideline would be exceeded.
  Five mercuric oxide  battery
manufacturing plants are currently in
operation. Estimated daily  mercury
emissions provided by industry range
from about 5 to 454 grams (g) (0.01 to 1
pound [Ib/d]) for these plants. Short-
term ambient mercury  vapor levels
(averaged over 6 to 9 hours) greater than
1 ftg/m'have been measured in the
vicinity of emission sources and at
points on the perimeter of the plant
having the highest mercury emission
level. Atmospheric dispersion modeling
assuming maximum production
capacity, was performed for this facility
to provide an indication of the expected
ambient mercury concentrations over a
30-day averaging period. The results of
the dispersion modeling indicated a
maximum 30-day average mercury
concentration of 0.16 pg/m3, a level
significantly lower than the  1 ug/m3 (30-
day average) used as a health effects
guideline. As would be expected, the
modeling results are different from the
short-term measurements primarily
because the 30-day averaging time
includes meteorological conditions
representative of the entire averaging
period and is, therefore, less likely to
reflect only the effects of specific short-
term meteorological conditions. As such.
the modeling results are judged to be
more representative of the 30-day
average ambient levels than are the
short-term monitoring results.
  A large alkaline-maganese batter}'
manufacturing plant may use about 910
kilograms per day (kg/d) (2,000 Ib/d) of
mercury for zinc amalgamation. Mercury
emission estimates ranging from <100
g/d {<0.2 Ib/d) to about 800 g/d (1.8 Ib/
d) were reported by industry for the
seven plant in the U.S. Atmospheric
dispersion modeling, assuming
maximum production capacity, was
performed for the facility with the
highest mercury emission level. The
modeling results indicated a maximum
30-day average mercury concentration
of 0.17 u.g/m", a level significantly lower
than the 1 ug/m* (30-day average) set as
a health effects guideline.
  Thus, extending the standard to
include battery manufacturing is not
warranted at this time because
dispersion modeling data indicate that
the level of mercury emitted would not
cause the ambient concentration
guideline to be exceeded.
  Secondary Recovery. Mercury is
recovered from such sources as
batteries, thermometers, and sludges by
vacuum distillation or by condensing
vaporized mercury in retorts. Of these,
retorts have the potential for higher
mercury emissions. Mercury is emitted
from the vapor stream remaining after
condensation and from the retort
chamber during loading and unloading
operations.
  Two companies and one battery
manufacturer operate mercury recover)
retorts processing between 64,000 and
159.000 kg/yr (140.000 and 350,000 Ib/yr)
of scrap. Several chlor-alkali companies
                                                   V-E-3
-------
            Federal Register  /  Vol. 49,  No. 249  /  Wednesday. December  26. 1984 / Proposed Rules
operate small mercury recovery retorts
on-site. Mercury emission estimates
from two facilities and test data from a
third indicate that daily emissions range
from <1 to 840 g (0.002 to 1.85 Ib). (The
highest emission level was from the
facility with test data.) The highest
emission level (840 g/d) is similar to the
highest level measured for alkaline-
manganese battery manufacturing
plants  (800 g/d). As with battery
manufacturing, the 30-day average
ambient concentration would not be
expected to exceed the health effects
guideline.
  Thus, extending the standard to
include secondary recovery facilities is
not warranted at this time because the
data indicate that the level of mercury
emitted would not cause the ambient
concentration guideline to be exceeded.

Regulated Source Categories
  Mercury Ore Processing. The 24
mercury ore processing facilities in
operation when the standard was
promulgated have closed, primarily
because of the decline in mercury prices
from 1969 to 1978. While prices have
increased since 1978, they are still
below  those reached in 1969.
  One facility that uses high grade ore
and improved ore processing technology
was constructed in 1975 and is capable
of producing over 690 megagrams per
year (Mg/yr)) 1.5 million pounds per
year [lb/yr]) of mercury. The new
facility has demonstrated compliance
with the standard by using control
technology (a venturi and impinger
tower, and a wet scrubber) designed to
remove sulfur dioxide and particulates.
An emission level of 816 grams per day
(g/d) (1.8 pounds per day [lb/d]), less
than one-half the limit of the standard,
was measured by Reference Method 101
in 1981 when the facility was operating
at the  maximum capacity allowed under
its permit.
   No new or reopened facilties are
expected unless mercury prices increase
significantly. No enforcement problems
with the standard were noted by either
EPA region or State personnel.
   Sludge Drying and Incineration.
Approximately 9 sludge dryers at 5
plants and 280 sludge incinerators at 170
plants process wastewater treatment
plant sludges and are subject  to the
standard. There have been 38
incineration plants constructed since the
standard was proposed. Half of these
have a dry solids burning capacity
greater than 45 Mg/d (50 tons/d). Only
16 percent of those plants constructed
prior to 1974 were this large. All
facilities have demonstrated compliance
with the standard; the highest mercury
emission level for the existing plants is
less than one-half the NESHAP emission
limit. No enforcement problems with the
standard have been encountered or are
expected because the mercury content
of sludge is generally to low to cause the
emission limit to be exceeded in the
sizes of incinerators in use today.
  The EPA projected in 1974, however,
that mercury could be emitted in such a
way as to endanger human health from
several facilities if  they significantly
expanded their capacity. These
expansions have not occurred, but the
possiblity for future expansions or
construction of new large facilities
exists in heavily populated areas such
as the New York-New Jersey
metropolitan area. Theoretically, if all of
the municipal sludges from this area
were to be incinerated in a small
number of incinerators, there could be
facilities sufficiently large to have
uncontrolled mercury emissions in
excess of the standard. An EPA sludge
task force is studying the environmental
consequences of several hypothetical
situations in which all electrical
generating plants in the area would be
coal-fired and all municipal sludges
would be either incinerated in several
large facilities, buried in sanitary
landfills, or disposed in the ocean. The
findings of the task force will provide
preliminary indications of the most
environmentally acceptable disposal
method considering the combined
impacts on air, land, and water. If
warranted, the mercury NESHAP
emission limit for sewage sludge
incinerators would be studied to
determine the reasonableness of
alternative controls.
  Mercury-Cell Chlor-AIkali Process.
The total U.S. installed chlorine capacity
using mercury-cell technology dropped
from 25 percent in 1973 to 19 percent in
1982. Twenty-four chlor-alkali plants
using the mercury-cell process are
currently subject to the national
emission standard. No new mercury-cell
chlor-alkali plants  have been built since
promulgation of the standard, and it is
probable that no new chlor-alkali plants
of this type will be constructed in the
U.S. in the future. This trend is due to
the availability of alternative
technologies, such as the membrane cell
and diaphragm cell technology, that do
not use mercury and that consume less
energy. Growth is expected in the
number of facilities using these
alternative technologies.
  According to enforcement agencies
and the industry, all mercury-cell chlor-
alkali plants are presently in compliance
with the standard. To demonstrate
compliance with the cell room
provisions of the standard, all facilities
have elected to follow prescribed
housekeeping practices instead of
testing cell room emissions.
  Combined mercury emissions from the
hydrogen and end-box ventilation
streams and the cell room are limited to
2,300 g/d (5.0 lb/d) by the national
emission standard. Emissions from the
cell room are assumed to be 1,300 g/d
(2.8 lb/d) when housekeeping practices
are followed. Thus, combined emissions
from the hydrogen and end-box
ventilation streams must be maintained
at no more than 1,000 g/d (2.2 lb/d)
when compliance  is demonstrated by
following approved housekeeping
practices (e.g., maintaining floors in
good condition and promptly cleaning
mercury spills).
  Control systems used for the hydrogen
gas and end-box ventilation systems
include: Coolers, wet scrubbers, carbon
adsorbers and molecular sieves.
Compliance tests  conducted since 1973
show mercury emission measurements
on the hydrogen stream ranging from 1
to 891 g/d (0.002 to 2.0 lb/d). Emission
data near the low end of this range were
generally measured on hydrogen
streams controlled by molecular sieve of
carbon absorption control systems.
Other control systems include coolers
and chemical absorption systems.
Mercury emission data for the end-box
ventilation stream ranged from 1 to 428
g/d (0.002 to 0.94 lb/d).
  State and EPA regional personnel
contacted in this study stated that
monitoring and reporting requirements,
which are not now included in the
NESHAP, would aid enforcement
significantly. The most recent
compliance tests indicate that all
facilities were in compliance with the
standard at the time of the test;
however, several  facilities control
emissions to just below the emission
limits to minimize compliance costs.
Because continued attainment of the
standards is dependent on proper
operation and maintenance of the
control and process equipment, the
monitoring of control system
performance and conditions contributing
to mercury emissions is important to
ensure that the emission limits are not
being exceeded. The Chlorine Institute,
a trade associaton representing the
mercury-cell chlor-alkali industry, has
concurred with the adoption of suitable,
simple, and effective mechanisms to
assure compliance with the hydrogen
and end-box emission limits and cell
room housekeeping rules. These include
combinations of monitoring of specific
parameters, recording, and reporting.
   Ideally, monitoring requirements
 would require the continuous and
precise measurements of the amount of
                                                    V-E-4
-------
           Federal Register / Vol.  49, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 26, 1984 /  Proposed Rules
mercury being emitted. However, in the
case of mercury emissions from the
mercury-cell chlor-alkai industry, a
single test by Reference Method 101 or
102 costs approximately $12,000. and
continuous mercury emission monitors
are not adequately demonstrated.
Parameters that could be monitored to
indicate the performance of various
control devices include the temperature
of gas streams for cooling systems; the
liquid flow rate, pH, concentration  of
available chlorine and inlet gas
temperature for chemical absorption
systems; the liquid flow rate and exit
gas temperature for water scrubbers; the
regeneration temperature of molecular
sieves; and the inlet temperature of
carbon absorbers. The exit gas
temperature for uncontrolled systems
would indicate the maximum amount of
mercury in the stream.

Alternative Monitoring Requirements
That Were Considered
  Five alternatives for monitoring
requirements for the hydrogen and end-
box ventilation streams of mercury-cell
chlor-alkali plants were considered.
These were: (1) Continuous instrument
monitoring of mercury emissions; (2) no
routine monitoring, but periodic
emission tests by the EPA reference test
methods; (3) continous, or hourly,
monitoring of control device and/or
process parameters followed by
reporting of periods when the
parameters fall outside ranges specified
in the NESHAP; (4) hourly monitoring  of
control device and/or process
parameters, followed by a simplified
sampling procedure (i.e., non-reference
method) when the monitored parameters
fall outside limits established on a  plant-
by-plant basis; and (5) periodic
monitoring of emissions by a simplified
sampling procedure.
  The first alternative was judged to be
insufficiently demonstrated and too
costly, and the second alternative was
judged to be too monitoring of control
device and/or process parameters
followed by reporting of periods when
parameters fall outside a specified  range
(the third alternative.) They stated  that
parameters such as temperature could
exceed the ranges suggested by the
Agency at some facilities, while those
facilities' emissions could be well below
the limit of the standard, negating the
need for reports. At a meeting with
members of the Chlorine Institute on
February 28,1984 (Docket A-82-41. Item
II-E-153), some representatives
proposed that the periodic monitoring  of
control device and/or process
parameters, which is already done  to
varying degrees by all plants, be
coupled with a simplied sampling
procedure to determine mercury
emissions when the level of the
monitored parameter falls outside an
established limit. They recommended
that these limits be established
separately for each plant and used to
develop a plant-specific compliance
assurance plan. Industry representatives
further proposed, as another alternative,
that simplified sampling be done on a
quarterly basis (the fifth alternative)
instead of routine monitoring of
parameters.
  The EPA investigated the Chlorine
Institute members' suggestion of
conducting a simplified sampling
procedure (i.e., non-reference method)
as an alternative to monitoring control
device or process parameters or as a
means of indicating whether excess
emissions may have occurred during
periods when monitored parameters
have fallen outside established limits.
The Agency is  not aware of any
simplified sampling method that has
been sufficiently demonstrated to
accurately represent the mercury
concentration in the stack. The
reference test methods include, and any
acceptable alternative method would
also have to include, rigorous
procedures for ensuring that the
sampling train  is properly prepared prior
to sampling and that the collected
mercury vapors accurately represent the
mercury concentration in the stack. In
addition, sampling periods shorter than
the minimum periods required for each
of the three reference method runs (2
hours each) may not collect an amount
of mercury sufficient for accurate
analysis. Thus, the Agency knows of no
demonstrated emission monitoring
method applicable to all affected
facilities that can be proposed as an
options! method. Consequently, the
fourth and fifth monitoring alternatives
were rejected. However, as an
alternative to hourly parameter
monitoring, the EPA will consider for
approval, on a  case-by-case basis,
alternative demonstrated emission
monitoring methods that would provide
for complete collection and accurate
analysis of mercury. Use of such an
emission monitoring method would be
required on a routine basis. The
frequency of use would be partially
determined by  the accuracy of the
method and the complexity of the
collection procedures.
  In considering the third  monitoring
alternative, the Agency agreed with the
Chlorine Institute members' statement
that certain process or control device
parameters, such as temperature, could
be exceeded on some occasions without
affecting the compliance status of the
facility. This is most likely to happen in
cases where the established limit of the
parameter to be monitored (temperature,
for example) is equivalent to the level
measured during a performance test
which demonstrated compliance and
which was conducted under optimal
operating conditions. For example, if the
performance test were conducted in the
winter at a facility where  water at
ambient temperature is used to cool exit
gas streams, the temperature recorded
during the test could be relatively low. If
an equivalent temperature served as the
limit not to be exceeded and the
temperature of the facility's  cooling
water were 30* to SO'F higher during the
summer, the facility could be required to
report the temperature exceedance, but
the emissions could be below the
emission limit. The Agency also agreed
that the upper Hmit of the parameter
could be different for each plant.

Proposed Revisions

  To incorporate the industry's
suggestion of tailoring the monitoring
requirements to reflect plant-by-plant
differences, and to provide parameter
limits that would be a better indicator of
operation and maintenance and of
potential excess emissions, the Agency
is proposing that the owner/operator of
each affected facility be allowed to
establish the maximum parameter limits
(or, in the case of chemical absorption
systems,  the minimum liquid flow rate
and available chlorine) based on the
levels that would be expected to occur
when the facility was operating under
the upper, or worst-case, range of
conditions that are reasonably expected
to occur, given proper operation and
maintenance of the facility.
Consequently, these limits would be
established during a performance test
that demonstrated compliance and that
was conducted when the facility was
operating at the upper range of
operating conditions that  could
reasonably be expected to occur.
Because the limits would reflect the
upper range of operating conditions,
failure to maintain the parameters
within the limits would be a better
indication of improper operation and
maintenance, and the potential for
excess emissions, than would failure to
maintain the parameters within limits
established under optimal operating
conditions.
  For the reasons just described, this
proposal would require the owner or
operator of each mercury-cell chlor-
alkali plant to conduct an initial
performance test of the hydrogen and
end-box ventilation streams by
Reference Method 101 or 102. The tests
                                                   V-E-5
-------
            Federal Register  /  Vol. 49. No. 249  / Wednesday.  December 26.  1984 / Proposed  Rules
may be performed under the upper range
of operating conditions (other than
conditions of malfunctions) that can
reasonably be expected to occur on a
routine basis.
  While the reference method test is
being conducted, the owner or operator
of each mercury-cell chlor-alkali plant
would  be required to monitor and
record, at least once every 15 minutes.
the following process and/or control
device parameters for each stream.
depending on the control system used:
The temperature of gas discharged to
the atmosphere from uncontrolled
streams; the outlet temperature of the
gas stream  from the final (i.e., the
farthest downstream) cooling system
where  no control devices other than
coolers and demisters are used; the
outlet temperature of the gas stream
from the final cooling system where the
cooling system is followed by a mercury
removal device such as a molecular
sieve or carbon adsorber; concentration
of available chlorine, pH, liquid flow
rate and inlet gas temperature for
chlorinated brine scrubbers and
hypochlorite scrubbers; the liquid flow
rate and exit gas temperature for water
scrubbers; the regeneration temperature
for molecular sieves; and the inlet
temperature for carbon adsorption
systems. The recorded values of these
monitored parameters would be
averaged over the performance test
period (a minimum of 6 hours) to
establish the plant-specific limits.
  Subsequent to this performance test,
the owner or operator each mercury-cell
chlor-alkali plant would be required to
monitor and record, hourly, the same
process and/or control device
parameters that were monitored during
the test. The hourly monitoring
frequency is based on the Agency's
belief that control system failures could
result in excedances of the emission
limits if they are not noted and repaired
within several hours. Information
received from industry (Docket item II-
E-154) indicates that, in some cases,  the
time required to repair or replace
portions of the hydrogen stream control
system, such as a chiller or upstream
compressor, could typically be 2-3
hours.  The  limits of the standards could
be exceeded within this time period,
depending on such factors as plant
capacity (tons per day of chlorine
production), cooler temperature, and
end-box emissions levels. Monitoring
parameter less frequently than hourly
would be expected to increase the risk
of excess emissions occurring before
control systems are repaired. Many
plant owners or operators continuously
monitor process or control device
 parameters; others monitor on either an
 hourly or bihonrly basis. The Agency
 invites comments on the
 appropriateness of hourly monitoring
 and requests that such comments be
 accompanied by data supporting any
 alternate interval that is suggested.
   If the hourly value of a monitored
 parameter of either the hydrogen or end-
 box ventilation stream exceeds (or, in
 the case of chemical absorption systems
 where liquid flow rate and available
 chlorine are monitored, falls below) for
 a period of 24 consecutive hours, the
 value of that same parameter
 established during the performance  test
 the owner/operator would be required
 to report within 10 days the failure to
 maintain parameters within the
 established limits. The 24-hour period is
 believed to be sufficient time for an
 owner/operator to repair most
 conditions expected to cause the
 parameters to fall outside the limits.
   Semi-annual reports documenting all
 hourly instances in which monitored
 parameters fall outside the established
 limits shall also be submitted to the
 Administrator. These reports would be
 for the purpose of notifying enforcement
 agencies that monitored parameters
 have fallen outside the limits and,
 therefore, that there has been a potential
 for excess emissions to occur.
 Enforcement agencies, after reviewing
 the reports and evaluating the nature of
 the failure to remain within the limits,
 may require a performance test to
 determine if the facility is exceeding the
 standards.
   Each owner or operator of a chlor-
 alkali plant that uses housekeeping
 practices to comply with the standard
 for cell room ventilation systems would
 be required to maintain daily records of
 all leaks or spills of mercury in the cell
 room. The records shall indicate the
 location of the leak or spill, the time and
 date it was detected,  immediate steps
 taken to minimize mercury emissions
 (i.e., containing a leak under water), the
 ultimate corrective action, and the time
 and date of the ultimate corrective
 action. These leaks and spills are not
 expected to occur frequently at well-
 operated and -maintained plants.
   Because the documentation  of
 mercury leaks and spills will be
 available to enforcement personnel, the
 owner or operator of each mercury-cell
 chlor-alkali plant will be encouraged to
 conduct proper operation and
 maintenance. Requiring reports of
 mercury leaks and spills is not being
• proposed because it would not
 encourage proper operation and
 maintenance beyond the program
 described above. Excess emission
reports are not being required for
housekeeping practices because the
practices are not structured in a way
that excesses can be defined. Although
leaks of hydrogen gas can contain
relatively high concentrations of
mercury, it is standard operating
practice to promptly repair these leaks
because of the explosive nature of
hydrogen. The EPA believes thai
because these leaks would be promptly
repaired, the reporting of hydrogen ledks
is not necessary and is, therefore, not
being proposed. Reporting leaks and
spills of brine, wash-water, or caustic is
not being proposed because these media
would not be expected to contain
significant quantities of mercury.
  The results of all monitoring and
recordkeeping for mercury-cell  chlor-
alkali plants would be retained at the
source and made available for
inspection by the Administrator for a
minimum of 2 years.
  The addition of monitoring.
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements  for mercury-cell chlor-
alkali industry will benefit the
environment through encouraging plants
to adopt best  operating practices for
operating and maintaining process
equipment and control devices. There
would be no energy impacts as a result
of this addition. There will be an
average yearly cost to each chlor-alkali
plant during the first three years the
proposed revisions are in effect of
approximately $9,000 associated with
the monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements and the initial
performance test. This cost is judged to
be reasonable in light of the resulting
more efficient use of enforcement
resources.
  This proposal would also allow the
owner or operator of an affected chlor-
alkali plant, mercury ore processing
facility, or sludge incinerator and drying
plant 15 days to verify the validity of
source test data prior to reporting these
results to the Administrator. Currently.
owners  or operators of affected facilities
are required to submit these data before
the close of business of the next day
after the data are available. The
proposed change would provide the
owner or operator a reasonable amount
of time to determine the validity of the
data. Extending the time limit for the
submission of test data should  have no
environment, economic, or energy
impacts.
  Owners and operators of facilities
covered by these standards should note
that  nonfederally permitted releases of
hazardous substances might be covered
by requirements developed under the
Comprehensive Environmental
                                                  V-E-6
-------
            Federal Register /  Vol.  49,  No. 249  /  Wednesday, December 26, 1984  /  Proposed Rules
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (See 4B FR 23552, May 25.
1983).

Impacts of Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements
  The EPA believes that the proposed
reporting and recordkeeping
requirements for the chlor-alkali
industry are necessary to assist the
Agency in enforcing the standard after
the initial compliance determination.
  The information collection
requirements associated with the rule
which this notice proposes to amend (40
CFR 61.55) have been cleared previously
by OMB under control number 2000-
0243. The changes to the information
requirements proposed in this notice
have been submitted previously by OMB
under control number 2000-0243. The
changes to the information requirements
proposed in this notice have been
submitted to OMB for review under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. Comments on these
information collection requirements
should be submitted to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of
OMB—marked Attention: Desk Officer
for EPA. The final rule package will
respond to any OMB or public
comments on the information collection
requirements.
  The average annual burden on
mercury-cell chlor-alkali plants to
comply with the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements of the
proposed standards over the first 3
years after the effective date is
estimated to be about 9,200 person-
hours, based on 24 respondents.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
  The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(RFA) requires that differential impacts
of Federal regulations  upon small
entities be identified and analyzed. The
RFA states that an analysis is required
if a substantial number of small entities
will experience significant impacts. Both
measures, substantial numbers of small
entities and significant impacts, must be
met to require an analysis. If either
measure is not met, then no analysis is
required. Twenty percent or more of the
small businesses in an affected industry
is considered a substantial number. The
EPA definition of significant impacts
involves three tests, as follows: One,
costs of production rise 5 percent or
more, assuming costs are not passed on
to consumers; or two, annualized
investment costs are not passed on to
consumers; or two,  annualized
investment costs for pollution control
are greater than 20 percent of total
capital spending; or three, costs as  a
percent of sales for small entities are 10
percent greater than costs as a percent
of sales for large entities.
  The additional monitoring.
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements being proposed would
affect only mercury-cell chlor-alkali
plants. The small Business
Administration (SBA) definition of a
small business for Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) Code 2812, Chlor-
Alkali Production, is 1,000 employees.
The 24 chlor-alkali plants using the
mercury-cell process are owned by 10
companies. All 10 have more than 1,000
employees. Therefore, none of the 10
companies meets the SBA definition of a
small business, and thus no regulatory
flexibility analysis is required.

Public Hearing
  A public hearing will be held, if
requested, to discuss the proposed
revisions to the standard for mercury-
cell chlor-alkali plants, sludge
incineration and  drying plants, and
mercury ore processing in accordance
with sections 112(b)(B) and 307(d)(5) of
the Clean Air Act. If a hearing is
requested, persons wishing to make oral
presentations on the proposed revisions
to the standards  should contact the 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  and should refer to
docket number A-82-41.
  A verbatim transcript of any 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 file of all the information
submitted to, or otherwise considered
by, the EPA 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
effectively participate in the rulemaking
process, and (2) to serve as the record in
case of judicial review.

Miscellaneous
  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
amendments.
  This regulation will be reviewed 5
years from the date of promulgation.
This review will include an assessment
of such factors as the need for
integration with other programs.
enforceability, improvements in
emission control technology and health
data, and reporting requirements.
  Under Executive Order 12291, the EPA
must judge whether a regulation is
"major" and therefore subject to the
requirement of a regulatory impact
analysis. This regulation is not major
because it will not have an annual effect
on the economy of $100~million or more,
result in a major increase in costs or
prices, or have significant adverse
effects on competition, employment,
investment, productivity, or  innovations.
  Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
605(b), I hereby certify that this rule, if
promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities because no
small entities are affected.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 61

  Air pollution control. Asbestos,
Beryllium, Hazardous materials,
Mercury, Vinyl chloride.
  Dated: December 19.19M.
William D. RuckeUhaus,
Administrator.

PART 61—[AMENDED]

  It is proposed to revise 40 CFR 61.53-
61.55 to read as follows:

S 61.53 [Amended]
  1. In § 61.53, paragraphs (a)(4), (b)(4),
and (d)(5) are all revised to read exactly
as follows:
  All samples shall be analyzed and
mercury emissions shall be determined
within 30 days after the stack test. Each
determination shall be reported to the
Administrator by a registered letter
dispatched within 15 calendar days
following the date such determination is
completed.

  2. In S 61.53, paragraph (c){4) is
revised to read as follows:
  An owner or operator may carry out
approved design, maintenance, and
housekeeping practices. A list of
approved practices is provided in
Appendix A of "Review of National
Emission Standards for Mercury," EPA-
450/3-84-014.

  3. In $ 61.54, paragraph (f) is revised to
read as follows:
  All sludge samples shall be analyzed
for mercury content within 30 days after
                                                  V-E-7
-------
            Federal Register / Vol. 49, No.  249 / Wednesday, December 28, 1984  /  Proposed Rules
the sludge sample is collected. Each
determination shall be reported to the
Administrator by a registered letter
dispatched within 15 calendar days
following the date such determination is
completed.
  4. In S 61.55, the title and paragraph
(a) are revised to read as follows:

§61.55 Monitoring of amtealona and
operation*.
  (a) Waste water treatment plant
sludge incineration and drying plants.
All the sources for which mercury
emissions exceed 1,600 g per 24-hour
period, demonstrated either by stack
sampling according to S 61.53 or sludge
sampling according to | 61.54. shall
monitor mercury emissions at intervals
of at least one per year by use of
Method 105 of Appendix B or the
procedures specified in J 61.53(d) (2)
and (4). The results of monitoring shall
be reported and retained according to
! 61.53(d) (5) and (6)  or $ 61.54 (f) and
(8)-
   5. In ( 61.55, paragraphs (b) and (c)
are added to read as follows:
   (b) Mercury cell chlor-alkali plants—
hydrogen and end-box ventilation gas
streams.
   (1) The owner or operator of an
affected facility shall, within 1 year of
the date of promulgation of these
amendments, perform a mercury
emission test on the hydrogen stream by
Reference Method 102 and on the end-
box stream by Reference Method 101.
   (2) During tests specified in paragraph
(b)(l) of this  section, the following
control device parameters shall be
monitored, by devices certified by the
manufacturer to be accurate within 10
percent, and manually or automatically
recorded at least once every 15 minutes:
  (i) The exit gas temperature from
uncontrolled streams;
  (ii) The outlet temperature of the gas
stream for the final (i.e., the farthest
downstream) cooling system where no
control devices other than coolers and
demisters are used;
  (iii) The outlet temperature of the gas
stream from the final cooling system
where the cooling system is followed by
a molecular sieve or carbon adsorber;
  (iv) Concentration of available
chlorine, pH, liquid flow rate, and inlet
gas temperature of chlorinated brine
scubbers and hypochlorite scrubbers;
  (v) The liquid flow rate and exit gas
temperature for water scrubbers;
  (vi) The regeneration temperature of
molecular sieves; and
  (vii) The inlet gas temperature of
carbon adsorption systems.
  (viii) The recorded parameters shall
be averaged over the test period (a
minimum of 6 hours) to provide an
average number.
  (3) Subsequent  to the monitoring and
recording specified in paragraph (b)(2)
of this section, the owner or operator of
an affected facility shall monitor, by
devices certified by the manufacturer to
be accurate within 10 percent, and
manually or automatically record at
least once per hour the same parameters
specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this
section.
  (4) When the hourly value of a
monitored parameter exceeds, or. in the
case of liquid flow rate and available
chlorine, falls below, the value of that
same parameter determined in
paragraph (b)(2) of this section for 24
consecutive hours, the Administrator is
to be notified within the next 10 days.
  (5) Semiannual reports shall be
submitted to the Administrator
indicating (i) the time and date on which
the hourly value of each monitored
control device or process parameter fell
ouUide the value of that same
parameter determined under
$ 61.55(b)(2); and (ii)  the corrective
action taken, and the time and date of
the corrective action.
  (c) Mercury cell chlor-alkali plants—
cell room ventilation system.
  (1) Stationary sources using mercury
chlor-alkali cells determining cell room
emissions in accordance with
S 6.53(c)(4) shall maintain daily records
of any leaks or spills of mercury. The
records shall indicate the location, time.
and date the leaks or spills occurred.
immediate step taken to minimize
mercury emissions, steps taken to
correct the problems, and the time and
date corrective steps were taken.
  (2) The results of monitoring shall be
recorded, retained at the source, and
made available for inspection by the
Administrator for a minimum of 2 years.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under Control Number 2000-0243)
|FR Doc. 84-33488 Filed 12-24-84; 8:45 am)
BILLING CODE Kt» 80 II
                                                      V-E-8
-------
       ENVIRONMENTAL
         PROTECTION
          AGENCY
 NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS
FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
      VINYL CHLORIDE
          SUBPART  f
-------
              Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 6  /  Wednesday, January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40CFRPart61
[AD-FRL-2707-4]-

Nattonal Emlsalon Standards for
Hazardoua Air Pollutants; Vinyl
Chloride

AGENCY: Envoronmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of
public hearing.

SUMMARY: The current emission
standard for vinyl chloride (VC) was
promulgated under Section 112 of the
Clean Air Act in 1976. A review of the
technological basis and administrative
aspects of the standard has been
completed, and the conclusions of the
review are presented in this" notice The
conclusions are the basis for this action
which (1) proposes administrative and
clarifying revisions to the standard and
(2) announces decisions pertaining to
other aspects of the current standard.
This notice also withdraws proposed
revisions to the current standard which
were published in the Federal Register
on June 2,1977 (42 FR 28154).
   If requested, a public hearing will be
held to provide interested persons an
opportunity for oral presentations of
data, views, or arguments concerning
the proposed revisions to the current
standard.
DATES: Comments, Comments must be
received on or before March 25,1985.
   Public Hearing. If anyone contacts die
EPA requesting to speak at a public
hearing by January 301985, a public
hearing will be held on February 26.
1985 beginning at 9:00 a.m. Persons
interested in attending the hearing
should call Ms. Shelby Journigan at  (919)
541-5578 to verify that a hearing will
occur.
   Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons
wishing to present oral testimony must
contact EPA by January 30,1985.
   Incorporation by Reference. The
incorporation by reference of certain
publications in these standards will be
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register as of the date of the final rule.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments
should be submitted (in duplicate if
possible) to: Central Docket Section (A-
130), Attention Docket Number A-81-21,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
20460.
   Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the
EPA requesting to speak at a public
hearing by January 30,1985, the public
 hearing will be held at EPA Auditorium,
corner of Highway 54 and Alexander
Drive, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. Persons interested in attending
the hearing should call Ms. Shelby
Journigan at (919) 541-5578 to verify that
a hearing will occur. Persons wishing to •
present oral testimony should notify MB.
Shelby Journigan, Standards
Development Branch (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5578.
  Background Information Document.
The general findings of the review study
are documented in "Vinyl Chloride—A
Review of National Emission
Standards", EPA-450/3-82-003 (NTIS-
PB 84-114354), available from the
National Technical Information Service,
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield.
Virginia 22161. The major technical
analysis for the review study is
contained in a separate document which
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
"Vinyl Chloride: Relief Valve Discharge
Standard," EPA-450/3-85-002, for the
technical document.
  Docket.  Docket No. A-81-21,
containing supporting information used
in developing the proposed standard, 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, SW., Washington, D.C. 20460. A
reasonable fee may be charged for
copying.
FOR  FUTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Robert E. Rosensteel or Mr. Leslie B.
Evans, (919) 541-5671, concerning
technical aspects of the industry and
control technologies, and Mr. Fred
Dimmick or Mr. Gilbert H. Wood. (919J_
541-5578,  concerning regulatory
decisions. The address for these
contacts is Emission Standards and
Engineering Division (MD-13). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research  Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Summary of Revisions to Current
Standard
   Revisions. Several administrative
changes are being proposed as a  result
of a review of the national emission
standard for VC. No major revisions are
being proposed to the standard. As with
the current standard for VC, the
revisions  are being established under
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. The
significant administrative revision*
include: (1) Reformatting the emission
limit for relief valve discharges, (2)
providing a compliance test procedure
and a specific emission limit for
operators who perform stripping
operations in reactors, and (3) specifying
requirements for leak detection and
repair programs for certain equipment in
VC service. Additional minor
administrative changes to the standard
are being proposed and are explained
later in this premable.
  Summary of Health, Environmental,
Energy,  and Economic Impacts. Since no
major revisions to the standard are
being proposed, the impacts resulting
from the current standard remain
generally unchanged. In 1975, it was
estimated that emissions of VC from
plants producing ethylene dichloride
(EDC), VC monomer and polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) would be reduced from
96.000 Mg/yr to 4,910 Mg/yr under the
current standard, representing an
emission reduction of 91,000 Mg/yr of
VC (or 95 percent of VC emissions).
Emissions of volatile organic compounds
(VOC) and EDC are also reduced under
the standard.
  The estimated risks attributed to
exposure to VC from EDC/VC and PVC
plants in operation prior to the current
standard were 5.5 cases per year for
liver angiosarcoma and 11 cases per
year for all cancers. The risks attributed
to exposure to VC from sources under
the current standard have been
estimated to be 0.28 cases per year for
liver angiosarcoma and 0.55 cases per
year for all cancers.
  In 1975, the estimated capital cost for
existing plants to meet the VC standard
was $198 million, of which $15 million
was for EDC and VC monomer plants
and $183 million was for PVC plants.
The EPA estimated that the annualized
cost (including capital amortization, etc.)
to these plants to maintain the required
emission levels would be $70 million per
year.
Background
  The VC standard was proposed on
December 24,1975 (40 Fr 59532), and
promulgated on October 21,1976 (41 Fr
46559). It is applicable to plants
producing EDC by the reaction of
oxygen and hydrogen chloride with
ethylene, plants producing VC by any
process, and plants producting one or
more polymers containing any fraction
of VC. These plants are subject to
different requirements at numerous VC
emission points in the manufacturing
process. These requirements include
numerical emission limits, equipment
specifications, and work practices.
   The standard was designed to
minimize the health risks associated
                                                      V-F-2
-------
              Federal  Register / Vol. 50,  No. 8 / Wednesday, January  9, 1985 / Proposed Rules
with VC by requiring reasonable control
measures. As stated in the preamble to
the proposed standard (40 Fr 59532,
December 24,1975), there is no known
threshold level of effects for VC.
Therefore, the only approach that would
eliminate health risks associated with
VC would ban its production and use.
This approach was not selected. Rather,
an approach was selected to minimize
the health risks associated with VC by
use of reasonable control measure.
  On November 19,1976, the
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
petitioned the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit to review the standard. On
March 24,1977, the EDF and the EPA
moved to dismiss the proceedings on the
basis of a settlement agreement
requiring the EPA to propose
amendments which would require
increased efficiency of existing control
equipment, require more stringent
control of new sources, and prohibit
increases in emissions within the
vicinity of an existing source due to new
construction. The preamble to the
proposed amendments was to state that
the EPA's policy for regulating
carcinogens under Section 112 of the
Clean Air Act would include a general
goal of eliminating emissions of
carcinogens and that the EPA would
initiate a review of the VC standard 3
years after the promulgation of the
amendments.
   On June 2,1977, the amendments were
proposed (42 FR 28154). Many comments
pertaining to policy, technological
feasibility,  and procedural aspects of the
proposed amendments were received.
Review of these comments indicated
that additional technical data and cost
information were required before the
proposed amendments, or revisions of
the proposed amendmenls, could be
promulgated.
   Meanwhile, the EDF filed a petition
with the EPA requesting the
establishment of a comprehensive
program for regulating airborne
carcinogens under Section 112 of the
Clean  Air Act. The aspects of the EDF's
petition concerning the development of
standards under Section 112 were
similar to those proposed in the June 2,
1977, amendments to the VC standard.
Based on the similarity of the proposed
amendments and the EDF's requested
comprehensive program for regulating
airborne carcinogens, the EPA believed
that it should not take final action on the
proposed VC amendments until after it
had acted on the EDF's petition.
   On October 10,1979 (44 FR 58642), the
EPA proposed "Policy and Procedures
for Identifying, Assessing, and
Regulating Airborne Substances Posing
a Risk of Cancer." This proposal
addressed several issues which were
central to the proposed VC
amendments. It also articulated the
EPA's conclusion that Section 112 does
not express an intent to eliminate totally
all risks from emissions of airborne
carcinogens. The EPA's selection of the
level of control for a hazardous air
pollutant emission standard would not
be based on a policy that requires zero
emissions of carcinogens. This policy is
consistent with the basis for other
recent actions under Section 112. For
example, standards for benzene from
coke ovens and leaks from equipment
components in benzene service are not
based on a zero emissions policy but
rather on a reasonable level of control,
which considers emissions and health
risks.
  The EPA believes it is not appropriate
to leave the proposed amendments to
the VC standard in effect or to
promulgate amendments based on the
proposed amendments. Therefore, the
June 2,1977, proposal is withdrawn. As
described in the following section of this
notice, the EPA began a review study to
obtain additional technical dsta and
cost information and to determie
whether other amendments to the
standard are needed. New amendments
developed as a result of the review
study are proposed in this notice.
Review of VC Standard
  Early in 1980 the EPA began a  review
of the VC standard. The primary
purpose of the review was to investigate
the adequacy and appropriateness of the
standard in  light of policy decisions,
health studies, control technology
developments, and enforcement and
compliance  experience which have
occurred since the standard was first
promulgated. The review consisted of a
screening study of: (1) Existing and new
control technologies, (2) sources not
regulated by the standard, and (3)
enforcement and compliance experience
since promulgation of the standard.
Information and data evaluated during
this study were obtained through
literature searches, plant visits, and
interviews with industrial
representatives and EPA regional
personnel involved in" enforcement and
 surveillance of the VC-emitting
industries. The information and data are
presented in a document that may be
obtained as described in the ADDRESSES
 section of this preamble. Decisions
 based on this review are summarized in
 the next two sections of this preamble.
   As another aspect of the review of the
 VC standard, the EPA's Carcinogen
Assessment Group reviewed new health
studies that have become available
since the standard was promulgated.
This review included a study of the
estimated carcinogenic strength of VC
(the VC unit risk number) and focused
on whether this number should be
changed to reflect new informaton.
Since the current standard was
promulgated, new occupational studies
have confirmed qualitatively that liver
and brain cancer incidence are
asociated with population exposure to
atmospheric VC. However, none of
these new studies have sufficient
exposure information to warrant a
refinement of the quantitative cancer
risk estimate.

Findings and Conclusions of the Review
Study

  The findings and conclusions of the
VC review study are presented in the
following subsections. The first
subsection discusses the need and basis
for the current standard. The second
subsection addresses the level of control
required by the current standard. The
third subsection identifies source
categories not covered by the current
standard and evaluates the
appropriateness of regulating these
sources.
fl) Need and Basis for Current Standard

  The current VC standard was
established based on judgments
concerning the costs and benefits of the
standard to society. The standard is not
designed to eliminate VC exposure risk
entirely. Rather, it strikes a balance
between public health protection and
the cost of that protection. Data
(evaluated before the current standard
was established) strongly indicate that
VC causes or contributes to the
development of angiosarcoma, other
cancers, and various noncarcinogenic
disorders in people with occupational
exposure and in animals with
experimental exposure to VC. Although
no dose-response data are available at
the concentrations of VC found in the
ambient air, the EPA concluded when
the standard  was established that any
atmospheric concentration of VC poses
some public heath risk. To eliminate the
risk of VC exposure entirely, a complete
prohibition of all VC emissions would
be necessary. This would require the
closure of the entire industry and result
in serious, adverse economic impacts.
Furthermore, the EPA concluded at the
time the current standard was
established that a complete prohibition
of all VC emissions would not be
desirable or necessary. The EPA
                                                     V-F-3
-------
              Federal Register  /  Vol. 50.  No. 6  /  Wednesday, January 9. 1965  /  Proposed Rules
concluded this in view of (1) the
beneficial uses of VC products for which
desirable substitutes are not readily
available; (2) the potential adverse
health and environmental impacts
associated with VC substitutes that
have not been throughly studied; (3) the
number of employees, particularly in
fabrication industries, who would
become at least temporarily
unemployed; and [4] the availability of
control technology that is capable of
substantially reducing emissions of VC
into the atmosphere.
  Although all EDC, VC and PVC plants
have now incorporated VC emission
controls, the maintenance of a Federal
standard for VC is still considered
necessary. The VC standard contains
requirements for the proper operation
and maintenance of control devices and
the proper implementation of work
practices. These requirements reflect an
appropriate balance between the need
to minimize health risks and the
avoidance of unreasonable economic
and community impacts which would
result from standards designed to
reduce risks to zero. Relative to the
initial control costs, the additional cost
of maintaining and implementing the
Federal VC standard is small.
Nevertheless, if the Federal standard is
discontinued, these small costs may be
sufficient to provide the industry with
an economic incentive for discontinuing
the use of proper control measures.
Thus, the continued maintenance of
Federal standards for the control of VC
is necessary to ensure a continuation of
the current level of control.
Additionally, the standard is important
for the control of VC emissions from
plants built in the future. The
consequence of not maintaining a
Federal standard would be to increase
the carcinogenic ask to large segments
of the population. .[In 1975 when the
standard was originally proposed,
 approximately 44 Bullion people lived
within a 5-mile Ta*fi» of EDC, VC and
PVC plants.) Ancordingry, the EPA has
 concluded that the maintenance of the
 Federal standard for VC, or reasonable
 revision of the standard, is appropriate.

 (2) Review of Techaohgy-Based Level
 of Control

   This subsection-describes the status
 of the technology-based level of control
 for sources covered by the current
 standard. The present statin of
 emissions from VBorcec cowased by the
 current VC standard is presented m
 Table 1.
TABLE 1. STATUS OF CURRENT EMISSION LEV-
  ELS FROM SOURCES COVERED BY THE VINYL
  CHLORIDE NESHAP
Emission
source
Standard
Emissions (mg/yr}
Uncoiiliul'ed *
Ipnot to 1975
Connoted"
(current
levels)
  Emissions from a mod* 316,000 mg.'yr EDC/VC taoMy
Primary
OitycnlonflA*
•on vent
Fugitive... 	

Ratal us** 	
10ppmv..._ 	
0.2oV kg EDC
product
Wofk practice
equipment
Nonprawenta-
bto
discharge
only.
916
114
376

Not
. Available*
3.2
SO
38

2.1
    Emissions trorn a medal 98.000 mj/yr PVC tacitly
Prime* '
control
Reactor
openmB

Combined
sources
after ream
.stnpatno.
Fugitive 	



ReHef valve .. ..


lOpewv 	

0.002 kg/ 100
kg PVC
product
400 pom-
suspension*.

Work practice
and
equipment
standards.
Nonprever4a-
discharge
only -
236

313


850


1.040



136


0.5

1 4


27


1O9



2'


  •Baaed on the EPA emusiona eekmalee developed from
data submitted by industrial sources prior to promuloationof
the 1975 VC standard.
  • Represents estimated emeetona from EDC/VC and PVC
plants meeting current standard.
  ' Data were not collected on retiaf valve dfechargee from
EOC/VC plants prior to 187S.
  "Based on the EPA emissions estimates for a typical
suspension plant Emission estimates for bulk, latex and
tfsperston plants are not presented here.

  Wppmv Standard. Emission sources
covered by this standard include EDC
purification and VC monomer formation
and purification equipment, monomer
recovery systems and other equipment
at PVC plants, and vents from fugitive
emission capture systems. The standard
is based primarily on the control of
these emissions by incineration or other
primary control devices and specifies an
emission limit of 10 parts per million by
volume (ppmv) of VC averaged over a 3-
hour period. The 10 ppmv standard
applies to control device bypass
streams.
   One of the amendments proposed in
1977 would have required reduction ef
the emission limit from 10 to 5 ppmv.
The goal of the proposed 5 ppmv limit
was to ensure that the standard
continued to approach a "zero emission
goal" by requiring owners and operators
 both to maximize the effectMreness of
existing control systems and to desigm
 improved new control systems at the
 time of construction. The S ppmv-limit
 was not based on d*tta for control
 technology  different from that analyzed
at the time of the promulgation of the 10
ppmv limit.
  Comments received on the proposed
1977 amendments stated that in order to
meet a limit of 5 ppmv, a control device
would have to be capable of control at a
level even lower than 5 ppmv to offset
emission fluctuations. Commenters also
stated that a change from 10 to 5 ppmv
would result in little reduction in mass
emissions of VC. Finaly, commenters
questioned the rationale of the "zero
emission goal" policy.
  Because the proposed 5 ppmv
emission limit was not based on data
from a control technology different from
that analyzed for the current standard
and because 10 ppmv represents the
lowest level of control which has been
consistently achieved, the EPA
withdraws the proposed 5 ppmv limit
and affirms the original 10 ppmv limit. If
such a technology had been identified, it
could have been the basis of a revised
standard. However, during the review
study no more advanced technology was
identified, even though additional  data
on incinerators, carbon adsorbers, and
solvent absorption control systems oh
existing plants were obtained. Although
these data indicate that incinerators are
capable of reducing emissions below 10
ppmv, 10 ppmv represents the lowest
level of control which has been
consistently achieved. Based on this
information, the EPA has concluded that
there is no improved or new control
technology that has been demonstrated
to significantly and consistently reduce
emissions to a level below-that required
by  the current standard. Therefore, no
further technological investigation of the
10 ppmv standard is planned.
  Oxychlorinatioa Vent Standard—O2
g/kg 'EDC. The current oxychlorination
vent standard of 0.2 g of VC per kg of
EDC does not require an add-on control
device. Instead, the limit can be
achieved at most plants by controlling
operating conditions and at the
remaining plants through process
modifications. At the time the original
standard was written, incineration of
oxychlorination vent emissions  was
investigated. Because of expected high
energy costs associated with
supplemental fuel requirements for
combustion, incineration was
determined not to be a reasonable
method of control for this source.
  The amendments proposed in 1977
specified a level of 5 ppm for the
oxychlorination vent The proposed
requirement was based on installation
of an oxygen feed system with an
incinerator or equipment control device.
The use of oxygen feed in the GDC
oxychlorinaton process decreases the
                                                    V-F-4
-------
              Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9. 1985 /  Proposed Rules
volume of inert substances in the vent
stream and, consequently, the cost for
supplemental fuel required for
incineration. Comments received on this
proposed amendment focused primarily
on the high expense and large energy
requirements associated with the
production of oxygen.
  The review study identified no control
technology for oxychlorination vents at
EDC/VC plants that had not been
considered during the development of
the original standard. Additionally, the
EPA reevaluated the cost of retrofit
incinerator controls and reached the
same conclusion drawn in the
development of the original standard.
As before, the high cost associated with
incinerating oxychlorination vents at
existing EDC/VC plants makes this  level
of control unreasonable. Thus, the
current standard of 0.2 g/kg EDC is
considered still to be the most
reasonable level of control for existing
oxychlorination vents. In addition, the
review study concluded that significant
new construction or modification of
EDC/VC plants is not expected. At this
time, only one new EDC/VC facility is
reportedly planned. (BF Goodrich has
plans to construct an EDC/VC facility in
Convent, Louisiana.) Oxychlorination
vents at new EDC/VC plants will be
regulated by the proposed standards of
performance for air oxidation processes
(40 CFR Part 60 Subparl III) or by the
BACT or LAER requirements of new
source review regulations applicable in
specific locations to a level comparable
to that achievable through the use of
incineration. Because the
technologically achievable level of
control is assured  through the current
requirements, the EPA concluded that
investigation of additional control {i.e.,
incineration) was not required for
oxychlorination vents.
  ' Reactor Opening—0,02 g/kg PVC
Product. The current VC standard
restricts emissions during
 polymerization reactor openings. The
 standard was based on reactor purging
 and on a reduction in the frequency of
 reactor openings. An increased level of
 control was not proposed in  the 1977
 amendments. (The level of control
 provided by the current standard,
 0.02 g/kg of PVC product, reduces VC
 emissions to about 1.36 Mg per year for
 a model PVC plant.) During the review
 of the standard, no technology was
 identified that would provide additional
 VC reductions  beyond the level of the
 current standard. Therefore, the EPA is
 not investigating further the  control of
 reactor openings.
   Combined Sources After Resin
 Stripping. The sources of VC emissions
 covered under  the current standard
include blend tanks, dryers, centrifuges,
storage silos, bagging operations, and
any sources following the stripper.
Control of these emissions is based on
either stripping the PVC resin to a
specified (based on resin type) residual
VC level (i.e., 400 ppm for suspension,
bulk, solution, and latex resins; and
2,000 ppm for dispersion resins) or
controlling the emissions from all
source* following  the stripper with a
control device. The 1977 proposed
amendments would have required "new
resins" to be stripped to lower levels
(i.e., 100 ppm for suspension, bulk,
solution, and latex resins; and 500 ppm
for dispersion resins). When the
amendments were proposed, the EPA
believed that some resins could meet the
proposed limits; whereas, for other
resins the manufacturer would have
been required to develop improved
stripping technology or not to produce
the resin.
  Industry comments stated that most
dispersion, copolymer, and bulk resins
would suffer degradation if more
stringent emission limits were imposed.
Additionally, the commenters noted the
inherent difficulties in defining a "new
resin." Information submitted by
commenters indicated that minor
adjustments to resin compositions are
made routinely, and completely new
resins are rarely, if ever, made. As a
result of these comments, the EPA
concluded that it is impossible in many
cases to distinguish between new and
existing resins and still have any resins
covered by the proposed amendments.
Further,  the proposed amendments did
not address what levels of control could
be achieved by improved stripping
technology. For these reasons, the EPA
chose to evaluate whether higher levels
of control are achievable for all resins,
or only for some special classes of
resins.
   The review study found that resin
stripping technology has improved since
the current standard was promulgated,
and that some processors can achieve
lower resin residual VC levels than
 those required in the original standard.
 In certain cases, some resins can meet
 the more stringent levels specified in the
 previously proposed amendments.
 However, other processors
 manufacturing resins of differing grades
 and characteristics can only marginally
 comply with the original standard.
 Because of the wide variation in resin
 grades ai*d characteristics, it cannot be
 concluded that, even though a particular
 resin made by one company can meet a
 particular level, any other resin or
 similar resins produced by another
 company could also meet that level.
 Furthermore, in some cases these
processors meeting the more stringent
limits proposed previously are stripping
these resins to this low level to offset
emissions from those resins which are
more difficult to strip. Without this
ability to average the emissions and
reductions among resins, these
processors might not achieve the current
standard. Exempting resin grades
known to be difficult to strip is not
feasible because these resins cannot
readily be defined. For the foregoing
reasons, the EPA has concluded that
there is no demonstrated level of control
which could significantly and
consistently reduce residual VC levels
in resins to levels below that required
by the current standard. Therefore, the
EPA is not investigating further the
control of the combined sources after
stripping.
   Equipment Leaks. Because little was
known about leak detection and
elimination programs for control of
equipment leaks from components in VC
service, specific requirements for these
programs were not included in the
current standard. Instead, each plant
was required to institute and implement
a formalized leak detection and
elimination program incorporating both
a fixed-point monitor and a portable
monitor. Plant-specific programs were
subject to approval by the
Administrator. Consequently, due to
site-specific differences among plants,
as well as variations in leak definitions
and monitoring practices, differences in
control of equipment leaks among the
plants have resulted. Since the standard
was promulgated, the EPA has obtained
more information pertaining to the
control of equipment leaks from
components in VC service.  With the
information obtained form the
development of other standards, an
effective leak detection and repair
program based on use of a portable
monitor can now be specified for
equipment covered by this program. The
specific leak detection and repair
requirements are discussed in the
 Administrative Revisions section of this
 preamble.
   Relief Valve Discharge Standard.
 Sources of VC emissions covered by this
 standard include discharges from relief
 valves on pressure vessels, transfer
 lines, and other equipment in EDC/VC
 and PVC plants. The standard is based
 on emission control by a combination of
 equipment and process modifications,
 and operational procedures, found in
 plants during development of the
 standard. An exact combination of
 modifications and operational
 procedures was not specified. Instead, a
 performance standard (i.e., an emission
                                                      V-F-5
-------
              Federal Register / Vol. 50, No.  6 / Wednesday,  January  9, 1985 / Proposed Rules
standard) was established because it
was believed that different
combinations could be equally effective
in controlling relief valve discharges.
The current format of the standard
prohibits all relief valve discharges
except emergency discharges.
Emergency discharges are described as
those which could not have been
avoided by taking measures to prevent
the discharge (i.e., those that are
"nonpreventable"). Since the standard
was promulgated, all plants have
experienced some releases. Many of
these releases are considered
preventable by the EPA. Based on visits
to plants with good compliance
histories, the EPA concluded that a level
of performance reflecting compliance
with the current format of the standard
through the combined effects of
equipment, process modifications and
operational procedures remains
reasonable, during the review, no
technological level of control was found
that would provide for a more stringent
standard. Therefore, the standard is still
considered to reflect the appropriate
level of control for these sources.
However, as discussed in the
Administrative Revisions section of the
preamble, the EPA is proposing to revise
the standard by setting limits for relief
valve discharges in a different format.
  Administrative Aspects of the
Standard. Even though the EPA decided
not to revise the level of control
associated with the current VC
standard, the EPA identified revisions to
several administrative aspects of the
standard. These revisions as well as
those identified above, are discussed in
the Administrative Revisions section of
the preamble.
(3) Review of Sources Not Previously
Covered
  This subsection discusses the status
of VC sources not covered by the
current standard that were identified  in
the review study. For these sources, the
EPA assessed whether a Federal
standard was warranted. The EPA's
assessment of these sources was based
primarily on a quantitative  analysis of
VC emissions from these  sources
combined with a qualitative analysis  of
risks associated with exposure to VC
from these sources. The EPA considers
 these analyses to be adequate in place
of a thorough quantitative risk
assessment for purposes of determining
whether a Federal standard is
 warranted for these sources. Because
 these sources are already relatively
 well-controlled and the quantity of VC
 emission, and consequently, the risks
 associated with exposure to VC from
 these sources, are small in comparison
to sources covered by the VC standard,
the EPA concluded that none of the
additional sources identified in the
review study warrant a Federal
standard.
  Miscellaneous Sources of VC
Emissions. Miscellaneous sources are
plants other than PVC and EDC/VC
plants that use VC as a raw material or
produce VC as an intermediate or by-
product. The EPA has dentified four
such plants, two of these plants produce
1,1,1-trich.loroethane, one produces
perchloroethylene and trichloroethylene
and the fourth plant produces pesticides.
(An additional 1,1,1-trichloroethane unit
was constructed at a fourth location but
has reportedly never operated. There
are no plans to operate in the furture.)
Review of VC emission sources at the
identified plants showed them to be well
controlled. Emissions of VC from these
plants are primarily from fugitive
sources and range from less than 1 Mg/
yr to 14 Mg/yr per plant. In general, the
VC NESHAP requirements for process
vents and equipment in VC service are
being met at the miscellaneous sources
due to company policy considerations
and State and local regulatory
requirements. In addition, many of the
equipment components in VC service
would be covered by standards of
performance for new sources and
standards for sources in nonattainment
areas. Based on the  investigation  of
these sources, the EPA concluded that
they are already relatively well-
controlled and do not contribute
significantly to VC exposure. For  these
reasons, additional requirements for
miscellaneous sources of VC are not
being proposed at this time.
  PVC Fabrication Plants. There are
about 8,000 fabrication plants which
take the resin produced by PVC plants
and fashion it into intermediate or final
products. Emissions from these plants
are estimated to be about 0.0035 Mg/yr
per plant. In comparison to VC
production plants (which typically emit
about 92 Mg/yr), PVC fabrication plants
are small emitters of VC. If standards
were developed for this category they
would not result in reduced emissions
because the best control for these plants
is to reduce the VC levels in the resins
being processed by  the fabricators.
Resin stripping beyond the level that
process economics would dictate is
already being done as a result of the
EPA's current standard and OSHA's VC
standard, based on the EPA's
assessment of these sources, the EPA
concluded that they do not contribute
significantly to VC exposure. Therefore,
 the EPA believes that the evaluation of
controls for PVC fabrication plants is
unnecessary and that the current level
of control resulting from the EPA's
standard and OSHA's standard is still
reasonable.
  Landfills. Off-specification resins
containing VC has been taken to
landfills where the gaseous VC can be
released. However, the  current EPA
standard intends that all resins,
including off-specification resins, be
stripped to reduce the VC emissions
from sources downstream from the
stripper. In order to clarify that stripping
requirements also apply to the off-
specification resins before removal of
landfills, these requirements are being
restated to explicity address off-L
specification resins. The EPA believes
that the level of control resulting from
the stripping requirements is reasonable;
thus, VC emission requirements for
landfills are not being proposed today.
However, the EPA recognizes that VC
may be emitted from hazardous waste
landfills and is evaluating and may
regulate under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
volatile emissions (including VC) from
landfills at hazardous waste disposal
facilities. The EPA also recognizes that
VC has been detected in municipal
landfills. Therefore, in addition to
assessing VC emissions from hazardous
waste disposal facilities, a (RCRA)
Subtitle D TASK FORCE has been
formed which will assess all
environmental releases including air
emissions from Subtitle D facilities (a
category which includes municipal
landfills).

Administrative Revisions

  As discussed in the Findings and
Conclusions of the Review Study section
of this preamble, the EPA identified
several administrative  revisions that are
appropriate as a result  of the review
study. The rationale for the  proposed
administrative revisions is presented in
this section of the preamble. These
revisions include: (1) Reformatting the
emission limit for relief valve
discharges, (2) providing a compliance
test procedure and a specific emission
limit for operators who strip in the
reactors, (3) specifying requirements for
leak detection and repair program for
equipment components in VC service,
and (4) miscellaneous revisions.

Relief Valve Discharges

  Background. The current  format of the
standard for relief valve discharges
allows only "emergency" discharges
(i.e., discharges that could not be
avoided by taking preventive measures).
The standard applies to all  pressure
relief devices on pressure vessels.
                                                     V-F-fi
-------
              Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9. 1985 / Proposed Rules
transfer lines, and other equipment in
EDC/VC and PVC plants. The control
techniques considered as the basis of
the standard involve a combination of
equipment modifications, process
modifications, and operational
procedures. An exact combination of
modifications and operational
procedures was not specified in the
current standard; rather, a performance
standard (i.e., an emission standard)
was established because different
combinations of the modifications and
procedures were expected to be equally
effective in controlling relief valve
discharges.
  Based on 6 years of enforcement and
compliance experience, the EPA has
concluded that the relief discharge
standard has resulted in: (1) Significant
reductions in the frequency and quantity
of VC discharges from relief valves, (2)
significant use of agency resources to
evaluate individual discharges for
preventability, and (3) uncertainty on
the part of producers  regarding whether
they comply with the  standard.
Additionally, the EPA learned some of
VC and PVC believe that this part of the
current standard applies only to
discharges through safety relief valves
and that discharges through other
pressure relief devices, such as rupture
disks or manual or automatic vent
valves, are not covered. This
interpretation is not compatible with the
intent behind the current standard. To
provide more efficient enforcement by
decreasing the burden of individual
preventability assessments on the EPA,
and to provide a better understanding to
plant operators of the goal of the
standard,  the EPA is proposing to
reformat the standard for relief valve
discharges and to define the emission
poirts covered by this standard to
include  appropriately all pressure relief
devices. As discussed more completely
in the following sections, the EPA is
proposing to change the format of the
numerical limits in the standard to
reflect the number of  discharges that
occur from thoge plants complying with
the format of the current standard.
  The EPA found in the review study
that efforts by all EDC/VC and PVC
producers to comply with the standard
are reflected in their preformance (in
terms of size and frequency of
discharges) since the  standard went into
effect. In general, a reduction in the
reported frequency and size of relief
valve discharges by PVC producers has
occurred since 1978. A further decrease
in relief valve discharges by the PVC
industry occurred between 1980 and
1981. Performance by the EDC/VC
industry exhibited a less marked trend
of decreased discharges over the
compliance period. Following an initial
drop in relief valve discharges after the
standard went into effect, the frequency
and quantity of relief valve discharges
by EDC/VC plants have decreased
slightly or remained relatively constant.
  General Basis for Numerical Limits.
In selecting the proposed numerical
limits, EPA first evaluated in detail the
recent performance (1981 to 1983) of five
PVC plants and one EDC/VC plant.
These plants were chosen based on
discussions with EPA Regional Office .
personnel and industry and were
intended to represent plants with good
relief valve discharge records. In
general, the EPA's evaluation of these
plants indicates that each has adopted
the combination of equipment,
operational procedures and attitude
toward prevention of relief discharges
intended by the current standard, and
that their resulting performance is
consistent with compliance with the
current standard. The EPA's evaluation
found that a few discharges may
continue to occur from some plants that
comply with the standard. This
observation is consistent with the
expectation held by the EPA when the
standard was written.
  In order to revise the standard in
terms of numerical limits representing
compliance with the current format of
the standard,  this evaluation separated
PVC and EDC/VC plants. For plants,
relief valve discharge performance data
were further separated by source
(reactor vs. nonreactor) and by resin
type  The EPA then reviewed the
performance of 25 additional PVC plants
and 12 additional EDC/VC plants. The
EPA reviewed this large set of plants to
tnsure that the level of performance
demonstrated by the evaluated plants
could be achieved by all PVC and EDC/
VC plants.
  The numerical limits presented in the
Findings section of this preamble are
based on an evaluation of the number of
discharges representing the
demonstrated performance level
associated with compliance with the
provisions of  the existing  standard.
  Format for Numerical Limits. The
EPA visited the five PVC plants
evaluated in detail. As expected, the
EPA found differences in the
combinations of hardware and
operational procedures associated with
control of relief valve discharges of each
of the plants.  Furthermore, no exact
relationship was found between the
effectiveness  of specific hardware items
and operational procedures and
prevention of discharges.  In the EPA's
judgment, the various combinations of
hardware and operational procedures
implemented by each of the plants along
with the attitudes adopted toward
preventing relief valve discharges
represent the types of control measures
that the standard intended. In particular,
the EPA concluded that the low
frequency of discharges by the visited
plants was indicative of their degree of
effort to prevent relief valve discharges.
Consistent with the goal of this
proposed revision, the EPA decided that
an alternative numerical emission limit
based on performance resulting under
the current standard could be revised in
a format that would be easier to
understand by enforcement and industry
personnel.
  The EPA investigated two basic ways
of expressing relief valve discharge
performance for PVC plants. One format
is based on mass emissions, for
example, the pounds of VC discharged
per million pounds of PVC produced (Ib
VC/MM Ib PVC). Based on a review of
methods used by industry to determine
the amount of VC discharged from relief
valves, the EPA was unable to identify a
sufficiently accurate method for
measuring discharge quantities from
relief valves. At present, producers are
required only to estimate discharge
quantities for reporting purposes.
Demonstration of compliance with a Ib
VC/MM Ib PVC limit would require
producers to measure the amount of VC
discharged during an incident. Because
a suitable measurement method was not
identified, the EPA decided not to
redefine relief valve discharge
performance by PVC plants in a Ib VC/
MM Ib PVC format.
  Another format is based on the
frequency (i.e., number per unit time) of
discharge from occurrences. No method
for measuring the amount of VC
discharged from relief valves is needed
because only the occurrence of a release
is required for this format. The
occurrence of a discharge can be
determined by monitoring process
parameters as well as inspecting relief
valve performance reports. Thus, of the
two basis ways of expressing relief
valve performance that were
considered, the EPA selected a format
based on the frequency of discharges.
  Based on this decision, the EPA then
considered how the format would be
applied to PVC and EDC/VC plants. At
PVC plants, the frequency of discharges
from polymerization reactors and
associated process equipment may be
related to the fact that a batch process is
used to produce most types of PVC. For
batch PVC production processes, the
opportunity for discharges is related to
the number of times a new
                                                     V-F-7
-------
               Federal Register / Vol. 50, No.  6 / Wednesday, January 9,  1985 /  Proposed Rules
polymerization batch is initiated.
Expressing relief valve discharge
performance for these plants with a
discharge-per-batch format accounts for
variations among plants in the number
of batches produced. The EPA selected
100 polymerization batches as a
convenient basis for expressing relief
valve discharge performance by PVC
plants with batch production processes
in a discharge frequency format.
  Further, the EPA noted that the ability
of batch PVC producers to limit the
discharge frequency may be different for
reactor and nonreactor discharges and
that reactor discharges may vary by
resin type at any plant. Consequently,
relief valve discharges by individual
PVC plants (except for continuous
solution process plants) were classified
according to type of discharge (i.e.,
reactor vs. nonreactor) and the reactor
discharges were separated by resin
type. Nonreactor discharge sources at
PVC plants include blowdown tanks,
transfer lines, and storage vessels.
Because usage of this equipment is also
related to some extent to the frequency
of batch polymerization operations, the
relief valve discharge performance by
nonreactor sources in PVC plants with
batch production processes was also
examined on the basis of number of
discharges/100 batches.
  Unlike the batch process used  to
produce other PVC resin types, the
solution PVC process is continuous.
Thus relief valve discharge performance
for the  solution PVC process cannot be
expressed on a frequency per batch
basis. Instead, the relief valve discharge
performance associated with the
solution production process can only be
expressed in terms of the total number
of discharges (reactor &nd nonreactor)
per year.
  Similarly, the EDC/VC production
process is not a batch process, but is
continuous. Thus, relief valve discharge
performance by EDC/VC plants  also
cannot be expressed on a frequency per
batch basis. Moreover, the EPA was
unable to detect a direct relationship
between discharge frequency and VC
production at EDC/VC plants. Thus, the
EPA decided to define releif valve
 discharge performance for EDC/VC
plants on the basis of a total number of
 annual discharges.
  Findings. PVC Reactor Discharges.
 Suspension resins account for the
 highest percentage of total PVC
 production. The remaining PVC
 production is in the form of bulk,
 dispersion and solution, resins. (A small
 amount of latex resin is produced by a
 process closely related to the dispersion
 process.) Examination of relief valve
 discharge performance associated with
production of suspension and bulk
resins indicates that reactor discharge
frequency generally is either less than
0.035 discharges/100 batches or is much
greater. (Recent reactor discharge
frequencies for suspension resin plants
with poorer performance levels ranged
between 0.059 and 0.101 discharges/100
batches.) Further examination of relief
valve discharge performance by
suspension resin producers indicates
that only one plant experienced more
than 4 discharges per year during the
period from 1981 to 1983. Performance
by this plant also exceeded 0.035
discharges/100 batches.
  The reactor discharge frequency
associated with dispersion and latex
production is typically zero. However,
for a typical dispersion or latex resin
process with a low production rate (i.e.,
number of polymerization batches per
year), a single emergency reactor
discharge in a given year would be
equivalent to a discharge frequency of
about 0.035 discharges/100 batches.
  Nonreactor Discharges. Nonreactor
discharge frequencies by PVC plants
typically were either less than 0.025
discharges/100 batches or were much
greater. (Recent nonreactor discharge
frequencies reflecting poorer
performance than the  0.025 level ranged
between 0.046 and 0.225 discharges/100
batches.) Furthermore, with the
exception of two producers, no more
than three discharges  per year were
reported from nonreactor sources in
PVC plants during the period from  1981
to 1983.
  Each of the five PVC plants that  the
EPA evaluated in detail was among
those achieving 0.035  discharges/100
batches or less in each of the reactor
discharge categories and 0.025
discharges/100 batches or less in the
nonreactor discharge  category. The EPA
examined individual discharge incidents
for the PVC producers whose recent
performance has exceeded 0.035
discharges/100 batches'in one or more
of the reactor discharge categories or
who exceeded 0.025 discharges/100
batches and 3 discharges per year  from
nonreactor sources. In every case,  the
EPA identified one or more discharges
that were preventable. Elimination of
these preventable discharges indicates
that these producers should have
 achieved discharge frequencies
comparable to the five PVC plants that
 the EPA evaluated in detail.
   Solution PVC Process. Discharge
 frequency from both reactor and
 nonreactor sources by the single plant
 producing PVC by the solution process
 was zero during the period 1981 to 1983.
 Previously, this plant experienced  as
 many as two discharges in a 12-month
period. Recent performance suggests
that preventable discharges have been
eliminated at this plant. With the
exception of a potential emergency
discharge occurrence, future discharges
at this plant are not anticipated.
  EDC/VC Discharges. During the
review study, the EPA evaluated
performance by one EDC/VC plant in
detail. This plant experienced about four
discharges that could be considered
emergencies. Recent (1981 to 1983) relief
valve discharge performance data for
other EDC/VC producers indicates an
industry range of 0 to 7 discharges/yr.
Information obtained from plants during
the review indicated that, where
applicable, similar types of equipment,
process modifications and operational
procedures used to control relief valve
discharges from  PVC plants also are
used at EDC/VC pants. The EPA
examined discharges by the EDC/VC
producers who exceeded four
discharges in one or more years since
1981 and found that one or more of the
discharges at each plant were
preventable. Elimination of the
preventable discharges would allow
each of these plants to reduce their
annual discharge frequency to four or
fewer.
  Summary of Numerical Limits. Based
on the study of current relief valve
discharge performance by PVC and
EDC/VC plants, the EPA is proposing
that the following numerical limits for
relief valve discharges be added to the
standard. Each discharge causing an
exceedence of any numerical limit
presented below would be considered a
violation without regard to whether any
individual discharge was preventable.
       Category
 (1)  Discharges  from  PVC
  plants (suspension. Asper-
  sion, latex, bulk processes)
  (a) Reactors:
    —suspension resin proc-
     ess.

    —dispersion resm proc-
     ess (including  latex
     resin).
    —bulk resm process	

  (B) Nonreactor sources	
 (2)  Discharges  from PVC
  plants (solution and other
  continuous processes).
 (3) Discharges from EDC/VC
  plants.
                         Numerical tomrt
0 03S      discharges/100
 batches, not exceeding 4
 tkscnarges/yr.
0035      discharges/100
 batches.

0035      discharges/100
 batches
0025      discharges/100
 batches, not exceeding 3
 discharges/yr.
1 discharge/yr.
4 discharges/yr.
   Compliance Provisions. The EPA
 recognizes that all plants may
 experience an unavoidable relief valve
 discharge incident at some time.
 Examination of relief valve discharge
 performance by PVC plants with low
                                                        V-F-8
-------
              Federal Register / Vol.  50. No. 6 / Wednesday. January 9.  1985 / Proposed Rules
discharge frequencies indicated that
plants with the lowest polymerization
batch frequencies typically experience
about one discharge in a 12-month
period. The EPA concluded that for most
plants a 12-month reporting period
(rolling every 6-months) was both
suitable and appropriate for determining
compliance with the proposed numerical
limits. For plants producing only a small
amount of a particular resin (i.e., low
number of polymerization batches), an
apparent violation of the standard may
result from  a single discharge
occurrence  during a 12-month
compliance period as described below.
  For a PVC plant producing a single
resin type to meet the numerical limit for
reactor discharges (i.e., 0.035
discharges/100 batches), it must
experience  and average of no more than
one discharge per 2,858 polymerization
batches over the preceding 12-month
period. An average reactor discharge
frequency exceeding one discharge per
2,858 batches would be a violation of the
standard. However, if the plant made
less  than 2,858 polymerization batches
over the 12-month compliance period,  a
single discharge occurrence would be  an
apparent violation of the standard (i.e.,
the discharge frequency per 100 batches
would exceed 0.035). Because
insufficient batches were made, the
reported discharge frequency per 100
batches would not correctly reflect the
performance by that plant in comparison
to other plants complying with the
standard. In rectifying the undue
compliance burden posed on plants with
small numbers of batches by the
discharge/100 batch format and the
selected 12-month compliance period,
the EPA is proposing to add additional
provisions affecting the number of
batches used to calculate the discharge
frequency. For PVC plants producing
less  than 2,858 batches of a particular
resin, the minimum'number of 2,858
batches will be used when determining
compliance with the numerical limits.
  PVC plants producing more than one
resin type must demonstrate compliance
separately for reactor discharges
occurring from different resin production
processes. Only the relief valve
discharges and polymerization batches
specific to each resin type are
considered for determining compliance.
However, for determining compliance
with the standard for nonreactor
discharges, the total number of
polymerization batches (regardless of
resin type) are counted.
  To determine the number of
polymerization batches produced for
purposes of assessing compliance, the
following guidelines apply. A
"polymerization batch" consists of each
sequence of charging VC and other
materials to the reactor, heating reactor,
contents, polymerization of reactor
contents, and removal (i.e., blowdown)
of reactor contents. Any batch that is
aborted following charging of VC to the
reactor is nonetheless  counted as a
polymerization batch in assessing
compliance. For PVC plants producing
bulk resin, a single "polymerization
batch" includes both prepolymerization
and postpolymerization reactor
operations.
  Discharge frequency can be recorded
in two ways. Discharge frequency can
be recorded on the basis of discharge
events (involving discharges from one or
more relief valves) or on individual
relief valve discharges. In most cases,
plants currently report discharges
individually when they occur from relief
valves on separate equipment. However,
certain equipment such as
polymerization reactors that are
equipped with multiple relief valves may
experience discharges simultaneously
from more than .one relief valve. Most
plants currently report such multiple
discharges  from a single piece of
equipment as a single discharge. Thus,
the performance  levels serving as the
basis for the numerical limits represent
individual discharges and not multiple
discharge events except when they
occur from  a single piece of equipment.
For determining compliance with the
numerical limits, discharge frequency  is
to be recorded on the basis of individual
discharges  except when simultaneous
discharges  occur from relief valves on
the same piece of equipment.
  A relief valve discharge in considered
to be any venting through a pressure
relief device to prevent or relieve an
overpressure condition from equipment
in VC service that results in emissions
of VC directly or indirectly to the
atmosphere. In determining whether or
not a relief valve discharge results in
emissions to the  atmosphere, the
controlling factor is the ultimate
disposition of the gases. Venting to a
manifold or header system that
ultimately discharges to the atdmsphere
constitutes a relief valve discharge. If
the manifold or header discharges gases
through a control device meeting  the 10
ppmv VC emission limit, the venting
does not constitute a relief valve
discharge.
  For purposes of reporting compliance
status with the limits, plants will  be
required to calculate their discharge per
batch frequencies with sufficient
precision to demonstrate that
performance is either equal to, below  of
in excess of the limits. Based on
operating history, relief valve discharge
performance by certain plants is
expected to be much better than the
respective limits. For example, some
new suspension resin PVC plants
produce about 5, 000 batches during a
12-month compliance period. One and
two discharges at one of these plants
during a compliance period would result
in a discharge performance of 0.02 and
0.05 discharges per 100 batches,
respectively. The second discharge
during the compliance period would be
a violation of the proposed 0.035
discharges per 100 batches limit despite
the fact that the first discharge would
result in performance well below the
limit. These types of plants were
considered in selecting the proposed
limits and reporting procedures for relief
valve discharges. The result that plants
of this type must perform well below the
limits in the standard in order to be in
compliance is consistent with the
proposed limits, which were  selected to
represent an upper boundary on the
number of allowable discharges
intended by the standard. The EPA
expects that plants using the best
technology and procedures should be
able to perform better than the proposed
limits.
  Reporting Requirements. The current
standard for relief valve discharges
requires producers to report discharges
within 10 days of the incident. The EPA
is proposing to eliminate the  10 day
reporting requirements and to require
reporting of all discharges  on a quarterly
basis. Although compliance is to be
determined on a semiannual  basis,
quarterly reporting of discharges is
appropriate because violations of the
standard may occur well before the end
of the 6-month period. Quarterly
reporting notifies enforcement personnel
of potential violations and violations
that have already occurred prior to the
end of the compliance period so that
corrective actions can take place sooner
following the end of the compliance
period. Information to be included in the
semiannual report for individual relief
valve discharges is to be reduced to
include only the date, time, source,
cause and estimated amount of each
discharge  occurrence. The semiannual
report will also inlcude information on
compliance status.
  In addition, plants will now be
required to maintain relief valve
discharge  records for 3 years, because of
the potentially significant increase in the
time period between a discharge
occurrence and reporting of the
discharge.
  Effective Date of Revision. The
current standard as written will remain
                                                      V-F-9
-------
              Federal Register / Vol. 50, No.  6 / Wednesday,  January 9, 1985  /  Proposed Rules
in effect for relief valve discharges until
the proposed revisions are promulgated.
The proposed administrative revisions
do not change the standard's original
intent and are intended only to set limits
to facilitate compliance and
enforcement efforts. Thus, the  current
standard will continue to be enforced
until the revisions are promulgated.

Stripping-in-Reactor Compliance Test
Procedure

  The test method for measuring reactor
opening losses was developed for resin
stripping operations that take place in
vessels separate from the reactor. Some
PVC plants, including all bulk  resin
manufacturers, however, do not use
separate strippers to remove residual
VC from the resin produced. Instead,
these plants strip VC from the product
resin in the reactor (postpolymerizatioB
reactor in the case of bulk resin
producers). For plants with reactor resin
stripping operations, the concentration
of VC in the reactor vapor space, as
measured in accordance with  the
current standard, exceeds the  0.02g/kg
of PVC requirement. The high
concentrations result form VC monomer
diffusing from the resin into the vapor
space during the period following
completion of the stripping operation
(normally occurring under a vacuum that
must be broken before the reactor can
be emptied) and before the reactor is
completely emptied of PVC resin.
According to the Federal Register notice
of promulgation of the current VC
standard (40 FR 46563, October 21,1976),
any VC escaping from the resin after it
has been stripped to acceptable levels is
not intended to be counted  as part of the
reactor opening loss. However, the
current standard did not include in the
measurement method an acceptable
method for determining what  part of the
VC in the vapor space has escaped from
 the resin after stripping is completed.
   The current standard allows bulk
 resin producers to calculate reactor
 opening loss emissions from the
 postpolymerization reactor based on the
 number of reactor evacuations, the
 vacuum invloved and the volume of gas
 in the reactors. For nonbulk resin
 producers with reactor resin stripping
 operations, calculation of reactor
 opening loss emissions is more
 complicated due to the presence of
 water vapor in the reactor vapor space.
 Currently, waivers of testing for
 producers with  nonbulk resin stripping
 operations in the reactor have been
 granted on a case-by-case basis by the
 EPA Regions, typically with the
 provision that residual VC samples  are
 anlayzed on each batch. A variety of
 calculation methods are then used to
 establish the reactor opening loss.
   Based on experience of the EPA
 Regional offices, a method for
 determining the reactor opening loss
 that accounts for stripping in the reactor
 has been developed for use by all
 nonbulk resin producers with reactor
 resin stripping operations and is
 included in the proposed revisions to the
 current VC standard. Limitations for
 resin residual and reactor opening loss
 are added together to give a total
 allowable VC content from these two
 sources. The measured resin residual
 VC and the calculated reactor opening
 loss would then be added together, and
 averaged over a 24-hour period
 according to resin type. If the 24-hour
 average meets the combined standard,
 the plant would be considered to be in
 compliance with both the stripping and
 the reactor opening loss requirements.

 Leak Detection  and Repair
   Background, The current standard
 requires implementation of a formalized
 program for detection of leaks from
 equipment in VC service and
 elimination of these leaks. The
 formalized program includes a
 multipoint VC detector and a portable
 volatile organic compound (VOC)
 analyzer. The fixed-point monitoring
 system continuously monitors VC
 concentrations in the work area around
 equipment in VC service and sounds an
 alarm when concentrations exceed a
 prescribed level. The portable monitor is
 used independently to screen individual
 equipment components for leaks. Rather
 than specifying the number of points to
 be monitored, the sensitivities of the
 multipoint detector, the VC
 concentration that indicates a leak, and
 the actions to be taken to repair leaks,
 the current standard requires each plant
 owner or operator to prepare a program
 plan containing these specifications and
 to submit the plan to the EPA for
 approval. Plant owners or operators are
 required to submit data on background
 concentrations of VC in different areas
 of the plant to use in determining the  VC
 concentration that should be designated
 as indicating a  leak. Plans, therefore,
 were tailored by each plant and
 reviewed by the the EPA Regional
 Offices.
    The EPA found in the review study
  that differences in leak detection and
  elimination programs exist among PVC
  and EDC/VC production plants and
  miscellaneous sources and that site-
  specific differences include variations in
  leak definitions and monitoring
- practices. The definition and monitoring
  practices, along with repair practices.
  are primary influences on the control
effectiveness of leak detection and
repair programs. Some plants
implemented rigorous programs and
others implemented programs lacking
specific procedures or requirements.
Accordingly, the effectiveness of leak
detection and elimination programs
varies among the plants.
  Since the current standard was
promulgated, the EPA has obtained
more information pertaining to  the
control of emission from equipment
leaks. Based on this information and the
review of the leak detection and
elimination plans being implemented to
control emissions of VC, the EPA
decided to specify leak detection and
repair requirements for certain
equipment components in VC service.
Although information obtained from
development of other standards
indicates that a routine leak detection
and repair program with a portable
monitor can be an effective emission
reduction technique without the
requirement of a fixed point monitoring
system, the  EPA concluded that fixed-
point monitoring systems already in
place have uses that justify their
retention in the current standard. In
particular, fixed-point monitors allow
for quick detection of certain large VC
leaks that might otherwise go
undetected until the next routine
portable monitor screening. The EPA
recognizes that existing fixed-point
monitoring plans will need to be
reviewed in light of the leak detection
and repair requirements being specified
at this time. The complexity of existing
fixed-point monitoring plans, in terms of
number and distribution of monitoring
points, varies greatly among plants.
Consequently, some plant owners or
operators may want to alter the number
of points that are monitored and the
distribution of monitoring locations to
better complement the specified
portable monitoring requirements. Such
changes to existing fixed-point
monitoring  plans will be allowed
providing they do not alter the plant's
ability to detect large VC leaks.
  The proposed revisions are primarily
intended to standardize control of VC
emissions from equipment leaks. In
doing this, the EPA is concerned that
existing effective plans not be
 inappropriately changed. The proposed
 revisions include provisions that allow
 plants with existing effective plans to
 periodically demonstrate the
 effectiveness of their plans without
 additional requirements. Accordingly,
 the EPA requests comments from
 industry representatives concerning the
 specific effects of  specifying leak
                                                       V-F-10
-------
              Federal Register  /  Vol. 50,  No. 6 /  Wednesday, January 9, 1985 /  Proposed Rules
detection and repair requirements on
effective existing plans.
  Leak Detection and Repair
Requirements. The EPA established leak
detection and repair requirements (40
•CFR Part 61 Subpart V) for certain
equipment in volatile hazardous air
pollutant (VHAP) service on June 6,
1984. These requirements were
established in conjunction with the final
standard for benzene equipment leaks.
The requirements of Subpart V generally
apply to pumps, compressors, pressure
relief devices, sampling connection
systems, open-ended valves or lines,
valves, flanges and other connectors,
and product accumulator vessels. These
requirements reflect the level of control
that the EPA considers reasonable for
equipment covered by developing
standards for VHAP. The EPA is
therefore proposing to add VC to the list
of substances covered by Subpart V.
  Subpart V would substantively affect
only valves and flanges in VC service
within this industry. All other equipment
in VC service  are already required by
the VC standard to comply  with
equipment and work practice standards
consistent with those in Subpart V. For
example, pumps and compressors
meeting the dual mechanical seal
requirements of the current VC standard
will be in compliance with the Subpart
V requirements. In addition, the
sampling connection systems
requirements of Subpart V are
essentially the same as the  current
standard. The use of rupture discs for
controlling leaks from pressure relief
devices, as required by the  VC standard,
is consistent with the "no detectable
emissions" requirement included in
Subpart V. Requirements for controlling
leaks from pressure relief devices are
described in more  detail later in this
 section. Thus, Subpart V will affect
 primarily valves and flanges in VC
 service by requiring a specific
 monitoring schedule, leak definition and
repair provisions.
   Compliance with the provisions of
 Subpart V will be used to determine
 compliance with the portable monitor
 leak detection and elimination
 requirements  in the current VC standard
 (40 CFR 61.65(b)(8)(ii)), and therefore,
 the current standard is being revised to
 reflect this change. However, process
 units within VC and PVC plants in
 which the percentage of leaking valves
 is equal to or less than 2.0 percent are
 considered by the EPA to be effectively
 controlling VC emissions from leaking
 valves. For these process units, the
 existing leak detection and elimination
 program will continue to be allowed
 while the percentage of leaking valves is
2.0 percent or less. Any process unit in
which the percentage of leaking valves
is found to exceed 2.0 percent will be
required to comply with the provisions
of Subpart V.
  The Subpart V requirements for
valves are based on a leak detection
and repair program that requires (1)
monthly monitoring for valves in gas/
vapor and light liquid service, (2)  an
initial attempt at repairing these valves
within 5 days after detection of a  leak,
(3) repair of leaking valves within 15
days after detection of the leak unless
repair would require a process unit
shutdown, and (4) repair of valves
during the next process unit shutdown
after repair is delayed until a process
unit shutdown. Valves found not to leak
for 2 successive months can be
monitored quarterly until leaks are
detected. Monitoring of equipment to
detect leaks is conducted in accordance
with Method 21 and a leak is defined  as
a measured organic concentration equal
to or greater than 10,000 parts per
million by volume (ppvm). For a
complete description of the leak
detection and repair requirements, see
Subpart V (49 FR 23498, June 6,1984).
  In addition, Subpart V contains
standards for other types of equipment
(e.g., flanges, and open ended valves or
lines). Standards for flanges include
monitoring with a portable instrument
under prescribed procedures within 5
days of observing evidence of a
potential leak by visual, audible or other
means. Open-ended valves or lines are
required to be capped, blinded or fitted
with a second valve. These provisions
are not expected to significantly affect
producers with these types of equipment
in VC service. The equipment and
procedures employed as normal practice
by these producers or as a result  of the
current VC standard are expected
generally to ensure compliance with
Subpart V.
  Pressure Relief Devices. The EPA
proposed and promulgated the work
practices, equipment, design and
operational standards in the current
standard before explicit legal authority
existed in Section 112. These
requirements are found in i 61.65(b). In
August of 1977, Congress amended
Section 112 to allow the use of these
requirements. Section 112 of the Clean
Air Act requires that an emission
standard (i.e., a performance standard)
be established for control of a
hazardous air pollutant unless, in the
judgment of the EPA, it is not feasible to
prescribe or enforce such a standard. An
emission standard allows for some
flexibility in complying with the
standard, since any control technique
that achieves that standard may be
applied. Section 112(e)(2) defines the
following conditions under which it is
not feadible to prescribe or enforce an
emission standard: (1) If the pollutants
cannot be emitted through a conveyance
designed and constructed to emit or
capture the pollutant; or (2) if the
application of measurement
methodology is not practicable due to
technological or economic limitations.
Section 112(e)(l) allows that if an
emission standard is not feasible to
prescribe or endorce, then the EPA may
istead promulgate a design, equipment,
work practice, or operational standard.
or combination thereof.
  The EPA has reviewed the design,
equipment, work practice and
operational requirements contained in
the current VC standard. The only
sources covered by the current standard
with one of the requirements for which a
performance standard (i.e., an emission
standard) is feasible are pressure relief
devices. As discussed below, the EPA is
setting a "no detectable emissions" limit
for these sources. For the other sources,
the EPA is reinstating those
requirements as set forth in the current
standard.
  The EPA selected the use of rupture
disks as the basis for the current
standard for pressure relief devices.
When the integrity of ruptures disks is
maintained, equipment leaks through the
relief device are eliminated. Rupture
disks normally maintain their integrity
unless an overpressure occurs. After the
occurrence of an overpressure,
replacement of the rupture disk once
again eliminates equipment leaks of VC
through the pressure relief device.
  For emission control techniques that
eliminate equipment leaks, such as the
use of rupture disks, a "no detectable
emissions" limit is feasible. An
instrument reading of less than 500 parts
per million by volume (ppmv) above a
background concentration based on
Reference Method 21 can be used to
indicate whether equipment leaks have
been eliminated; that is, that the
equipment has "no detectable
emissions."
   The "no  detectable emission" limit
would not apply to discharges through
the pressure relief device during
overpressure relief. (These releases are
covered under §5 61.64(a) and 61.65(a).)
The standard would specify, however.
that the relief device be returned to a
state of "no detectable emissions"
within 5 days after such a discharge.
The standard would further require an
annual test to verify the "no detectable
emissions" status of the pressure relief
devices and a test after each over
                                                      V-F-11
-------
              Federal Register / Vol. 50. No.  6 / Wednesday.  January 9, 1985  / Proposed Rules
pressure relief. This administrative
rhftnge implements the basis of this
standard consistent with the
requirements of Section 112(e|.

Miscellaneous Revisions
  Based on discussions with the EPA
regional personnel regarding their
experience in administering the current
VC standard, the EPA is proposing
several additional administrative
revisions that would facilitate
compliance and enforcement efforts
associated with the current standard.
These revisions represent minor changes
to the standard. A brief description of  >
these administrative revisions and the
basis for making them follows.
  Definition of Leak, Exhaust Gas and
Relief Valve Discharge, Functional
definitions of "leak", "exhaust gas" and
"relief valve discharge" are being added
to the standard to clarify the
applicability of the  standard to each of
these types of VC emissions. During
their review of enforcement and
compliance experience since the
standard was promulgated, the EPA
discovered several  cases of confusion
over the intended meaning of "leak",
"exhaust gas" and "relief valve
discharge." These three distinct
categories of VC emissions are being
defined in the revised standard to   (
provide compliance and industry
personnel with a clear understanding of
which part of the standard applies to
any given discharge of VC emissions to
the atomosphere.
  Definition ofEDCand VC
Purification. In the  past, some plants
have misinterpreted which equipment
components are included in EDC
purification and VC purification
processes with the  result that emissions
from certain equipment intended to be
covered by the standard may not have
been controlled. The definitions of "EDC
purification" and "VC purification" are
being revised to clarify that all
purification equipment following EDC
and VC formation were subject to
regulation under the current standard.
   Wppmv Standard. Two clarifying
revisions are being made to the 10 ppmv
regulations to improve understanding of
the applicability of this part of the
standard. First although the test method
for determining compliance with the 10
ppmv standard specifies that the
average results from three 1-hour
sampling runs be used, this 3-hour
averaging period is not specified in the
10 ppmv requirements. Specifying that
emissions may not exceed 10 ppmv over
a 3-hour averaging period clarifies that
instantaneous compliance with the 10
ppmv standard is not an intended
requirement Moreover, specification of
the 3-hour averaging period is intended
to clarify that the 10 ppmv standard
applies to VC emissions in  all exhaust
gas streams covered by the 10 ppmv
requirements. Including any control
device bypass streams. Requirements
for calculating the VC content in
bypassed emissions for purposes of
reporting VC emissions in excess of the
10 ppmv standard are being added to
the regulation. The EPA may  use these
calculations along with continuous
emission monitoring results as
indications of noncompliance if they
show clearly that emissions in excess of
the 10 ppmv requirements occurred.
  The second clarifying revision to the
10 ppmv standard involves the
specification that the 10 ppmv
requirements apply to each exhaust gas
stream from the covered equipment The
purpose of this revision is to clearly
prohibit plants from using dilution with
other exhaust gas streams as a
technique for meeting the 10 ppmv
requirement This revision is  not
intended to prohibit the common
practice of combining two or more
exhaust gas streams in a common
header leading to a control device.
According to the revised 10 ppmv
requirements, combining an exhaust gas
stream containing more than 10 ppmv
VC with another exhaust gas stream
containing less than 10 ppmv VC is
allowed only when the combined stream
is ducted to the control device.
  Relief VaJve Definition. The current
standard for relief valve discharges was
intended to apply not only  to safety
relief valves but to all types of presswe
relief devices. A definition  of "relief
valve" is being proposed under the
revised standard to clarify  that the
current relief valve discharge standard
also applied-to rupture discs, manual
vents and other pressure relief device*
that vent to the atmosphere to protect
process  equipment from unsafe
overpressure conditions. The definition
of relief valve in the proposed standard
is not intended to include pressure
control valves used to control flow to an
incinerator or other control device.
However, the current relief valve
discharge standard did cover emissions
from pressure control valves. Also not
included in the definition of relief valve
are pressure control systems such as
polymerization reaction shortstop
systems or refrigerated water systems
which act to reduce pressure by means
other than venting.
  Reactor Opening Lac* Requirements
for Bulk PVC Resin Producers. Bulk
PVC resin production differs from
production of other types of PVC resin
in that the polymerization reaction is
carried out in two separate vessels. The
reaction is initiated in the
"prepolymerization" reactor and the
reactor contents are then transferred to
the "postpolymerization" reactor where
the reaction is completed. Stripping of
residual VC in bulk resin is performed
following the postpolymerization step in
the reactor vessel. The
postpolymerization reactor generally is
opened after every batch and must
comply with the reactor opening loss
limits specified  in the standard. Because
the prepolymerization reactor is opened
less frequently and because
determination of gross product (for
reactor opening loss estimation) is
difficult the EPA has allowed plants to
iroet the equipment opening
requirements for minimizing VC
emissions from  polymerization reactor
openings. The reactor opening loss
requirements are being revised  at this
time to specifically exclude
prepolymerization reactors.
Accordingly,  VC emissions from all
opening of prepolymerization reactors
will be subject to  the equipment opening
requirements. This revision is intended
to clarify and improve the consistency
of the equirements of the revised
standard as they apply to bulk PVC
resin producers in light of actual
industry practice. No reduction in VC
emission control stringency will result
from the change in requirements for
prepolymerization reactors.
  Inprocess Wastewater Requirements
for Gasholder Seals. Under the current
standards, the VC content of inprocess
wastewater must  be reduced to less
than 10 ppm exposure of the wastewater
to the atmosphere. In the case of
gasholder water seals, the VC content in
the exposed water seal may exceed 10
ppm during normal operation of the
gasholder. Experience since the
standard was promulgated indicates
that compliance with the atmospheric
exposure limit is not practicable for this
particular inprocess wastewater source.
Consequently, the definition of
inprocess wastewater is being revised to
exclude the exposed water seal of
gasholders. The inprocess wastewater
stripping requirements will continue  to
apply to wastewater after removal from
the gasholder seal
  Elimination of 30-Day Limit am
Equivalency Requests, The current
standard specifies a 30-day limit for
existing sources to submit requests for
use of equivalent  methods. Because such
a limit poses  a restriction on initiative
by industry to develop alternative, and
potentially more effective, control
measures, the 30-day limitation is being
eliminated.
                                                     V-F-12
-------
              Federal Register / Vol. 50, No.  6 / Wednesday, January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules
  Other. In addition to the revisions
described above, a review of the
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements of the current standard
was performed to identify ways to ease
recordkeeping and reporting burden on
plants and to identify any additional
recordkeeping and/or reporting needs.
The EPA identified two areas where the
reporting burden on plants could be
reduced. The current reporting
requirements for residual VC monomer
specifications and reactor opening
measurements require that results of all
compliance tests be reported in
semiannual reports. The EPA is
proposing to allow plants to report only
test results that show exceedences of
the respective standards. If no
exceedences occur, plants will be
required to indicate that fact in the
semiannual report. This type of
exception reporting is currently allowed
for demonstration of compliance with
the 10 ppmv standard for process vents
The second area is the requirement to
report relief valve discharges within 10
days of their occurrence. The EPA is
proposing to allow plants to report relief
valve discharge occurrences on a
quarterly basis rather than within 10
days of their occurrence. Furthermore,
the reporting requirements for relief
valve discharges have been streamlined
by dropping the need to report actions
taken and implemented preventive
measures for each discharge.
Information on the date, time, source,
cause and estimated amount of
individual relief valve discharge  will be
included with the semiannual reports
along with information on compliance
status.
  Additional semiannual reporting
requirements being added for PVC
producers are the number of reactor
openings and the design capacity
number of polymerization batches for
each resin type. This requirement will
provide general information to facilitate
review of industry-wide compliance
status during past reporting periods.
  Specific recordkeeping and reporting
requirements are included as part of the
revisions to the leak detection and
repair requirements. The recordkeeping
requirements include preparation of an
initial log to record equipment
component identification, physical
tagging of equipment components which
leak, and maintaining a record of
equipment leaks and repair action.
Included in the reporting requirements
are the number of equipment leaks and
the repair status of leaking components.
Depending on the particular leak
detection and repair program in place,
these requirements may represent an
increase or decrease in the overall
recordkeeping and reporting currently
practiced by individual plants.
  The EPA concluded that the current
recordkeeping requirements, as
specified in 40 CFR 61.71, are still
appropriate. However, the EPA is
proposing to extend the current
recordkeeping requirements for all
reporting activities from 2 to 3 years.
  The net impact of the revised
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements proposed by the EPA is
estimated to be a decrease in a
paperwork burden of about 2.8 person-
years.
  It should be noted that all
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) Section 101(14)
hazardous substances such as vinyl
chloride are subject to reporting
requirements under Section 103(a) of
CERCLA. CERCLA requires that persons
in charge of vessels or facilities from
which hazardous substances have been
released in quantities (RQs)
immediately notify the National
Response Center (NRG) of the release.
The toll-free 24-hour telephone number
of the NRC is 800-424-8802 and in
Washington, D.C. metropolitan  area it is
(202) 426-2675. (See CERCLA Section
103 and 48 FR 235S2, May 25,1983.)
  Vinyl chloride was assigned a
statutory 1 pound importable quantity
under Section 101(14) until adjusted by
regulation, and is presently undergoing
assessment for both chronic toxicity and
carcinogenicity. Its RQ will be adjusted
pending the outcome  of these reviews by
the Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response. Federally permitted releases
under CERCLA (See CERCLA Section
101(1) and 48 FR 23552) are not subject
to CERLA notification requirements or
liabilities. However, releases of
hazardous substances that are not
subject to a permit or control regulation
must be reported.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
  The Regulatory  Flexibility Act of 1980
requires that adverse effects of all
Federal regulations upon small
businesses be identified. According to
the current guidelines of the Small
Business Administration (SBA), a small
business that produces or processes VC
is one that has 500 employees or less.
Currently, none of the existing
producers or processors that are
affected by the standard are estimated
to be small by this definition. Since none
of the companies meets the SBA
definition of small business, no
regulatory flexibility analysis is
required. Even if an analysis were
required, the proposed administrative
revisions do not increase the cost of
compliance with the standard.

Public Hearing

~. If requested, a public hearing will be
held to discuss the proposed revisions to
the VC standard in accordance with
sections 112(b)(l)(B) and 307(d){5) of the
Clean Air Act Persons wishing to make
oral presentations on the proposed
revisions should contact die EPA at the
address given in the ADDRESSES section
of this preamble. Oral presentations wit)
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 the EPA's
Central Docket Section in Washington,
D.C. (see ADDRESSES section of this
preamble).

Docket

  The docket is an organized and
complete file of all the information
submitted to or otherwise considered by
the EPA in the development of this
proposed rulemaking. The principal
purposes of the docket are: (1) To allow
interested parties to identify and locate
documents so that they can effectively
participate in the rulemaking process,
and (2) to serve as the record in case ol
judicial review (except for interagency
review materials [§ 307(d)(7(A)]).

Miscellaneous

  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 health, and
economic and technological issues.
  The information collection
requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to  the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Comments on these requirements should
be submitted to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of
OMB, marked "Attention: Desk Officer
for EPA", as well as to the EPA docket
described above. The final rule  will
respond to any OMB or public
comments on the information collection
requirements.
                                                   V-F-13
-------
              Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9,  1985 / Proposed  Rules
  Under Executive Order 12291, the EPA
must judge whether a regulation is
"major" and therefore subject to the
requirement of a Regulatory Impact
Analysis. This regulation is not major
because: (1) The national annualized
compliance costs, including capital
charges resulting from the standards
total less than $100 million; (2) the
standards do not cause a major increase
in prices or production costs; and (3) the
standards do not cause significant
adverse effects on domestic competition,
employment, investment, productivity,
innovation or competition in foreign
markets.
  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 included in Docket
Number A-81-21. The docket is
available for public inspection at  EPA's
Central Docket Section, West Tower
Lobby, Gallery 1, Waterside Mall, 401M
Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20460.
  Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
605(b), I hereby certify that this rule, if
promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial.
number of small entities because  no
small entities are affected.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 61
  Air pollution control, Asbestos,
Beryllium, Hazardous materials,
Mercury, Vinyl chloride.
  Dated: Dated December 31,1984.
Alvin L. Aim,
 \cting Administrator.

PART 61-1 AMENDED]
  It is proposed to amend 40 CFR Part
61 as follows:                 	
  1. The proposed changes to 40 CFR
Part 61 proposed at 42 FR 28154, June 2,
1977 are withdrawn.
  2. By revising the definitions in
existing S 61.61(j), (1), (o) and (p)  for "in
process wastewater", "in vinyl chloride
service",  "ethylene dichloride
purification" and "vinyl chloride
purification" and by adding definitions
for the terms "relief value", "leak",
 "exhaust gas", "relief valve discharge
and "3-hour period"  in new paragraphs
(v), (w), (x), (y) and (z).

§61.61  Definition*.
 *****
   (j) "Inprocess wasterwater" means
 any water which, during manufacturing
 or processing, comes into direct contact
 with vinyl chloride or polyvinyl chloride
 or results from the production or use of
 any raw material, intermediate product,
 finished product, by-product, or waste
product containing vinyl chloride or
polyvinyl chloride but which has not
been discharged to a wastewater
treatment process or discharged
untreated as wastewater. Gas-holder
seal water is not inprocess wastewater
until it is removed from the gasholder.
*****
  (1) "In vinyl chloride service" means
that a piece of equipment either contains
or contacts a liquid that is at least 10
percent vinyl chloride by weight or a gas
that is at least 10 percent by volume
vinyl chloride as determined according
to the provisions of § 61.67(h). The
provisions of § 61.67(h) also specify how
to determine that a piece of equipment is
not in vinyl chloride service. This
definition must be used in place of the
definition of "VHAP service" in Subpart
V of this part.
*****
  (o) "Ethylene dichloride purification"
includes any part of the process of
ethylene dichloride production which
follows ethylene dichloride formation.
  (p) "Vinyl chloride purification"
includes any part of the process of vinyl
chloride production which follows vinyl
chloride formation.
*****
  (v) "Relief valve" means each
pressure relief device including pressure
relief valves, rupture disks, manual
vents and other pressure relief systems
used to protect process components
from overpressure conditions. "Relief
valve" does not include control valves
used to control flow to an incinerator or
other air pollution control device.
  (w) "Leak" means any of several
events that indicate interruption of
confinement of vinyl chloride within
process equipment. Leaks include events
regulated under Subpart V of this part
such as: (1) An instrument reading of
10,000 ppm or greater; (2) indications of
liquid dripping; (3) a sensor detection of
failure of a seal system, failure of a
barrier fluid system, or both; and (4)
detectable emissions as indicated by an
instrument reading of greater than 500
ppm above background. Leaks also
include events regulated under
 S 61.65(b)(8)(i) of detection of ambient
 concentrations in excess of background
concentration. Emissions of vinyl
chloride not regulated under § 61.61 (a)
 and (b); S 61.63(a); § 61.64 (a). (b), (c),
 (d), (e) and (f); and § 61.65 (a) and{b)(l),
      ,
 and (b}(9) shall be considered a leak. A
 relief valve discharge is not a leak.
   (x] "Exhaust gas" means any offgas
 discharged directly or ultimately to the
 atmosphere that was initially contained
 in or was in direct contact with the
 equipment for which 10 ppm emission
limits are prescribed in § 61.62 (a) and
(b): § 61.63{a); § 61.64 (a)(l), (a)(2), (b),
(c) and (d); § 61.65 (b)(l)(ii), (b)(2). (b)(5).
(b)(6)(ii) and (b)(9)(ii). A leak as defined
in paragraph (w) of this section is not an
exhaust gas.
  (y) "Relief valve discharge" means
any nonleak discharge through a relief
valve.
  (z) "3-hour period" means any three
consecutive 1-hour periods (each hour
commencing on the hour).
  3. By changing " all exhaust gases" to
"each exhaust gas stream" and making
other minor clarifying revisions in
§ 61.62(a), S 61.63(a), and § 61.64 (a)(l).
(b), (c) and (d) as follows:

S 61.62  Emission standard for ethytenc
dlchlorld* (Xante.
  (a) Ethylene dichloride purification:
The concentration of vinyl chloride in
each exhaust gas stream from any
equipment used in ethylene dichloride
purification is not to exceed 10 ppm
(average for 3-hour period or as
determined in accordance with
§ 61.67(g)(l)), except as provided in
§ 61.65(a). This requirement does not
preclude combining of exhaust gas
streams provided the combined steam is
ducted through a control system from
which the concentration of vinyl
chloride in the exhaust gases does not
exceed 10 ppm, or equivalent as
provided in § 61.66. This requirement
does not apply  to equipment that has
been opened, is out of operation, and
met the requirement in § 61.65(b)(6)(i)
before being opened.
 § 61.63  Emission standard for vinyl
 chloride plants.
   An owner or operator of a vinyl
 chloride plant shall comply with the
 requirements of this section and § 61.65
   (a) Vinyl chloride formation and
 purification: The concentration of vinyl
 chloride in each exhaust gas stream
 from any equipment used in vinyl
 chloride formation and/or purification is
 not to exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-houi
 period or as determined in accordance
 with § 61.67(g)(l)), except as provided in
 § 61.65(a).  This requirement does not
 preclude combining of exhaust gas
 streams provided the combined steam is
 ducted through a control system from
 which the  concentration of vinyl
 chloride in the exhaust gases does not
 exceed 10  ppm, or equivalent as
 provided in § 61.66. This requirement
 does not apply to equipment that has
 been opened, is out of operation, and
 met the requirement in § 61.65(b)(6)(i)
 before being opened.
                                                      V-F-14
-------
               Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 6 / Wednesday. January 9, 1985  / Proposed Rules
§ 61.64  Emission standard for polyvlnyl
chloride plants.
  An owner or operator of a polyvinyl
chloride plant shall comply with the
requirements of this section and § 61.65.
  (a) Reactor. The following
requirements apply to reactors:
  (1) The concentration of vinyl chloride
iki each exhaust gas stream from each
reactor is not to exceed 10 ppm (average
for 3-hour period or as determined in
accordance with § 61.67(g)(l)), except as
provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this
section and § 61.65[a).
*****

  (b) Stripper. The concentration of
vinyl chloride in each exhaust gas
stream from each stripper is not to
exceed 10 ppm (average for 3-hour
period or as determined in accordance
with § 61.67(g)(l)), except as provided in
§ 61.65(a). This requirement does not
apply to equipment that has been
opened, is out of operation, and met the
requirement in § 61.65(b)(6){i) before
being opened.
  (c) Mixing, weighing, and holding
containers. The concentration of vinyl
chloride in each exhaust gas stream
from each mixing, weighing, or holding
container in vinyl chloride service which
precedes the stripper (or the reactor if
the plant has no stripper) in the plant
process flow is not to exceed  10 ppm
(average for 3-hour period or as
determined in accordance with
§ 61.67(g)(l)), except as provided in
§ 61.65(a). This requirement does not
apply to equipment that has been
opened, is out of operation, and met the
requirement in § 61.65(b)(6)(i) before
being opened.
  (d) Monomer recovery system. The
concentration of vinyl chloride in each
exahust gas stream from each monomer
recovery system is not to exceed 10 ppm
(average for 3-hour period or as
determined in accordance with
I 61.67(g)(l)), except as provided in
§ 61.65(a). This requirement does not
apply to equipment that has been
opened, is out of operation, and met the
requirement in § 61.65(b)(6)(i) before
being opened.
*****
  4.  By revising existing paragraphs
§ 61.64(a)(2) and by removing (a)(3) as
follows:

§ 61.64  Emission standard for polyvinyl
chloride plants.
  An owner or operator of a polyvinyl
chloride plant shall comply with the
requirements of this section and § 61.65.
  (a) Reactor. The following
requirements apply to reactors:
  (2) The reactor opening loss from each
reactor is not to exceed 0.02 g vinyl
chloride/kg (0.00002 Ib vinyl chloride/lb)
of poly vinyl chloride product, except as
provided in paragraphs (f)(l) and (f)(2)
of this section, with the product
determined on a dry solids basis. This
requirement does not apply to
prepolymerization reactors  in the bulk
process. This requirement does apply to
postpolymerization reactors in the bulk
process, where the product  means the
gross product of prepolymerization and
postpolymerization.
*****

  5. By revising paragraph (e)
introductory text and adding paragraph
(e}(3) to S 61.64 as follows:   .

§ 61.64  Emission standard for polyvinyl
chloride plants.
*    * '   *    *    *

  (e) Sources following the  stripper(s).
The following requirements apply to
emissions of vinyl chloride to the
atmosphere from the combination of all
sources following the stripperfs) [or the
reactor(s) is the plant has no stripperfs)]
in the plant process flow including but
not limited to, centrifuges,
concentrators, blend tanks,  filters,
dryers, conveyor air discharges, baggers.
storage containers, and inprocess
wastewater, except as provided in
paragraph (f) of this section:
*****

  (3) The provisions of this  paragraph
apply at all times including when off-
specification or other types of resins are
made.

  6. By adding paragraph (f) to § 61.64
as follows:

§ 61.64  Emission standard for polyvinyl
chloride plants
*****

  (f) Reactor used as stripper. When a
nonbulk resin reactor is  used as a
stripper this paragraph may be applied
in lieu of §  61.64 (a)(2) and (e)(l):
  (1) The weighted average emissions of
vinyl chloride from reactor opening loss
and all sources following the reactor
used as a stripper from all grades of
polyvinyl chloride resin  stripped in the
reactor on each calendar day may not
exceed:
  (i) 202 g/kg (0.00202 Ib/lb) of polyvinyl
chloride product for dispersion polyvinyl
chloride resins, excluding latex resins,
with the product determined on a dry
solids basis.
  (ii) 0.42 g/kg (0.00042 Ib/lb) of
polyvinyl chloride product for all other
polyvinyl chloride resins, including latex
resins, with the product  determined on a
dry solids basis.
  7. By revising paragraph (a) to f 61.65
as follows:

§61.65 Emission standard for •thylene
dlchiorlde, vinyl chloride and polyvinyl
chloride plants
  An owner or operator of an ethylene
dichloride. vinyl chloride, and/or
polyvinyl chloride plant shall comply
with the requirements of this section.
  (a) Relief valve discharges. (1)
Polyvinyl chloride plants (suspension,
dispersion, latex, and bulk processes).
  (i) Reactor. The number of discharges
to the atmosphere from relief valves on
polyvinyl chloride reactors in vinyl
chloride service is not to exceed the
following limits except as provided in
paragraph (a)(l)(iii) of this section! For
all reactors producing suspension resins
within a PVC plant, the number of relief
valve discharges is not to exceed 0.035
discharges per 100 polymerization
batches nor 4 discharges per year. For
all reactors producing dispersion and
latex resins within a PVC plant, the
number of relief valve discharges is not
to exceed 0.035 discharges per 100
polymerization batches. For all reactors
including prepolymerization and
postpolymerization  reactors, producing
bulk resins within a PVC plant the
number of relief valve discharges is not
to exceed 0.035 discharges per 100
polymerization batches.
  (ii) The number of discharges  to the
atmosphere from relief valves on
equipment (excluding polyvinyl chloride
reactors) in vinyl chloride  service is not
to exceed 0.025 discharges per 100
polymerization batches nor 3 discharges
per year except as provided in
paragarph (a)(l)(sii) of this section.
  (iii) The limits specified  in paragraphs
(a)(l)(i) and (a)(l)(ii) of this section may
be exceeded when only one relief valve
discharge to the atmosphere occurs
during the 12-month period preceding
the close of the 6-month reporting
period.
  (2) Polyvinyl chloride plants (solution
and other continuous PVC production
processes). The number of discharges to
the atmosphere from relief valves on all
equipment in vinyl chloride service is
not to exceed 1 discharge per year.
   (3) Ethylene dichloride and vinyl
chloride plants. The number of
discharges to the atmosphere from relief
valves on equipment in vinyl chloride
service is not to exceed 4 discharges per
year.
  (4) Each relief valve discharge that
contributes to a relief valve discharge
frequency in excess of any limit
prescribed in paragarphs (a)(l),  (a)(2)
and  (a)(3) of this paragraph constitutes
                                                       V-F-15
-------
              Federal Register /  Vol.  50,  No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 1985 /  Proposed Rules
an individual violation of the respective
limit.
  (5) For every relief valve discharge to
the atmosphere, the owner or operator
shall record the identity of the source,
the date and time of the discharge, the
cause of the discharge, the approximate
total vinyl chloride loss during the
discharge, and the method used for
determining the vinyl chloride loss. This
information shall be submitted in
writing to the Administrator as part of
the reporting requirements of paragraph
§ 61.70, This information shall be
retained and made available for
inspection by the Administrator for a
minimum of 3 years.
  8. By revising paragraphs (b)(3),
(b)(8)(i), (b)(8)(iii), (bpKiv) and
(b)(8)(vi) to § 61.65 as follows:

§ 61.65  Emission standard for ethylene
dichlortde, vinyl chloride and polyvlnyl
chloride plants.
  An owner or operator of an ethylene
dichloride, vinyl chloride, and/or
polyvinyl chloride plant shall comply
with the requirements of this section.
  (a) * * *
  (b) Fugitive emission sources
  (1) * * *
  (2) * * *
   (3) Leakage from pump,  compressor,
and agitator seals: (i) Rotating pumps.
Vinyl chloride emissions from seals on
all rotating pumps in vinyl chloride
service are to be minimized by installing
sealless pumps,  pumps with  double
mechanical seals or equivalent as
provided in § 61.86. If double
mechanical seals are used, vinyl
chloride emissions from the  seals are to
be minimized by maintaining the
pressure between the two seals so that
any leak that occurs is into the pump; by
ducting any vinyl chloride between the
 two seals through a control system from
 which the concentration of vinyl
 chloride in the exhaust gases does not
exceed 10 ppm;  or equivalent as
provided in § 61.66.
   (ii) Reciprocating pumps. Vinyl
 chloride emissions from seals on all
 reciprocating pumps in vinyl chloride
 service are to be minimized by installing
 double outboard seals, or equivalent as
 provided in § 61.66. If double outboard
 seals are used, vinyl chloride emissions
 from the seals are to be minimized by
 maintaining the pressure between the
 two seals so that any leak that occurs is
 into the pump; by ducting any vinyl
 chloride between  the two seals through
 a control system from which the
 concentration of vinyl chloride in the
 exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm;
 or equivalent as provided in § 61.66.
   (iii) Rotating compressor. Vinyl
 chloride emissions from seals on all
rotating compressors in vinyl chloride
service are to be minimized by installing
compressors with double mechanical
seals, or equivalent as provided in
§ 61.68. If double mechanical seals are
used, vinyl chloride emissions from the
seals are to be minimized by
maintaining the pressure between the
two seals so that any leak that occurs is
into the compressor, by ducting any
vinyl chloride between the two seals
through a control system from which the
concentration of vinyl chloride in the
exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm;
or equivalent as provided in § 61.66.
  (iv) Reciprocating compressors. Vinyl
chloride emissions from seals on all
reciprocating compressors in vinyl
chloride service are to be minimized by
installing double outboard seals, or
equivalent as provided in § 61.66. If
double outboard seals are used, vinyl
chloride emissions from the seals are to
be minimized by maintaining the
pressure between the two seals so that
any leak that occurs is into the
compressor; by ducting any vinyl
chloride between the two seals through
a control system from which the
concentration of vinyl chloride in the
exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm;
or equivalent as provided in § 61.66
   (v) Agitator. Vinyl chloride emissions
from seals on all agitators in vinyl
chloride service are to be minimized by
installing agitators with double
mechanical seals, or equivalent as
provided in § 61.66. If double
mechanical seals are used, vinyl
chloride emissions from the seals are to
be minimized by maintaining the
pressure between the two seals so  that
any leak that occurs is into the agitated
vessel; by ducting any vinyl chloride
between the  two seals through a control
system from  which the concentration of
vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does
not exceed 10 ppm; or equivalent as
provided in § 61.66.
 *****
   (8) Leak detection and elimination.
   (i] It includes a reliable and accurate
 vinyl chloride monitoring system for
 detection of  major leaks and
 identification of the general area of the
 plant where  a leak is located. A vinyl
 chloride monitoring system means a
 device which obtains air samples from
 one or more points on a continuous
 sequential basis and analyzes the
 samples with gas chromatography or, if
 the owner or operator assumes that all
 hydrocarbons measured are vinyl
 chloride,  with infrared
 spectrophotometry, flame ion detection,
 or an equivalent or alternu'ive method.
  (iii) It provides for an acceptable
calibration and maintenance schedule
for the vinyl chloride monitoring system
and portable hydrocarbon detector. For
the vinyl chloride monitoring system, a
daily span check is to be conducted with
a concentration of vinyl chloride equal
to the concentration defined as a leak
according to paragraph (b)(8)(vi) of this
section. The calibration is to be done
with either:
  (A) A calibration gas mixture
prepared from the gases specified in
sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 of Test Method
106 and in accordance with section 7.1
of test Method 106, or
  (B) A calibration gas cylinder
standard containing the appropriate
concentration of vinyl chloride. The gas
composition of the calibration gas
cylinder standard is to have been
certified by the manufacturer. The
manufacturer must have recommended a
maximum shelf life for each cylinder so
that the concentration does not change
greater than ±5 percent from the
certified value. The date of gas cylinder
preparation, certified vinyl chloride
concentration and recommended
maximum shelf life must  have been
affixed to the cylinder before shipment
from the manufacturer to the buyer. If a
gas chromatograph is used as the vinyl
chloride monitoring system, these gas
mixtures may be directly used to
prepare a chromatograph calibration
curve as described in section 7.3 of Test
Method 106. The requirements in section
5.2.3.1 and 5.2.3.2 of Test Method 106 for
certification of cylinder standards and
for establishment and verification of
calibration standards are to be followed.
  (iv) The location and number of points
to be monitored and the frequency of
monitoring provided for in the program
are  acceptable when they are compared
with the number of pieces of equipment
in vinyl chloride service  and the size
and physical layout of the plant.
 *****
   (vi) It contains a definition of leak
 which is acceptable when compared
 with the background concentrations of
 vinyl chloride in the areas of the plant to
 be monitored by the vinyl chloride
 monitoring system. Measurements of
 background concentrations of vinyl
 chloride in the areas of the plant to be
 monitored by the vinyl chloride
 monitoring  system are to be included
 with the description of the program. The
 definition of leak for a given plant may
 vary among the different areas within
 the plant and is also to change over time
 as background concentrations in the
 plant are reduced.
                                                      V-F-16
-------
               Federal Register / Vol. 50. No.  6 / Wednesday. January 9,  1985 /  Proposed Rules
  9. By revising paragraph (b)(4) to
§ 61.65 as follows:

§61.65  Emission standard for ethylene
dlchlorlde, vinyl chloride and pdyvlnyl
chloride plants
*    *    *    *    *
  (b) Fugitive emission sources.
*****
  (4) Leaks from relief valves. Vinyl
chloride emissions due to leaks from
each relief valve on equipment in vinyl
chloride service shall comply with
§ 61.242-4 of Subpart V of this part.
*****
  10. By revising paragraph (b)(7) of
§ 61.65 as follows:

§ 61.65  Emlaaton standard for ethytene
dlchlorlde, vinyl chloride and polyvlnyl
chloride plants.
*****
  (b) Fugitive emission sources.
*****
  (7) Samples. Unused portions of
samples containing at least 10 percent
by weight vinyl chloride are to be
returned to the process or destroyed in a
control device from which the
concentration of vinyl chloride in the
exhaust gas does not exceed 10 ppm.
Sampling techniques are to be such that
sample containers  in vinyl chloride are
purged into a closed process system.
  11. By revising paragraphs (b)(8)
introductory text, (b)(8)(ii), and (b)(8)(v)
to § 61.65 as follows:

§ 61.65  Emission standard for ethylene
dlchlorlde, vinyl chloride and polyvlnyl
chloride plants.
*****
  (b) Fugitive emission sources.
*****
  (8) Leak detection and elimination
Vinyl chloride emissions due to leaks
from equipment in vinyl chloride service
are to be minimized by instituting and
implementing a lead detection and
repair program consistent with the
provisions  of Subpart V of this part. The
program is to be implemented within 90
days of the effective date of these
regulations, unless a waiver of
compliance is granted under | 61.11.
Approval of a program will be granted
by the Administrator provided he  finds:
  '(i)* * *
  (ii) It includes a  reliable and accurate
portable hydrocarbon detector to be
used consistent with the provisions of
Subpart V of this part. An owner or
operator is exempt from § 61.242-l(d),
§§ 61.242-7 (a), (b) and (c). § 61.246 and
§ 61.247 of Subpart V of this part for any
process unit in  which  the percentage of
leaking valves is demonstrated to be
equal to or less than 2.0 percent, as
determined in accordance with the
following:
  (A) A performance test as specified in
paragraph (b)(8)(ii)(C) of this section
shall be conducted initially within 90
days of the effective date of these
regulations, annuity and at times
requested by the Administrator.
  (B) For each performance test, a
minimum of 200 or 90 percent of the total
valves in VOC service (as defined in
§ 60.481 of Subpart W of Part 60) within
the process unit shall be randomly
selected and monitored within 1 week
by the methods specified in § 61.245(d)
of Subpart V of this part. If an
instrument reading of 10,000 ppm or
greater is measured, a leak is detected.
The leak percentage shall be determined
by dividing the number of valves in
VOC service for which leaks are
detected by the number rif tested valves
in VOC service.
  (C) If a leak is detected, it shall be
repaired in accordance with § 61.242-7
(d)  and (e) of Subpart V of this part.
  (D) The results of the performance test
shall be submitted in writing to the
Administrator in the first semiannual
report following the performance test as
part of the reporting requirements of
§ 61.70.
  (E) Any process unit in which the
percentage of leaking valves is found to
be greater than 2.0 percent must comply
with all provisions of Subpart V of this
part within 90 days.
*****
  (v) It contains a plan of action to be
taken when a leak is detected consistent
with Subpart V of this part.
  12. By revising 5 61.66 as follows:

§ 61.66  Equivalent equipment and
procedures.
  Upon written application from an
owner or operator, the Administrator
may approve use of equipment or
procedures which have been
demonstrated to his satisfaction to be
equivalent in terms of reducing vinyl
chloride emissions to the atmosphere to
those prescribed for compliance with a
specific paragraph of this subpart.
  13.  By revising paragraph (f) of § 61.67
as follows:

§61.67  Emission tests.
*****
  (f) The»owner or operator shall retain
at the plant and make available, upon
request, for inspection by the
Administrator, for a minimum of 3 years.
records of emission test results and
other data  needed to determine
emissions.
  14. By revising paragraphs (g)(3)
introductory text. (g)(3)(i), and (g)(3)(iii)
of § 61.67 as follows:

§61.67 Emission tests.
*****

  (8) * *  *
  (3) When a stripping operation is used
to attain the emission limits in § 61.64
(e) and (f), emissions are to be
determined using Test Method 107 as
follows:
  (i) The number of strippers (or
reactors using as strippers] and samples
and the types and grades of resin to be
sampled are to be determined by the
Administrator for each individual plant
at the time of the test based on the
plant's operation.
  (ii) * *  *
  (iii) The corresponding quantity of
material processed by each stripper (or
reactor used as a stripper) is to be
determined on a dry solids basis and by
a method submitted to and approved by
the Administrator.
*****

  15. By revising paragraph (g)(5)
introductory text and adding paragraph
(g)(6) to §  61.67 as follows:

§ 61.67 Emission tests.
*****

   (8) * *  '
   (5) The reactor opening loss for which
an emission limit is prescribed in
§ 61.64(a)(2) is to be determined. The
number of reactors for which the
determination is to be specified by the
Administrator for each individual plant
at the time of the determination based
on the plant's operation.
*****

   (6) For a reactor that is used as a
stripper, the emissions of vinyl chloride
from reactor opening loss and all
sources following the reactor used as a
stripper for which an emission limit is
prescribed in § 61.64(f) are to be
determined. The number of reactors for
which the determination is to be made is
to be specified by the Administrator for
each individual plant at the  time of the
determination based on the  plant's
operation.
   (i) For each batch stripped in the
reactor, the  following measurements are
to be  made:
   (A) The concentration (ppm) of vinyl
chloride in resin after stripping,
measured according to paragraph (g)(3)
of this section;
   (B)  The reactor vacuum (mm Hg) at
end of strip  from plant instrument;  and
   (C) The reactor temperature (°C) at
end of strip  from plant instrument
                                                       V-F-17
-------
              Federal Register  /  Vol. 50, No. 6  /  Wednesday.  January  9,  19U5 / Proposed Rules
  (ii) For each batch stripped in the
reactor, the following information is to
be determined:
  (A) The vapor pressure (mm Hg) of
water in the reactor at end of strip from
the following table:
Reactor
vapor
tempera-
ture rc)
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
SO
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
H,O
vapor
prea-
sur*
(mm
Hg)
55.3
58.3
61 S
64.8
68.3
71.9
75.e
79.6
83.7
980
92.5
972
102.1
1072
1125
1)8.0
123.6
1298
1361
1426
1494
Reactor
vapor
tempera-
ture CC)
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
66
«B
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
H,0
vapor
prea-
sore
(mm
HQ)
1564
1636
171.4
1793
1875
196.1
205.0
21 4 1
2237
233.7
2439
2546
2657
2^72
2891
301.4
314.)
327.3
3410
355. t
3697
Reactor
vapor
tempera-
ture CC)
62
63
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
96
96
97
96
99
too


H,O
vapor
pres-
sure
(fiS>
364.9
4006
4188
433.6
450.9
468.7
467.1
508.1
525.1
5460
567.0
588.6
610.9
833.9
8S7.6
882.1
7073
7332
7600

r~ 	 ""
!.„ 	
   (B) The partial pressure tmm Hg) of
 vinyl chloride in reactor at end of strip
 from the following equation:

 PPVA-760-RV-VPW

 Where:
 PPVC = partial pressure of vinyl chloride, in
    mm Hg
 760=atmospheric pressure it 0°C, in mm Hg
 RV-absolute value of reactor vacuum, in
    mm Hg
 VPW = vapor pressure of water, in mm Hg

   (C) The reactor vapor space volume
 (m3) at end of strip from the following
 equation:
      RVSV=RC-WV-
PVCV»

 833
 where:
 RVSV=reactor vapor space volume, in m1
 RC» reactor capacity, in m1
 WV=volume of water in reactor from recip«,
     in m3
 PVCW=dry weight of poly vinyl chloride in
     reactor from recipe, in kg
 833 = typical density of polyvinyl chloride, in
     kg/m»

    (iii) For each batch stripped in the
 reactor, the combined reactor opening
 loss and emissions from all sources
 following the reactor used as a stripper
 is to be determined using the following
 equation:
                                            = (PPMVC)|10
where:
C=g vinyl chloride/kg polyvinyl chloride
    product
PPMVC=concentration of vinyl chloride in
    resin after stripping, in ppra
10"*=con version factor for ppm
PPVC=partial pressure of vinyl chloride
    determined according to paragraph
    (8)(6)(ii)(B) of this section, in mm Hg
RVSV = reactor vapor space volume
    determined'according to paragraph
    (g)(6)(ii)(C] of this section, in m3
t,002=ideal gas constant in g—'K/mm Hg—
    m§ for vinyl chloride
PVCW=dry weight of polyvinyl chloride in
    reactor from recipe, in kg
273=conversion factor for 'C to °K
RT=reactor temperature, in *C

  18. By adding paragraph (h) to § 61.97
as follows:
*****

  (h)(l) Each piece of equipment within
a process unit that can reasonably
contain equipment in vinyl chloride
service is presumed to be in vinyl
chloride service unless an owner or
operator demonstrates that the piece of
equipment is not in vinyl chloride
service. For a piece of equipment to be
considered not in vinyl chloride service,
it must be determined that the percent
vinyl chloride content can be reasonably
expected not to exceed  10 percent by
weight for liquid streams and 10 percent
by volume for gas streams. For purposes
of determining  the percent vinyl chloride
content of the process fluid that is
contained in or, contacts equipment,
procedures that conform to the methods
described in ASTM Method D-2267
(incorporated by reference as  specified
in S 61.16) shall be used.
   (2X1) An owner or operator may use
 engineering judgment rather than the
 procedures in paragraph (h)(l) of this
 section to demonstrate that the percent
 vinyl chloride content does not exceed
 10 percent by weight for liquid streams
 and 10 percent by volume for gas
 streams, provided that  the engineering
 judgment demonstrates that the vinyl
 chloride content clearly does not exceed
 10 percent. When an owner or operator
 and the Administrator do not  agree on
 whether a piece of equipment is not in
 vinyl chloride service, however, the
 procedures in paragraph (h)(l) of this
 section shall be used to resolve the
 disagreement
    (ii) If an owner or operator  determines
 that a piece of equipment is in vinyl
 chloride service, the determination can
                                        lWJVC)iRVSV)(l,002)

                                        |I>VCW)|27
                                                                                be revised only after following the
                                                                                procedures in paragraph (h)(l) of this
                                                                                section.
                                                                                  (3) Samples used in determining the
                                                                                percent vinyl chloride content shall be
                                                                                representative of the process fluid that
                                                                                is contained in or contacts the
                                                                                equipment.

                                                                                  17. By adding paragraphs (d), (e) and
                                                                                (0 to S 61.68 as follows:

                                                                                § 61.68  Emission monitoring.
  (d) When exhaust gas(es), having
emission limits that are subject to the
requirement of paragraph (a) of this
section, are emitted to the atmosphere
around the control system and required
vinyl chloride monitoring system, the
vinyl chloride content of the emission
shall be calculated (in units of each
applicable emission limit) by best
practical engineering judgment based on
the discharge duration and known VC
concentrations in Jhe affected
equipment as determined in accordance
with § 61.67(h) or other acceptable
method.
  (e) For each 3-hour period, the vinyl
chloride content of emissions subject to
the requirements of paragraphs (a) and
(d) of this section shall be averaged
(weighted according to the proportion of
time that emissions were continuously
monitored and that emissions bypassed
the continuous monitor) for purposes of
reporting excess emissions  under
§ 61.70(c)(l).
  (f) For each vinyl chloride emission to
the atmosphere determined in
accordance with paragraph (e) of this
section to be in excess of the applicable
emission limits, the owner or operator
shall record the identity of  the source(s),
the date, time, and duration of the
excess emission, the cause of the
emission, the approximate  total vinyl
chloride loss during the excess emission,
and the method used for determining the
vinyl chloride loss. This information
shall be retained and made available for
inspection by the Administrator as
required by § 61.71(a).
   18. By changing the title from
"Semiannual report" to "Reporting" and
by revising paragraph (a) of § 61.70 as
 follows:
                                                          V-F-18
-------
               Federal  Register / Vol.  50,  No. 6  /  Wednesday,  January 9,  1985 / Proposed Rules
§ 61.70  Reporting.
  (a)(l) The owner or operator of any
source to which this subpart applies
shall submit to the Administrator on
September 15 and March 15 of each year
a report in writing containing the
information required in paragraphs, (c).  •
(d) and (e) of this section and on
December 15 and June 15 of each year a
report in writing containing the
information required in paragraph (e) of
this section, except as provided in
paragraph (a)(2).
  (2) In the case of an existing source
that submits semiannual reports on an
approved fixed schedule other than
September 15 and March 15, the
approved semiannual reporting schedule
shall be used to report the information
required in paragraphs (c),  (d) and {e)  of
this section. In addition, the information
required in paragraph (e) of this section
will be reported exactly 3 months
following the semiannual reporting
dates.
  (3) The first report is to be submitted
following the first full 3 month reporting
peiiod alter the initial report is
submitted.
  19.  By revising paragraph (c)(l) of
 § 61.70 as follows:

§ 61:70 Reporting.
 *****
  (c)  * *  *
  (1)  The owner or operator shall
 include in the report a record of the
vinyl chloride content of emissions for
each  3-hour period during which average
emissions are in excess of  the emission
 limits in § 61.62 (a) or (b), § 61.63(a), or
 § 61.64 (a)(l), (b), (c), or (d), or during
 which average  emissions are in excess
 of the emission limits specified for any
 control system to which reactor
 emissions are required to be ducted in
 § 61.64(a)(2) or to which fugitive
 emissions are required to be ducted in
 § 61.65 (b)(i)(ii), (b)(2), (b)(5). (b)(6)(ii), or
 (b)(9)(ii). If emissions in excess of the
 emission limits are not detected, the
 report shall contain a statement that no
 excess emissions have been detected.
 The emissions are to be determined in
 accordance with § 61.68(e).
  20. By revising paragraph (c)(2)
 introductory text, removing paragraphs
 (c)(2)(iv), revising paragraph (c)(2)(iii)
 and revising (c)(2)(v) and (c)(2)(vi)
 introductory text to § 61.70 as follows:

 § 61.70  Reporting.
 *****
   (c)* * *
   (2) In polyvinyl chloride plants for
 which a stripping operation is used to
 attain the emission level prescribed in
 § 61.64(e), the owner or operator shall
 include in the report a record of the
vinyl chloride content in the polyvinyl
chloride resin.
  0) *  *  *
  (ii) * ' *
  (iii) The vinyl chloride content in each
sample is to be determined by Test
Method 107 as prescribed in
§61.67(g)(3).
  (iv) [Reserved]
  (v) The report to the Administrator by
the owner or operator is to include a
record of any 24-hour average resin
            X,.
where:
A = 24-hour average concentration of type, 71
    resin in ppm (dry weight basis).
Q=Total production of type T, rosin over the
    24-hour period, in kg.
T, =Type of resin: i—1.2 . . . m where m is
    total number of resin types produced
    during the 24-hour period.
Af=Concentration of vinyl chloride in one
    sample of grade G resin, in ppm.
P= Production of grade C, resin represented
    by the sample, in kg.
G4 = Grade of resin: e.g., G,, Gt, and G3.
n=Total number of grades of resin produced
    during the 24-hour period.

If no 24-hour average resin vinyl
chloride concentrations in excess of the
limits prescribed in § 61.64(e) are
measured, the report shall state that no
excess resin vinyl chloride
concentrations were measured.
   (vi) The owner or operator shall retain
at the source and make available for
inspection by the Administrator for a
minimum of 3 years records of all data
needed to furnish the information
required by paragraph (c)(2)(v) of this
section. The records are to contain the
following information:
   (A) * * *
   (B) * *  *
*****

   21. By revising paragraph (c)(3) of
§ 61.70 as follows:

§61.70 Reporting.
*****

   (C)* * *
   (3) The owner or operator shall
include in the report a record of any
emissions from each reactor opening in
excess of the emission limits prescribed
in § 61.64(a)(2). Emissions are to be
determined in  accordance
with§ 61.67(g)(5), except that emissions
for each reactor are to be determined. If
emissions in excess of the emission
 limits are not detected, the report shall
vinyl chloride concentration, as
determined in this paragraph, in excess
of the limits prescribed in 5 61.64(e). The
vinyl chloride content found in each
sample required by paragraphs (c)(2)(i)
and (c)(2)(ii) of this section shall'be
averaged separately for each type of
resin, over each calendar day and
weighted according to the quantity of
each grade of resin processed by the
stripper(s) that calendar day, according
to the following equation:
include a statement that excess
emissions have not been detected.
*****
  22. By adding paragraph (c)(4) to
§ 61.70 as follows:

§ 61.70  Reporting
*****

  (c) * * *
  (4) In polyvinyl chloride plants for
which stripping in the reactor is used to
attain the emission level prescribed in
§ 61.64(f). the owner or operator shall
include in the report a record of the
vinyl chloride emissions from reactor
opening loss and all sources following
the reactor used as a stripper.
  (i) One representative sample of
polyvinyl chloride resin is to be taken
from each batch of each grade of resin
immediately following the completion of
the stripping operation, and identified
by resin type and grade and the date
and time the batch is completed. The
corresponding quantity of material
processed in each stripper batch is to be
recorded and identified by resin type
and grade and the date and time the
batch is completed.
  (ii) The vinyl chloride content in each
sample is to be determined by Test
Method 107 as prescribed in
 § 61.67(g)(3).
   (Hi) The combined emission from
reactor opening loss and  all sources
following the reactor used as a stripper
are  to be determined for each batch
stripped in a reactor according to the
procedure prescribed in § 61.67(g)(6).
   (iv) The report to  the Administrator by
 the  owner or operator is to include a
record of any 24-hour average combined
 reactor opening loss and emissions from
 all sources following the  reactor used as
 a stripper as determined  in this
 paragraph, in excess of the limits
 prescribed in § 61.64(f). The combined
 reactor opening loss and emissions from
                                                         V-F-19
-------
               Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 8  /  Wednesday, January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules
all sources following the reactor used as
a stripper associated with each batch
are to be averaged separately for each
type of resin, over each calendar day
and weighted according to the quantity
of each grade of resin stripped in
reactors that calendar day as follows:
  For each type of resin (suspension,
dispersion, latex, bulk, other), the
following calculation is to be performed:
            E    PG  C6
           1-1    61  G1
Pr  Cr
 61 Gl
    Pr   Cr
     G2  G2
Pr   Cr
 Gn   Gn
Where:
A=24-hour average combined reactor
    opening loss and emissions from all
    sources following the reactor used as a
    stripper, in g vinyl chloride/kg product
    (dry weight basis).
Q=Total production of resin in batches for
    which stripping is completed during the
    24-hour period, in kg.
C = Average combined reactor opening loss
    and emissions from all sources following
    the reactor used as a stripper of all
    batches of grade GI resin for which
    stripping is completed during the 24-hour
    period in g vinyl chloride /kg product (dry
    weight basis) (determined according to
    procedure prescribed in  i 61.67(g)(6)).
P=Production of grade G, resin in the
    batches for which C is determined, in kg.
G,=Grade of resin; eg.. G,. Ga, and G».
n=Total number of grades of resin in batches
    for which stripping is completed during
    the 24-hour period.

If no 24-hour average combined reactor
opening loss and emissions from all
sources following the reactor used a
stripper in excess of the limits
prescribed in f 61.64(f) are determined.
the report shall state  that no excess
vinyl chloride emissions were
determined.
   23. By adding paragraphs (d).  (e| and
(f) to § 61.70 as follows:

§61.70  Report!*.
*****

   (d) The owner or operator shall
include in the report a record of relief
valve discharges as prescribed in
§ 61.65(a)(4), and the owner or operator
shall report exceedences  of the relief
valve discharge frequency limits
prescribed in S 61.65(a) to be determined
as follows:
   (1) For polyvinyl chloride plants
producing dispersion, latex or bulk
resins, the relief valve discharge
frequency from polyvinly chloride
reactors is to be determined using the
following equation. Separate
calculations are to be made for each
resin type (t) as defined:
                     N
                 F,= -
                     Y
Where
F,=relief valve discharge frequenc> per 100
    polymerization batches from all reactors
    producing resing type t
N = total number of relief valve discharges
    during the 12-month period preceding the
    close of the 6-month reporting period
    from all reactors producing resin type t
Y=total number of polymerization batches of
    resin type t during the 12-month period
    preceding the close of the 6-month
    reporting period divided by 100
t = resin type: dispersion (including latex) or
    bulk resin type

  (2) For polyvinyl chloride plants
producing suspension resins, the relief
valve discharge frequency from
polyvinyl chloride reactors is to be
determined in two ways using the
following equations:
             N
         F« - —; «nd
              Y
where
FM = relief valve discharge frequency per 100
    polymerization batches from all reactors
    producing suspension resin
F,i = relief valve discharge frequency per 12-
    month period from all reactors producing
    suspension resin
N = total number of relief valve discharges
    during the 12-month period preceding the
    close of the 6-month reporting period
    from all reactors producing suspension
    resin
Y = total number of polymerization batches of
    suspension resin during the 12-month
    period preceding the close of the 6-month
    reporting period divided by 100

   (3) For polyvinyl chloride plants
producing suspension, dispersion, latex,
or bulk resins, the relief valve discharge
frequency from all other equipment
(excluding polyvinyl chloride reactors)
is to be determined in two ways using
the following equations:
                                                              F0 = —; andF,=N
                                                                  Y
where
Fn = relief valve discharge frequency per 100
    polymerization batches from all
    equipment (excluding reactors)
Fi = relief valve discharge frequency per 12-
    month period from all equipment
    (excluding reactors)
N = total number of relief valve discharges
    during the 12-month period preceding the
    close of the 6-month reporting period
    from all equipment (excluding reactors)
Y = total number of polymerization batches of
    all resin types combined divided by 100"

  (4) For polyvinyl chloride plants using
the solution process or any other
continuous production process, the relief
valve discharge frequency is the
summation of each relief valve
discharge from all equipment types
during the 12-month period preceding
the close of the 6-month reporting
period.
  (5) For ethylene dichloride/vinyl
chloride plants, the relief valve
discharge frequency is the summation of
each relief valve discharge from all
equipment types during the 12-month
period preceding the close of the 6-
month reporting period.
  (6) A polymerization batch consists of
each sequence of charging VC and other
materials to the reactor, heating reactor
contents, polymerization of reactor
contents, and removal of reactor
contents including any incomplete
sequence that is aborted after charging
VC to the reactor. For bulk resin
production plants, a single
"polymerization batch" includes both
prepolymerization and
postpolymerization reactor operations.
  (e) The owner or operator shall
include in the report the number of relief
valve discharges to the atmosphere
during the 3-month period preceding  the
report from each of the following
sources: suspension resin production
reactors; dispersion and latex resin
production  reactors; bulk resin
production  reactors; all nonreactor
equipment in PVC plants; all equipment
used in solution process and other
continuous process PVC plants; and all
equipment in EDC/VC plants; any other
source.
  (f) The owner or operator shall
include in the report the number of
reactor openings and the design
capacity of the number of
polymerization batches for each type of
resin in each plant during  the 6-montb
period  preceding the report. The design
rapacity of the number of
polymerization batches may be defined
                                                        V-F-20
-------
              Federal Register /  Vol.  50,  No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 1985 / Proposed Rules


initially and remain unchanged unless
significant changes to the design
capacity occur.
  24. By revising paragraph (a|
introductory text of § 61.71 as follow*

§ 61.71   Recordkeeping.
  (a) The owner or operator oi anj,
source to which this subpart applies
shall retain the following information at
the source and make it available for
inspection by the Administrator for a
minimum of 3 years:
*****

  25. By adding the words  "vinyi
chloride" to the definition of the term
"volatile hazardous air pollutants" in
§ 61.241 of Subpart V as follows:

$ 61.241 Definitions.
*    *    *    *    «
  "Volatile hazardous aii pollutant"  01
"VHAP" means a substance regulated
under this part for which a standard  foi
equipment leaks of the substance has
been proposed and promulgated.
Benzene is a VHAP. Vinyl  chloride i» M
VHAP.
(Sec. 112 Clean Air Act of 1970;
tFK Doc. 85-509 Filed 1-8-S5: 8:45 on.I
                                                    V-F-21
-------
   ENVIRONMENTAL
     PROTECTION
      AGENCY
 NATIONAL EMISSION
   STANDARDS FOR
   HAZARDOUS AIR
    POLLUTANTS
  BENZENE EMISSIONS
FROM COKE BY-PRODUCT
  RECOVERY PLANTS

      SUBPART L
-------
               Federal  Register / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday.  Juno 6,  1984 / Proposed  Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40 CFR Part 61
[AD-FRL-2538-3]

National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Proposed
Standards for Benzene Emissions
From Coke By-Product Recovery
Plants

AGENCV: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed Rule and Notice of
Public Hearing.

SUMMARY: The proposed standard
would limit benzene emissions from
new and existing sources in coke by-
product recovery plants. The proposed
standard implements section 112 of the
Clean Air Act and is based on the
Administrator's determination of )une 8.
1977 (42 FR 29332) that benzene is a
hazardous air pollutant. The i,nte.nt of
the standard is to protect the public
health with an ample margin of safety
  A public hearing will be held to
'provide interested persons an
opportunity for oral presentation of
data, views, or arguments concerning
the proposed standard for cokr by-
pi oduct iscovery  plants.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be
received on or before August 21.1984
  Public Hearing. If anyone contacts
EPA requesting to speak at a public
hearing by June 27,1984, a public
hearing will be held on July 25.1984,
beginning at 10:00 a.m. Persons
interested in attending the hearing
should call Ms. Shelby Journigan at (919)
541-5578 to verify that a hearing will
occur.
  Requests to Speak at Hearing
Persons wishing to present oral
testimony must contact EPA by  June 27.
1984.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments
should be submitted (in duplicate if
possible) to: Central Docket Section
(LE-131), Attention: Docket Number A-
79-16, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street. SW.. Washington,
D.C. 20460.
   Public Hearing. If anyone contacts
EPA requesting a public hearing, the
public hearing will be held at the Office
 of Administration Auditorium, Research
Triangle Park. N.C. Persons interested in
 attending the hearing should call Ms.
 Shelby Journigan at (919) 541-5578 to
 verify that a hearing will occur.
   Persons wishing to  present pi-al
 testimony should notify Ms. Shelby
 Icurnigan. Standards  Development
 Branch (MD-13).  U.S. Environment!!!
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 "Benzene
Emissions from Coke By-Product
Recovery Plants—Background
Information for Proposed Standards"
(EPA-450/3-83-016a).
  Docket.  Docket A-79-16. 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. SW., Washington, D.C. 20460. A
reasonable fee may be  charged for
copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. James  U. Crowder, (919) 541-5601,
concerning technical aspects of the
industry and control technologies, and
Mr. Gilbert H. Wood, (919) 541-5578,
concerning regulatory decisions and the
standard.  The address  for both parties is
Emission Standards and Engineering
Division (MD-13), U.S.  Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park. North Carolina 27711.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Introduction
   Benzene was listed as a hazardous air
pollutant under section 112 of the Clean
Air Act on June 8, 1977 (42 FR 29332).
Section 112 defines a "hazardous air
pollutant" as one which, in  the judgment
of the Administrator, "causes or
contributes to air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to result in an
increase in mortality or an increase in
serious irreversible, or incapacitating
reversible, illness." In EPA's judgment,
benzene emissions from coke by-product
recover}' plants pose significant health
risks to exposed populations and
warrant Federal regulatory action under
section 112.
   Coke by-product recovery plants arc
currently  largely uncontrolled, and use
 of the technology selected as  the basis
 for the proposed standards would
 substantially reduce benzene emissions
 and associated health  risks. The level of
 control selected as the basis for the
 proposed standards would result in fuel
 savings and increased produce recovery
 As a result, the net nationwide
 annualized cost of the  proposed
 standards would actually be a savings.
 (In general, even though the purchase of
air pollution control equipment may
result in a net savings, affected sources
do not necessarily purchase thnt
equipment voluntarily because they may
be able to attain a higher rate of return
on their investment if given the
opportunity to invest elsewhere.]
  This preamble first summarizes the
proposed standard for coke by-product
recovery plants and the impacts of the
standard. It then explains the rationale
for each of  the decisions made in
selecting the proposed standard. The«.t
decisions include the selection of the
source category, the selection  of
emission points, the selection of the
level of the standard, the selection of tru
format of the  standard, and the selection
of.the specific requirements themselves.
Administrative  considerations, including
Executive Order 12291 and the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, are discussed
at the end of the preamble
Summary of Proposed Standards
  The proposed standard would rcdiu e
benzene emissions from several
emission sources at each coke by-
product recovery plant through a
combination of emission standards
equipment, work practice, and
operational requirements,  depending c"
the source  to be controlled. Both ne\\
and e\isting sources would be subject i.
the provisions of the proposed standard
Alternative standards are  also propo^'ii
for several emission sources, as are
procedures for permitting the  use of
alternate e means  of emission limitHtior
under section 112(e)(3) of the Act.
   An equipment standard is proposed
for the control of emissions from eHrh
tar decanter, tar intercepting sump.
flushing-liquor circulation tank, tar
storage tank, tar dewatering tank, lighi
oil condenser, light-oil decanter, wash
oil decanter,  and wash-oil circulation
tank. The proposed standard would
require that each affected source be
 totally enclosed with emissions ducted
to the gas collection system, gas
distribution system, or other enclosed
point in the by-product recovery
 process. Unless otherwise specified.
 pressure relief devices, vacuum relief
 devices, access hatches, and sampling
 ports would be the only openings
 allowed on each source. The proposed
 standard would require that each accc1-^
 hatch and  sampling port be equipped
 with a gasket and a cover or lid that is
 kept in a closed position when not in
 actual use.
   This proposed equipment standard
 could be achieved with the use of a gr^
 blanketing system. A gas  blanketing
 system is a closed system operated fit
 positive pressure and is generally
                                                    V-L-2
-------
               Federal  Register / Vol. 49. No.  110 / Wednesday,  June 6. 1984  /  Proposed Rules
composed of piping, connections, and
flow-inducing devices (if necessary) thui
transport emissions from the enclosed
source back to the coke-oven battery
gas holder, the collecting main, or
another point in the by-product recovery
process. Depending on the source to be
controlled, dirty or clean coke-oven gas
nitrogen, or natural gas can be used as
the gas blanket.
  To ensure that the control equipment
for each source is being properly
operated and maintained, the proposed
standard would require a semiannual
inspection of the connections and seals
on each gas blanketing system for leaks,
using EPA Reference Method 21  (40 CFR
Part 60, Appendix A). An organic
chemical concentration of more than 500
ppm by volume above a background
concentration would indicate the
presence of a leak. The proposed
standard would also require a
semiannual visual inspection of each
source and the piping of the control
system for visible defects such as gaps
or tears. The proposed standard  would
require that a first attempt at repair of
each leak or visible defect be made
within 5 days of detection, with repair
within 15 days. The owner or operator
would be required to record the results
of the inspections for each source, and
include the results in a semiannual
report.
  Proper maintenance of the system will
help ensure the proper operation of (He
system. To this end. the proposed
regulation would require an annual
maintenance inspection for
abnormalities such as pluggayes,
sticking valv.es. and clogge'd or
improperly operating condensate traps
A first attempt at repair must be made
within 5 days, with any necessary
repairs made within 15 days of the
inspection. If a system blockage  occurs
the proposed regulation would require
the owner or operator to conduct an
inspection and make any necessary
repairs immediately upon detection. The
proposed standard would require that
information regarding the annual
inspection or repairs made to correct 
-------
               Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6,  1984 / Proposed  Rules
chemical concentration at or above
10,000 ppm were detected, as measured
by Reference Method 21, the proposed
standard would require a first attempt at
repair within 5 days, with repair of the
leak within 15 days from the date the
leak was detected.
  The proposed standard provides three
types of alternatives to the leak
detection and repair requirements for
pumps and exhausters. An owner or
operator may use  'leakless"  equipment
such as magnetically coupled or
diaphragm pumps to achieve a "no
detectable emissions" limit (i.e., 500 ppm
above a background concentration, as
measured by Reference Method 21).
However, an annual performance test
using instrument monitoring would be
required  to verify  the "no detectable
emissions" status  of each pump and
exhauster. Or, pumps and exhausters
can be equipped with enclosed  seal
areas vented to a control device
designed and operated to achieve a 95-
percent benzene control  efficiency.
  A third alternative would  exempt
pumps equipped with dual mechanical
seals with a  barrier fluid between the
two seals and exhausters equipped with
seals with a  barrier fluid system from
the leak detection and repair
requirements, except for the weekly
visual inspection for liquid leaks from
pumps. However,  emissions from the
barrier fluid reservior must be vented to
a control device designed and operated
to achieve a 95-percent benzene control
efficiency, the barrier fluid must be
purged and added to the process stream.
or the pressure of the barrier fluid must
be maintained at a level  above  the
pressure in the pump or exhauster
stuffing box. A pressure  or level
indicator to  detect any failure of the seal
system or the barrier fluid system would
be required,  with the indicator checked
daily or equipped with an alarm to
signal failure of the system.
  Under the proposed standard, valves
in benzene service would be subject to
requirements similar to those for pumps
in benzene service. All valves in
benzene service would be monitored
monthly  for  the detection of leak* If an
organic chemical concentration at or
above 10,000 ppm is detected, as
measured by Reference Method 21, the
proposed standard would require that
the valve be repaired within 15 days.
Again, a first attempt to  repair  the vaK e
so that the measured concentration is
below 10,000 ppm would be requirpd
within 5 days after the leak  was
detected. However, those valves thnt
are found not to be leaking for 2
successive months could be monitored
dt quarterly  intervals until a leak  is
detected, at which time monthly
monitoring would again be required.
  The proposed standard would also
provide alternatives to the required leak
detection and repair programs for valves
in benzene service. First, the owner or
operator could elect to meet a
performance level where less than 2
percent of all valves could be found
leaking. Second, the owner or operator
could follow a skip-period leak
detection and repair program also based
on a performance level of 2 percent. And
finally, an owner or operator may use
"leakless" valves such as sealed-  •
bellows valves, for which monitoring
would not be required. The proposed
standard require that these "leakless"
valves achieve a "no detectable
emission" limit (i.e., 500 ppm above a
background concentration, as measured
by Reference Method 21). A
performance test would also be required
on an annual basis to verify the "no
detectable emissions" status of each
valve.
  The proposed standard would also
specify a "no detectable emissions"
limit (i.e., less than 500 ppm above a
background concentration, as measured
by Reference Method 21), for pressure
relief devices in benzene service. This
emission limit could be achieved by
equipping pressure relief devices with a
rupture disc. The proposed emission
limit would not apply to discharges
during overpressure releases; however,
the proposed standard would require
that emissions from each pressure relief
device be returned to a state of "no
detectable emissions" (500 ppm or less)
within 5 days after a discharge.
Alternatively, an owner or operator
could elect to vent emissions through a
closed system to a control device
designed and operated to achieve a 95-
percent benzene control enicienry or
greater, such as a flare.
  Closed-purge sampling would be
required by the proposed standard. The
standard would require that iraferial
purged from sampling connections be
returned  to the process or collected in a
closed disposal system. In-situ sampling
would be exempted from the closed
purge sampling requirements. The
proposed standard would also require
open-ended lines to be sealed with a
cap, blind flange, plug, or second valve.
An operational standard for open-ended
lines would also require thai the cap 01
other device be removed or opened only
when the open-ended line is pieced inlo
service.
  The  proposed standard wooic! also
apply to pressure relief devices in liquiii
service, flanges, and other cor.nec'ors
The proposed standard would not
require a formal leak detection and
repair program. However, instrument
monitoring must be performed within 5
days if evidence of a potential leak is
found by visual, audible, olfactory, or
any other detection method. If an
instrument reading of 10,000 ppm is
measured by Reference Method 21, tht
proposed standard would require a firs!
attempt at repair within 5 days, with
repair of the leak within 15 days from
the date the leak was detected.
  Compliance with the proposed
standards would be assessed through
plant inspection and the review of
records and reports that would
document implementation of the
requirements. On a semiannual basis,
the owner or operator would report thp
number of leaks detected and the
number of leaks not repaired during tht>
6-month period. Also, if any add-on
control devices were used, the ownes o;
operator would report semiannually any
occurrences when parameters monitored
exceed or drop below the design
specifications. The owner or operatoi
would also submit a signed statement in
each semiannual report, indicating
whether provisions of the standard had
been met for the 6-month period.
Recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for alternative standard'
are also included in the proposed
regulation.
  Under the proposed standard,
compliance would be required withir, 9i>
days of the effective date for existing
sources and at startup for a new source
A waiver of compliance for an existing
source could be approved by the
Administrator for no more than 2 years
from the date of promulgation under 40
CFR Part 61. Emission testing would be
required only for equipment subject to
the no detectable emissions standards
or the alternative performance standard
for valves. However, the proposed
standard would require the following
information for each plant to be
included in the source report required h\
§ 61.10 of the General Provisions: (1) A
description of the control equipment
used to achieve compliance for each
source: and (2) the date of installation o5
the control equipment for each source.
as certified by the owner or operator

Summary of Environmental. Health.
Energy, and Economic Impacts

  The estimated environmental, hedlir.
energy, and economic impacts of the
proposed standard were based  milialH
on a data base composed of 55 coke *-••
product recovery plants. Information
received recently from the industry a-i.i
the U.S. Department of Energy indi; -'H
th.it 13 o'" these plants ha\ e dosed
                                                    V-L-4
-------
               Federal  Register / Vol. 49, No.  110 / Wednesday. June 6, 1984  /  Proposed Rules
permanently during the past 2 years.
Consequently, the impacts have been
revised to reflect these closures. This
preamble presents the revised impacts
based on 42 plants. The impacts and
associated calculations in the BID will
be revised following proposal of the
recommended standards.
  Implementation of the proposed
standard would reduce nationwide
benzene emissions from the 42 operating
coke by-product recovery plants from
their current level of about 24,100 Mg/yr
to about 2.700 Mg/yr, an 89-percent
reduction. Total uncontrolled
nationwide emissions of benzene and
other volatile organic compounds also
would be reduced from their current
estimated level  of 160,000 Mg/yr to
about 35,000 Mg/yr, a 78-percent
reduction.
  A" a result of this benzene emission
reduction, the proposed standard would
rr ;L,-e the estimated maximum lifetinu
risk for the  most exposed popu!i:tion
from about 6.4X10'3 at current  controls
to about 3.0xlO~4. The reduction also
would decrease the estimated annual
leuVemia incidence from about  2.2 cases
per year &t  current controls to about 0.19
case per year. Due to the assumptions
th«t were made in calculating the
maximum lifetime risk and leukemia
incidence numbers, there is uncertainty
associated with the risk and incidence
nnnbers presented here and elsewhere
in this preamble. Although EPA
acknowledges this uncertainty,  the
Agency believes that these estinruites
represent plausible, if not conservative.
approximations of the potential cancer
risks. The major uncertainties and
assumptions in  the estimation of health
risks as well as alternative methods of
presenting risk information are  further
described in a following section entitled.
"Quantitative Health Risk Asspssrnrn! "
  Implementation of the proposed
standards is not expected to result in
any unreasonably adverse water
pollution, solid waste, noise, or energy
impacts. Actually, a slight net reduction
of the benzene contained in process
wastewater could be expected with the
use of the gas blanketing system. A
nominal increase in electrical energy or
steam requirements could occur if gas
blanketing piping were  heated to
prevent vapors  from condensing 01
freezing in vent lines. However, the  cost
of this energy requirement would be
largely offset by the recovery (if benzene
contained in the coke oven gases, which
otherwise would have been discharged
to the atmosphere.
  The control required by the proposed
standard would result in fuel savings
and increased product recover). As a
rfsiilt the net nationwide annuitized
cost of the standard would actual!> be a
savings. The national capital cost
associated with the proposed standards
is estimated at about  S23.8 million over
baseline costs (1982 dollars). A savings
in nationwide annualized coils would
be achieved by the proposed standard
as a result of light-oil recovery credits.
[In general, even though the purchase of
air pollution control equipment may
result in a net savings, affected sources
do not necessarily purchase that
equipment voluntarily because they may
be able to attain a higher rate of return if
given the opportunity to invest
elsewhere.) The price of foundry coke
could increase by as much as $0.24/Mg.
an increase of less than 1  percent from
the baseline price, while the price of
furnace coke would increase by less
than S0.02/Mg (1982 dollars) as a result
of the proposed standard. An economic
analysis indicates that the industry
trend is to pass through some mcrc.iscs
in costs to consumers.
Background Information on Health
Effects of Benzene

  On June 8,1977, the Administrator
announced his decision to list benzene
as a hazardous air pollutant under
section 112 of the Clean Air Act (42 FR
29332). A public hearing was held on
August 21,1980, to discuss the listing.
Supplementary background information
regarding the listing may be obtained
from the maleic anhydride Docket
Number OAQPS 79-3, Part I, and from
the EPA document, "Response to Public
Comments on EPA's Listing of Benzene
Under Section 112" (EPA-450/5-82-00:i)
Quantitative Health Risk Assessment
  The listing of benzene as a hazardous
air pollutant under section 112 requires
that EPA publish emission standards
wnich provide an "ample  margin of
safety" to protect the public health.
However, neither the language nor the
legislative history of section 112  reveals
any specific Congressional intent as to
how to apply the phrase "ample margin
of safety" to protect the public health
from pollutants like benzene
  In some cases, scientific evidence
indicates that a given chemical is
hazardous at high levels of exposure but
has not effect below a certain level
However, for most carcinogenic
chemicals, including benzene.
thresholds below which there is no
cancer risk have not been established.
There is some reason to believe that
such thresholds may not exist for man>
carcinogens. For such substances. EPA
and other Federal agencies have taken
the position that any level of exposure
may pone some risk of adverse effects.
with the risk increasing as the exposure
increases.
  Since a specific environmental
carcinogen is likely to be responsible for
at most a small fraction of a
community's overall cancer in( idfiu.c
and since the general population is
exposed to a complex mix of potentially
toxic agents, it is virtually impossible
with current scientific techniques to
directly link actual human cancers with
ambient air exposure to chemicals such
as benzene. Consequently. EPA relies or.
mathematical modeling techniques to
estimate human health risks. These
techniques—"quantitative risk
assessment"— are used to assess the
risk of adverse health effects from
exposure to benzene in the ambient
environment by mathematically
extrapolating effects found at the hifihci
occupational exposure levels to the
lower concentration levels characteristic
of human exposure in the vicinity of
industrial sources of ben7ene.
  EPA's approach to risk assessment fur
suspected carcinogens m;'y be divided
into several steps. The first is H
qualitative evaluation of the evidinre t«
determine whether a substance should
be considered a human carcinogen for
regulatory purposes. As described
earlier, this was done in the case of
benzene before the chemical  wtts listed
as a hazardous air pollutant in 1977. The
next stage is quantitative  how large is
the risk of cancer at  various levels of
exposure? The result of this examination
is a dose-response relationship from
which  a "unit risk factor" is derived.
The unit risk factor represents the
cancer risk for an individual exposed tu
a unit concentration (e.g.. 1 ^/m") foi H
lifetime.
  The  third stage of the risk ws
is to estimate how many people are
exposed to the substance, a^d qf
levels. Exposure  estimates are combined
with the unit risk factor to obtain
estimates of the risk posed by air
emissions of the pollutant, in this  case
benzene.
  The estimated  carcinogenir >;sks
posed by benzene emissions  arc
characterized by two ways: As the
predicted annual incidence of leukemia
(expressed as cases  per year), and i;s
the lifetime risk of leukemia for
individuals exposed to the highest
predicted annual average ambient
benzene concentrations (expressed ;<<< *
probability). "Annual incidence"
represents the aggregate risk for the
population residing within a specified
distance of emitting  sources.  "Maximum
lifetime risk" represents thr probability
of contracting leukemia for those
individuals assumed to be ."-.rosed for ;i
                                                    V-L-5
-------
               Federal Register /  Vol.  49.  No. 110  / Wednesdc y.  June 6, 1984 /  Proposed Rules
lifetime to the highest average benzenp
concentrations predicted to ocr ur in the
ambient air in the vicinity of emitting
sources.
 .The health risk estimated for benzene
source categories are comprised of three
components noted above: the unit risk
factor,* based on a dose-responsn
function derived from epidemiolugiral
data; the exposed population, estimated
from census data; and the benzene
ambient concentrations, derived from
dispersion modeling of emissions.
  EPA has extrapolated the leukemia
risks identified for occupationa'ly
exposed populations (generally healthy,
white males) to the general population
for whom susceptibility to a
carcinogenic insult could differ. The
presence of more or less susceptible
subgroups within the general population
would result in an occupationallj-
derived risk factor that may
underestimate or overestimate HI t^.il
risks. To the extent that there aiv more
susceptible subgroups within the general
pop-.ila'ion, the maximum individual
lifetime risks may be underesiirr>)lt;d
  On the other hand, general population
exposures to benzene are much lo>ver
than those experienced by the exposed
workers in the occupational  studies.
often by several orders of magni; ,Je. In
relating the occupational expi:ner>rp to
the general population, EPA has Applied
a linear, non-threshold model I hat
assumes that the leukenva response ;s
linearly related to benzenp dt ;
can and should p!;ty an important rt~"  •
the regulation  of h izardcus pollutants
  EPA has received numerous public
commenis on most of the steps in thi
analyt'c process described above as ..
result of the announcement of the hsi  -
of benzene as a hazardous air poii J'.o'
and the intent  to regulate a numbf* L.!
source categories. The full response (^
those comments is in the EPA doncri •
"Response to Public Comments on
EPA's Listing of Benzene Under Sei t . - -
112" (EPA-450/5-82-003). EPA is
presently inclined to continue to uti :!
major features of the risk-assessmrrv
process described above, and in
particular to adhere to the no-threshofi;
assumption and the linear model.
  Arguments have been advanced I),..'
in addition to the conservative neturi c'
the model used, the assumption maCt
by EPA (Carcinogen Assessment Gro-y
[CAG]) in the derivation of a unit
leukemia risk factor for benzene
represented "serious misinterpretation
of the underlying epidemiological
evidence. Among the specific criticis"^
are: CAG (1) inappropriately includes i.~
its evaluation  of the Infante et al. study
two cases of leukemia from outside thi
cohort, inappropriately excluded a
population of workers that had been
exposed to benzene, and improperly
assumed that exposure levels werp
comparable with prevailing
                                                     V-L-6
-------
               Federal Register  /  Vol. 49.  No. 110  /  Wednesday. June 6.  1984 / Proposed Rules
occupational standards: (2) accepted, in
the Aksoy et al. studies, an
unreasonable undercount of the
background leukemia incidence in rural
Turkey, made a false adjustment of ago.
and under-estimated the exposure
duration; and (3) included the Ott et al.
study in the analysis despite a lack of
statistical significance.
  EPA has reexamined and reevaluated
each of the three studies. In summary,
EPA concluded that one case of
leukemia was inappropriately included
from the Infante et al. study in
computing the original unit risk factor.
Additionally. EPA reaffirmed its
decision to exclude dry-side workers
from that study in developing the risk
factor. The Agency agrees that the
Aksoy et al. study was adjusted
improperly for age: however, the
exposures and durations of exposures
are still considered reasonable
estimates. The Ott et al. study was not
eliminated from the risk assessment
because the findings meet the test of
statistical significance and because it
provides the best documented exposure
data available from the three
epidemiological studies.
  Based on these findings, the unit risk
factor (the probability of an individual
contracting leukemia after a lifetime of
f xposure to a benzene concentration of
one part benzene per million parts air)
was recalculated. The revised estimate
resulted in a reduction of about 7
percent from the original estimate of the
geometric mean, from a probability of
leukemia of 0.024/ppm to a probability
of leukemia of 0.022/ppm
Selection of Coke By-Product Recovery
Plants for Regulation
  Nationwide benzene emissions from
sources considered for regulation at
coke by-product recovery plants are
estimated at 24,100 Mg/yr. Dispersion
modeling was used to estimate the
benzene concentrations to which people
within 20 kilometers of coke by-product
plants are exposed as a result of the
benzene emissions from these plants.
Several million people (at least 15 to 20
million) live within 20 kilometers of the
42 existing by-product recovery plants.
As a result of exposure to these benzene
concentrations, the maximum lifetime
risk of the most exposed population  is
estimated at 6.4xlO~3. The maximum
lifetime risk is the estimated probability
that the people who are exposed
continuously for 70 years to the highest
maximum annual average ambient
benzene concentration estimated to
result from benzene emissions from coke
by-product recovery plants will contract
leukemia as a result of exposure  to these
emissions. In addition, the leukemia
incidence is estimated at 2.2 cases per
year within this population as a result of
exposure to benzene emissions.-from
these plants.
  Although the maximum lifetime risk
estimates apply to only a few people
under particular conditions, EPA has
calculated the lifetime risk for all
individuals living within 20 kilometers of
coke by-product recovery plants. The
following table (Table 1) presents El'A's
estimate of the distribution of ppoplp dt
different predicted risk levels livinp
around these sources. For each risk
range in the first column, the set ond
column indicates the number of people
living within the 20 kilometer (12.5
miles) radius estimated to be exposed  IP
benzene at levels that would produce
those risks.
                       TABLE 1.   POPULATIONS AT  RISK
 Risk (Probability) of Leukemia  from
    Lifetime  (70  years) Exposure
              Number of People
            Exposed Within  20 km
          (12.5 miles) of Sources'
 Greater than  1  x lo"2
 (Greater than 1 In 100)

 1 x 10'2 - 1  x  10~3
 (1 in 100 to  1  in 1,000)

 1 > 10~3 - 1  x  10~4
 (1 in 1,000 to  1 in 10,000)

 1 x 10'4 - 1  x  10"5
 (1 in 10,000  to 1 in 100,000)

 1 * 10~5 - 1  x  10"6
 (1 in 100,000 to 1 in 1,000,000)

 1 « 10"6 - 1  x  10~7
 (1 in 1.000,000 to 1 in 10,000.000)

 1 x 10"7 - 1  x  10"8
 (1 in 10,000.000 to 1 in 100,000,000)
                            0


                        3,200


                     101,000


                   2,212,000


                  17,991,000


                  10.214,00'


                     *4i ,'JUI1
  The values  for the number  of  people were  calculated  on  a piant-by-
  plant basis  and summed.  Because some people are located wini.i 20  k>;
  of more than one plant, the actual number of people  expc^e^ will be
  somewhat less than presented  in this table.
  Controls are available for reducing the
benzene emissions at these plants (see
section entitled. "Selection of Control
Technologies"). The application of these
controls also would reduce uncontrolled
emissions of volatile organic compounds
and potentially toxic pollutants other
than benzene.
  Based on the documented evidi nee
thdt benzene is a leukemogen. the
magnitude of benzene emissions from
coke by-product recovery plants, the
estimated ambient concentrations due to
these emissions, the resulting estimated
maximum individual risks and estimated
incidence of leukemia in the exposed
population, the potential reductions  in
these health risks achievable through
available control techniques, and
consideration of the uncertainties
assor.ated with these quantitative risk
estimates, the Administrator finds that
benzene emissions from coke by-produt T
recovery plants pose a si^. m.iiil risk o!
cancer and warrent Fede:,il 'emulation
under section 112.

<>r/('( tfon of Emission A- :::>

  Numerous benzene err.issiun bnuu.es
are present at each coke by-product
plant. During 1979 and 1980. a survey of
seven representative coke by product
plants was condurtrd to ideni.f\ the
sources that emit benzene and for whic t
controls were protentially available1.
Visual observations were made and
grab samples were obtained during the
source sampling survey, which was
followed by an emission testing
program. Because of the numerous
benzene emission sources throughout
the plants, engineering judgment
(coupled with site-specific production
rates and process information provided
hv the plants), the results of sample
aruilvsis. and the results of emission
                                                   V-L-7
-------
               Federal  Register / Vol. 49, No.  110 / Wednesday. June 6. 1984  /  Proposed Rules
testing were used to estimate the
emissions.
  More than 20 emission sources were
identified in the source sampling survey.
The emission sources considered for
regulation are listed in Table 2, as are
the estimated uncontrolled industry-
wide benzene emissions and the
estimated uncontrolled benzene
emissions from a medium-sized plant
producing 4,000 Mg of coke per day.
Further information regarding the
development of the emission factors
used to estimate uncontrolled emissions
is provided in Chapter 3 of the BID
Following is a brief description of
typical coke by-producty recovery
processes and the associated emission
points considered for regulation under
the proposed standard.
            TABLE 2.  UNCONTROLLED  BENZENE  EMISSIONS FROM COKE
                BY-PRODUCT RECOVERY PLANT EMISSION SOURCES

                                             Uncontrolled   Emissions from a
                                            industry-wide     medium-sized
                                               emissions          plant
              Emission source
        (Mg/yr)
(Mg/yr)°
Tar decanter
Tar- intercepting sump
Flushing-liquor circulation tank
Tar dewatering tanks
Tar storage tanks
Excess-ammonia liquor storage tanks
Direct-water final cooler cooling tower
Naphthalene separation and processing
Tar-bottom final cooler cooling tower
Wash-oil decanter
Wash-oil circulation tank
Light-oil condenser and light-oil
decanter vent
Light-oil sump
Benzene storage tanks
Benzene-mixture (BTX) storage tanks
Light-oil storage tanks
Pumps
Valves
Pressure relief devices
Exhausters
Sampling connections
Open-ended lines
3.560
4,380
417
874
556
417
5,500
2,180
696
143
143
3,200

632
71
23
276
463
312
209
25
41
14
108
133
13
29
17
13b
390°
156b
100b
5.5
5.5
125

22
8.5C
8.5
9d
16d
Ud
7d
4 d
1'4d
0.3d
Uncontrolled benzene emissions,  a  medium-si zed plant producing 4,000 Mg
.of coke per day.
 An actual plant would have  either  a direct-water final cooler or a tar-
 bottom final cooler.  Naphthalene  processing would be found only at a
 plant with a direct-water final  cooler.
 This emission source would  only  occur at a plant which practices benzene
 .refining.
 Uncontrolled emissions estimate  for a plant that does not practice
 benzene refining.
  In the coke by-product recovery
process, the various components of the
gases emitted from the coke oven
battery are separated and recovered to
obtain products such as crude tar,
naphthalene, light oils, benzene-
mixtures, and refined benzene. In the
crude tar separation operation, the
initial condensation of the tar contained
in the coke oven gases occurs by direct
contact with flushing liquor in the
collecting and suction mains.
Approximately 80 percent of the tar is
separated from the gas in the mains and
is flushed to a rar decanter (also known
as a flushing liquor decanter). The
remaining light tar and condensate
(approximately 20 percent) is forwarded
to the tar-intercepting sump for the
separation or light oils and wastewater.
The flushing liquor that separates from
the tar in the tar decanter is then
transferred to the flushing-liquor
circulation tank, which cools the
flushing liquor and recirculates it to the
gas mains. In many plants, the coal tar is
not refined on site but is sold to tar
refiners. A common requirement is that
the tar contain no  more than 2 percent
water. For this reasons the water
content of the tar may be futher reduced
by a tar-dewatering (dehydration)
process. The crude tar recovered dm ing
the tar separation process is then stored
in heated storage tanks pending further
use or sale.
  Depending on the plant design, Ur
recovered during the separation process
may also undergo refining to produce
coal tar pitch. Like other tar products.
pitch is stored in vented storage vessels
Benzene emissions from pitch storage
tanks were not evident during emission
testing because this pollutant is driven
off with the lighter fractions. In addition,
this process is practiced at few by-
product plants. For these reasons, pitch
storage tanks and pitch prilling
operations (the refining of pitch to
produce extruded pencils or beads)
were not considered for regulation
under the proposed standards.
  The ammonia produced in a coke
oven is approximately 0.2 percent of the
weight of the coal fed to the ovens.
Flushing liquor sprayed into the
collecting mains absorbs some  of the
ammonia, and water condensed in the
primary cooler absorbs an additional
amount. Although aqueous ammonia
solutions are decanted from the tar in  a
variety of processing vessels, the excess
ammonia-liquor storage tank  was the
only benzene emmission source
identified in ammonia recovery or
ammonia wastewater processing
facilities.
  Before  light oils are recovered from
the coke oven gas, the temperature of
the gas is cooled from approximately 60'
C to about 25° C by a final cooler. As the
gas is cooled, some of the water and
most of the naphthalene in the gas arc.
condensed into the cooling medium.
Both water and naphthalene are
removed  from the gas to prevent
problems downstream. The three types
of final coolers currently used by the
industry are: (1) Direct-water, (2) tar-
bottom, and (3) wash-oil final coolers.
  Available data indicate that 19 plants
use a direct-water final cooler. When a
direct-water final cooler is used. The
condensed naphthalene in the final
cooler must be periodically removed
from the hot well of the final cooler to
prevent clogging cf tubes, vents, or
meters. Benzene emissions result when
crude naphthalene is removed from  the
hot well of the direct-water final cooler
and transported in open troughs, refined
by melting or steam drying, or stored
while it is hot for convenience in
handling. After separation of  the
naphthalene, the water is cooled in an
inducted-draft cooling tower and
recirculated to the final cooler. The
water contains benzene, which  is
released to the atmosphere when the
water is cooled against  air in  an open
                                                  V-L-8
-------
               Federal Register / Vol.  49, No. 110  /  Wednesday. )une 6.  1984 / Proposed Rules
cooling tower. At plants using a direct-
water final cooler, the final-cooler
cooling tower is usually the largest
source of benzene emissions.
  An estimated 12 plants use a tar-
bottom final cooler. In this system, the
cooling medium (water) is passed
through a pool of tar in the bottom of the
final cooler. Naphthalene in the water
dissolves in the tar and the tar is
recirculated to tar storage tanks,  sold as
a final product, or refined. As in a
direct-water final cooler,  the final cooler
water is cooled in a cooling tower and
recirculated to the final cooler. Although
use of a tar-bottom final cooler
eliminates naphthalene processing and
the resultant benzene emissions,  the tar
may become saturated with benzene.
Thus, benzene may still be contained in
the final cooler water and released
when the water is cooled against air in
the final-cooler cooling tower,
  A wash-oil final cooler uses petroleum
wash oil as the cooling medium rather
than water or tar. Naphthalene dissolves
in the wash oil, which is indirectly
cooled with heat exchangers and
recirculated to the final cooler. This
system is used by four plants. Benzene
emissions from naphthalene processing
and from the final-cooler cooling tower
are virtually eliminated with the  use of a
wash-oil final cooler system. However,
benzene from the wash oil may still be
emitted form the wash-oil decanter and
the wash-oil circulation tank associated
with the wash-oil final-cooler system.
Wash-oil decanters and wash-oil
circulation tanks may also occur in the
light-oil recovery operation.
   Light oil is a clear, yellow-brown oil
composed primarily of benzene,  toluene.
xylene, solvent naphtha,  and numerous
minor constituents that boil between 0°C
and 200°C. Light oil is recovered  from
the coke oven gas in  a scrubber in which
wash oil absorbs the light oil from the
gas. The benzolized wash oil (wash-oil
and light-oil mixture) leaving the
scrubber is separated by steam
stripping,  and the wash oil  is cooled and
recycled to the scrubber. The stripped
vapors may be partially condensed in a
light-oil condenser, while those that
remain noncondensible may be
forwarded to a light-oil decanter
(rectifier) that separates the recovered
light oil into intermediate and secondary
fractions. The overhead,  consisting of
benzene, toluene, and xylene (BTX) is
then forwarded  to a water-cooled
condenser.
   Benzene emission sources in the light-
oil recovery operation include wash-oil
decanters, wash-oil circulation tanks,
light-oil condensers,  light-oil decanters
(or common vents for light-oil
condensers and light-oil decanters).
storage tanks containing light oil
(including BTX) or refined benzene, and
light-oil sumps. The wastewater
forwarded to the light-oil sump (from
which light oil may be recovered by
distillation) may also emit benzene,
which is entrained or dissolved in the
water.
  Sources of benzene fugitive emissions
at coke by-product recovery plants also
include leaking pumps, valves,
exhausters pressure relief devices,
sampling connections, flanges,  and
open-ended lines. In the by-product
recovery process, benzene is present in
numerous process streams and final
products. The streams are usually
moved throughout the process unit by
pumps through pipes, with the volume  of
flow regulated by values. Exhausters,
generally located in the tar separation
sector of the plant, serve to move the
coke oven gas in the collecting main.
Benzene emissions from these sources til
coke by-product recovery plants are
specifically exempted from proposed
EPA benzene fugitive emission
standards (46 FR 1165, January 5,1981!
Selection of Control Technologies
  Many options  are available for the
control of benzene emissions from cokf
by-product recovery plants.
Implementation of any of the control
options would also reduce volatile
organic compound (VOC) emissions
Control techniques that are effective in
reducing or eliminating emissions
include source enclosure used in
conjunction with a gas blanketing
sxstem, source enclosure alone, wash-oil
scrubbers, process modifications, leak
detection and repair programs, and
equipment for certain fugitive emission
sources. Further information regarding
these and other control techniques is
provided in Chapter 4 of the BID.
  Gas blanketing. Gas blanketing has
been demonstrated at by-product
recovery plants as an effective control
technique for reducing VOC emissions,
such as benzene, from process vessels
and product storage tanks. This control
technique can be applied to tar
decanters, flushing-liquor circulation
tanks, tar-intercepting sumps, tar
dewatering tanks, light-oil condensers,
light-oil decanters (or the common vent
for a light-oil condenser and a  light-oil
decanter), wash-oil decanters,  wash-oil
circulation tanks, and storage tanks
holding tar, excess-ammonia liquor, light
oi', benzene mixtures, and refined
benzene.
  The basic principles of gas blanketing
require sealing all the openings on a
vessel or tank, supplying a constant
pressure gas blanket with coke-oven
gas. nitrogen or natural gas. and
providing for the recovery or destruction
of displaced vapor emissions.
Depending on the source to be
controlled, displaced vapors  from thfc
enclosed source can be transported
through a piping system to the collecting
main, to the gas holder, or to another
point in the by-product recovery process
where the benzene will be recovered or
destroyed. With source enclosure, the
control efficiency of the blanketing
system approaches 100 percent.
However, deterioration of piping ot
sealing materials can occasionally result
in leaks, thus reducing the overall
control efficiency to as low as 98
percent.
  With gas blanketing from the
collecting main, a vapor recovery
system is in place in the form of the by-
product recovery process, which
removes organics from the raw coke
oven gas. One advantage of gas
blanketing from the collecting m;iin is
the recovery of benzene and other
organic material. At a modium-sizi-d by-
product plant producing 4.000 Mg of
coke per day, benzene losses are
estirnated as high as 4 percent  of tin-
total benzene gen-rated in the  process
Depending upon the design of the
system and  the source to  be controlled,
much of this estimated process loss can
be recovered by venting emissions to
'he collecting main.
  For gas blanketing from the collecting
main to work safely and effectively.
each emission source must bo enclosed
to accept a slight, positive pressure
without leaks to the atmosphere, f-'oi
most vessels associated with crude t;i'
produciton.  enclosure would require
closing atmospheric vrnt  lines  and
connecting the tank's vent line to the gas
blanketing line. However, tar decanters
may require further modifications before
a gas blanket can be applied. Tar
decanter tops usually have a rectangular
surface where the liquid is either
exposed to the atmosphere or partially
covered with concrete slabs  set on steel
support beams. At many plants, the
decanter top must be removed. H wiiter
seal and metal cover installed, and
gasket material added to  provide a tight
seal for the  metal cover. A wnter seal
suspended from the decanter roof near
the sludge discharge chute would allow
the major portion of the liquid  surface to
be blanketed at a smaP positive
pressure, while allowing the remaining
portion of the liquid surface (estimated
at about 13  percent) to be opened to the
atmosphere so as to provide clearance
for a sludge converjor. Because a
portion of the liquid surface must rermiin
open to the  atmosphere, the benzene
i.ontrol efficiency of gas blanketing fo*
                                                    V-L-9
-------
               Federal  Register / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday. June  6, 1984 / Proposed  Rules
this source is lower than for other
sources, but is estimated to be at least
95 percent.
  Potential condensation of naphthalene
or other tar components in the piping
system and freezing of water vapor in
the coke oven gas can be reduced or
eliminated by steam tracing the affected
line, controlling the temperature with
electrical heating tape, or by a
combination of both methods. Drip
points can also be installed so that any
condensate can be drained from the
blanketing line. Three-way lubricated
plug valve* can also be provided to
avoid sticking due to tar deposits and to
isolate individual vessels during gauging
or sampling operations. Although this
equipment may not be necessary for
each plant and would not be specifically
required for any gas blanketing system,
equipment costs for these items are
included in the estimated system costs
described in Chapter 8 of the BID
because this equipment is  considered a
useful and reasonable part of gas
blanketing systems.
   Gas blanketing from the collecting
main has been successfully
demonstrated at one by-product plant
for the control of emissions from two tar
decanters and a flushing liquor
circulation tank. At  this plant, the gas
blanketing line was connected to the
offtake main upstream of the Askania
regulatory (butterfly control valve). The
blanketing pressure was typically
controlled at 6 mm of water with a range
of 4  to 8 mm of water. The decanter
roofs were enclosed up to  the sludge
conveyor  with steel plate and sealed
with gasket material. Access hatches on
both sources were covered and sealed; a
vertical manifold of small  valves was
also installed to allow the operator to
determine the level of tar and flushing
liquor in the decanters. Three-way
valves, atmospheric vents, and steam-
out connectors for line cleaning were
also installed. All lines were stream
traced and insulated. No safety
problems were reported by plant
personnel operating the positive
pressure portion of the system at this
plant.
   Engineering analyses indicate that no
technical, safety, or operating problem
would preclude the use of gas
blanketing from the collecting main for
the control of tar-intercepting sumps, tar
storage tanks (including dewatering
tanks), and excess ammonia-liquor
storage tanks. These sources are
generally in proximity and, like the tar
decanter  and flushing-liquor circulation
tank, are  all associated with the crude
tar and ammonia liquor recovery
operations practiced in the initial steps
of the by-product recovery process. The
proximity of the sources allows the use
of a common large header to supply
coke oven gas from the collecting main;
smaller diameter piping can then
connect the individual vent lines to the
header. Because the liquid contents of
these tanks result from water contact
with the raw coke oven gas, coupled
with the subsequent separation of tar
and flushing liquor, no contamination
problems are expected from a raw coke
oven gas blanket. In addition,  these
sources can  accept the low positive
pressure (6 to 10 mm water) of the coke
oven gas from the collecting main
without danger of rupture.
  With gas blanketing from the gas
holder, a vapor destruction system is in
place because the clean oven gas is
burned to underfire the coke ovens and
to recover the fuel value. One advantage
of blanketing with clean coke  oven gas
from the gas holder is  the elimination of
oxidation reactions between oxygen in
the air and organic materials in  the
vessels. These reactions often result in a
sludge that may pose fouling and
plugging problems in lines and process
equipment. In addition, oxygen
infiltration can cause tank vapors to
reach the explosive limits of vapor when
tanks are periodically emptied or when
significant cooling takes place. Applying
a positive pressure blanket would
eliminate oxygen infiltration and
maintain ths vapor space in the  tank
above its upper explosive limit.
  Gas blanketing with clean coke oven
gas has been demonstrated for the
control of emissions from sources
associated with light-oil recovery,
including the light-oil condenser, light-
oil decanter, light-oil storage tank,
wash-oil decanter, and wash-oil
circulation tank. Again, the proximity of
these sources allows the use of  a
common large header  to supply  coke
oven gas from the gas holder; smaller
branches of piping can then connect the
individual vent lines to the header. For
most vessels in the light-oil plant, source
enclosure would require closing all
vents to the atmosphere and connecting
the tank's vent line to the gas blanketing
line. Horizontal tanks in the light-oil
plant may require some minor
modifications to withstand a pressure of
36 to 46 cm  (14 to 18 in) of water. As
previously discussed,  heat tracing and
insulation can be used to avoid
condensation, accumulation, and
plugging in the lines. Steam-out
connections can also be used for line
cleaning, and three-way lubricated plug
valves can be provided so that an
individual line or vessel can be  isolated
for maintenance or sampling.
  Gas blanketing with clean coke ovtn
gas from the gas holder has been
demonstrated for these sources at three
by-product plants. At one plant,
undesulfurizcd coke oven gas from thn
gas holder is used to control wash-oil
decanters and wash-oil circulation
tanks. At this plant, a header line is
connected to the coke oven gas line
exiting the wash-oil scrubbers. The
tanks are connected with a line that
runs from the header pipe. Isolating
valves and steam-out connections are
provided. However, none of the lines are
heated or insulated. Although no
pressure relief valves or controllers are
used, water u-seals are placed in the
lines to remove condensste and to
protect the system from excessive
pressure.
  At a second plant, desulfurized gas
from the battery underfire system is
used to blanket the wash-oil decanters.
wash-oil circulation tanks, light-oil
decanters, and light-oil condensers. In a
separate plant at the same location an
undesulfurizcd gas blanket is applied to
light-oil decanters  and wash-oil
circulation tanks. All lines are st"am
traced and insultated.
  At a third plant, undesnlfurized coke
oven gas from the gas holder was used
to blanket the wash-oil decanter and
circulation tank, two light-oil storage
tanks, three light-oil condensers, and
two light-oil decanters. Each emision
source was equipped with three-waj
valves, flame arrestors, steam-out
connections, steam tracing, and
insulation. No major modifications or
repairs were required to pressurize thp
emission sources.
  Plant personnel have reported no
safety problems with gas blanketing
systems for emission sources in light-oil
recovery operations. In addition, only
routine operating problems, such as
sticking valves, have been experienced.
These difficulties can be avoided with
good operation and maintenance
practices.
   It is the EPA conclusion that no safety
or operating problems would preclude
the application of gas blanketing to
benzene storage tanks. For this source,
however, coke oven gas is not
recommended as the blanketing medium
because of the possibility of
contamination from components in the
coke oven gas. However, nitrogen or
natural gas can be used as a substitute.
Emissions could be muted to the coke
oven gas main and burned in  the gas
combustion system, or emissions may be
routed to the gas main before light-oii
removal and recovered in the wash-oil
scrubbing operation. As with  other
sources, the benzene storage tanks must
                                                   V-L-10
-------
               Federal Register /  Vol. 49,  No. 110  /  Wednesday, June 6, 1984 / Proposed Rules
be enclosed to accept a postive pressure
gas blanket without leakage. In addition,
heat-traced and insulated lines would be
needed for winter operations due to the
freezing temperature of benzene (42° F).
  Wash-oil scrubbers. A wash-oil
scrubber can be used to absorb benzent
and other organics from vented
emissions. Engineering analysis shows
that application of a properly designed
and operated wash-oil scrubber can
attain a control efficiency for benzene of
90 percent. Although wash-oil scrubbers
are less effective than gas blanketing,
they were considered by the EPA
because, in some cases,  they could be
less costly.
  Wash-oil scrubber technology is
already used in the coke by-product
recovery industry to recover the light oil
from the coke oven process gas stream.
Light oil is a mixture composed
primarily of benzene (60 to 85 percent)
that also has toluene (6 to 17 percent).
xylene (1 to 7 percent), solvent naphtha
(0.5 to 3 percent), and other minor
constilutents. The coke oven enters the
scrubber from the bottom where it is
contacted by wash oil flowing from the
top of the scrubber, countercurrent to
the gas flow. The wash oil is a
petroleum straw oil with a boiling point
over 200° C (392° F). has a high
absorptive capacity for light oil. and
does not react with the gas. Aftei
passing through the scrubber, the
benzolized wash oil (wash-oil and light-
oil mixture) is steam stripped in a wash
oil still to separate the light oil from the
wash oil. The devenzolized  wash oil is
then cooled and recirculated back to the
wash-oil scrubber. The absorption of the
light oil by the wash oil is highl>
dependent on temperature: the
absorption decreases as temperature
increases. For this reason, the coke oven
gas is cooled from about 60° C (140° F) to
about 15-30° C (59-86° F) before it enters
the scrubber. The temperature of the
wash oil as it enters the  scrubber is
about 17.32° C {63-90° F): it is generally
a few degrees hotter than the gas to
prevent water condensation and
emulsification problems. The wash-oil
scrubber recovers about 90 percent of
the light oil from the coke oven gas.
  A wash-oil scrubber used to remove
benzene from vented emissions would
be of similar design, but  scaled-down
from the wash-oil scrubber used in the
light-oil recovery process. Emission
sources vented to the'wash-oil scrubber
must be enclosed so that vapors
displaced from the  sources due to
working and breathing losses couid not
go anywhere except to the scrubber. The
scrubber design analyzed by the EPA
has no fan continuously  venting the
vapors to the scrubber. In the scrubber
analyzed by the EPA, emissions would
enter the bottom of an unpacked
scrubbing chamber and contact a spray
of wash oil from the top of the scrubbing
chamber. The wash oil would be a
slipstream taken from the wash-oil used
in light oil recovery. The scrubber
operating temperatures (e.g.. the
temperature of the gas leaving the
scrubber) would be about 30° C (86° F),
which is similar to the temperatures in
the scrubber used in the light oil
recovery process. The benzolized wash
oil would be routed to the light-oil
recovery plant, where the benzene
would be recovered in the wash-oil still
and the debenzolized wash oil would be
cooled before being recirculated to the
wash-oil scrubber. The engineering
analysis shows that the scrubber can
achieve 90 percent control efficiency for
benzene. More details on specific design
parameters are described later in this
section.
  A wash-oil scrubber was used as a
control device at one plant (that is no
longer operating) in the coke industry
As discussed below the design and
operation of this scrubber differed
significantly from a wash-oil scrubber
that would achieve 90 percent control of
benzene emissions. The scrubber was a
portion of a large organic emission
control project which principally
consisted of installation of by-product
recovery and control devices instead of
flaring the coke oven gas. The wash-oil
scrubber was applied to emissions
vented from a tar storage tank, a tar
dewatering tank, an excess  ammonia-
liquor storage tank, and an ammonia-
liquor sump. Access manwpys on the
storage tanks were covered and sealed.
The sump was enclosed with a metal
cover and gasket. Vent lines from each
enclosed vessel carried emissions to a
single scrubber. A slipstream of the
wash oil used in the light-oil recovery
process was diverted to the wash-oil
scrubber. The benzolized wash oil from
the scrubber was then routed to the
wash-oil still  in the light-oil recovery
unit, where it was debenzolized and
recirculated back to the wash-oil
scrubber. As noted above, the wash-oi!
scrubber was part of a larger project to
control total organic emissions rather
than benzene emissions alone. The plant
operator stated that the scrubber had
ne\er been tested and no records were
available of estimates of the control
efficiency'. In addition, the plant is no
longer operating. Therefore, no test datn
or company estimates of the design
control efficiency are available
However, the EPA has concluded that
this particular wash-oil scrubber system
would not control benzene emissions.
The main reason is that the
temperatures of both the wash oil and
the gas were significantly hotter than
the temperatures (about 30° 86° F)
characteristic of the gas and wash oil in
EPA's scrubber design that achieves 90
percent control and in the scrubbers in
the light oil recovery units. The wash-oi!
spray in the scrubber at this plant was H
slipstream from the wash oil leaving the
stripper,  before it was cooled. Therefore.
its temperature was 110° C (230° F),
whjich is  higher than  the boiling point of
benzene  (80° C or 176° F). In addition.
during the tar dewatering process, in
which the tar is steam-heated to drive
off water, the gas entering the scrubbe;
without precooling would probably be
around 100° C (212° F). At these
temperatures for the  wash oil  and gas.
the absorption of benzene by the wash
oil would be negligible. Therefore, the
F.PA did not consider the design of the
wash-oil  scrubber at  this particular
plant for  application  as a ben?ene
control device. This application
demonstrates the enclosure and venting
of sources.to a wash-oi! scrubber, and
the compatibility of the wash-oil
scrubber with the light-oil recovery
system. However, to  control benzene
emissions, the wash oil and the gas
would have to be cooled.
  Wash-oil scrubbers were consider i!
for controlling emissions from storage
tanks containing light-oil. BTX. ben7ene
or excess ammonia-liquor The prr-ssu;;
drop through the scrubber is negligible
therefore, the tanks would not be
subjected to pressures significnntK
higher than normal operating cond'iticr".
Consequently, little modification of t'ic
tanks, other than covering and sealing
any openings, would  be necessary. Also
the wash-oil circulation, distillation, and
cooling capacity needed to , '.c:a:e H
scrubber  applied to these  SI;TI es is
expected to be within the capacity of
most existing light-oil recover) plants
Estimated costs for applying H wash-oil
scrubber  to storage tanks  contmnmg
light-oil. BTX. benzene, or excess
ammonia-liquor are less thnn the
estimated costs of gas blanketing ihesi
sources. More details of the cost
estimates can be found in the section oS
this preamble entitled "Selection of thi
Basis of the Proposed Standard" ;mr! ir
Chapter 8 of the BID.
  Wash-oil scrubbers were also
considered for controlling emissions
from tar storage and dewciterin<: Links
As noted above, the emissions from
these sources are at elevated
temperatures. For the scrubber to
achieve an emission reduction effu ien; \
near 90 percent, the vapors would have
                                                   V-L-11
-------
               Federal  Register / Vol. 49, No.  110 / Wednesday, June 6, 1984 / Proposed Rules
to be cooled, either by a condenser or by
a sufficiently high flow rate of cool
wash-oil spray. In addition, several
other factors would have to be
addressed to design a wash-oil scrubber
to control benzene emissions from tar
storage and dewatering tanks. These
include the effects of a hot gas saturated
with water, lack of equilibrium data for
the mixture of organics expected to be in
the emission stream,  fouling of
equipment from heavy organics from the
tar, emulsification problems, and
wastewater treatment problems. Even if
it is assumed that these factors are not
problems with the design, the estimated
cost of using the wash-oil scrubber,
including cooling the  emissions, is
higher than the estimated cost of gas-
blanketing these sources. (Details of the
cost estimates can be found in Chapter 8
of the BID.) Also, as discussed above,
the emission reduction achieved by the
wash-oil scrubber is less than by gas
blanketing. For these reasons, the use of
wash-oil scrubber for tar storage and
dewatering tanks was not considered
further.
  The application of  the wash-oil
scrubber to process vessels other than
storage tanks in the tar and light-oil
recovery plants was also  considered.
These sources generally have  higher
benzene emission rates than the storage
tanks. To control these sources, a higher
volume of wash-oil spray would be
needed. The wash-oil circulation.
distillation, and cooling systems
requited to handle the wash oil would
likely be beyond the  capacity  of most
existing light-oil plants. In addition,
other sources in the tar recovery plant
would need to have the same design
considerations described above for tar
storage and dewatering tanks.
Increasing the capacity of the wash-oil
circulation, distillation, and cooling
systuns. and cooling the emissions before
scrubbing them would make the was-h-
oil scrubber more expensive than gas
blanketing, which is  the more efficient
control system. Therefore, use of the
wash-oil scrubber was not considered
further for sources other than storage
tanks containing light oil, BTX. benzene.
or excess ammonia-liquor. The Agency
invites comments on its assessment of
the application and costs of the wash-oil
scrubber to control emissions at coke
by-products plants.
  Engineering design calculations
indicate that a wash-oil scrubbci vi ith
an inner diameter of 20.3 cm (8 in), an
active height of 4 m (13 ft), and a wash-
oil (solvent) feed rate of 0.03 //s (0.5 gdl/
min) will achieve a continuous benzene
control eficiency of at least 90 percent
frorn light oil, BTX, benzene, and excess
ammonia-liquor storage tanks. This
design is based upon the following
worst-case assumptions: (1) Maximum
gas feed rate to the scrubber of 19 e/s
(40.1 ft'/min) resulting from a maximum
anticipated liquid displacement rate of
19 e/s (300 gal/min) as tank is filled, (2)
a maximum gas phase benzene
concentration of 17 percent by volume
(corresponding to storage of pure
benzene liquid at 32° C), and (3)
maximum scrubber operating
temperature (i.e., temperature of the gas
leaving the scrubber) of 32° C (90° F).
Two other design parameters, which do
not fall in  the category of "worst case,"
are the following:  (1) The spray nozzle
that distributes wash oil within the
column produces a mean droplet
diameter of 1  mm, and (2) the smallest
droplet produced by the same nozzle
has a diameter of 0.2 mm.
  For sources with gas phase benzene
concentrations of less than 17 percent
and for smaller gas phase (vent system)
flow rates, smaller scrubbers with
correspondingly lower wash-oil feed
rates can be designed. However, a
scrubber of the design summarized
above will ensure that 90 percent
efficiency is achieved at design (worst-
case) conditions and that the benzene
concentration in the absorber offgas
st. earn can be maintained at or below
thp design level.
  Light-oil sump cover. A tightly fitting
cover can be used to reduce evaporative
losses caused by wind blowing across
the surface of a light-oil  sump and
mixing with benzene or other
hydrocarbon vapors. A gasket material
applied to the rim of the sump cover
would provide a seal to prevent leakage
and would also allow removal of the
cover to permit access for sludge
removal. A vertical vent could also be
installed in the sump cover so excess
pressure would not build up in the sump.
Potential emissions from small pressure
increases  could be contained with the
use of a water leg seal, a pressure relief
device, or a vacuum relief device.
Enclosing the sump would reduce
evaporative emissions, but would  still
allow working losses (from increasing
the liquid level in the sump) and
breathing losses (from increasing the
temperature of the liquid in the sump).
For sumps operated at or near a
constant liquid level, a 98-percent
control efficiency is estimated for  a
tightly fitting sealed cover equipped
with a vertical vent as compared to the
uncontrolled  situation with wind
blowing across the  exposed liquid
surface.
   Naphthalene Processing and Final
Coolers. A process modification is an
effective control technique for benzene
emissions from naphthalene processing
and direct-water final-cooler cooling
towers. At a plant operating a direct-
water final cooler, a process
modification would consist of replacing
the direct-water final cooler with a tar-
bottom final cooler, converting the
direct-water final cooler to a tar-bottom
final cooler by adding a mixer-settler, or
replacing the direct-water final cooler
with a wash-oil final cooler. A control
efficiency of 74 percent is estimated for
direct-water final-cooler cooling tower
emissions through the installation of the
tar-bottom process or a tar mixer-settler
collection of the naphthalene by means
of a tar or wash-oil system would also
eliminate emissions from napthalene
processing for an emission reduction of
100 percent. At a plant operating a tar-
bottom final cooler, the process
modification would be the replacement
of the tar-bottom final cooler with a
wash-oil final cooler. This control option
would provide an industry-wide
emission reduction of 100 percent from
tar-bottom final-cooler cooling towers
and naphthalene processing emissions
  Pumps. Fugitive emissions from
pumps primarily result from leakage of
process fluids around the pump drive
shaft and through deteriorated seal
packing or worn mechanical seal faces
These emissions can be reduced with
the elimination  of the seal by replacing
the pump with a sealless pump or by
using an improved seal (e.g., double
mechanical seals). Because of process
condition limitations, sealless pumps »•<
not suitable for all pump applications.
However, dual mechanical seal systems
with a barrier fluid between the seals
(and meeting certain other criteria) can
achieve a benzene control efficiency of
about 100 percent.
  Another control option is the
application of a leak detection and
repair program  based on monitoring
each pump at monthly or quarterly
intervals. Once detected, leaks from
pumps usually can be repaired
immediately because critically located
pumps are spared at most by-product
plants. Based on the leak detection and
repair (LDAR) model (described in the
EPA document, "Fugitive Emission
Sources of Organic Compounds—
Additional Information on Emissions.
Emission Reductions, and Costs" (EPA-
450/3-82-010]), monthly monitoring of
pumps would achieve an industry-wi(j(-
benzene control efficiency of about 83
percent, while quarterly monitoring
would achieve an industry-wide con;»>.
efficiency of abut 71 percent.
   Valves. Fugitive emissions from
wives result when valve packings o;  >J
                                                   V-L-12
-------
                Federal Register  /  Vol. 49, No.  110 / Wednesday, June 6, 1984  / Proposed Rules
nngs tha; are used to limit IOHNHSP of
process fluids arovnd valve stems
deteriorate. Most valve leaks can he
repaired while the equipment is in
service by tightening the packing gland.
Plug valves may be repaired b> the
addition of grease. Some valves cannot
be repaired while in service. These
valves include block valves, whose
removal  for repair or replacement might
require a process shutdown  Other
valves, such as control valves with a
manual bypass loop, can be isolated for
repair  or ierr,o\al.
. The  control options considered for
valves in benzene service include the
implementation of a leak detection and
repair  program based on monthly or
quarterly monitoring intervals. Monthly
rr.oitoring would achieve an industry-
wide benzene control efficiency of about
72 percent, as compared to the 63-
percent industry-wide control efficiency
achievable with quarterly insptn lions. A
third control option considers d js
equipping valves with leakless
equipment such as sealed be'.lous
valves. The control efficiency of this
option is approximately 100 pert cnt.
  Exhausters. Emissions from
exhausters also occur at the seal
Control options for exhausters  inc.ludr
the installation of seal systems with the
barrier fluid degassing reservior vented
to a control dWice,  or purging the
barrier fluid and adding the fluid to a
process stream, or maintaining the
pressure in the barrier fluid above that
of the stuffing box. The control
efficiency for each of these mrthuds is
estimated at 100 percent. A second
control option for exhausters is the
implementation of a leak detection and
repair program, based on quarterly or
monthly  monitoring intervals. Monthly
monitoring would achieve a control
efficiency of about 64 percent, as
compared to the 55-percent control
defficiency associated with quarterly
inspections.
  Pressure relief devices. Pressure relief
devices may emit benzene fugitive
emissions because of the failure of valve
seating surfaces, improper reseating
after relieving, or process operations
near the relief valve set point. Fugitive
emissions from pressure relief valves
can be controlled by installing a rupture
disc system upstream of these valves to
prevent fugitive emissions from the
valve seat. The control efficiency of (be
rupture disc system is approximately
100 percent. Emissions from pressure
relief devices can also be controlled b>
venting emissions in a closed sv stem to
a control device, such as a flare. The
control efficiency of this equipment
option  is  at least 95  percent. However.
use of a control device would «is<>
reduce emissions resulting from a
pressure release in addition to the
fugitive emissions. The reduction of
these emissions would increase the
overall control efficieny of this option to
a Irvrl '-.pproai.hir.g that of the rupture1
disc system.
  Implementation of a leak detection
and repair program, based on
morrtoring at monthly or quarterly
intervals, was also considered as a
cunt.'ol option for pressure relief
devices. Monthly and quarterly
monitoring would achieve an industry-
wide benzene control efficiency of 53
percent and 44 percent, respectively.
  Of en-ended lines. Fugitive emissions
from open-ended lines can be controlled
by  installing a cap. plug, blind, or
second valve on the open end of the
line. Capping of open-ended lines and
closed-loop sampling represent readily
availcib'e technologies that have been
applied in the industry and exhibit
control efficiencies of approximately 100
percent. However, the acuta! control
efficiencies may depend on site-specific
factors.
  Sampling connect ions. When process
samples are taken for analysis.
obtaining a representative sample
requires purging some process fluid
through the sample connection. This
sample purge could be vented to the
atmosphere if the fluid is gaseous, and
liquid sample purges could be drained
onto the ground or into open collection
systems where evaporative emissions
would result.  Fugitive emissions from
sampling connections can be reduced b.\
using a closed-purge sampling system
that eliminates purging of process
material and provides a benzene control
efficiency of about 100 percent.

Selection of Basis of Proposed Standard
  EPA selected a level for the benzene
standard for coke by-product recovery
plants through a two-step process. The
first step in determining the basis of the
proposed standard was the selection of
the best available technology (BAT) as
the minimum  level of control. Best
available technology for new and
existing sources is technology which, in
the judgment  of the Administrator, is the
most advanced level of control
considering the economic, energy, and
environmental impacts and any
technological problems associated with
the retrofitting of existing sources.
  After selecting BAT, EPA identified a
lev el of control more stringent than BAT
and evaluated the incremental
reductions in health risks obtainable
against the incremental costs and
economic impacts estimated to result
from the application of the more
stringent control lex el. This provides a
compc'nson of the costs and ei onrf.iii
impacts of control with the benefit? cf
further risk reduction. The benefits of
risk reduction are e\prCFsec! in terms ri
the estimated annual leukemia
nx.iu'i r.i e c.'id thr rMimaled risk to In-
most exposed population. The results <•!
this cornparson determine whf th< r.  in
the judgement of the Administrator, the
residual risks remaining after
application of BAT are unreasonable II
the risk remaining after application cf
BAT is determined to be unreasonable.
further controls would be required
  This approach while recognizing thru
risk-free levels of exposure to
carcinogens such as benzene may not
exist, also considers the technological
and economic factors that affect the
pursuit of a "risk-free" or zero emissions
goal and the uncertainties inherent in
the estimation of carcinogenic risks. |I  01
more detail, see the EPA document.
"Response to Public Comments on
EPA's Listing cf Benzene Under Sec.iaia
112" (EPA-450'5-82-003).]
  In selecting BAT, EPA fust considt :K!
the cost of control for each emission
source by examining the annual cost of
each benzene emission control option
for each source and the resultant
erri.ssiun reduction. The emission
sources considered lor regulation are
indicated on Table 2. EPA then
examined the nonair enviromrcntiil.
energy, and economic impacts for the
collection of the control options
tentatively selected, based on a
consideration of cost per megagram of
emission reduction for each source to
deterni'ne if the collection represents
BAT for the industry  as a whole If thf-(
impacts were reasonable, the control
techniques were selected as BAT and
then were used in estimating the risks
remaining after application of BAT.
  The emission reductions and the
average and incremental costs per
megagram of benzene emission
reduction are presented on Table 3.
Costs per megagram of emission
reduction (average and incremental)
were calculated in terms of total
emissions (benzene ar.d othpi V'-u'tilt-
organic compounds [VOC's]), as well us
benzene alone.  Control of benzene
emissions also result in V'OC control i't
no additional cost. Therefore, V'OC
control is an added benefit of benzt-ne
control. In regulatory decision-making
regarding the acceptability of the cost
for emission reductions achieved by a
control technique, it is appropriate u>
consider the VOC as well as the
benzene emission reductions. However.
VOC emission reductions were
considered only in the sense thM VOC
emission reductions (.an add weight to
selecting a control technique as BAT
                                                    V-L-13
-------
              Federal Register /  Vol. 49,  No. 110  /  Wednes>iuy.  June 6. 1984  /  Proposed Rules
                                    limit 3  HMIQHWIOt EMISSION UtOUCNONS. HMD C0,ii Or CON 1*11
One on-


1

.'


1

4


5

t

7


«
J


III


II


17


1 1
!'
»,
'*
4
••

tuistion source Control option*

t Mash-ell final cooler
t ,r tj- intrt tar- Intercepting 6as blanketing
suet>, and (lushing liquor
circulation tank
far t'nrage tanks and tar- 6as blanketing
uVwatering tanks
ttahv-oil condenser, light-oil Gas blan*ef ino,
)1er4'*«
F'«M.S


valwi


t .l,au>ters


Picture- rel lef devices


. MesA-olI scrjtber
. Gas blanketing
Dash-oil scrutber
. Cote «en gas blanketing
. Wash-oil scrubber
Nitrogen or natural ot«
blanketing
ealad cower
, Quarterly Inspections
. Honthly Inspections
Owl siechanlcal seals
Quarterly Inspections
MontMj Inspections
Waled beTlows valves
Qtiarterly nsnectiotts
rVjnthly in nei tlons
O^qassing etervnlr vents
. Quarterly nspections
NrmlMy in (tecttons
•upllire il^cs
•,.«l>l.r.q. t^ntwcUw. system ClLrttl-p-'r-E.usjiUnj)
Pfi«n-x^pd line* Cjj, *>';_p?tHJ

n.1 6 *>( 't,v n«ufc3
4«3
463
112
112
112
25
25
n
209
209
709
41
H
<
<,240
1,370
8.080


1,410

3.470


37.
404
»4
243
t)
69

(14
328
386
4*3
1%
JJt
312
14
16
IS
93
no
209
41
14
Incremental doll
(310)
4,200
(310)


640

170


.000
.200
,800
,100
.100
,708

(230)
100
110
2,800
(230)
(110)
17.000
1.300
7. 600
74,000
(400)
(300)
870
1,700
700
ais uer «ie
Incre-
mental
C'J»t U-KLOII-
t<*enest mis»,ons reductio
It. Mg)c (Mq/yr) (Mq/yr)
(310) 1UU
18,000 100


,140


597
597
474
474
11
71

•XII
•n9
W>
Ml
•'M
450
450
107
107
107
W!
JO?
107
•,9
.0
>,,,,a
67.300
100,600
17,200

I
I 32.900
/
4 890


53>
US
38S
418
«J
69

883
473
SS7
669
283
327
450
59
69
107
155
I5i
10?
59
70
1 co*t of t'n
(790)
(710)
f>00
o;o
tm
conlr.it tert
ique) • (tnmi
reduction ul

•4>,ttdi
COSt
ef 1 ,*<
liver,, t

(?!,)
l.lrtfl
it"ii


^ y

H'


;io
1,900
1,?(X)
4,500
1.100
A, «rtt)

f control represented by a control
>ption). Where more than one control
),n'ion WHS available, EPA examined the
ncremental cost effectiveness. That is,
•'.P\ cmiipdred the more stringent level
if i,ontro! to the next less stringent level
)f i or.'-ijl to evaluate the
t:jsor:>;b!.-!ness of the additional cost
n:.!.1: jri b> the more stringent leve! of
•.cni;o! •n view of the additional
jpnzcne emission reduction that would
)p. Hrhieved. The incremental cost
Tfcutixencss between any two alternate
:i;-.!rjl techniques was calculated as the
liffcrence in net annualized costs
IKidod by the difference in the annual
mission reductions of the alternate
;ontrol techniques. If the incremental
•ost in comparison to the incremental
•mission reduction was judged as
unreasonable, then the next increment
was examined until a control technique
with a reasonable cost in comparison to
the emission reduction was available. In
all cases, EPA selected as BAT
(considering costs) the control opr'-tn
that provided the most emission
reduction and yet had a reasonable
average and incremental cost per
megagram of emission reduction.
  It should be noted that the control
costs do not represent the actual
amounts of money spent at any
particular plant site. Rather, the cost of
emission reduction sys'ems nil! vary
according to the particular products
produced, production equipment, plant
layout and system design, geographic
location, and company preferences or
policies. However, these costs and
emission reductions are considered
typical of control techniques for benzene
emission sources within coke by-product
recovery plants. Although no
construction of new by-product plants is
expected during the next 5 years, new
sources could be constructed. Because
new so'irr PS do not incur retrofit costs,
the costs of control are generally less
than for existing sources. However, tb==
cost of control for new sources in by-
product plants is not sufficiently less *o
warrant a separation examination of
new source costs.
  In Table 3, the emission sources foi
which gas blanketing was considered
are grouped according to the most cost-
effective approach for implementing this
control technique. For example, the tar
decanter, tar-intercepting sump, and
flushing-liquor circulation tank are
usually in close proximity. The most
cost-effective system design for these
(and other emission source groupings)
would consist of the large header pipe
from the  collecting main to the general
area of the sources. Smaller diameter
piping Would then connect the header
pipe to each source to provide the
blanketing gas.
  EPA first examined the cost per unit
of benzene emission reduction for all
                                                     V-L-14
-------
               Federal Register / Vol.  49, No. 110  /  Wednesday, June 6,  1984 / Proposed  Rules
sources for which only one control
option was considered. These groups of
sources include: (1) Tar decanters, tar-
intercepting sumps, and flushing-liquor
circulation tanks; l^J  tar storage tanks
and tar-dewatering tanks; (3) light/oil
condensers, light-oil decanters, wash-oil
decanters, and wash-oil circulation
tanks: (4) light-oil sumps; (5) sampling
connections; and (6) open-ended lines
The cost of control for these sources
ranges from a net credit or cost savings
to a high of $l,200/Mg of benzene
emission reduction. These costs are
considered reasonable for the emission
reduction achieved by the applicable
control option. For this reason, these
control options were  tentatively selected
as BAT, considering costs of control for
each source. These control options
include: (1) Use of the gas blanketing
system for tar decanters, tar-intercepting
sumps, flushing-licjaor circulation tanks.
tdf storage tanks, tar-dewatering tanks.
light-oil condensers, light-oil decanters.
wash-oil decanters, and wash-oil
circulation tanks; (2)  a sealed  cover for
the light-oil sump; (3) closed-purge
sampling for sampling connection
systems; and (4) a cap or plug for open-
ended lines.
  EPA next examined two control
options for naphthalene processing and
final coolers: Wash-oil final coolers and
tar-bottom final coolers. Wash-oil final
coolers, the more effective of the two
technologies, would virtually eliminate
benzene emissions applying this
technology rather than tar bottom final
coolers would result in an additional
(incremental) benzene emission
reduction  of about 2.130 Mg/yr and an
additional total emission reduction
fmcluding benzene and other VOC) of
about 33,300 Mg/yr. The incremental
annualized cost for wash-oil final
coolers compared with tar bottom final
coolers would be about S37.2 million/yr
The incremental cost of wash-oil final
coolers over tar bottom final coolers is
Sl8.000/Mg of benzene emission
reduction, which is a  relatively high
incremental cost effectiveness. This
relatively  high incremental cost
effectiveness is substantially reduced
when the total eir.ission reduction
(including benzene and other VOC) is
considered. However, the capital costs
of the wash-oil final cooler system are
also relatively high, ranging from S2.1
million for a smali model plant to $7.9
rr.'l'ion for a large rnocld plant. An
analysis of these capital costs compared
to annual net income  and investment
indicated a potential  for an
unreasonably adverse economic impact
or. some firms. Ease d or. a combination
of a!! these cost-related factors. EPA
rejected the selection of wash-oil final
coolers as BAT and selected tar bottom
final coolers.
  For storage tanks containing excess
ammonia-liquor, light-oil, BTX, or
benzene. EPA considered two control
options—gas  blanketing and wash-oil
scrubbers. Gas blanketing of these
sources would provide a benzene
control efficiency of at least 98 percent
as compared to the 90-percent emission
reduction provided by a wash-oil
scrubber. The average cost per
megagram of benzene emission
reduction for gas blanketing of these
sources ranges from about $1.200/Mg to
a high of about $2,100/Mg; these costs
are considered reasonable for the
emission reduction achieved, especially
considering that when the VOC
emission reduction is added in, the
average cost effectiveness is reduced to
a rf-.nge of about $810/Mg to about
$l,700/Mg.
  However, the wash-oil scrubber may
be a viable option for these sources at
some plants. A scrubber could be less
expensive than gas blanketing. For this
reason, EPA examined the nationwide
incremental costs and emission
rrduction of 90 percent control with
wash-oil  scrubbers as compared to 98
percent control by gas blanketing.
  For storage tanks containing light oil
or benzene mixtures, the incremental
cost associated with the gas blanketing
option compared to the wash-oil
&L ; JibcT option would be $147,000/yr
and the incremental benzene emission
reduction would be 24 Mg/yr; this
re-preserts an incremental cost
effectiveness  of about $6.100/Mg of
benzene emission reduction.
Furthermore, the use of gas blanketing
would reduce total emissions (including
ber.zene and VOC) by about 33 Mg/yr
more than the wash-oil scrubber option:
this represents an incremental cost
effectiveness  of about $4,500/Mg of total
emission reduction, including benzene
and other VOC. Because the incremental
cost effectiveness of gas blanketing for
benzene (SG.lOO/Mg) is relatively high
and because me additional VOC
emss'.or:  reduction does not add enough
w eight to convince EPA that the costs
are reasonable, EPA decided to
tentatively select wash-oil scrubbers
rather than gas blanketing as BAT,
considering costs, for storage tanks
containing light oil or benzene mixtures.
  For itorhge tanks containing benzene,
trie incremental cost associated with gas
blanketing (with nitrogen or natural gas)
compdff d to the wash-oil scrubber
option would  be about $45,600/yr and
the incremental benzene emission
reduction would be 6/Mg/yr; this
represents an incremental cost
effectiveness of about Sfl.lOO/Mg o)
benzene emission reduction. \o
emission reduction other th;m benzene
would be achieved because benzene ;s
the only organic emitted from this
source.  Because the incremental cos!
effectiveness of gas blanketing for
benzene ($8,100/Mg) is rrldtively high
and because there is no additional VOC
emission reduction that would be
achieved by gas blanketing to convince
EPA that the costs are reasonable, EPA
tentatively selected wash-oil scrubbers
as BAT, considering costs, for benzene
storage  tanks.
  For storage tanks containing excess
ammonia-liquor, the incremental cost
associated with the gas blanketing
option compared to the wash-oil
scrubber option would be about SSM.OW
yr and the incremental benzene
emission redaction would be about 33
Mg/yr: this represents an incrumenttil
cost effectiveness of about S2.900/Mg of
benzene emission reduction The use of
gas blanketing would redurt total
emissions (including benzene e-ncl VOC)
by 49 Mg/yr more than the wash-oil
final scrubber option; this represents an
incremental cost effectiveness of fiboi't
Sl.900/Mg of total emission reduction
(including benzene and other VOC!
Because the incremental cost
effectiveness of gas blanketing foi
benzene ($2,900/Mg) is relatively high
and because the additional VOC
emission reduction does not aod fiuuxi
weight to convince EPA that the costs
are reasonable, EFA decided to
tentatively select wash-oil scrubbi r-.
rather than gas blanketing as BAT,
considering costs, for storage tanks
containing excess ammonia-liquor.
  Although the wash-oil scrubber was
selected as the tentative BAT for these
sources, some plants may prefer to
apply gas blanketing due to site-specifn
factors or due to the potentially lower
maintenance requirements. Because gris
blanketing achieves a better control
efficiency, the selection of the wash-oil
scrubber as BAT would not preclude the
use of gas blanketing (or any other
control device that is designed and
operated to achieve a 90-percent
benzene control efficiency).
  EPA considered three control optmi;-.
for pumps: Dual mechanical seal
systems, monthly leak detection and
repair, and quarterly leak detection ani!
repair. (These are  listed in order of
decreasing control efficiency and cost ;
EPA considered the most stringent
optum. dual mechanical seals, first. The
incremental cost associated VMlh the LSI-
of duci! mechanical seal systems
compared to the monthly leak rie.ei 
-------
               Federal Register  /  Vol. 49,  No. 110  /  Wednesday, June  6, 1984 / Proposed Rules
and repair option would be $1.2 million/
yr and the incremental benzene
emission reduction would be 77 Mg/yr;
this represents an incremental cost
effectiveness of about $16,000/Mg of
benzene emission reduction.
Furthermore, the use of dual mechanical
seals would reduce total emissions
(including benzene and other VOC) by
112 Mg/yr more than the monthly leak
detection and repair option; this
represents an incremental cost
effectiveness of about $ll,000/Mg total
emission reduction. Because the
incremental cost effectiveness of dual
mechanical seals for benzene ($16,000/
Mg) is relatively high and because the
additional VOC emission reduction does
not add enough weight to convince EPA
that the costs are reasonable, EPA
decided not to select dual mechanical
seals as BAT, considering costs, for
pumps.
  Next, EPA considered monthly leak
detection and repair. The incremental
cost associated with monthly leak
detection and repair compared with the
quarterly leak detection and repair
program would be about $6,600/yr and
the incremental benzene emission
reduction would be 58 Mg/yr,  this
represents an incremental cost
effectiveness of $120/Mg benzene
emission reduction. Because EPA
considers the incremental cost
effectiveness of monthly detection and
repair reasonable and it gets more
emission reduction than quarterly leak
detection and repair, EPA decided to
tentatively select monthly leak detection
and repair as BAT, considering costs, for
pumps.
  EPA considered three control options
for valves: Sealed bellows valves,
monthly leak detection and repair, and
quarterly leak detection and repair. EPA
considered the most stringent option,
sealed bellows valves, first. The
incremental cost associated with the use
of sealed bellows valves compared with
monthly leak detection and repair is $5.2
million/yr and the incremental benzene
emission reduction would be 86 Mg/yn
this represents an incremental cost
effectiveness of about $61,000/Mg
benzene emission reduction.
Furthermore, the use of sealed bellows
valves would reduce total emissions
(including benzene and other VOC) by
123 Mg/yr more than monthly leak
detection and repair; this represents an
incremental cost effectiveness of about
$42,000/Mg. Because the incremental
cost effectiveness of sealed bellows
valves for benzene ($61,000/Mg) is
relatively high and because the
additional VOC emission reduction does
not add enough weight to convince EPA
the costs are reasonable, EPA decided
not to select sealed bellows valves at
BAT, considering costs, for valves.
  Next, EPA considered monthly leak
detection and repair. The incremental
cost associated with monthly leak
detection and repair compared with the
quarterly leak detection and repair
program would be $20,200/yr and the
incremental benzene emission reduction
would be 30 Mg/yr, this represents an
incremental cost effectiveness of S670/
Mg benzene emission reduction.
Because a higher emission reduction
would be achieved by monthly
monitoring as compared to quarterly
monitoring, at a reasonable cost, EPA
tentatively selected monthly monitoring
as BAT, considering costs, for valves.
  For exhausters, the most stringent
control option would require the use of
degassing reservior vents. This
equipment would reduce benzene
emissions by approximately 100 percent.
The incremental cost of degassing
reservior vents over monthly inspections
is $568,000/yr and the incremental
benzene emission reduction would be 9
Mg/yn this represents an incremental
cost effectiveness of about $62,000/Mg.
The use of this equipment would reduce
total emissions (including benzene and
other VOC) by about 38 Mg/yr more
than the monthly inspection option,
thereby reducing the overall incremental
cost effectiveness to $15,000/Mg total
emission reduction (including benzene
and other VOC). Because the
incremental cost effectiveness of
degassing vents for benzene control is
relatively high and because the
additional VOC emission reduction does
not add enough weight to convince EPA
that the costs are reasonable, degassing
reservior vents were not selected as
BAT, considering costs, for exhausters.
  Monthly inspections of exhausters
would reduce benzene emissions by
about 64 percent, or by about 2 Mg/yr
more benzene than quarterly leak
detection and repair. The incremental
cost of monthly monitoring over
quarterly monitoring is about $24,000/yr:
this represents an incremental cost
effectiveness of about $9,900/Mg of
benzene emission reduction. Monthly
inspections would reduce total
emissions (including benzene and other
VOC) by about 10 Mg/yr more than the
total emission reduction achieved by
quarterly monitoring; this reduces the
overall cost effectiveness of this option
to $2,400/Mg total emission reduction
(including benzene and other VOC).
Because the incremental cost
effectiveness of monthly inspections for
benzene control is relatively high, and
because the additional VOC emission
redaction does not add enough weight to
convince EPA that the costs are
reasonable, monthly monitoring was nui
selected as BAT, considering costs, foi
exhausters.
  Quarterly inspections of exhausters
would reduce benzene emissions by 14
Mg/yr at a cost of about $17,300/yr. This
represents a cost effectiveness of about
$l,300/Mg of benzene emission
reduction. Furthermore, quarterly
inspections would reduce total
emissions (including benzene and othei
VOC) by about 59 Mg/yr, this reduces
the overall cost effectiveness of this
option to $290/Mg total emission
reduction  (including benzene and othci
VOC). Because EPA considers the cost
effectiveness of quarterly monitoring to
be reasonable, particularly in view of
the added VOC emission reduction, EPA
tentatively selected quarterly monitoring
as BAT, considering costs, for
exhausters.
  Of the control options considered for
pressure relief devices,  use of a rupture-
disc system would provide the greatest
benzene emission reduction
(approximately 100 percent). The
incremental cost associated with the usi-
of a rupture disc system compared to thr
monthly leak  detection  and repair
option would be $215,000/yr and tin-
incremental benzene emission reduction
would be  99 Mg/yr; this represents an.
incremental cost effectiveness of about
$2,000/Mg benzene emission reduction.
Furthermore,  the use of the rupture disi
system would reduce total emissions
(including benzene and other VOC) by
144 Mg/yr more than the monthly leak
detection  and repair option; this
represents an incremental cost
effectiveness of $l,500/Mg total
emission reduction. Because EPA
considers the incremental cost
effectiveness of the rupture disc system
to be reasonable, particularly in view o)
the added VOC emission reduction, and
because rupture disc systems get the
most emission reduction, EPA
tentatively selected that option as BAT
considering costs, for pressure relief
devices.
   Before making a  final selection of
control  options as BAT, EPA considered
the nonair quality environmental
impacts and the economic and energx
impacts to determine if the tentative
selection  of control options as BAT
should be altered. Implementation of tin-
control  options tentatively selected as
the basis  of the proposed standard
would reduce nationwide benzene
emissions from coke by-product
recovery plants from their current levy)
of about 24.100 Mg/yr to about 2.700
Mg/yr.  an overall emission reduction of
                                                   V-L-16
-------
               Federal Register /  Vol. 49.  No, 110  /  Wednesday, June  6. 1984 / Proposed  Rules
 approximately 89 percent. Total
 uncontrolled nationwide emissions of
 benzene and other VOC's would be
 reduced from their current estimated
 level of 160,000 Mg/yr to about 35.000
 Mg/yr, a 78-percent reduction.
^  No adverse environmental impacts
 are associated with these control
 options. Use of the gas blanketing
 system would actually tend to reduce
 the amount of benzene in process
 wastewater, in addition to solid waste
 disposal problems associated with
 sludge formation. Use of the gas
 blanketing system also provides the
 potential for fuel savings and increased
 product recovery. If the benzene in the
 recovered coke oven gas were used to
 underfire the coke oven battery, the
 national energy savings from the
 recovered gases would total about
 30,000 terajoules (TJ) per year (0.028
 quad/yr), assuming a recovery rate of
 21.3 / of gas/min/Mg of coke per day.
 Further information detailing the
 development and consideration of these
 control techniques and the associated
 environmental and energy impacts, and
 the costs associated with each control
 option is presented in Chapters 6.  7, and
 8 of the BID.
   The total national capital and
 annualized costs of these control
 options also are considered to be
 reasonable. The total national capital
 costs associated with these control
 options are estimated at about $23.8
 million over the baseline (1982 dollars).
 including the cost of a monitor for leak
 detection. Light-oil recovery credits
 result in a savings in total annualized
 costs for furnace coke producers, as
 compared to the baseline. (Even though
 the controls selected as BAT may result
 in an annualized credit, in general,
 industries do not necessarily elect to
 install such controls in the absence of a
 regulation, because they might be able
 to attain a  higher rate of return on their
 capital investment if given the
 opportunity to invest elsewhere.) The
 price of foundry coke could increase by
 as'much as $0.24/Mg, an increase  of less
 than 1 percent from the baseline price,
 while the price of furnace coke would
 increase by less than $0.02/Mg (1982
 dollars). An economic analysis indicates
 that the industry trend is to pass through
 some increase in costs to consumers.
 Further information regarding the
 economic impacts of these control
 options is presented in Chapter 9 of the
 BID.
   In summary, these control options
 were considered by EPA to have
 reasonable incremental costs per
 megagram  of benzene emissions
 reduced. The environmental, energy.
and economic impacts are also positive
or negligible. Less restrictive control
options were not considered further
because they would achieve less
benzene emission reduction and
because no cost, economic, energy, or
nonair quality environmental impacts
necessitated further examination of
these less restrictive control options.
The control options selected as BAT
include: (1) A gas blanketing system for
process vessels, and tar storage and
dewatering tanks; (2) a wash-oil
scrubber for storage tanks containing
light oil, BTX, refined benzene, or excess
ammonia-liquor; (3) the replacement of
the direct-water final cooler with a tar-
bottom final cooler or the conversion of
the direct-water final cooler by the
addition of a mixer-settler; (4) a sealed
cover for the light-oil sump; (5) monthly
monitoring for pumps and valves; (6)
quarterly monitoring for exhausters; (7)
a rupture disc system for pressure relief
devices; (8) closed-purge sampling for
sampling connections; and (9) caps or
plugs for open-ended valves or lines.
  After selecting these control options
as BAT, EPA evaluated the estimated
health risks remaining after application
of BAT to determine if they were
unreasonable in view of the estimated
health risk reductions, costs, and
economic impacts that would result if a
more stringent regulatory alternative
were applied. After the application of
BAT, the annual leukemia incidence is
estimated at about 0.19 case per year
and the remaining maximum lifetime
risk of acquiring leukemia is estimated
at 3.0 X 10"* for the most exposed
group.
  EPA considered the next most cost-
effective control option beyond BAT—
requiring storage tanks containing light
oil, BTX, refined benzene, or excess
ammonia-liquor to use a gas blanketing
system, and requiring monthly
monitoring for exhausters.
Implementation of this control option
would further reduce benzene emissions
by about 65 Mg/yr. Requiring this higher
level of control in lieu of BAT would not
significantly change the estimated
remaining leukemia incidence and the
maximum lifetime risk. For this reason.
the next more cost-effective control
option beyond BAT was also examined.
  The next more effective control option
beyond BAT would be to require wash-
oil final coolers, in addition to monthly
monitoring for exhausters and gas
blanketing for storage tanks containing
light oil, BTX, refined benzene, or excess
ammonia-liquor. This option would
reduce benzene emissions by an
additional 2,200 Mg/yr. This benzene
emission reduction would result in a
reduction in the estimated leukemia
incidence due to benzene exposure from
coke by-product recover}' plants from
about 0.19 case per year at the BAT
level to about 0.06 case per j ear. The
estimated maximum lifetime risk would
be reduced from 3.0 X 10~4 at the BAT
level to about 2.4 X 10~4 at the beyond
BAT level. This action would result in a
total capital cost of $131 million, and an
incremental annualized cost of $37.5
million/yr compared with BAT. The
capital costs of this option, particularly
those associated with the wash-oil final
cooler system, would be relatively high
on a per plant basis, ranging from $2.1
million for a small model plant to $7.9
million for a large model plant. These
relatively high capital costs would also
result in relatively high annualized costs
on a per plant basis, ranging from $0.7
million/yr for a small model plant to
about S3.2 million/yr for a large model
plant. An analysis of these capital costs
compared to annual net income and
investment indicated a potential for an
unreasonably adverse economic impact
on some firms. Because of the relatively
small health benefits to be gained with
the additional costs and the potential
adverse economic impacts on some
firms of requiring the wash-oil final
cooler option, EPA considers the risks
remaining after application of BAT not
to be unreasonable. For this reason, EPA
judged the level of control selected as
BAT to provide an ample margin of
safety and decided not to require a more
stringent level of control than BAT for
coke by-product recovery plants.

Selection of Emission, Equipment, Work
Practice. Design, and Operational
Standards

  Section 112 of the Clean Air Act
requires that an emission standard be
established for control of a hazardous
air pollutant unless, in the judgment of
the administrator, it is not feasible to
prescribe or enforce such a standard.
Section 112(e)(2) of the Act defines the
following conditions under which it is
not feasible to prescribe or enforce an
emission standard: (1) If the pollutants
cannot be emitted through  a conveyance
designed and constructed to emit or
capture the pollutant, or (2) if the
application of measurement
methodology is not practicable because
of technological or economic limitations
Section 112(e)(l) allows that if an
emission standard is not feasible.1 to
prescribe or enforce, then the
Administrator may promulgate a design.
equipment, work practice, or operational
standard, or combination thereof.
  The basis of the proposed standard
selected for tar decanters, tar-
                                                   V-L-17
-------
               Federal Register / Vol. 49, No.  110 / Wednesday, June  6, 1984  / Proposed Rules
intercepting sumps, tar storage and
dewatering tanks, flushing-liquor
circulation tanks, light-oil condensers,
light-oil decanters, wash-oil decanters,
and wash-oil circulation tanks is a gas
blanketing system. A gas blanketing
system is not considered "leakless"
equipment. Although this control
technique could possibly achieve a 100-
percent benzene control efficiency to
meet a zero emissions limit when first
installed, the gradual deterioration of
sealing materials, even with proper
operation and maintenance, could
eventually result in vapor leaks. In
addition, fugitive emissions may also be
released from opening such as access
hatches and sampling ports, which are
necessary for proper operation and
maintenance of the source. Emissions
may also occur during emergency
pressure-release episodes. Thus, a 100-
percent emission reduction could not be
achieved on a continuous basis
  Vapor leaks from  the system cannot
be emitted through a conveyance
designed and constructed to emit or
capture the pollutant. For this reason,
EPA has concluded  that it is not feasible
to prescribe or enforce an emission limit
applicable to the gas blanketing system
and has decided to propose for these
sources a combination of equipment and
work practices standard. The proposed
equipment  standard requires each
affected source to be totally enclosed
with emissions ducted to the gas
collection system, gas distribution
system, or other enclosed point in the
by-product recovery process where the
emissions will be recovered or
destroyed. A positive-pressure system
using dirty or clean  coke oven gas,
nitrogen, or natural  gas as the gas
blanket can be used. Pressure relief
devices, vacuum relief devices, access
hatches, and sampling ports would be
the only openings allowed on each
source, except for tar decanters. An
additional opening to allow clearance
for sludge conveyors would be permitted
on tar decanters. However, the proposed
standard would require that the access
hatch and sampling port be equipped
with a gasket and a cover or lid, which
remains closed at all times to prevent
the release of emissions, unless the
hatch or port is actually in use.
   Sections 112(e)(l) and 302fk) of the
Clean Air Act require that design.
equipment, work practice, and
operational standards include
provisions to ensure the proper
operation and maintenance of the
equipment. Use of gas blanketing on
enclosed sources can be designed to be
 leakless; however, emissions could
 result if holes or other openings occur in
sealing material used on a source or the
piping comprising the gas blanketing
system. Gaps may also develop between
a seal and the shell of a tank or other
type of process vessel. Gaps can
develop as a result of the deterioration
of sealing materials, shell deformations,
or the inability of a seal to conform to
varying gaps because of a loss of seal
flexibility.
  To ensure proper operation and
maintenance of the gas blanketing
system, the proposed equipment
standards would require the semiannual
monitoring of all connections used on
the  control system and all sealing
materials used to enclose the source for
evidence of leaks. This would be
performed using the test for "no
detectable emissions" in Reference
Method 21. An instrument reading
indicating an organic chemical
concentration greater  than 500 ppni
above a background concentration, as
measured by  Reference Method 21,
would indicate the presence of a leak.
As  discussed in the  section of this
preamble entitled. "Selection of
Performance Test Method," an  organic
chemical concentration of 500 ppm
above a background concentration was
selected  as the leak definition for these
sources,  based on considerations
relating to the calibration procedures
and instrument capabilities. The owner
or operator would also be required to
conduct a semiannual visual check of
each source and the ductwork of the
control system for defects such as gaps
or tears.
  The proposed standard would also
require that an initial  attempt at repair
of any leak or other defect detected by
visual check  or instrument monitoring
be  made within 5 days of detection.
Repair of the leak or defect would be
required within 15 days of the date of
detection. The maintenance of records
indicating the date of each inspection
(instrument and visual), the equipment
found to be leaking, and the date of
repair would also be required. The cost
of inspection of each source and control
system would be about 1 person-hour.
Because a low incidence of equipment
failures is expected, requiring frequent
inspections of the numerous sources at a
typical plant would be unreasonable.
For this reason, EPA decided to require
that such inspections be conducted on a
semiannual basis.
  Hownvpr. proper maintenance of the
 system is essential  to ensure proper
 operation and, consequently, the
 effectiveness of the system. To help
 ensure proper maintenance, the
 proposed regulation requires an annual
 maintenance inspection for system
problems that could result in abnormal
operation, such as plugging problems.
sticking valves, or plugged condensatr
traps. The owner or operator would be
required to make a first a'tempt at any
necessary repairs within 5 days of
detection, with repair within 15 da\ *. It
a system blockage should occur, the
proposed regulation requires the ownm
or operator to conduct an inspection and
make any necessary repairs
immediately upon detection of the
blockage. If a blockage or plugging
problem were found, compressed air 01
a live steam purge could be  used to clnfir
the line. However, neither inspection
should require a process shutdown.
  A wash-oil scrubber with a 90-percnnt
efficiency was selected as the basis of
the proposed standard for storage tanks
containing light oil, BTX, refined
benzene, or excess am'monia-liquor.
Fixed roof tank mass emissions varj
considerably as a function of tank
capacity and the utilization  rate of the
storage tank. Because of the wide
variation in  the amount of benzene
vapors being emitted from the different
types of storage tanks, a mass emission
limit cannot be selected that would be
achievable on a worst-case  basis (i.e..
large tank capacity, high vapor pressure-
and high utilization rate), and at the
same time would not allow  the
construction of control devices that 
-------
               Federal  Register / Vol. 49, No.  110 / Wednesday, June 6, 1984  / Proposed Rules
however, and to do so would require
that the operation of the tank be strictly
controlled during the  testing period.
Because of methodology problems, it
may not be possible to measure both the
flow rate and the concentration
simultaneously. This  would cast doubt
on the accuracy of the measurement. For
these reasons, it was  concluded that it is
impracticable to measure the emissions
exiting the storage tank. For the same
reasons, it would be impracticable to
measure the emissions captured by the
closed vent system connecting the
control device to the  source or entering
the control device. Therefore, it was
concluded that an emission standard in
a reduction efficiency format is not
feasible for control devices.
  Because reduction  efficiency cannot
be measured practicably, it is infeasible
to establish an emission standard
requiring a percent reduction efficiency.
A design standard requiring a reduction
efficiency design specification, however,
is feasible. The possibility of
establishing a "design, equipment, work
practice, or operational standard, or
combination thereof was, therefore,
examined. A reduction efficiency design
standard is advantageous in that it
accounts for the wide variation in
emission and flow rates being vented
from the tank, and it  would require the
use of BAT control devices on all tanks.
Therefore, the Administrator concluded
that the standard for  new and existing
tanks storing light oil, benzene mixtures,
benzene, or excess ammonia-liquor be a
control system designed and operated to
reduce emissions by  90 percent. The 90-
percent design standard could be met
using a wash-oil scrubber (or any other
control system capable of achieving the
90-percent emission reduction, such as a
gas blanketing system).
  The proposed regulation would
require that each tank be totally
enclosed and sealed  with emissions
vented to the control  device that is used
to achieve compliance. Pressure relief
devices, vacuum relief devices, access
hatches, and sampling ports would be
the only openings allowed on each tank.
Each access hatch and sampling port
must be equipped with a gasket and a
cover or lid that is kept in a closed
position when not in  actual use. To
ensure that the source and vent system
are properly maintained so that
emissions continue to be  vented to the
control device instead of  being leaked to
the atmosphere, the proposed standard
would  require the same work practices
proposed  for gas blanketed sources.
That is. the proposed standard would
require the semiannual  monitoring of all
s.'al or connections  on the source and
vent for leaks using Reference Method
21, and visual check of the source and
vent ductwork for defects such as gaps
or tears. Also included would be the
annual maintenance inspection for
problems that could result in abnormal
operation, such as plugging problems.
The same provisions that are associated
with these work practices for gas
blanketed sources (for example,
monitoring technique, repair provisions,
recordkeeping, and reporting) would
apply for these storage tanks.
  To help ensure the proper operation
and maintenance of the control device,
the proposed standard also would
include monitoring of parameters that
indicate operation of the control device.
For a wash-oil scrubber, the parameters
that would need to be monitored to
ensure proper operation and
maintenance are the temperature of the
gases exiting the scrubber, the wash-oil
flow rate, and the pressure of the wash
oil at the scrubber spray nozzle. Any
drop in the wash-oil flow rate or
pressure or any increase in the exit gas
temperature as compared to the
parameters specified in the design of the
scrubber could indicate that a 90-
percent emission reduction was not
being achieved. A description of these
occurrences would be included in the
semiannual report.
  The proposed standard for pressure
relief devices is based on the
installation of rupture discs  upstream of
the relief valve to prevent leaks.
Measurement methods for determining
the quantitative emission rate from
pressure relief devices are not
practicable because measurement would
require the bagging of each device,
which is an expensive procedure.
Reference Method 21 does not provide
for quantitative emission measurements,
but does provide for the detection of
leaks. Because fugitive emissions from
pressure relief devices equipped with
rupture discs would not be expected
unless an overpressure release occurs, it
is feasible to prescribe a "no detectable
emissions" limit for pressure relief
devices. An instrument reading of less
than 500 ppm of organic compounds by
volume above a background
concentration, as measured  by
Reference Method 21, would indicate
that fugitive emissions were below the
"no detectable emissions" level.
  The proposed emission limit would
not apply to discharges during
overpressure conditions because the
function of the device is to discharge
process gas, thereby reducing dangerous
high pressures within the process.
However, the proposed standard would
specify that  the device be returned to a
state of "no detectable emissions"
within 5 days after such a discharge
The proposed standard would further
require an annual test to verify the "no
detectable emissions" status of each
device, with records indicating the date
of inspection, the equipment found to bp
leaking, and the date of repair.
  As an alternative to the use of rupture
discs and other techniques that achieve
the "no detectable emissions" limit. EPA
proposes to allow the venting of
pressure relief devices to a control
device designed and operated to achieve
95 percent efficiency. When venting a
pressure relief device, the control device
also reduces emission of benzene that
occur during overpressure relief. EPA
judges that the emission reduction lost
by allowing 95 percent control of leaks
(rather than the 100 percent control
achieved by the "no detectable
emissions" limit) is offset by the
emission redaction gained by controlling
the emissions due to overpressure relief.
Steam-assisted and nonassisted flares
designed for and operated with an exit
velocity of less than 18 m/sec achinve
better than 95 percent control efficiency
and are potential control devices for tr^s
alternative standard. Therefore,
provisions related to the use of flares
are included in the proposed regulation.
EPA has been studying the question of
whether additional types of flares also
will achieve better than 95 percent
control efficiency; if so, the Agenry will
revise the standards accordingly.
  The control technique selected as the
basis  of the proposed standard for light-
oil sumps is a sealed cover that extends
over the entire surface of the sump.
coupled with the use of a gasket
material applied to the rim of the sump
cover. Such a sump cover would not be
required to be permanently sealed
because the cover may have to be
removed for periodic maintenance.
Eventual deterioration of the seal could
result in leaks, even with proper
operation and maintenance. These lenks
could not reasonably be vented into a
conveyance designed or constructed to
capture the pollutant. Therefore, mass
emissions from this source could not bp
measured.
  The control techniques selected at
BAT would allow the use of a vent on
the light-oil sump cover so that excess
pressure is not built up in the sump.
Potential emissions from small pr^ssun-
increases would be contained with the
use of a water leg seal or a vent pipe
equipped with a  pressure relief device or
a vacuum relief value. Although the vent
or vent pipe would provide a
conveyance for the measurement of
uncontrolled emissions, emission
                                                    V-L-19
-------
               Federal  Register / Vol. 49, No.  110 / Wednesday, June 6. 1984  /  Proposed Rules
measurement would still be impractical
due to the low, intermittent emission
rate. In addition, measurement methods
for determining the quantitative
emission rate from the pressure relief
device on a vent are not practicable
because the measurement would require
the bagging of each device, which is an
expensive procedure.
  In addition, establishing a "no
detectable emissions" limit would not
necessarily ensure the control of
emissions from the sump. Because the
emissions are dispersed over a wide
area, a "no detectable emissions" limit
(< 500 ppm) could conceivably be met
with no control device, even though the
mass emissions from the sump would be
greater without a cover than with a
cover. For these reasons. EPA has
concluded that an emission limit
applicable to a light-oil sump is not
feasible to prescribe or enforce, and has
determined that establishment of an
equipment standard is appropriate for
this source.
  To ensure proper operation and
maintenance of the sump cover, the
proposed equipment standard would
require the semiannual inspection of the
rovpr for "detectable" emissions (>500
ppm VOC) using Reference Method 21.
 \r, initial attempt at repair of any defet t
(n leak must be made within 5 days of
tht date of detection. Repair of the leak
or defect would be required within 15
driys of the date of detection.
  The possibility of establishing an
emission limit applicable to naphthalene
processing was also considered. A
process modification requiring the
c ollfction of naphthalene in tar (or an
 alternative medium such as wash oil)
 WHS selected as BAT for this emission
 source. Implementation of the process
 modification would eliminate
 naphthalene processing and the
 emissions that result from the practice
 of separating naphthalene from the hot
 well of a direct-water final cooler.
 Consequently, a "zero" emissions limit
 was selected for this process. A tar-
 dcittom final cooler s\stein or a wash-oii
 final cooler system could be used to
 eliminate naphthalene processing. If a
 direct-water final cooler is modified by
 the addition of a mixer-settler, the
 proposed standard would require that
 emissions be contained so thut they are
 not released to the atmosphere. This
 requirement could be achieved by
 (.(^trolling emissions with a gas
 blanketing system. If a gas blanketing
 system were used, the mixei-settler
 would be subject to the proposeed
 monitoring, reporting . and
 recordkeeping requirements applicable
 to other gas-blanketed sources
  Benzene emissions from open-ended
 lines occur as the result of leakage
-through the valve seat of a valve, which
 seals the open end of the line from the
 process fluid. The basis of the proposed
 standard is equipment that would
 enclose the open end of the line.
 Generally, open-ended lines are not
 designed to release fugitive emissions to
 a conveyance, and bagging of these
 sources for emission measurements
 would not be economically or
 technologically practicable. A "no
 detectable emissions" limit is not
 feasible to prescribe because benzene
 could leak through the valve seat and
 become trapped in the line between  the
 open-ended valve and the cap. The
 trapped benzene could be emitted to the
 atmosphere,  even though the benzene
 emitted to the atmosphere would be
 much less than the benzene emitted
 without the cap or enclosure. Because
 an emission limit was found to be
 infeasible to prescribe or enforce. EPA is
 proposing an equipment standard
 requiring that a cap, plug, blind, or a
 second valve be installed on open-ended
 lines.
   To ensure  the proper operation of the
 equipment, open-ended lines would  also
 be covered by an operational standard
 If a second valve is used the proposed
 standard would require the upstream
 valve to be closed first. After the
 upstream \alve is completely closed the
 downstream valve must be closed. This
 operational requirement is necessary to
 prevent trapping process fluid between
 the two valves, which could result in a
 situation equivalent to the uncontrolled
 open-ended valve.
   As in the case of other equipment in
 benzene service, sampling connections
 are generally not designed to release
 fugitive emissions to a conveyance,  and
 bagging of these emission sources would
 not be economically or technologically
 practicable.  A "no detectable
 emissions" limit is not feasible because
 no available data indicate that
 application of any control technique
 would be able to comply with such a
 standard at all rimes.
    Because an emission limit is
 considered infeasible to prescribe or
 enforce, an equipment standard
 requiring closed-purge sampling is
 proposed for sampling connections.
 Closed-purge sampling systems
 fhTinaif- emissions caused by purging
 by either returning the purge material
 directly to the process or by collecting
 the purge in a collection system closed
 to th« atmosphere. In-situ sampling
 would be exempted from these
 requirements.
  Pumps, valves, and exhausters
generally are not designed to release
fugitive emissions into a conveyance.
Because of the large number and diverse
locutions of pumps, valves, and
exhausters, bagging of these sources for
emission measurement would not be
practicable or economical. Because
these sources are expected to leak and
because the control  technology selected
as the basis of the standard is a leak
detection and repair program, a "no
detectable emissions" limit is not
appropriate to prescribe for these
sources. EPA considers that the
application of a "no detectable
emissions" limit for these sources would
reflect  a control technology more
stringent than BAT. For these reasons, a
work practice standards was selected as
the format for the proposed standards
for these sources rather than an
emission limit.
  Three main factors influence the level
of emission reduction that can be
achieved by a leak detection and repaii
program—the monitoring interval, leak
definition, and repair interval. Training
and diligence of personnel conducting
the program, repair methods  attempted.
and other site-specific factors may also
influence the level of emission reduction
achievable: however, these factors arc
less quantifiable than the three main
factors. For each of these factors, the
proposed standard includes control
requirments which provide the most
emission reduction without
unreasonable costs or other burdens.
  The  monitoring interval is  the
frequency at which indi\ idunl
component monitoring is conducted.
Monthly monitoring was  selected iis the
required interval for pumps and valves.
and quarterly monitoring was selected
for exhausters; these intervals would
provide the greatest emission reduction
potential without imposing
unreasonable costs or difficulties in
implementing the leak detection and
repair program.
   The leak definition is the instrument
re.iding observed during monitoring that
would be used to determine which
components have failed and need to be
repaired. The best leak definition would
be the one that achieved the most
emission reduction at reasonable costs.
The emission reduction achieved would
increase as the leak definition
decreased, due to the increasing number
of sources that would be found leaking
and. therefore, repaired. At a leak
definition of 10.000 ppm organics,
approximately 90 percent of benzene
fugitive emissions from valves would be
detected. Valves found leaking organic
compounds at levels of 10,000 ppm or
                                                    V-L-20
-------
               Federal  Register / Vol. 49. No. 110 / Wednesday. June  6, 1984 / Proposed Rules
greater can be brought to levels below
10,000 ppm with proper maintenance.
Also, as a practical matter, most
commonly available hydrocarbon
detectors that are considered
intrinsically safe have a maximum
reading of 10,000 ppm. Leak definitions
higher than 10,000 ppm could,
nevertheless, be selected (and dilution
probes could  be used with portable
detectors); however, there would be less
emission reduction than with the 10,000-
ppm definition and no substantial
associated cost savings. Consequently,
there is no basis for selecting a leak
definition greater than 10,000-ppm
organics. A leak definition lower than
10,000 ppm may be practicable in the
sense that leaks can be repaired to
levels less than 10,000 ppm. However,
EPA is unable to conclude that a leak
definition lower than 10,000 ppm, would
provide additional emission reductions
and, therefore, would be reasonable.
Because the 10,000-ppm leak definition
would address approximately 90 percent
of the benzene fugitive emissions from
valves at  reasonable costs and at
reasonable cost effectiveness, and
because safe, available hydrocarbon
detectors can read 10,000 ppm, the
10,000-ppm level was selected as the
leak definition for valves This definition
is also considered appropriate for
pumps and exhausters. The same
portable monitor used for values would
be used for these sources, and
consideration of other relevant factors
did not indicate that the 10,000-ppm
definition should be different for pumps
or exhausters.
   The repair interval is the length of
time allowed between the detection of a
leaking source and repair of the source.
As noted  above, to make the overall
program effective, the most practicable
selection  for  this  factor should be
chosen. Thus, to provide the maximum
effectiveness of the leak detection and
repair program, the repair inierval  .
should require expeditious reduction of
emissions but should allow the owner or
operator sufficient time to maintain
some degree  of flexibility in overall
maintenance scheduling.
   The length of the repair interval would
affect emission reductions that are
achievable by the leak detection and
repair program because leaking sources
would be allowed to continue to leak for
a given length of time. Repair intervals
of 1, 5,15, 30, and 45 days were
evaluated. The effect on the maximum
emission reductions potential is
proportional  to the number of days the
sources is allowed to leak between
detection and repair.
  Some pumps, valves, and exhausters
may not be repairable by simple field
maintenance. They may require spare
parts or removal from the process for
repair. Repair intervals of 1 to 5 days
could cause problems in obtaining
acceptable repair, especially when
removal from the process would be
required. However, a 15-day interval
provides  the owner or operator with
sufficient time for flexibility in repair
scheduling and provides time for better
determination of methods for isolating
pieces of leaking equipment for repair.
In general, a 15-day repair  interval
allows more efficient handling of repair
tasks while maintaining an effective
reduction in fugitive emissions. Thus,
the repair interval selected for proposal
in the leak repair program  is 15 days. A
repair interval of 30 or 45 days was not
selected because 15 days is a more
restrictive, yet feasible, selection.
  However, the first attempt at repair of
a leaking source should be
accomplished as soon as practicable
after detection of the leak, but no later
than 5 days after discovery. Most
repairs can be done quickly, and 5 days
should provide sufficient time to
schedule maintence and repair a leaking
source. Attempting to repair the leak
within 5 days will help to identify leaks
that would require additional efforts so
they could be repaired within the 15-d;n
repair interval.
  Delay of repair would be allowed for
sources that could not be repaired
without a process unit shutdown. These
leaks would have to be repaired at the
next unit shutdown unless the shutdown
is unscheduled and lasts less than 24
hours. Delay of repair is not expected
for most  situations, however, because
sources such as exhausters and
critically situated pumps are commonly
spaitd at by-product recovery plants.
Therefore, they could be repaired
without a process unit shutdown.
  Monthly monitoring of valves  to
detect leaks is reasonable. However,
some valves may leak less frequently
than others. One indicator that might
predict which valves leak  is valve leak
history. That is, once a valve leaks, then
it may be more likely to leak again than
a valve that has not leaked. The
Administrator decided to implement the
monthly  monitoring requirement by
focusing on the valves that tend to leak
more often. One approach is to allow an
alternative monitoring period for valves
found to leak less frequently than
others. The Administrator  is proposing
that leak detection and repair work
practices include monthly  monitoring for
valves unless they are found not to leak
for 2 successive months. If a valve is
found not to leak for 2 successive
months, the owner or operator mav eleci
to monitor during the first month of 'h»
next quarter and quarterly thereafter
until a leak is detected. Whenever ;>
leak is detected, the valve would be
monitored once a month until the vah r
did not leak for 2 successive months
   Some valves are difficult  to monitor
because access to them is restricted.
Therefore, EPA is proposing an annudi
leak detection and repair program for
valves in existing process units that HIV
difficult to monitor. Valves  that  are
difficult to monitor are defined as vah es
that would require elevating the
monitoring personnel more  than 2
meters above any readily available
support surface. This means that ladders
must be used, if needed, to  elevate
monitoring personnel.
   In addition to valves that are difficult
to monitor, some valves are unsafe to
monitor because monitoring personnel
would be subject to imminent hazards.
Th? proposed  standards would d! j>\ «n
owner or operator with valves that an
unsafe to monitor to develop a s/.'i.'irfl
leak detection and repair progidm
These special programs would u;> UMD
with the routine monitoring
requirements of the proposed standard
as much as possible but would allow
deviation from a routine monitoring &j
that monitoring would not occur umlr-
unsafe conditions. Valves that are
unsafe to monitor are defined as those
valves that rould, as demonstrated bv
the owner or operator, expose
monitoring personnel to imminent
danger, e.g., hazards from temperdtuiv.
pressure, or explosive process
conditions. There should be few, if an\
unsafe-to-monitor valves in benzene
service in coke by-product  recovery
plants.
   Pressure relief devices in liquid
service and flanges and other
connectors in all services would be
excluded from the proposed routine leak
detection and repair requirements on the
basis of data from EPA testing.
Screening studies done by EPA  in coke
by-product recovery plants indicated
very low emission rates for individual
flanges, which would result in only a
small contribution to overall emissions
Testing of pressure relief devices in
liquid service in petroleum  refineries
exhibited very low emission rates:
similar results would be expected at
- coke by-product recovery plants.
Applying routine monitoring
requirements to these pieces of
equipment would result in an exorbitant
cost per megagram of emission
reduction. However, if leaks are
detected from these equipment,  the
                                                     V-L-21
-------
               Federal  Register / Vol. 49, No.  110 / Wednesday, June  6. 1984 / Proposed Rules
same allowable repair interval that
applies to pumps, valves, and
exhausters would apply.
  The proposed regulation would alsu
exclude equipment operating under a
vacuum, because leaks to the
atmosphere would not occur while the
equipment is operating at
subatmospheric internal pressures.
  Alternative Standards for Valves. The-
emission reduction and annualized  cost
of the proposed leak detection and
repair program depends in part on the
number of valves that are found leaking
during inspections. If very  few leaks are '
detected in a plant, then the amount of
benzene that could be reduced by the
proposed program is much smaller than
the amount that could be reduced in a
plant that had more leaks.  In contrast,
the annualized cost of the program
would be larger in a plant that had
fewer leaks than in a plant that had
more leaks because the annualized cost
includes a recovery credit  based on the
amount of benzene recovered by the
program. Therefore, the cost
efectiveness of the proposed leak
detection and repair program varies
with the number of v a!v es that leak
within a plant.
   There is no precise breakpoint in the
emission reduction and annualized cost
relationship as the percentage of leaking
valves decreases. However, based  on an
analysis of coke by-product recovery
plants, the Administrator has judged
that the emission reduction and
annualized cost relationship is
unreasonable for plants having an
average of less than 1 percent of valves
leaking.
   Based on this conclusion, the
Administrator decided to propose
alternative standards based on
allowable percentage of valves leaking
The allowable percentage of valves
leaking was chosen to include the
variability inherent in any system: e.g.,
leak detection of valves. The variability
in leak detection of valves can be
characterized as as a binomial
distribution around the average number
or percentage of valves leaking.
Inclusion of the variability in leak
detection of valves is accomplished by
 straightforward statistical techniques
based on the binomial distribution. The
 analysis of by-product plants showed
 that an alternative standard of 2 percent
 of valves leaking, to be achieved at any
 time, would provide an owner 01
 operator a reasonably low risk that a
 percentage of valves leaking greater
 than 2 percent would be determined
 when the average of 1 percent was
 actually being achieved.
   Based on these considerations, the
 Administrator is proposing two
alternciiive standards that would exempt
sources from the required (monthly/
quarterly) leak detection and repair
program if the sources achieve less than
2 percent leaking valves in benzene
service. Owners or operators of affected
facilities may identify and elect to
achieve either of the alternative
standards to allow tailoring of fugitive
emissions control  programs to their own
operations. An owner or operator would
report which alternative standard he or
she had identified and elected to
achieve.
  The first alternative standard would
limit the maximum percentage of valves
in benzene service leaking to 2 percent.
This type  of standard would provide the
flexibility of a performance standard.
The first alternative standard could be
achieved by the most efficient and
practical methods for a particular plant
Choosing  this alternative standard
would  allow for the possibility of
different leak detection and repaii
programs  and for  the substitution of
engineering controls  at the discretion of
the owner or operator. This standard
would  also eliminate a large part of the
recordkeeping and reporting associated
with the routine leak detection and
repair  program for valves.
  An industry-wide allowable leak
perron* that could necessarily be
achieved  at all  facilities is not possible
for valves because of the variability in
valve leak frequency and variability in
the ability of a  leak detection and repair
program to reduce these leaks among all
plants within the  industry. However.
this alternative standard would allow
any plant the option of complying with
an allowable percentage of valves
leaking. This alternative standard would
require a  minimum of one performance
test per year. Additional performance
tests could be requested by EPA. If the
results of a performance test showed a
percentage of valves leaking higher than
2 percent, the process unit would not be
in compliance with the standards.
   The second alternative standard
 would allow the use of skip-period leak
 detection. Under  skip-period leak
 detection, an owner or operator could
 skip from routine leak detection to lesh
 frequent leak detection after completing
 a number of successful leak detections.
 This skip-period leak detection program
 would require  that the average
 performance level of 2 percent be
 achieved on a  continuous basis with a
 reasonable degree of certainty. A plan'
 would choose one of two skip-period
 leak detection  programs and then
 implement that program. The first skip-
 period leak detection program could be
 used when fewer than 2 percent of the
 VHlvt.!. had been  leaking for two
consecutive quarterly it-cik detection
periods. The first skip-period leak
detection program would allow an
owner or operator to skip every other
quarterly leak detection period: that. is.
leak detection can be performed
semiannually. Under thl> second skip-
period leak detection program, if fewer
than 2 percent of the valves had been
leaking for five consecutive quarter!}
leak detection periods, the owner or
operator may skip three quarterly leak
detection periods; that is. leak detection
can be performed annually. When more
than 2 percent of valves are found to
leak, the routine leak detection and
repair program would be required  to lie
resumed.

Alternative Means of Emission
limitation

  Under the provisions of section 1l2(e)
of the Clean Air Art if the
Administrator establishes v\ork
practices, equipment, design or
operational standards, then the
Administrator must allow the use of
alternative means of emission
limitations if thev achieve a reduction in
nir pollutants equivalent to that
achieved under requirements of a
standard. Sufficient data would be
required to show equivalency, and H
public hearing would be required.
   An^ peron could request alternative'-
tor specific requirements, such as  the
proposed equipment and the proposed
leak detection and repair program.
Under the proposed regulations, that
person would be responsible for
collecting and verifying the test data
used  to demonstrate that the alternative
control techniques would be equivalent
to the control techniques required by the
standard. This information woLilc! then
be submitted to EPA. If. in the
Administrator's judgment, the
alternative means of emission limitation
would achieve a reduction  in emissions
at least equivalent to the reduction
achieved under the design, equipment.
work practice or operational standard.
the Administrator would publish in the
Federal Register, after notice and an
opportupity for a hearing, a notice
permitting the use of the alternative
 means for purposes of compliance with
 the standard.
   To judge if an alternative control
 technique achieves an emissions
 reduction equivalent to gas blanketing.
 the Administrator would consider the
 conhol efficiency of gas blanketing a1- Mb
 percent for all sources except the tar
 decanter. For the tar decanter, the
 efficiency of gas blanketing would be
 considered as 93 percent. The lower
 effii:ie.ir.) iv due to the opening thai
                                                   V-L-22
-------
               Federal Register / Vol. 49, No.  110 / Wednesday,  June 6, 1984  /  Proposed Rules
must be on the tar decanter to allow
clearance for the sludge conveyor.
  Any control option more stringent
than the option selected as the basis oi
fhe proposed standard would be at least
equivalent to the requirements included
in the proposed standard and would be
allowed by EPA. EPA has already
determined the equivalency of these
control options and incorporated them
into the standard, along with specified
conditions for their use. Therefore, the
owner or operator would not need to
apply to EPA for their use as an
alternative control  option.
  For example, the proposed standards
would not require "leakless" equipment,
such as sealed bellows and diaphragm
valves and canned and diaphragm
pumps. However, use of "leakless"
equipment is clearly equivalent to the
proposed standards for pumps, valves,
and exhausters, and the proposed
standards would allow the use of such
equipment as an alternative to (he
required practices.
  "Leakless"' equipment would be
required to operate with "no detectable
emissions" at all times when it is in
service. "No detectable emissions"
means an instrument reading of 500 ppm
or less of organic compounds above
background, as measured by Reference
Method 21. The proposed standards
require that its "leakless" status be
verified annually and at the request oi
the  Administrator, using Reference
Method 21.
  In addition, other types of equipment
can achieve emission reduction at least
equivalent to that achieved by a
monthly leak detection and repair
program for pumps and a quarterly one
for exhausters. For pumps,  this
equipment includes dual mechanical
seal systems that use a barrier fluid
between the two seals.  For exhausters,
this equipment includes a seal with a
barrier fluid system. If the barrier fluid
is maintained at a pressure greater than
the  pump or exhauster stuffing box
pressure, any leakage would be from the
barrier fluid to the working fluid;
therefore, no working fluid  would be
emitted to the atmosphere.  If the stuffing
box pressure  is greater than the barrier
fluid pressure, the barrier fluid collects
the leakage from the inner seal; the
working fluid collected by the  barrier
fluid is controlled by  either: (1)
Connecting the barrier fluid degassing
system to a control device, or (2)
returning the barrier fluid to the process
stream. Because these seal systems
which meet these specifications are at
least equivalent to a monthly leak
detection and repair program for pumps
and quarterly leak detection and repair
program for exhausters, they have been
exempted from the monitoring
provisions of the proposed standards.
  Sections 112(e)(l) and 302(k) of the
Clean Air Act require that when
equipment standards are established,
requirements must also be established
to ensure the proper operation and
maintenance of the equipment. A
pressure or level indicator on the barrier
fluid system would reveal any
catastrophic failure of the inner or outer
seal or of the barrier fluid system. This
indicator would be monitored on a daily
basis or equipped with an audible alarm
to signal a failure of the system. The
point at which the alarm signals a
failure of the seal system would be
determined for each seal system based
on design  considerations and operating
experience. Thus, these requirements
are proposed to ensure the proper
operation  and maintenance of the seal
system.
  In many cases, the seal area of a
pump or exhauster could be completely
enclosed, and this enclosed area could
be connected to a control device
designed and operated to achieve 95-
percent control. Some owners or
operators  may decide that this approach
is preferable to leak detection and
repair. Enclosing the seal area and
venting the captured emissions to a 95-
perront control device is a reasonable
alternative because this system would
be at least as effective as the leak
detection and repair programs for pumps
and exhausters. Therefore, the
Administrator is proposing to allow
pumps and exhausters equipped with
enclosed seal areas to be connected to a
95-percent control device.
  Steam-assisted  and nonassisted flares
designed for and operated with an exit
velocity of less than 18 m/sec achieve
better than 95 percent control efficiency
and are potential control devices for this
alternative standard. Therefore,
provisions related to the use of flares
are included in the proposed regulation.
EPA has been studying the question of
whether additional types of flares also
will achieve better than 95 percent
control efficiency; if so, the Agency will
revise the  standards accordingly.

Selection of Test Method
  Reference Method 21 (40 CFR Part 60,
Appendix A) was selected as a method
for measuring leaks from sources subject
to the leak detection and repair
requirements (including gas-blanketed
sources) and for sources subject to "no
detectable emissions" limits. The
selection of this test method is fully
discussed  in the proposed new source
performance standards for the control of
VOC fugitive emissions in the synthetic
organic chemicals manufacturing
industry (46 FR 1136, January 5,19S1)
and proposed technical support
document (EPA--150/3-80-033a). The
method was promulgated on August 18,
1983 (48 FR 37598).
  Reference Method 21 specifies the us*1
of a portable detector to measure the
concentration of organic vapors at a
source to yield a qualitative or
semiquantitative indication of the
emission rate from the source. The test
procedure does not detect benzene
specifically; instead, the organic
compound concentration is measured.
  Tests have indicated that local
conditions cause variations in
concentration readings at points
removed from the surface of the
interface on the component where
leaking occurs. Therefore, Reference
Method 21 would require the
concentration to be measured at the
interface surface.
  The monitoring instrument would be
calibrated before each monitoring
survey with methane or n-hexane. Thus,
the required calibration gases would he
a zero gas (air <10 ppmv volatile
organic compounds) and an air mixture
(approximately 10,000 ppm methane or
n-hexane). If cylinder calibration gas
mixtures were used, they would have to
be analyzed and certified by the
manufacturer to within ±2 percent
accuracy. Calibration gases prepared by
the user according to an accepted
gaseous standards preparation
procedure would also have to be
accurate to within  ±2 percent. The
monitoring instrument would be
subjected to other performance
requirements prior to being placed in
service for the first time. The instrument
would be subjected to the performance
criteria every 6 months and after any
modification or replacement of the
instrument detector.
  The proposed standard also requires
the ASTM Method D2267-68
("Aromatics in Light Naphthas in
Aviation Gasoline by Gas
Chromatography") be used to determine
the percentage of benzene in the process
fluid within a fugitive emission source.
This determination would be made only
when the exact concentration of
benzene is uncertain.
  If a flare is used as a control device.
Reference Method 22 of 40 CFR Part 60
shall be used to determine compliance
with the "no visible emissions"
requirement. The proposed standard
specifies the use of Reference Method 2,
2A, or 2C of 40 CFR Part 60 to determine
the  volumetric flow rate of the flare. It
also specifies the use of Reference
Method 18 of 40 CFR Part 60 and ASTM
Method D2504-67 to determine the
                                                  V-L-23
-------
               Federal  Register / Vol. 49. No.  110 / Wednesday,  June 6. 1984  /  Proposed Rules
concentrations of the gas components in
calculating the net heating value of the
gas being flared. In addition, the heats of
combustion of the gas may be
determined using ASTS Method D2382-
76, if published values are not available
or cannot be calculated.
  The ASTM Methods referenced above
will be approved for incorporation by
reference in 40 CFR 61.18 on the date of
promulgation of the standard for
benzene equipment leaks (fugitive
emission sources) that was proposed on
January 5,1981 (46  FR 1165). Section
61.18 of 40 CFR Part 61 will be amended
to include citations to the paragraphs
specifying these ASTM Methods in this
coke by-product  plant standard when
this standard is promulgated. The ASTM
Methods are available for inspection at
the Office of the  Federal Register
Information Center, Room 8401,11001.
Street, N.W..  Washington. D.C. 20408
and the Library (MD-35), U.S. F.PA,  -
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711. They are available for purchase
from at least one of the following
addresses: American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM), 1916 Race Street.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; or the
University Microfilms International, 300
North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor. Michigan
48106.
Selection of Reporting and
RtT.ordkeeping Requirem an It,
  Recordkeeping would be required to
document compliance with the proposed
regulation; review of these records
would provide information for plant and
enforcement personnel to assess
implementation of  the requirements.
Compliance would be determined by
inspection and review of this recorded
information.
  For sources subject to equipment and
design standards, such as gas-blanketed
process units, the owner or  operatoi
must record and keep in a readily
accessible location a description of the
control systems to  be used to achieve
compliance (i.e., schematics), the
installation date, and a description of
any changes  made after installation.
This would also apply to equipment
used to achieve compliance with the
"zero" emissions limit for naphthalene
processing. A record of design and
operating specifications is also required
for control devices used to achieve
compliance.
  The following records must be
maintained for a least 2 years. For gas-
blanketed sources, light-oil  sumps, and
storage tanks containing light-oil.
benzene mixtures,  benzene, or excess
ammonia-liquor, records of the
semiannual inspections must be
maintained, including the inspection
date, the name of the inspector, a brief
description of the leaks detected and
repairs made, and the dates of repair
attempts for each leak. The owner or
operator must also maintain records of
each annual maintenance inspec.tion.
These records must include a
description of the abnormality, the
repair made, and the repair dates. The
proposed regulation also requires a
record of any system blockage (or
malfunction), with a brief description of
the incident, the cause,  the repairs
made, and the repair dates.
  For control devices, records must be
maintained that indicate the dates the
device was not operating as designed,
the dates and description of any
maintenance or repair of the device, and
monitored parameters. If a wash-oil
scrubber is used, the proposed
regulation requires that records be kept
of the wash-oil flow rate, the
temperature of the gases exiting the
scrubber, and the pressure at the
scrubber spray nozzle. These records
also must be maintained for at least 2
years.
  Records of specific information
pertaining to the leak detection and
repair also would be required. Each
source'found to be leaking during the
first month of a quarter would be
identified with readily visible
weatherproof identification bearing an
identification (ID) number. The
identification could be removed after  the
source had been repaired and monitored
for leaks and repaired as necessary for
the next 2 successive months. A log
would be maintained for information
pertaining to the leaking sources. The
log would contain the instrument and
operator identification numbers, the
leaking source identification number.
the date of detection of the leaking
source,  the date of the first attempt to
repair the leaking source, repair
methods applied in the first attempt to
repair the source, and the date of final
repair. The log would be kept for at least
2 years following the survey.
   Reporting requirements are also
included for enforcement personnel to
review  and assess the compliance status
of affected sources.  In the intital
compliance report required by 40 CFR
61.10. the owner or operator must submit
a statement notifying the Administrator
that the requirements of the standard
are being implemented, along with the
other information required under § 61.10.
If a waiver of compliance is granted
under § 61.11, the statement would be
submitted on a date scheduled by the
Administrator. The statement also
would describe the type of source and
the method of compliance being used.
For pieces of equipment in benzene
service, the statement would include the
percent by weight benzene in the fluid
and the process fluid state in the
equipment (i.e., gas/vapor or liquid)
  Semiannual reports starting 6 montt"-
after submission of the initial
compliance report would be required
For gas-blanketed sources, light oil
sumps, and storage tanks  containing
light oil, benzene mixtures, benzene, w
excesss ammonia-liquor, the report muM
contain a brief description of any \ isiUe
defect in the source or ductwork, the
number of leaks detected  and repaired.
and the repair dates. A brief description
of any  system abnormalities found
during  the annual maintenance
inspection, the repairs made, and the
repair dates also would be required, eis
would  a brief description  of any system
blockage or malfunction incidents, the
repairs made, and the repair dates.
  The semiannual report also would
include infoimation regarding the use til
control devices. Required information
would  include  the date and time of an>
occurrence when the monitored
parameters exceed or drop below the
parameter leieis determined in the
design specifications. If a wash-oil
scrubber is used, the report must include
the date and time of any occurrence
when the wash-oil flow rate or the
pressure at the scrubber spray nozzle
falls below the parameter levels
determined in the design specifications
or the temperature of the gases exiting
the scrubber exceeds the  design
specification temperature.
  For pieces of equipment in benzene
service, the semiannual report would
include the process unit identification
for the equipment, in addition to
information regarding the number of
pumps, valves, and exhausters for whic.h
leaks were detected during each month
of the reporting period; the number of
pumps, valves, and exhausters for which
leaks were not repaired; an explanation
of any  delay of repairs: and dates of an\
process unit shutdowns that occurred
during the reporting period.
   Annual performance tests are
required to verify the status of source*-
subject to "no  detectable  emissions"
limits and for valves subject to the
alternative standard. The proposed
regulation requires the owner or
operator to record the results of each
performance test and to include this
information in the semiannual report for
that reporting period.
   Each semiannual report also would
include a statement signed by the ownei
or operator stating whether all
provisions of the regulation has been
fulfilled during the reporting period
                                                     V-L-24
-------
               Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 110 / Wednesday, June  6, 1984 / Proposed Rules
Alternative Approach for Selecting
Emission Control Levels
  Historically, EPA's approach to
selecting control levels for emission
sources has been a two-step prori1^
that included: (1) the selection of the
hest available technology (BAT) HS tht
minimum control level, and (2) an
evaluation of the incremental risk
reductions and costs of more stringent
controls. This approach was first
outlined by EPA in the  proposed
Airborne Carcinogen Policy in 19"9 |4ft
FR 58642) and has been generally
followed by EPA since  that time.
  In selecting BAT for specific emission
sources1 of t.oke by-product plants, EPA
considered the cost per megagram of
emission reduction for available control
techniques. When more than one control
option wjs available, EPA examined the
incremental cost per megagram of
moving to the more stringent control
option. If the incremental cost in
comparison to the incremental emission
reduction was judged as unreasonable,
the next lower increment was examined
until a control technique with a
ipasonable cost in comparison to the
emission reduction was available.  In all
cases, EPA selected as  BAT the control
option that provided the most emission
reduction and yet has a reasonable
average and incremental cost per
megagram of emission reduction
  In proposing this approach, EPA
recognizes that it usually gives
somewhat limited and indiiect weigh; to
information on exposure and hen 1th
risks in determining BAT and more
direct weight to the amount of emissions
reduced. For example, in determining
BAT for emission sources,  the Agency
relies on estimates of the total emissions
reduced and on estimates of the average
and incremental cost of reducing those
emissions. However, the Agencv
recognizes that emission estimates alone
can sometimes be poor measures of
public health risks because they do not
account for the carcinogenic potency or
exposure potential of hazardous air
pollutant emissions.
  In order to more directly consider
health risks, the Agency intends to
change the approach for selecting the
appropriate control levels in the final
standard for coke by-product plants.
The new approach the Agency would
use in the final standard would combine
the current two-step process into 0112
step. In selecting the appropriate control
technique. EPA would consider in one
step the before- and after-control risks
the health risk reduction, and the
economic and societal costs of achieving
those risk reductions. The major change
in this approach would  be the greater
consideration of publir health risks over
emission estimates in selecting controls.
  EPA solicits comments on this
intended approach.
Paperwork Reduction Act

  An analysis of the burden essociated
with the reporting and recordkeeping
requirements has been made. During the
first 3 years of this regulation, the
average annual burden of the reporting
and recordkeeping requirements for the
42 existing coke by-product recovery
plan's would be about 3.3 person-years.
The information collection requirements
in this proposed rule have been
submitted for approval  to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Aci of 1980, 44
U.S.C 3501 et seq. Comments on these
requirements should be submitted  to the
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs of OMB. marked "Attention:
Desk Office for EPA." The fins) rule will
respond to any OMB or public
comments on the information r.ollei (ion
requirements.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

  The Regulatory Flexibility Art (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires the EPA to
consider the potential impacts of
proposed regulations on small "entities."
The guidelines for conducting a
regulatory flexibility analysis define a
small business as "any  business concern
whirb is independently owned and
opeiated and not dominant in its field as
defined by the Small Business
Administration Regulations under
Section 3 of the Small Business Act." For
the purposes of this  proposed regulation,
small "entities" are  considered to be
small furnace and foundary coke firms
that employ less than 1,000 workers.
  A regulatory flexibility analysis
indentifies up to six  small foundary coke
plants that could be affected by the
proposed regulation. Present guidelines
for the analysis require an  estimate of
the degree of economic impact on the
firms in terms of: (1) the percent
increase in the average total cost of
producing coke as a  result of the
proposed standard,  and (2) the  total
annual cost of control as a  percentage of
the firm's revenue. If the percent
increase in the average total cost of
producing coke is estimated as  5 percent
or more, the impact  of the proposed
roguijiion is to be considered
significant. If the total annual cost  of
control as a percentage of the firm's
annual revenue is 10 percent greater for
small firms than for  large firms, the
small firms are to be considered
adversely impacted  by the proposed
standard.
  None of the firms identified as srv.-H
firms were found to have an average
coke production cost increase greatpr
than 5 percent. In addition, none of
these plants exceeded the second
criterion. In s.::r.mary, no small plants
would be adversely affected by the
proposed strindjrd'. A further discussion
of the regulatory flexibility analysis is
provided in Chapter 9 of the barkaniHr-iJ
information document.

Public Hearing

  A public hearing will be held to
discuss the proposed standard for en' •
by-product recovery plants in
accordance v/i'h sections 112(b)(1)(Bl
and 307(d)(5) of the Clean Air Act.
Persons wishing to make oral
presentations on the proposed stands1 J-
for benzene emissions from coke by-
product recovery plants should cont,*«:i
EPA at the addrpss given in the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble.
Oral presentations will be limited to 1A
minutes each Any member of the puh'-.j
may file a written statement before,
during, or within 75 days after the
hearing. Written statements shot-In1 In*
addressed to the Central Docket Section
address given in the ADDRESSES section
of this preamble and should refer to
Docket Number A-79-16.
  A verbatim transcript of the hearing
and written statements will be available
for public inspection and copying during
normal working hours at EPA's Centra)
Docket Section in Washington, D.C. (s..->i
ADDRESSES section of this preamble).

Docket

  The docket is an oiganized and
complete file of all the information
submitted to, or otherwise considered
by, EPA in the development of this
proposed rulemaking. The principal
purposes of the  docket are: (1) To allow/
interested parties to effectively
participate in the rulemaking process;
and (2) to serve as  the record in case of
judicial review except for interagenry
review materials j307(d)(7)(A)]
Miscellaneous
  In accordance with section 117 of thp
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.
  Under Executive Order 12291, EPA is
required to ju Jge if a regulation is a
"major rule" and, therefore, subject to
cert.un requirements of the Executive
                                                   V-L-25
-------
               Federal Register  /  Vol. 49, No.  110 / Wednesday. June  6.  1984 / Proposed Rules
Order. The Agency has determined thai
this regulation would result in none of
the adverse economic effects set forth in
section 1 of the Executive Order as
grounds for finding a regulation to be a
"major rule." A savings in industry-wide
annualized costs, resulting from benzene
recovery credits, would be achieved by
the prpposed standard. For  furnace coke
producers, the impacts of the proposed
standard would result in only a
negligible price increase; the price of
foundry coke is expected to increase by
less than 1 percent. The Agency has also
concluded that this rule is not "major"
under any of the criteria established in
the Executive Order. Therefore, the
Agency has 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
(OMB) for review as required by
Executive Order 12291. Any comments
from OMB to EPA and any  EPA
responses to those comments are
available for inspection in Docket
Number A-79-16, Centra! Docket
Section, at the address given in the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble.
  Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
605(b), I hereby certify that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 61
   Asbestos, Beryllium, Hazardous
substances, Mercury, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements. Vinyl
chloride
  Dated: May 23.1984.'
William D. Ruckelshaus,
Administrator.

PART 61—[AMENDED]

   It is proposed that Part 61 of Chapter
I, Title 40, of the Code of Federal
Regulations be amended by adding a
new Subpart L. as follows:
Subpart L—National Emission Standard for
Benzene Emissions From Coke By-Product
Recovery Plants
Sec
61.130  Applicability and designation of
    sources.
61.131  Definitions.
61.132-1   Standards. General
61.132-2  Standards: Process  vessels, tar
    storage tanks, and tar-intercepting
    sumps.
61.132-3  Standards: Light-oil sumps
61.132-4  Standards: Light-oil, benzene, and
    excess ammonia-liquor storage tanks
61.132-5  Standards: Naphthalene
    processing.
Jl. 132-6  Standards: Pumps.
61.132-7  Standards: Exhausters
Set
61.132-8 Standards: Pressure relief devices
    in gas/vapor service.
01 132-9 Standards: Sampling connection
    systems.
61 132-10 Standards' Open-ended vaKes 01
    lines.
61.132-11 Standards: Valves.
61.132-12 Standards: Pressure relief devices
    in liquid sen-ice and flanges and other
    connectors.
61.132-13 Standards: Delay of repair for
    equipment leaks.
61.132-14 Standards: Closed vent systems
    and control devices for equipment leaks
    of benzene.
61.1 J3-1 Alternative standards for valves in
    benzene service—allowable percentage
    of valves leaking.
6). 133-2 Alternative standards for valves in
    benzene service—skip period leak
    detection and repair.
61.134  Alternative means of emission
    limitation.
61.135  Test methods and procedures.
61136  Recordkeeping requirements,
61.137  Reporting requiiements.
  Authority: Sees. 112 and 301 (a) of the Clean
Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7412 and
7601UI). and additional authority as noted
below.

Subpart L—National Emission
Standard for Benzene Emissions From
Coke By-Product Recovery Plants

§61.130  Applicability and designation of
sources.
  (a)(l) The provisions of this subpart
apply to each of the following sources in
a coke by-product recovery plant:
naphthalene processing and direct-
water final-cooler cooling systems: tar
decanters; tar-dwatering tanks; tar-
intercepting sumps; flushing-liquor
circulation tanks; light-oil sumps; light-
oil condensers: light-oil decanters:
wash-oil decanters; wash-oil circulation
tanks; and each storage tank containing
tar, light-oil, benzene, or excess
ammonia-liquor.
   (2) The provisions of this subpart also
apply to each of the following sources in
a coke by-product recovery plant that
are intended to operate in benzene
service: pumps, valves, exhausters,
pressure relief devices, sampling
connection systems, open-ended  vdhes
or  lines, flanges and other connectors.
and control devices or systems required
by this subpart.

§ 61.131 Definitions.
   As used in this subpart. all terms not
defined herein shall have the meaning
given them  in the Act or in Subpart A of
 Part 61, and the following terms shall
 have the specific meanings given them:
   "Benzene storage tank" means any
 tank, reservoir, or other type container
 used to collect or store refined benzene.
   "Closed-vent system" means a system
 that is not open to atmosphere and that
is composed of piping, connections, and.
if necessary, flow-inducing devices that
transport gas or vapor from a piece or
pieces of equipment to a control device.
  "Coke by-product recovery plant"
means any facility designed and
operated for the separation and
recovery of coal tar derivatives (by-
products) evolved from coal during the
coking process of a coke oven battery.
  "Connector" means flanged, screwed.
welded, or other joined fittings used to
connect two pipe lines or a pipe line and
a piece of process equipment.
  "Control device" means an enclosed
combustion device, vapor recovery
system, or flare.
  "Double block and bleed system"
means two block valves connected in
series with a bleed valve or line that can
vent the line between the two block
valves.
  "Equipment" means each pump, valve,
exhauster, pressure relief device.
sampling connection system, open-
ended valve or line, and flange or other
connector in benzene service, and any
devices or systems required by § 61.13J-
14.
  "Excess ammonia-liquor storage tank"
means any tank, reservoir, or other type
container used to collect or store a
flushing-liquor solution prior to
ammonia or phenol recovery.
  "First attempt at repair" means to
take rapid action for the purpose of
stopping or reducing leakage of organic.
material to atmosphere, using best
practices.
  "Flushing-liquor circulation tank"
means any vessel that functions to store
or contain flushing liquor that is
separated from the tat in the tar
decanter and is recirculated as the
cooled liqaor to the gas collection
system.
   "In benzene service" means a piece of
equipment, other than an exhauster, that
either contains or contacts a fluid (liquid
or gas)  that is at least 10 percent
benzene by weight or any exhauster that
either contains or contacts a fluid (liquid
or gas)  at least 1 percent benzene by
weight  as determined by the provisions
of | 61.135(d). The provisions of
 i 61.135(d) also specify how to
determine that a piece of equipment is
not in benzene service.
   "In gas/vapor service" means that u
piece of equipment contains process
 fluid that is in the gaseous state at
operating conditions.
   "In vacuum service" means that a
 process unit (including associated
 equipment) is operating at an internal
 pressure that is at least 5 kilopascah
 (kPa) below ambient pressure.
                                                     V-L-26
-------
               Federal  Register / Vol.  49,  No. 110  /  Wednesday,  June 6, 1984  /  Proposed Rules
  "In VOC service" means, for the
purposes of this subpart, that: (1) The
piece of equipment contains or contacts
a process fluid that is at least 10 percent
VOC by weight: and (2) the piece of
equipment is not in light liquid service
as defined in 40 CFR 60.481. See 40 CFR
60.2 for the definition of volatile organic
compound or "VOC" and 40 CFR
60.485(d) to determine whether a piece
of equipment is not in VOC service.
  "In-situ sampling systems" means
nonextractive samplers or in-line
samplers.
  "Light-oil condenser" means any
vessel, tank, or other type device in the
light-oil recovery operation that
functions to condense benzene-
containing vapors.
  "Light-oil decanter" means any vessel,
tank, or other type device in the light-oil
recovery operation that functions to
separate light oil from the coke oven gas
process stream. A light-oil decanter may
also be known as a light-oil separator.
  "Light-oil storage tank" means any
vessel, tank, reservoir, or other type of
container used to collect or store crude
light oil or light-oil fractions such as
benzene-toluene-xylene (BTX) mixtures.
  "Light-oil sump" means any tank, pit,
enclosure, or slop tank in light-oil
recovery operations that functions as a
wastewater separation device to recover
hydrocarbon liquids from the surface of
the water.
  "Mixer-settler" means a tank
containing tar that is inserted into the
final cooling process of a  direct-water
final cooler system that serves to
remove naphthalene from the direct-
contact water.
  "Naphthalene processing" means any
operations required to recover
naphthalene from a direct-water final
cooler, including the separation,
refining, drying, handling, and
transporting of crude or refined
naphthalene.
  "Open-ended valve or line" means
any valve, except pressure relief
devices, having one side of the valve
seat in contact with process fluid and
one side open to atmosphere, either
directly or through open piping.
  "Pressure release" means the
emission of materials resulting from
system pressure being greater than set
pressure of the pressure relief device.
  "Process unit" means each group of
process vessels and equipment
assembled to produce, as intermediate
or final products, any by-product
evolved from coal in a coke by-product
recovery plant (e.g., the light-oil plant).
A process unit can operate
independently if supplied with sufficient
feed or raw materials and sufficient
product storage facilities.
  "Process unit shutdown" means a
work practice or operational procedure
that stops production from a process
unit or part of a process unit. An
unscheduled work practice or
operational procedure that stops
production from a process unit or part of
a process unit for  less than 24 hours is
not a process unit shutdown. The use of
spare equipment and technically
feasible bypassing of equipment without
stopping production are not process unit
shutdowns.
  "Process vessel" means each tar
decanter, flushing-liquor circulation
tank, light-oil condenser, light-oil
decanter, wash-oil decanter, or wash-oil
circulation tank.
  "Quarter" means a 3-month period,
the first quarter concludes on the last
day of the last full month during the 180
days following startup for new sources;
the first quarter concludes on the last
day of the last full month during the 180
days after (date of publication of final
rule in Federal Register) for existing
sources.
  "Repaired" means that a source is
adjusted or otherwise altered in order to
eliminate a leak as indicated by one of
the following: an instrument reading of
10,000 ppm or greater, instrument
reading of 500 ppm or greater above a
background concentration, indication of
liquids dripping, or indication by  a
sensor that a seal  system or barrier fluid
system has failed.
  "Semiannual" means a 6-month
period; the first semiannual period
concludes on the last day of the last full
month during the 180 days following
initial startup for new sources; and the
first semiannual period concludes on the
last day of the last full month during the
180 days after (date  of publication of
final rule in Federal  Register)  for
existing sources.
  "Sensor" means a device that
measures a physical quantity or the
change in a physical quantity, such as
temperature, pressure, flow rate, pH, or
liquid level.
  "Tar decanter"  means any vessel.
tank, or other type container that
functions to separate heavy tar and
sludge from flushing liquor by means of
gravity, heat, or chemical emulsion
breakers. A tar decanter may also be
known as a flusing-liquor decanter.
  "Tar storage tank" means any vessel,
tank, reservoir, or other type container
used to collect or  store crude tar or tar-
entrained maphthalene except for tar
products obtained by distillation, such
as coal tar pitch, creosotes, or carbolic
oil. This definition also includes any
vessel, tank, reservoir, or other type
container used to  reduce the water
content of the tar by means of heat,
residence time, chemical emulsion
breakers, or centrifugal separation. A tm
storage tank may also be known as a
tar-dewatering tank.
  "Tar-intercepting sump" means an\
tank, pit. or enclosure that serves to
separate light tars and aqueous
condensate received from the primary
cooler. A tar-intercepting sump may  also
be known as a primary-cooler decanter
  "Wash-oil circulation tank" means
any vessel that functions to hold the
wash oil used in light oil recovery
operations or the wash oil  used in  the
wash-oil final cooler.
  "Wash-oil decanter" means any
vessel that functions to separate, by
gravity,  the condensed water from the
wash oil received from a wash-oil  final
cooler or from  a light-oil scrubber.

§61.132-1  Standards: General.
  (a) Each owner or operator suhjpcl to
the provisions  of this subpart shall
demonstrate compliance with the
requirements of § 61.132 for each new
and existing source, except as provided
in §61.133 and §61.134.
  (b) Compliance with this subparl will
be determined by review of records,
review of performance test results, and
inspection using the methods and
procedures specified in §61.135.
  (c)(l) An owner or operator may
request permission to use an alternative
means of emission limitation to meet the
requirements of §§61.132-2, 61.132-3.
61,132-6, 61.132-7, 61,132-9, 61.132-10.
61.132-11, 61.132-12, 61.132-13, and
61.132-14. Permission  to use an
alternative means of emission limitation
may be requested as specified in
§61.134.
  (2) If the Administrator permits the
use of an alternative means of emission
limitation to meet the  requirements of
§§61.132-2, 61.132-3, 61.132-6, 61.132-7.
61.132-9, 61.132-10. 61.132-11, 61.132-12.
61.132-13, or 61.132-14, an  owner or
operator shall  comply with the
conditions of that permission.
  (d) Each piece of equipment in
benzene service to which this subpart
applies shall be marked in such a
manner that it  can be  distinguished
readily from other pieces of equipment
in benzene service.
  (e) Equipment that is in vacuum
service is excluded from the
requirements of this subpart if it is
identified as required in § 61.136(h)(5).
  (f) At  all times, owners and operators
shall, to the extent practicable, maintain
and operate any source including
associated air  pollution control
equipment, according to good air
pollution control practice for minimmn«
emissions. Determining whether
                                                   V-L-27
-------
               Federal Register  /  Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday.  June 6. 1984  /  Proposed Rules
acceptable operating and maintenance
procedures are used will be based on
information available to the
Administrator that may include, but is
not limited to, monitoring results. review
of operating and maintenance
procedures, and  inspection of the
source.

$ 61.132-2  Standard*: Process vessels, tar
storage tanks, and tar Intercepting sumps.
  (a)(l) Each owner or operator shall
enclose and seal all openings on each
process vessel, tar storage tank, and tar
intercepting sump.
  (2) The owner or operator shall duct
gases from each  source to the gas
collection system, gas distribution
system, or other  enclosed point in the
by-product recovery process where the
benzene in the gas will be recovered or
destroyed. This control system shall be
designed and operated for no detectable
emissions, as indicated by an instrument
reading of less than 500 ppm above
background and  by visual inspections,
as determined by the methods specified
in § 61.135(c). This system  can be
designed as a closed, positive-pressure,
gas blanketing system.
  (i) Except, the owner or operator may
elect to install, operate, and maintain a
p'essure relief device, vacuum relief
device, an access hatch, and a sampling
port on each source. Each access hatch
and sampling port must be equipped
with a gasket and a cover,  seal, or lid
that must be kept in a closed position at
all times, unless in actual use. and
  (ii) The owner or operator may elect
to leave open to the atmosphere the
portion of the liquid surface in each tar
decanter necessary to permit operation
of a sludge conveyor. If the owner or
operator elects to maintain an opening
on part of the liquid surface of the
decanter.the owner or operator shall
install, operate, and maintain a water
seal on the tar decanter roof near the
sludge discharge chute to ensure
enclosure of the major portion of the
liquid surface not necessary for the
operation of the sludge conveyor.
  (b) Following the installation of any
control equipment used to meet the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section, the owner or operator shall
monitor semiannual!)1 the connections
and seals on each control system to
determine if it is  operating  with no
detectable emissions, using Reference
Method 21 (40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A)
and procedures specified under
§ 61.135(c) of this subpart. The owner or
operator shall also conduct
se.miannually a visual inspection of each
source (including sealing materials) and
the ductwork of the control svstem for'
evidence of visible defects such as gaps
or tears.
  (1) If an instrument reading indicates
an organic chemical concentration more
than 500 ppm above a background
concentration, as measured by
Reference Method 21, a leak is detected
  (2) If visible defects such as gaps in
sealing materials are observed during a
visual  inspection, a leak is detected.
  (3) When a leak is detected, it shall be
repaired as soon as practicable, but no
later than 15 calendar days after it is
detected.
  (4) A first attempt at repair of any
leak or visible defect shall be made no
later than 5 calendar days after each
leak is detected.
  (c) Following the installation of any
control system used to meet the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section, the owner or operator shall
conduct a maintenance .inspection of the
control system on an annual basis for
evidence of system abnormalities, such
as blocked or plugged lines, sticking
valves, plugged condensate traps,  and
other maintenance defects that could
result in abnormal system operation.
The owner or operator shall make a first
attempt at repair within 5 days, with
repair within 15 days of detection. If a
system blockage occurs at any time, the
owner or operator shall conduct an
inspection and perform any necessary
repairs immediately upon detection.

§ 61.132-3   Standards: Light-oil sumps.
  (aj Each owner or operator of a light-
oil sump shall enclose and seal the
liquid surface in the sump to form a
closed system to contain the emissions.
  (1) Except, the owner or operator may
elect to install, operate, and maintain a
vent on the light-oil sump cover. Each
vent pipe must be equipped with a water
leg sea, a pressure relief device, or
vaecum relief device: and
  (2) The owner or operator may elect to
install, operate, and maintain an access
hatch on each sump cover. Each access
hatch must be equipped with a gasket
and a cover, seal, or lid that must be
kept in a closed position at all times.
unless  in actual use.
  (3) The sump cover may be removed
for periodic maintenance but must be
replaced (with seal) at completion  of the
maintenance operation.
  (b) The venting of steam or other
gases from the by-product process to the
light-oil sump is not permitted.
  (c) Following the installation of an>
control equipment used to meet the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section, the owner or operator shall
monitor semiannually the connections
and seals on each control system to
determine if it is operating with no
detectable emissions, using Reference
Method 21 (40 CFR Part 60. Appendix A)
and the procedures specified under
§ 61.135(c) of this subpart. The owner or
operator shall also conduct on a
semiannual basis a visual inspection of
each source (including sealing materials)
and the ductwork of the control system
for evidence of visible defects such as
gaps or tears.
  (1) If an instrument reading indicates
an organic chemical concentration more
than 500 ppm above a background
concentration, as measured by
Reference Method 21, a leak is detected
  (2) If visible defects such as gaps in
sealing materials are observed during a
visual  inspection, a leak is detected.
  (3) When a leak is detected, it shall be
repaired as soon as practicable , but not
later than 15 calendar days after it is
detected.
  (4) A first attempt at repair  of any
leak or visible defect shall be  made no
later than 5 calendar days after each
leak is detected.

§ 61.132-4 Standards: Light-oil, benzene,
and excess ammonia-liquor storage tanks.
  (a)(l) Each  storage tank containing
light-oil benzene, or excess ammonia-
liquor shalll be equipped with a control
device designed and operated to achieve
a 90-percent benzene control efficiency.
  (2) Each o\\ner or operator shall
enclose and seal all openings  on each
tank; the gases frc.-n each tank shall bt-
ducted to the  control  device used to
achieve compliance with paragraph
(a)(l) of this section.
  (3) The ov\ner or operator may elect to
install, operate, and maintain  a pressure
relief device, vacuum relief device, an
access hatch, and a sampling port on
each tank. Each access  hatch and
sampling port must be equipped with a
gasket and a cover, seal, or lid that musl
be kept in a closed position at all times.
unless  in actual use.
  (b) Following the installation of any
control equipment used to meet the
requirements  of paragraph (a) of this
section, the owner or operator shall
monitor semiannually the connections
and seals on each tank to determine if
the control system is operating with no
detectable emissions, using Reference
Method 21 (40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A]
and procedures specified under
§ 61.135(c) of this subpart. The owner or
operator shall also conduct
semiannually a visual inspection of earn
tank (including sealing meterials) and
the ductwork  to the control deviCe for
evidence of visible defects such as gaps
or tears.
  (1) If an instrument reading indicates
nn organic chemical concentration more
                                                  V-L-28
-------
                Federal Register  / Vol. 49, No.  110 / Wednesday, June  6.  1984 / Proposed Rules
than 500 ppm above a background
concentration, as measured by
Reference Method 21, a leak is detected.
  (2) If visible defects such as gaps in
sealing materials are observed during a
visual inspection, a leak is delected.
  (3) When a leak is detected, it shall be
repaiied as soon as practicable, but not
later than 15 calendai days after it is
detected.
  (4) A first attempt at repair of any
leak or visible defect shall be made no
later than 5 calendar days after each
leak-is detected.
  (c) Following the installation of any
control device (or control system) used
to meet the requirements of paragraph
(a) of this section, the owner or operator
shall conduct a maintenance inspection
of the  connections and seals on each
tank and ductwork to the control device
on  an  annual basis for evidence of
system abnormalities, such as blocked
01 phi^rd lines, sticking valves, plugged
condensate tiaps, and oilier
maintenance defects that could result in
abnormal system operation. The owner
or operator shall make a first attempt at
repair within 5 days, with repair within
15 days of detection. If a system
blockage occurs at any time, the owner
or operator shall conduct an inspection
and perform any necessary repairs
immediately upon detection.
  (d)(l) The owner or operator shall
monitor parameters that indicate proper
operation of the control device to ensure
that the device is operated and
maintained in conformance with the
design. The selection of monitoring
parameters is subject to approval by  thp
Administrator.
  (2) If a wash-oil scrubber is used as
the control device, the owner or
operator shall install, operate calibrate,
and maintain a device to monitor and
record the wash-oil flow rate, the
temperature of the gases exiting the
scrubber, and the pressure of the wash
oil at the scrubber spray nozzle.
  (e) The ducting of gases (e.g., coke
oven gas, natural gas or nitrogen used as
a blanketing agent) from a storage tank
to the gas collection system, gas
distribution system, or another enclosed
point in the by product recovery process
where the benzene in the gas will be
recovered or destroyed is permitted for
compliance with the standard specified
in paragraph (a) of this section.
  (f) An owner or operator ducting gases
from a tank in the manner described in
paragraph (e) of this section shall
comply with all requirements specified
in § 61.132-2, including leak detection
and repair provisions.
  (g) At all times, including periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction,
owners and operators shall, to the
extent practicable, maintain and ript:reile
any source, including associated air
pollution control equipment  according
to good air pollution control practice for
minimizing emissions. Determining
whether acceptable operating and
rnaintainace procedures are used will be
based on information available to the
Administrator that may include, but is
not limited to, monitoring results, review
of operating and maintenance
procedures, and inspection of the
source.

§ 61.132-5 Naphthalene processing.
  (a)  No ("zero") emissions are allowed
from naphthalene processing.
  (b)  The emission limit specified in
paragraph (a) of this section is not
applicable if a mixer-settler is used to
separate naphthalene from the water of
a direct-water final cooler by tar or
another organic liquid.
  (c) If a mixer-settler is used to
separate naphthalene from the water of
a direct-water final cooler, the mixer-
settler is subject to all requirements
specified in § 61.132-2 for process
vessels, including leak  detection and
repair provisions,

§ 61.132-6  Standards: Pumps.
  (a)(l) Each pump shall be monitored
monthly to detect leaks by the  methods
specified in § 61.135(b), except as
provided in § 61.132-1 (c) and
paragraphs (d). (e). and (f) of this
section
  (2) Each pump shall be checked by
visual inspection, each  calendar week,
for indications of liquids dripping fiorn
tbe pump seal.
  (b)(l) if an instrument reading of
10,000 ppm or greater is measured, a
leak is detected.
  (2) If there are indications of liquids
dripping from the pump seal, a  leak is
detected.
  (c)(lj When  a leak is  detected, it shall
be repaired as soon as practicable, but
not later than 15 calendar days after it is
detected, except as provided in § 61.132-
13.
  (2) A first attempt to repair shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days after
each leak is detected.
  (d) Each pump equipped with a dual
mechanical seal system that includes a
barrier fluid system is exempt from the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section provided the following
requirements are met:
  (1) Each dual mechanical seal system
is:
  (i) Operated with the barrier fluid at a
pressure that is at all times greater than
the pump stuffing box pressure; or
  (ii) Equipped with a barrier fluid
degassing reservoir that is connected by
d closed-vent system to a control device
that complies with the  requirements of
§61.132-14, or
  (in) Equipped with a  system th-it
purges the barrier fluid into ;< nrr-M^s
stream with zero  be:izene emissions to
the atmosphere.
  (2) The  barrier fluid sjsiem is not in
benzene service and if  the pump is
covered by the standards in 40 CFR P;;r(
60,  subpart VV, it is not in VOC servi-c
  (3) Each barrier fluid svstern is
equipped  with a sensor that will detect
failure of  the seal system, the barrier
fluid system, or both.
  (4) Each pump is checked by visual
inspection, each calendar week, for
indications of liquids dripping from the
pump seals.
  (-,)(i) Each sensor as  described in
paragraph (d)(3) of this section is
checked daily or is equipped with an
audible alarm, and
  ()i) The  owner or operator delem.ini--
based on  de-sign considerations and
operating  experience, a criterion that
indicates  failure of the  seal system, the
barrier fluid system, or both.
  (6!(i) If  the-e are indications of liqimK
dripping from the pump seal  or the
sensor indicates failure of the seal
system, the barrier fluid system, or both
based on  the criteria determined in
paragraph (d)(5)(ii) of th>j section, a lear
is detected.
  (ii) When  a leak is detected, it shall bt-
repaired as soon as prnclicnble. but not
later than 15 calendar days after it is
detected,  except as provided in  § 61.132-
13.
  (iii.) A first attempt at repa-r sh,j!l be
made no later than 5 calendar days aftiji
each leak  is detected.
  (e) Any pump that is  designated, as
described in § 61.136(h)(2) for no
detectable emissions, as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background, is exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (a),  (c). and
(d) of this  section if the pump:
  (1) Has  no externally actuated shaft
penetrating the pump housing,
  (2) Is demonstrated to be operating
with no detectable emissions, as
indicated  by an instrument reading of
less than 500 ppm above background as
measured  by the methods specified in
§ 61.135(c), and
  (3) Is tested for  compliance with
paragraph (e)(2) of this  section initially
upon designation, annually, and at olhei
times requested by the  Administrator.
  (f) If any pump is equipped with a
closed vent system capable of capturing
and transporting any leakage from the
seal or seals to a control device  that
complies with the requirements of
$ 61.132-14, it is exempt from the
                                                   V-L-29
-------
               Federal Register / Vol. 49,  No. 110  /  Wednesday,  June 6, 1984  /  Proposed Rules
requirements of paragraphs (a)-(c) of
this section.
$ 61.132-7   Standards: Exhausters.
  (a) Each exhauster shall be monitored
quarterly to detect leaks bj the methods
specified in § 61.135 except as provided
>n 5 61.132-l(c) and paragraphs (d)-(f) of
this section.
  (b) If an instrument reading of 10,000
ppm or greater is measured, a leak is
detected.
  (c) When a leak is detected, it shall be
repaired as soon as practicable, but not
later than 15 calendar days after it is
detected, except as provided in § 61.132-
13. A first attempt at repair shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days after
each leak is detected.
  (d) Each  exhauster equipped with a
seal system that includes a barrier fluid
system and that prevents leakage of
process fluids to atmosphere is exempt
irom the requirements of paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this section provided the
following requirements are met:
   (1) Each  exhauster seal system is-
   (i) Operated with the barrier fluid at a
pressure that is greater than the
exhauster stuffing box pressure; or
   (ii) Equipped with a barrier fluid
 system that is connected by a closed
 vent system to a control dcvire that
 complies with the requirements of
 §61.132-14; or
   (iii)  Equipped with a system that
 purges the barrier fluid into a process
 stream with zero benzene emissions to
 the atmosphere.
   (2) The barrier fluid system is not in
 benzene service and if the exhauster is
 covered by standards in 40 CFR Part 60.
 Subpart VV, it is not in VOC service.
   (3) Each barrier fluid system shall be
 equipped with a sensor that will detect
 failure of the seal system, barrier fluid
 system, or both.
   (4)(i) Each sensor a& described in
 paragraph (d) of this section shall be
 checked daily or shall be  equipped with
 an audible alarm,
   fii) The owner or operator shall
 determine, based on design
 considerations and operating
 experience, a criterion that indicdtes
 failure of the seal system  the barrier
 fluid sysiem,  or both
   (5Uf the sensor iruKatrs. failure of the
 sea! system, the barrier system, both
 based on tht- cn'tnc-n determined under
 paragraph (d)(4)(ii) of this section, a leak
 is detected.
   (6)(i) When a leak is detected, it shall
 ht repaired as soon as practicable, but
 not later than 15 calendar days after it is
 detected, except as provided in § 61.132-
 n
  (ii) A first attempt at repair shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days after
each leak is detected.
  (e) An exhauster is exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b)
of this section if it is equipped with a
closed vent system capable of capturing
and transporting any leakage from the
seal or seals to a control device and that
complies with the requirements of
§ 61.132-14. except as provided in
paragraph (f) of this section
  jf) Any exhauster that is designated,
as described in § 61.136(i)(2), for no
detectable emissions, as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background, is exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (a)-(e] of
this section if the exhauster:
  (1) Is demonstrated to be operating
with no detectable emissions, as
indicated by an instrument reading of
less than 500 ppm above background, as
measured by the methods specified in
§ 61.135lc); and
  (2) Is tested for compliance with
paragraoh (f)(l) of this section initially
upon designation, annually, and at other
times requested by the Administrator

§ 61.132-8  (Standards: Pressure relief
devices in gas/vapor service.
  (a) Except during pressure releases,
each pressure relief device in gas/vapor
service shall be operated with no
detectable emissions, as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above backgroud, as measured by the
methods specified in  § 61.135(c).
   (b^l) After each pressure release, the
pressure relief device shall be returned
to a condition of no detectable
emissions, as indicated by an instrument
reading of less than 500 ppm above
background, as soon  as practicable, but
no later than 5 calendar days after each
pressure rtlease
   (2) No later than 5 calendar days after
 the pressure reilease,  the pressure relief
 device shall be monitored to confirm the
 conditions of no detectable emissions.
 as indicated by an instrument reading  of
 less than 500 ppm above background, as
 measured  by the methods specified in
 {61.135(c) "
   (c) Any pressure relief device that is
 equipped with a closed vent system
 capable of capturing and transporting
 leakace through the pressure relief
 device to a control device as described
 in § 61.132-14 is exempt from  the
 requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b).
 of this section

 § 61.132-9 Standards; Sampling
 connection systems
   (a) Each sampling connection system
 shall be equipped with a closed purge
s\stem or closed vent system, except as
provided in § 61.132-l(c).
  (b) Each closed purge or closed vent
system as required in paragraph |n)
shall:
  (1) Return the purged process fluid
directly to the process line with zero
benzene emissions to the atmosphere; 01
  (2) Collect and recycle the purged
process fluid with zero benzene
emissions to the atmosphere: or
  (3) Be designed and operated to
capture and transport all the purged
process fluid to a  control device thai
complies with the requirements of
§61.132-14.
  (c) In-situ sampling systems are
exempt from paragraphs (a) and (b)  ol
this section.

§ 61.132-10  Standards: Open-ended
valves or lines.
  (a)(l) Each open-ended valve or line
shall be equipped with a cap. blind
flange, plug, or a second valve, except
as provided in § 61.132-l(c).
  (2) The cap, blind flange, plug, or
second valve seal the open end at all
times except during operations requiring
process fluid flow through the open-
ended valve or line.
  (b) Each open-ended valve or line
equipped with a second valve shall  be
operated in a manner such that the
valve on the process fluid end is closed
before the second valve is closed.
  (r) When a double block and blued
system is used, the bleed valve or line
mrfy remain open during operations that
require venting the line between the
block valves but shall comply with
paragraph (<.,} of this section at all othfi
times

§61.132-11  Standards: Valves.
   (a) Each valve shall be monitored
monthly to detect leaks by the methods
specified in | 61.135(b) and shall comply
with paragraphs  (b)-(t) of this section .
except as provided in paragraphs (f). (gl-
and (h) of this section. § 61.132-l(c), and
 §61.133-1 or §61.133-2.
   (b) If an instrument reading of 10.000
 ppm or greater is measured, a leak  is
 detected.
   (c)(l) Any \alvt- (01 which a leak is
 not detected for 2 successive months
 may be monitored the first month of
 every quarter, beginning with the next
 quarter, unli! a leak is detected.
   (2) If a leak is detected, the valve shall
 be monitored monthly until a leak is not
 detected for 2 successive months.
   (d)(l) When  a leak is detected, it shall
 be repaired as soon as practicable, but
 not later than 15 calendar days after the
 leak is detected, except as pnnided in
 501-132-13
                                                     V-L-30
-------
               Federal Register / Vol.  49,  No. 110  /  Wednesday,  June 6, 1984 /  Proposed Rules
  (2) A first attempt at repair shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days after
each leak is detected.
  (e) First attempts at repair include, but
are not limited to, the followng best
practices where practicable:
  (1) Tightening of bonnet bolts;
  (2) Replacement of bonnet bolts;
  (3) Tightening of packing gland nuts;
  (4) Injection Of lubricant into
lubricated packing.
  (f) Any valve that is designated, as
described in § 61.136 (1)(2), for no
detectable emissions, as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background, is exempt from the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section  if the valve:
  (1) Has no external actuating
mechanism in contact with the process
fluid,
  (2) Is  operated with emissions less
than 500 ppm above background, as
determined b> the method specified in
§ 61.135(c), and
  (3) Is  tested for compliance with
paragraph (f)(2) of this section initially
upon designation, annually, and at other
times requested by the Administrator.
  (g) Any valve that is designated, as
described in § 61.136(i)(l), as an unsafe-
to-monitor valve is exempt from the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section  if:
  (1) The owner or operator of the valve
demonstrates that the valve is unsafe to
monitor because monitoring personnel
would be exposed to an immediate
danger as a consequence of complying
with paragraph (a) of this section, and
  (2) The owner or operator of the valve
adheres to a written plan that requires
monitoring of the valve as frequently  as
practicable during safe-to-monitor times.
  (h) Any valve that is designated, as
described in § 61.136(i)(2), as a difficult-
to-monitor valve is exempt from the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section  if:
  (1) The owner or operator of the v*alue
demonstrates that the valve cannot be
monitored without elevating the
monitoring personnel more then 2
meters above a support surface.
  (2) The equipment within which the
valve is located is an existing process
unit, and
  (3) The owner or operator of the valve
follows a written plan that requires
monitoring of the valve at least once per
calendar year.

§ 61.132-12   Standard*: Pressure relief
devices In liquid service and flanges and
other connectors.
  (a) Pressure relief devices in liquid
service  and flanges and other
'connectors shall be monitored within 5
days by the method specified in
§ 61.135(b) if evidence of a potential
leak is found by visual, audible,
olfactory, or any other detection
method.
  (b) If an instrument reading of 10.000
ppm or greater is measured, a leak is
detected.
  (c)(l) When a leak is detected, it shall
be repaired as soon as practicable, but
not later than 15 calendar days after it is
detected, except as provided in § 61.132-
13.
  (2) The first attempt at repair shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days after
each leak is detected.
  (d) First attempts at repair include,
but are not limited to, the best practices
described under § 61.132-11 (e).

§ 61.132-13  Standards: Delay of repair for
equipment leaks.
  (a) Delay of repair of equipment for
which leaks have been detected will be
allowed if the repair is  technically
infeasible without a process unit
shutdown. Repair of this equipment
shall occur before the end of the next
process unit shutdown.
  (b) Delay of repair of equipment will
be allowed for equipment which is
isolated from the process and which
does not remain in benzene service.
  (c) Delay of repair for valves will be
allowed if:
  (1) The owner or operator
demonstrates that emissions of purged
material resulting from immediate repair
are greater than the fugitive emissions
likely to result from delay of repair, and
  (2) When repair procedures are
effected, the purged material is collected
and destroyed in a control device
complying with § 61.132-14.
  (d) Delay of repair for pumps will be
allowed if:
  (1) Repair requires the use of a dual
mechanical seal system that includes a
barrier fluid system, and
  (2) Repair is completed as soon as
practicable, but not later than 6 months
after the leak was detected.
  (e) Delay of repair for exhausters will
be allowed if:
  (1] Repair requires the use of a seal
system that includes a barrier fluid
system, and
  (2) Repair is completed as soon as
practicable, but not later than 6 months
after the leak was detected.
  (f) Delay of repair beyond a process
unit shutdown will be allowed for a
valve, if valve assembly replacement is
necessary during the process unit
shutdown, valve assembly supplies have
been depleted, and valve assembly
supplies had been sufficiently stocked
before the supplies were depleted. Delay
of repair beyond the next process unit
shutdown will not be allowed unless the
next process unit shutdown occurs
sooner than 6 months after the first
process unit shutdown.

§61.132-14  Standards: Closed vent
systems and control devices for equipment
leaks of benzene.
  (a) Owners or operators of closed ve -.;
systems and control devices used to
comply with the provisions  of § 61.132-f.
(d) or (f). §  61.132-7 (d) or (e), § 61.132-
8(c). or § 61.132-9(b) shall comply wifh
the provisions of this section.
  (b) Vapor recovery systems (for
example, condensers and adsorbers i
shall be designed and operated to
recover the benzene vapors vented to
them with an efficiency of 95 per«"-i n-
greater.
  (c) Enclosed combustion devices bh.ii;
be designed and operated to reduce tbr
benzene emissions vented to them \\ uh
an efficiency of 95 percent or greyer or
to provide, a minimum residence time o'
0.50 seconds at a minimum t<"npp:.,!i!rr-
of 760° C.
  (d)(l) Flares shall be designed for ar,o
operated with no visible emissions as
determined by the methods sppnf-^d ;~
§ 61.135(e)  except for periods not to
exceed a total of 5 minutes during  .iny 2
consecutive hours.
  (2) Flares shall operate with a flamr
present at all times, as determined b\
the methods specified in § 6l,135(e)
  (3) Flares shall be used only wi'h the
net heating value of the gas being
combusted being 11.2 MJ/scm (300 Bi.;
scf) or greater if the flare is steam-
assisted or air-assisted, or with the nt'f
heating value of the gas being
combusted being 7.45 MJ/scm or grcafi't
if the flare in nonassisted. The net
heating value of the gas being
combusted shall be determined b\ thi-
methods specified in § 61.135(e).
  (4) Steam-assisted and nonassistrd
flares shall be designed for and
operated with an exit velocity, as
determined by the method specified ;r,
§ 61.135(e)(4), less than 18 m/sec (60 ft/
sec).
  (5) Air-assisted flares shall be
designed and operated with an exit
velocity less than the velocity, Vmax <-!.•-
determined by the method specified in
§ 61.135(e)(5).'
  (6) Flares used to (.omply with this
subpart shall be steam-assisted, air-
assisted, or nonassisted.
  (e) Owners or operators of control
devices that are used to comply with th>
provisions  of this subpart shall monitor
these control devices to ensure that they
are operated and maintained  in
conformance with their design.
  (f)(l) Closed-vent systems shall be
designed for and operated with no
                                                     V-L-31
-------
               Federal  Register / Vnl.  49. No. 110 /  Wednesday. June  6,  1984 / Proposed  Rules
dettictable emissions, as indicated by ar.
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background and b> visual
inspections, as determined by the
methods specified in § 61.135(c).
  (2) Closed-vent systems shall be
monitored to determine compliance vnili
this section initially in accordance with
§ 61.05,  annually, and at other times
requested by the Administrator
  (3) Leaks, as indicatd by an
instrument reading greater than 500 pjirn
above background or by visual
inspections, shall be repaired as soon as
practicable, but not later than 15
calendar days after the leak is  detected

  (4) A  first attempt at repair shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days after
the leak is detected.
  (g) Closed-vent systems and  control
devices used to comply with provisions
of this subpart shall be operated at all
times when emissions may he vented to
them.
§ 61.133  Alternative standards for valves
In benze/ie service—allowable percentage
of valves leaking.

  (a) An owner or operator may elect to
comply with an allowable percentage of
valves leaking of equal to or IPSS than
2.0 percent.
  (b) The following requirements shall
be met if an owner or operator wishes  to
comply with an allowable percentage of
valves leaking:
  (1) An owner or operator must notif\
the Administrator that the owner or
operator has elected to comply with the
allowable percentage of valves leaking
before implementing this alternative
standard, as specified in § 61.137(d).
   (2) A performance test as specified in
paragraph (c) of this section shall be
conducted initially upon designation.
annually, and at other times rf quested
by the Administrator.
   (3) If a valve  leak is detected, it must
be repaired in accordance with § 61.132-
n (d) and (e).
   (c) Performance tests shall be
conducted in the following manner
   (1) All valves in benzene service
within the coke by-product recovery
plant shall be monitored within 1 week
by the methods specified in  § 61.135(b).
   (2) If an instrument reading of 10.000
ppm or greater is measured, a  leak is
detected.
   (3) The kak percentage shall be
determined by  dividing the number of
valves  in benzene service for whirh
leaks are detected by the number of
valves  in benzene service within the
coke bv-product recovery plant.
.   (d) Owners or operators who elect to
comply with this alternative standard
shall not operate valves in henxene
       with a leak percentage greater
than 2.0 percent.
  (e) If an owner or opeator decides to
no longer comply with § 61.133-1. the
owner or operator must notify the
Administrator in writing that the work
practice standard described in 8 61.132-
11 (a)-(e) will be followed.

§61.133-2  Alternative standard* for
valves In benzene service—skip period leak
detection and repair.
  (fa)(l) An owner or operator may elect
to comply with one of the alternative
work practices specified in paragraphs
(b) (2) and [3) of this section.
  (2) An owner or operator must notify
the Administrator before implementing
one of the alternative work practices, as
specified in  § 61.137(d).
  (b)(l) An owner  or operator shall
comply initially with the requirements
for valves, as described in § 61.132-11.
  (2J After 2 consecutive quarterly leak
detection periods with the percentage of
valves leaking equal  to or less than 2.0,
an owner or operator may begin to skip
1 of the quarterly leak detection periods
for the valves in benzene  service.
  (3) After 5 consecutive quarterly leak
detection periods with the percentage of
valves leaking equal to or less than 2.0.
an owner or operator may begin to skip
3 of the quarterly leak detection periods
for the Vdlves in benzene service.
   (4) If the percentage of valves leaking
is greater than 2.0, the owner or operator
shall comply with  the requirements as
described in § 61.137 but can again elect
to use this section.

§61.134  Alternative means of emission
limitation.
   (a) Permission to use an alternative
means of emission limitation under
Section 112(e){3) of the Clean Air Act
shall be governed  by the following
procedures.
   (b) For equipment, design, and
operational requirements of this subpart:
   (1) Each owner or operator applying
for permission shall be responsible for
collecting and verifying test data to
demonstrate equivalence of a means of
emission limitation.
   (2) The Administrator will compare
test data for the means of emission
limitation to test data for the equipment,
design, and operational requirements.
   (3) For sources subject  to § 61.132-2
(except tar decanters). §§ 61.132-3,
61.132-4(e), and 61.132-5(c), the
Administrator shall compare test data
for the means of emission limitation to a
benzene control efficiency of 98 percent.
For tar decanters,  the Administrator
shall compare test data for the means of
emission limitation to a benzene control
efficiency of 95 percent.
  (4) The Administrator may condition
the permission on requirements that
may be necessary to assure operation
and maintenance to achieve the same
en'ission reduction as the equipment.
design, and operational requirements
  (c) For work practices in this subpatt-
  (1) Each owner or operator applying
for permission shall be responsible for
collecting and verifying test data to
demonstrate equivalence  of means ol
emission limitation.
  (2) For each source for which
permission is requested, the emission
reduction achieved by the required woik
practices shall be demonstrated for a
minimum period of 12 months.
  (3) For each source for which
permission is requested, the emission
reduction achieved by the equivalent
means of emission limitation shall be
demonstrated.
  (4) Each owner or operator applying
for permission shall commit in writing
each source to work practices that
provide for emission reductions equal to
or greater than the emission reductions
achieved by the required  work practice.
  (5) The Administrator will compare
the demonstrated emission reduction foi
the equivalent means of emission
limitation to the demonstrated eniissioi
reduction for the required work
practices and will consider the
commitment in paragraph (c}(4) of this
section.
  (6) The Administrator may condition
the permission on requirements that
may be necessary to  assure operation
and maintenance to achieve the same
emission reduction as the required work
practices ol this subpart.
   (d) An owner or operator may offer a
unique approach to demonstrate the
equivalence of any means of emission
limitation.
   (ej(l) Manufacturers of equipment
used to control equipment leaks of
benzene may apply to the Administratoi
for permission to use an alternative
means of emission limitation that
achieves a reduction in emissions of
benzene achieved by the equipment.
design, and operational requirements ol
this subpart.
   (2) The Administrator will grant
permission according to the provisions
of paragraphs (b). fc). and (d) of this
section.

§ 61.135 Test methods and procedures.
   (a) Each owner or operator subject ti-
the provisions of this subpart shall
comply with  the test method and
procedure requirements provided  in this
section.
                                                     V-L-32
-------
                Federal Register / Vo! 49  No. 110  /  Wednesday  Jui-o 6. 1984  /  Proposed Rules
  (b) Monitoring, as required by
§§ 61.132, 61.133, and 61.134, shall
comply with the following requirements
  (1) Monitoring shall comply with 40
CFR Part 60. Appendix A, Reference
Method 21.
  (2) The detection instrument shall
meet the performance criteria of
Reference Method 21.
  (3) The instrument shall be calibrated
before use on each day of its use by the
procedures specified in Reference
Method 21.
  (4) Calibration gases shall be:
  (i) Zero air (less than 10 ppm of
hydrocarbon in air); and
  (ii) A mixture of methane or n-hexarce
and air at a concentration of
approximately, but less than, 10,000 ppm
methane or n-hexane.
  (5) The instrument probe shall be
traversed around all potential leak
interfaces as close to the interface a<=
possible, as described in Reference
Method 21.
  (c) When equipment is tested for
compliance with no detectable
emissions, as required in §§  61.132-2,
61.132-3, 61.132-4(b), 61.132-1(0, 61.132-
5(c), 61.132-6(e), 61.132-7(0, 61.132-8,
61.132-11(0. and 61.132-14(0, the test
shall comply with the following
requriernpnts:
  (1) The requirements of paragraphs (b)
(1)-(4) of this section shall apply.
  (2) The background level shall be
determined, as set forth in Rpfprpnrp
Method 21.
  (3) The instrument probe shall be
traversed  around all potential leak
interfaces as close to the interface as
possible, as described in  Reference
Method 23.
  (4) The arithmetic difference between
the maximum concentration  indicated
by the instrument and the background
level is compared with 500 ppm for
determining compliance.
  (d)(l) Each piece of equipment within
a coke-by-product recovery plant is
presumed to be in benzene service
unless an owner or operator
demonstrates that the piece of
equipment is not in benzene service. For
a piece of equipment to be considered
not in benzene serivce, it must be
determined that the percent benzene
content can be reasonably expected
never to exceed 10 percent by weight
(for equipment other than exhausters),
or 1 percent by weight for exhausters.
For purposes of determining the percent
benzene content of the process fluid that
is contained in or contacts equipment,
procedures that conform to the methods
described  in ASTM Method D-2267
(incorporated by reference as specified
in § 61.18) shall be used.
  [2){i) An owner or operator may use
engineering judgment rather than the
procedures in paragraph (d)(l) of this
section to demonstrate that the percent
benzene content does not excpfd 10
percent by weight for equipment other
than exhausters, or 1 percent by  weight
for exhausters, provided that the
engineering judgment demonstrates that
the benzene content clearly does not
exceed 10 percent by weight for
equipment other than exhausteis, or 1
percent by weight for exhausters. When
an owner or operator and the
Administrator do not agree on whether
a piece of equipment is not in benzene
service, however, the procedures in
paragraph  (d)(l) of this section shall be
used to resolve the disagreement.
  (ii) If an  owner or operator determines
that a niece of equipment is in bnnzpnp
service, the determination can be
revised only after following the
procedures in paragraph (d)(l) of this
section.
  (3) Samples used  in determining the
percent benzene content shall be
representative of the process fluid that
is contained in or contacts the
equipment or the gas being combusted
in the flare.
  (e)(l) Reference Method 22 of 40 CFR
Part 60 shall be used to determine the
compliance of flares with the visible
emission provisons  of this subpart.
  (2) The presence of a flare pilot flame
sh.)l! be monitored using a thermocouple
or any other equivalent device to detect
the presence of a flame.
  (3) The net heating value of the gas
being combusted in a flare shall be
calculated  using the following equation
            HT=K
C,H,
where-
Hi = Net heating value of the sample, M)/
    scm; where the nel enthalpy per mole of
    offgas is based on combustion at 25° C
    and 760 mm Hg, but the standard
    temperature for determining the volume
    corresponding to one mole is 20 C.
K = Constant, 1.740 x 10' (1/ppm) |g mo!i>/
    scm) (M]/kcal), where standard
    temperature for (g mole/scm) is 20" C.
C, —Concentration of sample compor."nt i in
    ppm, as measured by Referrence Method
    18 of Appendix A of 40 CFR Parl 60 and
    ASTM D2504-67 (reapproved 1977)
    (incorporated by reference as specified
    in § 61.18).
H, = Net huat of combustion of sample
    component i, kcal/'g mole. The heats of
    combustion may be determined using
    ASTM D2382-76 (incorporated by-
    reference as specified in § 61.18) if
    published values are not available or
    cannot be calculated.
  (4) the actual ex.* velocity of a r  i
shall be determined by dividing t,he
volumetric flowrate (in uni's nf st-indi'ti-1
temperature and pressure), as
determined bv Rpfi-rena; M^h-vl 2, 2^
or 2C of 40 CFR Part 60, as approprvfp
by the unobstructed (free) C;OSA
sectional area of the flare tip.
  (5) The maximum permitted ve!o> 'iy
Vir.au- for air-assisted flares she!) be-
determined by the following eqii-s'im
Vma, = 8.76 •+  0.7084(1-1,)
Vm»» -- Maximum permitted velocity. IM/-».
8.706 = Constant
0.7084 = Constdnt.
HT = Thqfnot heating value as deternv""d in
    pdragrapb (e)|3) of this section.
(Sec. 114 of the Clpan Air Act as amend-- <  H
U.S.C. 7414))

§ 61.136  Recordkeeping requirements
  (a)(l) Each owner or operator subjer i
to the provisions of this subpart shall
comply with the recordkeeping
requirements of this section.
  (2) An  owner or operator may i or.-.ply
with the  recordkeeping requirements in
one recordkeeping system if the systp'i'i
identifies each record by ear b SOIT. .
  (b) The following information
pertaining to the design  requirerm'ri!:- o<
control equipment installed to comply
with §§ 61.132-2. 61.132-3, 61.132-4, »nJ
61.132-5  shall be recorded and kepi in H
readily accessible location:
  (1) Detailed schematics, design
specifications, ard piping and
instrumentation diagrams.
  (2) The dates and descriptions oi m;y
changes in the design  specifications.
  (3)(i) For any control device used to
comply with § 61.132-4,  the recorded
design specifications shall includp any
parameters that are necessary to
determine pjoper operation and
maintenance of the control devitp-
  (ii) For a wash-oil scrubber,  the des;g. ••
parameters include the wash-oil flow-
rate, the  temperature of the gases
existing the scrubber,  and the prp.««ii'i
at the scrubber spray nozzle.
  (c) The following information
pertaining to process vessels subjprt to
§ 61.132-2.  lighi-oil sumps subject to
§ 61.132-3.  storaafi tanks subject to
§61.132-4(b) or §'61.132-410. or mi.sev
settlers used to comply with § 61.132-
5(c) shall be recorded  and maintdir.i-d
for 2 years  following each semiannual
inspection; each annual  maintenance
inspection, and any other inspection-, '• •
system blockage:
  (1) The date of the inspet lio/: apu i.  •
name of the inspector.
  (2) A brief description of each vitiljfc
defect in  the source or control
equipment and the method and da'p «'
repair of  the defect.
                                                    V-L-33
-------
               Federal Register / Vol.  49. No. 110  /  Wednesday, June 6,  1964 / Proposed Rules
  (3) The presence of a leak, as
measured using the method described in
6l.135(b). The record shall include the
method and date of repair of the leak.
  (4) A brief description of any system
abnormalities found during the annual
maintenance inspection, the repairs
made, and the date of repairs.
  (5) A brief description of any system
blockage, the repairs made, and the date
of repair.
  (d) The following information
pertaining to any control device used to
comply with § 61.132-4 shall be
recorded and kept for a least 2 years:
  (!) The dates when the control device
was not operating as designed.
  (2) The dates and description of uny
maintenance or repair of the control
device.
  (3) Any parameters monitored to
ensure that control devices are operated
and maintained in conformancr with
their design.
  (4) If a wash-oil scrubber is used to
comply with § 61.132-4, the records, of
the wash-oil flow rate, the temperature;
of the gases exiting the scrubber, and
the pressure at the spray nozzle.
  (e) When each leak is detected us
specified in § 61.132-8, 61.132-7, 61.132-
n and 61.132-12,  the following
requirements apply:
  (1) A weatherproof and readily xisible
identification, marked with the
equipment identification number, shall
be attached to the leaking equipment.
  (2) The identification on a valve may
be removed after it has been monitored
for 2 successive months as specified in
§ 61.132-ll(c) and no leak has been
detected during those 2 months.
  (3) The identification on equipment
except on a valve, may be removed after
it has been repaired.
  (fj When each leak is detected as
specified in § 61.132-6, 61.132-7, 61.132
11,  and 61.132-12, the following
information shall be recorded in a log.
and shall be kept for 2 years in a readily
accessible location:
  (1) The instrument and operator
identification numbers and the
equipment identification number.
  (2] The date the leak was detected
and the dates of each attempt to repair
the leak.
  (3) Repair methods applied in each
attempt to repair the leak.
  (4) "Above 10,000" if the maximum
instrument reading measured by  the
methods specified in 61.135(b) after each
repair attempt is eqi'al to or greater than
10.000 ppm.
  (5) ''Repair delayed" and the reason
for the delay if a leak is not repaired
within 15 calendar days after discovery
of the  leak.
  (6) The signature of the owner or
operator (or designate) whose decision
it was that repair could not be effected
without a process shutdown.
  (7) The expected date of successful
repair of the leak if a leak is not
repaired within 15 days.
  (8) Dates of process unit shutdown
that occur while the equipment is
unrepaired.
  (9) The date of successful repair of the
leak.
  (gl The following information
pertaining to the design requirements for
closed vent systems and control devices
described in 5 61.132-14 shall be
recorded and kept in a readily
accessible location:
  (1) Detailed schematics, design
specifications, and piping and
instrumentation diagrams.
  (2) The dates and descriptions of any
changes in the design specifications.
  (3) A description of the parameter or
parameters monitored, as required in
$ 61.132-14(e), to ensure that control
devices are operated and maintained in
conformance with their design and an
explanation of why that parameter (or
parameters) was. selected for the
monitoring.
  (4) Periods when the closed-vent
systems and control devices required in
5 61.132-6, 61.132-8, and 61.132-9. are
not operated as designed, including
periods when a flare pilot light does not
have a flame.
  (5) Dates of startups and shutdowns of
the closed vent systems and control
devices required in  § 61.132-6,61.132-7.
61.132-8, and 61.132-9.
  (h) The following informatio
pertaining to all equipment subject to
the requirements in §5 61.132-6 to 61-
132-14 shall be recorded  in a log that is
kept in a readily accessible location:
  (1) A list of identification numbers for
equipment subject to the  requirements
of this subpart.
  (2)(i) A list of identification numbers
for equipment that the owner or
operator elects to designate for no
detectable emissions, as  indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background,  under the provisions
of S5 61.132-6)e), 61.132-7(f). 61.132-8. or
61.132-11(1).
  (ii) The designation of equipment as
subject to the requirements of §§ 61.132-
6(e). 61.132-7(f), 61.132-8. and 61.132-
ll(f) shall be signed by the owner or
operator.
  (3) A list of equipment  identification
number for pressure relief devices
required to comply with § 61.132-8(a)
  (4)(i) The dates of each compliance
test as required in |§ 61.132-6(e),
61 132-7(f). 61.132-8, and 61.132-llff).
  (ii) The background level measured
during each compliance test.
  (iii) The maximum instrument reading
measured at the equipment during each
compliance teSt.
  (5) A list of identification numbers for
equipment in vacuum service.
  (i) The following information
pertaining'to all valves subject to the
requirements of 61.132-11 (g) and (h)
shall be recorded in a log that is kept in
a readily accessible location:
  (1) A list of identification numbers for
valves that are designated as unsafe-tp-
monitor, an explanation for each valve
stating why the valve is,unsafe-to-
monitor, and the plan for monitoring
each valve.
  (2) A list of identification numbers for
valves that are designated as difficult-
tomonitor, an explanation of each valve'
stating why the valve is difficult-to-
monitor, and the schedule for monitoring
each valve.
  (j) The following information shall br
recorded for valves complying with
ft 61.133-2:
  (1) A schedule of monitoring.
  (2) The percent of valves found
leaking during each monitoring period.
  (k) The  following information shall be
recorded in a log that is kept in a readily
accessible location:
  (1) Design criterion required in
§ 61.l32(d)(5) and 61.132-7)e)(2) and an
explanation of the design criterion: and
  (2) Any changes to this criterion and
the reasons for the changes.
  (1) Information and data used to
demonstrate that price of equipment is
not in benzene service shall be recorded
in a log  that is kept in a readily
acces.c!ble location.
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42
U.S.C. 7114)

§61.137  Reporting requirement*.
  (&)(!) An owner or operator of any
source to  which  this subpart applies
shall submit a statement in writing
notify ing the Administrator that the
requirements of 61.132, 61.133, 61.135.
61.136. end 61-137 are being
implemented.
  (2) In the case of an existing source or
a new source which has an initial
startup  date preceding the effective
date, the statement is to be submitted
within 90 days of the effective date.
unless a waiver  of compliance is granted
under § 61.11, along with the
information required under § 61.10. If a
waiver of compliance is granted, the
statement is to be submitted on a date
scheduled by the Administrator.
  (3) In the case of new sources that did
not have an initial startup date
preceding the effective date, the
                                                    V-L-34
-------
               Federal Register /  Vol. 49.  No. 110  / Wednesday.  June 6. 1984  /  Proposed Rules
statement shall be submitted with the
application for approval of construction.
as described under § 61.07.
  (4) The statement is to contain Ihe
following information for each source.
  (i) Type of source (for example, a
light-oil sump, benzene storage tank, or
pump).
  (ii) For equipment in benzene  service,
equipment identification number and
process unit identification.
  {iii) For equipment in benzene service.
percent by weight benzene in the fluid  at
the equipment.
  (iv) For equipment in benzene service.
process fluid state in the equipment
(gas/vapor or liquid).
  (v) Method of compliance with the
standard (for example, "gas blanketing."
"use of a tar-bottom final cooler."
"monthly leak detection and repair." or
"equipped with dual mechanical seals").
  (b) A report shall be submitted to the
Administrator seniiannually starting 6
months after the initial report required
in § 61.13r(a), which  includes the
following information:
  (li For process vessels subject to
§ 61.132-3, light-oil sumps subject to
I bl.132-3, storage tanks subject to
§ 61.132-4. or mixer-settlers used to
comply with § 61.132-5(r):
  (i) A brief description of am \ isibli-
defect in the source or ductwork.
  (ii) The number of leaks detected and
repaired,
  (iii) A brief description of at!)  s.v stern
abnormalities found during the annual
maintenance inspection, the repairs
made, and the date of repair: and
  (iv) A brief description of any system
blockages or malfunctions, the repairs
made, and the date of repair.
  (2) If a control device is used to
comply with J 61.132— J(a). the date and
time of any occurrence when the
monitored parameters exceed or drop
below the parameter levels determined
in the design specifications.
  (3) If a wash-oil scrubber is used to
comply with § 61.132-4(a). the date and
time of any occurrence when the- wash-
oil flow rate or the pressure at the
scrubber spray nozzle drop below the
parameter levels determined in the
design specifications, or the temperature
of the gases exiting the scrubber
exceeds the design specification
temperature.
  (4) For equipmeat in benzene service;
  (i) Process unit identification.
  (ii) For each month during the
semiannual reporting period-
  (A) Number of valves for which leaks.
were detected as required in § 61.132-
ll(b) of §61.133-2.
  (B) Number of valves for which leaks
were not repaired as required in
  (C) Number of pumps for which leaks
were detected as described in § 61.132-6
(b) and (d)(6).
  (D) Number of pumps for which leaks
were not repaired as required in
§61.132-6 (c) and (d)(6).
  (E) Number of exhausters for which
leaks were detected as described in
§ 61.132-7(f).
  (F) Number of exhausters for which
leaks were not repaired as required in
& 61 .132-7(g).
  (5) The facts that explain any delay o!
repairs and, where appropriate, why a
process unit shutdown was technically
infeasible.
  (6) Dates of process unit shutdowns
that occurred within the semiannual
reporting period.
  (7) Revisions to items reported
according to paragraph (a) of this
section if changes have occurred since
the initial report or subsequent revision*.
to the initial report.
  (8) The results of all performance tests
to determine compliance with § 61.132-
6(e). 61.132-7(f), 61.132-8(a). 6l.l32-11(f).
61.132-14(5), 61.133-1, and 61.133-2
conducted within the semiannual
reporting period.
  (9) A statement signed by the owner
or operator stating whether all
provisions of 40 CFR Part 61. Subpart L
had been fulfilled during the semiannual
reporting period.
  (c:) In the first report submitted as
required in § 61.137(a). the report shall
include a reporting schedule stating the
months that semiannual reports shall be
submitted. Subsequent reports shall be
submitted according to that schedule
unless a revised schedule has been
submitted in a previous semiannual
report.
  (d) An owner or operator electing to
comply with the provisions of § 61.133-1
or § 61.133-2 shall notify the
Administrator of the alternative
standard selected 90 days before
implementing either of the provisions.
(Sec 114 of the Clean Air Act as amr-ndcd J-4J
U.S  C. 7414))
FR OiK 84-14400 Kllld b-.M>4. 6 45 an..
BILLING CODE S560-5O-M
                                                     V-L-35
-------
      Federal Register  /  Vol.  49. No. 167 / Monday. August 27.  1964 / Proposed Rules
40CFRP«t61

[AD-FRL-2660-6]

National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Proposed
Standards for Benzene Emissions
From Coke By-Product Recovery
Plants
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Reopening of the Public
Comment Period.	

SUMMARY: On June 8,1984. EPA
proposed national emission standards
for benzene emissions from coke by-
product recovery plants (49 FR 23522). In
response to requests from two trade
 associations, the period for receiving
 written comments on the proposed
 standards is being reopened.
 DATE: Comments must be postmarked
 on or before October 19,1984.
ADDRESS: Comments should be
submitted (in duplicate, if possible) to:
Central Docket  Section (LE-131),
Attention: Docket Number A-79-16, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401M
Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Mr. Gilbert Wood, Emission Standards
and Engineering Division (MD-13),
Environmental  Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711,
 telephone (919) 541-5576.
 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
 Agency received letters from two trade
associations requesting extensions of
the comment period. Those two trade
associations together represent over 90
percent of the potentially affected
companies. One trade association
requested an extension to complete its
review of the proposed information,
particularly in relation to emission rates
at small plants and the economic
impacts of the proposed standards. The
other trade association requested an
extension of the time to prepare their
comments because of the complexity of
the technical, economic, and health-
related issues raised by the proposed
standards. The association's
representative stated that analyzing the
technical and cost aspects of the
controls for the numerous sources
considered by EPA, 'and examining
EPA's baseline assumptions and
estimates of public health impacts have
turned out to be more time consuming
than EPA may have anticipated. The
difficulty of this work is compounded by
the association's need to coordinate
among numerous companies.
   The Agency believes it would benefit
from the results of these associations'
analyses and is therefore reopening the
comment period until October 19,1984.
   Dated: August 21,1984.
John C. Topping, Jr.,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation,
(FR Doc. M-22881 Filed S-24-M: *46 «n]
MUJNQ CODE WtO-fO-H
                                        V-L-36
-------
                Federal Register / Vol. 50.  No. 73 / Tuesday. April 16. 1985  /  Proposed Rules
 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
 AGENCY

 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

 [AD-FRL-2789-4]

 Equipment Leaks of VOC From
 Synthetic Organic Chemical
 Manufacturing Industry, Petroleum
 Refineries; Equipment Leaks of
 Benzene; Benzene Emissions From
 Coke By-Product Recovery Plants;
 Distillation Unit Operations; Volatile
 Organic Liquid Storage Vessels; and
 General Provisions

 AGENCY: Environmental Protection
 Agency (EPA).
 ACTION: Grant of petition for
 reconsideration and proposed rules.

 SUMMARY: The EPA is granting a petition
 for reconsideration of one aspect of the
 standards of performance for equipment
 leaks of volatile organic compounds
 (VOC) in the synthetic organic chemical
manufacturing industry (SOCMI). Based
on new data on flare performance, EPA
is proposing a change in the exit velocity
limits for flares covered by these
standards. The EPA is proposing a
 change in the exit velocity limits for
 Flares covered by several other
 Uandards: Subparts VV, GGG, NNN,
 and Kb of 40 CFR Part 60 and Subparts L
 and V of 40 CFR Part 61. In addition,
 EPA is proposing to place flare
 requirements in the General Provisions
 of Part 60 for easy reference by all
 subparts in Parts 60 and 61.
 DATES: Public Hearing. If anyone
 contacts EPA requesting to speak about
 the proposed rule at a public hearing by
 April 25,1985, a public hearing will be
 held on May 8,1985, beginning at 9:00
 a.m. Persons interested in attending the
 hearing should call Ms. Shelby Joumigan
 at (919) 541-5578 to verify that a hearing
 will occur,
  Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons
 wishing to present oral testimony about
 the proposed rule must contact EPA by
 May 1,1985.
  Comments. Comments about the
 proposed rule must be received by June
 17,1985.
 ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments
 about the proposed rule should be
 submitted (in duplicate, if possible) to:
 Central Docket Section (A-130),
 Attention: Docket No. OAQPS-A-79-32.
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
 401M Street, SW., Washington, D.C.
 20460.
  Public Hearing. If a public hearing is
 held (see DATES: Public Hearing), the
 public hearing will be held at the
 Environmental Research Center, corner
 of Alexander Drive and Hwy 54,
 Research Triangle Park, N.C. Persons
 interested in attending the hearing
 should call Ms. Shelby Journigan at (919)
 541-5578 to verify that a hearing will
 occur.
  Persons wishing to present oral
 testimony about the proposed rule
 should notify Ms. Shelby Journigan,
 Standards Development Branch (MD-
 13), U.S. Environmental Protection
 Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
 Carolina 27711, telephone (919) 541-
 5578.
  Docket. The docket, No. A-79-32,
 containing supporting information used
 in developing die proposed revision is
 available for public inspection and
 copying between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.,
 Monday through Friday, at Central
 Docket Section, West Tower Lobby,
 Gallery 1, Waterside Mall, 401M Street,
 SW., Washington, D.C. 20460. A
 reasonable fee may be charged for
 copying.
  Documents. The background
 information documents (BID's) for the
 current standards for equipment leaks of
 VOC within SOCMI may be ordered
 from the National Technical Information
Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, Virginia 22161, telephone
number (703) 487-4650. Please refer to
"VOC Fugitive Emissions in Synthetic
 Organic Chemicals Manufacturing
 Industry: Background Information for
 Proposed Standards," (EPA-450/3-80-
 033a, PB81-152167); "Fugitive Emission
 Sources of Organic Compounds:
 Additional Information on Emissions,
 Emission Reductions and Costs," (EPA-
 450/3-82-010, PB82-217126); and "VOC
 Fugitive Emissions in Synthetic Organic
 Chemicals Manufacturing Industry:
 Background Information for
 Promulgated Standards," (EPA-450/3-
 80-033b, PB84-105311). The document
 mainly considered in evaluating the
 proposed changes to the standards is
 "Evaluation of the Efficiency of
 Industrial Flares: Test Results," (EPA-
 600/2-84-095, PB84-199371).
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
  Mr. Fred Dimmick or Mr. Gil Wood,
 Standards Development Branch
 [telephone number (919) 541-5578]
 concerning policy and regulatory
 matters and Mr. Leslie B. Evans or Mr.
 Robert Rosensteel [telephone number
 (919) 541-5671J, Chemicals and
 Petroleum Branch concerning technology
 information; Emission Standards and
 Engineering Division; U.S.
 Environmental Protection Agency;
 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
 27711.
 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

 Background

  Standards of performance under
 section 111 of the Clear Air Act were
 proposed and comments were requested
 on January 5,1981 (46 FR 1136) for
 equipment leaks of VOC in SOCMI.
 After proposal of the standards, several
 relevant reports concerning equipment
 leaks became available. A Federal
 Register notice was published (46  FR
 21789)  to announce the availability of
 and inviting  comments on these reports.
 Based  on a review of these reports and
 the comments on them, EPA published
 its findings in an additional information
 document (AID) and requested
 comments on the AID in the Federal
 Register (47 FR 19724). After review of
 public  comments on die proposed
 standards and on the AID, EPA
 promulgated the final standards of
 performance as Subpart W of 40 CFR
 Part 60 on October 18,1983 (48 FR
 48328).
  On December 15,1983, CMA
 submitted to EPA a petition to
 reconsider. The petition took issue with
 the appropriateness of the exit velocity
 limitations on flares used as control
devices under Subpart W of 40 CFR
Part 60. The CMA stated that some
flares currently in use would not be
allowed by the current exit velocity
                                                   V-L-37
-------
                Pectoral Register / Vol. 50. No. 73 / Tuesday, April  16,  1985 / Proposed Rules
limitations even though CMA thought
the flares were effective VOC control
devices. The CMA further stated that a
recent study of flares demonstrates that
flares with high velocities are effective
VOC control devices, and, therefore.
should be allowed by the standards.
After reviewing CMA's petition,
reviewing the additional information in
the study, and meeting with CMA for
additional clarification of the issue, EPA
decided to convene a proceeding to
reconsider the exit velocity limitation
set forth at 40 CFR 60.482-10(d)(4).
Criteria for Review of the Petitions for
Reconsideration
  The petitioners have requested
reconsideration under section
307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act. This
action is limited both in time and scope.
Specifically, section 307(d)(7)(B)
provides that EPA shall convene a
proceeding to reconsider the rule in
question if a person raising an objection
can  demonstrate that: (1) It was
impractical to raise such an objection
during the comment period or that the
grounds for such an objection arose
after the comment period but within the
time specified for judicial review under
section 307(b); 42 U.S.C 7607{b)(l); and
(2) such an objection is of central
relevance to the outcome of the rule.
The EPA has consistently held that such
objections are of central relevance only
if they provide substantial support for
the argument that the standards should
be revised. See: Denial of Petition to
Revise NSPS for Stationary Gas
Turbines, 45 FR 81653, 81654 (December
11,19801; Denial of Petitions for
Reconsideration of Final Regulations for
Electric Utility Steam Generating Units,
45 FR 8210 (February  6.1980); and
decisions cited therein.
CMA Petition and EPA Response
   Issue. The CMA asked EPA for
reconsideration of the exit velocity
limitation placed on flares affected by
the  standards of performance for
equipment leaks of VOC in SOCM1. The
CMA considers high velocity flares to be
effective VOC control devices  and thus
thinks they should be allowed. Because
CMA believes that the recant study  on
flare efficiencies  supports their view of
high velocity flares, they are asking EPA
to reconsider this limitation. In addition,
CMA requested that EPA clarify how to
determine the actual exit velocity for
flares.
   Response. After review of CMA's
petition and the recent study of flare
control efficiencies, EPA determined
that new information is available and
that this information provides
substantial support for a change in the
current requirements that ensure
efficient flare operation and is,
therefore, of centra] relevance to the exit
velocity limitation. Because the flare
control efficiency study was completed
at the end of the initial rulemaking, EPA
was unable to include the study results
in earlier considerations. Therefore, EPA
decided to review the study to
determine if high velocity flares are as
effective in controlling VOC as the
technologies selected as the "best
demonstrated technology" during the
initial rulemaking. Accordingly, EPA has
decided to convene a proceeding to
reconsider the exit velocity limitation on
flares.
   The CMA requested that EPA
reconsider the exit velocity limitation in
light of a study (Docket No. Vll-B-1)
recently completed by EPA's Office of
Research and Development (ORD). After
review of the new information generated
in the ORD study of flares, EPA
determined that the current exit velocity
limitations should be revised. The new
limitations would allow more existing
flares to be used in achieving
compliance with the exit velocity
requirements by allowing higher exit
velocities to be used in flaring gases
with sufficiently high heating values.
The revision to the standard would
allow steam-assisted and nonassisted
flares that are designed and operated
with any exit velocity less than 122 m/
sec (400 ft/sec) to be used in complying
with the standards if the net heating
value of the gas being combusted is
greater than 37.3 M)/scm (1000 Btu/scf).
Thus, EPA is proposing these
requirements as additional provisions to
 those already included in the standards.
   The EPA's reconsideration of the flare
exit velocity restriction is based on
 review of currently available flare
 efficiency data, including an analysis of
 results recently obtained from a study of
 the combustion efficiency of flares
 conducted on behalf of EPA. The EPA
 will continue to evaluate all relevant
 data concerning flare efficiency and, as
further information becomes available,
 willl continue to review the propriety of
 restrictions on the use of flares in the
 NSPS in light of such information. The
 EPA will, if such information warrants,
 revise the NSPS as appropriate.
   The petitioner requested that EPA
 clarify that the velocity limitations at
 § 60.482-10(d)(4) apply only during
representative performance of flares and
 not during startup, shutdown, and
 malfunction conditions. Methods 2, 2A,
 2C, or 2D (see S 60.485(g)(4)) are used in
 performance tests to determine the
 actual exit velocity of flares. These tests
 must be performed under representative
flare operating conditions. Exceedances
of velocity limitations during periods in
which one or more processes (that vent
to the flare) start up, shut down, and
malfunction are not considered a
violation (see § 60.8(c)). These tests are
used to ensure that the flare is designed
to be and capable of being operated
within the velocity limitation during
representative process conditions.
During nonperformance test periods.
operators must maintain and operate
flares used to comply with Subpart  VV
in a manner consistent with good air
pollution control practices for
minimizing emissions, even during
periods  of startup, shutdown and
malfunction (see § 60.11(d)).
  The petitioner requested that EPA
clarify the appropriate method for
determining exit velocity of a flare. The
formula specified at § 60.485(g) requires
that Method 2, 2A, 2C. or 2D be used as
the test method to determine the
volumetric flowrate. This flowrate
should be determined in the flare header
or headers that feed the flare because
the volumetric flowrate determined in
these headers reflects the flowrate  in the
flare. After this flowrate is determined,
an operator would use design and
engineering principles to determine the
unobstructed cross sectional area of the
flare tip. With these two factors, the
actual exit velocity is determined.

Flare Provisions for Other Standards
   Several other standards of
performance have been recently
proposed or promulgated with flare
limitations.  The EPA knows no reason
that the flare limitations for those
standards should not be the same as the
flare limitations being proposed here.
The EPA's analysis shows that all flares
meeting these limitations can achieve
the best demonstrated technology levels
selected by EPA for other standards in
Part 60 and Part 61. Therefore, EPA is
proposing the same limitations for  the
other standards that include flare
provisions. The other standards for
which EPA  is proposing to add the same
limitations are:
—Standards of Performance for New
   Stationary Sources; VOC Emissions
   from the Synthetic Organic Chemical
   Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI);
   Distillation Unit Operations—
   proposed on December 30,1983 (48 FR
   57538-57581)
—Standards of Performance for New
   Stationary Sources; Equipment Leaks
   of VOC; Petroleum Refineries—
   promulgated on May 30,1984 (49 FR
   22598-22608)
—National Emission Standards for
   Hazardous Air Pollutants; Equipment
                                                       V-L-38
-------
                  Federal  Register / Vol. 50. No.  73 / Tuesday, April 16,  1985 / Proposed  Rules
   Leaks (Fugitive Emission Sources)—
   promulgated on June 6,1984 (49 FR
   23498-23520)
 —National Emission Standards for
   Hazardous Air Pollutants; Benzene
   Emissions from Coke By-Product
   Recovery Plants—proposed on June 6,
   1984 (49 FR 23522-23555)
 —Standards of Performance for New
   Stationary Sources; Volatile Organic
   Liquid Storage Vessels (including
   Petroleum Liquid Storage Vessels)
   constructed after July 23,1984—
   proposed on July 23,1984 (49 FR
   29698-29718)
   Because several standards in 40 CFR
 Part 60 would contain the same
 requirements for flares, EPA believes
 that it would be  administratively
 prudent to locate these requirements in
 one place in 40 CFR Part 60. The flare
 requirements reflect EPA's judgment
 concerning the "best demonstrated
 technology" level for flares and,
 therefore, could apply to all VOC
 standards requiring minimum VOC
 destructions less than or equal to 98
 percent. Thus, EPA believes the flare
 requirements should appropriately be
 placed in the General Provisions
 {Subpart A) of the 40 CFR Part 60, and is
 accordingly proposing to do so. When
 EPA promulgates flare requirements in
 the General Provisions, the requirements
 in the specific subparts will be deleted
 and a reference to the General
 Provisions will be added.

 Miscellaneous
   Under Executive Order 12291, the
 Administrator is  required to judge
 whether a regulation is a "major rule"
 and, therefore, subject to certain
 requirements of the Order. The
 Administrator has determined that this
 regulation would result in none of the
 adverse  economic impacts set forth in
 section 1 of the Order as grounds for
 finding a regulation to be a "major rule."
 This proposal makes complying with the
 existing standards less expensive, and
 thus would serve to decrease the
 economic impact. The Administrator has
 concluded that this rule is not "major"
 under any of the criteria established in
 the Executive Order.
  This regulation was submitted to the
 Office of Management and Budget
 (OMB) for review as required by
 Executive Order 12291. Any written
 comments from OMB to EPA and any
 EPA responses  to those comments are
 available for public inspecfion, in
 Docket No. A-79-32, Central Docket
 Section, at the address given in the
ADDRESS section of this preamble.
  The Administrator certifies that a
regulatory flexibility analysis under 5
 U.S.C. 601 et seq., is not required for this
 rulemaking because the rulemaking
 would not have significant impact on a
 substantial number of small entities.
 This proposal has no significant cost
 impact.
   The information collection
 requirements in this proposed rule have
 been submitted for review to OMB
 under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. However,
 burden estimates have not been made
 for this action. Instead, burden estimates
 are made for each  of the standards to
 which flare provisions apply. Comments
 on these requirements should be
 submitted to the Office of Information
 and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, marked
 "Attention: Desk Officer for EPA." The
 final rule will respond to any OMB or
 public comments on the information
 collection requirements.
 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 60 and
 61
   Air pollution control, Aluminum,
 Ammonium sulfate plants, Asphalt,
 Benzene, 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, Incorporation
 by reference, Can surface coating,
 Sulfuric acid plants, Industrial organic
 chemicals, Vinyl chloride.
   Dated: March 27, 1985.
 Lee M. Thomas,
 Administrator.
   It is proposed to amend 40 CFR Part
 60 and Part 61 as follows:

 PART 60— [AMENDED]
 §60.482-10  [Amended]
   1. By revising paragraph (d)(4) of
 §  60.482-10 of Subpart VV of Part 60 as
 follows:
 *****
   (d)* *  *
   (4) (i) Steam-assisted and nonassisted
 flares shall be designed for and
 operated with an  exit  velocity, as
 determined by the methods specified in
 § 60.485(g)(4), less than 18 m/sec (60 ft/
 sec), except as provided in paragraph
 combusted is greater than 37.3 MJ/scm
 (1000 Btu/scf).
 *****
 (Sec. Ill, 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, as
 amended (42 U.S.C. 7411, 7601 (a)))
 §60.662  [Amended]
   2. By revising paragraph (b)(4) of
 § 60.662 of Subpart NNN of Part 60 as
 follows:
 *****
   (b) * ' *
   (4) (i) Steam-assisted and nonassisted
 flares shall be designed for and
 operated with an exit velocity, as
 determined by the methods specified in
 § 60.664(c), less than  18 m/sec (60 ft/
 sec), except as provided in paragraph
   (ii) Steam-assisted and nonassisted
 flares designed for and operated with an
 exit velocity, as determined by the
 methods specified in § 60.664(c), equal
 to or greater than 18 m/sec (60 ft/sec)
 but less than 120 m/sec (400 ft/sec) are
 allowed if the net heating value of the
 gas being combusted is greater than 37.3
 MJ/scm (1000 Btu/scf).
 *****
 (Sec. Ill, 301(a) of the Clean Air Act. as
 amended (42 U.S.C. 7411, 7601 (a)))
 §61.242-11  [Amended]
   3. By revising paragraph (d)(4) of
 § 61.242-11 of Subpart V of Part 61 as
 follows:
 *    *   •  *    *    *
   (d) *  * *.
   (4)(i) Steam-assisted and nonassisted
 flares shall be designed for and
 operated with an exit velocity, as
 determined by the methods specified in
 § 60.245(e)(4), less than 18 m/sec (60 ft/
 sec), except as provided in paragraph
  (ii) Steam-assisted and nonassisted
flares shall be designed for and
operated with an exit velocity, as
determined by the methods specified in
§ 60.485(g)(4J, equal to or greater than 18
m/sec (60 ft/sec) but less than 120 m/
sec (400 ft/sec) are allowed if the net
heating value of the gas being
   (ii) Steam-assisted and nonassisted
 flares designed for and operated with an
 exit velocity, as determined by the
 methods specified in § 61.245(e)(4),
 equal to or greater than 18 m/sec (60 ft/
 sec) but less than 120 m/sec (400 ft/sec)
 are allowed if the net heating value of
 the gas being combusted is greater than
 37.3 MJ/scm (1,000 Btu/scf).
 *****
 (Sec. Ill, 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, as
 amended (42 U.S.C. 7411, 7601 (a)))
 §60.1125  [Amended]
  4. By revising paragraph (a)(3)(ii) (B)
and (C) of § 60.112b of Subpart Kb of
Part 60 as follows:
*****
  (a) * * *
  (3) * * *
  (ii) * * *
  (B) Steam-assisted and  nonassisted
flares shall be designed for and
operated with an exit velocity, as
                                                    V-L-39
-------
                 Federal Register  / Vol. 50, No. 73 / Tuesday. April 16,  1985 / Proposed Rules
determined by the methods specified in
§ 60.113b(d)(4), less than 18 m/sec (60
ft/sec), except as provided in paragraph
  (C) Steam-assisted and nonassisted
flares designed for and operated with an
exit velocity, as determined by the
methods specified in § 60.113b(d)(4),
equal to or greater tl,an 18 m/sec (60 ft/
sec) but less than 120 m/sec (400 ft/sec)
are allowed if the net heating value of
the gas being combusted, as determined
by methods specified in
§ 60.113(b)(d)(3), is greater than 373 MJ/
son (1,000 Btu/scf).
*****
(Sec. Ill, 301(a) of the Clean Air Act as
amended (42 U.S.C. 7411, 7601 (a)))

PART 61-{ AMENDED]

§61.132-14  [Amended]
  5. By revising paragraph (a)(3)(ii) (B)
and (C) of § 61.132-14(dj(4) of Subpart L
of Part 61 as follows:
*****
  (3)(ii)[B) Steam-assisted and
nonassisted flares shall be designed and
operated with an exit velocity, as
determined by the methods specified in
{ 60.113b(d)(4), less than 18 m/sec (60
ft/sec), except as provided in paragraph
   (C) Steam-assisted and nonassisted
 flares designed for and operated with an
 exit velocity, as determined by the
 methods specified in § 60.113b(d)(4),
 equal to or greater than 18 m/sec (60 ft/
 sec) but less than 120 m/sec (400 ft/sec)
 are allowed if the net heating value of
 the gas being combusted, as determined
 by methods specified in
 § 60.113(b)(dj(3). is greater than 373 MJ/
 scm (1,000 Btu/scf).
 «    •     *    *    *
 (Sec. 112, 301(a) of the  dean Air Act, as  .
 amended (42 U.S.C. 7411. 7601 (a)))
   6. By adding S 60.18 to Part 60 as
 follows:

 §60.18  General control device
  (2) Flare* shall be operated with a
flame present at all times, as determined
by the methods specified hi paragraph
(0-
  (3) Flares shall be used onry with the
net heating value of the gas being
combusted being 11.2 MJ/scm (300 Btu/
scf) or greater if the flare is steam-
assisted or air-assisted; or with the new
heating value of the gas being
combusted being 7.45 MJ/scm or greater
if the flare is nonassisted. The net
heating value of the gas being
combusted shall be determined by the
methods specified in paragraph (f).
  (4)(i) Steam-assisted and nonassisted
flares shall be designed for and
operated with an exit velocity, as
determined by the methods specified in
paragraph (f)(4), less than 18.3 m/sec (60
ft/sec), except as provided in paragraph
   (a) Introduction. This section contains
 requirements for control devices used to
 comply with applicable Subparts of Part
 60 and Part 81. The. requirements are
 placed here for administrative
 convenience and only apply to facilities
 covered by subparts referring to this
 section.
   (b) Flares. Paragraphs (c) through (f)
 apply to flares.
   (c)(l) Flares shall be designed for and
 operated with no visible emissions as
 determined by the methods specified in
 paragraph (f), except for periods not to
 exceed to total of 5 minutes during any 2
 consecutive hours.
  (ii) Steam-assisted and nonassisted
flares designed for and operated with an
exit velocity, as determined by the
methods specified in paragraph (0(4),
equal to or greater than 18.3 m/sec but
less than 122 m/sec are allowed if the
net heating value of the gas being
combusted is greater than 374 MJ/scm
(1,000 Btu/scf).
  (iii) Steam-assisted and nonassisted
flares designed for and operated with an
exit velocity, as determined by the
methods specified in paragraph (f)(g)(4),
less than the velocity, V^, as
determined by the method specified in
paragraph (f)(g){5], and less than 122m/
sec are allowed.
   (5) Air-assisted flares shall be
designed and operated with an exit
 velocity less than the velocity, Vu, as
                           determined by the method specified in
                           paragraph (0(8).
                             (6) Flares used to comply with this
                           section shall be steam-assisted, air-
                           assisted. or nonassisted.
                             (d) Owners or opera tors of flares used
                           to comply with the provisions of this
                           subpart shall monitor these control
                           devices to ensure that they are operated
                           and maintained in conformance with
                           their designs. Applicable subparts will
                           provide provisions stating how owners
                           or operators of flares shall monitor these
                           control devices.
                             (e) Flares used to comply with
                           provisions of this subpart shall be
                           operated at all times when emissions
                           may be vented to them.
                             (f)(l) Reference Method 22 shall be
                           used to determine the compliance of
                           flares with the visible emission
                           provisions of this subpart. The
                           observation period is 2 hours and shall
                           be used according to Method 22.
                             (2) The presence of a flare pilot flame
                           shall be monitored using a thermocouple
                           or any other equivalent device to detect
                           the presence of a flame.
                             (3) The net heating value of the gas
                           being combusted in a flare shall be
                           calculated using the following equation:
           H,=K
                                                  CA
                                             1=1
                            where:
                             HT = Net heating value of the sample, MJ/
                                scm; where the net enthalpy per mole of
                                offgas is based on combustion at 25° C
                                and 760 mm Hg, but the standard
                                temperature for determining the volume
                                corresponding to one mole is 20*O,
               K=Cor»8tant, 1.740X10-
                      ,/•     v  8"">e  y      \
                        * Dnm ' \   acm   A Ural /
                                      ppm
                                         where the standard temperature for
               g mole
/ g moie \

V  scm   '
 C,=Concentration of sample component i
   in ppra on a wet basis, as measured for
   organics by Reference Method 18 and
   measured for hydrogen and caibon
   monoxide by ASTM D1946-67
   (reapproved 1972} (incorporated by
   reference as specified in S 60.17); and
 H,=Nel beat of combustion of sample
   component i. kcal/g mole at 25'C and 760
   mm Hg. The heats of combustion may be
   determined using ASTM D2382-76
   (incorporated by reference as specified
   in § 60.17) if published values are not
   available or cannot be calculated.
  (4) The actual exit velocity of a flare
shall be determined by dividing the
volumetric flowrate (in units of standard
temperature and pressure), as
determined by Reference Methods 2, 2A,
2C, or 20 as appropriate; by the
unobstructed (free) cross sectional area
of the flare tip.
  (5) The maximum permitted velocity.
VmM[, for flares complying with
paragraph (c)(4)(iii) shall be determined
by the following equation:
Log,o (V™)
                                                       V-L-40
-------
V.,«,=Maximum permitted velocity, m/sec
28.8 = Constant
31.7=Constant
HT=The net heating value as determined in
    paragraph (f)(3).
  (6) The maximum permitted velocity,
Vmu, for air-assisted flares shall be
determined by the following equation.
V»M=8.706+0.7084 (HT)
VmM=Maximum permitted velocity, m/sec
8.706=Constant
0.7
-------
 ENVIRONMENTAL
   PROTECTION
     AGENCY
NATIONAL EMISSION
 STANDARDS FOR
 HAZARDOUS AIR
   POLLUTANTS
 INORGANIC ARSENIC
   SUBPART N, O, P
-------
                Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 140 / Wednesday, July 20, 1983 /  Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40CFRPart61

IAH-FRL 2378-2)

National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Proposed
Standards for Inorganic Arsenic

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule and
announcement of public hearing.

SUMMARY: On June 5.1980. EPA listed
inorganic arsenic as a hazardous air
pollutant under Section 112 of the Clean
Air Act. Pursuant to Section 112, EPA is
proposing standards for the following
categories of sources of emissions of
inorganic arsenic: high-arsenic primary
copper smelters, low-arsenic primary
copper smelters, and glass
manufacturing plants. EPA identified
other categories of sources emitting
inorganic arsenic: and. after careful
study, determined that the proposal of
standards for these categories of sources
is not warranted at this time. These
categories of sources are primary lead
smelters, secondary lead smelters,
primary zinc smelters, zinc oxide plants,
cotton gins, and arsenic chemical
manufacturing plants.
DATES: See "SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION" below.
ADDRESSES: See "SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION" below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
See "SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION"
below.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Hearings and Related Information
Dates
  Comments. Comments must be
received on or before September 30,
1963.
  Public Hearing. Two public hearings
will be held. The first hearing will be
h°!d in Washington, D.C., on August 23,
24.  and 25,1983, beginning at 9:00 a.m.
each day. This hearing will consist of
tno separates sessions. The first session
w;!'i be for the purpose of receiving
comments on the listing of arsenic as a
harzadous pollutant. The  second session
will be for the purpose of receiving
comments on the content  of the
proposed regulations. The order of items
on  the agenda of the second session will
be: (1) high-arsenic coppers smelters, (2)
low-arsinic copper smelters, (3) glass
manufacturing plants, and (4) others.
Persons planning to attend the first
hearing may call mrs. Naomi Durkee
(P19) 541-5578 after August 16,1983, to
obtain an estimated time and date at
which each subject will be addressed.
  The second hearing will be held in
Tacoma. Washington, on August 30,
1983. This hearing will be for the
purpose of receiving comments on the
proposed standards for high-arsenic
copper smelters. This hearing will be
held fromm 12:00 noon to 10:00 p.m. and
may be continued on August 31,1983, if
necessary to allow all persons wishing
to speak an opportunity to do so.
  Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons
wishing to present oral  testimony at the
first hearing must notify Mrs. Naomi
Durkee by August 15,1983, at telephone
number (919) 541-5578 or mailing
address: Standards Development
Branch, MD-13, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, N.C. 27711.
  Persons wishing to present oral
testimony at the second hearing must
notify Ms. Laurie Krai by August 23,
1983, at telephone number (206) 442-1089
or mailing address: Air Programs
Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Region X, 1200 6th Avenue,
Seattle, Washington, 98101.

Addresses
  Comments. Comments should be
submitted (in duplicate if possible) to:
Central Docket Section (LE-131), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
Specify the following Docket Numbers:
OAQPS-79-8  Listing of arsenic as a
  hdzdiuuus pollutant
A-80-40 High-arsenic and low-arsenic
  copper smelters
A-83-8  Glass manufacturing plants
A-83-9  Secondary lead
A-83-10 Cotton gins
A-83-11 Zmc oxide plants
A-83-23 Primary zinc, primary lead, arsenic
  chemical manufacturing
  Public Hearing. The public hearing to
be held on August 23, 24 and 25,1983,
will be held at the Department of
Agriculture, Thomas Jefferson
Auditorium, South Building, 14th and
Independence Ave., SW., Washington.
D.C.
  The public hearing to be held on
August 30.1983, will be held at the
Tacoma Bicentennial Pavilion, Rotunda
Room, 1313 Market Street, Tacoma,
Washington.
  Background Information Document.
Background information documents
(BID's) for the proposed standards may
be obtained from  the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency library (MD-35),
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone 919-541-2777. Please
specify:
  EPA 450/3-83-009a Inorganic Arsenic
Emissions From High-Arsenic Primary
Copper Smelters—Background
Information for Proposed Standards.
  EPA 450/3-«3-010a Inorganic Arsenic
Emissions From Low-Arsenic Primary
Copper Smelters—Background
Information for Proposed Standards.
  EPA 450/3-83-Olla Inorganic Arsenic
Emissions From Glass Manufacturing
Plants—Background Information for
Proposed Standards.
  EPA 450/5-82-005 Preliminary Study
of Sources of Inorganic Arsenic.
  Dockets. Dockets containing
supporting information used in
developing the proposed standards are
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. SW.. Washington, D.C. 20460. A
reasonable fee may be charged for
copying. The following dockets are
available:
OAQPS-79-8  Listing of arsenic as a
  hazardous pollutant
A-80-40   High-arsenic and low-arsenic
  copper smelters
A-83-8 Glass manufacturing plants
A-83-9 Secondary lead
A-83-10   Cotton gms
A-fl3-ll   Zinc oxide plants
A-83-23   Primary zinc, primary lead, arsenic
  chemical manufacturing

  The docket A-80-40, which contains
the supporting information for the
proposed standards for high-arsenic and
low-arsenic copper smelters, will also be
available for inspection and copying at
the EPA Region X office in Seattle,
Washington. Persons wishing to view
this docket should contact Ms. Laurie
Krai at telephone  number (206) 442-1089
or at mailing address: Air Programs
Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Region X, 1200 6th Avenue,
Seattle, Washington,  98101.

For Further Information

  For information concerning the listing
of arsenic as a hazardous pollutant,
contact Mr. John Fink, Pollutant
Assessment Branch, MD-12, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711,
telephone 919-541-5645. For information
concerning the background information
supporting the proposed standards,
contact Mr. Jim Crowder, Industrial
Studies Branch, MD-13, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711,
telephone 919-541-5601. For information
concerning the proposed standards,
contact Mr. Robert L. Ajax, Standards
Development Branch, MD-13, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
                                                          V-N.O.P-2
-------
               Federal  Register / Vol. 48, No.  140 / Wednesday, }uly 20. 1983  /  Proposed Rules
27711, telephone 919-541-5578. For
information concerning the "Alternative
Regulatory Strategies" section of Part III
of this preamble, contact Mr. Alex
Cristofaro, Air Economics Branch,
Office of Policy and Resource
Management (PM-220), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20460.
telephone 202-382-5490

I. OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED
STANDARDS
Background
  In 1977, Congress amended the Clean
Air Act (the Act) to address airborne
emissions of arsenic. Section 122 of the
Act required the Administrator of EPA
to determine whether or not emissions
or arsenic into the ambient air will
cause, or contribute to, air pollution
which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health. On June 5,1980,
EPA published a Federal Register notice
listing inorganic arsenic as a hazardous
air pollutant under Section 112 of the
Act (44 FR 37886, June 5,1980). The
listing was based upon EPA findings
that there is a high probability that
inorganic arsenic is carcinogenic to
humans and that there is sufficient
public exposure to inorganic arsenic.
Epidemiological studies provide the
primary evidence of inorganic arsenic's
carcinogenicity. The results of these
studies have led widely respected
scientific groups, such as the National
Cancer InstituteU,/. the National
Academy of Sciences(2/ and the
International Agency for Research on
Cancer(5/ to conclude that there is
strong evidence that inorganic arsenic is
carcinogenic to humans. In 1979, EPA
submitted to the Science Advisory
Board (SAB), an advisory group  of
nationally prominent scientists from
outside EPA, a report on the available
health effects information or arsenic.(4)
The SAB concluded that, "All the
available data lead to a consensus that
there is a real association between
exposure to arsenic and the
development of cancer, both lung and
skin cancer."(5y The evidence of
significant public exposure included the
identification of multiple stationary
sources of arsenic emissisons. and data
showing that large numbers of people
living near emitting sources are exposed
to ambient air concentrations of arsenic
many times the national average.(6) The
data and documents supporting the
listing are available for public
inspection and copying in the Central
Docket Section at EPA headquarters in
Washington. D.C.; the material is filed
under Docket Number OAQPS-79-8.
Pursuant to Section 112. the listing
signified that, in the judgment of the
Administratoir, inorganic arsenic is an
air pollutant which causes, or
contributes to, air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to result in an
increase in mortality or an increase in
serious irreversible, or incapacitating
reversible, illness. The listing also
signified the Administrator's intention to
establish emissions standard for
inorganic arsenic under Section 112.
  Concurrent with the decision to list
inorganic arsenic as a hazardous air
pollutant, EPA began a series of studies
of the sources of inorganic arsenic
emissions. The purpose of the earliest
studies in the series was to identify
which types of sources merited more
detailed study toward possible
regulation, and the purpose of the final
studies in the series was to develop the
detailed information needed  to support
the proposal of standards. EPA is now
under court order to publish proposed
emission standards for inorganic arsenic
by July 11,1983. New York v. Gorsuch,
554, F. Supp. 1060,1066 (S.D.N.Y. 1983).
  Section 112 requires the Administrator
to prescribe an emission standard for
inorganic arsenic after proposal of a
standard unless he finds, on the basis of
information presented at the  public
hearings associated with the proposal of
a standard, that inorganic arsenic
clearly is not a hazardous air pollutant.
As noted above, the information
relevant to EPA's listing inorganic
arsenic as a hazardous air pollutant is
contained in Docket Number OAQPS
79-8. The health effects assessment
information that supported the 1980
listing decision is included in the docket.
The docket also contains a draft copy of
an updated health assessment document
that EPA's Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment has just
released for public and Science
Advisory Board review (see 48 FR 27290,
June 14,1983). The reader may obtain a
single copy of the draft document from
EPA by writing to the following address:
ORD Publications—CERI-FR, U.S. EPA,
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268; or by calling the
following telephone number:  (513) 684-
7562.
  In today's notice, EPA is proposing
standards for certain source categories
of inorganic arsenic emissions to the
ambient air and is proposing not to
regulate others. To EPA's knowledge,
these source categories comprise  all the
source categories of inorganic arsenic
that could or may cause significant
risks. The public is reminded that
comments are solicited on the proposed
standards, the proposals not  to regulate,
and the listing of inorganic arsenic as  a
hazardous air pollutant.
Public Health Risks

  The health risk basis for listing
inorganic arsenic as a hazardous air
pollutant is summarized briefly in the
Background section above. The results
of studies linking worker exposure to
inorganic arsenic with cancer, the
number of sources  emitting inorganic
arsenic  and the large numbers of people1
living near  the sources, the measured
concentrations of arsenic in the ambient
air. and the reports of excess cancer not
only among workers but among
populations living near sources (7) led to
the Administrator's judgment that
inorganic arsenic causes or contributes
to air pollution which may reasonably
be anticipated to result in an increase in
mortality or an increase in serious
irreversible, or incapacitating reversible.
illness. EPA recognized at the time of
listing that epidemiological studies had
not clearly proven  that exposure  to
inorganic arsenic at ambient levels
causes cancers. Epidemiological studies
that have successfully revealed
associations between occupational
exposure and cancer for substances
such as  asbestos, benzene, vinyl
chloride, and ionizing radiation, as well
as for inorganic arsenic, are not as
easily applied to the public sector, with
its increased number of confounding
variables, much more diverse and
mobile exposed population, lack of
consolidated medical records, and
almost total absence of historical
exposure data. Given the above
characteristics, EPA considers it
improbable that  any epidemiological
association, short of very large increases
in cancer can be detected among the
public with any reasonable certainty.
Furthermore, as noted by the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS), "... when
there is  exposure to a material, we tire
not starting at an origin of zero cancers
Nor are  we starting at an origin of zero
carcinogenic agents in our environment.
Thus, it  is likely  that any carcinogenic
agent added to the  environment will act
by a particular mechanism on a
particular cell population that is already
being acted on by the same mechanism
to induce cancers."{8] In discussing
experimental dose-response curves, the
NAS observed that most information on
carcinogenesis is derived from studies
on ionizing radiation with experimental
animals and with humans, which
indicate a linear no-threshold dose-
response relationship at low doses.
They added that although some
evidence exists for thresholds in some
animal tissues, by and large, thresholds
have not been established for most
tissues.  NAS concluded that establishing
                                                   V-N.O.P-3
-------
               Federal  Register / Vol. 48. No.  140 / Wednesday, )uly 20. 1983  /  Proposed Rules
such low-dose thresholds ". .. would
require massive, expensive, and
impractical experiments ..." and
ivct-gnized that the U.S. population "...
is a large, diverse, and genetically
heterogeneous group exposed to a large
variety of toxic agents." This fact,
coupled with the known genetic
variability to carcinogenesis and the
predisposition of some individuals to
some form of cancer, makes it extremely
difficult, if not impossible, to identify a
threshold.
  For these reasons. EPA has taken the
position, shared by other Federal
regulatory agencies, that in the absence
of sound scientific evidence to the
contrary, carcinogens should be
considered to pose some cancer risk at
any exposure level. This no-threshold
presumption is based on the view that
as little as one molecule of a
carcinogenic substance may be
sufficient to transform a normal cell into
a cancer cell. Evidence is available from
both the human and animal health
literature that cancers may arise from a
single transformed cell. Mutation
research with ionizing radiation in cell
cultures indicates that such a
transformation can occur as the result of
interaction with as little as a single
cluster of ion pairs. In reviewing the
available data regarding
carcinogenicity, EPA found no
compelling scientific reason to abandon
the no-threshold presumption for
inorganic arsenic.
  Section 112 requires that standards be
bft at levels which, in the
Administrator's judgment, provide an
ample margin of safety to protect the
public health. Thus one factor EPA
considers is the nature and relative
magnitude of health hazards.
Unfortunately, agencies can never
obtain perfect data but have to make
regulatory decisions on the basis of the
best information available. So, EPA
evaluates the potential detrimental
effects to human health caused by
pollutant exposure based on the best
scientific information currently
available. EPA has produced
quantitative expressions of public health
(isks associate.! with exposure to
inorganic arsenic emitted from
stationary sources. The Agency
rpcognizes that significant uncertainties
a''e associatfd with the data and the
eitimnting prcct-dure; however, the
A^prry belie-', rs that these quantitative
expressions of public health risks serve
d useful purpose by providing a
rr.pdsurernent too! that facilitates
relative comparisons of important
factors, e.g.. comparison of the relative
effectiveness of two types of emission
control in reducing public health risk,
and that when used appropriately, these
quantitative expressions of risk are
useful in decision-making. In developing
the exposure-risk relationship for
inorganic arsenic, EPA has assumed that
a linear no-threshold relationship exists
at or below the levels of exposure
reported in the epidemiological studies
of occupational exposure. This means
that any exposure to inorganic arsenic is
assumed to pose some risk of damage to
health and that the linear relationship
between cancer risks and levels of
public exposure is the same as that
between cancer risks and levels of
occupational exposure. EPA believes
that this assumption is reasonable for
public health protection in light of
presently available information.
However, it should be recognized that
the basis for using the linear no-
threshold relationship model for
inorganic arsenic is not quite as strong
as that for carcinogens, which  interact
directly or in metabolic form with DNA.
Nevertheless, there'is no adequate basis
for dismissing the linear no-threshold
model for inorganic arsenic. The
quantitative risk estimate based on the
application of the linear no-threshold
model represents a plausible upper-limit
estimate in the sense that the risk is
probably not higher than the calculated
level  and could be much lower.
  The numerical constant that defines
that exposure-risk relationship used by
EPA in its analysis of carcinogens is
called the unit risk estimate. The unit
risk estimate for an air pollutant is
defined as the lifetime cancer risk
occurring in a hypothetical population in
which all individuals are exposed
continuously from birth throughout their
lifetimes (about 70 years) to a
concentration of 1 jig/m3 of the agent in
the air which they breathe. Unit risk
estimates are used for two purposes: (1)
to compare  the carcinogenic potency of
several agents with each other, and (2)
to give a crude  indication of the public
health risk which might be associated
with  estimated air exposure to these
agents. A range of unit risk estimates for
inorganic arsenic was derived from the
dose-response relationships relevant to
epidemiological studies involving
workplace exposures. The derivation
•was based on a linear no-threshold
model. The  range in EPA's unit risk
estimates reflects the uncertainty of
combining the three different dose-
response relationships relevant to the
three occupational studies which EPA
used as the basis for the development of
unit risk estimates.(9) As noted in the
Background section of this notice, EPA
is updating its health effects assessment
document for inorganic arsenic and has
just released a draft document for public
and Science Advisory Board (SAB)
review (see 48 FR 27290, June 14, 1983).
The draft document reflects a change in
the unit risk estimate. The SAB review
will include an examination of the
applicability of the health effects models
to the epidemiology data and the results
of this review will be received and
carefully considered by the
Administrator before final standards are
promulgated.
  The unit risk estimate is only one of
the factors needed to produce
quantitative expressions of public health
risks. Another factor needed is a
numerical expression of public
exposure, i.e., of the numbers of people
exposed to the various concentrations of
inorganic arsenic. The difficulty of
defining public exposure was noted by
the national Task Force on
Environmental Cancer and Heart and
Lung Disease in their 5th Annual Report
to Congress, in 1982.{70) They reported
that  "... a large proportion  of the
American population works some
distance away from their homes and
experiences different types of pollution
in their homes, on the way to and from
work, and in the workplace. Also, the
American population is quite mobile,
and many people move every few
years."  They also noted the necessity
and difficulty of dealing with very-long-
term exposures because of ". . . the long
latent period required for the
development and expression of
neoplasia [cancer] . . ." To develop
quantitative expressions of public
exposure to inorganic arsenic, it was
necessary to use assumptions and a
computerized model.
  The models  for estimating the unit risk
for and the public exposure to inorganic
arsenic are described briefly below.
More information is available in
references (9) and (11).
Mode! for Estimation of Unit Risk Based
on Human Datafl2]
   Very little information exists that can
be utilized to extrapolate from high-
exposure occupational studies to low
environmental levels. However, if a
number of simplifying assumptions are
made, it is possible to construct a crude
dose-response model whose parameters
can be estimated using vital statistics,
epidemiologic studies, and estimates of
worker exposures. In human studies, the
response is measured in terms of the
relative risk of the exposed cohort of
individuals compared to the control
group. The mathematical model
employed assumes that for low
exposures the lifetime probability of
                                                     V-N.O.P-4
-------
               Federal Register / Vol. 48, No.  140 / Wednesday, July 20.  1983 / Proposed Rules
                    A + BH(xo)
death from hang cancer (or any cancer),
P, may be represented by the linear
equation
P=A-t-BHx
where A is the lifetime probability of
cancer in the absence of the agent, and
x is the average lifetime exposure to
environmental levels in some units, say
micrograms per cubic meter of air
breathed. The factor, BH, is the
increased probability of cancer
associated with each unit increase of the
agent in air.
  If we make the assumption that R, the
relative risk of lung cancer for exposed
workers, compared to the general
population, is independent of the length
or age of exposure but depends only
upon the average lifetime exposure, it
follows that
             P

             Po
where Xo = lifetime average daily
exposure to the agent for the general
population, Xi= lifetime average daily
exposure to the agent in the
occupational setting, and Po=lifetime
probability of respiratory cancer
applicable to the general population.
Substituting P0=A+BHxo and
rearranging gives
BH=P.(R-l)/x,
To use this model, estimates of R and x,
must be obtained from the epidemiologic
studies. The value P0 is derived from the
age-cause-specific death rates for
combined males found in 1976 U.S. Vital
Statistics tables using the life table
methodology. For lung cancer the
estimate of P0 is 0.036.(1J)
The Exposure Model{ll)
  The basic assumption used in the
exposure model is that exposed
individuals reside at a single location for
a 70-year period and are exposed at that
location to a constant source of
inorganic arsenic emissions. Updated
1970 census data were used to locate
people with respect to the emitting
sources, and the exposed population
consisted of all the people estimated to
be living within a radial distance of 20
kilometers from the sources. Twenty
kilometers was selected because up to
this distance the dispersion model used
to estimate ambient air concentrations
is reasonably accurate. Through several
studies and other data-gathering efforts,
EPA, insofar as it was reasonably
possible to do so, located sources by
latitude and longitude, estimated both
stack and fugitive emissions, and
developed the plant factors needed to
estimate long-term ambient air
concentrations up to a radial distance of
20 kilometers by use of a dispersion
model. By combining people and
concentrations, the exposure model
produced estimates of exposure at
selected radial distances from each
identified source and summed the
exposure estimates for each category of
sources. As used in this notice, the term
"exposure" means the product of the
estimated ambient air concentration of
inorganic arsenic and the estimated
number of people exposed to that
concentration. The units of exposure are
people—fig/m3.

Quantitative Estimates of Public Health
Risks
  By combining the estimates of public
exposure with the unit risk, two types of
quantitative estimates are  produced.
The first, called maximum  lifetime risk,
relates to the individual or individuals
estimated to live in the area of highest
concentration as estimated by the
dispersion model. As used here, the
word "maximum" does not mean the
greatest possible risk of cancer to the
public. It is only the maximum estimated
by the procedure used, and the
procedure represents long-term average
rather than worst-case situations. The
second type of risk estimate, called
aggregate risk, is a summation of all  the
risks to people living within 20
kilometers of a source and is
customarily summed for all the sources
in a particular category. The aggregate
risk is expressed as incidences of cancer
among all of the exposed population
after 70 years of exposure; for statistical
convenience, it  is often divided by 70
and expressed as cancer incidences per
year. Cancer incidences per year does
not connote an event that will occur
each year from now until something is
done to alter the "exposure" on which
the statistic is based. In reality, there is
a long latent period between initiation
of exposure and the onset of cancer.
  There also are risks of nonfatal cancer
and serious genetic effects, depending
on which organs receive the exposure.
The risks of nonfatal cancer and of
genetic effects are not estimated;
however, EPA considers all of these
risks when it makes regulatory decisions
on limiting emissions of inorganic
arsenic.
  EPA must make numerous
assumptions when producing
quantitative estimates of public health
risks. Factors such as elevated terrain
around sources, reentrainment of dust
containing inorganic arsenic, and the
additive impact of emissions from
sources near to one another are site
specific. Individual characteristics such
as age, physiology, physical activity
level, amount of time spent indoors, and
the effects of exposures to other
substances influence the rate and
amount of inorganic arsenic affecting
the individual. Such factors could
strongly influence the actual  risks to any
given individual, but are not usually
treated in the analysis.

Basis for the Proposed Standards

  Today's proposed standards are set
"at the level which in [the
Administrator's] judgment provides an
ample margin of safety to protect the
public health" from inorganic arsenic
emissions, as required by Section
  As discussed in a previous section,
inorganic arsenic, like most carcinogens.
seems to present finite risks at any level
of exposure, risks that increase as the
level of exposure increases. Were this
not the case — were there exposure
levels below which there is no risk of
cancer — the standards could be set so
as to prevent those exposure levels. This
cannot be done for inorganic arsenic
unless the standards prevented any
exposure,  which would in turn require
preventing any emissions. It does not
appear that Congress intended Section
112 standards to cause widespread
shutdown of arsenic emitting industries.
and the other industries emitting
nonthreshold pollutants (such as the
carcinogens asbestos, vinly chloride,
benzene and radionuclides). Therefore.
as an alternative to widespread
shutdown of industries, EPA must
establish emission standards for
inorganic arsenic at levels that may
present some human health risk. Some
argue that an increase in cancer risk not
exceeding one in one thousand due to a
specific cause is acceptable, whereas
Others argue that an increase in risk of
one in one million is unacceptable.
Regardless, the use of these numbers is
accompanied by great scientific
uncertainty. For example, scientific
uncertainties not resolved to date
include the establishment of toxicity to
humans based on extrapolation, using
uncertain mathematical models from
high-dose  animal tests or occupational
exposure to low-dose public exposure a!
ambient air concentrations, and
identification of the appropriate level of
emission controls for pollutants for
which health effects thersholds have iiot
been demonstrated.
  There also is uncertainty with
exposure estimates because of difficulty
                                                   V-N,0,P-5
-------
               Federal  Register / Vol. 48. No.  140 /  Wednesday. July 20, 1983 / Proposed  Rules
in obtaining precise date on emission
rates, atmospheric dispersion patterns
and population concentrations around
individual sources, and because of the
lack of information on short-term and
long-term movement (migration) of
people and indoor versus outdoor toxic
air pollutant concentration patterns.
Further, ambient monitoring data are
limited and both very costly and time
consuming to obtain for use in exposure
assessment. There also are uncertainties
concerning possible additive effects of
multiple sources or pollutants,
syru-rtustic or antagonistic health
effects, and heightened susceptibilities
to some cancers by some population
groups. These factors make it difficult, if
not impossible, to determine the
absolute magnitude of the risk to human
health based on the available data or to
establish any epidemiological
association between cancer and public
exposure to ambient concentrations of a
specific substance.
  Another issue that has been
encountered in using risk estimates is
whether protection should focus on the
risk to the most exposed individuals or
to the exposed population as a whole
(aggregate risk). Even when the many
uncertainties in risk estimates are
considered, resulted to date indicate
that the total cancer incidence
(expressed as cases per year) associated
with exposure to inorganic arsenic, even
on a nationwide basis, is likely to be
small compared to the incidence
associated with factors such as smoking
and diet. However, individual risks for a
limited number of people living close to
uncontrolled or partially controlled
emission sources may be relatively high.
  Neither the language nor the
legislative history of Section 112 reveals
any specific Congressional intent on
how to deal with these issues and how
to apply the phrase "provides an ample
margin of safety to protect the public
health," to nonthreshold pollutants like
inorganic arsenic that present cancer
risks at any level of exposure.
  In view of this, it is EPA's judgment
that the best interpretation of Section
U2 as applied to a nonthreshold
pollutant is as follows. All source
categories of the pollutant that are
e-inmaffd to result in significant risks
sno'jld be evaluated. Each such source
category should be controlled at least to
the level that reflects best available
technology (BAT), and to a more
stringent level if, in the judgment of the
Administrator, it is necessary to prevent
unreasonable risks. If a source category
is  not alrpady controlled at this level,
EPA will set the Section 112 standard at
this level. If a category is already
controlled (for example. b\ other EPA
standards, other Federal. State, or local
requirements, or standard Industry
practice) to this level, and EPA expects
that the level of control will continue to
be required for these and new sources
(EPA will continue to monitor this), a
Section 112 standard will be redundant
and need not be established. By BAT,
EPA means the best controls available,
considering economic, energy, and
environmental impacts. The level of
control that represents BAT may be
different for new and existing sources
within a source category because of
higher costs associated with retrofitting
controls on existing sources, or
differences in control technology for
new vs. existing sources. Whether a
source category is estimated to cause a
significant risk will be decided in light of
the estimated risks to individuals, and
the estimated cumulative risks to
populations affected by that source
category. Whether the estimated risks
remaining after application of BAT are
unreasonable will be decided m light of
a judgmental evaluation of the estimated
maximum lifetime risk and cancer
incidences per year remaining after
application of BAT, the impacts,
including economic impacts, of further
reducing those risks, the readily
available benefits of the substance or
activity producing the risk, and the
availability of substitutes and possible
health effects resulting from their use.  In
all cases where estimated risks are
used,  the significant uncertainties
associated with those numbers will be
weighed carefully in reaching the final
decision.
  In EPA's judgment, standards based
on the interpretation of Section 112 just
described provide an ample margin of
safety to protect the public health. EPA
solicits comments on this interpretation
of Section 112.
  This approach is believed to provide a
rational, consistent and nationally
appropriate mechanism for dealing with
nonthreshold pollutants in the face of
the many scientific uncertainties. The
main  issues have been dealt with in this
proposal in the following ways:
  1. Source categories are identified on
the basis of estimates of their potential
to result in significant risk because risk
to public health is the dominant theme
of Section 112. A significant risk is
considered to be associated with a
source category when the weight of the
health evidence indicates a strong
likelihood that the substance emitted by
the source category is a human
carcinogen and either individuals or
larger population groups are
significantly exposed to the substance
as emitted from the source category. A
numerical target ievel of significance is
net u<-pd hc'i.iusr of the uncertainties
discussed above.
  2. All source categories that a-e
estimated to result in significant risks
are evaluated and the current level of
control ascertained. That control may
result voluntarily or from State, local or
other Federal regulations. Whether the
level of control meets the definition of
BAT (considering cost and other
impacts) then is  determined. The BAT
determination m this case can take into
account such factors as the potential for
improved control, the economic impacts
of improved control on the source
category, and the age and remaining
useful life of the facilities.
  3. The use of risk estimates generally
has been confined  to areas  of broaff
comparisons, e.g., in selecting source
categories to evaluate, and  in assessing
the incremental change in risk  that
results from application of various
control options. The use of  risk
estimates in an absolute sense is
avoided because of the many
uncertainties of the estimates. These
uncertainties are compounded as the
focus is narrowed. In other words, in
evaluating specific sources, as opposed
to source categories, the uncertainties
associated with  the risk estimates
increase dramaticaly.
  4. Cost effectiveness is one of the
major criteria used in selecting BAT.
However, the use of cost effectiveness
in the BAT selection may result in some
apparent disparities in risk improvement
at some sources. However,  risk
estimates are highly uncertain while
technology and cost are generally well
understood and  provide an objective
means of determining reasonableness of
control.
  Other alternative treatments of these
issues were considered. A discussion of
these alternative treatments as applied
to the low-arsenic-throughput copper
smeiter source category is presented in
the section entitled "Alternative
Regulatory Strategies" in Part III of this
preamble.

Source Categories  for Which Standards
are Not Proposed

  EPA has identified several inorganic
arsenic source categories for which
standards are not being proposed. The
emissions from some of these source
categories (primary lead smelters,
primary zinc smelters, zinc oxide plants)
are comprised of inorganic arsenic that
occurs naturally in the environment but
is released to the air through industrial
processes. In addition to these source
categories, EPA is not proposing
                                                     V-N,0,P-6
-------
               Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.  140 / Wednesday. July 20. 1983 / Proposed Rules
standards for arsenic chemical plants,
secondary lead smelterst and cotton gins
that process cotton desiccated with
orthoarsenic acid. The reasons for these
decisions are discussed in the following
paragraphs. Additional supporting
information may be found in the dockets
for the source categories and in the
document entitled "Preliminary Study of
Sources of Inorganic Arsenic."
  Estimates of risk used in this analysis
were developed using the methods and
assumptions discussed in this notice and
in the Appendix E of each background
information document (BID). It is
important to recognize that the actual
risk to specific individuals may differ
greatly from the estimates because (1)
there is no solid scientific basis for any
mathematical extrapolation model that
numerically relates inorganic arsenic
exposure to cancer risks at the low
concentrations in the environment, and
the actual dose-response relationship
may differ greatly from that used in this
analysis; and (2) the actual exposures of
individual to inorganic arsenic over their
lifetimes are not known and may differ
greatly from the assumptions used to
make the estimates in this analysis.
Primary Lead Smelters
  Primary lead smelters produce
metallic lead from lead ore
concentrates. There are five primary
lead smelters in the United States. In
1979, these  smelters produced 578,000
Mg of lead, which accounted for 41
percent of the total domestic demand for
lead that year.
  Inorganic arsenic is a contaminant in
lead-bearing ores. The arsenic content
can range from 0.02 to 0.4 percent by
weight. Fugitive emissions occur from
lead ore handling and storage, and are
controlled by ventilated enclosure
systems and wet suppression methods.
Ore transfer points are generally hooded
and vented to fabric filter or venturi
scrubber systems. Process emissions
containing arsenic trioxide occur from
sinter plants, blast furnaces, dross
reverberatory funaces, zinc fuming
furnaces, and reverberatory softening
furnaces. These sources are currently
controlled by State implementation
plans (SIPs) for SOs and particulate
matter through the use of low-
temperature fabric filters or contact
sulfuric acid plants. Total nationwide
inorganic arsenic emissions from
primary lead smelters are about 43 Mg/
year. Aggregate risks are estimated as
ranging from 0.006 to 0.096 lung cancer
incidences annually, and the estimated
maximum lifetime risk calculated ranges
from 0.07 in 10,000 to 1.1 in 10,000.
  All primary lead smelters are covered
by SIPs for  SO? and particulate matter,
and by Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OHSA) lead and
inorganic arsenic standards. As a result,
low-temperature fabric filter systems or
contact sulfuric acid plants are reducing
emissions from process vents, and
fugitive emissions are controlled by
enclosing ore storage areas, ventilating
and/or enclosing material transfer
points, ventilating and/or enclosing
furnace operations, and treating all of
the ventilation gas streams with fabric
filter systems. In addition, lead SIPs that
have been submitted by the States but
not yet approved by EPA would also
cover all primary lead smelters.
  EPA considers these controls to
represent the best available technology
(BAT). EPA knows of no demonstrated
control techniques, short of closure, that
would result in further inorganic arsenic
emissions reduction.
  EPA is not proposing standards under
Section 112 for these  sources because, in
response to existing regulatory
requirements, these sources already are
required to control emissions by using
technology that represnts BAT; and the
Agency does not believe that requiring
plant closure is a reasonable control
alternative in this case, finding that risks
remaining after BAT are not
unreasonable in light of the impacts of
further reducing them.

Primary Zinc Smelters
  Primary zinc smelters produce
metallic zinc from zinc ore concentrates.
There are five primary zinc smelters in
the United States. These smelters
produced 407,000 Mg of zinc in 1978,
which accounted for about 49 percent of
total domestic demand for zinc in that
year.
  Inorganic arsenic is a contaminant in
zinc-bearing ores. The arsenic content
can range from about 0.001 to 0.1 percent
by weight. Zinc is smelted by two kinds
of processes: electrothermal and
electrolytic. Electrothermal process
emissions arise from roasting, sintering,
and reducing operations. Arsenic
emissions from roasting are controlled
as a result of routing process gases to a
contract sulfric acid plant for SO»
removal. Arsenic emissions from
sintering and reducing are controlled by
low-temperature baghouses. Fugitive
emissions from handling are contained
and collected by low-temperature fabric
filters.
  The only potential source of
significant arsenic emissions from
electrolytic zinc smelting is the roasting
operation. As in electrothermal smelting,
these emissions are also routed to a
contact sulfuric acid plant.
  Primary zinc smelters are affected by
new source performance standards
(NSPS) for SOi and particulate matter,
SIP's for SOj and particulate matter, and
OSHA inorganic arsenic workplace
standards. Current nationwide inorganic
emissions from this source category are
about 0.3 Mg/year. The aggregate risks
are estimated to range from 0.0005 to
0.008 lung cancer incidences annually,
and the estimated maximum lifetime
risk calculated ranges from 0.01 in 10,000
to 0.22 in 10,000.
  The controls currently in place at
primary zinc smelters to comply with
existing regulations provide good
control of arsenic emissions and are
considered BAT. No technology has
been demonstrated that can reduce
emissions further. Additional reductions
can be gained only by smelter closure.
  EPA is not proposing standards under
Section 112 for these  sources because, in
response to existing regulatory
requirements, these sources are
controlling emissions by using BAT; and
the Agency does not  believe that
requiring plant closure is a reasonable
control alternative in this case, finding
that risks remaining after BAT are not
unreasonable in light of the impacts of
further reducing them.

Zinc Oxide Plants

  There are 17 zinc oxide production
facilities in the United States. Some of
these facilities merely grind zinc oxide
to specific product standards. The
remainder produce zinc oxide directly
from either zinc ore concentrates
(termed the American process) or
purified zinc metal (termed the French
process). Arsenic emissions from zinc
oxide production originate from the
arsenic contained in  the zinc feed.
Because of the purity of the zinc feed
used in the French process, arsenic
emissions from this process are assumed
to be small. The American process has
the potential for producing arsenic
emissions because of the arsenic
contained in the zinc ore concentrates.
There are only two domestic zinc oxide
plants that use zinc ore concentrates as
feed material; an ASARCO plant in
Columbus, Ohio and  a New Jersey Zinc
plant in Palmerton, Pennsylvania.
  The ASARCO-Columbus plant
processes a zinc sulfide ore concentrate,
and the  operation consists of roasting in
a fluid bed roaster followed by
processing in a densifying kiln and a
Wetherill zinc oxide  furnace. A contaci
sulfuric acid plant is  used to treat the
roaster offgas, and low-temperature
baghouse units are used to treat the
other offgas streams. The acid plant and
low-temperature baghouse units provide
good control of arsenic emissions by
                                                     V-N.O.P-7
-------
               Federal  Register / Vol. 48. No. 140 /  Wednesday,  July  20, 1983 / Proposed Rules
condensing of the vapor-phase arsenic
and capturing it as participate arsenic.
  The New Jersey Zinc-Palmerton plant
processes a low-sulfur zinc ore
t.oncentrate, and the major steps include
Waelz kiln operations, sintering, and
horizontal grate furnace operations.
Because there is little SO2  in the offgas
from the kiln opertaion due to the low-
sulfur feed, New Jersey Zinc does not
nmploy an acid plan* for SO> removal.
Particulate removal is achieved  using
baghouse units on each of  the process
offgas streams and process fugitive
streams. Because of the relatively small
amount of arsenic present  in these
streams, further cooling of the gas
>••  ; ams would not result in additional
arsenic collection.
  The process emission points at these
two zinc plants are subject to SIPs for
SOj or particulate matter. In addition,
zinc oxidf; plants are subject to the
OSHA workplace standard for inorganic
disenic. Current inorganic  arsenic
emissions from  these two plants are
about 5.2 Mg/year. Aggregate risks are
rshmdted as ranging form  0.0015 to 0.024
lung cancer incidences annually, and the
cstinidted maximum lifetime risk
i .ilciil.itf-d ranges from 1.7 in 10,000 to 28
in 10.000
  The fedpr.jlly enforceable controls
c uiTf n!iy in place at the two American
process Zu-ic oxide plants to comply with
evsting regulations provide good
control of arsenic emissions. No
technology has been  demonstrated that
can rpdiice emissions further. Additional
reductions can only be gained by plant
closure. Consequently, the existing
controls are considered to be BAT. ,
   F.PA is not proposing standards under
Sec.hon 112 for these sources because, in
response to existing regulatory
requirements, these sources are
controlling emissions by using BAT; and
the Agency does not believe that
requiring plant closure is a reasonable
control alternative in this  case,  finding
 that risks remaining after  BAT are not
unreasonable in light of the impacts of
 further reducing them.
 •\r*p'iic Chemical Manufacturing Plants
   The manufacture of chemicals
containing arsenic consumes about 90
 percent of the total arsenic used in the
 United States. Eight plants handle dry
 powdered arsenic trioxide and  have  the
 potential to be significant inorganic
 arsenic emission sources.
   The inorgnic arsenic emissions are in
 the form of participates. All eight plants
 are covered by SIP's for particulate
 matter and OSHA regulations for
 inorganic arsenic. Each plant has a
 particulate capture and collection
 system in place that meets all applicable
regulations. As a result, total current
nationwide inorganic arsenic emissions
are estimated to be about 0.04 Mg/year.
The aggregate risks are estimated to
range from 0.0008 to 0.012 incidences of
lung cancer annually, and the estimated
maximum lifetime risk calculated ranges
from 0.4 in 10.000  to 6.4 in 10.000.
  Of the eight plants with the potential
to emit arsenic trioxide dust, three use
fabric filters, four use wet scrubbers and
one uses a fabric  filter followed by a
wet scrubber. The collected particulate
matter is returned to the process. Fabric
filters reduce arsenic trioxide
particulate emission by about 99.5
percent, and while no test data are
available  on the arsenic removal
efficiency of the wet scrubbers, it is
believed, based on the emission rates,
that it is comparable to the fabric filters.
  These plants are currently well-
controlled under federally enforceable
OSHA regulations for inorganic arsenic
and SIPs for particulate matter, with
arsenic removal efficiencies of greater
than 99 percent. There are no
demonstrated control techniques, short
of closure, that would result in further
emissons  reduction.
   EPA is not proposing standards under
Section 112 for these sources because, in
response to existing regulatory
requirements and due to the economic
benefits of collecting and reusing
arsenic trioxide, these sources are
controlling emissions by using BAT; and
the Agency does  not believe that
requiring  plant closure is a reasonable
control alternative in this case, finding
lhat risks remaining after BAT are not
unreasonable in light of the impacts of
further reducing them.
Cotton Gins
   There are about 320 cotton gins that
handle and gin cotton that has been
desiccated with orthoarsenic (arsenic)
acid. Most of these gins are small
businesses.  Ginning is a seasonal
operation, lasting only 3 to 4 months in
late summer or fall.
   Arsenic acid is applied to the cotton
plants as  a desiccant. The amount of
desiccant applied varies from season to
season and  is affected by such factors
as the condition of the cotton plants and
the weather. A desiccant is applied to
the cotton prior to mechanical-stripper
harvesting to dry out green plant leaves
in order to prevent fiber staining and
 unacceptable levels of fiber moisture
content. Cotton desiccation is necessary
 to allow timely harvesting and preserve
 the quality of the cotton. Under the
 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
 Rodenticide Act. EPA limits the
 application rate of arsenic acid to 3
 pints per acre.
  Most of the arsenic emissions from
cotton gins is associated with gin trash,
i.e.. leaves, burrs, sticks, and hulls. The
data base for estimating arsenic
emissions is very limited, and the
emissions estimates are very uncertain.
Furthermore, it is not known what
percent of the total arsenic emissions is
inorganic arsenic. Total arsenic is
believed  to be emitted in about equal
quantities as process and fugitive
emissions. Process arsenic emissions
occur primarily from the gin high-
pressure  section, which emits gin trash
and large soil particles, and also from
the low pressure section, which emits
lint fly and cotton dust. Nationwide
arsenic emissions are estimated to be
about 0.8 Mg/year from the high-
pressure  section, and it is estimated that
negligible quantities (0.005 Mg/yr) are
emitted from the low-pressure section.
  Fugitive particulate emissions,
potentially containing inorganic arseric,
are also emitted from cotton gins. These
fugitive emiosior.s come from building
and piping l&aks, equipment leaks, burr
hopper dumping, and wind blowing  of
open burr piles, and may be in the form i
of fine-leaf trash, burr material, lint  fly,
or cotton dust. It has been estimated
that about 50 percent of the total
particulate emissions resulting from a
gin are from fugitive sources and that
fugitive arsenic emissions would
account for about 0.8 Mg/year
nationwide.
  Nationwide total arsenic emissioas
(organic  and inorganic) from cotton  gins
are estimated to be about 1.6 Mg/year.
The estimated maximum lifetime risk
calculated, under the current level of
control, ranges from 0.17 in 10,000 to 2.8
in 10,000. "Model" plants located in
"model" cites were used to produce
these estimates. Estimates of the
aggregate risk to all those living within
20 kilometers of all the gins are not
available because the locations of the
gins are  not available.
  Cyclones are predominantly used to
control gin high-pressure-section
emissions. A high-efficiency cyclone can
achieve greater than 99 percent removal
of particles larger than 20 to 30
micrometers. Low-pressure-section
emissions are typically controlled by
coverings over condenser drums or  by
in-line filters. The use of a "long-cone"
cyclone  can reduce emissions further
from both the high-pressure and low-
pressure sections. Although very limited
data are available, it is estimated that
the iong-cone cyclone can be used as a
secondary control device for the high-
pressure section to remove about 50
percent of the particulate matter that is
less than 20 micrometers, and as a
                                                    V-N.O.P-8
-------
               Federal Register / Vol. 46. No.  140 / Wednesday. July 20. 1983  /  Proposed Rules
primary control device for the low-
pressure section to remove about 94
percent of the particulate matter that is
less than 20 micrometers. Though
inorganic arsenic reduction efficiency
data are not available, it is reasonable
to assume that arsenic in particulate
form would be controlled with the same
reduction efficiencies. As a result.
nationwide arsenic emissions from the
high-pressure section would be reduced
by about 0.4 Mg/year and those from the
low-pressure section by about 0.0047
Mg/year.
  Based on control of only the high-
pressure section, the total capital cost of
installing a long-cone cyclone ranges
from $23,000 for a small gin to $81,000
for a large  gin, and total annualized
costs would range from about $5,000 to
$20,000. The cost per Mg of total arsenic
reduced would range from about $3.6
million to $9.4 million per Mg.
Nationwide capital and annualized
costs are estimated to be $10.8 million
and $2.4 million, respectively. The
estimated maximum lifetime risk would
be reduced by about 11 percent, to a
range of 0.15 in 10,000 to 2.5 in 10,000.
  Several control techniques are
available for controlling fugitive
emissions, but the operational
differences among cotton gins inhibit an
across-the-board technique. Although
each technique has been used with
varying degrees of success by a portion
of the industry, most of the cotton gins
either have not employed any of these
techniques or have applied them
improperly. Cotton gins are typically
small operation, and it has not been
demonstrated that most gin operators
are capable of applying fugitive
emission control techniques on a
continuous basis.  In addition, none of
 these techniques has ever been
evaluated  with regard to emissions
 reduction efficiency or cost of control.
Consequently, little is known about the
 impacts of applying techniques to
 reduce fugitive emissions.
   Although the estimated costs of long-
 cone cyclones (capital cost of $20,000 to
$80,000 and annualized costs of $5,000 to
$20.000) may not appear unreasonable
 for most industries, a preliminary
 economic  analysis reveals that the
 cotton  gin industry would be severely
 affected by such costs. Cotton gins
 typically operate less than one-third of
 the year. The profitability of the cotton
 gin industry varies considerably from
 year to year, so that in some years the
 gins may operate profitably, while in
 other years they do not. It appears that
 the cost of long-cone cyclones would put
 many gins in a position whereby they
 would  not be able to continue operation.
The cost of this control would reduce
cash flow at a typical size gin operating
at a 100 percent utilization rate by 31
percent. For a gin operating at 70
percent utilization rate, the cash flow
would be reduced by 98 percent.
  Considering these economic impacts,
EPA judges that the existing level of
control for  process emissions  is BAT. In
addition, because available information
does not allow determination of the
effectiveness of possible fugitive
emission control techniques, and
because such techniques have not been
demonstrated to be amenable to  all but
operational variabilities of cotton gins,
EPA has determined that the existing
level of fugitive emission control is BAT.
   In conclusion, EPA is not proposing
standards under Section 112 for cotton
gins because the existing level of control
is considered to be BAT and the  Agency
cannot, from the data available,
reasonably conclude" that the risks
remaining after BAT are unreasonable,
in light of the impacts of requiring
controls more stringent than BAT.
   There are statutes other than the
Clean Air Act that give the Agency the
authority and the mechanism to reduce
the inorganic arsenic emissions from
cotion gins. For instance, under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA has the
authority to further restrict or cancel the
use of arsenic acid as a cotton plant
desiccant.  Such an action could reduce
or eliminate  the arsenic portion of the
particulate matter emissions created
duiing the  ginning process. In addition
to presently limiting the application rate
of arsenic acid to 3 pints per acre of
cotton plants, the Agency also is
conducting an intensive risk-benefit
analysis regarding the use of arsenic
acid at this rate of application. The
analysis is expected to lead to a
decision by the Administrator to not
change, further restrict, or cancel the use
of this desiccant (see 43 FR 42867). The
background information developed for
 this notice (such as the public exposure
 estimates) and other data, such as the
 ambient arsenic data now being
 collected near cotton gins in Texas, will
 be factored in the Administration's
 proposed decision regarding  the future
 use of the  desiccant under FIFRA
 (scheduled for 1984). Substitutes are
 being considered; but based on the
 analysis to date, it appears that  there
 are no chemicals or new desiccation
 techniques that are nearly as cost-
 effective as arsenic acid in preparing the
 short season cotton for mechanical-
 stripper harvesting. Paraquat is  the only
 other desiccant registered for use on
cotton fields, but it is not as effective a
desiccant as arsenic acid.
  EPA also has authority under Subtitle
C—Hazardous Waste Management—of
the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) to require special
handling, storage and treatment of any
hazardous waste material that is
generated from cotton ginning. Since the
gin wastes contain arsenic, the wastes
may be identified as hazardous wastes
under the Hazardous Waste
Management regulations (see 40 CFR
261). If gin wastes are classified as
hazardous and the gin generates and
stores enough of the wastes on site, then
the storage, transportation, and disposal
of the wastes must meet the standards
established under RCRA, e.g., the piles
of gin wastes must be designed and
operated to control dispersal of the
waste by the wind (see 40 CFR 264.250).
However, based on very limited data in
the technical literature, it appears that
the wastes would not be classified as
hazardous and would not be subject to
the hazardous waste regulations.
   As seen from the other inorganic
arsenic source category discussions tru1
OSHA workplace standards often
indirectly provide for reduction of
inorganic arsenic emissions to the
atmosphere. However,  in the case of
cotton gins, OSHA's current inorganic
arsenic workplace standard does not
apply to agricultural facilities such as
cotton gins (see  29 CFR 1910.1018(a)j

Secondary Lead Smelters
   Secondary lead is produced by
smelting lead-bearing scrap, and
accounts for about half of the lead
produced in the  United States. In 1980,
about 60 secondary lead smelters owned
by 26 companies produced 676,000 Mg of
lead. Though the exact number of
smelters currently operating is difficult
to determine due to the relatively rapid
rate at which smelters  are closing, it is
estimated that 40 smelters are currently
operating.
   The normal sequence of operations of
a secondary lead smelter is scrap
receiving, charge preparation, furnace
smelting, and refining and alloying.
Prepared lead scrap (primarily used
batteries) is combined with other
furnace feed materials and charged to a
reverberatory or blast furnace. The
molten lead product is tapped into a
holding and refining pot. Arsenic
emissions occur during these operations
because arsenic is present in many of
 the  furnace feed materials and in all of
 the  furnace products. The lead-bearing
 feed materials to reverberatory furnaces
 typically consist of crushed battery
 scrap that  contains about 0.03 to 0.07
                                                   V-N.O.P-9
-------
               Federal Register  /  Vol. 48, No.  140 / Wednesday, July 20. 1983  /  Proposed Rules
percent arsenic by weight. The lead-
bearing feed materials to blast furnaces
typically consist of crushed battery
scrap and/or reverberatory furnace slag
that contains as much as 2 percent
arsenic by weight. Smelting furnace
products can contain from 0.001 to 3
percent arsenic by weight. A large
proportion of the arsenic fed to
reverberatory furnaces reports to the
reverberatory furnace slag, while a large
proportion of the arsenic fed to blast
furnaces reports to the hard lead
product. During the smelting operations,
the arsenic-containing raw materials are
subjected to high furnace temperatures,
which can vaporize the arsenic in the
form of arsenic trioxide. Uncontrolled
arsenic emissions can vary widely and
are affected by such factors as the
amount of arsenic in the feed material,
the operating conditions of the furnace,
the amount of chlorides in the feed
material, and the slag composition.
  The sources  of arsenic emissions from
secondary lead smelters can be divided
into three broad classes. These are
process emissions, process fugitive
emissions, and area fugitive emissions.
Process emissions occur from  the main
furnace vents and consist of metal and
metal oxide fumes entrained in the
furnace combustion products. The
furnace offgas streams are directed to
one or more control devices prior to
atmospheric discharge. Process fugitive
emissions occur intermittently during
furnace charging, slag tapping, lead
tapping, and refining. They are collected
by hoods and directed to a control
device prior to atmospheric discharge.
   The area fugitive sources can include
the battery storage area, the battery
breaking yard, the charge make-up area,
the slag storage area, smelter access
roads, and furnace building fugitives. A
study at one smelter showed that the
largest area fugitive contributors to lead
emissions were the charge make-up area
(32 percent), the battery breaking yard
(21 percent), and the slag storage area
(19 percent). Of the area fugitive
sources, the charge make-up area and
the slag storage area are expected to be
significant sources of arsenic emissions.
The prime contributor to fugitive
emissions in the battery breaking yard is
the lead oxide battery paste which does
not contain arsenic. Flue dust handling
 in the charge make-up area is of
 particular concern because of the
 relatively high arsenic content and small
 particle size of the flue dust at
 secondary lead smelters. However, this
 source is well controlled at most
 smelters.
   As a result of complying with the
 applicable SIP's and NSPS for
particulate emissions, secondary lead
smelters have applied fabric filters to
control particulate emissions from
smelting furnaces. The average of the
operating temperature data available for
fabric filters used on secondary lead
smelting furnaces is 80° C (176° F). Fabric
filters provide good control of arsenic in
particulate form; and because the fabric
filters used at most secondary lead
smelters are operated at relatively low
temperatures, it is believed that some of
the vapor-phase arsenic is condensed
and captured as well. Several plants
have installed a scrubber after the fabric
filter to comply with State and/or local
SOj emission regulations. It is estimated
that arsenic  emissions from a scrubber/
fabric filter combination may be about
60 percent less than arsenic emissions
from a fabric filter alone. (As described
later, this estimate is based on very
limited data and is uncertain.)
  The OSHA workplace standard for
lead has resulted in good control of
process fugitive sources at secondary
lead smelters. Furnace charging, slag
tapping, and lead tapping are controlled
at most smelters by a combination of
hoods and enclosures coupled with low-
temperature (<37'C) fabric filters.
  The OSHA lead standard also directly
affects the control of some of the area
fugitive sources, in particualr the flue
dust handling practices in the charge
make-up area. A recent telephone
survey and visits fo five secondary lead
smelters showed that the majority of
smelters have improved their fuel dust
handling practices in an attempt to meet
the OSHA lead standard. Thus, as
mentioned earlier, the area fugitive
source with the highest potential for
arsenic emissions, flue dust handling, is
well controlled at the majority of
smelters.The most prevalent control
technique used is direct recycle of flue
dust to the furnace via screw conveyors.
A survey of the lead SIP's that are
currently being developed to achieve
compliance with the National Ambient
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for lead
indicated that additional area fugitive
emission controls will be required for at
least nine secondary lead smelters that
have caused lead NAAQS exceedences.
   There very little actual arsenic
emissions data available for secondary
lead smelters. However, particulate and
lead emissions from furnaces at
secondary lead smelters have been well
characterized, and several studies of
combustion sources have shown that
lead and arsenic behave in a similar
manner when exposed to high
 temperatures. Because of the parallels,
 arsenic emissions have been estimated
 from measured process and fugitive lead
emissions at a secondary lead smelter in
conjunction with lead-to-arsenic ratios
measured in dustfall near secondary
lead smelters. The available flue dust
arsenic content data from different
smelters range from 0.04 to 1.1 percent
by weight arsenic, indicating the
potential for a wide range of arsenic
emissions from plants in the source
category. In the following discussion.
arsenic emission ranges are shown for
individual plants. The ranges shown for
individual plants reflect the variability
in lead-to-arsenic ratios observed at
different smelters. The estimated
nationwide emissions and the estimated
annual cancer incidence, however, are
based on the mid-point of the estimated
emission ranges in order to reflect the
industry as a whole. Since most of the
flue dust arsenic content data available
are clustered at the low end of the range
of data, use of the midpoint is a
conservative approach. The estimated
maximum lifetime risk is based upon the
maximum emissions estimated for
individual plants because this risk
parameter reflects the worst case
ambient concentration situation.
  The estimated baseline nationwide
arsenic emissions from process sources
at secondary lead smelters is 15.0 Mg/
yr.  Estimated individual plant arsenic
emissions from process sources
controlled by fabric filters range from
0.016 to 0.33 Mg/yr for a small plant and
from 0.065 to 1.3 Mg/yr for a large plant,
depending on the lead content and the
lead-to-arsenic ration of the particulate
emissions. Based on these emissions
estimates, the aggregate risks associated
with process sources at secondary lead
smelters are  estimated as ranging from
0.08 to 1.3 cancer incidences per year,
and the estimated maximum lifetime
risk calculated ranges from 0.3 in 10,000
to 5 in 10,000.
  The estimated baseline nationwide
arsenic emissions from process fugitive
sources at secondary lead smelters is
12.3 Mg/yr. Estimated individual plant
arsenic emissions from process fugitive
sources controlled by fabric filters range
from 0.012 to 0.24 Mg/yr for a small
plant and from 0.048 to 0.96 for a large
plant, depending on the lead content
and the lead-to-arsenic ratio of the
particulate emissions. Based on these
emissions estimates, aggregate risks
associated with process fugitive sources
at  secondary lead smelters are estimate
to  range from 0.07 to 1.3 lung cancer
incidences annually, and the estimated
maximum lifetime risk calculated ranges
from 0.4 in 10,000 to 6.5 in 10,000.
   The estimated baseline nationwide
 arsenic emissions from area fugitive
 sources at secondary lead smelters  is
                                                    V-N,0,P-10
-------
               Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.  140 / Wednesday. July 20.  1983 / Proposed Rules
27.9 Mg/yr. This estimate was obtained
by applying a fixed lead-to-arsenic ratio
to each component of a set of measured
area fugitive ,ead emissions data from
one secondary lead plant. However, it is
expected thai the lead-to-arsenic ratio is
no! the same for each of the component
area fugitive sources and that the
estimate is likely to overstate the
magnitude of area fugitive arsenic
emissions from secondary lead smelters.
Estimated individual plant arsenic
emissions from area fugitive sources
range from 0.028 to 0.56 Mg/yr for a
small plant and from 0.11 to 2.2 Mg/yr
for a large plant. Based on these
emissions estimates, the aggregate risks
associated with area fugitive sources at
secondary lead smelters are estimated
to range from 0.2 to 3.3 lung cancer
incidences annually, and the estimated
maximum lifetime risk calculated ranges
from 2 in 10,000 to 32 in 10,000.
  Nationwide, the total baseline
estimated arsenic emissions from
process, process fugitive, and area
fugitive sources are 55 Mg per year. The
estimate maximum lifetime risk ranges
from 2.1 in 10,000 to 34 in 10,000. This
range is calculated using the maximum
ambient arsenic concentration predicted
by dispersion modeling results for each
of 40 secondary lead smelters known to
be operating. The estimate of arsenic
emissions used in the model for this
calculation corresponds to the high end
of the individual plant ranges given
above for process, process fugitive, and
area fugitive sources. Daily  ambient
arsenic monitoring has been conducted
for 3 years at five sites located around
the plant that has-the highest flue dust
arsenic content identified a! any
secondary lead smelter. The measured
average arsenic concentrations are a
factor of 2 lower than the modeled
arsenic concentration for this plant
when tiie high-end arsenic emission
estimates are input to the model. Based
on the dispersion modeling results for
each of the 40 secondary lead smelters
known to be operating, the estimated
annual cancer incidence from all
emissions sources ranges from 0.4 to 5.7.
The arsenic emissions estimates input to
the model for this calculation
cnriL-ipond to the midpoint of the
individual plant emissions rangps for
process, process fugitive, and £.re;i
fugitive sources.
  Trie control strategy considered for
reducing process arsenic emissions from
sec(jrrl.:ry lead smelters consists of a
c jmb'nrtu.r. system of a fabric filter
followed b\ a scrubber to control
fumare emissions. Under the existing
OSHA standard for lead, sources of
process fugitive emissions are already
well controlled. The area fugitive source
that is believed to be of most concern
(flue dust handling) is well controlled at
most plants, and no other significant
area fugitive sources that are not
controlled with BAT have been
identified. This leaves the addition of
scrubbers to existing fabric filter
systems for the control of process
emissions as the only viable control
strategy.
  The fabric filter/wet scrubber
combination is a demonstrated
technology in the secondary lead
smelting industry. However, retrofitting
existing smelters with scrubbers may be
difficult because of space limitations.
and may cost more than installation at a
new facility. Use of a scrubber would
also result in wastewater treatment and
solid vaste disposal problems.
  Actual measurements of the inorganic
arsenic emissions reduction efficiency of
scrubbers have not been made. The
arsenic emission reduction estimates
used in this analysis are based on lead
emissions reduction data and are
uncertain. By adding a scrubber to
control furnace emissions, estimated
nationwide arsenic emissions from
process sources would be reduced from
15.0 Mg/yr to about 6.8 Mg/yr, resulting
in a cost effectiveness range of $600,000
to $12 million per Mg of arsenic.
Estimates show that the maximum
lifetime risk associated with process
sources of arsenic emissions  at
secondary lead smelters would be
reduced by about 65 percent relative to
the current levels (from a range of 0.3 in
10,000 to 5 in 10,000 to a range of 0.11 in
10,000 to 1.76 in 10,000). However, the
maximum lifetime risk associated with
all sources of arsenic emissions at
secondary lead smelters would be
rfiduu;d by less than 1 percent. The
reason for this is that the fugitive
emissions, which are released a! or near
ground level, have the greatest effect on
exposure. The estimated annual cancer
incidence for process sources would
decline by about 60 percent, but the
estimated annual incidence for
secondary lead smelters as a whole
would decline by only about  14 percent
(from  a range of 0.4 to 5.7 per year to a
range of 0.31 to 4.9 per year)
  Nationwide capital and annuahzed
costs  associated with the use of wet
scrubbers at all secondary lead smelters
would be about $21.6 million and $13.4
million, respectively. A preliminary
economic  analysis indicates that  these
costs  would have severe economic
impacts on an already severely
depressed industry. The control costs
would result in  a 3.5 percent increase in
the price of lead if the control costs can
be passed on to the lead consumer. It is
more likely, however, that the control
costs will not be passed forward in lefid
prices because of competition from
primarj lead smelters for the same
market. Instead, secondary lead
smelters would attempt to pass costs
backward to lead scrap dealers.
Because domestic smelters are in
competition with foreign smelters for
purchasing lead scrap, it is expected
that passing costs back to lead scrap
dealers would  increase the rate of
export of lead scrap and possibly force
the closure of at least seven of the
smaller smelters. In addition, the
economic analysis indicates that several
smelters would have difficulty financing
the required capital.
  EPA is not proposing standards under
Section 112 for inorganic arsenic
emissions from secondary lead smelters
because, based on the information
available, EPA has determined that the
existing level of control represents BAT,
and the Agency cannot, from the data
available, reasonably conclude that the
risks remaining after application of BAT
are unreasonable, considering the
uncertainty in the available data, and
the negative economic impacts that
would result from additional control.
The Agency plans to continue its efforts,
begun before the Court order was
received, to obtain additional data on
arsenic emission rates and control
system performance for both fugitive
and process sources by conducting tests
at several secondary lead smelting
facilities. The data will not be available
until after this  notice is published. When
the data have been collected and
evaluated, the  information will be  added
to the docket relevant to this notice and
will be available for public review.

Requests for Comments

  EPA requests comments on its
proposed decisions not to issue
standards for inorganic arsenic
emissions from the categories of sources
just described. These decisions will be
reconsidered if additional information
indicates that reductions of public
health risks are significantly greater,
costs are significantly  lower, or controls
are more available tiian those on which
EPA based its der.:bion.

Source Categories for Which Standards
Are Proposed

Summary of Proposed Standards

  National emisMon standards for
hazardous air pollutants are proposed
for low-arsemc-throughput copper
smelters, high-arsenic-throughput copper
smelters, and glass manufacturing
                                                   V-N,O,P-II
-------
              Federal Register / Vol.  48. No. 140 / Wednesday. July 20.  1983 / Proposed  Rules
plants. Each owner or operator of an
existing source subject to any of these
standards would have to be in
compliance with the standard within 90
days of promulgation of the final
standard, unless a waiver of compliance
from the Administrator is obtained. A
waiver of compliance for a period not
exceeding 2 years can be obtained. Each
owner or operator of a source for which
construction or modificaiton commences
after the date of publication of the
proposed standard would have to
operate the source in compliance after
the date of promulgation of the final
standard. The proposed standards are
summarized in this section.
Low-Arsenic-Throughout Copper
Smelters
  The proposed standards for primary
copper smelters processing feed
material with an annual average
inorganic arsenic content less than 0.7
percent inorganic arsenic would require
control of secondary emissions from
converter operations and from smelting
furnace matte and slag tapping
operations. The proposed standards for
converter secondary emissions would
apply to smelters with an average
annual inorganic arsenic feed rate to  the
converters of 6.5 kilograms per hour or
greater. The standards for matte and
slag tapping operations would apply to
smelters with an annual average
combined inorganic arsenic process rate
in the matte and slag of 40 kilograms  per
hour or greater.
   For the capture of secondary
emissions from converter operations  the
proposed standards would require the
installation of a secondary hood system
consisting of  a fixed enclosure with a
horizontal air curtain on the converters.
For the collection of secondary
emissions from matte and slag tapping
and converter operations the proposed
standards would limit particulate
emissions from the collection device  to
11.8 milligrams of particulate matter per
dry standard cubic meter of exhaust  air.
   Compliance with the proposed
particulate emission limit would be
determined by measuring the total
particulate matter emissions using EPA
Reference Method 5. Continuous opacity
monitoring of gases exhausted from a
particular control device would be
required to ensure the control device is
being properly operated and maintained.
Continuous monitoring of airflow, and
inspection and maintenance procedures
would be required to ensure the
secondary hood system is being
properly operated and maintained. The
reporting requirements for the proposed
standards consist of semiannual
reporting of occurrences of excess
opacity and occurrences of airflows
lower than a reference performance
level, and annual reporting of the annual
average arsenic content of the smelter
feed material, the annual arsenic feed
rate to  the converters, and the annual
arsenic process  rate in the matte and
slag.
High-Arsenic-Throughput Copper
Smelters
  The proposed standards for primary
copper smelters that process feed
material with an annual average
inorganic arsenic content of 0.7 percent
or more would require control of
secondary emissions from converting
operations. The proposed standards are
expressed in terms of an equipment
specification for the capture system and
a maximum allowable particulate
emission limit for the collection device.
The required equipment would consist
uf a fixed enclosure with a horizontal air
curtain. Particulate emissions from the
collection device would not be permitted
to exceed 11.6 milligrams per dry cubic
meter of  exhaust gas.
   Compliance with the proposed
emission limit would be determined
using EPA Reference Method 5.
Continuous monitoring of the opacity of
the exhaust from the particulate
collection device would be required. To
ensure the proper operation of the
capture system, continuous monitoring
of the airflow, and inspection and
maintenance procedures would be
required. The reporting requirements of
the proposed standards consist of
semiannual reporting of occurrences of
excess opacity and occurrences of
airflows  lower than a reference
performance level, and annual reporting
of the annual average arsenic content of
the feed material.

Glass Manufacturing Plants

  The proposed standards for glass
manufacturing plants would require
either (1) control of inorganic arsenic
emissions from each glass melting
furnace to the level achievable by an
electrostatic precipitator (ESP) or fabric
filter, or (2) that uncontrolled (i.e.,
preceding an add-on control device)
inorganic arsenic emissions be
maintained at 0.40 Mg/yr or less.  Each
owner or operator choosing to comply
with the proposed standards by
reducing inorganic arsenic emissions to
levels achievable by an ESP or fabric
filter would be required to meet a
particulate  matter emission limit.  The
particulate  emission limits would vary
according to different categories of
glass. (The  particulate emission limits
are listed in Table IV-1 of Part IV of this
preamble.)
  EPA Reference Method 5 would be
used to determine compliance with the
particulate emission limits. The opacity
of the exhaust from the collection device
would be required to be monitored
continuously. EPA Reference Method
108 would be used to demonstrate that
uncontrolled emissions of inorganic
arsenic are 0.40 Mg/yr or less. The
reporting requirements of the proposed
standards would consist of semiannual
reporting of occurrences of excess
opacity.

Summary of Environmental, Health,
Energy, and Economic Impacts

  The nationwide impacts of the
proposed standards for inorganic
arsenic emissions from low-aresenic-
throughput copper smelters, high-
arsenic-throughput copper smelters, and
glass manufacturing plants are
summarized in Table 1-1. There are no
wastewater impacts associated with
any of the proposed standards. The
impacts of the proposed standards for
each of these source categories are
presented in detail in Parts II, III, and
IV.
                                  TABLE l-l.—SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF PROPOSED STANDARDS

Environmental Impacts
Arsenic emissions, mg/yr 	
Solid waste, mg/yr 	
Health Impacts '
Cancar nodanea of year 	
Low-araanc copper smelters
NoNESHAP

738 	
3.200.000 	 	 	
43 (o ggo
oto to va 	 	
NESHAP

827 	
3,211,000 	
9.4 to ISO 	
0 04 to 0 64
High-a/serae copper smelters
No NESHAP

282 	
182,000 	
230 to 3.600 	 	 	
1.1 to 174 	
NESHAP

172 	
183,000 	
S» to 920 	
0.21 to 3.4 	
Glass manufacturing plants
No NESHAP

36 7 	
20 	
6.4 to 100 	
0.07 to 1.2 	
NESHAP

4.7.
87.
0.97 to 15.8.
0.01 to 0.21.
                                                  V-N.O.P-12
-------
               Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 140 / Wednesday.  July  20. 1983 / Proposed  Rules

                             TABLE l-l.—SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF PROPOSED STANDARDS—Continued

Cost/Economic Impacts
Incremental capital costs, millions of dol-
lars
Incremental annua'ized costs, millions ol
dollars
Incremental energy impacts. MW-hr/yr ..
Low-arsenic copper smelters
No NESHAP I NESHAP



353 	
95
0 1 to 44
+ 25000 	

High-arsenic copper smelters
No NESHAP





NESHAP
35
1 S 	
05 to 06
+ 1.500 	

Glass manufacturing plants
No NESHAP





NESHAP
274.
49
0 04 to 3 1
+ 3,400
   'The ranges in these quantifications of public health impacts reflect the uncertainty of combining the three different dose-response relationships relevant to the three occupational studies
which EPA used as the basis for the development of unit risk estimates Other significant uncertainties associated with EPA'a quantification of public health impact are discussed in the Public
Health Risks section of this notice In addition, the modeled ambient air concentrations depend upon (,1) plant configurations, which differ and are difficult to determine for more than a few
plants. (2) emission pant charactenstica, which differ from plant to plant and are difficult to obtain for more than a few plants, and (3) emission rates, which differ among plants and with time
II. INORGANIC ARSENIC EMISSIONS
FROM PRIMARY COPPER SMELTERS
PROCESSING FEED MATERIALS
CONTAINING 0.7 PERCENT OR
GREATER ARSENIC

Proposed Standards
  The proposed standards would
regulate inorganic arsenic emissions
from primary copper smelters that
process feed material with an annual
average inorganic arsenic content of 0.7
weight percent or more. The proposed
standards would require the use of best
available technology (BAT) to limit
secondary inorganic arsenic emissions
from copper converting operations.
Secondary inorganic arsenic emissions
are emissions that escape capture from
the primary emission control system.
The BAT for the capture  of secondary
inorganic arsenic emissions from
converter charging, blowing, skimming,
holding, and pouring operations is a
secondary hood system consisting of a
fixed enclosure with a horizontal air
curtain. For collection of secondary
inorganic arsenic emissions, BAT is a
baghouse or equivalent control device.
The proposed standards  are expressed
in terms of equipment specifications for
the capture system and a maximum
allowable particulate emission limit for
the collection device. Particulate
emissions from the collection device
would not be permitted to exceed 11.6
milligrams of particulates per dry
standard cubic meter of exhaust gas
(mg/dscm). This limit reflects BAT for
collection of secondary inorganic
arsenic emissions.
  To determine the applicability of the
proposed standards to a  primary copper
smelter, the inorganic arsenic content of
the feed materials would be measured
using the proposed Reference Method
108A. To determine compliance with the
proposed particulate emission limit.
Reference Methods 1, 2, 3, and 5 in
Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 60 would be
used. Continuous opacity monitoring of
gases exhausted from a particulate
control device would be required to
ensure the control device is being
properly operated and maintained.
Continuous monitoring of airflow would
be required to ensure the secondary
hood system is being properly operated
and maintained.

Summary of Health, Environmental,
Energy, and Economic Impacts
  The proposed standards would affect
primary copper smelters that process
feed material having an annual average
inorganic arsenic content of 0.7 weight
percent or more. This category is
defined as high-arsenic-throughput
smelters. The only existing primary
copper smelter in the high-arsenic-
throughput smelter category is owned
and operated by ASARCO, Incorporated
(ASARCO) and located in Tacoma,
Washington. The annual average
inorganic arsenic content of the feed
material is not expected to be increased
to 0.7 percent or above at any other
existing smelter, and no new smelters
are projected to be built. For this reason
only the ASARCO smelter located in
Tacoma, Washington (hereafter referred
to as the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter),
has been analyzed for the purpose of
calculating the health, environmental,
economic, and energy impacts of the
proposed standards.
  As will be discussed in the next
section, to facilitate regulatory analysis
EPA has separated the primary copper
smelting industry into two source
categories based on the annual average
inorganic arsenic content of the smelter
feed material. Primary copper smelters
which process feed material with an
annual average inorganic arsenic
content less than 0.7 weight percent are
addressed in Part III of this preamble.
  The proposed standards would reduce
total inorganic arsenic emissions from
the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter from the
current level of 282 megagrams (Mg) (311
tons) per year to a level of 172 Mg (189 .
tons) per year. As a result of this
reduction in inorganic arsenic emissions,
it is estimated that the number of
incidences of lung cancer due to
inorganic arsenic exposure for the
approximately 370.000 people living
within about 20 kilometers (12.5 miles)
of the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter would
be reduced from a range of 1.1 to 17.6
incidences per year to a range of 0.2 to
3.4 incidences per year. The proposed
standards would reduce the estimated
maximum lifetime risk from exposure to
airborne inorganic arsenic from a range
of 2.3 to 37 in 100 to a range of 0.58 to 9.2
in 100. The maximum lifetime risk
represents the probability of a person
contracting cancer who has been
exposed continuously during a 70-year
period to the maximum annual inorganic
arsenic concentration due to inorganic
arsenic emissions from the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter. (These estimated
health impacts were calculated based
on a number of assumptions and contain
considerable uncertainty as discussed in
Part I of this preamble and in Appendix
E of the background information
document.)
  Application of the controls required
by the proposed standards would
increase the amount of solid waste (i.e.,
collected particulate matter containing
inorganic arsenic) entering the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter waste
disposal system by approximately 11
gigagrams (Gg) (12,000 tons) per year.
Currently, the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter
generates approximately 182 Cg (200,000
tons) per year of solid waste (including
slag). The additional amount of solid
waste generated can be handled by the
existing waste handling system at the
smelter. Because the control systems
expected to be used to achieve the
proposed standards are dry systems,
there would be no water pollution
impact.
  Energy impacts under the proposed
standards would be increased electrical
power consumption. The annual energy
requirement for the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter is approximately 2.9 X109
kilowatt-hours per year (kWh/y).
Additional energy requirements at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter due to the
proposed standards are estimated to be
approximately 1.5X107 kWh/y,
representing an increase in the annual
                                                  V-N.O.P-13
-------
              Federal Register / Vol. 48, No.  140 / Wednesday, July 20,  1983 / Proposed  Rules
smelter energy consumption of about 0.5
percent.
  For the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter,
capital and annualized costs required to
meet the proposed standards would be
approximately $3.5 million and S1.5
million, respectively. The primary
economic impacts associated with the
proposed standards are projected
decreases in profitability for the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter. It is
anticipated that the proposed standards
will not adversely affect the economic
viability of the smelter or employment at
the smelter. In addition, it is estimated
that the proposed standards could result
in an increase in the price of copper of
up to 0.8 percent.

Rationale

Selection of Source Category
  Copper smelting involves the
processing of copper-bearing ores
containing varying concentrations of
inorganic arsenic. EPA estimates that
current controlled emissions of
inorganic arsenic from primary copper
smelters are 1.012 megagrams (Mg)
(1.116 tons) per year.
  Several studies have assessed health
problems in communities where primary
copper smelters are located. Increased
lung cancer has been reported  among
male and female residents living near a
primary copper smelter located in
Anaconda, Montana (this smelter was
permanently closed in 1981). The
National Cancer Institute has released a
study showing excess mortality from
respiratory cancer in counties where
primary copper smelters are located.(Z4)
  EPA initiated a study in 1977 of the
populations exposed to various ambient
air concentrations of inorganic arsenic.
This study, in summarizing 1974 data
collected by EPA's National Air
Sampling Network (NASN), shows that
the annual average concentration of
inorganic  arsenic for five urban areas
within 80 kilometers of selected smelters
was 10 times greater than the annual
average for all of the sites (in excess of
250) in the nationwide network. At a site
within 16 kilometers of the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter, the annual average
was more than 25 times the nah'onal
average.
   Based on information provided by the
copper smelting industry, EPA has
determined that the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter processes feed containing a
higher concentration of inorganic
arsenic than any other primary copper
smelter in the United States. The
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter is a custom
smelter. ASARCO purchases ore
concentrates from other mining and
milling producers to process at its
Tacoma smelter. Typically, feed
material containing on the average 4.0
weight percent inorganic arsenic is
processed at the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter at the rate of 940 kilograms of
inorganic arsenic per hour (kg/h). The
level of inorganic arsenic concentration
in the feed materials processed at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter is an order of
magnitude greater than the level
processed at the other 14 primary copper
smelters. The second highest average
inorganic arsenic content in the feed
material processed at a domestic
smelter is 0.6 weight percent. The
second highest average process rate of
inorganic arsenic at a domestic smelter
is approximately 170 kg/h. In fact, the
inorganic arsenic process rate  for the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter is
significantly greater than the combined
inorganic arsenic process rate  of 625 kg/
h for the other 14 smelters.
  Because of the potential for high
inorganic arsenic emissions and the
proximity of the population, calculated
risks and cancer incidence are
substantially higher for the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter than for other smelters.
Consequently, the benefits associated
with the application of specific control
technologies to  the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter versus the other  smelters are
significantly different when considered
in terms of emission and risk reduction.
costs, energy, and other impacts. For
this reason, EPA believes it is
reasonable for purposes  of regulation to
separate smelters into two source
categories based on the annual average
inorganic arsenic concentration in the
feed.
  The source category for high-arsenic-
throughput smelters is primary copper
smelters processing feed with  an  annual
average inorganic arsenic content of 0.7
percent or more. The value 0.7 percent
was selected based on the consideration
of the inorganic arsenic content of the
feed materials processed at the existing
smelters other than the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter. The regulatory analysis
of the 14 existing smelters which
process feed material with an  annual
average inorganic arsenic content less
than 0.7 weight percent is presented in
Part III of this preamble.
  EPA has, as a matter of prudent health
policy, taken the position that human
carcinogens must be treated as posing
some risk of cancer at any non-zone
level of exposure. Therefore, in
conjunction with the Administrator's
determination that (1) there is a high
probability that inorganic arsenic is
carcinogenic to humans, and (2) that
there is significant public exposure to
inorganic arsenic emissions from the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter, the
Administrator has determined that
inorganic arsenic emissions from high-
arsenic-throughput smelters are
significant and should be regulated.
  In making the decision to regulate
high-arsenic-throughput smelters, the
Administrator considered whether other
regulations affecting high-arsenic-
throughput smelters were adequate to
control atmospheric inorganic arsenic
emissions. The Administrator has
concluded that existing regulations are
not adequate to protect the public health
and welfare from sources of inorganic
arsenic emissions at high-arsenic-
throughput smelters with an ample
margin of safety. Based on an analysis
of the costs and impacts of more
stringent alternatives, it is the
Administrator's judgment that a
substantial reduction in inorganic
arsenic emissions to the atmosphere
from the current level is achievable and
appropriate. Therefore, EPA has decided
to proceed with the development of
standards to control inorganic arsenic
emissions from  high-arsenic-throughput
smelters under Section 112 of the Clean
Air Act.
  EPA expects that only the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter would b'e in  the high-
arsenic-throughput smelter source
category. Should any other existing
smelter process feed  materials having
an annual average inorganic  arsenic
feed content above 0.7 weight percent,
the smelter would become subject to the
proposed standards. In addition, the
proposed standards  would also apply to
any new smelter processing feed
materials  with an annual average
inorganic  arse.nic concentration of 0.7
weight percent or more.
  Other than the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter, no existing smelter is expected
to process feed materials having an
annual average inorganic arsenic feed
content above 0.7 weight percent within
the next 5 years. Also, it is projected
that no new domestic primary copper
smelters will be built within  the next 5
years. This projection is based on EPA's
conclusion that annual industry growth
will be accommodated by existing
smelters, which are presently not
operating or are operating below
capacity.

Description of Smelting Process and
Emission  Points
  A primary copper smelter  is a facility
that produces copper from copper
sulfide ore concentrates using
pyrometallurgical techniques. These
techniques are based on copper's strong
affinity for sulfur and its weak affinity
for oxygen as compared to that of iron
and other base metals in the ore. The
                                                  V-N,0,P-14
-------
               Federal Register / Vol.  48. No. 140 / Wednesday. July 20.  1983 / Proposed  Rules
purpose of smelting is to separate the
copper from the iron, sulfur, and other
impurities present in the ore
concentrate.
  Primary copper smelting involves
three basic  steps. First, the copper
sulfide ore concentrates are heated in a
roaster to remove a portion of the sulfur
contained in the concentrate. The solid
material produced by a roaster is  called
"calcine." The calcine is loaded into
small rail cars (called "larry cars"). This
operation is called "calcine
discharging."
  The larry cars  transfer the calcine to a
smelting furnace. At most smelters, raw
copper sulfide ore concentrate is
charged directly to the smelting furnace.
In the smelting furnace, the calcine or
raw, unroasted ore concentrate  is
heated to form a molten bath containing
separate layers of matte (an impure
mixture of copper and iron sulfide) and
slag (a mixture of nonmetallic
impurities). Molten slag is skimmed from
the upper layer of the bath and poured
from openings in the furnace walls
(called "ports") into  inclined troughs
(called "launders"), which empty  the
slag into a vessel mounted on a  small
rail car (called a  "slag pot"). This
operation is called "slag tapping."
Molten matte is poured from a second
set  of furnace ports into launders, which
empty the matte into ladles. This
operation is called "matte tapping."
  The ladle is transported by an
overhead crane to a  copper converter.
The molten matte is  poured from the
ladle into a large opening on the top of
the converter vessel. Air is blown into
the converter to first oxidize the iron
sulfide in the matte. The resulting iron
silicate slag is poured directly from the
converter mouth into a ladle. When all
of the iron is oxidized and removed, the
remaining copper sulfide is oxidized to
form a high-purity copper product
(called "blister copper"). The blister
copper is poured directly from the
converter into a ladle for transfer  to an
anode furnace (for further refining of  the
copper) or directly to the anode casting
area (for casting of the copper into
copper anodes).
  Roaster and smelting furnace offgases
are produced by  the  combustion of fuel
and the reaction  of materials in  the high-
temperature environments. Converter
offgases result from blowing air through
the matte and the reaction of materials
in the molten matte.  Inorganic arsenic in
the ore concentrates is volatized during
roasting, smelting, and converting, and
is exhausted from the process
equipment in the offgases. Offgases
discharged  from roasters, smelting
furnaces, and converters, in the absence
of any controls, would have the highest
inorganic arsenic emissions of any of
the copper smelting sources at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter. An inorganic
arsenic material balance was provided
by ASARCO and reviewed by EPA to
inventory the inorganic arsenic inputs
versus outputs from each process at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter. The material
balance shows that the inorganic
arsenic emission rates in the absence of
any controls would be 255 kg/h for the
roasters. 608 kg/h for the smelting
furnace, and 207 kg/h for the converters.
  During converting, most of the
remaining amount of inorganic arsenic
and other impurities originally in the
copper ore are removed from the copper
matte to produce blister copper (98 to 99
percent pure copper). Blister copper
from the converters may be further
refined in anode furnaces prior to
casting of copper anodes (solid slabs of
blister copper). Because of the small
quantity of inorganic arsenic remaining
in the blister copper charged to the
anode furnace, inorganic arsenic
emissions from anode furnaces are very
low when compared to the inorganic
arsenic emissions from roasters,
smelting furnaces, or converters. The
material balance for teh ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter shows that inorganic
arsenic emissions from anode furnaces
in the absence of any controls would be
0.4 kg/h.
  The ASARCO-Tacoma smelter is the
only primary copper smelter that
recovers arsenic from collected waste
materials. Dust collected in the flues and
control devices at the smelter is
processed to produce arsenic trioxide
for sale to arsenic chemical
manufacturing companies. In addition.
metallic arsenic is produced at the
smelter site. The material balance
shows that inorganic arsenic emissions
from the arsenic trioxide and metallic
arsenic manufacturing processes in the
absence of any controls would be 376
kg/h.
  Secondary inorganic arsenic
emissions from converters are those
emissions that escape capture from the
primary emission control system. When
the converter is rolled out for charging
matte into the converter  mouth,
skimming slag formed in the converter,
or pouring blister copper into a ladle, the
primary hood is moved up and away
from the converter mouth to provide
clearance for the overhead crane and
ladle. As a result, charging, skimming.
and pouring operations can emit
significant amounts of secondary
inorganic arsenic because these
operations occur outside the range of the
converter's primary offgas exhaust
hood. Additional secondary inorganic
arsenic emissions also escape capture
by the primary offgas exhaust hood
during blowing and holding operations.
For the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter, the
material balance shows that the
secondary inorganic arsenic emissions
rate from converter operations in the
absence of any controls would be 14 kg/
h.
  Secondary inorganic arsenic
emissions also escape to the atmosphere
during calcine discharging at the roaster
and during matte tapping and slag
tapping at the smelting furnace. An
estimate based on the material balance
for the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter shows
that inorganic arsenic emissions from
matte tapping in the absence of any
controls would be 4 kg/h. Inorganic
arsenic emissions from calcine
discharging and slag tapping are
estimated to be less than 1  kg/h.
Secondary inorganic arsenic emissions
from anode furnace operations are less
than 0.1 kg/h. Miscellaneous sources of
secondary inorganic emissions from
primary copper smelter operations
include the handling and transfer of dust
from control device storage hoppers,
equipment flues, and dust chambers. At
the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter these
activities are conducted at  many
locations throughout the plant. Although
the amount of inorganic arsenic
emissions at each location  is very small,
the cumulative total of emissions from
many locations can be a significant
quantity. The material balance for the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter  shows that
secondary inorganic arsenic emissions
from miscellaneous sources would be
about 6 kg/h in the absense of any
controls.

Policy for Determining Control Levels

  For this source category,  which
consists of only the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter, a three-step approach has been
followed to determine the control
requirements being proposed. This
approach is based on the policy
discussed in Part I of this preamble.
  The first step consists of determining
whether current controls at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter  reflect
application of BAT. BAT is the
technology which, in the judgment of
EPA, is the most advanced  level of
control which is adequately
demonstrated considering
environmental, energy, and economic
impacts. BAT considers economic
feasibility: and, for this smelter, BAT
does not exceed the most advanced
level of control that the smelter cculd
afford without closing.
  For those emission points where BAT
is in place. EPA determines whether a
NESHAP standard is needed to assure
                                                V-N,0,P-15
-------
               Federal Register  /  Vol. 48,  No. 140  /  Wednesday. July 20. 1963  /  Proposed Rules
that BAT will remain in place and will
be properly operated and maintained. A
primary consideration is the existence of
other Federally enforceable standards. If
BAT is not in place on specific emission
points or if there is reason to expect that
BAT may not remain in operation, these
emission points are identified for
development of standards.
  The second step involves the selection
of BAT for the emission points at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter identified for
the development of standards. To select
BAT, regulatory alternatives are defined
based on demonstrated control
technology. The environmental,
economic, and energy impacts of the
alternatives are determined. Based on
an assessment of these impacts, one of
the alternatives is selected as BAT.
   The third step involves consideration
of regulatory alternatives beyond BAT
for all of the inorganic arsenic emission
points  at the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter.
The risk of cancer incidence due to
inorganic arsenic  exposure in the
population distributed around the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter is estimated.
This estimated risk which remains after
application of BAT is evaluated
considering costs, economic impacts,
risk reduction, and other impacts that
would result if a more stringent
alternative were selected.  If the residual
risk is  judged not to be unreasonable
considering the other impacts or beyond
BAT controls, more stringent controls
than BAT are not required. However, if
the residual risk is judged  to be
unreasonable, then an alternative more
stringent than BAT would be required.

Determination of the Adequacy of
 Current Controls
   Inorganic arsenic emission sources at
 the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter are
 currently controlled using a variety of
 capture and collection techniques.
 Capture techniques are used to gather
 and confine secondary inorganic arsenic
 emissions and to transport them to a
 collection device. Collection techniques
 are used to remove inorganic arsenic
 from process offgases and captured
 gases prior to venting the gases to the
 atmosphere. Each inorganic arsenic
 emission source at the ASARCO-
 Tacoma smelter was examined by EPA
 to determine the  extent to which
 inorganic arsenic emissions are
 currently controlled and whether the
 level of control represents BAT.
   Controls currently in place at the
 ASARCO-Tacoma smelter collect
 inorganic arsenic emissions in the
 roaster, smelting furnace, converter, and
 anode furnace process offgases. During
 these process operations, inorganic
 arsenic is volatilized and emitted as a
metallic oxide vapor in the process
offgases. By cooling the process
offgases, the inorganic arsenic vapor
condenses to form inorganic arsenic
particulates, which can be collected in a
conventional particulate control device.
Because of the high-inorganic-arsenic
content of the feed materials process at
the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter,  the
concentration of inorganic arsenic in the
process offgases greatly exceeds the
inorganic arsenic saturation
concentration at gas temperatures less
than 121° C (250T). Consequently, for
process offgases cooled to temperatures
below 121° C, inorganic arsenic emission
control levels can be achieved  that
approach the performamce capability of
a control device for collecting total
particulate matter.
  Roaster process offgases at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter are  cooled to
a temperature less than 121° C  and the
inorganic arsenic particulates are
collected in a baghouse. The smelting
furnace process offgases are cooled to a
temperature of 92° C, and the inorganic
arsenic particulates are collected in an
electrostatic precipitator. Converter
process offgases are exhausted to a
liquid SOt plant or a single-contact
sulfuric acid plant. Because the presence
of solid and gaseous contaminants can
cause serious difficulties in the
operatioij of the SOa or acid plants, the
converter process offgases are first
cleaned by passing the gases through a
water spray chamber, an electrostatic
precipitator, scrubbers, and mist
precipitators. This gas cleaning process
removes over 99 percent of the
contaminants, including inorganic
arsenic, from the offgases prior to
entering the SOt or acid plants. In the
 event that the volume of converter
 process offgases exceeds the capacity of
 the SOt and acid plants or when the
 plants are not operating, the excess
 converter offgases are diverted to an
 electrostatic precipitator. This
 electrostatic precipitator also  serves as
 the full-time control device for the anode
 furnace process offgases. Cooling of the
 gases in the ducting lowers the gas
 temperature to less than 120* C prior to
 entering the electrostatic precipitator.
   Controls for inorganic arsenic
 emissions from roaster, smelting
 furnace, converter, and anode furance
 process offgases are in place at the
 ASARCO-Tacoma smelter in order to
 comply with existing total particulate
 emission regulations of the Puget Sound
 Air Pollution Control Agency  (PSAPCA).
 These regulations are expressed in
 terms of very stringent process weight
 particulate emission limits. The
 PSAPCA regulations are included as
 part of the Washington State
implementation plan (SIP) for attaining
the Federal ambient air quality standard
for particulate matter and, therefore, are
Federally enforceable regulations.
  Roaster, smelting furnace, converter,
and anode furnace process offgases are
potentially significant sources of
inorganic arsenic emissions. Because of
the high inorganic arsenic vapor
concentrations in the process offgases at
a high-arsenic-throughput smelter,
cooling of the offgases to below 121° C
results in condensation of the vapor to
form particulates. Thus, collection of the
inorganic arsenic particulates in
properly designed and operated
particulate control devices can
effectively control the emission to the
atmosphere of inorganic arsenic in the
process offgases. The types of control
systems currently used at the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter to collect inorganic
arsenic from process offgases achieve
inorganic arsenic collection efficiencies
greater than 96 percent.
   The control systems in place at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter to control
roaster, smelting furnace, converter, and
anode furnace process  offgas inorganic
arsenic emissions represent the best
demonstrated level of control
considering economic feasibility.
Therefore, the roaster, smelting furnace,
converter, and anode furnace process
offgases are already controlled using
BAT. Existing Federally enforceable
regulations require the controls to
remain in place and to be properly
operated and maintained to  reduce total
particulate matter emissions. These
regulations serve to assure that BAT for
inorganic arsenic will remain in place.
Therefore, additional standards based
on BAT are not necessary at this time
 for smelter roaster, smelting furnace,
 converter, or anode furnace  process
 offgases.
   Existing controls in place  at the
 ASARCO-Tacoma smelter significantly
 reduce the quantity of inorganic arsenic
 emissions from the arsenic trioxide and
 metallic arsenic manufacturing
 processes. Arsenic laden offgases from
 the Godfrey roasters pass through the
 arsenic kitchens where arsenic trioxide
 condenses on the walls of the chambers
 and is collected as a product. Gases
 passing through the kitchens are vented
 to a baghouse. The temperature of the
 gases at the inlet to the baghouse is less
 than 121° C. Offgases from the metallic
 arsenic furnaces are also vented to the
 same baghouse. Inorganic arsenic
 emission points at conveyors, charge
 hoppers, storage bunkers, and the
 barreling and carloading stations are
 controlled by capturing the  emissions
 using local hoods and venting the
                                                   V-N.O.P-16
-------
              federal Register / Vol. 48, No.  140 / Wednesday.  July 20. 1983 / Proposed Rules
emissions to several small baghouses.
These controls are in place at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter to comply
with PSAPCA arsenic and participate
regulations and with the U.S.
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) inorganic
arsenic worker exposure standard.
  The composition of the total
particulate matter emissions from the
arsenic manufacturing processes at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter is inorganic
arsenic particulates. All inorganic
arsenic emission points are controlled
by collecting the  particulate emissions
using baghouses. The major process
offgas streams are combined and vented
to a new baghouse installed in 1982. The
baghouse design  represents the most
advanced level of particulate matter
collection technology demonstrated to
date. Additional  reduction inorganic
arsenic emissions is not possible using
available control technology. Therefore,
EPA considers the controls at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter arsenic
manufacturing plant to be BAT. Since
these controls are required by Federally
enforceable regulations, EPA is not
developing additional BAT standards
for arsenic manufacturing processes at
this time.
  The major source of secondary
arsenic emissions at the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter is the converter
operations. ASARCO has recently
installed a prototype control system on
one of the three converters used at the
smelter for copper converting
operations. (A fourth converter is used
as a holding furnace only.) A secondary
hood system consisting of a fixed
enclosure with a  horizontal air curtain is
used to capture the secondary inorganic
arsenic emissions. The captured
emissions are vented to an electrostatic
precipitator (designated by ASARCO as
the  No. 2 ESP). The company is planning
to install similar  secondary hood
systems on the other two converters and
to vent the captured emissions to the
No. 2 ESP. However, regulations do not
exist that would specifically require the
use of BAT to limit secondary inorganic
arsenic emissions from converter
operations. Because of the potential for
converter operations to emit large
quantities of secondary inorganic
arsenic, and because of the
demonstrated availability of controls for
these emissions EPA decided to develop
standards based, as a minimum, on BAT
for secondary inorganic arsenic
emissions from converter operations.
  Smelting furnace secondary inorganic
arsenic emissions from matte tapping
and slag tapping  are captured and
collected at the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter. Copper matte or slag flows from
ports in the furnace walls through a
launder which directs the molten
material to a point where it is
transferred to a ladle or slag pot. At the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter, the matte
tapping launders are enclosed by
semicircular covers. Slag tapping
launders are covered by fixed hoods
mounted above the troughs. Local
exhaust hoods are mounted about \
meter (3 feet) above each tap port. At
each launder-to-ladle transfer point for
matte tapping, a retractable exhaust
hood is used to capture emissions
generated at the ladle.  An overhead
crane places the ladle on the floor in
front of the launder. The hood is then
lowered over the ladle prior to tapping
and is raised after the tap is complete.
The overhead crane returns and picks
up the ladle of molten matte for transfer
to the converters. At each launder-to-
slag pot transfer point for slag tapping,
large fixed exhaust hoods are mounted
above the slag pot transfer point. The
captured secondary emissions from
matte tapping and slag tapping are
vented to the No. 2 ESP.
  At the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter, all
emission points from smelting furnace
matte tapping or slag tapping are
enclosed or are  covered by local
exhaust hoods. In EPA's judgment, this
capture system, if properly operated and
maintained, represents BAT for capture
of secondary emissions from smelting
furnace matte tapping and slag tapping
because no other demonstrated
technology can achieve a higher level of
capture efficiency. The capture system
is in place to fulfill a tripartite
agreement between ASARCO, OSHA.
and the United Steelworkers of America
(union representing workers at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter). The
agreement specifies the engineering
controls and work practices to be
implemented at the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter for achieving compliance with
the Federal OSHA inorganic arsenic
worker exposure standard and,
therefore,  is Federally enforceable.
Although not specified in the agreement,
the captured secondary inorganic
arsenic emissions are vented  to an
electrostatic precipitator for collection.
The level of performance of this control
device is equivalent to the level of
performance of BAT for collection of
process inorganic arsenic emissions.
EPA has no reason to believe that
ASARCO will not continue to properly
operate and maintain the electrostatic
precipitator; therefore,  EPA concluded
that BAT is in place at  the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter for capture and
collection  of secondary inorganic
arsenic emissions from smelting furnace
matte tapping and slag tapping.
  Roaster secondary inorganic arsenic
emissions from calcine discharge are
also captured and collected at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter. Calcine is
gravity loaded into larry cars from
hoppers located at the bottom of the
roaster. An exhaust hood is mounted on
either side of each hopper. A spring-
loaded top having three small openings
covers each larry car. When the larry
car is positioned under the hopper, the
openings in the car top align with  the
hopper outlet and the two exhaust
hoods. Because the top is spring-loaded,
a tight connection is achieved between
the top and the hopper outlet and  hoods.
During loading, an induced draft fan is
activated to ventilate the space under
the car top and to capture the emissions
generated by the loading operation. The
captured secondary emissions are
combined with the roaster offgases prior
to venting to the baghouse. In addition
to the local hoods located at the calcine
discharge point, the calcine hopper area
is enclosed to form a tunnel-like
structure. This area is ventilated with
the exhaust air being combined with the
exhaust air from the local exhaust
hoods.
  The capture system used at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter for capturing
secondary inorganic arsenic emissions
from roaster calcine discharge is the
most advanced technology
demonstrated. In EPA's judgment, this
system represents BAT. Similar to the
controls in place at the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter for smelting furnace
matte tapping and slag tapping, the
calcine discharge capture system is in
place to fulfill the tripartite agreement to
achieve the OSHA inorganic arsenic
worker exposure standard. The captured
secondary inorganic arsenic emissions
are vented to the baghouse which has
been determined to be BAT for
collection of inorganic arsenic emissions
from the roaster process offgases.
Therefore, BAT is in place at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter for capture
and collection of secondary inorganic
emissions from roaster calcine
discharge.
  To control secondary inorganic
arsenic emissions from the handling and
transfer of flue dust, the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter has implemented the
best control practices available. All dust
conveyor systems are enclosed in dust-
tight housings. Hopper and storage bins
are equipped with dust level indicators.
Dust-tight connections are used to
transfer material from hopers and bins
to vehicles. This equipment is in place to
fulfill  the tripartite agreement to achieve
                                                 V-N,0,P-17
-------
               Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 140 / Wednesday, July 20,  1983 / Proposed Rules
the OSHA worker exposure standard.
Because BAT is already required in
order to comply with existing Federal
regulations, additional standards based
on BAT are not necessary at this time
for miscellaneous sources of secondary
inorganic arsenic emissions at high-
arsenic-throughput smelters.
  The anode furnances in operation at
the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter are of an
atypical design that is not used at
anyother primary copper smelter located
in the United States. Secondary
inorganic arsenic emissions (perhaps up
to 0.1 kg/h) escape to the atmosphere
from a  large opening in the anode
furnace wall. This opening allows the
furnance operators to perform activities
necessary for refining the blister copper.
Secondary inorganic arsenic emissions
from the anode furnace could
conceivably be captured using an
elaborate secondary hood system.
However, the effectiveness of such a
theoretical capture system is uncertain
considering the design of the anode
furnaces and the nature of operations
required to operate the furnaces. EPA
believes that any capture system
designed to provide the necessary
access to the anode furnaces would
impose very high costs. Based on the
small reduction in total smelter
inorganic arsenic emissions that would
be expected to result from controlling
anode  furnace secondary emissions, it is
EPA's judgment that the costs for
installing controls to capture the anode
furnace secondary inorganic arsenic
emissions are  excessive. Therefore, EPA
has determined that the existing
equipment represents BAT and, as a
result, no standards are being developed
at this time for secondary inorganic
arsenic emissions from anode furnaces.
   In summary, roaster, smelting furnace,
and converter process offgases as well
as anode furnace, arsenic plant, and flue
dust handling  sources are judged to be
currently controlled using BAT. Also,
secondary inorganic emissions from
roaster calcine discharge, and smelting
furnace matte tapping and slag tapping
are captured and collected using BAT.
These controls are required by existing
Federally enforceable regulations or are
expected by EPA to remain in place and
to be properly operated and maintained.
With the exception of the prototype
secondary hood on one converter, no
controls are currently in place to limit
 secondary emissions from the
 converters. Therefore, because capture
 technology has been demonstrated, EPA
 decided to develop standards based, as
 a minumum, on BAT for secondary
 emissions from converters.
Selection ofBA Tfor Converters

  Control Technology. Primary
converter hoods capture process
emissions during converter blowing
periods; but, during charging, skimming,
holding, or pouring operations, the
mouth of the converter is no longer
under the primary hood, and converter
emissions escape capture by the hood.
There are three alternative control
methods for capturing secondary
emissions from converter operations: (1)
fixed and retractable secondary hoods,
(2) air curtain secondary hoods, and (3)
building evacuation.
  Four domestic  smelters currently use
fixed secondary hoods to capture
converter secondary emissions. These
hoods are attached to the upper front
side of the converter primary hoods.
More complex retractable secondary
hood designs are used at one domestic
smelter and smelters in Japan. Visual
observations made at two domestic
copper smelters showed that fixed and
retractable secondary hoods captured a
portion of the secondary emissions from
converter operations. However, the
capture efficiencies of existing fixed and
retractable secondary hood designs are
judged by EPA to be less than 90
percent.
  A more advanced method for the
capture of converter secondary
emissions is the use of an air curtain
secondary hood. Walls are erected to
enclose the sides and the back of the
area around the converter mouth. A
portion of the enclosure back wall is
formed by the primary hood. Openings
at the top and in the front of the
enclosure allow for movement of the
overhead crane cables and block, and
the ladle. Edges of the walls in contact
with the primary hood or the converter
vessel are sealed. A broad, horizontal
airstream blows across the entire width
of the open space at the top of the
enclosure. This airstream is called an
"air curtain." The air curtain is produced
by blowing compressed air from a
narrow horizontal slot extending the
length of a plenum along the top of one
of the side walls. The air is directed to a
receiving hood along the top of the
opposite side wall. An induced draft fan
in the ducting behind the receiving hood
pulls the airstream into the hood. When
the converter is rolled out away from
 the primary hood for charging,
skimming,  or pouring, the air curtain
 sweeps the converter offgases and
 emissions which are generated by
 material transfer between the converter
 and the ladle into the receiving hood.
 The captured emissions are then vented
 to a collection device or released
directly to the atmosphere through a
stack.
  The air curtain secondary hood has
been demonstrated as an effective
method for capturing converter
secondary emissions. For the past 3
years, air curtain secondary hoods have
been in place to control converter
secondary emissions at copper smelters
in Japan. A prototype air curtain
secondary hood was installed in 1982 on
one of the converters at the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter.
  In January 1983, EPA conducted a test
program designed to evaluate the
effectiveness of the capture of
secondary emissions by the prototype
air curtain secondary hood at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter. The capture
efficiency of the system was evaluated
by performing a gas tracer study and
visual observations. The gas tracer
study involved injecting a gas tracer
inside the boundaries of the fixed
enclosure and measuring the amount of
the gas tracer in the exhaust gases in the
ducting downstream of the enclosure
receiving hood. The capture efficiency
was then calculated by a material
balance of the inlet and outlet tracer gas
mass flow rates. Based on the results of
this test program, EPA believes an air
curtain secondary hood is capable of
achieving an overall capture efficiency
of 95 percent.
  Capture of converter secondary
emissions by building evacuation is
accomplished by controlling the airflow
patterns within the building housing the
converters and by maintaining a
sufficient air change or ventilation rate.
Control of airflow in the ventilated area
is obtained by isolating it from other
areas and by the proper design and
placement of inlet and outlet openings.
Proper location and sizing of inlet and
outlet openings provide effective airflow
patterns so that the secondary emissions
cannot escape to  adjacent areas or
recirculate within the area.
  EPA believes that a well-designed
building evacuation system should be
capable of achieving at least 95 percent
capture efficiency of secondary
emissions. However, the building
evacuation systems currently used in the
non-ferrous metallurgical industry have
not demonstrated this level of control.  A
building evacuation system is being
used at the ASARCO copper, lead, and
zinc smelter located in El Paso, Texas,
to capture secondary emissions from
copper converters and a zinc smelting
furnace operated inside a building.
While preventing the venting of
secondary emissions to the ambient air
outside the building, use of the building
 evacuation system  at the ASARCO-E1
                                                  V-N.O.P-18
-------
               Federal Register /  Vol.  48, No. 140 / Wednesday, July 20,  1983 / Proposed Kules
Paso smelter has resulted in elevated
concentrations of inorganic arsenic,
lead, and SO,, inside the building in
addition to excessive heat buildup. To
alleviate these unacceptable working
conditions, building openings have been
increased and roof ventilators designed
for emergency use only have been
operated routinely. As a result of
increasing the number of building
openings, the capture efficiency of the
building evacuation system has been
decreased. The building evacuation
system as presently operated at the
ASARCO-E1 Paso smelter achieves a
capture efficiency of less than 95
percent.
  The control technology for the
collection of secondary inorganic
arsenic emissions is based on the
cooling 01 the exhaust  gases to condense
the inorganic arsenic vapors to form
participates, and the subsequent
collection of the inorganic arsenic
participates in a conventional
particulate control device. Baghouse and
electrostatic precipitator control devices
are currently used at primary copper
smelters to collect secondary inorganic
arsenic emissions as well as particulate
matter emissions.
  To evaluate the efficiency of a
conventional particulate control device,
EPA tested the baghouse in place at the
ASARCO-E1 Paso smelter used for the
collection of secondary emissions from
the converters. Emission measurements
for inorganic arsenic and total
particulates were conducted at the
baghouse inlet and outlet for three test
runs. At the baghouse  outlet, inorganic
arsenic concentrations ranged from
0.015 to 0.39 milligram  per dry standard
cubic meter of exhaust gas (mg/dscm).
The corresponding total particulate
concentrations at the baghouse outlet
ranged from 1.1 to 11.6 mg/dscm. Gas
temperatures at the baghouse inlet were
less than 50°C (112°F). The inorganic
arsenic collection efficiency was over 99
percent for two of the test runs and was
greater than 94 percent for the third test
run. The test results showed that the
overall average inorganic arsenic
collection efficiency of the baghcuse for
three test runs was 96  percent. EPA
concluded from the tests that a properly
designed, operated, and maintained
baghouse or equivalent particulate
control device can achieve a collection
efficiency of at least 96 percent for
inorganic arsenic.
  Regulatory Alternatives. To determine
the level of control that reflects BAT for
control of converter secondary
emissions, technical alternatives were
identified for reducing inorganic arsenic
emissions from the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter.
  For the purpose of analysis, these
alternatives are identified here and in
the background information document
as Regulatory Alternatives I and II. For
Regulatory Alternative I. no national
emission standard would be established
for inorganic arsenic emissions from
high-arsenic-throughput smelters. No
additional controls beyond the controls
already in place at the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter to comply with existing
regulations (e.g, Washington State
implementation plan, OSHA inorganic
arsenic worker exposure standard)
would be required. Regulatory
Alternative I corresponds to the
baseline level of control.
  Regulatory Alternative II represents
control of secondary inorganic arsenic
emissions from converter opertions at
the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter. This
alternative is based on capture of the
secondary emissions using a secondary
hood consisting of a fixed enclosure
with a horizontal air curtain. The
captured secondary emissions would be
vented to a baghouse or equivalent
control device for collection.
  Regulatory Alternative I (baseline
case) would not change the existing air
and non-air quality environmental
impacts of operations at  the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter. Total inorganic arsenic
emissions from the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter would remain at the current
level of 282 Mg (311 tons) per year. In
addition, there would be no energy or
economic impacts associated with this
alternative.
  Regulatory Alternative II would
reduce total inorganic arsenic emissions
from the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter by
110 Mg (121 tons) per year to a level of
172 Mg (189 tons) per year. The amount
of collected particulate matter
containing inorganic arsenic would be
approximately 11 gigagrams (Cg) (12,000
tons) per year. This would increase the
amount of solid waste generated at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter from 182 to
193 Gg (200,000 to 213,000 tons) per year,
an increase of about 6 percent. The
additional'solid waste can be handled
by the smelter's existing solid waste
disposal system. Because the alternative
is based on use of an electrostatic
precipitator, a dry particulate collection
device, there would be no water
pollution impact.
  The energy impacts of Regulatory
Alternative II would be increased
electrical energy consumption. To
operate the control system specified by
the alternative,  annual electrical energy
consumption would be 1.5X107
kilowatt-hours per year (kWh/y). Total
smelter energy consumption is
approximately 2.9X10* kWh/y. Thus,
Regulatory Alternative II would increase
the total ASARCO-Tacoma electrical
energy consumption by 0.5 percent.
  The capital costs for installing tin
control system specified by Regulator
Alternative II is $3.5 million. This
represents a major capital expenditure
for ASARCO. However. ASARCO :s a
major publicly held corporation with a
good credit rating and good access to
financing. Even considering the
possibility of additional capital
expenditures for control equipment for
the two ASARCO low-arsenic-
throughput smelters (the ASARCO-E1
Paso and Hayden primary copper
smelters are addressed in Part III of this
preamble), it is EPA's determination that
ASARCO would be able to obtain the
necessary capital  to install the control
system at the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter. The annuahzed cost to
implement Regulatory Alternative II is
estimated to be $1.5 million. If ASARCO
chooses to absorb the costs by reducing
its profit margin, the profitability of the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter could be
reduced up to 8 percent. If ASARCO
chooses to maintain its normal profit
margin and attempts to recover the costs
by increasing copper prices, the price
increase would amount to 0.5 to 0.8
percent.
  In summary, under Regulatory
Alternative II, total smelter inorganic
arsenic emissions would be reduced by
39 percent from 282 Mg per year to 172
Mg per year. The reduction in  emissions
would be achieved with a small increase
in the amount of solid waste generated
at the smelter. There would be no water
pollution impact. Energy consumption at
the smelter would be slightly increased.
The primary economic impacts
associated with this alternative are a
projected modest decrease in
profitablity for the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter and  a possible small increase in
the price of copper. In EPA's judgment,
this alternative would not adversely
affect the economic viability of the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter or
employment at the smelter. Because a
significant reduction in inorganic
arsenic emissions from the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter is achievable  with
reasonable economic, energy,  snt! ncn-
air quality environmental impacts. EPA
selected Regulatory Alternative II as
BAT.
  It should be noted that the level of
control selected as BAT is based upon
the Adminstrator's best judgement and
the information available at this time-
As discussed later, comments  and
information  are being requested on
                                                  V-N,0,P-19
-------
              Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.  140 / Wednesday,  }uly 20. 1983  /  Proposed Rules
additional control measures. The final
decision on BAT will reflect
consideration of these comments and
may. therefore, include measures (e.g.,
production curtailments or improved
operating and housekeeping practices)
which are not now included in
Alternative II.
Consideration of Emission Reduction
Beyond BA T and Decision on Basis for
Proposed Standards.
  After identifying BAT, EPA
considered the estimated residual health
risks and possible control alternatives
that would reduce emissions to rates
lower than that achievable with BAT.
The health risk is expressed by the
number of incidences of cancer due to
inorganic arsenic exposure in the
population distributed around the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter. Based on
epidemiological studies, EPA derived a
unit risk number for exposure to
airborne inorganic arsenic. The unit risk
number is a measure of potency
expressed as the probability of cancer in
a person exposed to 1 >ig/m " of
airborne inorganic arsenic for a lifetime
(70 years). Annual cancer incidence (the
number of cases per year) associated
with inorganic arsenic emissions from
the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter is the
product of the total population exposure
around the smelter and the unit risk
number divided by 70 years. Total
exposure is determined by dispersion
modeling estimates of the inorganic
arsenic concentration in the ambient air
surrounding the smelter combined with
data for the distribution of the estimated
370.000 people living within about 20
kilometers (12.5 miles) of the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter. For the current level of
inorganic arsenic emissions from the
 ASARCO-Tacoma smelter, the annual
cancer incidence is estimated to range
 from 1.1 to 17.6 cases per year. With
 BAT in place at the ASARCO-Tacoma
 -mplter tor all of the significant
 inorganic asenic emission points it is
 estimated that the annual cancer
 incidence would be reduced to a range
 of 0.2 to 3.4 cases per year. Application
 of BAT would reduce the estimated
 maximum lifetime risk from exposure to
 airborne inorganic arsenic from a range
 of 2.3 to 37 in 100 to a range of 0.58 to 9.2
 in 100. The maximum lifetime risk
 represents the probability of a person
 contracting cancer who has been
 continuously exposed during a 70-year
 period to the maximum annual inorganic
 arsenic concentration due to inorganic
 arsenic emissions from the ASARCO-
 Tacoma smelter.
   All known control alternatives were
 examined with the particular emphasis
 on the further contol of secondary
emissions, which on the basis of
modeling results, cause the highest
ambient exposure and resultant health
risks. This examination, which included
evaluation of controls used on smelters
in both the United States and Japan as
well as the possibility of technology
transfer from other source categories,
identified no demonstrated
technological controls  more efficient
than those identified as BAT. Therefore,
the remaining alternatives are limited to
two basic categories: (1) production
limitations or curtailments and (2)
limitations on the smelter inorganic
arsenic throughput.

Impacts of Controls Beyond BA T
  Without specific and detailed
knowledge of all economic information,
which is known only to ASARCO, EPA
cannot estimate with certainty the
extent to which production curtailment
or limitation on inorganic arsenic feed
rate may be affordable. The smelter is
currently operating under a production
curtailment program designed to limit
ambient sulfur dioxide (SOj) levels. This
program, which EPA believes to achieve
at least a corresponding effect on
ambient inorganic arsenic
concentrations, currently results in
production curtailment of approximately
30 percent. When converter controls are
in place, the amount of curtailment
needed may be less but is expected to
be  not less than 20 or 25 percent. Thus.
while further curtailments may be
possible, it is doubtful that the  degree of
curtailment necessary to significantly
reduce risk (e.g., a 50 percent additional
curtailment would reduce the estimated
maximum risk from a  range of 0.58 to 9.2
 in 100 to a range of 0.29 to 4.8 in 100)
 would be affordable.
   An analysis of the importance of high-
 inorganic-arsenic feed to the economic
 viability of the ASARCO-Tacoma
 smelter leads to the conclusion that the
 smelter would probably close if high-
 inorganic-arsenic-contact materials
 could not be processed. High-inorganic-
 arsenic-content copper ore concentrate
 and lead smelter by-products represent
 about one third of the feed material
 input to the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter.
 If forced to discontinue use of these feed
 materials, ASARCO would need to
 compete with other copper smelting
 companies for additional supplies of
 copper ore. In the face of Japanese
 competition and current copper ore
 shortages, it is questionable whether
 sufficient supplies of low-arsenic-
 content copper ore concentrate could be
 obtained at prices that would allow
 profitable operation. More importantly,
 the use of high-inorganic-arsenic feed
 allows ASARCO to produce arsenic
trioxide and metallic arsenic. EPA
estimates that the sale of arsenic
trioxide and metallic arsenic represents
about 10 to 15 percent of the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter's total revenue and
could account for most of the profit.
Therefore, for purposes of this analysis,
EPA is concluding that any potential
means for limiting inorganic arsenic
emissions to the extent necessary to
significantly reduce risks would result in
closure of the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter.
  The arsenic produced by the
ASARCO-Tacoma  smelter supplies
about one third of the total nationwide
demand for arsenic. The remaining two-
thirds is imported and represents over
half of the world production outside the
U.S. If ASARCO-Tacoma stopped
production of arsenic, the world arsenic
production capacity would have to
increase by 25 percent to makeup the
shortage. It is considered doubtful that
such an increase would be possible even
with substantial upward price pressure.
The impact that this shortage would
have on industrial  products (e.g..
pressure treated lumber) and
agricultural uses (e.g.,  cotton desiccants,
herbicides) has not been estimated.

Consideration of Health Risks

   As detailed in Section I of this
preamble, the estimated health risks
cited above associated with exposure to
ambient inorganic  arsenic are at best
only a very crude estimator of the actual
health effects. The degree of uncertainty
in these estimate is very large because
of the many assumptions and
approximations involved in their
derivation. Nevertheless, the estimated
risks due to emissions  from the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter are high
relative to other inorganic arsenic
 sources and to other sources of
 hazardous pollutants that have been
 regulated. These levels, therefore,
 provide a basis for serious question as
 to whether limiting emissions based on
 BAT would protect public health and
 provide an ample  margin of safety.
 Moreover, direct ambient exposure is
 not the only potential health impact
 since the inorganic arsenic emitted into
 the atmosphere accumulates on land
 and in water resulting in other avenues
 of exposure. It should be noted that
 primarily due to arsenic, the
 Commencement Bay Near Shore Tide
 Flats area (which  includes the
 ASARCO-Tacoma «melter) has been
 proposed as a National Priority List Site
 by EPA under the Superfund program
 (47 FR 58476, December 30,1982).
                                                   V-N.O.P-20
-------
               Federal Register /  Vol.  48,  No. 140 /  Wednesday, July 20, 1983 / Proposed  Rules
Consideration of Impacts of Beyond
BAT
  Closure of the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter would result in severe social
and economic impact on the local
economy. Moreover, since the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter is  the only
domestic smelter capable of smelting
high-impurity copper ores and
production of associated by-products
including arsenic, closure of the smelter
would result in a total loss of this
domestic production capability. Closure
of the smelter would eliminate the jobs
of about 500 ASARCO employees and
300 additional jobs in the Tacoma area.
Closure would also mean elimination of
$20 million per year in revenues to local
companies and $2 million per year in
State and local taxes.

Decision and Proposed Standards
  As detailed in Part I of this preamble.
under EPA's interpretation of Section
112, the smelter should be controlled at
least to the level that reflects BAT and
to a more stringent level if necessary to
prevent unreasonable risks. The
decision as to whether the remaining
risks are unreasonable is based upon
consideration of the individual and
population risks and consideration of
the impacts,  including costs, economic,
and other impacts associated with
further reduction of these risks.
  The primary purpose of standards
promulgated under Section 112 is -to
protect the public health. The
Administrator is concerned that the
estimated residual risk after application
of BAT at ASARCO-Tacoma may be
unreasonable, and, as such, that
additional controls beyond BAT may be
warranted. As indicated earlier, EPA
has not identified technological controls
more efficient than  BAT; therefore, in
making a decision on an appropriate
control level of ASARCO-Tacoma, the
Administrator's consideration of beyond
BAT alternatives was limited to
production and arsenic throughput
limitations. These control measures
could further reduce emissions of
inorganic arsenic and associated health
risks. Arsenic throughput, for example,
could be limited to a level comparable
to a low-arsenic-throughput smelter
(less than 0.7 percent inorganic arsenic
in the total smelter charge), although
estimated health risks would still be
expected to be higher for ASARCO-
Tacoma than for the other smelters due
to its location in a highly populated
area.
  The Administrator believes that
control beyond BAT could result in
closure of the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter. This would reduce the smelter
contribution to the estimated health
risks to zero; but would also result in a
loss of jobs, a loss of domestic
production capacity in both the copper
and arsenic industries, and a loss of
revenues to local businesses and
governments. Certainly the impacts
associated with closure of the smelter
would be felt directly and immediately
by the local population, particularly the
employees of the smelter. With these
potential serious negative impacts, a
decision to require beyond BAT controls
must be carefully considered.
  Given that the calculated health risks
estimated to remain after the application
of BAT would be the basis for a decision
to require beyond BAT controls and, in
this case, possibly cause closure of the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter, the
Admin:strator believes it is necessary to
scrutinize the basis for these calculated
estimates as a part of the decision-
making process. The estimated  health
risks were calculated by combining a
unit risk estimate for inorganic arsenic
with the ambient concentrations of
inorganic arsenic predicted by modeling
and with population data for the area
surrounding the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter. As discussed in Part I of this
preamble and Appendix E of the BID,
there are simplifying assumptions and
fundamental uncertainties inherent in
each of the components of the
calculation, resulting in a number of
uncertainties in the risk estimates.
  Uncertainties in the unit risk estimate
exist due to a number of simplifying
assumptions. Among these is the
assumption that a linear relationship
exists between cancer risks and level of
exposure and this relationship is the
same at the low levels of public
exposure as at the high levels of
occupational exposure. There is no solid
scientific basis for any mathematical
extrapolation model that relates
carcinogen exposure to cancer risk at
the extremely low concentrations that
must be dealt with in evaluating
environmental hazards. Because its
scientific basis, although limited, is the
best of any of the current mathematical
extrapolation models, the linear
nonthreshold model has  been adopted
here as the primary basis for risk
extrapolation at low levels of exposure.
Additional assumptions made in the
determination of the unit risk estimate
are that all people are equally
susceptible to cancer and that persons
are exposed continuously from  birth
throughout their lifetimes (70 years). The
Administrator believes that the
assumptions made in determining the
unit risk estimate are reasonable for
public health protection in that  they lead
to a rough but plausible estimate of the
upper-limit of risk. That is, it is not likely
that the true unit risk would be much
more than the estimated unit risk, but it
could be considerably lower.
  Uncertainties in the ambient modeling
exist due to the limitations of the
dispersion model and the assumptions
and potential error in the data input to
the model. Limitations in the model
include its inability to account for the
variable operating conditions of the
smelter and variable meteorology; that
is, one  set of operating and
meteorological conditions was assumed
for modeling purposes. The
meteorological conditions used are
believed to be representative. However,
the smelter operating conditions used in
the modeling do not  account for the
frequent curtailment of operations now
required at ASARCO-Tacoma to reduce
emissions of sulfur dioxide, and
therefore, probably result in an
overestimate of ambient air
concentrations of inorganic arsenic
(since arsenic emissions would be
reduced as well). Also, the model does
not account for sources of arsenic other
than the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter that
are in the area.
  In addition, there were many inputs to
the model such  as location of each
emission source at the smelter and the
rate, temperature, and height at which
those emissions are released to the
atmosphere. Each of these input
parameters is subject to error, but
perhaps the most crucial parameter is
the estimate of emission rates. The
emission rates used by EPA were based
on actual emission test data whenever
possible. However, for some sources,
most notably converter secondary
emissions, test data were not available
at the time the estimates were made;
therefore, some assumptions were made
for modeling and impact analysis
purposes. The EPA assumed, for
instance, that converter secondary
inorganic arsenic emissions were
approximately 15 percent of those
measured in the primary converter
offgases. Preliminary results of testing
conducted in January 1983 on converter
No. 4 at ASARCO-Tacorr.a indicate that
emissions  may be significantly less than
this.
  Additional uncertainties arise from
the use of population data. The people
dealt with in the analysis are not
located by actual residence. They are
"located" in the Bureau of Census data
for 1970 (the most recent available) by
population centroids of census districts.
The effect is that the actual locations of
residences with respect to the estimated
ambient air concentrations is not known
                                                  V-N,0,P-21
-------
               Federal Register /  Vol.  48. No. 140 /  Wednesday. ]uly 20. 1983 •/  Proposed Rules
and the relative locations used in the
exposure model have changed since the
1970 census. In addition, it is assumed
that people remain in the same location
for a lifetime (70 years), the only
exposure of the population that occurs is
due to the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter,
and only persons within 20 kilometers of
(he emission source are affected.
  In summary, there is a high degree of
uncertainty in the estimated health risks
due to the many assumptions and
uncertainties associated with the
components of the estimates. While the
estimated risks may be meaningful in a
relative sense, they should not be
regarded as accurate representations of
true cancer risks. Furthermore, it should
be n&ted that: (1) ambient monitoring
data available for the Tacoma area
show significantly lower ambient
concentrations of inorganic arsenic than
those predicted by the model, and (2)
data on lung cancer incidence rates for
the ten largest cities in Washington for
the years 1970 through 1979 show that
Tacoma ranks fifth, and the lung cancer
rates in Tacoma are below the national
average lung cancer rate.
  In light of the high degree of
uncertainty in the estimated health
risks, the apparent absence  of further
control alternatives short of closure, the
serious negative impacts associated
with closure, and the absence of
comments from the affected public, the
Administrator cannot conclude at this
time that the risks remaining after  the
application of BAT are unreasonable.
Therefore,  standards are being proposed
for the category of high-arsenic-
throughput smelters based on the
application of BAT.
  Even though standards are proposed
based on BAT, the Administrator
remains concerned that the 3stimated
residual health risks, although uncertain,
are high relative to those estimated for
other source categories regulated by
NESHAPs  as well as other sources of
arsenic. The Administrator believes it is
necessary  to take extraordinary
measures to ensure that his final
determination of the control level that is
appropriate for high-arsenic-throughput
copper smelters is based on the most
 complete and accurate information
 available.  Therefore, the following steps
 are being taken:
   First, EPA is continuing to refine its
 estimates of emissions and associated
 health risks for the ASARCO-Tacoma
 smelter. This will include a complete,
 un-site emission source inventory by
 EPA personnel, emission testing where
 feasible, and improved modeling. In
 particular, efforts are currently
 underway to model the effect of
 ASARCO-Tacoma's production
curtailment. Additionally, further
evaluation of controls that could
potentially be applied to reduce
emissions of inorganic arsenic
(particulary secondary emissions) at
ASARCO-Tacoma will take place. This
evaluation will not be limited to  add-on
control equipment but will also cover
other measures such as improved
operating and housekeeping practices.
  Secondly, a public hearing for the
proposed standards for high-avsenic-
throughput copper smelters will be held
in the Tacoma, Washington area. This
will give those people who would be
most affected by the standards the
opportunity to comment in person.
  Finally, the Administrator has
established a special task force to be
chaired by EPA's Region X office in
Seattle, Washington. The task force will
aid the Administrator in securing
available information from the area
which would be most pertinent in the
development of the final standards for
high-arsenic-throughput copper smelters.
In addition to participating in EPA's
evaluation of emission sources and
applicable control technologies, the task
force will consult with experts outside
of EPA in the areas of health impacts
analysis and innnovative control
technologies for arsenic.
  The Administrator is requesting
comments on all aspects of the proposed
standards and their associated impacts.
Comments are also requested on other
control measures that may be BAT and
on alternatives  that would reduce
estimated health risks more than the
alternative of applying BAT, but would
not result in smelter  closure. These
comments should consider in particular,
the means of reducing low-level
secondary inorganic arsenic emissions,
which result in  the highest exposure.
The Administrator is also specifically
requesting comments on whether the
estimated residual health risks
associated with the BAT alternative are
unreasonable, considering the
uncertainty of these  estimates and that
the only apparent alternative for
significantly reducing the risks would
likely result in closure of the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter.
Selection of Format of Proposed
 Standards
   Under the authority of Section 112 of
 the  Clean Air Act, national emission
 standards must, whenever possible, take
 the  format of a numerical emission limit.
 Typically, an emission limit is written in
 terms of an allowable mass emission
 rate (mass of pollutant per unit time) or
 an allowable concentration (mass of
 pollutant per volume of gas). In some
 instances, a process weight limit (weight
of pollutant per unit of product or input)
or a minimum percent emission
reduction of pollutant (control system
collection efficiency)  is used. Ail of
these types of standards require the
direct measurement of emissions to
determine compliance. As a alternative.
or as a supplement to a standard
involving direct measurement of
emissions, an emission limit may take
the form of a restriction on opacity as
measured by EPA Reference Method 9
or on visible emissions as measured by
EPA Reference Method 22 or other
method. However, in certain instances,
numerical emission limits are not
possible. Section 112(e)(2) recognizes
this situation by defining two conditions
when it is not feasible to prescribe or
enforce an emission limit. The
conditions are: (1) when the pollutants
cannot be emitted through a conveyance
designed and constructed to emit or
capture the pollutant; or (2) when the
application of a measurement
methodology is not practicable due to
technological or economic limitations. In
such instances. Section 112(e)(l)
authorizes design, equipment, work
practice, or operational standards.
  For the development of a standard for
the capture of secondary inorganic
arsenic emissions from converter
operations, EPA first considered
establishing a numerical emission limit.
However, mass rate, concentration,
process weight, and percent emission
reduction formats for the capture of
secondary  emissions from converter
operations are not feasible because
neither the capture efficiency nor the
quantity of emissions that escape
capture by the secondary hood system
can be measured accurately. Visible
emission data are available which
describe the performance of secondary
hood systems over a limited range of
operating conditions. However, these
data are not considered to represent a
sufficient basis for establishing emission
standards which must be achieved at all
times. Therefore, the format selected for
the proposed standards for the capture
of secondary inorganic arsenic
emissions from converter operations is
one in which equipment and work
practices are specified.
   For the development of a standard for
 the collection of secondary inorganic
 arsenic emissions from  converter
 operations, EPA concluded a numerical
 emission limit is  feasible. EPA first
 considered developing an emission limit
 specifically for inorganic arsenic.
 Inorganic arsenic emissions from
 converter operations vary in relation to
 the inorganic arsenic content of the ore
 concentrate processed. Smelting a high-
                                                   V-N,0,P-22
-------
               Federal  Register / Vol. 48, No.  140 / Wednesday,  July  20,  1983 / Proposed  Rules
inorganic-arsenic-content ore
concentrate has the potential for higher
inorganic arsenic emissions than a low-
inorganic-arsenic-content-ore
concentrate. The ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter is a custom smelter processing
ore concentrates shipped from domestic
and foreign copper mines. An
interruption or discontinuation in
shipments from one supplier could
change the average inorganic arsenic
content of the total smelter charge
processed at the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter. Thus, the future inorganic
arsenic content of secondary emissions
from the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter may
increase or decrease depending on the
mix of suppliers selling ore concentrate
to ASARCO.
  The potential variability in the
inorganic arsenic content of secondary
emissions from the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter increases the complexity of
developing numerical emission limits
specifically for inorganic arsenic.
Emission limits for inorganic arsenic
based on a mass emission rate, process
weight, or concentration format would
establish an upper limit on inorganic
arsenic emissions only. An inorganic
arsenic emission limit based on the BAT
emission control requirements
specifically for the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter based on current data might not
require application of BAT is other ore
concentrates were processed. In
contrast, a  percent reduction format
would require the application of BAT
regardless of the level of inorganic
arsenic content in the feed materials.
However, high collection efficiency may
not be continuously achievable for the
entire range of inorganic arsenic
concentrations which could occur in the
captured gas streams from the
secondary emission sources.
  As an alternative, an emission limit
for total particulates that reflects the
level of control device performanee
necessary to achieve BAT for collection
of secondary inorganic arsenic
emissions can be developed. There are
several advantages to using a total
particulate  emission limit to regulate
inorganic arsenic emissions. First, total
particulate  emissions from primary
copoer smelter operations remain
relatively contant regardless  of the
inorganic arsenic content of the ore
concentrate. Thus, a total particulate
emission limit would require the use of
BAT for all high-arsenic ore
concentrates regardless of variations in
the inorganic arsenic content of the feed.
The second advantage to a total
particulate  emission limit is that EPA
Reference Method 5 can be used to   '
determine compliance. This method is
widely used; and because it captures
larger quantities of particulates, it offers
the potential for greater precision.
Therefore, for these reasons EPA
decided to develop standards for
collection of inorganic arsenic emissions
based on a total particulate emission
limit.
  Mass emission rate, percent emission
reduction, process weight rate, and
concentration formats were considered
by EPA for setting emission limits for
the collection of captured secondary
emission gas streams. All four of these
formats provide viable  alternatives for
setting total particulate emission limits.
  A mass rate format would limit total
particulate emissions per unit of time.
However, this format would not reflect
differences in production rates (e.g.,
amount of ore concentrate, calcine,  and
matte processed). The mass emission
rate standard would only place an upper
limit on the total amount of particulates
emitted per hour or per day.
  A percent reduction format would
specify a minimum percent reduction of
total particulate emissions across a
control device. Determination of
compliance with a percent reduction
standard requires measurement of both
uncontrolled and controlled emissions.
The measurement of emissions at the
inlet to control devices  poses testing
difficulties due to ductwork and control
device configurations. The ductwork
modifications necessary to perform
accurate inlet testing at the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter would  significantly
increase the cost of the compliance
determination.
  A mass per unit production format
would limit total particulate emissions
per unit of copper produced or smelter
charge. Determination of compliance
with a mass per production unit
standard requires the development of a
material balance or production values
concerning the operation of the copper
smelter. Development of this
information depends on the availability
and reliability of process data provided
by the company. Gathering these data
increases the testing and recordkeeping
requirements and, consequently.
increases the compliance determination
costs.
  A concentration format would limit
total particulate emissions per unit
volume of exhaust gases discharged to
the atmosphere. Compliance
determination of concentration
standards requires a minimum of data
and information, decreasing the costs of
testing and  reducing chances of
measurement errors. Furthermore,
vendors of particulate control devices
usually guarantee equipment
performance in terms of pollutant
concentration in the discharge gas
stream. There is a potential for
circumventing a concentration standard
by diluting the exhaust gases discharged
to the atmosphere with excess air, thus
lowering the concentration of total
particulates emitted but not the total
mass emitted. However, for this
application, this problem can be solved
by specifying a measurement location.
Therefore, because a concentration
format would involve lower resource
requirements and a less complicated
compliance determination procedure
than the other formats, EPA selected a
concentration format as the mo«t
suitable format for the proposed
standards for collection of secondary
emissions.
Selection of \umeriolEmit.sion Limit
and Equipment Specification*

  The proposed standards are based
upon the application of a secondary
hood system to capture converter
secondary emissions and a baghouse or
equivalent particulate control device to
collect the captured secondary
emissions from converters.
  The format selected for the proposed
standard for capture of secondary
inorganic arsenic emissions from
converters consists of equipment and
work practice specifications. EPA
believes that the prototype secondary
hood design installed on converter No. 4
at the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter is
capable of achieving a capture
efficiency level consistent with BAT if
the system is installed and operated
properly. Therefore, the design and
operation of this system were the ba.sih
for the equipment and work practice
specifications.
  The principal components of the
secondary hood system are a hood
enclosure, an air curtain plenum and
exhaust hood, fans, and sufficient
ductwork to convej the captured
emissions to a control  device. Because
each secondary hood system must be
custom designed due to variations in
converter configurnt;on and space
availability, EPA chose not to specify
physical dimensions for the hood
enclosure. Instead. F.PA decided to
specify the design p-actices that are
necessary to follou in order to obtain a
secondary hood system capable  of
achieving at least a 95 percent capture
efficiency. These design practices are:
(1) the configuration and dimensions of
the hood enclosure are sized so that the
converter mouth, charging ladles,
skimming ladles, and other material
transfer vessels are housed within the
confines or influence of the hood during
                                                 V-N.O.P-23
-------
              Federal Register / Vol. 48, No.  140 / Wednesday,  July  20, 1983 / Proposed Rules
each mode of converter operation; (2)
the back of the hood enclosure is fully
enclosed and sealed against the primary
hood; (3) the edges of the hood enclosure
side walls in contact with the converter
vessel remain sealed during each mode
of converter operation; (4) the size of the
opening at the top and front of the hood
enclosure necessary for the entry and
egress of ladles and crane apparatus is
minimized to the fullest extent practical;
and (5) the hood enclosure is fabricated
in such a manner and of materials of
sufficient strength to withstand
incidental contact with ladles and crane
apparatus with no damage.
  The air curtain is produced by
blowing compressed air from a narrow
horizontal slot extending the length of a
plenum along the top of one side wall of
the hood enclosure. The dimensions of
tins slot and the velocity of the air
blown through the slot are essential
design parameters for determining the
momentum of the air curtain. Sufficient
air curtain momentum  must be
maintained to prevent  emissions rising
from the converter operations inside the
hood enclosure from penetrating the air
curtain and escaping to the ambient air.
  To ensure that the owner or operator
has the capability of developing
sufficient momentum in the air curtain to
capture secondary emissions, the
proposed standards specify that the air
curtain fan be sized to deliver a
minimum of 22.370 watts (30 air
horsepower) at the  slot.
  After installation of an air curtain
secondary hood system, the owner or
operator would be required to operate it
at conditions optimum for the capture of
secondary inorganic arsenic emissions
(see "Optimization  of Secondary Hood
Air Curtain System"). In addition, the
owner or operator would be required to
visually inspect the components of the
system at least once every month and
maintain each converter and associated
secondary hood system in a manner
consistent with minimizing inorganic
arsenic emissions.
  Over a 1-week period, EPA personnel
observed the ASARCO prototype
secondary hood system during all
converter operating modes. Based on
these observations, EPA concluded that
the work practices followed by the
individual converter and crane
operators can significantly impact the
amount of secondary emissions that are
captured by the secondary hood system.
To assure the maximum capture of
secondary emissions, the Administrator
is proposing five work practices to be
followed by the converter and crane
operators. These work practices are (1)
an curtain and exhaust flow rates shall
be increased by the converter operator
to optimum conditions prior to raising
the primary hood and rolling the
converter out for skimming; (2) once
rolled out, the converter operator shall
hold the converter in an idle position
until fuming from the molten bath ceases
prior to commencing skimming; (3)
during skimming, the crane operator
shall raise the receiving ladle off the
ground and position the ladle as close as
possible to the converter to minimize the
drop distance between the converter
mouth and receiving ladle; (4) the rate of
flow into the receiving ladle shall be
controlled by the converter operator to
the extent practicable to mimimize
fuming; and (5) upon completion of a
charge, the crane operator shall
withdraw  the charging ladle from the
confines of the hood enclosure in a slow
and deliberate manner.
  The Administrator believes that it
may be appropriate to specify minimum
time periods to be associated with some
of these work practices, such as with (1),
(2), and (4) above. The public is invited
to comment on the need to specify
minimum times to be associated with
the proposed work practice standards
ans on what times may be appropriate.
  ASARCO has stated it intends to
install air  curtain secondary hood
systems (similar to the system already
in place on converter No. 4) on its
converters that will remain in service at
the Tacoma smelter. EPA therefore
expects that ASARCO would meet
NESHAP requirements for controlling
secondary inorganic arsenic emissions
from converters at Tacoma by installing
air curtain secondary hood systems.
However,  the proposed equipment
specification is not intended to preclude
the use of other secondary inorganic
arsenic capture systems which may be
as effective as an air curtain secondary
hood. Upon written application to EPA,
the use of an alternative secondary
inorganic  arsenic capture system which
has been demonstrated to EPA's
satisfaction to be equivalent in terms of
capture efficiency for inorganic arsenic
may be approved [see "Equivalent
Systems for the Capture of Secondary
Emissions from Converter Operations"
in Part III  of this preamble).
  To reflect the level of control device
performance necessary to achieve BAT
for collection of secondary inorganic
arsenic emissions, EPA selected a
format specifying a maximum allowable
total particulate emissions limit. For
selecting the numerical value of the
limit, EPA reviewed the particulate
emission source test results for the
control devices judged to represent BAT.
The  test results were discussed in the
Control Technology section of this part
of the preamble. These results consist of
a series of three consecutive sample
runs for which the measured total
particulate matter emissions at the
control device outlet ranged from 1.1 to
11.6 mg/dscm. The average value for the
three runs was 5.1 mg/dscm. The results
show that a control level of at least 11.6
mg/dscm can be achieved; and, most
likely, control devices will achieve
significantly lower emission levels.
Therefore, EPA selected 11.8 mg/dscm
as the proposed emission limit.

Selection of Emission Test Methods

  The use of EPA Reference Method 5—
"Determination of Particulate Emissions
from Stationary Sources" in Appendix A
of 40 CFR Part 60 would be required to
determine compliance with the
concentration standard for total
particulate matter emissions.
Calculations applicable under Method 5
necessitate the use of data obtained
from three other EPA test methods
conducted before the performance of
Method 5. Method 1—"Sample and
Velocity Traverse for Stationary
Sources" must be conducted in order to
obtain representative measurements of
pollutant emissions. The average gas
velocity in the exhaust stack is
measured by conducting Method 2—
"Determination of Stack Gas Velocity
and Volumetric Flow Rate—(Type S
Pilot Tube)." The analysis of gas
composition is measured by conducting
Method 3— "Gas Analysis for Carbon
Dioxide, Oxygen, Excess Air and Dry
Molecular Weight." These three  tests
provide data necessary in Method 5 for
converting volumetric flow rate to mass
flow rate. In addition, Method 4—
"Determination of Moisture Content in
Stack Gases" is suggested as an
accurate mode of predetermination of
moisture content.

Selection of Monitoring Requirements

  Section 114 of the Clean Air Act
authorizes EPA to establish monitoring
requirements for the purpose of
determining violations of standards
proposed under the Clean Air Act. All
monitoring data must be maintained in
such a manner so  as to be accessible to
EPA.
  The performance of the equipment
used to capture the secondary emissions
from the coverter operations is highly
dependent on flow rate. If the flow rate
is not measured, it is not possible for
either the operator or EPA to determine
whether  the equipment is properly
operated and maintained. Therefore the
proposed standards require continuous
monitoring of the time and air flow rate
through the air curtain systems,  and
keeping a log of times for each of the
                                                  V-N,0,P-24
-------
               Federal  Register / Vol. 48, No.  140 / Wednesday. July 20.  1983 / Proposed  Rules
converter operations. This would allow
the correlation of recorded gas flow
rates with the corresponding converter
operation.
  To help the Administrator determine
whether each secondary hood system is
being properly operated and maintained,
measured airflow rates would be
compared to source specific reference
values established during the
optimization of each system for each
converter operating mode. (See
"Optimization of Secondary Hood
System".) To establish source specific
airflow reference values, the owner or
operator would determine the flow rates
that correspond to  each converter
operating mode while the secondary
hood system is operating under optimum
conditions.
  The proposed standards for the
collection of secondary inorganic
arsenic emissions are based upon a total
particulate concentration limit. One
alternative to monitoring the
performance of the collection device is
to periodically test the collection device
using Method 5. However, this
alternative is costly and is not
considered reasonable. Continuous
monitoring of opacity or an operating
parameter of the collection device may
be used to indirectly monitor
performance by indicating whether or
not the collection device is operating in
the same manner as when it
demonstrated compliance during the
emission test. Of these two alternatives,
monitoring opacity is simpler to apply.
Therefore, the monitoring requirement
selected for the collection of secondary
arsenic emissions is to continuously
monitor opacity using a
transmissometer.
  To implement this monitoring
requirement, it would be necessary to
establish a reference opacity level
against which future performance of the
control system could be compared. To
establish the source specific reference
opacity level, the owner or operator of
the source would be required to conduct
continuous opacity monitoring during
the emission test. The opacity
monitoring results would be reduced to
6-minute averages, and the opacity level
would be established at the 97-5 percent
upper confidence level of a normal or
log normal  (whichever is more
representative) distribution of the 6-
minute average opacity values. This
opacity value would be the basis for
determining whether the collection
device is continuously performing
effectively. Any monitored opacity
reading above the emission test opacity
reading would indicate that the
collection device may no longer be
meeting the proposed total particulate
emission limit. A Method 5 test could
then be performed to determine
compliance.
Optimization Of Air Curtain Secondary
Hood System
  It is intended that the installation of
equipment specified in the proposed
standards for the capture of converter
secondary emissions will give the owner
or operator of each affected converter
the capability of reducing emissions to a
level consistent with the application of
BAT. In developing the equipment
specifications, the Administrator has
been specific for some requirements as
in the case of fan horsepower capacity,
and more general  for others, such as the
dimensions of the secondary hood.
Some of the requirements are general
because unless there are any new
smelters, which is considered unlikely,
each installation will be a retrofit; that
is, each air curtain secondary hood
system will have to be custom designed
to fit each existing converter. Due to
space limitations, existing pollution
control equipment already in place and
other considerations, the exact
configuration of each secondary hood
with air curtain system installed will
vary from smelter to smelter.
  Beyond hood configuration, the
performance of each air curtain
secondary hood system will depend on a
balance of several other parameters,
including the dimensions of the air
curtain slot, the velocity of air through
the slot, and the distance from the slot
to the offtake. These parameters are
adjustable in the sense that they can be
altered in a relatively short time and at
relatively small cost. It is expected that
after the initial installation of each air
curtain secondary hood system, there
will be a "shakedown" or optimization
period during which the proper balance
of system parameters will be determined
for each particular installation.
  For every air curtain secondary hood
installation, there will be an optimum
set of operating conditions, beyond
which further "fine tuning" of the system
will not result in increased capture
efficiency. Section 112(e)(l) of the Clean
Air Act states, in part, that if the
Administrator promulgates a design or
equipment standard, "he shall include as
part of such standard such requirements
as will  assure the  proper operation and
maintenance of any such element of
design or equipment." "Proper
operation" of an air curtain secondary
hood system includes operating the
system as close to optimum conditions
as possible, and the owner or operator
would be required to do so under the
proposed standards. It is not the
Administrator's intent, however, to
require the owner or operator to operate
a system beyond optimum conditions
(i.e.. at flow rates and power
requirements that do not achieve
additional capture) or to prevent
operational changes that may not affect
the capture efficiency of the system.
  Authority for determination of the
optimum conditions for each air curtain
secondary hood system installed to meet
the proposed standards would rest with
the Administrator. Due to the variables
involved, and the fact each installation
will be site specific, it is not possible for
the Administrator to prescribe in
advance what will constitute optimum
operating conditions for each air curtain
secondary hood installation. Objective
techniques, such as the tracer study
used to evaluate the air curtain
secondary hood system on the No. 4
converter at the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter, are available to help determine
capture effeiciency.  However, a final
determination of whether a system has
truly been optimized, or if not, what
steps should (or could) be taken to
improve it, will largely be a matter of
judgment.
  One approach the Administrator is
considering as a method for determining
optimum conditions for each air curtain
secondary hood installation would be to
have each system evaluated by a panel
of persons with expertise in assessing
visible emissions of air pollutants. The
panel could be comprised of 3 or more
persons, including representatives of
industry, EPA and local air pollution
control agencies.
  The panel would evaluate each air
curtain secondary hood as follows: (1)
the panel would review the plans and
specifications of the system prior to
installation; (2) the panel would agree
on initial operating conditions for the
system; (3) the panel would observe the
operation of the system during each
mode of converter operation under the
initial operating conditions. Estimates of
the capture effectiveness achieved,
based on visual observations, would be
recorded by each panel member for
each mode of operation. In addition,
comments on the minimum and
maximum capture effectiveness
achieved, the duration, location and
density of visible emissions observed,
and a qualitative assessment of the
volume of the emissions escaping
capture (e.g., light, moderate, heavy,
etc.) would be recorded; (4) based on
this initial evaluation, the panel would
agree  on what modifications would be
needed to further optimize the operation
of the air curtain secondary hood; and
(5) the panel would again view the
                                                  V-N,0,P-25
-------
               Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.  140 / Wednesday, July 20, 1983  /  Proposed Rules
system (as in 3) after modification to
compare its performance to pre-
modification performance. After this,
steps 4 and 5 would be re pea fed as
needed until there was agreement
among the panel members that the
system had been optimized. The panel
would then recommend a set of optimum
operating conditions for that system to
the Administrator along with
documentation of their evaluation. In the
event of disputes, panel members would
submit separate recommendations. The
Administrator would make a final
determination of the optimum conditions
based on the panel's recommendation
and supporting documentation.
  If, subsequent to a determination that
a system has been optimized, an owner
of operator proposes to make an
additional modification to the system,
the panel would again be convened and
would observe the system both before
and after the change as prescribed in (3)
above. The modification  could be
approved by the Administrator if the
panel found it did not reduce capture
efficiency.
  The Administrator believes this
approach would assure that the air
curtain secondary hood system is
designed and operating conditions
established which will minimize
secondary inorganic arsenic emissions
to the greatest extent possible, but
would also allow the owner or operator
to make modifications  to the system that
would not reduce capture efficiency.
The public is invited to comment on the
need to evaluate the optimization  of
each air curtain secondary hood system
and on the panel approach being
considered by the Administrator.
Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirement
   Owners or operators of sources
covered by the proposed standards
would be subject to the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements of the
proposed standards, as well as those
prescribed in the General Provisions
(Subpart A) of 40 CFR  Part 61. Under
§ 61.10 of the General Provisions,  an
initial report from each existing source
is required to be submitted within 90
days of the effective date. For purposes
of determining initial applicability, the
proposed standards for high-arsenic-
throughput smelters specify that the
initial report required in §61.10(a) will
include information on the weight
percent inorganic arsenic in the total
smelter charge. The proposed standards
further require that each month the
computation of a rolling  annual average
of the inorganic arsenic content of the
total smelter charge be made and that
the monthly computation of a rolling
annual average of the inorganic arsentic
content of the total smelter charge be
made and that the monthly
computations be recorded and dept on
site for at least 2 years. The monthly
computations would have to be reported
to EPA on an annual basis to ensure that
applicability with respect to the
standards had not changed.
  Under Section 114, EPA is authorized
to establish reporting requirements to
determine whether there is a violation of
standards proposed under the Clean Air
Act. Concern as to whether the systems
for the control of inorganic arsenic
emissions are continuing to meet the
proposed standards would primarily
arise when monitoring showed opacity
levels in excess of those determined
during  the compliance demonstration or
airflow rates that vary significantly from
those established during the
optimization procedure. Therefore, in
determining the necessary reporting
requirements, it was considered
reasonable to require reporting only
when such "excess emission" conditions
exist. Reporting of these excess
emission conditions would be required
on a semiannual basis. Currently, only
the copper smelting companies collect
any of this information. In addition,
there are no reporting requirements by
other governmental agencies for this
type if information which would result
in overlapping data requirements. The
types of information to be included in
the reports are discussed below.
  For the converter secondary hood
system, each semiannual report would
indicate: (1) the reference airflow rates
established for each converter
operational mode, and (2) a record of
airflow rates for each day when the
airflow rates are less than 20 percent of
the corresponding reference values.
  For the collection devices for
secondary emissions, each semiannual
report would provide: (1) a record of
transmissometer readings for each day
on  which the opacity exceeded the
reference opacity limit determined at the
time the collection device demonstrated
compliance, and (2) the values of the
emission test opacity limits.

Impacts of Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements
  EPA believes that these reporting and
recordkeeping requirements are
necessary to assist the Agency in (1)
identifying sources, (2) observing the
compliance testing and demonstration of
monitoring devices,  (3)  determining
initial compliance, and (4) enforcing the
standard after the initial compliance
determination.
  The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-511) requires that the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) approve reporting and
recordkeeping requirements that qualify
as an "information collection request"
(ICR). For the purposes of
accommodating OMB's review, EPA
uses 2-year periods in its impact
analysis procedures for estimating the
labor-hour burden of reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
  The average annual burden on high-
arsenic-throughput copper smelters to
comply with the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements of the
proposed standards over the first 2
years after the effective date is
estimated to be 1,310  person-hours.

Regulatory  Flexibility Analysis

  The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(RFA) requires that differential impacts
of Federal regulations upon  small
businesses be identified and analyzed.
The RFA stipulates that an analysis is
required if a substantial number of small
businesses  will experience significant
impacts. Both measures must be met;
that is, a substantial number of small
businesses  must be affected and they
must experience significant  impacts, to
require an analysis. Twenty percent or
more of the small businesses in an
affected industry is considered a
substantial number. The EPA definition
of significant impact involves three
tests, as follows: (1) prices of products
produced by small entities rise 5 percent
or more, assuming costs are passed  on
to consumers; (2) annualized investment
costs for pollution control are greater
than 20 percent of total capital spending;
or (3) costs as a percent of sales for
small entities are 10 percent greater than
costs as a percent of  sales for large
entities.
   The Small Business Administration
(SBA) definition of a  small business for
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
Code 3331, Primary Smelting and
Refining of Copper, is 1,000 employees.
The ASARCO-Tacoma smelter is owned
by a company that has more than 1,000
employees. Therefore ASARCO does
not meet the SBA definition of a small
business and thus no regulatory
flexibility analysis is required.

III. INORGANIC ARSENIC EMISSIONS
FROM PRIMARY COPPER SMELTERS
PROCESSING FEED MATERIALS
CONTAINING LESS THAN 0.7
PERCENT  ARSENIC

Proposed Standards

   The proposed standards would
regulate inorganic arsenic emissions
from primary copper smelters that
process feed material with an annual
                                                   V-N.O.P-26
-------
               Federal Register /  Vol.  48,  No. 140  /  Wednesday, July 20, 1983  /  Proposed Rules
average inorganic arsenic concentration
less than 0.7 percent. Standards are
being proposed to regulate secondary
inorganic arsenic emissions from copper
smelting furnaces and all converter
operations. These standards are being
proposed both for the capture and for
the collection in a control device of
secondary inorganic arsenic emissions
from converter operations. The proposed
standards would also require the
collection of secondary emissions from
matte and slag tapping operations at the
smelting furnace.
  The proposed standards for converter
operations would apply to smelters with
an annual average arsenic feed rate to
the converters of 6.5 kilograms per hour
(kg/h) average or greater. The proposed
standards for matte and slag tapping
operations would apply to smelters with
an annual average combined inorganic
arsenic process rate in the matte and the
slag  of 40 kg/h or greater.
  The proposed standard for the capture
of secondary inorganic arsenic
emissions from converters would be an
equipment standard. The proposed
standard would require the installation
of a secondary hood system consisting
of a fixed enclosure with a horizontal air
curtain  on the converters. Equivalency
determinations for control techniques
other than the secondary hood system
as specified in the equipment standard
would be made on a case-by-case basis.
None of the proposed standards would
limit the control technique which may
be used to comply with the proposed
standards provided equivalency in
performance can be shown.
  The proposed standard would limit
particulate emissions from the uollection
device to 11.6 milligrams of particulate
matter per standard cubic meter (mg/
dscm) of exhaust air. To determine
compliance with the proposed
particulate emission limit, Reference
Methods 1, 2, 3, and 5 in Appendix A of
40 CFR Part 60 would be used.
Continuous opacity monitoring of gases
exhausted from a particulate control
device would be required to ensure the
control device is being properly
operated and maintained. Continuous
monitoring of airflow and inspection
and  maintenance procedures would be
required to ensure the secondary hood
system is being properly operated and
maintained.

Summary of Environmental, Health,
Energy, and Economic Impacts
  The proposed standards affect
primary copper smelters which process
feed material having an annual average
inorganic arsenic content less than 0.7
percent. This category is defined as low-
arsenic-throughput smelters.
  It is estimated that the proposed
standards would affect six existing
domestic primary copper smelters. No
new smelters are projected to be built in
the next 5 years. Analysis of the 14
smelters in the category included
calculation of the environmental,
economic, and energy impacts of the
proposed standards.
  The proposed standards would reduce
secondary inorganic arsenic emissions
from the affected smelters by about 111
megagrams per year (121 tons per year).
As a result of this inorganic arsenic
emission reduction, it is estimated that
the number of incidences per year of
lung cancer due to inorganic arsenic
exposure for persons residing within 20
kilometers of the affected smelters
would be reduced from a range of 0.1 to
1.6 incidence per year to a range of 0.04
to 0.64 incidence per year. The proposed
standards would reduce  the estimated
maximum lifetime risk from exposure to
airborne inorganic arsenic at the low-
arsenic-throughput smelters from a
range of 43 in 10,000 to 690 in 10,000 to a
range of 9.4 in 10,000 to 150 in 10,000.
The estimated maximum lifetime risk
represents the probability of a person
contracting cancer who has been
exposed continuously during a 70-year
period to the maximum annual inorganic
arsenic concentration due to emissions
from the smelters. These estimated
health impacts were calculated based
on a number of assumptions and contain
considerable uncertainty as discussed in
Appendix E of the background
information document (BID) for this
source category.
   Application of the controls required
under the proposed standards would
increase the amount of solid waste (i.e.,
arsenic-laden dust) entering the smelter
waste handling systems by
approximately 11,100 Mg (12,100 tons)
per year. Currently,  the low-arsenic-
throughput smelters generate
approximately 3.2X10* Mg (3.5 X108
tons) per year. The additional amount of
solid waste generated under Ike
proposed standards would add
relatively minimal quantities which
could be easily handled by the smelters.
   The control systems expected to be
used to meet the proposed standards are
dry systems. Therefore, there would be
no direct water pollution impact. If
scrubbers were used to meet the
proposed standards, secondary water
pollution impacts may result if the
arsenic-containing dusts are disposed of
along with acid plant slurry. However,
no adverse water pollution impact is
anticipated since the amount of
additional wastewater generated could
be treated at existing water pollution
control systems installed due to existing
regulations.
  Energy requirements under the
proposed standards would result in
increased electrical consumption.
Current annual energy requirements for
the affected low-arsenic-throughput
smelters total approximately 6.0XlO3
MW utility capacity. Additional energy
requirements at the low-arsenic-
throughput smelters due to the proposed
standards are estimated to be
approximately 6.4 MW, or
approximately 0.1 percent above plant
energy requirements without the
proposed standards.
  Capita] and annualized costs required
to meet the proposed standards would
be approximately $35.3 million and S9.5
million, respectively. The primary
economic impacts associated with the
proposed standards are projected
decreases in profitability  for the six
affected low-arsenic smelters if costs
cannot be passed through. If the costs
are passed forward in the form of a
price increase, it is estimated that the
proposed standards would result in a 0.1
to 4.4 percent increase in  the price of
copper. Under the proposed standards,
no plant closures are anticipated.
  The control technology, which is the
basis for the proposed standards, should
be less costly when integrated into the
original design of a new plant rather
than retrofitted to an existing plant.
Therefore, EPA considers it appropriate
to apply the proposed standards to new
plants, thereby establishing a minimum
level of required inorganic arsenic
control for all low-arsenic-throughput
smelters.

Rationale

Selection of Source Category

   Copper smelting involves the
processing of copper-bearing ores
containing varying concentrations of
inorganic arsenic. Several studies have
assessed health problems in
communities where copper smelters are
located. A detailed discussion of these
studies can be found in Part II of this
preamble, which discusses the high-
arsenic-throughput smelter category. In
making the decision to regulate low-
arsenic-throughput smelters, the
Administrator considered that arsenic
emissions from the source category and
resulting exposure are significant. Based
on an analysis of the costs and impacts
of more stringent alternatives, it is the
Administrator's judgment that a
substantial reduction in secondary
inorganic arsenic emissions to the
atmosphere  from the current level is
achievable and appropriate. There are
                                                  V-N,0,P-27
-------
               Federal Register  /  Vol. 48.  No. 140  /  Wednesday,  July  20. 1983 / Proposed Rules
no other regulations in place which
cause these reductions to occur.
Therefore. EPA has decided to proceed
with standards to control secondary
inorganic arsenic emissions from low-
arsenic-throughput copper smelters
under Section 112.
  The two source categories for primary
copper smelters are: (1) smelters
processing feed with an annual average
inorganic arsenic content less than 0.7
percent (low-arsenic-throughput
smelters), and  (2) smelters processing
feed with an annual average inorganic
arsenic content 0.7 percent or more
(high-arsenic-throughput smelters).
Selection of the value 0.7 percent was
based on the consideration of the
highest average inorganic arsenic
concentration currently used at a
domestic smelter other than the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter (the one high-
arsenic-throughput smelter). Each
category is evaluated separately for the
purpose of establishing regulations.
Only the category of smelters which
process feed material with an annual
average inorganic arsenic content less
than 0.7 percent is being addressed in
this section of  the preamble.

Description of Emission Points
  A description of the copper smelting
process is presented in Part II of this
preamble and will not be repeated here.
The discussion which follows is limited
to the emission points at low-arsenic-
throughput smelters.
  Inorganic arsenic emissions from
primary copper smelters can be
categorized as either process emissions
or secondary emissions. Process
emissions are  those emissions from
roasters, smelting furnaces, and
converters which are confined in
exhaust gas streams. Secondary
emissions are  those emissions which
escape capture from the primary
emission control system. Chapter 2 of
the BID for this source category
discusses in detail all potential sources
of inorganic arsenic emissions at
primary copper smelters.
   Process emission sources at low-
arsenic-throughput primary copper
smelters are the roasters, smelting
furnaces, converters, and anode
furnaces. The  three sources which have
the greatest potential arsenic emissions
are the roasters, smelting furnaces, and
converters. Currently, these process
sources are generally well controlled at
9 of the 14 existing low-arsenic-
throughput smelters. Because process
emissions are  a significant source of
inorganic arsenic emissions, especially
at those sources which are not well
controlled EPA evaluated the
requirements of additional process
controls.
  Anode furnaces at primary copper
smelters are used to treat the blister
copper. Blister copper, due to the nature
of the smelting process, has a low
concentration of inorganic arsenic. In
addition, there is no known U.S.-applied
control technology demonstrated to
reduce emissions from the anode
furnaces. Therefore, process emissions
from anode furnaces were not
considered for regulation.
  Converter operations (charing,
blowing, skimming, holding, and
pouring), multihearth roaster discharge,
and smelting furnace matte and slag
tapping  have the greatest potential for
secondary inorganic arsenic emissions.
  Converter operations are difficult to
control in terms of capturing the
secondary inorganic arsenic emissions;
however, secondary emissions from the
converters are typically 7 to 25 times
greater than matte and slag tapping
emissions combined. There is limited
capture  of these secondary emissions at
5 of the  14 smelters and emissions are
collected at 2 of these smelters. _
However, EPA believes that further
control of secondary emissions from
converters is possible at all smelters.
Therefore, EPA has considered further
regulations for these sources.
  Currently all of the 14 existing
smelters use localized hoods to capture
furnace  matte tapping emissions and
roaster calcine discharge emissions.
Twelve  of the fourteen existing smelters
use localized hoods to capture furnace
slag tapping emissions. In most of these
cases, the localized hoods were installed
to reduce worker exposure to pollutants
discharged into the furnace building.
Only three smelters use collection
devices to control these captured
emissions, while the other smelters
discharge the emissions to the
atmosphere. Since collection devices
have been demonstrated on these
secondary inorganic arsenic emission
sources to reduce arsenic emissions to
the atmosphere, EPA also considered
these sources for further regulation.
  Further regulations are not being
considered for the control of secondary
inorganic arsenic emissions from
miscellaneous sources. These
miscellaneous sources include the
transfer, handling, and conveying of
dust from control device storage
hoppers, smelter flues, and dust
chambers. These secondary emission
sources are relatively small and would
be difficult to control further.
Policy for Determining Control Levels
   For this source category of 14 existing
smelters EPA used a three-step
approach for determining the control
levels upon which the proposed
standards are based. This approach is
based upon the policy described in Part
I of this preamble.
  The first step consisted of examining
the adequacy of current controls for
each inorganic arsenic emission source
at the low-arsenic smelters. The level of
current control for each source was
compared to EPA's determination of
BAT for the source. For the sources
judged by EPA to have BAT in place,
EPA then determined if Federally
enforceable standards required the
controls to be continuously operated
and maintained or if these controls
could reasonably be expected to remain
in use without regulations. Based on this
evaluation, EPA  identified the emission
sources at the low-arsenic smelters
which required the development of
standards to assure inorganic arsenic
emissions were controlled continuously
using BAT.
  The second step involved the
selection of BAT for the emission points
at the low-arsenic smelters identified for
the development of standards. To select
BAT, regulatory  alternatives were
defined, based on current or projected
controls plus new controls as called for
by the particular alternative. The
environmental, economic, and  energy
impacts of the alternatives were
determined. Based on an assessment of
these impacts, the alternatives which
reflected BAT at each smelter were
selected.
  The third step involved consideration
of regulatory alternatives beyond BAT
for all of the inorganic arsenic emission
sources at the low-arsenic smelters. The
risk of cancer incidence due to inorganic
arsenic exposure in the population
distributed around the low-arsenic
smelters was estimated. This estimated
risk which remains after application of
BAT was evaluated considering costs,
economic impacts, risk reduction, and
other impacts that would result if a more
strigent alternative, were selected. If the
residual risk was judged not to be
unreasonable considering the other
impacts of controls beyond BAT, more
stringent controls than BAT would not
be required. However, if the residual
risk was judged  to be unreasonable,
then an alternative more strigent than
BAT would be required.
Determination of the Adequacy of
Current Controls
   Inorganic arsenic emissions sources at
the low-arsenic  smelters are currently
controlled using a variety of capture and
collection techniques. Capture
techniques are used to gather and
                                                  V-N,0,P-28
-------
               Federal Register  /  Vol. 48, No. 140 / Wednesday,  July  20, 1983 / Proposed  Rules
confine secondary inorganic arsenic
emissions and to transport them to a
collection device. Or, in some cases,
secondary emissions are captured and
simply vented out of a tall stack for
better dispersion. Collection techniques
are used to remove inorganic arsenic
from process offgases and captured
gases prior to venting the gases to the
atmosphere. Each inorganic arsenic
emission source at the low-arsenic
smelters was  examined by EPA to
determine the extent to which inorganic
arsenic emissions are currently
controlled and whether the level of
control represents BAT. In performing
the examination, EPA reviewed the
existing process operations and
pollution control equipment. Four of the
smelters were undergoing improvements
due to either consent degree
requirements  (Phelps Dodge-Ajo, Phelps
Dodge-Morenci, and ASARCO-Hayden)
or modernization (Kennecotte-Hurley).
For purposes  of evaluating whether BAT
controls were installed, the new smelter
configurations were used.
  The first sources to be examined were
the process sources (roasters, smelting
furnaces, and converters) at the low-
arsenic-throughput smelters. During
these process operations, inorganic
arsenic is volatilized and emitted
predominantly as a metallic oxide vapor
in the process offgases. By cooling the
process offgases, the inorganic arsenic
vapor sublimates to form inorganic
arsenic participates, which can be
collected in a conventional particulate
control device. The two most important
factors affecting  the collectability of
inorganic arsenic emissions are the
operating temperature of the control
device and the concentration of arsenic
in the exhaust gas stream. The
temperature of the offgas stream
determines the amount of inorganic
arsenic which can exist as vapor. The
concentration of inorganic arsenic
compared to the satuation vapor
pressure  at the offgas temperature
determines the quantity of inorganic
arsenic which can condense and
potentially be captured in a particulate
control device. Vapor pressure data
indicate a significant logarithmic
increase in the vapor pressure of arsenic
trioxide (the prevalent oxide of
inorganic arsenic in the offgas), and thus
the amount of arsenic which can exist in
the vapor state, with temperature.
Furthermore,  the vapor pressure data
indicate that arsenic trioxide maintains
an appreciable vapor pressure at
relatively low temperatures. EPA test
data demonstrate the need to cool the
gas stream to be  treated  as much as
practicable to condense as much of the
arsenic trioxide vapor as possible prior
to its entering a control device for
collection. There are limits to the extent
to which the offgases can be cooled.
Corrosion due to the condensation of
sulfuric acid can be a major problem if
gases are cooled below the acid dew
point. Therefore, to ensure the use  of
existing electrostatic precipitator (ESP)
technology without major corrosion
problems, BAT evaluations for flue gas
cooling to enhance particulate inorganic
arsenic collection are limited to a
minimum temperature of 121°C (250°F).
  Four of the existing smelters
incorporate roasting of the copper  ore
concentrates to remove impurities  prior
to entering the smelting furnaces. The
ASARCO-E1 Paso and Phelps Dodge-
Douglas smelters use multihearth
roasters, and the Tennessee Copper-
Copperhill and Kenneycott-Hayden
smelter use fluid bed roasters. Process
offgases from the fluid bed roasters at
Tennessee Copper-Copperhill and
Kenneco It-Hay den and the multihearth
roasters at ASARCO-E1 Paso are treated
by acid plant controls to remove SO.
emissions before being exhausted  to the
atmosphere. Because of the highly
efficient particulate removal equipment
required, the acid plant controls are
considered 99 percent effective for the
removal of arsenic. These acid plant
controls represent the most advanced
level of control adequately
demonstrated considering economic
feasibility. Therefore, the roasters  at
these smelters are already controlled
using BAT.
  The multihearth roaster at Phelps
Dodge-Douglas uses an ESP operating at
an elevated temperature (260°C) to
control process offgases. EPA estimates
that this control device currently
achieves an  emission reduction of  about
30 percent. EPA evaluated the
possibility of cooling the process gases
to 121°C prior to entering the ESP.  The
expected concentration of inorganic
arsenic in the offgases, after cooling to
121°C, was calculated using arsenic
emission rates and flow rate data
supplied by the company. This
calculated concentration is them
compared to the saturation
concentration at 121°C. However, the
concentration of arsenic  in the offgases
at Phelps Dodge-Douglas would still be
below the saturation concentration. As a
result, it is predicted that the inorganic
arsenic would remain in  the vapor state
and pass through the particulate control
device with no additional particulate
arsenic removal. Because no additional
arsenic emission reduction is predicted
when this gas stream is cooled to 121°C,
and because additional cooling would
necessitate costly corrosion resistance
measures, EPA concluded that the
existing ESP at Phelps-Douglas
represents the most advanced level of
control adequately demonstrated
considering economic feasibility, and is
thus BAT.
  Smelting furnace offgases at all but 6
of the 14 smelters are controlled
currently by acid plants or will be
controlled by acid plants under consent
decree. As with the roasters, the acid
plants are considered to be 99 percent
efficient for removing inorganic arsenic
and represent BAT controls at these
smelters. The ASARCO-El Paso smelter
cools the smelting furnace offgases to
about 105°C before entering an ESP. The
inorganic  arsenic concentration in the
smelting furnace offgases greatly
exceeds the inorganic arsenic saturaton
concentration at 10°C, and, therefore,
the arsenic is present predominantly in
the particulate state. Test data indicate
that the inorganic arsenic removal
efficiency for the cold ESP at ASARCO-
El Paso  is approximately 96 percent.
Additional cooling is not predicted to
result in any appreciable increase in
arsenic  removal; therefore, the existing
cold ESP at ASARCO-El Paso represents
the most advanced level of control
considering economic feasibility, and is
thus BAT.
  The remaining five smelters all control
smelting furnace offgases with
electrostatic precipitators operating at
temperatures between 190"C and 315'C.
EPA evaluated the possibility of
achieving additional inorganic arsenic
removal in the existing ESP's by cooling
the gas streams to 121°C. In all cases,
the concentration of inorganic arsenic
would be  well below the saturation
concentration at 121°C. As a result, the
inorganic  arsenic would remain as a
vapor as it passed through the
particulate control device, and no
additional inorganic arsenic removal
could be predicted. As with the roasters
at Phelps Dodge-Douglas, cooling the
gas stream further to try to condense the
arsenic  to particulate would cause
serious corrosion problems and wouid
require costly preventative measures.
Consequently, EPA concluded that the
existing ESP's on the smelting furnace
offgases at the Kennecott-Hayden,
Magma-San Manuel,  Kennecott-McGill,
Phelps Dodge-Douglas, and the White
Pine smelters were BAT for these
sources.
  Converter process offgases at 11 of
the 14 low-arsenic-throughput smelters
are controlled by acid plants. As with
the other process sources,  these controls
are considered BAT for inorganic
arsenic. Converter offgases at the Phelps
                                                  V-N,0,P-29
-------
               Federal Register  /  Vol. 48.  No. 140  / Wednesday,  July  20,  1983 / Proposed  Rules
Dodge-Douglas smelter are controlled by
an ESP operating at 230°C. and at the
Kennecott-McGill smelter by
multiclones operating at 433'C. The
converters at the White Pine smelter are
uncontrolled with an exhaust gas
temperature of 345°C. In all cases, EPA
evaluated the possibility of cooling the
gas streams to 121°C and collecting the
parttculate inorganic arsenic in and ESP.
The calulations for the Phelps Dodge-
Douglas and White Pine smelters
indicated that the concentration  would
be below the saturation concentration,
and no additional arsenic removal was
predicted. As concluded previously, the
existing control scenarios at these two
smelters are then considered BAT. The
calculations for the Kennecott-McGill
smdter, however, indicated that the
concentration of inorganic arsenic was
significant enough that cooling of the
gas stream  to 121°C  would result in the
condensation of over half of the  arsenic
present to the particulate state and
would allow collection of this
particulate  in a particulate control
device.
  To summarize the process emission
sources. EPA concluded that the control
systems currently in place at ten
smelters and those systems which will
be installed due to consent decree and
modernization programs at four  smelters
to control roaster, smelting furnace, and
converter process offgas inorganic
arsenic emissions (with the exception of
the process emissions from the
converters  at Kennecott-McGill)
represent the most advanced level of
control adequately demonstrated
considering economic feasibility.
Therefore,  these process sources are
,1!ready controlled by BAT. Existing
Federally enforceable regulations for
particulate and SO» emissions will
require the controls to remain in place
and to be properly operated and
maintained to reduce emissions. These
regulations serve to assure that  BAT for
inorganic arsenic will remain in place. It
should  be noted that if the controls
required by consent decree at the three
smelters are not installed as expected,
EPA will reconsider the need for process
standards based upon BAT.
   In particular, there is some
 uncertainty regarding the consent
decree for  the Phelps Dodge-Ajo smelter.
'['he smelter is negotiating changes to the
 Consent decree because the company
 now feels that the changes outlined in
 the decree (installation of oxygen-fuel/
 oxygen sprinkle smelting and acid plant
 controls) are no longer required to
 comply with the recently approved
 multipoint rollback (MRP) SIP
 regulations for sulfur dioxide control (48
FR 1717, January 14,1983). If the
smelting furnace and associated
pollution control equipment changes are
not made as specified in the existing
consent decree. EPA would then
reconsider the need for standards for
smelting furnaces. It is expected that
standards based on BAT for smelting
furnaces would affect only the Phelps
Dodge-Ajo smelter and would
necessitate cooling of the reverberatory
furnace exhaust gas. Such cooling would
result in reduction of inorganic arsenic
emissions of about 110 Mg/yr (from
about 200 Mg/yr to 90 Mg/yr) at a
capital cost of about $1.5 million and an
annualized cost of $1.6 million.
  Additional  inorganic  arsenic control
can be achieved by the addition of flue
gas cooling and particulate controls at
the Kennecott-McGill smelter.
Therefore, because of the sizeable
current inorganic arsenic emission rate
(394 Mg/yr) and because demonstrated
technology is available, EPA decided  to
evaluate standards based on BAT for
the converter process offgas emissions
from the Kennecott-McGill smelter.
  In all cases, secondary inorganic
arsenic emissions from the low-arsenic-
throughput cooper smelters are cool
enough to be present essentially in
particulate form only. This allows the
captured secondary inorganic arsenic
emissions to be collected in
conventional particulate control devices.
The major source of secondary inorganic
arsenic emissions at the low-arsenic-
throughput smelters is the converter
operations. There is limited capture of
secondary converter emissions at 5 of
the 14 smelters, and particulate control
equipment to collect the captured
emissions is or will be  installed at two
of these. Total baseline secondary
emissions from the converters at all the
smelters are 137 Mg/yr. These emissions
have the greatest potential health
impact because they are generally low-
level emissions and are not emitted
through stacks. Technology for capture
and collection of these emissions has
been demonstrated. Therefore, because
of the potential for the converter
operations to emit large quantities of
secondary inorganic arsenic emissions.
and because of the demonstrated
availability of controls for these
emissions. EPA decided to evaluate
standards based on BAT for secondary
 inorganic arsenic emissions from
 converter operations.
   Three of the low-arsenic-throughput
 smelters have multihearth roasters with
 associated calcine discharge secondary
 inorganic arsenic emissions. One of
 these smelters, however, will be
 changing over  to a smelting technology
 which does not require roasting as part
of a consent decree modification
discussed in the regulatory baseline
section. For the two remaining smelters,
calcine discharge secondary emissions
are captured in localized hoods and sent
to a particulate control device. This
equipment is already installed at these
smelters and is considered BAT.
  Smelting furnace secondary inorganic
arsenic emissions from matte tapping
operations are captured at all smelters
using localized hoods. This equipment is
installed at all smelters and is
considered best technology for capture.
Secondary emissions from furnace slag
tapping operations are currently
captured at 11 of the 14 smelters. This
capture is also accomplished with
localized hooding. Because this
equipment is not used at all smelters,
EPA analyzed the impacts of requiring
capture for slag tapping secondary
inorganic arsenic emissions.
  Captured secondary inorganic arsenic
emissions from matte tapping operations
are collected in particulate control
devices at two smelters and captured
secondary inorganic arsenic emissions
from slag tapping are collected at only
one smelter. Because these inorganic
arsenic emissions are in the particulate
state and because capture and
collection equipment have been
demonstrated in the industry, EPA
decided to analyze the alternative of
requiring collection of secondary
inorganic arsenic emissions from matte
and slag tapping operations.

Selection of BAT for Process and
Secondary Inorganic Arsenic Emissions
  The control of process and secondary
inorganic arsenic emissions at low-
arsenic-throughput primary copper
smelters is identical to the technology
discussed in Part II of this preamble.
Therefore, the discussion on technology
is only summarized here.
Capture of Secondary Emissions.

   The capture of secondary inorganic
arsenic emissions from primary copper
smelters can be achieved by the
application of local ve'ntilation
techniques (i.e.. ventilation hoods and
air curtains) or general ventilation
 techniques (i.e., building evacuation).
Once captured, the emissions may be
 vented directly to a collection device or
 combined  with process exhaust gases
 prior to collection.
   Converter Operations—Local
 ventilation techniques for the capture of
 secondary emissions include the use of
 fixed secondary hoods, retractable
 secondary hoods, or air curtain
 secondry hoods. General ventilation
 techniques, such as building evacuation.
                                                   V-N,0,P-30
-------
               Federal Register  /  Vol. 48,  No. 140 / Wednesday.  July  20.  1983 / Proposed Rules
 take the form of either natural air
 changes due to wind and density
 differences, or mechanically assisted air
 changes.
   The most effective local ventilation
 technique evaluated for the capture of
 converter secondary emissions involves
 the use of a secondary hood system
 consisting of a fixed enclosure with an
 air curtain. In January, 1983, EPA
 conducted a test program designed to
 evaluate the effectiveness of the capture
 of secondary emissions  by the prototype
 fixed-enclosure-with-air-curtain system
 at the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter. This
 system was determined to be
 representative of a capture system
 which could be used at all smelters. The
 capture efficiency of the system was
 evaluated by performing a gas tracer
 study and visual observation. The gas
 tracer was released inside the
 boundaries  of the fixed enclosure, and
 the amount  of the gas tracer in the
 exhaust gases was measured in the
 ducting downstream of the enclosure
 receiving hood. The capture efficiency
 was then calculated by a material
 balance of the inlet and  outlet tracer gas
 mass flow rates. Based on the results of
 this test program, the ovrall average
 capture efficiency of the fixed-
 enclosure-with-air-curtain system was
 determined  by EPA to be 95 percent.
   Capture of converter secondary
 emissions by building evacuation is
 accomplished by controlling the airflow
 patterns within the building housing the
 converter and by maintaining a
 sufficient air change or ventilation rate.
 In theory, EPA believes a building
 evacuation system should be capable of
 achieving at least 95 percent capture of
 secondary emissions. However,  the
 building evacuation systems in use have
 not demonstrated this level of control.
 Building evacuation is presently being
 used at ASARCO's primary copper
 smelter located in El Paso, Texas, to
 capture secondary emissions from the
 converters. While preventing the venting
 of secondary emissions to the ambient
 air outside the building, use of the
 building evacuation system at the
 ASARCO-E1 Paso smelter has resulted
 in elevated concentrations of inorganic
 arsenic, lead, and SO, inside the
 building, in addition to excessive heat
 buildup. To alleviate these unacceptable
 working conditions, building openings
 have been increased, and ventilators
 designed for emergency use have been
 operated routinely. Consequently, the
 building evacuation system at the
 ASARCO-E1 Paso smelter achieves a
 capture efficiency less than 95 percent.
  Slag Tapping—Local ventilation
 techniques for slag tapping operations
are very similar to those used for matte
tapping. EPA observed furnace slag
tapping operations at the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter at both the tap port and
the slag launder to slag pot transfer
point using EPA Methods 22 and 9. The
performance demonstrated by the matte
tapping controls at ASARCO-Tacoma
suggests that a properly designed and
operated ventilation system  applied to
slag tapping operations should be
capable of achieving at least 90 percent
capture.

Collection of Inorganic Arsenic
Emissions.
  As discussed previously, the two most
important factors affecting the
collectability of inorganic arsenic
emissions are the operating temperature
of the control device and the
concentration of arsenic in the exhaust
gas stream. The temperature of the
offgas stream determines the amount of
inorganic arsenic which can  exist as
vapor. The concentration of inorganic
arsenic compared to the saturation
vapor pressure at the offgas  temperatue
determines the quantity of inorganic
arsenic which can condense  and
potentially be captured in a particulate
control device.
  Several methods were evaluated for
cooling the converter process offgas at
the Kennecott-McGill smelter. These
methods included tempering with
dilution air, radiative cooling, and
evaporative cooling. Each method has
its advantages and disadvantages.
Dilution air is the simplest method.
However, it may be uneconomical as the
amount of dilution air required may
result in a two- to four-fold increase in
gas volume to be treated and, thus, an
increase in the size and cost  of the
collection device and fan applied. In
addition, dilution air lowers the
concentration of arsenic in the gas
stream, thus increasing the amount of
arsenic which can exist in the vapor
phase. Radiative cooling relies on heat
loss due to natural convection and
radiation to achieve cooling.  The major
drawback to this method is limited
flexibility for temperatue control.
Evaporative cooling is relatively simple
and requires little space. The major
drawback to this method is the potential
for corrosion. Which method, or
combination of methods, is used to
achieve cooling depends on the specific
circumstances.
  In contrast to process offgases,
secondary emission streams  are
relatively lower in temperature, seldom
having a temperature higher than 93° C
(200° F). At this low temperature, further
cooling of the secondary emissions
would have an insignificant effect on the
amount of inorganic arsenic which could
be collected by the control device.
Therefore, additional gas cooling prior
to collection is not required for
secondary inorganic arsenic emissions.
  Converter process inorganic arsenic
emissions may be effectively collected
through the use of baghouses,
electrostatic precipitators, or venturi
scrubbers if emissions are sufficiently
precooled. Baghouse collectors (fabric
filters) have historically achieved a high
collection efficiency over a broad range
of applications, although never
specifically for control of converter
offgases. Single-stage electrostatic
precipitators are widely used in the
primary copper industry for the control
of process particulate emissions from
converter operations. Both wire-in-plate
and wire-in-tube types are used. They
are generally, however, operated at
elevated temperatures, usually at 200° C
to 340" C (400" F to 650° F). The
application of venturi scrubbers at
primary copper smelters is limited to  a
few smelters where scrubbers are used
to augment process gas stream
precleaning and cooling prior to acid
manufacturing. High operating costs and
water handling problems make their use
less desirable than other control
devices.
  The concentration of arsenic in the
gas stream is very important in
determining achievable arsenic emission
reductions. To achieve any arsenic
trioxide emission reduction by
condensation, the quantity of arsenic
trioxide in the gas stream must be
sufficiently high so that the resultant
arsenic trioxide concentration at the
control device operating temperature
exceeds the predicted saturation
concentration. The concentration of
inorganic arsenic in the converter
offgases from the Kennecott-McGill
smelter exceeded the saturation
concentration at a temperature of 121°
C. Calculations  indicated that over half
of the arsenic present was in the
particulate state.
  The effect of the overall collection
efficiency of the control device on
achievable arsenic emission reduction is
self-evident; the higher the efficiency  for
particulate matter, the higher the
efficiency for arsenic.
  To evaluate the performance
capabilities of various collection devices
on process emissions, EPA conducted
emission source tests on process gas
streams from roasters, smelting
furnaces, and converters. Baghouse,
electrostatic precipitator (ESP), and
venturi scrubber collection systems
were evaluated. Based on the test
results for the collection  efficiency of
baghouses. electrostatic precipitators.
                                                   V-N.O.P-31
-------
               Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.  140 / Wednesday, July 20. 1983  /  Proposed Rules
and venturi scrubbers, EPA concluded
that these three control devices, when
applied to process arsenic emission
sources, are equivalent in performance.
Given sufficiently high arsenic
concentration in the offgas and
sufficiently low offgas temperature.
control efficiencies for inorganic arsenic
in excess of 97 percent can be achieved.
  Captured secondary inorganic arsenic
emissions may be effectively collected
through the use of baghouses,
electrostatic precipitators, and venturi
scrubbers. Only three domestic copper
smelters use baghouse or ESP collection
devices exclusively for secondary
emissions. No presently operating
primary copper smelter uses a venturi
scrubber for the collection of secondary
emissions. There is no reason to believe
that a venturi scrubber system could not
be installed to effectively collect
secondary inorganic arsenic emissions,
but high operating costs and water
handling problems associated with the
use of veaturi scrubbers make their use
less desirable than other devices.
  To help evaluate the  performance of
collection devices used to collect
secondary inorganic arsenic emissions,
EPA conducted tests on the baghouse at
ASARCO-E1 Paso used to treat
combined converter and anode furnace
secondary emissions. The results of
these tests  are summarized below.
  Secondary emissions from converters
and anode  furnaces at the ASARCO-El
Paso smelter are captured by building
evacuation. Inlet and outlet emission
measurements for inorganic arsenic
were made by EPA at the El Paso
baghouse during converter operations.
Tests were conducted only when one or
more converters were in operation. The
test results indicated an average
irorganic arsenic removal efficiency of
96.2 percent, with a range (in three runs)
from 94.5 to 99.1 percent.
  In summary, baghouses, electrostatic
precipitators, and venturi scrubbers are
comparable in terms of secondary
inorganic arsenic emission reduction
performance. However, due to lower
inlet loadings associated with secondary
emissions in general, it is expected that
collection devices used for secondary
emissions streams will not always
achieve high inorganic arsenic collection
efficiencies, because of the lower
arsenic concentrations in these gas
streams.

Selection of Regulatory Baseline
   In selecting the basis of the proposed
standards, it was first necessary to
establish the regualtory baseline. The
 regulatory baseline represents no
 additional regulatory action. In other
 words, the baseline alternative
describes the industry in the absence of
a NESHAP arsenic regulation. The
baseline alternative provides the basis
for computing the incremental impacts
associated with each of the regulatory
alternatives selected for consideration.
  The regulatory baseline was selected
as including only those existing air
pollution controls installed before the
court order (January 13,1983} or
required by existing legal actions. EPA
realizes that it may be necessary for
some smelters to install additional
controls in the future to meet other
Clean Air Act or OSHA requirements.
However, given the uncertainty of future
deadlines concerning controls required
under OSHA or the nonferrous smelter
order (NSO) program, it was not
possible to anticipate, for purposes of
this analysis, what controls would be
required or when they would have to be
installed.
  Three smelters (Phelps Dodge-Ajo and
Morenci, and ASARCO-Hayden)
currently are operating under consent
decrees to install new furnace
configuration and acid plant control
equipment for SOi removal. Final
compliance dates for these consent
decrees have been established as 1985.
Since these controls are mandated by
the court and final compliance will be in
the near future, these controls were
considered as part of the regulatory
baseline.
   In addition, the Kennecott-Hurley
smelter is currently modernizing its
facilities. This work has already begun
and is expected to be completed at
about  the same time as the smelters
operating under a consent decree. For
these reasons, the smelter configuration.
after modernization, was selected as
part of the regulatory baseline. Chapter
4 of the BID for this source category
explains in detail the process and
control equipment considered in the
regulatory baseline.
Regulatory Alternatives
   Following the definition of the
regulatory baseline, designated as
Alternative I, four other regulatory
alternatives were defined for the low-
arsenic-throughput smelters. These
alternatives represent application of
inorganic arsenic controls independently
on various emission points at the
smelters and are characterized by the
control equipment that would be
 required (beyond what is required to
 meet baseline requirements) to meet
 these  levels of control.
   Alternative II would require the
 control of process inorganic arsenic
 emissions. This alternative affects only
 one smelter where additional inorganic
 arsenic removal is predicted (Kennecott-
McGill). This alternative is based on the
use of flue gas cooling followed by a
particulate control device (baghouse.
ESP, or scrubber) to collect process
arsenic emissions. Under this
alternative, an adequate particulate
control device operating at less than
121° C (250° F) would be required to be
installed on the converter process
offgases at the Kennecott-McCill
smelter.
  Alternative III would require the
capture and collection of secondary
inorganic arsenic emissions from
converter operations. This alternative is
based on the use of a secondary hood
system or equivalent for the capture of
secondary emissions and a particulate
control device (baghouse or an
equivalent technology) for the collection
of secondary inorganic arsenic
emissions from the converters.
  Alternative IV would require the
capture of slag tapping secondary
emissions and the collection of
secondary inorganic arsenic emissions
from matte tapping and slag tapping
operations. Under this alterantive the
capture of the slag tapping secondary
emissions would be accomplished using
localized ventilation hoods. Collection
of the secondary emissions would be
accomplished in a particulate control
device (baghouse or an equivalent
technology).

Selection of Best Available Technology

   Alternative II would require cooling
and particulate collection for the
process emissions from the converters at
the Kennecott-McGill smelter.  As
discussed earlier in the adequacy
determination, the concentration of
inorganic arsenic in the reverberatory
furnace offgases at Kennecott-McGill is
well below the saturation concentration
at 121 °C, resulting in no predicted
arsenic collection from the furnace gas
stream, even with cooling to 121°C prior
to passage through the existing ESP. The
analysis of this alternative therefore
assumed use of evaporative cooling to
cool the converter offgases to 121°C and
installation of an electrostatic
precipitator for the collection of
particulate arsenic emissions.
Calculations of the predicted inorganic
arsenic concentration indicated that
about 60 percent of the arsenic in the
offgases would be in particulate form at
the reduced temperature. Assuming the
ESP would achieve 98 percent reduction
of the particulate arsenic, and overall
inorganic arsenic emission reduction of
57 percent was predicted (161  Mg As/
yr).
   The costs associated with these
controls would be about $9.8 million
                                                   V-N,0,P-32
-------
               Federal  Register / Vol. 48. No. 140 / Wednesday, July 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules
capital investment and an annualized
cost of about $4.1 million. The economic
analysis of Alternative II indicated a 45
to 150 percent reduction in profitability
(the latter case indicating a net
operating loss) for the Kennecott-McGill
smelter if the converter process controls
were installed and the costs were
absorbed by the company. If the costs
could be passed through, copper prices
would have to be raised 10 to 15 percent.
Considering these impacts, EPA's
analysis indicated Kennecott-McGill
would close rather than install the
controls. EPA has concluded that the
cost and economic impact of additional
controls for the converter process
emissions at the Kennecott-McGill
smelter are unreasonable and that such
controls are beyond BAT. Therefore, the
exiting process controls at the
Kennecott-McGill smelter are
considered BAT for that particular
smelter. In addition, arsenic emissions
which are discharged to the atmosphere
through stacks are subject to much
greater  dispersion than the ground-level
secondary emissions.
  It should be pointed out that this BAT
decision is based primarily on the
economic analysis performed for the
Kennecott-McGill smelter and the
conclusion that this smelter would likely
close if required to install process
controls. Thus, while multiclones, when
considered from a technical perspective,
are clearly not the best possible
controls, the Agency believes that
multiclones are the best available
technology considering cost at this
smelter. The Agency recognizes that this
decision serves to perpetuate any
economic dispartiy which results from
the use of process controls on some
smelters and not on others. However,
the Agency does not believe that
elimination of such inequity is an
appropriate purpose of a NESHAP.
  Alternative III would require the
capture of secondary emissions from
converter operations and the collection
of the emissions in a particulate control
device (baghouse or equivalent). As
noted earlier, the converter is the largest
source of secondary inorganic arsenic
emissions at the copper smelters. None
of the existing smelters currently has
best controls installed for limiting
secondary inorganic arsenic emissions
from converters. Therefore, the cost and
environmental impacts of installing a
secondary hood system consisting of a
fixed enclosure and air curtain were
evaluated for all 14 smelters. The
smelters were ranked as to their
potential to emit secondary inorganic
arsenic emissions from the converters
(see Table III-l). The analysis indicates
that significant emission reduction is
achievable at a reasonable cost for the
six smelters with the greatest potential
inorganic arsenic emissions. The
economic analysis indicates that the
imposition of controls on the Kennecott-
McGill smelter would cause serious
reductions in profitability (12 to 40
percent). It should be noted, however,
that this analysis is necessarily limited
and cannot include all factors known to
the company. However, considering the
cost of converter controls alone, with no
other control costs required, the analysis
does not predict closure at Kennecott-
McGill.
TABLE III-l. ENVIRONMENTAL AND COST IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH SECONDARY INORGANIC ARSENIC EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR CONVERTER
                                                     OPERATIONS
Smelter
ASARCO-EI Paso 	
ASARCO-Hayden 	
Kenmcott-McGiH 	
Kermecott-GarfjeW 	
Phe*ps Dodge-Morenci 	 	
Kennecott-Hayden 	 	
Ptwlps Dodge Douglas 	
Phetps Dodge-Ajo 	 	
kisptration-Miami 	 ....
Phelps Dodge-Hidalgo 	
Tennessee Copper-CoppertuH 	
Magma-San Manuel 	
Kennecott-Huriey 	 	 	
White Pme 	 _ 	

Potential arsenic
emissions, Mg/yr
980
585
459
7 7
69
65
43
26
1 7
1 2
0 7
05
0 5
03

Arsenic feed rate
to converters. Kg/
h




6 7
7.2
4 1
54
07




Baseline arsenic
•missions, Mg/yr




69
6.5
2.6
17





Predicted arsenic
•frwssion
reduction. Mg/yr




63
59
23
16





Annualtzed control
costs, S1 ,000





1,982
1.562
2.943





Cost per unit
emission
reduction, $/Mg
As





335,900
679100
1.777000





  At the remaining eight smelters, which
have lower potential secondary
inorganic arsenic emissions from the
converters, the costs of the controls with
respect to the emission reduction
achievable are very high (cost
effectiveness ranging from about
$700,000 per megagram arsenic reduced
to over $8 million per megagram arsenic
reduced). In addition, the analysis
indicates that the imposition of controls
on the remaining eight smelters would
close at least two (Phelps Dodge-
Douglas and Tennessee Copper-
Copperhill), and the affordability was
questionable for three more. Therefore,
EPA has concluded that the costs and
economic impacts are disproportionate
to the emission reduction benefits for
these eight smelters and that BAT would
not include converter controls for these
eight facilities.
  In establishing this cutoff between the
group of six smelters with the greatest
potential converter fugitive emissions
and the group of eight with lower
potential emissions, the Agency
considered emission rates, emission
reduction potential, control costs, and
the economic impacts of controls. This
analysis led to the clear conclusion that
the additional control is reasonable for
the smelters with the highest potential
emissions and that control is
unreasonable (considering the small
benefit) for smelters with the lowest
potential emissions. The analysis did
not, however, provide a clear, objective
formula for establishing the precise
point at which costs and other impacts
become unreasonable relative to the
emission reduction benefits. Therefore,
the cutoff being proposed reflects the
Agency's best judgment of BAT, based
on consideration of the factors which
are relevant to this decision and most
particularly on the Agency's judgment
that arsenic emissions should be
minimized. The Agency recognizes that
others may have different views on
where an appropriate cutoff, if any,
should be made and is specifically
requesting comments on this.
  To ensure that the proposed standards
would be based only on those sources
where additional controls would
represent BAT, a cutoff expressed in
objective measurable terms was sought
to exclude the eight smaller emitters
discussed above. The parameter
                                                   V-N,0,P-33
-------
               Federal Register  /  Vol. 48. No. 140 / Wednesday. }uly 20,  1983 / Proposed Rules
selected is the total arsenic feed rate to
the converters. The potential inorganic
arsenic emissions from the converters is
closely related to the arsenic feed rate
to the converters. To obtain the arsenic
feed rate, a grab sample of the feed
materials to the converters would be
required daily with subsequent analysis
of a monthly composite sample for
inorganic arsenic using Method 108A.
Measurement of this parameter does not
present a burden since the smelters
monitor the quality of the converter feed
for production purposes. Therefore, a
cutoff based at the level of 8.5 kg/h
arsenic feed rate was selected. This feed
rate would be calculated using the
average percent arsenic in the converter
feed materials and the feed rate of these
materials.
  Establishing the cutoff on the basis of
arsenic input to the converters also
provides the potential opportunity for
the smelters to use lower arsenic ores
and thereby avoid the need for
converter controls. EPA has not
examined the extent to which this
practice may be possible but realizes
that this possibility is limited by
contract, ownership, and physical
proximity to ore deposits. Nevertheless.
this does provide a means for reducing
emissions which is possibly less
expensive than use of control
technology.
  Alternative IV would require the
capture of fugitive emissions from slag
tapping operations using localized
ventilation techniques (hooding) and the
collection of the emissions from both
matte and slag tapping operations in a
particulate control device (baghouse or
equivalent). Again the smelters were
ranked as to their potential to emit
secondary inorganic arsenic emissions
from matte and slag tapping operations
[see Table III-2). The analysis indicates
that the costs are not unreasonable and
the potential emission reductions are
greatest for the four smelters with the
greatest potential to emit secondary
inorganic arsenic emissions. The
analysis also indicates that seven of the
remaining ten smelters would
experience very high costs associated
with the small amount of emission
reduction ($640.000/Mg As to over $6
million/Mg As). Therefore, EPA
concluded that, for the four smelters
with the greatest potential to emit, BAT
is additional controls, and, for the ten
remaining smelters, BAT is no
additional controls.
  TABLE III-2.—ENVIRONMENTAL AND COST IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH SECONDARY INORGANIC ARSENIC EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR MATTE
                                              AND SLAQ TAPPING OPERATIONS
Sm altar
ASARCO^aydan 	
ASAHCO-EI P»so .. . 	
Kennaeotl-McGilf 	
Kennecott-Garfiaid
Phelpa Dodge-Morenci
Kennecott-Hayden - 	



Pheips Oodge-Hildalgo . 	
Tennessee Copper-Copper hill 	

White Pine 	

Potential araenc
emissions, Mg/yr
13.8
65
45
20
0$
09
OB
06
06
0?
01
009
009
005

Arsenic proceaa
rate,1 kg/h
1960
1021
534
487
105
94
199
102
142
43
16
1 1
1 0
0.6

Basehne arsenic
emissions, Mg/yr
18
1 2
45
20
09
09
08
04
06
02
01
009
009
005

Predicted arsenic
emission
reduction Mg/yr
0
04
39
1 7
08
08
07
035
052
017
008
007
008
004

Annuaroed control
costs, $1,000
0
153
257
514
514
257
261
514
257
257
265
257
54
257

Coat per unit
emission
reduction. $/Mg
Aa

382.500
65.900
302,400
642.5OO
321.300
372.900
1.469.000
494.300
1,512.000
3.313.000
3.671.000
6.425.000
6.425,000

   • Combined arsenic process rate in both the mane and slag.
   As in the case of the converter
 secondary emission cutoff, EPA selected
 a parameter which would objectively
 differentiate between the two groups of
 smelters. The arsenic content of the
 matte and slag are directly related to the
 quantity of secondary inorganic arsenic
 emissions. Because it is likely that
 emissions from matte and slag tapping
 operations would be combined into one
 collection system,  a cutoff based on the
 combined arsenic content of the matte
 and the slag was selected. This
 approach was considered reasonable
 since only daily grab samples of matte
 and slag would be required with arsenic
 analysis performed on a monthly
 composite sample using Method 108A.
 The arsenic content would be calculated
 using the percent arsenic in the matte
 and slag and the matte tap and slag tap
 rates. The cutoff selected to exclude
 smaller sources where costs become
 unreasonable was 40 kg/h total arsenic
 in the matte and the furnace slag.
 Additional standards for requiring slag
tapping emissions capture will not be
necessary since all smelters operating
above the matte and slag tap cutoff
already have installed localized hoods
considered to be BAT. It should be
noted that using this cutoff would
require the Kennecott-McGill smelter to
install collection equipment for matte
and slag tapping operations. The
imposition of matte and slag tap
controls in addition to converter
controls at the Kennecott-McGill smelter
increases the cost impacts at this
smelter and pushes them closer to
closure.
   The following paragraphs discuss the
energy and environmental impacts
associated with the selection of BAT. By
applying fixed enclosures with air
curtains and particulate control
technologies with efficiencies of 95
percent and 96 percent, respectively, to
converter secondary emissions (91.2
percent overall reduction), and
particulate control technologies with
efficiencies of 96 percent to captured
 matte tap and slag tap secondary
 emissions at the affected smelters, a
 total emission reduction associated with
 the proposed standards of 111 Mg/yr of
 arsenic (from 134 Mg secondary
 emissions to 23 Mg secondary
 emissions) is achieved.
   Standards based upon BAT will
 require the use of approximately 6.4
 MW of electricity beyond the baseline
 energy requirements for the affected
 low-arsenic-throughput smelters.
   With respect to solid waste impacts,
 standards based upon BAT would result
 in approximately 11,100 Mg per year of
 additional solid waste beyond baseline
 for the affected low-arsenic-throughput
 smelters. This quantity is not signifcant
 in terms of the total solid waste
 currently generated annually at these
 smelters (estimated at 3.2 million Mg).
   As all the control technologies
 selected involve dry control systems,
 there will be no direct water pollution
 impact. If scrubbers were used,
 secondary water pollution  impacts
                                                 V-N,0,P-34
-------
               Federal Register  /  Vol. 48.  No. 140  /  Wednesday. )nly 20, 1983  /  Proposed Rules
might result if the arsenic-containing
dusts are disposed of along with acid
plant slurry. However, no adverse water
pollution impact is anticipated since
existing regulations require control of
these wastes.
  EPA has considered each of the
impacts cited above and concludes that
they are reasonable in light of the
emission reduction achieved.

Consideration of Risk Remaining After
BA T and Selection of the Level of the
Standard
  With the implementation of converter
controls for smelters with a total arsenic
feed to the converter of 6.5 kg/h or
greater and the implementation of matte
and slag tap controls  for smelters with a
combined arsenic process rate of 40 kg/
h or greater in the matte and the slag,
BAT would be in place at all smelters.
EPA estimated the health risk remaining
after application of BAT to all of these
smelters and examined the residual risk
to determine whether the risk is
unreasonable in view of the health risk
and other impacts that would seresult if
a more stringent regulatory alternative
were selected as BAT.
  The health risk is expressed by the
estimated number of incidences of
cancer due to inorganic arsenic
exposure in the population distributed
around the affected smelters. For the
current level of inorganic arsenic
emissions from the smelters, the annual
cancer incidence is estimated to range
from 0.1 to 1.6 incidence per year. With
BAT in place at these smelters for all of
the significant inorganic arsenic
emission points, the estimated annual
cancer incidence would be reduced to a
range of 0.04 to 0.64 incidence per year.
Application of BAT would reduce the
estimated maximum lifetime risk from
exposure to airborne inorganic arsenic
from a range of 43 in 10,000 to 690 in
10,000 to a range of 9.4 in 10,000 to 150 in
10,000. The estimated maximum lifetime
risk represents the probability of a
person contracting cancer who has been
continuously exposed during a 70-year
period to the maximum annual inorganic
arsenic concentration due to inorganic
arsenic emissions from the low-arsenic-
throughput smelters.
  Regulatory alternatives beyond BAT
were examined by EPA for inorganic
arsenic emission points at three
categories of smelters: (1) smelters
where additional controls for secondary
emissions from converter operations,
and matte and slag tap operations
would be installed to  achieve BAT;  (2)
smelters where additional controls for
only secondary emissions from
converter operations would be installed
to achieve BAT; and (3) smelters where
BAT is already in place for all sources,
and no additional controls would be
required to achieve BAT.
  There are four smelters (ASARCO-E1
Paso, ASARCO-Hayden, Kennecott-
McGill, Kennecott-Garfield) in the first
category. Implementation of converter
controls and matte and slag tap controls
for secondary emissions would result in
BAT for these sources. The EPA
analysis indicated that except in the
case of Kennecott-McGill, there were no
demonstrated technologically based
alternatives for further reduction of
inorganic arsenic emissions for these
smelters short of shutdown. The
alternative of flue gas cooling for
converter process controls at Kennecott-
McGill was evaluated previously.
Although this technology would result in
approximately 60 percent reduction in
converter process arsenic emissions, the
associated costs are predicted to result
in closure. There is then, in effect, no
alternative for beyond BAT reduction of
inorganic arsenic emissions from the
Kennecott-McGill smelter short of
closure. Shutdown of these four smelters
would reduce the estimated residual
cancer incidence for the source category
from a range of 0.04 to 0.64 incidence per
year to 0.01 to 0.23 incidence per yean
however, this would result in the loss of
about 2,000 jobs.
  There are two smelters (Kennecott-
Hayden, Phelps Dodge-Morenci) in the
second category. Implementation of
converter controls for secondary
emissions would result in achieving BAT
for these sources. Addition of matte and
slag tap controls would have virtually
no effect on the residual risk reduction
estimate and would impose additional
capital and annualized costs($2.68
million and $0.77 million, respectively).
Addition of flue gas cooling at
Kennecott-Hayden  would result in no
additional arsenic emission reduction,
and, therefore, no reduction in estimated
residual risk.
  The remaining eight smelters are in
the third category, where the analysis
concluded that BAT was currently in
place at these smelters. Alternatives
beyond BAT considered for these
smelters were additional process
controls at the Magma-San Manuel,
Phelps Dodge-Douglas, and White Pine
smelters, and the addition of converter,
and matte and  slag tap secondary
emission controls at all eight smelters.
The EPA analysis indicated that no
additional arsenic emission reduction
could be achieved by requiring flue gas
cooling at  Phelps Dodge-Douglas,
Magma-San Manuel and White Pine so
there would be no reduction in
estimated  residual risk. Requiring
secondary emission controls for
converter operations at all eight
smelters would result in a reduction of
estimated cancer incidence from a range
of 0.04 to 0.64 incidence per year to a
range of 0.03 to 0.55 incidence per year.
Estimated maximum lifetime risk would
be reduced from a range of 9.4 in 10.000
to 150 in 10,000 to a range of 7.5 in 10,000
to 120 in 10,000. However, the imposition
of these controls would close at least
two smelters and the viability of three
more is questionable. Requiring
secondary emission controls for matte
and slag tap at all eight smelters would
result in no reduction of estimated
residual risk of cancer incidence.
  An alternative to reducing inorganic
arsenic in the emission offgases is to
reduce inorganic arsenic in the feed
material to the smelter. However,
reducing the arsenic content of the feed
materials prior to the smelting process
through physical  or chemical means has
not been technologically demonstrated
for pyrometallurgical smelters.
  In summary, EPA conluded that
implementation of any alternatives
beyond BAT would mean closure of 4
smelters and use of controls more
effective than BAT at the remaining 10
smelters. These beyond BAT
alternatives reduce the estimated
maximum lifetime risk to a range of 7.5
in 10,000 to 120 in 10,000 and the
estimated annual cancer incidence to a
range of 0.008 to 0.12. However,
imposition of controls more effective
than BAT would likely close 2 of the 10
smelters and the viability of 3 more is
questionable. At smelters where
controls more effective than BAT could
be applied without causing closure, the
resultant reduction in risk would be
negligible. Considering the relatively
small reduction in risk that would be
possible by alternatives beyond BAT,
and the very high costs and economic
impacts of these alternatives, EPA
concluded that the estimated residual
risks associated with BAT are not
unreasonable. Therefore, the proposed
standards are based on BAT.
Alternative Regulatory Strategies
  EPA recognizes that the policy upon
which the proposed decision  is  based
gives limited weight to information on
exposure and health risks in determining
BAT and gives substantial weight to the
economic feasibility of installing
technologically available emission
controls. For example, the degree of
public exposure to inorganic arsenic
from low-arsenic copper smelters varies
significantly from plant to plant. This is
because the BAT being proposed for this
source category is based primarily on
the economic and technical feasibility of
                                                 V-N,0,P-35
-------
              Federal Register /  Vol.  48, No: i J /  Wednesday, July 20. 1983  /  Proposed Rules
controlling smelters with varying
arsenic feed rates. Because it is more
cost-effective on a dollars per megagram
basis to control smelters with higher
arsenic input levels, EPA is proposing to
require secondary emission controls on
converters only for existing smelters
with an inorganic arsenic feed rate of 6.5
kg/h or greater. Since some smelters
with arsenic feed rates lower than 6.5
kg/h are located in areas with relatively
high population while other smelters
with arsenic feed rates greater than 6.5
kg/h are located in areas with relatively
low populations,'EPA recognizes that its
method for determining BAT may result
in the lack of controls on certain
smelters that pose greater estimated
health risks than some of the smelters
that the Agency is proposing to regulate.
The Agency therefore requests public
comment on the degree to which
information on exposure and public
risks should be used to establish BAT.
   EPA is considering two alternatives
for using this information to determine
BAT for low-arsenic primary copper
smelters. As detailed below, these are
subdividing source categories according
to (1)  population density (e.g., defining
high and low population density source
categories), and (2) estimated before-
control cancer incidence rates and
maximum individual risk. Once EPA has
adopted a specific set of population
exposure categories, the Agency would
establish BAT for sources in each
exposure category and then consider the
residual risk. The following discussion
describes how these could be applied
and includes cutoff criteria that
illustrate the possible application to
low-arsenic copper smelters. EPA
requests comments on  the approaches
outlined below and, although the cutoffs
which are presented are for illustrative
purposes, comments are also requested
on these or other cutoffs which may  be
 appropriate. Comments received will be
considered by the Agency both in
 making final decisions on this standard
 and by an agencywide task force on
 toxics integration which is considering a
 unified Agency strategy on regulation of
 toxic chemicals.

 Population Density Approach
   Under this alternative, EPA would
 subdivide the source category on the
 basis of population density before
 determining BAT. The advantage of this
 approach is that a stricter standard
 could be applied to plants where
 potential exposures, and thus potential
 threats to public health, are greater.
   Under this approach, EPA would first
 subdivide the source category according
 to the population living within some
 distance of the plant. EPA is considering
defining this distance as 20 kilometers
around each copper smelter. Up to this
distance dispersion models used to
calculate concentrations are reasonably
accurate. At further distances they are
less reliable and predict only very small
concentrations of inorganic arsenic. EPA
would then subdivide each source
category into population density
subcategories. For example, low arsenic
copper smelters would be subdivided
into high population density and low
population density smelters. EPA is
considering defining the high/low
population density cutoff as 10,000
people using the most recent reasonably
available population census tract data.
BAT would be defined for both high and
low density population categories.
  High Population Density—for high
population density low arsenic copper
smelters, EPA would consider requiring
secondary inorganic arsenic control
systems for converter operations at
smelters with arsenic feed rates greater
than 25 kg/h. According to the
information contained in the
background information documents
(BID's), this would result in controls at
the ASARCO-E1 Paso smelter. EPA is
also considering requiring secondary
inorganic arsenic emission systems for
matte and slag tapping operations at
smelters in this subcategory where the
combined arsenic process rate in both
the matte and slag operations exceeds
15 kg/h. This would result in controls on
the ASARCO-E1 Paso, Kennecott-
Garfield, and Inspiration-Miami
smelters.
  Low Population Density—VOT low
population density low-arsenic copper
smelters, EPA is considering requiring
secondary emission control systems for
converter operations at smelters with
feed rates greater than 35 kg/h. This
.would result in controls on the
Kennecott-McGill and ASARCO-
Hayden smelters. EPA is also
Considering requiring secondary
emission control systems at matte and
 slag tapping operations at smelters in
 this subcategory when the combined
 process rate exceeds 35 k/h. This would
 result in controls on the Kennecott-
 McGill and ASARCO-Hayden smelters.

 Cancer Incidence And Health Risk
 Based Approach
   A second alternative would be for
 EPA to make more explicit use of both
 before-control maximum individual risk
 and estimated incidence of cancer in the
 exposed population in subdividing these
 source categories. As stated earlier,
 maximum individual lifetime risk is the
 probability of someone contracting
 cancer who is continuously exposed to
 maximum annual average arsenic
concentration during an entire lifetime
(70 years). Cancer incidence is a
summation of all the risks to people
living within 20 kilometers of a source
divided by 70 to yield expected cancer
incidences per year.
  The major disadvantage in this
approach is the great uncertainty
surrounding health risk estimates. One
must make numerous assumptions when
producing quantitative estimates of
public health risks. More particularly,
factors such as meteorology, terrain,
population distribution, plant
characteristics, reentrainment of
inorganic-arsenic-containing dust, and
other site specific factors all affect the
extent of public exposure to arsenic.
Moreover, individual characteristics
such as physiology, physical activity
level, activity patterns, and the effects of
exposures to other substances alter the
sensitivity of individuals to inorganic
arsenic. In order to estimate exposure
effects, EPA must make a considerable
number of simplifying assumptions that
may well affect the accuracy of the final
risk estimates. These assumptions and
the methodologies are laid out in the
background information documents
listed in the beginning of this preamble.
  Nevertheless, risk information,
whatever its limits, is the information
that bears most directly on the harms
EPA seeks to avoid. The approach EPA
now follows relies on use of this
information in the Agency's analysis of
residual risk when deciding whether
controls beyond BAT are appropriate.
The Agency requests comment on the
appropriateness of using such
information in subdividing categories for
the purposes of establishing BAT.
  If this approach were followed, the
Agency would subdivide the low-arsenic
copper smelters into higher risk and
lower risk subcategories. For instance, if
the before-control maximum individual
risks and estimated cancer incidence
rates from a smelter exceeded some
predetermined levels, the smelter would
be placed in the higher risk category. If
 they did not. it would be placed in the
 lower risk category. BAT would then be
 defined for each subcategory.
   EPA would determine the high/low
 risk cutoff by jointly considering
 maximum individual risk and cancer
 incidence. That is, if the before-control
 maximum estimated individual risk level
 for a particular plant were 10"*, the
 estimated annual cancer incidence rate
 would have to exceed some value, e.g.
 0.14, in order for the plant to fall into the
 higher risk category. For a plant
 imposing a higher estimated maximum
 individual risk, say 10~*. the estimated
 annual cancer incidence rate necessary
                                                 V-N.O.P-36
-------
               Federal Register  /  Vol. 48, No. 140 / Wednesday, July 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules
to place it in the higher risk category
might be lower, e.g. 0.014. Theoretically,
for the higher maximum individual risk
levels, the Agency could set the
estimated cancer incidence level in such
a way that even one person at that high
exposure would cause a plant to be
regulated. For instance, if the before-
control estimated individual risk for a
particular plant is 10~*, the before-
control estimated annual cancer
incidence level could be set as low as
0.00014 (10"* divided by 70) so that a
single individual having near that source
at a 10"'risk would place it in the higher
risk category.
  For purposes of illustration only, EPA
presents the following possible cutoffs.
These are not the product of any
particular analytical methodology,
although they appear to provide
defensible results when applied to low-
arsenic-feed smelters. They are offered
primarily to assist commenters in
focusing on the new approaches
suggested.
HIhe
maximum
individual
nskis
greater
than
10-
10-
10-
10"
10-
10-
and






The
expected
annual
cancer
incidence
* greater
than.
00014
0.0014
00140
0.0140
01400
1.4000
Then






The
•metier
would be
classified
"sr






  The Administrator would like to
reiterate that these numbers are
presented only for illustrative purposes.
The Administrator recognizes that the
selection of these numbers should
involve public discussion.
  EPA's analysis indicates that using
these cutoffs would result in the
Kennecott-McGill. ASARCO-Hayden,
Inspiration Miami, ASARCO-E1 Paso,
and Phelps Dodge-Ajo smelters being
classified "higher risk" while all other
smelters would be "lower risk."
  BAT for higher risk smelters would be
defined as secondary inorganic arsenic
control  systems for converter, matte
tapping, and slag tapping operations.
BAT for lower risk smelters would be
the existing level of control.
  If EPA were to follow this approach,
the final rule would probably specify the
unit risk number, dispersion model[s]
and modeling assumptions, and
method[s] for establishing the numbers
and locations of exposed persons that
would be used to determine maximum
individual risk and expected annual
cancer incidence for each smelter.
Selection of Format of Proposed
Standards
  Under the authority of Section 112, a
NESHAP must, whenever possible, take
the format of a numerical emission limit.
Typically, an emission limit is written in
terms of an allowable mass emission
rate (mass of pollutant per unit time] or
an allowable concentration (mass of
pollutant per volume of gas). In some
instances, a process weight limit (weight
of pollutant per unit of product or input)
or a minimum percent emission
reduction of pollutant (control system
collection efficiency) is used. All of
these types of standards require the
direct measurement of emissions to
determine compliance.
  However, in certain instances,
numerical emission limits are not
possible. Section 112(e)(2) recognizes
this situation by defining two conditions
when it is not feasible to prescribe or
enforce an emission limit. The
conditions are: (1) when the pollutants
cannot be emitted through a conveyance
designed and constructed to emit or
capture the pollutant; or (2) when the
application of a measurement
methodology is not practicable due to
technological or economic limitations. In
such instances. Section 112(e)(l)
authorizes design, equipment, work
practice, or operational standards.
  Mass rate, concentration, process
weight, and percent emission reduction
emission limits for the capture of
secondary inorganic arsenic emissions
from converter operations are not
considered feasible. Opacity data are
available which describe the
performance of fixed enclosures with air
curtains over a limited range of
operating conditions. However, these
data are not consiueicd to represent a
sufficient basis for establishing emission
standards which must be achieved at all
times. Therefore, the proposed
standards for the capture of secondary
emissions from converter operations
will be set forth in terms of equipment
and work practice requirements.
  Secondary inorganic  arsenic
emissions vary due to the changes in the
arsenic content of the feed and other
process variables. Therefore, if
standards were to be set specifically for
arsenic collection for secondary
emission streams, an efficiency standard
would appear to be a logical choice to
assure the application of BAT in all
cases. However, the concentration of
arsenic in secondary emissions gas
streams could be very low. It is not
possible to guarantee that a consistently
high collection efficiency for arsenic
could be attained over the entire range
of arsenic concentrations which might
occur in secondary emissions gas
streams. For this reason, an efficiency
standard cannot be set which would
both be achievable and assure the
application of BAT for secondary
inorganic arsenic control for all normal
operating conditions.
  As an alternative to standards
specifically for arsenic, standards for
total particulate (which would include
arsenic particulate) were considered for
the collection of secondary emissions.
Secondary emission gas streams are
cool enough so that the inorganic
arsenic in the gas stream should exist
and be collectable as particulate. In
addition, while the arsenic fraction may
vary, total particulate emissions are
relatively constant in terms of
concentration, thus making it possible to
select a standard which would require
the use of BAT for arsenic regardless of
variations in the arsenic content of the
feed. Such a standard achieves the
result of minimizing inorganic arsenic
emissions by requiring use of the best
available technology. For these reasons,
standards expressed as concentration of
total particulate were selected for the
collection of secondary emissions from
matte and slag tapping, and converters.

Selection of Emission Limits and
Equipment Specification

  As described previously, the proposed
standards for smelters will require the
application of secondary hood systems
to capture converter secondary
emissions. Baghouses, or equivalent
control technologies, will be requied to
collect the captured secondary
emissions from matte and slag tapping,
and converters. EPA has determined
that the combination of these
technologies represents the best
available technology (BAT) for limiting
inorganic arsenic emissions from
primary copper smelters comprising the
low-arsenic-throughput smelter source
category, considering cost, economic,
and energy impacts. The proposed
standards are, therefore, designed to
limit organic arsenic emissions to levels
attainable through  the installation and
proper use of these technologies.
  The proposed standards for the
capture of secondary arsenic emissions
from converters are set forth in terms of
equipment and work practice
requirements. The proposed equipment
specification reflects the prototype
secondary hood air curtain system
installed at the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter. The proposed work practice
standards are based on EPA's
observation or work practices at
ASARCO-Tacoma  that significantly
impact the amount of secondary
                                                 V-N,0,P-37
-------
               Federal Register / Vol.  48. No. 140 / Wednesday. July 2to, 1983 /' Propped" Rules
emissions that are captured by the
secondary hood system. The equipment
specification and work practice
standards proposed for the low-asenic-
throughput smelters are identical to
those proposed for high-arsenic-
throughput smelters. A detailed
description of these equipment and
work practice requirements can be
found in Part II of this preamble under
"Selection of Emission limits and
Equipment Specifications."
  The proposed standards for secondary
emission collection systems are based
upon the performance of baghouses. As
described under "Control Technology,"
EPA believes that a properly designed
and operated ESP or wet scrubber
would also be capable of achieving this
level of performance. The emission limit
for secondary emissions being proposed
is 11.6 milligrams of particulate matter
per standard cubic meter (0.005 grains
particulate matter per standard cubic
foot) measured at the outlet of the
collection device. This standard is
applicable to secondary emissions from
matte and slag tapping, and converter
operations. The  performance test
method to be used for the emission
standard is EPA Reference Method 5,
which measures both inorganic arsenic
and other particulate emissions at 121°
C (250° F).
  The limit of 11.6 mg/dscm (0.005 gr/
dscf) for secondary emissions is based
upon data obtained using Method 5 on
the secondary emission control system
at ASARCO-E1 Paso. The performance
of this system and the test results are
described under "Control Technology"
and  are presented in Appendix C of the
BID for this source category.
Optimization Of Secondary Hood Air
Curtain System
  It is intended  that the installation of
equipment specified in the  proposed
standards for the capture of converter
secondary emissions will give the owner
or operator of each affected converter
the capability of reducing emissions to a
level consistent with the application of
BAT. In developing the equipment
specifications, the Administrator has
been specific for some requirements as
in the case of fan horsepower capacity,
and  more general for others, such as the
dimensions of the secondary  hood.
Some of the requirements are general
because unless there are any new
smelters, which is considered unlikely,
each installation will be a retrofit; that
is, each air curtain secondary hood
system will have to be custom designed
to fit each existing converter. Due to
space limitations, existing  pollution
control equipment already in place and
other considerations, the exact
configuration of each secondary hood
with air curtain system installed will
vary from smelter to smelter.
  Beyond hood configuration, the
performance of each air curtain
secondary hood system will depend on a
balance of several other parameters,
including the dimensions of the air
curtain slot, the velocity of air through
the slot, and the distance from the slot
to the offtake. These parameters are
adjustable in the sense that they can be
altered in a relatively short time and at
relatively small cost. It is expected that
after the initial installation of each air
curtain secondary hood system, there
will be a  "shakedown" or optimization
period during which the proper balance
of system parameters will be determined
for each particular installation.
  For every air curtain secondary hood
installation, there will be an optimum
set of operating conditions, beyond
which further "fine tuning" of the system
will not result in increased capture
efficiency. Section 112(e)(l) of the Clean
Air Act states, in part, that if the
Administrator promulgates a design or
work practice standard, "he shall
include as part of such standard such
requirements as will assure the proper
operation and maintenance of any such
element of design or equipment."
"Proper operation" of an air curtain
secondary hood system includes
operating the system as close to
optimum  conditions as possible, and the
owner or operator would be required to
do so under the proposed standards. It is
not the Administrator's intent, however,
to require the owner or operator to
operate a system beyond optimum
conditions (i.e., at flow rates and power
requirements that do  not achieve
additional capture) or to prevent
operational changes that may not affect
the capture efficiency of the system.
  Authority for determination of the
optimum conditions for each air curtain
secondary hood system installed to meet
the proposed standards would vest with
the Administrator. Due to the variables
involved, and the fact that each
installation will be site specific, it is  not
possible  for the Administrator to
prescribe in advance what will
constitute optimum operating conditions
for each air curtain secondary hood
installation. Objective techniques, such
as the tracer study used to evaluate the
air curtain secondary hood system on
the No. 4 converter at the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter, are available to help
determine capture efficiency. However.
a final determination of whether a
system has truly been optimized, or if
not.  what steps should (or  could) be
taken to improve it, will largely be a
matter of judgment.
  One approach the Administrator is
considering as a method for determining
optimum conditions for each air curtain
secondary hood installation would be to
have each system evaluated by a panel
of persons with expertise in assessing
visible emissions of air pollutants. The
panel could be comprised of 3 or more
persons, including representatives of
industry, EPA, and local air pollution
control agencies.
  The panel would evaluate each air
curtain secondary hood as follows: (1)
the panel would review the plans and
specifications of the system prior to
installation; (2) the panel would agree
on initial operating conditions for the
system; (3) the panel would observe the
operation of the system during each
mode of converter operation under the
initial operating conditions. Estimates of
the capture effectiveness achieved,
based on visual observations, would be
recorded by each  panel member for
each mode of operation. In addition.
comments on the minimum and
maximum capture effectiveness
achieved, the duration, location and
density of visible emissions observed,
and a qualitative assessment of the
volume of the emissions escaping
capture (e.g., light, moderate, heavy.
etc.) would be recorded; (4) based on
this initial evaluation, the panel would
agree on what modifications would be
needed to further  optimize the operation
of the air curtain secondary hood; and
(5) the panel would again view the
system (as in 3) after modification to
compare its performance to pre-
modification performance. After this,
steps 4 and 5 would be repeated as
needed until there was agreement
among the panel members that the
system had been optimized. The panel
would then recommend a set of optimum
operating conditions for that system to
the Administrator along with
documentation of their evaluation. In the
event of disputes, panel members would
submit separate recommendations. The
Administrator would make a final
determination of the optimum conditions
based on the panel's recommendation
and supporting documentation.
  If, subsequent to a determination that
a system has been optimized, an owner
or operator proposes to make an
additional modification to the system.
the panel would again be convened and
would observe the system both before
and after the change as prescribed in (3)
above. The modification could be
approved by the Administrator if the
panel found it did not reduce capture
efficiency.
                                                 V-N,0,P-38
-------
               Federal Register  /  Vol. 48,  No. 140  /  Wednesday, July 20, 1983  /  Proposed Rules
  The Administrator believes this
approach would assure that the air
curtain secondary hood system is
designed and operating conditions
established which will minimize
secondary inorganic arsenic emissions
to the greatest extent possible, but
would also allow the owner or operator
to make modifications to the system that
would not reduce capture efficiency.
The public is invited to comment on the
need to evaluate the optimization of
each air curtain secondary hood system
and on the panel approach being
considered by the Administrator.

Equivalent Systems for the Capture of
Secondary Emissions From Converter
Operations

  Although the equipment specified in
the proposed regulation for the capture
of secondary emissions from converter
operations is an air curtain secondary
hood system, it is not EPA's intention to
preclude the use of other capture
systems that may be as effective as the
air curtain secondary hood system.
Under Section 112(e){3) of the Clean Air
Act, if a design, equipment, work
practice or operational standard is
promulgated, the Administrator is
authorized to approve an alternative
means of emission limitation if it will
achieve a reduction at least equivalent
to the means specified in the regulation.
The Administrator anticipates that the
promulgated standards for both high-
and low-arsenic throughput copper
smelters will include provisions under
which a source owner may obtain
approval for the use of an alternative
capture system. Approval would be
based on demonstration that the
alternative system is equivalent or
superior to the air curtain secondary
hood system in terms of capture efficient
for secondary inorganic arsenic
emissions. Demonstration of
equivalency would have to be by a
method approved by the Administrator
and designed specifically  for the system
to be evaluated.
  As previously indicated, the prototype
air curtain secondary hood system
installed on converter No. 4 at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter is the basis
for the equipment specifications in the
proposed standards. The performance of
the ASARCO-Tacoma system was
evaluated by EPA in January 1983. The
techniques used to evaluate the
ASARCO system included (1) a tracer
mass balance, (2) opacity  measurements
with a transmissiometer, and (3) visual
observation. Details of the evaluation
program are discussed in the report,
"Evaluation of an Air Curtain Hooding
System for a Primary Copper
Converter—ASARCO, Inc., Tacoma,
Washington."(15)
  Although problems were encountered
with transmissiometer readings, the
results of the tracer study and visual
observations provided a basis for
judging the capture efficiency of the
system. In the tracer study, a suitable
tracer (sulfur hexafluoride) was
quantitatively injected at various points
within the air curtain control area during
all modes of converter operation. By
combining the measurements of the
tracer concentration at a sampling point
downstream of the secondary hood
suction plenum with flow rate
measurements, it was possible to
calculate the amount of tracer captured
by the air curtain and suction plenum.
The capture efficiency was then
calculate from the amount of tracer
injected and the amount captured. The
tracer study indicated an overall
average capture efficiency of the
ASARCO-Tacoma system of 95 percent.
  Throughout the tracer study, visual
observations of the ASARCO-Tacoma
air curtain secondary hood system were
also made by EPA and local agency
personnel. System performance was
characterized by a variety of visual
indicators, including the duration and
opacity,of fume spillage from the hood
and an assessment of the capture
effectiveness achieved. In general, the
observation logs  showed that the visual
assessments of capture effectiveness
correlated with the average collection
efficiencies determined by the tracer
technique. Lighting, background
conditions, and occasional viewing
obstructions (such as the overhead
crane) caused problems during the
observation of the hood during some
modes of converter operation. The
capture effectiveness of the system was
most viewable during charging
operations and although the system's
capture effectiveness varied depending
on mode of converter operation, it was
felt that the capture effectiveness
observed during charging was a good
indicator of the system's overall
performance.
  The Administrator believes that both
the tracer technique and the use of
visual observations may also be suitable
methods for evaluating the performance
of alternative capture systems to
determine equivalency. Specifically, the
Administrator believes it would be
reasonable to consider an alternative
capture system equivalent to a
secondary hood with air curtain system
if the results of a tracer study designed
specifically for that system showed an
overall average capture efficiency of 95
percent or greater. With regard to visible
emission observations, the
Administrator believes that an
alternative system may be equivalent to
a secondary hood with air curtain
system if no visible emissions were seen
to escape the capture system during
converter charging.
  The public is invited to comment on
the possible use of these techniques to
determine equivalency and also to
suggest any other techniques that may
be effective.

Selection of Monitoring Requirements
  This section discusses the selection of
the proposed monitoring requirements.
The purpose of monitoring is to
determine whether or not the equipment
used to control arsenic emissions is
properly operated and maintained to
meet the proposed emission standards.
Authority for these proposed monitoring
requirements is found in  Section 114 of
the Clean Air Act which  authorizes the
Administrator to require monitoring
equipment or methods for the purpose of
determining violations of standards
proposed under the Clean Air Act. In
addition, all monitoring data would be
maintained in such a manner so as to be
accessible to the Administrator and his
authorized personnel.
  The performance of the equipment
used to capture the secondary emissions
from the converter operations is highly
dependent on flow rate. If the flow rate
is not measured,  it is not possible for
either the operator or EPA to determine
whether the equipment is properly
operated and maintained. Therefore the
proposed standards  require continuous
monitoring of the time and air flow rate
through the air curtain system, and
keeping a log of times for each of the
converter operations. This would allow
correlation of recorded gas flow rates
with the corresponding converter
operation.
  To help the Administrator determine
whether each secondary  hood system is
being properly operated and maintained,
measured air flow rates would be
compared to source specific reference
values for each converter operating
mode. To establish source specific air
flow reference values, the owner or
operator would determine the flow rates
which correspond to each converter
operating mode while the secondary
hood system is operating under optimum
conditions.
  Monitoring performance of the
collection device for secondary
emissions is important to the operator
and EPA to determine whether the
collection equipment is properly
operated and maintained. One
alternative to monitoring the
                                                  V-N,0,P-39
-------
              Federal Register /  Vol.  48. No. 140 /  Wednesday, July 20. 1983  /  Proposed Rules
performance of the collection device is
to periodically test the collection device
us;ng EPA Reference Method 5.
However, this alternative is not
considered reasonable. Continuous
monitoring of opacity or an operating
parameter of the collection device may
be used to indirectly monitor
performance by indicating whether or
not the collection device is operating in
the same manner as when it
demonstrated compliance. Of these two
Alternatives, monitoring opacity is
thought to be somewhat simpler to
apply. The recommended monitoring
requirement for the collection of
secondary emissions is to continuously
monitor opacity using a
transmissometer.
  To implement this monitoring
requirement, it would be necessary to
establish a reference opacity level
against which future performance of the
control system could be compared. To
establish the source-specific reference
opacity level, the owner or operator of
the source would be required to conduct
continuous opacity monitoring during
the emission test. The opacity
monitoring results would be reduced to
6-minute averages, and the opacity level
would  be established at the 97.5 percent
upper confidence level of a normal or
log normal (whichever is more
representative)  distribution of the 6-
rr.inute average opacity values. This
opacity level would be the basis for
determining whether the collection
device is continuously performing
effectively. Any monitored opacity
reading above the emission test opacity
reading would indicate that the
collection device may no longer be
meeting the proposed total participate
emission limit. A Method 5 test could
then be performed to determine
compliance.
Selection  of Emission Test Methods
   The  emission test method selected to
determine compliance with the proposed
standard for the collection of secondary
emissions is EPA Reference Method  5.
This test method measures particulate
emissions (both inorganic arsenic and
other particulates) collected  at 121°C
(250'F). (For a full discussion of this
method, see Appendix A. 40 CFR 00.) As
was noted and explained earlier, it is
necessary to measure total particulate
matter rather than just inorganic arsenic
 for secondary emissions. Therefore, EPA
Reference Method 108 is inappropriate
and was not considered.
 Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirement
   Owners and  operators of sources
covered by the proposed standard
would be subject to the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements of the
proposed standards, as well as those
prescribed in the General Provisions
(Subpart A) of 40 CFR Part 61. Under
§61.10 of the General Provisions, an
initial report from each existing source
is required to be submitted within 90
days of the effective date. For purposes
of determining initial applicability, the
proposed standards for low-arsenic
throughput smelters specify that the
initial report required in §61.10(a) will
include information on the weight
percent inorganic arsenic in the total
smelter charge, the converter arsenic
charging rate, and the smelting furnace
arsenic tapping rate. The proposed
standards further require that each
month the computation of a rolling
annual coverage of the inorganic arsenic
content of the total smelter charge, the
converter arsenic charging rate, and the
smelting furnace arsenic tapping rate  be
made and that the monthly
computations be recorded and kept on
site for at least 2 years. These monthly
computations would have to be reported
to EPA on an annual basis to ensure that
applicability with respect to the
standards had not changed.
  Under Section 114, the Administrator
is authorized to establish reporting
requirements to determine whether
there is a violation of standards
proposed under the Clean Air Act.
Concern as to whether the systems  for
the control of arsenic emissions are
continuing to meet the proposed
standards would primarily arise when
monitoring showed opacity levels in
excess of those determined during the
compliance demonstration or air flow
rates that vary significantly from those
established during the optimization
procedures. Therefore, in determining
the necessary reporting requirements, it
was considered reasonable to require
reporting only when  such "excess
emission" conditions exist. Reporting of
these excess emission conditions would
be required  on a semiannual basis.
Currently, there are no existing sources,
besides the copper smelters, which
collect any of this information. In
addition, there are no reporting
requirements by other governmental
agencies for this type of information
which would result in overlapping data
requirements. The types of information
 to be included in the reports are
discussed below.
  For the converter secondary hood
system, each semiannual report would
 indicate: (1) the reference air flow rates
established for each converter operating
 mode, and (2) a record of air flow rates
 for each day when the air flow rates are
less than 20 percent of the
corresponding reference air flow rate
values.
  For the collection devices for
secondary emissions, each semiannual
report would provide: (1) a record of
transmissometer readings for each day
on which the opacity exceeded the
opacity limit determined at the time the
collection device demonstrated
compliance, at any time of the day: and
(2) the values of the emission test
opacity limits.
Impacts of Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements
  EPA believes that these reporting and
recordkeeping requirements are
necessary to assist the Agency in (1)
identifying sources, (2) observing the
compliance testing and demonstration of
monitoring devices, (3) determining
inital compliance, and (4) enforcing the
standard after the initial compliance
determination.
  The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-511) requires that the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) approve reporting and
recordkeeping requirements that qualify
as an "information collection request"
(ICR). For the purposes of
accommodating OMB's review, EPA
uses 2-year periods in its impact
analysis procedures for estimating the
labor-hour burden of reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
  The average annual burden on low-
arsenic-throughput copper smelters to
comply with the  reporting and
recordkeeping requirements of the
proposed standards over the first 2
years after the effective date is
estimated to be 15,200 person-hours.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
   The Regulatory Flexiblity Act of 1980
(RFA) requires that differential impacts
of Federal regulations upon smalt
business be identified and analyzed.
The RFA stipulates that an analysis is
required if a substantial number of small
businesses will experience significant
impacts. Both measures, substantial
numbers of small businesses and
significant impacts, must be met to
require an analysis. If either measure is
not met then no analysis is required.
Twenty percent or more of the small
businesses in an affected industry is
considered a substantial number. The
EPA definition of significant impact
involves three tests, as follows: one,
costs of production rise 5 percent or
more, assuming costs are not passed
onto consumers; or two, annualized
investment costs for pollution control
are greater than 20 percent of total
                                                    V-N,0,P-40
-------
               Federal Register  /  Vol. 48,  No. 140  /  Wednesday, July 20, 1983  /  Proposed Rules
capital spending; or three, costs as a
percent of sales for small entities are 10
percent greater than costs as a percent
of sales for large entities.
  The Small Business Adminstration
(SBA) definition of a small business for
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
Code 3331, Primary Smelting and
Refining of Copper, is 1,000 employees.
The 14 low-arsenic-throughput smelters
are owned by seven companies. All
seven have more than 1,000 employees.
Therefore, none of the seven companies
meets the SBA definition of a small
business and thus no regulatory
flexibility analysis is required.

IV. INORGANIC ARSENIC EMISSIONS
FROM GLASS MANUFACTURING
PLANTS
Proposed Standard
  The proposed standard would limit
the amount of inorganic arsenic emitted
from glass melting furnaces to levels
achievable by best available technology
(BAT). The Administrator has
determined that BAT for glass melting
furnaces that emit greater than 0.40 Mg
(0.44 ton) per year of arsenic
uncontrolled is the use  of an
electrostatic precipitator (ESP) or fabric
filter. The application of BAT for these
furnaces represents at least a 90 percent
reduction in the amount of arsenic that
would otherwise be emitted. The
Administrator has also determined that
for furnaces that emit 0.40 Mg (0.44 ton)
per year or less arsenic uncontrolled, the
cost of applying add-on control devices
is disproportionate to the emission
reduction that would result, and,
therefore, that BAT for these furnaces is
no control. Consequently, the proposed
standard would  require each owner or
operator of a source to either i educe
emissions to levels achievable hy an
ESP or fabric filter, or to maintain
uncontrolled (i.e., preceding an add-on
control device) arsenic emission levels
at 0.40 Mg (0.44 ton) per year or less.
   The source which would be covered
by the proposed standard is each glass
melting furnace that uses arsenic as a
raw material. The proposed standard
would exempt pot furnaces. The
proposed standard would not explicitly
exempt any other furnace type:
however, it is expected that all-electric
melting furnaces, hand glass melting
furnaces, and small (i.e., less than 4.55
Mg (5.00 tons) per day  capacity)
furnaces would be able to comply with
 the proposed standard without having to
use  an add-on participate control device
since it is believed that the uncontrolled
arsenic emissions from these furnaces
 would not exceed 0.40  Mg (0.44 ton) per
year. This belief is based on limited
information about these furnace types.
Therefore, comments are specifically
requested on this subject.
  Each owner or operator choosing to
comply with the proposed standard by
reducing arsenic emissions to levels
achievable by an ESP or fabric filter
would be required to meet an emission
limit expressed in terms of particulate
matter. The emission limits would be
expressed in terms of particulate matter
because particulate matter levels
accurately reflect the performance of
ESP's and fabric filters in reducing
arsenic emissions. The particulate
emission limits would vary according to
the different categories of glass and
would be expressed as grams of total
particulate matter (as measured by
Reference Method 5) per kilogram of
glass produced. These proposed
particulate emission limits are presented
in Table IV-1:

        TABLE IV-1. EMISSION LIMIT
       tg of particulate-kg ol glass produced]


Glass category


Pressed and btow glass
BorosHcale . . _ 	
Soda-kme and lead . — 	
Other than borosilicate. soda-
line and lead 	
Wool fibergass
Flat glass

Furnace
fired with
gaseous
teland
all-electric
metiers
0100

.500
.100

.250
.250
.225



fired with
hquKttuel

0.130

.650
.130

.325
325
??5

 For furnaces simultaneously firing both
 gaseous and liquid fuel, the applicable
 limit would be determined by prorating
 the limits for gas- and liquid-fuel-fired
 furnaces based on the proporation of
 gas and liquid fuel used.
   The proposed standard would require
 each owner or operator choosing to
 comply with the particulate emission
 limits  to demonstrate compliance with
 these limits by conducting an emission
 test using EPA Reference Method 5,
 "Determination of Particniate Emissions
 from Stationary Sources." These owners
 or operator* would alto be required to
 monitor opacity continuously. The
 proposed standard does not include an
 opacity limit, but instead prescribes
 procedures for each owner or operator
 who must monitor opacity to establish a
 source-specific opacity level. This level
 would be viewed as indicative of a
 properly operated and maintained
 control device. The owner or operator
 would be required to maintain records
 of the opacity monitoring results and to
 report every 6 months if opacities in
 excess of the source-specific level
 occurred during the preceding 6-month
 period. Reports of excess opacity would
not be used to cite a source in violation
of the standard, but would serve,
instead, to alert enforcement personnel
that the control device may not be
operated and maintained properly.
  The proposed standard would require
each owner or operator choosing to
comply with the standard by
maintaining uncontrolled (i.e., preceding
an add-on control device) arsenic
emission levels at or below 0.40 Mg (0.44
ton) per year to demonstrate compliance
by measuring the arsenic emissions from
the furnace using EPA Reference
Method 108, "Determination  of
Particulate and Gaseous Arsenic
Emissions." The results of this
measurement would be used along with
estimates of the anticipated production
of arsenic-containing glass over the next
12-month period to estimate the annual
arsenic emission rate. The proposed
standard would require that 6 months
after the initial compliance
demonstration, and every 6 months
thereafter, each owner or operator
calculate what the arsenic emissions
were during the preceding 6-month
period based on the actual glass
production rate during that period. If
this calculation reveals that arsenic
emissions during the preceding 12-month
period (or 6-month period, in the case of
the first 6-month calculation) exceeded
0.40 Mg (0.44 ton), then the source was
in violation of the standard and the
owner or operator must report this fact
to the administrator within 10 days.
   In addition to requiring a calculation
of the arsenic emission rate for the
preceding 6-month period, the proposed
standard would require that every 6
months each owner or operator estimate
arsenic emissions over the next 12-
month period. If this estimate indicates
that arsenic emissions will exceed 0.40
Mg (0.44 ton) during the 12-month
period, then  the owner or operator must
demonstrate compliance with the
particulate emission limits, and, within
10 days, give written notice to the
Administrator of when the Method 5
         i test will be conducted. The
 proposed standard would also require
 that the owner or operator maintain
 records of all measurements and
 calculations made to estimate arsenic
 emissions.
 Summary of Health, Environmental,
 Energy, and Economic Impacts

   The impacts presented are based on
 an analysis of the glass melting furnaces
 that EPA has identified as using arsenic
 as a raw material and for which EPA
 has arsenic emissions data. There are 32
 such furnaces.  The available data show
 that five of these furnaces emit arsenic
                                                  V-N,0,P-41
-------
               Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 140 / Wednesday, July 20,  1983 / Proposed Rules
at uncontrolled levels at or below 0.40
Mg (0.44 ton) per year. Thus, it was
assumed that these furnaces would not
need to install add-on control devices to
comply with the standard. Of the
remaining 27,13 are already controlled
by either ESP's or fabric filters, and
company representatives have indicated
that these controls can achieve the
proposed particulate emission limits.
Therefore, the impact analysis assumes
that 14 furnaces would need to install
add-on controls to comply with the
proposed standard.
  It is presumed that there are more
arsenic-using furnaces than the 32 that
were included in the impact analysis.
However, insufficient information about
location, size, ownership, and emissions
were available on these furnaces to
i;.elude them in the analysis. It is
believed, though, that the arsenic
e missions from the arsenic-using
furnaces that are included in the
analysis represent the majority of the
aisenic emissions from glass melting
f'.rnaces. Moreover, it is believed that
these furnaces account for most of the
furnaces that would have to install add-
on particulate control devices to comply
with the proposed standard. The
arsenic-using furnaces that are not
included in the impact analysis are
believed to be mostly pot furnaces, all-
electric furnaces, and fossil-fuel-fired
furnaces (other than pot furnaces) used
to produce handmade glass products.
Pot furnaces are exempt from the
proposed standard and, as mentioned
earlier, it is considered unlikely that
either  of the other two furnace types
would have uncontrolled (i.e., preceding
an add-on control device) arsenic
emissions greater than 0.40 Mg (0.44 ton)
per year.
  The  impact analysis also does not
consider impacts on new glass melting
furnaces. This is because, in the absence
of the  proposed standard, new glass
melting furnaces would need to install
add-on particulate control devices as a
result  of being subject to the new source
performance standard (NS.PS) for glass
manufacturing plants. Though the NSPS
exempts all-electric furnaces, hand glass
melting furnaces, and small [ie., less
than 4.55 Mg (5.00 tons) per day
capacity] furnaces, it is believed that
these furnace types could comply with
the proposed standard without having to
install add-on control devices.
   The proposed standard would reduce
total inorganic arsenic emissions from
the 32 glass melting furnaces from the
current level of 36.7 Mg (40.4 tons) per
year to 4.7 Mg (5.2 tons) per year. As a
result  of this reduction in arsenic
emissions, it is estimated that.
nationwide, the number of incidences of
cancer resulting from exposure to
arsenic emissions from glass
manufacturing plants would be reduced
from a range of 0.073 to 1.17 incidences
per year to a range of 0.013 to 0.210
incidence per year. The proposed
standard would reduce the estimated
maximum individnal lifetime risk from
exposure to airborne arsenic from a
range of 6.4 in 10,000 to 100 in 10,000 to a
range of 0.97 in 10,000 to 15.6 in 10,000.
The maximum individual lifetime risk
represents the probability of someone
contracting cancer who has been
exposed continuously during a 70-year
period to the maximum annual arsenic
concentrations due to the arsenic
emissions from glass manufacturing
plants.
  The proposed standard wguld achieve
the reduction in nationwide arsenic
emissions with small adverse impacts
on other aspects of the environment.
The control devices which would be
used to meet the standard do not
produce wastewater effluents. Most of
the arsenic-containing particulate matter
collected would be recycled to the
furnace. That which could not be
recycled would be subject to disposal
requirements under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
and would represent an industry-wide
increase of 67 Mg (74 tons) in the
amount of solid waste generated under
current conditions.
  The energy impact of the standard
would be minimal. The electricity
requirements of the add-on particulate
controls for all the affected furnaces
amount to about 3,400 megawatt-hours
per year or about a 1 percent increase in
the total energy requirements of all the
affected furnaces.
  The capital and annualized costs to
'install and operate an add-on control
device for a 100-ton-per-day furnace
would be  $2.6 million and $494,000,
respectively. Based on the costs of
applying add-on control devices to the
14 existing furnaces that are expected to
have to install add-on control devices,
total industry-wide capital and
annualized costs would be $27.4 million
and $4.9 million, respectively. If the
control costs are passed on to the
consumer in the form of product price
increases, the price increases for the 14
furnaces are  estimated to range from
0.04 to 3.1 percent. This estimate
assumes that only the price of the
arsenic-containing glass product would
be increased to absorb the control costs.
If control costs were absorbed by the
glass producer, declines in the profits on
the sales of the arsenic-containing glass
were estimated to range from 2.1 to 10.0
percent for 12 of the 14 furnaces. The
remaining two furnaces, from which
arsenic-containing glass is only a part of
the annual glass production, were
estimated to have profit declines  of 44.6
and 68.6 percent. These impacts were
calculated assuming that the control
costs are charged only to the arsenic-
containing glass. To the extent that the
control costs would be spread over all
the glass produced at these furnaces, the
profit impacts would be less.

Rational

Selection of Source Category

  Glass manufacturing plants are among
the nine categories of stationary sources
of inorganic arsenic emissions that were
identified as potentially posing
significant risks to public health.  An
estimated 36.7 Mg (40.4 tons) of
inorganic arsenic is emitted each year
from glass melting furnaces at glass
manufacturing plants.
  Arsenic is currently used in only a
small fraction of all the glass
manufactured in the U.S., primarily as a
fining agent and to provide certain
properties to the glass. In 1978 there
were 129 glass-producing companies
which together operated 338 individual
plants. As of May 1983,15 plants were
identified by EPA as using arsenic.
These 15 plants are operated by 5
companies in 8 states  and contain at
least 32 furnaces  that  use arsenic. The
use of arsenic in glass production
declined 80  percent between 1968 and
1981. However, further declines are not
anticipated  unless additional substitutes
for arsenic can be found.
   Glass manufacturing plants are
usually categorized into one of four
general sectors: flat glass,  container
glass, pressed and blown glass, and
wool fiberglass. Although the currently
known use of arsenic  is mostly confined
to the pressed and blown glass sector,
the potential for arsenic use remains in
other sectors. Arsenic is not known to
have ever been used as raw material in
the wool fiberglass sector. However,
until a few years ago. arsenic was used
as a raw material in the container and
flat glass sectors. Even though most of
the plants in these sectors have stopped
using arsenic and industry
representatives state that there is no
technical need for the use of arsenic in
these sectors, the EPA is not certain that
arsenic use  in these sectors has been
completely  eliminated or will not be
used in the future. Therefore, the source
category was not defined to exclude any
of the four sectors.
   There are no existing regulations
designed to control ambient
                                                  V-N,0,P-42
-------
               Federal  Register / Vol. 48, No.  140 / Wednesday, July 20, 1983  /  Proposed Rules
concentrations of arsenic. However,
some State participate matter
regulations have resulted in the use of
add-on control devices that effectively
reduce particulate emissions and,
consequently, arsenic emissions that are
in particulate form. For example, the 13
existing arsenic-using furnaces that are
controlled with electrostatic
precipitators (ESP's) or fabric filters
account for less than 2 percent of the
arsenic emitted by the 32 known
arsenic-using furnaces.
  In the absence of a standard, the
estimated maximum individual lifetime
risk of contracting cancer would range
from 6.4 in 10,000 to 100 in 10,000 for the
most exposed individuals. Maximum
individual lifetime risk is the probability
of someone contracting cancer who is
continuously exposed to the maximum
annual average arsenic concentration
during an entire lifetime (70 years).
Additionally, in the absence of a
standard there would be an'estimated
0.073 to 1.17 cancer incidences per year
due to arsenic emissions from glass
manufacturing plants. As discussed in
Part I, because there is considerable
uncertainty in the assumptions and
methodology used to quantify the health
impacts, these estimates should not be
construed as accurate, absolute values,
and should be used for comparison
purposes only.
  Based on the magnitude of arsenic
exposures from this source category, the
resulting estimated maximum individual
lifetime risks and estimated incidence of
cancer in the exposed population
(including consideration of the
uncertainties associated with these
quantitative risk estimates), and the
availability of control technology to
reduce arsenic emissions, EPA finds that
arsenic emissions from glass
manufacturing plants create a
significant risk of cancer and that
development of a national emission
standard under Section 112 of the Clean
Air Act is warranted for this source
category.

Selection of Emission Points to be
Covered by the Standard
  Glass manufacturing involves three
basic steps: raw  material handling and
mixing; melting: and forming and
finishing.
  In the first step, the raw materials,
such as sand and soda ash, are received.
unloaded, and mixed according to the
desired product recipe. Although the
potential for fugitive emissions from the
handling and mixing of these dry
products is high, owners and operators
of glass manufacturing plants have
responded to standards promulgated by
the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) by
implementing stringent controls. These
controls, which are designed to protect
employees from exposure to arsenic in
the workplace, mainly involve the use of
a liquid rather than a powdered form of
arsenic. Where powdered arsenic
trioxide is still used, handling and
mixing operations are in enclosed areas,
which are vented through fabric filters.
With these controls in place, total
emissions from the handling and mixing
of raw materials amount to  less than 1
percent of total glass industry emissions.
Because the industry is uniformly
practicing these effective fugitive
controls, fugitive emissions  from the
handling and mixing step were not
considered for further controls.
  After the raw materials are mixed.
they are introduced into the melting
furnace, where at temperatures of 1500°
to 1700"C they are transformed into a
uniform bed of molten glass. Virtually
all of the air pollutants, including
arsenic, from glass manufacturing plants
are generated in the melting furnace.
These pollutants result from the
combustion of the furnace fuel, usually
natural gas, and  from the physical and
chemical reactions in the melting
furnace.
  The majority of the arsenic introduced
into the melting furnace remains in  the
glass produced from the furnace. The
amount retained varies according to
several factors, such as the  type of glass
being manufactrued and the type of
furnace. Data submitted by  the industry
indicate that the arsenic retained in the
glass ranges from 70 to 99 percent. Most
of the remainder of the arsenic is
emitted in the combustion gases—either
in a vapor state or, upon cooling, in the
form of particulate matter—and is
released through the furnace stack.
  One of the factors that determines the
amount of uncontrolled arsenic
emissions is the type of furnace used.
Most existing plants using arsenic as a
raw material have either regenerative-
or recuperative-type furnaces.
Regenerative furnaces recover heat from
combustion gases by alternating the use
of two chambers of refractory heating
material called checkerworks. By
contrast, recuperative furnaces use  one
continuously operating, shell-and-tube
heat exchanger for combustion air
preheating. Both regenerative furnaces
and recuperative furnaces melt raw
materials by firing fossil fuels. The
melting in some fossil-fuel-fired furnaces
is augmented by the use of electricity.
All-electric resistance melters are also
used. Electric melting, which is more
energy efficient than using fossil fuel
and which currently accounts for about
10 percent of the glass melting, is
believed to produce significantly lower
levels of arsenic emissions than fossil-
fuel-fired furnaces. However, the use of
electric melting is limited to the
production of certain types of glass.
  Some furnaces melt glass in covered
pots. These furnaces, termed "pot
furnaces" contain one or more
refractory vessels, called "pots," in
which glass is melted by indirect
heating. The openings to these  pots are
in the outside walls of the furnace and
are covered with refractory stoppers
during melting. Because the glass is
sealed off from the furnace atomsphere.
no material from the glass melt can
escape from the furnace with the
furnace exhaust. Therefore, pot
furnaces, as described here, wold emit
no arsenic emissions.
  In addition to the arsenic emissions
from the glass melting furnace, there is
the potential for exposure to fugitive
airborne arsenic particles from residue
or slag which accumulates on the
checkerworks of regenerative furnaces
and from collected particulate  matter
(flue dust) at furnaces controlled by
add-on control devices. This potential
arises when the material is improperly
disposed of and is reentrained  as wind-
blown fugitive particulate matter.
Currently, the industry either recycles
this material as a furnace feed  or
disposed of it as hazardous waste.
  The third step involving potential
emissions from glass manufacturing
plants in the forming and finishing
process. In this final step, the hot molten
glass is extracted from the furnace and
subjected to a variety of different
forming methods including pressing;
blowing in molds; and drawing, rolling.
and casting. Then the formed glass is
immediately conveyed to continuous
annealing ovens to remove internal
stresses by controlled cooling.  As is the
case in the first step, materials handling
and mixing, the amount of total
emissions, including arsenic, in this  final
step is negligible.
  Based on current estimates of arsenic
emissions from glass manufacturing
plants, virtually all of the emissions
from glass manufacturing plants are
released from the glass melting furnace.
Therefore, EPA selected the glass
melting furnace as the only emission
point to be covered by the proposed
standard. Associated with this selection
EPA designated "each glass melting
furnace that uses arsenic as a raw
material" as the "source" to which the
proposed standard applies. However,
EPA concluded that pot furnaces should
be exempt from the proposed standard
because, even though they may use
                                                  V-N.O.P-43
-------
               Federal  Register / Vol. 48, No.  140 / Wednesday, July 20, 1983  / Proposed  Rules
arsenic as a raw material, they do not
emit arsenic.

Selection of Basis of Proposed Standard
  The selection of the basis of the
proposed standard involved first an
identification of techniques for reducing
inorganic arsenic emissions from new
and existing glass manufacturing plants.
This was followed by an identification
of regulatory alternatives and an
analysis of the environmental, energy,
and economic impacts of each. Based on
this analysis, the alternative
representing best available technology
(BAT) was selected. BAT is that
technology, which in the judgment of the
Administrator, is the most  advanced
level of control adequately
demonstrated, considering economic,
energy, and environmental impacts. For
existing sources, BAT would not exceed
the most advance level of control that at'
least most members of an industry could
afford without plant closures. Following
the selection of BAT, the process was
carried a step further by examining the
residual health risks remaining after
application of BAT to determine
whether they were unreasonable in view
of the health benefits and costs that
would result if a more stringent
alternative than BAT were selected as
the basis for the standard.

Identification of Emission Techniques
  There are three basic approaches for
reducing inorganic arsenic emissions
from glass melting furnaces. These
include (1) the use of add-on particulate
collection devices, (2) the use of electric
boosting or all-electric furnaces to
reduce furnace emissions, and (3) the
reduction or elimination of arsenic as a
feedstock in the raw material batch.
   A particulate collection  device is an
effective arsenic emission control device
provided the arsenic is in particulate
form. There are two forms of add-on
control devices used to control
particulate emissions from glass melting
furnaces that use arsenic:  electrostatic
precipitators (ESP's) and fabric filters.
Eleven of the 32 known arsenic-using
furnaces use ESP's and 2 use fabric
filters. Testing performed by the
industry and the EPA has  shown that
both fabric filters  and ESP's can reduce
arsenic emissions by at least 90 percent.
   Since arsenic in vapor form is not
captured by a particulate control device.
 the effectiveness of a particulate control
device in controlling arsenic emissions
 would be enhanced if vapor-phase
 arsenic were condensed to particulate
 form prior to entering the  control device.
 Based on theoretical considerations, it
 would be expected that arsenic is
 emitted from glass melting furnaces as
arsenic trioxide. The vapor pressure
characteristics of arsenic trioxide
suggest that in low-temperture gas
streams there would be a smaller
fraction of the total arsenic in the vapor
phase than at higher temperatures.
However, available data from EPA  tests
of particulate control devices on two
glass furnaces that use liquid arsenic
acid in the batch materials (rather than
powdered arsenic trioxide) are contrary
to the expected theoretical relationship
between gas stream temperature and  the
amount of arsenic in the vapor phase.
  At one plant, where the gas stream
temperature was about 210°C (408°F),
the concentration of arsenic in the inlet
gas stream was such that all of the
arsenic present would be expected  to be
in the vapor phase. However, less than 1
percent of the total arsenic was in the
vapor phase, as evidenced by the fact
that the control device (an ESP) was 99
percent efficient in reducing  the arsenic
emissions. At another plant,  where the
gas temperature within the control
device was 138°C (280°F), the
concentration of arsenic in the inlet gas
stream was such that all the arsenic
present would be expected to be in the
vapor phase at the control device
temperature, yet the control device (a
fabric filter) was determined to be 93
percent efficient. Because these test
data do not support the expected
theoretical relationship between gas
stream temperature and the portion of
the total arsenic that is in vapor form, it
is uncertain whether gas stream cooling
would be effective in increasing the
efficiency of particulate control devices
in reducing arsenic emissions from glass
melting furnaces. Although the expected
theoretical relationship was not
demonstrated on the two control devices
used on glass furnaces that use liquid
arsenic acid in the batch material, the
relationship may be demonstrated  at
furnaces using powdered arsenic
trioxide, because powdered arsenic
trioxide may result in a substantial
higher portion of arsenic in vapor form.
  The second technique for reducing
arsenic emissions from glass plants is
through the use of an all-electric or
electric boosted furnace. In an all-
electric furnace no direct fossil fuel
combustion is involved. Electric
boosting is the terra used to describe a
method of glass melting in which an
electric current is used to augment glass
melting in a furnace firing gas or oil.  For
all-electric and electric boosted
furnaces, heat is generated by passing
 an electric current through the molten
 glass. Because the heat is supplied
 internally to the glass, a higher
 percentage of the total energy supplied
to the furnace is converted to usable
heat.
  The use of electricity can decrease the
generation of emissions from the glass
melting furnace. However, the percent
reduction of arsenic emissions achieved
by electric boosting is uncertain and
may be variable. The EPA's estimates of
the industry's uncontrolled arsenic
emissions include the reductions
achieved by electric boosting. For
example, the furnace identified as
having the highest arsenic emissions in
the industry uses electric boosting. All-
electric melters generally have much
lower emissions than do fossil-fuel-fired
furnaces because the surface of the
melter generally is maintained at near
ambient temperatures. This minimizes
losses from vaporization and,
accordingly, reduces emissions from the
melter.
  Even though there may be emjjsion
reductions achieved by electric boosting
and all-electric melters, it is not
technically possible to use electric
boosting in all furnaces or to substitute
all-electric melters for fossil-fuel-fired
furnaces. Only certain types of glass
have the electrical properties suitable
for electric melting, and some glass
formulations corrode the electrodes
used in the all-electric melters.
Therefore, EPA concluded that the use
of electric boosting or all-electric
melters is not a demonstrated control
technique in the sense that neither
electric boosting nor all-electric melters
can be specified and evaluated for the
purpose  of developing standards.
  The third approach to reducing or
eliminating arsenic emissions from glass
manufacturing plants is to reduce or
eliminate the use of arsenic as a raw
material for the glass being produced.
The complete elimination of arsenic as a
raw material appears to be feasible for
the container, flat, and wool fiberglass
categories. However, if certain specialty
glasses in the pressed and blown
category are to be continued to be
produced, arsenic use must continue
since there are currently no substitutes
available. Arsenic use in the production
of certain specialty glass has been
reduced to the minimum amounts
necessary to maintain the quality and
quantity of products demanded by the
market place. Therefore, to reduce
arsenic use further or to eliminate it
entirely would probably result in the
elimination of the arsenic-containing
products and, possibly, the shutdown of
most or all existing furnaces using
 arsenic in the pressed and blown glass
 category. However, the EPA believes
 that there may be no technical barrier to
 the elimination of arsenic in the
                                                  V-N.O.P-44
-------
               Federal  Register / Vol. 48, No. 140 / Wednesday. July 20. 1983  / Proposed Rules
production of glass in the other
categories. Therefore, the EPA invites
comments on the feasibility of
eliminating arsenic use in the flat glass,
container glass, and wool fiberglass
categories.
Identification of Regulatory Alternatives
  The EPA has considered the available
emission reduction technique and
identified three regulatory alternatives
for reducing arsenic emissions from new
and existing glass manufacturing plants.
  Under Regulatory Alternative I, no
national emission standard would be
established for arsenic emissions from
glass manufacturing plants. Therefore,
under this alternative, no additional
controls beyond those already
mandated by other regulations (e.g.,
State implementation plans, NSPS)
would be required. Regulatory
Alternative I corresponds to the
baseline level of control.
  Regulatory Alternative II is based on
the use of add-on particulate collection
devices (ESP's or fabric filters) on glass
melting furnaces and represents at least
90 percent arsenic emission control at
these furnaces.
  Regulatory Alternative III would ban
arsenic emissions altogether. This could
be accomplished either through the
elimination of arsenic as a feedstock or
through any method that assures
complete retention of the arsenic in the
glass. The EPA is not aware of any
means of assuring that arsenic is
completely retained in the glass.
Therefore, it is believed that Alternative
III would result in the elimination of
arsenic as a feedstock and. possibly, the
closure of many or all of the arsenic-
using glass furnaces in the pressed and
blown glass category.
 Impacts of Regulatory Alternatives
   The individual furnace impacts
 presented below are computed by
 applying the regulatory alternatives to
 various-sized hypothetical individual
 furnaces, called "model furnaces." The
 industry-wide impacts that are
 presented represent the aggregate
 impacts on the furnaces that EPA
 expects would be affected by each
 regulatory alternative. As discussed
 previously, EPA limited its impact
 analysis to those arsenic-using furnaces
 for which EPA has arsenic emissions
 data. There are 32 such furnaces; and. as
 discussed previously, it is believed that
 these furnaces represent the majority of
 the arsenic emissions from glass melting
 furnaces. Regulatory Alternative I would
 affect no furnaces. Regulatory
 Alternative II would necessitate that the
 19 furnaces that emit arsenic and
 currently do not have add-on controls
install add-on particulate controls to
reduce arsenic. Regulatory Alternative
III would affect all 32 furnaces that emit
arsenic.
  Environmental Impacts. Under
Regulatory Alternative I there would be
no change in environmental impacts.
Arsenic emissions from arsenic-using
furnaces would be about 36.7-Mg/yr
(40.4 tons/yr).  In addition, particulate
emissions from these furnaces would be
960 Mg/yr (1.056 tons/yr).
  Under Regulatory Alternative II, the
arsenic emissions from existing arsenic-
using furnaces would be reduced to
approximately 4.3 Mg (4.8 tons) per year
and particulate emissions would be
reduced to 82 Mg/yr (90 tons-yr). No
adverse water pollution impacts would
occur since the add-on control devices
do not produce wastewater. The
arsenic-containing particulate matter
collected by the  add-on control device
would increase the solid waste
generated at a glass plant. However, it is
a common practice in the industry to
recycle the collected particulate matter
back to the furnace thereby minimizing
the potential solid waste impact of
Regulatory Alternative II. To the extent
that the collected particulate matter is
not recycled, it is handled as a
hazardous waste. Assuming that is
would only be possible to recycle 90
percent of the particulate matter, it is
estimated that 87 Mg (96 tons) per year
would have to be disposed of under
Alternative II. This represents an
increase of 67 Mg (74 tons) in the
amount of solid  waste generated under
baseline conditions.
   Under Regulatory Alternative III,
arsenic emissions from glass melting
furnaces would  be zero.  If the industry
were to respond to Regulatory
Alternative III by closing down the
existing arsenic-using glass furnaces, all
air pollutants whicli mould have been
emitted from these furnaces would be
 eliminated. There would be little or no
 reduction in water quality since glass
 plants do not discharge effluent, and a
 small, positive solid waste impact would
 result. It was  estimated that about 20 Mg
 of solid waste are currently disposed of
 per year by the  existing  arsenic-using
 glass manufacturing plants.
   Energy Impacts. Regulatory
 Alternative I  would have no energy
 impacts. The  incremental energy
 impacts of Regulatory Alternative D
 above the baseline case result from the
 electrical requirements of the add-on
 control device and fans. The annual
 electric energy use of a particulate
 control device for a 100-ton-per-day
 furnace is estimated to be about 270,000
 kilowatt-hours, or about 30 times the
 average annual consumption of a  typical
single family household. The total
industry-wide energy impact under
Regulatory Alternative II amounts to
about 3.4 million kilowatt-hours per year
based on use of add-on control devices.
Regulatory Alternative III would result
in a nationwide energy savings of
580,000 megawatt-hours per year if the
industry were to respond to Alternative
III by closing the 32 arsenic-using glass
furnaces. However, these savings do not
take into account the energy losses that
may occur because of the absence of
certain specialty glasses used in energy-
conservation and solar-energy
collection.
  Cost and Economic Impacts.
Regulatory Alternative I would have no
cost or economic impacts. The cost and
economic impacts of Regulatory
Alternative II are based on the costs of
retrofitting ESP's , which are slightly
more expensive than fabric filters. In
this sense, the cost and economic
impacts, which are quantified in this
section, are worst-case estimates. The
economic impacts of Regulatory
Alternative III focus on those associated
with the shutdown of the 32 arsenic-
using furnaces.
  The capital cost of Regulatory
Alternative II for a 100-ton-per-day glass
melting furnace would be about $2.6
million (all costs for 4th quarter 1982
dollars). The annualized costs of
Regulatory Alternative II would be
approximately $494,000 for this same
size furnace. If this same furnace
produced tableware or other machine-
made consumerware and if these costs
were passed through in the form of
product price increases, it was
estimated that the product price
increases would be 0.5 and 0.4 percent
for capacity utilization rates of 70 and
100 percent, respectively. If the glass
manufacturer completely absorbed these
 costs, the decreases in profit on sales
 were estimated to be 5.1 and 3.1 percent
 for capacity utilization rates of 70 and
 100 percent, respectively.
   Worst-case economic impacts of
 Regulatory Alternative II were  also
 analyzed. These impacts would be
 associated with individual arsenic-
 containing products and would occur at
 furnaces that produce these products as
 a limited part of their full production.
 The production of TV envelope tubes
 and borosilicate tubing were estimated
 to incur the most adverse impact, with
 impacts being particularly large at 25-
 ton-per-day furnaces that produce the
 particular product only 25 percent of the
 time. In the case of TV envelope tubes, if
 100 percent of the control costs were
 passed through in the form of price
 increases for the TV envelope tube
                                                  V-N.O.P-45
-------
               Federal Register  /  Vol. 48. No.  140 / Wednesday. July 20, 1983  /  Proposed Rules
product only, price increases of 13.3
percent were predicted. If these costs
were completely absorbed and charged
only to the TV envelope tube product,
profit on sales were estimated to
decrease by 114 percent. Similarly, for a
25-ton-per-day furnace that produces
borosilicate tubing only 25 percent of the
time, it was estimated that the cost of
controls could result in a price increase
of 8.2 percent assuming full cost pass-
through. If the costs were completely
absorbed by the manufacturer, the
decrease in profit on sales was
estimated to be 122 percent.
  It is believed that these impacts
represent worst-case impacts for
hypothetical furnace size/product type
combinations. No actual furnaces
matching these cases and currently
without add-on controls are known to
exist. The arsenic-using furnaces  that
are known  to produce TV envelope
tubes are at least 100-ton-per-day
furnaces and are already controlled by
add-on control devices and, therefore,
are not expected to be affected by
Alternative II. Likewise,  the arsenic-
using furnaces that have been identified
as producing borosilicate tubing are not
expected to be affected by Alternative II
because they are already controlled by
add-on control devices.
  The cojt and economic impacts that
are expected to result from Regulatory
Alternative II are those expected for the
19 known arsenic-using furnaces  that
would need to install add-on control
devices under Regulatory Alternative II.
The industry-wide impacts, based on
control of these 19 furnaces, are
discussed below.
  Industry-wide capital costs for
Alternative II would be about $29.8
million and the annualized costs  would
be about $5.4 million. If these costs are
passed through in  the form of price
increases, it is estimated that the price
increases would range from 0.04 to 3.1
percent for the 19 furnaces expected to
incur the cost of Regulatory Alternative
II. If the costs are fully absorbed,
decreases in profit on sales for these 19
furnaces are estimated to range from 2.1
to 68.6 percent. These impacts assume
that the cost of control would be
charged only to the arsenic-containing
product. To the extent that  glass
producers would spread the control
costs over all products produced by the
affected furnace, the impacts would be
less. Moreover, it is believed that the
assumptions of full cost absorption or
full cost pass-through are not valid,
because it is expected that glass '
producers would balance cost
absorption and price increases so that
economic impacts are minimized.
  If the industry  responded to
Regulatory Alternative III by closing all
existing arsenic-using furnaces, the
economic impacts would  be significant.
It is estimated that these furnaces
produce products which are valued at
$1.9 billion annually and provide jobs
for about 30,000 workers. Communities
relying on the plants containing these
furnaces would be adversely affected by
the layoffs and lost tax revenues. Other
impacts are very difficult to quantify
and include the possible loss of valuable
products which currently make use of
glass containing  arsenic. Regulatory
Alternative III is not expected to affect
furnaces that produce container glass, •
flat glass, and wool fiberglass because it
is believed that arsenic is not being used
in the production of these glass types.

Selection of Best Available Technology
  In selecting best available technology
(BAT) for new and existing glass melting
furnaces, EPA examined  the regulatory
alternative to determine the most
advanced level of control adequately
demonstrated considering the economic,
energy, and environmental impacts and
technological problems associated with
retrofit. The EPA first considered the
most stringent option. Regulatory
Alternative III, which would ban arsenic
emissions from glass melting furnaces.
As discussed previously, the only
apparent means of meeting this
alternative is to eliminate arsenic as a
feedstock. Thus, the arsenic-containing
specialty glass products would be
eliminated and, in the worst case, the
existing  arsenic-using glass melting
furnaces would be forced to close. Since
it is estimated that these furnaces
produce products valued at $1.9 billion
annually and provide about 30,000 jobs,
the economic impact of furnace closure
would be significant. In addition, the
loss of the specialty glass products
would have indirect adverse impacts
that are  difficult to quantify. Given the
direct and indirect adverse economic
impacts  of furnace closure, the EPA
rejected Alternative III as BAT and next
considered Regulatory Alternative II.
  Regulatory Alternative II would result
in at least 90 percent reduction of
arsenic emmissions from affected glass
melting furnaces. However, because of
the differences among furnaces,
particularly the differences in
uncontrolled arsenic emissions rates,
EPA examined the effect of these
differences on the cost impacts and
emission reduction benefits of
Alternative II. This examination led to
the decision that furnaces  that emit 0.40
mg (0.44 ton) or less arsenic per year
uncontrolled (i.e., preceding an add-on
control device) should be excluded from
the requirement to achieve 90 percent
control of arsenic emissions. This
decision is based on EPA's conclusion
that  the cost of add-on controls for such
furnaces  is unreasonable considering
the small emission reduction that would
be gained by controlling them.
  The EPA arrived at this  conclusion
after examining the arsenic emission
reductions that would be acheived by
add-on control devices installed on each
of the 19 existing arsenic-using furnaces
that do not already have add-on
controls. As shown in Table IV-2 which
lists the furnaces in order  of decreasing
emissions, the magnitude of
uncontrolled arsenic emissions from
each furnace and the emission reduction
achieved by controlling each furnace
become relatively small near the bottom
of the list. Nothing this and the fact that
the annualized cost of controlling each
furnace remains relatively constant
regardless of the magnitude of emissions
from the furnace, EPA conclude that as
the emissions from furnaces become
smaller, the cost of controlling the
furnaces becomes unreasonable
considering the emission reduction
achievd. Therefore, EPA decided that it
was reasonable to establish an emission
level whereby furnaces that emit at or
below this level would be excluded from
the 90 percent control requirement,
which necessitates the use of an add-on
control device. In EPA's judgment this
level is 0.40 Mg (0.44 ton) per year. The
cost-effectiveness of control at this  level
is $795,000 per megagram. With an
exclusion at this level, 99.5 percent  of
the total potential emission reduction
would be achieved by installing  add-on
control devices on the 14 furnaces that
emit more than 0.40 (0.44 ton) per year.
                                                   V-N,0,P-46
-------
               Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.  140 / Wednesday. |uly 20. 1983  /  Proposed Rules

                   TABLE IV-2. EMISSION AND COST ESTIMATES FOR THE 19 UNCONTROLLED ARSENIC-USING FURNACES
Existing furnaces
witnout add-on
control devices
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
"
Uncont'Ofled arsenic
emissions. Mg/'yr
1520
335
309
309
1 99
183
1 82
1 27
091
076
073
055
055
045
012

•004


Emission reduction
achievable by add-on
control device. Mg/yr
1366
302
278
278
1 79
165
164
1 14
082
068
066
050
050
040
Oil

0036


Cumulative emission
reduction as percent of
total potential emission
reduction (percent)
4250
51 88
6052
6916
7472
7985
8495
8849
91 04
9315
9520
9675
9836
9954
9988

•9999


Artnuahzed cost of add-on
control device (dollars)
494.000
339.000
S68.000
342.000
348.000
494.000
226.000
269.000
242.000
494.000
295.000
326.000
357.000
318.000
132.000

348.000


Cummulative annualreed
cost as percent of total
potential annuakzed cost j
(percent)
916
1545
2227
2B61
3506
4422
4841
5340
5789
6705
7252
7856
8518
9108
9353

•9998


                                                                                                      Cost per i'"i'
                                                                                                        reduction
                                                                                                                 36 I'M
                                                                                                                1l23r>0
                                                                                                                1324iX>
                                                                                                                123.000
                                                                                                                194000
                                                                                                                299400
                                                                                                                137.8re
                                                                                                                236000
                                                                                                                295 100
                                                                                                                726 500
                                                                                                                447.000
                                                                                                                652.000
                                                                                                                714.000
                                                                                                                795000
                                                                                                               1.200.000

                                                                                                               9.666.700
   • Four furnaces vented to one stack
   ' TotaJ not equal to 100 percent due to round-off error
  In establishing this exclusion level
between the group of furnaces with the
greatest potential emissions and the
group with lower potential emissions,
the Agency considered emission rates,
emission reduction potential, control
costs, and the economic impacts of
controls. This analysis led to the clear
conclusion that control is reasonable for
furnaces with the highest potential
emissions and that control is
unreasonable (considering the small
benefit) for furnaces with the lowest
potential emissions. The analysis did
not, however, provide a clear, objective
formula for establishing the precise
point at which costs and other impacts
become unreasonable relative to the
emission reduction benefits. Therefore,
the level being proposed reflects the
Agency's best judgment of BAT, based
on consideration of the factors which
are relevant to this decision and most
particularly on the Agency's judgment
that arsenic emissions should be
minimized. The proposed exclusion level
would have the effect of extending the
degree of control that is now in place  at
13 of the 32 arsenic-'using furnaces to 14
additional furnaces that are currently
without add-on controls. EPA believes
that this level would exclude all-electric
furnaces and small hand glass furnaces.
The Agency recognizes that others may
have different  views on where an
appropriate cutoff, if any, should be
made and is specifically requesting
comments on the appropriateness of the
level selected and on the validity of the
data on which the selection was based.
  In making this selection, the
Administrator recognizes that certain
products may be adversely impacted
and that in certain cases, glass
producers may discontinue production
of these products  or change this
production to other furnaces. Also,
while no closures have been predicted,
the Administrator recognizes that the
closure of one or more furnaces is not
impossible. However, considering the
extent to which controls are now used in
the industry and the significant
emissions from glass-melting furnaces,
the Administrator has concluded that
the degree of control reflected by
Alternative II is BAT.

Consideration of Risk Remaining After
BAT
  After Regulatory Alternative II was
selected as representing BAT, EPA
examined the estimated health risks
remaining after the application of BAT
to determine whether they are
unreasonable in view of the risk
reduction and other impacts that would
result if controls beyond BAT were
selected.
  After the application of BAT, it is
estimated that there would be 0.013 to
0.210 cancer incidence per year due to
arsenic emissions from existing arsenic-
using glass furnaces. The estimated
maximum individual lifetime risk to the
most exposed population after the
application of BAT would range from
0.97 in 10,000 to 15.6 in 10.000.
Eliminating the 0.40 Mg (0.44 ton) per
year exclusion level would not affect the
estimated maximum lifetime risk and
would have negligible effect on
estimated cancer incidence. Therefore,
Alternative III represents the only
alternative that would significantly
affect estimated maximum lifetime risk
and estimated cancer incidence. Under
Regulatory Alternative 111, there would
be zero arsenic emissions from glass
melting furances and, therefore, no
increased risk of cancer due to arsenic
emissions from glass plants above that
which would exist from exposure to
other sources of arsenic emissions.
However, under Regulatory Alternative
III, there would be severe economic
impacts resulting form potential furnace
closures. Considering that the reduction
in risk that is possible with Alternative
III is small relative to the high costs of
the elimination of the products derived
from arsenic-using glass furnaces and
the possible elimination of the jobs
provided by these furnaces, EPA
determined that the risks remaining
after applying BAT are not
unreasonable. The EPA concluded,
therefore, that the proposed standard
should be based on BAT (Regulatory
Alternative II).
  Though it  was decided that the
proposed standard should not ban
arsenic emissions, EPA believes that
there is no technical need for the use of
arsenic in the container glass, flat glass.
and wool fiberglass sectors, and is
considering  including in the final
standard a ban on arsenic emissions
from these three sectors. The EPA
specifically requests comments on this
subject.

Selection of format of Proposed
Standard
  The decision by EPA that the
proposed standard should be based on
BAT means  that the proposed standard
should require the level of control
achievable by BAT. It was determined
that BAT is represented by Regulatory
Alternative II, which means, in effect,
that BAT for furnaces that emit greater
than 0.40 Mg (0.44 ton) of arsenic per
year uncontrolled (i.e., preceding an
add-on control device) is the use of an
add-on particulate control device, while
BAT for furnaces that emit 0.40 Mg (0.44
ton) or less per year is no control.
                                                 V-N,0,P-47
-------
               Federal Register / Vol. 48, No.  140 / Wednesday, July 20, 1983  /  Proposed Rules
Consequently, the proposed standard
should require that a furnace either meet
the level of control achievable by add-
on particulate control devices or
maintain uncontrolled arsenic emissions
at 0.40 Mg (0.44 ton) per year or less.
The selection of the format of the part of
the standard that would require the
level of control achievable by an add-on
particulate control device is discussed in
this section.
  The level of control achievable by an
add-on particulate control device could
be described  in terms of either the level
of arsenic control achievable or the level
of particulate matter control achievable.
A format that would limit the amount of
inorganic arsenic emitted was
considered. However, among the
various glass batch recipes, there is
considerable  variability in the arsenic
emission levels due to variability in the
amount of arsenic used in the feedstock
and the amount of arsenic retained in
the product glass. Therefore, if the
arsenic emission limit were set high
enough to allow for the maximum
arsenic emissions level that would be
expected for the variability observed,
the standard  may not result in each
furnace being controlled to the BAT
level. Some furnaces might be able to
achieve the arsenic limit without
installing an add-on particulate control
device.
   Using an efficiency format, which
vould require a percent reduction of
a-senic emissions, the problem of the
variability in the arsenic  emissions level
would be avoided. However, to
demonstrate  compliance  with an
efficiency standard, it is necessary to
make emission measurements at both
the inlet and outlet of the control device.
Because measurements at two locations
are necessary, the cost of demonstrating
compliance with an efficiency format
standard is higher than demonstrating
compliance with other format types.
   The EPA decided that a format that
would limit the amount of particulate
matter, emitted would be a better
approach to dealing with the variability
of arsenic  emission levels than an
efficiency  format. Because arsenic
particulate matter is only a fraction of
the total particulate matter emitted from
a glass melting furnace, the variability
that is observed in arsenic emission
 levels should not be observed in the
 levels of total particulate matter emitted
 from a furnace. Moreover, particulate
 emission levels accurately reflect the
 performance of add-on particulate
 control devices. Therefore, EPA decided
 that  the format of the part of the
 proposed standard that would require
 the level of control achievable by add-
on particulate control devices should be
a particulate matter emission limit.
  The regulation of inorganic arsenic
through a particulate emission limit
which necessitates the use of an add-on
particulate control device is effective for
reducing arsenic in the particulate form.
However, as discussed in a previous
section, arsenic in the vapor  phase is not
controlled by particulate collection
devices. Since the vapor pressure
characteristics of arsenic trioxide
suggest that at lower temperatures there
should be a smaller fraction of the total
arsenic in the vapor phase than at
higher temperatures, it initially
appeared reasonable to consider
establishing an  upper limit for the
temperature of the gas stream entering
the control device. However, as
discussed earlier, available test data on
furnaces that use liquid arsenic acid in
the batch material (rather than
powdered arsenic trioxide) raise
uncertainty about the effect of gas
cooling on the arsenic control
performance of particulate collection
devices used on glass furnaces. These
data showed that the fraction of total
arsenic in particulate form was much
greater than expected based on vapor
pressure considerations. This may be
due to the use of liquid arsenic acid,
which may result in arsenic compounds
that have a lower vapor pressure than
arsenic trioxide. Based on the available
date, EPA decided that the proposed
standard should not specify  an upper
limit on the gas stream temperature.
However, EPA  plans to gather more
information on  the effect of temperatura
and type of arsenic (liquid arsenic acid
or powdered arsenic trioxide) used in
the batch material. Based on the new
information EPA may require a
temperature limit, the use of liquid
arsenic acid, or both a temperature limit
and the use of liquid arsenic acid in the
final standard and is requesting
comment on this subject.
   It seems reasonable that any
temperature limitation should apply
only to those furnaces that would have
to install add-on control devices to
comply with the proposed standard.
This is because estimates of the cost of
installing a new add-on control device
show  that the total annualized costs of
gas cooling followed by a particulate
collection device are generally less than
 the total annualized costs of a control
 device alone. This lower annualized cost
 is due to the fact that gas cooling results
 in a smaller volume of gas to treat and
 thus reduces the required size of the
 particulate collection device. Thus, to
 the extent that limiting temperatura
 results in capture of arsenic that would
otherwise be emitted as vapor, this is
accomplished at no extra cost at
furnaces that would need to install
control devices. For furnaces that
already have an add-on particulate
control device  in place, retrofitting and
operating a gas cooling system would
increase the cost of control.

Selection of Emission Limits

  After it was  determined that the
format for the proposed standard would
be a particulate emission limit, the
selection of specific particulate emission
limits which would reflect BAT for each
industry sector remained to be
addressed by EPA.
  Within the glass industry, there are
several distinct industry sectors based
upon the type of glass produced. The
different glass  types require distinct
furnace sizes, furnace configurations,
and operating  conditions, and
consequently,  have different emission
levels. Equally important, from a
regulatory perspective, are the
distinctions in the market conditions
and product slates. These distinctions in
economic conditions reflect differences
in the ability of the various industry
sectors to bear the costs of regulation. In
the development of the glass
manufacturing plant NSPS, these
technical and economic conditions were
taken into account in establishing
emission levels reflecting best
demonstrated  technology (BDT) for six
glass industry sectors. The BDT on
which the NSPS is based is the same as
the BAT that the EPA selected to  serve
as the basis of the proposed standards
[i.e., the use of add-on particulate
control devices (ESFs or fabric filters)].
Because of this and because EPA has
determined that add-on particulate
control devices used on existing glass
furnaces can meet the NSPS emission
limits, the proposed standard would
establish the identical emission limits by
industry sector established for the glass
manufacturing plant NSPS promulgated
on October 7,1980 (45 FR 66742).
Therefore, the proposed standard would
set six different emission limits—one
each for three of the four recognized
industry sectors (container glass, flat
glass, and wool fiberglass) and three
within the pressed and blown sector.
These six emission limits were further
differentiated by the type of fuel used in
the glass furnace. As for the glass
manufacturing plant NSPS, oil-fired
furnaces would be allowed a 30 percent
increase over the  limits established for
gas-fired furnaces and all-electric
 furnaces (except for flat  glass for which
 there is no differential). This difference
                                                  V-N.O.P-48
-------
               Federal Register  /  Vol. 48. No. 140 / Wednesday,  July  20.  1983 / Proposed  Rules
reflects the inherent emission
contributions of the oil and gas fuels.
Demonstration of Compliance
  An owner or operator who chooses to
comply with the proposed standard by
achieving the participate emission
limits, must demonstrate compliance by
measuring particulate emissions using
EPA Reference Method 5. This method is
discussed in the "Selection of Emission
Test Methods" section. The proposed
standard would require that an owner or
operator who wants to comply with the
proposed standard by maintaining
uncontrolled (i.e., preceding an add-on
control device) arsenic emissions at or
below 0.40  Mg (0.44 ton) per year,
demonstrate compliance by measuring
uncontrolled (i.e., preceding an add-on
control device) arsenic emissions from
the furnace using EPA Reference
Method 108. This method is being
proposed today and is discussed in the
"Selection of Emission Test Methods"
section. The proposed standard allows
that another method be used if the
Administrator determines it to be
adequate for determining compliance. In
addition, as provided under § 61.13 of
the General Provisions of 40 CFR Part
81, the Administrator may waive the
requirement for an  emission test. It is
intended that this waiver provision
would allow an owner or operator who
can clearly demonstrate through
material balance or other non-test data
that the annual uncontrolled arsenic
emissions from a furnace do not exceed
0.40 Mg (0.44 ton) not to have to conduct
an emission test. The results of the
arsenic emission measurement would be
used to develop a "measured arsenic
emission factor" for the arsenic-
containing glass type that was being
produced while the Method 108 (or
equivalent  method) test was being
conducted.
  In addition, the proposed standard
would require that  the owner or
operator perform a material balance
calculation for the furnace operating
conditions existing during the Method
108 (or equivalent method) test. This
calculation would be used to develop a
"theoretical arsenic emission factor."
The ratio of the measured arsenic
emission factor to the theoretical arsenic
emission factor would be computed for
use in estimating measured arsenic
emissions as described in the following
paragraphs.
  For the initial demonstration that a
furnace is in compliance with the
proposed standard, the owner or
operator would estimate the arsenic
emissions from the furnace over the next
12-month period, using the measured
arsenic emission factor that was
developed for the arsenic-containing
glass produced while the Method 108
test was conducted along with an
estimate of the amount of this arsenic-
containing glass that will be produced
during the next 12-month period. If
arsenic-containing glass types other
than the type that was produced during
the test are expected to be produced
during the next 12 months, then the
owner or operator would develop
theoretical emission factors for these
glass types based on material balance
calculations. Then, by multiplying these
theoretical emission factors by the ratio
of the measured to theoretical emissions
factor, measured arsenic emission
factors would be computed for the other
glass types. These emission factors
would then be used, along with
estimates of the amounts of the other
glass types that will be produced during
the next 12 months, to estimate arsenic
emmissions for that period.
  The proposed standard would require
that 6 months after the initial
compliance demonstration, and every 6
months thereafter, the owner or operator
calculate and record what the level of
uncontrolled arsenic emissions was
during the preceding 6-month period.
This level would be computed using one
or more measured emission factors
(depending on whether one or more
arsenic-containing glass types were
produced) and the known amounts of
arsenic-containing glass that  were
produced during the period. For the
purposes of these 6-month calculations.
it would not be necessary to conduct a
Method 108 test again. The measured
emission factors would be computed, as
discussed earlier, by multiplying
theoretical emission factors by the ratio
of the measured to theoretical emission
factor that was calculated initially. If the
6-month calculation reveals that arsenic
emissions during the preceding 12-month
period (or 6-month period, in  the case of
the first 6-month calculation) exceeded
0.40 Mg (0.44 ton), then the source was
in violation of the standard and the
owner or operator must report this fact
to the Administrator within 10 days of
performing the calculation.
  In addition to requiring a retrospective
estimate of arsenic emissions for the
previous 6-month period, the proposed
standard requires that every 6 months
the owner or operator estimate the
uncontrolled arsenic emissions expected
during the next 12-month period. If this
estimate indicates that uncontrolled
arsenic emissions will exceed 0.40 Mg
(0.44 ton), then the owner or operator
must demonstrate compliance with the
particulate emission limits, and, within
10 days, give written notice to the
 Administrator of when they intend to
 conduct the Method 5 compliance test.

 Selection of Monitoring Requirements

  The proposed standard would require
 owners or operators choosing to compl\
 with the standard by achieving the
 particulate emission limits of the
 standard to install, operate, and
 maintain a continuous opacity
 monitoring system. Monitoring of source
 emissions provides a convenient tool for
 enforcement authorities and a means by
 which plant operators can detect control
 equipment malfunctions. No method
 exists for continuously measuring
 particulate emissions  directly. However.
 the opacity of exhaust gases can be
 measured continuously by using a
 transmissometer. A transmissometer is
 an optical device mounted in the stack
 which continuously monitors the
 percentage of light transmitted through a
 representative portion of the flue gas
 and records as percent opacity the
 percentage of light attenuated due to
 absorption and scattering by particulate
 matter. The total installed cost of a
 transmissometer is about $25.000 per
 source with annuahzed costs of about
 $14,000 (including data handling and
 training operators). Compared to the
 costs of a particulate control device.
 these costs are small and were
 determined to be reasonable considering
 that there are  no other reasonable
 alternatives for insuring that the control
 device is continuously functioning
 properly.
  There  are currently insufficient
 opacity data from glass manufacturing
 plants to establish a single opacity limit
 for all sources. Therefore, the proposed
 standard would require that a souroe-
 specific opacity level be established for
 each affected  source at the time of the
 particulate emission test that
 demonstrates  compliance with the
 particulate emission limits. This opacity
 level would not be an enforceable
 visible emission limit, but rather would
'serve as an indicator for plant and
 enforcement personnel that the control
 device may not be operating properly.
  To establish the source-specific
 opacity level, the owner or operator of
 the source would he required to conduct
 continuous opacity monitoring during
 rhe emission test. The opacity
 monitoring results would be reduced to
 6-minute averages, and the opacity level
 would be established at the 97.5 percent
 upper  confidence level of a normal or
 log normal (whichever is more
 representative) distribution of the 6-
 minute-average opacity values.
  The proposed standard would require
 that all opacity monitoring results be
                                                V-N.O.P-49
-------
               Federal Register  /  Vol. 48.  No. 140  /  Wednesday. July 20. 1983  / Proposed Rules
maintained at the source for a period of
at least 2 years and that the owner or
operator submit a report to EPA every 8
months if opacity in excess of the
source-specific level occurred during the
preceding 8-months period. The reports
of the excess emission would not be
used directly in determining compliance
with the standard, but would serve as
an indication to enforcement authorities
that an emission test may be required.

Selection of Emission Test Methods
  Two emission test methods were
selected for use in implementing the
proposed standard. However, the
proposed standard allows other test
methods to be used if the Administrator
(1) specifies or approves, in specific
cases, the use of a reference method
with minor changes in methodology, (2)
approves the use of an equivalent
method, or  (3) approves the use of an
alternative  method the results of which
he has determined to be adequate for
indicating whether a specific source is in
compliance.
  The EPA Reference Method 5,
"Determination of Particulate Emissions
from Stationary Sources," (Appendix A,
40 CFR 60)  was selected as the emission
test method for demonstrating
compliance with the proposed
paniculate  emission limits. Reference
Method 5 has been shown to provide a
representative measurement of
particulate  emissions and was specified
for use in demonstrating compliance
with the glass manufacturing plants
NSPS. As was done in the glass
manufacturing plant NSPS, the proposed
standard would modify Method 5 for
this application to allow a higher filter
box temperature. This modification was
made to eliminate the effects of sulfuric
acid on the measurement  of particulate
matter. Sulfur trioxide (SOs), which
exists as a  gas in the exhaust gas of
furnaces firing fuel oil containing more
than 0.5 weight percent sulfur, is not
collected by an add-on particulate
control device but may condense as
sulfuric acid onto the filter of the
sampling train when the filter box
temperature is at 120°C (the temperature
specified by Method 5). Therefore, to
prevent sulfuric acid from being
collected by the sample filter and
counted as particulate matter, the
proposed standard would allow
operation of the filter and the probe at
up to 177°C, which is above the sulfuric
acid dew point. This modification would
be allowed only for furnaces that are
firing fuel oil having a sulfur content
greater than 0.5 weight percent.
   Calculations applicable under Method
5 necessitate the use of data obtained
from other EPA reference methods—
Methods 1, 2, 3, and optionally Method
4. These are also described in Appendix
A of 40 CFR 60. The proposed regulation
explains how the results of Method 5 are
converted into the units of the emission
limits. Since the proposed emission
limits would be expressed as mass of
emissions per unit of mass of glass
produced, it will be necessary to
quantify the mass of glass pulled. Glass
production would be determined by
direct measurement or computed from
materials balanced data. The materials
balance computation may consist of a
process relationship between feed
material input rate and the glass pull
rate. In all materials balance
computations, glass pulled from the
furnace shall include product, cullet, and
any waste glass. The hourly glass pull
rate for a furnace would be determined
by averaging the glass pull rate over the
time of the performance test.
  The EPA Reference Method 108,
"Determination of Particulate and
gaseous Arsenic Emissions," was
selected as the emission test method for
determining whether a furnace  emits
0.40 Mg (0.44 ton) or less of arsenic per
year uncontrolled (i.e., preceding an
add-on control device). This method is
being proposed today along with the
proposed standard. Method 108
produces emission measurement results
expressed as mass  of arsenic emitted
per hour. Since the exclusion level
would be expressed as mass or arsenic
emitted per year, the proposed
regulation prescribes that the results of
Method 108 be used to established an
emission factor (i.e., mass of arsenic per
unit of mass of glass pulled). This
emission factor would then be used
along with yearly production estimates
to estimate the mass of arsenic emitted
per year.
Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements
  Owners or operators of sources
covered by the proposed standard
would be subject to the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements of the
proposed standard, as well as those
prescribed in the General Provisions
(Subpart A) of 40 CFR Part 61. Sources
subject to the proposed standard are all
glass melting furnaces that use arsenic
as a raw material (except pot furnaces).

Reporting Requirements
  Existing sources, arsenic-using
furnaces for which construction or
modification commenced before the
date of publication of the proposed
standard, would be required to submit
an initial source report to EPA  as
provided in § 61.10(a). The owner or
operator of each existing source is
required to provide the following data in
this initial source report: identification
of owner or operator, source location,
technical information on furnace design
and production process, types of
hazardous pollutants emitted, amount of
hazardous pollutants emitted over the
past 12 months, a description of any
pollution controls which may be in
place, and a statement of the feasibility
of complying with the standard within
90 days of the date of promulgation of
the standard. The purpose of this report
is to assist EPA in identifying all
existing arsenic-using glass  furnaces
and the amounts of arsenic emitted, and
to determine their likelihood of
compliance. Section 61.10(c) requires
that the owner or operator report to EPA
any changes in the initial source report.
  For new sources, arsenic-using
furnaces for which construction or
modification commenced after the date
of publication of the proposed standard,
there is a series of one-time reports
designed to confirm whether the furnace
is affected by the standard and to
provide notice to EPA of important
milestones in the construction or
modification process. The first of these
is a written application to EPA from the
owner or operator of the furnace. This
report, required by § 61.06, is for the
purpose of determining whether the
planned construction or modification of
the furnace would qualify the furnace as
a new source subject to the standard. If,
based upon  this report, EPA determines
that the furnace would be a new source
that is subject to the standard, EPA will
inform the owner or operator that  the
furnace is subject to the proposed
standard whereupon the owner or
operator would apply to EPA for
approval to construct or modify the
furnace. This application, prescribed
under § 61.07, requires that  the owner or
operator provide process and emissions
control data to EPA so that  the Agency
can determine if the source  would
comply with the standard. After EPA
has approved the proposed construction
or modification, the owner or operator
would be required to notify EPA of
certain project milestones including
notification  of the anticipated date of
initial startup, as required in
§ 61.09(a)(l), and notification of the
actual date of  startup, as required under
§ 61.09(a)(2).
  To allow EPA to confirm  that a source
is in compliance with the standard, the
proposed standard requires that the
owner or operator of a source notify
EPA of the anticipated date of the initial
emission test and, as applicable, the
demonstration of the opacity monitoring
system. After these tests have been
                                                 V-N,0,P-50
-------
               Federal Register  /  Vol. 46.  No. 140  /  Wednesday. July 20, 1983  /  Proposed Rules
completed, the owner or operator is
required to report the results to EPA in
order the compliance can be determined.
  The owner or operator of a source
choosing to comply with the proposed
standard by meeting the particulate
matter emission limits would be
required to report to EPA every 6
months if occurrences of excess opacity
were recorded during the reporting
period. These reports would identify the
date, time, and duration of the excess
opacity occurrences. Although these
reports would not be used directly to
determine compliance, they would serve
as the primary means by which EPA
enforcement personnel can evaluate the
performance of the controls. Based on
these reports, EPA may require
additional emission testing.
  The owner or operator of a source
choosing to comply with the proposed
standard by maintaining uncontrolled
arsenic emissions at 0.40 Mg (0.44 ton).
per year or less would be required to
perform calculations every 6 months to
estimate what arsenic eimissions were
during the preceding 6-month period and
what level of arsenic emissions is
expected during the next 12-month
period. If these calculations reveal that
arsenic emissions exceeded 0.40Mg (0.44
ton) during the past 12-month period,
then the owner or operator must  report
this to the Administrator within 10 days
of performing the calculation. If these
calculations indicate that arsenic
emissions will exceed 0.40 Mg (0.44 ton)
during the next 12-month period,  then
the owner or operator must demonstrate
compliance with the particulate matter
emission limits and must, within  10 days
of performing the calculation, notify
EPA of the anticipated date of the
emission test.

Recordkeeping Requirements
  The owner or operator of a new or
existing source would be required to
maintain a file of the following recores:
all measurements, including monitoring
and testing data; all calculations used to
produce the required reports of emission
estimates: monitoring system
performance evaluations, including
calibration checks and adjustments; the
occurrence and duration of any startup.
shutdown, or malfunction  in the
operation of the furnace; and
malfunction of the air pollution control
sysem; any periods during which the
continuous monitoring system or device
is inoperative; and all maintenance and
repairs made to the air pollution
controls or monitoring system. These
records would be required to be
maintained at the source for a period of
2 years. The purpose of the
recordkeeping requirements is to enable
EPA enforcement authorities to verify
data submitted in reports and, in
general, to aid in determining
compliance with the proposed standard.
Impacts of Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements
  EPA believes that these reporting and
recordkeeping requirements are
necessary to assist the Agency in (1)
identifying arsenic-using glass furnaces,
(2) observing the emission testing and
demonstration of the opacity monitoring
devices, (3) determining initial
compliance, and (4) enforcing the
standard after the initial compliance
determination. The proposed standard
provides that new or mofified glass
furnaces, which are subject to the
proposed standard and choose to
comply with the proposed standard by
achie*.,ng the particulate matter
emission limits, would not be subject to
the NSPS for glass manufacturing plants.
Therefore, there would be no
duplication of reporting and
recordkeeping requirements between the
two standards.
  The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-511) requires that the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) approve reporting and
recordkeeping requirements that qualify
as an "information collection request"
(ICR). For the purposes of
accommodating OMB's review, EPA
uses 2-year periods in its impact
analysis procedures for estimating the
labor-hour burden of reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
  The average annual burden on the
glass manufacturing industry to comply
with these reporting and recordkeeping
requirements over the firest  2 years is
estimated to be 26,900 person-hours. The
supporting statement that documents
cdlcalation of this burden is filed as item
II-B-4 in docket A-83-08.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
  The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
of 1980 requires that differential impacts
of Federal regulations upon small
businesses be identified and analyzed.
The RFA stipulates that a regulatory
flexibility analysis is required if a
substantial number of small businesses
will experience significant impacts. Both
measures must be met. That is,
substantial numbers of small businesses
must be affected and they must
experience significant impacts to require
an analysis. Twenty percent or more of
the small businesses in an affected
source category is considered a
substantial number.
  Though EPA taken actions to identify
small businesses in the glass industry,
the Agency has insufficient information
about the number of small businesses
that would be affected by the proposed
standard (i.e., the number that use
arsenic) to determine conclusively
whether a substantial number would
incur significant impacts. Consequently.
because EPA could not conclude that a
regulatory flexibility analysis was not
needed, a preliminary analysis has been
prepared.
  This analysis involved the
identification of the small businesses in
the country and an investigation of the
use of arsenic and arsenic emissions
from the furnaces at several of these
facilities. The analysis indicated that
because of several aspects of the
proposed standard, it is unlikely that a
substantial number of small buisnesses
would  incur  significant impacts. These
aspects are:  (1) the exclusion of furnaces
that emit 0.40 Mg of arsenic per year or
less from the requirement of add-on
control devices, (2) the exemption of pot
furnaces, and (3) the provision that the
emission testing requirement can be
waived if non-test methods are
adequate to  demonstrate that arsenic
emissions do not exceed 0.40 Mg/yr. The
analysis is filed as item II-B-5 in docket
A-83-08. The analysis will be completed
before the standard is promulgated as
final.

V. MISCELLANEOUS

  As prescribed by Section 112,
establishment  of these standards was
preceded by the Administrator's
determination  that inorganic arsenic
presents a significant carcinogenic risk
to human health, and is, therefore, a
hazardous air pollutant as defined in
Section 112(a)(l) of the Act. Inorganic
arsenic was  added to the list of
hazardous air pollutants on June 5.1980.
In accordance  with Section 117 of the
Act, publication of these proposed
standards 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
standards, including health, economic.
and technological issues, and on the
proposed test method.
  These standards will be reviewed 5
years from the date of promulgation.
This review  will include an assessment
of such factors as the need for
integration with other programs, the
existence of alternative methods.
en forcea bility,  improvements in
emission control technology and health
data, and reporting requirements.
  An economic impact assessment was
prepared for each standard and for
other regulatory alternatives. All
                                                  V-N,0,P-51
-------
               Federal Register  /  Vol. 48, No.  140 /  Wednesday,  July  20,  1983 / Proposed Rules
aspects of the assessment were
considered in the formulation of the
standards to ensure that costs were
carefully considered in determining the
levels of the standards. The economic
impact assessment for each standard is
included in the BID's for the proposed
standards.

Public Hearings
  Public hearings will be held to discuss
the proposed standards in accordance
with Sections 112(b)(l)(B) and 307(d)(5]
of the Clean Air Act. As indicated in the
DATES section of this preamble, two
hearings are scheduled. The first hearing
will be held in Washington, D.C. on
August 23, 24, and 25,1983. The second
hearing, which will address only the
proposed standards for the high-arsenic
primary copper smelter category, will be
held in Tacoma,  Washington on August
30, 1983. Persons wishing to make oral
presentations on the proposed standards
should contact the appropriate person
listed in the DATES 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 each hearing. Written
statements should be addressed to the
Central Docket Section address given in
the Addressses section of this preamble.
   A verbatim transcript of each of the
hearings 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). Also, a
verbatim transcript of the hearing to be
held in Tacoma  will be placed in the
Docket A-80-^0 that will be available at
the EPA Region  X office in Seattle [see
Addresses section of this preamble).
Docket
   The docket is  an organized and
complete file of  all the information
submitted to or  otherwise considered by
EPA in the development of the proposed
standards. 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
interagency review materials
[§ 307(d)(7)(A)]).

Paperwork Reduction Act
   The reporting and recordkeeping
(information collection) provisions
associated with the proposed standards
(§§ 61.06, 61.07.  61.09, 61.10, 61.163,
61.164, 61.166, 61.173, 61.176, 61.177,
61.178, 61.183 61.186, 61.187, 61.188) have
been submitted for approval to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under Section 3504(h) of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44
U.S.C. 3501 etseq. Each final rule will
explain how the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements respond to
any OMB or public comments. Public
comments on the  reporting and
recordkeeping requirements should be
sent to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs of OMB to the
attention of the desk officer for EPA.

Executive Order 12291
  Under Executive Order 12291,  EPA
must judge whether a regulation is
"major" and therefore subject  to the
requirements of a Regulatory Impact
Analysis. None of the proposed
standards is considered major because
none is expected  to result in:
  (1) an annual effect on the eonomy of
$100 million or more;
  (2) a major increase in costs or prices
for consumers, individual industries,
Federal, State, or local government
agencies, or geographic regions;  or
  (3) significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or on the
ability of United States-based
enterprises to compete with foreign-
based enterprises in domestic or export
markets.
  This rulemaking was submitted to  the
Office of Management and Budget for
review as required by the Executive
Order 12291.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
  A preliminary regulatory flexibility
analysis has been prepared for the
proposed standard for glass
manufacturing plants. The results of this
analysis, which are discussed in more
detail in Part IV of this preamble,
indicate that it is unlikely that the
proposed standard for glass
manufacturing plants would have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small business
entities. However, because this
conclusion is based on limited
information about small glass firms,
comments and information are
specifically requested on this subject.
The regulatory flexibility analysis will
be completed prior to promulgation of
the final standard.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
   Pursuant to provisions of 5 U.S.C.
605(b), I hereby certify that the proposed
standards  for high-arsenic and low-
arsenic copper smelters, if promulgated,
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
business entities because none of the
firms in the copper smelting industry is
small.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 61

  Air pollution control, Asbestos,
Beryllium, Hazardous materials,
Mercury, Vinyl Chloride.
  Dated: July 11. 1983.
William D. Ruckelshaus,
Administrator.

References
  (1) Lee, A.M. and J.F. Fraumeni, Jr.,
"Arsenic and Respiratory Cancer in Man: An
Occupational Study," Journal of National
Cancer Institute, 42:1045-52.1969. Docket
Number (OAQPS 79-8) II-I-I.
  (2) National Academy of Sciences,
"Arsenic," Committee on Medical and
Biologic Effects of Environmental Pollutants,
Washington, D.C. 1977, Docket Number
(OAQPS 79-8)  H-A-3.
  (3) International Agency of Research on
Cancer, "IARC Monographs on Evaluation of
the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to
Humans," Supplement 4, October 1982.
  (4) U.S. EPA, "An Assessment of the Health
Effects of Arsenic," April 1978, Docket
Number (OAQPS 79-8) II-A-5.
  (5) U.S. EPA, Science Advisory Board,
Subcommittee  on Arsenic, Report of the
Subcommittee's Review of Arsenic as a
Possible Hazardous Air Polllutant,  May 22-
23,1978, January 10,1979, and April 18,1979.
Docket Numbers (OAQPS 79-8) II-B-3, II-B-
4, and II-B-6.
  (6} Suta, Benjamin, "Human Exposures to
Atmospheric Arsenic," SRI International,
Report to EPA under Contract No. 68-01-4314
and 68-02-2835, May 1980, Docket Number
(OAQPS 79-8) II-A-9.
  (7) U.S. EPA, "An Assessment of Health
Effects of Arsenic Germane to Low Level
Exposure," Revised External Review-Draft,
Washington, D.C., October 1978, Docket
Number (OAQPS 79-8) II-A-6.
  (8) National  Academy of Sciences, Safe
Drinking Water Committee, National
Research Council, "Drinking Water and
Health," Washington, D.C., 1977.
  (9) U.S. EPA, "The Carcinogen Assessment
Group's Final Risk Assessment on Arsenic,"
May 2, 1980, Docket Number (OAQPS 79-8)
II-A-10.
  (10) U.S. EPA, et. al., "Environmental
Cancer and Heart and Lung Disease," Fifth
Annual Report to Congress by the Task Force
on Environmental Cancer and Heart and
Lung Disease, August, 1982.
  (11) Systems Application, Inc. "Human
Exposure to Atmospheric Concentrations of
Selected Chemicals." (Prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,  Research
Triangle Park,  North Carolina). Volume I,
Publication Number EPA-2/250-1,  and
Volume II, Publication Number EPA-1/250-2.
  (12) U.S. EPA, "Health Assessment
Document for Acrylonitrile," Draft Report
from Office of Health and Assessment, EPA-
600/8-82-007, November 1982.
  (73) Carcinogen Assessment  Group, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
"Carcinogen Assessment Group's Final
                                                    V-N,0,P-52
-------
               Federal  Register / Vol. 48, No. 140  /  Wednesday, July  20, 1983 / Proposed Rules
Report on Population Risk to Ambient
Benzene Exposures." 1978.
  (14) Blot. W.J. and Fraumeni, J.F., Jr.
"Arsenical Air Pollution and Lung Cancer,"
The Lancet, pp. 142-144, July 1975.
  (5) PEDCo Environmental, Inc., "Emission
Test Report-Evaluation of an Air Curtain
Flooding System for a Primary Cooper
Converter; ASARCO, Inc., Tacoma,
Washington," (preliminary draft). Prepared
for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Traingle Park, N.C., Volumes I and
II, March. 1983, Docket Number (A-80-4) II-
A-40.

  It is proposed that Part bl of Chapter
I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations be amended by adding a
new Subpart N and a new Reference
Method 108 to Appendix B, as follows:

PART 61—[AMENDED]

  1. The Table of Contents of Part 61 is
amended by adding Subpart N and by
adding an entry for new Test Method
108 to Appendix B as follows:

Subpart N—National Emission Standards
for Inorganic Arsenic Emissions From
Glass Manufacturing Plants

Sec.
61.160  Applicability and designation of
    source.
61.1601  Definitions.
61.1602  Emission limits.
61.1603  Procedures for demonstrating
    compliance.
61.1604  Emission monitoring.
61.1605  Emission testing.
61.1606  Reporting and recordkeeping
    requirements.
 *****
Appendix B—Test Methods
 Method 108—Determination of Particulate
 and Gaseous Arsenic Emissions
 *****
   Authority: Sees. 112 and 301(a), Clean Air
 Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7412 and 7801(a)),
 and additional authority as noted below.

   2. Part 61 is amended by adding
 Subpart N as follows:

 Subpart N—National Emission
 Standard for Inorganic Arsenic
 Emissions From Glass Manufacturing
 Plants

 §61.160 Applicability and designation of
 source.
   (a) The source to which this subpart
 applies is each glass melting furnace
 that uses arsenic as a raw material,
 except pot furnaces.
   (b) An owner or operator who would
 be subject to the provisions of both 40
 CFR Part 60, Subpart CC and to this
 subpart, shall be exempt from 40 CFR
 Part 60 Subpart CC if he demonstrates
 compliance  with { 61.162(a)(l).
§61.161  Definitions.
  The terms used in this subpart are
defined in the Clean Air Act, in  § 61.02,
or in this section as follows:
  "Arsenic-containing glass type"
means any glass that is distinguished
from other glass solely by the weight
percent of arsenic in the batch feed
material and by the weight percent of
arsenic in the glass produced. Any two
or more glasses that have the same
weight percent of arsenic in the batch
feed material as well as in the glass
produced shall be considered to belong
to one arsenic-containing glass type,
without regard to the recipe used or any
other characteristics of the glass or the
method of production.
   "Borosilicate recipe" means raw
material formulation of the following
approximate weight proportions: 72
percent silica, 7 percent nepheline
syenite, 13 percent anhydrous borax, 8
percent boric acid, and 0.1 percent
miscellaneous materials.
   ' Container glass" means glass made
of soda-lime recipe, clear or colored,
which is pressed and/or blown into
bottle, jars,  ampoules, and other
products listed in Standard Industrial
Classification 3221 (SIC 3221).
   "Flat glass" means glass made of
soda-lime recipe and produced into
continuous  flat sheets and other
products listed in SIC 3211.
   "Glass melting furnace" means a unit
comprising  a refractory vessel in which
raw materials are charged, melted at
high temperature, refined, and
conditioned to produce  molten glass.
The unit includes foundations,
superstructure and retaining walls, raw
material charger systems, heat
exchangers, melter cooling system,
exhaust system, refractory brickwork,
fuel supply  and electrical boosting
equipment,  integral control systems and
instrumentation, and appendages for
conditioning and distributing molten
glass to forming apparatuses. The
 forming apparatuses, including the float
bath used in flat glass manufacturing,
 are not considered part of the glass
 melting furnace.
   "Glass produced" means the weight of
 the glass pulled from the glass melting
 furnace.
   "Lead recipe" means raw material
 formulation of the following
 approximate weight proportions: 56
 percent silica, 8 percent potassium^
 carbonate,  and 36 percent red lead.
   "Malfunction" means any sudden and
 unavoidable failure of air pollution
 control equipment or process equipment
 or of a proess to operate in a normal or
 usual manner. Failures that are caused
 entirely or  in part by poor maintenance,
 careless operation, or any other
preventable upset condition or
preventable equipment breakdown shall
not be considered malfunctions.
  "Measured arsenic emission factor"
means the amount of inorganic arsenic.
expressed in grams per kilogram of glass
produced, as determined based on
inorganic arsenic measured using EPA
Reference Method 108.
  "Pot furnace" means a glass melting
furnace that contains one or more
refractory vessels in which glass is
melted by indirect heating. The openings
of the vessels are in the outside wall of
the furnace and are covered with
refractory stoppers during melting.
  "Pressed and blown glass"  means
glass that is pressed, blown, or both,
including textile fiberglass,
noncontinuous flat glass, noncontainer
glass, and other products listed in SIC
3229. It  is separated into:
   (a) Glass of borosilicate recipe.
   (b) Glass of soda-lime and  lead
recipes.
   (c) Glass of opal, fluoride, and other
recipes.
   "Shutdown" means the cessation of
operation of a source for any purpose.
   "Soda-lime recipe" means  raw
material formulation of the following
approximate weight proportions: 72
percent silica, 15 percent soda, 10
percent lime and magnesia, 2 percent
alumina, and 1 percent miscellaneous
materials (including sodium sulfate).
   "Theoretical arsenic emission factor"
means  the amount of inorganic arsenic,
expressed in grams per kilogram of glass
produced, as determined based on a
material balance.
   "Uncontrolled arsenic emissions"
means  the inorganic arsenic  in the glass
melting furnace exhaust gas  preceding
 any add-on particulate control device.
   "Wool fiberglass" means fibrous glass
 of random texture, including  fiberglass
 insulation, and other products listed in
 SIC 3296.

 §61.162 Emission limits.
   (a) Each owner or operator of a glass
 melting furnace subject to the provisions
 of this  subpart shall comply with either
 paragraph (a)(l) or paragrph  (a)(2) of
 this section.
   (1) No owner or operator shall cause
 to be discharged into the atmosphere—
   (i) From any glass melting  furnace
 fired exclusively with a gaseous fuel or
 using an all-electric melting process,
 particulate matter at emission rates
 exceeding those specified in  Table N-l,
 Column 2, or
   (ii) From any glass melting furnace
 fired exclusively with a liquid fuel,
 particulate matter at emission rates
                                                    V-N,0,P-53
-------
               Federal Register / Vol.  48.  No. 140 /  Wednesday, July 20, 1983  /  Proposed Rules
exceeding those specified in Table N-l,
Column 3, or
  (iii) From any glass melting furnace
fired simultaneously with gaseous and
liquid fuels, particulate matter at
emission rates exceeding STD aa
specified by the following equation:
   J = X(o.3Y + i)
where:
STD = Particulate matter emission limit, g of
    particulale/kg of glass produced.
X = Emission rate specified in Table N-l for
    furnaces fired with gaseous fuel (Column
    2).
Y = Fraction of total (gaseous and liquid) fuel
    heatirg value supplied by the liquid fuel
    fired in the glass melting furnace as
    determined in 5 61.165(b)(9).

       TABLE N-1.— EMISSION LIMITS
       [9 of parwulate/Kg of glass produced]
Column 1
Glass Manufacturing Plant Industry
Sector

P'essed and Dlcwn glass
Borosiicate recipes 	
Soda-lime and lew) recipes 	
Other than borosKiote. soda-
'«me and lead recipes (includ-
ing opal, fluoride, and other
V^ool fiberglass 	


Column;
Furnaces
find with
gaseous
fuel and
AH-
etectnc
melters
0 100
0500
0100
0250
0250
0225

Column 3
Furnaces
fired with
liquid fuel
0 130
0650
0130
0326
0325
0225

  (2) No owner or operator shall operate
a glass melting furnace with
uncontrolled arsenic emissions in excess
of 0.40 Mg (0.44 ton) per year.

§61.163  Procedures for demonstrating
compliance.
  (a) Unless a waiver of emissions
testing is obtained under i 01.13, each
owner or operator subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall test
emissions from each source using the
test methods and procedures as
specified in § 61.165:
  (1) Within 90 days of the effective
date of  the standard  for a source that
has an initial startup date preceding the
effective date; or
  (2) Within 90 days of startup for a
source that  has an initial startup date
after the effective date.
  (b) Each owner or  operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall
provide the Administrator at least 30
days prior notice of the emissions test to
afford the Administrator the opportunity
to have an observer present.
  (c) Each emissions test shall be
conducted while the source is operating
under such  conditions as the
Administrator may specify to the owner
or operator based on representative
performance of the source.
  (d) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall
furnish the Administrator a written
report of the results of the emissions test
within 60 days of conducting the test.
  (e) Each owner or operator who
chooses to comply with § 61.162(a)(2)
shall determine the level of uncontrolled
arsenic emissions by:
  (1) Measuring uncontrolled arsenic
emissions from the source according to
procedures described in § 61.165(c).
Uncontrolled arsenic emissions shall be
measured during the production of the
arsenic-containing glass type (as defined
in | 61.161) that the owner or operator
expects will generate the highest rates
of uncontrolled arsenic emissions  from
the source during the succeeding 12
months. The result of this measurement
shall be converted to a "measured
arsenic emission factor," expressed as
g/kg, as described in { 61.165(c)(5).
  (2) Deriving a "theoretical arsenic
emission factor,"  expressed as g/kg,
based on a material balance calculation
performed for the same batch of glass
produced during the measurement of
arsenic emissions required under
§ 61.163(e)(l).
  (3) Calculating the ratio of the
measured arsenic emission factor from
5 61.163(e)(l) to the theoretical arsenic
emission factor from § 61.163(e)(2). This
ratio shall be used as a "correction
factor" in the development of arsenic
emission estimates based on the use of
theoretical emission factors as
described in i 61.163(e)(4) and
§ 61.163(f).
  (4) Estimating uncontrolled arsenic
emissons for the initial 12-month period
as follows:
  (i) If the arsenic-containing glass type
(as defined in S 61.161) that was
produced during the measurement of
uncontrolled arsenic emissions required
under § 61.163(e)(l) is the only arsenic-
containing glass type that will be
produced during the 12-month period,
then the owner or operator shall
estimate arsenic emissions for the 12-
month period by multiplying the
measured arsenic emisson factor from
{ 61.163(e)(l) by the amount (in kg) of
the arsenic-containing glass type that
the owner or operator plans to produce
during the 12-month period.
   (ii) If arsenic-containing glass types
(as defined in § 61.161) other than the
type that was produced during the
measurement of arsenic emissons
required under S 61.163(e](l) will be
produced during the 12-month period,
then the owner cr operator shall
estimate uncontrolled arsenic emissions
for the 12-month period as follows:
   (A) For each arsenic-containing glass
type that will be produced during the 12-
month period the owner or operator
shall:
  (1) derive a "theoretical arsenic
emission factor" based on a material
balance calculation, and
  (2) calculate a "measured arsenic
emission factor" by multiplying the
theoretical arsenic emission factor from
§ 61.163(e)(4)(ii)(A)(l) by the "correction
factor" from § 61.163(e)(3).
  (B) Uncontrolled arsenic emissons for
the 12-month period shall be estimated
by multiplying each measured arsenic
emissons factor from
§ 61.163(e)(4)(ii)(A)(2) by the amount (in
kg) of the respective arsenic-containing
glass types that the owner or operator
plans to produce during the 12-month
period, and summing the products of
each multiplication.
  (f) The records required by 5 81.166(c),
shall contain the following:
  (1) an estimate of the uncontrolled
arsenic emissons from the source during
the immediately preceding 6-month
period computed as follows:
  (i) For each arsenic-containing glass
type (as defined in § 61.161) produced
during the preceding 6 months,
determine a "measured arsenic emission
factor" as follows:
  (A) If the arsenic-containing glass
type is the same as that produced during
the measurement of arsenic emissions
required by 5 61.163{e)(l), use the
"measured arsenic emission factor"
from § 61.163(e)(l).
  (B) If the arsenic-containing glass type
is other than the type produced during
the measurement of arsenic emissions
required by § 61.163(e)(l), use the
procedures described in
§ 61.163(e)(4)(ii)(A)(2).
  (ii) For each arsenic-containing glass
type produced during the preceding 6
months, estimate the uncontrolled
arsenic emissions during the preceding 6
months by multiplying each measured
arsenic emission factor from
§ 61.163(f)(l)(i) by  the amount (in kg) of
the respective arsenic-containing glass
type that was produced during the
preceding 6 months.
  (iii) Sum the products obtained in
§ 61.163(f)(l)(ii) to obtain the estimated
uncontrolled arsenic emissions from the
source during the preceding 6 months.
  (2)  an updated arsenic emission
forecast for the next 12-month period
taking into account anticipated changes
in production rates, arsenic-containing
glass types to be produced, and other
factors that might affect uncontrolled
arsenic emissions, and computed by the
procedures described in § 61.163(e)(4)(i)
and (ii).
                                                     V-N.O.P-54
-------
               Federal Register /  Vol. 48.  No. 140 / Wednesday. July 20. 1983  /  Proposed Rules
§ 61.164  Emission monitoring.
  (a) An owner or operator who chooses
to comply with § 61.162(a}(l) shall
install, calibrate, maintain, and operate
a continuous monitoring system for the
measurement of the opacity of emissions
discharged into the atmosphere from the
source.
  (b) All continuous monitoring systems
shall be installed and operational prior
to conduction of an emissions test as
required in § 61.163(a). Verification of
operational status shall, as a minimum,
consist of an evaluation of the
monitoring system in accordance with
the requirements and  procedures
contained in Performance Specification
1 of Appendix B of 40 CFR Part 60. A
written report of the results of the
continuous monitoring system
evaluation shall be furnished to the
Administrator within 60 days of
conducting the evaluation.
  (c) During the emission test required
in § 61.165(b) each owner or operator
subject to § 61.164(a) shall:
  (1) Conduct continuous opacity
monitoring during each test run.
  (2) Calcuate 6-minute opacity
averages from 24 or more data points
equally spaced over each 6-minute
period during the test  runs.
  (3) Determine, based on the 6-minute
opacity averages, the opacity value
corresponding to the 97.5 percent upper
confidence level of a normal or
lognormal (whichever the owner or
operator determines is more
representative) distribution of the
average opacity values.
  (4) An owner or operator may
redetermine the opacity value
corresponding to the 97.5 percent upper
confidence level as described in
$ 61.164(c)(3) if the owner or operator
conducts continuous opacity monitoring
during each test run of an emission test
that  demonstrates compliance with the
emission limits in | 61.162(a)(l), and
recalculates the 6-minute averages
described in $ 61.164(c)(2).
  (d) The requirements of § 60.l3(d).
(d)(3), and (f) shall apply to an owner or
operator subject to | 61.164(a).
  (e] Except for system breakdowns,
repairs, calibration checks, and zero and
span adjustments required under
§ 60.13(d) and (d)(3), all continuous
monitoring systems shall be in
continuous operation and shall meet
minimum frequency of operation
requirements by completing a minimum
of one cycle of sampling and analyzing
for each successive 10-second period
and one cycle of data recording for each
successive 6-minute period.
  (f)  An owner or operator subjects to
5 61.164(a) shall reduce all opacity data
to 6-minute averages. Six-minute
averages shall be calculated from 24 or
more data points equally spaced over
each 6-minute period. Data recorded
during periods of monitoring system
breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks,
and zero and span adjustments shall not
be included in the data averages
computed under this paragraph.
  (g) After receipt and consideration of
written application, the Administrator
may approve alternative continuous
monitoring systems for the measurement
of one or more process or operating
parameters that is or are demonstrated
to enable accurate and representative
monitoring of a properly operating
control device. After the Administrator
approves an alternative continuous
monitoring system for an affected
source, the requirements of | 61.164(a}-
(f) will not apply for that source.

§61.165  Emission testing.
  (a) Emission tests shall be conducted
and data reduced in accordance with
the test methods and procedures
contained in this section unless the
Administrator—
  (1) Specifies or approves, in specific
cases, the use of a reference method
with minor changes in methodology;
  (2) Approves the use of an equivalent
method;
  (3) Approveslhe use of an alternative
method the results of which he has
determined to be adequate for indicating
whether a specific source is in
compliance; or
  (4) Waives the requirements for
emission tests as provided under | 61.13.
  (b) Reference Method 5 in Appendix
A of 40 CFR Part 60 shall be used to
determine compliance with
§ 61.162(a)(l) as follows:
  (1) Method 1 shall be used for sample
and velocity traverses, and
  (2) Method 2 shall be used to
determine velocity and volumetric flow
rate.
  (3) Method 3 shall be used for gas
analysis. •
  (4) Method 5 shall be used to
determine the concentration of
particulate matter and the associated
moisture content. Each test shall consist
of three separate runs. The sampling
time for each run shall be at least 60
minutes and the collected particulate
matter shall weigh at least 50 mg. For
the  purpose of determining the
concentration of particulate matter, the
arithmetic mean of the results of the
three runs shall apply.
  (5) For any glass melting furnace fired
with a liquid fuel containing more than
0.50 weight percent sulfur. Method 5
shall be conducted with the probe and
filter holder heating system in the
sampling train set to provide a gas
temperature no greater than 177°C.
  (6) The particulate emission rate. E.
shall be computed as follows:
where:
E = QxC
E = particulate emission rate. g/h.
Q = average volumetric flow rate from
    Method 2. dscrr./h.
C = average concentration of particulate
    matter from Method 5, g/dscm.
  (7) The rate of glass produced, P, shall
be determined by dividing the weight, in
kilograms (kg), of glass pulled from the
source during the emission test by the
number of hours (h) taken to perform the
test. The glass pulled, shall be
determined by direct measurement or
computed from materials balance.
  (8) For the purposes of demonstrating
compliance with the emission limits in
I 61.162(a)(l), the furnace particulate
emission rate, R. shall be computed as
follows:
where:
R = furnace emission rate. g/kg.
E = particulate emission rate from
    §61.165(b)(6).g/h.
A = zero production rate correction as
    follows:
  A =227 g/h for container glass, pressed and
    blown (soda-lime and lead) glass, and
    pressed and blown (other than
    borosilicate, soda-lime, and lead) glass.
  A =454 g/h for pressed and blown
    (borosilicate) glass, wool fiberglass, and
    flat glass.
  P=rate of glass production from
    5 61.165(b)(7). kg/h.

  (9) When gaseous and liquid fuels are
fired simultaneously in a glass melting
furnace, the heat input of each fuel,
expressed in joules, is determined
during each testing period by
multiplying the gross calorific value of
each fuel fired (in joules/kilogram) by
the rate at which each fuel is fired (in
kilogram/second) to the glass melting
furnace. The decimal fraction of liquid
fuel heating value to total fuel heating
value is determined by dividing the heat
input of the liquid fuels by the sura of
the heat input for the liquid fuels and the
gaseous fuels. Gross calorific values are
determined in accordance with
American Society of Testing and
Materials (A.S.T.M.) Method D
240.64(73) (liquid fuels) and D 1826-64(7)
(gaseous fuels), as applicable. The
owner or operator  shall determine the
rate  of fuels burned during each testing
period by suitable  methods and shall
confirm the rate by a material balance
over the glass melting system.
  (c) Reference Method 108 in Appendix
B of 40 CFR Part PI shall be used to
                                                  V-N,0,P-55
-------
               Federal Register  /  Vol. 48, No. 140 / Wednesday, July 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules
determine compliance with
§ 61.162(a)(2) as follows:
  (1) Method 1 shall be used for sample
and velocity traverses, and
  (2) Method 2 shall be used to
determine velocity and volumetric
flowrate.
  (3) Method 3 shall be used for gas
an.ilvsis.
  (4) The rate of glass produced, P (kg/
h) shall be determined by dividing the
weight, in kilograms (kg), of glass pulled
from the source during the emission test
by the number of hours (h) taken to
perform the test. The glass pulled, in
kilograms, shall be determined by direct
measurement or.computed by materials
balance.
  (5) For the purpose of the procedures
described in § 61.163(e)(l), the
"measured arsenic emission factor"
shall be computed as follows:
R. = E.-P
where:
R. — ' measured arsenic emission factor," g/
    kS
E, = jrsenic emission rdte from Method 108,
    8/h
P-- rate of gUss production from
    §61.165|c)|4). kg/h.

§G1.166  Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
  (a) Each owner or operator required to
install a continuous opacity monitoring
system under § 61.164 shall submit a
written report to the Administrator
semiannually if excess opacity occurred
during the preceding 6-month period. For
purposes of this section, an occurrence
of excess opacity is any 6-minute period
during which the average opacity, as
measured by the continuous monitoring
system, exceeds the opacity level
determined  under § 61.164(c)(3) or, of
r<;cletermined. the opacity under
t» hl,164|( )I4).
  (b) All semiannual reports shall be
postmarked by the 30th day following
the end of each 6-month period and shall
include the following information:
  (1) The magnitude of excess opacity,
any conversion factor(s) used, and the
date and time of commencement and
completion of each occurrence of excess
opacity.
  (2) Specific identification of each
occurrence of excess opacity that occurs
during startups, shutdowns, and
malfunctions of the source.
  (3) The date and time identifying each
period during which the continuous
monitoring system was inoperative,
except for zero and span checks, and the
nature of the system repairs or
adjustments.
  (c) Each owner or operator who
demonstrates compliance with
§ 61.162(a)(2) shall, 6 months after
demonstrating compliance and every 6
months thereafter, record the arsenic
emission estimates prescribed under
§ 61.163(f).
  (1) If the arsenic emission estimates
prescribed under § 61.163(f)(l) reveal
that uncontrolled arsenic emissions
during the preceding 12-month period [or
preceding 6-month period, in the case of
the first 6-month period following the
demonstration of compliance with
§ 61.162(a}(2)| exceeded 0.40 Mg (0.44
ton) per year, then the owner or operator
shall report this fact to the
Administrator. All such reports shall be
postmarked by the 10th day following
the end of the 6-month reporting period.
  (2) If the arsenic emission estimate
prescribed under § 61.163(f)(2) indicates
that uncontrolled arsenic emissions will
exceed 0.40 Mg (0.44 ton), then the
owner or operator shall demonstrate
compliance with  § 61.162(a)(l). In this
case, the owner or operator shall, within
10 days, notify the Administrator of the
anticipated date of the emission test
required under § 61.163(a).
  (d) Any owner or operator of a source
subject to the provisions of this subpart
shall maintain a file of the following
records: all measurements, including
monitoring and testing data; all
calculations used to produce the
required reports of emission estimates;
monitoring system performance
evaluations, including calibration
checks and adjustments; the occurrence
and duration of any startup, shutdown,
or malfunction in the operation of the
furnace; any malfunction of the air
pollution control system; any periods
during which the continuous monitoring
system or device is inoperative: and all
maintenance and repairs made to the air
pollution controls or monitoring system.
This file shall be recorded in a
permanent form suitable for inspection
and shall be retained for at least 2 years
following the date of such
measurements, maintenance, reports,
and records.
(Sec  114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42
U S.C. 7414))

  3. Part 61 is amended  by adding
Method 108 to Appendix B as follows:

Appendix B—Test Methods
Method 108—Determination of Participate
and Gaseous Arsenic Emissions

  1. Applicability and Principle.
  1.1  Applicability. The Method applies to
the determination of inorganic arsenic (As)
emissions from stationary sources as
specified in the regulations.
  1.2  Principle. Participate and gaseous
arsenic emissions are withdrawn
isokmetically from the source and collected
on a glass mat filter and in water. The
collected arsenic is then analyzed by means
of atomic absorption spectrophotometry.
  2. Apparatus.
  2.1  Sampling Train. A schematic of the
sampling train is shown in Figure 108-1; it is
similar to the Method 5 train of 40 CFR 80,
Appendix A.
  Note.—This and all subsequent references
to other methods refer to the methods in 40
CFR 60, Appendix A. The sampling train
consists of the following components:
  2.1.1 Probe Nozzle, Probe Liner, Pilot
Tube. Differential Pressure Gauge, Filter
Holder, Filter Heating System, Metering
System, Barometer, and Gas Density
Determination Equipment. Same as Method 5,
Sections 2.1.1 to 2.1.6 and 2.1.8 to 2.1.10,
respectively.
BILLING CODE: 6560-50-*!
                                                     V-N,0,P-56
-------
               Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 140  / Wednesday, July 20, 1983 /  Proposed Rules
                                                                                    c
                                                                                    ra
                                                                                    c.
                                                                                    E
                                                                                   CO
                                                                                   o
BILLING CODE SWO-SO-C
                                VI-19
                                             V-N,0,P-57
-------
                 Federal Register  / Vol. 48, No.  140  / Wednesday,  July 20,  1983 /  Proposed  Rules
   2 1.2   Impingers. Six impingers connected
 in series with leak-free ground-glass fittings
 or ,my similar leak-free nnncontiiminating
 fillings. For the first, third, fourth, fifth, and
 sixth impingers. use the Creenburg-Smith
 design, modified by replacing the tip with a
 1 3-cm-ID (0.5 in.) glass tube extending to
 
-------
               Federal Register  / Vol. 48, No. 140 /  Wednesday, July 20,1983 / Proposed Rules







1 «





























U
oc'
(Ju
H

UJ
2
o
UJ
•LI
o £
z O
i o£
. LU S
5 K S f 2 5







3















j
:
^ C UJ









£££E- -£«4S
OL O.lrtXP^OC'^S
§ g 1 i 1 2 s «• 1
^ Q uj — uJiU'TS
2 UJuJ-JUJ*3Z'^-J
Qj 2 JC UJ vJ 4 y^ • ^ i±f
- o ^ m oi ecBKop
2 ocJSo^JSS°otuja:
- *- <












0
Z
g
CD
O *A/
-^ 	 i
z «t oc i" "• i
2 o | g | |
|
^
U
UJ
t/»
OC
O
atf
(j
4
»-
- h- < 0
U/ UJ U- >—


















h,









£ § QC
OC *— ' UJ
2 <« O oc O —
£54!
5 _j
E|o
*~ u 2
QC
UJ UJ
° 5
c*
:
Q
U
*•
t
UJ
OC
2«
B C
5 1/1
£ <
4
<» 5
0

u
5
:
0
I/
I/
«
i{-"
l» —
ri °_
80


—
UJ —
"~ e

i
. D £
> ^
O
_j
« ^ 8 " «
UJ UJ O QC «
ac u. < o *
O* U* w
O
>»


O O
rsi rw
I I
§ c

O
rv
ug -3,5
° 2 5; =
r-* I
>

~ 1
UJ
Urf ^
i
5
UJ
u.
y-
5'
— u
o

w> ac c ^.
a.
O
i
4
in
UJ Z


5 a
ac
»—





















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































5



F
4
























_,
^
0












cf
























4
oc
4












CO
(0
•o
"S
u
c
o
(/>
<
oj
ob
o
a;
3

LL















                                               VI-25
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
                                            V-N,0,P-59
-------
                 Federal Register / Vol. 48,  No.  140  / Wednesday,  July 20,  1983 / Proposed Rules
  4.1.6  Calculation of Percent Isokinetic.
S.ime as Method 5. Section 4.1.6.
  4.2  Sample Recovery. Begin proper
cleanup procedure as soon as the probe is
removed from the stack at the end of the
sampling period.
  Allow the probe to cool. When it can be
safely handled, wipe off all external
participate matter near the tip of the probe
nozzle, and place a cap over it to prevent
losing or gaining particulate matter. Do not
cap off the probe tip tightly while the
sampling train is cooling because a vacuum
would form in the filter holder.
  Before moving the sampling train to the
cleanup site, remove the probe from the
sample train, wipe off the silicone grease, and
cap the open outlet of  the probe. Be careful
not to lose any condensate that might be
present. Wipe off the silicone grease from the
til[f;r  inlet where the probe was fastened and
cap it. Remove the umbilical cord from the
Ust impinger and cap  the impinger. If a
flexible line is used between the first
ii'ipinger and the filter holder, disconnect the
line at the filter holder, and let any
condensed water of liquid drain into the
irnpingers. After wiping off the silicone
grease, cap off the filter holder outlet and
unpinger inlet. Use either ground-glass
stoppers, plastic caps, or serum caps to  close
ihfse opening.
  Transfer the probe and filter-impinger
rfssembly  to a cleanup area that is clean and
protected  from the wind so that the chances
of contaminating or losing the sample is
minimized.
  Inspect  the train before and during
disassembly, and note any abnormal
conditions. Treat the sample as follows:
  4.2.1  Container No. 1 (Filter). Carefully
remove the filter from the filter holder, and
place it in its Identified petri dish container.
Use a pair of tweezers or clean disposable
surgir.dl gulves or both to handle the filter. If
it is necessary to fold  the filter, fold the
piirticulate cake inside the fold. Carefully
transfer to the petri dish any particulate
natter and filter fibers that adhere to the
filter holder gasket by using a dry Nylon
bristle brush and a sharp-edged blade or
both. (.Vote: Mention of trade names or
specific products does not constitute
endorsement by EPA.) Seal the container.
   4.2.2  Container No. 2 (Probe). Taking care
Ihdl dust  on the ouside of the probe or other
f \tenur surfaces does not get into the
sample, quantitatively recover particulate
matter or any condensate from the probe
nuzzle, probe fitting, probe liner, and front
half of the filter holder by washing these
components with 0.1 N NaOH and placing the
wash in a plastic storage container. Measure
and record to the nearest ml the total volume
of solution in Container No. 2. Perform  the
 rinsing with 0.1 N NaOH as follows:
   Carefully remove the probe nozzle, and
 r;nse the  inside surface with 0.1 N NaOH
 from a wash bottle. Brush with a Nylon
 bristle brush, and rinse until the rinse shows
 no visible particles, after which, make a final
 rinse of the inside surface.
   Brush and rinse the inside parts of the
 Swagelok fitting with 0.1 N NaOH in a  similar
 way until no visible particles remain.
  Rinse the probe liner with 0.1 N NaOH.
While squirting 0.1 N NaOH into the upper
end of the probe, tilt and rotate the probe so
that all inside surfaces will be wetted with
the rinse solution. Let the 0.1 N NaOH drain
from the lower end into the sample container.
The tester may use a funnel (glass or
polyethylene) to aid in transferring the liquid
washes to the container. Follow the rinse
with a probe brush. Holding the probe in an
inclined position, squirt 0.1 N NaOH into the
upper end as the probe brush is being pushed
with a twisting action through the probe.
Hold the sample container underneath the
lower end of the probe, and catch any liquid
and particulate matter brushed from the
probe. Run the brush through the probe three
times or more until no visible particulate
matter is carried out with the rinse or until
none remains in the probe liner on visual
inspection. With stainless steel or other metal
probes, run the brush through in the  above
prescribed manner at least six times since
metal probes have small crevices in  which
particulate matter can be entrapped. Rinse
the brush with 0.1 N NaOH. and
quantitatively collect these washings in the
sample container. After the brushing, make a
final rinse of the probe as described above.
  It is recommended that two people clean
the probe  to minimize sample losses.
Between sampling runs, keep brushes clean
and protected from contamination.
  After ensuring that all joints have been
wiped clean of silicone grease, brush and
rinse with 0.1 N NaOH the inside of the front
half of the filter holder. Brush and rinse each
surface three times or more if needed to
remove visible particulate. Make a final rinse
of the brush and filter holder. Carefully brush
and rinse  out the glass cyclone, also (if
applicable). After all washings and
particulate matter have been collected in the
sample container, tighten the lid so that liquid
will  not leak out when it is shipped to the
laboratory. Mark the height of the fluid level
to determine whether leakage occurs during
transport. Label the container to identify
clearly its contents.
   Rinse the glassware a final time with water
to remove residual NaOH before
reassembling. Do not save the final rinse
water.
   4.2.3  Container No. 3 (Silica Gel). Note
the color of the indicating silica gel to
determine whether it has been completely
spent, and make a notation of its condition.
Transfer the silica gel from the sixth impinger
to its original container, and seal. The tester
may use as aids a  funnel to pour the silica gel
and a rubber policman to remove the silica
gel from the impinger. It is not necessary to
remove the small amount of particles that
may adhere to the impinger wall and are
difficult to remove. Since the gain in weight is
to be used for moisture calculations, do not
use" any water or other liquids to transfer the
silica gel. If a balance is available in the field,
the tester may follow the procedure for
Container No. 3 in Section 4.5 (Analysis).
   4.2.4  Container No. 4 (Arsenic Sample).
Clean each of the first two impingere and
connecting glassware in the following
manner
   a. Wipe the impinger ball joints free of
 silicone grease, and cap the joints.
  b. Weigh the impinger and liquid to within
±0.5 g. Record in the log the weight of liquid
along with a notation of any color or film
observed in the impinger catch. The weight of
liquid is needed along with the silica gel data
to calculate the stack gas moisture content.
  c. Rotate and agitate each impinger, using
the impinger contents as a rinse solution.
  d. Transfer the liquid to Container No. 4.
Remove the outlet ball-joint cap, and drain
the contents through this opening. Do not
separate the impinger parts (inner and outer
tubes) while transferring their contents  to the
cylinder.
  e. (Note: In Steps e and f below, measure
and record the total amount of 0.1 N NaOH
used for rising.) Pour approximately 30 ml of
Q.I NaOH into each of the first two impingers,
and agitate the impingers. Drain the 0.1  N
NaOH through the outlet arm of each
impinger into Container No. 4. Repeat this
Deration a second time: inspect the impingers
for any abnormal conditions.
  I. Wipe the ball joints of the glassware
connecting the impingers and the back half of
the filter holder free of silicone grease, and
rinse each piece of glassware twice with 0.1
N NaOH; transfer this rinse into Container
No. 4. ,730 not rinse or brush the glass-fritted
filter support.) Mark the height of the fluid
level to determine whether leakage occurs
during transport. Label the container to
identify clearly its contents.
  4.2.5  Container No. 5 (SO, Impinger
Sample). Because of the large quantity of
liquid involved, the tester may place the
solutions from the third, fourth, and fifth
impingers in separate containers. However,
the tester may recombine them at the time of
analysis in order to reduce the number  of
analyses required. Clean the impingere
according to the six-step procedure described
under Container No. 4 using water instead of
0.1 N NaOH as the rising liquid.
  4.2.6  Blanks. Save a portion  of the 0.1 N
NaOH used for cleanup as a blank. Take 200
ml of this solution directly from the wash
bottle being used and place it in a plastic
sample container labeled "NaOH blank."
Also save samples of the water and 10
percent Hi O,, and place in separate
containers labeled"Hi O blank"and"Ht O>,"
respectively.
  4.3  Arsenic Sample Preparation.
  4.3.1  Container No. 1 (Filter). Place  the
filter and loose particulate matter in a 150-ml
beaker. Also, add the filtered material from
Container No. 2 (see Section 4.3.3). Add 50 ml
of 0.1 N Naoh. Then stir and warm on a hot
plate at low heat (do not boil) for about 15
minutes. Add 10 ml of concentrated HNCs,
bring to a boil, then simmer for about 15
minutes. Filter the solution through a glass
fiber filter. Wash with hot water, and catch
the filtrate in a clean 150-ml beaker. Boil the
filtrate, and evaporate to dryness. Cool, add 5
ml of 50 percent HNOi, and then warm and
stir. Allow to cool. Transfer to a 50-ml
volumetric flask, dilute to volume with water,
and mix well.
   If there are any solids retained by the filter,
place the filter in a PARR acid digestion
bomb, ainf add 5 ml each of concentrated
HNOi and HF acids. Seal the bomb, and heat
it in an oven at 150'C for 5 hours.
                                                             V-N,0,P-60
-------
                 Federal  Register /  Vol. 48,  No.  140  / Wednesday,  July 20,  1983  / Proposed Rules
CAUTION: Placing paper filters or any other
kind of cellulose in the bomb could lead to an
explosive hazard.
  Remove the bomb from the oven, and allow
it to cool. Quantitatively transfer the contents
of the bomb to a 50-ml polypropylene
volumetric flask, and dilute to exactly 50 ml
with water.
  4.3.2  Container No. 4 (Arsenic Impinger
Sample).
  Note.—Prior to analysis, check the liquid
level in Containers No. 2 and No. 4: confirm
as to whether leakage occurred during
transport on the analysis sheet. If a
noticeable amount of leakage occurred, either
void the sample or take steps, subject to the
approval of the Administrator, to adjust the
final results.
  Transfer the contents of Container No. 4 to
a 500-ml  volumetric flask, and dilute to
exactly 500 ml with water. Pipet 50 ml of the
solution into a 150-ml beaker. Add 10 ml of
concentrated HNOa, bring to a boil, and
evaporate to dryness. Allow to cool, add 5 ml
of 50 percent HNGy and then warm and stir.
Allow  the solution to cool, transfer to a 50-ml
volumetric flask, dilute to volume with water,
and mix well.
  4.3.3  Container No. 2 (Probe Wash). See
note in 4.3.2 above. Filter (using a glass fiber
filter) the contents of Container No. 2 into a
200-ml volumetric flask. Combine the filtered
material with the contents of Container No. 1
(Filter).
  Dilute the filtrate to exactly 200 ml with
water. Then pipet 50 ml into a 150-ml beaker.
Add 10 ml of concentrated HNOs. bring to a
boil, and evaporate to dryness. Allow to cool,
add 5 ml  of 50 percent HNO3, and then warm
and stir. Allow the solution to cool, transfer
to a 50-ml volumetric flask, dilute to volume
with water, and mix well.
  4.3.4  Filter Blank. Determine a filter blank
using two filters from each lot of filters used
in the sampling. Cut each filter into strips,
and treat each filter individually as directed
in Section 4.3.1, beginning with the sentence,
"Add 50 ml of 0.1 N NaOH."
  4.3.5  0.1 N NaOH and Water Blanks.
Treat separately 50 ml of 0.1 N NaOH and 50
ml water, as directed under Section 4.3.2,
beginning with the sentence, "Pipet 50 ml of
the solution into a 150 ml beaker."
  4.4   Spectrophotometer Preparation. Turn
on the  power; set the wavelength, slit width,
and lamp current; and adjust the background
corrector as instructed by the manufacturer's
manual for the particular atomic absorption
Spectrophotometer. Adjust the burner and
flame characteristics as necessary.
  4.5   Analysis.
  4.5.1  Arsenic Determination. Prepare
standard solutions as directed under Section
5.1, and measure their  absorbances against
0.8 N HNO$. Then, determine the
absorbances of the filter blank and each
sample using 0.8 N HNCb as a reference. If
the sample concentration falls outside the
range of the calibration curve, make an
appropriate dilution with 0.8 N HNOs so that
the final concentration falls within the range
of the curve. Determine the arsenic
concentration in the filter blank (i.e., the
average of the two blank values from each
lot). Next, using the appropriate standard
curve, determine the arsenic concentration in
each sample fraction.
  4.5.1.1   Arsenic Determination at Low
Concentration. The lower limit of flame
atomic absorption spectrophotometry is 10 fig
As/ml. If the arsenic concentration of any
sample is at a lower level, use the vapor
generator which is available as an accessory
component. Follow the manufacturer's
instructions in the use of such equipment.
Place a sample containing between 0 and 5
fig of arsenic in the reaction tube, and dilute
to 15 ml with water. Since there is some trial
and  error involved in this procedure, it may
be necessary to screen the samples by
conventional atomic absorption until an
approximate concentration  is determined.
After determining the approximate
concentration, adjust the volume of the
sample accordingly. Pipet 15 ml of
concentrated HC1 into each tube. Add 1 ml of
30 percent KI solution. Place the reaction tube
into  a 50°C water bath for 5 minutes. Cool to
room temperature. Connect the reaction tube
to the vapor generator assembly. When the
instrument response has returned to  baseline,
inject 5.0 ml of 5 percent NaBH., and
integrate the resulting Spectrophotometer
signal over a 30-second time period.
  4.5.1.2  Mandatory Check for Matrix
Effects on the Arsenic Results. Since the
analysis for arsenic by atomic absorption is
sensitive to the chemical composition and to
the physical properties (viscosity, pH) of the
sample (matrix effects), check (mandatory) at
least one sample from each source using  the
"Method of Additions."
  Three ace eptable "Method of Additions"
procedures are described in the General
Procedure Section" of the Perkin Elmer
Corporation Manual (incorporated by
reference—see § 60.171 If the results of the
Method of Additions procedure on the source
sample do not agree to within 5 percent of the
value obtained by the routine atomic
absorption analysis, then reanalyze all
samples from the source using the Method of
Additions procedure.
  4.5.2  Container No. 5 (SO, Impinger
Sample). Observe the level of liquid in
Container No. 5, and confirm whether any
sample was lost during shipping. Note any
loss  of liquid on the analytical data sheet. If a
noticeable amount of leakage occurred, either
void the sample or use methods subject to the
approval of the Administrator, to adjust the
final results.
  Transfer the contents of the Container(s)
No. 5 to a 1-liter volumetric  flask and dilute
to exactly 1.0 liter with water. Pipet 10 ml of
this solution into a 250-ml Erlenmeyer flask.
and add two to four drops of phenolphthalin
indicator. Titrate the sample to a faint pink
end point using 1 N NaOH Repeat and
average the titration volumes. Run a  blank
with each series of samples.
  4.5.3  Container No. 3 (Silica Gel). The
tester may conduct this step in the field.
Weigh the spent silica gel (or silica gel plus
impinger) to the nearest 0.5 g; record  this
weight.
  4.6 Audit Analysis. With each set or sets
of compliance samples, analyze the two
unknown audit samples in the same manner
as the source samples to evaluate the
techniques of the analyst and the standards
preparation. The same person, standarfd
reagents, and analytical system shall be used
both for each set or sets of compliance
samples and the EPA audit samples.
  If this condition is met for compliance
samples that are analyzed frequently, it is
only necessary to analyze the audit samples
once per quarter.
  Calculate the concentration, in g/m'. using
the specified sample volume in the audit
instructions. [Note: The acceptability of the
analyses of the audit samples may be
obtained immediately be reporting the audit
and compliance results by telephone.)
  Include the results of both audit samples
with the results of the compliance
determination samples in appropriate reports
to the EPA regional office or the appropriate
enforcement agency.
  5. Calibration.
  Maintain a laboratory log of all
calibrations.
  5.1   Standard Solutions. For the high level
procedure pipet 1, 3. 5, 8, and 10 ml of the 1.0-
mg As/ml stock solution into separate 100-ml
volumetric flasks, each containing 5 ml of
concentrated HNO3. If the low-level
procedure is used, pipet 1. 2, 3, and 5 ml of 1.0
"g As/ml standard solution into the separate
flasks. Dilute to the mark with water. Then
treat the standards in the same manner as the
samples (Section 4.3.4).
  Check these absorbances frequently
against 0.8 N HNO1 (reagent blank) during
the analysis to insure the base-line draft has
not occurred. Prepare a standard curve of
absorbance versus concentration. (Note: For
instruments equipped with direct
concentration readout devices, preparation of
a standard curve will not be necessary.) In all
cases, follow calibration and operational
procedues in the manufacturer's instruction
manual.
  5.2  Sampling Train Calibration. Calibrdte
the sampling train components according to
the indicated Sections of Method 5: probe
Nozzle (Section 5.1). Pilot Tube Assembly
(Section 5.2), Metering System (Section 5.3),
probe Heater (Section 5.4). Temperature
Gauges (Section 5.5), leak Check of Metering
System (Section 5.6), and Barometer (Section
5.7).
  5.3  1 N Sodium Hydroxide Solution.
Standardize the NaOH titrant against 25 ml
of standard 1.0 N sulfunc acid.
  6. Calculations.
  6.1   Nomenclature.
BWI = Water in the gas stream, proportion by
    volume
C»=Concentration of arsenic as read from
    the standard curve, "g/ml
Cc = Actual audit concentration, g/m'
Ca — Determined audit concentration, g/m*
CS02=Concentration of SO,,, percent of
    volume
C,=Arsenic concentration is stack gas, dry
    basis, converted to standard conditions,
    g/dscm (g/dscf)
E. = Arsenic mass emission rate, g/hr
Fd = dilution factor (equals 1 if the sample has
    not been diluted)
I = Percent of isokinetic sampling
mw = Total mass of all six impingers and
    contents before sampling,
                                                          V-N,0,P-61
-------
                Federal Register  /  Vol. 48, No. 140 / Wednesday.  July 20, 1983 / Proposed  Rules
m(, = Total mass of all six impingers and
    contents after sampling, g
mn = Total mass of arsenic collected in a
    specific part of the sampling tram, "g
mMn = Mass of SO, collected in the sampling
    tram, g
m, = Total mass of arsenic collected in the
    sampling train, "g
V-.Normality of NaOH titrant, meg/ml
Tm = Absolute average dry gas meter
    temperature (see Figure 108-2). °K (°R)
V. = Volume of sample aliquot titrated, ml
Vm = Volume of ga sample as measured by
    the dry  gas meter, dcm(dcf)
Vmivwj = volume of gas sample as measured
    by the dry gas meter correlated to
    standard conditions, scm(scf)
Vn = Volume of solution in which the arsenic
    is contained, ml
V«,i,,=Total volume of solution in which the
    SOi is contained, liter
Vsoi = Volume of SO» collected in the
    sampling train, dscm(dscf)
Vi--Volume of NaOH titrant used for the
    sample  (average of replicate titrations).
    ml
V,b= Volume of NaOH titrant used for the
    blank, ml
V10, Volume of gas sampled corrected to
    standard conditions, dscm(dacf) •
V».,td> = Volume of water vapor collected in
    the sampling train, corrected to standard
    conditions, scm(scf).
AH = Average pressure differential across the
    orifice meter (see Figure lOft-2), mm HiO
    (m. H,O).
  6.2 Calculate the volume of SO, gas
collected by the sampling train.
Vso^K, (V, - Vlb) N (V»ln/VJ      Eq. 109-1
Where:
K, = 1.203 xlO~" mj/meq. for metric units,
    = 4.248X10-* ft'/meq. English units.
6.3  Calculate the sulfur dioxide
    concentration in the stack gas (dry basis
    adjusted to standard conditions) as
    follows:
             Vso.
                    - x 100    Eq.108-2
  6.4  Calculate the mass of sulfur dioxide
collected by the sampling train.
VU = K,(Vl-Vlb)N(V..ta/V.)      Eq.108-
    3
Where:
K, =0032g/meq.
  6.5  Average dry gas meter temperatures
(Tm) and average orifice pressure drop AH).
S«e data sheet (Figure 108-2).
  6.6  Dry Gas Volume. Using data from this
tost, calculate Vm{M> by using Eq. 5-1 of
Method 5. If necessary, adjust the volume for
leakages. Then add VSOi.
V,o,=ValUM) + Vso,     Eq. 108-1
  6 7  Volume of Water Vapor.
V»..ld) = Kj (mn-mn-msoi)      Eq. 108-5
Where:
KJ = 0.001334 mVg for metric units.
    = 0.047012 ft'/g for English units.
  G 8  Moisture Content.
   Bwl
                            F.q. 10ft-6
  6.9  Amount of arsenic collected.
  8.9.1 Calculate the amount of arsenic
collected in each part of sampling train, as
follows:
m. = C.F.
  6.13 Acceptable Results. Same as Method
5, Section 6.12.
  6.14 Relative Error (RE) for QA Audits,
Percent.
RE
                      100
            C.-C.   X —    Eq. 108-11
  7. Bibliograph.
  1. Same as Citations 1 through 9 of Section
7, of Method 5.
  2. Pearkin Elmer Corporation. Analytical
Methods for Atomic Absorption
Spectrophotometry. 303-0152. Norwalk.
Connecticut. September 1978. pp. 5-6.
  3. Standard Specification for Reagent
Water. In: Annual Book of ASTM Standards.
Part 31; Water, Atmospheric Analysis.
American Society for Testing and Materials.
Philadelphia, PA. 1974. pp. 40-42.
  It is proposed that Part 61 of Chapter
I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations be amended by adding a
new Subpart O and new Reference
Method 108A to Appendix B, as follows:
  1. The Table of Contents of Part 61 is
amended by adding Subpart O and by
adding an entry for new Test Method
108A to Appendix B as follows:

Subpart O—National Emission Standard*
for Inorganic Arsenic Emission* From
Primary Copper Smelters Processing Feed
Materials Containing Less Than 0.7 Percent
Arsenic
Sec.
81.170 Applicability and designation of
    sources
61.171 Definitions
61.172 Standards for new and existing
    sources
                                       61.173  Compliance provisions
                                       61174  Equivalent equipment and
                                           procedures
                                       61.175  Test methods and procedures
                                       61.176  Monitoring requirements
                                       61177  Recordkeeping requirements
                                       61 178  Reporting requirements
                                       Appendix B—Test Methods
Method 108A—Determinations of Arsenic
Content in Ore Samples From Nonferrous
Smelters
  Authority: Sees. 112 and 301 (a). Clean Air
Act as amended [42 U.S.C. 7412 and 7601(a)].
and additional authority as noted below.
  2. Part 61 is amended by adding
Subpart O as follows:

Subpart O—National Emission
Standards for Inorganic Arsenic
Emissions From Primary Copper
Smelters Processing Feed Materials
Containing Less Than 0.7 Percent
Arsenic

§61.170  Applicability and destination of
sources.
  (a) The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to each  smelting furnace and
each copper  converter in operation at all
new and existing primary copper
smelters, except as noted in § 61.172 (c)
and [d], processing a total smelter
charge containing less than 0.7  weight
percent inorganic arsenic on a dry basis
averaged over a 1-year period.
  (b) [Reserved).

§61.171  Definition*,
  As used in this subpart, all terms not
defined here shall have the meaning
given them in the Act and in subpart A
of Part 61, and the  following terms shall
have the specific meanings given to
them:
  "Blowing" means the injection  of air
or oxygen-enriched air into the molten
converter bath.
  "Charging" means the  transfer  of
copper matte or any other material to a
copper converter.
  "Converter arsenic charging rate"
means the hourly rate at  which arsenic
is charged to the copper converter based
on  the arsenic content of the copper
matte  and of any lead matte that is
charged  to the copper converter.
  "Copper converter" means any vessel
in which copper matte  is charged and is
oxidized to copper.
  "Copper Matte"  means any impure
metallic sulfide mixture produced by
smelting copper sulfide ore
concentrates.
  "Holding" means the suspension of
blowing operations while the molten
converter bath is heated.
                                                       V-N,0,P-62
-------
               Federal Register  /  Vol.  48,  No. 140  /  Wednesday, July 20, 1983  /  Proposed Rules
  "Malfunction" means any sudden and
unavoidable failure of air pollution
control equipment, process equipment or
of a process to operate in a normal usual
manner. Failures that are caused
entirely or in part by poor maintenance,
careless operation, or any other
preventable upset condition or
preventable equipment breakdown shall
not be considered malfunctions.
  "Primary copper smelter" means any
installation or any intermediate process
engaged in the production of copper
from copper bearing materials through
the use of pyrometallurgical techniques.
  "Secondary emissions" means
inorganic arsenic emissions that escape
capture by a primary emission control
systm.
  "Secondary hood system" means the
equipment (including hoods, ducts, fans,
and dampers) used to capture and to
transport secondary inorganic arsenic
emissions.
  "Shutdown" means the cessation of
operation of a stationary source for any
purpose.
  "Skimming" means the removal of
slag from the molten converter bath.
  "Smelting furnace" means any vessel
in which the smelting of copper ore
concentrates or calcines is performed
and in which the heat necessary for
smelting is provided by an electric
current, rapid oxidation of the sulfur
contained in the concentrate, or the
combustion of a fossil fuel.
  "Smelting furnace arsenic tapping
rate" means the hourly rate at which
arsenic is transferred from the smelting
furnace during tapping based on the
combined arsenic content of the copper
matte and slag.
   "Tapping" means the transfer of
 copper matte or slag from the smelting
 furnace.
   "Total smelter charge" means the
 weight on a dry basis of all copper ore
 concentrates processed at a primary
 copper smelter plus the weight of all
 other materials introduced into the
 roasters, smelting furnaces, and
 converters at a primary copper smelter
 over a 1-month period.

 § 61.172  Standards for new and existing
 sources.
   (a) Except as provided under
 paragraph (c) of this section, the owner
 or operator of each copper converter
 subject to the provisions of this subpart
 shall reduce inorganic arsenic emission
 to the atmosphere by meeting the
 following equipment and operating
 requirements, or equivalent, as provided
 in § 61.174:
   (1) The owner  or operator shall equip
 each copper converter with a secondary
 hood system, the principal components
of which are a hood enclosure, air
curtain fan(s), exhaust system fan(s),
and sufficient ductwork to convey the
captured emissions to a control device.
Each secondary hood system shall meet
the following specifications:
  (i) The configuration and dimensions
of the hood enclosure shall be such that
the copper converter mouth, charging
ladles, skimming ladles, and any other
material transfer vessels used will be
housed within the confines or influence
of the hood enclosure during each mode
of copper converter operation.
  (ii) The back of the hood enclosure
shall be fully enclosed and sealed
against the primary hood. Portions of the
side-walls in contact with the copper
converter shall be sealed against the
copper converter.
  (hi) Openings in the top and front of
the hood enclosure to allow for the entry
and egress of ladles and crane
apparatus shall be minimized to the
fullest extent practicable.
  (iv) The hood enclosure shall be
fabricated in such a manner and of
materials of sufficient strength to
withstand incidental contact with ladles
and crane apparatus with no damage.
  (v) One side-wall of the hood
enclosure shall be equipped with a
horizontal-slotted plenum along the top
and opposite side-wall shall be
equipped with an exhaust hood. The
horizontal-slotted plenum shall be
designed to allow the distance from  the
base to the top of the horizontal slot to
be adjustable up to a dimension of 76
mm.
   (vi) The horizontal-slotted plenum
shall be connected to a fan. When
activated, the fan shall push air through
the horizontal slot, producing a
horizontal air curtain above the copper
 converter and directed to the exhaust
hood.  The fan power output installed
 shall be sufficient to overcome static
 pressure losses through the ductwork
 upsteam of the horizontal-slotted
 plenum and across the horizontal-
 slotted plenum, and to deliver at least
 22,370 watts (30 air horsepower) at the
 horizontal-slotted plenum discharge.
   (vii) The exhaust hood shall be sized
 to completely intercept the airstream
 from the horizontal-slotted plenum
 combined with the additional airflow
 resulting from entrainment by the
 airstream of the surrounding air. The
 exahust hood shall be connected to a
 fan. When activiated, the fan shall pull
 the combined airstream into the exhaust
 hood.
   (viii) The entire system shall be
 equipped with dampers and
 instrumentation, as appropriate, so  that
 the desired air curtain and exhaust  flow
are maintained during each mode of
copper converter operation.
  (2) At all times the owner or operator
of each copper converter shall operate
the converter and associated secondary
hood system in such a manner as to
optimize the capture of secondary
inorganic arsenic emissions.
  (i) Optimum operating conditions for
each secondary hood sysetem shall be
determined by the Administrator on a
case-by-case basis.
   (ii) The owner or operator shall
operate each copper converter to
optimize the capture of secondary
inorganic arsenic emissions as follows:
   (A) The air screen and exhaust flow
rates shall be increased to their
optimum conditions prior to raising the
primary hood and rolling the converter
out for skimming.
   (B) Once rolled out, the converter
shall be held in an idle position until
fuming from the molten bath ceases
prior to commencing skimming.
   (C) During skimming, the crane
operator shall raise the receiving ladle
off the ground and position the ladle as
close to the converter as possible to
minimize the drop distance between the
converter mouth and receiving ladle.
   (D) The rate of flow into the receiving
ladle shall be controlled to the extent
practicable to minimize fuming.
   (E) Upon the completion of the charge.
the charging ladle or vessel used shall
be withdrawn from the confines of the
secondary hood in a slow deliberate
manner.
   (3) The owner or operator of each
copper converter shall perform the
following inspeciton and maintenance
requirements after installing the
 secondary hood system to comply with
 paragraph (a)(l) of this section.
   (i) At least once every month, visually
 inspect the components of the secondary
 hood system that are exposed to
 potential damage from crane and ladle
 operation, including the hood enclosure,
 side- and back-wall hood seals, and the
 air curtain slot.
   (ii) Replace or repair any defective or
 damaged components of the secondary
 hood  system within 30 days of
 discovering the defective or damaged
 components.
   (iii) Maintain each copper converter
 and associated secondary hood system
 in a manner consistent with minimizing
 inorganic arsenic emissions. A
 determination of whether acceptable
 maintenance procedures are being used
 will be based on information supplied to
 the Administrator,  which may include
 but is not limited to monitoring results,
 review of maintenance procedures,
                                                     V-N,0,P-63
-------
               Federal Register  /  Vol. 46. No. 140 / Wednesday.  July  20.  1983 / Proposed  Rules
inspection of the source, and review of
records.
  (b) Except as provided under
paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this
section, no owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall allow
gases that contain particulate matter in
excess of 11.6 milligrams per dry
standard cubic meter to be discharged
into the atmosphere from any smelting
furnace secondary hood system or any
copper converter secondary hood
system.
  (c) The provisions of § 61.172(a) and
(b) do not  apply to a copper converter if
the converter arsenic charging rate is
less than 6.5 kg/h averaged over a 1-
year period, as determined under
§61.175.
  (d) The provisions of $ 61.172 (bj do
not apply to a smelting furnace if the
smelting furnace arsenic tapping late is
less than 40 dg/h averaged over a 1-year
period, as  determined under § 61.175.
  (e) The emission limits se\ forth in
§ 60.172 (b) apply at all times except
during periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction.

§ 61.173 Compliance provisions.
  (a) The owner or operator of each
copper converter to which 5 61.172
applies shall demonstrate compliance
with the requirements of § 61.172 (a)(l)
as follows:
  (1) The owner or operator of each
existing copper converter shall install
capture equipment to meet the
requirements of § 61.172(a)(l) no later
than 90 days after the effective date,
unless a waiver of compliance has been
approved  by the Administrator in
accordance with } 61.11.
   (2)  The owner or operator of each new
copper converter shall install capture
equipment to met the requirements of
§ 61.172(a)(l) prior to the initial startup
of the converter, except that if startup
occurs prior to the effective date, the
owner or operator shall meet the
requirements of § 61.172(a)(l) on the
effective date.
   (b) Unless a waiver of emission
testing is obtained under i 61.13, the
owner or operator of each smelting
furnance and copper converter to which
 § 61.172 (b) applies shall test emissions
as specified in § 61.175 to demonstrate
compliance with $ 61.172(b) as follows:
   (1) After achieving optimum ope-ating
conditions for the equipment required in
 § 61.172(a)(l) but no later than 90 days
after the effective date in the case of an
existing smelting furnace or copper
converter or a new smelting furnace or
copper converter that has an initial
startup date preceding the effective
date, or
  (2) After achieving optimum operating
conditions for the equipment required in
§ 61.172(a)(l) but no later than 90 days
after startup in the case of a new
smelting furnace or copper converter,
initial startup of which occurs after the
effective date, or
  (3) At such other times as may be
required by the Administrator under
Section 114 of the Act
  (c) Each owner or operator subject to
paragraph (b) of this section shall
provide the Administrator 30 days prior
notice of the emissions test to afford the
Administrator the opportunity to have
an observer present. >
  (d) Each emission test shall be
conducted while the source is operating
under such conditions as the
administrator may specify to the owner
or operator based on representative
performance of the source.
  (e) Each owner or operator subject to
paragraph (b) of this section shall
furnish the Administrator a written
report of the results of the emission test
within 60 days of conducting the test.

§61174 Equivalent equipment and
procedures.
  (a) Upon written application from any
person, the Administrator may approve
the use of equipment or procedures that
have been demonstrated to his
satisfaction to be equivalent, in  terms of
capturing inorganic  arsenic emissions, to
those prescribed under S 61.172(a). For
an existing source, requests for using
equivalent equipment or procedures as
the initial means of capture are to be
submitted to the Administrator within 30
days of the effective date of the
standard. For a new source, requests for
using equivalent equipment or
procedures are to be submitted to the
Administrator with  the application for
approval of construction required by
561.07.
   (b) Demonstration of equivalency
shall be made using a method approved
by the Administrator.
   [c) The Administrator may condition
approval of equivalency on
requirements that may be necessary to
ensure operation and maintenance to
achieve the same emission capture as
the equipment prescribed under
§ 61.172(a).
   (d) If in the Administrator's judgment
an application for equivalency may be
approvable, the Administrator will
publish a notice of preliminary
determination in the Federal Register
and provide the opportunity for public
hearing. After notice and opportunity for
public hearing, the Administrator will
determine the equivalence of the
alternative means of emission capture
and will publish the final determination
in the Federal Register.

§61.175 Test methods and procedures.
  (a) Emission tests shall be conducted
and data reduced in accordance with
the test methods and procedures
contained in this section unless the
Administrator—
  (1) Specifies or approves, in specific
cases, the use of a reference method
with minor changes in methodology;
  (2) Approves the use of an equivalent
method;
  (3) Approves the use of an alternative
method the results  of which he has
determined to be adequate for indicating
whether a specific source is in
compliance; or
  (4) Waives the requirement for
emission tests as provided under $ 61.13.
  (b) For the purpose of determining
compliance with 5  61.172(b), reference
methods in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A
shall be used as follows:
  (1) Method 5 for the measurement of
particulate matter,
  (2) Method 1 for sample and velocity
traverses,
  (3) Method 2 for  velocity and
volumetric flow rate,
  (4) Method 3 for gas analysis, and
  (5) Method 4 for  stack gas moisture.
  (c) For Method 5, the sampling time
for each run shall be at least 60 minutes
and the minimum sampling volume shall
be 0.85 dscm (30 dscf] except that
smaller times or volumes when
necessitated by process variables or
other factors may be approved by the
Administrator.
  (d) For the purpose of § 61.172(c), the
converter arsenic charging rate shall be
determined as follows:
  (1) Grab samples of copper matte and
any lead matte charged to a copper
converter shall be  collected daily and a
composite sample representative of each
calendar month shall be analyzed for
inorganic arsenic.
  (2) Copper matte and lead matte
samples shall be individually analyzed
using Method 108A to determine the
weight percent of inorganic arsenic
contained in each sample.
  (3) Converter arsenic charging rate
shall be calculated once per month using
the following equation:
            AcWc+A,W
                           100 He
 Where:
 RC is the converter arsenic charging rate (kg/
    h)
 AC i» the monthly average weight percent of
    arsenic in the copper matte charged
    during the month (%)
                                                     V-N,0,P-64
-------
               Federal  Register / Vol. 48, No.  140 / Wednesday, July 20, 1983  /  Proposed Rules
A, is the monthly average weight percent of
   arsenic in the lead matte charged during
   the month (%}
Wc is the total weight of copper matte
   charged to the copper converter during
   the month (kg)
W, is the total weight of lead matte charged
   to the copper converter during the month
   (kg)
HC is the total number of hours the copper
   converter was in operation during the
   month (h)
  (4) An  annual arsenic charging rate
shall be determined for each copper
converter once per month by computing
the arithmetic  average of the 12
converter arsenic charging rate values
for the preceding 12-month period.
  (e) For the purpose of § 61.172(d), the
smelting  furnace arsenic tapping rate
shall be determined as follows:
  (1) Grab samples of smelting furnace
copper matte and slag shall be collected
daily and a composite sample
representative of each calendar month
shall be analyzed for inorganic arsenic.
  (2) Copper matte and slag samples
shall be individually analyzed using
Method 108A to determine the weight
percent of arsenic contained in each
sample.
  (3) Smelting  furnace arsenic tapping
rate shall be calculated once per month
using the following equation:
                   A.W.
                  100 H,
where:
R, is the smelting furnace arsenic tapping rate
    fkg/b)
Am is the monthly average weight percent of
    arsenic in the copper matte tapped
    during the month (%)
A, is the monthly average weight percent of
    arsenic in the slag tapped during the
    month (%)
Wn is the total weight of copper matte tapped
    from the smelting furnace during the
    month (kg)
W. is the total weight of slag tapped from the
    smelting furnace during the month (kg)
Hf is the total number of hours the smelting
    furnace was in operation during the
    month (h)
  (4) An annual average smelting
furnace arsenic tapping rate shall be
determined for each smelting furnace
once per month by computing the
arithmetic average of the 12 smelting
furnace arsenic tapping rate values  for
the preceding 12-month period.
  (f) Each owner or  operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall
collect daily grab samples of the total
smelter charge and shall analyze a
composite sample representative of each
calendar month for inorganic arsenic.
The procedures used to collect the
samples of the total smelter charge shall
be approved by the Administrator.
Samples  shall be analyzed for inorganic
arsenic using Method 106A.
  (g) An  annual average weight percent
of arsenic in the total smelter charge
shall be determined for each smelter
once per  month by computing the
arithmetic average of the 12 arsenic
weight percent values for the preceding
12-month period.
§ 61.176  Monitoring requirements.
  (a) An  owner or operator of a source
that is subject to the emission limit
specified in § 61.172(b) shall install,
calibrate, maintain, and operate a
continuous monitoring system for the
measurement of the opacity of emissions
discharged from the source according to
the following procedures:
  (1) All  continuous monitoring systems
and monitoring devices shall be
installed  and operational prior to
conduction of an emissions test as
required  in § 61.175(a). Verification of
operational status shall, as a minimum,
consist of an evaluation of the
monitoring system in accordance with
the requirements and procedures
contained in Performance Specification
1 of Appendix B of 40 CFR Part 60. The
owner or operator shall furnish the
Administrator a written report of the
results of the continuous monitoring
system evaluation within 60 days of
conducting such evaluation.
  (2) The requirements  of { 60.13 (d)  and
(f) shall apply to an owner or operator
subject to the emission  limits of § 61.172.
  (3) Except for system breakdowns,
repairs, calibration checks, and zero  and
span adjustments required under
S 60.13(d) all continuous monitoring
systems shall be in continuous operation
and shall meet minimum frequency of
operation requirements by completing a
minimum of one cycle of sampling and
analyzing for each successive 10-second
period and one cycle of data recording
for each successive 6-minute period.
  (4) The owner or operator shall
calculate 6-minute opacity averages
from 24 or more data points equally
spaced over each 6-minute period. Data
recorded during periods of monitoring
system breakdowns, repairs, calibration
checks, and zero and span adjustments
shall not  be included in the data
averages.
  (5) During the emission test required
in { 61.173(b) each owner or operator
subject to this paragraph shall:
  (i) Conduct continuous opacity
monitoring during each test run.
  (ii) Calculate 6-minute opacity
averages from 24 or more data points
equally spaced over each 6-minute
period during the test runs.
  (iii) Determine, based on the 6-minute
opacity averages, the opacity value
corresponding to the 97.5 percent upper
confidence level of a normal or
lognormal (whichever the owner or
operator determines is more
representative) distribution of the
average opacity values.
  (iv) An owner or operator may
redetermine the opacity value
corresponding to the 97.5 percent upper
confidence level if the owner or operator
conducts continuous opacity monitoring
during each test run of an emission test
that demonstrates compliance with the
emission limits in f 61.172(b), and
recalculates the 6-minute averages
described in this paragraph.
  (b) An owner or operator of a source
that is required to install  the equipment
prescribed under § 61.172(a) shall
install, calibrate, maintain, and operate
a continuous monitoring device for the
measurement of the air flow rate
through the horizontal-slotted plenum
and through the exhaust hood.

§ 61.177  Recordkeeplng requirements.
  (a) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall
maintain at the source for a period of at
least 2 years a monthly record of the
total smelter charge and the weight
percent of arsenic contained in this
charge, and the monthly calculations of
the average annual weight percent of
arsenic in the total smelter charge for
the preceding 12-month period.
  (b) Each owner or operator required  to
install the equipment precribed in
S 61.172(a) shall maintain at the source
for a period of at least 2 years records  of
the visual inspections and maintenance
performed as required in  $ 61.172(a)(3).
  (c) Each owner or operator who is
exempt from § 61.172 (a) and (b) as
described in § 61.172(c) shall maintain  at
the source for a period of at least 2 years
the following records:
  (1) For each copper converter, a daily
record of the amount of copper matte
and any lead matte charged to the
copper converter and the hours of
operation.
  (2) For each copper converter, a
monthly record of the weight percent of
arsenic contained in the copper matte
and lead matte as determined by
§ 61.175(d).
  (3) For each copper converter, the
monthly calculations of the average
annual arsenic charging rate for the
preceding 12-month period as
determined by $ 61.175(d).
  (d) Each owner or operator who is
exempt from § 61.172 (a) and (b) as
                                                    V-N.O.P-65
-------
               Federal Register  /  Vol. 48. No. 140  /  Wednesday,  July 20. 1983  /  Proposed  Rules
described in § 61.172(d) shall maintain
at the source for a period of at least 2
years the following records:
  (1) For each smelting furnace, a daily
record of the amount of copper matte
and slag tapped from the smelting
furnace and the hours of operation.
  (2) For each smelting furnace, a
monthly record of the weight percent of
arsenic contained in the copper matte
and slag as determined by § 61.175(e).
  (3) For each smelting furnace, the
monthly calculations of the average
annual smelting furnace arsenic tapping
rate for the preceding 12-month period
as determined by § 61.175(e).
  (e) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of § 61.172(b) shall
maintain at the source, for a period of at
least 2 years, a file of the following
records: all measurements, including
monitoring and testing data; all
calculations used to produce the
required reports of emission estimates;
monitoring system performance
evaluations, including calibration
checks and adjustment: the occurrence
and duration of any startup, shutdown.
or malfunction in the operation of the
stationary source; any malfunction of
the air pollution control system; any
periods during which the continuous
monitoring system or device is
inoperative; and all maintenance and
repairs made to the air pollution control
or monitoring system.
  (f) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of § 61.176(b) shall
maintain at the source for a period of at
least 2 years records of the reference
flow rates for the horizontal-slotted
plenum and exhaust hoods for each
converter operating mode established
during optimum operating conditions as
determined by the Administrator under
§ 61.l72(a)(2), and the average actual
flow rates. In addition, a  daily log shall
be maintained of the start time and
duration of each converter operating
mode.
|Sf(.  1 !4 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42
L'.S C. 7414))

§61.178  Reporting requirements.
  (a) Fjr purposes of the information
required in the initial  report prescribed
in § 61.10(a)(5), each owner or operator
shall provide the average weight percent
of arsenic in the total smelter charge, the
average converter arsenic charging rate,
and the smelting furnace arsenic tapping
rate over the last 12 months preceding
the date of the report.
  (b) Each owner or operator subject to
I 61.176{a) shall submit a written report
to the Administrator semiannually if
excess opacity occurred during the 6-
month period. For purposes of this
paragraph, an occurrence of excess
opacity is any 6-minute period during
which the average opacity, as measured
by the continuous monitoring system,
exceeds the opacity level determined
under § 61.176(a)(5).
  (c) Each owner or operator subject to
| 61.176(b) shall submit a written report
to the Administrator semiannually if the
air flow rates monitored  are less than 20
percent of the reference flow rates, for
any converter operating mode.
Reference flow rate values for each
converter mode shall be determined
when the equipment prescribed under
§ 61.172(a) is operating under optimum
operating conditions, as determined by
the Administrator under  | 61.172(a)(2).
  (d)  all semiannual reports shall be
postmarked by the 30th day following
the end of each 6-month period and shall
include the following information:
  (1) The magnitude of excess opacity,
any conversion factor(s)  used, and the
date and time of commencement and
completion of each occurrence of excess
opacity.
  (2) The magnitude of reduced flow
rates  and the date and time of
commencement and  completion of each
occurrence of reduced flow rate.
  (3) Specific identification of each
period of excess opacity  or reduced flow
rate that occurs during startups,
shutdowns, and malfunctions of the
source.
  (4) The date and time identifying each
period during which the continuous
monitoring system or monitoring device
was inoperative, except for zero and
span checks, and the nature of the
system repairs or adjustments.
  (e) The owner or operator of each
primary copper smelter shall submit a
written report to the Administrator
annually which includes;
  (1) The monthly computations of the
average annual weight percent of
inorganic arsenic in  the total smelter
charge for each preceding 12-month
period as calculated under § 61.175(f).
  (2)  The monthly computations of the
average annual converter arsenic
charging rate as calculated in
| 61.175(d).
  (3)  The monthly computations of the
average annual smelting furnace arsenic
tapping rate as caluctated in | 61.175(e).
  (f) The annual report required in
§ 61.l78(c) shall be postmarked by the
30th day following the end of each
calendar year.
  3. Part 61 is amended by adding
Method 108A to Appendix B a J follows:

Appendix B—[Amended]
Method 108A—Determination of Arsenic
Content in Ore Samples From Nonferrous
Smelters
  1  Applicability and Principle.
  1.1  Applicability. This method applies to
the determination of inorganic arsenic (As)
content of process ore and reverberatory
matte samples from nonferrous smelters and
other sources as specified in the regulations.
  1.2  Principle. Arsenic bound in ore
samples is liberated by acid digestion and
analyzed by atomic absorption
spectrophotomerry.
  2. Apparatus.
  2.1  Sample Preparation
  2.1.1  Parr Acid Digestion Bomb. Stainless
steel with vapor-tight Teflon cup and cover.
  212  Volumetric Pipels. 2- and 5-ml sizes.
  2.1.3  Volumetric Flask. 50-ml
polypropylene with screw caps, (one needed
per sample). 100-ml glass (one needed per
standard).
  2.1.4  Funnel. Polyethylene or
pol> propylene.
  21.5  Oven. Capable of maintaining a
temperature of approximately 105 °C.
  2.1 6  Analytical BaUnce. To measure to
within 0.1 mg.
  2.2  Analysis
  2.2.1  Spectrophotometer and Recorder.
Same as in Method 108, Section 2.3.1 and
2.3.2. except a graphite furnace should be
used in place of the vapor generator
accessory when measuring samples with low
as levels.
  2.2.2  Volumetric Flasks. Class A. 50-ml
(one needed per sample and blank).
  2.2.3  Volumetric Pipets. Class  A. 1-. 5-, 10-
. and 25ml sizes.
  3. Reagents.
  Unless otherwise specified, use ACS
reagent grade (or equivalent) chemicals
throughout.
  3.1  Sample Preparation.
  3.1.1  Water. Same as in Method 108.
Section 3.1.2. Use in all dilutions requiring
water.
  3 1.2  Nitric Acid (HNOa), Concentrated.
HANDLE WITH CAUTION.
  3.1.3  Nitric Acid. 0.5 N. In a 1-liter
volumetric flask containing water, add 32 ml
of concentrated HNCS and dilute  to volume
with water.
  3.1.4  Hydrofluoric Acid (HF).
Concentrated. HANDLE WITH CAUTION.
  3.1.5  Potassium Chloride (DC1) Solution.
10 percent (w/v). Dissolve 10 g KC1 in water.
add 3 ml concentrated HNOj and dilute to
100ml.
  3 1.8  Filter. Teflon filters. 3  micron
porosity, 47mm size. (Available from
Millipore Co.. Type FS, Catalog Number
FSLW04700.)
  3.2  Analysis.
  3.2.1  Water. Same as in Section  3.1.1.
  3.2.2  Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH), 0.1 N.
Dissolve 2.00 g of NaOH in water in a 500-ml
volumetric flask. Dilute to volume with water.
                                                        V-N,0,P-66
-------
                Federal Register  / Vol.  48.  No.  140 /  Wednesday. July 20.  1983  /  Proposed Rules
  3.2.3 Nitric Acid, 0.5 N. Same as in
Section 3.1.3.
  3.2.4 Potassium Chloride Solution, 10
percent. Same as in Section 3.1.5.
  3.2.5 Stock Arsenic Standard, 1 mg As/ml.
Dissolve 1.320 g of primary grade AszOi in 20
ml of 0.1 N NaOH. Slowly add 30 ml of
concentrated HNOj. Dilute to 1 liter with
water.
  3.2.6 Nitrous Oxide. Suitable quality for
atomic absorption analysis.
  3.2.7 Acetylene. Suitable quality for
atomic absorption analysis.
  3.2.8 Quality Assurance Audit Samples.
Same as in Method 108, Section 3.3.16.
  4. Procedure.
  4.1  Sample Collection. A sample that is
representative of the ore lot to be  tested must
be taken prior to analysis. The sample must
be ground into a finely pulverized state. (A
portion of the samples routinely collected for
metals analysis may be used provided the
sample is representative of the ore being
tested.)
  4.2  Sample Preparation. Weigh 50 to 500
mg of finery pulverized sample to  the nearest
0.1 nig. Transfer the sample into the Teflon
cup of the digestion bomb, and add 2 ml each
of concentrated HNO> and HF. Seal the bomb
immediately to prevent the loss of any
volatile arsenic compounds that may form.
Heat in an oven at 115°C for 2 hours. Then
remove the bomb from the oven and allow it
to cool. Using Whatman No. 4 filter paper,
quantitatively filter the digested sample into
a 50-ml polypropylene volumetric flask. Rinse
the bomb three times with small portions of
0.5 N  HNO3, and filter the rinses into the
flask. Add 5 ml of KCL solution to the flask,
and dilute to 50 ml with 0.5 N HNO3.
  4.3  Spectrophotometer Preparation.  Same
as in Method 108, Section 4.4.
  4.4  Preparation of Standard Solutions.
Pipet  1, 5.10, and 25  ml of the stock As
solution into separate 100-ml volumetric
flasks. Add 10 ml KC1 solution and dilute to
the mark with 0.5 N HNO3. This will give
standard concentrations of 10. 50,100. and
250 g  As/ml. For low-level-arsenic samples
that require the use of a graphite furnace,
prepare a series of standard solutions in the
range appropriate to the sample
concentrations and the graphite furnace
operating range.
   Dilute 10 ml of KC1 solution to 100 ml with
0.5 N HNO3. and use as a reagent blank.
Measure the standard absorbances against
the reagent blank. Check these absorbances
frequently against the blank during the
analysis to assure that baseline drift has not
occurred.
   Prepare a standard curve of absorbance
versus concentration. (Note: For instruments
equipped with direct concentration readout
devices, preparation of a standard curve will
not be necessary.) In all cases, follow
calibration and operational procedures in the
manufacturer's instruction manual. Maintain
a laboratory log of all calibrations.
   4.5  Analysis
   4.5 1  Arsenic Determination. Determine
the absorbance of each sample using the
blank as a reference. If the sample
concentration falls outside the range of the
calibration curve, make an appropriate
dilution with 0.5 N HNO3 so that the final
concentration falls within the rage of the
curve. From the curve, determine the As
concentration in each sample.
  4.5.2 Mandatory Check for Matrix Effects
on the Arsenic Results. Same as in Method
108, Section 4.5.1.2.
  4.5.3 Audit Analysis. Same as in Method
108, Section 4.6.
  5. Calculations.
  5.1.  Calculate the percent arsenic in the
ore sample as follows:
             AS   =•
                       5C.F,,
                         W
Where:
C.=Concentration of As as read from the
    stand curve, g/ml.
Fs = Dilution factor (equals 1 if the sample has
    not been diluted).
W = Weight of ore sample analyzed.
5 = 50-ml sample x 100 / lOs'jtg/mg.
  6. Bibliography.
  1. Same as Citations 2 and 3 in Section 7 of
Method 108.
  2. Unpublished Report. Emission
Measurement Branch, Emission Standards
and Engineering Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711. August 1980.

  It is proposed that Part 61 of Chapter
I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations be amended by adding a
new Subpart P as follows:
  1. The Table of Contents of Part 61 is
amended by adding Subpart P as
follows:

Subpart P—National Emission Standards
for Inorganic Arsenic Emissions From
Primary Copper Smelters Processing Feed
Materials Containing 0.7 Percent or Greater
Arsenic

Sec
61.180 Applicability and designation of
    sources.
61.181 Definitions.
61.182 Standards for new and existing
    sources.
61.183 Compliance provisions.
61.184 Equivalent equipment and
    procedures.
61.185 Test methods and procedures.
61.186 Monitoring requirements.
61 187 Recordkeeping requirements.
61.188 Reporting requirements.

  Authority: Sec. 112 and 301(a), Clean Air
Act as amended [42 U.S.C. 7412 and 7601(a)),
and additional authority as noted below.

  2. Part 61 is amended by adding
Subpart P as follows:
Subpart P—National Emission
Standards for Inorganic Arsenic
Emissions From Primary Copper
Smelters Processing Feed Materials
Containing 0.7 Percent or Greater
Arsenic
§ 61.180  Applicability and designation of
sources.
  The provisions of the subpart are
applicable to each copper converter in
operation at a primary copper smelter
processing a total smelter charge
containing 9.7 weight percent or more
inorganic arsenic on a dry basis
averaged over a 1-year period.
§61.181  Definitions.
  As used in this subpart. all terms not
defined here shall have the meaning
given them in the Act and in subpart A
of Part 61. and the following terms shall
have the specific meanings given to
them:
  "Blowing" means the injection of air
or oxygen-enriched air into the molten
converter bath.
  "Charging" means the transfer of
copper matte or any other material to a
copper converter.
  "Control device" means the air
pollution control equipment used to
collect particulate emissions.
  "Copper converter" means any vessel
in which copper matte is charged and
oxidized to copper.
  "Copper matte" means any impure
metallic sulfide mixture produced by
smelting copper sulfide ore
concentrates.
   "Holding" means the suspension of
blowing operations while the molten
converter bath is heated.
   "Primary copper smelter" means any
installation or any intermediate process
engaged in the production of copper
from copper bearing materials through
the use of pyrometallurgical techniques.
   "Process emissions" means inorganic
arsenic emissions from roasters,
smelting furnaces, or copper converters
that are captured and transported to a
primary emission control device.
   "Roaster" means any facility in which
a copper ore concentrate charge is
heated in the presence of air to
eliminate a significant portion (5 percent
or more) of the sulfur contained in the
total smelter charge.
   "Secondary emissions" means
inorganic arsenic emissions that escape
capture by a primary emission control
system.
   "Secondary hood system" means
equipment (including hoods, ducts, fans,
and dampers) used to capture and to
 transport secondary inorganic arsenic
emissions.
                                                      V-N,0,P-67
-------
               Federal Register  /  Vol. 48.  No. 140  /  Wednesday. July 20, 1983  / Proposed Rules
  "Shutdown" means the cessation of
operation of a stationary source for any
purpose.
  "Skimming"  means the removal of
slag from the copper converter bath.
  "Smelting furnace" means any vessel
in which the smelting of copper ore
concentrates or calcines is performed
and in which the heat necessary for
smelting is provided by an electric
current, rapid oxidation of the sulfur
contained in the concentrate, or the
combustion of a fossil fuel.
  "Tapping" means the transfer of
copper matte or slag from the smelting
furnace.
  "Total smelter charge" means the
weight on a dry basis of all copper ore
concentrates processed at a primary
copper smelter plus the weight of all
other materials introduced into the
roasters, smelting furnaces, and copper
converters at a primary copper  smelter
over a 1-month period.

§ 61.182 Standards for new and witting
source*.
  (a) The owner or operator of each
copper converter to which this subpart
applies shall reduce inorganic arsenic
emissions to the atmosphere by meeting
the following equipment and operating
requirements, or equivalent as provided
in § 61.184:
  fl) The owner or operator shall equip
each copper converter with a secondary
hood system, the principal components
of which are a hood enclosure,  air
curtain fan(s), exhaust system fan(s),
and sufficient ductwork to convey  the
raptured emissions to a control device.
Each secondary hood system shall meet
the following specifications:
  (i) The configuration and dimensions
of the hood enclosure shall be such that
the copper converter mouth, charging
ladles, skimming ladles, and any other
material transfer vessels used will be
housed within the confines or influence
of the hood enclosure during each mode
of copper converter operation.
  (\\) the back of the hood enclosure
shall be fully enclosed and sealed
against the primary hood. Portions of the
side-walls in contact with the copper
converter shall be sealed against the
copper converter.
  (>ii) Openings in the top and front of
the hood enclosure to allow for the entry
and egress of ladles and crane
apparatus shall be minimized to the
fullest extent practicable.
  (iv) The hood enclosure shall be
fabricated in such a manner and of
materials of sufficient strength  to
withstand incidential contact with
ladles and crane apparatus with no
damage.
  (v) One side-wall of the enclosure
shall be equipped with a horizontal-
slotted plenum along the top and the
opposite side-wall shall be equipped
with an exhaust hood. The horizontal-
slotted plenum shall be designed to
allow the distance from the base to the
top of the horizontal slot to be
adjustable up to a dimension of 76 mm.
  (vi) The horizontal-slotted plenum
shall be connected to a fan. When
activated, the fan shall push air through
the horizontal slot, producing a
horizontal air curtain above the copper
converter and directed to the exhaust
hood. The fan power output installed
shall be sufficient to overcome static
pressure losses through the ductwork
upstream of the horizontal-slotted
plenum and across the horizontal-
slotted plunum, and  to deliver at least
22,370 watts (30 air horsepower) at the
horizontal-slotted plenum discharge.
  (vii) The exhaust hood shall be sized
to completely intercept the airstream
from the horizontal-slotted plenum
combined with the additonal airflow
resulting from entraimnent by the
airstream of the surrounding air. The
exhaust hood shall be connected to a
fan. When activated, the fan shall pull
the combined airstream into the exhaust
hood.
  (viii) The entire secondary hood
system shall be equipped with dampers
and instrumentation, as appropriate, so
that the desired air curtain and exhaust
flow rates are maintained during each
mode of copper converter operation.
  (2) At all  times the owner or operator
of each copper converter shall operate
the converter and secondary hood
system in such a  manner as to optimize
the capture of secondary inorganic
arsenic emissions.
  (i) Optimum operating conditions for
each secondary hood system shall be
determined by the Administrator on a
case-by-case basis.
  (ii) The owner  or operator shall
operate each copper converter to
optimize the capture of secondary
inorganic arsenic emissions as follows:
  (A) The air screen and exhaust flow
rates shall be increased to their
optimum conditions prior to raising the
primary hood and rolling the converter
out for skimming.
  (B) Once rolled out, the converter
shall be held in an idle position until
fuming from the molten bath ceases
prior to commencing skimming.
  (C) During skimming, the crane
operator shall raise the receiving ladle
off the ground and position the ladle as
close to the converter as possible to
minimize the drop distance between the
converter mouth and receiving ladle.
  (D) The rate of flow into the receiving
ladle shall be controlled to the extent
practicable to minimize fuming.
  (E) Upon the completion of the charge.
the charging ladle or vessel used shall
be withdrawn from the confines of the
secondary hood in a slow deliberate
manner.
  (3) The owner or operator of each
copper converter to whiph this subpart
applies shall meet the following
inspection and maintenance
requirements after installing the
secondary hood system to comply with
paragraph (a)(l) of this section:
  (i) At least once every month, visually
inspect the components of the secondary
hood system that are exposed to
potential damage  from crane and ladle
operation, including the hood enclosure,
side and back wall hood seals and the
air curtain slot.
  (ii) Replace or repair any defective or
damaged components of the secondary
hood system within 30 days of
discovering the defective or damaged
components.
  (iii) Maintain each copper converter
and associated secondary hood system
in a manner consistent with minimizing
inorganic  arsenic emissions. A
determination of whether acceptable
maintenance procedures are being used
will be based on information supplied to
the Administrator, which may include
but is not  limited to monitoring results,
review of maintenance procedures,
inspection of the source, and review of
records.
  (b) Except as provided under
paragraph (c) of this section, no owner
or operator subject to the provisions of
this subpart shall  cause to be discharged
into the atmosphere from any copper
converter any secondary emissions that
exit from a control device and contain
particulate matter in excess of 11.6
milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.
  (c) The  emission limits set forth in
paragraph (b) of this section apply at all
times except during periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction.

§61.183  Compllanc* provisions.
  (a) The  owner or operator of each
copper converter shall meet the
requirements of §  61.182(a)(l) as follows:
  (1) The  owner or operator of each
existing cooper converter shall install
control equipment to meet the
requirements of §  61.182(a)(l) no later
•than 90 days after the effective date,
unless a waiver of compliance has been
approved by the Administrator in
accordance with § 61.11.
  (2) The  owner or operator of each new
copper converter shall install control
equipment to meet the requirements of
                                                    V-N,0,P-68
-------
               Federal Register  /  Vol. 48, No. 140 / Wednesday.  July  20. 1983 / Proposed Rules
§ 61.182(a)(l) prior to the initial startup
of the converter, except that if startup
occurs prior to the effective date, the
owner or operator shall meet the
requirements of § 61.182(a)(l) on the
effective date.
  (b) Unless a waiver of emission
testing is obtained under § 61.13, the
owner or operator of each copper
converter shall test emissions as
specified in § 61.185 to demonstrate
compliance with § 61.182(b) as follows:
  (1) After achieving optimum operating
conditions for the equipment required in
§ 61.182(a)(2) but no later than 90 days
after the effective date in the case of an
existing converter or a new converter
that has an initial startup date preceding
the effective date, or
  (2) After achieving optimum operating
conditions for the equipment in
§ 61.182(a)(2) but not later than 90 days
after startup in the case of a new
converter initial startup of which occurs
after the effective date, or
  (3) At such other times as may be
required by the Administrator under
Section 114 of the Act.
  (c) Each owner or operator subject to
paragraph (b) of this section shall
provide the Administrator 30 days prior
notice of the emissions test to afford the
Administrator the opportunity to have
an observer present.
  (d) Each emission test shall be
conducted while the source is operating
under such conditions as the
Administrator may specify to the owner
or operator based on representative
performance of the source.
  (e) Each owner or operator subject to
paragraph (b) of this section  shall
furnish the Administrator a written
report of the results of the emissions test
within 60 days of conducting the test.

§ 61.184  Equivalent equipment and
procedures.
  (a) Upon written application from any
person, the Administrator may approve
the use of equipment or procedures that
have been demonstrated to his
satisfaction to be equivalent in terms of
capturing inorganic arsenic emissions, to
those prescribed under § 61.182(a). For
an existing source, requests for using
equivalent equipment or procedures as
the initial means of capture are to be
submitted to the Administrator within 30
days of the effective date of the
standard. For a new source, requests for
using equivalent equipment or procedure
ore is to be submitted to the
Administrator with  the application  for
approval of construction required by
§ 61.07.
  (b) Demonstration of equivalency
shall be made using a method approved
by the Administrator.
  (c) The Administrator may condition
approval of equivalency on
requirements that may be necessary to
ensure operation and maintenance to
achieve the same emission capture as
the equipment prescribed under
§ 61.182(a).
  (d) If in the Administrator's judgment
an application for equivalency may be
approvable, the Adminstrator will
publish a notice of preliminary
determination in the Federal Register
and provide the opportunity for public
hearing. After notice and opportunity for
public hearing, the Administrator will
determine the equivalence of the
alternative means of emissions capture
and will publish the final determination
in the Federal Register.

{ 61.185  Test methods and procedures.
  (a) Emission tests shall be conducted
and data reduced in accordance with
the tests methods and procedures
contained in this section unless the
Administrator—
  (1) Specifies or approves,  in specific
cases, the use of a reference method
with minor changes in methodology;
  (2) Approves the use of an equivalent
method;
  (3) Approves the use of an alternative
method the results of which he  has
determined to be adequate for indicating
whether a specific source is in
compliance; or
  (4) Waives the requirement for
emission tests as provided under § 61.13.
  (b) For the purpose of determining
compliance with § 61.182(b) reference
methods in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A
shall be used as follows;
  (1) Method 5 for the measurement of
particulate matter,
  (2) Method 1 for sample and velocity
traverses,
  (3) Method 2 for velocity and
volumetric flow rate,
  (4) Method 3 for gas analysis, and
  (5) Method 4 for stack gas moisture.
  (c) For Method 5. the sampling  time
for each run shall be at least 60 minutes,
and the minimum sampling volume shall
be 0.85 dscm (30 dscf) except that
smaller times or volumes when
necessitated by process variables or
other factors may be  approved by the
Administrator.
  (d) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall
collect daily grab samples of the  total
smelter charge and analyze a composite
sample representative of each calendar
month for inorganic arsenic. The
procedures used to collect the samples
of the total smelter charge shall be
approved by the Administrator. Samples
shall be analyzed for inorganic arsenic
using Method 108A.
  (e) An annual weight percent of
arsenic in the total smelter charge shall
be determined for each smelter once per
month by computing the arithmetic
average of the 12 arsenic weight percent
values for the preceding 12-month
period.

§61.186   Monitoring requirements.
  (a) An owner or operator of a source
that is subject to the emission limit
specified in § 61.182(b) shall install,
calibrate, maintain, and operate a
continuous monitoring system for the
measurement of the opacity of emissions
discharged from the source according to
the following procedures:
  (1) All continuous monitoring systems
and monitoring devices shall be
installed and operational prior  to
conducting an emissions test as required
in § 61.185(a). Verification of operational
status shall,  as a minimum, consist of an
evaluation of the monitoring system in
accordance with the requirements and
procedures contained in Performance
Specification 1 of Appendix B of 40 CFR
Part 60. The  owner or operator  shall
furnish the Administrator a written
report of the results of the continuous
monitoring system evaluation within 60
days of conducting such evaluation.
  (2) The requrements of § 60.13 (d) and
(f) shall apply to an owner or operator
subject to the emission limit of § 61.182.
  (3) Except for system breakdowns,
repairs, calibration checks, and zero and
span adjustments required under § 60.13
(d) and (d)(3), all continuous monitoring
systems shall be in continuous
operations and shall meet minimum
frequency of operation requirements by
completing a minimum of one cycle of
sampling and analyzing for each
successive 10-second period and one
cycle of data recording for each
successive 6-minute period.
  (4) An  owner or operator shall
calculate 6-minute opacity averages
from 24 or more data points equally
spaced over each 6-minute period. Data
recorded during periods of monitoring
system breakdowns, repairs, calibration
checks, and  zero and span adjustments
shall not be  included in the data
averages computed under this
paragraph.
  (5) During the emission test required
in § 61.183(b) each owner or operator
subject to this paragraph shall:
  (i) Conduct continuous opacity
monitoring during each test run.
  (ii) Calculate 6-minute opacity
averages from 24 or more data  points
equally spaced over eachtf-minute
period during the test runs.
  (iii) Determine, based on the 6-minute
opacity averages, the opacity value
                                                 V-N,0,P-69
-------
               Federal Register  /  Vol. 46.  No. 140 / Wednesday,  July  20.  1983 / Proposed  Rules
corresponding to the 97.5 percent upper
confidence level of a normal or
lognormal (whichever the owner or
operator determines is more
representative) distribution of the
average opacity values.
  (iv) An owner or operator may
redetermine the opacity value
corresponding to the 97.5 percent upper
confidence level if the owner or operator
conducts continuous opacity monitoring
during each test run of an emission test
that demonstrates compliance with the
emission limits in § 61.182(b). and
recalculates the 6-minute averages
described in this paragraph.
  (b) An owner or operator of a source
that is required to install the equipment
prescribed under $ B1.182(a) shall
install, calibrate, maintain, and operate
a continuous monitoring device for the
measurement of the air flow rate
through  the horizontal-slotted plenum
and through the exhaust hood.

§ 61.187   Recordkeeping requirements.
  (a) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall
maintain at the source for a period of at
least 2 years a monthly record of the
total smelter charge and the weight
percent  of arsenic contained in this
charge,  and the monthly calculations of
the annual weight percent of arsenic in
the total smelter charge for the
preceding 12-month period.
  (b) Each owner or operator required to
install the equipment prescribed in
§ 61.182(a) shall maintain at the  source
for a period of at least 2 years records of
the visual inspections and maintenance
performed as required in § 81.182(a)(3).
  (c) Any owner or operator of a source
subject  to the provisions of $ 61.182(b)
shall maintain a file of the following
records: all measurements, including
monitoring and testing'data; all
calculations used to produce the
required reports of emission estimates;
monitoring system performance
evaluations, including calibration
checks and adjustments; the occurrence
and duration of any startup, shutdown,
or malfunction in the operation of the
stationary source; any malfunction of
the air pollution control system; any
periods during which the continuous
monitoring system or device is
inoperative; and all maintenance and
repairs made to the air pollution control
or monitoring system.
  (d) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions § 61.186 fb) shall
maintain at the source for a period of at
least 2 years records of the reference
flow rates for the horizontal-slotted
plenum and exhaust hoods for each
converter operating mode established
during optimum operating conditions as
determined by the Administrator under
1 61.182(a)(2), and the average actual
flow rates.  In addition, a daily log shall
be maintained of the start time and
duration of each converter operating
mode.
(Section 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended
(42 U.S.C. 7414))

§ 61.188  Reporting requirement*.
  (a) For purposes of the information
required in the initial report prescribed
in § 61.10(a)(5), each owner or operator
shall provide the average weight percent
of arsenic in the total smelter charge
over the last 12 months preceding the
date of the report.
  (b) Each  owner or operator required to
install a continuous opacity monitoring
system under § 61.186 shall submit a
written report to the Administrator
semiannually if excess opacity occurred
during the 6-month period. For purposes
of this paragraph, an occurrence of
excess opacity is any 6-minute period
during which the average opacity, as
measured by the continuous monitoring
system, exceeds the opacity level
determined under $ 61.186(a)(5).
  (c) Each  owner or operator  subject to
5 61.186(b) shall submit a written report
to the Administrator semiannually if the
air flow rates monitored are less than 20
percent of the reference flow rates, for
any converter operating mode.
Reference flow rate values for each
converter mode shall be determined
when the equipment prescribed under
§ 61.182{a) is operating under optimum
operating conditions, as determined by
the Administrator under § 61.182(a)(2).
  (d) All semiannual reports shall be
postmarked by the 30th day following
the end of each 6-month period and shall
include the following information:
  (1) The magnitude of excess opacity.
any conversion factor(s) used, and the
date and time of commencement and
completion of each occurrence of excess
opacity.
  (2) The magnitude of reduced flow
rates and the date and time of
commencement and completion of each
occurrence of reduced flow rate.
  (3) Specific identification of each
period of excess opacity or reduced flow
rate that occurs during startups,
shutdowns, and malfunctions of the
source.
  (4) The date and time identifying each
period during which the continuous
monitoring system or monitoring device
was inoperative, except for zero and
span checks, and the nature of the
system repairs or adjustments.
  (e) The owner or operator of any
primary copper smelter shall submit a
written annual report to the
Administrator, which includes the
monthly computations of the average
annual weight percent of inorganic
arsenic in the smelter charge for each
preceding 12-month period as calculated
in § 61.185(d).
  (f) The annual report required in
§ 61.178(c) shall be postmarked by the
30th day following the end of each
calendar year.
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42
U.S.C. 7414))
|KR Doc 83-19381 Filed 7-14-83. 313 pro]
BILLING CODE 656O-5O-M
                                                    V-N,0,P-70
-------
                 Federal Register  /  Vol.  48, No. 163 / Monday, August 22, 1983 / Proposed Rules
40 CFR Part 61

[AH-FRL-2418-5]

National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Proposed
Standards for Inorganic Arsenic
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Amended notice of public
hearing and extension of public
comment period.	

SUMMARY: The public hearings to be
held in Washington, D.C. and Tacoma,
Washington'for the purpose of receiving
comments on the listing of inorganic
arsenic as a hazardous pollutant and on
the content of the proposed national
emission standards for inorganic arsenic
have been rescheduled. The end of the
comment period has also been extended.
DATES: Two public hearings will be held.
One hearing will be held in Tacoma.
Washington, on November 2,1983. This
hearing will begin at 9:00 a.m. and may
be continued on November 3,1983, if
necessary to provide all persons wishing
to speak an opportunity to do so.
Another hearing will be held in
Washington, D.C., on November 8, 9,
and 10,1983, beginning at 9:00 a.m. each
day. Comments must be received on or
before December 10,1983.
  Persons wishing to present oral
testimony at the Tacoma hearing must
notify Ms. Laurie Krai by October 25,
1983, at telephone number (208) 442-1089
or mailing address: Air Programs
Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region X, 1200 6th Avenue,
Seattle, Washington 98101.
  Persons wishing to present oral
testimony at the Washington, D.C.
hearing must notify Mrs. Naomi Durkee
by October 31,1983, at telephone
number (919) 541-5578 or mailing
address: Standards Development
Branch, MD-13, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park,N.C. 27711.
ADDRESSES: Hearings. The public
hearing to be held in Tacoma,
Washington will be held at the Tacoma
Bicentennial Pavilion, Rotunda Room
1313 Market Street, Tacoma,
Washington.
  The public hearing to be held in
Washington, D.C., will be held at  the
Department of Agriculture, Thomas
Jefferson Auditorium, South Building,
14th and Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, D.C.
  Comments. Comments should be
submitted (in duplicate is possible) to:
Central Docket Section (LE-131), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 410 M
Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20460.
Specify the following Docket Numbers:

A-80-40  High-arsenic and low-arsenic
  copper smelters
A-83-8  Glass manufacturing plants
A-83-9  Secondary lead
A-83-10  Cotton gins
A-83-11  Zinc oxide plants
A-83-23  Primary zinc, primary lead, arsenic
  chemical manufacturing

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Naomi Durkee (919) 541-5578.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public
Hearing. The hearing in Tacoma,
Washington will be for the purpose of
receiving comments on the proposed
standards for high-arsenic copper
smelters. The hearing in Washington,
D.C. will consist of two separate
sessions. The first session will be for the
purpose of receiving comments on the
listing of arsenic as a hazardous
pollutant. The second session will be for
the purpose of receiving comments on
 the content of the proposed regulations.
The order of items on the agenda of the
 second session will be: (1) high-arsenic
 copper smelters, (2) low-arsenic copper
•melters, (3) glass manufacturing plants,
and (4) others. Persons planning to
attend this hearing may call Mrs. Naomi
Durkee (919) 541-5578 after November 1,
1983, to obtain an estimated time and
date at which each subject will be
addressed.
  Background On June 5,1980, EPA
listed inorganic arsenic as a hazardous
air pollutant under Section 112 of the
Clean Air Act. On July 20,1983, EPA
proposed standards in the Federal
Register (48 FR 33112) for the following
categories of sources of emissions of
inorganic arsenic: high-arsenic primary
copper smelters,  low-arsenic primary
copper smelters,  and glass
manufacturing plants. EPA identified
other categories of sources emitting
inorganic arsenic; but, after careful
study, determined that the proposal of
standards for these categories of sources
was not warranted. These categories of
sources are primary lead smelters,
secondary lead smelters, primary zinc
smelters, zinc oxide plants, cotton gins,
and arsenic chemical manufacturing
plants.
   In the July 20,1983, Federal Register
notice, EPA announced the date ending
the public comment period on the listing
of inorganic arsenic as a hazardous
pollutant and on the proposed national
emission standards for inorganic
arsenic. EPA also announced two public
hearings: the first in Washington, D.C.,
to receive comments on the listing of
inorganic arsenic as a hazardous
pollutant and on the proposed
standards;  the second in Tacoma,
Washington, to receive comments
specifically on the proposed standards
for inorganic arsenic emissions from
high-arsenic copper smelters.

   EPA has received several requests to
postpone the public hearings to allow
additional  time for commenters to
prepare their oral testimony. This notice
amends the dates of the public hearings
in response to those requests. In
addition, this notice extends the end of
the public comment period to provide an
opportunity for submission of rebuttal
and supplementary information to
testimony presented at the hearings as
required by Section 307(d)(5) of the
Clean Air Act.

   Dated: August 11,1983.
 Charles L. Elkins,
Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise, and
 Radiation.
                                                     V-N.O.P-71
-------
             Federal Register  /  Vol. 48.  No. 177  / Monday. September 12, 1083 / Proposed Rules
                                        ,9. On page 33174, first column, in
                                       | 61.172(d), fourth line, "40 dg/h" should
                                       read "40 kg/h".
                                         10. On page 33174. third column, in
                                       8 61.175(d)(3), the formula reading:
                                                            100 lie
                                       should read:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40CFRPart61
IAH-FRU 2378-2]
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Proposed
Standards for Inorganic Arsenic
Correction
  In FR Doc. 83-19361, beginning on
page 33112 of the issue of Wednesday,
July 20,1983, make the following
corrections:
  1. On page 33155, second column,
second indented paragraph, line six, the
parenthetical expression "(90 tons-yr}"
should read "(90 tons/yr)".
  2. On page 33161, first column, third
line, the word "the" should read "that".
  3. On page 33161, second column,
third line from the bottom the word
"has" should follow "EPA".
  4. On page 33166, in § 61.166(a), the
last word  in the third line from the end
of the paragraph reading "of should
read "if.
  5. On page 33168, in Method 108 of
Appendix B to Part 61, the first column,
the equal signs in paragraphs 2.3.4
through 2.3.7 should be replaced with
hyphens.
  6. On page 33171, in the third column,
make the following corrections:
  a. In paragraph 5.1, seventh line, the
citation "ug" should read "W?"-
  b. In the following undesignated
paragraph, third line, the word "draft"
should read "drift".
  c. In paragraph 6.1, the fifth line, "ug"
should read '>g".
  d. In the last line of the page, "g."
should be inserted after "sampling,".
  7. On page 33172, first column, the
fourth and eighth lines, "ug" should read
>8".
  8. In the same column, paragraph 6.4,
the first letter in the formula now
reading "M" should read "m".
                                                 100 Hc
                                         11. On page 33175, first column, in
                                       § 61.175(e)(3), the formula reading:
                                            A.W.
                                       »,.
                                              A.W.
  12. On page 33178, Method 108A to
Appendix B of part 61, third column,
paragraph 2.2.1, last line, "as" should
read "As".
  13. On page 33177, make the following
corrections:
  a. In the first column, paragraph 4.2,
eighth line, "115°C" should read "105°C".
  b. In the second column, paragraph
5.1, in the third line following "Where:",
"Fs" should read "Fd". In the sixth line
following "Where:", "100/lOs*" should
read "100/103".
  c. In the third column, in the fifth line
of the text of § 61.180, "9.7" should read
"0.7".
•LUND CODE UM-41-II
                                                  V-N,0,P-72
-------
               Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.  243/ Friday. December 16. 1983 / Proposed  Rules
40 CFR Part 61
[AH-FRL 2489-8]

National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Proposed
Standards for Inorganic Arsenic
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Reopening of public comment
period.

SUMMARY: The period for receiving
written comments on the proposed
national emission standards for
inorganic arsenic is being reopened.
EPA is extending the public comment
period in response to several requests to
do so.
DATE: Comments must be postmarked
on or before January 31,1984.
ADDRESS: Comments should be
submitted (in duplicate if possible) to:
Central Docket Section (LE-131), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 410 M
Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20460.
Specify the following Docket Numbers:
A-B3-40  High-Arsenic and Low-Arsenic
  Copper Smelters
A-83-8 Glass Manufacturing Plants
A-83-8 Secondary Lead
A-83-10  Cotton Gins
A-83-11  Zinc Oxide
A-83-23  Primary Zinc, Primary Lead,
  Arsenic Chemical Manufacturing
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Robert L Ajax, Chief, Standards
Development Branch, Emission
Standards and Engineering Division
(MD-13), Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
27711, telephone (919) 541-5573.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June
5,1980, EPA listed inorganic arsenic as a
hazardous air pollutant under Section
112 of the Clean Air Act. On July 20,
1963, EPA proposed standards in the
Federal Register (48 FR 33112) for the
following categories of inorganic
arsenic: high-arsenic primary copper
smelters, low-arsenic primary copper
smelters, and glass manufacturing
plants. EPA identified other categories
of sources emitting inorganic arsenic;
but, after careful study, determined that
the proposal of standards for these
categories of sources was not
warranted. These categories of sources
are primary lead smelters, secondary
lead smelters, primary zinc smelters,
zinc oxide plants, cotton gins, and
arsenic chemical manufacturing plants.
  The public comment period for the
proposed standards was scheduled to
end on September 30,1983. In an August
22,1983, Federal Register notice, EPA
extended the end of the comment period
to December 10,1983. EPA has now
received several requests to allow
additional time for written comments on
the proposed standards to be submitted
beyond the December 10 deadline. The
United Steelworkers of America
(USWA) has advised EPA that in
cooperation with several environmental
organizations, they are devising a
control strategy that they plan to
recommend for inclusion in the
standards for high-arsenic primary
copper smelters. The only existing
smelter in the high-arsenic category is
the ASARCO smelter in Tacoma,
Washington. The USWA has asked that
EPA make available the Agency's
revised modeling results for the Tacoma
smelter that are now being finalized, as
discussed below, and allow additional
time afterwards for the public to review
the results and submit  comments. The
Natural Resources  Defense Council
subsequently joined the USWA in this
request.
  The results of the modeling will be
made available about the first of
January 1934. Additional documentation
for the modeling will also be placed in
the public docket at that time. To allow
the public additional time to prepare
comments on these results and other
aspects of the proposed standards,  EPA
is reopening the public comment period
until January 31,1984.
  A principal element upon which the
proposed standards for the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter was based is the results
of an ambient dispersion mode! and the
associated estimates of exposure to
arsenic in the Tacoma area. However,
as discussed in the Federal Register
notice of proposal, there were
fundamental uncertainties in the
dispersion modeling and in the inputs to
the model, such as emission  rates for the
various arsenic emission sources at the
smelter. Therefore, as described in  the
preample to the proposed rules, EPA is
continuing to refine its estimates of
arsenic emissions from  the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter, performing improved
dispersion modeling, and evaluating
additional controls that could
potentially reduce arsenic emission?
below the level achievable with BAT as
proposed. The progress on each of  these
steps is discussed below.
Refinement in Emission Estimates Since
Proposal
  Since proposal of the standards,  EPA
has refined its estimate of both low-
level fugitive emissions and  process
emissions vented  through the 565-foot
tall main stack. EPA has revised its
estimates of fugitive emissions frora the
No. 4 converter at ASARCO-Tacoina
based on emission test  results. The
estimates of fugitive emissions from the
No. 1 and No. 2 converters have been
revised based on visual observations by
EPA personnel.
  New information about other sources
of fugitive emissions at the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter has been obtained by
EPA and contractor personnel during
extensive inspections of the smelter this
past summer. Potential sources of
fugitive arsenic emissions not identified
by EPA at proposal have been evaluated
and emission estimates have been
made. Emission estimates made
previously have been reviewed. It
should be stressed, however, that
fugitive emissions from these other
sources at the smelter are not dii ectly
measurable; EPA's estimates are based
on visual observation and engineering
judgment and are, therefore, stil! subject
to significant imprecision.
  To refine the estimate of arsenic
emissions from process emissions
                                                 V-N,0,P-73
-------
               Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. Z43/ Friday. December 16. 1983  /  Proposed Rules
vented through the main stack, EPA
conducted emission source testing in
September 1983. The operation of the
smelter was closely monitored to assure
that testing was conducted while the
smelter was operating normally. The
test results were carefully evaluated and
are considered to be valid.
  Refined arsenic emission estimates for
fugitive and main stack sources were
announced in a press release on
October 20,1983, by EPA's Region X
office and are available in the public
docket.
  Improved Dispersion Modeling. As
indicated in the Federal Register notice
of proposal, the dispersion model
analysis used by EPA before proposal to
predict air quality in the vicinity of the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter was limited
in its ability to simulate the actual
operation of the smelter, the terrain
around the smelter, meteorological
conditions, and other factors. That these
limitations could lead to significant error
was confirmed by comparing ambient
arsenic concentrations predicted by the
model to values actually measured at
monitoring sites around the smelter.
This comparison showed that the model
predicted concentrations about an order
of magnitude greater then those actually
measured.
   Following proposal, EPA undertook
work to improve the dispersion
modeling results for the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter. A sophisticated model
was selected and tailored specifically to
simulate the operation of the smelter.
including the frequent production
curtailments that occur to avoid
exceedances of the ambient air quality
 standards for sulfur dioxide. In addition,
the best available information on
 emissions, meteorology, and other
 factors crucial to performing dispersion
modeling were obtained and input to the
 model. The modeling results will be
 finalized within a few weeks, and will
 be available about the first of January
 1984. These results and additional
 documentation on the new modeling will
 be placed in the dockets available for
 public inspection at EPA's Region X
 office in Seattle and at EPA
 headquarters in Washington, D.C.
   After completing development of the
 model, EPA plans to use the model as a
 tool to help evaluate the effects of
 various  control scenarios for arsenic
 emissions on ambient concentrations
 and exposure levels around the smelter.
 The Administrator will consider the
 results of this evaluation in making his
 final decision on the standards for the
 ASARCO-Tacoma smelter.
   Evaluation of Additional Controls for
 Arsenic. As described in the Federal
 Register notice of proposal, EPA
planned further investigation to identify
controls that could potentially reduce
fugitive arsenic emissions at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter. This has
been done. During extensive inspections
of the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter, EPA
and contractor personnel observed on a
daily basis the process operations, the
control equipment performance, and the
worker operating and housekeeping
practices. Based on these observations
EPA has identified control measures
that could be instituted, in addition to
installing air curtain secondary hoods
on the converters, that could reduce
fugitive arsenic emissions from the
smelter. Based on this and on comments
received at the public hearings  and in
writing, EPA has developed a list of
specific control measures to be
considered in the development  of the
final standards.
  The additional control measures
currently being considered are
presented below:

Equipment
  A. Reverberatory Smelting Furnaces.
1. Install leak-tight covers on pig iron
charging ports.
  2. Install leak-tight cover on bath level
measurement port.
  3. Upgrade hood design and operation
to achieve at least 90 percent capture
efficiency for hoods over calcine
charging ports.
  4. Upgrade hood design and operation
to achieve at least 90 percent capture
efficiency for hoods over slag tapping
ports and launders.
  B. Arsenic Plant. 1. Install dust-tight
conveyor system for transfer of raw dust
from the bunkers to the  Godfrey roaster
charge hoppers.
   2. Install solid refractory arch on each
 Godfrey roaster.
   3. Install water-cooled screw
 conveyor system for transfer of hot
 calcine from roaster deck on each
 Godfrey roaster.
   4. Install pneumatic conveyor system
 for transfer of calcine from Godfrey
 roaster water-cooled screw conveyors to
 Herrschoff roasters or to railcar loading
 station.
   5. Install enclosure around the kitchen
 pulling areas. Ventilate space  within the
 enclosure to a control device.
   C. Chemical Plants. 1. Install
 pneumatic conveyor system for transfer
 of white dust from chemical plant
 electrostatic precipitators to enclosed
 storage bin located at arsenic  plant.

 Work Practices
   The company will prepare and submit
 for approval by EPA or the delegated
 authority agency a detailed plan
 describing the inspection, maintenance,
and housekeeping work practices the
company will implement to achieve all
of the following objectives:
  1. No accumulation of material having
an arsenic content greater than 2
percent of any surface within the plant
boundaries outside of a dust-tight
enclosure.
  2. Immediate clean-up of any spilled
material having an arsenic content
greater than 2 percent.
  3, Regular scheduled maintenance of
all smelter process, conveying, and
emission control equipment to minimize
equipment malfunctions.
  4. Regular inspection of all smelter
process, conveying, and emission
control equipment to ensure the
equipment is operating properly. The
inspection procedure shall be performed
at least once per shift in each smelter
department. For  each smelter
department, a prescribed inspection
route shall be followed by the inspector
so that the inspector observes each
piece of equipment. The inspector shall
document the operating status of each
piece of equipment.
   If the inspector finds malfunctions or
damaged equipment, the inspector will
immediately report the situation to
smelter supervisory personnel.
   5. Repair of malfunctioning or
damaged equipment identified to
 smelter supervisory personnel will begin
as soon as personnel can be made
 available. If personnel qualified to
 perform  the work necessary to complete
 the repair are not available at the
 smelter when needed, the personnel will
 be called to work. If the malfunctioning
 or damaged equipment affects process
 operations involving material having an
 arsenic content  greater than 2 percent,
 the affected operations will be shut
 down until the equipment is repaired.

 Ambient Monitoring Requiremenl

   During the public hearings for the
 proposed standards, the State of
 Washington and others recommended
 that EPA consider an ambient
 monitoring requirement to ensure the
 proper implementation of arsenic
 emission control measures at the
 Tacoma smelter. EPA is investigating an
 ambient monitoring requirement as a
 means of assessing control technology
 performance.

 Reopening of the Public Comment
 Period
   As discussed earlier, the results of the
 modeling related to the ASARCO-
 Tacoma smelter are now being finalized
 and will be made available about the
 first of January 1984. Additional
 documentation for this modeling will
                                                    V-N,0,P-74
-------
                 Federal Register / Vol. 49, No.  55 / Tuesday, March 20.  1984 / Proposed Rules
also be placed in the public docket at
that time. In order to allow time for the
public to review these results and
prepare comments on them and other
aspects  of this rulemaking, EPA is
reopening the public comment period
until January 31,1984.

  Dated: December 9.1933
Joseph A. Cannon,
Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation.
[HiOo!. 83-33348 Tiled 12-1&-&* 64f. nm(
MLUNO COOe »5«0-50-«l
40CFRPart61

IAH-FRL 2546-4]

National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants Proposed
Standards for Inorganic Arsenic

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of reopening of public
comment period and request for
comments.

SUMMARY: The public comment period
for the proposed national emission
standards for inorganic arsenic for glass
manufacturing plants is being reopened
This reopening is for two limited
purposes. The first purpose is to receive
comments concerning the emission of
inorganic arsenic from glass
manbfacturing plants which produce
soda-lime glass. Data received since th»
proposal of these standards indicate
that a substantially higher portion of
inorganic arsenic emissions from
furnaces producing soda-lime glass may
be in vapor phase than from furnaces
producing other types of glass. EPA is
requesting comments on Ihree regulatory
options that are being considered for
soda-lime furnaces. The second purpose
for reopening the comment period is to
receive comments on a possible revision
of the zero prodction rate offsets. The
deadline for comments on all other
aspects of the proposed standards was
January 31.1964.
DATE: Comments must be received on or
before April 19, 1984.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be
submitted (in duplicate if possible) to
Central Docket Section (LE-131), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street SW, Washington. D.C. 20460.
Specify Docket Number A-83-B.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. R. E. Myers or Mr. J. U. Crowder.
Industrial Studies Branch. Emission
Standards and Engineering Division
(MD-13), Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
27711, telephone (919)541-5601.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June
5. 1980. inorganic arsenic was listed by
EPA as a hazardous air pollutant under
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (44 rK
37788(3). Standards for the contrc;! of
emissions of inorganic arsenic from
glass manufacturing plants were
proposed in the Federal Register on July
20,1S83 (48 FR 33112).
  The preamble to the proposed
standards identifies add-on parliaiLiU-
matter control devices, such as
electrostatic precipitators (FSt'j or fdbr:<.
filters, as the best available techm>li,sj)
(BAT) for the control of moronic.
arsenic emissions from glass
manufacturing plants that ern.t gn ,itcr
than 0.40 Mg (0.44 ton) of arser.ir per
year. In investigating the factors
affecting the performance of part"-ii!dt(
matter control devices, EPA evaluated
the effect of gas stream temperature im
the formation of vapor-pheisu arsenic
Arsenic in vapor form would not he
collected by a control device such as 
-------
                Federal Register / Vol. 49. No.  55 / Tuesday.  March 20. 1984  /  Proposed Rules
  As noted in the preamble to the
proposed regulation, EPA has continued
its testing program for arsenic emissions
from glass manufacturing furnaces. This
testing effort has been directed at an
investigation of the effects of flue gas
temperature and of the use of arsenic
acid versus arsenic trioxide on control
efficiency. For the purposes of this
investigation, emission tests were
concijcted on two glass furnaces. One
test was conducted on a lead glass
furn.-jrp equipped with an ESP. Arsenic
emissions were measured by the
proposed EPA Reference Method 108  at
the inlet and the outlet  of the ESP with
arsenic trioxirle being added to the
bdti.h. In order to determine  the
temperature effects, single point
monitoring (sampling without
traversing) was also conducted with the
gas temperature maintained  at 121'C
and 288"C (250'F and 550'F) at the filter
of the sampling train. Four weeks later,
another set of Method 108 tests was
conducted on the same furnace with
liquid arsenic acid being added to the
batch. Single point monitoring was  also
conducted at 121'C and 288°C (250'F
and 550°FJ. The test results showed no
difference in arsenic emissions from the
use of arsenic trioxide versus arsenic
acid. The arsenic control efficiency of
the ESP was in both cases found to be
greater than 97 percent at a flue gas
temperature of about 196°C (385"F). The
single point  tests showed no significant
impact of temperature on the solid
fraction of arsenic captured by the
sampling train. Solid-phase arsenic was
greater than 99 percent at both 121'C
and 288°C (250'F and 550T). Therefore.
EPA has concluded that the use of
arsenic acid would not increase arsenic
emissions reduction by partiruiale
control devices.
  A seccn i  lest was performed on  a
furnace !".>t manufactures glass from  a
sodd-iimt recipe,  and which operates
within a particulate cor.trol device. EPA
Method 108, as well as single point  tosts
at 121°C, 204°C, and 288°C (250°F, 400T.
and 550°F), were conducted. Individual
runs on Method 108 showed  that
between 68 and 84 percent of the arsenic
was in the solid phase. The single point
test data showed that for that particular
furnace the vapor-phase arsenic content
of the vent stream increased with an
increase in gas stream temperature
above 121'C (250'F). Although the test
data show a lack of consistency in  the
percent of solid-phase arsenic present in
the gas stream at 121'C (250'F) and
204°C (400'F), a general trend toward
decreasing solid-phase arsenic with
increasing temperature is apparent.
These data indicate that there is a
relationship between gas stream
temperature and the percentage of solid-
phase arsenic for soda-lime glass
furnaces. This relationship is depicted in
Figure 1.
  Figure 1. Solid/Vapor Arsenic Phase
    Relationships With Temperature
        Filtered Gas Temperature'F

  This finding has significant
implications for strategies intended to
control inorganic arsenic emissions from
soda-lime glass furnaces. Since the
amount of arsenic being emitted in the
vapor phase cannot be controlled with
particulate matter control devices, the
achievable arsenic emission reduction
will be limited by the percent of the
arsenic that is in the solid phase at the
operating temperature of the particulate
control device. An analysis of the test
data from the soda-lime glass furnace
indicates that at a flue gas temperature
of 288°C (550°F), only 20 to 30 percent of
the arsenic emitted would be in solid
phase This percentage of arsenic in the
solid phase would be increased to
approximately 50 percent if the gas
stream were cooled to 210°C(4000F) and
to approximately 76 percent if the gas
stream is cooled to 121°C (250°F). This
analysis is available for review in  the
docket, or-from Mr. R.E. Myers  at the
telephone number listed at the beginning
of this notice.
  Based on the above conclusions. EPA
is considering three regulatory options
for possible application to soda-lime
glass furnaces which would be subject
to any add-on control requirements that
may be included in the final standard.
The first option would place no
restrictions on the gas stream
temperature entering the particulate
matter control device at a soda-lime
glass furnace. Available imfonnation
indicates that flue gas temperatures fur
soda-lime glass furnace range from
about 232°C (450°F) to 510"C (950T)  Th>
resulting arsenic control achieved by an
effective particulate matter control
device would, therefore, be substantially
less than 50 percent, depending on the
temperature. This option would not
require any additional cost for cooling
the gas stream, and the cost of control
would remain comparable with that for
glass furnaces producing other types of
glass. The capital and ar.nuahzed costs
would be the costs associated with the
installation and operation of the
particulate  control device.
  The second option under
consideration would be to restrict the
gas stresm temperature for a soda-lime
glass furance to about  10°C to 20°C
(18°F to 36°F) above the acid dew point
of the gas stream. This level would
avoid acid condensation that can
adversely impact the effectiveness of
ESPs or fabric filters and  increase
system maintenance costs by causing
premature deterioration of fabric filter
bags or corrosion of piping, precipitator
plates, and other system components.
The temperature range'at which the
control device should  operate would
differ for each furnace, since the acid
dew point of individual gas streams
varies significantly with the batch
composition, the moisture in the flu?
gas, and the fuel used in the glass
furnace. Consequently, were this option
adopted, the temperature range required
by the standard would have to be
tailored individually for each facility.
  The second option would result in a
higher percentage of the arsenic in the
gas stream  being in the solid phase
Consequently, greater emission
reductions would be achieved through
the use of particulate matter control
devices than are achievable under the
first option. However, with this option. &
significant percentage of the inorganic
arsenic  in a gas stream will continue to
be in  the vapor-phase. This percentage
would vary with the temperature or the
flue gas from  the individual soda-lime
furnace. Because arsenic  in the vapor-
phase cannot be controlled with either a
fabric filter or an ESP, this vapor-pha?e
arsenic would be vented to the
atmosphere. In some cases, the
additional cost of cooling the gases (e.g..
with an evaporative cooler] may be
completely offset by the reduced cost of
the control device resulting from the
decrease in the flue gas volume.
   The third option would require that
the gas stream temperature entering a
particulate matter control device be
restricted to 121°C (250°F). This
represents  the lowest temperature at
                                                   V-N.O.P-76
-------
                Federal Register / Vol. 49. No.  55 / Tuesday. March  20.  1984 / Proposed  Rules
which data on the solid-phase fraction
of inorganic arsenic emissions from
seda-lime glass furnaces have been
collected, and for which the proportion
of solid-phase arsenic can be
determined without extrapolation. At
this temperature, however, it is expected
that most furnace operators will begin to
experience problems with acid
condensation in the gas stream, as
discussed above. Consequently, it will
probably be necessary to install a dry
scrubber upstream of the  particulate
control device in order to remove the
acidic components of the  gas stream.
  The capital and annualized costs for a
dry scrubbing system are shown in
Table 1. The capital costs for these
systems for soda-lime glass furnaces are
projected to be about $500,000 to
$725,000 depending upon the furnace
size. The annualized costs range from
about $101,000 to $157,000. The dry
scrubbing system would increase the
capital cost of the control system for
various size furnaces by 30 to 70 percent
over the cost of an ESP alone. The
annualized costs are increased by about
30 to 45 percent.
          TABLE 1.—CAPITAL AND ANNUALIZEO COSTS OF DRV SCRUBBER SVSTEMS
Furnace See. Mg'Day (Tons'Day 	 ....
Capita' cost, dollars 	 _ 	
Capital recovery, dona's 	 	 	
Annual O&M costs dolia-s
Total annualized cost, dollars per year 	
23(25)
soe.ooo
82700
16 400
101.100
45(50)
530000
BS30C
20 000
106 5OO
9111001
611 000
99.40.'
26 bOO
126000
181(2001
726,000
116 500
38 400
156,900
  As stated previously, EPA is
considering each of these regulatory
options as a potential response to the
effect of high gas stream temperatures
on the control of inorganic arsenic
emissions from soda-lime glass
furnaces. EPA is requesting comments or
information from any interested parties
on these or other regulatory approaches
to controlling arsenic from soda-lime
glass furnaces. These comments will be
considered by the Agency as a part of the
ru'emaking proceedings for inorganic
arsenic emissions from glass furnaces.
  In addition to reviewing reg'ilatory
options for soda-lime glass
manufacturing, EPA is also reevaluating
the application of zero production
offsets. These offset values were
determined during the development of
the new source performance standards
for glass manufacturing plants (40 CFR
Part 60). The emission limits for glass
furnaces are expressed in terms of
grams of particulate emissions per
kilogram of glass produced. The
emission levels in this fonnat, which are
achievable by best demonstrated
technology, vary according to  the
production level of the glass
manufacturing furnace. The purpose of
the zero production offsets is to express
the emission limits for each type of glass
in a mathematical form that represents
the emissions achievable at any level of
production. The offsets included in the
existing NSPS were not intended to
apply to glass furnaces as  small as some
of the existing  glass furnaces that may
be subject to the NESHAP. The existing
zero production offsets applied to such
small furnaces may result in emission
limits that are higher than  would be
appropriate for best demonstrated
technology. The zero production offset
values are being reviewed and new
values may be recalculated for inclusion
in the promulgated standards. EPA
invites comments on the zero production
offset values
  Dated: March 9. 1984
John C. Topping, Jr.,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and
|FB Dot ft*-'236 Filed 3-1SMW 845 am)

BILLING CODE 6560-SO-M
                                                       V-N.O.P-77
-------
Federal Regbter / Vol. 49. No. 1B4 / Thursday, September  20. 1984  / Proposed Rules
                         ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
                         AGENCY

                         40 CFR Part 61
                         [AD-FRL-2673-4]

                         National Emission Standards for
                         Hazardous Air Pollutants Proposed
                         Standards for Inorganic Arsenic
                         AGENCY: Environmental Protection
                         Agency (EPA).
                         ACTION: Proposed rule; Reopening of
                         Public Comment Period on new
                         information.

                         SUMMARY: The period for receiving
                         written comments on the proposed
                         national emission standards for
                         inorganic arsenic emissions from low-
                         arsenic throughput primary copper
                         smelters is being reopened. EPA is
                         extending the public comment period for
                         the limited purpose of allowing comment
                         on EPA's analyses of new information
                         concerning arsenic emissions and
                         control costs for low-arsenic throughput
                         primary copper smelters.
                         DATE: Comments must be postmarked
                         on or before November 5,1984.
                         ADDRESS: Comments should be
                         submitted (in duplicate if possible) to:

                                    V-N,0,P-78
 Central Docket Section (LE-131), U.S.
 Environmental Protection Agency, 410 M
 Street. SW., Washington, D.C. 20460.
 Specify the following Docket Number:
 A-60-40 High-Arsenic and Low-Arsenic
 Copper Smelters.
 POM FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
 Ms. Linda Chaput, Standards
 Development Branch, Emission
 Standards and Engineering Division
 (MD-13). Environmental Protection
 Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5578.
 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June
 5,1980, EPA listed inorganic arsenic as a
 hazardous air pollutant under Section
 112 of the Clean Air Act. On July 20,
 1983, EPA proposed several rulemaking
 actions in the Federal Register (48 FR
 33112), one of which was a national
 emission standard for inorganic arsenic
 emissions from low-arsenic primary
 copper smelters. The public comment
 period for the proposed standards,
 which was extended twice at the
 request of members of the public, ended
 on January 31,1984.
  A number of coounenters on the
 proposed standards for low-arsenic
 throughput primary copper smelters
 commented that EPA's estimates of
 arsenic emissions at these smelters were
 too high and the estimates of control
 costs were too low. The information
 submitted by the commenters was
 analyzed, and, where necessary, EPA
 requested addition information to
 substantiate or clarify that provided
 during the public comment period. EPA
 subsequently reevaluated the cost and
 emission estimates for these facilities
 using the new information as well as the
 previously available information on low-
 arsenic primary copper smelters. As a
 result, significant changes have been
 made to some estimates of emissions
 and control costs that EPA cited at
 proposal In addition, one commenter
 also requested that, if the final standard
 is based on information not presented at
 proposal, EPA provide an opportunity to
 comment on the new information before
 making a final decision. Because of the
 changes and EPA's-desire to ensure that
the standards are based on the most
complete and accurate information
 available, EPA is reopening the public
comment period until November 5,1984.
Comments must be limited to EPA's
additional analyses of costs and
emissions; the comment period for all
other aspects of the rulemaking ended
January 31,1984. EPA has placed the
relevant comment summaries and the
additional analyses in the public docket
(Item No. IV-B-32 of Docket A-60-40).
-------
             Federal Register / Vol. 49, No.  184 / Thursday, September 20, 1984 / Proposed Rules
Refinement La Emission and Cost
Estimates Since Proposal

  Several copper companies commented
that EPA had overestimated the amount
of arsenic in materials smelted at
several of their smelters and, hence,
overstated emissions from the smelters.
Comments of this type were received for
ASARCO's El Paso and Hayden
smelters, Kennecott's Hayden, McGill,
and Carfield smelters, and Phelps
Dodge's Morenci and Ajo smelters.
  For each of these smelters, EPA
reviewed the information on which the
proposal emission estimates were based
in light of the comments submitted.
Where judged appropriate, revisions to
the proposal estimates were made. All
of the revised estimates of inorganic
arsenic emissions are lower than the
proposed estimates with the exception
of the Kennecott-Hayden estimates,
which are unchanged. The revised
emission estimates reflect changes in
the assumed arsenic content of smelter
feed and the estimated smelting furnace
arsenic volatilization rate, smelter
configuration, or the emission capture
efficiency. The revised arsenic balances
show reduced emission rates from the
smelting furnaces and converters.
  ASARCO, Kennecott, and Phelps
Dodge also commented that  EPA's
estimates of control costs were
understated and based on faulty
assumptions. These companies
submitted their estimates of emission
control costs for six of their smelters.
  In several cases, EPA obtained from
the companies additional information on
their cost estimates. EPA reviewed the
cost information supplied by the
companies and analyzed the difference
between these estimates and those
made by EPA at proposal. Factors
contributing to the cost differences
included: (1) site-specific factors
requiring modification of the converter
secondary hood design; (2) installation
of new ductwork and fans rather than
reuse of existing equipment; (3) different
assumptions regarding the control
systems needed: and (4) different
assumptions for the annualized cost
capital recovery factor (i.e., the interest
rate and equipment service life). For
each smelter, EPA reviewed the
reasonableness of the companies'
assumptions and reevaluated the control
costs. Because of this reanalysis, the
control cost estimates for converter
operations and matte and slag tapping
operations generally were increased
over the estimates presented at
proposal.
  The revised emission and cost
estimates are summarized in Table 1
and 2. Tables 1 presents the revised
estimates for applying secondary
inorganic arsenic emission controls to
converter operations and represents an
update of Table II1-1 of the preamble for
the proposed standards (48 FR 33143).
Table 2 presents the control cost and
emission estimates for matte and slag
tapping operations and represents an
update of Table III-2 of the proposal
preamble (48 FR 33144).
Reopening of The Public Comment
Period
  As discussed earlier, EPA is reopening
the public comment period for the'
limited purpose of allowing comment on
the revised control costs and emission
estimates for low-arsenic throughput
primary copper smelters. The bases of
the estimates presented in Tables 1 and
2 and the supporting information have
been placed in the public docket (Item
No. IV-B-32 of Docket A-80-40). To
allow time for review of this material
and for preparing  comments, EPA is
reopening the public comment period
until November 5.1984.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 61
  Air pollution control. Asbestos,
Beryllium, Hazardous materials,
Mercury, Vinyl chloride, Arsenic.
  Dated: September 7.1984.
John C. Topping, Jr..
Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation.
   TABLE 1. REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL AND COST IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH SECONDARY INORGANIC ARSENIC EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR
                                               CONVERTER OPERATIONS
Snwter
ASARCO-ePaao':
(1) 	 »._ 	 	 	 	 	 	
(2) 	 	 	 . .
ASARCO-Hayden 	 M 	 	 	 	 _. 	 	 „
Kamecott— McGM
Kemecott— Hayden 	 „„ 	 '
Phelpft Dodge— Douglas 	 _ 	 	 	 	 ... __ .
Phelpa Dodoe— Moreno 	
Kennecofl— Utah (GartteW) 	 „ 	 	 	 	


Magma SanManuaJ 	 „ . 	 	 „ 	
Phefpft Dodge— A|o 	 	
Kamecott— Hurley 	 	 ....
Copper Range — Whrte Pine .„.. ......
Total 	 „ 	 ~ 	

Araanfc
content of
toad.
parcam
05
OS
042

0015
0.03
0.033
0000
0 144


0008

00005



Arsenic
feed rate to
converter*,
kilogram par
969

034


42
5.7
14 7


00

08



Potential
aacondary
•name
emissions,
nftibgrarn per
year
963

102


41
1.9
1 5


055

046



Baaatma
aacondary
araanic
amtsaton*.
mtftgramper
year
133

54


4 1
1.9
1 5


055





PK^rfcnti-ifl
ITBQK7IOO
aacondary
arsenic
•mission
reduction,
mtlltgram par
year





37
1.7



050





Annuakzad
control
costs,
SI .000
379

796


2,943
2.943









Cost par
unri
emission
reduction.
doHarsper
arsenic


161 365


795.40S
1.731.000









   •HI    ,__.
converter procesi la*
ASARCO—El Puo.
                                                     V-N,0,P-79
-------
         ENVIRONMENTAL
           PROTECTION
            AGENCY
  NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS
  FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
   POLICY AND PROCEDURES FOR
   IDENTIFYING, ASSESSING AND
lEGULATING AIRBORNE SUBSTANCES
    POSING A RISK OF CANCER
            APPENDIX C
-------
              Federal Register  /  Vol. 44, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 10,1979 / Proposed Rules
40 CFR Part 61
[FRL 1259-1]

National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Policy and
Procedures for Identifying, Assessing,
and Regulating Airborne Substances
Posing a Risk of Cancer
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This notice proposes for
comment a rule governing the policies
and procedures to be used by the
Environmental Protection Agency in the
identification, assessment, and
regulation under the Clean Air Act of
substances which, when emitted into the
ambient air for stationary sources,
increase the risk of cancer to the general
population. The proposed policy
implements for the air program of EPA
the principles adopted by the President's
Regulatory Council in a statement
issued September 28,1979 on the
regulation of chemical carcinogens. In
concert with this proposal, EPA is
publishing elsewhere in today's Federal
Register an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking soliciting comments on draft
generic work practice and operational
standards which could be applied
quickly to reduce emissions of airborne
carcinogens from certain source
categories.
  Under the proposed policy, EPA
would evaluate available information to
identify those substances, including
radioactive materials, which should be
considered for regulation under the
Clean Air Act as airborne carcinogens.
Any air pollutant determined to present
a significant carcinogenic risk to human
health as a result of air emissions from
one or more categories of stationary
sources would be listed under section
112 as a hazardous air pollutant. Listing
under section 112 would be
accompanied, where applicable, by the
proposal of generic standards for source
categories producing or handling
significant quantities of the substance.
The generic standards would rapidly
effect reasonable control of emissions
while more detailed analyses are
performed to establish priorities for
further regulation, determine available
control technology, and assess
regulatory impacts.
   Final standards for source categories
presenting significant risks to public
health would, as a minimum, require
such sources to use best available
technology to reduce emissions. If,
however, the risk remaining after the
application of best available technology
is determined to be unreasonable,
further control would be required.
Unreasonable residual risk
determinations would consider the risk
remaining, the benefits conferred by the
substance or activity, the distribution of
those benefits versus the distribution of
risks, the availability of substitutes, the
costs of further control of the substance
or source categories, and proposed sites
in the case of new sources. Standards
would be reviewed at no more than five-
year intervals.
DATES: Written comments should be     '
postmarked no later than February 7,
1980.
  Notice of intent to appear at a public
hearing should be postmarked no later
than November 28,1979. Hearing dates
and locations, which will be held during
the comment  period, will be announced
in the Federal Register.
  Written comments responding to,
supplementing, or rebutting written or
oral  comments received at public
hearing must  be made within 60 days of
the hearing date.
ADDRESSES: All written comments
should be addressed to: Central Docket
Section, Room 2903B, Waterside Mall,
401 M Street,  SW., Washington, D.C.
20460, ATTN: OAQPS 79-14.
  EPA has established a rulemaking
docket consistent with procedures
established by section 307(d)(l)(N) of
the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7B07(d)).
The  docket number is OAQPS 79-14 and
it already contains the documents on
which  this proposal is based. All
comments received during the comment
period, as well as any'other documents
used in the promulgation of the final rule
will  be added to the docket promptly.
The  docket number should be on all
written comments. The docket will be
open for inspection at the Central
Docket section at the above address
between 8:00 a.m. and 4 p.m. Monday
through Friday.
  Notice of intent to appear at a public
hearing should be directed to: Joseph
Padgett, Director, Strategies and Air
Standards Division (MD-12),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711.
  Additional copies of this notice are
available from: Industry Assistance
Office, Office of Toxic Substances, U.S.
EPA, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,
D.C. 20460, 800-424-9065 (toll free) (202)
554-1404.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joseph Padgett, Strategies and Air
Standards Division, (919) 541-5204, FTS
629-5204.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability of related information: As
described above, documents upon which
this proposal is based are available for
public inspection in the rulemaking
docket (OAQPS 79-14). In addition to
these materials, this notice includes a
supplemental statement of basis and
purpose containing further discussion of
the legal basis for the proposed policy,
various alternative control strategies
considered, and comparisons with other
carcinogen policy proposals. This
statement follows the text of the
proposed rule.
I. Background: The Need for a Policy
and a Regulatory Mechanism
A. Introduction
  The principal focus of the nation's air
pollution control program to date has
been the establishment and
implementation of standards related to
six major pollutant (particulate matter,
sulfur oxides, ozone, nitrogen oxides,
carbon monoxide, and lead). Recently,
increasing attention has been directed
towards those toxic components of air
pollution which may not be adequately
controlled by current programs.
Pollutants that may contribute to the
occurrence of human cancer have
received particular attention because of
the nature and seriousness of this group
of diseases, and because of recent
findings suggesting that a large number
of airborne chemicals and radionuclides
to which people are exposed may be
implicated in cancer and other diseases
related to genetic damage. (I, 2, 3)

B. The General Cancer Problem
   The nature and magnitude of the
cancer problem in the United States and
die fact that radioactive agents and
some chemicals can produce cancer in
animals and humans have been well-
documented and publicized.1 Some of
the more important aspects of the
occurrence  and causes of cancer and the
role played by air pollution are briefly
summarized below.
 (1) Nature and Magnitude of the
 Problem (4, 5. 6, 7, 8)
   Cancer is a group of diseases
 characterized by the unrestrained
 growth of cells that have somehow lost
 an essential self-regulatory mechanism.
The uncontrolled growth of these cells
 eventually threatens the life of the host
 organism. Cancer is currently the second
   1 Delated discussion of the genera] features of the
 problem have been presented by the Occupational
 Safety and Health Administration (•»). the Consumer
 •Voduct Safety Commission |S.). and others («).
                                            V-Appendix  C-2
-------
             Federal  Register / Vol. 44, No. 197 / Wednesday, October  10, 1979 / Proposed  Rules
 leading cause of death in the United
 States. One American in four is
 expected to contact some form of cancer
 in his or her lifetime, and one in five is .
 expected to die from the disease. The
 most recent statistics show a continued
 increase in total cancer incidence, due
 principally to increases in lung cancer.
  The social, economic, and human
 costs of cancer are immense. Most forms
 of cancer are difficult if not impossbile
 to cure; less than one-half of all cancer
 patients live longer than five years from
 the discovery of their illness. The
 elusiveness of cures is due largely to the
 fact that cancer's basic biological
 mechanisms at the cellular level are not
 well understood. Approximately 1.8
 billion dollars are spent each year for
 hospital care of cancer patients;
 significant additional costs not readily
 estimated include doctor's fees, out-
 patient therapy, and drug costs. In
 addition, it is estimated that 1.8 million
 work-years are lost annually because of
 cancer.
 (2) Causes of Cancer Importance of
 Environmental Factors
  Studies of human cancer rates, their
 worldwide geographical variations, and
 observations of incidence rates in
 migrant populations have revealed that
 factors in the human environment are
 probably responsible for a large
 proportion of cancers. "Environmental
 factors" must be understood in the
 broad sense to include chemical
 exposures from smoking, diet,
 occupation, drinking water, and air
 pollution; various forms of radiation,
 including sunlight; and some forms of
 severe physical irritation. Although the
 uncertainties are great, estimates by the
 World Health Organization, other
 prominent institutions, and individual
 experts have suggested that 60 to 90
 percent of all human cancers may be
 due to these factors. (37, 9.)
  Studies of cancer incidence in
 particular groups have shown strong
 •tatistical relationships between
 exposure to certain chemical or
 radioactive substances and specific
 cancers. The connection between
 tobacco smoke and lung and other
 cancers is the most widely known/35/
 Significant increases in leukemia and
 other forms of cancer have been noted
 among Japanese survivors of atomic
 bomb explosions during World War II.
 Markedly elevated cancer rates are
 found among certain occupational
groups in the United States and other
highly industrialized countries. In
general, cancer rates are higher than
average in urban areas.f 10) .
  Unequivocal identification and
quantification of the specific factors that
 lead singly or in combination with
 factors to specific forms of cancer in
 humans is, however, an extraordinarily
 difficult task. Observation from human
 experience is complicated by a number
 of factors. Purposeful experimentation of
 humans, for example, is ethically
 unacceptable, since the result would
 often be fatal. Definitive epidemiological
 studies of occupationally exposed
 groups are often difficult because the
 relatively small population exposed and
 inadequate information about duration,
 magnitude, and circumstances of
 exposures may not permit statistically
 reliable conclusions to be drawn.
 Studies of the cuases of cancer in the
 general population may be equivocal
 because of the complex modes  of
 exposure, low exposure levels,  and
 other complicating factors. In addition,
 synergistic and antagonistic interactions
 between chemicals substantially
 complicate any conclusions about the
 effects of a particular chemical.
  Another major difficulty in the
 interpretation of such studies is the
 long latency period exposure to •
 carcinogens and onset of the disease.
 Most  cancers observed in today's
 population probably had their origins in
 exposures that began 15 to 40 years
 ago/55,11) Thus, epidemiological
 studies in current populations must
 involve estimation of historical
 exposures. The latency period also
 means that epidemiology cannot detect
 effects of relatively new substances
 until years of exposure  have occurred.
  To date, epidemiological studies have
 identified only 26 environmental agents
 believed to increase cancer risks in
 humans. (12). The casual relationships
 implied by the statistical connections in
 these  studies have generally been
 supported by controlled experiments on
 animals. With the possible exceptions of
 benzene and arsenic, those factors
 known to produce cancer in humans
 also produce cancer in test animals/34/
 Animal experiments have also
 implicated many additional chemical
 substances as potential human
 carcinogens.
  In addition to the potential that a
 substance acting alone may induce
 cancer, there is evidence that exposure
 to certain combinations of carcinogenic
 and non-carcinogenic agents  may
 promote or potentiate the carcinogenic
 response.  The disproportionate risk of
 lung caner to cigarette smokers
 occupationally exposed to asbestos
fibers/'Jfi. 37) is an example of the
 synergism of two known human
 carcinogens. Non-carcinogenic and co-
carcinogenic substances may also act to
 promote or enhance the human response
 to carcinogen exposure.
   Although airborne carcinogens may
 induce cancer at a number of body sites,
 lung cancer is thought to be the principal
 form of cancer related to air
 pollution/^ While cigarette smoking is
 probably the most important cause of
 lung cancer in the United States/Iff, 35)
 many scientists believe that various air
 pollutants increase the risk of cancer
 from smoking and other carcinogenic
 insults. Available estimates also
 indicate that occupational exposures are
 responsible for a significant portion of
 lung cancer incidence in the United
 SialesflO. 17).
   Because of the difficulties inherent in
• studying the causes of cancer and the
 multifactorial nature of human
 exposures, the role of each major
 exposure pathway remains a matter of
 some debate. While factors such as
 smoking, occupational exposures, diet,
 and  solar radiation are probably
 responsible for a greater proportion of
 cancers than ambient air pollution
 alone, (10,13,14) the dimensions of the
 problem posed by airborne carcinogens
 remain significant. Besides their
 contribution to cancers primarily related
 to other pathways, airborne carcinogens
 themselves pose risks to large numbers
 of people. In certain industrialized
 areas, especially, composite national
 figures may mask significantly higher air
 pollution-related cancer risks. And, in
 the vicinity of specific sources of
 carcinogenic emissions, risks to
 individuals can reach very high levels.
   A  preliminary EPA examination of
 chemical production, industries
 producing radioactive materials, and air
 sampling results has identified over fifty
 known or potential chemical
 carcinogens and numerous radioactive
 materials which may be emitted to the
 atmosphere. Many of these substances
 are synthetic organic chemicals that
 have been in commercial use only since
 the 1930's. (18) Since cancer induced by
 exposures to small amounts of airbone
 carcinogens may not appear for 15 to 40
 years after exposure, it is still too early
 to detect the full impacts of these
 chemicals on human health. Thus, it is
 both prudent and, in view of the large
 number of people potentially affected,
 important to reduce or contain
 emissions of known or suspected
 atmospheric carcinogens in order to
 prevent future problems before they
 actually are observed.
                                           V-Appendix  C-3
-------
             Federal  Register / Vol. 44, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 10, 1979 / Proposed Rules
C. Problems in Regulating Airborne
Carcinogens

(1) Introduction

   Although significant reductions in
emissions of airborne carcinogens have
resulted indirectly from control of
pollutants such as participate matter
(19} and volatile organic chemicals (20]
under sections 109 and 111 of the Clean
Air Act,2 EPA has taken direct
regulatory action to control air
carcinogens primarily under section
112.' Section 112, National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPs), provides for the listing of
pollutants which in the judgement of the
Administrator cause or contribute to air
pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to result in an increase in
mortality or an increase  in serious
irreversible, or incapacitating reversible,
illness. After a substance is listed as a
hazardous air pollutant,  EPA must
establish control requirements for
various source categories which emit the
substance. The standards must, in the
judgment of the Administrator, provide
an ample margin of safety to protect the
public health from such hazardous air
pollutants. Carcinogens that have been
listed under section 112 to date include
asbestos, beryllium,'vinyl chloride, and
benzene. A number of specific emission
source categories of these substances
have been regulated. (21.22)
   A number of scientific, technical and
policy problems have arisen which
complicate the regulation of airborne
carcinogens under section 112.
Significant delays in establishing
standards have been associated with
determining the appropriate degree of
control for certain sources of listed
carcinogens. Although the determination
of whether and to what degree a
particular chemical presents a risk of
cancer to humans has not yet been a
significant source of delay under section
112, future disagreements are
anticipated. This may be particularly
true when dealing with substances for
which epidemiological data are not
available. These problems and their
consequences are discussed in the
following sections.
  '42 U.S.C. Section! 7409 and 7411.
  '42 V S.C. Section 7412. Since the Clean Air Act
provides for separate treatment of mobile source
emissions under Title II, (his policy addresses only
air emissions from stationary sources At this time.
carcinogenic emissions from stationary sources
appear to present a larger and more diverse public
health problem than mobile source emissions.
  ' Beryllium was listed because of its non-
carcmogenic toxic properties.
(2) Difficulty in Determining
Carcinogenicity
  The carcinogenic substances listed
under section 112 to date were
recognized as human carcinogens on the
basis of epidemiological evidence. For
most other chemical substances,
however, such evidence will not be
available, and other means of assessing
carcinogenicity will have to be
employed.
  .Protection of public health from
current and future cancer risks therefore
requires reliance on the results of
laboratory tests, primarily involving
animals, in the identification of probable
human carcinogens. Practical limitations
require that most  animal tests be
conducted with much smaller numbers
of subjects than the human populations
they represent, and at doses much
higher than ambient exposure levels to
improve the detectability of
carcinogenic effects.
  Evaluation of the carcinogenic risk to
humans, based on such animal tests of
candidate substances, raises a number
of issues. Among  these are the
differences between species,
extrapolation from the high doses
administered to animals to the low
concentrations present in the ambient
air, differences in routes of exposure
(e.g., ingestion versus inhalation), the
significance of benign tumors, and the
question of no-effect "thresholds" at
lower exposures.  Since animal testing is
of key importance in carcinogen
identification, policy decisions must be
made and articulated on each of these
issues.
(3) Problems Associated With the Large
Number of Potential Ah* Carcinogens
and Sources
  Further difficulties in dealing with air
pollution-related cancer result from-the
large number of potential atmospheric
carcinogens and the correspondingly
large number of sources emitting them.
Preliminary analyses have identified a
number of source types which may emit
carcinogenic substances to the
atmosphere. Most of these types fall into
one of the following six broad groups:
(1) mining, smelting, refining,
manufacture and end-use  of minerals
and other inorganic chemicals; (2)
combustion; (3) petroleum refining,
distribution, and storage; (4) synthetic
organic chemical industries and end-use
applications, and waste disposal; (5)
mining, processing, use, and disposal of
radioactive substances and radioactive
by-products; and (6) non-carcinogenic
emissions which are chemically
transformed into  carcinogens in the
atmosphere.
  A survey of several thousand
potential toxicants emitted from one
broad category, the synthetic organic
chemical industry, has identified over
six hundred organic chemicals of
possible concern. (Iff) Of these, over 140
showed some indication of possible
carcinogenicity, nvutagenicity, or
teratogenicity. The results of a
preliminary analysis of these substances
suggest that as many as 40 of these
substances are of concern as potential
air carcinogens. (29) Although the
synthetic organic chemical industry
comprises the largest source grouping, a
number of additional organic and
inorganic ah- pollutants of concern, and
a number of radioactive materials, are
emitted from the other source categories.
  Currently, EPA has only limited
information on the emission rates,
sources, and atmospheric
concentrations of most potential
airborne carcinogens. As a result of the
generally low ambient concentrations
expected from emissions of many of
these substances, as well as their  large
number, source emissions testing and
atmospheric monitoring programs will
be more sophisticated and expensive,
but less accurate or precise, then
traditional air pollution monitoring. The
resources necessary for developing such
programs and for evaluating the health
effects and control alternatives for this
large number of substances and sources
far exceed those currently available to
EPA for the task. Clearly, priorities must
therefore be established to maximize the
public health benefits obtainable with
existing resources.
(4) Difficulty in Determining the
Appropriate Degree of Control
  As noted above, a central problem in
establishing standards and reqirements
for air carcinogens under section 112 of
the Clean Air Act has been determining
the appropriate degree of control which
should be required for significant source
categories. The difficulty is related both
to the characteristics of carcinogens and
to the requirement of section 112 that
the public health be protected with "an
ample margin of safety."
   As discussed above, most
identifications of substances as
probable human carcinogens have been
based on studies of humans or animals
exposed to relatively high doses of the
substances. Whether the smaller doses
generally encountered in the ambient
environment cause cancer or, whether
instead, some threshold or "safe" level
of exposure may exist is a matter of
considerable scientific debate. (23) EPA
and other public health agencies and
groups have, as a matter of prudent
health policy, taken the position that in
                                            V-Appendix  C-4
-------
             Federal Register /  Vol. 44, No. 197 / Wednesday,  October 10, 1979  /  Proposed Rules
 the absence of identifiable effect
 thresholds, carcinogens pose some risk
 of cancer at any exposure level above
 zero. The existence of risk at any
 exposure level has created difficulty in
 setting required control levels. Some
 commenters have maintained that no
 risks should be permitted from
 emissions of carcinogens, while others
 argue that, in view of the uncertainty
 that any effect will occur at low
 exposure levels, only feasible and
 clearly cost-effective controls should be
 required.
   This difficulty has been compounded
 by the language of section 112 itself,
 which calls for the establishment  of
 standards which, in the judgment of the
 Administrator, provide "an ample
 margin of safety to protect the public
 health" from hazardous air pollutants.
 This language clearly mandates that the
 primary factor in standard-setting under
 section 112, in contrast to some other
 sections of the Act, such as section 111,
 be the protection of public health. How
 this mandate should be translated into
 standards for airborne carcinogens,
 however, is not clear. This uncertainty
 has led to delay and litigation, with
 some arguing that the only factor that
 may be considered is health effects,
 while others contend that EPA should
 simply balance risk against the cost of
 control and the benefits of the activity,
 giving all factors equal weight. While
 EPA has made limited statements (21.
 22) of its view of section 112, the
 Administrator has not expressed a
 comprehensive interpretation of the
 provision as it applies to the regulation
 of carcinogens until now.
 (5) EOF Petition
  Citing concerns over the limited
 number of carcinogens listed as
 hazardous air pollutants to date and the
 regulatory delays encountered in
 controlling vinyl chloride, the
 Environmental Defense Fund (EOF], in
 November 1977. petitioned EPA to adopt
 a generic approach for classifying and
 regulating carcinogenic air pollutants
 under the Clean Air Act (3O).
  The EOF proposal is patterned on the
 classification system proposed by
 OSHA and is based on scientific criteria
 similar to those articulated by CPSC,
 OSHA, and EPA for carcinogenicity
 determinations.*Suspect substances
 would be grouped into three categories
 (confirmed, probable, possible) based on
 the availability evidence of
carcinogenicity. Under the main feature
of the policy suggested by EOF, a
 determination that an air pollutant is a
 confirmed carcinogen would trigger the
 following responses: (a) immediate
 listing as a hazardous air pollutant
 under section 112: and (b) proposal and
 promulgation of regulations to (1) either
 ban the use of the material if a suitable
 substitute exists, or to require the
 application of emissions or equipment
 standards representing best available
 control technology; (2) establish a
 timetable leading to the reduction of
 emissions to zero at both existing and
 new sources; and (3) prevent any
 increase in emissions from additions to
 or replacements of existing facilities.
  In March 1978,  EPA conducted a
 public meeting to receive comments on
 the EDF proposal and any other
 suggestions regarding the Agency's
 regulatory process for the control of
 airborne carcinogens (31.32) 6. One
 major presentation made at that meeting
 was by the American Industrial Health
 Council (AIHC), advocating the use of a
 central board of non-governmental
 scientists for evaluating carcinogenicity
 and carcinogenic potency of substances
 of interest for all federal regulatory
 agencies (33). The principles AIHC
 recommended for determination of
 carcinogenicity differ somewhat from
 those proposed by EPA, CPSC, and
 OSHA. AIHC also recommended that
 standards be set independently for each
 substance through a process of
 "balancing" predicted cancer incidence,
 costs of control, and benefit of the
 substance regulated. While AIHC gave
 examples of alternative  balancing
 procudures which might be used, it did
 not recommed any specific course of
 action to EPA for use under section 112,

 (6) Need for an Air Carcinogen Policy
  The problems associated with the
 determination of carcinogenicity, the
large number of potential carcinogens,
 and the appropriate level of control of
 emitting sources contribute to delays in
decisions to list carcinogenic substances
 as hazardous air pollutants as well as  to
delays in establishing control
requirements under section 112. Indeed.
EPA has listed only three air pollutants
as carcinogens under section 112 since
1970. Therefore, given the potentially
large number of airborne carcinogens
which may require control, the general
unavailability of epidemiological data
for determining carcinogenicity and
potential  risks, the requirements of
section 112. and EPA's experience under
section 112 to date, the Administrator
has concluded that the establishment of
  'A comparison of these approaches is presented
in (he supplemental statement which follows the
'«xl of the proposed rule.
  'The comments received at that meeting have
been considered in ttie formulation of today's
proposal
a comprehensive and coherent policy
and set of procedures for regulatory
action in dealing with airborne
carcinogens is imperative.
  Specifically, publicly-stated, legally
binding policies and regulatory
mechanisms are needed for: (1)
determining the carcinogenicity and
carcinogenic risks of air pollutants for
regulatory purposes; (2) establishing
priorities for evaluating the need for and
accomplishing additional regulatory
action; (3) specifying the degree of
control required in general under section
112 and how that level of control will be
determined in setting individual
standards; and (4) providing more
extensive public involvement in the
Agency's decisionmaking on the
regulation of airborne carcinogens.
Among the benefits of adopting such a
policy, in addition to more expeditious
control of probable carcinogens, are
increased public understanding of and
participation in EPA's actions and the
providing of earlier notice of EPA's
findings and intent to state and local
regulatory authorities and to industries.
II. Discussion of the Proposed Rule

A. Introduction
  The provisions of the proposed rule
are stated formally at the end of this
notice. The following sections present
the Agency's rationale  for, and describe
the operation of, the  proposed policy.
Certain related issues, including the
detailed legal basis of the proposal, the
consideration of various alternatives,
and a comparison with other policies,
are discussed in a supplemental
statement of basts and purpose
following the text of the proposed rule.
The Administrator intends to publish a
finding at  the time of the promulgation
of this rule stating that the rule is based
on determinations of nationwide scope
and effect. The provisions of section
307{b) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. section
7607{b), will therefore limit Judicial
review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit, and
litigation of the issues posed by this rule
will not be available in connection with
subsequent rulemakings in which it is
applied.
  Pending final promulgation of the rule,
as it may be modified after public
comment,  EPA will generally follow the
proposed policy and  procedures in
actions taken in the interim.  Such
actions are expected to be listing
decisions or regulatory proposals for
specific substances, so that EPA will be
able to reflect, in final regulatory action
on such substances, any changes made
in the proposed rule after public
comment.
                                            V-Appendix  C-5
-------
             Federal Register / Vol.  44. No. 197 / Wednesday, October 10, 1979 / Propose^ Rules
B. Identification and Preliminary
Evaluation of Health Risks
  This section describes the principles
and procedures that EPA will use in
identifying potential airborne
carcinogens and in determining whether
emissions of such substances pose
significant risks to public health. These
principles and procedures address
determinations in three fundamental
areas: (1) the generic determination that
the presence of airborne carcinogens in
relatively low ambient concentrations
warrants regulatory action, (2)  the
identification of specific candidate
•ubstances for EPA assessment, and (3)
the assessment of whether such
substances pose significant risks to
public health.
(1) The Need for Concern About
Relatively Low Doses
  The Administrator's belief that
ambient  concentrations of carcinogens
represent a significant public health risk
warranting regulatory action is based on
the current understanding of the
biological effects of these substances at
low concentrations. Essentially, two
hypotheses exist. The non-threshold
hypothesis assumes that cancer can
result from the interaction of as little as
one molecule of a carcinogen with a
critical receptor in one cell.
  The threshold hypothesis, in  contrast,
assumes that there is a no-effect dose of
a carcinogen below which induction of
cancer cannot occur. This hypothesis
argues that, at small doses, chemical   .
carcinogens can be detoxified through
metabolic processes, resulting in some
level of exposure which produces no
carcinogenic response, or that repair
mechanisms or cell death may prevent
the development  of cancer from a single
damaged ce\\.(23)
  The public health community has
generally concluded that evidence for
identifiable dose  thresholds does not
exist for carcinogens. Under this view,
any exposure to a carcinogenic
substance carries a risk of cancer. A
recent report by the National Academy
of Sciences/2<7 offers the following
observations in support of this
conclusion:
  Consideration of the Dose-Response
Relationship. In considering the possibility of
thresholds for carcinogenesis, it is  important
to understand that there is no agent,
chemical, or physical, which induces in man
• form of cancer that  does not occur in the
•bsence of that agent. In other words, when
there is exposure to a material, we are not
ttarting at an origin of zero cancers. Nor are
we starting at an origin of zero carcinogenic
agents in our environment.  Thus, it is likely
that any carcinogenic agent added to the
tnvironment will act  by a particular
mechanism on a particular cell population
that is already being acted on by the same
mechanism to induce cancers. This reasoning
implies that the only way for a new
carcinogen added to the environment to have
a threshold in its dose-response curve would
be if it were acting by a mechanism entirely
different from that already being experienced
by that tissue.
  Examination of Experimental Dose-
Response Curves. The most extensive
information on carcinogenesis both in
experimental animals and in humans is with
ionizing radiation. Although there is evidence
implicating thresholds in some animal
tissues, thresholds have in general not been
established for most tissues. If such
thresholds exist, they occur at sufficiently
low doses that it would require massive,
expensive, and impracticable experiments to
establish them. In view of the common
finding—for example, a linear dose-response
relationship (unaffected by dose-rate)—of
cancer induction in animals by high LET
(Linear Energy Transfer] radiation, it is
unlikely that such thresholds exist. Linearity
is not essential to the no-threshold argument
since nonlinear, dose-response relationships
do not necessarily imply the existence of
thresholds. . .
  Heterogeneity of the Population. The
human population in the United States—the
population we are trying to protect—is a
large, diverse, and genetically heterogeneous
group exposed to a variety of toxic agents.
Genetic variability to carcinogenesis is well-
documented (Strong, 1976), and it is also
known that individuals who are deficient in
immunological competence (for genetic or
environmental reasons) are particularly
susceptiple to some forms of cancer (Cottier,
et al., 1974).
  It seems, therefore, that even if we were to
postulate an average threshold for a
particular cancer induced by a particular
agent, we would in practice need a series  of
thresholds for different individuals. It would
be extremely difficult, in practice, to establish
a single threshold.
  We conclude from these arguments that,
despite all the complexities of chemical
carcinogenesis, thresholds in the dose-
response relationships do not appear to exist
for direct-acting carcinogens. If they do exist,
they are unlikely to be detected and, hence,
impossible to use. This means that there can
be no totally "safe" exposure to a particular
carcinogen. (Emphasis added.)
  EPA has therefore made a generic
determination that, in view of the
existing state of scientific knowledge,
prudent public health policy requires
that carcinogens be considered for
regulatory purposes  to pose some finite
risk of cancer at any exposure level
above zero. The Administrator believes
that this is consistent with the mandate
of section 112 requiring the protection of
public health against air pollutants
which "may reasonably be anticipated"
to cause or contribute to the health
effects of concern, and the application of
an "ample margin of safety" in making
such public health judgments.
(2) Identification and Screening of
Potential Airborne Carcinogens

  Potential airborne carcinogens are
now and will continue to be identified
through various EPA programs,
including searches of the scientific
literature, monitoring studies, and
biological assays of substances found in
ambient air and source emissions, as
well as by examining information
obtained from federal, state, or other
regulatory authorities, private research
groups, and other scientific sources.
Suspect substances (compounds or
mixtures) identified in this manner will
be screened to provide a rough estimate
of the potential extent of public
exposure resulting from ambient air
emissions. Screening is essential for two
reasons: first, to optimize the use of
Agency resources in view of the growing
number of substances of concern, and
second, to distinguish between those
substances which may, through their
presence in the air, present carcinogenic
risks and those which, although
probably carcinogenic, are not emitted
in quantities sufficient to pose such
risks.
  Readily available information will be
collected on the intentional and
inadvertent production of such
substances and their uses, volatility, and
other chemical and physical properties.
Ambient air measurements and previous
scientific assessments will be
considered where available.
Appropriate offices within EPA and
other relevant agencies will be
contacted to determine whether any
regulatory actions, assessments, or
screening activities are underway.
  Suspect substances to which the
screening process indicates the public is
probably exposed through ambient air
will receive further attention to evaluate
the likelihood that they pose significant
carcinogenic risks. Priorities for these
evaluations will be assigned based on
the expected potential for public
exposure to the substances. In some
cases, EPA may determine after
screening that regulatory actions under
other laws administered by EPA or by
other regulatory agencies eliminate the
need for further EPA action under the
Clean  Air Act. Otherwise, potential
airborne carcinogens will be evaluated
for the likelihood that they pose
significant risks to public health.
  These procedures are already in
operation. As noted above, screening of
over 140 potential airborne carcinogens
has yielded of 40 for which
carcinogenicity determinations and
preliminary exposure assessments are
underway. These determinations are
                                             V-Appendix  C-6
-------
              Federal Register  / Vol. 44, No.  197 /  Wednesday.  October 10. 1979 / Proposed Rules
 excepted to be largely completed by
 December 1979

 (3J Evaluation of Significance of Risk to
 Public Health7

   The determination of significant
 carcinogenic risk will be based on
 assessments in two areas: the
 probability that the substance is a
 human carcinogen, and the extent of
 human exposure via the ambient air.
   (a) Evaluation of the Probability of
 Human Carcmogenicity. The criteria for
 evaluating the probability that an
 airborne substance presents a
 carcinogenic risk to humans are not
 unique to the  air, but are conceptually
 the same as those for substances
 present in any exposure medium. It
 would thus be inappropriate for EPA to
 use a novel set of criteria for airborne
 substances alone. Accordingly, in
 determining the carcinogenic risk posed
 by air pollutants, EPA will use the
 criteria specified in general guidelines
 adopted by the Agency. The EPA
 "Interim Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk
 Assessment"  ("Interim  Guideline")
 issued on May 25,1976 (25) outlines the
 basic scientific criteria  and policy
 judgments currently used by EPA in
 evaluating evidence regarding suspect
 carcinogens. This guidance is
 supplemented by the recent release for
 comment by the Risk Assessment Work
 Group of the Interagency Regulatory
 Liaison Group (IRLG)8 of a scientific
 review of the principles and methods
 applicable to the identification and
 assessment of human risk from
 carcinogens. (26)
  In evaluating the likelihood that a
 substance is carcinogenic in humans
 under  EPA's Interim Guideline and the
 IRLG Work Group report, available
 information is considered and judgments
 concerning the probability of human
 carcinogenicity are made based on the
 quality and weight of evidence. The
 information principally relevant to such
 an evaluation  includes epidemiological
 and animal or other laboratory studies.
  'Today's notice deals only with the carcinogenic
hazards of an air pollutant. A substance may also
be regulated under section 112 due to its non-
cureinogenic health effects, or due to a combination
of carcinogenic and other serious elleclt Non-
carcinogenic effects of substances being reviewed
as possible airborne carcinogens will also be
evaluated and considered where information or
those effects it available
  •IRLG Agencies include Environmental
Protection Agency. Occupational Safety and Health
Administration. Consumer Product Safely
Commission, Food and Drug Administration, and
Foods Safety and Quality Service (U.S Department
of Agnculture] The Occupational Safely and Health
Administration, however, did not participate in the
loint issuance of the Risk Assessment Work Croup
report
    The available information is
  evaluated in light of the following
  criteria:
    Judgments about the weight of evidence
  involve considerations of the quality and
  adequacy of the data and the kinds of
  responses induced by the suspect carcinogen.
  The best evidence that an agent is a human
  carcinogen comes tram epidemiological
  studies in conjunction with confirmatory
  animal tests. Substantial evidence is
  provided by animal tests that demonstrate
  the induction of malignant tumors in one or
  more species including benign tumors that
  are generally recognized as early stages of
  raalinancies. Suggestive evidence includes
  the induction of only those non-life-shorting
  benign tumors which  are generally accepted
  as not progressing to malignancy and indirect
  tests of uunorigenic activity,  such as
  mutagenicity. in vitro cell transformation,
  and initiation-promotion skin tests in mice.
/ Ancillary reasons that bear on judgments
  about carcinogenic potential, e.g., evidence
  from systematic studies that relate chemical
  structure to carcinogenicity, should be
  included in the assessment. (25)
   This "weight of evidence" evaluation
  outlined in the Interim Guideline does
  not involve automatic categorization of
  carcinogenic probability, but rather
  evaluates the nature of the evidence in
  each case. Once the evidence has been
  weighted, of course, the conclusions
  must be useful for regulatory decisions.
  For this reason, substances which have
  been evaluated will be grouped into
  three broad categories (high, moderate,
  low) according to the probability of
  carcinogenicity. Assignment to a
  particular regulatory category will be
  made on a case-by-case basis, and will
  reflect the strength of the evidence that
  the substance in question is a human
  carcinogen in comparison with the range
  of other substances which have been
 evaluated for regulatory action. In
 general, substances for which "best" or
 "substantial evidence'1 as described
 above exists will be considered for
 designation as high-probability human
 carcinogens for purposes of section 112.
 Substances for which only "suggestive"
 evidence exists will be considered for
 designation as moderate-probability
 human carcinogens. Substances for"
 which only "ancillary" evidence exists
 will be considered for designation as
 low-probability human carcinogens.
   EPA recognizes that a range of
 scientific uncertainty exists within these
 broad evidentiary classes. For example,
 a substance which has been found to be
 carcinogenic in all animal  species and
 sexes tested may be more  likely to be
 carcinogenic in humans than a
 substance tested in several species and
 found to produce rumors in only one sex
 of one specie*. Although upon
 consideration of the relative strength of
 evidence it may be concluded that both
 substances should be considered high-
 probability human carcinogens, the
 extent of uncertainty will be considered
 on a case-by-case basis.
   (b) Preliminary Evaluation of
 Ambient Exposure. EPA will also
 determine whether a suspect airborne
 carcinogen is emitted into or present in
 the ambient air in such a way that
 significant human exposure results.
 While the threshold of significance for
 the ambient exposure determination will
 be relatively low, some consideration  of
 exposure levels is appropriate to avoid
 initiating regulatory action under the
 Clean Air Act for substances such as
 "laboratory curiosities" which are very
 unlikely to be present in the ambient air
 in measureable quantities. This
 preliminary exposure evaluation is
 designed to make that distinction.
   In the preliminary assessment of
 ambient exposure, EPA will consider
 available data on ambient
 concentrations of the substance, the
 number and nature of emitting sources,
 and the number of people living near the
 sources or in areas in which ambient
 concentrations have been reported.
 Where possible, preliminary estimates
 of lifetime individual risks to the
 potentially.most exposed individuals,
 based on estimates of carcinogenic
 strength, will also be calculated.
  The preliminary exposure assessment
 will not be designed to produce  the more
 detailed information appropriate in
 deciding what control measures may be
 necessary; that information, including
 detailed quantitative assessments of
 risk, will also be developed where
 possible by EPA, but is not required for
 the determination of significant ambient
 exposure.
 C. Initial Responses to Preliminary
 Assessments of Health Risks
  The evaluation of the significance of
 risk to public health will be used to
 identify those substances for which, in
 the judgment of the Administrator, there
 is sufficient evidence to warrant listing
 under section 112 as airborne
 carcinogens. For substances which fall
 short of meeting the criteria for this
 determination, or for which available
 information is not sufficient to make a
 determination, the proposed policy
 provides for alternative responses. The
 following paragraphs describe EPA's
specific responses to various possible
evaluations under the proposed rule.
(1) Listing Under Section 112: Significant
Risk
  Any subtance judged by the
Administrator to present significant
carcinogenic risks to the public will be
                                            V-Appendix  C-7
-------
             Federal Register  /  Vol. 44,  No. 197  /  Wednesday,  October 10,  1979 / Proposed Rules
listed under section 112 as a hazardous
air pollutant. The finding of significant
carcinogenic risk is based on the
judgment that a substance has a high
probability of human carcinogenicity,
and evidence of significant public
exposure via the ambient air from
emissions from one or more categories
of stationary sources.  •
  A high-probability carcinogen may.
also be listed under section 112 if a
preliminary quantitative risk assessment
suggests that there is a significant risk to
the potentially most exposed groups as a
result of emissions of the substance.
These preliminary assessments of risk
will be considered as supplemental
evidence that listing is warranted where
the available evidence before the
Administrator is otherwise insufficient
to indicate the existence of a significant
risk. In the judgment of the
Administrator, it would not be prudent
health policy to base a decision not to
list upon a preliminary risk estimate in
the presence of qualitative evidence of
significant human exposure.
  The limitation of the role of these
preliminary risk assessments to
supplementary evidence in support of a
finding of significant risk is based on the
Administrator's judgment  that these
quantitative estimates are too imprecise
and uncertain to use as a factor in
deciding not to list a substance. The
Administrator does believe, however,
that despite their considerable
uncertainty it would be imprudent to
ignore assessments suggesting the
existence of significant risk, especially
in light of the limited direct
consequences of listing. The
Administrator's views concerning the
use of quantitative risk assessment
under this proposal are discussed in
greater detail elsewhere in this notice.
  The timing of the listing decision for a
given airborne carcinogen will depend
on the nature of the information
available to the Administrator. Initially
available information will often be
adequate to conclude that emissions of
the sustance present a significant risk to
the public. If so, listing would occur
immediately upon that finding.
Sometimes, however, the preliminary
assessments will not provide enough
information to allow the Administrator
to decide if emissions of a substance
present a significant risk. Where that is
the case,  further information will be
obtained to allow a determination to be
made. Substances for which exposures
are potentially substantial will be
assigned  high priority for this further
effort.
  The purposes of this "early" listing
approach are: to increase  the priority of
a substance for further action, to
facilitate the expeditious application of
clearly necessary control measures to
certain sources, to accelerate the
process by which final regulatory
decisions are made, and to provide for
earlier public notice of the Agency's
views and increased public participation
in the regulatory decision-making
process. Paragraphs (a) and (b) below
describe  the immediate consequences of
listing under the proposed policy.
  (a) Listing Where Generic Standards
Are Applicable. As explained more fully
in a companion advance notice of
proposed rulemaking (ANPR) elsewhere
in today's Federal Register, EPA has
developed a draft set of low-cost and
readily implemented control procedures
and work practices that can be applied
to control emissions from various
categories of sources producing,
consuming, and handling significant
quantities of a  broad class of substances
(volatile organic chemicals) sharing
certain properties. Where substances
listed as carcinogens under section 112
are emitted from source categories to
which these "generic standards" could
apply, the application of the standards
would be proposed immediately upon
liating.
  The draft generic standards published
elsewhere in the notice as an Advance
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR)
were developed from information and
efforts of EPA's Synthetic Organic
Chemical Manufacturing Industry
(SOCMI) standards development
program. This program was initiated in
1976 to gather technical and cost data on
the control of air pollution from organic
chemical manufacturing and to prepare
(1) new source performance standards
(NSPS) for total volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions, (2) control
techniques guidelines (CTG) for VOC
emissions, and (3) section 112 standards
for specific volatile organic chemical
emissions.
  The SOCMI  program has focused its
efforts on four kinds of emissions:  (1)
emissions from storage tanks and
transportation vessels,  (2) fugitive leaks
and spills of VOC, (3) losses of VOC
from liquid and solid wastes, and (4)
emissions from process vents.
Information-gathering, analysis, and
standards development are at various
stages in these four areas, and the
program's goal is to develop generic
standards in each area. The draft
generic standards in today's ANPR,
dealing with leaks and  spills of VOC,
represents the first generic application
of information developed  by the SOCMI
program  to standards under section 112.
As further information becomes
available from the program relating to
the other kinds of emissions under
study, EPA intends to develop further
generic standards for use in conjunction
with section 112. EPA would expect to
follow a public pariticpation and
regulatory .development process similar
to that of today's ANPR in connection
with the development of additional
generic standards.
  The draft generic standards which are
contained in today's ANPR would apply
to a large proportion of the organic
chemical industry, and are based on the
similarity of many operations and
equipment throughout the industry.
Examples of required procedures are the
periodic inspection for and reporting of
fugitive leaks and subsequent repair,
and the painting of storage tanks white
to reduce volatilization of organics.
Since most of the potentially
carcinogenic chemical air pollutants
identified by preliminary surveys to date
have been organic chemicals, these
generic standards would be expected to
apply to the significant sources of most
of the chemical carcinogens which might
be listed.
  In general, the applicability of the
draft generic standards would be
dependent on the characteristics of
source operations and the quantity of
the substance which is produced or
handled. The application of the draft
generic standards would be proposed
only for sources dealing with significant
quantities of the listed substance, and
some "tailoring" of the standards may
be necessary for source categories of
each listed pollutant. Sources currently
meeting the requirements of such
standards would effectively be required
to continue doing so. The purpose of the
immediate proposal of the generic
standards is to ensure that risk
reduction which can quickly and easily
be achieved tfirough the implementation
of clearly appropriate "good
housekeeping" measures is not delayed
by the further assessments and detailed
analyses which will be conducted
before final regulatory decisions are
made.
  These initial regulatory requirements
would not be applicable to all airborne
carcinogens, and would  not necessarily
represent the dfegree of control which
may ultimately be required. Because the
draft generic standards currently
address only fugitive emission sources.
further standards will have to be
developed individually to control
process emissions from significant
source categories. As further generic
standards are developed for the
remaining types of emission points and
processes, the extent to which further
control requirements will have to be
                                           V-Appendix  C-8
-------
             Federal Register / Vol.  44, No. 197 /  Wednesday, October 10, 1979 / Proposed  Rules
 developed and applied on a case-by-
 case basis will decrease significantly.
   (b) Listing Where Generic Standards
 Are Not Applicable While a substantial
 majority of the substances which will be
 listed under section 112 as airborne
 carcinogens are expected to be
 chemicals to which generic standards
 could apply,  there will be other
 substances such as inorganics or
 radioactive materials emitted from
 source categories for which generic
 standards have not been developed. In
 these cases, listing of a substance will
 trigger the assignment of a priority for
 the development of final emission
 regulations for significant categories of
 sources emitting the substance.

 (2) Regulation Under Section 111:
 Moderate Probability of Carcinogenicity
 and High Exposures
   Substances for which the probability
 of human carcinogenicity is moderate to
 low generally will not be considered for
 immediate regulation as carcinogens
 under section 112. If analysis suggests
 high exposures to a substance of
 "moderate probability," however,  the
 resulting risk of cancer to the general
 population remains of concern. Such a
 substance will therefore undergo further
 assessment and, unless that assessmet
 indicates the substance is a high-
 probability carcinogen, will be
 considered for interim regulation under
 section 111 of the Clean Air Act.
   Under section 111, new and existing
 sources may be regulated if they cause
 or contribute to "air pollution which
 may reasonably be anticipated to
 endanger public health or welfare."
 While a substance of only moderate
 probability of carcinogenicity would not
 generally "be reasonably anticipated to
 result in an increase in mortality or an
 increase in serious irreversible or
 incapacitating reversible illness," high
 exposures to  that substance certainly
 may endanger public health. Such  a
 substance may therefore be regulated
 under section 111.
 (3) Further Assessment or Testing
  EPA will conduct, recommend, or
request that others conduct further
biological testing on low or moderate
probability substances. Testing may
include both cancer and other toxicity
assays with priorities based on the
extend of public exposures.

(4) Quantitative Risk Assessments for
Listed Carcinogens
  EPA will conduct a quantitative  risk
assessment, if possible, for any
substance which has been listed under
section 112 as a carcinogen. While such
quantitative assessments are subject to
 considerable uncertainty, the
 Administrator believes that they can
 provide useful information for two
 phases of the proposed policy:
 establishing priorities for regulation of
 specific source categories of listed
 pollutants, and determining the degree
 of control required in final emission
 standards for those source categories. In
 assigning priorities for risk assessments,
 consideration will be given to the
 likelihood of significant exposures, the
 effect of any generic standards
 proposed, carcinogenic strength
 (potency), and the feasibility of
 expeditious control.
  (a) Nature of Quantitative Risk
 .Assessment. Quantitative risk estimates
 at ambient concentrations involve an
 analysis of the effects of the  substance
 in high-dose epidemiologies! or animal
 studies, and extrapolation of these high-
 dose results to relevant human exposure
 routes at low doses. The mathematical
 models used  for such extrapolations are
 based on observed dose-response
 relationships for carcinogens and
 assumptions  about such relationships as
 the dose approaches very low levels or
 zero. (23), (25), (28) Examples of such
 models are the linear non-threshold
 model and the log probit model. (25)
 Often, assumptions must be made
 regarding the relevance of studies
 involving doses given through feeding or
 other pathways in extrapolating to
 inhalation exposures. Where only
 animal studies exist, additional
 assumptions must be made concerning
 "mouse to man" extrapolations.
  The risks to public health from
 emissions of a high-probability
 carcinogen may be estimated by
 combining the dose-response
 relationship obtained from this
 carcinogenicity strength calculation with
 an analysis of the extent of population
 exposure to the substance through the
 ambient air. Exposure in this context is
 a function of both the concentraton of a
 substance and the length of time the
 concentration is encountered. A detailed
 exposure analysis will estimate likely
 exposures for long-term temporal trends,
 short-term maximum levels, and
 weighted averages for both the total
population exposed and subgroups
 whose exposures may be significantly
greater or otherwise different from the
 average.
  Although ambient monitoring data
 will be used whenever possible,
exposure analyses will often be based
on the use of air quality models,
available estimates of emissions from
 significant source categories, and
approximations of population
distributions near the source categories.
Similar models may be used to estimate
exposure through other pathways
ultimately resulting from air emissions.
Detailed air quality models will be used
to estimate the range of pollutant
exposures associated with each major
source category. The air quality models
used will generally permit estimation of
exposures of up to 20 kilometers and
and in some cases BO kilometers from
individual sources. Population and
growth statistics will be examined to
allow projections to be made of future
exposures. The information collected,
tegether with the existing carcinogenic
strength determinations, will be used to
provide estimates of the degree of risk to
individuals and the range of increased
cancer incidence expected from ambient
air exposures associated with source
categories of the carcinogenic air
pollutant at various possible emissions
levels.
  (b) Uncertainties in the assessment of
Risk The assumptions and procedures
discussed above for extrapolation and
for exposure estimates are subject to
considerable uncertainty. Where only
animal data are available to assess the
magnitude of cancer risk to human
populations, the differences in
susceptibility between animal species
and  humans, and the need to
extrapolate dose-response data to very
low  ambient concentrations, result in
risk  estimates that must be regarded
only as rough indications of effect. (25)
  Uncertainty in exposure estimates
arises from the use of limited
monitoring, pollutant transport models,
mobility of the exposed population and
other factors. In combining these
exposure estimates with dose-response
extrapolations to provide estimates of
cancer incidence, the total uncertainties
are increased.
  The primary model that EPA will use
to estimate carcinogenic risk from
exposure to a particular substance will
be the linear non-threshold dose/
response model. This model has been
chosen in order to avoid understating
the risk calculated from the
extrapolation of the effects osbserved at
high doses to the lower doses
characteristic of ambient exposure. To
the extent possible, the range of
uncertainty in the risks extrapolated
from animal studies to humans and from
high to low doses will be described.
  The decision to employ estimates of
carcinogic risks despite their lack of
precision rests on the belief that
although they are subject to
considerable uncertainties, current
analytical models and techniques can,
with due consideration of the
uncertainties, provide useful estimates
of relative carcinogenic strength and of
                                           V-Appendix  C-9
-------
             Federal Register  / Vol. 44, No. 197 / Wednesday,  October 10, 1879 /  Proposed Rules
the probable general ranges of excess
cancer incidence and individual risks.
This view has been supported by the
National Academy of Sciences, (24) the
National Cancer Advisory Board, (27)
and others. (28)
D. Establishment and Review of
Emission Standards and Related
Requirements
(1) Introduction
  A central issue in  developing a policy
for the protection of public health from
carcinogens is the determination of the
extent to which exposures must be
reduced. Given the impossibility of
identifying levels of carcinogens with no
associated risk, some have argued that
no exposure should be tolerated and
that emissions should be reduced as
expeditiously as practicable to zero.
Others contend that permissible
exposures should be determined by an
unstructured balancing of risks, costs,
and benefits.
  A number of approaches for
addressing the appropriate level for
control of carcinogens have been
considered or proposed by the federal
regulatory agencies, industrial groups,
environmental organizations, and
others. Prominent examples include the
OSHA proposal, the CPSC policy,8 and
the EOF petition on airborne
carcinogens. A discussion of the
suggested alternatives is presented in
the supplemental statement which
follows the text of the proposed rule.
The following sections describe the
approach proposed by EPA.

(2) The Proposed EPA Approach
  The standard-setting policy proposed
today requires, as a  minimum, the use of
"best available technology" (BAT] to
control emissions from source categories
presenting significant risks to public
health. The policy would also require
additional controls,  as necessary, to
eliminate "unreasonable residual risks"
remaining after the use of best available
technology. This approach is a
judgmental one, designed to protect the
public health with an ample margin of
safety from risks associated with
exposure to airborne carcinogens. The
implementing procedure described
below puts prime emphasis on public
health, consistent with section 112, but
permits consideration of economic
impacts and benefits of the activity in
setting standards for each source
category. Uncertainties in the
assessments of risks, costs, and
potential benefits, as well as the
distributional (equity) problems of
  The CPSC interim policy has beei) rescinded. 44
PR 23821 (April 23.1979).
various situations, would also be
considered in setting standards.
  (a) Source Categories Regulated
  The first step in establishing
standards and requirements for
pollutants listed under section 112 under
this proposed policy is the
determination of which categories of
sources emitting the pollutants will be
regulated, and in what order regulations
will be developed. Although a pollutant
may have been listed because emissions
from a particular source category pose a
significant risk, other source categories
may also'emit the pollutant in lesser
amounts. This may occur, for example,
because the sources process very little
of the substance, because the substance
is present in only trace amounts in the
sources' raw materials, or because
sources have installed adequate controls
on their own initiative or in response to
other regulatory requirements.
  The Administrator will therefore
propose regulations only for those
source categories which may pose
significant risks to public health. The
determination of whether a source
category emitting a listed pollutant
poses a significant risk  will be made on
essentially the same basis as the listing
decision, except that the more detailed
exposure analysis and risk essessement
then available will be used in lieu of the
preliminary information used in the
listing decision. As in the listing
decision, the risk assessment will be
used to indicate the existence of a
significant risk "where the exposure
analysis alone is insufficient, but will
not be used as evidence that a
significant risk does not exist where the
exposure analysis indicates to the
contrary.
  (b) Priorities for Development of
Standards. EPA anticipates that a
substantial number of substances will
be listed as carcinogenic air pollutants
nnder section 112 in the near future. It  is
also likely that many of these
substances will be emitted in significant
quantities from more than one source
category. As a result, EPA will need to
develop emission standards and other
requirements for a large number of
source categories emitting these
substances. At least until generic
standards can be developed for large
groups of these sources, the resources
that would be necessary to complete
this task immediately far exceed those
available to EPA for this purpose.
Today's proposal therefore provides for
the assignment of priorities to significant
source categories for the development of
these regulations, through publicly
stated criteria and announced decisions.
  Under today's proposal, source
categories posing significant risks will
be assigned priority status (high,
medium, or low) for further regulatory
action (beyond generic standards) on
the basis of: (1) the magnitude of
projected total excess cancer incidence
associated with current and future
source emissions; (2) magnitude of
cancer risks for the most exposed
individuals; (3) ease of expeditious
standards development and
implementation; and (4) feasibility of
significant improvements in controls. In
addition, significant sources of more
than one carcinogen may be given
priority over single-pollutant sources,
based on the sum of risks from the
emitted substances.
  A high priority will be assigned, for
example, to a source category
constituting an important problem
requiring immediate attention, or where
risks are somewhat lower but an
appropriate regulatory solution is both
feasible and readily available. Source
categories assigned medium priority will
generally be those that present lower
risks and will be scheduled for standard
development as resources become
available. Lower risk source categories
for which the extent of feasible control
may be substantially limited will be
assigned low priority for regulation
development. Assignment to the low
priority  category will generally mean
that active development of regulations
will not begin until there is some change
in the factors which led to the
assignment, or until higher priority
actions have been completed.
  (c) Regulatory Options Analysis. EPA
will perform detailed analyses to
identify alternative, technologically
feasible control options and the
economic, energy, and environmental
impacts that would result from their
application. Where substitution is
determined to be a feasible option,  the
benefits of continued use of the
substance or process will be considered.
These analyses will rely primarily on
the procedures and techniques
employed by EPA for developing New
Source Performance Standards under
section 111 of the Act.
  The identification of feasible control
options will initially survey the existing
control devices at the sources within a
particular category to determine the best
controls currently in use. The potential
emission points of the listed pollutant at
a particular kind of facility will also be
identified, as will possible emission* of
carcinogens other than the specific one
under study. EPA will, in addition,
examine the applicability of available
technologies which are not currently
                                            V-Appendix  C-10
-------
             Federal  Register / Vol. 44, No.  197 / Wednesday, October 10. 1979  /  Proposed Rules
used by the industry to control the
pollutant of concern (technology
transfer) but which have been
demonstrated in pilot tests or other
industrial applications. Finally, the
availability and adequacy of substitutes
which would eliminate some or all
emissions of the pollutant will be
assessed.
  Once the technologically feasible
control alternatives, which may range
from no further control to a complete
ban on emissions, have been identified,
the environmental, economic and energy
impacts of these options will be
determined. Considerations in these
impact assessments will include for
each option: the number of plant
closures predicted and the direct impact
on employment and end product prices;
the impact on growth and expansion of
the industry; the resulting changes in
profitability; capital availability for
control equipment; the impacts from the
availability of substitute products and
foreign imports; the potential increases
in national energy consumption; and the
impacts on other environmental medial
including increased water pollution and
solid waste disposal. On the basis of
these assessments, one of the control
options identified will be designated as
the "best available technology" for the
control of emissions from the sources in
the category. This level of control will
be that technology, which in the
judgment of the Administrator, is the
most advanced level of control
adequately demonstrated, considering
economic, energy, and environmental
impacts.
  The control level designated  "best
available technology" may be different
for new and existing facilities in a
category. For practical purposes, this
level of control for new sources will, as
a minimum, be equivalent to that which
would be selected as the basis for a
New Source Performance Standard
(NSPS) under section III. The
requirement of "best available
technology" for new sources would
consider "economic feasibility" and
would not preclude  new construction.
  The selection of BAT for existing
sources may require consideration of the
technological problems associated with
retrofit and related differences in the
economic, energy, and environmental
impacts. In practice, BAT for existing
sources would consider economic
feasibility and would not exceed the
most advanced level of technology that
at least most members of an industry
could afford without plant closures.
  (d) Minimum Requirements for
Existing Sources. Final section 112
standards will require existing sources
in any regulated source category, as a
minimum, to limit their emissions to the
levels corresponding to the use of "best
available technology." This requirement
is based on the Administrator's'
judgment that any risks that could be
avoided through the use of these
feasible control measures are
unreasonable. Whether BAT controls
are sufficient to protect public health
will be determined by a subsequent
evaluation of the remaining risks.
  (e) Determination of Unreasonable
Residual Risk for Existing Sources.
Following the identification of BAT for
existing sources, the quantitative risk
assessment described earlier will be
used to determine the risks remianing
after the application of BAT to the
source category. If the residual risks are
not judged by the Administrator to be
unreasonable, further controls would
not be required. If, however, there is a
finding of unreasonable residual risk, a
more stringent alternative would be
required. Among the possible
alternatives would be the immediate
application of more restrictive emission
standards, including those based on
more extensive use of substitutes, and
scheduled or phased reductions
permissible emissions. The alternative
selected would be that necessary, in the
Administrator's judgment,  to eliminate
the unreasonable residual risks.
  Given the differences in  the degree of
certainty in risk estimates, in the
numbers of people exposed, in benefits,
in the distribution of risks and benefits,
in the costs of controls, in the
availability of substitutes, and in other
relevant factors, it is not possible to
state any precise formula for
determining unreasonable residual risk.
The determination will necessarily be a
matter of judgment for each category
involved. Nevertheless, the process
followed and the various factors
involved can be outlined.
  The determination of unreasonable
residual risk will be based primarily on
public health, and will require
protection with an ample margin of
safety. To the extent possible,
quantitative or qualitative estimates of
various  factors will be made for
purposes of comparison. Among these
are: (1) the range of total expected
cancer incidence and other health
effects in the existing and future
exposed populations through the
anticipated operating life of existing
sources; (2) the range of health risks to
the most exposed individuals; (3) readily
identifiable benefits of the  substance or
activity; (4) the economic impacts of
requiring additional control measures;
(5) the distribution of the benefits of the
acitivity versus the risks it causes; and
(6) other posseible health and
environmental effects resulting from the
increased use of substitutes.
  (f) The Degree of Control Required for
New Sources. The need to focus
independently on new sources of
carcinogenic emissions stems
principally from the nature of the threat
posed by airborne carcinogens. Because
of the lag time betweeen exposure to a
carcinogen and onset of the disease, any •
assessment of the magnitude of the
problem posed by current exposure
levels is subject to considerable
uncertainty, since the consequences
have not yet become manifest. Decisions
on the appropriate level of control must
take into account  the possibility that the
dimensions of the current problem have
been underestimated.
  It also appears likely that the
activities causing current carcinogenic
emissions will continue to expand, and
that new ones will appear. Since new
emissions would threaten an increased
cancer incidence,  it is incumbent upon
the Agency to meet that threat in
advance, especially if that can be done
free of some of the constraints
associated with the reduction of risks
from existing sources.
  The policy of developing separate
requirements for new sources is based
on two additional considerations. First,
many of the factors affecting risks can
be controlled to a significant extent
before new construction takes place.
Foremost among these factors is siting:
new sources in heavily populated areas
create much greater cancer risks than
those locating in less populated areas. In
addition, new sources can sometimes
apply control technology more cheaply
and effectively than existing sources,
since new sources: (1) are often larger
and can thus benefit from the economies
of scale; (2) can engineer  the integration
of emission controls from the ground up;
and (3) do not have existing control
equipment which must be dismantled or
scrapped.
  Second, given these differences, a
determination of the appropriate control
level for new sources on the basis of
unreasonable residual risk may also
weigh the relevant factors differently.
While the focus for existing sources is
primarily the balancing of health risks
against the costs of retrofit controls
beyond BAT, for new sources the
balance can  focus more heavily on
siting, the benefits of the activity, and
the possibility of fundamental changes
in the process which would lower
emissions.
  For these reasons, the Administrator
proposes to include in this policy a
mechanism dealing specifically with
new sources. Under this mechanism,
                                           V-Appendix  C-ll
-------
             Federal Register / Vol. J4, No.  197 / Wednesday. October 10, 1979  /  Proposed Rules
described in more detail below, the
standards applicable to new and
modified sources would be determined
on a case-by-case basis, and would  .
consist of either (a) a presumptive
emission standard, (b) the best available
technology standard, or (c) an
alternative standard. Regulations
concerning procedures for the approval
of construction or modification under
section 112 standards (40 CFR 61.07)
would be amended to reflect the
requirements of the proposed policy, if it
is adopted.
  The Administrator recognizes that die
mechanism proposed here is somewhat
complex. After extensive consideration,,
however, this procedure appears to foe
the approach most likely to satisfy the
policy and practical needs described
above, within the constraints imposed
by section 112. The Administrator
actively solicits comment on the
procedure, and particularly on possible
alternative means to achieve die same
objectives.
(1) Presumptive Emission Standards
  EPA will prescribe a presumptive
national emission standard for each
regulated source category. This standard
will prescribe a maximum emission rate
and will be based solely on potential
health effects. The presumptive
standard will be designed to preclude
the existence of significant risks under
projected worst case assumptions of
plant size and emissions, surrounding
population density and distribution, and
meteorology. Any proposed new source
which would meet this limit would be
certified for construction under section
112(c) (1){A) without further
demonstration or analysis.

(2) Waiver to Best Available Technology
  Any new source meeting Risk
Avoidance Criteria (described below)
specified for each regulated source
category will be granted an automatic
waiver of the applicable presumptive
emission standard, and will instead be
required to meet the best available
technology standard. Risk Avoidance
Criteria will be designed to recognize
actual conditions more favorable than
the worst case assumptions used as the
basis for the presumptive emission
standard. Waivers  will be granted, upon
application of the source during the
certification process, where, as a result
of those different conditions, emissions
greater than the level of the presumptive
emission standard would not result in
risks greater than those associated with
the presumptive emission standard. The
criteria to be met, in general form, are:
  (a)(1) Population density and
distribution around the proposed site at
the sources's proposed emission rate are
within limits specified by EPA. These
limits will be set to allow carefully-sited
sources, whose emissions using best
available technology under specified
siting conditions would not result in
significant risks, to receive automatic
waivers; and
  (Z] The proposed source is not within
a specified distance of a source of
carcinogens regulated under section 112;
or
  (b] An offset against new emissions   -
can be obtained either internally
(existing sources seeking to expand) or
from existing sources of carcinogens
regulated under section 112 within a
specified distance. This criterion is
intended to allow automatic waivers to
best available  technology where
exposure to  people already at risk from
recognized carcinogenic emissions
would not increase as a result.

(3) Establishment of Alternative
Standard
  Any proposed source unable to
qualify for an automatic waiver to best
available technology would be eligible
to apply to EPA lor the establishment of
an alternative  standard applicable to
that source.  The alternative standard
would be based on the avoidance of
unreasonable residual risk after the use
of best available technology, end may
range from me presumptive emission
standard to best available technology.
In establishing an alternative standard,
the Administrator would generally
consider the same factors as in an
unreasonable residual risk
determination  for existing sources. The
relevant factors include:
  (a) the range of total expected cancer
incidence and  other serious health
effects associated with emissions of die
source throughout its anticipated
operating life;
  (b) die range of health risk* to the
most exposed  individuals from the
source's emissions;
  (c) existing risks to the affected
population from emissions of the listed
pollutant and other carcinogenic air
pollutants:
  (d) readily identifiable benefits of the
substances or  the activity producing the
risk;
  (e) the economic and technological
feasibility of further control measures;
  (f) the distribution of the benefits of
the activity versus the distribution of
risks;
  (g) other possible health effects
resulting from  the use of substitutes for
the substance  or activity; and
  (h) the extent to which possible
emissions offsets may be obtained.
(3a) Summary of the Legal Basis for
Proposed EPA Standard-Setting
Approach
  As noted earlier, EPA has experienced
considerable difficulty in interpreting
and applying the requirement of "an
ample margin of safety to protect the
public health" in setting standards for
carcinogenic air pollutants under section
112 of the Clean Air Act. The factual
aspects of the problem are first, as
explained above, that airborne
carcinogens appear to have no
identifiable thresholds (minimum
exposure levels) for adverse health
effects; second, that in many cases the
individual risks they present at ambient
concentrations may be extremely small;
and third,  that total elimination of those
risks could require the closure of some
of the nation's basic industries. The
corresponding problem of legal
interpretation is that Congress does not
appear to have addressed this situation
when enacting section 112.  •
  For the reasons discussed in more
detail in the supplemental statement of
basis and purpose following this notice,
the Administrator has concluded that
although it is possible to read section
112 as requiring regulation designed to
protect health absolutely, Congress has
not expressed any clear intention to
require the total elimination of risks
posed by carcinogenic air pollutants.
The Administrator therefore believes
that, in light of the legislative history of
section 112 and of the Act as a whole,
the most reasonable interpretation of
that section requires him to focus
principally on health protection in
regulating airborne carcinogens but does
not require die total elimination of risks
from such substances. Consequently, it
is the Administrator's judgment that
standards set under the policy proposed
today will protect the public health with
an ample margin of safety. These
conclusions are reinforced by the
likelihood that Congress  would have
provided much clearer guidance had it
intended the drastic results that would
flow from a requirement  to eliminate
totally all risks from airborne
carcinogens.

(4) Public Notification and Involvement
   (a) Screening. Identification, and
Assessment The results of the
preliminary screening process.
determinations of car-cinogenicity,
preliminary exposure analyses, and
decisions  on listing, proposal of generic
regulations, and further analysis and
testing will  be published in the Federal
Register. This notification will serve to
advise me public, state and local
agencies, and industry of the potential
                                            V-Appendix  C-12
-------
              Federal Register /  Vol. 44, No. 197 / Wednesday, October  10,  1979  / Proposed Rules
 hazards associated with the substances
 examined, will indicate which
 substances are receiving further
 attention, and will request the
 involvement of interested parties.
   (b) Listing, Quantitative Risk
 Assessments, and Determination of
 Regjlatory Priorities. The development
 of regulations is a time-consuming
 process. While the use of generic
 standards and the initial focus on
 regulating the most significant sources
 first will accelerate the process of
 reducing risks to public health, it is
 likely that regulation of medium and
 lower priority sources will not be
 completed for a number of years. To
 insure that the public, industry, and the
 states are aware of the status of federal
 regulatory efforts, the results of risk
 assessments and priority determinations
 will be published in the Federal
 Register. These notices will include
 decisions and recommended actions on
 all substances under review.
   (c) Proposal and Promulgation of
 Standards. Upon the proposal of generic
 or final regulations for source  categories
 of listed airborne carcinogens, EPA will
 hold public hearings^and solicit written
 comments on the proposed rulemaking.
 Records of such hearings and comments
 received will be made available for
 public inspection through the
 maintenance of public dockets.
 (5) Preparation of Regulatory Analyses
   This proposal  is classified as a major
 regulation under EPA's final report
 implementing Executive Order 12044
 "Improving Government Regulations"
 (44 FR 30988} in that it addresses a
 "major health or ecological problem."
 The Executive Order requires that a
 regulatory analysis of potential
 economic impacts be prepared for major
 regulations meeting certain criteria. The
 criteria are, in brief: 1} additional costs
 of compliance totalling $100 million;  2)
 additional costs  of production exceeding
 5 percent of the selling price of the
 product; or 3) the Administrator requests
 such an analysis.
  The procedures outlined in the
proposed rule are intended to guide the
Agency in the identification and control
of airborne carcinogens under the
principal authority of section 112 of the
Clean Air Act. The policy does not
impose regulatory requirements on any
emission source and, therefore, does not
meet either of the economic criteria for
preparing a regulatory analysis. The
purpose of the policy is to establish a
framework for EPA decisions including
the conduct of economic and risk
analyses of subsequent regulatory
actions To attempt to quantify the
impact of future regulations requiring
 unidentified controls on unknown
 source categories of, as yet, unnamed
 pollutants would not, in the judgment of
 the Administrator, be a meaningful
 exercise.
   While an economic analysis is not
 considered appropriate for this proposed
 procedural rule, EPA has considered
 possible regulatory alternatives. A
 discussion of relevant issues is
 presented in the supplemental statement
 of basis and purpose which follows  the
 text of the proposed rule.

 (6) Periodic Review
   At intervals of no more than five
 years, regulations promulgated for each
 source category of airborne carcinogens
 will be reviewed for possible
 modification, based on recent
 technological developments and any
 new health effects information
 available. This will provide an
 opportunity to consider the tightening of
 standards for existing sources to reflect
 new technology, and the application of
 innovative technologies for new sources.
 At the conclusion of each review,
 standards will be revised to reflect more
 stringent control requirements, or the
 existing standards may be reaffirmed, as
 appropriate.
 (Sections 111, 112, and 301(a) of the Clean Air
 Act. as amended, 42 U.S.C. sections 7411,
 7412, and 7601 (a).)
  Dated: August 22, 1979.
 Douglas H. Costle,
 Administrator.
  The Administrator proposes to add
 the following rule as Appendix C to  Part
 61 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal
 Regulations:
 Appendix C—Policy and Procedures for
 Identifying, Assessing, and Regulating
 Airborne Substances Posing a Risk of Cancer
 I. Introduction
A. Scope of Rule
  This rule specifies the policies used by EPA
 in the regulation of stationary sources of
 potentially carcinogenic air pollutants under
 relevant Clean Air Act authorities,
principally section 112. The rule does not
 affect regulation of non-carcinogenic
hazardous substances under section 11210or
supplemental regulation of airborne
carcinogens under other Agency authorities
where applicable.
B. Statement of General Policy
  (1) The EPA policy for regulation of sources
emitting airborne carcinogens under section
112 of the Clean Air Act is to protect the
  10 A substance may also be regulated under
section 112 due to its non-carcinogenic health
effects, or due to a combination of carcinogenic and
other serious effects Non-carcinogenic effects of
substances being reviewed as possible airborne
carcinogens will also be evaluated and considered
where information on these effects is available.
public health with an ample margin of safety.
This protection will be achieved by requiring
the elimination of unreasonable residual risks
from existing source* as quickly as possible.
and by preventing the development of such
risks from new sources.  •
  (2) The presence of "unreasonable residual
risks" to an affected population will be
determined independently for each category
of sources regulated. Primary emphasis in
this determination will be on the level of risk
remaining after the installation of the "best
available technology" for the control of
emissions from sources in the category. In
evaluating this risk, consideration will be
given to the benefits conferred by the
substance or activity, the distribution of
those benefits versus the distribution of the
risks presented by the substance or activity.
the availability of substitutes, the cost of
further control of the substance or source
category, and the proposed siting of new
sources.

II. Preliminary Assessment of Health Risks

A. Identification of Candidate Substances
  Potential airborne carcinogens (candidate
substances) will be identified  through EPA
programs, including searches of the scientific
literature, monitoring studies,  and biological
assays of substances found in the ambient  air
and source emissions, as well as by
examining information obtained from federal,
state, or other public testing or regulatory
authorites, private research groups, and other
scientific sources.

B. Screening
  Candidate substances will be screened to
determine the potential extent of exposure  of
the public through air emissions.
  (1) Screening of candidate substances will
consist of an analysis of readily available
information on their production, uses.
properties, air concentrations, and of other
indices useful in assessing the potential for
public exposure. EPA will also ascertain
whether any other regulatory efforts are in
progress with respect to these substances.
  (2) Substances which the identification and
screening process indicates (a) may be
carcinogenic and (bj the public probably is
exposed to via the ambient air will be
evaluated to determine Whether they pose a
significant carcinogenic risk to the public.
Substances with the greatest apparent
potential for public exposure will be given
highest priority for this further examination.

C. Preliminary Evaluation of Risk
  The preliminary evaluation of the risks
posed by a candidate substance will consist
primarily of an evaluation of the probability
that it is a human carcinogen and a
preliminary evaluation of the extent of
ambient exposure.
  (1) Evaluation of the Probability of Human
Carcinogen/city. Evaluation of the probability
that a substance is a human carcinogen will
be performed using criteria adopted by EPA
for such determinations. These currently
applicable criteria are summarized in the
Interim Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk
Assessment (41 FR 21404; May 25. 1976).
Using these criteria, the weight and quality of
evidence of human carcinogenicity for
                                              V-Appendix  C-13
-------
               Federal Register / Vol. 44,  No.  197  / Wednesday,  October 10, 1979  / Proposed Rules
candidate substances will be assessed. Based
on such assessments, including comparison
with other substances which have been
evaluated for regulatory action, a judgment of
the probability that a substance is a human,
carcinogen for regulatory purposes will be
made roughly as follows:
   (a) High Probability of Human
Carcinogenicity—Substances for which
"best" or "substantial" evidence exists from
epidemiological and/or at least one
mammalian study.
   (b) Moderate Probability of Human
Carcinogenicity—Substances for which
"suggestive" evidence exists from
epidemiological, animal, or "short-term"
studies.
   (c) Low Probability of Human
Carcinogenicity—Substances for which only
"ancillary" evidence exists, such as from
structural correlations, or for which
epidemiological or animal results are judged
to indicate low probability.
   (2) Preliminary Evaluation of Ambient
Exposure. EPA will also conduct preliminary
evaluations  to determine whether source
emissions of high-probability carcinogens
exist which cause or contribute to air
pollution posing significant carcinogenic risks
to the public. Among the factors that this
evaluation may take  into account are the
number and types of sourses emitting the
substances in areas where people may be
exposed, the volume  of their emissions, any
ambient concentrations which may have
been reported, and the number of people
living near emitting sources or in the vicinity
of ambient measurement sites.  Where
available, estimates of carcinogenic strength
may be used to compute preliminary
quantitative estimates of lifetime individual
risks to the potentially most exposed
individuals.
HI. Initial Response* to Preliminary
Assessment of Health Risks
A. Listing
  Substances judged by the Administrator to
present significant carcinogenic risks to the
public will be listed under section 112 as
hazardous air pollutants. A substance will be
judged to present a significant carcinogenic
risk if (1) it is judged  by the Administrator to
have a high probability of being a human
carcinogen, and (2) there is evidence of
significant public exposure via  the ambient
air from emissions from one or  more
categories of stationary sources. Where the
available evidence is otherwise insufficient
to indicate the existence of a significant risk,
a high-probability carcinogen also will be
listed under section 112 if a preliminary
quantitative risk estimate suggests that a
significant risk to the potentially most
exposed groups exists. Where emissions or
exposure data  indicate the existence of a
significant risk, quantitative risk estimates
will not be considered evidence to the
contrary.

B. Generic Standards
  Upon the listing of a substance, previously-
developed generic standards will be
proposed for source categories  o[ that
substance to which they could  apply. Generic
standards, developed based on the
similarities.among industrial processes, will
be "tailored" as necessary to fit the source
categories for which they are proposed.

C. Moderate-Probability and Low-Probability
Carcinogens
  EPA will recommend or require further
biological testing of substances initially
judged to have a moderate or low-probability
of being human carcinogens. Priorities for
testing will be based on the extent of public
exposure. Moderate-probability substances
for which public exposures appear to be high
will be considered for regulation under
section 111 of the Clean Air Act.

D. Quantitative Risk Assessments
  Quantitative risk assessments on all high-
probability carcinogens will be performed, if
possible. These assessments will be
undertaken based on priorities designed to
produce action most quickly on the most
serious problems pending at_any given time.
The results of these assessments will be used
in the assignment  of priorities for further
regulation and in the evaluation of residual
risks.
  (1) The risk assessments will examine:
  (a) detailed information on emission
sources of the pollutants, the sources' control
status and total emissions, measured and
predicted ambient concentrations of the
pollutants, and the production levels and
uses of the substances;
  (b) distribution of the population around
sources in specific sources categories;
  (c) estimated duration and magnitude of
exposures of the affected population and the
most exposed individuals;
  (d) estimated carcinogenic strength
(potency) of the substances;
  (e) estimated range of expected cancer
incidence for the total population and
individual risks for the most exposed
individuals at various possible emission
levels:
  (f) other serious health effects of the
substances; and
  (g) projected population growth around
existing sources.
  (2) The criteria to be considered in
assigning priorities for quantitative risk
assessments include,  in usual order of
importance:
  (a) probable extent of exposure of the
public through air emissions;
  (b) estimated carcinogenic strength;
  (c) the effect of any generic standards
proposed; and
  (d) the feasibility of expeditious control.
  (3) The results of detailed risk assessments
and determinations resulting from the
assessments will be published in the Federal
Register and public comments will be
solicited.

IV. Establishment and Review of Standards
and Requirements

A. Source Categories Regulated
  Emission standards in addition to generic
standards will be  proposed for any source
category whose emissions present a
significant risk to  public health. Such
standards and other requirements will be
determined independently for each regulated
source category. A source category emitting a
listed pollutant will be found to pose a
significant risk if there is evidence, from the
detailed exposure analysis, that its emissions
result in significant public exposure to the
pollutant via the ambient air. Significant risk
also will be found in the absence of such
evidence, if a detailed risk assessment
suggests that such a risk to the most exposed
individuals or to the population exists. If
emissions or exposure data indicate the
existence of a  significant risk, the
quantitative risk assessment will not be
considered as  evidence to the contrary.

B. Priorities for Further Regulation
  Further standards and requirements for
regulated source categories will be developed
according to the priority assigned to those
source categories. Source, categories will be
assigned high, medium, or low priority based
on the following criteria:
  (1) magnitude of the total expected and
upper bound cancer incidence associated
with exposure to all carcinogens emitted by
the source category;
  (2) degree of risk to the most exposed
individuals;
  (3) ease of expeditious development and
implementation of standards;  and
  (4) feasibility of significant improvements
in controls.

C. Regulatory  Options Analysis
  EPA will conduct a regulatory options
analysis to support decisions on further
required control measures.
  (1) The analysis will identify
technologically feasible control alternatives.
their economic, energy, and environmental
impacts, and, in the case of substitutes, the
benefits of continued use of the substance or
process.
  (2) The analysis will also designate levels
of control considered "best available
technology" for new and for existing source*
in a category. The control level designated
"best available technology" may be different
for new and existing facilities in a category.
  (a) For new  sources, "best available
technology" is that technology which, in the
judgment of the Administrator, is the most
advanced level of controls adequately
demonstrated, considering economic, energy,
and environmental impacts.
  (b) For existing sources, "best available
technology" is that technology which, in the
judgment of the Administrator, is the most
advanced level of controls adequately
demonstrated, considering economic, energy,
environmental impacts, and the technological
problems associated with retrofit.

D. Requirements for Existing Sources
  (1) Existing sources in a regulated source
category will be required, as a minimum, to
limit their emissions to the levels
corresponding to the use of "best available
technology".
  (2) Existing sources in a regulated source
category also will be required to  limit their
emissions in whatever additional amount is
necessary, in the Administrator's judgment,
to eliminate unreasonable residual risks to
public health associated with those
emissions.
  (3) The principal emphasis in determining
the level of additional control required to
                                                  V-Appendix  C-14
-------
               Federal Register /  Vol. 44,  No.  197  / Wednesday.  October 10. 1979  /  Proposed  Rules
 eliminate unreasonable residual risk from an
 existing source category will be on public
 health. Factors which may be considered in
 this judgment include:
   (a) the range of total expected cancer
 incidence and other serious  health effects in
 the existing and future populations exposed,
 for the anticipated operating life of existing
 sources in the category;
   (b) the range of health risks to the most
 exposed individuals;
   [c] readily identifiable benefits of the
 substance or activity producing the risk;
   (d) the economic effects (expecially plant
 closures) of requiring additional control
 measures;
   (e) the distribution of the benefits of the
 activity versus the distribution of its risks;
 and
   (f) other possible health effects resulting
 from the increased use of substitutes.

 E. Requirements for New (Including
 Modified/ Sources
   (1) Except as provided below, new sources
 in a regulated source category will be
 required to meet a presumptive national
 emission standard designed  to preclude the
 existence of significant risks under projected
 worst case assumptions of plant size and
 emissions, surrounding population density
 and distribution, and meteorology.
   (2) Any proposed new source  which shows,
 in the certification process required by
 section H2(c)(l)(A), that it meets the
 requirements of the Risk Avoidance Criteria
 (described below) applicable to  that source
 category will automatically be permitted to
 meet the applicable best available technology
 standard instead of the applicable
 presumptive national emission standard. The
 specific terms of Risk Avoidance Criteria will
 be prescribed separately for  each source
 category.
  The criteria will generally  require that
 either:
   (a)(l) Population density and distribution
 around the proposed site at the source's
 proposed emission rate are within limits
 specified by EPA, and
  (2) The proposed source is not within a
 specified distance of a source of carcinogens
 regulated under section 112; or
  (b) An offset against new emissions can be
 obtained either internally (existing sources
 seeking to expand) or from existing sources
 of carcinogens regulated under section 112
 within a specified distance.
  (3) Any proposed new source which is
 unable to qualify for the automatic waiver to
 best available technology described in
 paragraph (2) may apply for the
 establishment of an alternative standard
 applicable to the proposed source as part of
 the certification process  required under
 section 112(c)(l)(A). The Administrator will
 establish an alternative standard for that
 source at the best available technology
 standard or at whatever more stringent level
 of control is necessary, in his/her judgment,
 to prevent the existence of an unreasonable
residual risk associated with  emissions from
the proposed source. Factors  which may be
considered in this judgment include;
  (a) the range of total expected  cancer
incidence and other serious health effects
 associated with emissions of the source
 throughout its anticipated operating life;
   (b) the range of health risks to the most
 exposed individuals from the source's
 emissions;
   (c) existing risks to the affected population
 from emissions of the listed pollutant and
 other carcinogenic air pollutants;
   (d) readily identifiable benefits of the
 substance or the activity producing the risk;
   (e) the economic and technological
 feasibility of control measures more stringent
 than BAT;
   (f) the distribution of the benefits of the
 activity versus the distribution of its risks;
   (g) other possible health effects resulting
 from the use of substitutes for the substance
 or activity; and
   (h) the extent to which possible emission
 offsets have been obtained.

 F. Review of Standards and Requirements
   Regulations promulgated for each source
 category of airborne carcinogens will be
 reviewed and, if appropriate, revised at
 intervals of no more than five years.

 References
   1. Pellizzari, E. D., "Development of
 Methods for Carcinogenic Vapor Analysis in
 Ambient Atmospheres". Publication No.
 EPA-605/2-74-121, RTF,  N.C. July 1974.
   2. Pitts, ]., D. Grosjean and T. M. Mischke,
 Mutagenic Activity of Airborne Particulate
 Organic Pollutants, Toxicology Letters, 1:65-
 70 (1977).
   3. Sawicki, E., "Chemical Composition and
 Potential Genotoxic Aspects of Polluted
 Atmospheres". Mohr, U.,  Tomatis, L., and
 Schmahl, D., eds, in Air Pollution and Cancer
 in Man, International Agency for Research on
 Cancer (IARC Scientific Publication No. 16).
 Lyon, Franke (1977).
   4. Occupational Safety and Health
 Administration, "Identification, Classification
 and Regulation of Toxic Substances Posing a
 Potential Occupational Carcinogenic Risk",
 29 CFR Part 1990, 43 FR 54148, October 4,
 1977.
   5. Consumer Product Safety Commission,
 "Interim Policy and Procedure for Classifying,
 Evaluating, and Regulating Carcinogens in
 Consumer Products", 43 FR 25658, June 13,
 1978 (withdrawn April 23, 1979 44 FR 23821).
  6. "Carcinogens in the Environment", in:
 Council on Environmental Quality, Sixth
 Annual Report, Washington, D.C. (1975).
  7. Cairns,}., "The Cancer Problem",
 Scientific American, 233(5):64-78, (November
 1975).
  8. Young, J. L, A. J. Asire, and E. S. Pollack,
 "SEER Program: Cancer Incidence and
 Mortality in the United States 1973-1976",
 DHEW  Publication No. (NIH) 78-1837,
 National Cancer Institute, Bethesda,
 Maryland (1978).
  9.  "Prevention of Cancer", Report of a
 World Health Organization Expert
 Committee, WHO Technical Report Series
 No. 276, Geneva, 1964.
  10. Fraumeni,). E., Ed., Persons at High
Risk of Cancer An Approach to Cancer
Etiology and Control. Academic Press, Inc.,
New York (1975).
  11. Selikoff, Irving J. in Persons  at High
Risk of Cancer An Approach to Cancer
 Etiology and Control. Academic Press, Inc.,
 New York (1975).
   12. Maugh,). H., "Chemical Carcinogens:
 The Scientific Basis for Regulation", Science
 201:1200-1205, September 29,1975.
   13. Mohr, V., L. Tomatis, P. Schmahl, Air
 Pollution and Cancer in Man, pp. 169-253.
 International for Research on Cancer,
 Publication No. 16, Lyon, France (1977).
   14. Cederloff, R., R. Doll, B. Foyer, L.
 Friberg, N. Nelson, and V. Vouk (ed), "Air.
 Pollution and Cancer: Risk Assessment
 Methodology and Epidemiological Evidence".
 Environmental Health Perspectives. 22:1-12,
 February 1978.
   15. Pike, M. C. et al "Air Pollution"  in
 Persons at High Risk of Cancer An
 Approach to Cancer Etiology and Control.
 Academic Press, Inc., New York (1975).
   16. "Cancer Facts and Figures", American
 Cancer Society, New York (1974).
   17. "Estimates of the Fraction of Cancer
 Incidence in the United States Attributable to
 Occupational Factors", National Institute of
 Environmental Health Sciences, Draft
 Summary, September 11,1978.
   18. "Preliminary Scoring of Organic  Air
 Pollutants", EPA-450/3-77-008 (1976).
   19. Faoro, Robert B. and J. A. Manning,
 "Trends in Benzo(a)pyrene (1966-1975)", pre-
 publication 1978 copy, accepted for
 publication in JAPCA.
   20. Atmospheric Benzene Emissions, U.S.
 EPA, RTF, N.C. October, 1977 {EPA-450/3-
 88-029).
   21. National Emission Standards for
 Hazardous Air Pollutants, Asbestos,
 Beryllium, and Mecury, EPA, 38 FR 8820
 (1973).
   22. National Emission Standards for
 Hazardous Air Pollutants, Proposed Standard
 for Vinyl Cloride, EPA, 40 FR 59532,
 December 24,1975 (final standard 41 FR
 46560).
   23. Maugh, T. H., "Chemical Carcinogens:
 How Dangerous are Low Doses?" Science
 202: 37-41, October 6,1978.
   24. Drinking Water and Health, Part 1,
 Chapters 1-5, Draft, National Research
 Council, National Academy of Sciences,
 Washington, D.C. (1977).
   25. EPA, "Health Risk and Economic
 Impact Assessments for Suspected
 Carcinogens", Interim Procedures and
 Guidelines, 41 FR 24102, May 25,1976.
   26. "Scientific Bases for Identification of
 Potential Carcinogens and Estimation  of
 Risks" Report by the Work Group on Risk
 Assessment of the Interagency Regulatory
 Liaison Group (IRGL) 44 FR 39858, July 6,
 1979.
   27. "General Criteria for Assessing the
 Evidence for Carcmogenicity of Chemical
 Substances," Report of the Subcommittee on
 Environmental Carcmogenesis, National
 Cancer Advisory Board. Journal of the
 National Cancer Institute, 58:2, February,
 1977.
   28. Hoel, David G., et al. "Estimation of
 Risks of Irreversible, Delayed Toxicity,"
fourna/ of Toxicology and Environmental
Health 1:133-151, 1975.
   29. Bachmann, John D. and John R.
 O'Connor, "Identification, Assessment, and
Regulation of Toxic Air Pollutants" presented
at the Air Pollution Control Association
                                                 V-Appendix  C-15
-------
              Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 197 /  Wednesday, October 10.  1979  / Proposed  Rules
Speciality Conference, February 14,1979,
Gainesville, Florida.
  30. "Petition for the Initiation of
Rulemaking Proceedings to Establish a Policy
Governing the Classification and Regulation
of Carcinogenic Air Pollutants under the
Clean Air Act," Environmental Defense Fund,
November 7,1977.
  31. "Public Meeting—Regulation of
Carcinogenic Air Pollutants," EPA Internal
Memorandum from Joseph Padgett  to Walter
C. Barber, May 17,1978.
  32. "Summary of Responses and
Proposals—Testimony and Written
Submissions," U.S. EPA Public Hearings on
Regulation of Carcinogenic Air Pollutants,
Washington, D.C., March 23,1978.
  33. "Testimony on OSHA's Generic
Carcinogen Proposal," American Industrial
Health Council, New York, May 16,1978.
  34. "Quantitative Risk Assessment for
Ambient Exposure to Arsenic," U.S. EPA
Carcinogen Assessment Group, November 27,
1978.
  35. "Smoking and Health: A Report of the
Surgeon General" Public Health Service, U.S.
DHEW, January, 1979.
  36.1.). Selikoff, E. C. Hammond, and).
Churg "Asbestos exposure, smoking, and
neoplasia" JAMA 204(2): 106, April 8.1968.
  37. "Asbestos Exposure, Cigarette Smoking,
and Death Rates" E. C. Hammond, I. ].
Selikoff, and H. Seidman. Presented at the  *
International Conference on Health Hazards
of Asbestos Exposure, New York Academy of
Sciences, June 24,1978.
  [Note.—This Supplemental Statement will
not appeal in the Code of Federal
Regulations.]

Policy and Procedures for Identifying,
Assessing, and Regulating Airborne
Substances Posing a Risk of Cancer

Supplemental Statement of Basis and
Purpose
  This document is intended as an
elaboration of three aspects of the basis and
purpose of EPA's proposed rule for the
regulation of airborne carcinogens. It should
be read in conjunction with the preamble to
the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for this
action, which it supplements. The three
aspects of the background of the proposal
which are discussed in this supplement are:
(1) a comparison of the EPA proposal with
recent proposals of other Federal agencies for
regulating carcinogens; (2) various regulatory
approaches considered by the Administrator
In formulating the proposed rule; and (3) a
fuller explanation of the underlying view of
the meaning and intent of section 112 of the
Clean Air Act which led the Administrator to
choose the standard-setting approach
actually proposed.

I. Comparison With Other Proposals
  The policies and regulatory approaches
reflected in EPA's proposed rule are similar
In many important respects to those
contained in recent proposals by the
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) (;) and the Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) (2). There
are also a number of similarities to proposals
made to EPA and other agencies by the
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) (3) and to
gome extent by the American Industrial
Health Council (AIHC) (4). The most
important similarities and differences among
the various proposals are described below.
  The critical areas for comparison of the
various proposals are: (1) the scientific
criteria underlying determinations of
carcinogenicity for regulatory purposes; (2)
the use of those criteria in automatic
classification systems; (3) the regulatory
response to determinations of
carcinogenicity; and (4)  the role of
quantitative risk assessments.

A. Carcinogenicity Criteria
  The scientific criteria  for determination of
carcinogenicity under the OSHA, CPSC, and
EDF proposals are similar to the EPA Interim
Guideline for Carcinogen Risk Assessment
(5). All accept epidemiology as best evidence
but presume human cancer risk as a result of
animal data alone. All accept the principle
that there is no safe level of exposure to
carcinogenic substances. Differences
between the EPA and OSHA criteria are
discussed in some detail in the EPA
testimony at the OSHA hearing. The major
difference is that EPA may consider the
results of a single well-conducted animal
study as sufficient to classify a substance a
high probability carcinogen, while the OSHA
proposal requires replication of such a study
or a second "postive" study in a different
species. EPA feels that such a requirement is
scientifically unnecessary where the original
study is of sufficient quality and could result
in unnecessarily long delays while retesting
takes place.
  Although the general scientific principles
are similar, the OSHA and CPSC statements
are considerably more specific on a number
of points than are the EPA guidelines. EPA
believes that greater specificity and
agreement among the agencies are desirable.
where possible, and has joined with the
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), Consumer Product
Safety  Commission (CPSC), Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), and Food Safety and
Quality Service (FSQS) in the Interagency
Regulatory Liaison Group (1RLG) for the
purpose of developing a uniform scientific
basis for determining the probability that a
substance is carcinogenic. The IRLG has
recently published a document dealing with
these issues (e). Once the document becomes
final, the rule proposed today will be
amended if necessary and those principles
will be used by EPA in regulating airborne
carcinogens under section 112.
  There are a number of differences between
the methods recommended by AIHC for
carcinogenicity determinations and EPA's
Interim Guideline. In particular, AIHC
suggests that  greater weight be given to
negative epidemiological studies: that single-
species animal studies are insufficient to
make a presumption of human
carcinogenicity; and that short-term test
results are unsuitable for use in regulatory
decisions.
   EPA feels that while "negative"
epidemiological evidence can  sometimes
provide upper bounds on possible risks,
epidemiology is normally not a sensitive
enough tool to provide proof that a substance
which is carcinogenic in animals is not
carcinogenic in humans. EPA considers well-
conducted single species tests and single
tests results substantial evidence of
carcinogenicity. Such tests are widely used in
industry and government laboratories. In
light of the available evidence, delaying the
implementation of controls for three or more
years while confirmatory tests are conducted
would not be a prudent policy. The Agency
feels that existing experience with short-term
tests is sufficient to suggest including resulta
along with other evidence in deciding the
likelihood of carcinogenicity. In summary,
EPA feels that, given the available scientific
evidence, protection of public health requires
the use of the criteria outlined in the Interim
Guideline.
  The AIHC also recommends establishment
of a nine-member panel to evaluate and
classify carcinogens for all Federal agencies,
suggesting that identification and
classification of carcinogens is too important
and too complicated to be left to government
regulators alone. EPA believes, however,  that
there would be little advantage to this
approach. Agreement among the IRLG
agencies should make it unlikely that these
Federal agencies would reach inconsistent
conclusions about a substance's
carcinogenicity. Having a single group—
whether it be one agency or an outside group
of scientists—perform these evaluations
would only add another layer of review,
which could create serious problems. Among
other things, establishing priorities that
would accomodate the needs of all affected
agencies with their many different regulatory
responsibilities and deadlines would be
complex and resource-intensive. In addition,
if an outside group of scientists were used to
evaluate cancer risks, the scientists might be
reluctant to take positions on substances  for
which data are not definitive. This would
conflict with the agencies' obligation to act
upon the best available information rather
than to await definitive evidence. Finally, it
should also be noted that current EPA
procedures include an evaluation of
carcinogenicity determinations and risk
assessments by the EPA Science Advisory
Board, a review panel consisting of scientists
from outside of the Federal government.
  The AIHC makes no clear recommendation
on techniques to be used in evaluating excess
cancer incidence other than to recommend
that carcinogen strength and cancer risks be
evaluated as part of the regulatory process.
As EPA's proposal indicates, the Agency
agrees that carcinogenic strength and risk
should play a role in that process.

B. Classification Systems
  In testimony at the OSHA hearings, EPA
articulated its reservations about the use of
rigid, fixed criteria and automatic
classification schemes. EPA is concerned
that, since each determination is to some
extent unique,  rigid classification schemes
may not provide enough room for the use of
informed scientific judgment in making
carcinogenicity determinations. Examples of
the Agency's concerns are discussed in the
EPA testimony (7). EPA, therefore, prefers to
continue to use a "weight of evidence"
approach which allows the use of informed
                                                V-Appendix  C-16
-------
               Federal  Register /  Vol. 44.  No.  197  / Wednesday, October 10. 1979 /  Proposed Rules
 scientific and policy judgments in evaluating
 teit results.

 C. Response to Determinations of
 Carcinogenicity
   Under the policy proposed by OSHA (upon
 which the EOF petition is modeled),
 substances classified as "confirmed
 carcinogens" would be automatically
 regulated through an immediate emergency
 temporary standard including exposure
 limits, monitoring, and work practices.
 Within six months, a permanent standard
 would be proposed to: (1) effectively ban the
 substance if a suitable substitute were
 available and (2) require exposures to be
 reduced to lowest feasible level through
 technological means.
   The approach published by the CPSC
 establishes procedures for identification and
 classification of carcinogens based on
 scientific criteria and categories similar to
 those proposed by OSHA. A major difference
 between the CPSC and OSHA approaches is
 that if a substance is identified as a
 confirmed carcinogen ("Category A"), CPSC
 would not automatically propose a particular
 regulatory action. Instead action would be
 taken on a case-by-case basis, after a study
 of relevant factors.
   EPA believes that the appropriate
 regulatory response following the listing of an
 airborne carcinogen under section 112 must
 take into consideration more than a
 determination of Carcinogenicity. Given the
 large number of potential airborne
 carcinogens, some means of establishing
 priorities for regulating those substances
 posing the greatest public health risks is
 necessary to ensure that available Agency
 resources are used to-the greatest effect. The
 set of initial regulatory responses in the
 proposed EPA rule is designed to accomplish
 that by accelerating the process of listing and
 initial regulation, and by enabling the Agency
 to address the most significant sources and
 substances first.
   The CPSC policy also recognizes the need
 for such procedures. The system for setting
 priorities for assessment proposed by EPA is
 conceptually similar to that adopted by CPSC
 for establishing priorities for staff evaluation
 and Commission appraisal of consumer
 products containing carcinogens.
  The OSHA and EOF proposals do not
 contain explicit procedures for the
 establishment of priorities after
 Carcinogenicity determinations. Those
 proposals would entail a fairly rigid schedule
 of regulatory responses to notification or
 discovery of potential Carcinogenicity. After
 Carcinogenicity determinations, both the
 OSHA and EOF schemes would require
 automatic responses without explicit
 consideration of risks or other indices of
 relative priority.
  One element of the OSHA proposal is the
 immediate imposition of an emergency
 temporary standard. The response is
 somewhat analogous to the "generic
 standards" element of today's proposal. Like
 OSHA, EPA believes that there is no reason
 to permit the continued exposure to risks
which could be prevented by the use of
clearly feasible control measures. EPA views
the implementation of such measures as a
 high priority matter, especially since the
 application of pre-existing generic standards
 to specific sources will not divert significant
 Agency resources from other control efforts.
   EPA also believes, however, that a system
 for establishing priorities for further
 regulatory actions is necessary in effectively
 implementing section 112. The Agency does
 not  believe that a full system of automatic
 responses, such as that proposed by OSHA,
 would be feasible for use under section 112,
 both because of the large number of airborne
 carcinogens likely to be encountered and
 because of the differences in the statutory
 and practical tasks EPA must perform.

 D. Role of Quantitative Risk Assessment
   It is not celar what role, if any, quantitative
 risk estimates would play in the approach
 OSHA intends to employ. As noted earlier,
 EPA believes that, while cancer risk
 estimation is an imprecise endeavor
 involving many uncertainties, such estimation
 can  provide a rough measure of the
 magnitude of carcinogenic risk posed by a
 substance. EPA believes that consideration of
 such estimates in establishing regulatory
 priorities and in determining the degree of
 additional control required beyond BAT is
 both useful and appropriate under section
 112. This is particularly true in the
 Administrator's view with respect to
 exposures to carcinogens in the ambient
 environment, which, in contrast to
 occupational exposures, can often be very
 low  and involve large populations. Like
 OSHA, however, EPA does not view these
 estimates as required for the decision that a
 particular substance being emitted into the
 air should be regulated as a hazardous
 pollutant, once a determination of probable
 Carcinogenicity and significant exposure has
 been made.

 II. Various Regulatory Approaches
 Considered
  A  central issue  in developing a policy for
 the protection of public health from
 carcinogens is the determination of the extent
 to which exposures must be reduced. Given
 the impossibility of identifying levels of
 carcinogens with no associated risk, some
 have argued that no exposure should be
 tolerated and that emissions should be
 reduced as expeditiously as practical to zero.
 Others contend, on the contrary, that
 permissible exposures should be determined
 by an unstructured balancing of risks, costs,
 and benefits.
  A number of approaches for addressing
 this problem have been considered or
 proposed by the Federal regulatory agencies,
 industnal groups,  environmental
 organizations, and others. Prominent
 examples include  the OSHA proposal 1, the
 CPSC policy (Z), and the EOF petition (3) on
 airborne carcinogens. This section discusses
 various suggested possibilities that have been
 considered by EPA, as well as the approach
proposed today.
  The possibile approaches and schemes
 suggested fall into essentially four groups:
zero-oriented approaches; predetermined
decision rules; special approaches for new
sources; and judgmental approaches. The
charcteristics of these approaches are
 discussed below in terms of their possible
 usefulness in regulating carcinogens under
 section 112 of the Clean Air Act.

 A. Zero-Oriented Approaches
  As discussed above, the lack of identifiable
 health effects exposure thresholds for
 carcinogens suggests that exposure to even
 minute amounts of such substances poses
 some finite risk, and that repeated exposures
 increase the risk. This has led to the
 proposition that for public health purposes,
 no level of exposure to carcinogens can be
 considered absolutely "safe." In particular,
 because section 112 emission standards must
 protect the public health with an ample
 margin of safety, it has been argued that
 those standards must therefore eliminate risk
 completely.
  The Administrator believes that his goal in
 administering section 112 must be to reduce
 exposures  to carcinogens to the maximum
 extent possible.  While  this implies at least a
 theoretical goal of zero emissions of these
 substances, the immediate imposition of zero-
 emission requirements  would lead to  the
 closing of most facilities now emitting
 carcinogenic air pollutants. It is not now
 physically  possible, for example, to
 manufacture, handle, and store volatile
 organic compounds without some emissions,
 however small.
  As noted earlier, the  Administrator does
 not believe that the immediate imposition of
 zero-emission standards on a genera! basis,
 with their attendant consequences, is
 appropriate under  section 112. Nevertheless,
 in setting section 112 emission standards.
 public health considerations must  be
 paramount. Various mechanisms designed to
 minimize risk as part of certain zero-oriented
 approaches may therefore be useful for
 purposes of section 112. These mechanisms
 include:
  (1) Immediate  Emission Control
Requirements Beyond the use of Best
Available Technology,  Standards more
 restrictive than those achievable through the
use of "best available technology" for
existing sources, effective within between
ninety days and  two years of promulgation,
could result in the closure of some sources."
Depending  on the degree of additional control
judged necessary, and on particular economic
and technological factors, this could range
from a few  older, marginal facilities to
industry closure. Such requirement may be
appropriate where large residual risks remain
after the use of best available controls.
  (2) Phased Control Requirements. Although
standards requiring controls beyond "best
available" might not be immediately feasible
for certain affected emission sources,  such
controls might be feasible if sufficient lead
time were available before their required
achievement. A form of phased control
requirements, designed to force technology
improvements, is suggested by EOF in its
petition. This approach would involve
establishing a predetermined schedule for
periodic tightening of emission  standards.
leading ultimately to zero emissions. EPA
  "The meaning of the term "best available
technology" as used here, is explained in the
principal text accompanying the proposed rule.
                                                 V-Appendix  C-17
-------
              ^Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 197 /  Wednesday, October  10, 1979 /  Proposed Rules
does not regard this particular form of phased
control as well-suited for use under section
112. primarily because it fails to provide for
consideration of the consequences of a zero-
emissions requirement in differing
circumstances, and because it could prove
legally and practically infeasible for the
Agency to implement.
  The concept of technology forcing phased
control has, however, been used in achieving
ambient air standards and reducing
automotive emissions, and may be employed
on a more selective basis under the proposed
rule. Such requirements might entail
•somewhat accelerated closure of older.
poorly controlled plants, allowing time for
funding and construction of better controlled
facilities and the development of improved
control technology. This approach could
result in reduction of risks without extensive
economic dislocation or loss of the benefits
associated with the activity or substance
involved.
  (3) Required Use of Substitutes. The
availability of safe and adequate substitutes
for particular substances or uses can be an
important factor in determining the degree of
control required for a given source category.
It has been suggested, in fact, that in order to
eliminate emissions of the carcinogenic
substance the use of substitutes should be
required whenever they exist.
  The mam  difficulty with this approach is
that while partial or full substitutes are often
available, their consequences vary greatly. In
many cases, for example, requiring the use of
substitutes can result in prohibitive economic
penalties. Substitutes available for some
applications are also often inadequate for
other applications. Moreover, the potential
*ealth effects associated with substitutes will
often be unknown. Since adequate
substitutes are often similar to the origmial
substances,  they may  therefore pose risks
which could approach or exceed those of the
banned substances.
  In addition, because carcinogens can be
emitted in varying amounts from such diverse
sources as fireplaces, chemical plants.
automobiles, dry cleaning establishments,
steel manufacturing, and natural chemical
and radioactive emission sources elimination
•of carcinogenic risks through substitution for
ell these activities is clearly impractical.
Substitutes cannot therefore be realistically
considered a solution  for all or even most
airborne carcinogen problems.
  In establishing control requirements under
section 112,  consequently, EPA would
consider measures requiring the use  of
substitutes. In reaching a decision, however,
the Agency will also weigh the factors noted
above to ensure that the net effect of such
requirements is consistent with the other
aspects of the proposed rule.

B. Predetermined Decision Rules
  A number of approaches, rejecting the zero
risk concept, suggest that the appropriate
degree of control can be determined through
uniform decision rules, applied irrespective of
individual circumstances. While such
decision rules vary widely in their relative
emphasis on factors such as risk, cost,
benefits, and technology, they share the
central premise that regulatory consistency
can be achieved by prescribing in advance
the weight to be assigned to-each of these
factors under all circumstances.
  Although regulatory consistency is
desirable, decisions made according to
predetermined rules are often unable to
account adequately fer unforeseen or varying
circumstances. Because of the difficulty in
anticipating all  possible combinations of the
relevant factor*, decisions bound by such
rules will frequently fall to produce desirable
regulatory results.
  EPA feels that while It-is important to
articulate  the way in which relevant factors
will be considered and weighed in
determining control requirements for airborne
carcinogens, the complexity and
unpredictability of the situations that may
arise dictate that some flexibility be
maintained. Predetermined decision rules will
therefore not form the principal basis for
determining control requirements for airborne
carcinogens under section 112. Nevertheless,
some elements of decision rule approaches
may be useful as benchmarks or guidelines.
These approacheMre-discussed below.
  (1) Specification  of a Fixed Target
Carcinogenic Risk or Incidence Level, This
approach involves the selection  of a target
level of cancer risk or incidence for purposes
of regulatory action, end is based on the use
of quantitative risk assessment techniques.
Under this approach, a fixed numerical risk
or expected cancer incidence rate target
would be used in .determining the degree of
control required for carcinogens.
  The use of target risk lovers does  have
some precedent as a basis for regulatory
decisions. Toe FDA, for eacaraple, has
regarded an upper bound  lifetime cancer
incidence rate of 4ess than one per million'
people exposed to carcinogenic residues in
certain foods as "virtually safe". EPA-could
theoretically establish a similar  goal for
airborne carcinogens for use under  section
112. If the predicted risk or incidence were
higher than the target,'the degree of control
required would be that needed to reach the
goal.
  While this approach might be consistent
with the requirement that section 112
standards place primary emphasis on
protection of public health, it suffers from
two drawbacks. First, although current
quantitative risk assessment techniques for
chemical carcinogens are useful
decisionmaking tools, considerable
uncertainties are associated with the
techniques at their current stage of
development. Consequently, the
Administrator believes that in using
quantitative risk assessments, he should
generally be free to consider the varying
degrees of uncertainty that actual cancer
risks may be significantly above or below
those predicted by  the estimation procedures,
and not be bound by a fixed target.
  Second, a fixed target risk level, used as
the determinant of emissions standards,
would also inadequately account for the
varying conditions characteristic of air
pollution. The suggested use of target risk
levels instead of a zero-risk requirement is
based on the importance of considering the
various consequences of incremental risk
reductions to levels approaching zero, and it
would be inconsistent with this basis to -use a
fixed target risk level, irrespective of these
varying consequences, in setting standards.
These consequences differ greatly among
source categories of air pollutants, and a
freed target fails to provide the flexibility
necessary for an appropriate response.
Where risks could be reduced beyond the
target without significant costs, for example,
that should be permitted. Likewise, where
attainment of the goal would eliminate a
highly beneficial activity, the decision-maker
should be able to consider less stringent
Standards.
  (2)  "Cost-Per-Life" Goals. Some have
suggested that "acceptable" standards for
carcinogens may be developed by striking a
predetermined balance of health risks, human
lives, economics, and social benefits.
Fundamental to this approach .is the
expression of all these factors in economic
terms-and the adoption of a cost-per-life-
saved goal. Under this decision rule scheme.
regulations would require control to, but not
beyond, the point where the incremental
costs associated with saving an additional
life were equivalent to the goal. Proponents
of this approach argue that it would result in
a more optimal allocation of national
resources.
  The Administrator believes that several
aspects of this approach tender it unsuitable
for standard-setting under section 112. One
such aspect is the basic assumption that it is
appropriate to assign a single monetary value
to human life. The Administrator regards that
task as neither-practical nor ethically
acceptable. It is impractical because no
consensus criteria exist which can be used to
establish that cost value. Indeed, the
internalized and external expenditures for
protection of human lives in American
society ranges across a vast spectrum, and
the very existence of this spectrum is
persuasive evidence that the society place*
heavy .emphasis on  the surrounding
circumstances in "assigning" health
protection values. The approach is also
unacceptable in that it fails to consider the
balance of equities between those benefiting
from the activity creating the risk and those
who may die as a consequence of the
activity. Finally, the fixed-cost approach also
necessarily ascribes more certainty to the
risk assessment and cost estimates
underlying its use than is justifiable, in view
of the uncertainties  present in both sets of
estimates. Therefore, although cost-per-life
estimates maybe used for perspective in
considering control  options, they will not be
used as decision rules in setting standards
under section 112.
  (3)  "Best Technology". Requirements for
"best" control technology for emission
sources have been advocated as an interim or
ultimate approach which can be used without
difficult considerations at economics in
determining the degree of control required.
Although such a technology-based approach
at first appears relatively simple to
implement, it is soon apparent that "best
available technology" cannot be defined by
technical considerations alone. For example,
if an "add-on" control device achieves 90%
control, then the installation of an additional
unit of similar capabilities could reduce
                                                 V-Appendix  C-18
-------
               Federal  Register /  Vol.  44, No. 197 / Wednesday, October  10,  1979 /  Proposed Rules
 remaining emissions by an additional 90%.
 Still further units could always be applied to
 marginally reduce emissions. Clearly, at some
 point in this process the costs associated
 with marginal increases in control would be
 grossly disproportionate to the incremental
 reductions in emissions. Thus, "best
 available technology" must be defined with
 at least some reference to economic
 considerations, as in the case of new source
 performance standards under section 111 of
 the Clean Air Act.
   "Best available technology" as defined in
 •ection 111 of the Clean Air Act may not be
 an adequate level of control for purposes of
 section 112. however, since "best available
 technology" does not consider the health
 risks remaining after its use. While "best
 available technology" may prove a useful
 starting point, therefore, it is not itself
 sufficient for section 112 purposes without
 consideration of the residual health effects.

 C. Special Approaches for New Sources
   A number of approaches and mechanisms
 have been suggested to contain or minimize
 increases in risks which may be associated
 with operation of new sources of
 carcinogenic air pollutants. It has been
 argued that special requirements for new
 sources are both necessary and justified
 because (1) given existing uncertainties about
 the health effects associated with exposures
 to various levels of carcinogens, those
 exposures should be limited as much as
 possible, and (2) new sources can reasonably
 consider control and risk avoidance options
 not readily available for existing sources.
 Several mechanisms for treatment of new
 sources are  discussed below.
  (1) Stricter Standards for New Sources.
 This approach would specify control
 requirements for new sources that are more
 stringent than those for existing sources. In
 effect,  this rs simply a modification of the
 best technology approach discussed above.
 The approach does have the advantage of
 limiting emissions from new facilities to a
 greater degree than from existing facilities
 under a best technology standard, and in that
 sense can be said to contain  the risk
 somewhat.
  The approach could also involve
 consideration of residual risks associated
 with projected typical new source siting
 conditions  However, because it cannot
 consider the residual health risks associated
 with all of the varying sets of population
 distributions in which a new source might
 actually be located, the approach may not
 provide sufficient protection under actual
 conditions. Thus, like the best technology
 approach for existing sources, this approach
 can serve as a  useful starting point, but is not
 sufficient alone
  (2) Regional Emissions Offsets, An  "offset"
 policy would require a reduction in  emissions
 of a given carcinogenic air pollutant from
existing sources in an area as a precondition
 for construction of new  sources within a
specified distance of the existing sources. To
 the extent that new sources desire to  locate
near existing facilities, development of
improved emissions control technology
would be encouraged by this approach and
increases in  risk to health beyond existing
levels would be prevented.
   The disadvantages of this approach as a
 general policy are that it would have no
 effect at all on the establishment of sources
 at new locations, and could prevent the
 expansion of sources which have already
 installed advanced technology or do not
 present significant new risks. In short, it
 employs the somewhat arbitrary assumption
 that any increased risk in an area with
 existing  sources is not tolerable, but that
 increased risks in areas with no existing
 sources are permissible.
   (3) National Emissions Freeze. Under this
 option, additional emissions from new or
 modified sources would be prohibited except
 to the extent that offsets are obtained from
 existing  sources on a nationwide basis. This
 approach would account for some of the
 disadvantages of the regional emissions
 offset approach. It also provides incentives
 for technology-forcing and containment of
 risk.
  The main drawbacks of the approach are
 that it presumes that any additional
 emissions create an intolerable risk, and that
 it would fail the most heavily on the newest
 industries (those with the fewest existing
 sources) and on those whjch have already
 forced technology the most. It also fails to
 provide incentives for careful siting of new
 sources.
  (4) Case-by-Case Review of New Sources.
 Under this approach, additional emissions in
 populated or high risk areas would  be
 permitted only after consideration of residual
 risks and other relevant factors associated
 with each new source proposed. In  this
 review, special emphasis would be placed on
 appropriate siting and the use of improved
 control measures.
  By evaluating risks, benefits, controls, and
 siting on a case-by-case basis, this approach
 could significantly limit risk without
 arbitrariness and over-regulation problems of
 either regional or nationwide offset
 requirements. Yet by requiring individual
 reviews,  the pressure is maintained for both
 careful siting of new  sources and improving
 technology where that appears necessary.

 D. Judgmental Approaches
  In contrast to the zero-oriented and fixed,
 decision  rule approaches outlined above,
 "judgmental" approaches posit that the
 degree of control which is appropriate for
 airborne  carcinogens cannot be
 predetermined in the abstract for all cases
 and, to some extent, depends on the
 particular circumstances. Circumstantial
 factors which might be considered,  in
 addition  to the risk to public health, include
 the costs of further control,  the benefits of the
 activity, the distribution of risk versus
 benefits,  and the availability of substitutes.
  The use of a judgmental approach appears
 desirable to the Administrator because it
permits him to take advantage of the strong
points of various available approaches
 without suffering their drawbacks. The
specific approach chosen, however, must be
compatible with the mandate of section 112
to put principal emphasis on public health
protection, and each  of the factors involved
must be assigned a weight consistent with
this principle.
  Although protection of public health must
be paramount, the relative importance of
other factors can vary. Society may be willing
to pay more for control or accept higher
health risks associated with activities viewed
as important or essential. The distributional
aspects of control situations can differ even
when the magnitude of risk, costs, and
benefits are similar. Moreover, differing
degrees of certainty in the cancer incidence.
economic, and benefits estimates can call for
different regulatory responses. Given this
variety of circumstances and the frequent
uncertainty of analyses, the Administrator
believes that it is important to consider
different situations on their own merits.
  Judgmental approaches obviously place
great responsibility on decisionmakers to
weigh the relevant factors carefully and to
reach judgments in the best interest of the
public. The Administrator believes that such
responsibility, while heavy, is unavoidable if
protection of public health is to be maximized
within the constraints of a world of finite
resources. The policy contained in the
proposed rule is based on these views.

III. Legal Basis for the Proposed EPA
Appraoch

A. Congressonal Intent and the
Characteristics of Airborne Carcinogen
  The main question the Administrator has
found it necessary to answer in arriving at
the interpretation of section 112 reflected in
today's proposal is whether Congress, in
enacting that section, had any specific intent
about how an ample  margin of safety v> ould
be derived in setting standards for air
pollutants with the characteristics of
carcinogens. If Congress had a specific intent,
that would of course be conclusive. If, on the
other hand, the situation presented by
regulation of airborne carcinogens under
section 112 falls in the interstices of
congressional intent, the Administrator is
required by established legal principles to
deduce and impute an intent in a reasonable
way that is consistent with  the overall
purposes and scheme of the statues.12
  (1) The focus of congressional attention:
"threshold" pollutants. In answering this
question, the Adminstrator  has found it
helpful to recall the pollution problem that
Congress perceived and addressed in 1970,
when section 112 was enacted as part of a
major revision of the entire Act. The
legislative history of the Clean Air
Amendments of 1970 reveals that the
attention of Congress was at that time fixed
primarily on the two  problems perceived to
be at the heart of the air pollution crisis:
stationary source emissions of various widely
prevalent pollutants such as sulfur dioxide.
particulate matter, and photochemical
oxidants: and automotive emissions of some
of the same pollutants. The statutory scheme
constructed for dealing with these pollutants
reflected congressional recognition of the
view that the pollutants have exposure
thresholds for adverse hedlth effects, thai is.
levels below which exposure to the pollutants
  "See, e.g . Mourning v Familv PubliroliiMS
Serv., lnc.411 U.S 356. 371-373 (1973): Murl,vi r.
Ruiz. 415 U S 199, 231 (1974]. UnitpdStnln \
Southwestern Coble Co. 392 U S. 157.171-173
(1968): International Harvester Co. v Riu ki'l-./niu
478 F.2d 615. 648 (D.C. Cir . 1973).
                                                 V-Appendix  C-19
-------
               federal Register  / Vol. 44,  No. 197 /  Wednesday, October 10,  1979 /  Proposed  Rules
         t be expected to result in adverse
health effects"
  'Because it is seldom scientifically feasible
to identify precisely the levels at which
thresholds occur, the location of a threshold
must be estimated somewhere below the
exposure level (the "demonstrated effects
level") at which adverse health effects have
•been found to occur in empirical research.
Congress therefore reqr'red in section 109 of
the Act that "margins of safety" be
established to protect against unknown
dangers below the demonstrated effects
levels.'4The Administrator believes that
Congress intended health effects to be the
only consideration in setting standards under
section 108 under these circumstances, and
this view has governed the establishment of
national ambient air quality standards
fNAAQS) under section 109 to date."
  Congress also incorporated the •"margin of
safety" concept, used in section 109 in
dealing with the widespread apparent
threshold pollutants that were at the forefront
of its awareness into the requirements  of
section 112. The Administrator believes that
this incorporation reflects both a parallel
intent  and parallel assumptions. Thus section
112 standards set to protect against adverse
health effects characterized by a threshold
must also be based solely on health^6 with an
"ample" rather than an "adequate" margin of
safety to account for the greater severity of
the pollutants involved." The apparent
underlying congressional assumption,
however—the existence of thresholds—also
leads the Administrator to believe, in the
absence of significant contrary indications,
that Congress did not specifically foresee or
address the problems inherent in applying the
margin of safety concept to air pollutants
under  fundamentally different circumstances.
   (2) The carcinogen problem: no apparent
thresholds. Regulation airborne carcinogens
under  section 112 does-require the
application of the margin of safety concept
under  fundamentally different circumstances.
Although carcinogens, as air pollutants which
may cause an increase in mortality, are
   "Same physiological responses (not producing
 idveree health effects) may occur at exposure levels
 bctow the thresholds.
   "5. Rep. No. 01-1106. Slot Cong.. 2d Sett.. af9-10
 (1970).
   "See. e.g., 44 FR 8202 (February 8.1979)
 (revision* of ozone standard). Although Congress
 has precluded consideration of the feasibility of
 attaining NAAQS in the standard-setting process, it
 has provided various means for feasilbilty factors to
 be considered in connection with control of the
 pollutants described in section 108. Control of
 pollutants listed  under section 106 can take account
 of feasibility through opportunities for allocation of
 the burden* of control by the states under section
 110. through delays in compliance under sections
 113(d) and 110. and through attainment date
 extensions under section  110(e). Under section
 111(d) of the Act. feasibility is taken into-account
 directly in connection with control of certain
 similar, but less ubiquitous, pollutants emitted by
 discrete source-categories.
   '•Thi» view wa» recently endorsed in Hercules.
 Inc. v. gPA. F.2d	, 12 ERC 1378 (D.C. Cir., W78).
   "This construction of the difference between
 "adequate" and "ample"  was recently expressed by
 the U.S Court of Appeals for the District of
 Columbia circuit hi EDFfPCBsl v. EPA.	-F
 12 RRC 13S3 (1978).
 clearly among Ihe pollutants that the
 Administrator is required to regulate under
 section 112 of the Act, carcinogens must also
 (for the reasons discussed earlier) be
 regarded for public health purposes as having
 no identifiable adverse health effects
 thresholds. The method used  to establish a
 margin of safety for a threshold pollutant—
 setting the standard somewhere below the
 demonstrated effects level at a point at which
 the absence of adverse health effects is
 predicted—therefore cannot be .used to set
 standards (other than *t zero) for carcinogens
 under section 112. -Brnoe risk of cancer is
. believed to exist at any exposure level
 greater than zero.
   In establishing margins of safety for
 carcinogens, therefore, the task is to
 determine how low the risk of the occurrence
 of cancer in an exposed persons or the
 projected incidence in an exposed-population
 must be driven before a margin of safety can
 be considered ample to protect the public
 health. Only two approaches are available
 for performing this task: either the emission
 standards must be set at zero to eliminate the
 risk of cancer incidence altogether, or some
 residual risk must be permitted.  Because
 Congress did not give specific consideration
 to this problem, the Administrator does not
 believe that section 112 expresses an intent
 to eliminate totally all risks from emissions of
 airborne carcinogens." Section 112 standards
 which permit small residual risks can, in the
 Administrator's judgment, therefore provide
 an ample margin of safety to  protect the
 public health.
   (3) The consequences of a zero-risk
 requirement.  This view is based on several
 additional factors. Foremost-among these is
 the belief that If Congress had intended the
 drastic results thai would flow from a
 requirement to eliminate all risk from
 •missions of carcinogens, It would have
 spoken with much greater clarity."
   A requirement that the risk from
 atmospheric carcinogen emissions be reduced
 to zero would produce massive social
 dislocations,  given the pervasiveness of at
 least minimal levels of carcinogenic
 emissions in  key American industries. Since
 few such industries could soon operate in
 compliance with zero-emission standards,
 closure would'be the only legal alternative.
 Ameng the important activities affected
 would be the generation of electricity from
 either coal-burning or nuclear energy; the
 manufacturing of steel; the mining, smelting.
 or refining of virtually any mineral (e.g..
 copper, iron,  lead, zinc, and limestone); the
 maufacture of •synthetic organic chenicals;
 and the refining, storage, or dispensing of any
   "While Congress apparently believed that some
 substances might-be so toxic that eny level of
 emisaons should be prohibited (fee. e.g., A
 Legislative History of the Clean Air Amendments of
 1970. U:6. Government Printing Office, 1974. at 227)
 (Statement of Senator Mvskie), it seems to have had
 in mind (ustanoas ao poisonous that essentially any
 ambient concentration would be expected to
 produce widespread serious health effects, rather
 than substances with the characteristics of
 carcinogens, which would produce only scattered.
 random health effects at very low-concentrations.
   '• Cf. Brown v. EPA. 521 F. 2d 827, 834 (8th Cir.,
 1975). vacated an other grounds. 431 U.S. 99 (1977).
 opinsmnniwMiid. M6 F. 2d 666 (1977).
petroleum product."That Congress had no
cleat intention of mandating such results
aeems self-evident.
  The conclusion .that Congress did not
contemplate closure of the nation's basic
industries, or even widespread industry
closures, is also supported by the history and
language of section 112. First, Congress in
1970 gave the subject of plant closures only
brief consideration in connection with section
112." While the legislative, history makes
clear that the Administrator is empowered to
set standards under section 112 that result in
plant or industry closures where
appropriate, "it is by no means clear that
Congress intended that result for all non-
threshold hazardous pollutants, or even that
Congress really focused on the problem.13
Indeed, the very limited nature of the
legislative history itself compels the
conclusion that closure of the nation's basic
industries, irrespective of the actual levels of
risk involved, could not have been
contemplated. That conclusion becomes even
more inescapable in light of the 1977
Amendments, which added radioactive
substances—long regarded as confirmed
carcinogens and emitted from a wide variety
of sources—to the coverage of the Act, with
PO mention anywhere of industry closures as
the inevitable consequence.
  The language of section 112 is also
consistent with today's proposal. In using the
phrase "margin of safety," Congress was
borrowing a concept from the field of
enginering,*4 where it had previously
employed the term.*"By prescribing the use
of a margin of safety for the load factors of
underground mine hoist cables in the 1969
Mine Safety Act, for example, Congress
surely did not intend to suggest that the
safety factor must guarantee a failure risk of
zero. Indeed, no reputable engineer would
say that even with a margin of safety an
"adequately strong" hoist cable "presents a
failure risk of absolutely zero.
   Nor does the use of the term "safety"
necessarily imply a zero-risk concept. Where
Congress has intended to require safety from
the risk of cancer to be absolute, It has
known how to express that intention clearly,
as it did in the Delaney Clause of the Food
and Drug Act.^prohibiting the use of any
food additive found to induce cancer in man
or animal at any level of exposure. This
provision was enacted years before section
   K One widespread, though non-industrial, activity
 that would also be affected is the buring of wood in
 home fireplaces.
   "See, e.g.. Legis. ftisL. tupra. a( 133 (statement of
 Senator Muskie).
   "See, Legis, Hist., lopro, st 133 (statement of
 Senator Muskie); Adamo Wrecking Co. v. U.S.. 434
 U.S 275, 54 L. Ed. 2d 538. 555 (Stevens,),
 diuenting).
   "In (act, the congressional expectation in 1970
 was apparently that only a few pollutants would
 (intimately be found "hazardous" within the
 meaning of what became section 112. See. S. Rep.
 No. 91-1196. supra, at 20.
   ••See EDF(fCBs) vs. EPA. EPA. supra, slip opin.
 at 40
   "Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of
 1969. 314(a).  30 U.S.C. { 674(a);«w also 30 CFR
 75.1401-1 (1977).
   »JOU.S.C.«74(a|.
   "21U.S.C. 348(cKa«A|.
                                                    V-Appendix  C-20
-------
               Federal Register /  Vol.  44. No. 197 /  Wednesday.  October 10.  1979 / Proposed Rules
 112, and the absence of comparable
 specificity in section 112 suggests that "an
 ample margin of safety to protect the public
 health" need not be interpreted as requiring
 the complete elimination of all risks.2'
   In interpreting the margin of safety concept
 in section 112 of the Clean Air Act, moreover,
 there is no reason to believe that Congress
 intended to make air pollution practically the
 sole facet of American life from which the
 government would attempt to eliminate risk
 entirely.
   Not only is there no indication, as noted
 above, that Congress considered  the
 inevitable consequences of such a decision,
 but such an interpretation would  also be
 quite incongruous in view of the provisions of
 numerous other public health statutes
 enacted during or since 1970. These statutes
 deal with, among other things, environmental
 carcinogens to which people are equally or
 more exposed, and they all permit
 consideration of factors other than risk in
 setting standards or taking comparable
 actions.29
   In particular, the recent enactment of the
 Toxic Substances Control Act, which was
 intended to address the problem of toxic
 substances comprehensively, supports the
 view that where Congress has specifically
 considered the problem of reducing risks
 posed by environmental exposure to
 carcinogens, it has not required complete
 elimination of those risks. Taken  together, the
 Administrator believes that these statutes
 provide strong evidence that the complete
 elimination of risk from environmental
 exposure to carcinogens is not the task with
 which he has been charged by Congress.
   B Ample margins of safety under section
 112 For reasons stated previously, the
 Administrator has concluded that section 112
 does not require him to base all emission
 standards for carcinogens on a criterion of
 zero risk from exposure to such substances.
 Once that proposition is accepted, at least
 limited consideration of factors other than
 the level of risk itself is unavoidable, since
 some criteria are needed in order  to judge
 whether or not the degree of public health
 protection associated with a particular
 standard is "ample." M
   The Administrator believes that section 112
 clearly requires this determination to be
 based primarily on risk. The Administrator
 also believes, however, that he may consider
 other social and economic factors in
 determining whether an ample margin of
 safety is provided by a given control level.
  "That Congress might have chosen an absolute
safely rule for food additives, but not for air
pollution, is quite plausible on policy grounds Cf.
Doniger. 'Federal Regulations of Vinly Chloride," 4
Ecology Law Quarterly 497. at 656-658 (1978).
  "See, Federal Insecticide. Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act. as amended. 7 U S.C. 138a etseq.;
Toxic Substances Control Act. 15 U S.C 2601 et
seq: Safe Drinking Water Act. 42 U S C. 300f et seq.:
Clean Waler Act, as amended. 33 U.S.C 1251 et
seq , and Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970. 29 U S.C 651 et seq.
  30 As discussed above, this conclusion is of course
limited lo situations where standards cannot be set
on the basis of an adverse health effects threshold.
Where standards can be set on that basis under
section 112. factors other than health effects need
not and may not be considered.
 These factors include the benefits of the
 activity or substance producing risk; the
 distribution of the benefits versus the
 distribution of the risks; the availability and
 possible environmental risks of substitutes
 for that substance or activity; and the cost of
 reducing the risks further.
   The rule proposed today will provide an
 ample margin of safety in several ways,
 consistent with this view. First, it protects
 against the unknown dangers of low-level
 exposures to airborne carcinogens by treating
 them as pollutants presenting risks even at
 low exposure levels. Next, it places primary
 emphasis on risk in establishing standards
 for sources regulated under section 112, and
 therefore requires at a minimum that such
 sources use best available technology to
 reduce cancer risks from their emissions.
 Beyond that, additional control measures  will
 be required to eliminate residual  risks judged
 unreasonable in light of the factors noted
 above.  If necessary, this could entail closure
 of a source or even an industry, although the
 Administrator is not now aware of any
 source category whose carcinogenic
 emissions would be likely to require industry
 closure.
   The proposal would also carry out the
 public health mandate of section  112 in  two
 additional ways: first, by quickly imposing
 generic standards where possible to
 eliminate swiftly certain existing sources of
 carcinogenic emissions; and second, by
 applying the unreasonable risk criterion to
 contain the risks posed by emissions from
 new sources. The Administrator believes that
 provisions dealing specifically with the
 otherwise unpredictable increases in risks
 posed by emissions from new sources are a
 necessary element of a policy under section
 112 that requires the elimination of
 unreasonable residual risks. The
 Administrator also regards these  provisions
 as consistent with, if not required by, the
 policy of the Act to afford maximum public
 health protection b preventing significant
 increases in exposure to pollutants regulated
 by the Act."
   Finally, since the issues posed by today's
 proposal have not yet been judicially
 resolved,'2 the Administrator regards the
 foregoing analysis of the requirements of
 section  112 as a valid exercise of  his
 discretion to interpret the meaning of these
 complex provisions of the Act."The
 interpretation of section 112 stated here is the
 first detailed analysis the Administrator has
  11 See. { { 101(b)(Z) and 160-189 of the Act 42
U.S.C 7401(b)(2) and 7470-7479, H.R. Rep. No. 95-
294. 9Mh Cong., 1st Sess. at 103-178 (1977). The
Administrator has previously expressed his view
that new sources of carcinogen emissions should
not be allowed to create significant new risks to
exposed populations. 42 FR 28154. 2B156 (June Z.
1977). and that new sources should be required to
use improved emission control techniques, id. at
28155
  "The Administrator does not regard the
EDF/PCBs/ and Hercules cases noted above as
controlling precedent for the interpretation
expressed here. Neither of those cases involved
regulations promulgated under section 112. and
neither dealt with the primary question involved
here, the regulation of carcinogens—nonthreshold
pollutants—under the Clean Air Act.
  "See. e.g.. Train v. NRDC, 420 U.S. 80 (1975).
 published of the application of the section to
 regulation of airborne carcinogens. It is,
 however, consistent with his initial (and
 subsequent) actions in regulating asbestos,
 the first substance regulated under section
 112 in part for carcinogenic effects. In that
 initial rulemaking, despite the absence of a
 known threshold level for carcinogenic
 effects, the Administrator explicitly
 considered the technological and economic
 importance of certain uses of asbestos and
 decided that, although a certain "minimal risk
 to the public" would probably remain,
 emissions from certain of those activities
 should be allowed to continue.94
  EPA also considered such factors in
 establishing emission standards for vinyl
 chloride, the only other substance for which
 emission standards have been set under
 section 112 to control carcinogenic effects.
 The interpretations of section 112 published
 in connection with that action are consistent
 with, though not as detailed as, the analysis
 appearing here."Those interpretations were
 reiterated, and the health-based nature of
 section 112 emphasized, in a proposal to
 amend the vinyl chloride standards.9*These
 publications make clear the Administrator's
 consistent view that section 112 requires him
 to focus principally on health risks in
 regulating airborne carcinogens, but that it
 does not require the elimination of all risks
 from carcinogens in establishing an ample
 margin of safety to protect the public health.

 References
  1. Occupational Safety and Health
 Administration, Identification, Classification
 and Regulation to Toxic  Substances Posing a
 Potential Occupational Carcinogenic Risk, 29
 CFR Part 1990, 43 FR 54148, October 4,1977.
  2. Consumer Products Safety Commission,
 "Interim Policy and Procedure for Classifying,
 Evaluating, and Regulating Carcinogens in
 Consumer Products", 43 FR 256S8, June 13,
 1978. Withdrawn, 44 FR 23821, April 23,1979.
  3. "Petition for the Initiation of Rulemaking
 Proceedings to Establish a Policy Governing
 the Classification and Regulation of
 Carcinogenic Air Pollutants under the Clean
 Air Act," Environmental Defense Fund,
 November 7,1977.
  4. 'Testimony on OSHA's Generic
 Carcinogen Proposal," American Industrial
 Health Council, New York.
  5. EPA, "Health Risk and Economic Impact
 Assessments for Suspected Carcinogens',
 Interim Procedures and Guidelines, 41 FR
 21402, May 25,1976.
  6. "Scientific Bases for Identification of
 Potential Carcinogens and Estimation of
 Risks" Report by the Work Group on Risk
 Assessment of the Interagency Regulatory
 Liaison Group (IRLG) 44  FR 39858, July 6,
 1979.
  7. EPA's Testimony on OSHA's Proposed
 Cancer Policy, presented at OSHA public
 hearings beginning May 16,1978.
 |FF Doc. 79-31302 Filed 10-9-79: 8.45 am)
BILLING COOC 65SO-01-M
  "See 38 FR 8820 (April 6,1973).
  "See 40 FR 59532. 59534. 59535-59536 (December
24,1975): 41 FR 46560. 46561-48562 (October 21.
1976).
  "See 42 FR 28154 (June 2.1977).
                                                   V-Appendix  C-21
-------
            Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 158 / Wednesday, August 13. 1980 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40CFRPart61

(FRL 1562-2, Docket No. OAQPS 79-14]

Proposed Policy and Procedures for
identifying, Assessing, and
Regulating Airborne Substances
Posing a Risk of Cancer; Advance
Notice of Proposed Generic
Standards; Public Comment Period
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice of extension of public
comment period.

SUMMARY: This notice extends the
period for comment on proposed and
procedures for identifying, assessing,
and regulating carcinogens emitted into
the ambient air from stationary sources.
The comment period is extended from
August 12,1980 through the public
meeting of EPA's Science Advisory
Board Subcommittee on Airborne
Carcinogens, tentatively scheduled for
early November, 1980. Notice of the date
by which comments are due will
accompany the announcement of the
meeting date and location.
DATES: The public comment period on
the proposed policy and ANPR will
close following the public meeting of
EPA's Science Advisory Board
Subcommittee on Airborne Carcinogens
tentatively scheduled for early
November, 1980.
ADDRESSES: All written comments on
the proposed policy and ANPR should
be addressed to: Central Docket Section.
Gallery 3, West  Tower, Waterside Mall.
401 M Street, SW., Washington, D.C.
20460. Attn.: OAQPS 79-14 (proposed
policy) or A 79-13 (ANPR).
  Information on which the proposed
policy and ANPR are based as well as
the written comments received and
transcripts of the public hearings are
available for public inspection and
copying at the Central Docket Section.
fOM FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
Mr. Joseph Padgett, Telephone 919-541-
5204 (FTS 629-5204).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
October 10,1979, the Environmental
Protection Agency proposed in the
Federal Register (44 FR 58642) a policy
and procedures  for identifying,
assessing, and regulating carcinogens
emitted into the ambient air from
stationary sources. In the same Federal
Register (44 FR 58662), EPA published
an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPR), soliciting comments
 on draft generic work practice and
 operational standards for volatile
 organic compounds which could be
 applied quickly to reduce emissions of
 airborne carcinogens from certain
 source categories.
   Interested individuals were invited to
 submit written comments on the
 proposed policy and ANPR by February
 21,1980. This was extended to April 14.
 1980 and again to August 12,1980 in
 order to afford additional opportunity
 for public comment.
   Based on the written and oral
 comments received on the proposed
 policy. EPA has determined that further
 public discussion of certain major
 scientific issues is warranted. The
 format for this discussion will be a
 public meeting of EPA's Science
 Advisorj- Board Subcommittee on
 Airborne Carcinogens tentatively
 scheduled  for early November. 1980.
 Once the date for this meeting is
 determined, an announcement will be
 published in the Federal Register. The
 meeting announcement will include
 notice of the comment period deadline
 and the date of by which material
 rebutting, responding  to, or
 supplementing written or oral comments
 submitted at the Science Advisory
 Board meeting must be submitted to
 EPA.
  Dated: August 8,1980
 David G. Hawkins,
Assistant Administrator for Air. Noise and
Radiation.
|FR Doc. 80-24810 Filed »-12-«fc 1:45 am|
                                              V-Appendix C-22
-------
             Federal Register / Vol.  45, No. 248 / Tuesday. December 23. I960  /  Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40 CFR Part 61

[FRL 1710-3; Docket Nos. OAQPS 79-14
and A 79-13]

Proposed Policy and Procedures for
Identifying, Assessing, and Regulating
Airborne Substances Posing a Risk of
Cancer; Public Comment Period
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Closure of Public Comment
Period.
SUMMARY: This notice announces
closure of the period for public
comment! on the proposed airborne
carcinogen policy and on the advance
Notice of Proposed Generic Standards
(ANPR) published concurrently by EPA
October 10,1979.
DATES: Comments on the proposed
policy and ANPR should be postmarked
no later than January 22,1961.
ADDRESS: All written comments on the
proposed policy and ANPR should be
addressed to: Central Docket Section,
Gallery 3, West Tower, Waterside Mall,
401 M Street,  SW., Washington. D.C.
20460. ATTN: OAQPS 79-14 (proposed
policy) or A 79-13 (ANPR).
  Information on which the proposed
policy and ANPR are based as well as
the written comments received and
transcripts of the public hearings are
available for public inspection and
copying at the Central Docket Section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Bob Schell, Telephone 919-541-5345
(FTS: 629-5345).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
October 10,1979, the Environmental
Protection Agency proposed in the
Federal Register (44 FR 58642) a policy
and procedures for identifying,
assessing and regulating carcinogens
emitted into the ambient air from
stationary sources. In the same Federal
Register (44 FR 58662), EPA published
an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPR) soliciting comments
on generic work practice and
operational standards for volatile
organic compounds which could be
applied quickly to reduce emissions of
airborne carcinogens from certain
source categories.
  EPA has extended the public comment
 period on the subject rulemakings
 several tiroes (44 FR 70196, 45 FR 6960,
 45 FR 25828, 45 FR 53842) to
 accommodate the requests of concerned
 individuals and organizations. The
 dockets for these rulemakings currently
 include more than 200 written
 submissions and the oral transcripts of
 three public hearings.
  In the most recent Federal Register
 notice (45 FR 53842, August 13,1980), the
 Agency announced an extension of the
 comment period to permit further
 consideration of certain scientific issues
 raised during the public hearings and in
 the written comments. The notice
 explained that the consideration of
 these issues would include a public
 meeting of EPA's Science Advisory
 Board Subcommittee on Airborne
 Carcinogens tentatively scheduled  for
 November 1980. The Subcommittee had
 been previously scheduled to meet
 September 4-5,1980 to review EPA
 carcinogenicity and exposure
 assessments on several substances
 identified as possible candidates for
 regulation as airborne carcinogens. In
 the course of this review the
 Subcommittee was able to devote a
 considerable part of the meeting to  a
 discussion of several basic scientific
 issues relevant to the proposed policy,
 including carcinogenicity evaluation and
 risk estimation. Based on the SAB's
 discussion of basic scientific issues in
 its September meeting, EPA has
 concluded that a further meeting of the
 SAB prior to finalization of the airborne
 carcinogen policy is unnecessary. For
 these reasons, the comment period  will
 be closed thirty days after publication of
 this notice.
  Dated: December 16,1980.
David G. Hawking,
Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise and
Radiation.
 [FR Doc. aO-39788 Filed 12-22-40. S 45 am)
                                               V-Appendix  C-23
-------
       ENVIRONMENTAL
         PROTECTION
          AGENCY
 NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS
FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
     GENERIC STANDARD
-------
            Federal Register / Vol. 44. No.  197 / Wednesday.  October 10.  1979 / Proposed  Rules
40 CFR Part 61

[FRL 1254-2]

National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Advance
Notice of Proposed Generic Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed
rulemaking.	

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth draft
generic standards that EPA may propose
for sources of carcinogenic organic
chemicals that are listed as hazardous
air pollutants under section 112 of the
Clean Air Act. Elsewhere  in this issue of
the Federal Register EPA is proposing a
policy for the identification,  assessment
and regulation of airborne carcinogens
under section 112. Under this policy,
EPA would employ generic standards
where applicable to reduce emissions of
airborne carcinogens. These generic
standards would be proposed
simultaneously with the listing of a
carcinogen as a hazardous air pollutant.
The intent of this notice is to solicit
comment on the generic standards EPA
is currently developing.
DATES: Written comments and
information should be postmarked on or
before December 10,1979.
ADDRESSES:
Comments: Written comments and
  information should be submitted to the
  Central Docket Section (A-130). U.S.
  Environmental Protection Agency. Attn:
  Docket No. A-79-13,401 M Street, SW..
  Washington, D.C. 20460.
Docket: Docket No. A-79-13, containing
  material relevant to this rulemaking, is
  located in the U.S. Environmental
  Protection Agency, Central Docket Section,
  Room 2903B. 401 M Street,  SW.,
  Washington. D.C. 20460. The docket may
  be inspected between 8:00  a.m. and 4:00
  p.m. on workdays, and a reasonable fee
  may be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Emission Standards and
Engineering Division (MD-13), Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.
Attention: Mr. Don R. Goodwin.
telephone number (919) 541-5271.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
112 of the Clean Air Act as amended, 42
U.S.C. 7412. requires EPA to regulate
hazardous air pollutants by establishing
emission standards and, where
necessary, certain other measures to
protect public health. The rapidly
developing body of knowledge
concerning toxicology indicates that
many air pollutants, primarily in the
form of airborne carcinogens, may
present significant risks to public health.
Many of these air pollutants will likely
be volatile organic chemicals. The
technical complexity and diversity of
the organic chemical manufacturing
industry and the stringency of Clean Air
Act time limits on regulation of
hazardous air pollutants indicate a need
to improve EPA's regulatory procedures
in this area. Accordingly, as a
significant part of the program for
regulation of airborne carcinogens
contained in the rule proposed
elsewhere in today's Federal Register,
EPA is developing generic standards for
use in reducing emissions of organic
chemical carcinogens listed under
section 112 in the future. The use of
generic standards would provide a
quick, first step in the regulation of
organic chemical air carcinogens.
Generic Standards
  Generic standards used to regulate
emission sources of carcinogenic air
pollutants are standards which are
independent of process or chemical and
are based on the similarity of operations
and equipment throughout an industry,
such as the organic chemical
manufacturing industry. They can be
applied to similar emission sources and
represent reasonable and prudent
measures a responsible plant owner or
operator  would take in dealing with a
carcinogenic air pollutant.
  Consistent with the mandate of
section 112 that emissions of hazardous
air pollutants be reduced quickly,
generic standards would be proposed
for applicable emission sources
simultaneously with listing of a volatile
organic chemical determined to be an
airborne  carcinogen. Depending on the
nature of the listed organic chemical and
the emission sources of this chemical,
generic standards may require
"tailoring" in certain cases to reflect
unique or unusual situations. Generic
standards and the rationale supporting
those standards would be published in
the Federal Register. Additional
documents outlining and summarizing
the information supporting the
standards would not necessarily be
published. However, supporting
information would be available at the
time of proposal for public inspection.
This supporting information would
include general assessments of the
economic, energy, and environmental
impacts of the proposed standards.
   Proposal of generic standards for
applicable organic chemical emission
sources would be followed by a public
comment period and an opportunity for
a public  hearing. EPA would evaluate
the comments submitted during the
public hearing and comment period,
make appropriate changes to the
proposed generic standards, and then
promulgate the generic standards.
Generic standards would be followed, in
most cases, by proposal of additional
standards. These additional standards
would be developed under the rule
proposed today for regulation of
airborne carcinogens.
  As EPA identifies and develops
additional standards, an evaluation of
the reasonableness of including these
requirements in future generic standards
will be made. As a result, the generic
standards will  evolve and become more
extensive as EPA's experience and
expertise increase.

Implementation of Generic Standards
  As discussed below, the draft generic
standards focus primarily on reducing
fugitive emissions through the use of an
effective leak detection and repair
program. There are a number of possible
approaches to implementing these
generic standards. The first  approach
would be to require the attainment of
specific performance levels by the
sources regulated. For example to
control fugitive emissions from pump
seals, a performance level could specify
that no more than a certain percentage
of pump seals leak. Achievement of the
performance level would be enforced
through tests of pump seals in a plant to
determine what percentage of seals
were leaking. If more leaks were found
than the percentage allowed by a
performance level,  the source would be
out of compliance and enforcement
action would be taken. This approach,
therefore, would be similar to the
approach followed in most existing new
source performance standards and
national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants. Because this
approach would depend on testing,
rigorous enforcement of the standards
would be possible. This approach also
would provide each plant with complete
flexibility to institute its own method of
achieving and maintaining compliance
with the standards. Data to establish
specific performance levels, however, is
not currently available, although
programs underway may provide some
data which could be used for this
purpose. If the data developed by these
programs show that this approach is
feasible, future generic standards may
incorporate performance levels in some
areas.
   A second approach to implementing
generic standards would be to specify
that certain work practices be followed.
For example, to control fugitive
emissions from pump seals, the
standards would specify (1) how often
pump seals must be inspected for leaks.
                                                  V-Generic-2
-------
             Federal Register / Vol. 44. No.  197 / Wednesday,  October 10.  1979 / Proposed Rules
 (2) the detection technique and
 procedure for determining if a leak
 exists, and (3] the time period within
 which any leak found must be repaired.
 Compliance with work practice
 requirements would be enforced through
 examination of records kept by the plant
 showing that inspections were carried
 out, leaks detected, and repairs made.
 Compliance would be monitored through
 use of routine reporting. This approach
 would, of course, provide less flexibility
 to the plant owner or operator. The
 reliance of this approach on self-
 reporting and recordkeeping could make
 enforcing generic standards difficult.
 However, data and information are
 currently available which allow the
 development of work practice
 requirements.
  A third approach to implementing
 generic standards would use the
 standards as guidelines. Guidelines
 would provide maximum flexibility in
 the actions by industry; each plant could
 tailor its method of locating and
 repairing leaks to its particular situation.
 Guidelines would also allow innovation
 in control techniques.  Guidelines,
 however, would have no legal status.
 Therefore, EPA could not enforce
 compliance with guidelines. Given the
 nature of the problem  presented by
 public exposure to hazardous air
 pollutants and the requirements of
 section 112, this approach is inadequate.
  The Manufacturing Chemists
 Association (MCA) has suggested an
 approach similar to that of guidelines.
 MCA's approach would require owners
 and operators to prepare and implement
 plant-specific plans for reducing fugitive
 emissions of the hazardous air pollutant.
 The draft generic standards would serve
 as guidelines for developing these plans.
 Plans could depart from the guidelines if
 an owner or operator felt the departure
 was justified.
  MCA's suggested approach is similar
 to an approach used by EPA in oil
 pollution prevention regulation (40 CFR
 Part 112) promulgated  in 1973 and in
 hazardous substance pollution
 prevention regulation (40 CFR Part 151)
 proposed in 1978 under the Clean Water
 Act. This approach provides each plant
 with flexibility and allows innovation in
 control techniques. In the proposal,
 enforcement of this approach is
 triggered by an identifiable event, such
 as discharge of hazardous substances in
 harmful quantities as determined in 40
 CFR Part 118, and focuses on a review of
 the  effectiveness of the plan.
 Enforcement of this approach is
enhanced by surprise inspections which
 focus on review of the  plan. After
review of a plan, an owner or operator
 may be required to amend the plan.
 Also, the owner or operator is liable for
 a civil penalty for violations of
 requirements of the regulation.
  The plan preparation approach, if
 used to implement generic standards,
 would be enforced through review of a
 plan to determine the effectiveness of
 the plan. Review of each plan would be
 required at some point in time. The
 mechanism for triggering review could
 be based on an identifiable event or
 could be based on an automatic or
 periodic review.
  In the example of the proposed
 regulation under the Clean Water Act,
 review is triggered by an identifiable
 event, such as a discharge. For emission
 sources covered by the draft generic
 standards, an identifiable event to
 trigger review of a plan is not readily
 apparent. These emission sources are
 spread out in an organic chemical plant
 and often require a measurement device
 for detection. A mechanism for
 triggering review other than the
 identifiable event mechanism would be
 necessary.
  Another mechanism for triggering of
 review plans would follow procedures
 similar to those used under 40 CFR Part
 51 for development of State
 Implementation Plans. These procedures
 would require automatic preparation of
 plans and their submittal to EPA for
 review. After a review to determine the
 effectiveness of a plan, the plan would
 be approved or disapproved. Approved
 plans would be incorporated into 40
 CFR Part 61, thus assuring  their
 implementation and allowing their
 enforcement. Incorporating plans into 40
 CFR Part 61 would be very time
 consuming. The time and resources
 required to review and determine the
 effectivieness of a plan and then to
 incorporate the plan into 40 CFR Part 61
 prohibit the use of this mechanism.
  Review of a plan to determine its
 effectiveness is central to enforcement
 of the plan preparation approach. The
 use of an identifiable event to trigger
 review of a plan does not appear
 reasonable. The use of automatic review
 procedures similar to those used under
40 CFR Part 51 is prohibited by the time
 and resources required by the
procedures. Thus, the plan  preparation
 approach is limited in its usefulness.
  EPA recognizes the general
desirability of the performance level
approach to generic standards.
However, data and information are not
available to develop these types of
generic standards at the present time.
Although EPA recognizes the possible
use of the plan preparation approach,
the time and resources required to
establish effective plans prohibit the
 usefulness of this approach. Therefore,
 in developing draft generic standards,
 EPA has chosen the approach of
 specifying detailed work procedures as
 the most viable approach now available.
 This is consistent with EPA control
 techniques guidelines documents which
 recommend this approach. EPA invites
 public comment on advantages and
 disadvantages of each of the approaches
 discusesed above.
 Draft Generic Standards
  The draft generic standards are
 outlined in Attachment A to this notice.
 These draft standards would be
 proposed for sources of carcinogenic
 organic chemicals listed under section
 112 of the Clean Air Act. When
 proposing generic standards for
 regulation of carcinogenic organic
 hazardous air pollutants, EPA would
 evaluate the appropriateness of each
 standard outlined in Attachment A.
 Tailoring may be required and therefore
 in some instances, additions to these
 draft standards may be made, and in
 other instances,  deletions may be made.
  To achieve the goal of expeditious
 control of carcinogenic emission
 sources, the draft generic standards
 were based on the following selection
 criteria. First, draft generic standards
 were selected which are broadly
 applicable to organic chemical emission
 sources. Second, standards were
 selected which lend themselves to quick
 implementation and third, standards
 were selected which do not require
 substantial capital expenditure. Finally,
 standards were selected which would
 be consistent with any additional
 standards promulgated later; thus, the
 generic standards could be instituted
 with confidence.
  The draft generic standards categorize
 emission sources of organic chemicals
 into six groups. These groups are:
 fugitive  emissions, chemical storage,
 chemical transfer and handling, waste
 disposal, process vents, and air
 pollution control devices. All of these
 emission sources lend themselves to
 control through the use of generic
 standards. In accordance with the
 selection criteria, the draft generic
 standards would require control of these
 emission sources, for the most part,
 through  the use of improved operation,
 maintenance, and housekeeping
 practices.
  The major focus of the draft generic
 standards is leak detection and repair.
The draft standards would require
 inspection of potential fugitive emission
 sources  at specific intervals to locate
 leaks which require repair. These
 fugitive emission sources consist of
equipment which comes into contact
                                               V-Generic-3
-------
             Federal Register  /  Vol. 44,  No. 197  /  Wednesday, October 10,  1979 / Proposed  Rules
with any liquid or gaseous mixture
containing more than a specified
minimum concentration of the listed
pollutant. Inspection includes routinely
monitoring potential fugitive emission
sources to detect gaseous leaks, and
routinely observing sources to detect
liquid leaks. If an organic chemical
concentration greater than a defined
action level is measured at the interface
between the source and the atmosphere
using a portable detection device, it is
considered that a gaseous leak has been
detected. Upon monitoring, if a gaseous
leak is detected, the leak must be
repaired within a specified repair
interval. Upon observation, if a liquid
leak is detected, the emission source  is
monitored. If a gaseous leak is detected,
then repair is required within the
specified repair interval. Repair of the
leak would be confirmed by monitoring
the source to determine that the
concentration is less than the defined
action level. Inspection intervals ranging
from weekly to annually are currently
being considered. Values of 1 to 10
percent  for the minimum concentration
in the mixture, 5 to 15 days for the repair
interval, and 1,000 to 10.000 parts per
million by volume measured as hexane
(ppmv) as the action level or definition
of a leak are also currently being
considered.
  If repair of a leak would result in more
emissions than cumulative emissions
from the leak prior to a scheduled
process or operation shutdown, or if
repair of a leak is not possible because
of location, service, or unavoidable
circumstances, the required repair could
be delayed pending approval of EPA.
EPA Regional Enforcement Divisions
must be notifed by telegram or
telephone within a specified number  of
days of requests  for delay in the repair
of a leak, and would retain the authority
to disapprove any requests. If, however,
EPA failed to respond within a specified
number of days to a request for delay in
repair of a leak, approval of the request
would be granted automatically. Values
of 2 to 5 days from the finding of a leak
for requesting of a delay, and 2 to 5 days
from receiving of a delay request for
EPA response to the request,  are being
considered. Rather than follow this
procedure for all leaks. EPA is
considering this reporting procedure
only for requests for delays in repair of
excessive leaks. An excessive leak
would be defined as some emission
concentration greater than the current
1,000 to 10,000 ppmv range being
considered  as the definition of a leak.
For example, an excessive leak could be
defined as a concentration of equal to or
greater than 100,000 ppm. Because either
of these approaches is likely to require
excessive resources and may be difficult
to enforce, EPA is requesting comment
on their feasibility and alternative
approaches which could be employed.
  The numerical values of the specific
requirements in the draft generic
standards were based on preliminary
evaluation of various engineering
studies. In most cases, the requirements
are illustrated by a range of values that
are being considered. The inspection
intervals, which could vary from weekly
to annually for equipment in liquid
service and from monthly to quarterly
for equipment in gaseous service, were
based on data developed from test
programs conducted within refinery and
petrochemical plants. In general, the
inspection intervals are based on the
observed frequency of leaks and their
expected emission rates. Preliminary
evaluation of fugitive emission sources
within benzene production units of
petroleum refineries indicates that the
inspection interval influences potential
emission reduction more than other
factors, such as definition of a leak, or
repair interval. Currently, a monthly
inspection interval for equipment in
gaseous and liquid service appears the
most reasonable inspection interval.
  The repair interval which ranges from
5 to 15 days was based on observations
in the petroleum refinery and
petrochemical industry and on expected
reporting requirements. In many cases,
repairs could be made sooner than 5
days. However, there are unavoidable
circumstances which can delay repair
beyond 5 days.  Circumstances, such as a
plant's parts stock being depleted, are
generally avoidable. While a plant
normally stocks sufficient spare parts.
there may be unique circumstances
leading to the depletion of a plant's
parts stock. Requests for delays in
repair of leaks will be approved only
where repair is likely to result in
emissions in excess of the emissions
resulting from the leak, or where repair
is not possible because of circumstances
which EPA considers unavoidable.
Thus, the objective in selecting the
repair interval was to select a time
interval consistent with the ability of a
plant to repair a leak expeditiously, but
not to select a time interval so short that
it requires plants to continually request
repair delays for repair of routine leaks.
Preliminary evaluation of fugitive
emission sources within benzene
production units of petroleum refineries
indicates that the  emission reduction
gained by going from 15 to five days is
small. Thus, the 15-day repair interval is
currently considered reasonable.
  The purpose of specifying a minimum
concentration level of the pollutant in
gaseous or liquid mixtures is to exclude
process streams with trace quantities of
the hazardous pollutant. The 10 percent
upper boundary for this concentration
level is based on analogy with the
current vinyl chloride national emission
standard. The lower boundary of 1
 Cercent is based on estimates that this
 ivel, under certain conditions, would
allow emissions of less than 10 ppmv of
the hazardous air pollutant. Preliminary
evaluation of fugitive emission sources
within benzene production units of
petroleum refineries indicates that the
10 percent minimum concentration level
is most reasonable. Going from 10
percent to 1 percent would greatly
increase the number of sources covered
by the standards without a
corresponding reduction in emissions.
Therefore, 10 percent is currently
considered the most reasonable
minimum concentration level.
  A hexane-based definition of a
gaseous leak at 10,000 ppmv as defined
in an EPA control techniques guideline
document, "Control of Volatile Organic
Compound Leaks from Petroleum
Refinery Equipment" (EPA-450/2-78-
036), was considered the maximum for
use in regulating organic hazardous air
pollutants. The  1000 ppmv definition of a
leak is a simple reduction of the value in
the control techniques guideline. The
1000 ppmv value appears a reasonable
lower value because  some leakage is
unavoidable for emission sources
covered by the draft generic standards.
The 10,000 ppmv and 1000 ppmv
concentrations would be measured at
the interface between the leak and the
atmosphere. These values are based on
a technical evaluation of leaks and are
not based on an evaluation of potential
health risk of leaks. Preliminary
evaluation of fugitive emission sources
within benzene production units of
petroleum refineries indicates that the
10,000 ppmv action level is more
reasonable than the 1000 ppmv action
level. Experience indicates that repair of
leaks will result in emission reduction
with an action level of 10,000 ppmv.
However, experience does not indicate
that repair of leaks with concentrations
between 10,000 and 1000 ppmv will
result in emission reduction. Therefore,
10,000 ppm is currently considered the
most reasonable action level.

Miscellaneous Issues
   Continuous area-wide monitoring to
measure ambient concentrations of
• specific hazardous organic compound*
was considered. EPA experience with
the effectiveness of area-wide
monitoring indicates that this technique
                                                V-Generic-4
-------
             Federal  Register / Vol. 44, No.  197 / Wednesday, October 10. 1979 /  Proposed Rules
 it not as effective in locating leaks as a
 •eal-by-seal inspection, which is the
 technique outlined in the draft generic
 standards. The use of area-wide
 monitoring may add to the effectiveness
 of seal-by-seal inspection, but
 experience indicates that this added
 effectiveness in minimal. Also, area-
 wide monitoring is a capital intensive
 technique. Thus, continuous area-wide
 monitoring seems impractical for the
 draft generic standards.
   On the other hand, some organic
 chemical facilities currently have leak
 detection and repair programs based on
 continuous area-wide monitoring of
 ambient air hydrocarbon
 concentrations. In some cases, these
 programs or other types of leak
 detection and repair programs might be
 as effective in reducing fugitive
 emissions as the program described in
 the draft generic standards. During
 meetings with industry associations, it
 has been suggested that an alternative
 to requiring duplication of equally
 effective leak detection and repair
 programs should be developed. This
 suggestion is reasonable. However, it
 depends upon determining equivalency
 of various programs with the draft
 generic standards. Three basic criteria
 seem necessary for any technique for
 determining equivalency. These criteria
 are: (1) the technique for determining
 equivalency should minimize both
 industry and Agency resource
 requirements; (2) the type of data
 necessary to demonstrate equivalency
 should normally be available or easily
 developed; and (3) the technique should
 be quantitative, with little room for
 discretion or argument concerning
 equivalency. EPA specifically invites
 comments on possible approaches to
 determining equivalency that meet these
 criteria.
  The draft generic standards also
 include requirements for recordkeeping
 and reporting. Recordkeeping and
 reporting are considered necessary to
 insure  that the improved operation,
 maintenance, and good housekeeping
 practices generally required by the draft
 generic standards are put into practice
 quickly, effectively, and consistently.
 Detected leaks would be recorded in a
 log and the corrective actions noted
 when a leak is repaired. EPA would be
notified on a quarterly basis of leaks not
repaired within the specified  repair
interval;  these quarterly reports would
 include a listing of those  units and
components which leaked past the
specified repair interval,  date and
duration of these leaks, and
concentrations of the hazardous organic
chemicals. In some cases, recordkeeping
and reporting would be a duplication of
other EPA requirements. Where
duplication is unnecessary, duplication
would not be required in the generic
standards.
  In early versions of the draft generic
standards, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements were the only measures
used to ascertain compliance with the
standards. In meetings with
environmental groups, it was suggested
that either EPA or a certified
independent contractor perform
scheduled inspections, observations and
monitoring to confirm compliance with
the standards. This suggestion would be
extremely burdensome on EPA
resources. Therefore, it has not been
included in the draft generic standards.
This suggestion, however, did lead to
incorporation of an approach requiring
the plant's owner or operator to notify
EPA one week prior to the date of
certain inspections, observations and
monitoring. This would give EPA the
opportunity to observe these activities
and determine compliance with the
generic standards, without requiring
extensive resource commitments. EPA is
actively seeking specific comments on
this approach to enforcement of the
draft generic standards, and specific
comments on alternative approaches.
  Minimal capital expenditure was a
criterion  for selection of the draft
generic standards. The most readily
identifiable capital expenditure required
by the draft standards is the purchase of
the portable organic vapor monitor. The
cost of two such monitors used by EPA
totals about $10,000. A preliminary
estimate  of annual leak detection and
repair costs for benzene production
units within a petroleum refinery is
about $25,000 per year. This estimate
includes  the amortized cost of two
monitors, annual operating cost of the
monitors, annual cost of labor for leak
detection, annual parts and labor cost
for leak repair, and annual cost of
administrative support. It does not,
however, include cost savings, which
could be  significant, for the value of the
retained  organic chemicals. EPA is
interested in specific information on the
cost of the draft generic standards.
  The draft standards would also
require the owner or operator  to submit
to EPA within four months following the
promulgation of a specific generic
standard an estimate of emissions of the
hazardous air pollutant. This estimate
would be based on nameplate operating
capacity  and would be categorized by
emission  source.

Specific Requests
  EPA is  requesting comments on the
approaches discussed under the
 implementation of Generic Standards
 section of this preamble. EPA is
 interested in comment on other
approaches for implementing generic
 standards and is specifically interested
 in any data and information which could
 lead to the development of performance
 level generic standards  and means for
 enforcing the plan preparation approach
 advocated by MCA.
  EPA is also interested in specific
 comments on the following aspects of
 the draft generic standards: (1)
 identification of various operations,
 procedures  and equipment that are
 sources of emissions of  organic
 chemicals; (2) identification of
 demonstrated control techniques which
 can be broadly applied  to these sources
 of emissions; (3) costs associated with
 the requirements listed in the draft
 generic standards; (4) standard
 equipment,  designs, or operating and
 maintenance procedures (including
 periods of start-up and shutdown) for
 controlling emissions from operations
 that may emit organic chemicals; (5)
 comments on the various numerical
 ranges included in the draft generic
 standards; (6) comments on the
 approach of requiring requests for
 delays in repair of leaks or requests for
 delays in repair of excessive leaks only,
 and the specified levels of an excessive
 leak; (7) identification of techniques or
 procedures  which could be used to
 determine the equivalency of alternative
 leak detection and repair programs; (8)
 identification of ways to reduce the
 burden of recordkeeping and reporting
 on the source and EPA while
 maintaining the effectiveness of the
 draft generic standards; (9) the
 enforcement approach of the draft
 generic standards and alternative
 approaches to the enforcement of these
 standards; and (10) specific information
 on leak detection and repair programs
 similar to the program in the draft
 generic standard; for each program, the
 information should include (a)  chemical
 name and the process used to produce
 the chemical, (b) a detailed description
 of the leak detection and repair
 program, (c) the number of pieces of
 each type of equipment  affected by the
 program, (d) separate costs for
 monitoring,  equipment, installation of
 equipment, labor for monitoring, repair
 parts, labor for repair, and overhead,
 and (e) an estimate of the emission
 reduction potential and  the product
 recovery credits, including an
 explanation of the estimation method.
  This advance notice of proposed
 rulemaking  is issued under the authority
 of sections 112,114, and 301(a) of the
                                                V-Generic-5
-------
               Federal Register / Vol. 44.  No.  197 /  Wednesday, October  10. 1979 / Proposed Rules
 Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C.
 7412, 7414 and 7601(a)J,
   Dated: August 22,1979.
 Douglas M. Costle,
 Administrator,

 Attachment A—Draft Generic Standards

 /. Applicability
   Except as noted below, these standards
 would apply, for applicable emission sources.
 to the owner or operator of equipment
 affected by these standards. These standards
 would affect equipment which comes into
 contact with a liquid mixture containing 1
 (10) percent or more by weight, or a gaseous
 mixture containing 1 (10] percent or more by
 volume, of organic chemicals listed by EPA
 ai carcinogenic hazardous air pollutants
 under f 112 of the Clean Air Act.
   Note.—Some requirements are illustrated
 with one end of the range of values currently
 being considered placed in brackets.

 //. Fugitive Emissions
   (A) All compressor seals and pipleline
 valves in gaseous service shall be monitored
 as provided in section IX (A) quarterly
 (monthly). Whenever a concentration of 1.000
 ppmv (parts per million by volume as hexane)
 110.000 ppmv] is detected, a leak exists
 Whenever a leak exists, it shall be repaired
 within 5 (15) days, except as provided in
 lections II (F) and (G).
   (B) All pump seals, pipeline valves in liquid
 •ervice, and process drains shall be
 monitored as provided in section IX (A)
• annually [monthly). Whenever a
 concentration of 1,000 ppmv  [10.000 ppmv] is
 detected, a leak exists. Whenever a leak
 exists, it shall be repaired within 5 [15] days.
 except as provided in sections II (F) and (G).
   (C) Pressure relief valves, except those
 vented to a control device, shall be monitored
 ai provided in section IX (A) quarterly
 [monthly].  Whenever a concentration of 1.000
 ppmv [10.000 ppmv] is detected, a leak exists.
 Whenever a leak exists, it shall be repaired
 within 5 [IS] days, except as provided in
 sections II (F) and (G).
   (D) Whenever a rupture disk installed
 ahead of a pressure relief valve ruptures, it
 shall be replaced within 5 [IS] days
   (E) Pump seals shall be observed for liquid
 leaks weekly as provided in  section IX (B]
 Whenever liquids are observed running or
 dripping from a pump seal, the seal shall be
 monitored as" provided in section IX (A).
 Whenever a concentration of 1.000 ppmv
 (10,000 ppmv] is detected, a leak exists.
 Whenever a leak exists, it shall be repaired
 within 5 [15] days, except as provided in
 sections II (F) and (G).
   (F) When repair would clearly result in
 emissions in excess of the emissions resulting
 from the leak, repair may be delayed, as
 provided in section VIII (G),  until  a regularly
 scheduled  shutdown. In determining whether
 emissions from repair of a leak would exceed
 those resulting from the leak, cumulative
 emissions over the time until the regularly
 scheduled shutdown shall be considered.
   (G) Where repair is not possible because of
 location, service, or unavoidable
 circumstances, repair may be delayed, as
provided in section VIII (G). until a time
when repair is possible.
  (H) Housekeeping practices.
  (1) All liquid spills shall be cleaned \\p
within 8 [24] hours. Acceptable cleanup
methods include siphoning into a storage
container (e.g., a portable spill tank),
chemical absorption and other appropriate
methods. Cleanup methods shall be in
compliance with requirements under 40 CFR
Part 151 (proposed).
  (2) Wherever a valve is located at the end
of a pipe  or line, the pipe or line shall be .
sealed with a  second valve, blind flange, plug
or cap. This requirement does not apply to
pressure relief valves.
  (3) Whenever liquid or gaseous samples are
taken from lines or equipment, a closeable
container shall be used and sample  valves
shall be closed between samples. Liquid and
gas that is bled from sample lines shall also
be collected. All sample and bled material
shall be returned to the. process or disposed
as provided in section V.

///. Chemical tutorage
  For storage  equipment of greater than 40
|150] cubic meters capacity:
  (A) All fixed-roof storage vessels  exposed
to direct sunlight shall be painted white. No
more than 20 percent of the surface of the
storage vessel, or 20 square meters.
whichever is less, shall be covered with
writing and figures. This requirement shall
not apply to insulated, pressurized, or
controlled temperature storage vessels and
storage vessels equipped with a refrigerated
condenser, carbon adsorber, incinerator, or
any combination of these.
  (B) Tank connection flanges and manway
seals shall be monitored as provided in
section IX (A) quarterly (monthly). Whenever
a concentration of 1.000 ppmv [10,000 ppmv]
is detected, a leak exists. Whenever a leak
exists, it shall be repaired within 5 [15] days.
except as provided in sections II (FJ and (G).
  (C) Conservation vents on fixed roof
storage vessels shall be inspected and, if
necessary, maintained quarterly [monthly]
  (D) Seals on floating roof storage vessels
shall be inspected and. if necessary.
maintained quarterly [monthly).
IV. Chemical  Transfer and Handling
  For equipment used in transferring and
handling to or from rail cars, tank trucks.
barges, and other transfer or transportation
vehicles,  all seals and fittings, excluding
flanges, shall be monitored as provided in
section IX (A) quarterly (monthly). Whenever
a concentration of 1000 ppmv [10,000 ppmv] is
detected, a  leak exists. Whenever a leak
exists, it shall be repaired within 5 [15] days.
except as provided in sections II (F) and (G).

V. Waste
  (A) For waste covered by regulation under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) and containing greater than 1 [10]
percent by weight of a pollutant affected by
section 1, the following requirements would
apply:
  (1) Waste from sampling shall be  disposed
by returning it to the process stream, by
reducing it in  an appropriate air pollution
control device, or by absorbing or adsorbing
it with a liquid or solid. These absorbents
and adsorbents, except those returned to the
process stream, shall then be wastes.
  (2) Waste shall be stored in vapor-tight
containers.
  (3) A Regional Administrator may require
an owner/operator, who is demonstrating
that treatment or disposal of a volatile waste
(i e.. greater than 78 mm Hg) will not
contribute airborne contaminant to the
atmosphere, as provided in the NOTE in 40
CFR 250 45 (proposed), to demonstrate that
treatment or disposal of the pollutant affected
by section I will not contribute the airborne
contaminant to the atmosphere such that
concentrations above the source have the
potential to increase risk to the public.
  (B) For waste containing greater then 1 [10]
percent by weight of a pollutant affected by
section I and not covered by regulation under
RCRA. the following requirements would
apply
  (1) Disposal and treatment of waste shall
be in compliance with standards for
treatment/disposal, as provided in 40  CFR
250.45 (proposed).
  (2) Disposal and treatment of waste shall
be in compliance with sections V(A) (1). (2),
and (3).

VI. Process Vents
  Where a process vent may emit a
hazardous organic chemical or any mixture
containing 1 [10] percent or more  by volume
of hazardous chemicals, procedures
describing process operation, including start-
up, shutdown, normal and emergency
procedures, shall be written and available to
appropriate process operators. Operators
shall receive an annual minimum  of two
hours of training in these procedures.

VII. Air Pollution Control Devices
  Where a control device is used  to reduce
air pollutant emissions of a hazardous
organic chemical,  procedures outlining
normal and emergency procedures for the
control device shall be written and available
to all operators. These procedures shall
include at least all operating and
maintenance procedures recommended by
the control device manufacturer. Operators
shall receive an annual minimum of two
hours of training in these procedures.
VIII. Recordkeeping and Reports
  (A) When a leak is detected, the presence
of the leak shall be noted on a survey log as
illustrated in Figure 1. Other information as
shown shall be included on this survey log.
Figure 1 is used to illustrate the minimum
acceptable information to be recorded and is
not a required form. A weatherproof and
readily visible tag bearing an identification
number and the date that the leak was
detected shall be affixed to the leaking
component. After the leak has been repaired,
the remaining portion of the survey log shall
be completed and the tag discarded. The
survey log shall be retained for at least two
years after the repair is completed.
   (B) Quarterly reports shall be submitted to
the appropriate EPA Regional Office,
Enforcement Division Director. Each report
shall include  a list as shown in Figure 2 of all
leaks that were located since the last report
and not repaired within 5 |15) days. Each
report shall include a separate list as  shown
                                                       V-Generic-6
-------
              Federal Register /  Vol. 44, No. 197  / Wednesday,  October 10,  1979  /  Proposed Rules
 in Figure 2 of all leaks which were reported in
 a previous quarterly report and which have
 not been repaired. In addition, each report
 shall include a statement signed by the plant
 manager confirming that all weekly,
 {monthly), quarterly and annually inspecting,
 observing and monitoring has been
 performed.
   (C) When a spill occurs, records of the date
 and the time of the spill and the cleanup shall
 be maintained for a minimum of two years.
 The records shall include an estimate of the
 quantity of the lost material, concentration of
 hazardous organic chemical, actions taken
 for the cleanup, and method of final disposal.
   (D) When an owner or operator must
 comply with requirements in section VI,
 records of the times and approximate
 duration of all safety valve discharges shall
 be maintained for a minimum of two years. A
 summary  of these safety valve discharges
 shall be reported annually to the appropriate
 EPA Regional Office, Enforcement Division
 Director.
   (E) Written operating procedures as
 described in sections VI and VII shall be
 maintained and updated as necessary.
   (F) Within four months of the date of
 promulgation of this section, the owner or
 operator of any facility subject to this section
 shall submit to the Administrator an
 evaluation of the emissions from the sources
 of the hazardous pollutant specified in this
 paragraph. This evaluation shall be an
 engineering estimate and shall be subject to
 the approval of the Administrator. The
 evaluation shall include as a basis  the
 nameplate production rate, include the
 appropriate operating production rate,
 provide estimation of mass emissions from
 the sources in sections, II, III, IV, V, VI, and
 VII, and explain the technique for the
 estimation.
  (G) A request for delay in repairing a leak
 must begin within two [five) days after
 locating the leak. The owner or operator
 making a delay request shall provide by
 telephone or telegram all necessary
 information for making an evaluation at the
 time of the initial request to the appropriate
 EPA Regional Office, Enforcement Division
 Director, and as required by the EPA
 Regional Office !n evaluating the request, the
 EPA Regional Office will consider the
 expected lenglh of the delay, the reasons for
 the delay,  the consequences of no delay, and
 other relevant factors. If the EPA Regional
 Office does not deny a requested delay
 within two [five] days after receipt of the
 request, the delay request will be granted
 automatically.
  (H) Whenever an owner or operator is
 unable to comply with the two [five)-day
 requirement  as provided in section  VIII  (G),
 he shall notify by telephone or telegram the
 appropriate EPA Regional Office,
 Enforcement Division Director, within one
 working day after determining the inability to
 comply. When notifying the appropriate EPA
 Regional Office, the owner or operator shall
 provide an explanation of the inability to
 comply with  section VIII (G). In evaluating
 the inability to comply with section VIII (G),
 the EPA Regional Office shall consider the
 reasons for the inability to comply.  After
evaluation, the EPA Regional Office may
 allow application of section VIII (G) for delay
 requests after two [rive] days after the plant
 locates a leak.
   (I) At least one working week prior to each
 [monthly], quarterly, or annual inspections,
 observations, and monitoring, an owner or
 operator shall notify the appropriate EPA
 Regional Office, Enforcement Division
 Director, by telephone or telegram that such
 inspections, observations, or monitoring are
 scheduled.

 IX. Test Methods
   (A) Monitoring hazardous organic
 chemicals emissions.
   This test method describes the procedures
 used to detect volatile organic chemical
 (VOC) leaks from sources of hazardous air
 pollutants. A portable test device is used to
 survey individual equipment leak sources.
 The specifications and performance criteria
 for the test instrument are included.
   (1) Apparatus.
   (a) Monitoring  Instrument.
   The VOC detection instrument used in this
 procedure may be of any type that is
 designed to respond to total hydrocarbons.
 The instrument must incorporate appropriate
 range options so  that source levels can be
 measured. The instrument will be equipped
 with a pump so that a continuous sample is
 provided to the detector. The instrument
 meter readout will be such that the scale can
.be read to ±5 percent at l.ODO ppmv [10,000
 ppmv). The instrument must be capable of
 achieving the performance criteria given in
 Table 1. The definitions and evaluation
 procedures for each parameter are given in
 subcategory (3).

   Table 1.—Monitoring Instrument Performance
                 Criteria
         Parameter
                            Specification
 1 Zero drift (2-hour)	
 2 Calibration drift (2-hour).
 3. Calibration error 	

 4 Response time	
 s 5 ppmv
 s 5% of the calibration
   gas value
 £ 5% of the calibration
   gas value
. s S seconds.
   The instrument must be subjected to
 the performance evaluation test prior to
 being placed in service and every three
 months thereafter.
   The performance evaluation test is
 also required after any modification or
 replacement of the instrument detector.
   (b) Calibration Gases.
   The VOC detection instrument is
 calibrated so that the meter readout is in
 terms of ppmv hexane. The calibration
 gases require for monitoring and
 instrument performance evaluation are a
 zero gas (air, <3 ppmv hexane)  and a
 hexane in air mixture of about 1,000
 ppmv [10,000 ppmv]. If cylinder
 calibration gas mixtures are used, they
 must be analyzed and certified by the
 manufacturer to be within ±2 percent
 accuracy. Calibration gases may be
 prepared by the user according to any
 accepted gaseous standards preparation
 procedure that will yield a  mixture
 accurate to within ±2 percent.
 Alternative calibration gas species may
 be used in place of hexane if a relative
 response factor for each instrument is
 determined so that calibrations with the
 alternative species may be expressed as
 hexane equivalents on the meter
 readout.
   (2) Procedures.
   (a) Calibration.
   Assemble and start up the VOC
 analyzer according to the
 manufacturer's instructions. After the
 appropriate warm-up period and zero or
 internal calibration procedure, introduce
 the 1,000 ppmv [10,000 ppmv] hexane or
 hexane equivalent calibration gas into
 the instrument sample probe. Adjust the
 instrument meter readout to correspond
 to the calibration gas value.
   (b) Individual Source Surveys.
   Place the instrument sample probe
 inlet at the surface of the component
 interface where leakage could occur.
 During sample collection, the probe
 should be moved along the interface
 surface with special emphasis placed on
 positioning the probe inlet at the local
 upwind and downwind side of the
 component interface. This general
 technique is applied to specific types of
 equipment leak sources as follows:
   (i) Valves—The most common source
 of leaks from block (glove, plug, gate,
 ball, etc.) and control valves is at the
 seal between the stem and housing. The
 probe should placed at the interface
 where the stem exits the seal and
 sampling should  be conducted on all
 sides of the stem. For valves where the
 housing is a multipart assembly, or
 where leaks can  occur from points other
 than the stem seal, these sources should
 also be surveyed with the probe inlet
 moved along the surface of the interface.
   (ii) Flanges and other connections—
 For welded flanges, the probe should be
 placed at the  outer edge of the flange-
 gasket interface and samples collected
 around the circumference of the flange.
 For other types of non-permanent joints
 such as threaded connections, a similar
 traverse is conducted at the component
 interface.
   (iii) Pumps and compressors—A
 circumferential traverse is conducted at
 the outer surface of the pump or
 compressor shaft and housing seal
 interface. In cases  where the instrument
probe cannot be  placed  in contact with
 a rotating shaft, the probe inlet must be
placed within one centimeter of the
 shaft-seal interface. In those cases
where the housing  configuration of the
pump or compressor prevents the
complete traversing of the seal
periphery, all accessible portions of the
shaft seal should be probed. All other
joints where leakage could occur will
                                                   V-Generic-7
-------
            Federal Register /  Vol.  44,  No. 197 /  Wednesday, October 10. 1979 / Proposed Rules
also be sampled with the probe inlet
placed at the surface interface. For
pumps or compressors using sealing oil,
the vent from the seal oil reservoir will
be sampled by placing the probe inlet at
approximately the centroid of the vent
area to atmosphere.
  (iv) Pressure relief devices—The
physical configuration of most pressure
relief devices prevents sampling at the
sealing surface interface. However, most
devices are equipped with an enclosed
extension, or horn. For this type device.
the probe inlet is placed at
approximately the centroid of the
exhaust area to atmosphere.
  (v) Process drains—For open process
drains, the sample probe inlet will be
placed at approximately the centroid of
the area open to the atmosphere. For
covered drains, the probe should be
placed at the surface of the cover
interface and a circumferential traverse
shall be conducted.
  (3) Instrument performance evaluation
procedures.
  (a) Definitions.
  Zero Drift—The change in the
instrument meter readout over a stated
period of time of normal continuous
operation when the VOC concentration
at the time of measurement is zero.
  Calibration Drift—The change in the
instrument meter readout over a stated
period of time of normal continuous
operation when the VOC concentration
at the time of measurement is the same
known upscale value.
  Calibration Error—The difference
between the VOC concentration
indicated by the meter readout and the
known concentration of a test gas
mixture.
  Response Time—The time interval
from a step change in VOC
concentration at the input of the
sampling system to the time at which 95
percent of the corresponding final value
is reached as displayed on the
instrument readout meter.
  (b) Evaluation Procedures.
  At the beginning of the instrument
performance evaluation test  assemble
and start up the instrument according to
the manufacturer's instructions for
recommended warmup period and
preliminary adjustments.
  (i) Zero and calibration drift test—
Calibrate the instrument per the
manufacturer's instructions using zero
gas and a calibration gas representing
about 1,000 ppmv (10,000 ppmv]. Record
the time,, zero, and calibration gas
readings (example data sheet shown in
Figure 3). After 2 hours of continuous
operation, introduce zero and
calibration gases to the instrument.
Record the zero and calibration gas
meter readings. Repeat for three
additional 2-hour periods.
  (ii) Calibration error test—Make a
total of nine measurements by
alternately using zero gas and a
calibration gas mixture corresponding to
about 1,000 ppmv [10,000 ppmv]. Record
the meter readings (example data sheet
shown in Figure 4).
  (iii) Response time test procedure—
Introduce zero gas  into the instrument
sample probe. When the meter reading
has stabilized, switch quickly to the
1.000 ppmv [10,000  ppmv] calibration
gas. Measure the time  from
concentration switching  to 95 percent of
final stable reading. Perform this test
sequence three (3) times  and record the
results (example data sheet given in
Figure 5).
  (iv) The calibration error test and the
response time test may be performed
during the zero and calibration drift test.
  (c) Performance Calculations.
  All results are expressed as mean
values, calculated by:
              1
                        n
                              Xi
where:
  Xi = value of the measurements
  £ = sum of the individual values
  x = mean value (the absolute value of the
   mean value)
  n = number of data points
  The specific calculations for"each
performance parameter are indicated on
the respective example data sheet given
in Figures 3. 4, and 5. The example data
sheets are constructed so that
performance criteria tests can be
conducted on 1.000 ppmv [10,000 ppmv]
levels of gas.
  (B) Observing for liquid leaks  of
hazardous organic chemicals.
  This test method describes the
procedures used to detect organic
chemical liquid leaks from sources of
hazardous air pollutants. The method
uses visual observations to determine
the existence of a liquid leak.
  (1) Apparatus.
  No apparatus is needed to perform
this method.
   (2) Procedure.
   Observing from vantage points to
sufficiently inspect the source.
determine if any chemicals are leaking
A liquid leak exists if any chemical
liquid is observed running or dripping
from the surface of the source. When a
chemical liquid is dripping to a surface
which is in the vicinity of a possible
hazardous pollutant emission source,
locate the source of the liquid.
                                                 V-Generic-8
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 197 / Wednesday, October 1ft 1979 / Proposed Rules
Instrument
Leak Detection and Repair Swyey Log
Recorder:
TAG
NUMBER

UNIT

COMPONENT

HAZARDOUS
ORGANIC
CHEMICAL
CONCENTRATION
IN STREAM
DRAFT
DATE
LEAK
LOCATED

DATE
MAINTEN-
ANCE
PERFORMED

Operator:

COMPONENT RECHECK
AFTER MAINTENANCE
DATE

INSTRUMENT
READING
(PPM)

               FIGURE  1.  Example Monitoring Survey Log Sheet.
TAG
NUMBER


UNIT

•
COMPONENT


HAZARDOUS
ORGANIC
CHEMICAL
CONCENTRATION
IN STREAM
DRAf

DATE
LEAK
LOCATED
T

DATE
MAINTEN-
ANCE
PERFORMED

1
DATES
MAINTEN-
ANCE
ATTEMPTED


REASONS* REPAIRS POST-
PONED OR FAILED


                      FIGURE 2. Example Leak Report.
                           V-Generic-9
-------
            Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 197 / Wednesday, October 10,1979 / Proposed Rules
   Instrument  ID:
                     Calibration Gas Data:
                                                                        ppmv
    Date and Time
 Zero
Reading
 ppmv
                                      Zero
                                     Drift
                                     ppmv
Calibration
Gas Reading'
   ppmv	
Calibration
   Drift
   ppmv
  Start

      1.

      2.

      3.

      4.
      DRAFT
  Mean  (1)
  Value:
     Zero
     Drift =
                                         ppmv
  Calibration Drift =^nbcalibrat1onvdrm   ,
  (^Absolute Value
                Figure 3.  Zero and Calibration Drift Determination
Instrument  ID
                 Calibration Gas  Mixture  Data

                        	ppniv
Run     Calibration  Gas     Instrument Meter    Difference,1
No.    Concentration, ppmv    Reading, ppmv       ppmv
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Mean Difference'2'

Calibration Error =
    DRAFT
Mean Difference
              (2)
                  Calibration Gas Concentration
                                                                Instrument ID
                                                                Calibration Gas Concentration
                                                                                                 ppmv
                                         95X Response Time:
                                                                     1.
                                                                     2.
                                                                     3.
                                                      Seconds
                                                     "Seconds
                                                      Seconds
                                                                                      DRAFT
                                                                Mean Response Time
                                                               Seconds
                                                                   Figure 5.  Response Time Determination
              Gas  Concentration -  Instrument Reading)
(  'Absolute Value
          Figure 4.  Calibration Error Determination
                                        V-Generic-10
-------
            Federal  Register /  Vol. 45, No. 158 / Wednesday. August 13. 1980  /  Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40 CFR Part 61
(FKL 1562-2, Docket No. OAQPS 79-14]

Proposed Policy and Procedures for
tndentifylng, Assessing, and
Regulating Airborne Substances
Posing a Risk of Cancer; Advance
Notice of Proposed Generic
Standards; Public Comment Period
AOENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice of extension of public
comment period.

SUMMARY: This notice extends the
period for comment on proposed and
procedures for identifying, assessing,
and regulating carcinogens emitted into
the ambient air from stationary sources.
The comment period is extended from
August 12,1980 through the public
meeting of EPA's Science Advisory
Board Subcommittee on Airborne
Carcinogens, tentatively scheduled for
early November, 1980. Notice of the date
by which comments are due will
accompany the announcement of the
meeting date and location.
DATES: The public comment period on
the proposed policy and ANPR will
close following the public meeting of
EPA's Science Advisory Board
Subcommittee on Airborne Carcinogens
tentatively scheduled for early
November,  1980.
ADDRESSES: All written comments on
the proposed policy and ANPR should
be addressed to: Central Docket Section.
Gallery 3, West Tower, Waterside Mall.
401M Street. SW., Washington, D.C.
20460. Attn.: OAQPS 79-14 (proposed
policy) or A 79-13 (ANPR).
  Information on which the proposed
policy and ANPR are based as well as
the written comments received and
transcripts of the public hearings are
available for public inspection and
copying at the Central Docket Section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Joseph Padgett, Telephone 919-541-
5204 [FTS 629-5204).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
October 10,1979, the Environmental
Protection Agency proposed  in the
Federal Register (44 FR 58642) a policy
and procedures  for identifying,
assessing, and regulating carcinogens
emitted into the ambient air from
stationary sources. In the same Federal
Register (44 FR 58662), EPA published
an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPR), soliciting comments
on draft generic work practice and
operational standards for volatile
organic compounds which could be
applied quickly to reduce emissions of
airborne carcinogens from certain
source categories.
  Interested individuals were invited to
submit written comments on the
proposed policy and ANPR by February
21,1980. This was extended to April 14,
1980 and again to August 12,1980 in
order to afford additional opportunity
for public comment.
  Based on the written and oral
comments received on the proposed
policy. EPA has determined that further
public discussion of certain major
scientific issues is warranted. The
format for this discussion will be a
public meeting of EPA's Science
Advisory Board Subcommittee on
Airborne Carcinogens tentatively
scheduled for early November, 1980
Once the date for this meeting is
determined, an announcement will be
published in the Federal Register. The
meeting announcement will include
notice of the comment period deadline
and the date of by which material
rebutting, responding to, or
supplementing written or oral comments
submitted at the Science Advisory
Board meeting must be submitted to
EPA.
  Dated: August 8. I960
David G. Hawkins,
Assistant Administrator for Air. Noise and
Radiation.
|FR Doc 80-2«10 Filed S-12-tO: 8:45 am|
                                               V-Generic-11
-------
             Federal Register / Vol. 45. No.  248 / Tuesday. December 23. 1980 /  Propoted Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40 CFR Part 61

IFRL 1710-3; Docket Nos. OAQPS 79-14
and A 79-13]

Proposed Policy and Procedures for
Identifying, Assessing, and Regulating
Airborne Substances Posing a Risk of
Cancer; Public Comment Period
AQENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Closure of Public Comment
Period.
SUMMARY: This notice announces
closure of the period for public
comment* on the proposed airborne
carcinogen policy and on the advance
Notice of Proposed Generic Standards
(ANPR) published concurrently by EPA
October 10,1979.
DATES: Comments on the proposed
policy and ANPR should be postmarked
no later than January 22,1961.
ADDRESS: All written comments on the
proposed policy and ANPR should be
addressed to: Central Docket Section.
Gallery 3, West Tower, Waterside Mall,
401 M Street, SW., Washington. D.C.
20460. ATTN: OAQPS 79-14 (proposed
policy) or A 79-13 (ANPR).
  Information on which the proposed
policy and ANPR are based as well as
the written comments received and
transcripts of the public hearings are
available for public inspection and
copying at the Central Docket Section
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Bob Schell, Telephone 919-541-5345
(FTS: 629-5345).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
October 10, 1979. the Environmental
Protection Agency proposed in th?
Federal Register (44 FR 58642) a policy
and procedures for identifying,
assessing and regulating carcinogens
emitted into the ambient air from
stationary sources. In the same Federal
Register (44 FR 58662), EPA published
an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPR) soliciting comments
on generic work practice and
operational standards for volatile
organic compounds which could be
applied quickly to reduce emissions of
airborne carcinogens from certain
source categories.
  EPA has extended the public comment
period on the subject rulemakings
several times (44 FR 70196, 45 FR 8960,
45 FR 25828, 45 FR 53842) to
accommodate the requests of concerned
individuals and organizations. The
dockets for these rulemakings currently
include more than 200 written
submissions and the oral transcripts of
three public hearings.
  In the most recent Federal Register
notice (45 FR 53842, August 13, 1980), the
Agency announced an extension of the
comment period to permit further
consideration of certain scientific issues
raised during the public hearings and in
the  written comments. The notice
explained that the consideration of
these issues would include a public
meeting of EPA's Science Advisory
Board Subcommittee on Airborne
Carcinogen: tentatively scheduled for
November 1980. The Subcommittee had
been previously scheduled to meet
September 4-5, I960 to review EPA
carcinogenicity and exposure
assessments on several substances
identified as possible candidates for
regulation as airborne carcinogens. In
the  course of this review the
Subcommittee was able to devote a
considerable part of the meeting to a
discussion of several basic scientific
issues relevant to the proposed policy,
including carcinogenicity evaluation and
risk estimation. Based on the SAB's
discussion of basic scientific issues in
its September meeting, EPA has
concluded that a further meeting of the
SAB prior to finalization of the airborne
carcinogen policy is unnecessary. For
these reasons, the comment period will
be closed thirty days after publication of
this notice.
  Dated: December 16  1980
David G H«wklnS,
AssisL r!
Radiothr.
|FR Dot
                         . Noise and
        OTf r,!,-d i:-2I-«; 8 45 ,im|
                                                V-Generic-12
-------
                                    TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                            (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
 1. REPORT NO.
                              2.
                                                            3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
  National  Emission Standards  for Hazardous Air
  Pollutants-A Compilation
                                    5. REPORT DATE

                                     1
                                   6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
 7. AUTHOR(S)
                                                            8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
                                                             PN 3660-1-42
 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
  PEDCo Environmental,  Inc.
  11499 Chester Road
  Cincinnati, OH  45246
                                                            10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
                                    11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
                                    68-01-6310
                                    Task No.  42
 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
  U.S.  Environmental Protection  Agency
  Division of Stationary Source  Compliance
  Washington,  DC  20460
                                    13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
                                    14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
  EPA Project Officer:
Kirk Foster, MD-7,  Research Triangle Park,  NC  27711;
(919) 541-4571
 16. ABSTRACT
  Since their inception in  1971,  the National Emission  Standards for Hazardous  Air Pol-
  lutants (NESHAP's) have been  expanded or revised 69 times  with an additional  13
  changes proposed.  This document is a compilation of  all  Federal Register activity
  related to the NESHAP's since 1971 and supercedes all  previous compilations.

  Section I  is an introduction  to the standards, explaining  their purpose and inter-
  preting the working concepts  which have developed through  their implementation.
  Section II contains a "quick-look" summary of each standard,  including the dates of
  proposal,  promulgation, and any subsequent revisions.   Section III is the complete
  standards  with all amendments incorporated into the material.   Section IV contains the
  full  text  of all revisions, including the preamble 'which  explains the rationale  behind
  each  revision.  Section V  is  all  proposed amendments  to the standards.
 7.
                                KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
                      b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS  C.  COSATI Fleld/GlOUp
 Air  pollution control
 Hazardous pollutants
 Regulations;  Compliance
                       National Emission Stan-
                       dards for Hazardous Air
                       Pollutants
13B

14B
 8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

 Unlimited
                      19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
                       Unclassified
                                                                          21. NO. OF PAGES
                                               2O. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
                                               Unclassified
                                                                          22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (»-73)
                                                   U.S. aOVERMHENT PRINTING OFFICE:  1*86 - A29-OO3/41311
-------